Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Full Attacks and Manyshot


Rules Questions

501 to 550 of 1,215 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

concerro wrote:
So you are saying that a feat can call out action X, but action x is really an option, not a requirement?

Yes, unless specificied as a requirement.

The way manyshot is worded, full attack is an option. Not a requirement. Same for Rapid Shot.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I'm out. I almost don't want them to FAQ this,because it's already spelled out in the rules and has been clarified by the staff who created the game. Any answer at all is just going to undermine the entire purpose behind a Rules forum and prove that people who whine and argue will eventually win out over people who use reason, logic, and who seek out direct input instead of spinning the ruling that makes them happiest out of their bum. Good luck all.


You know the confusion is a little understandable.

Manyshot doesn't grant an extra attack. That makes it the only ability that grants a bonus on the first attack of exclusively a full attack action.

It's a corner case.

It shouldn't need to be rewritten because you should be able to infer a correct ruling.

But people will fight like heck to get there extra damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Setzer9999: It has nothing to do with 'time'. IF time was an issue then nobody EVER would get off 6 arrow shots in 6seconds. (IF you were an archer you would understand why this is patently rediculous.)

HEll, I shoot black powder weapons and I tell you...the rules for muzzleloaders in Pathfinder are utterably laughable. They have ZERO basis in reality. Iterative attacks with a rifle? NOT A CHANCE. The best muzzleloaders of all time could pull of maybe 3 shots a minute. (IE: 1 shot every 3 or so rounds).

It is all about game balance, not reality or physics. Game balance states that an extra attack's worth of damage must come with a penalty. Since there is not attack bonus penalty they require a full-attack action.

Once again, we are at the point where a feat specifies a full-attack action. Is that specific enough to overrule the 'general' rule about choosing a full-attack action after the first shot?

Once again, my side says yes. Your side says no.

We are circling now. This is the fundamental impasse. Except for one thing, James Jacobs states a fuzzy opinion that it does require a Full-attack action. Not a cut and dried, clear and concise opinion. But there it is. Perhaps one of us should ask him if Manyshot can ever be considered a standard action?

- Gauss


setzer9999 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Ssalarn, no it wasnt. I asked him today (or yesterday, I forget) a more focused question that did not involve Manyshot.

HERE IT IS

- Gauss

And, funny enough, JJ's response supports both sides of our argument. He is saying it is a standard, yet he is also saying you don't have to declare that its a full-attack beforehand... which lets Manyshot do its thing before declaration.

With the knowledge that manyshot requires a full round action, but it does not say exactly what you would like for it to say, what do you believe the intent to be?

In the absence of the rule being spelled out airtight, I am left with interpreting from other rules surrounding it that are, and what makes sense. I am NOT saying this is the rule, I am saying that it cannot be resolved without house ruling strictly speaking as written.

Manyshot is a single attack. It happens before declaration of full-attack even though it relies on full attack. You are then left to your own devices and ruling to decide if that means that then you have to force a full attack on the rest of the turn, or if that means that what happened happened, and then determine the fallout of the rest of the turn as normally prescribed.

I choose to determine the rest of the turn as normally prescribed.

On a side note, again, not a hard rules thing, but I don't see how firing two arrows at once takes up enough time to prevent you from moving as opposed to firing one arrow. If you are adept enough to do such a thing at all that is.

How much time it takes up does not really matter with regard to the question which you did not answer. So once again I ask do you think the "intent" is?

Just to be clear I am not asking if you think it is too overpowered to allow it as a standard action. I am not asking what you would or would not allow. I am asking if Jason B. popped into the thread right now what do you think his answer would be with regard to intent.

PS:Just trying to clarify my question. :)


wraithstrike wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Ssalarn, no it wasnt. I asked him today (or yesterday, I forget) a more focused question that did not involve Manyshot.

HERE IT IS

- Gauss

And, funny enough, JJ's response supports both sides of our argument. He is saying it is a standard, yet he is also saying you don't have to declare that its a full-attack beforehand... which lets Manyshot do its thing before declaration.

With the knowledge that manyshot requires a full round action, but it does not say exactly what you would like for it to say, what do you believe the intent to be?

In the absence of the rule being spelled out airtight, I am left with interpreting from other rules surrounding it that are, and what makes sense. I am NOT saying this is the rule, I am saying that it cannot be resolved without house ruling strictly speaking as written.

Manyshot is a single attack. It happens before declaration of full-attack even though it relies on full attack. You are then left to your own devices and ruling to decide if that means that then you have to force a full attack on the rest of the turn, or if that means that what happened happened, and then determine the fallout of the rest of the turn as normally prescribed.

I choose to determine the rest of the turn as normally prescribed.

On a side note, again, not a hard rules thing, but I don't see how firing two arrows at once takes up enough time to prevent you from moving as opposed to firing one arrow. If you are adept enough to do such a thing at all that is.

How much time it takes up does not really matter with regard to the question which you did not answer. So once again I ask do you think the "intent" is?

Just to be clear I am not asking if you think it is too overpowered to allow it as a standard action. I am not asking what you would or would not allow. I am asking...

I'm not a mind-reader or a prophet. That's why the rules need clarification.


setzer9999 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Ssalarn, no it wasnt. I asked him today (or yesterday, I forget) a more focused question that did not involve Manyshot.

HERE IT IS

- Gauss

And, funny enough, JJ's response supports both sides of our argument. He is saying it is a standard, yet he is also saying you don't have to declare that its a full-attack beforehand... which lets Manyshot do its thing before declaration.

With the knowledge that manyshot requires a full round action, but it does not say exactly what you would like for it to say, what do you believe the intent to be?

In the absence of the rule being spelled out airtight, I am left with interpreting from other rules surrounding it that are, and what makes sense. I am NOT saying this is the rule, I am saying that it cannot be resolved without house ruling strictly speaking as written.

Manyshot is a single attack. It happens before declaration of full-attack even though it relies on full attack. You are then left to your own devices and ruling to decide if that means that then you have to force a full attack on the rest of the turn, or if that means that what happened happened, and then determine the fallout of the rest of the turn as normally prescribed.

I choose to determine the rest of the turn as normally prescribed.

On a side note, again, not a hard rules thing, but I don't see how firing two arrows at once takes up enough time to prevent you from moving as opposed to firing one arrow. If you are adept enough to do such a thing at all that is.

How much time it takes up does not really matter with regard to the question which you did not answer. So once again I ask do you think the "intent" is?

Just to be clear I am not asking if you think it is too overpowered to allow it as a standard action. I am not asking what you would or would

...

So you are saying you are not sure?


setzer9999 wrote:
I'm not a mind-reader or a prophet. That's why the rules need clarification.

But you can't infer intent giving context.

Why does Manyshot even mention "When making a full-attack action" if you can use an attack action?


Karlgamer wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
I'm not a mind-reader or a prophet. That's why the rules need clarification.

But you can't infer intent giving context.

Why does Manyshot even mention "When making a full-attack action" if you can use a attack action?

To let you know that you can use iterative attacks after using manyshot.


Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
concerro wrote:
So you are saying that a feat can call out action X, but action x is really an option, not a requirement?
Yes.

You can't just ignore explicitly stated rules. Well, you can if you want to, but that makes it a house rule and does not belong in a discussion about what the actual rules are.

Manyshot applies to a full attack because it states that it applies to a full attack. It does not apply to a standard action attack because it does not state that it applies to a standard action attack. It also does not cause you to grow wings and fly directly into the sun because it does not state that it causes you to do so. That's how the rules work: They do what they say they do, and don't do what they don't say.

This is the second time you've confused me.


Karlgamer wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
I'm not a mind-reader or a prophet. That's why the rules need clarification.

But you can't infer intent giving context.

Why does Manyshot even mention "When making a full-attack action" if you can use an attack action?

Because it's poorly worded. As Wraithstrike pointed out, the feat is technically completely illegal. You can't do anything that requires a full-attack action on your first attack, because it hasn't been determined if you are full-attacking or not at that point. You also can't be forced to decide if you are full-attacking beforehand, because there is no mechanic for doing so, or a lock-in mechanic.

I'm not saying that there SHOULDN'T be a rule like the one you are advocating. I'm not saying that the RAI isn't what you are saying. What I'm saying is that there ISN'T a rule like the one you are describing. As you said, it is a corner case.

If you rule the way you are doing, you are violating a general rule, but in my opinion, there isn't enough in the feat to constitute that a specific rule has taken precedence. The entire feat isn't even legal as written, so it can't be cited as a good specific rule to override the general.

If the devs came and supported your side, I wouldn't be surprised, bat an eye, feel embarrassed, feel the need to acknowledge the correctness of those on your side of the argument, or even really give a crap honestly (as I'd still rule it in my home games the way I already ruled it and I don't do PFS).

My point is, that as written, the feat is a bad rule, and so I turn to the good rule in the combat section to resolve it instead.


Moglun:

If we were to be honest here, yes, this isn't written as well as it could be.

There is no statement that feats override the general rules and that specific action requirements of a feat override the general rules on actions.

Perhaps the developers thought we were more intelligent than that and could infer that actions required by feats are specific alterations to the rules.

- Gauss


Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
To let you know that you can use iterative attacks after using manyshot.

Why does it specifically say full attack action?

Saying full attack action isn't needed to let you know that you can use iterative attacks.

For instance you can disarm and get iterative attacks. Disarm doesn't mention full attack action.

You can't get iterative attacks with a Grapple. It requires a standard action.


Setzer9999: Welcome to Pathfinder! Have you read the rules yet? Have you read the feats 'Prone Shooter' or 'Ferocious Summoner'? Heheheh

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Moglun:

If we were to be honest here, yes, this isn't written as well as it could be.

There is no statement that feats override the general rules and that specific action requirements of a feat override the general rules on actions.

Perhaps the developers thought we were more intelligent than that and could infer that actions required by feats are specific alterations to the rules.

- Gauss

Now, now. There's no need for thinly veiled insults.

The issue isn't which action... the issue is that the benefits of the feat occur before the action type is decided... it's gone, done, before you even get to the point where you determine the action type in question. That's the problem. You can't ascribe a "full-attack" to it because when it takes place, a full-attack can't have been determined yet.


Gauss wrote:

Setzer9999: Welcome to Pathfinder! Have you read the rules yet? Have you read the feats 'Prone Shooter' or 'Ferocious Summoner'? Heheheh

- Gauss

I've read all the core books, many sections multiple times. I'm well aware that d20 and PF are far from perfect. Far far from perfect, in terms of RAW. When I first started with the system, I actually started writing my house rules down... an endeavor I decided to forgo, because it had gotten to be 37 pages long with no end in sight. I'm VERY aware of how much is unclear or wrong.

This doesn't really change anything. A bad or poorly defined rule is no less so because there are others that also are.


Setzer9999: I apologize if it came off as an insult. It was my attempt at wit. I will remind myself that I suck at wit.

Normally I refrain from wit but sometimes...oh well. :)

- Gauss

Edit: Ok, I reminded myself. Flogged myself right and proper. Oh damn, there goes the wit again. Better go remind myself again. Did I mention the men in white coats are coming to take me away? HAHA!!

Hehehehe, yes, Im bored. Welcome to my boredom.


setzer9999 wrote:
Because it's poorly worded. As Wraithstrike pointed out, the feat is technically completely illegal. You can't do anything that requires a full-attack action on your first attack, because it hasn't been determined if you are full-attacking or not at that point. You also can't be forced to decide if you are full-attacking beforehand, because there is no mechanic for doing so, or a lock-in mechanic.

I won't agree or disagree with weather or not it's worded badly or not.

But those are the words we've got. We must assume then that full-attack action was put there for a reason.

If we didn't have to decide between full attack action and attack action until after our first attack we could technically use both Manyshot and Vital Strike.


Woooo, good point Karlgamer. Hey Setzer9999, where are you? I want to play in your game! Can I break it? :)

Damn, there is the wit again. Bad wit! Bad!

Anyone know how to muzzle wit?

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:
Anyone know how to muzzle wit?

Nitequil


Karlgamer wrote:
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
To let you know that you can use iterative attacks after using manyshot.

Why does it specifically say full attack action?

Saying full attack action isn't needed to let you know that you can use iterative attacks.

For instance you can disarm and get iterative attacks. Disarm doesn't mention full attack action.

You can't get iterative attacks with a Grapple. It requires a standard action.

Disarm in place of a melee attack is covered in the general combat rules. Manyshot is not. It's listed to let you know that you can make a full attack when using Manyshot. But, it doesn't say that you can't choose otherwise.

Grapple is a standard action (unless you have some way to change it to another sort of action). So, I don't think you could make iteratives when using grapple as standard actions outweigh move actions in the action economy. (That's the logic I see in not being able to trade your move action in for a second attack at full BAB, instead of at your iterative bonus.)


Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
Disarm in place of a melee attack is covered in the general combat rules. Manyshot is not. It's listed to let you know that you can make a full attack when using Manyshot. But, it doesn't say that you can't choose otherwise.

Why does Manyshot specifically say full attack action?

Saying full attack action isn't needed to let you know that you can use iterative attacks.

Silver Crusade

'Skip says, "You decide between the full attack and attack actions after you make your first attack."'

Trying yet again to get to the Crunch and ignore the Fluff, Skip is saying:-

EITHER

'You MUST decide....after you make your first attack'

OR

'You MAY decide....after you make your first attack'

Although the RAW does NOT say what Skip says (to be fair if it did he wouldn't bother saying anything) we are moving on in this debate by taking it as 'What Skip says, goes!'

Fair enough, let's do that.

If you MUST decide AFTER your first attack whether or not your first attack was a standard action or the start of a full attack, then your first attack CANNOT have been a Manyshot, as you have not declared a full attack and you can ONLY Manyshot as the FIRST attack of a full attack. Hence, by the wording of the first case, Manyshot would be absolutely impossible to do in the game!

'DM, my archer does a Manyshot.'

'Sorry mate. That requires you to take a full attack to trigger that second arrow, and as Skip tells us, you MUST decide which action (full or standard) it is only AFTER your first attack is resolved. Therefore you CANNOT say it's a full attack BEFORE you have resolved your first attack!, therefore there is no way to actually use that feat!'

This situation is clearly absurd! You cannot say it's RAI that a feat you wrote cannot work. There is no wording in the feat that says it changes the way the action mechanics work. This is when the universe explodes, Gauss! : )

This means that it MUST be the other interpretation; that you MAY decide AFTER your first attack, but that equally you MAY decide BEFORE your first attack. This means you MAY choose to make a full attack BEFORE your first attack is resolved. This in no rule prevents you from, after you have resolved your first attack and seen the results, taking a move action instead of your remaining attacks!

Gauss, for the sake of our sanity, I'm no longer arguing on this thread that it doesn't become a standard attack after you cash in your remaining attacks. So you declare a full attack (you MUST be able to; see above) that triggers Manyshot (that's how Manyshot works) and then, after you see the results of that first attack, decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks. And when you do that the first attack (yes, the one with twin arrows!) becomes a standard action, just like Skip says. And yes you've managed to fire two arrows in a standard attack because at the time you did it it was a full attack, and later got retroactively changed into a move action, via Skip. And looking back at the round, we did NOT take a full attack and a move, we took a standard action and a move, because because although the initial attack was taken as part of a full attack, that CHANGED, via Skip. So the action economy is maintained, Orc A is still dead, two arrows were still shot and the space-time continuum can continue unmolested.

I hope that this clarifies my position. Although I think you (usually) argue fairly, please don't claim that I'm still saying you get a full attack and a move. I'm saying you started out taking a full attack, but that changed, via Skip, into a standard action plus a move action.


Fair enough Malachi :) I wouldn't misrepresent your POV intentionally.

I disagree with you on the point that you can declare it a standard action though. Reason of course goes back to the point that it requires a full-attack action.

You presented that last post quite clearly btw. :) It was much easier to read.

Anyhow, my brain is getting foggy (truth be told, it has been foggy for many hours due to pain killers). And the constant posting on this one thread is taking away from my efforts to build my various versions of my Pushing Assault area-control build for PFS. Need to figure out which version is my favorite.

- Gauss


Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
concerro wrote:
So you are saying that a feat can call out action X, but action x is really an option, not a requirement?

Yes, unless specificied as a requirement.

The way manyshot is worded, full attack is an option. Not a requirement. Same for Rapid Shot.

Is that your RAW reading or your RAI reading?


setzer9999 wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
I'm not a mind-reader or a prophet. That's why the rules need clarification.

But you can't infer intent giving context.

Why does Manyshot even mention "When making a full-attack action" if you can use an attack action?

Because it's poorly worded. As Wraithstrike pointed out, the feat is technically completely illegal. You can't do anything that requires a full-attack action on your first attack, because it hasn't been determined if you are full-attacking or not at that point. You also can't be forced to decide if you are full-attacking beforehand, because there is no mechanic for doing so, or a lock-in mechanic.

I'm not saying that there SHOULDN'T be a rule like the one you are advocating. I'm not saying that the RAI isn't what you are saying. What I'm saying is that there ISN'T a rule like the one you are describing. As you said, it is a corner case.

If you rule the way you are doing, you are violating a general rule, but in my opinion, there isn't enough in the feat to constitute that a specific rule has taken precedence. The entire feat isn't even legal as written, so it can't be cited as a good specific rule to override the general.

If the devs came and supported your side, I wouldn't be surprised, bat an eye, feel embarrassed, feel the need to acknowledge the correctness of those on your side of the argument, or even really give a crap honestly (as I'd still rule it in my home games the way I already ruled it and I don't do PFS).

My point is, that as written, the feat is a bad rule, and so I turn to the good rule in the combat section to resolve it instead.

That is not what I pointed out. Do not put words in my mouth. I only stated that I can see someone reading it that way. I never said I agree with that view.


Okay, I have a character who has just had his first attack.

Now was that attack the first attack of a full attack action or the only attack of an attack action?

Well it could be ether. And that's the point of the rule nothing more. If you haven't specifically decided on what type of action you are using your first attack is ambiguous.

If you specifically decide which type of attack you will use before your first attack, because you want to use a feat that requires a certain type of attack, you can't change it after your first attack.

You can't change your choice because you have already benefited from your feat that requires a certain type of attack.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

'Skip says, "You decide between the full attack and attack actions after you make your first attack."'

Trying yet again to get to the Crunch and ignore the Fluff, Skip is saying:-

EITHER

'You MUST decide....after you make your first attack'

OR

'You MAY decide....after you make your first attack'

Although the RAW does NOT say what Skip says (to be fair if it did he wouldn't bother saying anything) we are moving on in this debate by taking it as 'What Skip says, goes!'

Your talent seems to lie in ignoring anything I post. Do I have to repeat it again or do you know what I am going to say?

Otherwise, if there was an error in my last response to you, please point it out.

Silver Crusade

I need to sleep too! It's nearly half-past-eight in the morning here in Britain!

I'll look forward to reading more when I wake up. Which will probably be in three hours. : (

I know I've only started to post on this (or any!) forum in the last few days, but I'm finding it horribly addictive. I might have to learn to type with a second finger to cope with it all!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I know I've only started to post on this (or any!) forum in the last few days, but I'm finding it horribly addictive. I might have to learn to type with a second finger to cope with it all!

Ya.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You must declare and use a full attack action to use manyshot before you make your first attack. But, you don't decide to use a full attack action until after you make your first attack. But, you must declare and use a full attack action to use manyshot before you make your first attack. But, you don't decide to use a full attack action until after you make your first attack. But, you must declare and use a full attack action to use manyshot before you make your first attack. But, you don't decide to use a full attack action until after you make your first attack. But, you must declare and use a full attack action to use manyshot before you make your first attack....*head explodes*

Silver Crusade

HangarFlying wrote:
You must declare and use a full attack action to use manyshot before you make your first attack. But, you don't decide to use a full attack action until after you make your first attack. But, you must declare and use a full attack action to use manyshot before you make your first attack. But, you don't decide to use a full attack action until after you make your first attack. But, you must declare and use a full attack action to use manyshot before you make your first attack. But, you don't decide to use a full attack action until after you make your first attack. But, you must declare and use a full attack action to use manyshot before you make your first attack....*head explodes*

See! I TOLD you you what would happen if you let him play with the parental controls!

Silver Crusade

BTW, there is no doubt that if, during your own turn, you execute a single (weapon) attack, then the action (in terms of action type: full, standard, move, swift, immediate, free or non) you took was a standard attack action.

Similarly, when you use the attack ACTION, you are using a standard action to do this. This means that things like Vital Strike, which specify 'When you use the attack action...'
That you MUST use a standard action to use it and cannot fold it into a full attack.

I don't think that anyone is doubting this. But, the attack ACTION is a separate thing from an ATTACK.

Each attack element of a full attack is an attack (full-round action)

An Attack of Opportunity is an attack (not an action)

The attack at the end of a charge, and each attack during a Pounce is an attack (special full-round action)

The free touch attack you get during the round you cast a melee touch attack spell is an attack (free action)

So, an ATTACK is not a standard action in and of itself. It is not an action (in terms of standard, move, etc.) at all! An attack ACTION is a standard action, an ATTACK is not. An ATTACK could be used during other types of actions.

When it says 'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.', the 'first attack' part is NOT automatically a standard action. You could only accurately conclude this if it said 'After your first attack ACTION...'

But it doesn't.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I don't think that anyone is doubting this. But, the attack ACTION is a separate thing from an ATTACK.

I agree, as do many others, but there are people who have been arguing that "take an attack, then move" constitutes a valid use of a full attack action (Adamantine Dragon, for example). So there is certainly someone who doubts this.

I also agree that you have to assume that you can declare a full attack before your first attack, as otherwise the feat is unusable. However, to restate my earlier point (with a couple corrections): You are only allowed to use Manyshot as part of a full attack action. If you declare the full attack, use Manyshot, then cancel the full attack by taking a move action, your full attack has become a standard action attack. You aren't taking a full attack AND a standard attack in the same round, it's one or the other. So if you declare your intent to make a Full Attack, use Manyshot, and then change to a standard action Attack, you are in violation of the rule which states that Manyshot is only used on a full attack. It doesn't erase the arrow from the past or anything because the rules don't specify what happens when you break them. It simply shouldn't happen in the first place, you are never supposed to be in violation of the rules except by GM fiat. This is why Manyshot locks you in, because after using it on your first attack you can either continue to make a Full Attack and not break the rules or make an Attack (standard action) and break the rules.
So how would you respond?


Moglun wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I don't think that anyone is doubting this. But, the attack ACTION is a separate thing from an ATTACK.
I agree, as do many others, but there are people who have been arguing that "take an attack, then move" constitutes a valid use of a full attack action (Adamantine Dragon, for example). So there is certainly someone who doubts this.

Adamantine dragon, for whatever it is worth, has been making virtually the identical points, point by point, that Malachi is now making. So far as I have seen, I am not disputing anything Malachi is saying, since I think he's been saying the same things I have been saying all along.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Adamantine dragon, for whatever it is worth, has been making virtually the identical points, point by point, that Malachi is now making. So far as I have seen, I am not disputing anything Malachi is saying, since I think he's been saying the same things I have been saying all along.

I don't think so. Edited for space:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

BTW, there is no doubt that if, during your own turn, you execute a single (weapon) attack, then the action (in terms of action type: full, standard, move, swift, immediate, free or non) you took was a standard attack action.

...
Full attack actions MAY, after the first attack is resolved, retroactively become a standard action (by choosing to give up your remaining attacks), leaving you with a move action. You cannot disagree with this 'retroactive' part because Skip himself is saying that you attack first then RETROACTIVELY decide if that was a standard or full action.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Those rules say that on a full attack, after your first attack you can move if you take no further attacks.

...
The argument is that manyshot requires a full attack, and if you want to attack, then move, then it's not a full attack.
That's simply not true.
The RULE for full attack describes two options. One is to take all your iterative attacks. The other is to take a "first attack", look around and decide if you'd rather move than take your remaining attacks.
What seems to be completely lost on many folks here is that choosing to make your first attack, and then moving, is still a full attack. It's just the second option of the full attack, which is to make a "first attack" then move. So even if you argue that you have to be making a "full attack" to use manyshot, taking your first attack and then moving is still a "full attack". It's just a full attack that has swapped out a move for all but the first attack.

One argument is that you can take a move action as part of a full attack action. The other is that you declare a full attack, then cancel it and take a standard action + move instead.

If I'm misreading, and Malachi you are in fact saying that if you take a single attack then move that constitutes a full round action/full attack, NOT a standard action + move action, then please correct me.


One final try.

The question here is "how does manyshot work with full attacks?"

From a "Rules As Written" perspective, the way to answer that question is FIRST to look at the specific rules for manyshot and full attack.

The manyshot rule says you shoot two arrows on your first attack of a full attack.

The full attack rule says you have the option to choose to move after your first attack instead of taking your additional attacks.

That's what the rules say.

So, does that specifically answer the question of how manyshot and full attack work?

Yes. In spades.

So there is no need to investigate the general case of any other rules. The specific question has been answered with the specific wording of the two rules in question.

Because some people disagree that it should work that way they have exhaustively investigated every possible rule, FAQ and blog post by anyone who remotely addressed something that you could turn your head and squint the right way to see something that can be tortuously argued to support a different result.

That's what's happening.

The specific rules specifically answer the specific question quite clearly.

If the developers intended some OTHER result, then they need to errata the rules.

Hang in there Malachi. You are doing great.

Silver Crusade

So, we've established that the 'first attack' part need not be an attack ACTION, but what IS it? Do we have any clues?

1.) The whole paragraph is a sub-section of 'full attack' which is in itself a subsection of 'Full-Round Actions'

2.) The sentence says '...instead of making your REMAINING attacks.' Since the only way to get the 'attacks' (plural) is to take a full attack (whether or not you took it as a Full-Round action, cf. Pounce) then the sentence is assuming that you are ALREADY in the process of making a full attack, something which even Skip must allow or our heads will explode when we try to use Manyshot/Rapid Shot/Whirlwind Attack/Flurry et al.

So the 'Deciding between' sentence is assuming you are already part-way into your full attack sequence, and it STILL allows you to 'take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.' And if, as Skip says, when you do this then your first attack RETROACTIVELY BECOMES an attack ACTION, then so be it!

But that still doesn't turn back time, pluck an arrow out of the air or bring Orc A back to life.

Yes, the upshot is that you managed to fire twin arrows in what LATER turned into a standard action. Good for you. Do it as often as you can before the Rules As Written are RE-written, if they ever are, and I don't think they will because all the above makes perfect sense.

Some have said that the title of this sub-section, 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' means that the 'Attack' part refers to an attack ACTION, but we've established that 'attack' and 'attack action' are not the same term, as attacks can be made as part of standard, full, free and non-actions. Some say that the fact that the word 'Attack' is capitalised means that it must refer to the attack ACTION, but even Gauss no longer thinks this (if he ever did). That would only be remotely supportable if it was also capitalised in the body of the text 'After your first attack...' but it isn't. So the reason it is in capitals is because the word is part of a title, not because it is a reserved term.

HangerFlying sacrificed his LIFE to demonstrate that you MUST be able to choose to take a full attack BEFORE your first attack in a full attack. Therefore the above chain of logic is sound.

The consequences of ignoring this are the lives of good gamers out there. The Manyshot feat CANNOT work unless you are able to choose a full attack, trigger Manyshot, see Orc A bite the dust, decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, and get home in time for tea and medals.

Ruled one way we have exploding heads as the drawback. Ruled the other way, what is the drawback? Archer A gets to have fired two arrows in what later turns out to count as a standard action? The only exploding head here belongs to Orc A, and he doesn't need it anymore 'cos he's dead and his family are using it as a foot-rest! Manyshot even works like that in 3.5 and the game doesn't suddenly become broken! In fact, it's even BETTER in 3.5 because Manyshot there is a special standard action so you can take a move before OR after the Manyshot, and you can fire two, three or even four arrows as a single shot if your BA is high enough! The game doesn't suddenly become broken! The 3.5 version has disadvantages of it's own which compensate for the PF version being useable in a full attack; in 3.5 Manyshot being a special standard action (NOT an 'attack action') means it cannot be folded into a full attack, and there are attack penalties also. In 3.5 if you want to fire as many arrows as you can in a full attack you use Rapid Shot, which you already have as a pre-requisite for Manyshot.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Some have said that the title of this sub-section, 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' means that the 'Attack' part refers to an attack ACTION, but we've established that 'attack' and 'attack action' are not the same term, as attacks can be made as part of standard, full, free and non-actions. Some say that the fact that the word 'Attack' is capitalised means that it must refer to the attack ACTION, but even Gauss no longer thinks this (if he ever did). That would only be remotely supportable if it was also capitalised in the body of the text 'After your first attack...' but it isn't. So the reason it is in capitals is because the word is part of a title, not because it is a reserved term.

Let's assume that's true and analyze further. We don't know for sure whether 'Attack' means 'standard action attack' or something entirely different. What we do know is that the choice is 'Attack' or 'Full Attack'. Meaning that, whatever 'Attack' is, it is NOT 'Full Attack'. We are deciding between 'Full Attack' and 'not Full Attack', and Manyshot requires Full Attack, bringing us back to the argument about whether you can retroactively break the rules.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The Manyshot feat CANNOT work unless you are able to choose a full attack, trigger Manyshot, see Orc A bite the dust, decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks

It CAN work in exactly the same way as if you made two separate attacks and can no longer decide to take a move action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
The full attack rule says you have the option to choose to move after your first attack instead of taking your additional attacks.

No, the full attack rule says that you decide between taking an attack and a full attack by either making your additional attacks or moving. Do you have an argument for why we should ignore the "deciding between X and Y" part?


Moglun wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
The full attack rule says you have the option to choose to move after your first attack instead of taking your additional attacks.
No, the full attack rule says that you decide between taking an attack and a full attack by either making your additional attacks or moving. Do you have an argument for why we should ignore the "deciding between X and Y" part?

Yeah, actually. You choose what you want to read and I choose what I want. They don't agree.

There's a term for that.

The term is "inconsistent." Since the rule I am quoting comes BEFORE what you are quoting, I think it takes precedence.

How to solve this? Make the rule consistent.


Adamantine Dragon:

Do you still assert that the section on 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' is deciding between two forms of Full attack?

- Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Yeah, actually. You choose what you want to read and I choose what I want. They don't agree.

There's a term for that.

The term is "inconsistent." Since the rule I am quoting comes BEFORE what you are quoting, I think it takes precedence.

How to solve this? Make the rule consistent.

I'm asking how you decided what you want to read and what is consistent. My reasoning is that:

1) Heading "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" implies there are two distinct actions, only one of which is a full attack.
2) Statement "assuming you have not already taken a move action this round" implies that you can trigger the rule after taking a move action, which would be impossible if it only referred to a full attack as that is a full round action.
3) Statement "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step" is inconsistent with "you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks" if the choice to move still constitutes a full attack. This is not a case of a specific exception because both statements are equally general - the second statement would make the first one irrelevant.
4) The idea that you can attack+move as a full attack but cannot move+attack as a full attack is inconsistent.
5) The interpretation that a full attack can entail attack+move creates issues with other abilities such as pounce, second chance, and dimensional skirmisher.
None of these are a problem if we read the text to mean "choose to either full attack or not full attack". That's why I'm falling pretty strongly on the that side. What is your reasoning that "choose between two different forms of full attack" is more correct and consistent?

I don't understand what you mean by "the rule I am quoting comes BEFORE what you are quoting".


My argument is succinctly and accurately presented right above. The question is asked. The path to the answer is "look at the specific rules". The specific rules say manyshot modifies first attacks and full attacks allow you to move after your first attack if you give up all subsequent iterative attacks.

All of this "proof" that you can't use manyshot and then move is nothing but pure rationalization to justify a preconceived opinion.

I'm not arguing with you dudes. I just wanted to present the clear and compelling case one more time. Once you read the specific rules that tell you exactly what to do with manyshot, there is no need to wonder what the original 3.0 version of manyshot did, what some game designer may have posted on some blog long ago on some tangential subject that you can twist around to support your goals or to pursue ad nauseum every possible general rule you can use to try to untrump the specific rule.

If you can't be convinced by reading you the actual rule, then you can't be convinced.

Sczarni

Gauss wrote:

Adamantine Dragon:

Do you still assert that the section on 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' is deciding between two forms of Full attack?

- Gauss

That is what he is asserting. I don't think he'll answer you though - so maybe he'll correct me for answering for him if I'm wrong.

Edit: Ninja'd by the man himself!

But you're still wrong - full attacks do not allow you to move anything more then a 5' step. If you make an Attack and then follow it up with a move action you are not making a Full Attack.


Daryl MacLeod wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Adamantine Dragon:

Do you still assert that the section on 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' is deciding between two forms of Full attack?

- Gauss

That is what he is asserting. I don't think he'll answer you though - so maybe he'll correct me for answering for him if I'm wrong.

I say that is one way it can be interpreted, but that my argument does not depend on that interpretation. My argument is presented above and I was foolish to allow myself to get dragged into the unnecessary and irrelevant trivia about developer blog postings, multiple interpretations of "attack" or "action" or any of that nonsense.

The rules are inconsistent. Pick what part you want to follow. But stop demanding that people HAVE TO see it YOUR WAY. As I said a long, long time ago, you can interpret this either way because the rules are worded poorly.

There are no doubt many, many reasons they are worded poorly. One reason is almost certainly that the feat and action descriptions go back many versions and things have changed but there are legal complications due to licensing or whatever.

But that's all just noise in the system.

The bottom line is that you can read the rule and decide to interpret it either way. I believe my way is better for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it removes the utterly ridiculous argument about whether or not you can "choose to use" manyshot or whether the simple act of choosing the manyshot feat somehow locks you out of the ability to do a single attack on a full attack and then move.

I suppose some people love to pick rules apart and whip out complicating factors during games to show how smart and knowledgeable they are and how many D&D developer names they can drop.

I just want to play the damn game, not argue about the finer points of whether a letter in a heading happens to be capitalized or not. As the GM my ruling is that if someone has manyshot they can use it on their first attack and then move if they want. I see no game balance issues, I don't care to prove how brilliant of a rules lawyer I am and I don't care to name drop developer names as if I once did shots with them in Bermuda. That's the simplest, most effective, most reasonable solution that makes the game more fun and stops the most arguments.

Although that clearly is not the goal of some folks.


Adamantine Dragon:

I am not asking you about Manyshot, I am asking you about Deciding Between an Attack or a Full Attack.

Yesterday James Jacobs stated that you cannot take a move action while performing a full-attack action. Would you like me to repost that?

He also stated that 'Deciding Between an Attack or a Full Attack' IS the same as deciding between a standard and a full-round action.

Here is the link to that post

Let me reiterate the question: Is it your assertion that the section on 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' is deciding between two forms of Full Attack?

It's a simple question with a simple answer. Answer either yes or no or neither. If neither please give rationale.

Once again, Manyshot is not part of this question.

- Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I just want to play the damn game, not argue about the finer points of whether a letter in a heading happens to be capitalized or not.

Then why are you here arguing your points?

- Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.

AD, you haven't presented an argument at all, you've made a statement (that the rule referring to moving after your first attack means that you are taking a move as part of a full attack action, as opposed to choosing whether you are taking a full attack action at all). If we accept that there is more than one way to interpret the rules, the next step is to weigh the evidence supporting each of those ways and to examine the conclusions which follow from them. I and others have explained the evidence and rationale which have led us to our conclusions, opposite yours. You have simply stated "I choose to believe X" without presenting any reasons WHY you made that choice. Not only that, but your argument is predicated on the notion that the rules are poorly worded, inconsistent, and redundant, and that the heading the rules fall under is irrelevant, again with no reasons presented as to WHY we should believe that. Of course people aren't going to see it your way - you haven't given us any reason to.

EDIT: To clarify what I mean, here is the argument so far:
A: The full attack rule says you have the option to choose to move after your first attack instead of taking your additional attacks.
B: No, it says that you decide whether you are taking a full attack or an attack by choosing to either take your additional attacks or move.
A: That's because it's poorly worded, you should ignore all the 'deciding' stuff.
B: We have various pieces of evidence which support the idea that is really means 'decide between'. What's the evidence which supports the idea that it does not?
A: *crickets chirping*


LOL, fine. "It's in the rules, it's more flexibility for the player character, it avoids stupid arguments about why choosing a feat limits my existing abilities and it's exactly what a player would expect on choosing the feat in the first place" is a TERRIBLE argument.

501 to 550 of 1,215 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Full Attacks and Manyshot All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.