|
So, interpretation #3 means you can trap yourself by forfeiting your option to take a move action later. This would happen with any ability that requires a Full Attack action: Manyshot, Two-Weapon Fighting, Monk Flurry, etc.
Is it also correct to state then from interpretation #3 that the option to take a move action later after cancelling a Full Attack action only works with iterative attacks?
Yes. From the #3 interpretation, you lose your ability to 'cancel out' after the first attack of a full attack under all of the following circumstances;
1) You have used Manyshot on your first attack, and your first attack has killed your only foe in sight. BENEFIT: You have done double damage on that attack.
2) You have declared Two-Weapon Fighting, and your first attack has killed the only foe within a 5-ft step of you. PENALTY: You have taken a -2 to hit on that attack, and all it has caused you to do is forfeit your move action.
3) You have declared flurry of blows, and your first attack has killed the only foe within a 5-ft step of you. BENEFIT/PENALTY: You have benefitted from full BAB for that attack, but also taken -2 to hit.
I believe in all of these circumstances, you can cancel after your first attack and take a move action, as per the #1 interpretation from the OP and the full attack text.
The RAW does NOT prove #3 correct, no matter what some people in this thread may insist. The back and forth of this argument shows how ambiguous the RAW is.
Regardless, the argument can't be won by either side. It's been tried before. People will just circle round insisting that their interpretation is correct, and we get nowhere. FAQ the OP and leave it at that.
...General:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.Specific:
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.So there are two possibilities:
1) The Specific trumps the General. Specific in this case states it is a Full-attack action in order to use the ability. Thus, the decision is already made.2) The Specific does not trump the general. This is based on an interpretation that regardless of the specific wording it is still a single attack and thus single attack rules apply.
Personally I think this is a situation of specific trumping General. However enough leeway exists that if someone made a FAQ on this I would hit the FAQ button if only to remove people's confusion.
Adamantine Dragon: Now I have cited the rules but come up with a different interpretation.
- Gauss
^This.
And I have to say that was very well laid out Gauss. Specific trumps general is what the rules are saying and trying to say (RAW & RAI)
As a GM I have my players "declare" what feats they are applying ahead of time. When they say "I'm using Many Shot" they have decided to make a Full attack rather then an Attack
Are you trying to say the wording could be better or do you really think the "intent" was to allow someone to benefit from a feat that says it needs a full round action to be used with only a standard action.
I will also add that if you take the first attack then do a move action then you are not committing a full round action which manyshot requires, so that is further proof that you must commit to a full attack action to get the benefits of manyshot.The error in this interpretation is that somehow choosing not to complete your attacks and taking a move action instead has somehow nullified your full attack action.
It has not. The full attack action is written so that you can do one of two things:
1. Take all of the iterative attacks you are entitled due to BAB, lose your move action but still be able to take a five foot step.
2. Take your first attack, decide to substitute a move action for your remaining attacks.It does not "negate" the fact that you are making a full attack. The move is part of the rule of a full attack. You are still doing a full attack, you are just choosing to exercise option 2 of the action as described in the rules.
I see your point, but never in the game are you allowed to use a lesser action to gain the benefit of a greater action. Even if the wording is not clear, which I don't think it is in this case, the intent is clear. Now I will admit it is not "perfectly" written, but many of the rules can be said to not be "perfectly" clear depending on how technical one wants to get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is really this simple:
Are you using a full attack action?
Yes:You get the first two arrows.
By saying yes you are commited to the action.
During a normal situation you get to attack and then decide because you have not committed yourself to anything, much like with TWF once you decide you are TWF'ing you can't just rewind time to remove that -2 penalty.
No:You get one arrow.
If this was a TWF then you can not suddenly go into TWF mode because the -2 was not applied to the first attack.
edit:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
If you look at the combat chapter the Full Round action section has subsections titled "Full Attack Action" and "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack". The mistake many people make is assuming that the "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" is a subsection of the "Full Attack Section" which would change the way it is read.
Adamatine Dragon is assuming that you are committing to a full attack action at the beginning, making the first attack, and then given the option to continue the full attack or go take. That is not the case.
What you are doing is making the first attack, and then deciding if you want to take a move action or transition into a full attack, but once you commit to the full attack by taking that second interative attack, assuming there is one, then you can't just take it back. By the same logic once you commit to manyshot by accepting those two arrows you can't back out of a full round attack, and downgrade it into a move action.
Manyshot however requires you to commit to the full attack action from the first attack. That is how it is different from the general rules. If you are not committed at the point of the first attack then you don't get two arrows.
|
|
It is really this simple:
Are you using a full attack action?Yes:You get the first two arrows.
By saying yes you are commited to the action.
During a normal situation you get to attack and then decide because you have not committed yourself to anything, much like with TWF once you decide you are TWF'ing you can't just rewind time to remove that -2 penalty.No:You get one arrow.
If this was a TWF then you can not suddenly go into TWF mode because the -2 was not applied to the first attack.
edit:Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.If you look at the combat chapter the Full Round action section has subsections titled "Full Attack Action" and "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack". The mistake many people make is assuming that the "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" is a subsection of the "Full Attack Section" which would change the way it is read.
Adamatine Dragon is assuming that you are committing to a full attack action at the beginning, making the first attack, and then given the option to continue the full attack or go take. That is not the case.
What you are doing is making the first attack, and then deciding if you want to take a move action or transition into a full attack, but once you commit to the full attack by taking that second interative attack, assuming there is one, then you can't just take it back. By the same logic once you commit to manyshot by accepting those two arrows you can't back out of a full round attack, and downgrade it into a move action.
Manyshot however requires you to commit to the full attack action from the first attack. That is how it is...
Concerro - you say people make the 'mistake' of assuming that the text is a subset of the Full Attack Section. It's more correct to say you don't believe it is a subsection of the full attack section, despite its placement in the book. Not having written the text yourself, you cannot know what was intended by RAW - you can only interpret.
You also say 'that is how it is', when what you actually mean is 'that is how I believe it works'. Please don't assume you are defending the correct point of view against misguided people who are using the rules wrong - you aren't. You're supporting an interpretation that has as much (or as little) validity by RAW as the opposing interpretation.
Finally, you also say that you 'trade up' to a full attack after the first attack, but the rules in the book actually couch it in entirely the opposite terms - they describe it as you starting a full attack and then 'cancelling out' in order to take a move action.
Also, iterative attack and Manyshot are not by any stretch the 'same logic' - one is a rider to your first attack, and the other is not. Nobody is going to argue that you can't cancel a full attack after your second action - but clearly many people will aregue that you can cancel a full attack after having used Manyshot.
Ninjaiguana: While you may not have made the errors that you are accusing Concerro of your 'side' (AD specifically) has done the same thing and I do not see you calling him on it. Just thought I would point that out.
- Gauss
|
|
Ninjaiguana: While you may not have made the errors that you are accusing Concerro of your 'side' (AD specifically) has done the same thing and I do not see you calling him on it. Just thought I would point that out.
- Gauss
Gauss, I do apologise for that. I would sincerely hope that people arguing on both sides would not represent their point of view as the 'one true way' - it's just that I'm more likely to notice when it's in arguments I'm attempting to rebut. I hope I have made myself clear in that I don't believe my interpretation is correct, and people advocating the oppsite are incorrect; I just believe both are equally valid, and thus people should run whichever one they subscribe to at their own table, pending dev clarification.
Once again, mea culpa.
No worries Ninjaiguana. I try to do the same thing you do.
- Gauss
|
|
I just had a thought.
OK, Fred Fighterman is a longsword-and-shield fighter with a pair of boots of speed. Fred starts his turn adjacent to Thugs McGee, who is attempting to job Fred, despite the fact that Fred is wearing mithral full plate and Thugs is armed with a makeshift cosh made out of a dead rat and a sock.
Fred wins initiative, activates his magic boots, and declares a full attack. Fred takes his bonus haste attack as his first attack - he's entirely within his rights to do this, as the rules say you have to attack from highest attack bonus to lowest, and the haste attack is taken at maximum bonus. Indeed, his haste attack must be his first or second attack of the full attack, or he's breaking the combat rules.
Fred's hasted swing cuts Thugs in half. Thugs takes an immediate action to contemplate his poor decision-making skills, and keels over dead.
Can Fred now abort his remaining attacks and take a move action? haste only adds a bonus attack on a full attack. Has Fred done himself out of a move?
Concerro - you say people make the 'mistake' of assuming that the text is a subset of the Full Attack Section. It's more correct to say you don't believe it is a subsection of the full attack section, despite its placement in the book. Not having written the text yourself, you cannot know what was intended by RAW - you can only interpret.
I figured someone might say that. I am glad you did. Now I can bring out the next point. The full round action is the header, and the others are subsections of that. Not that they are bolded and lined up evenly with not tabs(indentions). Just below the "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" section you have other sections that are all setup just like it, so if that one is a subsection of the full attack section, and not a subsection of the Full Round section, then the other are also subsections of the full attack section.
The following are:
"Cast a Spell"
"Casting a Metamagic Spell"
"Move 5 Feet through Difficult Terrain"
"Run"
"Use Special Ability"
"Withdraw"
Now are you going to tell me those are full round attacks or would you say they are full round actions also?
You also say 'that is how it is', when what you actually mean is 'that is how I believe it works'. Please don't assume you are defending the correct point of view against misguided people who are using the rules wrong - you aren't. You're supporting an interpretation that has as much (or as little) validity by RAW as the opposing interpretation.
I also know I am correct. You should not assume that I am not correct. I don't need to assume anything. I am 100% sure of this. Some people come on here and say that no interpretation is no more correct than another, but that is not true. If one person's statement agrees with the devs then they are correct, and the other is not the one of the people is correct so I see no reason to say "I believe" when I know I am right. In short not all interpretation are equally valid. In theory maybe, but in actuality no.
Finally, you also say that you 'trade up' to a full attack after the first attack, but the rules in the book actually couch it in entirely the opposite terms - they describe it as you starting a full attack and then 'cancelling out' in order to take a move action.
You sir are very incorrect. They never say you start out with a full attack. As a character with multiple attacks availible you have the following option.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
What is is saying is that you make your first attack with commiting to anything. At no point does that section say you are already committed to a full attack action. If it does then show me it to me. What it does say is that you make your first attack then you have the option, which I highlighted, of either making your remaining iterative attacks or taking a move action. If you are going to tell me I am wrong at least break it down and show proof. You may not like the fact that I am saying I am right, but it does not make me any less right, and if you are going to say I wrong, but don't break it down then I see no reason to change my statement.
Also, iterative attack and Manyshot are not by any stretch the 'same logic' - one is a rider to your first attack, and the other is not. Nobody is going to argue that you can't cancel a full attack after your second action - but clearly many people will argue that you can cancel a full attack after having used Manyshot.
People can argue anything that does not make it true.
The rules also say this.Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.
Manyshot says it works with a full attack action, which is a full round action, not a standard action. There is no wording that says you can use something that requires a full round action as standard action.
The rules say "You can take a move action in place of a standard action." They don't say you can take a standard action in place of a full round action.
PS:The arguments are not equally valid. In reality most arguments never are equally valid, even before proof is shown that one argument is correct, while the others are not. The issue is just that the proof has not been found yet. Don't confuse people having an equal right to argue with their arguements being equal. If I tell you liquids are not needed for hydration, and someone else tells you it it then our arguments are not equal, even if we have the same opportunity to present them.
PS2:Just in case someone has invented some form of dry hydration, which I am no expert in, I want the point to be considered not the actual hydration case. :)
|
|
Concerro - you say people make the 'mistake' of assuming that the text is a subset of the Full Attack Section. It's more correct to say you don't believe it is a subsection of the full attack section, despite its placement in the book. Not having written the text yourself, you cannot know what was intended by RAW - you can only interpret.I figured someone might say that. I am glad you did. Now I can bring out the next point. The full round action is the header, and the others are subsections of that. Not that they are bolded and lined up evenly with not tabs(indentions). Just below the "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" section you have other sections that are all setup just like it, so if that one is a subsection of the full attack section, and not a subsection of the Full Round section, then the other are also subsections of the full attack section.
The following are:
"Cast a Spell"
"Casting a Metamagic Spell"
"Move 5 Feet through Difficult Terrain"
"Run"
"Use Special Ability"
"Withdraw"Now are you going to tell me those are full round attacks or would you say they are full round actions also?
I also know I am correct. You should not assume that I am not correct. I don't need to assume anything. I am 100% sure of this. Some people come on here and say that no interpretation is no more correct than another, but that is not true. If one person's statement agrees with the devs then they are correct, and the other is not the one of the people is correct so I see no reason to say "I believe" when I know I am right. In short not all interpretation are equally valid. In theory maybe, but in...
You also say 'that is how it is', when what you actually mean is 'that is how I believe it works'. Please don't assume you are defending the correct point of view against misguided people who are using the rules wrong - you aren't. You're supporting an interpretation that has as much (or as little) validity by RAW as the opposing interpretation.
Clearly this is getting us nowhere. I will close by saying that I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Your arguments regarding placement have not convinced me. Your interpretation of the rules has not convinced me. Your certainty has not convinced me. I appreciate you offering your opinion in this discussion, and will await official clarification on this topic.
I just had a thought.
OK, Fred Fighterman is a longsword-and-shield fighter with a pair of boots of speed. Fred starts his turn adjacent to Thugs McGee, who is attempting to job Fred, despite the fact that Fred is wearing mithral full plate and Thugs is armed with a makeshift cosh made out of a dead rat and a sock.
Fred wins initiative, activates his magic boots, and declares a full attack. Fred takes his bonus haste attack as his first attack - he's entirely within his rights to do this, as the rules say you have to attack from highest attack bonus to lowest, and the haste attack is taken at maximum bonus. Indeed, his haste attack must be his first or second attack of the full attack, or he's breaking the combat rules.
Fred's hasted swing cuts Thugs in half. Thugs takes an immediate action to contemplate his poor decision-making skills, and keels over dead.
Can Fred now abort his remaining attacks and take a move action? haste only adds a bonus attack on a full attack. Has Fred done himself out of a move?
Since haste says you must be taking making a full attack to get the extra attack in and you don't commit to the full attack until after you first attack then by the rules your hasted attack would be your second actual attack. Remember the hasted attack, and the first normal attack have the exact same modifier. Also remember the +1 to hit from haste affects every attack. The extra attack is the only thing restricted by the full round action.
It is like this:
1st normal attack: You now must decide to commit to the full round attack or not. If so then the hasted attack* comes into play along with the other iterative attacks.
*It is now a valid option since the player is committed to the full attack option. I know many GM's allow players to decide with the first attack to commit, but by the rules they should not really be deciding until after the first attack. I am guilty of this myself.
Clearly this is getting us nowhere. I will close by saying that I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Your arguments regarding placement have not convinced me. Your interpretation of the rules has not convinced me. Your certainty has not convinced me. I appreciate you offering your opinion in this discussion, and will await official clarification on this topic.
I can only assume, and I might be wrong, that you don't like my "confidence" and it is swaying your decision. I noticed you have said nothing that disproves what I have written. I did not offer an opinion. I gave a fact. I am not being rude, even if it might seem that say. I am just certain that I am correct, and that manyshot does not allow you to use it as a standard or full attack action by RAW or RAI.
|
Are you trying to say the wording could be better or do you really think the "intent" was to allow someone to benefit from a feat that says it needs a full round action to be used with only a standard action.
Concerro; No and No.
I think I am trying to say what you are trying to say - that is;
Manyshot cannot be used to enhance a standard attack by giving the user the benefit of firing 2 arrows and being able to take a move action.
It's very clear that by Manshot's definition that it can only be used as part of a full-attack action.
AD and others appear to be trying to game the system (inadvertantly or otherwise) by invoking the general rule of "deciding between an attack or a full-attack" when the specific rule of Manyshot clearly states you can't use it with a standard action.
I think the designers have done a very good job in this instance of making that as clear as possible - if players were intended to be able to combine Many shot with a standard action & a move action it would say so in the description. It doesn't. That's also why I don't think a FAQ is even needed in this instance...
I apologize if I am neither as eloquent or as articulate as Gauss - but the way he explained it is spot on in my opinion.
|
|
I can only assume, and I might be wrong, that you don't like my "confidence" and it is swaying your decision. I noticed you have said nothing that disproves what I have written. I did not offer an opinion. I gave a fact. I am not being rude, even if it might seem that say. I am just certain that I am correct, and that manyshot does not allow you to use it as a standard or full attack action by RAW or RAI.
Clearly this is getting us nowhere. I will close by saying that I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Your arguments regarding placement have not convinced me. Your interpretation of the rules has not convinced me. Your certainty has not convinced me. I appreciate you offering your opinion in this discussion, and will await official clarification on this topic.
No, that's fine. I admit that anyone coming in and asserting certainty does get on my nerves a little, but more importantly, no argument I make is going to convince somebody who is that certain of their position. As such, I see no reason to continue debating the point.
I am equally certain that you are incorrect. I stand my by assertion that both our opinions are equally valid, and yours is no more correct than mine. I have already explained my view, and I am not convinced by your counterpoints.
I don't see anything resulting from continuing to state our opposing viewpoints, since I'm not going to budge, and I very much doubt that you will either. Therefore I'm going to stop arguing and will just read how this thread goes. I actually don't like arguing very much, and prefer to avoid it when it's clearly not going to achieve anything.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
What concerro is pointing out is this: the full attack action does not allow you to choose between attacking once and moving, or making all iterative attacks. Rather, you make one attack and then choose to do a full attack or not. I have bolded the relevant parts.
Are you trying to say the wording could be better or do you really think the "intent" was to allow someone to benefit from a feat that says it needs a full round action to be used with only a standard action.Concerro; No and No.
I think I am trying to say what you are trying to say - that is;
Manyshot cannot be used to enhance a standard attack by giving the user the benefit of firing 2 arrows and being able to take a move action.
It's very clear that by Manshot's definition that it can only be used as part of a full-attack action.
AD and others appear to be trying to game the system (inadvertantly or otherwise) by invoking the general rule of "deciding between an attack or a full-attack" when the specific rule of Manyshot clearly states you can't use it with a standard action.
I think the designers have done a very good job in this instance of making that as clear as possible - if players were intended to be able to combine Many shot with a standard action & a move action it would say so in the description. It doesn't. That's also why I don't think a FAQ is even needed in this instance...
I apologize if I am neither as eloquent or as articulate as Gauss - but the way he explained it is spot on in my opinion.
I was asking AD because he was the one aruging the point. I don't agree with him though. :)
I can only assume, and I might be wrong, that you don't like my "confidence" and it is swaying your decision. I noticed you have said nothing that disproves what I have written. I did not offer an opinion. I gave a fact. I am not being rude, even if it might seem that say. I am just certain that I am correct, and that manyshot does not allow you to use it as a standard or full attack action by RAW or RAI.
Clearly this is getting us nowhere. I will close by saying that I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Your arguments regarding placement have not convinced me. Your interpretation of the rules has not convinced me. Your certainty has not convinced me. I appreciate you offering your opinion in this discussion, and will await official clarification on this topic.
No, that's fine. I admit that anyone coming in and asserting certainty does get on my nerves a little, but more importantly, no argument I make is going to convince somebody who is that certain of their position. As such, I see no reason to continue debating the point.
I am equally certain that you are incorrect. I stand my by assertion that both our opinions are equally valid, and yours is no more correct than mine. I have already explained my view, and I am not convinced by your counterpoints.
I don't see anything resulting from continuing to state our opposing viewpoints, since I'm not going to budge, and I very much doubt that you will either. Therefore I'm going to stop arguing and will just read how this thread goes. I actually don't like arguing very much, and prefer to avoid it when it's clearly not going to achieve anything.
It would achieve something if you(not you specifically) would explain your point. I am only convinced until given sufficient proof otherwise.
PS:I do hate to be wrong, but I am not going to argue with definite proof. I will just have to apologize. :)
PS:I am not angry btw, but I do realize that it is hard to read tone of voice online. It is more of a "matter of fact" type tone, not a "you moron how dare thou disagree with me" tone.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.What concerro is pointing out is this: the full attack action does not allow you to choose between attacking once and moving, or making all iterative attacks. Rather, you make one attack and then choose to do a full attack or not. I have bolded the relevant parts.
Thanks. That is what I was getting at.
Me eloquent? Oh god, the world is coming to an end. Daryl, whatever you are smoking I want some! :D
- Gauss
I believe in all of these circumstances, you can cancel after your first attack and take a move action, as per the #1 interpretation from the OP and the full attack text.The RAW does NOT prove #3 correct, no matter what some people in this thread may insist. The back and forth of this argument shows how ambiguous the RAW is.
So can you explain how it is possible to use Manyshot (which specifically states that it can only be used during a full attack) and then not actually take the full attack action without breaking the rules?
|
|
So can you explain how it is possible to use Manyshot (which specifically states that it can only be used during a full attack) and then not actually take the full attack action without breaking the rules?
I believe in all of these circumstances, you can cancel after your first attack and take a move action, as per the #1 interpretation from the OP and the full attack text.The RAW does NOT prove #3 correct, no matter what some people in this thread may insist. The back and forth of this argument shows how ambiguous the RAW is.
Alright.
Thanks. That is what I was getting at.Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.What concerro is pointing out is this: the full attack action does not allow you to choose between attacking once and moving, or making all iterative attacks. Rather, you make one attack and then choose to do a full attack or not. I have bolded the relevant parts.
I believe that this section *is* a subsection of full attack, which concerro does not. Therefore I believe that it refers to the first attack of a full attack, because if it did not, it would be talking about a standard attack.
The text refers to 'your first attack' and then 'your remaining attacks', so I believe it is discussing attacks within the context and framework of a full attack. As such, I believe that this text provides an explicit way for a character to declare a full attack at the start of their turn - which is when you declare things like this, not after your first attack - and then abort that full attack after they have taken the first attack, with all attendant bonuses and penalties to that attack.
Setting aside Manyshot for the moment, my reading avoids situations such as a character declaring Two-Weapon Fighting, taking a -2 to hit on their first attack, and by killing their target with that hit, screwing themselves out of a move for no gain whatsoever, but in fact causing themselves a net penalty through no fault of their own.
People are hot on not wanting a Manyshot 'exploit' in this way, but what about TWF, where your reading actually penalises the character for no gain whatsoever?
Anyway, now that I've summarised my stance, I'm going to take a break from this thread and let others discuss it.
I believe that this section *is* a subsection of full attack, which concerro does not. Therefore I believe that it refers to the first attack of a full attack, because if it did not, it would be talking about a standard attack.The text refers to 'your first attack' and then 'your remaining attacks', so I believe it is discussing attacks within the context and framework of a full attack. As such, I believe that this text provides an explicit way for a character to declare a full attack at the start of their turn - which is when you declare things like this, not after your attack - and then abort that full attack after they have taken the first attack, with all attendant bonuses and penalties to that attack.
I agree, except that if you abort the full attack you are no longer spending a full round action to make a full attack, you are spending a standard action on a regular attack (thus "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack", 'attack' having earlier been defined as a standard action). With regard to TWF, nothing about the TWF rules indicates that you must make a full attack to receive the penalty. Rather, you receive the penalty to gain an extra attack, and you must make a full attack action to use that extra attack. So a character could start their round using TWF and then abandon the full attack without breaking any rules.
EDIT: To clarify, this means that once you have used the extra arrow from Manyshot you have committed to a full attack action because you are only allowed to use it when making a full attack, just like once you have made an extra attack with TWF (or from any other source) you have committed to the full attack.
So can you explain how it is possible to use Manyshot (which specifically states that it can only be used during a full attack) and then not actually take the full attack action without breaking the rules?
I believe in all of these circumstances, you can cancel after your first attack and take a move action, as per the #1 interpretation from the OP and the full attack text.The RAW does NOT prove #3 correct, no matter what some people in this thread may insist. The back and forth of this argument shows how ambiguous the RAW is.
Alright.
Thanks. That is what I was getting at.Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.What concerro is pointing out is this: the full attack action does not allow you to choose between attacking once and moving, or making all iterative attacks. Rather, you make one attack and then choose to do a full attack or not. I have bolded the relevant parts.I believe that this section *is* a subsection of full attack, which concerro does not. Therefore I believe that it refers to the first attack of a full attack, because if it did not, it would be talking about a standard attack.
The text refers to 'your first attack' and then 'your remaining attacks', so I believe it is discussing attacks within the context and framework of a full attack. As such, I believe that this text provides an explicit way for a character to declare a full attack at the start of their turn - which is when you declare things like this, not after your first...
In the rulebook things that are a subtext are labeled a certain way which I have said before.
I will use the magic section as an examplelink to magic chapter
I will use the "Combining Magic Effects" as an example.
"Combining Magic Effects" is the main area.
The subsection of this area are
"Stacking Effects"
"Spells with Opposite Effects"
"Instantaneous Effects"
Each of these is its own subsection.
Now if you look at Stacking Effects when they break it down they don’t bold the broken down areas like the do with the other examples under it.
Its(Stacking Effects) subsections are italicized, and while beneath "Stacking Effects" it is easy to see that they are under(a subsection) of "Stacking Effects"
Now going back to the combat chapter
"Full Round attacks", and "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" are broken down into their own sections. If "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" was a subsection of "Full Round Attacks", and not Full Round Actions(the primary header) then it would also be italicized.
Of course the fact that the book says "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, " still means that you are not locked into a full round attack by the general rules until the first attack is complete, but manyshot by its wording requires you to be locked from the first attack. There is no wording anywhere in the book that says you can commit to the full attack and then back out.
|
|
I agree, except that if you abort the full attack you are no longer spending a full round action to make a full attack, you are spending a standard action on a regular attack (thus "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack", 'attack' having earlier been defined as a standard action). With regard to TWF, nothing about the TWF rules indicates that you must make a full attack to receive the penalty. Rather, you receive the penalty to gain an extra attack, and you must make a full attack action to use that extra attack. So a character could start their round using TWF and then abandon the full attack without breaking any rules.
I believe that this section *is* a subsection of full attack, which concerro does not. Therefore I believe that it refers to the first attack of a full attack, because if it did not, it would be talking about a standard attack.The text refers to 'your first attack' and then 'your remaining attacks', so I believe it is discussing attacks within the context and framework of a full attack. As such, I believe that this text provides an explicit way for a character to declare a full attack at the start of their turn - which is when you declare things like this, not after your attack - and then abort that full attack after they have taken the first attack, with all attendant bonuses and penalties to that attack.
So you're saying you can back out after the first attack if you've only taken a penalty at that point, but can't if you're benefited in some way?
What about flurry of blows? You take a -2 to hit to gain an additional attack on a full attack, but you also set your BAB to equal your monk level for all flurry attacks. Can you declare flurry of blows and then cancel out after the first (increased BAB, -2 to hit) attack?
|
|
...So can you explain how it is possible to use Manyshot (which specifically states that it can only be used during a full attack) and then not actually take the full attack action without breaking the rules?
I believe in all of these circumstances, you can cancel after your first attack and take a move action, as per the #1 interpretation from the OP and the full attack text.The RAW does NOT prove #3 correct, no matter what some people in this thread may insist. The back and forth of this argument shows how ambiguous the RAW is.
Alright.
Thanks. That is what I was getting at.Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.What concerro is pointing out is this: the full attack action does not allow you to choose between attacking once and moving, or making all iterative attacks. Rather, you make one attack and then choose to do a full attack or not. I have bolded the relevant parts.I believe that this section *is* a subsection of full attack, which concerro does not. Therefore I believe that it refers to the first attack of a full attack, because if it did not, it would be talking about a standard attack.
The text refers to 'your first attack' and then 'your remaining attacks', so I believe it is discussing attacks within the context and framework of a full attack. As such, I believe that this text provides an explicit way for a character to declare a full attack at the start of their turn - which is when you declare things like this,
And here's the nub of it - I don't believe your italised argument is correct. I have seen poor editing lead to ambiguity before, and I believe that has happened here. I believe that the text explicity refers to a full attack and then lets you back out of it, while you say that it means nothing of the sort.
Now I really *am* done. Promise.
Last questions, promise:
You are saying that the "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" should have been italicized, but they bolded it by accident in 3.5 and Pathfinder?
I ask because that is not the only area of the book that works like that.
Question 2:Would you also say other portions of the book also mixed up the bolding/italics format?
PS:I am just trying to see your thought process here. I am not trying to badger you.
So you're saying you can back out after the first attack if you've only taken a penalty at that point, but can't if you're benefited in some way?What about flurry of blows? You take a -2 to hit to gain an additional attack on a full attack, but you also set your BAB to equal your monk level for all flurry attacks. Can you declare flurry of blows and then cancel out after the first (increased BAB, -2 to hit) attack?
No, because unlike the TWF rules Flurry specifically states that it only works on a full attack ("a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action"), meaning once the monk has declared he is flurrying he has committed to that. Personally I think the monk should just have a 1/1 attack bonus instead since his Flurry, CMB, and CMD are all calculated as though that were the case, but that's just my opinion.
EDIT: Regardless, bonuses/penalties aren't the issue. You can back out as long as you haven't activated some effect that you are only allowed to use with a full attack, such as Manyshot or an extra attack.
TWF only works on a full attack Moglun. Once I declare I'm full attacking with TWF my first attack has a -2 rider even if I kill the guy on hit one I can still back out. Heck lets say I miss by one if I decide that I have no chance of hitting (not knowing I missed by one) and cancel the attack I don't get the -2 removed and suddenly hit even though I can abort.
Also Flurry according to the devs as much as I hate it was meant to be TWF so if you can abort a TWF full attack nothing would prevent you from aborty a Flurry full attack.
Many shot isn't a special version of a full attack its anytime you make a full attack with a bow. A regular full attack the only difference between a guy with manyshot and a guy without it making a full attack is one can take a -2 to attack rolls to double his first shot.
Talonhawke:
I agree that you can abort a full attack when TWF and I agree that you still take the penalties when you do. But nothing says that TWF only works on a full attack. What it says is "you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks".
Assuming that Flurry worked exactly the same way as TWF (but at a higher bonus for the monk) then I agree that you could back out of it.
I do agree that Manyshot is not a special version of a full attack, but it is an ability which can only be used as part of a full attack. So if you cancel your full attack then you can't use it, and if you've already used it then you can't cancel. Also there is no -2 penalty (I think you're thinking of Rapid Shot).
From what I've seen there is no wording in the book that ever says that any full attack is a commitment. People are trying to add this erroneous name tag to the action, and I believe it is a "squares and rectangles" problem. Just like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square, so is true of the full attack action and the full-round action. A full round action is a commitment, but a full round action that is also a full attack action has the "escape clause" to end after the first attack. As such, manyshot would apply, as it was a full attack action, even if the "escape clause" was used.
From a player perspective, I also do not see this as a rule misuse. For most archers, a full attack is the most optimal choice. This option will only help a mobile (and in most cases, less damage) archer character.
TWF was clarified in an FAQ as activating on a full round attack, and that you must declare you intent before you make the first attack. It does not however say that you must take the extra(off-hand) attack that you are offered. The FAQ was needed because people were trying to say that anytime you used two weapons you were TWF'ing, but the real benefit of TWF is the extra attack, not attacking with a second weapon.
With Manyshot the benefit(extra attack) is at the very beginning. The general idea is that can't gain the benefits and then say "gotcha" to get something for free. That is why Manyshot and TWF work the way they do. If something requires action X then you have to use action X. <--That has always been the case, which is why I am surprised to see anyone think it is RAI to be able to bypass a requirement. I am also surprised that anyone think it is RAW, but RAW has issues at times, especially if a poster wants to believe something bad enough.
From what I've seen there is no wording in the book that ever says that any full attack is a commitment. People are trying to add this erroneous name tag to the action, and I believe it is a "squares and rectangles" problem. Just like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square, so is true of the full attack action and the full-round action. A full round action is a commitment, but a full round action that is also a full attack action has the "escape clause" to end after the first attack. As such, manyshot would apply, as it was a full attack action, even if the "escape clause" was used.
From a player perspective, I also do not see this as a rule misuse. For most archers, a full attack is the most optimal choice. This option will only help a mobile (and in most cases, less damage) archer character.
Did you miss the part where the rules say you decide "after" the first attack. You are not committing and backing out if you do as the book says. If you use manyshot, which requires a full attack action then you must take the full attack action. Otherwise it would say standard action or full attack action. However as written the manyshot feat is not giving you the standard action as an option.
Everyone knows that the full attack action is the better choice, but that does not mean that being able to shoot two arrows as a standard action is RAW or RAI either.
Concerro- Where does it say in the manyshot description that I cannot opt out of a full attack?
It doesn't.
Therefor, I can only assume that my manyshot full attack works like every other full attack. Meaning I can stop after the first attack (whether or not I did an extra arrows worth of damage) and take a move action.
Concerro- Where does it say in the manyshot description that I cannot opt out of a full attack?
It doesn't.
Therefor, I can only assume that my manyshot full attack works like every other full attack. Meaning I can stop after the first attack (whether or not I did an extra arrows worth of damage) and take a move action.
You have missed my other post. Manyshot says it requires a full attack. If you don't use a full attack then you are not meeting the requirement. Now if you show me a rule that says the "action requirement" for a feat or any other ability can be ignored at will then I stand corrected, but you can't.
Also as I have said before you can never opt of a full attack.
What happens is you make the first attack in a normal situation. Then you decide to go into the a full attack or take a move action. That is the order presented in the book. The book does not say you get to commit to a full attack and then back out. What I just said has been quoted several times, and it is in the book.
In short show me the quote that says you can decide to full attack first and then change your mind, which would equal backing out.
The book's quote only gives you the option of "opting in".
PS:I am surprised that such an easily read rule is being misread.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dare I step into the fray? I agree with Adamantine Dragon.
To restate the paragraph in question:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Most of you interpret this as: if you declare a full attack, and then decide after taking the first attack that you want to move instead of taking your remaining attacks, that you have changed your action from [full attack] to [{standard action} plus {move action}].
I do not believe this is the correct interpretation. This paragraph is under the section on Full Attacks. Deciding to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks is not changing your action. You are still taking the [full attack] action. Your [full attack] action is to fire your bow (using Manyshot) then moving. (Much in the same way that a charge is a single full-round action, not separate actions of moving and attacking).
Note that there is still a difference between how the rules are written and what the situation would be if Manyshot were a standard action: using Manyshot, you must attack before moving. It is a small difference, but not totally inconsequential.
To reiterate, the paragraph in question allows you to choose between two options when using a [full attack] action:
1. Make all of your attacks; OR
2. Make one attack, then take a move action.
You may make this decision after your first attack.
So, rules aside, since noone is going to agree on them:
How many people think Manyshot would be too good if it also worked when you attack as a standard action? I think it would still be fine.
I believe that this section *is* a subsection of full attack, which concerro does not. Therefore I believe that it refers to the first attack of a full attack, because if it did not, it would be talking about a standard attack.
Whether or not it is a subsection is irrelevant in this case. The paragraph literally says that you choose between a full attack and a standard attack, and that you do this after a first attack. That is all that is required. The rest is about when you make this choice.
The text refers to 'your first attack' and then 'your remaining attacks', so I believe it is discussing attacks within the context and framework of a full attack. As such, I believe that this text provides an explicit way for a character to declare a full attack at the start of their turn - which is when you declare things like this, not after your first...
A single attack (not other attacks in a round) is still a first attack. A standard attack still has a 'first attack'. The first is also the last in that case.
Further, it literally says that you may make the choice after your first attack, not that you have to. So you may choose to not do a full attack even if you first declared it, if you have not locked yourself in full attack mode. However, if you're not making a full attack (you chose to do so after a first attack) you cannot use manyshot et al.
As a GM I would not rules-lawyer this and say that, like one example brings up, if you choose to haste-attack you must full attack, since haste attack is the same as your first attack. The point being that you may make one normal (not manyshot/flurry etc. modified) attack and then choose.
I fully agree with concerro about his certainty. It says this literally, whether you look at context or not.
Dare I step into the fray? I agree with Adamantine Dragon.
To restate the paragraph in question:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.Most of you interpret this as: if you declare a full attack, and then decide after taking the first attack that you want to move instead of taking your remaining attacks, that you have changed your action from [full attack] to [{standard action} plus {move action}].
I do not believe this is the correct interpretation. This paragraph is under the section on Full Attacks. Deciding to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks is not changing your action. You are still taking the [full attack] action. Your [full attack] action is to fire your bow (using Manyshot) then moving. (Much in the same way that a charge is a single full-round action, not separate actions of moving and attacking).
Note that there is still a difference between how the rules are written and what the situation would be if Manyshot were a standard action: using Manyshot, you must attack before moving. It is a small difference, but not totally inconsequential.
To reiterate, the paragraph in question allows you to choose between two options when using a [full attack] action:
1. Make all of your attacks; OR
2. Make one attack, then take a move action.You may make this decision after your first attack.
A full round action is not the sum of its parts that is why this interpretation is incorrect.
The paragraph is also not under(a subsection) of the "full attack" section. It is a subsection of the "Full Round Action" section. The paragraph in question is giving you the option of "full attack" or an attack. It's intention is in its very name, to include the word "or". You either full attack, which by its very definition means you take all of the the iterative attacks or you can move after the first attack per the paragraph.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Manyshot (Combat)
You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot,
base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow,
your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both
arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak
attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack.
Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high
Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage
bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage
reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow
...Not "in order to use this feet you must make a full attack action". It quite specifically always happens on every full attack with a bow, whether or not it is no longer intended to be a full attack.
Also as I have said before you can never opt of a full attack.
What happens is you make the first attack in a normal situation. Then you decide to go into the a full attack or take a move action. That is the order presented in the book. The book does not say you get to commit to a full attack and then back out. What I just said has been quoted several times, and it is in the book. Nobody has yet to produce a quote that references backing out of a full attack.
If this is to be believed then Manyshot simply doesn't work and would never work, as the first attack of any full attack is only a single attack with the possibility to become a full attack.
To reiterate, the paragraph in question allows you to choose between two options when using a [full attack] action:
1. Make all of your attacks; OR
2. Make one attack, then take a move action.You may make this decision after your first attack.
No it does not. The paragraph starts with "decide between an ATTACK or FULL ATTACK". The ATTACK action is a standard action. You are asked to choose between a standard and full action. The paragraph explains that you have the liberty of doing so after your first attack. Note the capitalization on the words Attack and Full Attack in the original.
Manyshot (Combat)
You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot,
base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow,
your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both
arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak
attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack.
Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high
Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage
bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage
reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow...Not "in order to use this feet you must make a full attack action". It quite specifically always happens on every full attack with a bow, whether or not it is no longer intended to be a full attack.
When making a full round attack action=the full round attack action is taking place. If the full round attack action has to be taking place for manyshot to work that means it is a requirement. That should not be hard to extrapolate.
If this is to be believed then Manyshot simply doesn't work and would never work, as the first attack of any full attack is only a single attack with the possibility to become a full attack.
That is incorrect as I have explained already. With manyshot you have to commit to the full attack action from the first shot. Yeah the rules don't go out of the way to say you must commit on the first shot instead of the second shot, which is not what the general rules tell, but the game is not written like a technical manual either. What we do know is that specific trumps general with regard to the rules, and if the only way to make the feat work is to commit on the first attack..... :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WOW, just WOW. I really never thought someone would argue against what is spelled out clearly as a full-attack action. The whole 'you can choose not to do a full-attack action' simply does not apply if you are using an ability that locks you into a full-attack action. The decision was made when you made the choice to use the ability.
I am not going to get dragged back into this as I already stated my case on the last page. Someone even praised me for my eloquence...I think that person is smoking something but still, it is there.
I just wanted to say WOW that it is still dragging on. Oh well, we shall have to wait until JJ gets back from his 'fun' to see what he says. Or maybe SKR will grace us with his comments (one could hope).
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe SKR will grace us with his comments (one could hope).
I think his comment might be something along the lines of "Seriously?" :)
WOW, just WOW. I really never thought someone would argue against what is spelled out clearly as a full-attack action. The whole 'you can choose not to do a full-attack action' simply does not apply if you are using an ability that locks you into a full-attack action. The decision was made when you made the choice to use the ability.
I think the source of disagreement is that some do not realize the 'escape clause' does in fact force you the choice between full-attack or not full attack. You can see that some try to represent it as 'options within full attack action'.
WOW, just WOW. I really never thought someone would argue against what is spelled out clearly as a full-attack action. The whole 'you can choose not to do a full-attack action' simply does not apply if you are using an ability that locks you into a full-attack action. The decision was made when you made the choice to use the ability.
I am not going to get dragged back into this as I already stated my case on the last page. Someone even praised me for my eloquence...I think that person is smoking something but still, it is there.
I just wanted to say WOW that it is still dragging on. Oh well, we shall have to wait until JJ gets back from his 'fun' to see what he says. Or maybe SKR will grace us with his comments (one could hope).
- Gauss
I think that if we(those who disagree with me) promise not to attack him with nerd rage when he gives his opinion I might be able to summon him.
In short fellas when SKR says I am right, which he will, I expect for all of you to remain civil.
|
|
The paragraph is also not under(a subsection) of the "full attack" section. It is a subsection of the "Full Round Action" section.
Hmmm...
My CRB is organized as follows on p. 187 in the Combat Chapter:> Full-Round Actions
....> Full Attack
........> Deciding between...
........> Fighting Defensively...
....> Cast a Spell
I am not interested in discussing this with you any further. I merely wanted to say that I agree with Adamantine Dragon and give my reason why. I marked it as a FAQ candidate, and plan on moving on. Cheers.
Design Manager
|
I still think that, regardless of whether or not you are stepping a standard attack up to a full attack or "downgrading" your full attack, Manyshot will fire 2 arrows on the first strike. It's right there in the writing "Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow,
your first attack fires two arrows."
I personally think that you have to declare a full attack first, because otherwise, as others have stated, it's impossible to actually use Manyshot per the rules as written. Reading it otherwise leads to all kinds of ridiculousness. "I'm attacking with Vital Strike... oh, he's still alive? Well then I'm going to make it into a full attack." You can't do that, the devs have clearly said you can't do that, and that means that you're not "starting" with a standard action that you can roll into a full attack, you're starting with a full attack action and have the option to give up your iterative attacks. It says right in the action "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks". There are no remaining attacks in a standard action. With the exception of a single archetype and one special action, a standard attack is one attack. There are no "remaining attacks" in a standard action for you to forego.
Lets look at another feat:
You can strike out at every foe within reach.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
Notice how it says "when you use the full attack action". Are you saying that someone could make a single attack against an enemy, and then decide to roll into a Whirlwind Attack?