Well, with the clarifications given in response to my post, I can see where there would be confusion. I guess it is a matter of which came first, the chick or the egg. You're supposed to see what happens in your first attack, and then make the decision to do a full attack or not...but if you have many shots, your first attack would have had two arrows, and going back in time to change something somehow seems bootleg.
Until there's an official ruling to makes sense of this murkiness, I'd rule in favor of allowing the player that flexibility. For all that is holy, it take enough feats to get to, and it's hardly unbalancing in any way shape or form. Where RAW sometimes comes up a little short, RAI or just a little common sense helps out. In in my experience of reading over FAQs, where there's murkiness, Paizo usually falls on the side of giving players the additional flexibility assuming it isn't gamebreaking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, with the clarifications given in response to my post, I can see where there would be confusion. I guess it is a matter of which came first, the chick or the egg. You're supposed to see what happens in your first attack, and then make the decision to do a full attack or not...but if you have many shots, your first attack would have had two arrows, and going back in time to change something somehow seems bootleg.
If you haven't decided to use a Full Attack you can't use Manyshot.
If you haven't decided to use an Attack you can't use Vital Strike.
If you don't use Manyshot but you were planing on using a Full Attack you can change your mind after your first attack and take a move action
If you don't use Vital Strike but were planing on using an Attack action you can change your mind and take the rest of your attacks.
If you were planning on Two weapon fighting(a Full Attack) you can change your mind after your first attack and take a move action but you still take a -2 to your Attack.
What you arent understanding is Manyshot is not something you choose you simply get two arrows on the first attack from a full attack.
What you arent understanding is Manyshot is not something you choose you simply get two arrows on the first attack from a full attack.
??
No. You choose to use Manyshot. You do not HAVE to use Manyshot. You can choose to only fire one arrow with your first attack.
This is true for most feats.
What you arent understanding is Manyshot is not something you choose you simply get two arrows on the first attack from a full attack.??
No. You choose to use Manyshot. You do not HAVE to use Manyshot. You can choose to only fire one arrow with your first attack.
This is true for most feats.
Actually, the way it's written is using a command, as in you will fire two arrows on the first attack of a full attack with a bow, no matter what. As written, it does not give you the option of not firing two arrows on a full attack. Like I said before, muddy syntax.
Actually, the way it's written is using a command, as in you will fire two arrows on the first attack of a full attack with a bow, no matter what. As written, it does not give you the option of not firing two arrows on a full attack. Like I said before, muddy syntax.
I understand that but you don't have to use it.
The feat doesn't MAKE your character pull two arrows out of their quiver. Feats can't do that. The feat makes it possible.
I mean what if you only have one arrow?
Okay, let me set a scenario.
In the late rounds of combat, a 10th level fighter has just taken 37 hit points, leaving him at 9. By your logic, the fighter can simply not use feats even though they don't give you an option. So the fighter stops using Toughness, dropping him to -1. The enemy, seeing the fighter as a threat no more, moves on. The fighter has now assured survival, as another 37 damage would have killed him anyway.
Does that sound right to you?
Neither feat gives an option. They specify, you do.
If you didn't have two arrows, you're probably not going to full attack either.
I think this whole thread should go into the Rules Lawyer Hall of Fame. The way some people choose to play this game is an absolute revelation to me sometimes.
I'm dropping the TWF issue because we wont agree that penalty is a lock in just as much as the extra manyshot attack. That penalty can't exist if you not performing a full attack action just like the manyshot attack can't exist outside of a full attack action.You do not have to choose between the attack and full attack actions until after you have made your first attack on your turn (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). However, if you intend to attack with two weapons during your action, you must take the correct penalty for each attack or give up your opportunity to use your second weapon (because the rules require you to take a penalty on attacks you make with both your primary and off hands).
Hi 5's Karlgamer, and sends Skip a virtual cookie, where ever he is. :)
Some feats give you an ability to do things that others can not. Are you going to argue that it is RAI that you must use manyshot or take a full attack action?
Some feats improve upon your character in a fundamental way such as toughness or Iron Will.
It seems that you are either trying to win a debate or just want to argue semantics. Neither helps.
Now we know the game is not written in legalese or even up to the standards of a technical manual. Just because you know how to do X that does not mean game intends to force you to do it.
While the word "can" or "may" is often used, it is not always used. Many times the game will assume you will take the most advantageous option.
I will concede that by RAW manyshot does not give you the option, but I will not concede it as RAI.
AD I don't understand your last post.
Well at least it seems this has been cleared up. I am not even going to argue about RAI intending to force you to use manyshot. That would be debating for the sake of debating. I will go back to the guy arguing that all spells are divine or arcane only if I want to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let me set a scenario.
In the late rounds of combat, a 10th level fighter has just taken 37 hit points, leaving him at 9. By your logic, the fighter can simply not use feats even though they don't give you an option. So the fighter stops using Toughness, dropping him to -1. The enemy, seeing the fighter as a threat no more, moves on. The fighter has now assured survival, as another 37 damage would have killed him anyway.
Does that sound right to you?
Neither feat gives an option. They specify, you do.
If you didn't have two arrows, you're probably not going to full attack either.
Hit points are passive (you don't choose how many you have), firing X number of arrows is active (you do choose how many you fire). I do see where you're coming from in the strictest sense of RAW, but the rules of the game are not written in programming language to control a robotic GM. You're supposed to apply a certain element of common sense when reading them.
Okay, let me set a scenario.
In the late rounds of combat, a 10th level fighter has just taken 37 hit points, leaving him at 9. By your logic, the fighter can simply not use feats even though they don't give you an option. So the fighter stops using Toughness, dropping him to -1. The enemy, seeing the fighter as a threat no more, moves on. The fighter has now assured survival, as another 37 damage would have killed him anyway.
Does that sound right to you?
Neither feat gives an option. They specify, you do.
If you didn't have two arrows, you're probably not going to full attack either.
Not only does this post smack of rules lawyering to the extreme, you're also applying a strawman. We have not stated that Manyshot being an option makes all feats options. Aside from this your example uses the extremely unreasonable assumption that a fighter would choose to do such a thing.
Are you seriously involved in this discussion at all? Earlier you dismissed the reference to actual game terms in a heading by implying that headings are always to be ignored for purposes of RAW. Try to apply a bit of reasonability.
I'm all for discussion and avoiding ad-hominems but at this point I think it is warranted to call out 'troll'. The quoted post is actually beyond the 'let's try to persuade him' into the 'this is beyond ridiculous'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes people try to "win" a debate instead of further a debate. I think the goal on both sides of a rules debate should always be to educate each other and to find the intent(spirit) of the rules.
I think that with the quotes from Skip we can agree that manyshot and TWF don't work exactly the same for reasons already mentioned. I don't think there is anything left to debate. If someone wants to rule in their games, that they must full attack every time then they can, but that is another argument for another thread IMHO, and I doubt that many posters here can be convinced that is RAI.
So the fighter stops using Toughness, dropping him to -1. The enemy, seeing the fighter as a threat no more, moves on.
I don't think you can stop using Toughness.
Neither feat gives an option. They specify, you do.
So you think the rules writers of pathfinder intentionally left out "may" or "can" from Manyshot on purpose?
An option to not use the feat is presented in the 3.5 version of this feat. It is my opinion (just opinion man) that the reason for leaving out the "may" in this feat was probably just for aesthetic reasons.
Feats might represent learned reflex/reaction but they don't represent a compulsion.
If you didn't have two arrows, you're probably not going to full attack either.
Probably, but you could, for instance, throw Daggers with your remaining attacks (with quick draw).
The point remains. This feat requires a specific action being done by your character. You can choose not to pull two arrows out of your quiver.
Wow. I think you can read RAW either way. Clearly a FAQ is necessary.
Yes I agree. That was a good joke. :D
The keystone for me was that the effective "single attack Manyshot" interpretation would also allow for the "Vital Strike with iterative attacks"
I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. Vital Strike is not any more powerful than Manyshot. And, since you can decide between an attack or a full attack after your first attack... It's OK by me.
The keystone for me was that the effective "single attack Manyshot" interpretation would also allow for the "Vital Strike with iterative attacks"I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. Vital Strike is not any more powerful than Manyshot. And, since you can decide between an attack or a full attack after your first attack... It's OK by me.
But that's obviously not the intent of the rule, otherwise they wouldn't bother with "attack/full attack" and just say "your first attack every round" (like Furious Focus does). Whether you think it's an acceptable house rule or not is beside the point, we're talking about what the official rules say and what the intent behind them was.
I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. Vital Strike is not any more powerful than Manyshot. And, since you can decide between an attack or a full attack after your first attack... It's OK by me.
Would be find with both at the same time?
What's good for ether is good for both at the same time.
As I have stated earlier, my initial argument was swayed. As intended, I do believe the developers wanted Manyshot to only be used in a full attack action containing nothing but attacks. That's RAI. What I have been talking about is the writing and syntax of these abilities. It is my understanding that at some point Pathfinder, the game we all enjoy, is going to actually produce a video game based on these rules. Muddy structure will inhibit that.
I will admit that I am playing a devils advocate right now, but i don't believe my argument was a strawman. I can look at several other feats in core alone that are an optional activation, and they use particularly different terminology. Things that are passive use a commanding tone, "you gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC", "You treat your total Hit Dice as your base attack bonus when calculating your Combat Maneuver Defense", or "Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon." Things that are activated use the words "May" or "Choose" and often start with something like "As a Standard action", for example "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it", "You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all ranged attack rolls to gain a +2 bonus on all ranged damage rolls", and " As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single ranged attack at any point during your movement."
The whole bases behind the still and current disagreements are that the first line of Manyshot sounds like the commanding style (When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows) and that when making a normal attack it, functionally, hasn't been defined as any form of known action until after the first attack. The way those two interact is... well...they don't. If the first attack is neither a standard or full round action (since it has yet to be defined), Manyshot's condition of "When making a full-attack action with a bow" won't be filled until after the attack that would have benefited.
Now, to reiterate, I beleive that manyshot is supposed to function as stated here on this board, but as written, it doesn't. Which is why there are still people advocating it and playing that way. As stated before, I don't see a huge advantage being gained or taken away from either interpretation, but if these things are supposed to function a certain way, clarification is needed.
Someone said that these forms of debates help to further understanding of the rules and intent, and I applaud them. That is what I've been trying to do. Yet I feel all I keep getting is "Your just trying to win" or "You just don't get what the developers want" or people calling "Rules Lawyer" when we're discussing the rules.
I've made my point. The writing has holes.
...Either way, I thank you all for your time. To quote musician Barry Gibbs "As long as you're having fun, that's the key. The moment it becomes a grind, it's over."
I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. Vital Strike is not any more powerful than Manyshot. And, since you can decide between an attack or a full attack after your first attack... It's OK by me.Would be find with both at the same time?
What's good for ether is good for both at the same time.
Both at the same time wouldn't be any more powerful than Improved Vital Strike (since two doublings equals a trebling... so, roll base damage dice three times, not four). So, I'd say it'd be OK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole bases behind the still and current disagreements are that the first line of Manyshot sounds like the commanding style (When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows) and that when making a normal attack it, functionally, hasn't been defined as any form of known action until after the first attack. The way those two interact is... well...they don't. If the first attack is neither a standard or full round action (since it has yet to be defined), Manyshot's condition of "When making a full-attack action with a bow" won't be filled until after the attack that would have benefited.
Not at all. And the reason there seems to be this confusion is because of muddled language (as exampled in the bolded part). Once again I will apply logic so we can look at a few steps of the action system, how they flow and what role Manyshot plays.
Choosing between [Attack] and [Full Attack]:
You may either do steps A or B: (the 'may' is the crucial part)
1A choose [Attack] or [Full Attack] (standard procedure of action economy)
2A resolve as normal
1B make one unmodified attack
2B decide between [Attack] and [Full Attack] (liberty granted when making unmodified attacks)
3B based on the choice, resolve as normal
Steps A and B are still options, steps B are just a liberty the designers have given.
Manyshot states that it functions on a full attack. Since it does not state it functions on [Attack] but only [Full Attack] we follow series A, thus the passage about 'deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack' does not even come into play. There is no confusion, inconsistency or problem whatsoever as long as we avoid muddled language like 'is no action' and 'upgrade your attack' and 'opt out of a full attack'. None of these things are implied by the rules, they only serve to confuse everyone as evidenced by this thread (even those who agree with me have fallen into that trap).
All of the premises above are in the book, literally. I have merely formulated them in a systematic way.
Now for something which is not covered by these premises and their logical conclusions: TWF, rapid shot, haste etc. either make your standard Attack worse or on par. Thus, as James Jacobs alluded to in the linked post earlier, only a hardnose GM will disallow the decision between [Attack] and [Full Attack] after the first attack. Indeed, that would be rules lawyering.
I will admit that I am playing a devils advocate right now, but i don't believe my argument was a strawman.
A strawman, IIRC, is when you contribute an argument to someone that they did not make. In short it is twisting someone's words, or as a better example common in today's world is to only show part of a video that makes it easy to be taken out of context.
The argument saying that every feat that does not have the work "can" or "may" is optional to use or not use was never made.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ed:
If a person is trying to make a rules clarification that person does not then argue a specific point of view as if it were the only correct point of view. (Note: I am not saying you did this.)
A person playing devil's advocate announces this fact when they are playing devil's advocate lest other people believe that the point of view they are arguing is their actual point of view.
In short: If you want a rules clarification and are debating as if one point of view is the only correct one then that is not wanting clarification. That is trying to convince other people of your point of view. (Again, I am not specifying as to who may or may not have done this.)
- Gauss
The argument saying that every feat that does not have the work "can" or "may" is optional to use or not use was never made.
... except for post #254 (though the clarification of "can" and "may" just comes from what I remember from English class)
No. You choose to use Manyshot. You do not HAVE to use Manyshot. You can choose to only fire one arrow with your first attack.
This is true for most feats.
(emphasis mine) Though in my haste, I only provided one example for "not true of most feats".
JrK-About line B, Where does it say the first attack must be unmodified?
Gauss-I was refuting a point someone else had made that I believed was faulty. I had announced my change of stance on RAI on page 4. The only point of view that I'm advocating now is that under scrutiny, the combination of the rules about Manyshot (and apparently other feats) and the rules about full-attack actions can cause many interpretations, which I do believe needs clarification. Several others have stated with certainty that the way they have described is the way the rules work; I don't see it as "100%" as they do.
#3
OR
#4 Take a double tap on your first bow shot and defacto declare your full attacking by and give up your moves.
OR
#4 Take a single shot and then decide to take a full attack and not get any Manyshot since you have already taken your first shot.
While you can shoot and then declare your full attack by standard rules you HAVE to full attack to get Manyshot. Specific rule trumps general as per normal.
|
Can someone please explain to me how you justify from a, "narrative/roleplaying perspective" your archer character really considering, like really thinking hard about it, a full attack and then changing his mind mid action on almost every single standard action attack of the day. Does he had an extremely short attention span, or no short term memory or something?
The argument saying that every feat that does not have the work "can" or "may" is optional to use or not use was never made.... except for post #254 (though the clarification of "can" and "may" just comes from what I remember from English class)
No. You choose to use Manyshot. You do not HAVE to use Manyshot. You can choose to only fire one arrow with your first attack.
This is true for most feats.
(emphasis mine) Though in my haste, I only provided one example for "not true of most feats".
JrK-About line B, Where does it say the first attack must be unmodified?
Gauss-I was refuting a point someone else had made that I believed was faulty. I had announced my change of stance on RAI on page 4. The only point of view that I'm advocating now is that under scrutiny, the combination of the rules about Manyshot (and apparently other feats) and the rules about full-attack actions can cause many interpretations, which I do believe needs clarification. Several others have stated with certainty that the way they have described is the way the rules work; I don't see it as "100%" as they do.
"Most" and "every" are not the same.
I do agree it is true most of the time, that is why I used the word "every"
He is not changing his mind. He never decided to full attack by the rules. By the rules he makes the first attack then he makes a decision to full attack or not. Most of the time the full attack will be made unless other circumstances come into play. Maybe the first arrow killed an enemy, and now the archer will use his move action to move to a downed ally so he can heal him on the next round.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He is not changing his mind. He never decided to full attack by the rules. By the rules he makes the first attack then he makes a decision to full attack or not. Most of the time the full attack will be made unless other circumstances come into play. Maybe the first arrow killed an enemy, and now the archer will use his move action to move to a downed ally so he can heal him on the next round.
I'm talking about it a situation where it would be repeatedly used to make, "standard action manyshots" as is being described in this thread.
For example if you were standing adjacent to the BBEG, it wouldn't be rational for your character to say, "I'm going to full attack", then say, "oh whoops I meant run away" every single time this situation happens. It conveys a mechanical benefit sure, but for the same sequence of decisions to continue to repeat themselves each and every time is kind of irrational.
I'm saying this irregardless of this, "bug/exploit/proper use of the feat/whatever" being against the rules or not... Which for the record I think it is.
Remember, though... The basic rule is that characters don't decide whether to full attack or not until after their first attack. That's just the way Pathfinder characters think, by default.
"When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows" simply describes what happens when a character makes a full-attack. Nowhere does it say that he has to full-attack or that a full-attack is required.
What it's saying is that you don't get to fire two arrows on each iterative attack. Just the first attack.
If you only make one attack, it's still your first attack.
Nowhere does it state that you must full attack to fire two arrows with the first shot.
If they wanted to be absolutely clear that the full attack was required, they could have written it this way:
"When making an attack with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. You must use the full attack action to use this feat, continuing to fire as many additional arrows as you have iterative attacks, regardless of any circumstances."
In other words, a 20th level archer must fire 5 arrows (2 on the first shot and 3 more on the iteratives), regardless of whether or not there are any active opponents remaining. That's the only logical conclusion if a full attack is required by manyshot.
Pure absurdity.
Remember, though... The basic rule is that characters don't decide whether to full attack or not until after their first attack. That's just the way Pathfinder characters think, by default.
"When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows" simply describes what happens when a character makes a full-attack. Nowhere does it say that he has to full-attack or that a full-attack is required.
What it's saying is that you don't get to fire two arrows on each iterative attack. Just the first attack.
If you only make one attack, it's still your first attack.
Nowhere does it state that you must full attack to fire two arrows with the first shot.
If it specifically happens when the character makes a full attack, then yes it requires a full attack. If it meant "on your first attack regardless of whether it's a full attack or not", it would simply say "your first attack fires two arrows" without mentioning full attacks at all. But it does say "When making a full attack", so it means "when making a full attack". It really is that simple. When making a full attack your first shot fires two arrows. When not making a full attack... nothing. Honestly I'm really confused right now because you quoted the rule which states "When making a full-attack action with a bow" and then claimed "Nowhere does it say that he has to full-attack" in the very next sentence.
If they wanted to be absolutely clear that the full attack was required, they could have written it this way:
"When making an attack with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. You must use the full attack action to use this feat, continuing to fire as many additional arrows as you have iterative attacks, regardless of any circumstances."
In other words, a 20th level archer must fire 5 arrows (2 on the first shot and 3 more on the iteratives), regardless of whether or not there are any active opponents remaining. That's the only logical conclusion if a full attack is required by manyshot.
Pure absurdity.
That's a completely different argument. Nothing in the rules says you are required to make all your attacks on a full attack. There's no reason a hasted two weapon fighter with eight attacks can't stop at two attacks (for instance if he's hitting someone with a Fire Shield up and decides he can't take the damage), but he's still making a full attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are right Hrothgar: you are being absurd. :)
The developers write things the way they think it will make sense without trying to double the number of pages. Due to the page limit restriction some clarity has to be sacrificed.
Even some member's of your own side have conceeded that this is a case of RAW creating a grey area whereas the RAI is that Manyshot is a full attack action.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, though... The basic rule is that characters don't decide whether to full attack or not until after their first attack. That's just the way Pathfinder characters think, by default.
Basic is a good word for it.
"When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows" simply describes what happens when a character makes a full-attack. Nowhere does it say that he has to full-attack or that a full-attack is required.
That's kind of the thing with feats. You kinda have to do what they say, otherwise you can't use them. If you didn't know this earlier this is a great time to learn. It comes up a lot.
What it's saying is that you don't get to fire two arrows on each iterative attack. Just the first attack.
Really why didn't they word it:
"Once each round, your first attack with a bow fires two arrows."
It's shorter and easier to understand than:
"When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows."
Why mention full-attack action at all?
Whirlwind attack starts the start the same way:
"When you use the full-attack action"
Now if you only have one opponent within reach you only get one attack with Whirlwind.
After that attack do you think you can take a move action? No, you can't. Why? Whirlwind is a full round action.
Luckily you don't have to use Whirlwind you can opt to just use your normal iterative attacks. Why because learning to use Whirlwind doesn't make you unlearn what you already knew how to do.
If you were Forced to use Whirlwind it might actual be a curse rather then a blessing.
If you only make one attack, it's still your first attack.
If you take a move action and then an attack action that is still your first attack. Are you saying you can use Manyshot this way?
Nowhere does it state that you must full attack to fire two arrows with the first shot.
It states it right here: "When making a full-attack action with a bow"
If they wanted to be absolutely clear that the full attack was required, they could have written it this way:
"When making an attack with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. You must use the full attack action to use this feat
this does seem clear, but what does this say that the other didn't?
continuing to fire as many additional arrows as you have iterative attacks, regardless of any circumstances."
I don't understand this. The feat doesn't work like this. You don't have to take all of your attacks.
In other words, a 20th level archer must fire 5 arrows (2 on the first shot and 3 more on the iteratives), regardless of whether or not there are any active opponents remaining. That's the only logical conclusion if a full attack is required by manyshot.
Pure absurdity.
You don't have to take all of your iterative attacks when taking a full-round action.
You don't have to fire two arrows with your first attack with a bow just because you have the Manyshot feat.
You don't have to only attack a creature once just because you have the Whirlwind feat.
I keep wanting to use the words "common knowledge" but apparently it's not common.
I am going to ask this can anyone name me any full attack action other than manyshot that locks you into a full attack from the get go?
|
I am going to ask this can anyone name me any full attack action other than manyshot that locks you into a full attack from the get go?
Why? What would that accomplish? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Manyshot requires a full attack action - that wouldn't change even if it were the only feat to "lock" you into a full attack from the get go.There are several feats i can think of that only work on a full-attack. And has always been the case the only move you can make with a full-attack is a 5' step.
I am going to try this one more time. Not sure why, becuase it is clear that the folks who want to read it a certain way will just ignore it, but since it's now been several pages since I pointed this out and many people probably don't read the whole thread, here it is again:
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.
This is part of the "full attack" rule. It is describing the optional case where after your first attack you can decide whether to continue to attack, or take a move action.
The wording of "deciding between an attack or a full attack" is, I believe, creating confusion. It can be read one of two ways:
1. "deciding between a single attack or a full attack"
2. "deciding between a standard action attack or a full attack"
I believe the wording is intended to be read as #1. Most of the outspoken posters on this thread read it as #2.
That's really the bottom line.
If you read this as #1, then after the first attack, which uses manyshot, you can then decide not to continue to attack and take a move action. This is how our group plays it. It gives archers with manyshot a bit of flexibility, that's all.
If you read this as #2, then after the first attack, which uses manyshot, you are now committed to a full attack since a standard action attack cannot include manyshot. This is also a fine way to play it and removes a bit of flexibility from the manyshot character. However, this introduces the additional complication of whether the player can CHOOSE to use manyshot as part of a full attack or not. Which is a separate discussion, but has an impact here.
Until Paizo resolves whether "attack" in the rules as written means "standard action attack" or simply "single attack" then this will remain an individual GM interpretation.
I am going to ask this can anyone name me any full attack action other than manyshot that locks you into a full attack from the get go?
Not sure what you mean by "locks you into" but here is a list of feats you can't use unless you take a full round action.
Just for the core rule book here:
Dazzling Display (Combat)
Shot on the Run (Combat)
Spring Attack (Combat)
Medusa's Wrath (Combat)
Rapid Shot (Combat)
Whirlwind Attack (Combat)
This was pretty easy for me to do.
I don't have Internet Explorer but here is how to search for text on a site using chrome.
In the upper right hand corner there is a wrench. click that.
click "Find..." and type in the text you want to search.
Until Paizo resolves whether "attack" in the rules as written means "standard action attack" or simply "single attack" then this will remain an individual GM interpretation.
We could just... do a little research.
So in 3.5 Full attack says:
If you get more than one attack per round because your bast attack bonus is high enought, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (see Two-Weapon Fighting Under Special Attacks, page 160), or for some special reason (such as a feat or a magic item), you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
lets hope I didn't make any typos. :)
Okay, Manyshot in 3.5 is only for standard action.
Paizo introduces Vital strike and changes Manyshot to a full-round action.
Otherwise why did they change the wording?
Manyshot however is technically not an additional attack, so the above text(which puts the nail in the coffin for me) isn't going to help. Is it?
Paizo doesn't include the above text(probably for copywrite reasons). They keep it short and sweat and just us the text form the "Revised (v.3.5) System Reference Document."
Maybe when they changed Manyshot form standard to full round they could have specifically included text to clear up this matter but, really we should all be able to understand it and we have a developers input on this already.
All text belong to there respective company's and I don't clam ownership for any rules text publish in this post etc...
Until Paizo resolves whether "attack" in the rules as written means "standard action attack" or simply "single attack" then this will remain an individual GM interpretation.We could just... do a little research.
So in 3.5 Full attack says:
If you get more than one attack per round because your bast attack bonus is high enought, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (see Two-Weapon Fighting Under Special Attacks, page 160), or for some special reason (such as a feat or a magic item), you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.lets hope I didn't make any typos. :)
Okay, Manyshot in 3.5 is only for standard action.
Paizo introduces Vital strike and changes Manyshot to a full-round action.
Otherwise why did they change the wording?
Manyshot however is technically not an additional attack, so the above text(which puts the nail in the coffin for me) isn't going to help. Is it?
Paizo doesn't include the above text(probably for copywrite reasons). They keep it short and sweat and just us the text form the "Revised (v.3.5) System Reference Document."
Maybe when they changed Manyshot form standard to full round they could have specifically included text to clear up this matter but, really we should all be able to understand it and we have a developers input on this already.
All text belong to there respective company's and I don't clam ownership for any rules text publish in this post etc...
Karlgamer, trying to dig into the past history and edits of the rules is an entertaining and perhaps rewarding exercise for a person to undertake, but unfortunately it means nothing to the actual wording of the actual rules of Pathfinder as they are written today. Sure they can be a "guide" if you want to use them that way, but that still means the GM is interpreting the rules.
The RAW is what it is. It is unclear for the reasons I have demonstrated. The only way to "settle" this is for Paizo to explicitly state what "attack" means in the rules, or else to rewrite "Manyshot" so that it avoids the need to interpret the "full attack" rules to figure it out.
I prefer the interpretation that "attack" means "single attack" because that avoids the whole issue of "can I CHOOSE to use manyshot?" and it gives the character a tiny bit of flexibility instead of removing flexibility. In my mind investing in a feat should not reduce your flexibility.
Of course people can play how they like. However, while they might CLAIM to be the final arbiters on the rules of the game and act as though they are, only Paizo actually can do that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It says 'Attack' not 'attack' so it references the Attack action aka the standard attack.
Reading is hard.
It says 'Attack' not 'attack' so it references the Attack action aka the standard attack.
Reading is hard.
The actual rule for "Attack" reads: "Making an attack is a standard action"
Note the lack of your precious capital letter which only appears in the heading, which is always capitalized as a matter of grammar not rules. I'm not even going to get into the "specific trumps the general" rule... Except to note that a full attack appears to be an attack that somehow avoids being a standard action.
So yeah JrK, reading is hard. Perhaps you should spend more time on it yourself.
Anyway, I'm done with this. Paizo needs to clarify. Your snarky and rude assertions to the contrary, you are not the rules arbiter for Pathfinder. You simply seem to think you are.
That one attack references the in game action, not the game term. See below for clarification.
I'm not a rules arbiter but at least I can apply some sense and actually read what it says without making various assumptions which are not warranted by the text. I have not made a rules judgment, I have merely stated what it says literally. Your post is the first to actually go into what I said so kudos for that.
A Full Attack is not an Attack. Both involve attacks. Hard to keep em apart isn't it? :)
A Full Attack is not an Attack. Both involve attacks. Hard to keep em apart isn't it? :)
And the first attack of a full attack is not an Attack either. And the Full Attack rules clearly and specifically state that after your first attack, you can choose to move if you like instead of completing your remaining attacks. There is nothing except your interpretation that asserts that the first attack has to be a "standard action" style of attack before you can move after the "first attack."
It is hard to keep 'em apart, isn't it? It's because the rules are not clear and Paizo needs to clarify them. Which is what I've been saying all along.
I am going to try this one more time. Not sure why, becuase it is clear that the folks who want to read it a certain way will just ignore it, but since it's now been several pages since I pointed this out and many people probably don't read the whole thread, here it is again:
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.
This is part of the "full attack" rule. It is describing the optional case where after your first attack you can decide whether to continue to attack, or take a move action.
The wording of "deciding between an attack or a full attack" is, I believe, creating confusion. It can be read one of two ways:
1. "deciding between a single attack or a full attack"
2. "deciding between a standard action attack or a full attack"I believe the wording is intended to be read as #1. Most of the outspoken posters on this thread read it as #2.
That's really the bottom line.
If you read this as #1, then after the first attack, which uses manyshot, you can then decide not to continue to attack and take a move action. This is how our group plays it. It gives archers with manyshot a bit of flexibility, that's all.
If you read this as #2, then after the first attack, which uses manyshot, you are now committed to a full attack since a standard action attack cannot include manyshot. This is also a fine way to play it and removes a bit of flexibility from the manyshot character. However, this introduces the additional complication of whether the player can CHOOSE to use manyshot as part of a full attack or not. Which is a separate discussion, but has an impact here.
Until Paizo...
By the rules manyshot requires a full attack. How are you following the rules under your interpretation? If a feat says you must do X to get the benefits then you must do X.
Actually someone tried to use your example of not being able to choose to use manyshot of not up thread. That is not how we see it. You can use a regular method of attacking or you can use manyshot. I know manyshot does not say "you must choose with the first shot", but if that is the only way for it to work within the rules.....
There is nothing except your interpretation that asserts that the first attack has to be a "standard action" style of attack before you can move after the "first attack."
Except for the heading of course which literally says that it's about the standard action. But I've said that so many times already without anyone really going into it or .... accepting that they overlooked that. Guess it's a case of "it doesn't agree with me so I will do it away as 'grammar' or 'just a heading'" or such nonsense.
It is hard to keep 'em apart, isn't it? It's because the rules are not clear and Paizo needs to clarify them. Which is what I've been saying all along.
The rules are clear in this case. It's just stubborn folk and those who lack a degree of reasonability what make the problem. You cannot cherry pick what you want out of the section.
I am still confused as to how this is an issue.
If any other feat said it took place during the course of a full attack action would people still try to argue that the full attack was optional?
Yeah I know it takes away your chance to make the one attack, and then move, but for the amount of extra damage manyshot gives, that is more than a fair trade. Archers hardly ever want or have to move anyway so it is not like the feat going to fall out of rotation.
There is nothing except your interpretation that asserts that the first attack has to be a "standard action" style of attack before you can move after the "first attack."
Common sense would indicate to me that it could not be a standard attack, which requires a full attack action. However, I am guessing that if someone like yourself who is normally pretty decent with the rules is using it like this that there a quiet a few PFS'ers doing the same thing.
I am starting to wonder how many other common rules are being misread.
One of the points that keeps being brought up is how Manyshot is not much different when compared to Vital Strike. We should examine this point.
Assuming a composite long bow
Manyshot: +1d8+str+magic+deadly aim+non-precision extra dice (such as fire)+anything I missed. No critical, no sneak attack (precision).
Vital Strike: +1d8, no critical
For those of you that keep saying Manyshot is equivalent to Vital Strike: It clearly is not. The damage is much higher.
There is a reason it is full attack. The damage is significantly improved when compared to vital strike.
- Gauss
And the first attack of a full attack is not an Attack either. And the Full Attack rules clearly and specifically state that after your first attack, you can choose to move if you like instead of completing your remaining attacks. There is nothing except your interpretation that asserts that the first attack has to be a "standard action" style of attack before you can move after the "first attack."
The rules state that you're deciding BETWEEN a "full attack" and an "attack". So if you choose "attack", then you are not choosing "full attack". Since Manyshot requires "full attack", if you choose "attack" you cannot use Manyshot.
Further, it states "assuming you have not already taken a move action this round". A Full Attack is a full round action. It's impossible to take a full round action if you have already taken a move action. Therefore it's clear that the 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' section refers to both std action Attacks and full round action Full Attacks.