Swift Action during a Full Attack, declaring Full Attacks

[Jeremias]

Seemingly simple questions:

Can I make a swift action during a Full Attack? For example, could I try to hit somebody, then activate Arcane Strike?

And, in my case related: If I have not enough ammunition, could I still declare a Full Attack? In my example, I want to use Rapid Shot, but I only have two shots left and would normally have two attacks (BAB +8). But rather than make a second attack at -5, I want to have two attacks at -2. Would that be possible?

[Chemlak]

Part 2: absolutely yes. When taking a full-attack action there is nothing requiring you to make all of the attacks that are available to you. Go nuts.

I'm still researching part 1: my inclination is that yes, you can take a swift action between iteratives, but I want to get my sources clear.

Edit: the rules are silent on part 1. However, it can be inferred that since you can take a swift action any time you can take a free action, and since it is possible to drop a held item between iterative attacks, drop prone between iterative attacks, and since the weapon cord shenanigans were even a question in the first place, yes, you can take a swift action between iterative attacks.

[Lifat]

Only question I have is: Why would you wait with activating arcane strike?

[SlimGauge]

Just to be clear: You can take a free (and therefore a swift) action between attacks in a full attack. What you can't do is take an action (free or swift) between the attack roll and the damage roll. Those rolls are both part of the same attack and can't be separated.

[Cuttler]

here's a link to the same question discussed a few years ago...there are some good references to the rules that support taking swift action during a full round action....

link

[Kazaan]

SlimGauge wrote:

Just to be clear: You can take a free (and therefore a swift) action between attacks in a full attack. What you can't do is take an action (free or swift) between the attack roll and the damage roll. Those rolls are both part of the same attack and can't be separated.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's a good bottom line; unless the ability specifically says it "splits" the attack roll from damage, ie. "You may use this ability after you roll attack but before you roll damage", an attack is discrete and should be considered indivisible for all practical purposes.

[James Risner]

One other complication, if you take a swift that generates another attack you will get table variance on if you can and when you can do so.

I'd rule you can do it (Ki for another attack) so long as you have not done any BAB-5 attacks yet.

[Kazaan]

Only iterative attacks follow the "highest-to-lowest BAB" rule.

PRD wrote:

Full Attack:...

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

The bonus attack from spending a ki point, from Haste (or haste-like effects), from Medusa's Wrath, etc. are not gained because your base attack bonus is high enough so these additional attacks can be "shuffled" in wherever you please.

[Lifat]

Kazaan wrote:

Only iterative attacks follow the "highest-to-lowest BAB" rule.

PRD wrote:

Full Attack:...

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

The bonus attack from spending a ki point, from Haste (or haste-like effects), from Medusa's Wrath, etc. are not gained because your base attack bonus is high enough so these additional attacks can be "shuffled" in wherever you please.

I'd have to sgree with this. At least this is how I've always run it.

[Chemlak]

Lifat wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Only iterative attacks follow the "highest-to-lowest BAB" rule.

PRD wrote:

Full Attack:...

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

The bonus attack from spending a ki point, from Haste (or haste-like effects), from Medusa's Wrath, etc. are not gained because your base attack bonus is high enough so these additional attacks can be "shuffled" in wherever you please.

I'd have to sgree with this. At least this is how I've always run it.

Also agreed, and also note that the while the extra attacks from ITWF and GTWF must be taken after the first TWF attack (in order), that first TWF attack can occur any time after the first main-hand attack, and the attacks can be slotted in wherever you want them to be.

[Kazaan]

The first off-hand attack doesn't even need to come after the first main-hand. You can take your off-hand attack first if you want.

[James Risner]

Kazaan wrote:

Only iterative attacks follow the "highest-to-lowest BAB" rule.

Welcome to table variance, because I've seen this ran both ways at different tables.

[Kazaan]

James Risner wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Only iterative attacks follow the "highest-to-lowest BAB" rule.

Welcome to table variance, because I've seen this ran both ways at different tables.

That would be the "right way" and the "wrong way".

[Umbranus]

Lifat wrote:

Only question I have is: Why would you wait with activating arcane strike?

I'm not the original poster but some options:

- I forgot to activate it before starting my attacks
- I wanted to take another swift action after my attacks but notice the target has high DR/magic

I had the first happen to me recently when I had the first session playing a higher level pc and I wasn't used to all the stuff he was capable of. Several times I forgot to activate stuff beforehand.

[Jeremias]

Umbranus wrote:

Lifat wrote:

Only question I have is: Why would you wait with activating arcane strike?

I'm not the original poster but some options:

- I forgot to activate it before starting my attacks
- I wanted to take another swift action after my attacks but notice the target has high DR/magic

I had the first happen to me recently when I had the first session playing a higher level pc and I wasn't used to all the stuff he was capable of. Several times I forgot to activate stuff beforehand.

Especially the first one I am very guilty of. But there are other options: Activating a magic item (some of them can be activated swiftly), activating smite evil, etc.

[Umbranus]

Jeremias wrote:

Umbranus wrote:

Lifat wrote:

Only question I have is: Why would you wait with activating arcane strike?

I'm not the original poster but some options:

- I forgot to activate it before starting my attacks
- I wanted to take another swift action after my attacks but notice the target has high DR/magic

I had the first happen to me recently when I had the first session playing a higher level pc and I wasn't used to all the stuff he was capable of. Several times I forgot to activate stuff beforehand.

Especially the first one I am very guilty of. But there are other options: Activating a magic item (some of them can be activated swiftly), activating smite evil, etc.

When I played my witch I bought a quickrunner's shirt especially to be able to move and cackle once per day. I didn't use it even once because I always forgot to use it at the right time. Because you can use the special bonus move action just to move. So I would have had to first activate the shirt, move with that action and then cackle.

[James Risner]

Kazaan wrote:

That would be the "right way" and the "wrong way".

Se that is the beauty of table variance if it has one.

Side A says "My way is right your way is wrong"
Side B says "My way is right your way is wrong"

So there are two right ways and two wrong ways.

Typically in table variance situations, you don't have one side saying "I know I'm wrong but I don't like it." It is more like "I'm right they are wrong."

[Jiggy]

James Risner wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

That would be the "right way" and the "wrong way".

Se that is the beauty of table variance if it has one.

Side A says "My way is right your way is wrong"
Side B says "My way is right your way is wrong"

So there are two right ways and two wrong ways.

Typically in table variance situations, you don't have one side saying "I know I'm wrong but I don't like it." It is more like "I'm right they are wrong."

Not sure I'd call that "beauty".

[Kazaan]

James Risner wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

That would be the "right way" and the "wrong way".

Se that is the beauty of table variance if it has one.

Side A says "My way is right your way is wrong"
Side B says "My way is right your way is wrong"

So there are two right ways and two wrong ways.

Typically in table variance situations, you don't have one side saying "I know I'm wrong but I don't like it." It is more like "I'm right they are wrong."

The Earth didn't start going around the Sun at the moment Galileo discovered it. It hadn't been the other way around until then and suddenly it flip-flopped. The Sun had always been the relative center of the solar system and Pope Urban VIII's insistence that "my way is right and your way is wrong" didn't actually make him right by one single little bit. Your way being wrong and you realizing and admitting your way is wrong are two very, VERY different things. Wrong is wrong whether or not you realize or accept it.

It's only table variance if it's about an ambiguity in the rules. But when the GM starts making up garbage about, "Oh, you need to take your bonus attack from ki before you've taken your -5 BAB main-hand" when the rule quite clearly and unambiguously refers only to iterative attacks being ordered, you kick him out of your group and appoint a new GM who knows what he's talking about. Now if this were a pre-announced houserule that was put on the table from the start, I could evaluate it then before the game even started and come to a decision as to whether or not I wanted to play with that houserule.

[James Risner]

Kazaan wrote:

The Earth didn't start going around the Sun at the moment Galileo discovered it.

The people with the "wrong way" didn't become the wrong way until a Dev Team Member came along and said the "right way" is the right way. Being ultimately correct when a PDT post comes along doesn't mean you can claim you are right and they are wrong prior to the PDT post.

Or you disagree?

[Jiggy]

James Risner wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

The Earth didn't start going around the Sun at the moment Galileo discovered it.

The people with the "wrong way" didn't become the wrong way until a Dev Team Member came along and said the "right way" is the right way. Being ultimately correct when a PDT post comes along doesn't mean you can claim you are right and they are wrong prior to the PDT post.

Actually, that's not always the case.

Many FAQs are in fact announcing the correctness of an existing interpretation (even if they then change the rules against it).

For a completely explicit example, see the edit on this FAQ. First there was the FAQ itself, then people (correctly) interpreted how it interacted with certain things, and the design team (via the edit) affirmed that interpretation to have been correct. The interpretation did not start being right after the edit was made, the edit affirmed the correctness of the existing interpretation.

It's fundamentally the same with many other FAQs, too: a question comes up, one party has interpretation A while the other has interpretation B, then the FAQ tells us which one was correct.

The exceptions would be questions that arise from there being something missing or contradictory in the text which is then resolved in the FAQ. For instance, the first FAQ I ever prompted was because the rules didn't say one way or the other what happened in a given situation. In that case, the FAQ created a correct position where previously there was a gap in the rules.

However, most FAQs are simply confirming which pre-existing position was correct all along.

[James Risner]

Jiggy wrote:

a question comes up, one party has interpretation A while the other has interpretation B, then the FAQ tells us which one was correct.

I think we are saying the same thing.

I'm just rejecting Kazaan's stance that A or B in the above are wrong.