Moglun's page

In my experience, by the time a high level encounter starts going badly someone is already dead.

The 'attack action' does not exist as a game action.

What does exist is 'attack', which may be a standard action.

'Attack action' refers to the action called attack, just like 'full-attack action' refers to the action called full attack, 'aid another action' refers to the action called aid another, 'charge action' refers to the action called charge, and so forth. 'Action' means it refers to the action section of the rules and 'attack' or 'full attack' is the name of the action referred to. If we follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion then Manyshot (full attack action), Medusa's Wrath (full attack action), Ride By Attack (charge action), Spirited Charge (charge action), Two Weapon Defense (total defense action), Bodyguard (aid another action), and many more all fall apart because they all refer to actions which "do not exist as a game action".

Mysterious Stranger:
Running with your gauntlet example we have Billy the Orphan, a lvl 1 CG Rogue who (incorrectly) blames the church of Iomedae along with other authority figures for the death of his parents. Not especially wise, he sees Biff the Paladin (a lvl 4 pally) walking in his part of town and Antagonizes him (calling him a coward who hides in the nearby whorehouse instead of fighting evil), hoping to show all nearby onlookers the hypocrisy and violence inherent in the system. Biff is also not especially wise (+0), making the DC 14 which Billy easily passes. Biff strikes Billy with his gauntlet, rolls a crit, and kills him in a single blow.

Here you have a Paladin who flew into a rage and killed someone who mocked him (not to mention "accidentally" doing that violates "not lying/cheating"). Now, a better idea would be to attack for nonlethal damage. But even then, punching someone because they insulted you is hardly respectful of the law or a just and honorable response to a threatening challenger. A paladin who goes around decking mouthy orphans is not going to stay a paladin.

In any case, it's true that you often need to apply common sense or the rules break down. But the more you have to do that with a given rule, and the more of a gray area those judgment calls are, the more problematic the rule in question is, and I think that's the issue that people are having here (including myself). That Antagonize outlines specific mechanics for how it works but requires the GM to significantly alter them for any sort of outlier situation (for example using it on the king of the realm, or on the wise and peaceful hermit) is an issue. It relies too much on GM discretion for when and how it works.

It is true that 'attack' is not explicitly defined in the 'deciding between' section, so it's logically possible that it refers to a single attack rather than the attack action. It's highly unlikely, given that it's contrasted with the full attack action and the details are identical to the attack action (a single attack followed or preceded by a move), but it's logically possible.

However, it's also irrelevant. Whether it refers to the attack action or not, the fact that it is "deciding between an attack or a full attack" makes it very clear that whatever it actually is, it is NOT a full attack. So regardless of whether it's an attack action or some unknown thing which is exactly the same as an attack action in all but name, either way it does not meet the full attack requirement for Manyshot.

My interpretation claims that after the first attack of your full attack, you can take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, and all of this takes place as part of a full attack action.

That interpretation cannot be correct. If the rule is that you decide between an attack and a full attack, which is exactly what it says it is, then one thing we know for certain is that one choice is a full attack and the other choice is not.

Now, as for movement previous to the first attack of a full attack. The rule, as I interpret it, says you can elect to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.

As you know a round is not a turn. On your turn is when you take the full attack action. The movement in question would have to take place in the same round but previous to your turn. There is at least one feat I know of that allows you to move as part of an attack of opportunity, and as you know attacks of opportunity can occur before your turn. There may be more ways to move before your turn, but regardless, a round is not a turn.

"Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack."

So according to your interpretation, if you take an AoO you cannot attack again that round unless you take a full attack action? Round and turn are used interchangeably several times throughout the Combat section, and in the rest of the rulebook as well.

As to the feat, are you thinking of Combat Patrol? The idea that they included that line to account for an outlier ability that didn't even exist at the time the CRB was written and already has appropriate limitations spelled out in the ability itself is not a very compelling argument. It makes me feel as though you are looking for excuses to avoid revising your position instead of listening objectively to the arguments being presented.

You should reread my post in regard to your 'states', because that is certainly not what I said. Others may have, but not me.

To repeat something I HAVE said, as long as you are ignoring both the fact that the RAW says that you are deciding between an attack and a full attack, and that you cannot move during a full attack action, then you are not digging deeply into the RAW to show anything. I don't expect you to agree with me because I say anything, I expect you to understand what 'decide between' and 'only movement you can take' mean, which are the rules as written, and either explain why they don't apply or accept that they do.

EDIT: Wraith, I think someone would have to be deliberately obtuse to not understand that "attack or full attack" was a differentiation between those two defined actions, but yes technically nothing specifies that the term attack refers to the attack action in that context. The alternative is that it refers to an undefined nonaction (something which is "not a full attack" but otherwise has no information provided about it), and if you read the text while ignoring context to that degree then you may as well claim that the full attack rules are meaningless because they do not define attacks, weapons, five foot steps, movement, actions, turns, or any other game term.

As to this thread, I'm willing to concede and reverse my previous position.

I tip my hat to you; in my experience when someone is involved in a long argument like this one it becomes difficult not to become emotionally attached and refuse to budge regardless of the points presented. I think it takes a lot of discipline to stay objective and be willing to concede your position during such a vigorous debate (regardless of which side a person is on).

For the record I'm of the opinion that you provoke one attack for the casting and a second for the ranged attack. I don't rule that multiple iterative attacks or scorching rays provoke multiple attacks because I've always seen it as one 'act' with multiple attacks, but honestly I haven't looked into it very much.

His argument IIRC, is that because that paragraph is in the full attack section that no matter what you do it is a full attack.

Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.

Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

This is from the Magic chapter, so I guess extraordinary and natural abilities are magical.

Geez, you guys just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if my state analysis didn't disprove it entirely and utterly.

Your state analysis claims that you start the turn full attacking (because you use Manyshot), then decide to attack+move (per the Deciding rules), with the result that you are using both the full attack and the attack+move actions in the same turn. This is not true. In order to meet the requirement "during a full attack" you have to actually take the full attack action, which is a full round action that does not include a move. Your state analysis is false, and is built on the assumption that you can choose to break the rules by not taking a full attack action after declaring the use of an ability which requires one because nothing specifically says that you can't and normally (if you weren't using Manyshot) you would be able to, thereby creating two contradictory states. You can't choose to break the rules, period, and the CRB really shouldn't need to spell that out for you.

Again: You lose the ability to choose to move because you are required to take a full attack and if you move you are not taking a full attack. You never enter the dual states you are claiming.

And you should stop talking about RAW until you can show how the rules on "Deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack" do not refer to deciding between an attack and a full attack by RAW.

So, if you want to argue that you MUST enforce every single detail of RAW on every rule question (which is what the anti-manyshot folks here are doing) then you have to rule that manyshot forces you to shoot two arrows on your first attack of a full attack.

Nice strawman, but no. It's true that technically according to strict RAW that is what Manyshot says. I certainly wouldn't play it that way, wouldn't recommend anyone else play it that way, and I am certain that it is not the intent of the rule because it refers to an action which is voluntary in nature. While it does not say "you MAY do this" it is clear that is what it means. I also think you agree with me on that, but hypothetically if we were so inclined we could delve into a tertiary recursive algorithmic approach and hash out whether the extra arrow should be mandatory or not.

Likewise with full attack, we are determining whether it should allow a move (while maintaining 'full attack' status). The rule in question explicitly states "choose between a full attack and an attack by either making your additional attacks or moving". This is not a technicality or a case of the rules not meaning what they say, like with the mandatory extra arrow. There is no reason to think it means anything other than deciding between a full attack and an attack, and you have not provided one beyond "I like it better" (and the gist of why it's better was "it makes the PCs stronger").

Setting that aside, YOU are the one who kept claiming "I am simply stating the RAW" (from the beginning of the thread until your post about two hours ago). Each time you did, someone would point out that no, you are not stating the RAW. Now you've changed your tactics and are claiming that following the RAW is absurd. Well, which is it? I'm guessing the answer is "you should follow the RAW when it agrees with Adamantine Dragon and ignore it when it doesn't".

That's perfectly fair. But it can be summed up as "setting aside the details of the RAW, I think the best way to play is X". Which is fine, but I don't think you can point fingers at anyone given how active you've been in the argument yourself.

Although what you say about pissing off players, starting arguments at the table, and player expectations is (in my experience) completely untrue. If anything, the opposite. And no one has claimed that you can't choose to shoot a single arrow on your first attack.

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

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

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

There's a term for that.

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

How to solve this? Make the rule consistent.

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

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

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

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

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

What happens when the Full attack action rules tell me that after chinchilla I can decide to forgo the rest of my attacks an take a move?

Since, straw men aside, that is what the opposition is arguing that you aren't addressing in your post.

I'm just going to call it an Attack.

The Full Attack action rules tell you that you can decide between a Full Attack and an Attack by taking a move action. So if after your first attack you forgo and take a move, you are taking an Attack action. If you do not take that move, then you are taking a Full Attack action. This is the understanding most of us are operating under, that as of the first attack you have not committed to a Full Attack or an Attack.

However, let's assume for the sake of argument that the rules mean you declare a Full Attack and then back out of it after the first attack (this is different from what Adm Dragon has been arguing, which is that the Full Attack action can include a move). In the context of Manyshot, you can only use the feat when making a Full Attack action. If you back out, then you are not making a Full Attack. You were going to, but you cancelled and made a standard action Attack + move action instead. Therefore you cannot back out after using Manyshot without breaking the rules, because Manyshot is only used when you actually make a Full Attack, not when you consider it then change your mind.

So either way, you can't use Manyshot and move.

Wraith, so you are saying that it was intentional for the developers to write a feat which locks you into the inability to use the second option of a full attack simply by virtue of having the feat?

He's saying (sorry for putting words in your mouth Wraith) that the second option of a full attack doesn't exist, it's something you've invented. More specifically, that the second option is in fact an Attack, not a Full Attack, which is consistent with "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack". Your counter argument that the "Deciding" line is simply incorrect is hard to accept since you have no rationale supporting it, and seems to me to be the very definition of confirmation bias.

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.

I can't see any specific rules that state anything about a concentration check being required to use spell-like abilities defensively (akin to casting defensively), nor anything about a concentration check being required to successfully use spell-like abilities if you're hit by an attack of opportunity.
...
If someone knows of some specific section of the rules that says otherwise, I'd love to know.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html

They function exactly like spells, with a specific list of exceptions. Concentration checks are not on that list of exceptions, so they are handled in exactly the same way as with 'regular' spellcasting. Compare to the section on supernatural and extraordinary abilities, which are specifically excepted from being disrupted in combat.

So, if I intend to use the extra attack I take the penalties. I am good with that. By the corollary, if I do not intend to make an extra attack above my normal BAB allowance, I should not take the penalties for TWF, even if I am using two different weapons to take my normal BAB allowed attacks.

By the RAW, I don't think you CAN switch between weapons on normal attacks. One weapon is always your primary and one is your off hand, so in order to make attacks with the off hand weapon you need to use 2WF to gain extra attacks. That said, as others have mentioned it's such a small thing that I would certainly let someone do it.

Imperator and Hanger:
You keep mentioning that the fact that you retain the penalties for 2WF even if you don't take the extra attack proves that the extra attack is unrelated to the penalties. This is not correct. Choosing to take the extra attack causes the penalties, if you don't end up taking that attack they do not retroactively disappear.

Look at Rapid Shot (which is worded almost identically to 2WF). When you make a full attack, you can take one extra attack. All your attacks take -2. Now, if you kill the enemy with your first shot obviously you wouldn't be taking the extra one... but you still take the penalties. Likewise for 2WF. It is the 'activation' of the ability which triggers the penalties (declaring "I'm using Rapid Shot/2WF"), whether the attack actually goes off or not is irrelevant. You declare that you are using 2WF to gain an extra attack and thus the penalties are applied.

Actually, you are misreading the rule. Getting "one extra attack with said weapon" is not a condition for TWF, it is a benefit of using that weapon. This is basic English Grammar.

That's incorrect. Try it out: "If you wield a 2nd weapon in your off hand. You suffer X penalties when you fight this way." The "extra attack" clause is a necessary part of the sentence and they cannot be separated from each other, nor can the penalties sentence afterward be made to apply to only parts of it rather than the whole.

If it were phrased differently you would be correct: "You may wield a second weapon. When you fight this way you take X penalties, and can get one extra attack", or "If you wield a second weapon you take X penalties. You can get one extra attack when you fight this way". But as it is written now, if you aren't taking the extra attack you can't take the penalties.