Moglun's page

FYI this should probably be in the Rules Questions section.

Does that mean that at level 1 I would get whatever feat I want as long as I meat the requirements plus that extra weapon focus feat?

Yes.

I'd like to confirm that if I do this that my weapon focus claw/bite would act as sacred weapons and start off with dealing 1D6 damage.

Yes.

Next I am wondering about the damage bonus of my weapons. Say my Tengu Warpriest has 14 Strength. Would all of my natural attacks be 1d20 to hit +2 from my strength. Then say I did hit I would deal 1d6 damage +2 from my strength?

Yes, but your attack bonus would actually be 1d20+3 (+2 strength +1 weapon focus).

So this would make my 2D8 natural sacred weapons be treated as if they were large so they would deal 3D8 damage right?

I would say yes but check with your GM on this one.

Now lets say I have a longsword in 1 hand with my 20 strength and I'm level 20 (weapon focus longsword). Do I still get my natural attacks at full BAB and full strength bonus?

No. When using natural attacks to supplement weapon attacks, they count as secondary attacks. This means -5 to hit and only half strength bonus to damage. Also there's +1 to hit from weapon focus. So in your example it would be longsword +26/21/16 (2d8+10 dmg), claw +16 (3d8+7 dmg), bite +16 (3d8+7 dmg).

Are my Claw, Bite and Gore attacks considered piercing?

Not quite. Claw is bludgeoning/slashing, gore is piercing, bite is bludgeoning/piercing/slashing.

Hit with my Gore weapon tusks. Deal damage. Then make my grapple check from Hamatula Strike. If that succeeds I would deal them 2D8 damage from my armor spikes?

Not as I read it, no. You must make a grapple check as an attack action to deal the extra 2d8 (plus strength etc) damage with your armor spikes.

I want to know why Paizo went in and specifically changed the feat to disqualify the monk from taking it.

I would guess that's because they feel monk UAS damage is fine where it is, and if they wanted monks to have the benefit of the feat they would simply increase their base damage rather than expecting every monk to take it.

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

Ah, I see what you're asking. In that case, yes they still miss. The first section on misfires states that a misfire is always a miss, the next section explains what happens on additional misfire results. Likewise the advanced firearms also gain the increased misfire value.

It says 'only broken' under advanced firearms to contrast with the rules for early firearms, not to make it distinct from the rules for firearms in general.

Of course it still misses. Missing is a property of rolling a 1 on any attack, it's not unique to firearms misfiring. Thinking that it doesn't automatically miss on a 1 because of a technicality in how it's phrased is silly.

The ability is constant, you do not need to spend an action reactivating it every round. The difference is that if you end it without Incremental, your once per day ability has been used up and you cannot activate it again until the next day, but if you have Incremental and end it, you can activate it again later that day as long as you have rounds of duration left.

Whether he intended it or not it makes sense and I'll use it myself!

Total Defence and Total Defence Action are the same thing!

Attack and Attack Action are the same thing!

When referring to the standard action called Attack, yes that is true, just like total defense action refers to the action called total defense. When referring to other definitions of attack, such as an attack of opportunity, the attack at the end of a charge, or how making an attack ends the invisibility spell, then no they refer to different things. So 'attack action' refers to the action called attack, it does not refer to anything else which also happens to be called attack.

This means that when you use a standard action to use an attack action, that attack action is that standard action! So when a wizard with a BAB of +6 says he's firing two Acid Arrows, one at +6 and one at +1, you gently point out that despite using the touch attack mechanic, Acid Arrow uses the cast a spell action not the attack action, and iterative attacks apply only to attack actions.

Actually, iterative attacks apply only to the FULL attack action, which is a distinct action from the attack action. You claim that "Attack actions have many things that only apply to attack actions: they can be folded into a full attack, they can be used at the end of a charge, that can be used as an AoO" but this is something you've invented, not something which is supported by the rules. As far as the rules are concerned, an attack which is part of a full attack, used at the end of a charge, or used as an AoO is something different than the action called attack. This is clear from the 'deciding between an attack and a full attack' rules and the statement 'can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity', and the actions in combat rules in general. Whether or not that was the intention for sunder is more of a gray area.

The rules do not say as such - and the only reason to interpret them as such is to specifically exclude sunder - nothing else in the entire game would be affected.

Your attempt at a strawman at the end aside, there are several actions which set a precedent. Aid another action, charge action, etc all refer to the specific action of that name in exactly the same way that we are saying attack action refers to the standard action called attack. Many actions (and some non-actions) can involve an attack, but only one specific action is called an attack. I understand why it would cause confusion to use two different terms both called 'attack', but there is an identifiable distinction which has been verified by developer comments and FAQs, not to mention the Combat Maneuver rules themselves ("While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.").

As for twisting words, this is just a case of the pot calling the kettle black as they could also have stated 'in place of a melee attack' without mentioning the attack action like they did with Trip.

Combat Maneuver Bonus: Each character and creature

has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents
its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature’s
CMB is determined using the following formula:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier
+ special size modifier

If you use a CM on iterative attacks then the CMB will go down, just like for PC's.

Not many monsters in the bestiaries have Improved sunder - which means that those that don't will provoke when they use these - if you do things like use multiple sunders provoking each time you increase the value of feats like combat reflexes.

We're drifting off topic here, but:

Does no one see a problem with sundering multiple items a round? Items are WAY easier to hit and are trivial to destroy by any who specialize in melee. You aren't rolling against a CMD you are rolling against a near non-existant armor class.

Greater Sunder basically becomes 'LOL I DESTROY YOU AND ALL OF YOUR SHINIES' in a single round. Go ahead, next time you are a DM use a BBEG that uses greater sunder with an equivilent weapon to the PCs armor. It will probably be one of the most effective BBEGs you will ever make if you sunder with iterative attacks.

The reason this doesn't work is the bad guys typically don't have the wealth to do it or are monsters with natural weapons that by RAW can't sunder magical ones. On the flip side players are greedy bastards who don't want to destroy that magical loot - they want to take it for themselves.

I agree with your message, but a couple quick corrections. You do roll against CMD not AC (bear in mind that you get all attendant to hit bonuses from the weapon you're using for the sunder attempt on your CMB roll so this should still be fairly easy), and magic items can be sundered by non-magical attacks (enhancement bonuses improve their hardness and hit points though).

To put this into practical perspective, a sundering monster such as a CR 16 Nightwalker could make four sunder attempts per round (two claw attacks, hasted attack, and swift sundering) at +35 CMB for average 32 damage per success. Against a +5 two-handed sword (hardness 20 hp 60) it would take on average three hits to break and five to destroy. A level 16 fighter would probably have a CMD around 41 (just an estimate, could be wrong), so on average it would take the Nightwalker two rounds to destroy that sword if he was wielding it.

EDIT: To put that in a less hypothetical terms, the party I am running through an adventure path (which shall remain unnamed for spoiler reasons) will be facing a Nightwalker with four Greater Shadows at level 15, armed with +3 to +4 weapons, as one of several encounters before the final boss. I estimate he could take out their weapons in one round per character, likely wiping the party or at least crippling half the characters.

Just because something takes an 'attack action' to use doesn't mean it must take a standard action

That's exactly what it means. When the rules refer specifically to 'an attack action', they mean the standard action used to make an attack. This is clear because every other reference to 'an X action', such as full attack action, aid another action, charge action, and so on refer to the respective standard or full round actions, and because the FAQ has stated as much with regard to Vital Strike.

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".

I'm saying an 'attack action' can be taken as a standard action or a full action or at the end of a charge or as an AoO etc. Because, and this is the point, 'attack action' means 'attack, using the appropriate action'.

It cannot mean attack as a standard action exclusively simply based on:-

'Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.'

Because if that's the only reason, then every attack (melee, unarmed, ranged, natural) described in the same section would also only be useable as a standard action, and we know that isn't true!

There is a difference between an 'attack', which is what you are describing, and an 'attack action', which is a standard action used to make a single attack on your turn. The attack at the end of a charge is an attack, but it is not an attack action. Likewise for an AoO etc. An attack is not any kind of defined action at all.

EDIT: That is to say: Using the attack action allows you to make an attack. Using the charge action also allows you to make an attack, as does the full attack action, but they are distinct actions with different rules than the attack action. If a rule refers to the attack action (like sunder does) then it refers to that action and not to every attack (like trip does).

Most games don't involve the PCs murdering innocents. They fight evil creatures who are a threat to others. A tribe of orcs raiding and killing nearby townsfolk are not innocent, killing them is not murder, and the PCs are not evil for doing it.
Murder is unlawful, killing hostile orcs generally isn't. Killing innocents is evil, killing enemies who intend to kill innocent people generally isn't. That's the difference.

They generally aren't pillagers either. There is a difference between looting the dead and pillaging (intent and method).

Actually Pirate, you could only make that third attack if you made the first two attacks with the same weapon, and it would have to be made with the other weapon, because when you use TWF you have to declare one weapon the primary and the other the off hand.

Mysterious Stranger:
You're still missing the point by arguing the details. It doesn't matter if Billy is young, or just has a low Con, or doesn't get killed by the blow. It was just an example. Even if you can prove definitively that this example doesn't work, I can come up with 100 more. The general case is what matters.

Antagonize uses the Intimidate skill. It does not mean that you are actually intimidating the opponent, rather you are using "biting remarks or hurtful words" so the enemy "flies into a rage".

As to not losing his Paladin abilities in that particular example, an evil spectator uses it while Biff is in a duel with a villain with the lives of innocent hostages in the balance. Biff chases his antagonizer and forfeits the duel by stepping out of the ring, and the hostages are immediately executed. Or something completely different; I could do this all day. When you can take control of someone's character, the possibilities are nearly endless.

'Present' means to display or show something. No reason he can't do that from prone, he just holds it over his head for all to see.

As to cover from the burst, bear in mind that it's total cover which protects you, not just cover (although cover can give you a reflex save bonus). Total cover means you're entirely behind a wall or the like, not just partially. If the victim was completely blocked from the point of origin by walls/floor/whatever, then he would be safe. But if even part of his body was not in cover, then it provides no defense at all against the channel.

First of all if Billy is so young he probably should not have a feat like antagonize. I don't really see a 6 year old child having the ability to cause anyone to get that angry.

...
Did you also apply the -4 penalty to intimidate due to being smaller than Biff?

Billy is 11, he's anti-authority due to his troubled past. He's part of a gang of orphans; his job is to taunt street vendors to incite them to chase while his cohorts steal food from their carts.

Also the feat say that you have to make an attack it does not say that you have to use your full damage. If for some reason Billy did have antagonize Biff could simply slap him for 1pt of non lethal damage. Even Billy can handle this. Biff could also cast Knights Calling on him and make him come to me. If Biff does this then the spell fulfills the requirements and Biff can no longer be affected by any further antagonize from Billy for the next day.

You can't choose to do minimum damage any more than you can choose to do maximum damage. The closest thing is nonlethal. And again, you're missing the point by arguing the details (and using hypotheticals which support your argument while ignoring alternatives - a Paladin of Sarenrae, for example, or one who abandons his post to attack an enemy that Antagonized). The point is that the Paladin or anyone else, even if his personality, code, or circumstances should make it ridiculous, can be incited to attack by three seconds of mockery.

The feat only makes you have to attack or cast a spell on the person. It does not cause you to go into a berserk rage ignoring your alignment or automatically breaking your code. You are still able to respond appropriately based on the target

"Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage."

Billy has a base Con of 10 plus the Young template, for a net Con of 6. As a level one Rogue he ends up with 6 hp, dies at -6, so 12 damage kills him outright. Biff has Str 18, crits for 2d3+8 damage, easily enough to take him out.

If you don't like the Rogue level, he could be a Commoner or Expert instead, making him even weaker. Everyone has feats (unless they're mindless) and levels (or hit dice). And as I said, Billy intended to provoke an attack to make the Paladin look bad. He is not an "innocent bystander", but he is a misguided child with a good alignment, and whether the Paladin actually kills him or just hurt him really badly is beside the point. Regardless, I could come up with a dozen other examples. The specifics aren't important, the idea that you force someone to behave uncharacteristically with a very low DC skill check is.

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.

The text of fireball doesn't say, "By the way, if the character's up to his shoulders in icy water, he should get a significant save bonus, and maybe even the effects of the Evasion feat or damage reduction, too, since it's so easy to avoid the fire by ducking." That's not because you shouldn't get such a bonus in such circumstances; it's because it's assumed GMs have brains.

Actually it says exactly that in the Underwater Combat and Improved Cover sections.

No. The character receives a save to negate the poison, and the saving throw increases according to already ongoing poison effects. So what would happen is he would make one save vs the first arrow; if he passed, he would make a save against the second arrow at the same DC, if he failed he would make a save against the second arrow at DC+2. He would take poison damage for each failed save.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/2011/march/v5748dyo5lc12?I-Drank-What-An-FAQ-on -Poison

Yes, I suppose it would. Also, the +5 is based on whether the victim breaks the grapple, so even if the mimic failed grapple checks in subsequent rounds as long as the victim was still stuck it would keep getting the +5.

No, because it's the standard action attempt to grapple a foe which provokes an AoO. The mimic never takes this action, instead it automatically grapples what it hits. Subsequent grapple checks once the grapple has started also don't provoke, whether you have Imp Grapple or not.

The mimic still counts as grappling, and must make a grapple check as a standard action on its turn or release the grapple (dissolving the adhesive) just like anyone else. If it succeeds on the check it can constrict and deal slam damage, pin, or whatever. If it fails it does nothing but the foe is still grappled.

Every time it slams, it automatically grapples. Whether it constricts is more of a gray area.

On one hand, constrict activates on a successful grapple check. The mimic does not make a grapple check. So if you run with that reasoning, it doesn't constrict on the round it starts the grapple. In later rounds it would make grapple checks; if it succeeds it deals constrict along with the normal results of a grapple check, if it fails nothing happens but the victim is still grappled.
On the other hand, 'automatically grapples' could be seen as equivalent to automatically passing the grapple check (I believe there may have been an FAQ or something that confirmed this, but I can't find it ATM). In that case it would deal constrict damage on the first round when it starts the grapple. In later rounds it would make grapple checks as above.

My take on it is that every other creature constricts the round it starts the grapple, so the mimic probably should too.

Touch attacks can sneak attack; however splash weapons cannot, and deadly aim does not apply to touch attacks (because both these things are specifically excepted in their rules).

Anyone can use sneak attacks with spells that require an attack roll.

It is tiring and tedious to go through the same arguments over and over, just because some posters have only just joined us.

It's not that people are unaware of your explanations and rebuttals, it's that your answers haven't resolved the inconsistencies and errors in your position.

You know very well that our position is that 'the rule' ONLY applies once you have taken the first attack of your full attack action. We know this because 'the rule' is a sub-section of full attack, which is itself a sub-section of full-round action. The ONLY consistent way of ruling it is that it only applies to full attacks.

That is false. It is inconsistent with 'deciding between an attack and a full attack', with 'assuming you have not already taken a move action this round', and with the rest of the book which includes rules applying outside their section several times. For one of many examples of the latter, a subsection of the attack action section is the critical hit section. I assume you believe that a character making a full attack can use the critical hit rules. So why is it that the 'deciding between' rule only applies to the full attack section where it is found, but the critical hit rule does not only apply to the standard attack section where it is found?

The claims that you can apply Manyshot to what even you have described as a standard action attack because 'the first attack counts as a full attack', and that a rule only applies to the section it's found in even though the text, precedents in the other rules, and common sense indicate the opposite, are both unsound. They are illogical, unsupported by the rules, and inconsistent with the rest of the rulebook. You seem like an intelligent person and I think that you suspect this yourself, but are refusing to accept it because it would mean losing an argument.
EDIT: To put that a little differently, are you looking for evidence of what is correct any more, or are you looking for evidence of what makes you correct?

Really? Then why is your camp arguing that you can take an attack without defining what action it is?

Because the rules state that which of the two attack-type actions you are making is (or can be) undefined until after the first attack has been resolved and the decision made. Why is this a problem?

Correct. It's not a full attack ANY MORE. When you make the choice to take a move action instead of the remaining attacks of your full attack, then the first attack of that full attack is NO LONGER part of a full attack, because now there's only one of them!

Which means that the first attack does not qualify for Manyshot, which in turn means that you have created a contradiction in which you are not allowed to use the feat but have still claimed the benefit. That is to say, you've broken the rules.

We are still in different camps, but we are at least narrowing down our debate to the relevant disagreements only. Something I thought I'd achieved with Gauss earlier.

The problem is you reached a point where it's impossible to move forward because you are arguing a logically inconsistent viewpoint. There is no rule that states you must actually take an action to count as taking that action because it's self-evident. During your turn you are either performing a full round action or you are not - you can't be both at the same time. There are no partial full round actions, you either took the action or you did not.

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.

That's correct, their unarmed strikes deal d3 base damage just like everyone else (except Monks). They're better off using weapons from the close weapon group or the monk group.

But that's not what it WAS, that's what it BECAME. this change in nomenclature in no way changed what ACTUALLY happened during that first attack, at a period in time when it WAS a full attack.

This is where you're going wrong. It's not just nomenclature, it defines what actually happened for the entire round. If you make a standard attack, you can't use Manyshot. You already used Manyshot. So you can't change to a standard attack.

There is no "it WAS a full attack but NOW it's a standard attack" situation. If you declared a full attack and then transformed it into a standard attack, then what you made was a standard attack with all attendant limitations. Your actions in a round cannot consist of both a full attack and a standard attack. It is either one or the other.

Malachi, other examples of adjusted rules include but are not limited to drowning (which can heal you) and being dead/unconscious (which does not prohibit actions). There is nothing wrong with adjusting things to make the game run as intended. That is not a fair criticism unless you can show why it is unnecessary or why that particular adjustment is especially problematic. You have not done either; your descriptions of what the RAW is and what the problems with this ruling are have been inaccurate.

Step up and Following step

Be bullrushed

Be grappled and pulled

Be dragged

While those can be argued to be movement in various ways, none of them are a move action which is what full attack refers to.

The rules are also crystal clear that you may decide, after the first attack of a full attack, to take a move action instead of the remaining attacks.

Which is the process of deciding between an attack or a full attack, meaning it is not a full attack action.

In any case, it is certainly true that the rules can be poorly written and intend something other than what they seem to. But if someone is going to claim that, they need to provide evidence to support it.

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."

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.

Now that's an important part of the rule. If the first attack were an attack made as a standard action, as you would claim it could be, then why is the option to take move action instead of your remaining attacks dependent upon it? Wouldn't you be able to take a move action regardless of how the attack turns out?

The reason is because the "attack" in question is the first attack of a full attack.

No, because the rule is that you make an undefined attack (not a standard attack, full attack, or AoO), then choose whether it's a full attack or a standard attack based on what you do next. Just as it's true that you don't need the move option if it's a standard attack, you don't need the "assuming you have not already taken a move" clause if it's a full attack.

Hrothgar: This might make the reasoning for why Manyshot would require a full attack, and why GMs might make an exception for Rapid Shot but not Manyshot, more clear.

Full attacks are supposed to be stronger than standard attacks, in that you put out more damage on a full attack. Even with something like Vital Strike this is true. So the decision is between whether you want to put out more damage or move. With that in mind, compare Rapid Shot and Manyshot:
Archer has a total attack bonus of +14/9 with his bow, and deals an average of 20 damage per hit. He gets into a fight with a random Blackhat with AC 25.
With no special abilities, his average damage is 15 on a full attack and 10 on a standard attack.
If he uses Rapid Shot, his average damage is 19 on a full attack. If we allow him to move after, his average damage would be 8 on a standard.
If he uses Manyshot, his average damage is 25 on a full attack. If we allow him to move after, his average damage would be 20 on a standard.
This trend continues at higher levels. That is, the more attacks he gets per round, the more Manyshot outpaces Rapid Shot in terms of damage output on a full attack.

The point of this is that even with the full attack requirement, Manyshot is a much better feat than Rapid Shot (in this case +25% damage vs +66%). Allowing a character to use Rapid Shot on a standard attack gives him more options with a -10% damage output. Allowing Manyshot on a standard attack gives him more options with a +100% damage output. While the rules of the two abilities are similar, the effects of them are very different.

The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule pertains to the Full Attack rule. The word attack refers to the first attack of a full attack as it says in the rule itself. It is not referring to the standard attack action. The more general rule is overridden by the more specific Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule.

That is simply not what the rule says. 'Between an attack and a full attack' has a different meaning than 'between the first attack of a full attack and all the attacks of a full attack' or 'between a full attack with one attack and a full attack with more attacks'. You are choosing between one thing and another, one of which is a full attack and one of which is not. There's nothing to interpret here, it means exactly what it says.

A specific exception in the rules would be something like Improved Trip or Slow Fall. The general rule is that creatures making a trip attack provoke an AoO; the specific exception is that creatures with Improved Trip do not. The general rule is that falling creatures take X damage; the specific exception is that creatures with Slow Fall and near a wall reduce that by Y amount. Compare that to the full attack rules as interpreted by you: The rule which states that you cannot move applies to all characters making a full attack, and the rule which states that you can take a move action instead of additional attacks applies to all creatures making a full attack. They are equally specific (that is, they apply to everyone on every full attack), and the existence of one directly contradicts the other. If the rule really is "you may take one attack and then one move action as a full attack action", then the "cannot move except a 5' step" should not exist. Additionally, you have the statement "if you have not already moved", which would be impossible on a full round action such as a full attack.
On the other hand, if we assume that the "Deciding" heading indicates that the rules following it related to deciding between a standard action Attack and a full round action Full Attack, these issues disappear and the statements become consistent.

But, I have yet to see your interpretation's problems addressed. What attack bonus would a monk would use when, according to your interpretation, he makes his first attack before deciding to make it a standard attack or the first attack of a flurry of blows? Also, does the rapid shooter retroactively apply a penalty to to his first attack when he decides to make it the first attack of a full attack, or is it open to abuse allowing players to get the first attack without penalty? Your interpretation of deciding what the first attack was after it's been made leads to more interesting problems.

They were addressed earlier, but I can repeat it. The solution to everything but FOB is that you must be allowed to declare a full attack before making your first attack in order to use the abilities. However, it is still the case that to gain the benefit you must actually follow through and make that full attack, not claim you will make a full attack and then cancel it and make a standard attack instead. This means that if you fire the extra arrow with Manyshot you cannot move afterwards. This may also be the case with Rapid Shot, but the consensus is that in practice a GM would allow you to fire once and then move, taking the -2 penalty but not committing to a full attack (the idea being that you haven't used the benefit yet, and you could do this with TWF, so it's fair to allow it even though it's technically against the rules). I actually have a slightly different interpretation of how Rapid Shot works, but it seems to be the minority and it's not very important for this argument.

It is my contention that yours and my interpretation of the RAW is the more logical, the more player friendly and the interpretation that results in fewer ridiculous implications (such as not being able to shoot one arrow on a first attack if you have the "manyshot" feat).

I've already stated I disagree with every one of those, but out of curiosity how does your interpretation solve the 'not being able to shoot one arrow' problem? That seems to be an issue (albeit a very easily solved one) independent of either interpretation.

I asked him to quote the rule that denies them this choice. He said that Rapid Shot, Manyshot et al 'require' a full attack. Sure, they 'require' a full attack while executing those attacks, but we are in a full attack when we make them. He says that you are required to COMPLETE the full attack. Er... it doesn't say that, either in the combat chapter or in the description of each feat.

Of course there isn't such a rule. You're asking for a rule explaining basic logic. It isn't going to happen.

The argument that B is false because you were making a full attack at the time and then changed it is unsound. When you changed it your entire action changed from 'full attack' to 'attack+move'. It's not the case that you started a full attack with your first attack and then didn't complete it. Rather, you decided that your first attack was not part of a full attack.

The book says you can take the first attack of a full attack and move instead of taking your remaining attacks. This specific rule overrides the rule you're citing. The word "or" is not in play because that rule is overriden.

I am still curious what attack bonus a monk would use when, according to Moglun's interpretation, he makes his first attack before deciding to make it a standard attack or the first attack of a flurry of blows. This interpretation of deciding what the first attack was after it's been made seems to be problematic.

That rule is not overridden because the rule you're thinking of describes deciding between a full round action and a standard+move action. Not taking a full round action and also a move action.

It is problematic, for FoB and Rapid Shot and probably some other specifics. But it's still true, and those problems are easily solved (and have been acknowledged by devs). Your interpretation is also problematic with certain specifics such as Pounce, Dimensional Skirmisher, and Manyshot (because it effectively allows it on a standard action), and is inconsistent with the rules over top of that.

• At the moment I execute my first attack of my full attack sequence I AM in the process of a full attack, so Manyshot, Rapid Shot, Whirlwind Attack et al apply

• After this first attack is completely resolved (as the first attack of a full attack), I 'CAN take a move action instead of making (my) remaining attacks', following the rule, word for word

• Now, since I only made a single attack after all, and imput from the devs tells us that 'if you only take a single attack in a round then that attack was an attack action, therefore a standard action', then that means that without declaring anything else that my first attack retroactively became a standard action, and the move action I'm taking now does not break the action economy of the game

• Therefore, there never was 'full attack A or full attack B'

None of that would allow you to use Manyshot and move.

• You say that TWF is somehow different, that it's just a 'modification' of a full attack, it doesn't say that you MUST declare a full attack; that's why you can take the first attack when TWFing and take a move action instead of your remaining attacks. According to the rules on p.184 under 'Multiple Attacks', 'A character who CAN make more than one attack per round MUST use the full attack action in order to GET more than one attack. So, in order for there to be a possibility of an off-hand attack, you MUST use the full attack action. You CAN take a move action, converting your first attack to a standard action, because at that point you're not GETTING more than one attack. You say this is okay for TWF. I agree. At no point in the description of TWF on p.202 does it 'require' a full attack, you just have to choose a full attack to have the possibility of an extra off-hand attack. Well, the same is true for Manyshot, Rapid Shot and whirlwind attack. The language in these feats does NOT 'require' a full attack any more or less than TWF does. It says 'When MAKING a full attack action/When you USE the full attack action'. What's good for TWF is good for them.

The same is NOT true of those feats. You don't choose a full attack to have the possibility of the extra attacks, you choose the full attack to actually make the extra attacks. Likewise using TWF increases your attacks, and making a full attack actually uses those attacks. So you don't need to full attack to use TWF, but you do need to full attack to benefit from it. This is different from Manyshot, Whirlwind, etc, which state that you need to full attack to use them. You said it yourself: "At no point in the description of TWF on p.202 does it 'require' a full attack". On the other hand, those feats DO state that they require a full attack.

'Can you explain why the rule is called "deciding between..." if it only applies to full attacks?'

Yes. You are deciding between carrying on with your full attack OR taking a move action instead of your remaining attacks.

That explanation doesn't work, but your earlier comments make your view more clear. So you ARE deciding between a full attack or a standard attack with move (retroactively), right?

' Can you explain why it mentions not applying it after taking a move action?'

Yes. It's to stop players taking a move action, followed by an attack action (standard action) and the trying to take a move action instead of their remaining (i.e. zero) attacks.

That makes no sense. A full attack is a full round action, and the rules state that you cannot take a move action followed by a full round action. So the existing rules already stop players doing that. If the rule only applies to full attacks, then the statement is redundant. No other full round action bothers to mention it. So why is it there?

' Can you explain how it can be consistent with the "no movement" rule?'

Yes. In either of two ways. First, you can't move more than a 5-foot step UNLESS you give up your remaining attacks for a move action. This is not a difficult concept, people; why it keeps getting mentioned just goes to show that real objections a scarce. Second, as soon as you take that move action, since your attack turned out to be a single attack after all, then it became a standard attack action by default, AFTER the attack had been resolved after a full attack.

Again, the first one makes no sense. If the rule is "you may either finish your attacks or move" then "you may not move" is false. That is to say, you could remove the "not move" rule from the book and the "move or attack" rule would still cover everything involved. This isn't a case of a general rule followed by a more specific rule. This is a case of one general rule saying one thing and then the next general rule saying the opposite (if they both only apply to the full attack action).

Well, I think that the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule means deciding between a the first attack of a full attack or all of the remaining attacks of a full attack.

But that's completely different from what it says. That would be the "Deciding between your remaining attacks and a move action" rule. I think it means 'deciding between an attack and a full attack' because that is EXACTLY what it says, word for word (that's one reason anyway).

I don't understand why you would have to make this choice since, by your interpretation, you've never declared anything. Isn't the choice completely in your head at that point? Why would you need a rule to make an internal decision?

I'm not sure I see what you're getting at, but my tentative answer is because one choice allows you to make your additional attacks and the other choice allows you to move.

EDIT: If the rule didn't exist, you would not be able to make an attack and then decide whether to continue or not. You would either declare a standard attack (and not get any additional attacks) or declare a full attack (and not get to move) before you knew the result of your first attack. Whereas now you can make your first attack and then decide to make it a standard attack (and move) or a full attack (and take the additionals). Is that the answer you're looking for?

But isn't that overriden by the more specific Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule?

I still think the rule pertains specifically to the Full Attack rule and should be interpreted that way. If it is not interpreted as referring to the Full Attack rule then isn't it a rule that says nothing?

No, they are equally specific. That is, if read your way then one rule says "on all full attacks you may not move" and the other says "on all full attacks you may choose to move instead of making your additional attacks". Unless you can explain what about the Deciding rule is more specific than the No Movement rule? And, assuming that the Deciding rule did only apply to full attacks and did overrule the No Movement rule, why would the No Movement rule exist?

It's not a rule that says nothing. It's a rule that says that to decide between an attack and a full attack, after your first attack you may choose to either continue attacking or move (as long as you haven't already moved). Since the only way to make additional attacks is a full attack, and the only way to move is not a full attack, which choice is which is obvious. You can do this on your first attack whether you intended to make it a full attack or a standard attack, barring more specific rules such as Manyshot or Vital Strike.

3. Take a full attack action, then after the first attack take a move action, CHANGING my full attack into a standard action+move AFTER the first attack (of what USED to be a full attack) has been completely resolved.

This IS the rule. There is no 'deciding between full attack and standard attack AFTER an unspecified attack'

Your argument is illogical. A full attack is a full round action which does not allow movement except a 5' step. An attack+move is a standard action and a move action. You cannot take a full round action, a standard action, and a move action all in the same turn.

And yes, I know you think the rules don't say that you lose the ability to choose not to full attack after using Manyshot. You're wrong, they do. Specifically they say that you may only use Manyshot on a full attack, and that if you move you are not making a full attack. Therefore Manyshot + Move = NO.

It was Moglun's answer to Hrothgar's question that made my ears perk up. To get the answer he did I have to ignore what I see as a specific relationship between the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule and the Full Attack rule.

Your answer is the one which ignores things - specifically "between an attack and a full attack" and "not already taken a move action". The rule does apply to full attacks, but it also applies to standard attacks (this is also why the rule is consistent with "the only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step"). It is a rule for both attacks which provides the means of deciding between them.

Can you explain why the rule is called "deciding between..." if it only applies to full attacks? Can you explain why it mentions not applying it after taking a move action? Can you explain how it can be consistent with the "no movement" rule? All these things indicate that it is NOT a rule for full attacks only, and these are the rules you are ignoring to in your interpretation.

You can also take a look at similar sections in other parts of the rules. For example, the standard action 'Attack' section includes rules for unarmed strikes, ranged attacks, natural attacks, and critical hits. It's exactly the same format, so if 'Deciding Between' only applies to full attacks based on that format then 'Critical Hits' must only apply to standard attacks. Do these rules only apply to standard action attacks? No, they apply to ALL attacks, including full attacks, even though they are found under the standard action attack section. Likewise 'Deciding Between' applies to all attacks, even though it is found under the full attack section.

The notion that because the rule appears in the full attack section it must only refer to full attacks despite the fact that it implies otherwise in three different spots is absolutely ludicrous and completely inconsistent with the rest of the rules.