zrandrews's page

If my PC has a minus to her strength, does that mean she does less damage when she hits a target with the "ball of packed ice and snow"?

no.

In the real world you might see it represented by someone staying in another persons blind spot, like behind them or being in the umbra of another person or thing and then getting into the shadows when someone looks in your direction.

In the turn based pathfinder world, where everyone is looking in all directions at the same time and everyone freezes in place when it's your turn, they just say you need to be withing 10' of dim light.

It is a turn based abstracting of something that might be possible in real time (if you were like, a ninja in a movie or something. You know, like when they're all hiding on the ceiling and the person doesn't seem to notice them, even though the camera does, and then they drop down and you have to like, do a crazy dive into the kitchen to avoid their blades, and then are forced to defend your life with only a frying pan and a wooden spoon).

Huh? I'm back after three years. I guess that was just non-lethal damage after all.

Aah, that's what I get for not looking at the last posting date.

The phrase "lethal damage" isn't a defined damage type, so you just have to use the regular old meaning of words. So, it would be damage of, relating to, or causing death. And what can cause death is clearly defined in the Pathfinder Rules: "When your character's current hit points drop to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score or lower, he's dead."

Nonlethal damage won't kill you. What will kill you is when any amount in excess of your maximum HP is treated as lethal damage, and if you take an amount of that of that equal to your HP plus your CON, then you're dead.

Why are there three pages of debate over the word lethal? It's in the dictionary: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Lethal

Neriathale wrote:

Survival skill, DC5 to butcher a dead animal

Survival skill DC10 to know that eating carnivores is generally not a good idea, and you are better off trapping a rabbit or two.

There's nothing inherently unhealthy about eating the meat of carnivores. Aligator, snake, dog, frogs, and other carnivores are eaten by humans safely. Omnivores like pigs and chickens are very common in American diet, too. Hunted bear isn't uncommon in areas of North America.

As long as you cook the meat well-done, there's no issue at all.

Well, specific to wolves and some scavangers, there are some diseases that they can carry that get into the meat which can be bad for humans, rabies is a big one. Not to say you can't do it, but there are legitimate reasons not to seek out those animals as a food source, or to pass them up as meals of opportunity unless you know what you're doing. I think that a DC 10 survival check to make sure the animal is safe to eat is perfectly reasonable. anyone trained in survival could just 'take 10' to pass that, and move on.

We had that problem with our Barbarian. Not sure what Archtype he is, but he becomes "Confused" when he kills an enemy. Our solution was a "Wand of Boxes". Super easy, level 1 wand that creates the illusion of a box around the guy, or between him and us if there are more enemies we want him to focus on.

As a bonus, it can also make many other simple, soundless illusions.

See also "Wizards of High Sorcery" from the Dragon Lance setting.

Anything you ban will be available just outside the gates. How will you deal with that?

/cevah

Don't. Say that the laws extend to the borders, make the borders past the walls of the city, and apply to the surrounding country side. then, the fact that it's not readily enforceable outside the city walls makes for story hooks.

I"m sure the politicians of the city would start blaming neighboring cities for empowering people to use destructive and immoral magic, and then sending them into their city. Then trying to force neighboring cities to adopt their laws.

EDIT: Be warned, if anyone in your gaming group is involved in 2nd amendment politics, this might get them riled up. Might make for some interesting plot developments in your game.

This is going to end up being related to this question:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tkbj?Magical-Child-Archetype-question

So, what happened to all the equipment from the character that died? Did they bury it with his body, or did they loot your old Character's corpse? If they looted the corpse, i can see why the GM wouldn't want to send in your new PC at WBL, mostly because the total party wealth would then be too high.

Major Image, all the way. Imagine the things you could pull off with that spell as an at-will ability.

@James Risner
@graystone

I'm not sure I understand why you guys are connecting the Magic Tail Feat to the Kitsune Magic racial trait, or the existence of a tail. The feat literally says nothing about having the Kitsune Magic racial trait. It also doesn't say anything about modifying it. Make no reference to the rules from it. You take that feat and "You gain a new spell-like ability...[lots of text about what spells you get]...Your caster level for these spells is equal to your Hit Dice. The DCs for these abilities are Charisma-based."

As for the descriptive text, I'm pretty sure the Dev has stated many times that the descriptive text is not rules, and you shouldn't treat it as such.

EDIT: I don't even see anything in the description of the race that connects that says the tail has anything to do with their magic.

Another EDIT: Just say the other thread where this is being talked about. I'll take this conversation over there. :D

That isn't saying you can't take it more then once, just that you can't benefit from it more then once, and therefore not answering the question of where it says you can't Take it more then once.

To specifically answer your question, after looking in all the expected places, I have not found any rule that says you cannot take the same feat more than once. However, as several people, including you, have already said:

Feat Descriptions...Benefit:... If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

So even though you could take the feat, and select elf the first time, when you took it a second time, you wouldn't get the benefit. Even if you wanted to choose Dwarf it wouldn't stack, because all of that is part of the benefit that doesn't stack.

It sounds like people think it should work that way, because they think that's RAI, and there isn't really any RAW that supports that interpretation.

Like Weirdo Said, if it's being supported because an Arcanist casts from the Sorc/Wiz spell list, then a Psychic Sorc 1 / Wizard X should also benefit, because he's casting from the same list.

Casual Viking: Are there any other instances you've come across where treating one class level like another class level would translate into anything other then exactly that? It still isn't' saying you cast sorcerer spells instead of Arcanist spells. I can't think of any instance where this would not be a comparison that affected Spells.

If the Bloodline Arcana does extend to Arcacnists, would that then also mean you could only copy/learn spells from other Psychic Arcanisis? Since you now cast and learn Psychic spells, and can't copy/learn them from Arcane spellbooks or scrolls?

I've been reading people say that a Blood Arcanist taking the Psychic Bloodline can wear armor without worrying about spell failure, because the Bloodline Arcana makes your spells count as psychic instead of arcane.

Does it really?

The Bloodline Arcana says "Your sorcerer spells and spell-like abilities count as psychic instead of arcane"

However, the Blood Arcanist Archetype doesn't say anything about counting your Arcanist spells as Sorcerer spells, or anything about replacing references to Sorcerer in the Bloodline to Arcanist.

So, is the Blood Arcanist really benefiting from the Bloodline Arcana? I'd think you would continue casting Arcanist spells as arcane spells. If you do benefit from it, where is the rule that justifies that interpretation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Casual Viking wrote:

Psychic Spellbooks don't exist, because the ability to write (arcane) spells in a spellbook is a class ability (part of the Spellbook ability). A sorceror can't write a spellbook either.

Again, one type of psychic spellbook does exist. Blood Arcanists with the Psychic Bloodline would cast psychic spells due to their bloodline, but as Arcanists they would have and use spellbooks.

Does that spellbook exist though? The Psychic Bloodline says you cast your Sorcerer spells as psychic. Why would that affect your Arcanist's spells?

Or, ya know...be Hodor

All the things that were listed with a CHA of 1 all seem to be a type of animal, so I'd play it like that. You are now, essentially, a really really smart animal. Just imagine what your dog might do, in regards to what people think of a socially normal, and so something similar. An animal wouldn't care about pooping in public, or wearing clothes for anything but protection, or killing and eating the nearest tasty looking animal when it got hungry.

You have no force of personality, so you might not ever tell people what to do. Maybe you just start doing something when it's time to do it and never bother to ask people about it, because it no longer occurs to you. You might just take things because you want them, only regarding how it might affect you if you do, and not if it would upset someone, much like how a dog will try and steal your sammich, or a crocodile might eat your dog.

If you've ever read the Sword of Truth series, Terry Goodkind mentions this idea. In a large battle, the spell casts on each side negate each other. One will come up with a good plan wreak havoc, then the other side will start countering it, and back and forth. If they are evenly balanced, they don't make too much difference overall.

It's when only one side has magic that it becomes really devastating.

TimD wrote:

rorek55 wrote:

So I want an up coming NPC to be a literal walking tank.

I guess you could apply the "young" template, but the use of the "drunk" template might be even more confusing...

... or perhaps reconsider your use of the word "literal" :)

-TimD

Drop everything. We have a winner.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Naw, he's literally good :D

A conveniently placed Chest, in a conveniently placed room, containing a conveniently placed Wand of Levitate (with say, 4 charges). That room should also have a window.

OR! A room with a window that has a door that locks, so they good guys have time to climb down the side of the tower and run away.

So, I looked over the combat maneuver rules again, and grapple and drag both call out the target as a foe, so RAW, I don't think you could do it to an ally.

I'd still let it fly though. Seems pretty cinematic to me, one guy pulling his friend out of harms way just before the enemy can land a finishing blow. Happens all the time in Movies and such. Might make the players aware that it's not really in the rules, so keep it in the spirit of the game and don't abuse any potential loopholes.

It still requires one character to sacrifice almost all of his turn to do, so I can't see it being too bad, especially if it'a making memorable encounters and everyone is still having fun.

#1. I don't think so. This is under the "Multiple Creatures" part. Basically, when that 3rd guy enters the grapple, he's just giving one of the other people a +2 bonus to the grapple check, he's not actually going to do any of the grapple actions. You aren't doing some strange two grapples at once, it's always one grapple between the two people, and everyone else that piles on is just doing an Aid Another Action for one of the people in it.

#2: Why not? It might not be good for them though. Round 1, Monk starts the grapple, both of them get the grappled condition. Round 2, Monk makes another grapple check (as a standard action) and moves half speed, then ends the grapple as a free action.

#3. Again, i'd let it happen, but there's nothing in the rules I know of for it.

#4. Foe, opponent, and enemy are all words for people attacking you. I think it's subjective. We rule that if the person dosen't grant you a flanking bonus, they are not your ally. If they are not your ally you can call them the enemy (and as such you can't move through their space, and AoOs can happen and such)

#5: An unconscious hero is stuff. If the body is unattended, anyone can pick it up (assuming a high enough strength) otherwise there would be an opposed check of some kind (like, a giant is holding your unconscious ally, you need to make a disarm check to get him away)

You're the 6th man in a party full of Melee's? To me, this just screams out for a bard. You're the man with the spells, the man with the skill, and the man with the INSPIRE COURAGE.

Hit everyone with Message in the morning, and play it like you're the squad info ops guy, giving out positional updates, direction and encouragement to the team. You can get a high UMD and wands for the status fixes. Max out the Knowledges, and let bruisers know what weapon to use.

Whatever you do, don't try to make a Heal Bot. That just...just...miserable.

... unless it weighs more than 1 lb./level

Ooh, Missed that part.

The big difference I see is this:
Mending: "Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does NOT restore their magic abilities."

Make Whole: "Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item."

So, Mending can't fix a magic item and still have the magic items properties intact. Once you fix it with Make Whole, however, it looks like you can repair it the rest of the way with Mending.

A wand is 6 to 12 inches long, 1/4 inch thick, and weighs no more than 1 ounce.

That's the description of a typical #2 Pencil. Can you see a Pencil being used as an improvised weapon? If so, then go for it, the description of Wushu Dart sound perfect (This sharpened wooden spike can be used as a punching weapon but it is perfectly balanced for throwing.), just without the throwing.

If it were me, I'd say it is a Piercing weapon that does 1 point of damage.

The Human Diversion wrote:

LazarX wrote:

...

...

...I don't believe anyone would reasonably expect anyone posting on these boards to really be out trekking through the wilderness using magic wands and fighting monsters.

Yea, but that probally just because there aren't any level appropriate monsters around. I mean, I've been wandering in the wilderness with my wand for YEARS, and I'm still just a Level 1 Commoner.

I mean, really...I have yet to find any kobolds or stirges in ANY of the abandoned houses in my area. It's ridiculous.

I'll join in on the Paizo love.

That I can buy just the Core Book in hard cover, and then all the other books I've been interested in I can get as a .pdf at a reasonable price. Combined with the PRD being open source and free has been godsend to my limited budget and made it easy for me to get new people into the game.

The few times I've made a mistake on my order Paizo fixed it up right for me (I accidentally double bought a map pack. Bough it stand alone, and then found out the same files were in a bundle I bought).

I don't want it for free, when they make it easy to get, and price it when I can buy, they'll keep getting my money.

zrandrews wrote:

So, Guy1 use the following readies action:

When Guy2 attacks me, i will attack him and then take a 5' step back...

This is only a problem if the 20th level guy isn't smart enough to change tactics...

Totally. In reality, the fighter wouldn't even need to do all that, he'd just pull out his throwing axe, or his bow and end it.

The whole thing just seems, I dunno...unnecessary annoying. I know I wouldn't want my PC to get into a fight with some goblins or something that all start doing that, it wouldn't change the outcome, just draw it out for another round. Now that I think about it, that might be awesome If I wanted my BBEG to get a few extra round to buff his minions.

So, Guy1 use the following readies action:
When Guy2 attacks me, i will attack him and then take a 5' step back.

So every time Guy2 steps up to attack Guy1, Guy1 attacks and then backs up, and Guy2's turn ends, because he can't reach Guy1 and was committed to the attack? That's what you're saying, HumanFighter?

If that's true, then a Level 1 commoner (Guy1) can win a sword fight against a Level 20 Fighter (Guy2), so long as the Level 20 fighter is the aggressor. He would be untouchable to the Fighter's melee attacks, and eventually he'll roll enough 20s to kill the guy. That can't possibly be the proper interpretation of the 5' step rules.

I would base if off the "Other Considerations" part in the price consideration

Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities."

Other Considerations: Once you have a cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:

Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.

A +2 vs Demons is kind of like a requirement for a specific class or alignment. So i'd say

+1 Sword : 2000gp
+2 Sword : 6000gp (the normal 8000 minus the 2000 for the +1)
Similar ability (6000 * .75) reducded to 4500gp
limitation (demons only) (4500* 0.7) reduced to 3150gp

total Cost 2000gp + 3150gp = 5150gp

Basically, the increase to +2 is reduced because of the limitation to only affect Demons and because you are adding a Similar Ability.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Epsilon wrote:

zrandrews wrote:

...I would argue that the more specific rule trumps the more general rule. In this instance, the False Focus replacement is less specific than replacing your material component with a bottle of alchemists fire to augment Burning hands (extend that logic to each alchemical power component)...

Two issues:

First, why do people keep thinking it replaces the material component? It adds to the material component there is no replacing. It does add an effect and/or alter the spell though.
Second...

You see, here is where you miss it:

Quote:

Alchemical Power components is an alchemical item used as a material component or focus for a spell in order to alter or augment the spell's normal effects. What follows is a sample of

...

And you missed it. I'm using it as a material component see the M.

Spells followed by a (M) expend the alchemist item as a material component
Material Component = True.
Burning Hands (M): One target that fails its reflex throw (your choice) catches on fire as if it has been struck by alchemist's fire.
Because of that M right there it is considered a material component for the spell.

But...You aren't using the Alchemist Item as a material component. So, the Alchemist Item can't give you a bonus. You might as well be saying that someone using Improved Trip can't be bitten by a goblin using Ankle biter because Improved Trip says you don't provoke any attacks of opportunity when you Perform the Trip Combat Maneuver.

Also, using an alchemical power component as the material component to get a bonus is more specific than being able to cast the spell without the material component. So, if you want the bonus, you have to follow the more specific rule. Goes back to that first chapter in the core book that says when there is a potential conflict in rules or abilities, the more specific rule takes precedence.

Did you cast the spell using faith focus in place of the material component? Yes. Did you use the alchemical power component as the material component? No. So, you can cast the spell but don't get the bonus for using the alchemical power component as the material component.

zrandrews wrote:

...

I would argue that the more specific rule trumps the more general rule. In this instance, the False Focus replacement is less specific than replacing your material component with a bottle of alchemists fire to augment Burning hands (extend that logic to each alchemical power component)....

Two issues:

First, why do people keep thinking it replaces the material component?...

People keep thinking that because it's what it says. You use the alchemical item as the material component. "An alchemical power component is an alchemical item used as a material component or focus for a spell in order to alter or augment the spell's normal effects."(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services/herb s-oils-other-substances)

It doesn't say "in addition to", it says "as". If I handed you a rolled up newspaper and said " use this as a flyswatter" you wouldn't start dual welding the newspaper and a flyswatter.

Alchemical power components are [specific] alchemical items used as a material component (replacing the material component) for [specific] spells.

False Focus let's you use a Divine Focus to cast a spell [with a material component] without it's material component.

Yea, I can totally see why this is confusing. I'm inclined to say that False Focus wouldn't replace an alchemical power component. I say this because you have to use the alchemical power component in place of the material component to get the benefit. If you are using your False Focus, then you are not replacing the material component with the alchemical power component.

I would argue that the more specific rule trumps the more general rule. In this instance, the False Focus replacement is less specific than replacing your material component with a bottle of alchemists fire to augment Burning hands (extend that logic to each alchemical power component).

With that said, if I were you, I'd ask if the GM he he/she things that the use of a Feat is worth the benefit you would get for free alchemical power components. That appeal is probably more likely to work.

I am inclined to believe that because it is on another plane of existence, it would not be considered near. However, I could understand that someone might say that because you can cross into that demention from a specific point (the opening of the bag) you could measure distance to the opening, then through the opening into the other plane to the object.

Given the way dimensions and planes of existence work though, I'd say affects wouldn't cross that boundry, much like the way Locate Objet would fail. It seems to be that those dimensional boundries are ment to work that way.

I would think that the bridge has an arc in it, much like most real bridges (most, not all).Pit comes up, they are beneath the bridge, probably squeezing, that, or ejected from the sides.

To stick with RAW, I might try a dirty trick instead. Delay untill right before the downed character, then dirty trick the foe to try and blind him. Blinded characters don't get an AOO I think.

Though...dirty tricks provoke.

Also, could ready an action to attack the foe if he makes an AOO.

Or Grapple the Foe.

So, nothing RAW to do exactly what you want, but there are ways to defend someone trying to stand and staying RAW.

Malachi, I guess I'm missing the circles. It sure looks to me like the basis of your argument requires ignoring part of a rule. Manyshot specicially says it is a Full-Attack and the rule you are quoting only applies when deciding between when you go from the standard action of Attack and the Full-Round action of Full-Attack. You are applying a rule but ignoring the part where it is to decide between an Attack and a Full-Attack.

The basis of that statement is that the rule says:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

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.

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.

Emphasis not mine. It is like that in the PRD.

I see what you did there. I actually agree with this potential interpretation.

...Reading the rule exactly as written, after your first attack (implying there's more than one to take), you can (implying a choice not otherwise present in the rules) decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks (implying that you are entitled to more attacks, not possible without taking the full attack action). Whether you agree with this is a separate issue; it's a perfectly reasonable reading of the rule...

How then, do you justify being able to apply that rule? Because to do that you need to be deciding between the Attack Action or the Full Attack Action? Dosn't seem like a leap to say that, since those are the rules that follow "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack"

This choice is NOT present under 'standard actions' at all! There is no choice to take a standard action, then take iterative attacks instead of making a move action. It seems that for this to be true:

...Not only does the rule work perfectly, it needs no further (made up) rules to make it work (like 'locking you in' to completing an action). We didn't even realise that their WAS another way to interpret this rule until a couple of weeks ago when I first started reading this thread! I only looked at it because I thought it would be people complaining that they changed...

You have to ignore that the rule applies when "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack". If you are making attacks because of you BAB, it is relevant' I made my first attack roll, do I now want to make another? But When a Feat says it is part of the Full Attack Action, then you aren't making a Decision between them, are you?

The interpretation of the rule only matters if the rule is applied to the situation, and for these Feats I can't see how it would. There isn't a point where your action could go from being a Standard Action to a Full Round Action. It was always a Full Round Action, and subject to it's limitations.

I found that Illusion remained pretty viable though all levels. I typically use it for battlefield control, making silent images of spikes coming through the floor, or walls, or, my personal favorite, making a big rock and standing in it.

With illusions, it's important to remember that you don't get to make a save unless you interact with it. Make things people don't want to interact with and they are pretty good. And in combat, if they take the time to inspect it, well, that's a standard action it cost them. :D

Fun, very versatile. Not really a damage dealer.

...You're implying that, because the rule is in the 'combat actions' part of the game, then that proves you're correct in saying that it MUST refer to the attack ACTION.

I'm saying that, if the position of the rule is what clinches the argument, then since the most specific part of the rules containing this rule is the 'full attack' rule, then by your logic this clinches the argument for our camp!...

Aah, I understand now.

My intent in saying that it is in the Combat Actions section would not be changed because it is in the Full Attack Section of Combat Actions. I was trying to emphasize the relevance of action over some other meaning. Take the sentence "When deciding between an attack or the full-attack action" and replace the word attack with whatever meaning you think they are using, and you will see what I mean.

I believe they are saying "When deciding between an Attack Action or the Full-Attack Action". That sentence makes sense. If they were saying "When deciding between making your attack roll or The Full-Attack Action" then it would not make sense, nor would "When deciding between stabbing someone or the Full-Attack Action". The two items being decided between must be related or it wouldn't fit the context it is being used in.

(assumption: Full-Attack is a reference to an Action)

You say it's in the section about COMBAT ACTIONS. Yes. It's also in the subsection on FULL ATTACK.

I don't understand what you mean by that, or how it changes what I'm saying. Genuine statement, no sarcasm or ire intended.

...First, I choose the full attack action with my bow. Second, since I have the feat 'Manyshot', without any other statement from me, that 'first' attack shoots two arrows. At this point I am part-way through a full attack, which if completed would be a full-round action. However, 'After (my) first attack, (I decided) to take a move action instead of making (my) remaining attacks'.

Here seems to be a failing...When you make your first attack you are making a Full-Attack, which will be a Full-Attack regardless of any other actions you take. I say this because the Feat specifically says When you make a Full-Attack. And Full-Attack is a Full Round Action. I know this because it is listed as one of the possible types of Full Round Action. Since you have made a Full Round Action, you do not get a move action, and your only move option is a 5 foot step.

...Although it is not explicitly written in the CRB, intervention from a dev (in answer to a different question), says that if you only take a single attack in your turn then that attack was a standard action. Fine. Have I taken only a single attack (of the many I get for a full attack)? Yes. Therefore, at the moment I take that move action instead of making my remaining attacks, my first attack became a standard action, and looking back at the round just gone, it consisted of a standard action plus a move action. It was not a full-round action plus a move action, because a full attack consists of more than one attack because by definition a single attack is a standard action...

This is the other failing...When you only make a single attack in a round, it is a standard action, except that in this instance, that single attack Roll could only be made if you use the Full Attack action.

edit: Failing is a harsher term then I really mean. Maybe, misunderstanding? Eh, my thesaurus isn't working so good.

Hey, I got the 1000th post!

Do I win a toaster?

Ooh, Toasters. Nice. :D

Malachi:
Yea, but the line you are quoting that say "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks" is in a section about deciding between and Attack or a Full-attack. To use Manyshot you have to use a Full attack, so there is nothing in that section applies, because you are not deciding between an Attack or a Full-
Attack

The entire section of rules being debated is a specific part relevant only to "When deciding between Attack and Full-Attack" and quite frankly it's irrelevant because you are not deciding between the two.

As for "Your continued insistence that the word 'attack' in this rule MUST mean attack action is demonstrably false"; It is in the section about COMBAT ACTIONS. why do you think that they would use attack to mean a specific attack roll as part of an attack in the same sentence as the full-attack action? If that were true you could replace the entire sentence with this:

When deciding between an attack roll or the full-attack action:....rules relevant to making that decision...

quite frankly, that sentence makes no sense.

Full-Attack = Full round action = A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

Attack = Standard Action = Can follow by a move action.

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.

So, when you are deciding between an attack or a full attack you can make your first attack. But with Manyshot your first attack fires two arrows if you decided to take a Full attack. The remarks about giving up your remaining attacks to move, in context of the section, doesn't seem relevant. No where does it say you can give up your remaining attacks to move, is just says that when you deciding between an attack or a full attack you can see your first attack roll. In this instance, your first attack roll (and firing two arrows) could only be done by deciding to make a full attack.

If you make your first attack roll, and then decide based on that to only use the attack action instead of the full attack action, then you couldn't have done manyshot.

Edit: woah! totally made a post in the wrong forum. sorry.

My character is CN. I was wondering how long before alignment would raise its ugly head...

Trap The Soul is not an evil spell.
Killing a traitor is not evil it is a sensible thing to do...

Dude...You're planning to Kill your friends Wife and trap her soul. How can that be anything but evil? Something can be a sensible idea and still be evil. I'm working on the assumption that she is not willingly providing information to the bad guys, if she's doing it willingly and the PCs know it, then get them all in on the plan.

As to how to actually do it:
Use that fact that you are supposed to be friends with the NPC, lure her to an area that has been anti-magicked. Slip the stone in her pocket, knife her, drop the stone in the lead box and the box in the bag of holding. I think the Anti-Magic area would protect from the scrying and divination, but I'm not sure.

Something else to consider:
If you successfully trap her, and leave no clues, what might that do to the game when the PCs wife disappears with no clues to what happened? Just, poof, gone. and the can't find anything when they try to look. Do you think that it might cause the other players to think the DM just removed her and is railroading them from finding what happened? I'd be a little irritated if a major NPC that was connected to my PC vanished without a trace and I could do nothing to find her, and then couldn't discover why the sudden plot hole appeared until the game ended (which might take months?).

edit: spelling