Declaring Cleave


Rules Questions

401 to 431 of 431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Shar Tahl wrote:
James Jacobs was seeing how far this insanity would go! near 400 posts!!

I asked him to help out :)


xJoe3x wrote:

For those that want to read a bit more about what the boss man had to say on declaring actions and cleave:

link fixed

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Until the thread reaches 1,001 posts, it's not officially insanity though.

Although taking time out to make posts like these during the BUSIEST week of the entire year might be insanity.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

It may not be insane yet, but it's gibbering in the closet.


Slatz Grubnik wrote:
xJoe3x wrote:

For those that want to read a bit more about what the boss man had to say on declaring actions and cleave:

link fixed

Thanks, I accidentally deleted that post trying to fix another. I was not used to linking that way.


xJoe3x wrote:
Slatz Grubnik wrote:
xJoe3x wrote:

For those that want to read a bit more about what the boss man had to say on declaring actions and cleave:

link fixed
Thanks, I accidentally deleted that post trying to fix another. I was not used to linking that way.

NP =)


oh man...is it over already? I was just about to make some popcorn.

Scarab Sages

James Jacobs wrote:

Until the thread reaches 1,001 posts, it's not officially insanity though.

Although taking time out to make posts like these during the BUSIEST week of the entire year might be insanity.

This is insanity?! THIS IS PATHFINDER!


James Jacobs wrote:

Until the thread reaches 1,001 posts, it's not officially insanity though.

Although taking time out to make posts like these during the BUSIEST week of the entire year might be insanity.

Eep, I had forgotten about that. Well we appreciate your love of insanity around here.

Maybe there should be a sentence, buried on the back pages of the APG, that says "You must declare a Cleave. LOLZ!"


blope wrote:
oh man...is it over already? I was just about to make some popcorn.

We have to compete with that thread in the off-topic section whose only goal was to get a ridiculous number of posts. It cant be over. Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.


wraithstrike wrote:
blope wrote:
oh man...is it over already? I was just about to make some popcorn.
We have to compete with that thread in the off-topic section whose only goal was to get a ridiculous number of posts. It cant be over. Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Sorry for being a party killer :P

Scarab Sages

xJoe3x wrote:
Sorry for being a party killer :P

Is that a regular party killer, or a TOTAL PARTY KILLER!!!!??

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Snorter wrote:
xJoe3x wrote:
Sorry for being a party killer :P
Is that a regular party killer, or a TOTAL PARTY KILLER!!!!??

And if you start out a Total Party Killer and decide to leave one alive, can you take a move action instead?

Scarab Sages

James Jacobs wrote:
Until the thread reaches 1,001 posts, it's not officially insanity though.

Has Jason lifted the restraining order we earned, for the 'Smite' thread?


Snorter wrote:
xJoe3x wrote:
Sorry for being a party killer :P
Is that a regular party killer, or a TOTAL PARTY KILLER!!!!??

Well some seem to still be alive and kicking so I guess just regular.


james maissen wrote:
And the rules do, indeed, say just that. You get to have your PC make a normal attack and then decide if it will be a full attack action or a standard action leaving you with a move action.

I think this is your mistake.

The rules do NOT allow you to decide if "it will be a standard action". Here's why:

First, note the headings:

Pathfinder SRD wrote:

Full-Round Actions

Full Attack

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...

The first thing you'll note is that we are in the sectin of Full-Round Actions and in the subsection of Full Attack . This means we have already decided to make a Full Attack.

Now, in that section, as we are making our Full Attack, we are given a special rule that lets us decide, after our first attack, to take a Move Action instead of our remaining attacks. I am quite sure everyone agrees with this so far.

Now here is the crucial part:

Second, note that nowhere does it say that when you make this decision, the first attack that you have already made becomes a "standard attack". It doesn't become that at all.

Your first attack, that you have already made, remains a part of a Full Attack because that is how you made it.

If you had not made that first attack as part of a Full Attack, then the rule we are interpreting here would not apply because this rule is under the Full Attack heading and not found anywhere else in the book.

And that first attack remains part of a Full Attack regardless of whether you decide to keep attacking or take a move action.

And finally, in conclusion, since your first attack was part of a Full Attack, but it was NOT a Standard Attack, or a Cleave, or a Vital Strike, or anything else, and since your only RAW choices are to continue with your remaining Full Attack attacks or to make a move action, then there is no way to insert a Cleave into this Full Attack.

It's all quite clear.

And you'll note that nowhere in that did I suggest that you must "declare" anything. You can simply point at your figure standing there next to your enemies and roll a d20, then tell the DM "I rolled a 23 after modifiers, do I hit that guy?". And when he says "yes", you can then decide to keep making your Full Attack attacks or to make a move action. Nothing else.

Scarab Sages

<hands a plate of cake crumbs, a torn paper crown, and a bent cracker to DM Blake>

Welcome to the party!


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
DM_Blake wrote:

The rules do NOT allow you to decide if "it will be a standard action". Here's why:

...stuff...

First, I would like to preface my statement by saying I absolutely agree with you...

...however...wouldn't that mess with feats and abilities that assume you are taking a full attack? I can't think of any specific examples at the moment, but imagine a feat that says "if you make a full attack, X benefit happens." The game designers designed said feat with the intent that you would be standing in one spot, making multiple attacks, while gaining benefit X.

If you are able to attack AND move (as a full attack) then it may break the intent of the ability or even make it broken.

As I said above, I agree with your logic, I just worry about the rules side effects that may occur from it.


Ravingdork wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

The rules do NOT allow you to decide if "it will be a standard action". Here's why:

...stuff...

First, I would like to preface my statement by saying I absolutely agree with you...

...however...wouldn't that mess with feats and abilities that assume you are taking a full attack? I can't think of any specific examples at the moment, but imagine a feat that says "if you make a full attack, X benefit happens." The game designers designed said feat with the intent that you would be standing in one spot, making multiple attacks, while gaining benefit X.

If you are able to attack AND move (as a full attack) then it may break the intent of the ability or even make it broken.

As I said above, I agree with your logic, I just worry about the rules side effects that may occur from it.

I'm aware of no such conflicts. Show me one, and we'll see if we need to worry about it.


DM_Blake wrote:
I'm aware of no such conflicts. Show me one, and we'll see if we need to worry about it.

Manyshot.


AvalonXQ wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
I'm aware of no such conflicts. Show me one, and we'll see if we need to worry about it.
Manyshot.

And honestly I've thought of this one before. The wording on the PF manyshot is at least muddled enough that some people might think you can get the two shots AND a move action. Especially since it takes one attack roll. The reason I haven't attempted this is the same as the cleave, I go back to why a change was made and realize that is not the intention of the devs.


I would say that there is no conflict with manyshot.

Consider the wording.

Quote:
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

Now as you can see "your first attack fires two arrows" and so I would have to say that the two arrows are part of the single first attack.


WWWW wrote:

I would say that there is no conflict with manyshot.

Consider the wording.

Quote:
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
Now as you can see "your first attack fires two arrows" and so I would have to say that the two arrows are part of the single first attack.

Right, meaning you could declare a full attack, shoot two arrows with one shot, and abort your full attack for a movement. Right? Which makes it work like 3.5 manyshot which is certainly not the intention.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

AHA! Another good thing has come about this thread! Now I no longer feel the Manyshot change is so bad.


meatrace wrote:
Which makes it work like 3.5 manyshot which is certainly not the intention.

I'm starting to question that...


meatrace wrote:
WWWW wrote:

I would say that there is no conflict with manyshot.

Consider the wording.

Quote:
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
Now as you can see "your first attack fires two arrows" and so I would have to say that the two arrows are part of the single first attack.
Right, meaning you could declare a full attack, shoot two arrows with one shot, and abort your full attack for a movement. Right? Which makes it work like 3.5 manyshot which is certainly not the intention.

I do not claim to know the minds of the designers. All I can go on is how the rules were decided to work until they are said to be changed. It is however possible I have missed such a change but if I have then I do not know it.

In any case it seems that there is no actual conflict between rules only perhaps between rules and intention.


Xum wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Which makes it work like 3.5 manyshot which is certainly not the intention.

I'm starting to question that...

Well okay I don't believe that to be the intention. It is no longer clear though, based on the wording.

Still, it's odd if true that Manyshot allows you to start a full attack, shoot two arrows, and run since it CERTAINLY doesn't allow you to move then shoot two arrows which used to be the whole point.


meatrace wrote:
Xum wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Which makes it work like 3.5 manyshot which is certainly not the intention.

I'm starting to question that...

Well okay I don't believe that to be the intention. It is no longer clear though, based on the wording.

Still, it's odd if true that Manyshot allows you to start a full attack, shoot two arrows, and run since it CERTAINLY doesn't allow you to move then shoot two arrows which used to be the whole point.

Shoot and run, yes. Run and shoot, no. I think it's ok.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Interesting...

401 to 431 of 431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Declaring Cleave All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.