IIRC, you have to declare a full attack or standard attack BEFORE the first attack is made.
That said, I am now playing a monk for the first time and I noticed this problem. So to work through it my DM and I agreed that if I kill a target on that first hit, or if something crazy happens like, I found out my weapons did no damage, or he damaged me when I hit him, then I would be allowed to move away and it would not be cheesy.
I wonder how many people here that think this is out of line, think it is OK for a Two Weapon Fighting character to take the penalty to the first attack, kill the target then move? I would imagine that it would be ok for that at most tables. The mechanic is exactly the same, it just works in the player's advantage this way.
I suggest you and your table mates work it out and not to allow it to get crazy.
I suggest you and your table mates work it out and not to allow it to get crazy.
Komoda, I think what you and your DM have agreed to is exactly the intent of the rule:
If you make full attacks without regard for how the first attack turns out just to gain a bonus to your monk's attack then that would be allowing it to get "crazy".
IIRC, you have to declare a full attack or standard attack BEFORE the first attack is made.
True. You cannot make a standard action attack, then decide to convert it into a full attack after resolving the first one.
You can, however, declare a full-attack, then change your mind after the first attack and take a move action instead. It even explicitly says that you can do this "depending on how the first attack turns out", so the intent for that statement is clearly that you can use the information you gained from the first attack's results to decide whether to move or make more attacks.
This seems as clear as day to me.
|
My first impression was that taking a move action after a single attack on a declared full-attack was exploiting a loophole in the rules. However, after reading the appropriate section, I think it is written that way intentionally to allow for the flexibility.
Since Monks really don't need anything else working against them, I see no reason why they should not gain the full BAB benefit of FoB whenever making unarmed strikes or using a Monk weapon. In fact, it makes far less sense to me that their capabilities would be reduced when making a single attack, but maybe I just think differently than other people. Also, I see no reason that an archer cannot load two arrows and shoot them before a move. Again, it makes less sense to disallow such an action than it does to allow it. I'd even suggest that the archer character is one of those for whom that exception was specifically designed. I doubt it will be game-breaking, and it allows the players more flexibility.
On the other hand, remember that enemies will use the same tactic. Certainly not as much as PCs, but the party should be on the receiving end of it occasionally.
Wait so a monk being able to actually hit something and then get away from a full attack is now game breaking? Next some one will suggest that casters are overly gimped by verbal and somatic components
IIRC, you have to declare a full attack or standard attack BEFORE the first attack is made.
Yes, this point was recently brought up before you stated this.
Don't forget that those making a melee attack will almost always provoke from their opponent if they decide to move away. This is less of a problem for the archers.
Wait a second:
Haste and this trick.* Declare Full attack
* make 2 attacks at max BAB (standard and haste extra attack)
* forego the other attacks and move your base movement +30'I thought that possibility had been removed already when 3.5 was made.
..diego you're jumping to a conclusion that is not possible. You can only make a single attack then choose to opt out of the Full Attack.. what you're suggsting is.. two attacks. Many shot works because it is two arrows with one attack roll.
Regardless you can only abort the attack string in favor of a move after the first attack. So even if you 6 attacks normally an are hasted and spend a Ki point. After the first attack resolves its time to make up your mind.
|
This situation has been coming up a lot lately, so I'm glad for this clarification (but not in the Paizo way).
It's a bit awkward, but ultimately, it's RAW, and it actually makes sense from a "time used within a round" sense.
And it still presents full-actions from using this (like a magus, what chaos that would have caused). Interesting how it ended up being.
So a monk can pretend he's full attacking, get the bonuses, and then move but he can't move and attack with the bonuses?
And no one has bothered to explain why "as a full attack action" is included for Flurry or Manyshot since it's completely meaningless by this reading of the rules.
So a monk can pretend he's full attacking, get the bonuses, and then move but he can't move and attack with the bonuses?
And no one has bothered to explain why "as a full attack action" is included for Flurry or Manyshot since it's completely meaningless by this reading of the rules.
No, it isn't. If it were meaningless, they would be able to flurry completely, then move. They can't. They flurry as a full attack action, subject to all of the same rules that govern a full attack action--including the ability to abort it after one attack in favor of a move.
|
|
So a monk can pretend he's full attacking, get the bonuses, and then move but he can't move and attack with the bonuses?
And no one has bothered to explain why "as a full attack action" is included for Flurry or Manyshot since it's completely meaningless by this reading of the rules.
Because that's what the rules state. Read the parts where people have copied. It says specifically if you use a full-attack action, and then there's no target, you can move upto your full move instead.
This only works if the monk (or anybody) is in a position to full-attack in the first place. And no, it's not broken or anything. It means if somebody wants to take full advantage of this, they must receive a full-attack first because the PC has to be able to deliver a full-attack in the first place.
This rule is in place so in the event that the 1st attack of a full-attack KOs somebody, they can move instead of being stuck. This is a good thing.
Is the section of the rules being discussed the following?
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.
No other area of the CRB or developer/designer clarification is being added?
If you flurry as a monk, you're committed to the full-attack action, you can cancel the rest of your attacks, but at that point your only remaining action for that round is a 5 foot adjustment.
Where's the clause in the description of a full-attack action that says you can abort the rest of your attacks after the first and replace them with a move, unless you're a monk using flurry of blows?
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.
This seems to imply that the ability to abort your remaining attacks to take a move action mentioned in the subsection after that is not limited only to a "basic" full-attack action.
As for some of the other posts, I'm not sure where the outrage of FoB or Manyshot (or even the duelist's Parry ability) synchronizing with the full-attack action rules is coming from.
- The monk is not considered particularly powerful by any stretch of the imagination. People are up in arms over it gaining a couple extra points of attack bonus when it makes a single melee attack and moves? Really? It's not like it can tack Vital Strike or other standard-action-required damage enhancer onto the attack... the monk is making a simple attack that at best is getting Stunning Fist or similar ability tacked onto it.
- The duelist gets to make a single attack and parry an AoO made against it as it scoots away? The duelist is allowed to be a skirmisher with mediocre damage and mobile defenses? What a crazy concept!
- Manyshot is arguably the more useful way to capitalize on the full-attack action rules. You get to deal extra damage on your shot equal to the arrow damage plus standard bonuses. However, it has a decent amount of prerequisites or requires you to invest in ranger levels. A dedicated ranger who aborts the rest of his full-attack action to move may gain a better position but he's giving up a lot of his damage for the round... attack bonus for an archery ranger (particulary on favored enemies) is usually so high his iteratives have a good chance to hit.
I don't know... I read through this thread twice trying to figure out what seems so egregiously wrong to others about the way that full-attack actions work (at least imo), and it's just not apparent.
I think you guys are looking at the Full Attack Action wrong. If this is how you interpret it: "Make all of your attacks in order of highest initiative to lowest" it's a bit incorrect. Instead, this is what the action does: "Make an attack at your highest BAB. In addition, you may either make all your other attacks or move up to your move speed after you have made the attack."
It's not the same as "monk full BAB at a standard action". The monk can't move up to the enemy while drawing his kama and attack at full BAB. The archer can't stand up from prone and shoot with two arrows.
Basically, a full attack action is "either make a lot of attacks or make a single attack and move up to your speed"
So a monk can pretend he's full attacking, get the bonuses, and then move but he can't move and attack with the bonuses?
And no one has bothered to explain why "as a full attack action" is included for Flurry or Manyshot since it's completely meaningless by this reading of the rules.
No, he's not "pretending he's full attacking", he IS full attacking. It's not completely meaningless as you yourself have stated: The monk can't first move and then attack with bonuses. And can't stand up from prone and then attack. Can't attack and then reload a crossbow (even if it could flurry with crossbows!). And so on.
No, he's not "pretending he's full attacking", he IS full attacking. It's not completely meaningless as you yourself have stated: The monk can't first move and then attack with bonuses. And can't stand up from prone and then attack. Can't attack and then reload a crossbow (even if it could flurry with crossbows!). And so on.
Precisely. It's still only usable in situations where the monk can make a full attack. If he's not in a position to make a FoB, aborting attacks for a move action doesn't help. It doesn't let him use his flurry BAB when moving up to an opponent and taking a single attack (which is the most common time when a monk won't want to take all of his FoB attacks, particularly if he's spending ki for extra high attack bonus attack roll).
|
Regardless you can only abort the attack string in favor of a move after the first attack. So even if you 6 attacks normally an are hasted and spend a Ki point. After the first attack resolves its time to make up your mind.
Simple to resolve :D
Base sequence:- Attack, abort, move up to your full move +30'.
take your attack after aborting, it can be before or after you move.
Haste give no indication on when you get your extra attack, RAW it only require that you use the full attack action.
LOL, boys, if you mangle a rule you should be aware of all the consequences.
Oh, BTW, actually there is a rule that can give an indication of when you should take the extra attack:
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
It don't say "this apply only to the attacks granted by iterative attacks" so it apply to all your attacks.
Simple to resolve :D
Base sequence:
- Attack, abort, move up to your full move +30'.
take your attack after aborting, it can be before or after you move.
Haste give no indication on when you get your extra attack, RAW it only require that you use the full attack action.LOL, boys, if you mangle a rule you should be aware of all the consequences.
Oh, BTW, actually there is a rule that can give an indication of when you should take the extra attack:
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
It don't say "this apply only to the attacks granted by iterative attacks" so it apply to all your attacks.
So in this scenario, you are next to one enemy, and instead of just Flurrying that one enemy, you chose to swing once, move to another enemy (provoking for leaving a threatened square most likely) and then make one attack on that other enemy? What exactly is so overpowering about this? Especially considering it costs a ki point.
|
|
So in this scenario, you are next to one enemy, and instead of just Flurrying that one enemy, you chose to swing once, move to another enemy (provoking for leaving a threatened square most likely) and then make one attack on that other enemy? What exactly is so overpowering about this?
Simple to resolve :D
Base sequence:
- Attack, abort, move up to your full move +30'.
take your attack after aborting, it can be before or after you move.
Haste give no indication on when you get your extra attack, RAW it only require that you use the full attack action.LOL, boys, if you mangle a rule you should be aware of all the consequences.
Oh, BTW, actually there is a rule that can give an indication of when you should take the extra attack:
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
It don't say "this apply only to the attacks granted by iterative attacks" so it apply to all your attacks.
Re-read it Tarantula, you can
- attack- abort your attack
- make the extra attack you get from haste/ki point
- move base movement +30' before or after the extra attack.
The "overpowering" argument is a pure strawman. "This should be allowed as it is not overpowering" is a bad argument when used about the RAW of a rule.
Haste, it give an extra attack to all characters.
Attack, abort, move up to your full move +30', attack again.
LOL, boys, if you mangle a rule you should be aware of all the consequences.
Talking about spending a ki point, Diego?
*references*
Yeah, I'd allow it.
"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."
"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""When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon."
To get extra attacks you must full-attack. If you choose to move after your first attack, you forfeit your remaining attacks. Haste doesn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Attack, abort, move up to your full move +30'.
take your attack after aborting, it can be before or after you move.
No, once you abort you do not get to take the rest of your attacks. Any attack you have not yet made is one of your remaining attacks, and by choosing to move instead of taking those attacks, that means you cannot take those 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."
It don't say "this apply only to the attacks granted by iterative attacks" so it apply to all your attacks.
That's exactly what it means.
If you're getting multiple attacks for any reason other than high BAB, that rule does not apply.
Haste, Two-Weapon Fighting, Natural Attacks, all of those are not granted by high BAB, so they don't have to be made in order.
Consider this:
"If you get multiple attacks because you're a magical space lobster, you must make the attacks with your crazy red claws."
That does not mean that every attack you make must be with crazy red claws, only the ones that are granted because you're a magical space lobster.
Yeah I agree with the last few posts, you don't get a second attack with haste, a ki point or any other special ability, even if the attack is a free action. It clearly states that you give up other attacks.
Why do you think you can add more attacks just because Haste doesn't say when you get that attack?
Furthermore, you are no longer making a full attack action, it ended, you have given that up, therefore no haste attack.
Yeah I agree with the last few posts, you don't get a second attack with haste, a ki point or any other special ability, even if the attack is a free action. It clearly states that you give up other attacks.
Why do you think you can add more attacks just because Haste doesn't say when you get that attack?
Furthermore, you are no longer making a full attack action, it ended, you have given that up, therefore no haste attack.
Actually, you are still making your full-attack action. You have just chosen a)make one attack and move option instead of b)make all your attacks and can make a 5-foot step option.
Right, the glass is not half empty but half full.
I get it.
Actually, you are still making your full-attack action. You have just chosen a)[i]make one attack and move
Which is very well established by the rules. It's called a Standard Action plus a Move Action. You don't get the benefits of a Full Attack when you do that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Despite the vigor with which it's being defended, the point here is that it's not cool to game the system. If a player is using the full attack option to essentially get around the rules, it's not cool. If there are p layers that are using full attack to make what is essentially the same as a standard attack and move with better bonuses, it's cheating. There's lots and lots of rules out there that are used by power gamers and munchkins to bend the system. Tis is one of them. If a player is going to attack and move, and declares a full attack every time, and changes it every time, I would strongly caution him if he were at my table and I were GM. if he didn't stop abusing a strange loophole in the rules, I would let him know that if he continued he would be removed from the table.
Abusing rules is never cool, no matter how much it is within the rules as written, or how much you *think* it's rules as written.
Don't Be A Jerk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, you are still making your full-attack action. You have just chosen a)[i]make one attack and moveWhich is very well established by the rules. It's called a Standard Action plus a Move Action. You don't get the benefits of a Full Attack when you do that.
No. Standard Action plus a Move Action is something different, and allows for other things. You can take a standard action followed by reloading a crossbow or something, and you can use vital strike on a standard action.
This is something different, as clearly and explicitly stated by the rules. A full attack action is an option that allows you to make a single attack followed by either moving or attacking again. Nowhere does a standard action or move action come into it.
Just because two rules can, and often do, provide the same results does not mean one of them doesn't exist. If you take a move action to move 5ft., that does not mean it's a 5ft. step.
EDIT: And it's NOT ABUSING the rules. It's using the rules IN EXACTLY THE WAY THEY ARE. They are very explicit about this. I've got no interest in gaming the system (and insinuating people defend the rules only because they want to "game the system" is quite rude) as I'm nearly always the game master. The rules explicitly allow you to do this.
If there are p layers that are using full attack to make what is essentially the same as a standard attack and move with better bonuses, it's cheating.
Uhm, no, it's called making a good tactical choice. Just like using vital strike instead of a charge even if you're 20 ft. in a straight line away from the enemy might be.
Just because you CAN do something inferior doesn't mean anything else is "cheating".
Goshdarnit. Accusations of cheating and "gaming the system" when using explicit and easy rules to do something that is neither overpowered or weird is rude, and just... Goshdarnit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abusing rules is never cool, no matter how much it is within the rules as written, or how much you *think* it's rules as written.
How are you abusing a rule if the rule is meant to allow the player the flexibility of switching out of a full attack? Is abusing a rule just using the rule?
Do you get mad at characters that fight defensively on every attack?
Here's JJ's take on it:
If you make a full attack, and you "resolve" your situation after that first attack in your sequence (say, that first attack drops the foe)... only a hard-ass GM who's probably never played the game on the other side of the screen would say that you can't stop and do something other than complete your attack... even if you HAD done a flurry of blows. I mean... think it through. The difference between making 1 attack and moving and making only the 1st attack of a flurry of blows and then moving is that you may have made that one attack at a penalty to your roll. That's hardly unbalanced, in my book. Manyshot, on the other hand... that's a different story. In my book... as long as your attack was something that was a net "LESS" than a standard attack... I'm okay with letting a character move after that. Manyshot is hardly "LESS."
What I'm saying is that it's a case-by-case basis. GMs need and should be able to make those decisions without paralyzing the game by worrying about what the rules want.
And, when someone expressed disappointment at having to change the way they play:
Only if you feel that playing that way was bad. If adjusting the modifiers works for your table, then keep it that way. Changing the way your game works during the middle of a campaign is frustrating to the players, so I would suggest doing it as few times as you can.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are you abusing a rule if the rule is meant to allow the player the flexibility of switching out of a full attack? Is abusing a rule just using the rule?
Do you get mad at characters that fight defensively on every attack?
Because I question the fact that that it's "meant to allow" what you purport it is. It is my personal opinion that it's there so as to not make a character continue to bash an enemy that's already down. If you had to continue the the full attack just because you declared it, that wouldn't be fair (and that kind of things happened in other editions). So they put in wording to allow the character to move somwhere else, rather than "waste" action.
The problem is that it essentially allows a player to take a standard attack with bonuses, by *saying* that he's going to full-attack, and then not taking that full attack. If there's a good reason for it, certainly, it makes sense. But, just wanting the free bonuses is not a reason. It's an excuse. For example, a wizard doesn't get to start summoning a 4 creatures, then stop 25% of the way through the casting because he really only needed one. If you want to hit and move, the use a standard action to do it just like everyone else. If you full attack, and the monster drops or something, there's an alternative based on the way the attack turns out. And that doesn't include you wanting to metagame because you wanted better bonuses to hit.
The problem is that it essentially allows a player to take a standard attack with bonuses, by *saying* that he's going to full-attack, and then not taking that full attack.
I recommend you go look at the monk class and compare its full BAB against its full flurry attack bonus. Low-level monks are actually at a penalty to do this, and they don't get even a +1 bonus compared to a standard melee attack until 9th level. That's right about the time the monk can gain Medusa's Wrath as a bonus feat, hitting someone for a sickening number of unarmed attacks at his highest bonus; so a high-level monk gets a minimal bonus to hit on a single attack if he gives up pretty much all of his damage potential.
If you want to hit and move, the use a standard action to do it just like everyone else.
Everyone else can take a full-attack action and abort their remaining attacks after the first to take a move action. Your summoning analogy is a complete strawman, and your claim that they are jobbing some sort of marginal bonus (that is nonexistent or even a penalty at lower levels) just doesn't hold water.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WRoy has the right of it.
At 17th level, the difference between a Flurry attack and regular attack is +3. You guys are saying it is game breaking to let the monk make ONE attack at a +3 bonus, at 17th level. Before that level, it's only a +2. Before 13th, it's a +1.
If this breaks your game, I don't know what to tell you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WRoy has the right of it.
At 17th level, the difference between a Flurry attack and regular attack is +3. You guys are saying it is game breaking to let the monk make ONE attack at a +3 bonus, at 17th level. Before that level, it's only a +2. Before 13th, it's a +1.
If this breaks your game, I don't know what to tell you.
Focusing solely on the Monk does no good for the discussion, we also need to consider Many Shot, Duelist's Parry and other potential rules bending from full attack switching scenarios.
That being said, giving up your attacks (and damage potential) seems like a stiff enough penalty for whatever advantage you may gain from moving.
|
|
So people are worried about archers using Manyshot like Vital Strike to get an extra damage die? But only when they fire and then move, instead of being able to move and then fire?
You're talking about an extra d8, or maybe a d6. Is that so bad?
And you're worried about the Duelist giving up his first attack and then moving? So, not doing ANY attacks and making a move action?
So the Duelist gets to possibly ready a Parry and then move, provoking an AoO. So he might have to use his Parry just to get clear without taking damage.
And this is overpowered? Compared to a Withdrawal action, where he avoids the AoO as long as the enemy doesn't have reach, and can move double his speed? The Parry-Cancel maneuver can let him avoid an AoO from an enemy with reach. It's hardly any different than using Acrobatics to avoid the AoO, save for being able to use his attack bonus instead of his Acrobatics check.
Color me unimpressed.
|
|
This is going to be a good thread, I can feel it.
I give you Parry, from the duelist
** spoiler omitted **
You can now use parry to deflect an AoO from moving away by declaring a full attack and giving up the attack then moving, then riposte them. Or tumble away and parry their (supposedly) one attack, then riposte them.
(I can't believe this thread has lead to situations that help monks and duelists)
I don't think I would allow this. It seems like you have to actually make the attack in order to elect to move afterwards rather than continuing the sequence.
"After your first attack, you can decide..." It seems to me that if you don't attack because you elect to parry then you don't qualify for the option because you haven't actually attacked.
So people are worried about archers using Manyshot like Vital Strike to get an extra damage die?
"Worried" or broken or overpowered are all besides the point. We're discussing the rules and the rules say you can't do it.
We're discussing the rules and the rules say you can't do it.
The rules explicitly DO allow it. The intent behind the rules is to allow it when it's not more beneficial than attacking normally ("Net LESS").
Another way to abuse this rule is through the feat Improved Second Chance. You can reroll a missed attack by taking a -5 to the subsequent attacks of your full attack. You can gain the benefit of this feat and avoid the penalty by declaring a full attack with the intention of canceling to get a move action. Indeed, it would be foolish not to declare with the intent to cancel whenever possible because the subsequent attacks at -10 and -15 are unlikely to hit anyway.
A monk would be well advised to avoid all of this declaring with the intent to cancel nonsense because as has been pointed out it doesn't really help him in the long run. But, a skirmisher archer, who is much less restricted by the fact that you can only move after attacking when employing this rules abuse, could really benefit from taking advantage of full attack feats without having to forfeit their move action to do so.
It's not game breaking, but an archer declaring with the intent to cancel as much as possible on a Manyshot-Second Chance feat combination could really have some fun abusing the rules.
|
|
I always had the following view (which is NOT RAW, but imho makes a lot of sense):
What you do during the round has to be consistent with all that you've done up to that point in the round for you to be able to do it.
This. I don't often just do +1, "what he said," "me, too" sorts of posts, but...."What he said."