| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is AD still arguing that Attack or Full Attack means "Full Attack or Full Attack"?
I like AD. I generally agree with him, but this logic has only convinced me that someone has hacked his account. ;)
LOL, fine. "It's in the rules, it's more flexibility for the player character, it avoids stupid arguments about why choosing a feat limits my existing abilities and it's exactly what a player would expect on choosing the feat in the first place" is a TERRIBLE argument.
Thank you.
- It's only in the rules if you ignore the fact that it is described as "deciding between etc". What rationale do you have for ignoring that line? I believe this is the crux of the entire issue, since how you understand Manyshot to work would be determined by how you understand a full attack to work.- It's flexibility they aren't necessarily supposed to have. Allowing a character using Rapid Shot to fire twice and then move would also be more flexible, but it is certainly not how the rules are supposed to work. "It makes it better/worse" isn't a sound reason to accept either interpretation unless it is too weak/strong otherwise.
- Common sense says that using a feat like Manyshot is optional, so it shouldn't limit any existing abilities regardless of how you interpret it.
- My experience regarding player expectations of the feat is the opposite. That is, your expectation of how the feat works would be based on your understanding of how full attacks work, and I have never met a person who believed that you could move during a full attack until this thread (pounce excepted). In any case, this goes back to "how does a full attack work".
Is AD still arguing that Attack or Full Attack means "Full Attack or Full Attack"?
I like AD. I generally agree with him, but this logic has only convinced me that someone has hacked his account. ;)
Heh, Wraith, it may be a shock to you that sometimes a person you respect will disagree with you. It may be more of a shock if you actually consider the remote possibility that person may actually be RIGHT.
The way you and the rest of the rules "experts" here are interpreting this is, in my humble opinion, just a poor way to rule from a game play perspective.
When I see two possible interpretations of a rule (and when someone is to the point of arguing that they are right because a letter happens to be capitalized in a heading somewhere, I think it's clear that interpretation has become the issue), I will almost always choose the interpretation that I believe is the one that provides for smoother and more fun game play.
Ruling that manyshot allows you to make a first attack and then choose to avoid the rest of your attacks and move on a full attack, just like any other player character can do is, again, in my opinion, just a better ruling for the game play.
It avoids a bunch of potential stupid arguments because if you are going to be so strict on interpretation of manyshot and full attack, you're pretty much going to have to rule that if you have manyshot you CAN'T choose to shoot a single arrow on your first attack of a full attack, and that's just utterly silly.
It avoids telling a player that by choosing a feat they have locked themselves out of the ability to do the optional full attack action and move after a first attack BECAUSE you had to rule that manyshot is not optional on a full attack.
It allows a player's character to do in game exactly what they expected when they chose the feat.
Your view is guaranteed to piss off players, all so that you can say how brilliant of a rules laywer you are.
Fine. There is no "wrong way" to play Pathfinder. That clearly includes choosing rules interpretations that are not player friendly when you could just as easily and logically choose a player friendly option.
So play that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's perfectly fair. But it can be summed up as "setting aside the details of the RAW, I think the best way to play is X". Which is fine, but I don't think you can point fingers at anyone given how active you've been in the argument yourself.
Although what you say about pissing off players, starting arguments at the table, and player expectations is (in my experience) completely untrue. If anything, the opposite. And no one has claimed that you can't choose to shoot a single arrow on your first attack.
-Stuff-+1
-1. He is assuming I have a viewpoint that I don't have.
Is AD still arguing that Attack or Full Attack means "Full Attack or Full Attack"?
I like AD. I generally agree with him, but this logic has only convinced me that someone has hacked his account. ;)
Heh, Wraith, it may be a shock to you that sometimes a person you respect will disagree with you. It may be more of a shock if you actually consider the remote possibility that person may actually be RIGHT.
The way you and the rest of the rules "experts" here are interpreting this is, in my humble opinion, just a poor way to rule from a game play perspective.
When I see two possible interpretations of a rule (and when someone is to the point of arguing that they are right because a letter happens to be capitalized in a heading somewhere, I think it's clear that interpretation has become the issue), I will almost always choose the interpretation that I believe is the one that provides for smoother and more fun game play.
Ruling that manyshot allows you to make a first attack and then choose to avoid the rest of your attacks and move on a full attack, just like any other player character can do is, again, in my opinion, just a better ruling for the game play.
It avoids a bunch of potential stupid arguments because if you are going to be so strict on interpretation of manyshot and full attack, you're pretty much going to have to rule that if you have manyshot you CAN'T choose to shoot a single arrow on your first attack of a full attack, and that's just utterly silly.
It avoids telling a player that by choosing a feat they have locked themselves out of the ability to do the optional full attack action and move after a first attack BECAUSE you had to rule that manyshot is not optional on a full attack.
It allows a player's character to do in game exactly what they expected when they chose the feat.
Your view is guaranteed to piss off players, all so that you can say how brilliant of a rules laywer you are.
Fine. There is no "wrong way" to play...
Manyshot aside "A or B" does not mean "A or A".
I also never advocated a playstyle. I don't know where you got that idea from. What I am saying is that a rules means what it means, and while houserules are fine one should not ignore what they want to ignore.
When I post here I am not always saying what I would allow at my table, but I do give my opinion on what the intent of the rule is, or what I would expect Jason or SKR to see if they were to chime in. Now with Manyshot I would make the person choose ahead of time, but with Rapidshot I would allow the person to attack first, and then choose to go into a full attack or take their move action. RAW does not support that for Rapidshot, but I would allow it.
The book clearly says A or B. I don't even see how that is even being questioned. Whether a GM rules for a more character friendly version of any rule and his interpretation of how it actually works do not even have to be connected.
I don't interpret for smoother gameplay. I look at the other rules, and the writing to see what makes sense. I then look at my group, and my GM'ing style to decide if I should houserule it or not. There is nothing wrong with interpreting a rule in a way that is not fun, and then modifying it so it is fun. I would never try to convince someone, however that the more fun version is the correct version, just because I like it better.
That's perfectly fair. But it can be summed up as "setting aside the details of the RAW, I think the best way to play is X". Which is fine, but I don't think you can point fingers at anyone given how active you've been in the argument yourself.
Although what you say about pissing off players, starting arguments at the table, and player expectations is (in my experience) completely untrue. If anything, the opposite. And no one has claimed that you can't choose to shoot a single arrow on your first attack.
Moglun, I am not "setting aside the details of RAW." I am implementing RAW exactly as written.
What I am NOT doing is engaging in an exhaustive recursive examination of the history and developer intent of rules to try to make it come out the way I want it to.
Again, the full attack rules and manyshot rules AS WRITTEN clearly say that manyshot gives you two arrows on your "first attack" and the full attack rules clearly say that you can move after your "first attack" if you give up your remaining iterative attacks.
In a logical perspective to read it that way would be called the "first order interpretation" because it's just reading the sentences and applying them directly.
When you guys go on and say "hold on a minute! What exactly is a "full attack" and an "attack" here, hmmmmmhhhhh??!!!"
Now you are engaged in a second order interpretation of the rules.
Yes, you can argue that after digging through several different rules sections and finding developer postings and looking at twenty years of rules history, your interpretation just might be valid.
It might be. But so is the first order interpretation.
And there are damn few players who are going to think after reading the "first attack" wording that they better damn well look hard at the "full attack vs attack" section to make sure that it still all holds up.
Again, interpret it how you will. But be aware of what you are doing.
lots of stuff defending his support on these boards of rulings of RAW that even he agrees may not be the best playstyle choices...
Wraith, answer me this.
Do you agree that the rules say that manyshot does not allow you to choose to shoot a single arrow on your first attack of a full attack?
lots of stuff defending his support on these boards of rulings of RAW that even he agrees may not be the best playstyle choices...Wraith, answer me this.
Do you agree that the rules say that manyshot does not allow you to choose to shoot a single arrow on your first attack of a full attack?
I agree with that 100%, but I also believe that manyshot requires a full round attack.
I also believe that if you move you are not committing a full round attack.
That pretty much leaves you with only one other option, the way I see it.
That is why I said earlier at best one could say that manyshot does not work by RAW. Depending on technical you want the rules to be it may or may not work for you. I do understand how someone might want manyshot to say "Unlike a normal full round attack you must choose a full round attack before making your first attack" or something similar.
I see it as them saying that just by saying you must use a full round attack. Yeah it takes some extrapolation, but a few rules require you to do that. Even the devs have said the game is not playable by RAW.
I think the main issue is that some of us want to see that statement specifically made, while the rest of us do not think it is needed. I do think the rules could be better written, but I don't want a technical manual either. I just want them clear enough so that most of can agree on the intent.
I think the technicality of the rules is something Paizo will have to look into with more new people entering the game, and not having any vets to guide them.
Honestly folks. This is not about 'gameplay' and 'fun'. This is a rules forum. As Wraithstrike said, figure out the rules THEN modify them.
It really is simple. Ive said it before I shall say it again.
The first question is Does the rule regarding 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' mean:
1A) You make an attack and then decide between a standard or full-attack.
OR
1B) You make an attack and then decide between a full-attack+move or a full-attack+5' step.
Well, that question was answered by JJ take it or leave it. His answer was 1A.
The second question is Can you use Manyshot and then decide to move as per the rule on 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack'?
2A) No, Manyshot 'locks you in' because if you decide to move then that would be a standard action and that is a violation.
OR
2B) Yes, Manyshot is a single attack and because Deciding between an Attack or Full Attack says you can you can then move even though you used a 'full attack' feat.
My choice is 2A but until a developer answers that may not be the only choice.
-----
We are circling here folks. Certain people refuse to accept the first question as 1A. Fine, they can argue with JJ on that. If they continue to not accept 1A there is no rational debate to be had.
That still leaves a lot of debate about the second question though.
To summarize: It is pointless to argue with those people who believe that we are Deciding between two full-attack actions. They are ignoring the book and two developers.
It may not be pointless to argue with those people who believe that Manyshot is a single attack and that trumps the full-attack action statement due to 'Deciding Between...'. Personally, I can see their point even though I do not agree with it.
The thing I find most fascinating is that people completely ignore other people's questions even when directly asked. I cannot say why they choose to ignore questions although I have my thoughts as to why.
Unless this discussion takes a more productive turn, I have stated my opinion and Im more or less done with this thread.
- Gauss
Moglun, I am not "setting aside the details of RAW." I am implementing RAW exactly as written.
No, you aren't. If you are dealing with RAW exactly as written, then you need to explain how you go from "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." to "On 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." without breaking RAW by omitting or rewriting lines. As written, the rule refers to "deciding between an attack and a full attack" (that is RAW EXACTLY as written), not "making a full attack".
Take "Massive Damage (Optional Rule): If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn't kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save." If you remove the heading, is the rule the same? No, because it's no longer optional. If you removed any of the "Range" headings in the magic section then the spell range they apply to would be undefined. If you removed the "Casting Defensively" heading then the rules following it would apply to "Vigorous Motion" instead. Yes, these examples are ridiculous, but so is ignoring the "Deciding Between" heading for the same reason - it determines the meaning of the rules following it. The point is that if you start cutting out or ignoring portions of the text then you change the meaning of the text, and setting aside whether it's the "best" way to play or not it is certainly nothing close to RAW.
You keep saying that there are "damn few" players who are going to see it the same way I do. But since starting PF (and 3.0 and 3.5 before it), I have not personally encountered a single person who played it your way, even among several regular groups. I actually asked one group (word for word) "Do you think there is any truth to the idea that you can make a single attack and then move and still have it constitute a full attack action, based on this line?" and the answer was (not word for word) "No, it says you're deciding between an attack and a full attack. And wouldn't that let you move after pouncing and use abilities that you're only supposed to get on a full attack?". My point being that you're exaggerating how much of a problem this is for people.
Wraith, so you believe that choosing manyshot as a feat makes it physically impossible for a character to draw a single arrow from their quiver as the first attack of a full round attack.
Or, to put it another way, you believe that RAW directly impedes a player's ability to role play their character's actions?
Wraith, so you believe that choosing manyshot as a feat makes it physically impossible for a character to draw a single arrow from their quiver as the first attack of a full round attack.
Or, to put it another way, you believe that RAW directly impedes a player's ability to role play their character's actions?
No. That is not what I am saying. This topic came up earlier. I know Manyshot does not have the words "may" or "can" like other feats, but I don't think the intent is to force you to use a feat if that feat requires an action or assigns a penalty and so one. Another poster said it much better than I am saying it now, but I don't feel like looking the post up.
What I am saying is that if you say "I am using Manyshot", that you are using a full attack action simply because the feat calls for a full attack action. In short if a feat(or any other special ability) calls for action X then you must use action X.
That is why I said at best someone can say manyshot does not work at all within the rules, but there is no way I think you can ignore action X when it is a requirement.
It would have been easier if manyshot got the bonus arrow after the first attack, then the bonus couldn't be gained with a standard attack and you could opt out like TWF. Isn't that the only reason this is even an issue?
This is an issue because game designers are human beings who are not able to apprehend the unintended consequences of every rule they write and how they synergize with the thousands of other rules they've written.
When the full attack rules were written with the wordings of "first attack" and the separate rules about "full attack vs attack" the writers almost certainly did not think "Oh, crap, that's right, the 'manyshot' feat uses "first attack" wording too, so that's going to be confusing and will lead to a 1,000 post argument on the messageboards..."
That's why this is an issue.
It's also why it needs an errata.
Wraith, so you believe that choosing manyshot as a feat makes it physically impossible for a character to draw a single arrow from their quiver as the first attack of a full round attack.
Or, to put it another way, you believe that RAW directly impedes a player's ability to role play their character's actions?
No. That is not what I am saying. This topic came up earlier. I know Manyshot does not have the words "may" or "can" like other feats, but I don't think the intent is to force you to use a feat if that feat requires an action or assigns a penalty and so one. Another poster said it much better than I am saying it now, but I don't feel like looking the post up.
What I am saying is that if you say "I am using Manyshot", that you are using a full attack action simply because the feat calls for a full attack action. In short if a feat(or any other special ability) calls for action X then you must use action X.
That is why I said at best someone can say manyshot does not work at all within the rules, but there is no way I think you can ignore action X when it is a requirement.
Wraith. It's a rules question, not a developer intent question. What does the rule say? You're the one saying that you interpret the rules on these boards, you don't make game play rulings.
Does manyshot, as written, make it impossible for a character to choose to use one arrow on his first attack of a full attack?
Please just answer that question. By the rules. As you read them.
It would have been easier if manyshot got the bonus arrow after the first attack, then the bonus couldn't be gained with a standard attack and you could opt out like TWF. Isn't that the only reason this is even an issue?
But then the arrow could not get the full attack bonus, and if you allowed it to be an extra attack then it could also count as a crit which as currently written only one arrow can crit.
I also think that Paizo might need to do its own version of the "Rule of the Game" articles to explain the basic rules.
It would have been easier if manyshot got the bonus arrow after the first attack, then the bonus couldn't be gained with a standard attack and you could opt out like TWF. Isn't that the only reason this is even an issue?But then the arrow could not get the full attack bonus, and if you allowed it to be an extra attack then it could also count as a crit which as currently written only one arrow can crit.
I also think that Paizo might need to do its own version of the "Rule of the Game" articles to explain the basic rules.
Ah, another sly dig on the subject of how manyshot "locks you into" a full attack and a full attack can't have manyshot and move, so the rules recursively redefine themselves as you apply them. Isn't that obvious to everyone!?
I mean just because the rule SAYS "first attack" obviously when you apply the tertiary recursive algorithmic approach that is a "basic rule" it all becomes abundantly clear and that "first attack" clearly didn't mean anything at all like "first attack". It clearly meant "only a first attack that could otherwise have been a standard attack, and if you have manyshot, you're screwed" Duh.
Personally I'd say yes....but as far as I can read it word for word.....it does say
When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.
It should probably read as.
When making a full-round action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.
Or something like that...
Unless of course they felt that Manyshot and Shot on the Run combined were too powerful. Based on stuff I have seen released in UM and UC, perhaps they need a review of all the feats so far to see where they might need rebalancing.
Can you do this????
Wraith, so you believe that choosing manyshot as a feat makes it physically impossible for a character to draw a single arrow from their quiver as the first attack of a full round attack.
Or, to put it another way, you believe that RAW directly impedes a player's ability to role play their character's actions?
No. That is not what I am saying. This topic came up earlier. I know Manyshot does not have the words "may" or "can" like other feats, but I don't think the intent is to force you to use a feat if that feat requires an action or assigns a penalty and so one. Another poster said it much better than I am saying it now, but I don't feel like looking the post up.
What I am saying is that if you say "I am using Manyshot", that you are using a full attack action simply because the feat calls for a full attack action. In short if a feat(or any other special ability) calls for action X then you must use action X.
That is why I said at best someone can say manyshot does not work at all within the rules, but there is no way I think you can ignore action X when it is a requirement.
Wraith. It's a rules question, not a developer intent question. What does the rule say? You're the one saying that you interpret the rules on these boards, you don't make game play rulings.
Does manyshot, as written, make it impossible for a character to choose to use one arrow on his first attack of a full attack?
Please just answer that question. By the rules. As you read them.
Actually the rules to me are RAI not RAW. The spirit of the rules trumps the letter of the rules. Otherwise you would have dead people walking around. The FAQ's existence is an example of how intent is more important than the words in the book.
With that said by RAW manyshot works just like it does by RAI. It can't force you into a full attack action unless you choose to use it. You can always choose take a single shot with one arrow, but then you give up the option to use manyshot. The choice is there simply by virtue of the fact that the option to shoot one arrow and move is there. What you can't do is shoot two arrows and move.
|
Unless of course they felt that Manyshot and Shot on the Run combined were too powerful. Based on stuff I have seen released in UM and UC, perhaps they need a review of all the feats so far to see where they might need rebalancing.Can you do this????
Not by RAW. Probably not even if you allowed the first shot of Manyshot to be turned into a standard action, since you would have to start with a move action first, but we would probably be arguing about this instead if Manyshot were different.
It would have been easier if manyshot got the bonus arrow after the first attack, then the bonus couldn't be gained with a standard attack and you could opt out like TWF. Isn't that the only reason this is even an issue?But then the arrow could not get the full attack bonus, and if you allowed it to be an extra attack then it could also count as a crit which as currently written only one arrow can crit.
I also think that Paizo might need to do its own version of the "Rule of the Game" articles to explain the basic rules.
Ah, another sly dig on the subject of how manyshot "locks you into" a full attack and a full attack can't have manyshot and move, so the rules recursively redefine themselves as you apply them. Isn't that obvious to everyone!?
I mean just because the rule SAYS "first attack" obviously when you apply the tertiary recursive algorithmic approach that is a "basic rule" it all becomes abundantly clear and that "first attack" clearly didn't mean anything at all like "first attack". It clearly meant "only a first attack that could otherwise have been a standard attack, and if you have manyshot, you're screwed" Duh.
I am assuming you just said I was correct. :)
Wraith, so you believe that choosing manyshot as a feat makes it physically impossible for a character to draw a single arrow from their quiver as the first attack of a full round attack.
Or, to put it another way, you believe that RAW directly impedes a player's ability to role play their character's actions?
No. That is not what I am saying. This topic came up earlier. I know Manyshot does not have the words "may" or "can" like other feats, but I don't think the intent is to force you to use a feat if that feat requires an action or assigns a penalty and so one. Another poster said it much better than I am saying it now, but I don't feel like looking the post up.
What I am saying is that if you say "I am using Manyshot", that you are using a full attack action simply because the feat calls for a full attack action. In short if a feat(or any other special ability) calls for action X then you must use action X.
That is why I said at best someone can say manyshot does not work at all within the rules, but there is no way I think you can ignore action X when it is a requirement.
Wraith. It's a rules question, not a developer intent question. What does the rule say? You're the one saying that you interpret the rules on these boards, you don't make game play rulings.
Does manyshot, as written, make it impossible for a character to choose to use one arrow on his first attack of a full attack?
Please just answer that question. By the rules. As you read them.
Are you saying you HAVE to use this feat if you have?? I do not believe you are required to use every feat every time.
Actually the rules to me are RAI not RAW. The spirit of the rules trumps the letter of the rules. Otherwise you would have dead people walking around. The FAQ's existence is an example of how intent is more important than the words in the book.
With that said by RAW manyshot works just like it does by RAI. It can't force you into a full attack action unless you choose to use it. You can always choose take a single shot with one arrow, but then you give up the option to use manyshot. The choice is there simply by virtue of the fact that the option to shoot one arrow and move is there. What you can't do is shoot two arrows and move.
Well, I bolded the key bit there. I suppose that works when you can read the developers minds and unfailingly figure out what they intended. I, instead, just stick to the actual words they wrote.
Now, on to the manyshot thing. You did not answer my question. I don't know if you deliberately skirted it or just didn't quite understand. So let me ask again.
Let's say you have just leveled up and don't have manyshot yet. You can make a full attack with a single arrow in the first attack. In fact that's all you can do. But you can do it.
Now, you choose manyshot. Can you still do a full attack and shoot a single arrow in the first attack, but continue on with your remaining iterative attacks?
For what it is worth the general description in the rules of "feats" says they are things that grant you abilties, not things that take abilities away. So if you could do something yesterday, and a feat makes it impossible to do the same thing today, how is that legal according to RAW since feats are not written as being able to restrict your abilities?
I mean just because the rule SAYS "first attack" obviously when you apply the tertiary recursive algorithmic approach that is a "basic rule" it all becomes abundantly clear and that "first attack" clearly didn't mean anything at all like "first attack". It clearly meant "only a first attack that could otherwise have been a standard attack, and if you have manyshot, you're screwed" Duh.
If you choose to move then you are not to making a full attack, per "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack".
Using Manyshot requires a full attack, per "When making a full-attack action with a bow".Therefore if you use Manyshot you cannot choose to move afterwards.
Tertiary recursive algorithmic approaches are easier than they sound I guess!
Are you saying you HAVE to use this feat if you have?? I do not believe you are required to use every feat every time.
I am not saying that Hawkson, but others on this thread (if you bother to wade through the maze of replies) have said that. In the spirit of interpreting RAW, the feat does not give you the option of shooting two arrows. It just says you DO shoot two arrows.
So, if you want to argue that you MUST enforce every single detail of RAW on every rule question (which is what the anti-manyshot folks here are doing) then you have to rule that manyshot forces you to shoot two arrows on your first attack of a full attack.
I personally think that's silly, and by extension the hyper-analytical recursive analysis of full attack vs attack and move action vs shooting two arrows is just as silly. It's an exercise in chest-thumping about who is the best rules lawyer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could say that some feats are passive, or always on. They provide static effects.
Others give you new options or abilities at your disposal. Power Attack has wording about declaring it. Many Shot is maybe worded in a way that might make you think it's "always on" but I think it's common sense to group it with feats like Power Attack, that give you options to choose from.
Common sense prevails here. Just because you are skilled enough to fire two arrows at once doesn't mean you must.
|
|
Now, on to the manyshot thing. You did not answer my question. I don't know if you deliberately skirted it or just didn't quite understand. So let me ask again.
Now, you choose manyshot. Can you still do a full attack and shoot a single arrow in the first attack, but continue on with your remaining iterative attacks?
I am not Wraith, but it seems to me this feat is pretty clearly either used or not. If used, two arrows fly on the first strike, if not its as if you don't have the feat and you can do anything you could normally do. Similarly, if you take a double arrow shot after declaring Manyshot, you are full attacking, by definition of the feat. Where is the grey areas here? Not trying to start a flame war, I am being sincere.
EDIT- Re-read the feat, and I can see where by RAW it seems you are forced to shoot two arrows with the first shot if you full attack with the bow. The flavor line above "You can shoot..." seems to imply this is a choice, but unlike Power Attack, it is not spelled out explicity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean just because the rule SAYS "first attack" obviously when you apply the tertiary recursive algorithmic approach that is a "basic rule" it all becomes abundantly clear and that "first attack" clearly didn't mean anything at all like "first attack". It clearly meant "only a first attack that could otherwise have been a standard attack, and if you have manyshot, you're screwed" Duh.If you choose to move then you are not to making a full attack, per "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack".
Using Manyshot requires a full attack, per "When making a full-attack action with a bow".
Therefore if you use Manyshot you cannot choose to move afterwards.Tertiary recursive algorithmic approaches are easier than they sound I guess!
Moglun. Let's break this down.
"If you choose to move then you are not making a full attack."
OK, so my character chooses to make a full attack. My character has manyshot. That first attack fires two arrows.
Everyone together so far?
Now, the full attack rule says I can choose to move after my first attack. It does not say "UNLESS you did something that would not qualify as a standard attack". It just says I can NOW choose to move.
Note, that when I CHOSE to full attack I had not yet CHOSEN to move. So I'm all legal.
Now that I've made my first attack, I am following the full attack rules and CHOOSING TO MOVE.
You say I can't do that because I already manyshot.
What is stopping me? I'm in the rules for full attack. I have taken my first attack. I did not originally "choose to move" I "chose to full attack". But now that I'm IN the full attack, I decide to take the legal option after my first attack to move. So NOW, after initiating a full attack, I am deciding to move.
You say I can't because I just manyshot.
What is stopping me?
You say that by taking manyshot I already chose a full attack.
Yes. I did. But IN MY FULL ATTACK I took the option to choose to move. How does that go back and revise history? I was legal when I chose to full attack. I am legal now in deciding to move. The ONLY restriction to my moving in the full attack optional moving rules is that I can't take any remaining iterative attacks now.
Now, on to the manyshot thing. You did not answer my question. I don't know if you deliberately skirted it or just didn't quite understand. So let me ask again.
Now, you choose manyshot. Can you still do a full attack and shoot a single arrow in the first attack, but continue on with your remaining iterative attacks?
I am not Wraith, but it seems to me this feat is pretty clearly either used or not. If used, two arrows fly on the first strike, if not its as if you don't have the feat and you can do anything you could normally do. Similarly, if you take a double arrow shot after declaring Manyshot, you are full attacking, by definition of the feat. Where is the grey areas here? Not trying to start a flame war, I am being sincere.
EDIT- Re-read the feat, and I can see where by RAW it seems you are forced to shoot two arrows with the first shot if you full attack with the bow. The flavor line above "You can shoot..." seems to imply this is a choice, but unlike Power Attack, it is not spelled out explicity.
Right. That's my point. The rules are sometimes silly. When they are silly they create flame wars. This is one of those times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, you normally don't have to choose whether to full attack or standard attack until you see how the first attack turns out. In order to use a feat that only works as part of a full attack however, you would give up that luxury in order to take advantage of the feat.
|
|
What is stopping you is that Specific trumps general. Manyshot feat is a specific option that trumps the generic full attack rules.
Also, you are not choosing to full attack...an action that allows you to turn it into a standard action+move after you take a single attack. This means that by the end of the turn, you have NOT taken a ful attack action, but a standard action + move.
When you shot two arrows, you were locked into staying into the full attack action, meaning you could no longer opt out of it into the standard action + move action, because you received a specific advantage granted by the feat that prevents you from accessing an option available in the generic full attack action.
Now if your GM is an absolute stickler for forcing you to use Manyshot period if you full attack, then yeah, it could potentially make the feat less useful by removing some of the normal flexibility. However, I don't know any GMs, PFS or otherwise who interpret this feat as a "must use" and not a "lightswitch" type option. If your GM feels differently, then yeah you might want to hit the faq on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if you want to argue that you MUST enforce every single detail of RAW on every rule question (which is what the anti-manyshot folks here are doing) then you have to rule that manyshot forces you to shoot two arrows on your first attack of a full attack.
Nice strawman, but no. It's true that technically according to strict RAW that is what Manyshot says. I certainly wouldn't play it that way, wouldn't recommend anyone else play it that way, and I am certain that it is not the intent of the rule because it refers to an action which is voluntary in nature. While it does not say "you MAY do this" it is clear that is what it means. I also think you agree with me on that, but hypothetically if we were so inclined we could delve into a tertiary recursive algorithmic approach and hash out whether the extra arrow should be mandatory or not.
Likewise with full attack, we are determining whether it should allow a move (while maintaining 'full attack' status). The rule in question explicitly states "choose between a full attack and an attack by either making your additional attacks or moving". This is not a technicality or a case of the rules not meaning what they say, like with the mandatory extra arrow. There is no reason to think it means anything other than deciding between a full attack and an attack, and you have not provided one beyond "I like it better" (and the gist of why it's better was "it makes the PCs stronger").
Setting that aside, YOU are the one who kept claiming "I am simply stating the RAW" (from the beginning of the thread until your post about two hours ago). Each time you did, someone would point out that no, you are not stating the RAW. Now you've changed your tactics and are claiming that following the RAW is absurd. Well, which is it? I'm guessing the answer is "you should follow the RAW when it agrees with Adamantine Dragon and ignore it when it doesn't".
Adamantine Dragon: James Jacobs already stated that does not work. He stated that if you choose to move after your first attack then your first attack is a standard action.
That is the crux of this.
I use Manyshot and thus chose a full attack (just like you).
After my first attack I get a choice.
If I choose to move, I just turned my first attack into a standard action. Thus, I violate the rules.
If I choose to not move then I am not violating the rules.
It really is that simple.
- Gauss
What is stopping me? I'm in the rules for full attack. I have taken my first attack. I did not originally "choose to move" I "chose to full attack". But now that I'm IN the full attack, I decide to take the legal option after my first attack to move. So NOW, after initiating a full attack, I am deciding to move.
You say I can't because I just manyshot.
What is stopping me?
Well, my first answer would be 'common sense and fair play'. Common sense and fair play says that if you took a benefit which requires action X then you must also take action X in order to meet that requirement. But if we set that aside, it also creates a logical paradox:
You aren't taking a full attack AND a standard action attack (or whatever you want to call the alternative) in the same round, it's one or the other. So if you declare your intent to make a Full Attack, use Manyshot, and then change to a standard action Attack, you are in violation of the rule which states that Manyshot is only used on a full attack. It doesn't erase the arrow from the past or anything because the rules don't specify what happens when you break them. It simply shouldn't happen in the first place, you are never supposed to be in violation of the rules except by GM fiat. This is why Manyshot locks you in, because after using it on your first attack you can either continue to make a Full Attack and not break the rules or make an Attack (standard action) and break the rules.Maybe that sounds complicated when it's spelled out that way (and perhaps someone else would know how to phrase it more eloquently) but the core concept is actually very simple. If you take an action with a requirement and then don't meet that requirement then you have broken the rules.
Well, I bolded the key bit there. I suppose that works when you can read the developers minds and unfailingly figure out what they intended. I, instead, just stick to the actual words they wrote.
Doesn't that create a world of problems though?
For example, I remember someone posting a question about masterwork backpacks. They wanted to wear thirteen or fourteen mw backpacks to drive their strength score through the roof for purposes of encumbrance. As written, it worked fine. However, it doesn't take a mind-reader to understand that the masterwork backpack was not intended as a strength boosting item, it just employs it's own little mechanic to account for the fact that it distributes weight in an efficient way.
I'm surprised to hear you say that you stick to the actual words they wrote. I definitely try to stay in tune with the intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, let's take a slightly different approach to this. Since the issue seems to me to be a disagreement about the state of the action, let's use a state analysis to break down the action.
So I have a character with manyshot. We encounter an adamantine golem. It is my turn. Being unaware that my bow is useless against this creature I do the following:
1. I announce a full attack. I hold up a banner that says "My character is now full attacking!"
2. I shoot my first attack. Since I have manyshot and if I am in a full attack I shoot two arrows, my attack shoots two arrows.
All good so far?
3. My arrows bounce off, doing no damage. The GM informs me "the golem glares at you." I reconsider the wisdom of shooting at the thing with arrows. I look at the rules. The rules say as part of a full attack that I can choose to move after my first attack. I check my state. Yep, I'm in "full attack" mode, so I can choose to forgo my remaining attacks and move. So I do so.
Now, here's one critical point in the sequence. The argument I hear is that I can't choose to move now because if I use manyshot it can only work in a "full attack" and I can't move and "full attack".
But hey, look back at #1 when I used manyshot, there it is, I was absolutely in "full attack" mode. So it's totally legal to shoot two arrows. Now I'm done with my first attack and deciding to move.
Let's say that deciding to move means I'm "choosing between an attack and a full attack." So I do so. I decide now to "attack and move" instead of "full attack". So my state changes. My state is no longer "full attack" it's something else. But hey, I'm not using manyshot now. So that's cool. So I move.
The argument that is being made is that somehow when I decide to move, that decision went back in time and changed my state when I used manyshot.
How did it do that?
I love the "fair play" argument. If it is within the rules, it is fair. By definition. Now you may mean that it is an "exploit" to use manyshot and move. I would probably agree that it is an exploit. But exploits on these boards are commonplace, and getting an extra arrow damage once every few encounters is hardly a game-breaking exploit.
But back to the state analysis. Since I was totally legal according to my state at every phase of the sequence, how and when am I not following RAW?
Well, I bolded the key bit there. I suppose that works when you can read the developers minds and unfailingly figure out what they intended. I, instead, just stick to the actual words they wrote.
Now, on to the manyshot thing. You did not answer my question. I don't know if you deliberately skirted it or just didn't quite understand. So let me ask again.
Let's say you have just leveled up and don't have manyshot yet. You can make a full attack with a single arrow in the first attack. In fact that's all you can do. But you can do it.
Now, you choose manyshot. Can you still do a full attack and shoot a single arrow in the first attack, but continue on with your remaining iterative attacks?
For what it is worth the general description in the rules of "feats" says they are things that grant you abilties, not things that take abilities away. So if you could do something yesterday, and a feat makes it impossible to do the same thing today, how is that legal according to RAW since feats are not written as being able to restrict your abilities?
I am only nigh unfailing with my Concerro avatar. :)
All jokes aside though, a feat can restrict your ability if you choose to use that feat, but overall they should make you better. As an example if you are 100% sure you want to full attack, there is no reason to not go with manyshot. If you are not sure then you should use a regular attack. It is not different than a metamagic feat forcing a spontaneous caster into a full round action instead of casting the spell normally, and still having the option to move. Yes I am aware that some spell are naturally longer than a standard action.
If you have manyshot, and you shoot a single arrow then you can continue on with your iterative attacks. You did not use the first attack to fire two arrows so that means you are using the normal(not modified) rules of the game. By "not modified" I mean no special abilities that would alter things.
Sorry about the long weight I was over here debating when I had a few PbP's to take care of. I will go finish that and then come back to this thread.
You don't have to declare a full attack before you make that first attack, normally.
After you see how that first attack pans out, you can decide to take the rest of a full attack, or you can decide to move. If you move, that first attack was only a standard action. In that case, you never were full-attacking.
Adamantine Dragon, you are not following RAW because the moment you decide to move that first attack becomes a standard attack action. JJ stated this.
Until you understand that point the discussion is a comparison of apples and oranges.
- Gauss
You don't have to declare a full attack before you make that first attack, normally.
After you see how that first attack pans out, you can decide to take the rest of a full attack, or you can decide to move. If you move, that first attack was only a standard action. In that case, you never were full-attacking.
I know you believe that. But show me in the sequence I just posted how that is true. How was I "never full attacking" I was totally full attacking. I said so. I held up a friggin' banner.
Adamantine Dragon, you are not following RAW because the moment you decide to move that first attack becomes a standard attack action. JJ stated this.
Until you understand that point the discussion is a comparison of apples and oranges.
- Gauss
Gauss, how does the decision to move go back in time and change my action? Show me where in my state analysis I went afoul of RAW.
I don't think I did.
Show me exactly where.
And until JJ bothers to make a friggin errata, it's not a rule change, it's just an opinion.
The argument that is being made is that somehow when I decide to move, that decision went back in time and changed my state when I used manyshot.
No. The argument is that in a given round you are either 1) Full Attacking or 2) Not Full Attacking, not both. Because you intended to full attack, you chose to use an action which only works during a full attack against the golem. Now that you have done this, you have lost the option to take your move action - not because any rule states "you lose your move action if you us Manyshot" but because if you DON'T take a full attack action then you are breaking the rules of the game which require Manyshot to be used only on a full attack.
The way I see it, you normally don't have to choose whether to full attack or standard attack until you see how the first attack turns out. In order to use a feat that only works as part of a full attack however, you would give up that luxury in order to take advantage of the feat.
That is how I see it also. The same logic would apply to any feat that says it requires the full round attack action. As I keep saying you definitely can't use a standard action if something calls out a full round action which is what a full attack action is. I can see the argument that the feat does not work at all, not that I agree with it, but to say you can just use a standard action despite it calling out a full attack action is not something I can even wrap my mind around.
Even if you want to argue that if you move and attack that the rules don't say that first attack is a standard action we still know that it is not a full attack action since the text for that section is saying you can full attack or not full attack. If you are not full attacking then you are not full attacking.
Sorry Moglun, that's not what the full attack rule says. Show me where it says that. Taking a move action is an option in the full attack rules. I was full attacking. I chose to move. I didn't break any rules because when I used manyshot I was full attacking.
This whole thing boils down to this bizarre notion that choosing to move somehow goes back in time and changes the state of my action without my knowledge or consent.
It's like quantum entanglement or something.
TOZ agrees with AD. I'm with those guys.
Actually ToZ's post follows my logic for TWF not forcing you into a full attack. It does not apply to manyshot though.