|
Sorry it's been so long guys. I have to work, you know. Those cards aren't going to deal themselves!
My intention was that, when I got home at 8am after my 10 hour shift, I'd take a 'quick' gander at my favourite thread, then get some well-deserved and needed sleep as I've hardly had any in the last few days feeding my new forum addiction. How many new posts would there be? Five? Ten, maybe? Perhaps even twenty, but that would too many to read and absorb just before I intend to fall asleep. I find it difficult to drop off if my head is full of rebuttals and passionate debate etc. So, how many new posts will there be? Let's take a look.
105!!!! You've got to be kidding me! No chance boys, I'll read you when I wake up.
So now I'm awake and I've read the now 111 posts I missed, spending most of that time cheering on Adamantine Dragon (who, from now on I'll refer to as AD, partly because I now feel I know him so well, but mainly because it's easier to type).
I have good news, boys! I can see the light at the end of the tunnel!
Whether we realise it or not, amongst the many things on which the two camps disagree, only one, single, crucial disagreement is actually relevant to resolve, the resolution of which will have a ripple effect which should help resolve any remaining disagreements.
(For the sake of good manners, please let me point out that if I spell out an entire word in capital letters it's not me shouting but simply emphasis, as if I had used italics or bold. Unless it's an acronym or something.)
First, let me point out some things that are NOT the crucial point I'm talking about.
Earlier in the thread I decided, for the purpose of moving the debate along, that I would allow the interpretation of the 'Deciding between' rule to be Gauss' 1A. That is, that when exercising the 'take a move action instead' option, that the first attack becomes a standard action AFTER it has already been resolved. I found that it didn't hurt our case at all. Insisting that AD et al say 'is it full action+move action or standard action+move action' is a red herring. For the sake of argument I said I'd accept the latter, and it doesn't hurt our case at all.
The 'the only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5 foot step' argument, while it is something on which we disagree, is also not the crux I'm talking about. It's not really difficult, anyway; when taking a full attack action you can't move more than 5 feet UNLESS you cash in your remaining attacks to pay for it. As a concept, that is not difficult to comprehend. But, it is not THE crucial point that resolves this debate.
A 'declared full attack retroactively BECOMING a standard action in order to take that move action' choice is also not the crucial point. AD pointed out, in his wonderful 'state' post that all those Manyshot actions were perfectly legal AT THE TIME THEY WERE TAKEN. That it changed to a standard action AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK RESOLVED does not change what actually happened. For example, on p.189 of the core rulebook, under the 'Take 5-Foot Step' entry it CLEARLY states 'You can only take a 5-foot step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness'. So, sorcerer A takes a 5-foot step on clear terrain then casts a spell which alters the terrain around him (including the squares he's moved from and into this round). But wait! He can't take a 5-foot step on difficult terrain, so his 5-foot step was illegal! Rubbish! It was legal at the time he did it and what happened after (when it WOULD be illegal) doesn't change that! And, importantly for our debate, taking that initial 5-foot step IN NO WAY 'locks him in' to actions which don't change the difficulty of the terrain for the worse! And none of you think it does! So it is inconsistent to believe that after Archer A takes the first attack of his Manyshot, takes the 'cash in remaining attacks to gain a move action' option, thus CHANGING his first attack into a standard action, that he is 'locked in' to only taking actions which could have been taken as a standard action!
We also DON'T disagree that a player has a choice to take a full attack before OR after his first attack is resolved.
So now we get to the crux. The CRUCIAL disagreement between our two camps, and what each of our positions on it, are as follows:-
Our camp: you may choose to make a full attack and then, after the first attack is resolved, use the 'Deciding between' rule to take a move action instead of our remaining attacks, IRRESPECTIVE of what that full attack would have been if it had stayed that way and not, subsequent to our choice, CHANGED into a standard action.
Your camp: you may choose to make a full attack before the first attack is resolved and change it to a standard+move after the first attack is resolved. But, if the full attack you originally chose was one that allowed you to use Rapid Shot/Whirlwind Attack/Manyshot/Flurry of Blows/Haste etc. (where they may only be made if you choose full attack) then you are DENIED access to the 'Deciding between' option.
By what mechanism? The 'Deciding between' option already assumes you've got more than one attack this round, therefore it assumes you ARE making a full attack and the first attack you just resolved was the first of the many to which you are entitled this round, and STILL let's you take the 'move' option.
We are talking RAW now. I have been focussing on RAW through this entire thread. I've seen some posts on other threads on this forum 'moved' because it was not relevant to PFS. If all we were talking about was what the rule SHOULD be, or how we houserule it in our games, then this thread would have been over more than 600 posts ago!
We can all see that choice which DOES allow you to declare a full attack-resolve first attack-swap rest of attacks for a move action.
We can all see that the word 'attack', in and of itself, could mean an attack as an attack action or as part of a full attack (full action), or as part of a special full-round action (charge) or as part of casting a touch spell (free action), or as an attack of opportunity (not an action).
We can see that, because the sentence refers to your 'remaining attacks', then it must be assuming that the first attack was the first of a full attack. And, if you like, that exercising the 'cash in attacks for a move action' option retrospectively changed your first attack into a standard action.
All this is RAW in clearer English. By that I mean that it is entirely consistent with the Rules As Written, and in now way CONTRADICTS any rule.
There is NO rule that limits the choice to take a move action after your first attack is limited based on the type of full attack you originally chose! That is why our camp claims that our interpretation is correct by RAW, and for your camp's claim to be RAW you will have to post the rule which denies that choice based on the type of the original full attack.
This is the only CRUCIAL disagreement between our camps, as the rest of our disagreements are either NOT crucial to this question or are solved by it's resolution.
So the ball is in your camp. I've detailed why our camp is supported by the RAW. in order to continue to CREDIBLY support your argument is to quote the part of RAW that states that the 'Deciding between' choice is limited to some types of full attacks and that choice is denied to other types of full attacks.
I believe our case to have been proved. The only thing that could POSSIBLY derail it is a direct quote from RAW, and if you can't find one then our camp no longer has a case to answer.
I wont gloat. I will simply retire to the chapel to commune with my god Ragathiel with a serene visage. Then later I intend to go out and find some bad guys to slay...er...I mean 'bring to justice'! It's not easy being a paladin in Cheliax.
So, don't bother me without the relevant rules quote. Unless you find an official errata, that would interest me. : )
Your camp: you may choose to make a full attack before the first attack is resolved and change it to a standard+move after the first attack is resolved.
That doesn't look right. The way I understand it is, you don't have to choose to full-attack until after the first attack is resolved.
It's not something you normally have to declare.
So, sorcerer A takes a 5-foot step on clear terrain then casts a spell which alters the terrain around him (including the squares he's moved from and into this round). But wait! He can't take a 5-foot step on difficult terrain, so his 5-foot step was illegal! Rubbish! It was legal at the time he did it and what happened after (when it WOULD be illegal) doesn't change that! And, importantly for our debate, taking that initial 5-foot step IN NO WAY 'locks him in' to actions which don't change the difficulty of the terrain for the worse! And none of you think it does! So it is inconsistent to believe that after Archer A takes the first attack of his Manyshot, takes the 'cash in remaining attacks to gain a move action' option, thus CHANGING his first attack into a standard action, that he is 'locked in' to only taking actions which could have been taken as a standard action!
edit:Clarification-->The terrain changing after the action was complete has nothing to with our case. Nobody would argue that the sorcerer's 5-ft step was retroactively illegal. The two(the 5-ft step and our argument) are not even comparable. You example is similar to saying that if someone is hit with a cure light wounds, but then in that same round becomes undead that the cure light wounds, now hurts them because it happened in the same round. That is a crazy argument to make. Our argument is saying that once you commit to an action there is no verbage saying you can back out of said action, unless a rules exception says you can. Hence you are "locked in".
We are also saying that you must do action X when it is called for. There is no verbage in the book that says you can ignore action X, and until you can show me a general rule that says so, then you can't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
More important information.
You also need to realize that by agreeing to the full attack via manyshot you don't get to choose to take a move action after that 5-ft step. Here is the key. You normally get to choose to take that move action after the first attack. However if any feat says that it requires a full round attack then you must agree to that right then. I do agree that things would be more consistent if the wording was more like whirlwind attack, and manyshot said you give up the right to choose. Of course that is not a big issue. The first attack whether you want to call it a standard attack or not, is still not a full attack, and since you need a full attack for manyshot the first attack does not qualify unless you are dedicated to taking a full attack.
It is this simple:
Is a full attack(which is also a full round action, and full round actions take up the entire round) being made?
Yes=Manyshot is possible.
No=Manyshot is not possible.
Full-Round Actions
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.
We know that a manyshot requires a full attack as per the book.
We know that a full attack makes use of a full round action.We know that a full round action takes use of the entire round, and does not allow movement, other than a 5-ft step.
That means no standard actions, which you have agreed that the 1st attack is considered as, not a move action which AD keep argueing for can take place.
So manyshot having to take place over the course of the entire round takes away the "attack" option in the section that says Full Attack or Attack".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grimmy is correct, you have (unintentionally) misunderstood or misrepresented our camp.
Out camp: The choice is not normally made until after you resolve your first attack. However, in the case of a special ability that specifically calls out a choice it is made right up front.
As for RAW? That is present right in the Feat itself. It clearly states a full-attack action. Thus the choice is made up front since normally the choice is made after the first attack.
Ultimately, as I have stated before. This is the crux of it.
Your side says that since Manyshot uses an attack that the rules on Deciding between an Attack or Full Attack apply.
Our side says that since Manyshot declares a full attack is required then you are not allowed to decide to make it less than a full attack.
This is where AD comes in with his idea that you can make a move action after making a full attack if the full attack had only one shot.
All of the discussion about balance, intent, etc is just noise. The developers have stated that there is no such animal as a full attack +move. They have not clearly stated that Manyshot does not use the 'Deciding between an Attack or Full Attack'.
- Gauss
By what mechanism? The 'Deciding between' option already assumes you've got more than one attack this round, therefore it assumes you ARE making a full attack and the first attack you just resolved was the first of the many to which you are entitled this round, and STILL let's you take the 'move' option.
...
There is NO rule that limits the choice to take a move action after your first attack is limited based on the type of full attack you originally chose! That is why our camp claims that our interpretation is correct by RAW, and for your camp's claim to be RAW you will have to post the rule which denies that choice based on the type of the original full attack.
The 'Deciding between' option does not assume you are making a full attack. It assumes you have the ability to make a full attack (which is defined above that as the action you must take in order to make more than one attack in a round - so it's assuming you have more than one attack) and are deciding whether to take it or not. Look at these lines:
"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.""The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step."
"assuming you have not already taken a move action this round."
These lines confirm that assumption: That if you use your multiple attacks then you are making a full attack and cannot move, but if you move before or after your first attack you are not making a full attack and can move, and you can decide whether to make your multiple attacks as a full attack or move as a standard attack+movement after the first attack.
Manyshot requires a full attack. If you choose to move you are not making a full attack. Although there is no rule which states this outright, you cannot use an action without meeting the requirement for that action. So if you use Manyshot you must full attack, meaning you cannot choose to move. Your argument as presented seems to be "Manyshot requires full attack but nothing actually says that you can't use Manyshot and then choose not to full attack so RAW you can choose not to". But that doesn't work, you can't apply RAW without looking at all the relevant rules and applying them logically. Requirements remove choice by definition.
Then you can never use Manyshot at all, because, according to what you've posted here, and has been posted in your side's arguments before, you have to use a full-attack to use Manyshot... but you aren't using a full-attack action until after you use Manyshot, since it happens on the first attack.
You can't have it both ways. Are you using a full-attack on the first attack or not?
This falls under the same category as "you cannot choose not to use Manyshot". You just apply a little common sense. No one is saying "you must follow the strictest reading of RAW absolutely and never deviate" (except you I guess), we're saying "you use RAW to understand what the rule is supposed to accomplish and apply it in a rational way". When the RAW makes no sense - for example because it creates a feat that you can't legally use - then you need to reinterpret what it means. That's why I've stated that I'm willing to listen to arguments for why the "Deciding between" heading should be ignored - however, none have been presented except "it makes the PCs stronger".
setzer9999: Why are you reading an ability that is opening up options as it is closing down options?
It says CAN. Not MUST.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you 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.
So:
Either:
1) We are not allowed to make the choice until our first attack. Which the ability does not state.
OR
2) We are allowed to make the choice after our first attack, which does not preclude making it before our first attack.
Both choosing beforehand AND choosing after are legal. When an ability makes the choice beforehand you cannot then go ahead and alter it because the ability made the choice for you when you chose to use that ability.
- Gauss
Then you can never use Manyshot at all, because, according to what you've posted here, and has been posted in your side's arguments before, you have to use a full-attack to use Manyshot... but you aren't using a full-attack action until after you use Manyshot, since it happens on the first attack.
You can't have it both ways. Are you using a full-attack on the first attack or not?
We explained this already. Manyshot by calling for a full attack essentially takes the option away to attack and move. As I said I can see how the writing could have been better from a technical standpoint, but the game does not allow you to use a lesser action when a longer action is a requirement barring a special ability that says you can.
In short if Feat A calls for Action Y, then you must do Action Y.
With RAW and all this aside do you really think the devs put requirements on feats if they intend for you to ignore said requirements. If so why? The rest of the opposing camp can answer this also.
Now if you want to say the feat does not work by RAW, and you don't care about intent in your home games I can understand that also, not that I agree, but I would then ask if someone wanted to know the intent(spirit of the rules), what would you tell them?
Your camp: you may choose to make a full attack before the first attack is resolved and change it to a standard+move after the first attack is resolved. But, if the full attack you originally chose was one that allowed you to use Rapid Shot/Whirlwind Attack/Manyshot/Flurry of Blows/Haste etc. (where they may only be made if you choose full attack) then you are DENIED access to the 'Deciding between' option.
No. You are not denied anything. You simply made the choice prior to acting, rather than waiting for a resolution of the first attack.
You should also clarify that your camp is declaring that you may use manyshot as a standard action, so long as you don't move first. You decide between "an attack" and "a full attack". You don't decide between "a full attack action using one attack and movement" and "a full attack action using iterative attacks". You're given the option to make an attack and determine subsequently whether it will be treated as a standard action or a full attack action, in the ordinary case. If you manyshot, then decide later to move, you've just accomplished a standard action attack and movement, something directly prohibited by the language of manyshot.
Rules as written? The only movement action you can make during a full attack action is a 5-foot step. If you end your full attack after the first attack then move, you cannot be making a "full attack action" for the purposes of manyshot because you're violating the 5-foot step only rule. You're either using manyshot as a standard action (which is prohibited by manyshot explicitly) or you're performing a movement of more than a 5-foot step (which is prohibited by the Full Attack rule language).
|
We explained this already. Manyshot by calling for a full attack essentially takes the option away to attack and move.*snip*
Now if you want to say the feat does not work by RAW, and you don't care about intent in your home games I can understand that also, not that I agree, but I would then ask if someone wanted to know the intent(spirit of the rules), what would you tell them?
You can't declare your conclusion as one of your supporting arguments. The entire debate is about whether Manyshot allows you to move after attacking, so it can't be one of your supporting arguments to just move straight to your conclusion.
The intent is unclear, because the rule is unclear. In all other cases, if someone is PLANNING to make a full-attack action, the rules indicate that after the first attack, they can move instead. Manyshot happens on the first attack, so it seems perfectly reasonable to assume you can then move afterwards, like any other time you make a first attack which is followed by either potential iteratives or a move. That's the general intent of the decision after a first attack.
The Pathfinder rule that the Devs have espoused numerous times that the specific trumps the general. The full attack option that keeps getting quoted about being able to alter the full attack action into a standard action plus move is a general option.
The Manyshot feat using two arrows on the first shot but requiring a full attack action is a specific option. So while you normally could alter a full attack into standard + move, you cannot because the specifics of Manyshot say you must make a full attack.
If the intent was not to force the full attack action, it would say during an attack, because you would have the option to use a full attack or switch out to a standard plus move. The fact that it says full attack means the general option to switch out to a standard + move is off the table when using this specific feat.
The only thing unclear about this feat is whether or not you are required to use Manyshot any time you take a full attack action with your bow. The RAI seems to be that it is optional, but the RAW does not seem to allow for that option. Personally, I think this unclear part is handled by the common sense rule of GMing. It makes sense that you should have the choice to do either. This isn't a video game where the characters choices are restricted by coding, it is a RPG that lets you choose how to play your character.
This is a debate about what the rule is, is it not? If this were a debate about how someone wants to rule it at their table, it would be in the homebrew section.
And, since you cannot declare a full-attack on your first attack, and you can't be forced to meet requirements retroactively (by RAW, I don't care about opinions, even developer opinions, the rules are the rules, not opinions), that if you are going to waive the need to be full-attacking when Manyshot is actually employed (on that first attack, when its not strictly legal), then you've already allowed Manyshot to take place without a full-attack. After this, the decision to make a full-attack or not is made, and you can't retroactively apply conditions to something that has already been resolved.
You can't waive away the requirement that the attack where Manyshot occurs needs to be on a full-attack (which you must do to allow the feat to even be used), and then say that you can't continue to determine how the rest of the turn plays out accordingly per the RAW for how those aspects of a turn are ruled.
You're being silly, but okay. Let's say you're right, and Manyshot can't be used as written. Since the RAW can't be used as is, we analyze the first line and conclude that it should be "You may fire two arrows on your first attack. You must use the full attack action when fighting this way." Problem solved. How does this eliminate Manyshot's full attack requirement?
Yes, you can choose to ignore the full attack requirement and let someone move after using Manyshot, just like you ignored it to let someone use Manyshot in the first place. But we had a good reason to the first time: If we didn't, they couldn't use Manyshot at all. What reason is there to ignore it the second time? The argument that "if you change the rules in one place you HAVE to change them everywhere else" is false.Manyshot doesn't work when you are "planning" to take a full attack but then change your mind. It works when you do take a full attack, which means it works when you don't move. Just because the requirement is something which is met after the ability is used doesn't mean you can ignore it.
Setzer9999:
Because it says CAN. Note the word CAN. CAN means it is an option. You CAN choose AFTER making your first attack. It does not say MUST choose AFTER making your first attack.
That is why it applies to what you posted. Your post is based on the idea that we are forced to choose after making the first attack. Something which is NOT written and thus NOT RAW.
It is interesting that you use the word CANNOT when CANNOT is nowhere in there. Nowhere in:
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.[/quote=CRB p187]..does it state you are forced to make this choice after your first attack. Nowhere.
- Gauss
setzer9999: Why are you reading an ability that is opening up options as it is closing down options?
It says CAN. Not MUST.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you 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.So:
Either:
1) We are not allowed to make the choice until our first attack. Which the ability does not state.
OR
2) We are allowed to make the choice after our first attack, which does not preclude making it before our first attack.Both choosing beforehand AND choosing after are legal. When an ability makes the choice beforehand you cannot then go ahead and alter it because the ability made the choice for you when you chose to use that ability.
- Gauss
I'm not sure how what you posted even directly addressed what I said before, but...
Directly in your quote, in the rule, it says AFTER your first attack, you can... How can you say that you can decide BEFORE when it specifically says AFTER?
Can, meaning it's permissive not mandatory. After you've made an attack, you can reevaluate whether you want to make a full attack or go the standard attack + movement action route. It says, after your first attack, you can change your mind if you no longer want to make a full attack (in less precise language). But, again, since the Full Attack language specifically prohibits movement beyond a 5-foot step, if you cut off your attacks after the first, you cannot consider that first attack a full attack since you intend on moving after that.
|
You can't declare your conclusion as one of your supporting arguments.
Nor can you. You are basing your argument on the claim "You can't declare full attack before taking your first attack". But that's exactly the claim that is being disputed - to use Manyshot you can (and, in fact, must) make exactly that declaration.
You can't declare your conclusion as one of your supporting arguments.Nor can you. You are basing your argument on the claim "You can't declare full attack before taking your first attack". But that's exactly the claim that is being disputed - to use Manyshot you can (and, in fact, must) make exactly that declaration.
I'm making that claim because the rules specifically say that you cannot.
The rules say you decide if you are full attacking AFTER the first attack. Under no reading can that mean anything other than that you can't actually be full-attacking, by RAW, on your first attack.
No they don't. The rules say you are allowed to make that decision after your first attack. Show me where making the choice after the first attack is mandatory.
Ultimately this entire discussion boils down to these points:
1) Is:
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.[/quote=CRB p187]
1a) A choice between full attack and full attack
OR
1b) a choice between standard and full attack
Note: James Jacobs stated 1b Here is the link to where I posted his response
2) Is:
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.[/quote=CRB p187]
2a) A mandatory choice which you can only choose after your first attack
OR
2b) An optional choice that you can choose before your attacks or after your first attack.
The wording states CAN not MUST. Thus I believe you can choose full-attack before or after. James Jacobs statement (above) would seem to indicate this as well since he said it was there to open options up not close them down. 2a would close them down.
3) Is:
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.
3a) A mandatory Full Attack action which overrides the choice in 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack'
OR
3b) A choice based on the reading of 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack'.
Here it is a bit fuzzier. However, based on the general principle that specific overrides general I believe that the feat overrides the general ability to choose your type of action after the first attack. But until a developer comes in and states this question 3 is not able to be resolved.
For me is is 1b, 2b, 3a. (Sounds like a star trek self destruct code doesnt it? LOL)
- Gauss
Edit: added some explanations
@Moglun
I never said you have to change the rules "everywhere" because you changed them in one place.
I'm saying, that since you have to rule that you aren't actually full-attacking when Manyshot is used, that you can't then also require someone to be "locked into" a full attack for which they, according to that ruling, haven't made (a condition also not found in the RAW regarding a first attack, only after a second attack can such a thing occur).
What you are saying is, you have to be full-attacking to use Manyshot. Yet, you can't actually be full attacking until your second attack. So, you are employing a GM fiat saying that you can use Manyshot even though you aren't full-attacking by RAW. I'm saying, under such conditions, any rule you make beyond there is not an actual official rule. You've already broken the rules, because the feat broke the rules.
Because of this, since you are just making your first attack, and haven't actually met the conditions to be full-attacking yet, you then have the ability after your first attack to decide to move instead. You saying that you require someone to declare full-attack before they make their first attack is in direct opposition to the RAW.
You can't be right by RAW if the entire action is taking place outside of RAW on a custom ruling.
So you're admitting that your interpretation "breaks" the rules. You justify it by saying it's ok because the other interpretation "breaks" the rules, too. Except stating that you have the ability to declare a full attack prior to making any attacks doesn't break any rules. You're confusing "can" with "must".
|
|
You can't declare your conclusion as one of your supporting arguments.Nor can you. You are basing your argument on the claim "You can't declare full attack before taking your first attack". But that's exactly the claim that is being disputed - to use Manyshot you can (and, in fact, must) make exactly that declaration.
I'm making that claim because the rules specifically say that you cannot.
No they don't. All the rules say is that you CAN make that decision after your first attack. Just because the rules exclude "CAN NEVER do X" doesn't mean they say "CAN ALWAYS do X", let alone "MUST ALWAYS do X".
After all, the rules say your speed defines how many squares you CAN move. They don't say you CAN ALWAYS move that many squares - there may be other limitations (such as physical imitations) preventing you.
setzer9999:
And you are reading too much into the rule. The rule at no point states you are forced to choose after your first attack and cannot make the choice beforehand.
IF you are forced to choose after the fact then NO attack based ability which requires a standard or full-attack action is possible because you could not declare it beforehand. That is nonsense.
- Gauss
I'm saying, that since you have to rule that you aren't actually full-attacking when Manyshot is used, that you can't then also require someone to be "locked into" a full attack for which they, according to that ruling, haven't made (a condition also not found in the RAW regarding a first attack, only after a second attack can such a thing occur).
Again, I don't necessarily agree with everything you're saying. But for the sake of argument:
Why not? They still need to fulfill its requirements. The fact that they activated the actual ability first, and fulfilled the requirements afterwards, is irrelevant. You don't get to say "ha ha, I already got the benefit, you can't make me pay for it". If you use Manyshot, then you must make a full attack. That means not taking a move action when the option comes up.
Both choosing beforehand AND choosing after are legal. When an ability makes the choice beforehand you cannot then go ahead and alter it because the ability made the choice for you when you chose to use that ability.
- Gauss
Is someone trying to use logic? Stop that right now young man. <points finger angrily at Gauss> :)
setzer9999: you have a strange definition of the word 'can'. You are reading 'can' and applying 'must'.
- Gauss
Wraithstrike: of course I try to use logic. I always try to use logic. Didnt you know Im a vulcan? ;)
- Gauss
I am not confusing "can" with "must". The rules give you the ability to do things based on what they say you can do. If they don't say you can do it, you cannot. "Can" is the term that allows you to do something. You "can" choose to move, OR to take your other attacks, WHEN? AFTER your first attack. You do not have to, in terms of "must", move. The can modifies the options "move" or "continue attacking". It doesn't modify the option "declare full-attack"... the effect for that is incidental to the choice you make for what you CAN choose.
You are confusing what "can" is referring to.
The rule states that "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks". Uniformly, you have the ability to decide if you want to make a standard attack or a full attack, yes? Meaning, even if you have iterative attacks, you may still choose to make only a standard action attack, prior to any other actions on your part, yes? If you can determine that you will only make a standard action attack prior to attacking, why can you not determine to make a full attack prior to attacking?
However, if you really want to get brutally literal and eschew logic (which is what you're trying to do here), an attack is clearly a standard action. Under "Standard Actions" and "Attack" the rules state: Making an attack is a standard action.
So, you claim a person must make an attack, then decide whether they are performing a full attack action, which is a full-round maneuver. However, the rules all clearly state, under "Action Types" that "In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action." Therefore, you are requiring a person to take a standard action, but then also make a full-round action within the same turn (attack = standard action, then determine if you're going to make a full round action). Rules as written, right? If you make a single attack, you've committed to a standard action. You can't determine if it's a full attack until after that first attack, which must be a standard action. And the Full Attack rule states that, in order to get your additional attacks, you must use a full round action. You've already made a standard attack, now you must use an additional full round action to get the rest of your attacks. But you can't do that in a single round.
Seems a little twisted and silly, right? This is the sort of situation that perfectly fits the "The exception that proves the rule" adage. Doesn't it seem a lot more sensible, logical, and reasonable, that the language stating you are allowed to determine whether you want to continue a full attack action after you make your first attack doesn't necessitate that you can only make that decision after the first attack? After all, a different interpretation leads to the twisted mess above.
The "rule" is that you must declare what action you are taking before you take it. That seems sensible and logical. However, in the special case of full attack actions, you're allowed to differ from the norm by changing your mind after making your first attack. Thus, the option to determine to cutoff your additional attacks is an exception to the ordinary (and sensible) unspoken requirement that you need to determine what you are doing before you do it.
If one rather clear interpretation of a rule leads to a rather uneventful procedure which cleanly meshes with the rest of the rules, and another interpretation of a rule leads to a rather messy lot of contradiction and hyperliteralness, doesn't it stand to reason that you ought not read conflict and ambiguity into the situation? Go with the clear interpretation which works efficiently within the rest of the framework.
setzer9999: you have a strange definition of the word 'can'. You are reading 'can' and applying 'must'.
- Gauss
Again, wrong.
"Can" means that you can do something you otherwise could not do. It doesn't mean "must", and I never said it did.
Can, in this context, says that this is something you are able to do. It doesn't say you must do it. The alternative is to do nothing. You CAN choose to move or make additional attacks... or you can choose to just stand there and do nothing.
The very fact that it says you can do it at a specific time indicates that you otherwise wouldn't be able to do it if the rules didn't call out that you could. Since the rules don't call out that you can choose between these options at another time, the only time you can choose between these options is the time in the rules where it says you can. And that is after your first attack.
The binary set you are trying to produce between "must" and "can" doesn't apply to the conditions you think it does. You indeed "must" choose to do one of THREE things after your first attack, which are move, keep attacking, or do nothing. There is no "must" choose between the two options of moving or attacking only.
It doesn't even make any sense to decide to "keep attacking" before you've even attacked. And that is what you are advocating you can do.
I really don't get where you're getting this "keep attacking" nonsense. The rule says "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round." So, you can decide to move after your first attack if you want to.
Again, let's get pedantic. Where do the rules say you have three options after making your first attack? What are those options and where are they spelled out? Where does it say that you "must" make one attack, then determine how you are going to proceed?
Then you can never use Manyshot at all, because, according to what you've posted here, and has been posted in your side's arguments before, you have to use a full-attack to use Manyshot... but you aren't using a full-attack action until after you use Manyshot, since it happens on the first attack.
You can't have it both ways. Are you using a full-attack on the first attack or not?
We explained this already. Manyshot by calling for a full attack essentially takes the option away to attack and move. As I said I can see how the writing could have been better from a technical standpoint, but the game does not allow you to use a lesser action when a longer action is a requirement barring a special ability that says you can.
In short if Feat A calls for Action Y, then you must do Action Y.
With RAW and all this aside do you really think the devs put requirements on feats if they intend for you to ignore said requirements. If so why? The rest of the opposing camp can answer this also.
Now if you want to say the feat does not work by RAW, and you don't care about intent in your home games I can understand that also, not that I agree, but I would then ask if someone wanted to know the intent(spirit of the rules), what would you tell them?
Just to be clear by "longer action" I meant using a move action to perform a standard action or using a standard action to perform a full round action.
Setzer9999: Show us one line anywhere that states you cannot declare a full-attack. You are infering that you cannot declare a full attack unless you go through the 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack'. Nowhere in that paragraph does it state you cannot make declarations without that paragraph.
- Gauss
Setzer: I think you're over-complicating things. As I said earlier, even if it's true that you aren't full attacking until you decide between the second attack and the move, with the result that we must allow the benefit of Manyshot before meeting the requirements of Manyshot, those requirements must still be met eventually so the conclusion is the same: You cannot use Manyshot and move. The distinction between when and how you officially full attack is academic at this point.
|
First a disclaimer - I din't read all 680+ posts. Maybe the first 100 and then I was surprised that the discussion still is ongoing. The following occurred to me while reading this.
The full attack rule is often quoted: 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.
Assuming option 1 from the OP is correct, then this leads to an interesting situation if you have the feat many-shots and only a single attack.
Step1: I declare a full-attack action and use many-shot
Step2: I declare to forgo my remaining attacks because I hit/missed (use whatever allows another action). The rules nowhere say that this has to be a positive number. And the rules say I can decide after my first attack. This is exactly what I do. I just forgo 0 attacks and this is as valid as forgoing 1 or more attacks.
Step3: I move
Option 3 completely avoids this issue - so it would be interesting to hear from proponents of 1 if they
A) allow the above
B) cite me a rule that would disallow it
You just quoted the line, for the hundredth time in this thread, where it says specifically that.
I'm tiring of quoting the exact rules text we've all read over and over. "Keep attacking" is the same thing (and why I put it in quotes, to coin the term for easy reference) as "making your remaining attacks". Now who's being pedantic?
You can decide to move or keep attacking. You don't have to do either of those things though, because doing nothing is always an option.
Which brings up a pretty good point there... let's say you use Manyshot, and then you die. Big bad ugly explodes and kills you. Well, you can't have ever, by RAW, entered a full-attack action, so do those arrows have to be retroactively altered such that you only fired one? Then the big bad didn't die after all! Making your arrow hit him, and kill him... and now you are dead again! And cycle endlessly.
You can say that supports your position equally if you want, go ahead. The issue is that by RAW, you can't declare a full-attack. You choose to keep attacking and make your iterative attacks, yes, but you do this after your first attack. It says so, plain as day, and you all refuse to acknowledge it even as you keep quoting it.
That line specifically refers to moving or using remaining attacks. You said there is a third option, to do nothing. Where are you allowed to do nothing in the rules? If you make an attack, you either have to keep attacking or move. RAW, right? If the rules don't specifically give you a different option, you can only do what they say. So, you must make an attack, and then either keep attacking or perform a move action. There's not a third option to do nothing. Reductio ad Absurdum and all that.
How are you going to get killed mid attack by the big bad guy? If he readied an action, it comes before your attack, so you never actually used manyshot.
And that "Full Attack" is specifically listed as a Full Round Action, I think it's safe to say that you actually can declare a full attack. Occam's Razor. Either you're right and this whole convoluted, nonsensical mess is what the developers intended. Or, I'm right and the rules pretty seamlessly and efficiently work with one another.
We explained this already. Manyshot by calling for a full attack essentially takes the option away to attack and move.*snip*
Now if you want to say the feat does not work by RAW, and you don't care about intent in your home games I can understand that also, not that I agree, but I would then ask if someone wanted to know the intent(spirit of the rules), what would you tell them?
You can't declare your conclusion as one of your supporting arguments. The entire debate is about whether Manyshot allows you to move after attacking, so it can't be one of your supporting arguments to just move straight to your conclusion.
The intent is unclear, because the rule is unclear. In all other cases, if someone is PLANNING to make a full-attack action, the rules indicate that after the first attack, they can move instead. Manyshot happens on the first attack, so it seems perfectly reasonable to assume you can then move afterwards, like any other time you make a first attack which is followed by either potential iteratives or a move. That's the general intent of the decision after a first attack.
The intent is not unclear. There is a difference between an unclear rule(hard to prove intent), and one that is not perfectly written(can most likely be understood, but could use more wording to complete it).
PS:I am not trying to debate either of these, just trying to show the difference between a rule that could be written better, but is understandable "as is", and one where the answer can probably be figured out, but it is more difficult to prove.
I would put the pally's "lay on hands" in the 1st category.
PS2:IIRC I think they errata'd Lay on Hands, but my point is that initially it was never stated to be positive energy.
I think manyshot falls into the 2nd category after seeing more of your arguments. In short it could have been written better, but the fact that it calls out a full attack, and it has no verbage allowing it to be used with a lesser action is pretty clear. That is why I said at best one can say that by RAW the feat does not work at all, not that I see it that way, but I understand that argument.
fretgod99: If we really want to use reductio ad absurdum then the following situation occurs:
Player: I make one Manyshot attack
GM: Ok, your attack kills the Orc
Player: Great, now that he is dead I move over to the cleric so he can heal me.
GM: Your movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the dead orc.
Player: What? I thought you said he is dead.
GM: Right, I said he is dead. But since there are no rules against being able to act while dead he still has actions and attacks of oppotunity. You moved, he makes an attack of opportunity.
:D
- Gauss
...Ultimately this entire discussion boils down to these points:
1) Is:
** spoiler omitted **1a) A choice between full attack and full attack
OR
1b) a choice between standard and full attackNote: James Jacobs stated 1b Here is the link to where I posted his response
2) Is:
** spoiler omitted **2a) A mandatory choice which you can only choose after your first attack
OR
2b) An optional choice that you can choose before your attacks or after your first attack.The wording states CAN not MUST. Thus I believe you can choose full-attack before or after. James Jacobs statement (above) would seem to indicate this as well since he said it was there to open options up not close them down. 2a would close them down.
3) Is:
** spoiler omitted **
Good points Gauss.
My view of what you are saying:
Going with option 2B I can choose to declare a full attack up front, which would allow for manyshot, or I can choose to make the first attack as normal, and the decide to move or take my remaining attacks. By not declaring the full attack up front I can't use manyshot, but my options are open. If I declare that I am using manyshot then I have decided on a full round attack.
Is that correct?
edit:This also reminds me of the AND, OR, XOR, and, NAND conditions used in logic gates which does apply to many feats that have requirements.
fretgod99: If we really want to use reductio ad absurdum then the following situation occurs:
Player: I make one Manyshot attack
GM: Ok, your attack kills the Orc
Player: Great, now that he is dead I move over to the cleric so he can heal me.
GM: Your movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the dead orc.
Player: What? I thought you said he is dead.
GM: Right, I said he is dead. But since there are no rules against being able to act while dead he still has actions and attacks of oppotunity. You moved, he makes an attack of opportunity.:D
- Gauss
I like this.
Good points Gauss.
My view of what you are saying:
Going with option 2B I can choose to declare a full attack up front, which would allow for manyshot, or I can choose to make the first attack as normal, and the decide to move or take my remaining attacks. By not declaring the full attack up front I can't use manyshot, but my options are open. If I declare that I am using manyshot then I have decided on a full round attack.
Is that correct?
Precisely. You can opt to make a full attack action prior to doing anything. Or, you can make an attack and see how it pans out. However, there are specific actions which require you to declare a full attack before doing anything. Essentially, you're opting out of the ability to "wait and see".
Wraithstrike: Correct.
- Gauss
|
|
Thod:
I suggest you read this post of mine that explains the different points.
- Gauss
Yes - I did read this earlier.
It might even have spawned the idea for my post. Because if specific isn't trumping general than what I wrote becomes possible - or you would have different rulings for high and low levels.
|
Thod:
I suggest you read this post of mine that explains the different points.
- Gauss
Yes - I did read this earlier.
It might even have spawned the idea for my post. Because if specific isn't trumping general than what I wrote becomes possible - or you would have different rulings for high and low levels.
To be honest when I read your previous post Thod, I couldn't really ascertain what question you were asking or which position you were supporting - if you don't mind re-phrasing it may elicit a more detailed response.
Also, bear in mind one of the prerequisites for Manyshot is BAB +6, which insures you're getting at least 1 iterative attack. Then again if you feel option 1 in the original post is a valid interpretation of the RAW & RAI you're obvioulsy ignoring prerequisites (and common sense) so your questions become valid in that context...
Then again I'm admittedly uncertain what you're asking...
|
fretgod99: If we really want to use reductio ad absurdum then the following situation occurs:
Player: I make one Manyshot attack
GM: Ok, your attack kills the Orc
Player: Great, now that he is dead I move over to the cleric so he can heal me.
GM: Your movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the dead orc.
Player: What? I thought you said he is dead.
GM: Right, I said he is dead. But since there are no rules against being able to act while dead he still has actions and attacks of oppotunity. You moved, he makes an attack of opportunity.:D
- Gauss
*yoink* dude, I'm totally going to do this during my next game.
HangarFlying: It is technically true too. The rules on Dying (CRB p189) state: "If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying."
Dying makes you unconcious. But 'Dead' (CRB p190) has no corresponding condition.
Some people state that if you go from 1hp to Dead without transitioning through Dying you never go unconcious and can act normally. Others state that in order to go from 1hp to dead you must go through the negatives inbetween as well and thus you go unconcious. Still others state that if you go from Dying to Dead you regain conciousness since Dead has no statement to maintain unconciousness.
It really is an exercise in absurdity and shows what following the rules without common sense will get you. :D
- Gauss