Is that your RAW reading or your RAI reading?So you are saying that a feat can call out action X, but action x is really an option, not a requirement?Yes, unless specificied as a requirement.
The way manyshot is worded, full attack is an option. Not a requirement. Same for Rapid Shot.
I'd have to say that is how I see the RAW. RAI is unclear. If it were clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
All it's telling you is that if you are using the feat during a full attack, it's the first attack that fires two arrows. It doesn't say that a full attack is required, at all.
|
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
Oh yeah, I know. I just want to see the look on their faces! :D
Is that your RAW reading or your RAI reading?So you are saying that a feat can call out action X, but action x is really an option, not a requirement?Yes, unless specificied as a requirement.
The way manyshot is worded, full attack is an option. Not a requirement. Same for Rapid Shot.
I'd have to say that is how I see the RAW. RAI is unclear. If it were clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
All it's telling you is that if you are using the feat during a full attack, it's the first attack that fires two arrows. It doesn't say that a full attack is required, at all.
Fair enough. I don't think anyone is budging as one side maintains that action X means action X with no deviation. Hopefully the devs chime in once they get caught up on the mythic book, and the other book they are working on.
I'd rather they chime in on the casting a ranged touch attack provokes one or two attacks of opportunity (along with the associated each ray of scorching ray provokes) thread first. ;)
I thought Jason already spoke on that, and said the you provoke for each act, not each action.
I do know that you can provoke twice for charging which is one action, but consist of two acts(moving and attacking) so I don't see why casting a spell is an exception.
There are a few basics that need to be clarified however. Even, if they only do one area of the book a month it would really help. Either that or they say 3.5's rules apply to PF unless the wording changes are significant.
Either that or they say 3.5's rules apply to PF unless the wording changes are significant.
That would work fine for me.
Huh, maybe he did. I haven't followed that thread in quite some time so I don't know if they ever got around to responding (if I recall, this thread was going on at the height of the devs not making ANY posts on the forums. They seem to be making some posts now, albeit not in the rules forum).
I will see if I can find it to make sure my memory is not playing tricks on me.
Is that your RAW reading or your RAI reading?So you are saying that a feat can call out action X, but action x is really an option, not a requirement?Yes, unless specificied as a requirement.
The way manyshot is worded, full attack is an option. Not a requirement. Same for Rapid Shot.
I'd have to say that is how I see the RAW. RAI is unclear. If it were clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
All it's telling you is that if you are using the feat during a full attack, it's the first attack that fires two arrows. It doesn't say that a full attack is required, at all.
I'm honestly not seeing how you get this. The benefit of manyshot says it only applies when you make a full attack with your bow. How could using a full attack be an option to still using manyshot? It doesn't say, "Your attack with a bow uses two arrows. If you make a full attack, it only applies to the first attack." It says, "When making a full attack, you use two arrows with your first attack." So, When X, do Y. If no X, you don't do Y. How is X optional? If the full attack part is optional, why include it?
Fret that is the argument they have been making the entire time. I don't think either side is budging.
In other news:
"Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. "
The other posters who are against the idea agree that ranged attacks from spells provoke, but their argument was that if you get an AoO for the casting of the spell that you don't get one for the ranged attack. Now at no point did Jason or SKR say provoking for casting meant you did not provoke for the ranged attack also.
I think the specific question HangarFlying is asking is does each ranged attack provoke for scorching ray, or do you only get one AoO. Normally I would each attack provokes if they were iterative based, but for scorching ray all of the rays are fired at the same time so I am not sure, and I can find no evidence either way.
I was in that thread. I guess I misremembered part of it.
Fret that is the argument they have been making the entire time. I don't think either side is budging.
Eh, I suppose. Just differently worded. Typically done using the "wait and see" mechanic for your first attack. He's actually saying he doesn't think the full attack language is relevant at all, meaning it'd be fine to move first then manyshot. The other formulation of the argument is that as long as you haven't moved, you can manyshot, then interrupt and move.
Fret that is the argument they have been making the entire time. I don't think either side is budging.Eh, I suppose. Just differently worded. Typically done using the "wait and see" mechanic for your first attack. He's actually saying he doesn't think the full attack language is relevant at all, meaning it'd be fine to move first then manyshot. The other formulation of the argument is that as long as you haven't moved, you can manyshot, then interrupt and move.
I guess I can ignore the standard for vital strike also, which now allows me to charge while using vital strike. :)
I guess I can ignore the standard for vital strike also, which now allows me to charge while using vital strike. :)Fret that is the argument they have been making the entire time. I don't think either side is budging.Eh, I suppose. Just differently worded. Typically done using the "wait and see" mechanic for your first attack. He's actually saying he doesn't think the full attack language is relevant at all, meaning it'd be fine to move first then manyshot. The other formulation of the argument is that as long as you haven't moved, you can manyshot, then interrupt and move.
If it feels good, do it?
*shrug*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other posters who are against the idea agree that ranged attacks from spells provoke, but their argument was that if you get an AoO for the casting of the spell that you don't get one for the ranged attack. Now at no point did Jason or SKR say provoking for casting meant you did not provoke for the ranged attack also.
I think the specific question HangarFlying is asking is does each ranged attack provoke for scorching ray, or do you only get one AoO. Normally I would each attack provokes if they were iterative based, but for scorching ray all of the rays are fired at the same time so I am not sure, and I can find no evidence either way.
I was in that thread. I guess I misremembered part of it.
Not to derail or start a new argument: my position in that thread was that casting a range touch attack spell only provokes one AoO (but always provokes and cannot be avoided with defensive casting) as opposed to having two AoO provocations with one possibly being avoided with defensive casting.
As to this thread, I'm willing to concede and reverse my previous position.
HangarFlying: what was your previous position? sooo many people its hard to keep track. :D
- Gauss
The other posters who are against the idea agree that ranged attacks from spells provoke, but their argument was that if you get an AoO for the casting of the spell that you don't get one for the ranged attack. Now at no point did Jason or SKR say provoking for casting meant you did not provoke for the ranged attack also.
I think the specific question HangarFlying is asking is does each ranged attack provoke for scorching ray, or do you only get one AoO. Normally I would each attack provokes if they were iterative based, but for scorching ray all of the rays are fired at the same time so I am not sure, and I can find no evidence either way.
I was in that thread. I guess I misremembered part of it.
Not to derail or start a new argument: my position in that thread was that casting a range touch attack spell only provokes one AoO (but always provokes and cannot be avoided with defensive casting) as opposed to having two AoO provocations with one possibly being avoided with defensive casting.
As to this thread, I'm willing to concede and reverse my previous position.
I did not see your name in the other thread. I just kind of skimmed over it. I actually am curious about the intent for scorching ray because it fires several rays at once.
As for ranged touch spells in general you can provoke once for casting, and once for firing while in melee. <--my view on it, similar to how charging can get two AoO's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to this thread, I'm willing to concede and reverse my previous position.
I tip my hat to you; in my experience when someone is involved in a long argument like this one it becomes difficult not to become emotionally attached and refuse to budge regardless of the points presented. I think it takes a lot of discipline to stay objective and be willing to concede your position during such a vigorous debate (regardless of which side a person is on).
For the record I'm of the opinion that you provoke one attack for the casting and a second for the ranged attack. I don't rule that multiple iterative attacks or scorching rays provoke multiple attacks because I've always seen it as one 'act' with multiple attacks, but honestly I haven't looked into it very much.
As to this thread, I'm willing to concede and reverse my previous position.
I'll tell mom you're allowed to come to Thanksgiving again.
If you don't, I'll tell her you're voting for Romney because you heard some compelling reasons to do so on FOX News.As to this thread, I'm willing to concede and reverse my previous position.I'll tell mom you're allowed to come to Thanksgiving again.
Wouldn't that just make her happy?
|
|
Wouldn't that just make her happy?If you don't, I'll tell her you're voting for Romney because you heard some compelling reasons to do so on FOX News.As to this thread, I'm willing to concede and reverse my previous position.I'll tell mom you're allowed to come to Thanksgiving again.
Yes, and then you would have to listen to that conversation for the entire night, which I wouldn't have to because I wouldn't be there...ha...haha...mwahahhaha!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I'm familiar with the charge being able to/not being able to provoke multiple AoO, what is the premise behind at one?
Charge an opponent who has reach, then make a trip attempt in place of the attack at the end of the charge.
Chemlak: I think HangarFlying was not reffering to charge 'the attack action' but charge as in 'spell charge'. There is a question on whether or not a multiple ray spell provokes multiple attacks of opportunity for each ray.
- Gauss
Ah, that charge.
Furry muff.
So many words used more than once...
I don't think I'm familiar with the charge being able to/not being able to provoke multiple AoO, what is the premise behind at one?Charge an opponent who has reach, then make a trip attempt in place of the attack at the end of the charge.
I was talking about this type of charge.
Holding on to a spell does not provoke.
Wraith: Ok now Im confused. :) LOL
- Gauss
LOL. I meant the "charge" where you move and attack.
This game reuses to many words. :)
|
I'm sorry work (and sleep) commitments mean I only get one chance to post on here per day (until my days off); I wish I could contribute more.
Gauss, I admire the way you approach debate on this thread. Your arguments are couched in such a way as to attempt to move the debate forward while trying your very best (you're only human)(probably) to put the irrelevant disagreements to one side. You try to avoid misunderstanding our case and the fact that you don't always succeed is not surprising as, if we had NO misunderstandings between our two camps, this thread would have ended (OMG!) 700 posts ago. You also try to keep negative feelings (like anger) out of the debate, and keep a good sense of humour. So, in the interests of trying to actually move this debate forward to a conclusion, I'll address my remarks to you.
I'll now test my new-found 'copy and paste' skills:-
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"
Hey it worked! The above is quoted from a post on the previous page from one of your 'fellow travellers'. : )
He says '...unless a rules exception says you can...'. The rules exception is the 'Deciding between' rule.
Both camps agree (at least my tent does) that you may 'announce' (or whatever word you want to use, since there is DELIBERATELY no 'declaration of intent' anymore) your full attack either before OR after your first attack is resolved.
We also agree that, in order to use some abilities/feats (like Manyshot, Flurry of Blows, Rapid Shot, Whirlwind Attack) or even Haste effects or Speed weapons, you cannot choose THOSE types of full attacks after your first attack is resolved because you have to be USING a full attack from the beginning.
Now, although this limits what 'types' of full attack can choose AFTER the first attack, it does NOT limit what types of full attack can be chosen BEFORE the first attack is resolved! Even a vanilla Ftr16 without any special feats or whatever, certainly MAY choose a full attack BEFORE the first attack is resolved if he wants to! If you disagree with THAT statement I'll require a direct rules quote from you, but I don't think you will and I'll carry on with your implicit agreement on this particular point; that the right to choose to full attack BEFORE the first attack is resolved is totally unrestricted by full attack 'type'.
Both camps agree that you MUST be 'using' a full attack to use Manyshot/Rapid Shot/TWF et al.
So, at last, we come to the ONLY disagreement that actually matters.
Our camp: anyone who has a full attack (where that full attack would consist of more than one attack if it were completed) MAY choose that full attack BEFORE their first attack if they want to, unrestricted by full attack 'type'. Then, after their first attack is resolved, exercise their right under the 'Deciding between' rule, CHANGE their mind, AFTER the fact, to take a move action by 'cashing in' their remaining attacks, thus converting their (now resolved) attack into a standard action RETROSPECTIVELY. This means that it WAS a full attack at the time you made your first attack so Manyshot et al were legal, and don't become illegal after the fact.
(as an example, in 2004 [I think] a new law came into effect in Britain making it illegal to smoke indoors in a public building or a place of work. So, smoking indoors was legal in 2003, but illegal in 2005. The law cannot touch those who smoked in 2003 just because it became illegal later. It wasn't breaking the law THEN. Just like you were taking a full attack THEN, before it changed LATER.)
Your camp: while not disagreeing that you MAY choose a full attack BEFORE your first attack is resolved if you want to, you say that AS SOON AS THAT CHOICE IS MADE you are now irrevocably nailed to that full attack WITHOUT the option that the 'Deciding between' rule would give you.
Is that a fair summing up of your camps position? From the posts I honestly believe it is.
So, the crux is this; does choosing a full attack 'lock you in' to that choice for the entire round, or does the 'Deciding between' rule let you actually CHANGE your action after you already started doing it.
It really is this in a nutshell. Now we're getting somewhere. We still disagree, but there is an end in sight!
Permit me to advance some arguments in support of my position. : )
First, I'm going to use the 'testimony' of James Jacobs that you have already posted several times on this thread, as I believe that what he says supports my 'changing action' point of view:-
The game doesn't have an official "STATE WHAT YOUR ACTIONS FOR THE ROUND ARE AND STAND BY THEM NO MATTER HOW THINGS WORK OUT" stance, really. It's more fluid and flexible than that.
See! Given that, how can you still think that the 'Deciding between' rule DOESN'T let you 'change' your actual action (from full attack to standard action+move)?
How can you STILL think that choosing a full attack 'locks you in' to that choice? What else is the 'Deciding between' rule for?
There have been many attempts on this thread to guess RAI on this issue. While until now I've tried to keep my comments about RAW I'll give it a go now.
The 'Deciding between' rule was originally written by Jonathan Tweet for the 'brand new' D20 D&D 3rd edition. It was obviously a labour of love, jam-packed with 'good ideas'. When we talk about RAI, whose 'intent' are we talking about, exactly? That's right! The original writer of the damned rule, J. Tweet, esquire.
So what was Sir Tweet thinking in those dark days toward the end of the last millennium, long before he invented Twitter? He was thinking up ways for the new combat system to really shine! 'Let's do away with all this restrictive nonsense!' he mumbled to himself. 'Let's do away with the whole Declaration of Intent thing. I know! Just to show how fair and flexible my new system is, I'll even let them choose to do a full attack and then, if the first attack leaves them with no more viable targets, I'll let them give up those extra attacks (extra iterative attacks! I'm brilliant, me!) and move instead, almost like they had chosen a standard attack in the first place! I'll put the rule in the 'Full Attack' section, obviously! I'm not MAD! Now, how should I word it? Ah yes:-
Deciding between an attack or a Full Attack Action: After your first attack, if you have not yet taken a 5-foot step, you can decide to move instead of making your remaining attacks. Essentially, you can decide to take the normal attack action or the full attack action depending on how the first attack turns out. (3.0 PHB p.124)
'Perfect. Not even a moron could get that wrong!' A little harsh maybe, but he WAS high on coffee and adrenaline at the time, so we can forgive him.
How do we know he meant 'take a full attack then, after the first attack, cash in your remaining attacks to move', and not 'don't even decide if it's a full attack or a normal attack until after your first attack'? Because, if it were the latter and, after the first attack you choose to make it a normal (read: standard action) attack, then you would be left with a move ACTION, not just a move. JT was trying to make his new fangled 'full attack' MORE flexible, not less!
When writing this he certainly had access to what would become the 'Feats' chapter; he knew about Rapid Shot, Whirlwind Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting. He knew that there were several ways to get, say, four attacks in a single round by making a full attack. Some examples are:-
• Ftr16 (iteratives at +16, +11, +6 and +1)
• Ftr11 with TWF (iteratives at +11, +6 and +1, plus one off-hand at +11)
• Ftr11 with Rapid Shot (same iteratives plus one ranged attack at +11)
• Ftr11 with Speed weapon (same iteratives plus one extra at +11)
• Ftr6 with improved YWF (iteratives at +6 and +1, off-hand attacks at +6 and +1)
• Ftr6 with Whirlwind Attacks and it's pre-requisites standing adjacent to four enemies with a non-reach weapon (one attack at each of the four targets at +6)
So Mr. Tweet has had this brilliant idea to let a player choose, AFTER his first attack is resolved, to either take his extra attacks or not. The 'remaining attacks' part does not restrict those extra attacks to 'iteratives only'. Why would JT do that? Why would it even be on his mind to descriminate against other kinds of extra attacks? It beggars belief! I'll tell you this; if for some reason he actually sat there with the INTENTION of restricting those extra attacks to 'iteratives only' then it is INCONCEIVABLE (and I do know what it means, Princess Bride fans) that he would FAIL to spell it out in the rule he was in the process of writing.
As for the intentions of the writers who later tweaked the 'Deciding between' rule in 3.5? They thought 'If we're trying to be flexible here, why not go the whole hog and give them a proper move ACTION in return for those attacks, not just a move?' if THEY had wanted to restrict the extra attacks to 'only iteratives' (why?) then they would CERTAINLY have spelled that out CLEARLY as they were modifying the rule!
Damn, I have to go to work now! Twelve hour shift. I'll have to finish my thought tomorrow.
I hope for a response from you, Gauss. I hope you can see that this single issue is all that remains to be resolved.
Your camp: while not disagreeing that you MAY choose a full attack BEFORE your first attack is resolved if you want to, you say that AS SOON AS THAT CHOICE IS MADE you are now irrevocably nailed to that full attack WITHOUT the option that the 'Deciding between' rule would give you.
This was an excellent post, and I really have only one disagreement with it. Unfortunately, it's a rather pivotal disagreement.
Nobody in this camp is saying that once you've chosen to use a full attack, you are necessarily and irrevocably locked into that decision. What we're saying is that when you have chosen to use Manyshot as a part of a full attack action, you are irrevocably locked into that decision.
So, anybody could say "I'm going to full attack" prior to their turn, then make a regular attack, then change his/her mind and treat the first attack as a standard attack. However, because Manyshot must be made as a full attack action, by utilizing the feat and gaining a benefit from it, you have declared the intent to forego the possibility of changing your mind later.
I only mention the "gaining a benefit" because, while I think the mechanic should work the same (RAW-wise) for things like Rapid Shot and TWF, you don't "gain the benefit" of those feats until you make that additional attack (meaning you've already declared and actually followed through on the full attack portion of this debate). As a DM, I wouldn't have a problem allowing someone to back out of a Rapid Shot choice or a TWF choice after making a singular attack because the only impact on the game was actually a penalty to a player. They have yet to get any advantages. Technically speaking, I think you're locked in (as Rapid Shot is worded the same as Manyshot) with either choice. But as a practical matter, the benefit for Rapid Shot (extra arrow) is delayed while the penalty (-2) is immediate, whereas the benefit for Manyshot (extra arrow on first attack) is immediate and the penalty (inability to perform a move action that round) is delayed.
Hopefully that helps clarify a little bit.
EDIT: Also, just a note. The changing laws thing isn't particularly relevant. That's actually a change in the rules, not a change in the description of what happened. The rules for Manyshot and deciding between types of attacks were both "on the books" at the time the action was taken. So, the argument isn't that the rules changed, but which rule you're applying changes. A more apt analogy is a restaurant owner getting fined for serving alcohol in his restaurant without the appropriate licensing. His defense is that when he started the business, he didn't intend to sell alcohol, but later changed his mind (which is perfectly within his rights). He's not required to get a liquor license, so when the choice was originally made, it was a perfectly legal decision. But by changing his mind down the road, he's now violating the law. Obviously not a perfect scenario since the penalty/legality issues are basically flipped, but it's essentially the same idea. I could belabor the point and throw in a bunch of facts to tighten the analogy, but that'd be tedious for everybody involved. (So hopefully me not doing so doesn't create distractions down the road ... :D)
You misunderstood us. We don't think you can back out of an action.
That deciding between section is not forcing you to choose a full attack action before the first attack, unless you choose something like manyshot that says you have to commit to it.
We also do not agree that "full attack or attack means "full attack or full attack". Remember when Skip wrote those articles Mr.Tweet was still at WoTC, and the head designer. As I said before the likelihood of that even getting published, and never getting corrected, even in PF is very unlikely, since the people who work for Paizo also worked for WoTC, and they had to know about it.
The 3.0 version does not really matter since PF is based off of 3.5, and if, for the sake of argument, Jonathan Tweet handed things over to Skip then he gets to decide what the rules were. Remember those articles were the official word of WoTC, and I they are spoken of highly so letting the incorrect interpretation remain is highly unlikely.
Not only that, but Attack and Full Attack are game terms. In between then is the word "or". "Or" basically implies a limitation on options.
According to the PHB 3.0 assuming your quote is correct it says:
"Deciding between an attack or a Full Attack Action: After your first attack, if you have not yet taken a 5-foot step, you can decide to move instead of making your remaining attacks. Essentially, you can decide to take the normal attack action or the full attack action depending on how the first attack turns out." He even says after your attack you get to decide in the 3.0 version. That also follows the 3.5 and PF version.
In the later 3.5 and PF it just says attack. We do know that an "attack action" is a normal attack. We also know that Skip and James Jacobs have also called this an attack action. For you to be correct these high level developers would have misunderstood along with several fans a basic concept of the game, and let it go unchanged. I am far from convinced that is the most likely answer.
As for the intentions of the writers who later tweaked the 'Deciding between' rule in 3.5? They thought 'If we're trying to be flexible here, why not go the whole hog and give them a proper move ACTION in return for those attacks, not just a move?' if THEY had wanted to restrict the extra attacks to 'only iteratives' (why?) then they would CERTAINLY have spelled that out CLEARLY as they were modifying the rule!
That later 3.5 writer is the one who wrote it in such a way that it agrees with everything myself and Gauss(almost spelled his name wrong again) have been saying.
I understand the desire to be correct, but your interpretation depends on my believing a phase that could have just said "Full Attack" was written in such way in the heading and in the body as to make myself and most other people believe a choice had to made that really did not have to be made. I would also have to believe that on top of that the part of the book saying that you can only take 5 foot step while using a full attack is also in error since according to you that a person can choose full attack*. The rules however do not support this anywhere. Even the new mythic rules have a special ability saying you can move before or after a full attack, which makes sense if one goes by the book and believes that only one option is a full attack. They don't make mention of a full attack B or any other second version. SKR in a post from earlier in the thread, while answering a question, had the words "attack or full attack" as a choice to be made. That alone should have been enough to show intent. We have every developer queried** so far saying the same thing or giving answers that only make sense if you read the rules the way those who agree with me have at least concerning Manyshot and/or the normal full attack rules.
*Full attack B is what I am calling the one attack combined with a move action for the purpose of this post.
**Queried in this case means asked directly or having a quote related to the subject in some form.
In any case I will be looking forward to your response, and yes this place is addictive. :)
edit:I will also say this. The book only has one definition of full attack. Under the heading of full round actions is the "full attack".
It specifically says "full attack". It goes on to explain iterative attacks and it says "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks."
It does not mention a variant of itself that allows you to take a move action so that section would also have to be in error, along with everything else I mentioned for you to be correct.
The section we are discussing is a subsection of the full attack section basically giving you the conditions under which you can choose to attack of make a full attack.
In short a whole lot of things would have to be wrong in order for you to be right.
Malachi:
(you're only human)(probably)
Nope, not human. :)
Both camps agree (at least my tent does) that you may 'announce' (or whatever word you want to use, since there is DELIBERATELY no 'declaration of intent' anymore) your full attack either before OR after your first attack is resolved.
I agree that you may announce a standard action or full-attack action before or after your first attack is resolved.
We also agree that, in order to use some abilities/feats (like Manyshot, Flurry of Blows, Rapid Shot, Whirlwind Attack) or even Haste effects or Speed weapons, you cannot choose THOSE types of full attacks after your first attack is resolved because you have to be USING a full attack from the beginning.
I agree that in order to use certain abilities (like Manyshot, FoB etc. the list is negotiable) you cannot choose to use them after your first attack is resolved. You must declare them to begin with.
Now, although this limits what 'types' of full attack can choose AFTER the first attack, it does NOT limit what types of full attack can be chosen BEFORE the first attack is resolved! Even a vanilla Ftr16 without any special feats or whatever, certainly MAY choose a full attack BEFORE the first attack is resolved if he wants to!
Agreed
Both camps agree that you MUST be 'using' a full attack to use Manyshot/Rapid Shot/TWF et al.
Agreed with Manyshot and Rapid Shot but not TWF. TWF is worded differently but lets leave that topic out of this for the moment?
So, at last, we come to the ONLY disagreement that actually matters.Our camp: anyone who has a full attack (where that full attack would consist of more than one attack if it were completed) MAY choose that full attack BEFORE their first attack if they want to, unrestricted by full attack 'type'. Then, after their first attack is resolved, exercise their right under the 'Deciding between' rule, CHANGE their mind, AFTER the fact, to take a move action by 'cashing in' their remaining attacks, thus converting their (now resolved) attack into a standard action RETROSPECTIVELY. This means that it WAS a full attack at the time you made your first attack so Manyshot et al were legal, and don't become illegal after the fact.
You are correct, this is our disagreement.
Your camp: while not disagreeing that you MAY choose a full attack BEFORE your first attack is resolved if you want to, you say that AS SOON AS THAT CHOICE IS MADE you are now irrevocably nailed to that full attack WITHOUT the option that the 'Deciding between' rule would give you.
This is my pov yes. I believe it is the others' but you will have to check with them.
So, the crux is this; does choosing a full attack 'lock you in' to that choice for the entire round, or does the 'Deciding between' rule let you actually CHANGE your action after you already started doing it.
I would phrase it as:
Does choosing a full attack 'lock you in' to that choice for the entire round, or does the 'deciding between' rule let you actually CHANGE your action after you already started doing it.
The added words are in bold (and bigger).
I have read your arguments. Wraithstrike made a good response to them so I will not address them at this time. If after the following response from JJ you would still like a response to your arguments I will be happy to do so.
You stated that you are using JJ's statements in your arguments. Therefore, since you are accepting JJ as an authority I present the following unequivocal statement he recently made.
Note: I added JJ's nametag in bold for clarity.
setzer9999 wrote:
So, if you use Manyshot, which states in the feat it is part of a full-attack, why can't you move afterwards based on your "Only a jerk GM" answer? Again, I'm sorry to insist a rules question in your ask anything thread when there is an existing thread for this whole argument, but its just that the two things you are saying above seem contradictory.Can't you attack with Manyshot, kill the giant dead, and then since he is dead, move instead? You don't have to either keep shooting the dead giant with your iterative attacks or just stand there dumbfounded that you killed the giant on your first attack, just because the feat required a full-attack, do you? Don't you get to choose if you move after the first attack instead of continuing with your attacks?
James Jacobs:
A set of iterative attacks is numerous separate attack rolls. It's therefore numerous separate attacks. Therefore, if that first of the numerous separate attacks kills a foe, you can at that point choose NOT to make the others and treat that 1st attack as a standard action and then move on from there.Manyshot is a special kind of attack that ONLY WORKS if you're making the manyshot attack as part of a full-attack action. If you make a manyshot attack and that 1st two-arrow attack kills the target dead, you're locked in to making a full-attack action since if you WEREN'T making a full-attack action, you can't make a Manyshot attack. At this point, you pretty much need to make your remaining attacks or just stop and lose the rest of your turn.
James Jacobs most recent post on this
I think this is as clear a response as he has ever given and is pretty much cut and dried at this point.
I know some people will not accept his response since 'he is not the rules guy' but I hope that you, Malachi, will since you were trying to use him in your debate.
The whole issue of 'locked in or not' is a gray area. My take (and apparently JJ's) is that some feats and special abilities specifically call out a specific action type. That modifies the general rules.
Anyhow, let me know if you accept or do not accept JJ's statement. If not, we can try to figure out why. :)
- Gauss
Edit: Just to be clear, I am discussing rules here. Not if the rules are fair, realistic, or if they should be houseruled. I have my own opinions on that topic and I try to keep them out of a rules forum.
See! Given that, how can you still think that the 'Deciding between' rule DOESN'T let you 'change' your actual action (from full attack to standard action+move)?
How can you STILL think that choosing a full attack 'locks you in' to that choice? What else is the 'Deciding between' rule for?
We agree that you can intend to full attack and then change your mind and take the move action after your first attack. What we're saying is that Manyshot specifically requires a full attack action, not just the intent of a full attack action, and if you change your mind then you aren't meeting that requirement.
Our camp: anyone who has a full attack (where that full attack would consist of more than one attack if it were completed) MAY choose that full attack BEFORE their first attack if they want to, unrestricted by full attack 'type'. Then, after their first attack is resolved, exercise their right under the 'Deciding between' rule, CHANGE their mind, AFTER the fact, to take a move action by 'cashing in' their remaining attacks, thus converting their (now resolved) attack into a standard action RETROSPECTIVELY. This means that it WAS a full attack at the time you made your first attack so Manyshot et al were legal, and don't become illegal after the fact.
Your camp: while not disagreeing that you MAY choose a full attack BEFORE your first attack is resolved if you want to
First off, we don't all necessarily agree with that. Some would argue that you can't be full attacking until you've decided whether you're taking the move or not (personally I haven't decided where I fall on that one).
Secondly, your position here is not sound. A full attack is a full round action which precludes movement. You are not in the situation that "I was full attacking for the purpose of the first attack but for the rest of my turn I am not full attacking". You are either full attacking during your entire turn or you are not full attacking at all."Essentially, you can decide to take the normal attack action or the full attack action depending on how the first attack turns out." A normal attack action OR the full attack action. If you use the normal attack then you are NOT using the full attack. You're arguing that because he didn't specifically call out a "move action" that it's a full attack, but he DID specifically call out a normal attack action which is even more definitive in declaring that it is not a full attack action. It's not "almost like they had chosen a standard attack", it IS a standard attack.
Now, although this limits what 'types' of full attack can choose AFTER the first attack, it does NOT limit what types of full attack can be chosen BEFORE the first attack is resolved! Even a vanilla Ftr16 without any special feats or whatever, certainly MAY choose a full attack BEFORE the first attack is resolved if he wants to! If you disagree with THAT statement I'll require a direct rules quote from you, but I don't think you will and I'll carry on with your implicit agreement on this particular point; that the right to choose to full attack BEFORE the first attack is resolved is totally unrestricted by full attack 'type'.
There aren't "types" of full attack. If you say "I'm full attacking", drop your enemy in a single attack, and then say "guess I'm moving instead", then you are not full attacking after all. The fact that you intended to full attack doesn't change the reality that you did not actually full attack. The choice to move determines whether or not you are full attacking that round, it doesn't change a full attack to something else.
To give an example of my own, if you purchase a set of widgets from a particular store you get a special candy bar - the candy bar is not sold normally, this is the only way to get it. You bring the widgets to the counter, they hand you the candy bar, and you eat it while they ring everything up. Then you realize that you don't need the full widget set after all, you only need one widget. Normally you could simply cancel the order and ask for a single widget instead, but because you've already eaten the candy bar you no longer have that option.
If you make a full attack you get to use Manyshot - this is the only way to get the extra arrow on your first attack. You declare a full attack and use Manyshot. Then you realize you only needed to make one attack, not a full attack. Normally you could declare that single attack as a normal attack action and take a move action but because you've already used Manyshot you no longer have that option.
Just to be clear, I am discussing rules here. Not if the rules are fair, realistic, or if they should be houseruled. I have my own opinions on that topic and I try to keep them out of a rules forum.
On that subject, because some people have argued that it's not fair to the PCs to not allow movement after Manyshot, I would like to point out that Manyshot (without movement) is objectively stronger than Rapid Shot but no one seems to think that it's unfair that you can't fire two arrows and move when using RS.
Fairly certain Moglun thats because your making more than one attack with Rapid Shot whereas manyshot is multiple arrows but one attack roll.
As to this thread, I'm willing to concede and reverse my previous position.I tip my hat to you; in my experience when someone is involved in a long argument like this one it becomes difficult not to become emotionally attached and refuse to budge regardless of the points presented. I think it takes a lot of discipline to stay objective and be willing to concede your position during such a vigorous debate (regardless of which side a person is on).
For the record I'm of the opinion that you provoke one attack for the casting and a second for the ranged attack. I don't rule that multiple iterative attacks or scorching rays provoke multiple attacks because I've always seen it as one 'act' with multiple attacks, but honestly I haven't looked into it very much.
Kudo's to you HangarFlying. A rare quality to be sure.
Fairly certain Moglun thats because your making more than one attack with Rapid Shot whereas manyshot is multiple arrows but one attack roll.
I wasn't arguing that, I know that the rules are clear on Rapid Shot in that respect. I was saying that if Manyshot is too weak or inflexible because you can't move then Rapid Shot (for example) is even worse, since in terms of limitations and damage output it's the same thing for less benefit. Statements like "that clearly includes choosing rules interpretations that are not player friendly when you could just as easily and logically choose a player friendly option" are unfair because Manyshot is powerful and player friendly without the move action.
All it's telling you is that if you are using the feat during a full attack, it's the first attack that fires two arrows. It doesn't say that a full attack is required, at all.I'm honestly not seeing how you get this. The benefit of manyshot says it only applies when you make a full attack with your bow. How could using a full attack be an option to still using manyshot? It doesn't say, "Your attack with a bow uses two arrows. If you make a full attack, it only applies to the first attack." It says, "When making a full attack, you use two arrows with your first attack." So, When X, do Y. If no X, you don't do Y. How is X optional? If the full attack part is optional, why include it?
I see the full attack part as optional. For me, the fact that it is missing the sentence saying "You must use the full-attack action to use this feat" proves that you aren't limited to only the full-attack action.
The phrase mentioning full-attack is informational, rather than restrictive.
Imagine that there were a feat called Hubba Bubba Walker that allowed a character to chew gum and walk at the same time. Perhaps, its text might read: "When walking a long distance, you may chew gum and walk at the same time."
While you may walk a long distance while chewing gum, that piece of information doesn't prove you have to walk a long distance to chew gum and walk at the same time.
Hrothgar:
Can I play in your games? I'd love to combine certain standard attack effects with full-attack effects just to see how badly I can break the system! Since many (if not all) of the standard attack effects or full attack effects do not state 'must'.
- Gauss
Imagine that there were a feat called Hubba Bubba Walker that allowed a character to chew gum and walk at the same time. Perhaps, its text might read: "When walking a long distance, you may chew gum and walk at the same time."
While you may walk a long distance while chewing gum, that piece of information doesn't prove you have to walk a long distance to chew gum and walk at the same time.
Actually, within the context of a set of rules that feat only provides its benefit when walking long distances.
Rules are permissive. That means that by default nothing is allowed, and then the rules systematically allow certain specific things. Manyshot allows you to fire two arrows on the first attack of a full attack. It does not allow you to fire two arrows on the first attack of a standard attack, fire five arrows on the first attack of a full attack, or fire an extra arrow on every attack. It only does what it specifically states it does, and it only specifies full attacks. Claiming that you can use it any time other than a full attack is no different than claiming that you can use it to fire five extra arrows instead of one.
Moglun:
Honestly, 'rules are permissive' falls flat on its face because not all rules are included. Should we go through various examples of how the rules do not provide things covered under common sense?
With that said, the rules are 'mostly' permissive would be a reasonable statement.
- Gauss
Rules are permissive but you must apply common sense as well. The point remains that if the rules state that you get a particular benefit during one type of action you don't get that benefit during any other type of action. "It doesn't say I can't" is not a valid argument. "Common sense says I can" might be.
...I'd love to combine certain standard attack effects with full-attack effects just to see how badly I can break the system!... many (if not all) of the standard attack effects or full attack effects do not state 'must'.
By default, making an attack is a standard action. A normal full-attack is just a standard action (since making an attack is a standard action) plus iteratives that allows for the choice of a move action instead of the iteratives, if no movement was performed prior to making the first attack (standard action).
What standard action or full attack feats (since we're discussing the manyshot feat) would you combine to break the system? Please, limit it to feats in Paizo's PRD.
Hrothgar:
I was making a joke to illustrate a point. I really have no interest in going down that road. Honestly, I simply do not agree with your interpretation. James Jacobs does not agree and has said so in two different ways. Since you do not want to accept even his word on it I do not think I will continue to debate the point with you. We are going in circles with no end in sight. Personally, I don't find a mobius ride entertaining.
- Gauss
Hrothgar:
I was making a joke to illustrate a point. I really have no interest in going down that road.
Fair enough. I don't think that road was very long, anyway. The PFRPG's rules are very good and I really didn't expect to see any truly gamebreaking combos that would be allowed with my interpretation of manyshot (or rapid shot, for that matter).
Honestly, I simply do not agree with your interpretation. James Jacobs does not agree and has said so in two different ways. Since you do not want to accept even his word on it I do not think I will continue to debate the point with you. We are going in circles with no end in sight. Personally, I don't find a mobius ride entertaining.
I understand James Jacobs' logic on the matter (as far as gaining a benefit without a penalty), but I find it in conflict with the RAW (and I also think that taking the feat is enough of a penalty for an extra arrow). Also, from what he's recently written on the matter, I think he may have 3.5 manyshot in mind, rather than PF's manyshot. The two are different feats, entirely.
Manyshot's flavor is that you're shooting multiple arrows at once, not one arrow after the other. If you shoot 4 arrows at once, it's ridiculous to say "the first arrow killed the guy, can I have the other 3 go at someone else?" or "can I do something else entirely?"
Whereas doing a series of attacks, like a regular set of iterative attacks, or rapid shot, or the like... it's not goofy to assume that after the first attack kills a foe that you can change your mind and do something else.
That said, his next post, later in the thread, seems to directly apply to PF manyshot. And, I think he agrees with you.
Manyshot is a special kind of attack that ONLY WORKS if you're making the manyshot attack as part of a full-attack action. If you make a manyshot attack and that 1st two-arrow attack kills the target dead, you're locked in to making a full-attack action since if you WEREN'T making a full-attack action, you can't make a Manyshot attack. At this point, you pretty much need to make your remaining attacks or just stop and lose the rest of your turn.
Yet, this RAI is not clear in the RAW. The language is the same for Rapid Shot and nothing in the RAW suggests otherwise for Manyshot. If RAW allows for a move instead of the remaining attacks after the first attack of a Rapid Shot, the RAW ought to allow the same for Manyshot.
Since the RAW is unclear that Manyshot "is a special kind of attack that ONLY WORKS... as part of a full-attack action..." errata seems warranted. Otherwise, what's good for rapid shot ought to be good for manyshot.
Odd thing is this. In 3.5, rapid shot was a full-round action and manyshot was a standard action. Why reverse them?
All that said, if the GM said that it works like James Jacobs has said, I'd be fine with it.
If RAW allows for a move instead of the remaining attacks after the first attack of a Rapid Shot...
Arguably it doesn't. But because at that point all you've done is taken a penalty without any benefit, I don't believe anyone would enforce that.
On the other hand, I read Rapid Shot as saying that you take a -2 penalty on attacks to use the feat. It grants you an extra attack, but in order to use that extra attack you must take a full attack action. So you can use Rapid Shot without taking a full attack action, you just can't use the extra attack. Compare to Manyshot, which says that it grants an extra arrow on the first attack of a full attack.The RAW IS clear that Manyshot is a special kind of attack that only works as part of a full attack action, because the RAW only states that the special attack Manyshot works as part of a full attack action. If you don't accept this then Bleeding Critical does not require bludgeoning weapons, Catch Off Guard does not require improvised weapons, Disruptive works on enemies outside your threatened area, and so forth.
Can you explain exactly why "When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows" does not only apply to full attacks, but (for example) "Your attacks with weapons selected with Weapon Focus ignore up to 5 points of damage reduction" does only apply to weapons with Weapon Focus and "You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area" only applies to AoOs?
Otherwise, what's good for rapid shot ought to be good for manyshot.
Certainly. If you benefit from Rapid Shot by making an extra attack then you must make a full attack. If you benefit from Manyshot by firing an extra arrow then you must make a full attack.
Hrothgar: Rapid Shot is a full-attack action that does NOT allow you to stop after one attack take a move action just like Manyshot does not allow you to stop after one attack take a move action.
You are confusing people's houserules (including JJ's) with the rules.
JJ's last post on the rules was clear that if a feat states Full-attack then it must stay a full-attack.
With that said: As a I see no problem with stopping Rapidshot after the first attack and then moving since you do not gain anything by it. Again: as a houserule. Repeat: houserule.
- Gauss
Hrothgar: Rapid Shot is a full-attack action that does NOT allow you to stop after one attack take a move action just like Manyshot does not allow you to stop after one attack take a move action.
You are confusing people's houserules (including JJ's) with the rules.
JJ's last post on the rules was clear that if a feat states Full-attack then it must stay a full-attack.
With that said: As a I see no problem with stopping Rapidshot after the first attack and then moving since you do not gain anything by it. Again: as a houserule. Repeat: houserule.
- Gauss
Sounds good, Gauss. And, you are right. And, I now, agree. I was mistaking house rules for RAW.
I just prefer the same wording to have the same meaning in both places.