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.
Thanks for pointing that out, Moglun.
As Gauss correctly noted, I was mistaking JJ's house rules concerning Rapid Shot for RAW and then concluding they ought to apply the same for Manyshot.
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.
Many abilities(feats, supernatural abilities, and so on) don't use the word "must", "require", and so on. That does not make it optional. The ability's description tells you how it works. In short it is providing instruction. It is not about being restrictive or not being restrictive. As an example if I tell you that you must inset a key into the ignition of my car...... I am not being restrictive. I am telling you what you must do to make it work.
PS:For the purpose of that example we should assume hot-wiring does not exist.
...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).
** spoiler omitted **
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.
If the feats are only giving me suggestions then I can just use them however I wish. By that logic manyshot can have whatever action assigned to it that I wish so I can just do it as a free action, and free actions are unlimited. The same would apply to vital strike or any other feat. Why should I make a normal attack which uses a standard action when I can use a feat and get infinite attacks?
edit:I mean any feat that mentions an action without words such as "must". Now that I think about some of the general rules don't use words such as "must".
Maybe I can cast spells as a free action also. The magic chapter does not say I "must" do them according by the casting time in the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Daryl MacLeod, you should know better than that. This isnt even approaching the length of some 2k+ threads. :D
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
......
Wraithstrike,
You may have missed it, but I've come to the conclusion (with the help of Gauss and Moglun) that I was mistaking James Jacobs' house-rule for Rapid Shot as RAW and then trying to apply that to Manyshot as RAW.
My apologies for taking so long to realize that.
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.
Someone not understanding RAW does not mean it is unclear. I have had people try to tell me that you can't sneak attack with 2-handed weapons. I have had people try to tell me spellcraft was used to make concentration checks despite the book saying otherwise. I have had people tell me that SU's are spells, and the list goes on....
Hrothgar: I am sure he is just reading the posts in order. He will catch up. Be patient. :)
- Gauss
......Wraithstrike,
You may have missed it, but I've come to the conclusion (with the help of Gauss and Moglun) that I was mistaking James Jacobs' house-rule for Rapid Shot as RAW and then trying to apply that to Manyshot as RAW.
My apologies for taking so long to realize that.
Actually I did miss it. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.
Actually I did miss it. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.......Wraithstrike,
You may have missed it, but I've come to the conclusion (with the help of Gauss and Moglun) that I was mistaking James Jacobs' house-rule for Rapid Shot as RAW and then trying to apply that to Manyshot as RAW.
My apologies for taking so long to realize that.
Thank you for helping out, too.
Someone not understanding RAW does not mean it is unclear. I have had people try to tell me that you can't sneak attack with 2-handed weapons. I have had people try to tell me spellcraft was used to make concentration checks despite the book saying otherwise. I have had people tell me that SU's are spells, and the list goes on....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.
All that based upon misunderstanding JJ's house-rule concerning Rapid Shot as RAW.
Shame on me.
It is cool. I had not read your previous post when I made that post. :)
Hrothgar: I am sure he is just reading the posts in order. He will catch up. Be patient. :)
- Gauss
I am caught up. :)
Hrothgar you get a lot of cred in my eyes for being able to adjust your point of view as new things come to light.
I've seen a lot of threads like this where people become entrenched in a particular viewpoint and they get blinders on.
I hope we see more threads playing out like this one has.
Hrothgar you get a lot of cred in my eyes for being able to adjust your point of view as new things come to light.
I've seen a lot of threads like this where people become entrenched in a particular viewpoint and they get blinders on.
I hope we see more threads playing out like this one has.
Thanks.
I think I'd've liked to have discerned the houserule from the RAW, sooner.
|
Sorry to let you guys down. I know you have been eagerly anticipating my response. I assure it's on the way but I only have half an hour before I go to work; most of you will have seen my previous posts and they take around two hours to type and get page references etc.
After my ten our shift tonight I get to sleep for nearly eight whole hours before I go to work AGAIN on Sunday afternoon, finishing at 11pm. When I get home (around midnight) I'll type up my reply. I intend to counter every objection that Gauss, Wraithstrike et al have advanced to deny access to the 'Deciding between' rule to this forgotten, mistreated, abused section of our community.
Shame on you! : )
In the meantime I'll have to do my job while all these arguments are going round my mind. Good job I'm so skilled at my chosen profession.
So don't think I've abandoned you, my friends! As Arnie once said in Terminator, 'Get out!'
No, wait! Wrong quote....
Malachi don't look to counter us. It will skew your viewpoint if you have it set in your mind to counter someone. Even though I am somewhat "confident" when I debate, I always look for the truth. It makes it easier to admit when I am wrong. :)
edit:Take your time. I will be around. :)
Exactly, wraith. If you get emotionally attached to "winning" you can't think straight.
Emotions are for humans, who needs emotions? :D
- Gauss
Highly logical Mr. Gauss.
That's the idea Grimmy. :)
- Gauss
I'm gone for four days due to a hurricane and you guys are still on this.
I believe wholeheartedly that, if you can actually take a move action after your first attack using Manyshot, you can also finish your iterative attacks after using Vital Strike.
I know that you can't get the rest of your iterative attacks after using Vital Strike so you can't take a move action after your first attack using Manyshot.
I believe wholeheartedly that, if you can actually take a move action after your first attack using Manyshot, you can also take a move action after your first attack using Whirlwind.
Every rule is important when interpreting and evaluating corner cases.
Karlgamer we have managed to convince 2 of them. :)
I think AD and MS are the only holdouts, but don't quote me on that.
|
|
It's been a very frustrating three days. I'm able to read this thread but not contribute. It makes it look as if 'our camp' has run out of steam, especially since Adamantine Dragon seems to feel that he is banging his head against a brick wall. I think ALL of us feel that way, in both camps.
Be assured that my 'counters' to your arguments are not based on ego, or a desire to win at all costs. I've been wrong on various things before, though not often. On those occasions I'm happy to hold my hand up and admit it, thanking my 'correctors' for my education. I was wrong about large bastardsword usage. I was wrong about the RAW on diagonal polearms. I have no problem saying so.
There have also been times when I come across a way to interpret a rule that never occurred to me, or the various groups I play with, before. This thread is one of them. Another was the paladin's Detect Evil ability. I only went on that thread in the belief that it would be about the 'fluff' of it. Imagine my surprise when two opposing camps appeared to be reading the same rule in opposing ways. After being educated as to the opposing interpretation, I didn't change my mind in this case, but I realised that the wording of the ability could, entirely reasonably, be read EITHER way. Going back to the RAW was no use as the wording of the RAW was the problem. In this case the only thing to do was wait for an official errata.
(On a side note: how would I find out if a FAQ had been officially answered?)
This thread is similar to that case in some ways, but not in others. I've read opinions from some in 'your camp' that allowing an archer to Manyshot then cash in his remaining attacks to move would do all sorts of damage to a campaign, destroys the action economy of the game, would give players an unfair advantage, etc. I'm here to tell you that fear is unfounded. Since the last millennium (that's a thousand years, people!) we have played 3.0, then 3.5 and Pathfinder. In all that time we understood that the 'Deciding between rule was ONLY useable by those who start by taking a full attack. It was NOT available to those who start by taking the attack ACTION as a standard action. This meant that those who wanted to Rapid Shot, TWF, Flurry etc. took the relevant penalty so as to get the extra attack later, but they could, after seeing how the first attack turns out, give up the rest of their attacks in that full attack to move. Not a move action in 3.0, just a move. It didn't turn their first attack into a standard action, because if it did you would be left with a proper move ACTION. This meant that it was still a full-round action, but you got to move because you 'bought' that move, paid for by giving up the rest of your attacks. Many in your camp have been up in arms about 'full attack+move'. Oh, the horror! Yet the ability to attack a single time and still move as part of the same full-round action has been with us since the beginning! Ever heard of charge? You can move (DOUBLE your speed) then attack in one full-round action. You can even do it as a standard action if you only get a half-action that round. What? A standard action plus a move action only costing a single standard action for BOTH? Oh, the humanity! You can also use Pounce to get a full attack at the end of a charge, even the restricted action variety. WHAT? A move, then a FULL ATTACK, all on a SINGLE STANDARD ACTION? Oh, the sky is falling!!!
But I don't hear a peep from any of you about that, at the same time as you say 'full attack+move? Impossible! Game breaking! Call the FAQing police!
We understood the second sentence in the 3.0 'Deciding between' rule, about exercising this choice to be 'Essentially' choosing a normal or full attack after the first attack to be an explanation for dummies, not the actual rule which was the first sentence.
When 3.5 came along and changed 'move' to 'move action' it seemed fair to us, but it didn't otherwise change how the rule worked; you can only use this rule if you started making a full attack and had already taken your first (but not yet started your second) attack of that FULL ATTACK.
When Pathfinder came along and added the 'assuming you have not already taken a move action' part we thought 'Aha! Someones first level fighter tried the trick of saying that he DID have extra attacks to cash in, and the number of extra attacks I have is defined as the integer between minus one and plus one! So, I'll move, cash in my remaining attacks (zero!) and move again, right?
Wrong.
So , imagine my surprise when I looked at this thread believing it would be about the same whinge I have about changing Manyshot from a special standard action which cannot be folded in to a full attack, to one in which it may! It seems that there are some who believe that those who have Manyshot should be denied access to the 'Deciding between' rule! So I read their arguments and found them wanting.
Gauss, you wanted me to respond regarding James Jacobs' comments. I included his comment, not because I think his opinion on this is so authoritative, but because YOU apparently do, and that despite that his (general) comment supported our camp:-
'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.'
I believe the capitals are his, unless you capitalised them on his behalf, which I doubt. Either way, one or both of you thought that this principle to be the most important thing in his post!
I must be fair to James. On his own thread he says reapeatedly that it is not a rules forum. He doesn't even TRY to quote RAW (most of the time). Since he's not trying to it's not fair to criticise him for not doing so. I have read your posts to him regarding our dilemma. He doesn't seem to satisfy you with his first answer. Not because you're arguing with him but because it seems as though he hasn't grasped the essence of the question. It seems to me to be a problem with his second answer also.
Is a single attack a standard action? When James is asked this question, he has to make sense of it before he can answer. He takes it as meaning 'if, during my turn, I attack once, what kind of action is that?' to which the answer, without any further complications, is 'one standard action.' Some people have tried to reverse engineer this to say 'so, if we make one attack, then give up our remaining attacks to take a move action, then our first attack MUST have been a standard action, right?'. Er...if you like...
We know James interpreted the question that way. We know because, if he had taken the question to mean 'does an attack require a standard action to take' then the answer COULD NOT have been 'a single attack is a standard action.' Why? Because that would mean that not only does a single attack on your own turn require a standard action, but EVERY attack of a full attack MUST be a standard action (impossible), every attack of opportunity MUST be a standard action (impossible; it's not your turn), the attack at the end of a charge must be a standard action (impossible; you're in the middle of a full round action), the touch attack that is part of a touch attack spell must be a standard action (impossible; you've already cast the spell and that takes a standard action). What must happen in a Pounce? Oh, the humanity!
So, no! Reverse engineering like this is an error! 'All Cocker Spaniels are dogs, so all dogs must be Cocker Spaniels!' An attack ACTION takes a standard action to perform. Even then, the attacks listed under the 'attack' entry under 'standard actions' MAY be folded in to a full attack. So reading the first sentence in the 'Deciding between' rule (my core rulebook actually falls open at p.187 now), 'After your first attack...', as an attack ACTION and therefore a standard action is utterly unsupportable by RAW. It's wrong to then claim that JJs statement therefore results in the users of Rapid Shot et al being unable to exercise the 'Deciding between' rule as they are not standard actions.
I've also read other stuff JJ has posted. His stance on diagonal polearms took TWO YEARS to move from 'insane' to 'sane'. That helps me form an opinion on his usefulness as a judge. I read a reply he made to the question about a paladin's Smite Evil being able to bypass even epic DR. The questioner was clearly wanting rule quotes: does it or doesn't it? His answer? 'Not in my games!'. What kind of answer is that? What he plays in 'his' games is neither here nor there; the questioner wanted RAW, not James' house rule!
And so do we. Our differing opinions on this issue can, at this point, ONLY be resolved by RAW; nothing less will do. James would only be a valid resource if he would be willing to quote RAW, and I doubt it would.
Consider this; 'Mr. Jacobs,,' you ask, wringing your cap in trembling hands, 'is this sequence of events, taken in this order, legal by RAW? If it isn't quote the RAW which shows it to be illegal. I'd like you to bear in mind that ''only a jerk DM wouldn't allow a player to change his action' statement you made.'''
1st: Say 'I'm going to do a full attack with my bow, DM!'
2nd: Roll for your first attack
3rd: Resolve the attack and see the result
4th: Decide to take a move action instead of taking the remaining attacks
This follows the RAW and at no point contradicts the RAW. If you think it does, quote the rule. BTW, the rules do not say you can't say that you're full attacking before you roll your first attack.
Since the sequence above is completely okay by RAW (quote the rule that says otherwise if you can), then what is it about possessing the Manyshot feat that changes it?
There have been many objections to allowing Manyshot to be part of the above sequence. The number of objections are irrelevant; only objections that show the RAW disallows it count. The number of people in 'your camp' is irrelevant. I don't care how many people think the world is flat!
I'll go through all the objections I can remember. For the purpose of this post I'll define 'vanilla full attack' as a full attack that consists of two or more iteratives only; no Rapid Shot/Whirlwind Strike/Flurry/Haste or any of that nonsense.
Objection #1: 'If Manyshot allows you to trade in your extra attacks then Vital Strike users can trade in their move to get extra iterative attacks!'
No. The 'Deciding between option, despite its name, is ONLY open to those who have already taken their first attack OF THEIR FULL ATTACK. It cannot be taken by anyone whose first action was a standard action, like Vital Strike. I know you don't think VS can be used that way, but this choice is a one-way street and always has been.
Objection #2: 'TWF does not require a full attack because it doesn't say it does. Manyshot requires a full attack because it says it does in the feat!'
No. The rules on TWF on p.202 say '...you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.' The rule on p.184 under the heading 'Multiple Attacks' says 'A character who CAN make more than one attack per round MUST use the full-attack action...in order to get more than one ATTACK.' (all emphasis mine). But,' I hear you cry, 'if you don't TAKE the multiple attacks you're entitled to, then that means you DON'T need to make a full attack!'. Agreed. Two things: first, Manyshot does NOT require you to take a full attack any more or less than TWF does! 'When making a full attack with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.'. Second, you can say you're doing a vanilla full attack (which CAN use the 'Deciding Between' verbiage) and the extra arrow gets shot without any special actios by you. It's effectively 'triggered' just by making a 'vanilla' full attack, although you don't have to use the feat if you don't want to. Third, to use the 'Deciding between' rule, you may only take one attack. But the first attack with Manyshot IS only a single attack; it just shoots two ARROWS in that single attack. Therefore, allowed by RAW. You can only object to this by quoting RAW which says otherwise there isn't any; if there was you'd have quoted it sometime in the last 700+ posts.
Objection #3: 'We all know that Whirlwind Attack can't use the 'Deciding between' verbiage, and Manyshot has the same 'full attack' language, therefore Manyshot can't 'Decide between' either.'
No. The 'Deciding between' rule says you give up 'your remaining attacks'. It doesn't define these attacks as iterative attacks, it just assumes that you are entitled to more than one attack (and doesn't care where those extra attacks come from). In order to continue with this objection you need to quote the rule which limits this rule to 'iteratives only'. There isn't one.
Objection #4: 'Ah, but Manyshot and the rest REQUIRE you to take a full attack action!'
Yes. We do. We then cash in our extra attacks to move. Even if you say that changing your mind in this way retrospectively changed your actions from 'full attack' to 'standard attack+move action', the fact remains that it WAS a full attack action you were taking at the time the first attack was resolved. Changing it's game nomenclature AFTER the event DOESN'T change what actually happened.
Objection #5: 'You can't back out of an action once you've started it, without a specific rule allowing you to do so!'
Agreed. There IS a rule. I'll quote it for you. 'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.' RAW. It's on p.187, under 'full attack'.
Objection #6: 'It SAYS that 'The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step.' Therefore you can't take a move in the same round.'
Borrowing a phrase from your camp, 'specific trumps general'. There's more than one specific rule which trumps this general 'no movement more than a 5-foot step' rule. One is the 'Deciding between' specific rule. Another is Pounce. You've definately moved more than a 5-foot step there, and STILL get a full attack. Note that Pounce shows that even a full attack doesn't HAVE to be a full-round action; in this case the charge itself is a full-round action and each element of the full attack is certainly NOT, either a standard or full-round or swift action in itself.
I can't believe it's so difficult for some of you to get your head round the concept of 'no more than a 5-foot step during a full attack UNLESS you trade in your other attacks for a move action'.
Objection #7: 'All these 'special' full attacks 'lock you in' to completing your full attack; no 'Deciding between allowed for you, sonny-boy!'
Now THIS is where you have to show me the RAW that says so! You made it up! There is NO SUCH RULE! Hey, my statements here are open to be shot down, just like yours. Go ahead, punks! Make my day. If you can quote such a rule which ACTUALLY SAYS you are locked in to you a full attack when using these 'special' full attacks, then I'll eat Humble Pie; I'll post my apologies on this very thread and stand corrected, thanking you all for educating me! I reserve the right to sort the wheat from the chaff; claims of this sort have been made before on this thread that spectacularly fail to do that!
Objection #8: 'Changing your mind this way is okay if all you've done is give yourself a penalty, but Manyshot gives you a benefit WITHOUT a corresponding penalty on that first attack. It's a general principle of the game that you can't get a benefit without paying the price.'
Is it? Show me the rule! There is no such rule! This issue can ONLY be resolved through RAW. you made that rule up!
Well, that's all the objections I can remember at the moment. Please remind me of any I've forgotten and I'll address those too.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that I'm wrong. But, in order for you to show that I'm wrong, you MUST quote the RAW, or your post is not worth the paper it's not written on.
I've been typing this for three-and-a-half hours now, and I'm running out of charge on the phone I'm typing this on.
We've been running our games like this for a thousand years (well, since last millennium at any rate) and, to borrow a phrase from James Jacobs (when he realised that people were playing PF using polearms that threaten diagonals), 'the sky hasn't fallen in yet!'
Malachi,
Here's what changed my mind... I didn't understand that James Jacobs was talking about house rules when talking about letting people decide after the first attack with a flurry, two-weapon fighting, or rapid shot. Not his fault. It was mine. I was focusing on the fact that he allowed it and thinking it ought to allow the same for manyshot (as I disagreed with his reasoning for not allowing it with manyshot, thinking only that part was the house rule).
By raw, you cannot move after taking the first shot of rapid shot. Or, taking the first attack of a flurry. Or, taking the first attack of two-weapon fighting.
You can only decide between when making a normal full attack action. All those special attack actions require a full attack.
Apparently, it's a common houserule to allow the decision to sacrifice the iteratives and move after the first attack on practically every variation of these full attack actions, except manyshot.
Personally, I'd be consistent in my houseruling and include manyshot, too. (And, I'd also allow iteratives after vital strike, for example...) But, that's all in house rules territory.
|
|
Malachi,
Here's what changed my mind... I didn't understand that James Jacobs was talking about house rules when talking about letting people decide after the first attack with a flurry, two-weapon fighting, or rapid shot. Not his fault. It was mine. I was focusing on the fact that he allowed it and thinking it ought to allow the same for manyshot (as I disagreed with his reasoning for not allowing it with manyshot, thinking only that part was the house rule).
By raw, you cannot move after taking the first shot of rapid shot. Or, taking the first attack of a flurry. Or, taking the first attack of two-weapon fighting.
You can only decide between when making a normal full attack action. All those special attack actions require a full attack.
Apparently, it's a common houserule to allow the decision to sacrifice the iteratives and move after the first attack on practically every variation of these full attack actions, except manyshot.
Personally, I'd be consistent in my houseruling and include manyshot, too. (And, I'd also allow iteratives after vital strike, for example...) But, that's all in house rules territory.
There is NO rule that says the 'Deciding between' rule is limited to 'normal' full attacks. So I'm still legal by RAW.
In order to show that I CAN'T 'Decide between' when using Rapid Shot/Whirlwind Attack/Manyshot et al, you have to quote the rule that says so.
There is also no rule about 'special attacks'. By RAW, a full attack is a full attack is a full attack. The is absolutely NO rule that says some full attacks are treated differently than others based on what you did (or intend to do) DURING your full attack. If there is, quote the rule. If you can't find one, then why do you still believe the RAW supports you?
I said that I require rules quotes to show that my sequence of events is disallowed by RAW.
I meant it.
I've read opinions from some in 'your camp' that allowing an archer to Manyshot then cash in his remaining attacks to move would do all sorts of damage to a campaign, destroys the action economy of the game, would give players an unfair advantage, etc.
I really don't think it's that serious. I'm sure if you want to interpret it that way the game will go on just fine. It sounds like everyone you play with likes it that way so I don't see the problem.
Malachi,
Believe me, I understand what you're saying and I'd like to see that addressed.
Unless we conclude that the Paizo staff does not know how to properly interpret their own rules, though, I don't see how we can ignore what James Jacobs said on the subject.
Manyshot says "When making a full-attack action with a bow..." If you decide not to take a full-attack action, you can't fire two arrows at once, even with the first shot.
To use Rapid Shot, Manyshot, etc... You have to decide before your first shot that you're using the full-attack action. This is an exception to the deciding between rule that says you can decide after the first attack. The decision has to be made before the first attack with manyshot (and other esceptional cases). Otherwise, there'd be no need for the language saying "When making a full-attack action..."
I agree, Grimmy. I don't think it'd hurt the game in the slightest to allow a move after the first attack of manyshot.
Yeah, Malachi, I don't think anyone is telling you that you have to change what you're doing if it's working for you. That's the beauty of our game. The rules are really only there to help us tell stories, not to get in our way. If you don't like something just change it. That's the kind of answer you will often get from JJ and there's no reason to slam him for it. I think it really is the best advice. So what he flip-flopped on the diagonal reach weapon issue over the years, you don't have to call his previous position "insane". I think SKR was of the same mind about that iirc, and while it's counter-intuitive and I don't rule it that way, you can see that at the very least they were achieving a consistency between the shape of the threatened area template and a AoE blast radius spell effect template. So there was a kind of logic there. At the end of the day when he says "the sky hasn't fallen yet!" I think that is very sane. More sane then losing any sleep over it would be.
(On a side note: how would I find out if a FAQ had been officially answered?)
If the answer is about a thread in progress such as this one the devs are normally nice enough to pop in and give the short version of the answer while also telling us it has been posted to the FAQ section.
You can also look at the top right corner of your browser and see where it say "Help/FAQ". Click on that link. There should be a list of books. Since this thread is based on rule from the core rule book that is where you would go next.
I've read opinions from some in 'your camp' that allowing an archer to Manyshot then cash in his remaining attacks to move would do all sorts of damage to a campaign, destroys the action economy of the game, would give players an unfair advantage, etc. I'm here to tell you that fear is unfounded.
I am sure you have misunderstood us again. When myself and Gauss decide what the official rule is, we don't consider how OP it may or may not be. Why not you ask? Well let me tell you. If our interpretation does not match what we like then we just houserule it to something we do like. That allows me/us to make interpretations without actually caring what the "real" rule intends. That means we have no emotional attachment to wanting the rule to have a certain outcome.
The game has never allowed someone to bypass an action based restriction of feat without a another feat or ability that specifically said so. That is why using manyshot without making an actual full attack is not RAI. If they say the feat requires action X then action X must be made. The only that works in the case is to go with our interpretation.Oh, the horror! Yet the ability to attack a single time and still move as part of the same full-round action has been with us since the beginning! Ever heard of charge?
Charge is a special case that specifically allows you to move and attack, and has its own rules. In short that charge must be declared. You can use a special rules case to say that it always applies. The sky is not falling. You seem to forget that use of a standard action is only usable in when your actions are restricted. In short you can't always do it. Once again you can't use a special case to say that you can always do something, specifically when the rules say you can't.
As an example drawing a weapon is a move action, but if I am already moving I can do so as a free action if my BAB is +1. That does not mean I can draw my weapon as a free action whenever I want to. :)
You still have to disarm my last post to make any headway. Using charge won't help you.
"But I don't hear a peep from any of you about that, at the same time as you say 'full attack+move? Impossible! Game breaking! Call the FAQing police!
You just posted and pounce is another special ability. Otherwise I could always charge across the battlefield and get all of my attacks. Just to be clear we are saying that during a normal full attack action you can not move(take any move actions) and get a full attack. The rules specifically forbid it.
We understood the second sentence in the 3.0 'Deciding between' rule, about exercising this choice to be 'Essentially' choosing a normal or full attack after the first attack to be an explanation for dummies, not the actual rule which was the first sentence.
We who? I understood the 3.0, 3.5(which is what PF is backwards compatible with), and PF to all mean you can attack first and decide second. The major difference is that 3.5 gave you a little more leeway since you could take a move action, not just move if you give up your iterative attacks.
When 3.5 came along and changed 'move' to 'move action' it seemed fair to us, but it didn't otherwise change how the rule worked; you can only use this rule if you started making a full attack and had already taken your first (but not yet started your second) attack of that FULL ATTACK.
I saw nothing to support that first attack as a full action. It still reads as attack, and the decide. That means make a choice. When you make choices you generally have to give something up. Just because the subsection in under the full attack section, that does not mean everything must be a full attack. It is simply saying you can full attack or you can attack an move. The body of the text and title support choosing one or the other. It is not an issue of Full Attack A or Full Attack B. Like I have said, even if 3.0 did support your stance it would not matter because the official rules person for 3.5 did not make it that way. SKR, and Jason the rules people for Paizo who quotes I listed upthread also don't seem to see it that way. Well I see no reason to rehash my last post so I will see what else you have typed.
I am skipping your other comments because they are not key. This one is key.
Objection #5: 'You can't back out of an action once you've started it, without a specific rule allowing you to do so!'
Agreed. There IS a rule. I'll quote it for you. 'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.' RAW. It's on p.187, under 'full attack'.
The book says you attack and then decide. In short when you attack first and then decide you are not backing out of anything because you never committed to anything in most cases. That is why you are incorrect on this front.
Now if you go with a special attack ala Manyshot then you have decided up front, and you can not back out. You have yet to list an instance where the decision is made first and you can then change your mind. If you have not noticed everytime you bring or someone else brings this up I let you know that the books says attack, and then decide. In short it is pointless to bring it up again unless you can show text giving you the option to do things in the order. :)
It's a general principle of the game that you can't get a benefit without paying the price.'
Is it? Show me the rule! There is no such rule! This issue can ONLY be resolved through RAW. you made that rule up!
The game works on the principle that you must follow instructions. If you don't follow the instructions you don't get the benefit. he instructions for manyshot require a full round action. If you want to disagree with that(the game intending for you to follow instrctions, then why must I use a standard action for a spell, not a swift action? Actually if the books instructions don't matter then why should I follow any rules?
The RAW says a full attack action for manyshot.
The RAW says a full attack or an attack. It does not say full attack or full attack B.
There is your RAW.
As for more objections you did not address the quote I had from SKR when he said attack or full attack. You also did not discuss the Jason quote when he discussed a special ability* that allowed you to move before or after a full attack, and he was not talking about a charge.
*This ability is for mythic games, where you are far above normal heroes.
Are you going to tell me a mythic hero is being given an ability that everyone can already do?
Are you going to also tell me that SKR does not know the game really allows for two versions of full attacks, but you do?<---
With that in mind I think we know what the answer will be when the FAQ is posted. :)
Just in case you need the link click here for Jason and SKR's post.
PS:SKR says full attack or single attack. It is in the link also. :)
Malachi,
Here's what changed my mind... I didn't understand that James Jacobs was talking about house rules when talking about letting people decide after the first attack with a flurry, two-weapon fighting, or rapid shot. Not his fault. It was mine. I was focusing on the fact that he allowed it and thinking it ought to allow the same for manyshot (as I disagreed with his reasoning for not allowing it with manyshot, thinking only that part was the house rule).
By raw, you cannot move after taking the first shot of rapid shot. Or, taking the first attack of a flurry. Or, taking the first attack of two-weapon fighting.
You can only decide between when making a normal full attack action. All those special attack actions require a full attack.
Apparently, it's a common houserule to allow the decision to sacrifice the iteratives and move after the first attack on practically every variation of these full attack actions, except manyshot.
Personally, I'd be consistent in my houseruling and include manyshot, too. (And, I'd also allow iteratives after vital strike, for example...) But, that's all in house rules territory.
There is NO rule that says the 'Deciding between' rule is limited to 'normal' full attacks. So I'm still legal by RAW.
In order to show that I CAN'T 'Decide between' when using Rapid Shot/Whirlwind Attack/Manyshot et al, you have to quote the rule that says so.
There is also no rule about 'special attacks'. By RAW, a full attack is a full attack is a full attack. The is absolutely NO rule that says some full attacks are treated differently than others based on what you did (or intend to do) DURING your full attack. If there is, quote the rule. If you can't find one, then why do you still believe the RAW supports you?
I said that I require rules quotes to show that my sequence of events is disallowed by RAW.
I meant it.
Just because two abilities use standard actions or any other action that does not mean the work the exact same way. The action is basically a cost you pay to use an ability. An an example a standard action might only give you one attack, but in another situation that same standard action can allow you to charge if you are restricted.
If you want to say that all standard actions should always be treated the same then I should always be allowed to charged with a standard action, but that is not the case.
You look at the ability, and you do what it says. It really is that simple. You have yet to show RAI or RAW proof that you can ignore a feats instructions, barring another feat saying you can. You also have to find a developer that has anything worded to support your point. At best you can say you have a rules contradiction. I won't agree with that either, but I would see your point.
We've been running our games like this for a thousand years (well, since last millennium at any rate) and, to borrow a phrase from James Jacobs (when he realised that people were playing PF using polearms that threaten diagonals), 'the sky hasn't fallen in yet!'
Just to be clear we are not telling how to run the game at home. I have said several times already that if I don't like how a rule works after I read it, I just houserule it. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not quite sure what needs explaining. The Core Rulebook says that if you're making multiple attacks, you have to use the Full Attack action. If you're just making one attack, you pick any one of the attacks available to the character.
I'm not quite sure what needs explaining. The Core Rulebook says that if you're making multiple attacks, you have to use the Full Attack action. If you're just making one attack, you pick any one of the attacks available to the character.
Thanks.
I will also add that before SKR is jumped on that the rules team decided the rules together, so this is not SKR going solo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Malachi... wraith and gauss and I probably all enjoy a little debate for it's own sake and don't mind indulging you in this, and I think we're all giving you the huge benefit of the doubt that your extreme use of hyperbole is just a colorful attempt at humor and not intended to be as condescending as it could be construed, but please, please, please try to spare the devs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I say that is not because they are infallible, or sacred or something, they are just guys trying to help out. But the thing is we have a good thing going where we have a line to them, and we like it that way, and sometimes jumping on them because they didn't say what we wanted to hear has damaged that arrangement in the past.
If Manyshot allows you to trade in your extra attacks then Vital Strike users can trade in their move to get extra iterative attacks!'
No. The 'Deciding between option, despite its name, is ONLY open to those who have already taken their first attack OF THEIR FULL ATTACK. It cannot be taken by anyone whose first action was a standard action, like Vital Strike. I know you don't think VS can be used that way, but this choice is a one-way street and always has been.
No it isn't. Are you under the impression that if you decide to take an attack action that you are then locked into either taking a move or give up your turn? Surely if you had decided to only use a standard attack and then after you made that attack thought it would be better if you used your remaining attack instead of a move action you could change your mind.
When you make a single attack your GM isn't sitting there demanding if that was an Attack action or the first attack of a full attack action.
If what your saying is true then GM would have to ask their players this Before there first attack otherwise their players might cheat and use a Full Attack when they were actually intending to use just an Attack action.
Do you think this is all silly. I do, but it is what you're suggesting.
|
|
Malachi,
Believe me, I understand what you're saying and I'd like to see that addressed.
Unless we conclude that the Paizo staff does not know how to properly interpret their own rules, though, I don't see how we can ignore what James Jacobs said on the subject.
Manyshot says "When making a full-attack action with a bow..." If you decide not to take a full-attack action, you can't fire two arrows at once, even with the first shot.
To use Rapid Shot, Manyshot, etc... You have to decide before your first shot that you're using the full-attack action. This is an exception to the deciding between rule that says you can decide after the first attack. The decision has to be made before the first attack with manyshot (and other esceptional cases). Otherwise, there'd be no need for the language saying "When making a full-attack action..."
We DO take a full attack, and Manyshot is resolved as part of that (check out the 'sequence of events; 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) in my post.
AFTER, the attack is resolved (as the first of many in this full attack), I cash in my remaining attacks to get a move action. All Rules As Written.
To sum up: nothing in your post about requiring a full attack to use those feats is wrong. But the CONCLUSION you reach, that if I CHANGE my action to take a move action by trading in my remaining attacks , means that I didn't really resolve my attack as a full attack is incorrect.
|
|
Yeah, Malachi, I don't think anyone is telling you that you have to change what you're doing if it's working for you. That's the beauty of our game. The rules are really only there to help us tell stories, not to get in our way. If you don't like something just change it. That's the kind of answer you will often get from JJ and there's no reason to slam him for it. I think it really is the best advice. So what he flip-flopped on the diagonal reach weapon issue over the years, you don't have to call his previous position "insane". I think SKR was of the same mind about that iirc, and while it's counter-intuitive and I don't rule it that way, you can see that at the very least they were achieving a consistency between the shape of the threatened area template and a AoE blast radius spell effect template. So there was a kind of logic there. At the end of the day when he says "the sky hasn't fallen yet!" I think that is very sane. More sane then losing any sleep over it would be.
Thanks Grimmy!
Two things. First, I'm not 'changing the game to make it work better' here. I'm following the Rules As Written in my 'sequence of events'. I DO think it's okay (even necessary at times) to 'change' the game (*cough* diagonal polearms *cough*), but that's not what's happening here.
Second, while I don't think JJ is at fault for not doing something he's not even trying to do (quote RAW), I described the position of polearms 'not threatening corners' as 'insane'. Harsh language? Maybe. But if you accept that rule then you are saying that a polearm wielder (no facing, remember) cannot get an AoO on a charging foe IF HAPPROACHES ON A DIAGONAL! there is no 5-foot grid in real life, we just use one in the game to make it easy, so we don't have to use tape measures. The 'diagonal movement' rule, with it's even numbered diagonals counting as 10-feet, just stops Fireballs etc. being 'squircles'. But think about that charging foe. He moves from square to square, 5-foot at a time (I'm seeing his charge in slow motion here, not alleging a series of 5-foot steps in game mechanic terms), moving from 20-feet to 15-feet to 10-feet to 5-feet. When he moves from 10-feet to 5-feet he provokes an AoO. Thiss would be true even if we used tape measures instead of a 5-foot grid. NO MATTER THE COMPASS DIRECTION of the foes' approach, at some point he will move from 15-foot to 10-foot to 5-foot. But with the rule as it is, when charging on a diagonal, the foe is NEVER at 10-feet, therefore never provokes!
How is he never at 10-feet? Does he suddenly teleport from 15-feet to 5-feat? That is the effect of this ruling, and it's disconnect with reality is what prompts my 'insane' comment. I'm not suggesting that JJ is insane, but once the consequences of this ruling are pointed out, how can it take TWO YEARS to realise the insanity of it.
I know I must sound like a critic of JJ, but that is not my thought or intent. It's simply that he is NOT quoting the RAW in support of his opinion, and without that RAW then he is of no help on this particular issue (Manyshot).
I agree that the 'insane' version is, in fact, RAW at the moment.
|
|
I'm going through the posts as I answer, so I may very well have been ninja'd. (great phrase, BTW! : ))
Wraithstrike, thankyou for the FAQing advice, I'll check it out later, if I ever get time! Also, I like the way you are choosing to answer my arguments using reason rather than emotion. Just like me!
As to your points:-
At no point does my 'sequence of events' contradict RAW, OR bypass the action economy of the game. My sequence is repeated below:-
1st: Say 'I'm going to full attack with my bow, DM'. Is this allowed by RAW? Yes. Both Gauss and JJ think so.
2nd: Roll the first attack of the multiple attacks in your full attack sequence. Allowed by RAW? Of course, no argument here.
3rd: Resolve that first attack. Again, no problems here.
4th: After my first attack, I decide to take a move action instead of making my remaining attacks. Allowed by RAW? It IS the RAW!
If the rules say I must follow instruction x to get result y, then I must follow instruction x or I DON'T get to do y. Agreed. The instruction in the feats Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Whirlwind Attack et al are 'When you use the full attack action...'. I AM taking the full attack action. Exercising my choice later on doesn't change that.
Further, 'your camp' is always harping on about how the 'Deciding between' says that you take an attack, THEN, decide if your taking a full attack, or just completed an attack ACTION. Er... no it doesn't. Despite your BELIEF, and that of Gauss and JJ and SKR, that is NOT what it says!
You say that the 'choice' in question is between 'attack ACTION' or 'full attack ACTION'. It doesn't say, nor does it mean that. The 'choice' is between 'taking the remainder of your full attack', or 'taking a move action, PAID for by cashing in the remainder of your attacks'!
How do we know this? I've comprehensibly demonstrated that 'attack' does not have to be an 'attack ACTION', and it's wrong to assume it does here. The 'rule' is what it says in the body of the text, NOT the title! The sentence itself assumes you have 'remaining attacks' to take, which is only possible (in this context) if you are already in the middle of a full attack. THAT is the RAW here!
You say you must give something up to get something. In this case you ARE giving something up! You GAVE UP your remaining attacks to pay for a move action. All fair and above board.
We all know that we can houserule as we like in our own games, no-one is saying otherwise. I'm happy to house-rule. Gauss, your polearm fighter would be golden at my table, he won't need an irrational fear of diagonals. But I'm not house-ruling here; I'm following RAW, step by step.
|
|
I'm not quite sure what needs explaining. The Core Rulebook says that if you're making multiple attacks, you have to use the Full Attack action. If you're just making one attack, you pick any one of the attacks available to the character.
I completely agree. This statement does NOT contradict ANYTHING I did on my 'sequence of events'.
First, I AM making a full attack. Then, after cashing in my remaining attacks, it turns out I'm only making one attack.
The first ATTACK with Manyshot fires TWO arrows, but it remains one single attack. Therefore, after the remaining attacks are cashed in, it is STILL a single attack. Nothing about the RAW OR SKRs opinion has been contravened.
|
|
The reason I say that is not because they are infallible, or sacred or something, they are just guys trying to help out. But the thing is we have a good thing going where we have a line to them, and we like it that way, and sometimes jumping on them because they didn't say what we wanted to hear has damaged that arrangement in the past.
Again, I completely agree! I'm not trying to do them down in any way. I'm just pointing out that our issue MUST be resolved using RAW, not opinion, no matter how much we respect that opinion.
Also, I once again apologise if I seem to be shouting. My capitals are simply meant as emphasis, as you would use italics or bold. My phone doesn't have those, and my computer skills are so laughable that I won't attempt to learn some programming code or whatever it is. I mean no offence.
One of the things I have found in the last week or so is that this text only medium has certain drawbacks. There is no body language and no tone of voice. If you were having a real conversation face to face I'm sure it would seem reasonable. Without those clues (which make up WAY more than half of normal communication) it often seems that a poster is being loud, aggressive, angry etc. And someone being angry at is for no justifiable reason makes us angry in return.
I try to bear that in mind, and I hope you will forgive my trespasses.
I guess this is why people use 'emoticons', or their text equivalent.
Here's one now:- : )
|
|
If Manyshot allows you to trade in your extra attacks then Vital Strike users can trade in their move to get extra iterative attacks!'
No. The 'Deciding between option, despite its name, is ONLY open to those who have already taken their first attack OF THEIR FULL ATTACK. It cannot be taken by anyone whose first action was a standard action, like Vital Strike. I know you don't think VS can be used that way, but this choice is a one-way street and always has been.No it isn't. Are you under the impression that if you decide to take an attack action that you are then locked into either taking a move or give up your turn? Surely if you had decided to only use a standard attack and then after you made that attack thought it would be better if you used your remaining attack instead of a move action you could change your mind.
When you make a single attack your GM isn't sitting there demanding if that was an Attack action or the first attack of a full attack action.
If what your saying is true then GM would have to ask their players this Before there first attack otherwise their players might cheat and use a Full Attack when they were actually intending to use just an Attack action.
Do you think this is all silly. I do, but it is what you're suggesting.
Actually, yes! This IS what I believe!
I believe that you MUST take a full attack to get the option at all. That is where the rule IS, and it's placement isn't an accident. It's under 'Full Attack'.
If a player with, say, TWF takes his first attack as a standard attack then there is no penalty. Therefore he can't decide to do a full attack afterward. There is NO rule under Attack Action which allows him to 'cash in' his move action to gain iteratives, extra off-hand attacks, etc. He MUST take the full attack, with the (presumably) -2 penalty. Then, after the first attack, he MAY take a move action instead of his remaining attacks.
There IS a rule for that!
|
Malachi: you post long posts! I basically stop reading them so I apologize. I did read to the part where you go off the rails: making an attack and cashing in your iterative attacks for a move action IS NOT a full attack.
It's the "Attack" referred to in "Deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack".
Regrettably until this sinks in we'll just keep chasing our tails.
I'm not quite sure what needs explaining. The Core Rulebook says that if you're making multiple attacks, you have to use the Full Attack action. If you're just making one attack, you pick any one of the attacks available to the character.I completely agree. This statement does NOT contradict ANYTHING I did on my 'sequence of events'.
First, I AM making a full attack. Then, after cashing in my remaining attacks, it turns out I'm only making one attack.
The first ATTACK with Manyshot fires TWO arrows, but it remains one single attack. Therefore, after the remaining attacks are cashed in, it is STILL a single attack. Nothing about the RAW OR SKRs opinion has been contravened.
The SKR quote is only included here to help establish that Full Attacks and Standard Actions are two different things. Full Attack action can get you multiple attacks, but it restricts your movement to a 5 foot step. I haven't seen that "cashing in" verbiage in the rules, that I can recall. What I see instead is wording about making a decision between a full-attack and a standard action. I see flexibility about when you have to decide. I see a round of combat that's designed to be fluid. You don't have to make a full-attack, but gaining the benefit of Many Shot is a good reason to make a full-atack. Of course if you do make a Full-Attack, the only movement you can make is a 5 foot step.
Malachi,
Believe me, I understand what you're saying and I'd like to see that addressed.
Unless we conclude that the Paizo staff does not know how to properly interpret their own rules, though, I don't see how we can ignore what James Jacobs said on the subject.
Manyshot says "When making a full-attack action with a bow..." If you decide not to take a full-attack action, you can't fire two arrows at once, even with the first shot.
To use Rapid Shot, Manyshot, etc... You have to decide before your first shot that you're using the full-attack action. This is an exception to the deciding between rule that says you can decide after the first attack. The decision has to be made before the first attack with manyshot (and other esceptional cases). Otherwise, there'd be no need for the language saying "When making a full-attack action..."
We DO take a full attack, and Manyshot is resolved as part of that (check out the 'sequence of events; 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) in my post.
AFTER, the attack is resolved (as the first of many in this full attack), I cash in my remaining attacks to get a move action. All Rules As Written.
To sum up: nothing in your post about requiring a full attack to use those feats is wrong. But the CONCLUSION you reach, that if I CHANGE my action to take a move action by trading in my remaining attacks , means that I didn't really resolve my attack as a full attack is incorrect.
I just don't see this "Cash in" verbiage anywhere in the rules though. It sounds like a turn of phrase any of us might use when explaining the Full Attack section of the rules to a new player, but I don't see it in the rules themselves. It's not a bad way of rephrasing things, and it doesn't introduce any problems when you are considering the Full Attack rules and the sequence of a round of combat by themselves, in a vacuum. It only becomes a problem to rephrase things that way when we add these feats into the equation. At that point it becomes important to be more precise and revert to the wording that is actually in the rules. So instead of "cashing in attacks for a move" we should talk about "deciding between an attack and a full-attack."
v
4th: After my first attack, I decide to take a move action instead of making my remaining attacks. Allowed by RAW? It IS the RAW!
If you use one attack, and then move, that is not a full attack action. A full attack by the rules is taking all of your attacks. BAB-based attacks, natural attacks, and whirlwind all support that. So does the book. I personally think whirlwind should have said full round action, but that is another debate for another day.
What you are doing is not a full attack. That is why it is not legal. You still have yet to show me the quote saying you can decide and then back out. The one you keep using says you attack first(no action declared), and then decide. You may think I am being overly strict, but that is what the book says with regard to being able to decide after the first attack so until I get a quote saying you can decide first and change your mind I am will have to assume I am correct by RAW and RAI.
If the rules say I must follow instruction x to get result y, then I must follow instruction x or I DON'T get to do y. Agreed. The instruction in the feats Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Whirlwind Attack et al are 'When you use the full attack action...'. I AM taking the full attack action. Exercising my choice later on doesn't change that.
The problem is you are exercising a choice that you don't have per my previous paragraph.
Further, 'your camp' is always harping on about how the 'Deciding between' says that you take an attack, THEN, decide if your taking a full attack, or just completed an attack ACTION. Er... no it doesn't. Despite your BELIEF, and that of Gauss and JJ and SKR, that is NOT what it says!
It says "After your first attack,..". That indicates a sequence of events. If my logic is flawed here then please explain it to me.
You say that the 'choice' in question is between 'attack ACTION' or 'full attack ACTION'. It doesn't say, nor does it mean that. The 'choice' is between 'taking the remainder of your full attack', or 'taking a move action, PAID for by cashing in the remainder of your attacks'!
The book's heading says you must decide between the two. The body of the section says either take the rest of your attacks which I think we can agree is a full attack action.
If we move that is not a full attack action. The book says you can not move during a full round action. Charge is specifically called out as an exception. I see not such exception for manyshot.SKR and Skip games and worked with Mr.Tweet. I am sure they both know the rules. Remember this. monsters and PC's both use full attack actions, so a monster such as a dragon should be able to take a bite attack, and then decide to fly off, instead of continuing to attack.
I am demonstrating this to show that even though Skip was handed the responsibility of the PHB it would affect Mr.Tweet's Monster Manual attacks since everyone uses the same rule for 3.5. In short Mr.Tweet knew about this ruling. As I said he was the lead designer, so he had to ok it. Why does that matter? For the sake of argument let's say your 3.0 interpretation is correct. That means Skip may have said "we should do it like this". Mr.Tweet would have had to approve of the change, and SKR was also around writing supplementals(splat books). He would have to talk to both of them in order to get an understanding of the rules and/or to clear things up. My point is simply this, there is no way RAI that section allows you to make a full attack by moving also. The chance of nobody knowing that Skip was "doing it wrong" is pretty close to impossible since everyone's work revolved around his interpretation of the rules, assuming he was doing it alone. The full attack section is one of the more important areas of the game. If it does not work correctly then it hurts then entire game. I am hard-pressed to believe that the devs don't understand how it is supposed to work.
With my earlier posts on the topic and this one could you explain how this(nobody knowing the intent) would have taken place?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I say that is not because they are infallible, or sacred or something, they are just guys trying to help out. But the thing is we have a good thing going where we have a line to them, and we like it that way, and sometimes jumping on them because they didn't say what we wanted to hear has damaged that arrangement in the past.Again, I completely agree! I'm not trying to do them down in any way. I'm just pointing out that our issue MUST be resolved using RAW, not opinion, no matter how much we respect that opinion.
Also, I once again apologise if I seem to be shouting. My capitals are simply meant as emphasis, as you would use italics or bold. My phone doesn't have those, and my computer skills are so laughable that I won't attempt to learn some programming code or whatever it is. I mean no offence.
One of the things I have found in the last week or so is that this text only medium has certain drawbacks. There is no body language and no tone of voice. If you were having a real conversation face to face I'm sure it would seem reasonable. Without those clues (which make up WAY more than half of normal communication) it often seems that a poster is being loud, aggressive, angry etc. And someone being angry at is for no justifiable reason makes us angry in return.
I try to bear that in mind, and I hope you will forgive my trespasses.
I guess this is why people use 'emoticons', or their text equivalent.
Here's one now:- : )
Actually we use RAW first, but when the RAW is not clear then we use it and precedence to find RAI. RAI is how the rules are intended to work. I am sure you don't allow dead people to take actions in your games. :)
I think he use the "cash in" phrase because I said certain things have a "cost" assigned to them.
The action is basically a cost you pay to use an ability.
Edit:The term is used outside of monetary value in the book. Examples follow:
------------------------------------------------------------The fighter's first move costs him 5 feet (or 1 square)
.Spells that summon creatures to help in combat should have a casting time of “1 round.” This is to give a reasonable action cost for a character casting the spell.
Virtuoso Performance ...Level bard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 round/levelWhile this spell is active, you may start a second bardic performance while maintaining another. Starting the second performance costs 2 rounds of bardic performance instead of 1. Maintaining both performances costs a total of 3 rounds of bardic performance for each round...
Wraith when he talks about "cashing in" the remaining attacks of a full-attack to get movement, he is packaging the movement as part of the full-attack.
Instead of deciding between
a.) a standard action attack
or
b.) a full-attack,
he thinks he can decide between
a.) a full-attack with all of it's attacks
or
b.) a full-attack with additional attacks "cashed in" for movement.
I'm focusing in on this "cash in" language because I don't see it in this area of the rules and this tendency to imagine it is there is very tied up in the cognitive dissonance that is happening here.
This has nothing to do with your point about all the other places the term cost is used in the game mechanics. That point is well taken.
What I'm saying is, the full-attack rules say nothing about additional attacks being "cashed in" for movement as part of a full-attack. What they do say, is that you may decide between a full-attack and a single attack as a standard action.