Ah, I see.
There are no rules to support the "cash in" method. There is also no rule to support the decision to attack as a variant of full attack, at least not by the book's version of getting all of your attacks in.
That is why I also keep referencing developers and the chances for that to be RAI, which are very unlikely at best. Now if he wants to say he plays by the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules the book is full of situations where reading the rules like a robot causes issues.
Another example is that by RAW you can't see the sun. This does not really affect gameplay, but it is just silly to say you can't see the sun in the middle of the day.
Once someone explains their intent whether it be a dev or someone you know in real life, saying "but you said..." after they clarified their intent is not really going to give you an out.
Another example from 3.5:
There is a PRC that is supposed to give you 2 spells at a certain level, but due to a typing error where the "0" was supposed to be under the next column(the one for 3rd level spells) they put it right beside the 2 so it read as 20 spells.
So by RAW you get 20 2nd level spells suddenly, but at the next level you are back to to 2 or 3 2nd level spells. I don't think it was hard to figure out what the intent was.
Yup. You're preaching to the choir. I see no rule about cashing in attacks for movement. I see a rule about deciding not to full-attack.
The closest thing I've seen to a rules reference for "cashing in" and moving as part of a full-attack is "We've been doing it for a thousand years." Whoever "we" is.
|
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 betweena.) 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.
They DON'T say 'decide between a full attack and a single attack as a standard action'! That's my point!
I apologise if my paraphrasing muddied the issue; you don't like the phrase 'cashing in', and it is no more in the rules than your 'full attack vs single attack' phrase above. Fair enough. I'll use my new-found 'cut & paste' skills to nail down the verbiage accurately:-
'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'
This phrase screams out 'full attack'. First, it says 'first' attack, assuming there must be more (therefore full attack). Second, it says 'remaining attacks', also assuming there must be more (therefore full attack again).
At no point does the rule mention 'full attack vs. attack action'.
While I do have respect for the devs, we all know by now that this issue has gone beyond the opinion of anyone, no matter how respected. It is about RAW.
I don't believe that I have seen a quote from any dev that directly contradicts my 'sequence of events', with the exception of James Jacobs, and he is contradicting himself! The earlier parts of the post in question talk about how 'only a jerk DM' wouldn't allow a player to change his mind' and '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.' then he goes on to opine 'except for Manyshot' WITHOUT any supporting rules quote at all. I know he doesn't even try to quote rules, so I'm not saying he's a bad person; just that only RAW will for us.
Although some of you have said that all the devs have ruled against me. The only quote I saw was from SKR saying that a single attack is a standard action; in context of a game turn a single attack and a move means that, yes, it WAS a standard action. But I'm confident that in other contexts (attacks of opportunity, the free attack to deliver a touch spell, the attack at the end of a charge, each iterative attack, etc.) SKR would certainly NOT say that, in these contexts, a single attack is a standard action. SKR is being indifferent quoted here. Also, I'll remind you that the 'first attack' of Manyshot IS a single attack, that after that attack if you choose to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks, then that attack was a standard action. No problem! But it STILL shot two arrows in that single attack.
I admit that there may be posts of his on this subject which I haven't seen. It may be that SKR or another dev DOES mention this directly, along with rule quotes. If so, I would appreciate you posting them so that we can all see if what was said helps us in this case. They may be precise enough that my opinion must change. If that happens then I'll admit it on this thread. I still reserve the right to apply my reason, rather than just swallow a statement (that this SKR quote directly contradicts my 'sequence of events) without due consideration.
Along with the possibility that new evidence shows me to be in error, you guys must also be open to the same possibility, that my 'sequence of events' is allowed by RAW.
It may also become apparent that both of our camps' interpretation are reasonable ways to read the RAW. I don't think that at the moment, but I have to admit the possibility. If that DOES become the case, it would mean that my 'sequence of events' is still not 'contradicted' by RAW.
I don't intend to be stubborn, guys! I know that mine seems to be a lone voice right now, but that was not always the case on this thread. I miss Adamantine Dragon's input. But the numbers on each side are not what will decide the issue. My view is by no means strange or unique, it is a valid viewpoint, I wholeheartedly believe it just as much as you believe in your case, I'm as open to the truth as I always was. It's just that your arguments have not convinced me, and I believe I have used reason to show why each argument is unconvincing.
While I realise that we differ on this, I hope you don't doubt my sincerity or conviction.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.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.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
They DON'T say 'decide between a full attack and a single attack as a standard action'! That's my point!
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
If you decide not to Full-Attack, you don't Full-Attack.
If you don't Full-Attack you don't Many Shot.
If you do Full-Attack you don't have a move action.
Actually, yes! This IS what I believe!
Wow. You think that according to RAW a GM must ask players weather or not they're about to make an attack action or a full attack action before they make there first attack. Regardless of the fact that there is a sections of the book "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" because of where in the rules it appears.
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'.
It's placement isn't an accident. It is placed exactly when all terms important to it are defined.
So you think that a rule doesn't apply to something unless it is specifically mentioned under that something?
The text for Scrying doesn't say you can use it without line of effect. Conclusion: You HAVE to have line of effect to use a Scrying spell. :(
The descriptive text for Material component doesn't say you have to have a hand free. Conclusion: I can cast spells with Material components while I'm tied up. :)
There IS a rule for that!
Got it. For you there is no inference.
If your Biology book only happens to mention the Plant cell after discussing bean pods then apparently Plant Cells only appear in bean pods because it isn't an accident that they placed it under 'bean pod'
And the only time gases combust are when they're in an internal combustion engine right? After all it's in the name! :)
I'm serious about this though. I've read many textbooks and terms are often defined at the moment where they are most important not at the only moment they are important.
Actually, I think that bears repeating.
Terms are often defined at the moment where they are most important not at the only moment they are important.
The CRB is kind of a textbook. I would love to take that class. I would love to teach that class.
This phrase screams out 'full attack'. First, it says 'first' attack, assuming there must be more (therefore full attack). Second, it says 'remaining attacks', also assuming there must be more (therefore full attack again).
I really do get how this looks to you and I don't think that's an unreasonable point to make. I gave this a lot of consideration when it came up early in the thread when AD was around. However, I'm satisfied that the status of that first attack as a single Standard Attack or only the first attack of a Full-Attack is indeterminate at the point this decision is made. That's why it's a decision. Therefore it's still appropriate to speak of "remaining attacks" as there are potentially attacks still to be made if it is decided that the first attack will be the first attack of a Full Attack.
My reply to Grimmy seems to be mixed in with his post in the same grey box. I don't know what happened there; I'm sure you guys can sort it out. : )
LOL. It is ok. I think you erased a quote coding that would have left your post separate from his. It is really annoying when you do it after doing a multiquote, and you don't know which one you messed up.
They DON'T say 'decide between a full attack and a single attack as a standard action'! That's my point!
They don't specifically say standard action, but they do say attack or full attack. In any event a single attack is not a full attack, especially when the rules say Attack or Full Attack so using Manyshot while not using a full attack is still not legal.
'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'This phrase screams out 'full attack'. First, it says 'first' attack, assuming there must be more (therefore full attack). Second, it says 'remaining attacks', also assuming there must be more (therefore full attack again).
At no point does the rule mention 'full attack vs. attack action'.
Actually the heading tells you what the following text is about to describe, and the text gives a breakdown. As I said we all know that a full attack is a set of attacks. In the text that we keep referring to we are given a choice between a set of attacks or the attack and move.
I think it is logical to conclude that the set of attacks would be the full attacks, and the option is what the or was referring to, which in any event is not a full attack since or typically implies "the other". I don't see verbage in any event that says the attack and move is a full attack action. The rules don't say it. They imply choose this or that. The devs quotes support "this or that". I need a rule or dev quote that supports or being a misplaced word, and not having any meaning. I need the same thing with regard to the word "then" which implies things being done in a certain order.While I do have respect for the devs, we all know by now that this issue has gone beyond the opinion of anyone, no matter how respected. It is about RAW.
With all due respect I disagree. I have seen nothing to indicate that RAW or RAI you have two version of a full attack action. The game has one definition, and at no point does it say "this is also a full attack". The only way to full attack and move is in the mythic book which is not even out yet.
I don't believe that I have seen a quote from any dev that directly contradicts my 'sequence of events', with the exception of James Jacobs, and he is contradicting himself!
I had an SKR's quote mentioned attack or full attack. He was even quoted twice. That goes against what you said. Jason discussed an ability that I have linked to more than once that allows you to full attack and move. That also goes against what you said because I don't see the head designer giving you an ability that you already have by RAW. Now if some freelancer misses a rule, and it gets by editing I can understand that, but you are pretty much saying that my quote about none of the devs catching this "error" is incorrect, but you have not told me how it is so.
Although some of you have said that all the devs have ruled against me. The only quote I saw was from SKR saying that a single attack is a standard action; in context of a game turn a single attack and a move means that, yes, it WAS a standard action. But I'm confident that in other contexts (attacks of opportunity, the free attack to deliver a touch spell, the attack at the end of a charge, each iterative attack, etc.)
You may have missed it, but we said a while back, that not every attack is a standard action so we do agree on that.
I admit that there may be posts of his on this subject which I haven't seen. It may be that SKR or another dev DOES mention this directly, along with rule quotes. If so, I would appreciate you posting them so that we can all see if what was said helps us in this case. They may be precise enough that my opinion must change. If that happens then I'll admit it on this thread. I still reserve the right to apply my reason, rather than just swallow a statement (that this SKR quote directly contradicts my 'sequence of events) without due consideration.
It is not just SKR. Like I said they sat down and wrote the rules together.
The following all occur in the same thread as a part of the same conversation. I will block them off.----------------------------------------------------------------
If a monster makes a full attack action it can attack with all the weapons listed. If he makes a standard attack, he picks any one of those and makes that single attack. No need to list separately these attacks, in other words. Doing so lets us save a line of text, which is pretty important for saving space!Quick question (hopefully) about the list of attacks for the monsters. IIRC the old 3.5 MM listed standard attacks and full attacks separately? Pardon me if that's not the case, as I don't have my books at hand. The new Bestiary just lists attacks, and does not specify standard versus full. Is that right, or am I missing it? Thanks!
As you can see this is James saying a "full attack" or "not a full attack."
The same post then comes back with another question on the same issue.
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[/b], you pick any one of the attacks available to the character. Monsters work the same way as characters in this regard. So Valeros can make a full attack with two swords, or a single attack with either sword; a lion can make a full attack with claw/claw/bite, or a single attack with any one of those attacks.
Also, does it explain that somewhere in the book? I looked at the stat block reference for melee and didn't see anything explicit in there about that. It might be elsewhere that I haven't yet found, though. Thanks!
This also shows that you are either full attacking or not full attacking. If both instances were full attacks then the rules would call them both full attacks, and so would the devs. Now with this in mind go back to my last response to you about the improbably of nobody knowing the intent was to allow a full attack or a full attack, and how it also interferes with the book definition of a full attack, and how it interferes with the rule saying you can't move during a full round action.
Now on top of this think about this new ability that will allows you to do a full attack and move.
In order for you to be correct. SKR, Jason, James, Skip, Monte Cook(he wrote his own books based on the rules) and most gamers around the planet have to be doing it wrong. This would also include Mr.Tweet since his monster attacks also work off of full attacks, that Skip explained to everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It may also become apparent that both of our camps' interpretation are reasonable ways to read the RAW. I don't think that at the moment, but I have to admit the possibility. If that DOES become the case, it would mean that my 'sequence of events' is still not 'contradicted' by RAW.
When the rules are murky there may be multiple reasonable ways to interpret RAW, but still only one of them will be correct. Actually it is contradicted by RAW unless you can prove that the full attack definition has a 2nd definition that allows you to move. So far I have seen no quote allowing for a second definition.
Along with the possibility that new evidence shows me to be in error, you guys must also be open to the same possibility, that my 'sequence of events' is allowed by RAW.
In order for me to open to it I need something that supports it. I need a quote saying you can move during a full attack action or that there are two variations of a full attack. So far every quote I have found goes against that.
I don't intend to be stubborn, guys! I know that mine seems to be a lone voice right now, but that was not always the case on this thread. I miss Adamantine Dragon's input. But the numbers on each side are not what will decide the issue. My view is by no means strange or unique, it is a valid viewpoint, I wholeheartedly believe it just as much as you believe in your case, I'm as open to the truth as I always was. It's just that your arguments have not convinced me, and I believe I have used reason to show why each argument is unconvincing.While I realise that we differ on this, I hope you don't doubt my sincerity or conviction.
I do realize that more numbers does not mean any one side is more correct, but I also believe that words such as "or" and "then" are important.
I also believe that the developers know their stuff. Now that does not mean none of them can ever be wrong, but all of them being wrong about such a core, is hard to believe considering their time together and how all of their products work off of the core rules. Now if you want to say you don't like how the RAW is written I can't do much about that. Some people require a different level of technical writing in order to be satisfied, but that is why FAQ's exist. That is basically saying "alright guys here is what I am saying in laymen's terms".
This debate is an example of one person thinking the RAW is detailed enough, while another may not. I think the RAW is fine like it is for this case, but you want them to specifically say that first attack is a standard action if you decide to move. The way I see it that first attack is still not a full attack action, nor is it a full attack action when combined with a move action because there is no "rules exception" for it**, and by the normal rules attacking during a full round action is prohibited.
**unlike charging.
Here is the issue. No matter how you write something someone will misread it. That is why we have devs to say "this is how it works", and that was Skip's job back at WoTC.
The really long debates on whether or not cleave and magic missile work on mirror image are examples of that.
As an aside to this situation when people come to the rules forum most of us break the RAW down. If the RAW is not written well we give them the RAW, and the RAI, citing FAQ's or past dev commentary. Why?
The spirit of the rules is more important that the letter of the rules, and most people here want to know how a rule was intended to be used more than anything else. RAW has its place, but so does the intention or the rule.
Actually, I think that bears repeating.Terms are often defined at the moment where they are most important not at the only moment they are important.
The CRB is kind of a textbook. I would love to take that class. I would love to teach that class.
+1.
They DON'T say 'decide between a full attack and a single attack as a standard action'! That's my point!
I apologise if my paraphrasing muddied the issue; you don't like the phrase 'cashing in', and it is no more in the rules than your 'full attack vs single attack' phrase above. Fair enough. I'll use my new-found 'cut & paste' skills to nail down the verbiage accurately:-
'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'
This phrase screams out 'full attack'. First, it says 'first' attack, assuming there must be more (therefore full attack). Second, it says 'remaining attacks', also assuming there must be more (therefore full attack again).
At no point does the rule mention 'full attack vs. attack action'.
They do say you can make an attack as a standard action (1) or a full attack as a full round action (2). They also say that a full attack action cannot include movement (3). And finally they say that you decide between an attack and a full attack by deciding to move or not move (4).
1:
2:Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
3:Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
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.4:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
The conclusion by RAW is that if you have multiple attacks, in order to use them you must make a full attack action which does not allow any movement. If you choose not to make the full attack then you make an attack, which is a standard action and does allow movement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The conclusion by RAW is that if you have multiple attacks, in order to use them you must make a full attack action which does not allow any movement. If you choose not to make the full attack then you make an attack, which is a standard action and does allow movement.
Bullhockey. This is not a "conclusion by RAW." I've shown how RAW does not say this. This is a conclusion by blog post of a developer on some tangentially related topic. That's the only "rules" support you guys have for this. As I've shown. You can call it "RAW" all you like. RAW does not say this.
(There, that ought to get us to 1,000 posts.)
Bullhockey. This is not a "conclusion by RAW." I've shown how RAW does not say this. This is a conclusion by blog post of a developer on some tangentially related topic. That's the only "rules" support you guys have for this. As I've shown. You can call it "RAW" all you like. RAW does not say this.
(There, that ought to get us to 1,000 posts.)
I have yet to mention any developers, and every one of those is a direct quote from the rules. You've only shown that RAW does not say this if you remove the lines "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step" and "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack". If you do not remove those lines then you cannot move during a full attack and you decide between a full attack and an attack based on whether you take a move or your additional attacks.
(Go big or go home I guess.)
Moglun when I posted my state analysis breakdown showing that every step of the process follows RAW, you or others responded by saying "JJ posted that you can only have a full attack or a standard action and a move" or words to that effect. That was the rebuttal.
And it's been brought up every single time someone like me or Malachi digs down deeply into the RAW to show you that you are wrong. It starts with "RAW says" and then evolves into "But JJ said in a blog post" when you can't pretend RAW says it anymore.
I really don't care anymore, I just caught the last bit of that post about "RAW says" where your team keeps pretending to be the final arbiters of all that is RAW.
You're not. And if RAW was nearly as clear as you like to pretend it is, the JJ blog post would never ONCE have been brought up, much less many, many times.
So keep on pretending that you have the only RAW interpretation. But don't expect everyone to agree with you just because you say it is so.
Moglun by RAW nothing actually states that first attack is a standard action, even if you move. I did have to give Malachi credit for that, but at the same time that first attack is not still a full attack*, and by the rules you can't full attack, and move. You can however get the rest of your attacks or move. So whether you(anyone in general) think the first attack is a standard action or not, which we know it is, it would not matter since by RAW the book you says you can take a move action if you decide to not take the rest of your iterative attacks, and that move action is all you get, if you decide to not take the rest of your attacks.
We also know there is no variant of the full attack anywhere in the book. There are special abilities that work with a full attack such as manyshot, but there is no full attack A, and full attack B.
I don't feel like repeating myself, but my last 3 post demonstrate this.
*It is a game defined term. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should reread my post in regard to your 'states', because that is certainly not what I said. Others may have, but not me.
To repeat something I HAVE said, as long as you are ignoring both the fact that the RAW says that you are deciding between an attack and a full attack, and that you cannot move during a full attack action, then you are not digging deeply into the RAW to show anything. I don't expect you to agree with me because I say anything, I expect you to understand what 'decide between' and 'only movement you can take' mean, which are the rules as written, and either explain why they don't apply or accept that they do.
EDIT: Wraith, I think someone would have to be deliberately obtuse to not understand that "attack or full attack" was a differentiation between those two defined actions, but yes technically nothing specifies that the term attack refers to the attack action in that context. The alternative is that it refers to an undefined nonaction (something which is "not a full attack" but otherwise has no information provided about it), and if you read the text while ignoring context to that degree then you may as well claim that the full attack rules are meaningless because they do not define attacks, weapons, five foot steps, movement, actions, turns, or any other game term.
Moglun when I posted my state analysis breakdown showing that every step of the process follows RAW, you or others responded by saying "JJ posted that you can only have a full attack or a standard action and a move" or words to that effect. That was the rebuttal.
And it's been brought up every single time someone like me or Malachi digs down deeply into the RAW to show you that you are wrong. It starts with "RAW says" and then evolves into "But JJ said in a blog post" when you can't pretend RAW says it anymore.
I really don't care anymore, I just caught the last bit of that post about "RAW says" where your team keeps pretending to be the final arbiters of all that is RAW.
You're not. And if RAW was nearly as clear as you like to pretend it is, the JJ blog post would never ONCE have been brought up, much less many, many times.
So keep on pretending that you have the only RAW interpretation. But don't expect everyone to agree with you just because you say it is so.
Actually I did not use "JJ said". I even said JJ's interpretation of rapidshot was incorrect, and so did Gauss.
Your analysis also did not follow RAW. Your argument was that since the subsection was in the full attack area that all of it must be a full attack, even if it written to be setup so that you had to attack or full attack. At least that is how it was understood. Well that was not the entirety of what you said, but it was a large part of it.
edit:I did use JJ, but not as main rebuttal. It was in combination with quotes from other devs.
True or Fase?
When making a full-attack, you may take a move action after seeing how your first attack turns out (provided you haven't yet moved)?
True or Fase?
When making a full-attack, you may take a move action after seeing how your first attack turns out (provided you haven't yet moved)?
False.
When deciding between an attack and a full attack, you may take a move action after seeing how your first attack turns out (provided you haven't yet moved).
True or Fase?
When making a full-attack, you may take a move action after seeing how your first attack turns out (provided you haven't yet moved)?
The question is flawed.
You may make the first attack and then decide to go into a full attack or take a move action. By allowing you to attack then decide you are not locked into an action(a full attack in this case) unless you choose some special ability that requires that action.
How do you have remaining attacks, if you aren't making a full-attack?
How do you have remaining attacks, if you aren't making a full-attack?
By having a high base attack bonus, weapons in each hand, etc. You can only make those extra attacks if you use the full attack action.
How do you have remaining attacks, if you aren't making a full-attack?
The way it works is that the devs are allowing you to attack first and then decide if you want to go into a full attack or not. If you choose to not take the interative attacks then you are allowed to take a move action.
That is why the title of the section is "Deciding between...", and then the body says to make the first attack and then continue attacking or take a move action.
In short you are not deciding up front when normal attacks are involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to use a full-round action to get you're additional attacks.
So, by default, you're already using a full-attack on you're first attack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to take a move action, instead of your remaining attacks. You wouldn't have any attacks remaining if you weren't using a full-round action.
No. You aren't understanding the difference between HAVING attacks and MAKING attacks.
A level 16 fighter has (at least) four attacks. It doesn't matter whether he moves and attacks, stands still and attacks, charges, moves and does not attack, or fails a saving throw against hold person and freezes in place; he still has four attacks in each of those situations. What changes is whether he can make those attacks or not.
You have to use a full-round action to get you're additional attacks.
So, by default, you're already using a full-attack on you're first attack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to take a move action, instead of your remaining attacks. You wouldn't have any attacks remaining if you weren't using a full-round action.
I understand what you are trying to say, but the book says you attack and then decide. I know most of the time you have to declare your action before you do anything, but this is written this way to allow for flexibility.
My last couple of quotes have devs that support that statement. Skip(3.5), and SKR(Paizo).
There is no default. In short that first attack has no action attached to it at first.
True or Fase?
When making a full-attack, you may take a move action after seeing how your first attack turns out (provided you haven't yet moved)?
I would say true, because you decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks. You don't have "remaining" attacks if you're not using a full attack action. Right?
I would say true, because you decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks. You don't have "remaining" attacks if you're not using a full attack action. Right?
Wrong. Any character or creature with multiple attacks would have remaining attacks. They just can't use them unless they full attack.
but the book says you attack and then decide.
The book says you attack then make the decision depending on how the first attack turns out.
And, the rule pertains to the full attack action so I don't see why that "first" attack shouldn't be interpreted as the first attack of a full attack action.
And, the rule pertains to the full attack action so I don't see why that "first" attack shouldn't be interpreted as the first attack of a full attack action.
The rule doesn't only pertain to the full attack action. This is clear due to "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" and "assuming you have not already taken a move action this round". Do you think that you can take a move action and then full attack, or that "between an attack and a full attack" means "between a full attack and a full attack"? Certainly not, so obviously the rule pertains to both the full attack action and the attack action.
but the book says you attack and then decide.The book says you attack then make the decision depending on how the first attack turns out.
And, the rule pertains to the full attack action so I don't see why that "first" attack shouldn't be interpreted as the first attack of a full attack action.
No it doesn't. If it did then you could not take a move action. The rules say you can not take a move action during a full round action. I know you are just getting here, but this has all been brought up.
I know it is more reading for you, but you should read the past few pages.
Full attack or Attack does not mean full attack or full attack.
Full attack is a game defined term, and taking a move action is not allowed so either you are full attacking or you aren't full attacking.
edit:thanks Talonhawke.
edit 2:I had to clear up misleading language that I was using.
Actually wraith to clear it up the rules say you move during a full attack action not a full round action.
|
|
True or Fase?
When making a full-attack, you may take a move action after seeing how your first attack turns out (provided you haven't yet moved)?
True, but ONLY if you do so INSTEAD of taking your remaining attacks. Just like it says in the rule.
Thus is the action economy preserved. After the choice to take that move action, your attack BECOMES a standard action. At NO point was it 'full attack+move; it WAS a full attack, it BECAME a standard action+move.
I have repeated this many, many times, and yet STILL I get responses which take large amounts of space saying you can't full attack+move. Are you deliberately misunderstanding?
You say 'if you move, you can't get a full attack'. We know! We're only getting a single attack!
You say 'an attack is defined a a standard action'. You know very well it isn't. An attack ACTION is a standard action, but the rule simply does not say 'attack action', not even in the title.
Also, since when is the rule in the title? Even with a feat, the blurb before the pre-requisites is not the rule; the body of the text is the rule!
It's good to hear from you, AD!
Malachi are you saying that your choices are to
1. full attack
or
2. standard action+move action
If so I think we have progress.
We never said the rule was in the title. We are saying the title is the subject that the body is there to explain in greater detail.
|
|
You have to use a full-round action to get you're additional attacks.
So, by default, you're already using a full-attack on you're first attack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to take a move action, instead of your remaining attacks. You wouldn't have any attacks remaining if you weren't using a full-round action.
Hallelujah! You've hit the nail on the head! I'd get religion if I didn't already have a patron!
THAT is what 'our camp is talking about, people!
Why does it take me three hours plus to say, less successfully, what you say in a couple of lines? Hats off to you!
|
|
You have to use a full-round action to get you're additional attacks.
So, by default, you're already using a full-attack on you're first attack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to take a move action, instead of your remaining attacks. You wouldn't have any attacks remaining if you weren't using a full-round action.
I understand what you are trying to say, but the book says you attack and then decide. I know most of the time you have to declare your action before you do anything, but this is written this way to allow for flexibility.
My last couple of quotes have devs that support that statement. Skip(3.5), and SKR(Paizo).
There is no default. In short that first attack has no action attached to it at first.
The book does NOT say 'you attack and THEN decide' at all!
It says you make your 'first attack', then, 'you CAN decide to take a move action INSTEAD'. It's saying that you WERE doing one thing (full attack), here's a chance to CHANGE it!
|
|
I would say true, because you decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks. You don't have "remaining" attacks if you're not using a full attack action. Right?True or Fase?
When making a full-attack, you may take a move action after seeing how your first attack turns out (provided you haven't yet moved)?
Spot on!
The issue is that while it has been said the book disagrees. There is nothing saying you are using a full attack action by default. You don't need a full attack to get the first attack. You need the full attack to get the remaining attacks, and you don't decide to full attack or move until after the first attack is made. Once that is decided then the first attack is either one of many or a standard action.
I think our main source of disagreement now is when the decision is made to full attack. The book says "then" which is similar to "after". I am 100% sure that "then" does not mean "before".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the book says you attack and then decide.The book says you attack then make the decision depending on how the first attack turns out.
And, the rule pertains to the full attack action so I don't see why that "first" attack shouldn't be interpreted as the first attack of a full attack action.
No it doesn't. If it did then you could not take a move action. The rules say you can not take a move action during a full round action. I know you are just getting here, but this has all been brought up.
I know it is more reading for you, but you should read the past few pages.
Full attack or Attack does not mean full attack or full attack.
Full attack is a game defined term, and taking a move action is not allowed so either you are full attacking or you aren't full attacking.
edit:thanks Talonhawke.
edit 2:I had to clear up misleading language that I was using.
I think the rule pertains to full attack actions, and it specifically allows you to take a move action which overrides the general rule that you cannot during full round actions.
The way I see it the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule means deciding between a the first attack of a full attack or all of the remaining attacks of a full attack. And yes, in a way, you are deciding between a full attack and a full attack, and that's where the opportunity for abuse comes in.
For awhile I was swayed by the argument that you're either full attacking or you're not full attacking. I liked it, it fixed what I saw as a rules abuse, but now that interpretation seems to have removed specific pertinence to full attacks from a rule that I see as specifically pertaining to the full attack rule.
It was Moglun's answer to Hrothgar's question that made my ears perk up. To get the answer he did I have to ignore what I see as a specific relationship between the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule and the Full Attack rule.
|
|
Malachi are you saying that your choices are to
1. full attack
or
2. standard action+move actionIf so I think we have progress.
We never said the rule was in the title. We are saying the title is the subject that the body is there to explain in greater detail.
Or:-
3. Take a full attack action, then after the first attack take a move action, CHANGING my full attack into a standard action+move AFTER the first attack (of what USED to be a full attack) has been completely resolved.
This IS the rule. There is no 'deciding between full attack and standard attack AFTER an unspecified attack'
There is NO 'full attack+move'.
If you continue to PRETEND that our camp is saying that it just shows that you have no counter to our ACTUAL case, just an answer to a case you are pretending we support. It doesn't say much for your credibility, and I must say I'm disappointed in you. Our case has been given plenty of space on this thread. There are plenty of our REAL opinions to challenge.
|
|
I think our main source of disagreement now is when the decision is made to full attack. The book says "then" which is similar to "after". I am 100% sure that "then" does not mean "before".
This has come up between Gauss and myself. Gauss agreed that it is perfectly acceptable to decide to full attack before your first attack if you want to; there is no rule stopping you. Even James Jacobs agrees with that!
You can also choose after that attack if you want to, so long as you are not doing something that only works while you're full attacking.
If you DO choose beforehand, the rule allows you to CHANGE your action type, from full attack to standard+move, AFTER the first attack is resolved as the first attack of your full attack sequence. Remember, it WAS a full attack at that point.
I think the rule pertains to full attack actions, and it specifically allows you to take a move action which overrides the general rule that you cannot during full round actions.
The way I see it the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule means deciding between a the first attack of a full attack or all of the remaining attacks of a full attack. And yes, in a way, you are deciding between a full attack and a full attack, and that's where the opportunity for abuse comes in.
For awhile I was swayed by the argument that you're either full attacking or you're not full attacking. I liked it, it fixed what I saw as a rules abuse, but now that interpretation seems to have removed specific pertinence to full attacks from a rule that I see as specifically pertaining to the full attack rule.
It was Moglun's answer to Hrothgar's question that made my ears perk up. To get the answer he did I have to ignore what I see as a specific relationship between the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule and the Full Attack rule.
The full attack action section also says move actions are not allowed.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Note there is only one version of a full attack in the book. There is no full attack A, and full attack B. Even the "full attack" section says your only movement allowed is a 5 ft step, so no an attack is not a full attack.
You have to choose one or the other. If you disagree then please explain the point of the word "or", which seems to get ignored.
I think our main source of disagreement now is when the decision is made to full attack. The book says "then" which is similar to "after". I am 100% sure that "then" does not mean "before".This has come up between Gauss and myself. Gauss agreed that it is perfectly acceptable to decide to full attack before your first attack if you want to; there is no rule stopping you. Even James Jacobs agrees with that!
You can also choose after that attack if you want to, so long as you are not doing something that only works while you're full attacking.
If you DO choose beforehand, the rule allows you to CHANGE your action type, from full attack to standard+move, AFTER the first attack is resolved as the first attack of your full attack sequence. Remember, it WAS a full attack at that point.
I remember that, but Gauss and myself also said that when if you choose an ability that requires a full attack such as manyshot choosing ahead of time is possible, but you are locked in. You see if you take that first attack with manyshot, and then move, assuming it was possible then you have not commited a full attack action, which is required by the rules.
That is why I keep saying the most I can give you, not that I agree, is that manyshot does not work as advertised. If an ability gives you instructions then those instruction must be completed. Taking a move action, and a standard action is a deviation from the course, and they are definitely not a full attack action.
Malachi are you saying that your choices are to
1. full attack
or
2. standard action+move actionIf so I think we have progress.
We never said the rule was in the title. We are saying the title is the subject that the body is there to explain in greater detail.
Or:-
3. Take a full attack action, then after the first attack take a move action, CHANGING my full attack into a standard action+move AFTER the first attack (of what USED to be a full attack) has been completely resolved.
This IS the rule. There is no 'deciding between full attack and standard attack AFTER an unspecified attack'
There is NO 'full attack+move'.
If you continue to PRETEND that our camp is saying that it just shows that you have no counter to our ACTUAL case, just an answer to a case you are pretending we support. It doesn't say much for your credibility, and I must say I'm disappointed in you. Our case has been given plenty of space on this thread. There are plenty of our REAL opinions to challenge.
I was not pretending anything. One of your camp just said that, and so did AD earlier.
And yes, in a way, you are deciding between a full attack and a full attack, and that's where the opportunity for abuse comes in.
Please don't use personal insults. My credibility is very good here.
I will also add that if we misinterpret you it is very easy to say "I did not say that" or "That is not what I meant", as I have done when I was misinterpreted. Is there a reason why this simple course of action was not taken by you?
With that out of the way I think that should be the first course of action from this point on. If you say X, but I interpret it as Y, just say that I misunderstand you. It is a lot better than throwing accusations at people.
It was Moglun's answer to Hrothgar's question that made my ears perk up. To get the answer he did I have to ignore what I see as a specific relationship between the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule and the Full Attack rule.
Your answer is the one which ignores things - specifically "between an attack and a full attack" and "not already taken a move action". The rule does apply to full attacks, but it also applies to standard attacks (this is also why the rule is consistent with "the only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step"). It is a rule for both attacks which provides the means of deciding between them.
Can you explain why the rule is called "deciding between..." if it only applies to full attacks? Can you explain why it mentions not applying it after taking a move action? Can you explain how it can be consistent with the "no movement" rule? All these things indicate that it is NOT a rule for full attacks only, and these are the rules you are ignoring to in your interpretation.
You can also take a look at similar sections in other parts of the rules. For example, the standard action 'Attack' section includes rules for unarmed strikes, ranged attacks, natural attacks, and critical hits. It's exactly the same format, so if 'Deciding Between' only applies to full attacks based on that format then 'Critical Hits' must only apply to standard attacks. Do these rules only apply to standard action attacks? No, they apply to ALL attacks, including full attacks, even though they are found under the standard action attack section. Likewise 'Deciding Between' applies to all attacks, even though it is found under the full attack section.
The notion that because the rule appears in the full attack section it must only refer to full attacks despite the fact that it implies otherwise in three different spots is absolutely ludicrous and completely inconsistent with the rest of the rules.
3. Take a full attack action, then after the first attack take a move action, CHANGING my full attack into a standard action+move AFTER the first attack (of what USED to be a full attack) has been completely resolved
See this is the issue. Your camp believes this can be done, and we do not. That is what resulted in the full attack or full attack idea because by this method you can use something designed for a full attack, without completing the full attack.
That leads to another issue. I guess you think, and correct me if I am wrong, that you believe starting a full attack equals a full attack, and then you can just go into another action, gaining the benefit of a full round attack, and a move action in certain cases such as manyshot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The full attack action section also says move actions are not allowed.
But isn't that overriden by the more specific Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule?
I still think the rule pertains specifically to the Full Attack rule and should be interpreted that way. If it is not interpreted as referring to the Full Attack rule then isn't it a rule that says nothing?
3. Take a full attack action, then after the first attack take a move action, CHANGING my full attack into a standard action+move AFTER the first attack (of what USED to be a full attack) has been completely resolved.
This IS the rule. There is no 'deciding between full attack and standard attack AFTER an unspecified attack'
Your argument is illogical. A full attack is a full round action which does not allow movement except a 5' step. An attack+move is a standard action and a move action. You cannot take a full round action, a standard action, and a move action all in the same turn.
Assuming that you can declare a full attack before making any attacks, then take the move action after your first attack and convert it into a standard+move, the result is that on your turn you took a standard+move. You do not count as full attacking for the purpose of Manyshot or any other ability, you do not have any of the benefits or limitations of a full attack. The full attack did not take place, only a standard+move did. If you applied Manyshot to the first attack then the standard+move is no longer possible because Manyshot only works on a full attack, not a standard+move that might have been a full attack if you had decided not to move.And yes, I know you think the rules don't say that you lose the ability to choose not to full attack after using Manyshot. You're wrong, they do. Specifically they say that you may only use Manyshot on a full attack, and that if you move you are not making a full attack. Therefore Manyshot + Move = NO.