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?
No, they are equally specific. That is, if read your way then one rule says "on all full attacks you may not move" and the other says "on all full attacks you may choose to move instead of making your additional attacks". Unless you can explain what about the Deciding rule is more specific than the No Movement rule? And, assuming that the Deciding rule did only apply to full attacks and did overrule the No Movement rule, why would the No Movement rule exist?
It's not a rule that says nothing. It's a rule that says that to decide between an attack and a full attack, after your first attack you may choose to either continue attacking or move (as long as you haven't already moved). Since the only way to make additional attacks is a full attack, and the only way to move is not a full attack, which choice is which is obvious. You can do this on your first attack whether you intended to make it a full attack or a standard attack, barring more specific rules such as Manyshot or Vital Strike.
Can you explain why the rule is called "deciding between..." if it only applies to full attacks?
Well, I think that 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, I think the rule specifically grants you a move action instead of the remaining attacks of your full attack.
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?
No, especially since the topic of that subsection tells you to decide between attacking or full attacking. The description then goes to say yo make your iterative attacks which would be a full attack or you move which supports the attack. I will also add that when rules exceptions are in place they are specifically called out. The charge ability is an example of that because it allows you to move and attack, but it also says that it is a special case. You might think that is bad description in the full attack or attack section, but the devs support that you must do one or the other.
There is even a new ability in the mythic book that allows you to full attack and move. I don't think Jason is going to create an ability that allows you to do something you can do anyway. I see your point, but if you are going to convince us then we need a reason to believe that they don't mean for us to have to choose if they are presenting it as "do this or do that."
SKR has post where he uses language such as attack or full attack.
James uses the same language, and so did Skip in 3.5.
J.Tweet(wrote the PHB for 3.0) had to know what Skip was writing since Skip's(PHB 3.5) writing would affect the monster manual for 3.5, which J.Tweet wrote.
In short I am being asked to believe that all of these devs have the same incorrect interpretation, even though they wrote the rules for 3.5 and/or PF. At the very least people like SKR wrote supplemental books for 3.5(splat books) so he had to have conversations with their design team.
Just to reiterate, I am also supposed to believe they have language indicating a choice of do A or B, when really no choice is needed, yet the rules they write are based off of that choice.
It's not a rule that says nothing. It's a rule that says that to decide between an attack and a full attack, after your first attack you may choose to either continue attacking or move (as long as you haven't already moved).
I don't understand why you would have to make this choice since, by your interpretation, you've never declared anything. Isn't the choice completely in your head at that point? Why would you need a rule to make an internal decision?
Well, I think that 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.
But that's completely different from what it says. That would be the "Deciding between your remaining attacks and a move action" rule. I think it means 'deciding between an attack and a full attack' because that is EXACTLY what it says, word for word (that's one reason anyway).
What I'm asking is WHY you think that. That's not what it says, so why do you think that's what it means? What is your rational for removing "between an attack and a full attack" from the equation, especially considering that doing so creates conflicts with other parts of the rules?I don't understand why you would have to make this choice since, by your interpretation, you've never declared anything. Isn't the choice completely in your head at that point? Why would you need a rule to make an internal decision?
I'm not sure I see what you're getting at, but my tentative answer is because one choice allows you to make your additional attacks and the other choice allows you to move.
EDIT: If the rule didn't exist, you would not be able to make an attack and then decide whether to continue or not. You would either declare a standard attack (and not get any additional attacks) or declare a full attack (and not get to move) before you knew the result of your first attack. Whereas now you can make your first attack and then decide to make it a standard attack (and move) or a full attack (and take the additionals). Is that the answer you're looking for?
In short I am being asked to believe that all of these devs have the same incorrect interpretation, even though they wrote the rules for 3.5 and/or PF. At the very least people like SKR wrote supplemental books for 3.5(splat books) so he had to have conversations with their design team.
No no, I wouldn't ask you to believe their interpretations are all incorrect. But, I am curious how they would answer Hrothgar's question.
It's not a rule that says nothing. It's a rule that says that to decide between an attack and a full attack, after your first attack you may choose to either continue attacking or move (as long as you haven't already moved).I don't understand why you would have to make this choice since, by your interpretation, you've never declared anything. Isn't the choice completely in your head at that point? Why would you need a rule to make an internal decision?
The choice has a real affect on the game, that is why, and because the book says so.
In short I am being asked to believe that all of these devs have the same incorrect interpretation, even though they wrote the rules for 3.5 and/or PF. At the very least people like SKR wrote supplemental books for 3.5(splat books) so he had to have conversations with their design team.No no, I wouldn't ask you to believe their interpretations are all incorrect. But, I am curious how they would answer Hrothgar's question.
Which question is that specifically?
Wraith I know we covered it once but the mythic ability to take full full attack and move is completely different than the position of make the fusty attack with anything that includes and give up the rest for a move.
Wraith I know we covered it once but the mythic ability to take full full attack and move is completely different than the position of make the fusty attack with anything that includes and give up the rest for a move.
If the claim is going to be make that you can full attack and move, then I have to question why there is an ability that by its verbage allows the same thing. Either their full attack is not following the book definition of full attack, or the ability should not be getting printed. :)
PS:I understand what you are saying. :)
I just want a dev to explain what the qualifiers are for being able to move after using x ability or not.
I just want a dev to explain what the qualifiers are for being able to move after using x ability or not.
Is ability X the mythic ability?
If the rule didn't exist, you would not be able to make an attack and then decide whether to continue or not. You would either declare a standard attack (and not get any additional attacks) or declare a full attack (and not get to move) before you knew the result of your first attack. Whereas now you can make your first attack and then decide to make it a standard attack (and move) or a full attack (and take the additionals). Is that the answer you're looking for?
I don't think you generally need to declare a standard attack, except in cases such as the monk's standard attack (and especially at low levels when his standard attack has a higher attack bonus), however I do think you should declare a full attack if you intend to make more than one attack or use an ability that requires a full attack.
Consider a high level monk (above 8th level). If the monk makes his first attack, then, by your interpretation, what attack bonus does he use? The lower single attack using his normal base attack bonus or the higher first attack of a flurry of blows using a base attack equal to his monk level? The first is a standard attack and the second is a full attack, but, by your interpretation, we don't know which it is.
Given that, by your interpretation, we would make our first attack then decide whether it is a standard or full attack, it seems there are a number of retroactive possibilities that arise as a result. Is that first attack the first attack of a two weapon fighting attack or is it just a standard attack? We don't know. Is it the first attack of a flurry of blows or is it just a standard attack? We don't know. It just seems strange that an attack should be in limbo like that. Could you explain this position better?
The monk issue is still up for debate. Some see it as the monk must declare a full attack. Others see it as a modified full attack action meaning he can get the full attack bonus for that first attack, and still move which is admittedly taking advantage of the rule.
As for RAI I think the intent is for the monk to take the full attack if he uses FoB, but I don't know if I can prove it, and since that ability is so hard to prove either way I definitely won't try to use it for a normal ruling.
For TWF it is just a modification of a normal full attack. Nowhere does it say TWF requires a declaration of an action. It only says that if you intend to take an extra attack, that you need to accept the penalty up front. By my reading you can make the first attack, and then decide to go into a full attack or take your move action.
TWF aside you are you debating for RAW or RAI?
I just want a dev to explain what the qualifiers are for being able to move after using x ability or not.Is ability X the mythic ability?
No I mean manyshot/TWF/rapid shot those abilities. Basically when is it a true lock into full attack and when can it still become an attack.
No I mean manyshot/TWF/rapid shot those abilities. Basically when is it a true lock into full attack and when can it still become an attack.I just want a dev to explain what the qualifiers are for being able to move after using x ability or not.Is ability X the mythic ability?
If you open a thread on rapidshot/TWF I will FAQ it, or I can do it when I get off work later tonight. I am not as sure about rapidshot as I am about Manyshot. I know what the RAW says for rapidshot, but I am hoping the RAI is different.
I tried to have this question answered by FAQ in 2009. Staff response: no reply required. Perhaps now that there's a 800+ posts thread we'll be more lucky.
angelroble Oct 7, 2009, 11:02 AM Flag | List
Post #199 in "List of Errata in Pathfinder Core Rulebook" Add to:
New ListComment:
| FAQ | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
– You and 2 others marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. You marked this as a favorite. Full-Attack
PRD: "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."
The text does not explain which action is the first attack if you chose to take the move action.
If it is still part of a full-attack, you could use Manyshot, as the feat does not require to take all your attacks.
If it is an Attack Action, you could apply Vital Strike. Notice that you could decide, if you fail your first attack, to continue with the rest of your attacks; and if you hit, to apply Vital Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys need to argue about this stuff at a time more convent to ME! I can't be posting long responses just before work in the morning.
|
So, to sum up in order to get this topic back on track:
1) make an attack.
2) after the results are known, decide if you want your remaining attack progression or make a move action.
Manyshot is an EXCEPTION to the above in that your options become:
1) take remaining attack progression or do nothing.
Wraith: I think the Monk's FOB is a bigger can of worms than you allude to because you have the "full-attack action" language AND that it works like TWF (as clarified by the Devs). it's a situation where you poke it once with a big stick to see if it wiggles, and the run like hell to get as far away from it as possible!
|
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 resolvedSee 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.
This is what I believe:-
• At the moment I execute my first attack of my full attack sequence I AM in the process of a full attack, so Manyshot, Rapid Shot, Whirlwind Attack et al apply
• After this first attack is completely resolved (as the first attack of a full attack), I 'CAN take a move action instead of making (my) remaining attacks', following the rule, word for word
• Now, since I only made a single attack after all, and imput from the devs tells us that 'if you only take a single attack in a round then that attack was an attack action, therefore a standard action', then that means that without declaring anything else that my first attack retroactively became a standard action, and the move action I'm taking now does not break the action economy of the game
• Therefore, there never was 'full attack A or full attack B'
• The space you waste quoting devs saying that there is a difference between 'attack' and 'full attack' are just that; wasted. I'm not accusing them of 'not knowing' what they're doing. I don't need to, as nothing in their quotes disagrees with my position. I know that 'attack' and 'full attack' are different. In my 'sequence of events' what I'm doing is never both at the same time. It starts as a full attack and therefore Manyshot and the rest are useable. Then, when the decision is made to move INSTEAD of making my remaining attacks, my first attack then 'defaults' to a standard action because it turned out to be a single attack after all, and a single attack in your turn (in this context) is defined as an attack action, which uses a standard action, leaving us with the move action we've just paid for with our extra attacks
• While you say that for me to be right, 'all the devs must be wrong', no dev quote I've seen says that I can't take a full attack, THEN see how it turns out, THEN take a move action instead of my remaining attacks
• This fabled 'Mythic' ability would be brilliant! It would allow you to take EVERY attack of your full attack sequence and STILL move at the end! We can't do that now, of course. All we can do is take the FIRST attack only of our first attack, and move ONLY if we give up our remaining attacks, which results in our first attack becoming a standard attack action. You know how we play this at our tables. This new 'Mythic' ability will be WAY better than what we do here
• You say that TWF is somehow different, that it's just a 'modification' of a full attack, it doesn't say that you MUST declare a full attack; that's why you can take the first attack when TWFing and take a move action instead of your remaining attacks. According to the rules on p.184 under 'Multiple Attacks', '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. So, in order for there to be a possibility of an off-hand attack, you MUST use the full attack action. You CAN take a move action, converting your first attack to a standard action, because at that point you're not GETTING more than one attack. You say this is okay for TWF. I agree. At no point in the description of TWF on p.202 does it 'require' a full attack, you just have to choose a full attack to have the possibility of an extra off-hand attack. Well, the same is true for Manyshot, Rapid Shot and whirlwind attack. The language in these feats does NOT 'require' a full attack any more or less than TWF does. It says 'When MAKING a full attack action/When you USE the full attack action'. What's good for TWF is good for them
• The huge problems you seem to have with Flurry of Blows goes away if you understand the rule we are discussing the way our camp does. To flurry you must full attack; you can 'take a move action' etc. instead later. This does help higher level monks. Good; they need it!
Another poster asked some questions:-
'Can you explain why the rule is called "deciding between..." if it only applies to full attacks?'
Yes. You are deciding between carrying on with your full attack OR taking a move action instead of your remaining attacks.
' Can you explain why it mentions not applying it after taking a move action?'
Yes. It's to stop players taking a move action, followed by an attack action (standard action) and the trying to take a move action instead of their remaining (i.e. zero) attacks.
' Can you explain how it can be consistent with the "no movement" rule?'
Yes. In either of two ways. First, you can't move more than a 5-foot step UNLESS you give up your remaining attacks for a move action. This is not a difficult concept, people; why it keeps getting mentioned just goes to show that real objections a scarce. Second, as soon as you take that move action, since your attack turned out to be a single attack after all, then it became a standard attack action by default, AFTER the attack had been resolved after a full attack.
: )
So, to sum up in order to get this topic back on track:
1) make an attack.
2) after the results are known, decide if you want your remaining attack progression or make a move action.Manyshot is an EXCEPTION to the above in that your options become:
1) take remaining attack progression or do nothing.Wraith: I think the Monk's FOB is a bigger can of worms than you allude to because you have the "full-attack action" language AND that it works like TWF (as clarified by the Devs). it's a situation where you poke it once with a big stick to see if it wiggles, and the run like hell to get as far away from it as possible!
I was not implying that it was a small issue. I was saying that because of the language it deserves its own thread, and trying to use it to as evidence here would just make things worse. If anything we should just wait for Paizo to fix it.
While you say that for me to be right, 'all the devs must be wrong', no dev quote I've seen says that I can't take a full attack, THEN see how it turns out, THEN take a move action instead of my remaining attacks
The dev quotes do say you do one or the other, and the book says you can't you take a full attack, a standard, and a move action all in the same round.
It is this simple:
Did you or did you not do a full attack?
If you did then the standard and move are off limits, but you can full attack.
If you did not then manyshot is off limits.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.
Once again the word "or" is in play.
So I ask did you or did you not perform a full round action for manyshot.
If you are saying you can bypass the rule that is listed when no exception is called out then please explain.
|
|
While you say that for me to be right, 'all the devs must be wrong', no dev quote I've seen says that I can't take a full attack, THEN see how it turns out, THEN take a move action instead of my remaining attacksThe dev quotes do say you do one or the other, and the book says you can't you take a full attack, a standard, and a move action all in the same round.
It is this simple:
Did you or did you not do a full attack?If you did then the standard and move are off limits, but you can full attack.
If you did not then manyshot is off limits.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.Once again the word "or" is in play.
So I ask did you or did you not perform a full round action for manyshot.
If you are saying you can bypass the rule that is listed when no exception is called out then please explain.
The full attack I was in the process of making defaulted, AFTER the first attack was resolved as the first attack of my full attack, to a standard action as soon as I took the move action, leaving the 'first' attack as the 'only' attack.
While you say that for me to be right, 'all the devs must be wrong', no dev quote I've seen says that I can't take a full attack, THEN see how it turns out, THEN take a move action instead of my remaining attacksThe dev quotes do say you do one or the other, and the book says you can't you take a full attack, a standard, and a move action all in the same round.
It is this simple:
Did you or did you not do a full attack?If you did then the standard and move are off limits, but you can full attack.
If you did not then manyshot is off limits.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.Once again the word "or" is in play.
So I ask did you or did you not perform a full round action for manyshot.
If you are saying you can bypass the rule that is listed when no exception is called out then please explain.
The book says you can take the first attack of a full attack and move instead of taking your remaining attacks. This specific rule overrides the rule you're citing. The word "or" is not in play because that rule is overriden.
I am still curious what attack bonus a monk would use when, according to Moglun's interpretation, he makes his first attack before deciding to make it a standard attack or the first attack of a flurry of blows. This interpretation of deciding what the first attack was after it's been made seems to be problematic.
• At the moment I execute my first attack of my full attack sequence I AM in the process of a full attack, so Manyshot, Rapid Shot, Whirlwind Attack et al apply
• After this first attack is completely resolved (as the first attack of a full attack), I 'CAN take a move action instead of making (my) remaining attacks', following the rule, word for word
• Now, since I only made a single attack after all, and imput from the devs tells us that 'if you only take a single attack in a round then that attack was an attack action, therefore a standard action', then that means that without declaring anything else that my first attack retroactively became a standard action, and the move action I'm taking now does not break the action economy of the game
• Therefore, there never was 'full attack A or full attack B'
None of that would allow you to use Manyshot and move.
If you use Manyshot, then not making a full attack is illegal because a full attack is required. If your full attack retroactively became a standard attack, then you are not making a full attack. This is not a situation of "at the time I counted as full attacking so I gained the benefits, and then I stopped full attacking and did something else afterward". Whether you take the move or not determines whether you are actually making a full attack or not. You are not 'making a full attack' AND 'making a standard attack', you are ONLY 'making a standard attack'. That's what retroactive means - it becomes active in the past.• You say that TWF is somehow different, that it's just a 'modification' of a full attack, it doesn't say that you MUST declare a full attack; that's why you can take the first attack when TWFing and take a move action instead of your remaining attacks. According to the rules on p.184 under 'Multiple Attacks', '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. So, in order for there to be a possibility of an off-hand attack, you MUST use the full attack action. You CAN take a move action, converting your first attack to a standard action, because at that point you're not GETTING more than one attack. You say this is okay for TWF. I agree. At no point in the description of TWF on p.202 does it 'require' a full attack, you just have to choose a full attack to have the possibility of an extra off-hand attack. Well, the same is true for Manyshot, Rapid Shot and whirlwind attack. The language in these feats does NOT 'require' a full attack any more or less than TWF does. It says 'When MAKING a full attack action/When you USE the full attack action'. What's good for TWF is good for them.
The same is NOT true of those feats. You don't choose a full attack to have the possibility of the extra attacks, you choose the full attack to actually make the extra attacks. Likewise using TWF increases your attacks, and making a full attack actually uses those attacks. So you don't need to full attack to use TWF, but you do need to full attack to benefit from it. This is different from Manyshot, Whirlwind, etc, which state that you need to full attack to use them. You said it yourself: "At no point in the description of TWF on p.202 does it 'require' a full attack". On the other hand, those feats DO state that they require a full attack.
'Can you explain why the rule is called "deciding between..." if it only applies to full attacks?'
Yes. You are deciding between carrying on with your full attack OR taking a move action instead of your remaining attacks.
That explanation doesn't work, but your earlier comments make your view more clear. So you ARE deciding between a full attack or a standard attack with move (retroactively), right?
' Can you explain why it mentions not applying it after taking a move action?'
Yes. It's to stop players taking a move action, followed by an attack action (standard action) and the trying to take a move action instead of their remaining (i.e. zero) attacks.
That makes no sense. A full attack is a full round action, and the rules state that you cannot take a move action followed by a full round action. So the existing rules already stop players doing that. If the rule only applies to full attacks, then the statement is redundant. No other full round action bothers to mention it. So why is it there?
' Can you explain how it can be consistent with the "no movement" rule?'
Yes. In either of two ways. First, you can't move more than a 5-foot step UNLESS you give up your remaining attacks for a move action. This is not a difficult concept, people; why it keeps getting mentioned just goes to show that real objections a scarce. Second, as soon as you take that move action, since your attack turned out to be a single attack after all, then it became a standard attack action by default, AFTER the attack had been resolved after a full attack.
Again, the first one makes no sense. If the rule is "you may either finish your attacks or move" then "you may not move" is false. That is to say, you could remove the "not move" rule from the book and the "move or attack" rule would still cover everything involved. This isn't a case of a general rule followed by a more specific rule. This is a case of one general rule saying one thing and then the next general rule saying the opposite (if they both only apply to the full attack action).
The second explanation works, but does not allow Manyshot. You are never making a full attack and making a standard attack. Either the first attack was part of a full attack, or it was a standard attack, depending on your decision. If you use Manyshot then the only legal decision is to make it a full attack.|
|
Okay, I'll admit up front that I read about the first thirty or so posts, and then skipped to the end, so I don't know if anyone has already posted this interpretation.
I think that deciding to move after taking the first attack with manyshot is like deciding to withdraw (a full-round action), then changing your mind after you've moved less than your standard movement. "Oh, look; I haven't moved more than a single move, so now I'll cast a spell or shoot an arrow or something. After all, I only took a single move action, right?"
The rule doesn't work that way. Manyshot only triggers on a full-round action.
The book says you can take the first attack of a full attack and move instead of taking your remaining attacks. This specific rule overrides the rule you're citing. The word "or" is not in play because that rule is overriden.
I am still curious what attack bonus a monk would use when, according to Moglun's interpretation, he makes his first attack before deciding to make it a standard attack or the first attack of a flurry of blows. This interpretation of deciding what the first attack was after it's been made seems to be problematic.
That rule is not overridden because the rule you're thinking of describes deciding between a full round action and a standard+move action. Not taking a full round action and also a move action.
It is problematic, for FoB and Rapid Shot and probably some other specifics. But it's still true, and those problems are easily solved (and have been acknowledged by devs). Your interpretation is also problematic with certain specifics such as Pounce, Dimensional Skirmisher, and Manyshot (because it effectively allows it on a standard action), and is inconsistent with the rules over top of that.
|
|
'I am still curious what attack bonus a monk would use when, according to Moglun's interpretation, he makes his first attack before deciding to make it a standard attack or the first attack of a flurry of blows. This interpretation of deciding what the first attack was after it's been made seems to be problematic.'
Of course, it's not problematic at all if you understand the rule as our camp understands it.
I have evolved my thinking of this issue (slightly) but not because of the RAW. I'll explain: from first playing D&D 3.5 a thousand years ago (okay, since the last millennium) we have understood that the rule requires you first to start a full attack. Exercising the choice changed my full-round action from 'full attack' to' single attack+move'. This didn't seem broken in any way, and followed the rule word for word.
When 3.5 came out the only change was that you got a whole move ACTION rather than just a move. Pathfinder didn't change it any further. This follows the Rules As Written, and contradicts NO written rule.
This meant that your full-round action turned out to consist of a single attack and a move action. No alarm bells were ringing re: action economy; no-one was getting more than a single attack when doing this.
This is what, no doubt, provokes your 'there's only one type of full attack' reaction.
Since the rule DOES let you 'take a move action instead of your remaining attacks' it, by definition, IS allowed.
Since reading through this thread in the past week or so, I've become aware that some people read the rule in a different way. Okay, but I found their case unconvincing. Our case is still RAW and remains unchallenged by any rule in the core rulebook saying it's somehow wrong, despite some furious efforts.
Then the devs get mentioned. Fair enough. Unfortunately, none of them address this situation directly, and attempts to take some of their answers to DIFFERENT questions, while taking up a lot of space, did not help.
Then it is mentioned that one dev (I forget who) answered a question about 'if I only get a single attack during my turn, what action is that?' with 'it's an attack action, which takes a standard action to use.'
This altered the sequence of events (slightly), but not the outcome.
Before this dev intervention we only had the RAW, which led to this 'sequence of events':-
1st: Choose the full attack action. This uses a full-round action.
2nd: Resolve the first attack of that full attack and see how it turns out.
3rd: Either a.) complete your full attack. This also completes the full-round action.
Or b.) take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks. This also completes the full-round action.
All following the rules, step by step, as written.
After the dev intervention we ate left with this 'sequence of events':-
1st: Choose the full attack action. This uses the full-round action. (note that it does not use UP the full-round action, just that the full-round action is the action-type in play here)
2nd: Resolve the first attack of that full attack and see how it turns out. (note that this doesn't entirely CONSUME the full-round action, the full-round action itself takes up the entire six second turn. As does a standard action plus a move action)
3rd: Either a.) complete your full attack. This also completes your full-round action.
OR b.) take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks. According to the dev, if you make only a single attack in your turn it is a standard action. Therefore, as soon as you take that move action you give up your remaining attacks, leaving your 'first' attack as your 'only' attack this round, therefore defining it in game terms (from the moment you decide to take that move action) as an attack action therefore using up a standard action. This means that, however your round started, it NOW consists of a standard action plus a move action. All fair and above board, following the RAW step by step and ALSO satisfying the dev.
This alteration in the makeup of the round in no way changes what happened in that first attack, during the period when it WAS a full attack!
So, we are following RAW. The only way to show it to be AGAINST the rules is by quoting the rule it is against!
Many attempts have been made; some valid attempts, others not so much. It does get annoying to see huge amounts of space being given to argue against claims that I'm NOT making. Another limitation of this medium is that I can't say 'Oi, mate! That's not what I'm saying at all!' I don't blame anyone for not quite getting their head around what I'm saying at first, because they obviously have read the same rule completely differently for years. But I can get, understandably I think, a bit miffed at continued misunderstandings after I've repeatedly made clear what I DO think.
I enjoyed my exchanges with Gauss. We both quickly tried our damnedest to understand the other's point of view, and quickly put to the side any irrelevant disagreements, realised where we DID agree, and quickly isolated our only remaining relevant disagreement. Although we agreed that you can choose a full attack before your first attack if you want to, my position is that your intentions for that full attack (at the beginning of the round) were not mentioned in the 'Deciding between' rule and therefore the choice was not denied to you based on that choice. Gauss was of the opinion that choosing a full attack which included any special feat or ability 'locked you in' to completing that full attack (by denying access to the choice to take a move action instead of making the remainder of your attacks).
I asked him to quote the rule that denies them this choice. He said that Rapid Shot, Manyshot et al 'require' a full attack. Sure, they 'require' a full attack while executing those attacks, but we are in a full attack when we make them. He says that you are required to COMPLETE the full attack. Er... it doesn't say that, either in the combat chapter or in the description of each feat.
Since we last saw a post from Gauss on these pages, the arguments from the opposition have just gone over old ground. Some have contradicted Gauss. Fair enough, everyone has their own opinion. But I've rebutted every challenge so far, and I'll continue to be successful in my rebuttals until someone can quote a rule which actively disallows my 'sequence of events' above. That sequence simply follows the rules as they are written. It's not even complicated. The 'other' camp has done intellectual and semantic acrobatics to try to challenge it, but they STILL can't point to the needed rule.
Because there isn't one.
Keep trying, boys!
: )
I asked him to quote the rule that denies them this choice. He said that Rapid Shot, Manyshot et al 'require' a full attack. Sure, they 'require' a full attack while executing those attacks, but we are in a full attack when we make them. He says that you are required to COMPLETE the full attack. Er... it doesn't say that, either in the combat chapter or in the description of each feat.
Of course there isn't such a rule. You're asking for a rule explaining basic logic. It isn't going to happen.
A: If you use Manyshot then you must make a full attack.B: If you take the move action then you are not making a full attack.
C: Therefore if you use Manyshot you may not take the move action.
A and B are the rules, and C is how they logically interact.
The argument that B is false because you were making a full attack at the time and then changed it is unsound. When you changed it your entire action changed from 'full attack' to 'attack+move'. It's not the case that you started a full attack with your first attack and then didn't complete it. Rather, you decided that your first attack was not part of a full attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi, what sort of cracks me up is that is exactly where this conversation was some 835 posts ago.
The rules are inconsistent. They can be read two ways and both of those ways can be argued to be "RAW". It is my contention that yours and my interpretation of the RAW is the more logical, the more player friendly and the interpretation that results in fewer ridiculous implications (such as not being able to shoot one arrow on a first attack if you have the "manyshot" feat).
I find it very interesting how vigorously and vociferously the anti-manyshot crowd has been in this thread. I don't mind a good solid debate but resorting to snarky, rude and condescending statements like "some people can't seem to read the rules" is what gets me riled up. I try very hard in these debates not to claim that my interpretation is the only possible interpretation. I assume both sides are fairly intelligent and fair-minded. And I don't respond well when that is not assumed of me.
Again the rules are inconsistent. There are unintended consequences of some of the wording in some of the rules that has not been fixed by errata, nor directly addressed by the design team unequivocably.
One of the things that really bugs me about Paizo is how they will let something like this rage for weeks on end and completely ignore the fundamental problem of poor rules without fixing the rules in an errata.
It is my contention that yours and my interpretation of the RAW is the more logical, the more player friendly and the interpretation that results in fewer ridiculous implications (such as not being able to shoot one arrow on a first attack if you have the "manyshot" feat).
I've already stated I disagree with every one of those, but out of curiosity how does your interpretation solve the 'not being able to shoot one arrow' problem? That seems to be an issue (albeit a very easily solved one) independent of either interpretation.
Once more with feeling.
Terms are often defined at the moment where they are most important not at the only moment they are important.
The book says you can take the first attack of a full attack and move instead of taking your remaining attacks. This specific rule overrides the rule you're citing. The word "or" is not in play because that rule is overriden.
I am still curious what attack bonus a monk would use when, according to Moglun's interpretation, he makes his first attack before deciding to make it a standard attack or the first attack of a flurry of blows. This interpretation of deciding what the first attack was after it's been made seems to be problematic.
That rule is not overridden because the rule you're thinking of describes deciding between a full round action and a standard+move action. Not taking a full round action and also a move action.
It is problematic, for FoB and Rapid Shot and probably some other specifics. But it's still true, and those problems are easily solved (and have been acknowledged by devs). Your interpretation is also problematic with certain specifics such as Pounce, Dimensional Skirmisher, and Manyshot (because it effectively allows it on a standard action), and is inconsistent with the rules over top of that.
The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule pertains to the Full Attack rule. The word attack refers to the first attack of a full attack as it says in the rule itself. It is not referring to the standard attack action. The more general rule is overridden by the more specific Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule.
I myself agree that my interpretation has problems with players abusing the rule (Pounce and Manyshot included, I don't know what Dimensional Skirmisher is so I can't agree there); however, others do not agree that it is an abuse of the rule at all and, as such, is not problematic.
But, I have yet to see your interpretation's problems addressed. What attack bonus would a monk would use when, according to your interpretation, he makes his first attack before deciding to make it a standard attack or the first attack of a flurry of blows? Also, does the rapid shooter retroactively apply a penalty to to his first attack when he decides to make it the first attack of a full attack, or is it open to abuse allowing players to get the first attack without penalty? Your interpretation of deciding what the first attack was after it's been made leads to more interesting problems.
The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule pertains to the Full Attack rule.
Okay, so if a character is intending to only use an attack action but after there attack decide to instead take there remaining iterative attacks then that player is cheating according to you?
|
|
Not necessarily, no. Making a standard-action attack first, without the benefit of (in this case) Manyshot, and then finishing off with the remaining attacks is fine. But you only get Manyshot if you commit ahead of time to the full attack. If you do so, and drop your target with the first two arrows...tough. You've used a full-round action.
Not necessarily, no. Making a standard-action attack first, without the benefit of (in this case) Manyshot, and then finishing off with the remaining attacks is fine. But you only get Manyshot if you commit ahead of time to the full attack. If you do so, and drop your target with the first two arrows...tough. You've used a full-round action.
I was asking Lakesidefantasy specifically.
It seems we probably already agree DeathSpot.
The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule pertains to the Full Attack rule. The word attack refers to the first attack of a full attack as it says in the rule itself. It is not referring to the standard attack action. The more general rule is overridden by the more specific Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule.
That is simply not what the rule says. 'Between an attack and a full attack' has a different meaning than 'between the first attack of a full attack and all the attacks of a full attack' or 'between a full attack with one attack and a full attack with more attacks'. You are choosing between one thing and another, one of which is a full attack and one of which is not. There's nothing to interpret here, it means exactly what it says.
And again, neither rule is more specific than the other. Your interpretation results in two equally general rules which directly contradict each other. To repeat what I said on the subject earlier:A specific exception in the rules would be something like Improved Trip or Slow Fall. The general rule is that creatures making a trip attack provoke an AoO; the specific exception is that creatures with Improved Trip do not. The general rule is that falling creatures take X damage; the specific exception is that creatures with Slow Fall and near a wall reduce that by Y amount. Compare that to the full attack rules as interpreted by you: The rule which states that you cannot move applies to all characters making a full attack, and the rule which states that you can take a move action instead of additional attacks applies to all creatures making a full attack. They are equally specific (that is, they apply to everyone on every full attack), and the existence of one directly contradicts the other. If the rule really is "you may take one attack and then one move action as a full attack action", then the "cannot move except a 5' step" should not exist. Additionally, you have the statement "if you have not already moved", which would be impossible on a full round action such as a full attack.
On the other hand, if we assume that the "Deciding" heading indicates that the rules following it related to deciding between a standard action Attack and a full round action Full Attack, these issues disappear and the statements become consistent.
But, I have yet to see your interpretation's problems addressed. What attack bonus would a monk would use when, according to your interpretation, he makes his first attack before deciding to make it a standard attack or the first attack of a flurry of blows? Also, does the rapid shooter retroactively apply a penalty to to his first attack when he decides to make it the first attack of a full attack, or is it open to abuse allowing players to get the first attack without penalty? Your interpretation of deciding what the first attack was after it's been made leads to more interesting problems.
They were addressed earlier, but I can repeat it. The solution to everything but FOB is that you must be allowed to declare a full attack before making your first attack in order to use the abilities. However, it is still the case that to gain the benefit you must actually follow through and make that full attack, not claim you will make a full attack and then cancel it and make a standard attack instead. This means that if you fire the extra arrow with Manyshot you cannot move afterwards. This may also be the case with Rapid Shot, but the consensus is that in practice a GM would allow you to fire once and then move, taking the -2 penalty but not committing to a full attack (the idea being that you haven't used the benefit yet, and you could do this with TWF, so it's fair to allow it even though it's technically against the rules). I actually have a slightly different interpretation of how Rapid Shot works, but it seems to be the minority and it's not very important for this argument.
FOB, like many other Monk abilities, is a convoluted mess with problems no matter what you do (the issue that you must use two different weapons to flurry, for example) so I'll just say that you need to figure out what works best for you in that regard. Personally I would give the Monk a full BAB and eliminate the flurry to hit bonus (as well as the bonuses to CMB and CMD).
Once more with feeling.
Terms are often defined at the moment where they are most important not at the only moment they are important.
Also sometimes when they are first introduced.
The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule pertains to the Full Attack rule.Okay, so if a character is intending to only use an attack action but after there attack decide to instead take there remaining iterative attacks then that player is cheating according to you?
Technically, according to the rules, after a character makes an attack as a standard action all they have left, swift and free actions aside, is a move action.
Now, as a DM at the gaming table, I would probably let the player continue into a full action, but that would be my adjudication as the DM and it would not be supported by the rules. However, if the player in question were, say, trying to get a second arrow via Manyshot after they had rolled their attack roll and saw that their attack hit, it would be within the rules for any DM to deny them further attacks.
Now, again, what attack bonus would a 9th level monk use when he makes his first attack before deciding to make it a standard attack or the first attack of a flurry of blows?
Lakeside,
That's a case where you typically declare a Full-Attack in order to Flurry. However, a common house-reule is to let the Monk back out of the Full Attack if the first hit drops the foe.
Personally I don't bother with that. Particularly for the purpose of this discussion it only muddies the issue.
The full attack I was in the process of making defaulted, AFTER the first attack was resolved as the first attack of my full attack, to a standard action as soon as I took the move action, leaving the 'first' attack as the 'only' attack.While you say that for me to be right, 'all the devs must be wrong', no dev quote I've seen says that I can't take a full attack, THEN see how it turns out, THEN take a move action instead of my remaining attacksThe dev quotes do say you do one or the other, and the book says you can't you take a full attack, a standard, and a move action all in the same round.
It is this simple:
Did you or did you not do a full attack?If you did then the standard and move are off limits, but you can full attack.
If you did not then manyshot is off limits.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.Once again the word "or" is in play.
So I ask did you or did you not perform a full round action for manyshot.
If you are saying you can bypass the rule that is listed when no exception is called out then please explain.
So did you or did not make a full attack(full round action), and a standard action in the same round?
The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule pertains to the Full Attack rule.
Show me in the book where it says a full attack also allows you to move? My book, and the internet says it is when you make multiple attacks. Even Malachi does not think you are full attacking if you move, not that I agree with his "change action" stance.
Technically, according to the rules, after a character makes an attack as a standard action all they have left, swift and free actions aside, is a move action.
Lets break this next part down a bit.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
So we know what the term "Attack" means because it's defined earlier in the book.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Are they not referring to this "Attack"? Where are the rules for the "Attack" they are referring to? and where are the rules for the "Full Attack" they are referring to?
This is important because without these two terms defined we can't do anything with this rule at all.
Especially when we already have terms defined that fit those specific words.
The monk issue is something that might not allow the RAW to support the RAI. It has had its own threads, and both sides had valid points. If it is complicated enough to have its own thread I clearly don't want to derail this thread with it.
Now if FoB was something that everyone agreed on 100% then it could be used as a sort of "control", but right now it is a variable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So did Hrothgar Mitt Romney on us ;)
So did Hrothgar Mitt Romney on us ;)
He(Romney) does so many things I don't like I don't even know what you mean by this one. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flip Flop?
My own thread seems to have un-dotted itself.
.
Hey, you could have said Politician-ed us.
Not saying I'm not with ya, but this isn't a place to bring up politics.
Hrothgar knows I think his ability to change his mind is a virtue. Just a little joke.