Woot 19!
So did Hrothgar Mitt Romney on us ;)
I don't have enough ranks in acrobatics!
I'm just examining the issue further.
I'm fine with either side's interpretation, as long as it's consistent for other attacks (like rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry).
If no move is allowed after the first attack of manyshot, no move after the first attack of the others (such as those listed above).
However, I haven't figured out how allowing a move after the first shot of manyshot is any more powerful than allowing a move after the first attack of a rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, of flurry (or such like). I don't see it as game breaking.
RAW says that you only get your iterative attacks if you are using a full-round action ("you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks").
It also says that "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step."
Notice it says it cannot be "coupled with" rather than cannot be made up of. That's a difference. A full-round action can be composed of a standard and a move action, but not "coupled with" either or both.
So, when you make your first attack, if you haven't moved or taken a 5'ft. step, you're starting a full-attack (a type of full-round action, so you get your iteratives and now have them to use). However, you aren't locked in to a full-attack. That's because you can stop attacking after the first attack and make a move, instead. Thus, making a standard action and a move.
Problem is that Manyshot says "When making a full-attack action..." I think RAI and RAW are that you declare you're making a full-attack before your first shot (same as rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry, etc...). By doing so, you give up the option to decide after your first attack.
But, now the hard part... (and the crux of the whole thread, as I see it...) Deciding between an attack or a full-attack...
With manyshot and it's like, the decision is made before the first attack. Manyshot (and such like) are exceptions to the rule that you normally decide whether or not to full-attack after your first attack. You can no more nock two arrows for a manyshot than you can apply the modifiers to two-weapon fight or flurry or rapid shot without having already made the decision to full-attack.
You pick up the iteratives as a resource to use when you decide to attack before moving. When you decide to full-attack before making your first shot, you give up the option to change your mind after the first attack.
But, as James Jacobs (and others have noted), many GMs do not enforce this for things like two-weapon, rapidshot, or flurry. And, to be consistent, I don't think they should enforce it with manyshot, either (if they're not gonna enforce it with the other attack options). But, to each his own.
Personally, I prefer a manyshot that allows a move after the first attack (as well as allowing a move after the first attack of the other full-attacks that rule-out trading in iteratives for a move).
I am glad that my posts, last night got this thread heated up again. It is, after all, just like a dwarf to instigate a fight in the tavern so he can get all the ale he wants while the others are fighting!!!
I was actually leaning back toward my original position, last night, but now... Manyshot works when taking a full-round action with a bow. Once you nock two arrows, you're committed to the full-attack. At that point, you've given up the option to move.
Should it work that way? Probably not. But, this is a game and there are rules to this game. Thankfully, houseruling is allowed by the rules (for home games, anyway).
My own thread seems to have un-dotted itself.
.
I've been noticing dots disappearing from time to time. Then, they re-appear. Don't know why.
|
The difference between Manyshot and the other full-attack options discussed is that Manyshot only has a benefit; namely, two arrows with the first attack. The other options (rapid shot, flurry, etc.) all carry a penalty to the first attack. I think that's why many GMs will allow a player to drop out of a full attack after those; the player hasn't gained any benefit at all from beginning the flurry or rapid shot that he or she wouldn't have gained from a standard attack.
The difference between Manyshot and the other full-attack options discussed is that Manyshot only has a benefit; namely, two arrows with the first attack. The other options (rapid shot, flurry, etc.) all carry a penalty to the first attack. I think that's why many GMs will allow a player to drop out of a full attack after those; the player hasn't gained any benefit at all from beginning the flurry or rapid shot that he or she wouldn't have gained from a standard attack.
I understand that, but the logic is the same. If you can't gain the benefit of manyshot on the first attack and then move... You can't accept the penalty on the first attack of the others and then move. Whether it's a benefit or penalty has no bearing on whether any of them is a full-attack.
If you allow it on either, you're in house-rules territory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with either side's interpretation, as long as it's consistent for other attacks (like rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry).
If no move is allowed after the first attack of manyshot, no move after the first attack of the others (such as those listed above).
I think it does apply to those according to RAW. They don't according to RAI.
However, I haven't figured out how allowing a move after the first shot of manyshot is any more powerful than allowing a move after the first attack of a rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, of flurry (or such like). I don't see it as game breaking.
I think that if you want to rule that way you should change Manyshot to a standard action.
So, when you make your first attack, if you haven't moved or taken a 5'ft. step, you're starting a full-attack (a type of full-round action, so you get your iteratives and now have them to use). However, you aren't locked in to a full-attack. That's because you can stop attacking after the first attack and make a move, instead. Thus, making a standard action and a move.
This seems like a strange inversion of reasoning. I'm not saying it's wrong just weird.
I think it does apply to those according to RAW. They don't according to RAI.I'm fine with either side's interpretation, as long as it's consistent for other attacks (like rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry).
If no move is allowed after the first attack of manyshot, no move after the first attack of the others (such as those listed above).
Probably. I'd guess opinions vary.
I think that if you want to rule that way you should change Manyshot to a standard action.
since Pathfinder is compatible with 3.5 use the old feat.
Prerequisites
Dex 17, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6
Benefit
As a standard action, you may fire two arrows at a single opponent within 30 feet. Both arrows use the same attack roll (with a -4 penalty) to determine success and deal damage normally (but see Special).
For every five points of base attack bonus you have above +6, you may add one additional arrow to this attack, to a maximum of four arrows at a base attack bonus of +16. However, each arrow after the second adds a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll (for a total penalty of -6 for three arrows and -8 for four).
Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against each arrow fired.
Special
Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage.
A fighter may select Manyshot as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the archery combat style is treated as having Manyshot even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
However, I haven't figured out how allowing a move after the first shot of manyshot is any more powerful than allowing a move after the first attack of a rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, of flurry (or such like). I don't see it as game breaking.I think that if you want to rule that way you should change Manyshot to a standard action.
That wouldn't work for me, either, because I want to keep the option of using iteratives with manyshot, instead of a move action. Basically, I don't want to remove the choice of move or iteratives from manyshot (rapid shot, two-weapon, or flurry, etc...).
As I understand it, you don't normally get iteratives if you use a standard action.
I think that if you want to rule that way you should change Manyshot to a standard action.since Pathfinder is compatible with 3.5 use the old feat.
** spoiler omitted **
I like PF's version, better.
So, when you make your first attack, if you haven't moved or taken a 5'ft. step, you're starting a full-attack (a type of full-round action, so you get your iteratives and now have them to use). However, you aren't locked in to a full-attack. That's because you can stop attacking after the first attack and make a move, instead. Thus, making a standard action and a move.This seems like a strange inversion of reasoning. I'm not saying it's wrong just weird.
Well, that wouldn't be the first time my logic has been called weird.
So did Hrothgar Mitt Romney on us ;)I don't have enough ranks in acrobatics!
I'm just examining the issue further.
I'm fine with either side's interpretation, as long as it's consistent for other attacks (like rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry).
If no move is allowed after the first attack of manyshot, no move after the first attack of the others (such as those listed above).
However, I haven't figured out how allowing a move after the first shot of manyshot is any more powerful than allowing a move after the first attack of a rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, of flurry (or such like). I don't see it as game breaking.
It is not about how game breaking it is or isn't. It is just about whether or not it is the rules. There are quiet a few ways to abuse the rules without breaking them. IIRC you can get a +10 to your caster level, and call monsters that can win the game for you. Actually you can do it with monsters +5 above you CL.
Notice it says it cannot be "coupled with" rather than cannot be made up of. That's a difference. A full-round action can be composed of a standard and a move action, but not "coupled with" either or both.
Actually each action is its own action type with its own rules. A charge as an example is not a move action+an attack action. It is just a full round action. That is why each is a game defined term. If the rules intend for you to add action 1 to action 2 to so you can make action 3 they would say so. You can not find any verbage that makes that claim however.
edit: added the number "2"
I don't see it as game breaking.It is not about how game breaking it is or isn't. It is just about whether or not it is the rules.
I agree. But, I'd still like to see examples so I can have a better idea of why this shouldn't be house-ruled.
There are quiet a few ways to abuse the rules without breaking them. IIRC you can get a +10 to your caster level, and call monsters that can win the game for you. Actually you can do it with monsters +5 above you CL.
Gotta confess ignorance about how to do those. I've only every really played up to level 7 in 3.5, and then not in a very min-maxed or overly optimized party. Most powerful spell I've actually seen in combat is scorching ray.
:)(And, that should be sufficient to say we haven't majored on spellcasters...)
I like PF's version, better.
Ah then the change needs to be for Full Attack to ranged attack.
When making a ranged attack with a bow, your first attack in a round fires two arrows.
This would let you move and then attack.
Notice it says it cannot be "coupled with" rather than cannot be made up of. That's a difference. A full-round action can be composed of a standard and a move action, but not "coupled with" either or both.Actually each action is its own action type with its own rules. A charge as an example is not a move action+an attack action. It is just a full round action. That is why each is a game defined term. If the rules intend for you to add action 1 to action to so you can make action 3 they would say so. You can not find any verbage that makes that claim however.
Yeah, charge is a special case. Technically, it's (usually) composed of a double-move plus an attack (which is a standard action, technically). But, that's rulebreaking, except when such an exception is allowed.
I like PF's version, better.Ah then the change needs to be for Full Attack to ranged attack.
When making a ranged attack with a bow, your first attack in a round fires two arrows.
This would let you move and then attack.
Exactly. But, I'd still allow an archer to fire only one arrow, if he chose to.
I actually think rapid shot should allow the bonus arrow shot before a move, too. But, that's a house-rules topic. Same for two-weapon fighting (an off-hand attack before move) and flurry (would need to look at how I'd want that to work, as I don't play monks).
Yeah, charge is a special case. Technically, it's (usually) composed of a double-move plus an attack (which is a standard action, technically). But, that's rulebreaking, except when such an exception is allowed.Notice it says it cannot be "coupled with" rather than cannot be made up of. That's a difference. A full-round action can be composed of a standard and a move action, but not "coupled with" either or both.Actually each action is its own action type with its own rules. A charge as an example is not a move action+an attack action. It is just a full round action. That is why each is a game defined term. If the rules intend for you to add action 1 to action 2 to so you can make action 3 they would say so. You can not find any verbage that makes that claim however.
I meant to say "..add action 1 to action 2 to so you can make action 3.."
For some reason I never see my typos until someone quotes me. :)
But, I'd still like to see examples so I can have a better idea of why this shouldn't be house-ruled
I have a player currently who killed a hydra in one round. Form 47 to -18 is six seconds. 65 total.
Deadly Aim and Manyshot.
dex 20 =+5 mod
str 16 =+3 mod
compost longbow(+3)
BAB +6(fighter)
Weapon Focus/Specialization: Long Bow +1 atk +2 dmg
Expert Archer: +1atk/dmg with Bows
Average roll for a d20 is 10.5
Average roll for a d8 is 4.5
Average roll for his first attack is 19.5
Average damage is 29.
Average roll for his rapidshot attack is 19.5.
Average damage is 14.
Average roll for his second attack is 14.5.
Average damage is 14.
A Hydras AC is 15.
He needs to roll at least a 7 to hit with his first attack.
That's a 75% change for a first shot(21.75 damage on average)
That's a 75% chance for a rapid shot(10.5 damage on average)
that's a 50% chance for a second shot(7)
That's a total of 39.25 on average for full round attack against a Hydra. Hydras only have 47 Hp average so my player got a little lucky.
This doesn't include damage possible form crits.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that using a bow is plenty broken enough. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 AttackSo 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.
Yes, the word "attack" is where much of this debate is focused, and it doesn't necessarily refer to an attack made as a standard action.
There are many different kinds of attacks. Attacks of opportunity are single melee attacks that don't require a standard action--they're free attacks. Iterative attacks are made as part of a full attack action. There are even special attacks, one of which is the attack made as part of a charge which is a full round action but under the right circumstances can be performed in place of a standard action. In short, an "attack" is not always an attack made as a standard action.
The section on Performing a Combat Maneuver sums it up rather well where it says, "...many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity..."
In the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule it refers to the first attack of a full attack.
The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule says that after your first attack, you can take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out.
Now that's an important part of the rule. If the first attack were an attack made as a standard action, as you would claim it could be, then why is the option to take move action instead of your remaining attacks dependent upon it? Wouldn't you be able to take a move action regardless of how the attack turns out?
The reason is because the "attack" in question is the first attack of a full attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, charge is a special case. Technically, it's (usually) composed of a double-move plus an attack (which is a standard action, technically). But, that's rulebreaking, except when such an exception is allowed.
A charge is not a double-move plus an attack. A charge allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Twice your speed is equivalent to a double-move but they are not the same thing.
Hrothgar: This might make the reasoning for why Manyshot would require a full attack, and why GMs might make an exception for Rapid Shot but not Manyshot, more clear.
Full attacks are supposed to be stronger than standard attacks, in that you put out more damage on a full attack. Even with something like Vital Strike this is true. So the decision is between whether you want to put out more damage or move. With that in mind, compare Rapid Shot and Manyshot:
Archer has a total attack bonus of +14/9 with his bow, and deals an average of 20 damage per hit. He gets into a fight with a random Blackhat with AC 25.
With no special abilities, his average damage is 15 on a full attack and 10 on a standard attack.
If he uses Rapid Shot, his average damage is 19 on a full attack. If we allow him to move after, his average damage would be 8 on a standard.
If he uses Manyshot, his average damage is 25 on a full attack. If we allow him to move after, his average damage would be 20 on a standard.
This trend continues at higher levels. That is, the more attacks he gets per round, the more Manyshot outpaces Rapid Shot in terms of damage output on a full attack.
The point of this is that even with the full attack requirement, Manyshot is a much better feat than Rapid Shot (in this case +25% damage vs +66%). Allowing a character to use Rapid Shot on a standard attack gives him more options with a -10% damage output. Allowing Manyshot on a standard attack gives him more options with a +100% damage output. While the rules of the two abilities are similar, the effects of them are very different.
Now that's an important part of the rule. If the first attack were an attack made as a standard action, as you would claim it could be, then why is the option to take move action instead of your remaining attacks dependent upon it? Wouldn't you be able to take a move action regardless of how the attack turns out?
The reason is because the "attack" in question is the first attack of a full attack.
No, because the rule is that you make an undefined attack (not a standard attack, full attack, or AoO), then choose whether it's a full attack or a standard attack based on what you do next. Just as it's true that you don't need the move option if it's a standard attack, you don't need the "assuming you have not already taken a move" clause if it's a full attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule it refers to the first attack of a full attack.
The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule says that after your first attack, you can take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out.
Now that's an important part of the rule. If the first attack...
I didn't ask what it was referring to I asked where it was defined.
I also asked where Full Attack is defined. Where is Full Attack defined?
We must be able to pick either so both need to be defined BEFORE we can make such a choice.
Luckily, both of those terms ARE defined. I don't need to cut and past them again do I?
If Full Attack is actually Full Attack action(as defined under the heading "Full Attack") then it only logically follows that Attack is an attack action(as defined under "Attack"). If Full Attack isn't a Full Attack action then it is never defined.
(Both of which are Defined under "Action Types")
Your first attack is ambiguous. The point of the rule is to allow it to be that way.
If you use Manyshot it isn't ambiguous anymore.
...
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.
...
I had to consider this for a moment. You had a good point that previous movement would be impossible on a full attack. But, before I get to that I need to point out that my interpretation does not claim that you may take one attack and then one move action as a full attack action. That makes it sound like your taking those in place of the full attack action.
My interpretation claims that after the first attack of your full attack, you can take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, and all of this takes place as part of a full attack action.
Now, as for movement previous to the first attack of a full attack. The rule, as I interpret it, says you can elect to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.
As you know a round is not a turn. On your turn is when you take the full attack action. The movement in question would have to take place in the same round but previous to your turn. There is at least one feat I know of that allows you to move as part of an attack of opportunity, and as you know attacks of opportunity can occur before your turn. There may be more ways to move before your turn, but regardless, a round is not a turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any event that first attack is still not a full attack, and does not qualify for manyshot. If that one attack is a full attack, which it is not, then you can't take a move action since the choices are:
"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action."
This also lines up perfect with the attack and move or full attack section.
Both the round round and full attack terms both say no move actions.
I don't think it is a coincidence. :)
As you know a round is not a turn. On your turn is when you take the full attack action. The movement in question would have to take place in the same round but previous to your turn. There is at least one feat I know of that allows you to move as part of an attack of opportunity, and as you know attacks of opportunity can occur before your turn. There may be more ways to move before your turn, but regardless, a round is not a turn.
An attack of opportunity isn't an action. If a feat allows you to move with an attack of opportunity It couldn't be a move action.
A movement and a move action are two different things.
You only get Move actions on your turn.
...
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.
...I had to consider this for a moment. You had a good point that previous movement would be impossible on a full attack. But, before I get to that I need to point out that my interpretation does not claim that you may take one attack and then one move action as a full attack action. That makes it sound like your taking those in place of the full attack action.
My interpretation claims that after the first attack of your full attack, you can take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, and all of this takes place as part of a full attack action.
Now, as for movement previous to the first attack of a full attack. The rule, as I interpret it, says you can elect to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.
As you know a round is not a turn. On your turn is when you take the full attack action. The movement in question would have to take place in the same round but previous to your turn. There is at least one feat I know of that allows you to move as part of an attack of opportunity, and as you know attacks of opportunity can occur before your turn. There may be more ways to move before your turn, but regardless, a round is not a turn.
The rules* have noting about taking a move action as a part of a full round action or full attack action. Full attack is a game defined term that says you don't get a move action. As I have stated until you find a rules exception such as charge that says you can break that rule then you can't take a take a move action or move in the same round that you make a full round attack or action.
If you were correct the heading would not say full attack or attack if they are both variations of a full attack. At the very least there would be wording to state that you are making an alternate use of a game-defined term. There is no such wording.
Feats allows you to break the rules, which supports my point. It is a rules exception that says you can break rule X.
Even though you highlight the word "round" it does not help you. Your turn comes within a round so even by RAW things you do during that round still affect your turn. In short if you somehow get a move action before your turn it still limits your actions for that round.
edit:*Just to be clear I am referring to the general rules.
The feat you are speaking of is combat patrol and it requires a full round action.
Combat Patrol (Combat)
You range across the battlefield, dealing with threats wherever they arise.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Mobility, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you may set up a combat patrol, increasing your threatened area by 5 feet for every 5 points of your base attack bonus. Until the beginning of your next turn, you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity. You may move as part of these attacks, provided your total movement before your next turn does not exceed your speed. Any movement you make provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.
Now that's an important part of the rule. If the first attack were an attack made as a standard action, as you would claim it could be, then why is the option to take move action instead of your remaining attacks dependent upon it? Wouldn't you be able to take a move action regardless of how the attack turns out?
The reason is because the "attack" in question is the first attack of a full attack.
No, because the rule is that you make an undefined attack (not a standard attack, full attack, or AoO), then choose whether it's a full attack or a standard attack based on what you do next. Just as it's true that you don't need the move option if it's a standard attack, you don't need the "assuming you have not already taken a move" clause if it's a full attack.
But, wouldn't you be able to take a move action regardless of how that undefined attack turned out? How is the option to take a move action instead of you remaining attacks dependent upon how that undefined attack turns out?
The feat you are speaking of is combat patrol and it requires a full round action.
And it lasts until the beginning of your next turn.
Lakesidefantasy
"Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack"
Where is this Full Attack defined?
The feat you are speaking of is combat patrol and it requires a full round action.And it lasts until the beginning of your next turn.
What is your point?
This feat is nothing but a readied action mechanically. You declare a full round action in this case, but you also get to move in order to attack.
If you declare a readied action which is only a standard action it also last until your next action, which is potentially your next turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation claims that after the first attack of your full attack, you can take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, and all of this takes place as part of a full attack action.
That interpretation cannot be correct. If the rule is that you decide between an attack and a full attack, which is exactly what it says it is, then one thing we know for certain is that one choice is a full attack and the other choice is not.
Now, as for movement previous to the first attack of a full attack. The rule, as I interpret it, says you can elect to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.
As you know a round is not a turn. On your turn is when you take the full attack action. The movement in question would have to take place in the same round but previous to your turn. There is at least one feat I know of that allows you to move as part of an attack of opportunity, and as you know attacks of opportunity can occur before your turn. There may be more ways to move before your turn, but regardless, a round is not a turn.
"Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack."
So according to your interpretation, if you take an AoO you cannot attack again that round unless you take a full attack action? Round and turn are used interchangeably several times throughout the Combat section, and in the rest of the rulebook as well.As to the feat, are you thinking of Combat Patrol? The idea that they included that line to account for an outlier ability that didn't even exist at the time the CRB was written and already has appropriate limitations spelled out in the ability itself is not a very compelling argument. It makes me feel as though you are looking for excuses to avoid revising your position instead of listening objectively to the arguments being presented.
But, wouldn't you be able to take a move action regardless of how that undefined attack turned out? How is the option to take a move action instead of you remaining attacks dependent upon how that undefined attack turns out?Now that's an important part of the rule. If the first attack were an attack made as a standard action, as you would claim it could be, then why is the option to take move action instead of your remaining attacks dependent upon it? Wouldn't you be able to take a move action regardless of how the attack turns out?
The reason is because the "attack" in question is the first attack of a full attack.
No, because the rule is that you make an undefined attack (not a standard attack, full attack, or AoO), then choose whether it's a full attack or a standard attack based on what you do next. Just as it's true that you don't need the move option if it's a standard attack, you don't need the "assuming you have not already taken a move" clause if it's a full attack.
It is dependent upon the player deciding to take a move action or continue attacking.
Flurry of blows...Unless we conclude that the Paizo staff does not know how to properly interpret their own rules...
He meant the rules team. :)
|
Flurry of blows...Unless we conclude that the Paizo staff does not know how to properly interpret their own rules...
He meant the rules team. :)
Which does clearly demonstrate that the Paizo rules team do, occasionally, write the rules in such a way that it's easy to interpret them in a way contrary to what the rules writers think they say.
Which does clearly demonstrate that the Paizo rules team do, occasionally, write the rules in such a way that it's easy to interpret them in a way contrary to what the rules writers think they say.Flurry of blows...Unless we conclude that the Paizo staff does not know how to properly interpret their own rules...
He meant the rules team. :)
I agree. :)
|
I agree. :)Which does clearly demonstrate that the Paizo rules team do, occasionally, write the rules in such a way that it's easy to interpret them in a way contrary to what the rules writers think they say.Flurry of blows...Unless we conclude that the Paizo staff does not know how to properly interpret their own rules...
He meant the rules team. :)
This is not an example of that. The rules are crystal clear in this case. You must make a full-attack in order to gain the benefit from Manyshot. Making a full-attack precludes movement beyond a 5' step.
|
|
This is not an example of that. The rules are crystal clear in this case. You must make a full-attack in order to gain the benefit from Manyshot. Making a full-attack precludes movement beyond a 5' step.
The rules are also crystal clear that you may decide, after the first attack of a full attack, to take a move action instead of the remaining attacks.
It's a poorly written rule. For one thing, it says you may only make that choice if you haven't already taken a move action. The only possible move action you could have taken as part of a full attack is a 5' step (which is explicitly permitted, in any case), so the qualification of when you may make this choice is totally unnecessary; it neither allows nor disallows anything that would be treated differently were that section of the rules not present. But, poorly-written or not, it's part of RAW.
Personally I think that the intention (from the wording of the manyshot rule) is "neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three".
But, in any case, I can't get that worked up about it. By the time you get to the level of being able to use manyshot, one extra arrow from an archer isn't going to make all that much difference over a round. If the archer takes his opponent down on the first two-arrow attack, and doesn't have a reasonable target to switch to, I'll let him take a move. If somebody is trying to do "two-arrow attack then move" every round I'll consider ruling against it.
The rules are also crystal clear that you may decide, after the first attack of a full attack, to take a move action instead of the remaining attacks.
Which is the process of deciding between an attack or a full attack, meaning it is not a full attack action.
In any case, it is certainly true that the rules can be poorly written and intend something other than what they seem to. But if someone is going to claim that, they need to provide evidence to support it.
|
'The rules are crystal clear in this case. You must make a full-attack in order to gain the benefit from Manyshot. Making a full-attack precludes movement beyond a 5' step.'
Unless, of course, you 'decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.'
Our two camps have two different ways of reading the same rule. Our camp believes:-
• The 'Deciding between' rule is ONLY an option to those who chose the full attack action in the round in question. That's where the rule is, after all. After the first attack of that full attack sequence has been resolved and the results seen, you MAY 'decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'.
Your camp believes:-
• When in combat you do NOT choose what action you are taking (standard or full-round) until AFTER you have attacked and seen the results.
The trouble is, that second way of reading the rule means that you can't use any combat feat which requires you to take a specific action type (in terms of standard or full-round). This makes such feats unusable (Manyshot, Vital Strike, Rapid Shot, even abilities like Flurry of Blows). Since they MUST be useable for the game to make sense (these things aren't later 'splatbook' things; they are core), your camp has had to adjust it's reading to compensate. NOW, you say that you don't choose the action type until after the first attack....unless you want to. And then, without ANY rule to support you whatsoever, ALSO claim that choosing before the attack somehow 'locks you in' to that choice, and denies you access to the Written Rule to 'decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'.
Yor way of reading the rule relies on considerable mental gymnastics, contradictory ideas about when action types are chosen, denies access to a Written Rule by actually inventing your own rule just to deny that access, and leaves you unable to deal with a Monks Flurry of Blows, without houseruling.
Our way of reading the rules allows us to use the feats (which, by definition, MUST be RAI), rule consistently on the exact timing of when you actually choose your action type, allows us to deal with Flurry of Blows, rule consistently between TWF and the other feats that require you to be using a full attack, and do not require us to invent new rules to make it all work. All by just following the Rules As Written.
If you were new to Pathfinder/D&D 3.5, which way would YOU choose for the game to work? I'm confident that tha devs chose 'our' way of reading it as part of their writing process.
Your camp believes:-
• When in combat you do NOT choose what action you are taking (standard or full-round) until AFTER you have attacked and seen the results.
This is not true Malachi, and I implore you to gloss over the text again. You will find a 'may' in there. The correct way to put the position of this camp is:
• When in combat you do not HAVE TO choose what action you are taking (standard or full-round) until AFTER you have attacked and seen the results. You may also make this choice before your first attack (for instance when using Certain Feats).
Notice that this fixes all the problems you sketch, and also fixes all the 'inconsistencies' your camp has with the rules.
Coincidentally, it also proves Adamantine Dragon's point wrong that the rules are vague. Once more I maintain that reading closely there is no other interpretation possible.
|
|
Your camp believes:-
• When in combat you do NOT choose what action you are taking (standard or full-round) until AFTER you have attacked and seen the results.
I'm confident that the devs chose 'our' way of reading it as part of their writing process.
And the other camp is equally confident that you are wrong because the very way you choose to state what 'the other camp' believes (in a post which otherwise was pretty derisory and insulting) is exactly what the rules say.
You can't claim that the rule in question only applies to "full attack" when it explicitly says it is allowing for deciding between a full attack and an attack, and only allows a move in one of those cases.
The idea that they included that line to account for an outlier ability that didn't even exist at the time the CRB was written and already has appropriate limitations spelled out in the ability itself is not a very compelling argument.
I agree. This is a considerable problem for our side of the debate.
It would seem unacceptable to hang my interpretation of this rule on one single feat.
Are there any ways to move in a round before your turn?
Step up and Following stepBe bullrushed
Be grappled and pulled
Be dragged
While those can be argued to be movement in various ways, none of them are a move action which is what full attack refers to.
|
|
Are there any ways to move in a round before your turn?Be bullrushed
Be grappled and pulled
Be dragged
Also Swap Places.
But I'd only class Step Up (and maybe Swap Places) as moving; the rest I'd describe as being moved, which isn't the same thing.
|
|
This is not true Malachi, and I implore you to gloss over the text again. You will find a 'may' in there.Your camp believes:-
• When in combat you do NOT choose what action you are taking (standard or full-round) until AFTER you have attacked and seen the results.
Which is why I included your camp's 'modified' belief afterwards, because the statement itself leads to absurd consequences. In order to take your position out of the absurd you have had to modify it so that you 'may' choose before the attack. I also chose my rebuttal to your view to take into account this modified position.
I'm really trying to represent your camp's views fairly. I simply illustrated that it evolved from a simple statement (which leads to absurd consequences) to one which involves an option to choose before the first attack.
Now THAT is a fair criticism! I'm assuming that this 'modified' view, not the original statement, is the view you guys hold, and is the view that I'm criticising.
In order to take your position out of the absurd you have had to modify it so that you 'may' choose before the attack. I also chose my rebuttal to your view to take into account this modified position.
I'm really trying to represent your camp's views fairly. I simply illustrated that it evolved from a simple statement (which leads to absurd consequences) to one which involves an option to choose before the first attack.
Now THAT is a fair criticism! I'm assuming that this 'modified' view, not the original statement, is the view you guys hold, and is the view that I'm criticising.
Hi, Malachi.
The part about being a feat allowing an exception to the rule was important to me. The basic rule is that you normally choose whether or not to make a full attack after your first attack. However, the feat requires an exception to that rule because you can only fire two arrows with your first shot when making a full-attack. So, you're already full-attacking. Not decision is necessary after the first attack. And, movement (other than possibly a 5' step) is impossible, because you cannot move during a full-attack (except, possibly, a 5' step).
If you haven't committed to the full-attack, your first shot only fires one arrow.