Malachi, other examples of adjusted rules include but are not limited to drowning (which can heal you) and being dead/unconscious (which does not prohibit actions). There is nothing wrong with adjusting things to make the game run as intended. That is not a fair criticism unless you can show why it is unnecessary or why that particular adjustment is especially problematic. You have not done either; your descriptions of what the RAW is and what the problems with this ruling are have been inaccurate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless, of course, you 'decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.'
That right there ^ is where you slide off the rails. You are not being asked to decide between iterative attacks or a move action - you are being asked to decide between a Standard Action or a Full-Attack.
-A Full-Attack is a full round action that prohibits movement (other then a 5' step).
-A Standard Action is not a full round action and allows you enough time left over to take a Move action.
Generally speaking a character does not have to decide between an Attack (standard action) or a Full-Attack (full round action) until after he or she has made their first attack.
There are of course Feats and Abilities that preclude being able to make this choice.
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.
I certainly never held that belief, I've never modified anything, and I've critized those of 'my' camp who used confusing language.
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.
Your criticism holds no water against the 'modified' view (which is my original unchanged view). There are no mental gymnastics, there are just a few options.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's hilarious! Scroll back a few pages and you will find quotes (with links to the original posts) from just about every person on the development team who frequents these boards unilaterally diasgreeing with your camps point of view.
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.
My book says you attack and "then" decide. It does not say you decide attack, and decide again.
'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...
You did not answer my last question that I posed to you. :)
With that aside I am sure SKR and Jason do not agree with you. The book does say you attack, and then choose. "Then" is pretty simililar "after". Like I keep saying if a word is implying an order for the purpose of instructions most likely that order must be followed in regard to said instructions.
If not then I would like someone to tell me the purpose of the word "then" in that statement.
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.
That makes it even easier. If text says choose between these options, and the other rules say one of these options allows you to make a move action, guess which one is not a full attack?
I would say the one that allows you to move since it is consistent with the full attack, and full round rules. If you have a quote for a variant version of full attack I would like to see it. The one in the book says no move actions allowed.
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.
I like this guy. He reads the rules without bias even if it does cause him to change sides. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.That's hilarious! Scroll back a few pages and you will find quotes (with links to the original posts) from just about every person on the development team who frequents these boards unilaterally diasgreeing with your camps point of view.
Very true. Also, to answer the question from my experience.. completely anecdotal of course, but this has never caused so much as a hiccup in a game I've run or played in.
To be honest, people usually have a good idea of whether they need that Full Attack or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like this guy. He reads the rules without bias even if it does cause him to change sides. :)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.
Thanks! I'm more interested in learning the rules than in wanting to win an argument.
|
My book says you attack and "then" decide. It does not say you decide attack, and decide again.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.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, or who you are trying to argue against. FWIW, I'm pretty much on the same side as you are.
I read the rule as saying that you are allowed to change your mind after starting a full attack sequence, and instead decide (after the first attack) to take a normal "standard + move" sequence. But the rule does not allow for the possibility of something like manyshot where that first attack is better than a regular attack; it assumes the attack is either at a penalty (as would be the case for two-weapon fighting) or at best on a par with a single attack (the first attack of an iterative sequence, or a monk's flurry), so there is no mechanical advantage to be gained by choosing to full attack.
If you want the advantage of that extra arrow on the first shot, then you have to be prepared to pay the cost by giving up that choice, and completing the full-attack sequence.
My book says you attack and "then" decide. It does not say you decide attack, and decide again.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.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, or who you are trying to argue against. FWIW, I'm pretty much on the same side as you are.
I read the rule as saying that you are allowed to change your mind after starting a full attack sequence, and instead decide (after the first attack) to take a normal "standard + move" sequence. But the rule does not allow for the possibility of something like manyshot where that first attack is better than a regular attack; it assumes the attack is either at a penalty (as would be the case for two-weapon fighting) or at best on a par with a single attack (the first attack of an iterative sequence, or a monk's flurry), so there is no mechanical advantage to be gained by choosing to full attack.
If you want the advantage of that extra arrow on the first shot, then you have to be prepared to pay the cost by giving up that choice, and completing the full-attack sequence.
LOL. I have no idea how I read that incorrectly. Sorry about that.
PS:I see what happened. When you said "make a move action in place of the remaining attack", I read it as you saying that was also a full attack, and I then assumed you were making the same argument that the others are making. I guess I should not have skim-read you post.
Let's get into the meat of this.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
According to this you are deciding between something.
Well Full Attack is a something it's a Full Attack action. So it only logically follows that Attack must be an action too.
You can't decide between two terms unless you know what they mean.
luckily they are described in the combat section under "Action Types."
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.
You can't take a move action using a Full Attack action.
This leads logically to the conclusion that your "first attack" could happen after a move action which can only be done using a Move action and then a standard.
Your first attack is ambiguous. The point of this rule is to allow for that ambiguity.
If you use a feat that requires a Full Attack or Attack action then your first attack isn't ambiguous anymore.
Terms are often defined at the moment where they are most important not at the only moment they are important.
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.
I'm not satisfied. After looking at those feats, I cannot hinge my argument on them.
The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule assumes you have not already taken a move action in the same round that you are invoking the rule. My interpretation of the rule was that the first attack referred to in the rule is the first attack of a full attack, which means no assumption concerning previous move actions would be necessary. This is a problem for my interpretation, and it's been staring me in the face this whole time. (Perhaps it's 3.5-itis because the 3.5 rule does not contain the phrase assuming previous move actions.)
It's going to take some getting used to because it's strange and weird to me, and involves retroactive application of the rules; but, I'm going to have to switch my position.
The guys back home aren't going to like it, and I doubt we'll change the way we play the game, but the Skip Williams article Rules of the Game: Two-Handed Fighting (Part Two) is what most convinced me that I'm wrong.
This quote in particular was wholly unexpected and made me feel like I was the victim of a chaos beast attack:
Here is the meat of Skip's article:
If something leaps out at you and you decide to hack at it with your sword, you could also try to whack it with your torch (perhaps the foe seems slightly flammable, or perhaps you suspect you're facing a regenerating monster). You can make your attack roll with your longsword and observe the result before deciding between an attack or a full attack, but you must take a -4 attack penalty on that primary hand attack to preserve your option to attack with the torch. In this situation it would be entirely reasonable for the DM to make you take the -4 attack penalty before you see your first attack's result (because it speeds play); however that's not strictly necessary. The DM might allow you to see the result before deciding to attack with the torch. If that is so and you decide to try an attack with the torch, your DM must recalculate the result of your sword attack, taking the primary weapon penalty into account. (I don't recommend this option, but it fits the letter of the rules.)
Even if you decide to take the penalty, you don't have to attack with the torch, or even use the full attack action. If you decide to attack with the torch, you make a single attack with the torch and you'll take a -8 penalty for the off-hand attack and an additional -4 penalty for the improvised weapon (see page 113 in the Player's Handbook), for a total penalty of -12.
In the end I still agree with Adamantine Dragon and Malachi that my former interpretation of the rule is more intuitive, more straight-forward, and less problematic in that it doesn't introduce retroactive application of rules, I also don't fault anybody for making this interpretation, especially from the 3.5 rule; but, I am happy to see the abuse of Manyshot nipped in the bud.
That 'we' agree that one should be allowed to use TWF, Rapid Shot, Haste etc. with the Full Attack/Attack choice has more to do with not being sour rules lawyer GMs than it being allowed by the rules. You can make a case that it is indeed not allowed in this choice. Though I can see why TWF or Haste would be exceptions... I'm also not for recalculations, if you take the penalty that's that. Choices n consequences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The guys back home aren't going to like it, and I doubt we'll change the way we play the game, but the Skip Williams article Rules of the Game: Two-Handed Fighting (Part Two) is what most convinced me that I'm wrong.
How many pages back did I post this? I was certain it would convince people then. :(
Going back to recalculate isn't something you HAVE to do.
I wouldn't... I might not... It depends on the situation.
|
Sorry guys, not much time. I'll just quote this from 'your' camp:-
'The book does say you attack, and then choose. "Then" is pretty simililar "after". Like I keep saying if a word is implying an order for the purpose of instructions most likely that order must be followed in regard to said instructions.'
That would be all very well, but the book does NOT say 'you attack, and then choose' at all! You're going forward as if this were gospel. There is no 'then' in the rule, therefore no such 'instruction' to follow. I'll reproduce the rule again:
'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'.
The only decision here is whether to swap your remaining attacks for a move action. It says absolutely nothing about deciding if it's a standard or full-round action only after your first (unspecified in terms of standard or full-round) attack. You made that up!
I have to go to work. I'll pick this up tomorrow.
The word "After" is still used. I have used the word "then" in its placed incorrectly, but that also implies order. So now that my quote has been correct...?
You also did not answer my previous question.
I will also give you this to look at.
The question I asked is at the bottom of this post, but be sure to read the entire post.[/url]
|
|
Wraithstrike, the question you asked me in post#873, was answered by me.
In post#874.
I know you were trying to put words in my mouth. I chose to answer in my own words so that I could accurately describe my position.
This means that I chose the full attack action, then after my first attack, I decided to take a move action instead of making my remaining attacks, just like it said in the rule.
Now, because it turned out that my round consisted of a single attack (which happened to be the first attack of Manyshot) and a move action, then my round consisted of a standard action and a move action. But that's not what it WAS, that's what it BECAME. this change in nomenclature in no way changed what ACTUALLY happened during that first attack, at a period in time when it WAS a full attack.
The effect of 'The Rule' is to change a full attack action into a standard attack action plus a move action.
Got to go. More tomorrow.
Wraithstrike, the question you asked me in post#873, was answered by me.
In post#874.
I know you were trying to put words in my mouth. I chose to answer in my own words so that I could accurately describe my position.
This means that I chose the full attack action, then after my first attack, I decided to take a move action instead of making my remaining attacks, just like it said in the rule.
Now, because it turned out that my round consisted of a single attack (which happened to be the first attack of Manyshot) and a move action, then my round consisted of a standard action and a move action. But that's not what it WAS, that's what it BECAME. this change in nomenclature in no way changed what ACTUALLY happened during that first attack, at a period in time when it WAS a full attack.
The effect of 'The Rule' is to change a full attack action into a standard attack action plus a move action.
Got to go. More tomorrow.
I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I do admit that I don't remember seeing your answer. You are still dodging the question however.
Either you did or did not perform a full attack action in the same round that you performed a standard action. The answer is a simple yes or no.If no full round attack was performed then you don't get manyshot. If you did then there is no standard action. In short no matter how you answer the rules will either take away your move action or they will take away the manyshot.
Now if you can find a rules exception I would like to see it.
You still have yet to show where the rules allow you to change an action. By my post you can choose to do a full round action, or take standard action and a move action. This what you are allowed to to by the rules. If you saying you are allowed to change actions also then provide rules quote.
depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.
So what are some of the other camps argument for why it says this?
As I have said before you can't take a move action and then attack with a Full Attack. The only way you can do this is if you took a move action and then an Attack.
This really seems like the nail in the coffin about it being only a Full Attack rule.
But that's not what it WAS, that's what it BECAME. this change in nomenclature in no way changed what ACTUALLY happened during that first attack, at a period in time when it WAS a full attack.
This is where you're going wrong. It's not just nomenclature, it defines what actually happened for the entire round. If you make a standard attack, you can't use Manyshot. You already used Manyshot. So you can't change to a standard attack.
There is no "it WAS a full attack but NOW it's a standard attack" situation. If you declared a full attack and then transformed it into a standard attack, then what you made was a standard attack with all attendant limitations. Your actions in a round cannot consist of both a full attack and a standard attack. It is either one or the other.
I guess the thing I've never understood is, if the rules specifically and obviously allow you to either make a single attack and move, or make multiple attacks and not move, why would there need to be a special case "when you make multiple attacks and not move but only use one of your multiple attacks so you can move again" option? The logical leap to get there is confounding to me. It's reading ambiguity into a rule.
"Decide between an attack or a full attack" doesn't mean "make an attack, then decide if it's a full attack or if you'd rather move after a standard attack", but rather "make a first attack of a full attack, but then decide if your full attack isn't really a full attack, even though you get to count it as a full attack"? How is that a sensible reading of the rule? It's massively more complicated, and completely needlessly so.
|
I guess the thing I've never understood is, if the rules specifically and obviously allow you to either make a single attack and move, or make multiple attacks and not move, why would there need to be a special case "when you make multiple attacks and not move but only use one of your multiple attacks so you can move again" option? The logical leap to get there is confounding to me. It's reading ambiguity into a rule.
"Decide between an attack or a full attack" doesn't mean "make an attack, then decide if it's a full attack or if you'd rather move after a standard attack", but rather "make a first attack of a full attack, but then decide if your full attack isn't really a full attack, even though you get to count it as a full attack"? How is that a sensible reading of the rule? It's massively more complicated, and completely needlessly so.
Fretty, this thread is lame. You're better off spending time in the TWF and Unarmed Strike thread: it is much newer, and much more exciting.
It's reading ambiguity into a rule.
I think of it more as allowing ambiguity into the rules.
to quote James Jacobs.
The game doesn't have an official "STATE WHAT YOUR ACTIONS FOR THE ROUND ARE AND STAND BY THEM NO MATTER HOW THINGS WORK OUT" stance, really. It's more fluid and flexible than that.
"make an attack, then decide if it's a full attack or if you'd rather move after a standard attack"
This is another way of stating it. Perhaps a little less eloquent.
Remember Pathfinder is based on rules that have been around since 2000.
This rule changed wording a little bit(from 3.0 to 3.5) to make RAW reflect RAI but it's still the same rule.
The only difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 in this case is the wording of Manyshot.
In other words, if there is a problem with the wording of anything it probably appears in the one section that has had the least play testing.
Manyshot is confusing because it doesn't grant extra attacks like other Full Attack feats.
Manyshot is confusing because it's top heavy (you get all the benefit from your first attack).
Manyshot is also confusing because it doesn't include a "May" clause like the other Full Attack feats.
Is any of this really all that important? I didn't think so. It seemed to me that it was pretty easy to infer the correct usage when comparing it to the other Full Attack feats.
I'm finding it hard to understand why others haven't attempted to do the same.
I think others have gotten use to doing it a certain way, and they don't want to know their way is incorrect. That is the reason for the not so nice comments in the mirror image vs cleave and magic missile FAQ's. That is why I put up the constant reminder to remain civil. I respect AD even though I disagree with him in this case, but if he does not know the rule, and I normally see him post correct rules, then I guess some further explaining won't hurt. The same goes for Talonhawke wanting to know which rules lock you into a full attack, and which feats don't. He is another poster who knows the book well.
I respect AD even though I disagree with him in this case, but if he does not know the rule, and I normally see him post correct rules, then I guess some further explaining won't hurt. The same goes for Talonhawke wanting to know which rules lock you into a full attack, and which feats don't. He is another poster who knows the book well.
And I understand the confusion.
It's kind of a strange case of a feat being changed but not EXACTLY fitting the typical patter/feel of a Full Attack feat.
I'm not sure why the feat is worded the way it is. I am certain that is where all our arguments originate.
Neither feat actually uses a full attack action, they just require one to be in progress for them to work. If they each required a full attack action then they would not work together. I do admit they could have been written better, but with that aside I don't see how the idea that you can use a full attack, a standard action and a move action all in the same round is even being promoted.
edit:Just to be clear I am not disagreeing with Karlgamer.
I don't know I've spent a long time with the third edition rules. I still run into neat quarts in the rules that I didn't know before.
I'm always surprise when people think something was added to the rules later and looking at my first printing and seeing that NO it's always been the same.
It's amazing how right they got everything the first time with such a complex system. Ya they had to do some cosmetic with the lingo but the RAI has been solid since the beginning.
There were a few corner cases but they were obvious abuses of the rules that weren't going to fly with any experienced DM.
Mind you I wasn't such a GM back them. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think others have gotten use to doing it a certain way, and they don't want to know their way is incorrect. That is the reason for the not so nice comments in the mirror image vs cleave and magic missile FAQ's. That is why I put up the constant reminder to remain civil. I respect AD even though I disagree with him in this case, but if he does not know the rule, and I normally see him post correct rules, then I guess some further explaining won't hurt. The same goes for Talonhawke wanting to know which rules lock you into a full attack, and which feats don't. He is another poster who knows the book well.
Concerro, the difference between me and the anti-manyshot crowd who keep attempting to shout me down is this:
I do not say that their interpretation is not RAW. I agree that RAW can totally be interpreted their way.
What I am saying is that if you ask the question posed by the OP, and then look directly at the RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, SPECIFICALLY for manyshot and full attacks, then the rules say you can use manyshot in your first attack of a full action and then choose to move after your first attack resolves.
That is LITERALLY what the rule EXPLICITLY says. I don't care what all the convoluted quantum mechanical time reverse, tertiary recursive analysis and cross-referencing with developer blog postings on tangentially related topics can be interpreted to mean.
Both interpretations are RAW. That's the problem. The rules are inconsistent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
anti-manyshot crowd
I think the fact that you think of us as anti-manyshot is quite telling.
What I am saying is that if you ask the question posed by the OP, and then look directly at the RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, SPECIFICALLY for manyshot and full attacks, then the rules say you can use manyshot in your first attack as a free action and then choose to move after your first attack resolves.
Specifically, it a good word. The feat specifically says When making a full-attack action.
Generally, you get to Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack.
You don't get to do that in this case because you SPECIFICALLY chose to use a feat that REQUIRES a full attack.
Both interpretations are RAW. That's the problem. The rules are inconsistent.
No this isn't a situation where RAW can be read two ways. There is no inconsistency.
If there is any confusion it's in how Manyshot is worded, but the inclusion of the words "full-attack action" isn't an accident.
Sigh... do I need to post the state analysis again Karl?
I'm so done with this. You guys can claim victory through sheer volume and tenacity.
The rule needs errata.
Sigh... do I need to post the state analysis again Karl?
Actually I would love to know a few things about your camps point of view.
When the rules says: "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack"
What does it mean by Full Attack?
Does it mean a Full Attack action?
If so, does Attack mean Attack action?
If this rule is specifically a Full Attack rule then why does it say: "assuming you have not already taken a move action this round?"
Since A Full Attack action can't include a move action.
I think others have gotten use to doing it a certain way, and they don't want to know their way is incorrect. That is the reason for the not so nice comments in the mirror image vs cleave and magic missile FAQ's. That is why I put up the constant reminder to remain civil. I respect AD even though I disagree with him in this case, but if he does not know the rule, and I normally see him post correct rules, then I guess some further explaining won't hurt. The same goes for Talonhawke wanting to know which rules lock you into a full attack, and which feats don't. He is another poster who knows the book well.Concerro, the difference between me and the anti-manyshot crowd who keep attempting to shout me down is this:
I do not say that their interpretation is not RAW. I agree that RAW can totally be interpreted their way.
What I am saying is that if you ask the question posed by the OP, and then look directly at the RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, SPECIFICALLY for manyshot and full attacks, then the rules say you can use manyshot in your first attack of a full action and then choose to move after your first attack resolves.
That is LITERALLY what the rule EXPLICITLY says. I don't care what all the convoluted quantum mechanical time reverse, tertiary recursive analysis and cross-referencing with developer blog postings on tangentially related topics can be interpreted to mean.
Both interpretations are RAW. That's the problem. The rules are inconsistent.
The RAW never says you can start a full attack and then decide to not full attack so you can take a move action. It says you can take an attack(which at the time is undefined) and then go into a full attack. I understand Skip does not hold much weight with you so I wont waste my time with that statement, but it is a reason as to why the devs should go over the basic rules to give intent. I don't care about RAW so much because no matter how you write it someone can nitpick unless it is written in legalise and then most of us will just find it harder to understand. I look at the FAQ as a laymens understanding, just like if I had to see a lawyer he would explain how the law works.
Sigh... do I need to post the state analysis again Karl?
I'm so done with this. You guys can claim victory through sheer volume and tenacity.
The rule needs errata.
I wouldn't want to claim victory through sheer volume and tenacity. I'm sure it's very possible for the majority to be wrong.
Every couple pages or so that this thread continues, it's possible to boil the posts down to one or two points that the whole question hangs on.
If you were to filter the thread and only look at the posts by hangar flying, lakeside fantasy, and hrothgar, you would have a fairly pithy summation of the reasons I'm comfortable arriving at the conclusion I have.
|
|
Sigh... do I need to post the state analysis again Karl?
I'm so done with this. You guys can claim victory through sheer volume and tenacity.
The rule needs errata.
I wouldn't want to claim victory through sheer volume and tenacity. I'm sure it's very possible for the majority to be wrong.
Every couple pages or so that this thread continues, it's possible to boil the posts down to one or two points that the whole question hangs on.
If you were to filter the thread and only look at the posts by hangar flying, lakeside fantasy, and hrothgar, you would have a fairly pithy summation of the reasons I'm comfortable arriving at the conclusion I have.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...what'd I dooooooooo?
Concerro, the difference between me and the anti-manyshot crowd who keep attempting to shout me down is this:
I do not say that their interpretation is not RAW. I agree that RAW can totally be interpreted their way.
What I am saying is that if you ask the question posed by the OP, and then look directly at the RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, SPECIFICALLY for manyshot and full attacks, then the rules say you can use manyshot in your first attack of a full action and then choose to move after your first attack resolves.
That is LITERALLY what the rule EXPLICITLY says. I don't care what all the convoluted quantum mechanical time reverse, tertiary recursive analysis and cross-referencing with developer blog postings on tangentially related topics can be interpreted to mean.
Both interpretations are RAW. That's the problem. The rules are inconsistent.
Page 1, you stated exactly that. (bolding on both posts is mine)
Just to weigh in here: If you are making a single, regular, attack action (which manyshot is not) then YES, you can bail out after the first attack.
BUT, if you do anything that irrevocably commits you to full attack action (and manyshot is that) you cannot then bail out and take a move action.
- Gauss
Gauss, with all due respect please cite the rules which support this interpretation. "Full attack" says what I quoted above. It says nothing about the first attack being a "single, regular atttack action." It says "after the first attack."
You can rule this way in your games, but it is not RAW.
Note: I believe an errata is needed since there is clearly two large groups of people who see this differently.
- Gauss
As to this thread, I'm willing to concede and reverse my previous position.
You changed you mind.
|
|
Note: I believe an errata (sic) is needed since there is clearly two large groups of people who see this differently.
I don't believe the evidence supports that viewpoint. I believe there is one large group who sees it one way, and a much smaller group (who accuse the others of shouting them down) who disagree.
I'm also sure that there will be no 'clarification' or 'errata' posting, as Paizo have made it pretty clear in the past that they're not going to bother to spell out in excruciating detail every possible ramification of selective parsing of the rules to support a viewpoint when (in their opinion) a 'common sense' interpretation makes it plain what was intended.
JohnF:
How does evidence have anything to do with my belief? I stated my belief, I did not declare it a fact with evidence being required to back it up.
As for the size of the groups, that is a matter of opinion. There have been others on 'the other side' who, like AD, have dropped out for whatever reason. Personally, I have dropped out for similar reasons (and I haven't the time to really engage in the debtate atm).
Regarding whether or not a clarification or errata is forthcoming, I never claimed there was one. I did not state that Paizo would or would not. I did state that I BELIEVE one was needed.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 in this case is the wording of Manyshot.
In other words, if there is a problem with the wording of anything it probably appears in the one section that has had the least play testing.
Manyshot is confusing because it doesn't grant extra attacks like other Full Attack feats.
Manyshot is confusing because it's top heavy (you get all the benefit from your first attack).
Manyshot is also confusing because it doesn't include a "May" clause like the other Full Attack feats.
Considering that the 3.5 rule was that Manyshot stated "As a standard action, you may fire two arrows at a single opponent within 30 feet", and that this was changed to "When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows", it seems to defy reason to me to argue that PF Manyshot can be accomplished by performing a single attack, followed by a move. If Manyshot was intended to function like a standard action attack, why would they completely change the wording to include "full-attack action"?
That's why this entirely turns on the function of the "Deciding between" language. You can standard attack and move. You can full attack and not move. But people are arguing the "Deciding between" language creates a separate full-attack action whereby you perform a full attack, but abort it so you can still move. That's the ambiguity I was referring to. I honest to god do not understand how you come to that conclusion. This reading creates a full attack, which allows you to utilize actions ordinarily reserved solely for the full attack action, but for all other intents and purposes is the exact same as a standard attack. What possible reason would there be for that? Why have something that quite literally functions the exact same way as something else, for which there is already a rule?
It's a statutory interpretation thing. You have a standard attack and a full attack, and a rule that plain reading shows that you have the ability to see the results of your first attack before naming the action. Or, you have a standard attack and a full attack, and a rule that states you have the ability to treat your full attack literally the exact same way as you would treat a standard attack, but you still call it a full attack because that means you can use feats that can only be used during a full attack. That's not a Rules-as-Written argument, that's a hyperliteralism argument that's incredibly tenuous at best.
The "States" argument doesn't make any sense to me. Why you would need to create an extra full-attack action that functions exactly like a standard attack and move makes no sense to me. I'm simply at a loss.
|
|
Earlier, someone asked about the part of 'the rule' referring to 'assuming you have not already taken a move action this round'.
The combat rules of Pathfinder work the same as D&D 3.5, except where Pathfinder specifically change it. 'The rule' in 3.5 is:-
'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.'
Compare the same rule in PF:-
'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out AND ASSUMING YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY TAKEN A MOVE ACTION THIS ROUND. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.'
I've taken the trouble to capitalise the additional wording, which is the only difference to the written rule.
There are two possibilities here. One is that the extra wording prevents tricks like taking a move action, then an attack action, then 'taking a move action instead of making the remainder of your attacks' and defining the number of those additional attacks is zero. It also stops those who use Pounce to charge, full attack then, after the first attack of that full attack, take a move action instead of making the remainder of those attacks.
The other possibility is that this change in wording actually changes how the whole rule works, from being useable only by those who are taking a full attack, to suddenly saying that you attack without defining the action, then decide what action it will be after.
Really? Do you expect us to believe that, if the devs wanted to change how the rule works in PF, that THIS is the wording they would use! Of course not.
If you do believe that, let us know. Otherwise, the upshot is that the extra words do NOT change how 'the rule' works between the editions. Yes?
If so, that means that we can look at the 3.5 wording safe in the knowledge that the rule works the same in PF, without being distracted by phantom 'moves before the attack'.
Anyone who was previously uncomfortable with that additional phrase can set their minds at rest.
Compare the same rule in PF:-
'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out AND ASSUMING YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY TAKEN A MOVE ACTION THIS ROUND. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.'
I've taken the trouble to capitalise the additional wording, which is the only difference to the written rule.
There are two possibilities here. One is that the extra wording prevents tricks like taking a move action, then an attack action, then 'taking a move action instead of making the remainder of your attacks' and defining the number of those additional attacks is zero. It also stops those who use Pounce to charge, full attack then, after the first attack of that full attack, take a move action instead of making the remainder of those attacks.
Yeah, this is basically another example (pretty analogous to Manyshot, actually) of somebody trying to abuse the "Deciding between" language to circumvent the rather clear intent of the rules. If you move, cashing in extra attacks isn't an option. If that occurs before your attack, it's not an option because you can't make a full attack after that. If you move after you attacked, you clearly didn't full attack because the rules explicitly state you can't make a move action in conjunction with a full action. The "Deciding between" language gives you the option of determining when you're deciding between an "attack" and a "full attack".
No legal or mental gymnastics are necessary. You can't "cash in" zero attacks because, if you've made a move action, you have no extra attacks available that round. Pounce is not relevant because a Charge doesn't work that way; Charge is a special case action that is comprised of a movement and attack, but they are not separate. Furthermore, the language of charge explicitly states that you must move before a charge and not after. Pounce lets you full attack as a part of a charge. What you're arguing Pounce would let you do without this added language is move to charge, then move again (something specifically disallowed by charge) when nothing in the rules for Pounce state anything remotely close to that.
The language changes nothing. You've simply provided other examples in which people might try to argue that the "Deciding between" language allows them to declare a full round action to gain a benefit (extra movement from pounce, extra movement from a truly asinine argument that you can trade in zero attacks), but then "interrupt" the full attack to get something in addition to what the rules actually allow for.
You're creating specious arguments that aren't relevant because they aren't valid.
The other possibility is that this change in wording actually changes how the whole rule works, from being useable only by those who are taking a full attack, to suddenly saying that you attack without defining the action, then decide what action it will be after.
Not even a little bit. What the rule allows you to do is decide after the fact that you no longer want to make a full attack if it's no longer necessary, provided you haven't already made a decision which causes you to forfeit your ability to change your mind (like Pouncing or using Manyshot). It's a simple time shift. Declare what you're doing before you do it, but in this one instance (when your first attack solves the immediate problem) you can change your mind. Otherwise, as has been repeated as nauseam, you're arguing that "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" actually means "Deciding between Versions of Full Attack".
Your argument might, might hold some kind of merit if there wasn't a clearly defined standard action actually called "Attack". Why would they use language saying "Decide between one thing, which is something which has been defined above as a standard action, or this thing we're now talking about which is different than the standard action" if they didn't mean to reference the standard action which was previously defined? Why wouldn't they say, "Decide between a full attack with movement or a full attack"? Why use the word which has already been defined if they didn't mean the same thing?
The other possibility is that this change in wording actually changes how the whole rule works, from being useable only by those who are taking a full attack, to suddenly saying that you attack without defining the action, then decide what action it will be after.
Really? Do you expect us to believe that, if the devs wanted to change how the rule works in PF, that THIS is the wording they would use! Of course not.
If you do believe that, let us know. Otherwise, the upshot is that the extra words do NOT change how 'the rule' works between the editions. Yes?
If so, that means that we can look at the 3.5 wording safe in the knowledge that the rule works the same in PF, without being distracted by phantom 'moves before the attack'.
Anyone who was previously uncomfortable with that additional phrase can set their minds at rest.
Are you saying this section of the rules from the combat chapter works the same way it did in 3.5?
I am simply asking for a yes or no answer right now since my other question was assumed to be putting words in your mouth, yet I don't know how. I guess I should try again and rephrase the question though.
Are you or are you not by your other post performing a full attack, and a standard action in the same round?
If not then what actions were performed?
|
|
Your camp's defining of the word 'attack' here is specious. You constantly state that 'attack' is defined in the section on 'standard actions' (okay) and then falsely claim (and you KNOW it's false!) that 'attack' therefore means 'attack action i.e. standard action'.
You all know very well that 'attack' can be an attack action, or one element of a full attack, or a free action granted by casting a touch attack spell, or not-an-action when taking an attack of opportunity.
Your continued insistence that the word 'attack' in this rule MUST mean attack action is demonstrably false.
The 'deciding between attack and full attack' here, in less economic language, is 'deciding between only taking the first attack of your full attack, and taking all of your allowed attacks'.
'No where (sic) does it say you can give up your remaining attacks to move' you say. Really? Let's look again:-
'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'
There it is!
The language of the feats in question (Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Whirlwind Attack et al) do NOT require you to 'complete' a full attack, as your camp keeps insisting. They use the language 'when MAKING a full attack action'. To use them you need to be making a full attack action AT THE TIME YOU ROLL THAT ATTACK. it says nothing about being forced to 'complete' the action. Indeed, the ONLY written rule that applies here is (wait for it!):-
'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'.
There is no rule whatsoever 'locking you in' to completing the action, either in the combat chapter or in the feats themselves, despite several claims by your camp to the contrary.
|
|
Malachi: You can't see the forest for the trees. The TRUTH of the matter is that the rule in question (Deciding between an Attack and a Full-Attack) is actually asking you to decide between making an Attack and a Full Attack.
They capitalized the letters so readers would know they are referring to the Attack action (a Standard action) or a Full-Attack (Full round action).
Language is like a code. If you choose to ignore the nuances of the code (capitalization in this case) you're going to end up with the wrong translation - that's what is happening here with "your camp"
Sorry if this post is blunt and I don't mean it come off as mean or hurtful but to be quite honest I'm exasperated that you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious spirit of the rule. If you read the rule again (keeping the spirit of it in mind) it's impossible to see this rule as ambigous. It's clear as day.
|
|
'Are you saying this section of the rules from the combat chapter works the same way it did in 3.5?'
Yes. I think your camp also thinks this. My point is that the extra language in the PF rule does NOT change it, therefore those extra words are not part of the debate (either way) on which interpretation is correct. Especially as those extra words have been explained by our camp anyway.
'Are you or are you not by your other post performing a full attack, and a standard action in the same round?'
I've answered this question several times, but it's obviously not the answer you wanted. I'll try again. First, I choose the full attack action with my bow. Second, since I have the feat 'Manyshot', without any other statement from me, that 'first' attack shoots two arrows. At this point I am part-way through a full attack, which if completed would be a full-round action. However, 'After (my) first attack, (I decided) to take a move action instead of making (my) remaining attacks'.
Although it is not explicitly written in the CRB, intervention from a dev (in answer to a different question), says that if you only take a single attack in your turn then that attack was a standard action. Fine. Have I taken only a single attack (of the many I get for a full attack)? Yes. Therefore, at the moment I take that move action instead of making my remaining attacks, my first attack became a standard action, and looking back at the round just gone, it consisted of a standard action plus a move action. It was not a full-round action plus a move action, because a full attack consists of more than one attack because by definition a single attack is a standard action.
This in no way alters the past. When that first attack was rolled it was made during a full attack. 'The rule' changes the action type of the first attack 'en passant', simply by obeying 'the rule' itself and applying the logical consequences of the rule.
Now, I HAVE answered your question, in excruciating, exquisite detail. If my answer does not advance your argument, tough!