Full Attacks and Manyshot


Rules Questions

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,215 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

ClintOfTheEasternWood wrote:

I think the wording in "Deciding between an attack or a full attack" has tricked everyone. It really comes down to what action you make to start a full attack.

Do you:
A) Make an attack as a standard action and then decide to continue shooting or move? (Which I think was the intention of the entire thing.)

or

B) Make a full attack and then abort it for a move action after the first attack?

That is incorrect. I know you don't want to read 1000+ post, but that has already been covered. :)

I think both groups agree that the first attack does not have an action attached to it under the normal(no feats to modify it) attack rules.

Silver Crusade

Grimmy wrote:
PRD wrote:
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.

The part I bolded tells me that this first attack is not necessarily the first attack of a Full-Attack. If you had already moved you couldn't possibly be initiating a Full-Attack, right?

Does this support the idea that a first attack can exist in an indeterminate state before it has been decided whether to Attack or Full-Attack?

Not directly I guess.

But it does counter the idea that this whole paragraph assumes that a Full-Attack has been declared and initiated.

That is, as much as the mention of "remaining attacks" suggests that a Full-Attack is assumed to be in progress, the provision that a move action must not have been taken suggests the possibility that a Full-Attack is not in progress.

The only way to reconcile this to my satisfaction is to arrive at the understanding that it is possible to make an attack which is temporarily not defined as belonging to the standard Attack action or the Full-Attack action.

tl;dr:
"I can take an attack before I decide whether or not to Full-Attack. But to Many Shot, I'll need to Full-Attack"

Before this crazy thread came along, that was all the thought I ever had to give to this issue. 1000+ posts later all the mental gymnastics bring me right back to the same place. But it's been a fun exercise.

I'm glad you brought this up , Grimmy!

As I mentioned above, the bolded part of 'the rule' is new to Pathfinder; it is absent in the 3.5 version.

The two possibilities are:
1.) the bolded part was added for clarity, but otherwise did not change the way 'the rule' works, OR
2.) 'the rule' works differently in PF to the way it did in 3.5.

So, Grimmy, if 1.), then the rule can be read WITHOUT the bolded part confusing the issue, therefore it's use as evidence in this argument has no value. If 2.), then you're admitting that, in 3.5, 'the rule' worked differently, I.e. the way our camp has been reading it. Not only that, but you're saying that, in order to change the way the'the rule' works, that THIS is the wording they chose?

Which is it, Grimmy, 1.) or 2.)?


1. As I have said the rule did not change. You just played it wrong in 3.5. In short Skip was correct. I will also add that something used for clarity actually has value because it is emphasizing a point, and whatever the point is, is usually important.

Silver Crusade

'Really? Then why is your camp arguing that you can take an attack without defining what action it is?'
'Because the rules state that which of the two attack-type actions you are making is (or can be) undefined until after the first attack has been resolved and the decision made. Why is this a problem?'

It's a problem because the rules do NOT state that the first attack is made without defining the action type. You are INFERRING this (incorrectly) but it does NOT say this!

'A full attack takes an entire round to complete.'

Agreed. When you use 'the rule' to take a move action, the full attack is NOT competed. But it WAS started, and it WAS a full attack-in-progress when that first attack was rolled. After 'the rule' is used to get a move action, it stopped being a full attack FROM THAT POINT.

Guys! I know that you don't agree with me on this, but PLEASE stop posting like you don't understand what I mean. I've made my position crystal clear many, many times. The way we've played it for over a decade has encountered no problem ever. I don't mind you not agreeing with me, I don't mind you supporting your case, I don't mind you attempting to de-construct my case; I'm doing the same in reverse. But I DO understand what your case IS, and I don't pretend otherwise just to make a point.

You KNOW that I don't believe you can 'back out' of an action half-way through and change it for another action, apart from the specific case where 'the rule' let's you, during a full attack action ONLY!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

'Really? Then why is your camp arguing that you can take an attack without defining what action it is?'

'Because the rules state that which of the two attack-type actions you are making is (or can be) undefined until after the first attack has been resolved and the decision made. Why is this a problem?'

I agree with his if no special abilities are in play. In short the first attack is not defined for a normal(no feats and such involved) until after you make the attack. Then you can decide to move which means the first attack is a standard action or you can take your iterative attacks. I think we all agree on this. At least the people on my side do anyway.

Now if you use an ability requiring action X then the devs intend for you to use action X.

Quote:

Agreed. When you use 'the rule' to take a move action, the full attack is NOT competed. But it WAS started, and it WAS a full attack-in-progress when that first attack was rolled. After 'the rule' is used to get a move action, it stopped being a full attack FROM THAT POINT.

The problem with this idea is that your "downgrade the action type" logic does not says what a full round action is downgraded to, as shown in my other post when I used charge to move up to double my speed with only move action.

Quote:


Guys! I know that you don't agree with me on this, but PLEASE stop posting like you don't understand what I mean. I've made my position crystal clear many, many times. The way we've played it for over a decade has encountered no problem ever. I don't mind you not agreeing with me, I don't mind you supporting your case, I don't mind you attempting to de-construct my case; I'm doing the same in reverse. But I DO understand what your case IS, and I don't pretend otherwise just to make a point.

Actually I am using your logic within the rules, or at least my understanding of your logic, and applying it to other rules. Our way of doing it fits neatly within the rules. If you are going to argue that the absence of a rule saying you can't do X means that it is allowed then why should I not use that to show how it creates problems elsewhere? If I have misunderstood your logic then I do apologize, but you need to explain so that it applies to the rules as a whole. You can't just say it applies only to full attacks without a rules statement especially since in this case you are using an abscence of an explicit statement to assume that you can do something we don't think is allowed.

Quote:


You KNOW that I don't believe you can 'back out' of an action half-way through and change it for another action, apart from the specific case where 'the rule' let's you, during a full attack action ONLY!

I have yet to see a rules quote that allows you to back out of a full attack and/or downgrade it to a lesser action. As I keep saying by the normal rules you attack and then decide. If you don't like the word "then", the word "after" is in the book.

Even if you can start a full attack and then stop it, which you can it, that would not count. If I only paint half of a house then the house is not painted. Either something is done or it is not done. A full round attack takes up an entire round. You did not take the entire round therefore you did not full attack. You also can't take a move action if you full attack. From what I am reading you are trying to say you did and did not full attack at the same time. That is not even logical. Now if that is not what you.

Just to be clear I am not saying you always have to attack before you decide, only that is what the book says for normal situations.

If your manyshot as standard action stands then my charge idea also stands. I certainly don't see a rule saying I can't do it. Heck since there are no general downgrade rules I can just say the act of moving was a free action.

Silver Crusade

The full attack is 'downgraded' to a standard action merely by it's incompletion leaving it as a single attack, and according to the dev, if it was a single attack then it was a standard action.

As to 'applying the logic' to other rules? This is naughty, Wraithstrike. You know very well that our position is that 'the rule' ONLY applies once you have taken the first attack of your full attack action. We know this because 'the rule' is a sub-section of full attack, which is itself a sub-section of full-round action. The ONLY consistent way of ruling it is that it only applies to full attacks.

It WOULD be crazy to apply 'the rule' to things which are NOT full attacks, given it's placement in the rules. The idea of applying it to, say, a charge WOULD be unsupportable, and you also know that no-one IS supporting it. Your mentioning it just to ridicule it is a debating tactic, but since I don't hold that view, and have stated many times that 'the rule' only applies to full attack actions, then your use of this spurious argument leaves a lot to be desired.

I have to go; I'll return to this tonight.


The dev is also going by the fact that the decision is made second. There is no rule or dev input for deciding first, and then trying to cancel that decision.

Actually it is not naughty. It makes sense. Just to be clear I am speaking of your idea that "the rules don't say I have to complete the full attack". So I decided the rules don't also say I have to complete a full round action. I really don't see how one applies and the other does not.

Quote:
It WOULD be crazy to apply 'the rule' to things which are NOT full attacks, given it's placement in the rules. The idea of applying it to, say, a charge WOULD be unsupportable, and you also know that no-one IS supporting it. Your mentioning it just to ridicule it is a debating tactic, but since I don't hold that view, and have stated many times that 'the rule' only applies to full attack actions, then your use of this spurious argument leaves a lot to be desired.

I think it is crazy to think you can full attack, and not full attack in the same round. You keep saying this "rule" applies to full attack actions, but you have yet to present a quote for that rule. Every time it is questioned you say the rules don't require you have to complete the full attack action. That however is not a rules quote. It is an absence of a rules quote. So you need to provide a rules quote saying you can decide and then back out(change it into a standard or other action), or you can keep going with the logic of "the rules don't say I can't". If that is your argument then you need to show proof that such logic only applies to the full attack section.

You can't arbitrarily decide the rules don't say "I can't back out of action X and downgrade" it while using an absence of a rule as your defense and then act surprised when I apply it elsewhere in the book.

In short if an absence of a rule is a valid defense for that part of the book then you have to explain with rules or dev support why it does not apply elsewhere.

PS:I understand what you are trying to say with regard to the attack/full attack section. What I am failing to understand is why I should only apply your belief to that one section of the book alone? That is why I asked for rules support or dev support.

I also present to you rule #2 of practical optimization:
2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.
The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry.

This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Moglun wrote: 'There is no rule that states you must actually take an action to count as taking that action BECAUSE IT'S SELF-EVIDENT.' (emphasis mine)

Really? Then why is your camp arguing that you can take an attack without defining what action it is?

As to the Pounce question: 'the rule' ONLY applies to those who are taking a full attack ACTION, which is a full-round action. Pounce only applies when taking the charge action, which is a different full round action, and therefore cannot use 'the rule'. Pounce allows a full attack at the end of a charge, but that full attack is NOT a full attack ACTION, nor is it an action at all in this case; it's part of the charge action.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
You KNOW that I don't believe you can 'back out' of an action half-way through and change it for another action, apart from the specific case where 'the rule' let's you, during a full attack action ONLY!

This is hogwash. Show me a rule where you can only use the rule during a full attack action. The "Deciding between" language says explicitly that it is deciding between an "Attack" and a "Full Attack". It does not say it is deciding between an "Attack Action" and a "Full Attack Action". Remember how big of a deal this was for you when everybody else tried to apply the common sense interpretation of "Attack" as "Attack Action"? You cried and bemoaned how the rule doesn't actually mention the "Attack Action", so it could be anything! But now that exact same rule specifically applies to only "Full Attack Actions"? That's flatly ridiculous. If you're not going to be consistent, what's the point in having this discussion?

Plainly put, Pounce allows you to make a "Full Attack" at the end of a charge. The "Deciding between" allows you to sacrifice your iterative attacks when making a Full Attack (not a Full Attack Action, because, using your logic re: "Attack v. Attack Action" the rule never actually specifically says Full Attack Action). Therefore, per your logic, you can abort a Pounce after making a double movement and a single attack in order to move again utilizing the "Deciding between" language.

"But," you'll say, "there are other 'attacks' that aren't the same as the 'Attack Action'! We can't know that the 'Attack' in the 'Deciding between' language means the 'Attack Action'!"

To which I respond, "1. The reference to Attack is rather obvious, considering context and the discussion of iteratives, and, more importantly, 2. There are other 'full attacks' that can be made that do not qualify as the 'Full Attack Action', specifically 'Pounce'. As you so correctly declared, 'Pounce' is not a 'Full Attack Action', yet it allows you to make a 'full attack' nonetheless. Ergo, we cannot know that the 'Full Attack' in the 'Deciding between' language actually refers specifically and solely to the 'Full Attack Action'."

So, either your "But it doesn't specify the Attack Action!" analysis is correct, or you must admit that it also doesn't specify the Full Attack Action, either.


Still nothing from the devlopment team i assume?


Talonhawke wrote:
Still nothing from the devlopment team i assume?

I was just about to ask the same question. 30+ FAQs and 3 weeks later...

Liberty's Edge

The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Still nothing from the devlopment team i assume?
I was just about to ask the same question. 30+ FAQs and 3 weeks later...

They haven't made any FAQ clarifications in like a year, that I'm aware of. Get comfy, because there are a whole bunch of other stuff that needs to get answered too.


Yeah, last one was in March, according to the FAQ tab of the CRB; it has been a while.


there were some back when the race guide came out


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
You know very well that our position is that 'the rule' ONLY applies once you have taken the first attack of your full attack action. We know this because 'the rule' is a sub-section of full attack, which is itself a sub-section of full-round action. The ONLY consistent way of ruling it is that it only applies to full attacks.

That is false. It is inconsistent with 'deciding between an attack and a full attack', with 'assuming you have not already taken a move action this round', and with the rest of the book which includes rules applying outside their section several times. For one of many examples of the latter, a subsection of the attack action section is the critical hit section. I assume you believe that a character making a full attack can use the critical hit rules. So why is it that the 'deciding between' rule only applies to the full attack section where it is found, but the critical hit rule does not only apply to the standard attack section where it is found?

The claims that you can apply Manyshot to what even you have described as a standard action attack because 'the first attack counts as a full attack', and that a rule only applies to the section it's found in even though the text, precedents in the other rules, and common sense indicate the opposite, are both unsound. They are illogical, unsupported by the rules, and inconsistent with the rest of the rulebook. You seem like an intelligent person and I think that you suspect this yourself, but are refusing to accept it because it would mean losing an argument.
EDIT: To put that a little differently, are you looking for evidence of what is correct any more, or are you looking for evidence of what makes you correct?

Liberty's Edge

Huh. Well, it'll be nice to see the weekly rules blog again.

Sczarni

Malachi, I will finally concede that there may be ambiguity in the "Deciding between an Attack and a Full-Attack" rule, but only in regards to the various uses of the word "attack".

That being said I still don't understand how you explain the following portion of the of the Full Attack rule and the specific requirements of Many Shot;

Full Attack wrote:
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
Many Shot wrote:
When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.

If a Full-Attack action is required in order to use Many Shot, how is it that you can cash in your remaining attacks for a move action if the only move that is permitted with a Full-Attack is a 5' step?

Many Shot = Full Attack, Full Attack = No Move other then a 5' step.

No ambiguity there.

Even if I was to hypothetically concede that your version of the "Deciding between" rule is RAW, you would still be in violation of the above in the scenario you purport to be legal.


He is trying to say that starting a full attack counts as full attack for the purpose of manyshot, but after the first attack he can cancel the full attack, and still get his move action.

That is how he is able to, by his interpretation, get the benefits of manyshot, and still move. This way he is not making a full round attack since the full round attack is not completed. In short he is making a full attack, but not making a full attack in the same round. Now his argument for this is that the rules don't say he had to complete the full attack(round) action once it is started.

So I applied that same logic to charge, but then wants to say that "rule" only applies to the full attack section we are discussing. I have yet to see evidence however.

Sczarni

My interest in this is waning. I'd like to hear from Malachi himself on how he reconciles the full attack movement contradictions that are only inherent in his 'camps' interpretation.


HangarFlying wrote:
The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Still nothing from the devlopment team i assume?
I was just about to ask the same question. 30+ FAQs and 3 weeks later...
They haven't made any FAQ clarifications in like a year, that I'm aware of. Get comfy, because there are a whole bunch of other stuff that needs to get answered too.

I think they still occasionally pop in and answer things informally and announce that it's in the que for faq/errata treatment later.

I remember Jason Buhlman showed up in a thread about abusing wayang spell hunter or something like that.


Yep


Krodjin wrote:

My interest in this is waning. I'd like to hear from Malachi himself on how he reconciles the full attack movement contradictions that are only inherent in his 'camps' interpretation.

If you are asking how he uses manyshot and then moves he posted it earlier in pretty good detail. I did not like his answer, but it was detailed. If that is what you are asking about I can find the post and link back to it.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The full attack is 'downgraded' to a standard action merely by it's incompletion leaving it as a single attack, and according to the dev, if it was a single attack then it was a standard action.

Okay, so how can you take a move action before your first attack with a full attack action?

What started as a full attack can't change into a move + standard attack.

You can't call something RAW if it doesn't fit RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

1. As I have said the rule did not change. You just played it wrong in 3.5. In short Skip was correct. I will also add that something used for clarity actually has value because it is emphasizing a point, and whatever the point is, is usually important.

Yup. Thanks Wraith.

Malachi.. what he said^^

Silver Crusade

Thanks for your help, Wraithstrike. It is tiring and tedious to go through the same arguments over and over, just because some posters have only just joined us.

I'm sure none of us likes going round in circles. Still, it could be worse; if we were playing 4th edition we'd be going round in squares. : /

I would like the two of us, Wraithstrike, to move this debate forward. We are the ones who have been here longest so we are up to speed on each others' positions. We don't have to agree on the issue itself, but we can agree on what our disagreement is!

Earlier in the thread someone posted that he HAD bothered the devs with this exact question, and the response he got was along the lines of 'no clarification needed'. Cheers! I respectfully submit that, over 1000 posts later, that a clarification IS needed!

My position on this issue has changed (slightly) since I started on this thread. Originally, the way I and everyone I ever played D&D with since the last millennium played it the way I've described, without any problem. It never entered our heads that there even WAS another way to interpret 'the rule'! After first reading this thread (I think I had to read about 150 posts before I started) I became aware of another 'camp' and it's strange way of reading it. At that point I thought your camp's reading of 'the rule' to be TOTALLY unreasonable. Since then, over the course of 1000 posts, I've had to modify my view. Self-evidently there are enough sincere contributions on BOTH sides that I have to concede that your camp's view CANNOT be TOTALLY unreasonable.

I still think it's much LESS reasonable than ours. I imagine that you have gone on a similar mental journey.

So, here we are. We should both acknowledge (however much it hurts) that 'the rule' can be read in two (not totally unreasonable) ways, and some official, SPECIFIC clarification is in order. Paizo seem to be a little busy right now.

Let's imagine that we each worked for Paizo. Let's imagine that one of our bosses has noticed this thread, and decided to do something about it. And let's imagine that they give you the task of re-writing 'the rule' so that it works in the way you think it does, and no reasonable person would be in any doubt. I don't ask you to try and make it impossible for UNreasonable people to read it differently; such skill is beyond mere mortals like us!

So, write 'the rule' as it should have been written. Post it on this thread. I'll do the same. Mine will be written as if our camp's interpretation is correct (of course). The rule each of us will post will be as if the rule was in the book from the start. It won't try to tell you what the rule ISN'T; that's not how rules are written.

Once both of our rules are posted, we will then be able to support our view and deconstruct our opponents' view, knowing that we are at least ridiculing the view our opponent ACTUALLY holds, not a twisted version of it.

Are you up for it, Wraithstrike? Post away!

Sczarni

Malachi, while I'm interested in seeing your rule I'm most interested in hearing how you reconcile the inherent contradiction in your interpretation.

If the only move allowed as part of a full-attack is a 5' step, how can you cash in your iterative or remaining attacks for a move action?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
So, here we are. We should both acknowledge (however much it hurts) that 'the rule' can be read in two (not totally unreasonable) ways, and some official, SPECIFIC clarification is in order. Paizo seem to be a little busy right now.

I understand the confusion but after vetting the rules properly I can't understand how it could be read in two ways.

I think there is a reason that people have switched sides.

I still haven't heard a good response to the part of the argument regarding taking a move action.

"and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round."

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I still think it's much LESS reasonable than ours. I imagine that you have gone on a similar mental journey.

Well, it's not unreasonable to assume that if a feat calls for a certain type of action that you must use that type of action.

I suppose you have said that this is in fact reasonable.

Well, it's not unreasonable to assume that the "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack:"

This is common practice in Textbooks. Terms are often defined at the moment where they are most important not at the only moment they are important.


So just going to ignore the whole "Pounce" issue that your interpretation creates, then?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, this is still going? Those cheesy "Full attack, Manyshot, just foolin', no full attack!" guys are still rules-lawyering it up?

Good! Fun times!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It is tiring and tedious to go through the same arguments over and over, just because some posters have only just joined us.

It's not that people are unaware of your explanations and rebuttals, it's that your answers haven't resolved the inconsistencies and errors in your position.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Earlier in the thread someone posted that he HAD bothered the devs with this exact question, and the response he got was along the lines of 'no clarification needed'. Cheers! I respectfully submit that, over 1000 posts later, that a clarification IS needed!

I agree. I was sure before this thread started that an alternate interpretation was highly in the minority. Now I see it may have more traction than I thought.

Quote:
So, here we are. We should both acknowledge (however much it hurts) that 'the rule' can be read in two (not totally unreasonable) ways, and some official, SPECIFIC clarification is in order. Paizo seem to be a little busy right now.

They are in the middle of two rule books AFAIK, but hopefully we can get some feedback before RPG Superstar gets kicked off.

I am up for it.

My version of the section in debate wrote:


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.

Yes nothing has changed. I think that fits perfectly well with the idea of you have to do a full attack, or not full attack. It also fits the idea of you being able to do a full round action or a move and standard action.

I think the issue here is our disagreement that you can change a full round attack into a lesser action. I would address that with the following clarification/errata

Wraithstrike wrote:


You may not voluntarily stop an action once you start it.

From what I understand the idea that you may stop a full attack is the main hold up between both groups. That would also stop my charge idea. It also means that once you use manyshot you can't just stop since you know it takes a full attack action to get it started. :)

Since you can't roll back time, if you decide to make only one attack with your first shot and not declare an action you just have to do a normal full attack.

If there are other things in the way that I missed I will be more than happy to make new errata.

Wraithstrike wrote:
When making a full-attack action with a bow, you may fire two arrows with your first attack. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

I added the word "may".

Silver Crusade

You dropped the ball there, Wraithstrike! Since you didn't change the rule, 'our camp' will read it the same way!

The re-draughting is supposed to make it clear that 'the rule' works the way your camp thinks it does. This leaves our camp still reading 'attack' as the first of your full attack, and 'remaining attacks' as the rest of that full attack. It also still applies to full attacks (taken as full-round actions) only.

Paizo gave you a job to do, and you didn't do it.


LOL. OK I was being lazy.

After being scolded by SKR and Jason:

My rewrite wrote:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, which has no action assigned to it unless you declare a full attack before the first attack is made, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks. Depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

If you decide to full attack "before" instead of "after" the first attack you are not allowed to stop attacking and keep the first attack as a standard action.


I still haven't heard a good response to the part of the argument regarding taking a move action.

"and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round."

Sczarni

Or regarding the fact that any kind of move, other then a 5' step, is prohibited when using Many Shot (or any other full attack action).


Krodjin wrote:

Or regarding the fact that any kind of move, other then a 5' step, is prohibited when using Many Shot (or any other full attack action).

He explained this. I am just not buying his explanation. I also reexplained it to avoid him having to repeat it.

me wrote:

He is trying to say that starting a full attack counts as full attack for the purpose of manyshot, but after the first attack he can cancel the full attack, and still get his move action.

That is how he is able to, by his interpretation, get the benefits of manyshot, and still move. This way he is not making a full round attack since the full round attack is not completed. In short he is making a full attack, but not making a full attack in the same round. Now his argument for this is that the rules don't say he had to complete the full attack(round) action once it is started.


Yeah it took me a long time to figure out that malachi was advocating 2 arrows from 1 standard action via many shot.

For the longest time I thought he meant movement as part of a Full Attack was possible.


I don't really think the rule needs a rewrite, but just for fun, I guess I would try something like this:

rewrite idea wrote:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide whether to continue into a Full Attack, 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.

Sczarni

Sorry Wraith I didn't believe you the first time. I mean that makes less sense rules wise then taking a move action as part of a full- attack, and it doesn't really explain how you'd still be able to use Manyshot - given the fact that many shot requires a full attack.

I've finally come to accept that a small percentage of people may read ambiguity in the "deciding between" rule. But there is no ambiguity in the specific rules of Many shot.


Grimmy wrote:
I don't really think the rule needs a rewrite, but just for fun, I guess I would try something like this:

I think that if anything need rewording it's Manyshot.

Also I think they should have feats that give you a negative on your Attack action for a bonus on your move.

That way you can take a negative on your standard attack and then decide after your first attack to take the reast of your itterative attacks.

Honestly it seems like a missed oportunity.

Who wouldn't take a -2 on attack if it means he can get a potion and drink it.


Krodjin wrote:
Or regarding the fact that any kind of move, other then a 5' step, is prohibited when using Many Shot (or any other full attack action).

Well, I's specifically wanting to know how they defend being able to move first.

"and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round."

With using the Full Attack action you can NEVER already have taken a move action before your first attack.


Wraithstrike - would you mind summarising the two opposing camps for me?

There's no way I'm going to read through a thread which got to 1000+ posts before I noticed it. What are the best arguments for the two main positions, in your opinion, and which one do you favor?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, again, it's unofficial, but here is James Jacobs' take.

I know which horse my money's on...


Play fighter archer, don't move and finish full attack. Everything in area is dead, continue with game out of combat.


littlehewy wrote:

Well, again, it's unofficial, but here is James Jacobs' take.

I know which horse my money's on...

My god that guy's a saint. Do you know how many times he's specially answered that question already?

Silver Crusade

Thankyou, Wraithstrike. I will go forward with this debate assuming that your camp reads 'the rule' as if it were written like that.

I respectfully suggest a slight tweak; as written, you can't use Vital Strike. You only allow full attack to be chosen before the attack. You would need to definately choose the attack action before the attack is rolled in order to use VS and other feats that require you to be using them. I'll tweak the wording, and you can let me know if that wording is okay, or fix it yourself:-

'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, which has no action assigned to it unless you declare a full attack or an attack action before the first attack is made, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks. Depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

If you decide to full attack "before" instead of "after" the first attack you are not allowed to stop attacking and keep the first attack as a standard action.

If you decide on the attack action ''before'' instead of ''after'' the first attack you are not allowed to continue with your attacks.'

Is that fair? Tweak it again if you want.

Okay, SKR's looking over at me; I better get on with it! 'The rule' as our camp reads it, and how we would re-write it to avoid confusion:-

'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: During a full attack action, 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.'

From now on in this debate, THIS is how our camp reads 'the rule', and how we would re-write it to avoid confusion.

If you think it doesn't do what I think it does, let me know and I can tweak it.

I used the 3.5 version of the rule as a base. We've agreed that the extra wording in PF did NOT change how 'the rule' worked, and with the new wording it would be redundant.

So the change to the wording makes it clear that, in order to use 'the rule' at all, you must have already chosen (and be part way into) a full attack action (note the word 'action' means that Pouncers are out of luck). Understand that our camp already reads 'the rule' this way!

Remember that poster who said he'd bothered the devs with this specific question? Remember that the answer he got was something like 'no clarification needed'? I submit that the reason they thought none were needed was because, by it's placement in the rules as a sub-section of full attack in the section on full-round actions, it should be obvious that it's talking about an option available only to those in a full attack!


Grimmy wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

Well, again, it's unofficial, but here is James Jacobs' take.

I know which horse my money's on...

My god that guy's a saint. Do you know how many times he's specially answered that question already?

No I didn't. But now I feel silly :)


Steve Geddes wrote:

Wraithstrike - would you mind summarising the two opposing camps for me?

There's no way I'm going to read through a thread which got to 1000+ posts before I noticed it. What are the best arguments for the two main positions, in your opinion, and which one do you favor?

In the full attack section which is under the full round section lies a subsection:

Quote:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

The title of the section basically says you are deciding to full attack or attack. In my opinion the words "decision" and "or" imply you have to make a choice. Within the paragraph itself it says that, "after", you make your first attack you may take your remaining attacks, which assumes you choose the full attack, or you may move. In my opinion when reading instructions words such as "after" imply a sequential order.

The opposing camp is of the belief, well some of them anyway, that no matter you decide that you are full attacking, however full attack is game defined term that only works with iterative attacks.

Some of them such as Malachi do agree with us that if you decide to move that the first attack is to be considered a standard action. That also fits with the heading since a single attack is normally a standard action.

Manyshot specifically requires a full round attack, which is a full round action. Full round actions take up the entire round, and they do not allow for a move action. This is stated within the combat chapter more than once.

Malachi believes that you can start a full round attack, giving you the option to use manyshot, but once you take the first attack giving you 2 arrows you can stop, and then move. Since he did not complete the full round action it would count as him not taking it, therefore he can take the move action.

I however do not believe it is possible to take an action, and not take it at the same time. If you take the full round action you are denied the move and standard action by the rules. If you did not take the full attack action then you can not use manyshot. There is also no verbage that I have seen that says you can just stop full attacking, or any other action after gaining the benefit of it. There is also no rule saying how the action downgrades which would be needed if such a rule existed.

Now the rule don't say you have wait until after your first attack to declare a full round attack. I think the option is there for a normal(no feats etc) full attack action, however if you are using something like manyshot or whirlwind then you would have to declare ahead of time, and in that case you are locked in.

Even dev(Skip williams, SKR, and Jason) quotes say you can take the full attack or attack and move.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Thankyou, Wraithstrike. I will go forward with this debate assuming that your camp reads 'the rule' as if it were written like that.

I respectfully suggest a slight tweak; as written, you can't use Vital Strike. You only allow full attack to be chosen before the attack. You would need to definately choose the attack action before the attack is rolled in order to use VS and other feats that require you to be using them. I'll tweak the wording, and you can let me know if that wording is okay, or fix it yourself:-

Since Vital Strike is a standard action you automatically lose the ability to full attack since the rules already state that you can't use a standard action and a full attack in the same round. The only reason you can full attack after the first nondescript attack for a normal attack progression is because it does not have an action assigned to it when you first make it. That is why I don't the following is needed.

[qoute]

If you decide on the attack action ''before'' instead of ''after'' the first attack you are not allowed to continue with your attacks.'

I say that because part of writing the rules is making them easy to understand while saving word space. More words equal bigger books which means a higher price.

Quote:

'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: During a full attack action, 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.'

The problem with this is that manyshot was not intended to be used as a standard action which. It's very wording shows evidence to that. Taking the first attack of then not full attack is still not full attacking. Now if you still think it was RAI to be able to pull the plug on a full attack, then I would still think that by RAW you would believe that manyshot requires a full attack, and one attack is not a full attack.

So my question to you is this. How do you rewrite either rule in your opinion to make sure an action based off a full attack is not used as a standard action?

Quote:
I submit that the reason they thought none were needed was because, by it's placement in the rules as a sub-section of full attack in the section on full-round actions, it should be obvious that it's talking about an option available only to those in a full attack!

Actually the devs have done that more than once when the answer was not clear. In short sometimes what they think is clear is not clear. I am not bashing them though. I would have done the same thing. When Adamantine Dragon first began to argue the points he made I thought he was just playing devil's adocavate, I was so sure that the answer was "obvious". I still think the answer is pretty clear, but it is not as cut and dry as it seemed, and I can see how someone might need to put some thought into it.

PS:Normally a "clear" is one that you don't really need to put much effort into.

Silver Crusade

Wraithstrike, the wording of Vital Strike ('When you use the attack action'), is exactly similar to the wording of Whirlwind Attack ('When you use the full-attack action'), which is comparable to both Rapid Shot and Manyshot ('When making a full-attack action').

Your argument is that Manyshot et al cannot take advantage of 'the rule' because the feats 'require' you to take a full attack action and 'the rule' is only open to those who have not defined their single attack until after they made it. The same must be true of Vital Strike. The same argument says that you MUST choose to use the attack action BEFORE your first attack. My point is that the way you re-wrote 'the rule' does not allow you to choose 'attack action' before the first attack. It only allows you to take a full attack before the attack. This would render Vital Strike (and any feat that requires an attack action) unusable due to your wording of 'the rule'. I'm confident that you believe that you MAY choose an attack action before the first attack; my suggestion was merely intended to let your version of 'the rule' work the way you think it does.

I'm not trying to trick you. For the debate to move forward, it is important that each of us clearly understands the other's position, without the need to agree with that position.

Silver Crusade

Wraithstrike asked:-

'So my question to you is this. How do you rewrite either rule in your opinion to make sure an action based off a full attack is not used as a standard action?'

My answer is this: I am not motivated to make sure 'an action based off a full attack is not used as a standard action'! First, remember that 'the rule' is precisely for aborting a full attack after the first attack. Second, when we abort the full attack (by 'taking a move action instead of our remaining attacks') we do so after a single attack. So it was not a full attack after all, even though it was when we started.

We have trains in Britain. We invented them, after all. The distances we can travel in the UK are limited compared to the vast, multi-day journeys possible in the US. Most trains are therefore made for short journeys (a few hours, tops). There are some 'sleeper' trains which have beds in them, but they are only needed for the longest of journeys. Imagine I'm going from London to Edinborough. I can get a sleeper train! Great! So I get on the train at London and settle down for a snooze. After the train sets off I get a phone call. Oh, no! Johnny's fallen down the well (again)! I get off the train at the next stop, my Scottish plans abandoned. But, I STILL had a snooze in an actual bed! Something only possible on a sleeper train, which is only available to those going to Scotland! I don't go back in time and snooze on a normal train seat. I'm not arrested by the transport police for failure to complete my journey!

Just to be clear; I'm not really talking about Manyshot per se. I'm talking about the way 'the rule' works, universally. Only by understanding THAT can we then determine what should happen in corner cases.

About 'aborting' your action. JJ himself said that the rules don't force you to complete an action; they're more flexible than that. He even said so in capital letters. Right before he went against his own principle in the case of Manyshot. : /

In his defence, he DID give a reason for that. It wasn't that he believed that 'the rule' should be read as 'locking you in' to an action (he said quite the opposite). He said that Manyshot is DIFFERENT because you get an advantage but no penalty on Manyshot's first attack, while for TWF, Rapid Shot, Whirlwind Attack et al you get a penalty but no advantage if you only take one attack.

While I don't agree with his conclusion, it IS a valid argument. But it is a DIFFERENT argument than the one about how 'the rule' works in normal circumstances.

Wraithstrike, I don't have the skill to ask direct questions of the devs. It takes me three goes just to type my own name right. I still half believe that someone keeps switching the keys round when I'm not looking. So, I'm asking you to do us all a favour. I'd like you to ask the devs a question, NOT about Manyshot or feats or special abilities, just about how the 'Deciding between' rule works. Something like this:-

'Dear (dev), there are two opinions on how this rule actually works:-

(this is where you cut and paste the 'Deciding between' rule from the CRB)

Does the rule mean this:-

(this is where you cut and paste your re-writing of the rule)

OR does it mean this:-

(this is where you cut and paste my re-writing of the rule. You can put mine first and yours second if you want)

Thankyou in advance, from everyone who ever plays Pathfinder and/or D&D 3.5.'

The more devs you can ask, the better! It'd be great if you post their replies on this thread. Note that the question does not try to influence them one way or another, nor does it mention any feats. We're simply asking how the game is played at a fundamental level.

Cheers!

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,215 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Full Attacks and Manyshot All Messageboards