Full Attacks and Manyshot


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 1,215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Core Rulebook pg.187 wrote:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your
base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus
in Chapter 3), because you fight with two weapons or a
double weapon, or for some special
reason, you must use
a full-round action to get your additional
attacks. You do
not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of
time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before
assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a
5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between
your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack
bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in
order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two
weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you
are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part
of the weapon first.
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.

No where in this does it say that it ceases to be a full attack action. It doesn't say it turns your one attack into a standard action attack. What it does say is it turns the rest of the attacks in your full attack action into a move action. you are still taking a full attack, even if the rest of your attacks become movement.


I don't get this discussion about placement. It is irrelevant. The heading inescapably implies choosing between standard action (Attack) and full action (Full Attack).

Ed Girallon Poe wrote:
Core Rulebook pg.187 wrote:

Full Attack

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.

No where in this does it say that it ceases to be a full attack action. It doesn't say it turns your one attack into a standard action attack. What it does say is it turns the rest of the attacks in your full attack action into a move action. you are still taking a full attack, even if the rest of your attacks become movement.

Yes it does. Right where it says "Deciding between an [Attack] or a [Full Attack]."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The heading implies...

Yet the text afterwords spells out how it works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The text afterwards does not contradict that you are choosing between a standard action and a full round action.

The text afterwards explains when you may make the choice between standard and full round action.

I said 'inescapably implies'. It literally says that you make a choice between a standard action and full round action.

You may make a move action after a 'first attack' because a 'first attack' and a standard action are equivalent actions. (Compare: Manyshot first attack etc. are not equivalent to standard actions.) A standard action allows a move action. The text clarifies, but nothing more.

To wit: the text literally says "make your first attack and then choose whether it is a standard or full round action".


Look, I posted this awhile back but I will repeat it:

General:

CRB p187 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.

Specific:

CRB p130 Manyshot wrote:


Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. 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.

So there are two possibilities:

1) The Specific trumps the General. Specific in this case states it is a Full-attack action in order to use the ability. Thus, the decision is already made.

2) The Specific does not trump the general. This is based on an interpretation that regardless of the specific wording it is still a single attack and thus single attack rules apply.

Personally I think this is a situation of Specific trumping General. However enough leeway exists that if someone made a FAQ on this I would hit the FAQ button if only to remove people's confusion.

/end big reproduction quote

Point is: If you choose to use an ability, feat, power, whatever that specifies it is a full-attack action that is a specific statement as to what type of action is involved. It TRUMPS the general which is 'you can stop after one attack and choose to keep it a standard attack action'.

Yes yes, the other side of the discussion will bring up that manyshot has attack actions and that the full-attack action will state you can stop after one attack. Doesn't change the fact that manyshot requires a full-attack action. No full-attack action, no manyshot. So you are in a paradox and your game explodes. Please exit this time-space continuum as paradoxes are not permited.

- Gauss

Scarab Sages

JrK wrote:

I don't get this discussion about placement. It is irrelevant. The heading inescapably implies choosing between standard action (Attack) and full action (Full Attack).

Ed Girallon Poe wrote:
Core Rulebook pg.187 wrote:

Full Attack

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.

No where in this does it say that it ceases to be a full attack action. It doesn't say it turns your one attack into a standard action attack. What it does say is it turns the rest of the attacks in your full attack action into a move action. you are still taking a full attack, even if the rest of your attacks become movement.
Yes it does. Right where it says "Deciding between an [Attack] or a [Full Attack].

Numerous abilities proc off of declaring a full round action. Considering everything else that is included in the CRB one would think that somewhere, it would be mentioned that taking those abilities prevents you from following the flow of action as laid out under the full attack action description if that were the case. It's ridiculous to think that you start with a standard action and upgrade, and what's more it just doesn't work for the flow of combat as described. Not only is it anti-intuitive, but it means they had to spell out a whole lot of unnecessary information about what were and were not legal move actions in a place where it only makes sense for them to do so if those move actions [i]are part of another action already taking place[i].


The Fox wrote:
concerro wrote:
The paragraph is also not under(a subsection) of the "full attack" section. It is a subsection of the "Full Round Action" section.

Hmmm...

My CRB is organized as follows on p. 187 in the Combat Chapter:

> Full-Round Actions
....> Full Attack
........> Deciding between...
........> Fighting Defensively...
....> Cast a Spell

I am not interested in discussing this with you any further. I merely wanted to say that I agree with Adamantine Dragon and give my reason why. I marked it as a FAQ candidate, and plan on moving on. Cheers.

That is nice, but even so that does not make it an automatic full attack. It would simply be given you more information on who full attacks can work. I had already shown upthread how the placement was a nonfactor since words say "or" meaning you have to choose to do a full attack or an attack. That means one or the other.

PS:I will be checking the book to make sure that the PrD editing is correct though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:
Yes yes, the other side of the discussion will bring up that manyshot has attack actions and that the full-attack action will state you can stop after one attack. Doesn't change the fact that manyshot requires a full-attack action. No full-attack action, no manyshot. So you are in a paradox and your game explodes. Please exit this time-space continuum as paradoxes are not permited.

It does NOT say that you can stop a full attack action after one attack. That is found nowhere. It does say you may choose between a standard action and full round action after one attack.

There is no paradox because manyshot demands a full attack. The choice between standard and full round action can (but not MUST) be made before or after the first attack. But manyshot demands a full attack, thus you must choose a full attack before making any attacks.

There is no 'opt out of full attack' clause. There is a 'choose between standard and full round action after first attack' clause.

Quote:
Numerous abilities proc off of declaring a full round action. Considering everything else that is included in the CRB one would think that somewhere, it would be mentioned that taking those abilities prevents you from following the flow of action as laid out under the full attack action description if that were the case. It's ridiculous to think that you start with a standard action and upgrade, and what's more it just doesn't work for the flow of combat as described. Not only is it anti-intuitive, but it means they had to spell out a whole lot of unnecessary information about what were and were not legal move actions in a place where it only makes sense for them to do so if those move actions [i]are part of another action already taking place[i].

My point is that there is no breach of the 'flow of actions'. You are allowed the liberty of making a choice between a full attack or a standard attack after one attack. But some feats require you to full attack thus choosing before the first attack.


Ssalarn wrote:

I still think that, regardless of whether or not you are stepping a standard attack up to a full attack or "downgrading" your full attack, Manyshot will fire 2 arrows on the first strike. It's right there in the writing "Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow,

your first attack fires two arrows."

I personally think that you have to declare a full attack first, because otherwise, as others have stated, it's impossible to actually use Manyshot per the rules as written. Reading it otherwise leads to all kinds of ridiculousness. "I'm attacking with Vital Strike... oh, he's still alive? Well then I'm going to make it into a full attack." You can't do that, the devs have clearly said you can't do that, and that means that you're not "starting" with a standard action that you can roll into a full attack, you're starting with a full attack action and have the option to give up your iterative attacks. It says right in the action "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks". There are no remaining attacks in a standard action. With the exception of a single archetype and one special action, a standard attack is one attack. There are no "remaining attacks" in a standard action for you to forego.

Lets look at another feat:
** spoiler omitted **

Notice how it says "when you use the full attack action". Are you saying that someone could make a...

The book disagrees with you. It says make the first attack and then decide. I will give you the same challenge I gave to others. Show me a quote that says you get to decide to full attack first and then back out, as opposed to attack first, and then decide.


JrK wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Yes yes, the other side of the discussion will bring up that manyshot has attack actions and that the full-attack action will state you can stop after one attack. Doesn't change the fact that manyshot requires a full-attack action. No full-attack action, no manyshot. So you are in a paradox and your game explodes. Please exit this time-space continuum as paradoxes are not permited.

It does NOT say that you can stop a full attack action after one attack. That is found nowhere. It does say you may choose between a standard action and full round action after one attack.

There is no paradox because manyshot demands a full attack. The choice between standard and full round action can (but not MUST) be made before or after the first attack. But manyshot demands a full attack, thus you must choose a full attack before making any attacks.

There is no 'opt out of full attack' clause. There is a 'choose between standard and full round action after first attack' clause.

He is on our side. :) He was just having a little fun. :)


JrK, I didnt say it does. I said that the other side will say that. Slight difference. :)

The paradox was also a comment about the other side's pov. See the humor? They perform a full-attack, make a Manyshot attack, decide not to take the rest of thier attacks and the game explodes due to the paradox. Perhaps Ive been watching too much Doctor Who lately (been marathoning it for the last week).

- Gauss


I was just pointing that out because many seem to have a hard time reading that. Gauss does not point out that there is no 'opt out of full attack' clause, and one could even interpret it as there being one.

I know he's on our side! 8)

ADDIT: That's why I think there is no 'paradox' even. Just people using a rules prohibited combination of actions.

Scarab Sages

Ed Girallon Poe wrote:

The heading implies...

Yet the text afterwords spells out how it works.

Exactly. You don't use the fluff text from a feat to determine how it works mechanically, you use the clearly spelled out benefit. If I were to use the feat Dazzling Display as an example:

"Dazzling Display (Combat)

Your skill with your favored weapon can frighten enemies.

Prerequisite: Weapon Focus, proficiency with the selected weapon.

Benefit: While wielding the weapon in which you have Weapon Focus, you can perform a bewildering show of prowess as a full-round action. Make an Intimidate check to demoralize all foes within 30 feet who can see your display."

The fluff would imply that I can frighten enemies with it, but the description of the ability makes it clear that it does not actually do that. Context is required for clarification, like when a detailed description for the flow of actions available in a full attack is listed under the Full Attack section in a rulebook.


Ssalarn wrote:
JrK wrote:

I don't get this discussion about placement. It is irrelevant. The heading inescapably implies choosing between standard action (Attack) and full action (Full Attack).

Ed Girallon Poe wrote:
Core Rulebook pg.187 wrote:

Full Attack

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.

No where in this does it say that it ceases to be a full attack action. It doesn't say it turns your one attack into a standard action attack. What it does say is it turns the rest of the attacks in your full attack action into a move action. you are still taking a full attack, even if the rest of your attacks become movement.
Yes it does. Right where it says "Deciding between an [Attack] or a [Full Attack].
Numerous abilities proc off of declaring a full round action. Considering everything else that is included in the CRB one would think that somewhere, it would be mentioned that taking those abilities prevents you from following the flow of action as laid out under the full attack action description if that were the case. It's ridiculous to think that you start with a standard action and upgrade, and what's more it just doesn't work for the flow of combat as described. Not only is it anti-intuitive, but it means they had to spell out a whole lot of unnecessary information about what were and were not legal move actions in a place where it only makes sense for them to do so if those move actions [i]are part of another action already taking place[i].

You are not starting with a standard action, and then upgrading. You are simply attacking, then deciding to keep it as standard action or continue into a full attack action. This is the only case I know of where you get this option. I guess technically you are upgrading, but ruleswise you are never told to declare anything until after the first, barring special cases like Manyshot.


The heading is not fluff in this case because it explicitly references the Attack and Full Attack action.


Ed Girallon Poe wrote:

The heading implies...

Yet the text afterwords spells out how it works.

The later text agrees with the heading. You make the attack then decide if you want to continue attacking or take a move action. I see no contradiction.


Camping this thread. 8)


*points at Ssalarn* who's side is he on anyway? He is confusing my poor addled mind. J/K Ssalarn :)

- Gauss


I think the big dis-correlation is that it seems odd for you to have a full attack that consists of one attack and movement.But that's what it is saying. You are still taking a full attack. you are just "deciding to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks", as written. Manyshot still works instead of not working at all, as the "standard into a full attack" crowd believe.

Gauss- I do agree with you on one thing. Nobody is right. This isn't going to get anywhere without Dev interaction.

I'm tired of internet arguments at 2 in the morning. If you want to be right proclaim yourself right and move on. Bickering won't help at this point. FAQ'D.


Correction Ed Girallon Poe: Someone is most certainly right. The problem is neither side is going to 'win' this argument without Mommy or Daddy coming and telling us which one is right. (Yes, we are often acting like children here.) Personally, if I were Mommy or Daddy I would let us continue to fight it out amongst ourselves because then at least we would leave them be. LOL

You know, I really really should not post this late. It is sometimes equivalent to being punch drunk! Heheheh

BTW Ed Girallon Poe: 2am eh? that puts you in the pacific timezone. What part?

- Gauss


Yeah, people can't even tell which side they're on anymore (glares at Sslaran). J/k.

Edit* Middle California.


Full Attack actions have a specific meaning by the book. It means you take iterative attacks.

A full attack action is not composed of a move and standard action any more than it is composed of several attack actions.

You either make the full attack action or you just get to attack. It is in the book plain as day. I don't even see how you can argue that. I am already right. I just need a dev to prove it. It is just like when I take a test and get 100%. I have the 100% already. The instructor just has to verify. Lack of verification is not going to make me any less correct though. It just means I don't have the proof that others want to see.

PS:I am 100% in long threads like this when awaiting a dev response. :)
I wouldn't bet against me. :)


Ed Girallon Poe wrote:
I think the big dis-correlation is that it seems odd for you to have a full attack that consists of one attack and movement.But that's what it is saying. You are still taking a full attack. you are just "deciding to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks", as written. Manyshot still works instead of not working at all, as the "standard into a full attack" crowd believe.

At this point I'm more inclined to believe it is a failure to read the heading.

"deciding to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks" does not contradict in any way that you may choose to do [Attack = standard action] after your first attack. This is what it says btw. You choose to do a [Full Attack] or [Attack] and then "deciding to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks".

I'm not saying you turn your standard into a full attack or otherwise. I'm saying this (let us apply logic because reading is hard):
1. make one attack
2. choose between [Attack] and [Full Attack]
3. if [Attack] => move action, if [Full Attack] => remaining attacks.

That is why:
1a. [Manyshot] => choose [Full Attack]
2a + 3a. Does not apply anymore.


I'm pretty sure most people (on both sides) have never used PF Manyshot in any other way than by full-attacking with it, nor will they in the future (other than by house-ruling it to work both on standard actions and on full-attack actions, which I will likely do).

This thread is just an exercise in rules-lawyering. But finding holes (however minute) is the only way to make the rules better :)


Ed: Ahhh, Im sorry :) I live in Boise, Idaho.

Yeah, this thread got Concerro out of 'hiding' behind his alter-ego. If Concerro posts he is damned sure about what he has to say.

- Gauss


[quote: the damned book again]
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.

Question: Why do they spell this out under the Full-attack actions part and not the standard or just plain attack section? This is spelled out as still being a full-attack action, since it never even utters the words "standard action",


Ashiel has a cult. Wraithstrike has minions. I think Concerro needs to stop hiding so much. He is feeling unloved. Maybe I can convert one of the nonbeleivers, but then my avatar would have to change to something other than an assassin. Hmmm? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

Ed: Ahhh, Im sorry :) I live in Boise, Idaho.

Yeah, this thread got Concerro out of 'hiding' behind his alter-ego. If Concerro posts he is damned sure about what he has to say.

- Gauss

I like Wraithstrike better.


Quote:
since it never even utters the words "standard action",

Once again yes it does. Right where it says "Attack" or "Full Attack".

The Attack action is a standard action. Look at the capitalization.


Ed Girallon Poe wrote:

[quote: the damned book again]

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.
Question: Why do they spell this out under the Full-attack actions part and not the standard or just plain attack section? This is spelled out as still being a full-attack action, since it never even utters the words "standard action",

A full attack is greater(better) than a standard action so I guess it makes sense to put it there. I don't know much about book editing so I may be wrong about that.

It never says it is a full attack action. It is giving you the option of an attack or a full attack. It is not saying you get full attack version 1 or full attack version 2. It even says you have to choose one or the other. Are you saying that is a 10+ year old typo, and that gamers around the world have been doing it wrong?

By the other rules of the game a single attack is an attack action so if you don't full attack then it defaults to a standard action. Also if you take a move action then you don't have room for a full attack action so the attack still defaults to a standard action. They could have printed it again as a reminder, but I think it is a waste of ink to do so.


JrK wrote:
Quote:
since it never even utters the words "standard action",

Once again yes it does. Right where it says "Attack" or "Full Attack".

The Attack action is a standard action. Look at the capitalization.

Now look at the capitalization of every other header like it. see the disparity. Capitalization stands for nothing in a header.


Hmmm, I didnt know Ashiel was you Concerro. Nor can I find that nick in the user search.

Ed: LOL, Wraithstrike does seem to be nice..then again, I seemed to be nice until I brought my alter-ego, Panther, out a long time ago. Ahhh what a killing spree (this was back in my MUDing days).

Hmmm, perhaps I should resurrect Panther someday. :D

- Gauss

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
concerro wrote:
Ashiel has a cult. Wraithstrike has minions. I think Concerro needs to stop hiding so much. He is feeling unloved. Maybe I can convert one of the nonbeleivers, but then my avatar would have to change to something other than an assassin. Hmmm? :)

I have changed my stance. Primarily for 2 reasons:

1)"Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks."

Makes it pretty clear that if you're moving, and it's not a 5 foot step, you are not currently involved in a Full Attack Action.

2) Having realized that Concerro was Wraithstrike, and reviewing the fact that I almost universally agree with the things Wraithstrike says, and taking into account the fact that it is now after 2 in the morning and I am lacking substantially in sleep, I am forced to call into question my judgement up to this point thus far.


Ed Girallon Poe wrote:
JrK wrote:
Quote:
since it never even utters the words "standard action",

Once again yes it does. Right where it says "Attack" or "Full Attack".

The Attack action is a standard action. Look at the capitalization.

Now look at the capitalization of every other header like it. see the disparity. Capitalization stands for nothing in a header.

The headings seem to be official games terms. Following the other headers it is referring to the game definition of an attack which is a standard action.

Scarab Sages

Gauss wrote:

Hmmm, I didnt know Ashiel was you Concerro. Nor can I find that nick in the user search.

Ed: LOL, Wraithstrike does seem to be nice..then again, I seemed to be nice until I brought my alter-ego, Panther, out a long time ago. Ahhh what a killing spree (this was back in my MUDing days).

Hmmm, perhaps I should resurrect Panther someday. :D

- Gauss

I could've sworn I've seen Ashiel and Wraithstrike have heated debates in multiple threads..........


Bravo Ssalarn! Welcome to the errr...dark side? Damn, no...that isnt right. Light side? Doesnt have the same ring.

I thought Ashiel was someone else too.

- Gauss


Ashiel isn't concerro; unless he has two different user accounts (Ashiel isn't an alias). I think he was just using Ashiel as an example of someone who had a type of follower :)

Scarab Sages

Gauss wrote:

*points at Ssalarn* who's side is he on anyway? He is confusing my poor addled mind. J/K Ssalarn :)

- Gauss

The problem was that I was only like 20% sure where I stood overall, but 100% sure about the point I was making in each individual sentence. I believe I may have had a brief Gollum-esque moment where I was making two opposing points simultaneously, while asking a separate question.


concerro wrote:

A full attack is greater(better) than a standard action so I guess it makes sense to put it there. I don't know much about book editing so I may be wrong about that.

It never says it is a full attack action. It is giving you the option of an attack or a full attack. It is not saying you get full attack version 1 or full attack version 2. It even says you have to choose one or the other. Are you saying that is a 10+ year old typo, and that gamers around the world have been doing it wrong?

By the other rules of the game a single attack is an attack action so if you don't full attack then it defaults to a standard action. Also if you take a move action then you don't have room for a full attack action so the attack still defaults to a standard action. They could have printed it again as a reminder, but I think it is a waste of ink to do so.

If it wasn't an alteration to a full attack, It should have been placed earlier in the same chapter under attacks (if it's its own thing) or standard attacks (if it entailed standard attacks). Hell, it could stay where it is and still say something about standard attacks, but it doesn't. Which is why I believe that it would simply be a full attack that gave up all iterative attacks for the equivalent move action.


Ahhhh, thanks for clearing that up Are. For some reason I couldnt use the search function to find Ashiel's user profile. It came up empty. Had to search for him via posts instead. Weird.

- Gauss


Are wrote:
Ashiel isn't concerro; unless he has two different user accounts (Ashiel isn't an alias). I think he was just using Ashiel as an example of someone who had a type of follower :)

That is correct, and myself and Ashiel do get into debates from time to time, but we mostly agree, except for when he is wrong. ;)


Bad Gollum...err Ssalarn! Don't even know how to have a proper debate. Pick a side next time and stay there! sheesh!

- Gauss


Yeah, I said it before and I need to remind myself. Goodnight Gentlemen. As much as I trust concerro's rules expertise, I simply would need have a dev say it to change my mind :/ So I'll simply wait for that.


Ed Girallon Poe wrote:
Yeah, I said it before and I need to remind myself. Goodnight Gentlemen. As much as I trust cocerro's rules expertise, I simply would need have a dev say it to change my mind :/ So I'll simply wait for that.

Oh, can't even spell my name correctly. I will let it go because you are sleepy. ;)


Yeah, how many times have you mispelled my name Concerro? :D

- Gauss

Scarab Sages

All of the people I look to for definitive answers are camping this thread while my question gets pushed farther and farther down the list.... Sad...

I feel good about this thread though. It has solidified my take on this whole affair. Kinda sucks a bit for archers, TWF, and monks, though the only ones I feel bad for are the Monks. Committing to his Flurry and dropping an enemy with no one else within 5 feet is gonna be super lame for our monk.


What question got pushed down the list?


Ed Girallon Poe wrote:


If it wasn't an alteration to a full attack, It should have been placed earlier in the same chapter under attacks (if it's its own thing) or standard attacks (if it entailed standard attacks). Hell, it could stay where it is and still say something about standard attacks, but it doesn't. Which is why I believe that it would simply be a full attack that gave up all iterative attacks for the equivalent move action.

The rules applies to both standard actions and full round actions, so it could have been placed in either section, but it makes more sense to place it in the later section so that it doesn't refer to game rules that haven't been defined yet. There is no 'standard attack' term in the game rules, there is an 'Attack' (which is a standard action), and that is exactly the wording that 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' uses. Further, the statement "and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round" makes it clear that this section is referring to both standard action Attacks and full round action Full Attacks (since it would be impossible to take a full round action if you've already used a move action).


Ssalarn, Im not included in that list I hope. That would be...scary.

- Gauss

Scarab Sages

concerro wrote:
What question got pushed down the list?

I was trying to get a little clarification on the abilities Amplified Rage and Sympathetic Rage (the title of the thread) how they interact with each other, and whether Amplified Rage would work with an Urban Barbarian's Controlled Rage.

101 to 150 of 1,215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Full Attacks and Manyshot All Messageboards