One of the points that keeps being brought up is how Manyshot is not much different when compared to Vital Strike. We should examine this point.
Assuming a composite long bow
Manyshot: +1d8+str+magic+deadly aim+non-precision extra dice (such as fire)+anything I missed. No critical, no sneak attack (precision).
Vital Strike: +1d8, no criticalFor those of you that keep saying Manyshot is equivalent to Vital Strike: It clearly is not. The damage is much higher.
There is a reason it is full attack. The damage is significantly improved when compared to vital strike.
- Gauss
Most of us know that the weapon's base damage, is not that important. It is the other bonuses that make a character do damage. This has been mathematically shown in several threads.
I also don't understand the argument of you can attack to get manyshot's benefits, and still move, but if you move first then you can not use manyshot, which is basically what those trying to use manyshot as standard action are saying.
I also don't understand the argument of you can attack to get manyshot's benefits, and still move, but if you move first then you can not use manyshot, which is basically what those trying to use manyshot as standard action are saying.
It's because it's after the first attack that you can decide to take a move action, instead of the rest of your attacks.
You make the first attack, planning on using them all. Then, decide whether or not to continue attacking after the results of the first attack are determined. If you don't continue attacking, you may move.
● Manyshot: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.
● 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...
You have to be open to continue with iterative attacks in order to use manyshot. If you move first, you don't have that option.
One of the points that keeps being brought up is how Manyshot is not much different when compared to Vital Strike. We should examine this point.
Assuming a composite long bow
Manyshot: +1d8+str+magic+deadly aim+non-precision extra dice (such as fire)+anything I missed. No critical, no sneak attack (precision).
Vital Strike: +1d8, no criticalFor those of you that keep saying Manyshot is equivalent to Vital Strike: It clearly is not. The damage is much higher.
There is a reason it is full attack. The damage is significantly improved when compared to vital strike.
- Gauss
Why can't vital strike have "+str+magic+deadly aim+non-precision extra dice (such as fire)+anything [you] missed"???
It's only dice. And Karlgamer I wanted full attack actions not full round actions.
The reason I ask is if everything else that only works on a full attack that I've named can still opt to change I want to know what else actually forces the lock.
How many of you play magic the gathering?
Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. If an instruction requires taking an impossible action, it's ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn't, there's no effect.)
Why am I bring up a rule about magic? We're not even talking about that game.
Here's the thing almost all games follow a variant of this rule. Although it isn't always so clearly mentioned.
You generally can't use your Dex for attacks with Melee weapons. But you specifically can when you use Weapon Finesse.
You generally can't make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. But you specifically can when using Whirlwind Attack.
You generally can decide between your a full attack and an attack afther your first attack. You specifically can't when using Manyshot, Whirlwind or Medusa's Wrath.
This is the General versus specific argument that someone brought up earlier. You know the very good argument everyone just ignored.
Why can't vital strike have "+str+magic+deadly aim+non-precision extra dice (such as fire)+anything [you] missed"???One of the points that keeps being brought up is how Manyshot is not much different when compared to Vital Strike. We should examine this point.
Assuming a composite long bow
Manyshot: +1d8+str+magic+deadly aim+non-precision extra dice (such as fire)+anything I missed. No critical, no sneak attack (precision).
Vital Strike: +1d8, no criticalFor those of you that keep saying Manyshot is equivalent to Vital Strike: It clearly is not. The damage is much higher.
There is a reason it is full attack. The damage is significantly improved when compared to vital strike.
- Gauss
Vital strike specially says you only get the weapon's base damage
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
As an example if a weapon does 1d8+bonuses then vital strike makes it into 2d8+bonuses, not 1d8+bonuses multiplied by 2.
It's only dice. And Karlgamer I wanted full attack actions not full round actions.
The reason I ask is if everything else that only works on a full attack that I've named can still opt to change I want to know what else actually forces the lock.
The lock is normally gained by accepting access to the benefit. In short if you don't take the penalty you don't get the benefit. I have yet to see a rule that works any differently from that RAI. RAW I am sure I can find a few loopholes.
With whirlwind attack it does not specifically say you have to give up your option to attack or full attack, but if you can wait until after the first attack to decide then you can make the single attack, and then go into a full attack action and activate whirlwind, and you therefore still follow what the feat says because you are giving up your normal attacks. <--I don't think that is the correct reading of the feat, but by the logic that "you don't have to decide until a full attack until after the first attack" that is a valid idea. You also get a free attack plus the whirlwind attacks.
Rapidshot, much like TWF locks you into a penalty(negative to hit).
Manyshot locks you into a full attack action. Since manyshot says that it must be made part of a full attack it is impossible to get it without full attacking.
Manyshot's benefit takes place on the first shot so guess when you are locked in? Yeah the first shot, just like whirlwind locks you in the moment you decide to use it.
edit:clarification
My understanding is that bonus damage is handled the same for vital strike and manyshot. Damage represented as extra dice is only added once. That's how I read the text on both.
But, I do see why you see manyshot as superior to vital strike in as far as archery.
The advantage, with manyshot, would be there are actually two arrows. So, there would be some things that would get added twice (in the hands of an archer with the weapon and ability to deliver two above average arrows). Vital strike lacks the dual hit of manyshot from a second arrow.
However, damage reduction and such like apply twice against manyshot, while it only applies once against vital strike. So, again, the two are balanced against one another, but may have varying effectiveness in different situations or against different opponents.
So, my stance remains unchanged. I'll allow manyshot before iterative attacks (or movement in exchange for iterative attacks, if no 5' step was taken prior to the dual shot) and vital strike either before or after movement.
Rapidshot, much like TWF locks you into a penalty(negative to hit).
Rapid Shot uses identical language to manyshot. If manyshot locks you in to a full attack, so does rapid shot.
Rapid Shot: "When making a full-attack action with..."
Manyshot: "When making a full-attack action with..."
Exact same language. If you can't move after the first attack on Manyshot, you can't move after the first attack on Rapid Shot.
Manyshot: 2d8+2*(str+magic+deadly aim+etc etc)+sneak attack (and other precision damage).
Vital Strike: 2d8+1*(str+magic+deadly aim+etc etc)+sneak attack (and other precision damage).
Notice the difference: Manyshot gains +str+magic+deadly aim+etc etc while Vital Strike does not. By level 8 that is (approximately) an extra +11 damage on that first shot when compared to Vital Strike.
- Gauss
Manyshot: 2d8+2*(str+magic+deadly aim+etc etc)+sneak attack (and other precision damage).
Vital Strike: 2d8+1*(str+magic+deadly aim+etc etc)+sneak attack (and other precision damage).
Notice the difference: Manyshot gains +str+magic+deadly aim+etc etc while Vital Strike does not. By level 8 that is (approximately) an extra +11 damage on that first shot when compared to Vital Strike.
- Gauss
Yep. It's because of the second arrow.
But, that second arrow is also subject to damage reduction and the like. So, in some situations, it could be subpar to vital strike.
Kind of surprised this thread is still rolling. It would be nice to have an official answer eventually, especially with all of the FAQ hits on it, but I got one good enough for me a while back: Regardless of what RAW may or may not technically say, avoid the headache by not trying it with my first PFS character.
Hrothgar: That is the reason Manyshot is and should be a full attack ability. It adds a significant amount of extra damage compared to Vital Strike.
- Gauss
I am still confused as to how this is an issue.
If any other feat said it took place during the course of a full attack action would people still try to argue that the full attack was optional?Yeah I know it takes away your chance to make the one attack, and then move, but for the amount of extra damage manyshot gives, that is more than a fair trade. Archers hardly ever want or have to move anyway so it is not like the feat going to fall out of rotation.
There is nothing except your interpretation that asserts that the first attack has to be a "standard action" style of attack before you can move after the "first attack."Common sense would indicate to me that it could not be a standard attack, which requires a full attack action. However, I am guessing that if someone like yourself who is normally pretty decent with the rules is using it like this that there a quiet a few PFS'ers doing the same thing.
I am starting to wonder how many other common rules are being misread.
Me too, Wraith, me too.
I understand the argument being made. I don't agree with it.
The argument is that manyshot requires a full attack, and if you want to attack, then move, then it's not a full attack.
That's simply not true.
The RULE for full attack describes two options. One is to take all your iterative attacks. The other is to take a "first attack", look around and decide if you'd rather move than take your remaining attacks.
What seems to be completely lost on many folks here is that choosing to make your first attack, and then moving, is still a full attack. It's just the second option of the full attack, which is to make a "first attack" then move. So even if you argue that you have to be making a "full attack" to use manyshot, taking your first attack and then moving is still a "full attack". It's just a full attack that has swapped out a move for all but the first attack.
I know that people will say "Ah, but the rule in Full Attack says 'choosing between Attack and Full Attack' so if you choose to move you aren't full attacking anymore."
But this is just an example of poor wording of the rules. The rules are inconsistent. If you are describing what can happen within the rules of a "full attack" then that is still a "full attack".
Anyway, this is crazy.
HEY PAIZO! Was it your intention for characters who choose manyshot to lose the ability to make a first attack and then move if they want to, which every other character can do? Seriously, if that was your intention, I'd love to hear one of you come right out and say so.
Because if it was, that's a stupid, stupid rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adamantine Dragon: The problem with the idea that a single attack+moving is still a full attack can be summed up with the following line:
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.
So we have either:
A) The rule quoted above is in direct conflict with:
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.
OR
B) The rule quoted above is not in direct conflict with the second quote (in spoiler above) and thus, the moment you decide to no longer perform a full attack it is now a standard action + a move action.
Personally, I would rather believe it is B because A makes no sense whatsoever.
- Gauss
P.S. I do not think it is a stupid rule for Paizo to limit Manyshot to a full-attack action as an irrevocable action. It is pretty standard with all other full-attack special options.
Hrothgar: That is the reason Manyshot is and should be a full attack ability. It adds a significant amount of extra damage compared to Vital Strike.
- Gauss
The counterbalance to that (beyond the second arrow being subject to damage reduction and the like) is that manyshot requires higher pre-requisites.
All that said, there's still no reason not to allow iteratives or a move with either manyshot or vital strike since decision to do either doesn't have to be made until after the first attack.
And, if the argument is that vital strike is weaker so it shouldn't be a full-round action, then allowing iteratives with vital strike should be the obvious conclusion. After all, nothing in the feat says that you're giving up the option to make iteratives (as whirlwind attack specifies, for example).
The argument is usually that wizards/clerics/druids (for example) are superior to martial characters. Perhaps, a reading of the rules that was more liberal toward martial characters would help even this balance?
Adamantine Dragon: The problem with the idea that a single attack+moving is still a full attack can be summed up with the following line:
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.So we have either:
A) The rule quoted above is in direct conflict with:
** spoiler omitted **OR
B) The rule quoted above is not in direct conflict with the second quote (in spoiler above) and thus, the moment you decide to no longer perform a full attack it is now a standard action + a move action.
Personally, I would rather believe it is B because A makes no sense whatsoever.
- Gauss
P.S. I do not think it is a stupid rule for Paizo to limit Manyshot to a full-attack action as an irrevocable action. It is pretty standard with all other full-attack special options.
The specific rule trumps the general rule. The specific rule is what is literally written in the "Full Attack" description. That trumps the general rule. That's commonly understood to be how the rules are interpreted. Why is this any different for all of you? You keep posting the general rules about attacks as if specifics don't matter. They do.
Also, you guys keep parroting this idea that there is some binary rule stated somewhere that a full attack can only be split into a "standard attack and a move action." Where do you see that? That is NOT what the actual rule says. The actual rule says "first attack" not "standard attack". This is what is driving me crazy. I have asked repeatedly for you to show me the rule that says the first attack of a full attack HAS TO BE a "standard attack" for the choice to move to still apply. There IS NO SUCH RULE.
Instead you all fall back on the "well, if you use manyshot, that means you have chosen to do a full attack, and that means you can't move" falling back again on the GENERAL RULE that has JUST BEEN TRUMPED by the specific rule.
Seriously this is insane. There is no way that the designers wrote this stuff and understood how it all synergized. The rules are inconsistent because a feat interacts with full attack in ways the designers did not anticipate, and did not clarify sufficiently when they rewrote manyshot.
That's the bottom line. All this attempt to read the rules and tell everyone exactly what they are supposed to mean is pointless. The rules were written poorly. That's all. They need to be clarified.
My understanding is that bonus damage is handled the same for vital strike and manyshot. Damage represented as extra dice is only added once. That's how I read the text on both.
But, I do see why you see manyshot as superior to vital strike in as far as archery.
The advantage, with manyshot, would be there are actually two arrows. So, there would be some things that would get added twice (in the hands of an archer with the weapon and ability to deliver two above average arrows). Vital strike lacks the dual hit of manyshot from a second arrow.
However, damage reduction and such like apply twice against manyshot, while it only applies once against vital strike. So, again, the two are balanced against one another, but may have varying effectiveness in different situations or against different opponents.
So, my stance remains unchanged. I'll allow manyshot before iterative attacks (or movement in exchange for iterative attacks, if no 5' step was taken prior to the dual shot) and vital strike either before or after movement.
Once again the bonuses are where the damage is at. Manyshot allows all of the bonuses to take place on both arrows. Vital Strike does not.
Not only that but with manyshot you still get the rest of your attacks by declaring a full round attack. Vital strike locks you into a standard action, and you don't even get all of the bonuses that manyshot gives you. If manyshot could be used as a full attack, and a standard action then vital strike falls even further down the list.
Rapidshot, much like TWF locks you into a penalty(negative to hit).Rapid Shot uses identical language to manyshot. If manyshot locks you in to a full attack, so does rapid shot.
Rapid Shot: "When making a full-attack action with..."
Manyshot: "When making a full-attack action with..."Exact same language. If you can't move after the first attack on Manyshot, you can't move after the first attack on Rapid Shot.
Fair enough I would give that, but I think RAI it works like TWF instead, but I don't want to derail the thread.
Manyshot: 2d8+2*(str+magic+deadly aim+etc etc)+sneak attack (and other precision damage).
Vital Strike: 2d8+1*(str+magic+deadly aim+etc etc)+sneak attack (and other precision damage).
Notice the difference: Manyshot gains +str+magic+deadly aim+etc etc while Vital Strike does not. By level 8 that is (approximately) an extra +11 damage on that first shot when compared to Vital Strike.
- Gauss
Yep. It's because of the second arrow.
But, that second arrow is also subject to damage reduction and the like. So, in some situations, it could be subpar to vital strike.
Actually it is never subpar assuming the rolls are the same, and without DR manyshot is far ahead.
PS:It is also not hard to bypass DR in this game. An archer would have a harder time dealing with DR bludgeoning or peircing than the other forms, except for DR/-.
Wizards/clerics/druids USED to be superior to martial characters. Now they are more in line. No more CoDzilla. I have yet to see a Wizard/Cleric/Druid in PF that can replace a fighter AND do a better job at the martial side. Replace in a pinch? Sure, do as much damage? No.
As for damage reduction that is easy. There is a feat to fix that. Or materials, or enhancement bonus. Frankly, DR vs arrows is not that big a deal after a certain point. Any archer should have arrows for any occassion. Only DR/slashing and DR/-- cannot be bypassed by the right arrows.
As for the iteratives and Vital Strike: The developers have stated Vital Strike can only be used ONE way...with a standard attack action. No charge, no iteratives, no shot on the run, no spring attack, no flyby attack. Agree or not, that is what they have stated. You cannot make a houserule and then argue as if that houserule is RAW.
As for Manyshot:
The rules state that a full-attack action only allows a 5foot step. It states you may make a choice between a second attack or the single attack+move action (not a full-attack+move action).
So since the rules state that a full-attack action only allows a 5foot step and the later section on deciding does not contradict this that only leaves the following question:
Does manyshot 'lock' you into a full-attack action?
Answer: yes because once you have fired 2 arrows you cannot then unfire that second arrow. Thus you have used Manyshot and Manyshot specifies it requires a full attack action.
- Gauss
I am still confused as to how this is an issue.
If any other feat said it took place during the course of a full attack action would people still try to argue that the full attack was optional?Yeah I know it takes away your chance to make the one attack, and then move, but for the amount of extra damage manyshot gives, that is more than a fair trade. Archers hardly ever want or have to move anyway so it is not like the feat going to fall out of rotation.
There is nothing except your interpretation that asserts that the first attack has to be a "standard action" style of attack before you can move after the "first attack."Common sense would indicate to me that it could not be a standard attack, which requires a full attack action. However, I am guessing that if someone like yourself who is normally pretty decent with the rules is using it like this that there a quiet a few PFS'ers doing the same thing.
I am starting to wonder how many other common rules are being misread.
Me too, Wraith, me too.
I understand the argument being made. I don't agree with it.
The argument is that manyshot requires a full attack, and if you want to attack, then move, then it's not a full attack.
That's simply not true.
The RULE for full attack describes two options. One is to take all your iterative attacks. The other is to take a "first attack", look around and decide if you'd rather move than take your remaining attacks.
AD the book says you can make a full attack action or an attack. A full attack action is when you make all of your iterative attack according to the book. That implies one or the other.
It actually says "or" in the book. -->"Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack:"
You get one or the other. An attack is not a full attack action.
Below it explains that a full attack gives you the use of iterative attacks.
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.
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.
The heading which I bolded is letting you know what is being explained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adamantine Dragon:
You are absolutely correct. Specific Trumps General.
General: Full-attacks only allow 5foot step.
General: When making an attack you do not need to decide if it is an attack or full-attack until after the first attack. Then you can decide and either make a move action (if you took 1 attack) or a 5foot step (if you took more than one attack).
Specific: Manyshot requires a full-attack. This trumps the ability to decide.
There, you now have specific trumping general.
- Gauss
Hrothgar: That is the reason Manyshot is and should be a full attack ability. It adds a significant amount of extra damage compared to Vital Strike.
- Gauss
The counterbalance to that (beyond the second arrow being subject to damage reduction and the like) is that manyshot requires higher pre-requisites.
All that said, there's still no reason not to allow iteratives or a move with either manyshot or vital strike since decision to do either doesn't have to be made until after the first attack.
And, if the argument is that vital strike is weaker so it shouldn't be a full-round action, then allowing iteratives with vital strike should be the obvious conclusion. After all, nothing in the feat says that you're giving up the option to make iteratives (as whirlwind attack specifies, for example).
The argument is usually that wizards/clerics/druids (for example) are superior to martial characters. Perhaps, a reading of the rules that was more liberal toward martial characters would help even this balance?
I think one should read the rules as they are and try to figure out the intent. If you(not you specifically) don't like the rules then houserule it. I don't agree with the fact that vital strike does not work on a charge as an example.
I know that people will say "Ah, but the rule in Full Attack says 'choosing between Attack and Full Attack' so if you choose to move you aren't full attacking anymore."
But this is just an example of poor wording of the rules. The rules are inconsistent. If you are describing what can happen within the rules of a "full attack" then that is still a "full attack".
So your argument now is that the rules are worded incorrectly because they don't match your interpretation? Can you explain then why it states you choose between attack/full attack, why when you take an attack then move it's a full attack but when you move then attack it's a standard action attack, why the full round action section states that you can't move when taking a full round action, why the full attack section states that you can't move during a full attack, and why Manyshot requires a full attack at all (since a full attack is practically identical to a standard action attack according to your interpretation)? Are those all "poor wording" because they disagree with you?
The rules here are not inconsistent. They describe how you decide between an attack and a full attack. It makes perfect sense to put that in the full attack section.
Was it your intention for characters who choose manyshot to lose the ability to make a first attack and then move if they want to, which every other character can do? Seriously, if that was your intention, I'd love to hear one of you come right out and say so.
That's like saying it's unfair that a character can't shoot twice and then move. They used an ability which gives them a bonus (in this case damage as though they had fired twice instead of once) and committed to a full round action in exchange. A character using Second Chance or Dimensional Dervish has the same limitation. A character who uses Vital Strike loses the ability to make a first attack and then make additional attacks if they want to, which every other character can do. There's nothing unfair about this.
Adamantine Dragon: The problem with the idea that a single attack+moving is still a full attack can be summed up with the following line:
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.So we have either:
A) The rule quoted above is in direct conflict with:
** spoiler omitted **OR
B) The rule quoted above is not in direct conflict with the second quote (in spoiler above) and thus, the moment you decide to no longer perform a full attack it is now a standard action + a move action.
Personally, I would rather believe it is B because A makes no sense whatsoever.
- Gauss
P.S. I do not think it is a stupid rule for Paizo to limit Manyshot to a full-attack action as an irrevocable action. It is pretty standard with all other full-attack special options.
The specific rule trumps the general rule. The specific rule is what is literally written in the "Full Attack" description. That trumps the general rule. That's commonly understood to be how the rules are interpreted. Why is this any different for all of you? You keep posting the general rules about attacks as if specifics don't matter. They do.
Also, you guys keep parroting this idea that there is some binary rule stated somewhere that a full attack can only be split into a "standard attack and a move action." Where do you see that? That is NOT what the actual rule says. The actual rule says "first attack" not "standard attack". This is what is driving me crazy. I have asked repeatedly for you to show me the rule that says the first attack of a full attack HAS TO BE a "standard attack" for the choice to move to still apply. There IS NO SUCH RULE.
Instead you all fall back on the "well, if you use manyshot, that means you have chosen to do a full attack, and that means you can't move" falling back again on the GENERAL RULE that has JUST BEEN TRUMPED by the specific rule.
Seriously this is insane....
In any case manyshot is a part of a full attack action so it still does not qualify for that first attack in and of itself. If you are saying the first attack gives you access to any "non-normal" attack then at best it would give you access to attacks that can be done with a standard action such as vital strike, but I am sure that is not the intent either.
Things such as trip that can be done in place of a melee attack would qualify though.
You have listed no specific rule. Everything in the combat chapter is a general rule.
1. You have to decide between a full attack or an attack after making the first attack.
2. You can only take a 5 foot step during a full attack.
Manyshot would be the specific rule.
The RULE for full attack describes two options. One is to take all your iterative attacks. The other is to take a "first attack", look around and decide if you'd rather move than take your remaining attacks.
That's not a full attack rule. It is it's own rule. It concerns both Attack or a Full Attack.
Attack(capital A) is defined earlier:
"Attack
Making an attack is a standard action."
So the rule could just as logically but placed under Attack.
It isn't, but when you look at the flow and layout of the rules it becomes painfully clear that it was placed under Full Attack because that's when all terms important to it are finally defined. As soon as they are defined also.
Even though this rule concerns Attack also. It doesn't allow you to use Vital Strike with a Full Attack.
Even thought this rule concerns Full Attack. It doesn't allow you to use Manyshot with an Attack action.
AD how can you say that section is a written incorrectly when we have quotes from Skip(the guy that wrote 3.5) saying that is how it works?
Before the 3.5 isn't PF argument comes out, the wording is the same, so the rules are the same. Now when Paizo changes the wording I will agree that the meaning has changed.
Wraith, so you are saying that it was intentional for the developers to write a feat which locks you into the inability to use the second option of a full attack simply by virtue of having the feat? Is that what you are saying that Skip said? Because if so, I think that's perhaps the worst feat ever written.
If you AREN'T saying that, then you are saying that some aspect of the interaction of manyshot and full attacks had consequences the developers did not intend.
Which is just another way of saying that the rules are written poorly.
So, again, is it your argument that Skip says that manyshot was specifically written to disallow the option for a character to begin a full attack and decide to move afterwards? Because that's what you MUST be saying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wraith, so you are saying that it was intentional for the developers to write a feat which locks you into the inability to use the second option of a full attack simply by virtue of having the feat?
He's saying (sorry for putting words in your mouth Wraith) that the second option of a full attack doesn't exist, it's something you've invented. More specifically, that the second option is in fact an Attack, not a Full Attack, which is consistent with "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack". Your counter argument that the "Deciding" line is simply incorrect is hard to accept since you have no rationale supporting it, and seems to me to be the very definition of confirmation bias.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When a feat says: "When you use the full-attack action" you must use an Full-Attack action.
If you aren't using a feat like this then you can deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack after your first attack.
The feat trumps the rule.
Feats do that.
Wraith, so you are saying that it was intentional for the developers to write a feat which locks you into the inability to use the second option of a full attack simply by virtue of having the feat? Is that what you are saying that Skip said? Because if so, I think that's perhaps the worst feat ever written.
If you AREN'T saying that, then you are saying that some aspect of the interaction of manyshot and full attacks had consequences the developers did not intend.
Which is just another way of saying that the rules are written poorly.
So, again, is it your argument that Skip says that manyshot was specifically written to disallow the option for a character to begin a full attack and decide to move afterwards? Because that's what you MUST be saying.
I am saying that if you intend to use the feat(manyshot) you are locked into a full attack. If you don't want to use the feat then you can use a regular attack first, and then have the option to get your iterative attacks per the combat chapter. I am not saying you have to use manyshot every time you attack.
What I am saying Skip said is that you make first attack and then decide to either full attack or take a move action, and a single attack.
I bring that up because you said both are full attacks just different versions, but according to him they are not. One is a full attack per the wording in 3.5 and PF, and the other is not.
With PF's manyshot you get an extra arrow up front, but only if you agree to go into full attack mode.
He's saying (sorry for putting words in your mouth Wraith) that the second option of a full attack doesn't exist, it's something you've invented. More specifically, that the second option is in fact an Attack, not a Full Attack, which is consistent with "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack". Your counter argument that the "Deciding" line is simply incorrect is hard to accept since you have no rationale supporting it, and seems to me to be the very definition of confirmation bias.Wraith, so you are saying that it was intentional for the developers to write a feat which locks you into the inability to use the second option of a full attack simply by virtue of having the feat?
Correct. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've repeated the same argument over and over and it is being ignored consistently with people using the same arguments I've debunked ten times now.
I'm outta here. :P
I don't understand why people are still discussing this.
There are many gray areas in the rules of PF, but this is not one of them.
1. The rule of choosing to continue or abort a full attack is a general rule that counts for all attacks.
2. The rule for manyshot, and similar abilities set certain restrictions to the general rule.
How is this hard to understand?
Use your energy trying to make sense of stealth instead :D
I don't understand why people are still discussing this.
There are many gray areas in the rules of PF, but this is not one of them.
1. The rule of choosing to continue or abort a full attack is a general rule that counts for all attacks.
2. The rule for manyshot, and similar abilities set certain restrictions to the general rule.
How is this hard to understand?
Use your energy trying to make sense of stealth instead :D
You must have missed a few posts. The game never allows you to abort a full attack. Your get to make one attack, and then decide to take a move action or go into a full attack action.
That is how it is written in the book. There is no verbage in the book that says you get to start a full attack and then abort that full attack.
That understanding of the rule is what was causing a lot of issues.
After seeing the wording on rapid shot now we really do need some input. Not as to if you can still choose to move after certain fears but what feats and abilities force the choice.
I believe the intent of Manyshot requiring you declare a full attack action is so that it can't be stacked with Vital Strike.
As written, it appears to me you can declare a full attack, fire 2 arrows with your first attack using Manyshot, then decide to move instead of using the rest of your attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the intent of Manyshot requiring you declare a full attack action is so that it can't be stacked with Vital Strike.
As written, it appears to me you can declare a full attack, fire 2 arrows with your first attack using Manyshot, then decide to move instead of using the rest of your attacks.
This. That is what the rules as written do. Forget all the "developer intent" and "history of manyshot vs vital strike" and all the deep psychological analysis of the developer's mindsets.
The rules as written say this.
This. That is what the rules as written do. Forget all the "developer intent" and "history of manyshot vs vital strike" and all the deep psychological analysis of the developer's mindsets.
The rules as written say this.
No, they don't. They describe how to decide between making an Attack and a Full Attack, which allows you to make your first attack regardless of which you choose. If you move, it's an Attack. If you don't, it's a Full Attack. This is what the rules say, and the only way to accept your interpretation is if 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' is incorrect. But we don't have any reason to believe that it's incorrect. On the other hand, we have:
- Full Attack section stating "the only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step".
- Full Round Action section stating "it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step".
- Deciding Between section describing a second, separate move action, not a movement as part of the full round action, and referring to "already taken a move action" which is impossible on a full attack even by your interpretation.
- The fact that your interpretation would allow you to 'Full Attack then Move' but not 'Move then Full Attack'.
- That your interpretation would make the Full Attack requirement in Manyshot to be almost irrelevant.
You're cherry picking rules by taking one statement out of context, ignoring the heading it's under, the rules for Full Attacks just above it, and the rules for Full Round Actions just above that. You're actually rewriting the rules by telling us to ignore "Deciding" so that it fits your argument. That's not RAW, or anything even close to it.
You're cherry picking rules by taking one statement out of context, ignoring the heading it's under, the rules for Full Attacks just above it, and the rules for Full Round Actions just above that. You're actually rewriting the rules by telling us to ignore "Deciding" so that it fits your argument. That's not RAW, or anything even close to it.
Quite the contrary. It is you and those who agree with you that are "cherry picking the rules." You are cherry picking the GENERAL rules to make your argument in spite of the well known custom in PF and D&D that "the specific trumps the general."
The Full Attack rule and the Manyshot rules are SPECIFIC rules which trump the general rules about attacks. And those rules are completely and utterly clear.
Those rules say that on a full attack, after your first attack you can move if you take no further attacks.
That's what the SPECIFIC rules say.
All of this "but the attack section states" or "but the full round section states" is an interpretive exercise that ignores the very rules written in the full attack and manyshot rules.
In addressing the question of "how does manyshot work with full attack" I am the one looking at the rules for manyshot and full attack to decide what they do. That is sufficient to answer the question.
You just don't like the answer so you are engaging in rhetorical contortions to pull in anything you can find that you think supports your argument in full denial of the fundamental concept of the specific trumping the general.
Those rules say that on a full attack, after your first attack you can move if you take no further attacks.
That's what the SPECIFIC rules say.
Let's start with "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step." That's what the SPECIFIC Full Attack rules say. So if "Deciding" doesn't mean deciding, then the Full Attack rules directly contradict themselves. Even if the latter is the case, that means that RAW the rules simply don't work, not that your interpretation is correct.
Those rules say that on a full attack, after your first attack you can move if you take no further attacks.
That's what the SPECIFIC rules say.
Let's start with "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step." That's what the SPECIFIC Full Attack rules say. So if "Deciding" doesn't mean deciding, then the Full Attack rules directly contradict themselves. Even if the latter is the case, that means that RAW the rules simply don't work, not that your interpretation is correct.
Jesus Christ Moglun. Those SAME RULES in the next paragraph tell you the OPTIONAL rule of moving after the first attack.
I mean, really? This is your rebuttal? Seriously?
I'm done.
Moglun is correct, if we use Adamantine Dragon's interpretation the Full attack rules contradict themselves.
On the other hand if we use Mogluns interpretation the rules do not contradict themselves.
Assuming the rules do not contradict themselves then we have the following:
1) Full-attack action only allows a 5foot step.
2) You may decide between an Attack action or a Full-attack action after the first attack. If you decide to perform an attack action then you may move.
3) Manyshot may or may not be applied to #2 depending upon your interpretation. One interpretation states that you are locked in. Another interpretation states that since it is only a single attack you may switch to the Attack action discussed in decideding between an Attack or Full Attack. The problem with this interpretation is that Manyshot is specific that it is a full-attack. Only Adamantine Dragon's interpretation that Full-attack includes a move action if you make only one attack would allow Manyshot to work like this. However, that would directly contradict the earlier rule on Full-attack actions only being able to use a 5' step.
It appears there are actually two issues now. Oh Joy.
- Gauss
Jesus Christ Moglun. Those SAME RULES in the next paragraph tell you the OPTIONAL rule of moving after the first attack.
That's the problem AD, that makes no sense at all. If there were an optional rule of moving, then the statement "no movement is allowed" within the very same set of rules would be false, unnecessary, and misleading. "You may not take any movement except a 5-foot step. You may take movement if you want to." It's not rational, both statements cannot be true. This isn't a case of specific vs general, this is two equally specific statements in the same set of rules directly contradicting each other.
Your entire argument is built on the premise that the "Deciding Between" section does not describe deciding between two distinct actions, despite the fact that's exactly what it says it is. I'm willing to entertain the notion, but you need evidence to support that theory before we can make that leap. But when we look for evidence, what we find supports the idea that it means exactly what it says, that you are deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack. The statement that no movement is allowed on a Full Attack, the inconsistency with when the movement would take place, etc. The fact is that your interpretation requires that we edit the text by ignoring the "Deciding Between" heading, ignoring the "no movement on a full attack" rule, and so on. On the other hand, if we take it at face value and accept that "Deciding Between" means exactly what it says, then there is no edit necessary, there is no contradiction with "no movement allowed", there is no inconsistency with moving after an attack but not before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps we should break this discussion down into the elements:
1) Deciding between an Attack or Full Attack.
Either:
1a) This section states that you are deciding between an Attack (standard action) or Full Attack (full-round action)
OR
1b) This section states that you are deciding between two types of Full Attacks (one with iterative attacks and one with a single attack+move).
Lets take a look at what an attack vs full-attack is defined as.
* In the section on Attack (CRB p182) we find an attack is defined as a standard action.
* In the same section on Attack (now top of CRB p184) we find that multiple attacks, ie: full-attack action, are defined as a full round action.
So lets look at what movement is allowed during a full-round action.
* In the section on Full Round actions (CRB p181) it states that the only movement a full round action allows is a 5foot step.
* In the section on Full-Round Actions (CRB p187) we find that a Full-round action cannot be coupled with a standard or a move action.
* In the section on Full Attacks (CRB p187) it states that the only movement a full round attack allows is a 5foot step.
In the section on Deciding between an attack or full-attack action I find NOTHING that exempts you from the limitation on full-attack actions only taking a 5foot step.
Additionally: I cannot find any statement that defines a full-round action as a standard action+move action.
So lets sumarize:
Attack action + Move action = legal.
Full-attack action + move action = illegal.
Now, Adamantine Dragon is stating that the 'deciding between an attack or full-attack action' is a specific rule that overrules the general rule of only a 5' step. However, for this to be true there should be a statement to this effect if there is a gray area. So once again we are at the stage where either:
A) The deciding between.. section is really deciding between an Attack (standard action) or a Full-attack (full-round action)
OR
B) It is contrary to all the rules that have gone before and inexplicably the Developers have not stated it overwrites all the previous rules.
My vote is A because that is the simplest solution. If we take Manyshot (and others like it) out of the discussion entirely there is no reason for the Deciding between... to be a decision between two full-round actions. It would be between a standard action+move action and a full-round action.
- Gauss
Now we have Manyshot.
There are two possibilities from the previous post I made. To summarize them we have:
A) The Deciding between... section is deciding between an Attack (standard action) or a Full-attack (full-round action)
OR
B) The Deciding between... section is deciding beween two different types of Full round actions.
IF you believe in A) then there is one of the following two cases:
Either:
AA) Manyshot is a specific rule that overrides this general rule about deciding between an attack (standard action) or a full-attack (full-round action) and sticks you with a full-attack (full-round action). Application of the Deciding between... rule would nullify Manyshot and since you cannot nullify something you have already done you cannot choose to perform a standard action.
OR
AB) Manyshot is a single attack and thus you can change it to a single attack via the rules ignoring the fact that it specifically calls out a full-attack requirement.
(My vote is AA.)
Now, if you believe in B) then there is only one conclusion:
Manyshot can be used as a single attack+move since you are deciding between two forms of Full-attack actions.
Thus: Manyshot is not really the problem here. It is people's interpretation of Deciding between an attack or full-attack. I suggest someone create a thread on that specific topic. (Assuming people want to keep arguing this).
- Gauss
I believe the intent of Manyshot requiring you declare a full attack action is so that it can't be stacked with Vital Strike.
As written, it appears to me you can declare a full attack, fire 2 arrows with your first attack using Manyshot, then decide to move instead of using the rest of your attacks.
It can not stack with Vital Strike anyway because one is a standard action, and the other is full attack action, and you can not do both at the same time.
edit:I see you also missed a few posts. The rules as written say you attack, then decide to full attack. They never say you get to full attack, and then get to back out of it.
I believe the intent of Manyshot requiring you declare a full attack action is so that it can't be stacked with Vital Strike.
As written, it appears to me you can declare a full attack, fire 2 arrows with your first attack using Manyshot, then decide to move instead of using the rest of your attacks.
This. That is what the rules as written do. Forget all the "developer intent" and "history of manyshot vs vital strike" and all the deep psychological analysis of the developer's mindsets.
The rules as written say this.
The rules do not say you full attack and then decide to move. As I have already stated 3.5 devs already clarified this, and PF uses the same wording so the meaning is the same. You can't just say that PF intended to change the meaning of the words if you don't have proof.