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 grey 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
A most excellent breakdown of the rules, and unless Skip Williams, and Jason, and Sean all misread the rules they wrote(for PF approved) that is correct. Since SKR worked at WoTC with Skip and so did Sean I am clearly doubting they misunderstood this rule. I am also sure that Skip did not misunderstand his own rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm done.
Good.
To break it down another way lets replace the word "Attack" with "Chinchilla."
Deciding between a Chinchilla 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.
Chinchilla
Making an attack is a standard action
So before you've decided your attack is nether Chinchilla or a Full Attack. It's just an attack open to ether be the single attack Chinchilla or the first attack of a Full Attack.
Okay so, you start your turn and you want to use Manyshot. Manyshot requires a Full Attack. So you finish your first attack and then you you would normally get to decide between Chinchilla or a Full Attack.
Now you've already decided to use a Full Attack action because you can't use a feat unless you follow it's rules.
So you don't get the option to use Chinchilla because you have already decided to use a Full Attack.
Okay so, it's your next turn and you want to use Vital Strike. Vital Strike requires a Chinchilla. So you finish your first attack and then you you would normally get to decide between Chinchilla or a Full Attack.
Now you've already decided to use a chinchilla action because you can't use a feat unless you follow it's rules.
So you don't get the option to use Full Attack action because you have already decided to use a Chinchilla.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe it is this hard for some people to understand.
When you decide between an Attack and a Full Attack, you actually have to decide between making an Attack and a Full Attack.
If you decide to Attack (note the capital "A") you can make a move action after your first attack.
or you can choose to Full Attack by continuing with your remaining or iterative attacks and restrict yourself to a 5' step.
That's all the rule is saying.
Decide
between
an Attack
or
a Full Attack.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
There are not two-types of Full-Attack - the "Full Attack" where you get to make a move action after making your first attack is actually just an Attack.
Long as you apply the ruling fairly sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Long as you apply the ruling fairly sure.
What do you mean by fairly?
Fairly is making sure you take the associated penalty(not neccesarily a number) to get the benefit that is provided.I don't think it is means you always have the exact same access to a general rule no matter what the option gives you.
As an example TWF meaning you take the -2 to get an extra attack and rapidshot making you take the -2 in return for an extra attack should be the same. Rapid shot locking you into a full attack, which it does by RAW, should not be done IMHO. You should take the penalty up front, with the same option as TWF to not full attack, but that is not an option as it is currently written.
Manyshot saying you will be locked into a full attack for an extra attack with no penalty to your attack roll seems fair to me.
What I'm saying is if two fears have the same wording then they both lock you out. And as far as I'm concerned the arguement that your making a standard action attack or a full attack further proves that TWF also locks you in since you can't TWF on an Attack only on a Full Attack.
What I'm saying is if two fears have the same wording then they both lock you out. And as far as I'm concerned the arguement that your making a standard action attack or a full attack further proves that TWF also locks you in since you can't TWF on an Attack only on a Full Attack.
When you take the TWF penalty it is not locking you into a full attack action. It is only saying you take that penalty in case you do decide to take that extra attack. In a perfect world you could retroactively apply the -2, but for the sake of ease the penalty is up front. That stops a person from hitting or missing and then suddenly deciding to apply the TWF penalty or not.
Skip also said that you are not locked in, but you still have to specify the intent to TWF up front which also support that the -2 is the penalty. With no relevant change in the wording TWF still works just like it did in 3.5.
I do agree that RAW Rapid shot locks you in also. I just want it to work like TWF because they are pretty similar, but by Rapid Shot's wording it is hard to argue otherwise.
I have always looked at the game as making you pay penalties for advantages. The penalties may or may not be the same even if the same action is used. That is why manyshot can't let use it as standard action. It specifically calls out a full attack action. TWF calls out -2 to hit. Yeah you do have to commit to a full attack to get that second hit, but that is only because the second hit only occurs with the 2nd attack. Rapid Shot calls out a full attack action. Those are the penalties. If you pay them then you get access to the ability.
In short taking the penalty for TWF means that you intend to make a second attack. That is all it is saying. In order to get it, you then have to agree to a full attack after the first attack.
In any event the thread has entered into an endless loop. Anyone who comes after this and says you can opt "out of" a full attack needs to reread the thread. The rules don't allow for it, and it is explain at least 10 times in this thread, and no I am not exaggerating. I will wait for the dev team to handle this.
But..... But......if we don't hit at least 10 pages we will never get an answer.
But..... But......if we don't hit at least 10 pages we will never get an answer.
Darn it, you may be on to something. :)
What I'm saying is if two fears have the same wording then they both lock you out.
Fair enough. You can't move after your first attack when using Whirlwind attack.
If your DM lets you anyway that's another story. :)
And as far as I'm concerned the arguement that your making a standard action attack or a full attack further proves that TWF also locks you in since you can't TWF on an Attack only on a Full Attack.
The Penalties for TWF don't require a Full Attack. Getting extra attacks require a Full Attack.
If something leaps out at you and you decide to hack at it with your sword, you could also try to whack it with your torch (perhaps the foe seems slightly flammable, or perhaps you suspect you're facing a regenerating monster). You can make your attack roll with your longsword and observe the result before deciding between an attack or a full attack, but you must take a -4 attack penalty on that primary hand attack to preserve your option to attack with the torch. In this situation it would be entirely reasonable for the DM to make you take the -4 attack penalty before you see your first attack's result (because it speeds play); however that's not strictly necessary. The DM might allow you to see the result before deciding to attack with the torch. If that is so and you decide to try an attack with the torch, your DM must recalculate the result of your sword attack, taking the primary weapon penalty into account. (I don't recommend this option, but it fits the letter of the rules.)
In any event the thread has entered into an endless loop. Anyone who comes after this and says you can opt "out of" a full attack needs to reread the thread. The rules don't allow for it, and it is explain at least 10 times in this thread, and no I am not exaggerating. I will wait for the dev team to handle this.
The problem is you are repeating the same argument and willfully ignoring the fact that the one specific circumstance where the rules do allow you to back out of your choice of a full-attack action is the wording around which the manyshot feat is designed.
Now I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation that the rules support that you can do this (opt out of your choice after firing twice), but I certainly don't agree that they clearly and unequivocally state that you can't. This is at best a rule that isn't perfectly worded one way or the other and each side reads it the way they want it to be and has plenty of stable ground on which to stand.
This seems a great choice for an FAQ and not a great choice for orthodox certainty on one side or another.
I'm done.Good.
To break it down another way lets replace the word "Attack" with "Chinchilla."
Deciding between a Chinchilla 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.Chinchilla
Making an attack is a standard actionSo before you've decided your attack is nether Chinchilla or a Full Attack. It's just an attack open to ether be the single attack Chinchilla or the first attack of a Full Attack.
Okay so, you start your turn and you want to use Manyshot. Manyshot requires a Full Attack. So you finish your first attack and then you you would normally get to decide between Chinchilla or a Full Attack.
Now you've already decided to use a Full Attack action because you can't use a feat unless you follow it's rules.
So you don't get the option to use Chinchilla because you have already decided to use a Full Attack.
Okay so, it's your next turn and you want to use Vital Strike. Vital Strike requires a Chinchilla. So you finish your first attack and then you you would normally get to decide between Chinchilla or a Full Attack.
Now you've already decided to use a chinchilla action because you can't use a feat unless you follow it's rules.
So you don't get the option to use Full Attack action because you have already decided to use a Chinchilla.
What happens when the Full attack action rules tell me that after chinchilla I can decide to forgo the rest of my attacks an take a move?
Since, straw men aside, that is what the opposition is arguing that you aren't addressing in your post.
MC Templar: I addressed it in my last two posts found here. They are on the previous page.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any event the thread has entered into an endless loop. Anyone who comes after this and says you can opt "out of" a full attack needs to reread the thread. The rules don't allow for it, and it is explain at least 10 times in this thread, and no I am not exaggerating. I will wait for the dev team to handle this.The problem is you are repeating the same argument and willfully ignoring the fact that the one specific circumstance where the rules do allow you to back out of your choice of a full-attack action is the wording around which the manyshot feat is designed.
Now I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation that the rules support that you can do this (opt out of your choice after firing twice), but I certainly don't agree that they clearly and unequivocally state that you can't. This is at best a rule that isn't perfectly worded one way or the other and each side reads it the way they want it to be and has plenty of stable ground on which to stand.
This seems a great choice for an FAQ and not a great choice for orthodox certainty on one side or another.
You are not allowed to back out of a full attack. The general rules say you attack first and then you can op into a full attack. Manyshot also does not say you are allowed to opt out.
The book specifically says you attack first, and then choose to attack or full attack. It never gives you the option to full attack first. The only time you get to declare a full attack without doing the single attack first is when using certain special abilities.
PS:Don't confuse a GM allowing you to do something with the book allowing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules you must also take the specific action to get the specific benefit. There is nothing in manyshot that says you have a choice to do it as standard action. If the feat says you must do X then you must do X. Does the book need errata saying a requirement listed in a feat's description must be met, otherwise you can't? If so this is a sad day for gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens when the Full attack action rules tell me that after chinchilla I can decide to forgo the rest of my attacks an take a move?
Since, straw men aside, that is what the opposition is arguing that you aren't addressing in your post.
Deciding between a Chinchilla or a Full Attack:
This isn't the Full Attack rule. It applies just as much to Full Attack as it does to Chinchilla.
For instants: You could only be intending to make one attack and then move. However if the monster doesn't die, you can decide to take a Full Attack. Neat.
However if you use Vital Strike for that first attack you can't then decide to take a Full Attack.
Despite the rule allowing you to decide between a Full Attack and a Chinchilla. Vital Strike requires Chinchilla.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens when the Full attack action rules tell me that after chinchilla I can decide to forgo the rest of my attacks an take a move?Since, straw men aside, that is what the opposition is arguing that you aren't addressing in your post.
I'm just going to call it an Attack.
The Full Attack action rules tell you that you can decide between a Full Attack and an Attack by taking a move action. So if after your first attack you forgo and take a move, you are taking an Attack action. If you do not take that move, then you are taking a Full Attack action. This is the understanding most of us are operating under, that as of the first attack you have not committed to a Full Attack or an Attack.However, let's assume for the sake of argument that the rules mean you declare a Full Attack and then back out of it after the first attack (this is different from what Adm Dragon has been arguing, which is that the Full Attack action can include a move). In the context of Manyshot, you can only use the feat when making a Full Attack action. If you back out, then you are not making a Full Attack. You were going to, but you cancelled and made a standard action Attack + move action instead. Therefore you cannot back out after using Manyshot without breaking the rules, because Manyshot is only used when you actually make a Full Attack, not when you consider it then change your mind.
So either way, you can't use Manyshot and move.
your right you can't use manyshot and move or rapid shot or stabbing shot or second chance or
hammer the gap
shield of swings
whirlwind attack
dimensional dervish
medusa's wrath
In fact TWF only gets by do to the fact it doesn't say on a full attack.
And technicly if your claiming that your choosing between a standard action and a full attack the by all rights TWF should lock you in since your declaring an action that cannot be completed by using a standard action.
I think you see it as if I take the penalty I have already decided to TWF. The rest of us see it as if I take the penalty I am opening myself up to do TWF if I go into a full attack. I don't think accepting the penalty is the same as accepting the extra attack(which does require a full round attack).
PS:Are you arguing RAW or RAI? I ask because RAI the wording is the same as in 3.5, and according to the 3.5 devs you could wait until after the first attack to commit to a full attack action even with the TWF penalty.
In short you never declare an action. You only take the penalty in case you do declare a certain action after the first attack.
But the way the FAQ on TWF reads you only get the penalty for choosing that mode of fighting if you can't use that mode of fighting then you can't take the penalty.
The only diffence in TWF and rapid shot is that rapid shot acutally has the text stating that it must be used on a full attack.
There is nothing to support that statement since that is not what the FAQ says. You are extrapolating. The FAQ says that in order to get the extra attack from TWF you must take the penalty, but we already knew that. It never say that just because you choose the penalty that you must accept the full attack. The same rules the FAQ points out were in 3.5. There has been no change to indicate that PF has any intention to run it differently. Now if you do go into full attack mode you have to use your off-hand, and continue to take the penalties because you agreed to said penalties.
Instead of arguing I wish people would actually do some research.
Here are some usefull links
PRD I copy and past from here when I want to post Official rules.
Rules of the Game Here is where I go when I want to understand a difficult rule.
Pathfinder SRD When the PRD just won't do.
JAMES JACOBS James Jacobs knows his stuff. Ask him questions. Don't tell him I sent you. ;)
These forums 90% of the time the answer to your question is going to be answered promptly/correctly.
Dictionary don't assume you know what a word means.
Revised (v.3.5)SRD flip over your CRB you see "3.5 * OGL compatible" this is that.
Pathfinder Frequently Asked Questions We love to argue don't we. Here is where our arguments end. :(
The FAQ says that in order to get the extra attack from TWF you must take the penalty, but we already knew that.
Ah, I remember this one. Wraithstrike were you there for this one?
I remember flipping back in forth on this one. Talk about a mess.
I was there for that one even.
The FAQ says that in order to get the extra attack from TWF you must take the penalty, but we already knew that.Ah, I remember this one. Wraithstrike were you there for this one?
I remember flipping back in forth on this one. Talk about a mess.
I was there. I was just shocked that people were trying the argue that attacking with a second weapon, and not the extra attack was what counted as TWF'ing. Then after that another thread on a similar topic started up. I tried to tell'em, but they just wouldn't listen to me. :)
I was there for that one even.
If you were there for that one why did you get confused and think it was going to help you out in this argument.
Don't you remember me and Wraithstrike? I think we were both very active on it.
I am well versed in all the TWF rules because of that skirmish.
The point i'm making is that functionally rapid shot and TWF are identical and that imho TWF is no different than anything else on my list. You cannot TWF unless your using a full attack action. If the reason I keep hearing for manyshot not working with the move follow up is that manyshot requires you to make a full attack action then how can any ability that requires a full attack still allow the move action.
I'm fine with allowing TWF to have the opt out and even rapid shot. But it seems to me most posters are hung up on the fact that manyshot actully grants a benifit if you were to do this while most of the other full attack only things wouldn't. Heck I would even allow a guy using whirlwind to back away if he saw his attacks weren't going to work. Such as being surounded by something with DR your fairly certain you won't overcome.
The point i'm making is that functionally rapid shot and TWF are identical and that imho TWF is no different than anything else on my list. You cannot TWF unless your using a full attack action. If the reason I keep hearing for manyshot not working with the move follow up is that manyshot requires you to make a full attack action then how can any ability that requires a full attack still allow the move action.
I'm fine with allowing TWF to have the opt out and even rapid shot. But it seems to me most posters are hung up on the fact that manyshot actully grants a benifit if you were to do this while most of the other full attack only things wouldn't. Heck I would even allow a guy using whirlwind to back away if he saw his attacks weren't going to work. Such as being surounded by something with DR your fairly certain you won't overcome.
What you allow and what others allow isn't a discussion for Rules Questions.
Manyshot Requires a Full Attack. If you let your players use it with a standard that's your choice and it doesn't have to be correct :)
If you want the extra attack granted by TWF it requires a Full Attack. If you let your players get them without a Full Attack that's your choice.
So you agree that TWF does in fact require a full-attack?
Then why is it different than Manyshot?
Is it the fact that one only penalizes you while the other doesn't?
Is it because TWF lacks the while making a full attack phrase?
I agree with you and Wraith on how this all functions what I don't agree with is why Full attack A is different than Full attack B.
The point i'm making is that functionally rapid shot and TWF are identical and that imho TWF is no different than anything else on my list. You cannot TWF unless your using a full attack action. If the reason I keep hearing for manyshot not working with the move follow up is that manyshot requires you to make a full attack action then how can any ability that requires a full attack still allow the move action.
I'm fine with allowing TWF to have the opt out and even rapid shot. But it seems to me most posters are hung up on the fact that manyshot actully grants a benifit if you were to do this while most of the other full attack only things wouldn't. Heck I would even allow a guy using whirlwind to back away if he saw his attacks weren't going to work. Such as being surounded by something with DR your fairly certain you won't overcome.
I agree that it would make sense for rapidshot to work just like TWF, but in PF rapidshot by RAW specifically calls out a full attack action, which is not how the TWF works.
Even in 3.5 rapidshot required a full attack action, while TWF allows you to opt out.
You can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon. The attack is at your highest base attack bonus, but each attack you make in that round (the extra one and the normal ones) takes a -2 penalty. You must use the full attack action to use this feat.
I guess that means I was incorrect about the RAI of rapidshot since both PF and 3.5 specifically call out a full attack action so by RAW and RAI rapidshot locks you in because it says it does while TWF does not.
This now sets precedence that while rapidshot looks like a ranged version of TWF it is not.
You could allow someone to back out of Whirlwind attack, but by the rules it would not be allowed. Now if were in the advice or homebrew section I would say go for it, but advocating what someone would do as the rules should not happen in the rules section. As an example I would allow someone to take the first shot with rapid shot because it is similar to TWF, and then not go into a full round attack, but I can't really argue that is the correct way to do it. They are already taking a penalty for an attack they might not even want to take, and if TWF(RAI) does not lock them in I see no reason for rapidshot to lock them in. As for whirlwind I always thought that feat had too many prereqs for its own good, and because of that I might consider allowing whirlwind leeway to, but I still know that because it says it requires a full attack action I could not do so in PFS.
No ability that requires a full attack should allows a move action. A full attack which is a full round action means you give up your move action, and your standard action.
The only way a full attack can allow you to move is if there is a specific rules exception. What full attack are you thinking of that allows for someone to also take a move action?
So you agree that TWF does in fact require a full-attack?
Then why is it different than Manyshot?
Is it the fact that one only penalizes you while the other doesn't?
Is it because TWF lacks the while making a full attack phrase?
I agree with you and Wraith on how this all functions what I don't agree with is why Full attack A is different than Full attack B.
He did not say TWF required a full attack action. He said if you want the extra attack you must commit to the full attack action.
Sorry if i'm being overly thick headed but you can't even get the penalty without a full attack action. Thats what i was referencing the FAQ about. The penalty only exist if you plan on getting that attack which can only happen on a full attack.
|
|
Instead of arguing I wish people would actually do some research.
Here are some usefull links
PRD I copy and past from here when I want to post Official rules.
Rules of the Game Here is where I go when I want to understand a difficult rule.
Pathfinder SRD When the PRD just won't do.
JAMES JACOBS James Jacobs knows his stuff. Ask him questions. Don't tell him I sent you. ;)
These forums 90% of the time the answer to your question is going to be answered promptly/correctly.
Dictionary don't assume you know what a word means.
Revised (v.3.5)SRD flip over your CRB you see "3.5 * OGL compatible" this is that.
Pathfinder Frequently Asked Questions We love to argue don't we. Here is where our arguments end. :(
Thank you for that. I followed the link to rules of the game and read the entry on Actions (part one).
In that article Skip Williams clearly explains the following (under using actions);
In most cases, you have the following three options available to you during your turn (choose one):
-One standard action plus one move action.
-Two move actions.
-One full-round action.
Why is this significant? Because it should put to rest the insane assertion that you can use one standard action plus one move action and call it a "Full-Attack" and then attempt to game the system by applying the benefits of Manyshot (which requires a Full Attack) to this standard action.
If the reason I keep hearing for manyshot not working with the move follow up is that manyshot requires you to make a full attack action then how can any ability that requires a full attack still allow the move action.
You're right, they can't. We're just disagreeing about which feats require the full attack action, and which feats give you a benefit that can only be used on a full attack action (ie: an extra attack) but don't require an action themselves.
For example, my perspective on TWF would be:
Your lvl 6 Fighter with TWF and a weapon in each hand normally has +6/+1 (ignoring bonuses from strength etc). He can attack once as a standard action or twice as a full round. He can declare that he is using TWF before making any attacks, which applies a -2 penalty and grants an extra attack for a net +4/+4/-1. This declaration is not an action and does not lock him into anything. Then he can attack once as a standard action or up to three times as a full round.
So you agree that TWF does in fact require a full-attack?
Then why is it different than Manyshot?
Is it the fact that one only penalizes you while the other doesn't?
Is it because TWF lacks the while making a full attack phrase?
I agree with you and Wraith on how this all functions what I don't agree with is why Full attack A is different than Full attack B.
Manyshot and Rapidshot are both riders on a full round action. They also modifiy the full round action by locking you into it.
TWF looks like rapidshot, but since you can TWF without a feat it(TWF) seems to be just a different version of a full round attack. In order to be eligible for it you must accept the penalty up front. Agreeing to the penalty does not mean that you must take the extra attack, it only gives you potential access to it*. If you do decide to the full attack action then you get finally get access to the extra attack(s).
*Skip's quote backs this up.
I think we both us would like for rapidshot to work like TWF so that you can not have to take the full round attack, but at written the rules don't allow for it, and this being the rules section what I want does not matter.
Going back to manyshot it also calls out a full attack action, and anything less means you can't do it. So once you accept the gift of that extra arrow you are locked in, otherwise you are getting it as standard action which is against the rules. Manyshot I would not be flexible on because the benefit has already been gained, and considering the boost to DPR that manyshot gives I don't think it is unfair for it to lock you in.
As for Whirlwind attack from a balance point of view I don't see the issue with allowing someone to change their mind, but the rules don't support that either.
Why does that declaraction not lock you in? Why does an action that only happens on a full attack differ from another action that only fuctions on a full attack?
For the record I would never tell a player that they were out of luck because their main hand attack they made first critted and dropped the only guy near him. I just want to know on what rules basis do to equivilent actions differ.
Talonhawke:
I will tell you what I tell my newer players: because that is the way the rules are written. It doesn't always make sense. Hell, a lot of the time it doesn't make sense. That is why there are house rules.
TWF has no statement that it is a full-attack. It uses the baseline rules for extra attacks.
Rapidshot has a statement that it is a full-attack. It is a specific statement.
Manyshot has a statement that it is a full-attack. It is a specific statement.
Flurry of Blows has a statement that it is a full-attack. It is a specific statement.
Now, with that said...as a HOUSERULE I would allow a person to apply the -2 penalty to attacks and then make the choice after the first attack when it comes to Rapidshot as to whether or not they can keep it a single attack+move or make a full-attack. Reminder: That would be a houserule.
I would not allow that with either Manyshot or Flurry of Blows since both of them come with bonuses that cannot be taken back.
- Gauss
Why does that declaraction not lock you in? Why does an action that only happens on a full attack differ from another action that only fuctions on a full attack?
For the record I would never tell a player that they were out of luck because their main hand attack they made first critted and dropped the only guy near him. I just want to know on what rules basis do to equivilent actions differ.
If a feat specifically says it requires for activation so you must do X. That is how manyshot and rapidshot work. Well they don't use the word "Activation", but that is basically what it is.
TWF-->If you say you want to get an extra attack you still have to go into a full attack to get the benefit of the attack. Until you go into the full attack you are denied the extra attack. As I said before the reason for the penalty up front is because it is easier that way than it is to retroactively apply it. It stops metagaming.
Why they force rapidshot to work on a full attack while not forcing TWF to work that way is something I don't have the answer to. I think both should allow you to attack first, and choose second. In short I don't think rapid shot should have the full attack requirement. It should be written to just force you to take the penalty up front, and then decide later, but I guess the devs think it is stronger than what it is.
I understand that you don't like it, but that does not change what it is. I would just houserule it.
edit:In short agreeing to take the penalty only shows intent. It is not a declaration of an action.
Why does that declaraction not lock you in? Why does an action that only happens on a full attack differ from another action that only fuctions on a full attack?
Because Manyshot specifically states that you only get the extra arrow on a full attack, whereas TWF states that you get penalty to hit and the extra attack by declaring that you are using TWF - nothing about any kind of action. If TWF stated "when using the full attack action, you can take a -2 penalty blah blah blah" then they would be equivalent, but as written you can use it any time without spending any kind of action. You can declare you're using TWF and not attack at all if you wanted to. However, to actually gain the benefit of TWF you would need to make a full attack (since that's the only way to use more than one attack).
I think you might be getting hung up on
You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.and
As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.from the FAQ. This refers to the idea that just because you have a weapon in each hand doesn't mean you're two weapon fighting, even if you attack with both of them. What we're concerned with is
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
, which indicates that all you need to do is declare your intent to use TWF to gain the benefit and penalties, regardless of whether you end up using your TWF bonus attacks or not.
I have come to accept the fact that sometimes the rules just don't make sense or at the least that I don't agree with the devs on certain issues.
Wraithstrike: We really should start a houserules list to compile the most used houserules. LOL
- Gauss
Wraithstrike: We really should start a houserules list to compile the most used houserules. LOL
- Gauss
I actually have a houserules tab in my "list", but I don't think it has any houserules in it. It currently has things that I did not know where to place. I guess I could create an "other" list for those.
|
I've spent the best part of the whole day reading the (so far) 397 posts on this thread, and the rest of the day reading the Rules As Written in my hardcopy of the Core Rulebook. It's astonishing the number of times people reproduce a rule as part of their post then say that it LITERALLY (their caps) says so and so when it just doesn't. Also in this thread I've seen guys make up their own rules (like 'locking in' to an action) then citing a rule they made up as if it were Gospel. Or RAW, which is the same thing here.
I can't recall anyone pointing this next bit out; an 'attack' consists of a single attack which is resolved with a single attack roll.
How do we know this?
Although an 'attack' can certainly take a standard action to use, an 'attack' is NOT a standard action in and of itself.
For example, no attack in a full attack action takes a standard action to use.
An Attack of Opportunity 'is a single melee attack' and no-one thinks that they take a standard action.
When casting a touch spell you get to make a standard attack as a free action, which takes place after the standard action (usually) used to cast the spell. You can even cast (standard), move (move action, obviously) and then touch attack (free action). This self evidently does not take a standard action.
Charging 'is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action'. A partial charge may be taken as a standard action if you are only allowed to take a standard action. In either case the action you take (charge or partial charge) takes the full action or standard action (respectively), NOT the attack itself. Self-evidently, although an 'attack' MAY take a standard action, a single 'attack' is NOT 'defined' as a standard action exclusively. See the examples above.
It is even possible to take a full attack without taking the Full Attack action:-
'Pounce (Ex) when a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack...'. Even a partial charge, so with a standard action you get a full attack!
The argument that 'if it's only one attack then it becomes a standard action' is indefensible.
I have my hardcopy of the core rulebook in front of me, open at p.187. There is a main heading 'Full-Round Actions' in big, dark brown letters. Below that, in smaller, gold letters is the sub-heading 'Full attack', and below that, indented, in smaller, dark brown letters is the SUB-sub heading 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack'. This part is NOT a general rule which could have been placed elsewhere, it is another way to use a full attack!
When it says 'after your first attack' it's saying the first of the multiple attacks available to you in a full attack. In order for this paragraph to apply, you must be taking a full attack. Not a Full-Round Action (though, Pounce aside, it usually is) but a full attack; the two are not the same, nor is a Full-Round Action always required to take a full attack.
You MUST first declare a full attack. After your first 'attack' of the many you're allowed, you may sacrifice all your remaining 'attacks' to, instead, decide to take a move action. What your secret inner self was really intending to do is neither here nor there, nor required by the rules! It is an option always open to anyone taking a full attack. It is NEVER an option to anyone who ISN'T making a full attack! The only wrinkle here is that you cannot move after your attack when you charge (p.198); Pounce doesn't change that.
This means that those declaring Rapid Shot or Whirlwind Attack (or TWF!) may, after their first 'attack', decide to take a move action instead of their remaining attacks.
IN NO WAY DOES THIS TURN THE FULL ATTACK INTO A STANDARD ATTACK!
As for Manyshot, the first 'attack' (I.e. attack roll) of your full attack is taken, the results seen, and the the archer may carry on with the rest of his 'attacks' or, RAW, 'decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks'.
Gospel.
Rules As Written.
The only way to read it otherwise is if you think that if you only roll a single 'attack' it MUST be taken as a standard action. This is provably untrue (see common examples above). And you believe that 'deciding to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks' somehow changes your 'attack' into a standard action. No! You made that up! That is NOT in the rules.
Or you think that you make an attack first, them decide whether it was in fact a standard action kind of 'attack' or the first 'attack' of a full attack sequence. No! You made that up! You only have this option if you have already taken a full attack! Read your hardcopy; it's a sub-section of full attack (smaller, differently-coloured, indented writing), which itself is a sub-section of Full-Round actions.
It's Archer A to go; he declares a full attack with his bow (good choice, Archer A!). He shoots at Orc B and, because he has the Manyshot feat and he's not surprising it, the first 'attack' of this full attack shoots two arrows. Orc B goes down. Archer A decides to take a move action instead of taking his remaining attacks. He can, it says he can on p.187 under 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack', which is under 'Full Attack', which is under Full-Round Actions.
What do you mean he's 'locked in'? No such rule; you made it up! If you quote the quote and provide a page number in the core rulebook referring to 'locking I'm I'll give it a damn good looking at!
What do you mean 'taking a move action instead of making your remaining attacks means your original 'attack' has somehow, RETROSPECTIVELY, become a standard action? Where is that written? You made it up! I've already proved that a single 'attack' is not required to be a standard action!
I'm talking Rules As Written here!
Malachi:
The main problem is you are ignoring that the term 'Attack' (capital A) as being defined as a standard action. Lowercase 'attack' is any attack. Deciding between an Attack (capital A) and a Full-Attack thus means Attack (standard action) or Full-Attack (full-round action). I showed this on the previous page.
Second: At no point does it state you 'must declare' a full attack. I dare you to find anywhere in chapter 8 the word 'declare'. It is not present. So you just added your own interpretation there and not 'rules as written'.
You are also adding a 'move action' to a 'full-attack action' which is in direct violation of several references in the SAME section on full-attack actions.
Like I said before, either:
A) The rules contradict themselves (since no exception was made)
OR
B) Attack = standard action and Full-attack = full-round action. In which case all the rules make sense.
And just so you can reference my post: HERE it is.
- Gauss
I can't recall anyone pointing this next bit out; an 'attack' consists of a single attack which is resolved with a single attack roll.
That was called out, and I agree. Not every attack is a standard action, but if you choose to attack then make a move action then it is fair to assume that one attack is considered a standard action. After all the book says that if you don't take the full attack option you get to move, but you don't get the rest of your attacks.
You MUST first declare a full attack. After your first 'attack' of the many you're allowed, you may sacrifice all your remaining 'attacks' to, instead, decide to take a move action. What your secret inner self was really intending to do is neither here nor there, nor required by the rules! It is an option always open to anyone taking a full attack. It is NEVER an option to anyone who ISN'T making a full attack! The only wrinkle here is that you cannot move after your attack when you charge (p.198); Pounce doesn't change that.
You do not declare anything until after your first attack. You are incorrect or either the book is incorrect. Guess which one I will go with? Several posts already broke down how your interpretation causes a rules conflict.
The book says full attack or attack. Why? Because they are two different things. If you don't know that much then PF 101 is class you need to take.
Skip the guy who wrote the game PF came from even says this. As I have said repeatedly the verbage has not changed so the meaning of the rules has not changed.
The books say "or". Skip say "or". You are basically telling that "or" has no meaning. Once again guess who I am going to agree with.
So we have Skip, the book, myself(a poster who has constantly debated things then had the devs use the exact same logic that I use) all on the same side, along with other posters who arugments don't ignore the book.
On the other side we have a post "claiming" to have read the entire thread, but is arguing things that have already been discussed.
You need to bring evidence that the game has fundamentally changed with regard to how full attacks work because the 3.5 "Rules of the Game" and Skip disagree with you, and until you can prove those rules have changed, which would actually change the entire basis of how the game is played I can't agree with you.
PS:Once again the game has the same words as 3.5 so the "PF is different" argument won't fly.
|
|
Right back at ya!
Capitals are not the issue you think they are. First, as part of a title/heading capitals are to be expected. Second, in the description of Attack under Standard Actions it has sub-sections on Melee Attacks, Unarmed Attacks, Ranged Attacks, Natural Attacks, Multiple Attacks, even Shooting or Throwing into a Melee. All of these use the capitals that I just reproduced. A capital A does not only refer to a standard action attack. Melee, unarmed, ranged and natural attacks can all be elements of a full attack and all are capitalised, not because they are all reserved terms but because it is good grammar to capitalise initial letters in a title/heading. Do you think the words Shooting, Throwing or Melee would have an initial capital if they were in the body of the text instead of the heading? They do not, as you can see by looking! Even straight after the heading 'Attack' it does not say 'Making an Attack (capital) is a standard action', it says 'Making an attack (lower case) is a standard action. This shows that 'attack' is not a reserved term for an 'attack' as a standard action. Also under the 'Attack' section is the sub-section 'Multiple Attacks' which states that 'A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action...', demonstrating yet again that 'attack' is not a reserved term for 'single attack as a standard action'. Also, nowhere in the section of standard action attacks is the word 'attack' capitalised except when used in a heading. Nor is 'attack' capitalised in the body of the 'Deciding between...' text. Given the different action types in which it is possible to 'attack' (standard, full-round, free, non-action) it is unsupportable to say that, just because the word 'attack' has a capital in the heading (but not in the body of the text), that the full attacker that decides to take a move action instead of his remaining attacks has retrospectively taken a standard action.
As to adding a move action to a full attack action, not really. The move action becomes part of the full-round action you are already in the middle of taking when you took the full attack.
The 'declare' part is not a reserved game term, and I never thought it was. I was just using the English language to describe the sequence of events that a player takes when controlling his character; use another term if you want. When players and DM sit round a gaming table and the initiative is counting down, the DM eventually comes to Archer A in the initiative order. The DM says something like 'Archer A, it's your go; what are you doing?' (not game terms, I admit. But people talk in the vernacular, not exclusively in game terms) Archer A's PLAYER says something like 'I'm shooting my bow in a full attack, triggering Manyshot'. It was not my intention to invent a new game term, but it does reflect how games are actually played.
'I'm shooting at Orc B, DM!'
'Is this a standard or full attack?'
'Not telling you!'
No chance. In order to use Manyshot/Whirlwind Attack/Rapid shot you MUST use a full action. 'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks.' All lower case by the way.
So, I've answered your questions; how about answering mine! Quotes and page numbers for 'locked into a full attack' and 'attack must mean standard action' and 'if, after taking your first attack you decide to take a move action instead of taking your remaining attacks causes the full attack action you are already in the midle of causes the full action to spontaneously revert, retrospectively, into a standard action' please!