Locked into a full attack is simple wording on the Manyshot feat. Even your side of the debate no longer disagrees with that. They have shifted the argument into 'full attack now includes the option for making 1 attack and then moving'.
As for attack must mean standard action, you have a point there. Still I ask you: which is more likely?
A) A choice between a standard action+move action or Full-attack action+5feet. This choice does not contradict existing rules on movement during a full-attack.
OR
B) A choice between a full-attack action+5feet or a full-attack action that makes only one attack and then allows you to move? This section option contradicts existing rules on movement during a full-attack.
Again, I vote for A. As for page numbers, I already provided all the page numbers in THIS post on this topic. Since no specific exception of the previous rules exist then this section (Deciding between...) is either contradicting those rules (choice B) or this section is a choice between standard or full-attack (choice A).
It is my assertion that this rule (Deciding between...) is indicating that you are NOT required to make a statement of standard or full-attack action until after your first attack. So no spontaneous reversion is necessary. You are simply not making the choice until you have to.
Note: in cases of special abilities (such as manyshot) those statements modify the general rules. They are forcing you to choose the moment that you use the ability.
- Gauss
Once again we have already said not every attack is a standard action. How many more times does it need to be said?
The book says you decide to attack or full attack. That implies they are not the same. Once again Skip(the guy who made the original) game disagrees with you, and so does the book. He is quoted several time in this thread, and a link is provided to the "Rule of the Game" articles.
You can't use a full attack and a move action in the same turn. No move actions, are not a part of a full attack action. They are independent.
During your turn you can take a full round action or you can take a standard action, and a move action along with the lesser actions such as free actions. You can not take a full round action which is what a full attack action is, and move action in the same turn. The book clearly states this. In short a move action never becomes a part of a full round action. Move actions are their own actions.
What you are saying is that the full attack or attack statement really means full attack or full attack, but that is not what the book says, nor what any dev will say.
Actually you have not answered our questions. You have ignored the book and the precedent set by a developer.
We have already answered your questions. You just don't like our answers. If you don't know that "attack" does not mean "full attack" then I don't know what to tell you.
Wait maybe I do.
Full Attack: This works just like the attack standard action except that you can make any extra attacks you have available because of your base attack bonus or equipment. 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.
You decide between the full attack and attack actions after you make your first attack. If you decide to use a move action after attacking, then your first attack is considered the attack standard action. Even if you choose the full attack action, you can take a 5-foot step before, after, or during the action. You can interrupt your attacks with a 5-foot step to bring new opponents within reach.
Well, look at that. Skip(that guy that wrote the original game) says that first attack reverts to a standard action. Well say it ain't so.
But PF aint 3.5.
It is not 100 3.5, but the game is backwards compatible. That means the rules have to work the same unless they have been specifically changed.
Let us compare 3.5 to PF.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full AttackAfter your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
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.
Both of them are basically the same. Well look at that. I guess the 3.5 rules, the PF rules, and Skip all agree.
Wraithstrike: In his defense, I did actually draw a line between capitalized Attack and standard action. He did have a point there. You may not have drawn the line but I did. He is correct it is not used clearly enough to draw a clear line between the two. My bad. However, that does not change the rest of it.
- Gauss
Wraithstrike: In his defense, I did actually draw a line between capitalized Attack and standard action. He did have a point there. You may not have drawn the line but I did. He is correct it is not used clearly enough to draw a clear line between the two. My bad. However, that does not change the rest of it.
- Gauss
Stop being impartial. :)
I did not even know you had done that, but in any event trying to say that a full attack or an attack or both "full attacks" was something I could not believe he was trying to say after the link you gave him explaining how the rules don't allow move actions during a full round attack.
Well I did learn the rapidshot is more restrictive than I thought it was so I guess it has been somewhat educational.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I have to admit when Im wrong otherwise Im just another rules lawyer. :P
- Gauss
None of us are rules lawyers! We're rules clarifiers. Because everyone hates lawyers.
|
Hey, I have to admit when Im wrong otherwise Im just another rules lawyer. :P
- Gauss
Gauss, I appreciate your integrity. Human nature being what it is, we all can get carried away by our passion for 'our side' of a debate. In our sober moments we admit that the merits of each case are what counts.
I have only been exposed to the world of the 'Forum' for less than a week so I'm learning the etiquette as I go along. My 'skill' with computers is laughable. Once, my Pit Boss came into the pit looking depressed. When I asked him what was wrong he said, mournfully, 'I've lost some files off the computer.' I, helpfully suggested that 'Maybe they've fallen down the side!' I once thought the pit computer was broken because it wouldn't work after I pressed 'control', 'alt' and 'delete'. I'd gone to all that trouble to find those damn keys and now it's not working! (fume!). Then someone pointed out that you have to press all three together. After some practice I've managed to get my typing down to one finger. Still can't get the hang of ITALICS though, so when I use capitals for emphasis it must look like I'm SHOUTING. sorry about that.
All that said, I'm NOT (pretend that's italics) a newbie at either PF or D&D. I've been playing 'the world's oldest role-playing game' in all it's incarnations (Pathfinder included) since 1979, and I've never taken a sabbatical away from it. I'm not claiming a world record but I fully understand the action economy in the game and I don't need 'Pathfinder 101' thank you very much!
That doesn't mean I can't learn from reading these threads. I started off by believing that a medium creature needs the EWP (bastard sword) in order to use a large bastard sword AT ALL (italics). I now see I was wrong. In the thread about the different versions of the paladin's Detect Evil ability I started with a decimate opinion; so much so that I didn't even realise there WAS (italics again, get used to it) a contrary opinion. After looking at the entire thread, and the wording of the rules, I realised that the text of DE could be read, entirely reasonably, EITHER way. We then have to decide how we'll each rule it until an official rule comes from on high; further debate would not get us anywhere.
Now we come to this debate. Saying you proved something on previous pages does not mean you can get away with stuff that I wasn't around to debate. I really did spend the day reading the entire thread. As well as researching the actual rules, eating, and shaking my fist at the gods.
Let's see if we can find some things upon which we agree, so that the rest of this debate is uncluttered by stuff we agree on.
I'm glad the capital letter thing is not an issue. So now, regarding the wording in the body of the text of 'Deciding between', our two positions are, and correct me if I mistake your position:-
The 'first attack' part of 'after your first attack, you can...' means
• The first attack 'becoming' a standard action attack if the move action option is taken
OR
• The 'attack' means the first of the many attacks that taking the full attack entitles you to
I believe it means the second. This is based on the fact that, like it or not, the 'Deciding between' section is a sub-section of full attack. It's right there, indent and everything! It's like your saying that that 'Deciding between' section is in the wrong place; that it should be outside the categories of 'standard' or 'full-round' or the rest. Trouble is, it ISN'T separate. It, RAW, is a subsection of full attack and thus the options allowed there may only be taken if you are part-way through a full attack.
By the 'locked in' thing I was referring to the imaginary 'rule' saying something along the lines of 'If the first attack of your full attack is an attack which may ONLY be taken during a full attack, then you may NOT 'decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks'. I know you WISH this rule existed, I know your take on this subject requires this rule to be an actual rule, RAW, but it's simply not! When I asked for a quote and page reference I was referring to this imaginary rule.
Another part of your argument is that, because the top of the second column on p.187 reads 'The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step.', that that means you can't take a full attack and a move action in the same turn. But wait, yes you can! It says so two paragraphs below it, in the body of the 'Deciding between' text!
Let's try an analogy. In the game of blackjack as dealt in casinos, the player places his bet BEFORE he sees the cards. He can't wait to see what his cards are THEN choose to place (or increase, or decrease) his bet! If he could he'd bet £2 if he gets bad cards and £1000 if he gets good cards. No chance, boy! Try it and see what happens. The 'rules of the game' stipulate that all wagers must be placed before the first card is dealt, therefore any bets that come after the first card is drawn are invalid.
Clear? Perfectly. But wait! It's also a rule in blackjack that, after seeing your first two cards and providing those two cards do not form a blackjack, a player may 'double-down', doubling the amount wagered at the cost of having to draw a single card only.
But, surely, the first rule of 'not being able to change your wager' stops the whole doubling down thing. No, because it's allowed in the rules and it is an exeption to the 'no changes to the wager' rule. If blackjack worked by the logic you put forward for full attacks, players would be forbidden from doubling, which is clearly not the case.
The analogy is that the 'full attack' is like the game of blackjack, and the 'Deciding between' is like doubling-down. Just because the general rule of full attacks is that the only movement you can take is a 5-foot step, it doesn't mean that the case of 'taking a move action instead of taking your remaining attacks' is not allowed, any more than the general rule of blackjack is that you can't increase your bet after the cards are dealt stops you from doubling down!
No-one thinks that a full attack is somehow getting several standard action, one for each attack. No-one thinks that because you move your speed during a charge full-round action that they are getting a move action AND a full round action. Why do you think that about 'Deciding between'? I don't, nor do the others who've kept this thread going for over 400 posts! It's not a free lunch; your 'move action' is paid for by cashing in the attacks, and each attack is as good as a standard action.
I agree that the game rules are unchanged between 3.5 and PF unless specifically changed. This was also true between 3.0 and 3.5. Thankyou for reproducing the text of 'full attack' and 'Deciding between' from p.143 of the 3.5 PHB. I don't have the computer skill to do that. : ) However, the relevant part for me is unchanged; consistent between the two versions is the fact that, in each version, 'Deciding between' is a sub-section of full attack, NOT a general rule about how actions work. Really! Typeface, indentations and everything! All indicate a sub-section of full attack. I know you wish it weren't but I'm talking RAW.
There IS something in the 3.0 version that could change my mind, and I offer it in the principle of full disclosure. (is that a full action? I digress :p)
'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack Action: After your first attack, if you have not yet taken a 5-foot step, you can decide to move instead of your remaining attacks. Essentially, you can decide whether to take the normal attack action or the full attack action depending on how the attack turns out.' 3.0 PHB p.124.
At first glance this may seem to support your case. Some things to note:-
In 3.0 it let's you MOVE, as opposed to taking a move action
It says 'essentially' you can decide between normal or full attack. That's different from 'it actually becomes' a normal attack. As an explanation it helps players to get their heads round it, but 'what it resembles' is not the same as 'what it becomes'.
Our old friend Skip said that it DID become a normal action. I like Skip; I used to read Sage Advice religiously in Dragon magazine. It was the first thing I turned to (alright, second after the cartoons)! I valued his advice to this day! But if Skip says something is RAW when it isn't RAW then he would be wrong, just like anyone else! I remember on several occasions when he made a ruling in SA that he had to retract a few issues later.
This doesn't mean that, therefore, he must be wrong this time! But it doesn't mean he's right either. In this case RAW is by definition correct and ANYONE who says otherwise is wrong, barring an official errata.
I don't for one moment think your arguing just for the sake of it, nor do I think your position on this is stupid. I just remain unconvinced that your case is RAW and that ours is!
I wish I knew how to edit my own posts.
There's an "Edit" button in the top right corner of each post, except it's only there for 1 hour after the post is made. Once an hour has passed, it's no longer possible to edit.
Malachi:
I did not state I 'proved' something on a previous page. I stated my page numbers were on the previous page (to prevent my having to copy/paste everything). There is a difference.
You have admited that you have failed to see a gray area before. Is it possible you are doing so again? If so, then wouldn't Skip's statements apply as clarification? You already admited that this section of the rules has not appreciably changed.
This is not a cut and dry case. There is room for interpretation since Attack is not clearly defined. Yes, the rules in question are part of the Full-Attack section. Guess what? Some rules on full-attack are in the Standard action section too. Does that mean we can use full-attacks as a standard action? NO.
Some section, either Standard OR Full-Attack must include the choice between an Attack and Full-Attack rules. Placement of those rules does not automatically mean those rules are either a standard OR a full-attack action. They could be both.
Note: I am not even talking Manyshot anymore. Until the 'Deciding between...' issue is resolved Manyshot cannot be resolved. No special ability based on a standard attack or full-attack action can be. In fact, this entire discussion has been confused because what the core issue is not Manyshot but is in fact this one rule.
- Gauss
Gauss wrote:
James:There is a question as to what types of actions are involved in the following paragraph:
CRB p187 wrote:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Please assume all questions involve standard iterative attacks (for simplicity).Question 1: When deciding between an Attack or a Full-Attack are we in fact deciding between a Standard action (Attack) or a Full-round action (Full-Attack)?
Question 2: If the answer is no, does this mean that a full-attack may include a move action provided you only make one attack?
Answer 1: Nope. An attack is a type of standard action. A full attack is a type of full-round action. Once you start the attack process, you're locked in to either making just an attack or just a full-round action.
Answer 2: Nope. A full-attack is you making all your attacks (be they off hand attacks, additional natural attacks, iterative attacks, or whatever). You can't also include any move actions in your full attack action, because your full-attack action used up your standard AND your move actions (since full attack actions are full-round actions).
Gauss wrote:
Im afraid you have me confused now James, you answered Question 1 with a 'nope' and then went on to describe what is a 'yes'. Perhaps my question wasn't clear. :)When I make a first attack I am given the choice between it being a first attack or a multiple attack after seeing the results of the first attack.
To restate the question:
If I choose to keep it 1 attack is it a Standard Attack Action?Your question was not clear.
If you decide to attack a foe, and you resolve that 1st attack, at that point you have to decide if you want to keep going with your additional attacks. If you do... it works as a full-attack action.
If you don't, then you've only made one standard action (an attack).
The game doesn't have an official "STATE WHAT YOUR ACTIONS FOR THE ROUND ARE AND STAND BY THEM NO MATTER HOW THINGS WORK OUT" stance, really. It's more fluid and flexible than that.
Now, I know some people will say that James Jacobs is not the rules guy. Fine, but Skip, JJ, a bunch of the rest of us are saying the same thing. That thing is that the 'Deciding between...' section is a choice between a standard attack action and a full-attack action.
Now, if you want to keep debating the point fine. But as far as 'Deciding Between...' is concerned, I am done. I will happily debate how JJ's interpretation affects feats like Manyshot. There is still plenty of material to debate there. But if we are on different playing fields then we cannot rationally debate Manyshot.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
.
.attack
an attack
attacks
attack action
full attack action
extra attack
attack of opportunity
These are all different terms.
The word "attack" is actually three words: a noun, a verb and, an adjective. As a noun it can refer to one or more attacks without invoking the usually "S" used to make words plural.
For instance "I will attack his army" doesn't usually mean: "I will hit his army once."
When used as a verb "attack" means(in game terms): "to attempt to strike your opponent" Although it is often used more broadly throughout the rules. (You might roll an attack roll to throw a potion to a friend)
I think you're right about the capitalization. It doesn't mean much. but it seems clear that the "Attack" section under the "Standard Actions" section under the "Action Types" section, is probably referring to the noun phrase "the attack action," and not the noun "attack." That's the inference I make.
"the attack action." has one meaning and it's clearly defined in the Combat section. "Making an attack is a standard action."
You could rewrite the rule "Making an attempt to strike your opponent is a standard action."
Notice that this is different from:
"If you get more than one attempt to strike your opponent per round because your base attack bonus is high enough...you must use a full-round action to get your additional attempts to strike your opponent"
This is a "full-attack action". It's under the "Full-Round Actions" section under the "Action Types" section.
Attacks of opportunity are not actions. They are not under ether the "Full-Round Actions" or "Standard Actions" section nor are they under the "Action Types" section.
Attacks of opportunity could be reworded: "These free attempts to strike your opponent are called attacks of opportunity."
So the big difference between an attack action and a full-attack action is that if you get more than one attempt to strike your opponent per round you are using a full-attack action.
So, after your first attempt to strike your opponent, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attempts to strike your opponent.
I infer form this that after your first attempt to strike your opponent, you can decide to make your remaining attempts to strike your opponent instead of taking a move action.
Do you not concur?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for posting that stuff from JJ.
Now that we can put the nonsensensical debate regarding "Deciding between an Attack and a Full-Attack" behind us we can now debate Manyshot.
Oh, wait. No debate is needed as the rules are crystal clear on what kind of action is required with Manyshot...
Gauss - you mentioned above that the rules for deciding between an Attack and a Full-Attack had to be somewhere - I think they were placed where they are for a reason...
For the first 5 levels of the game (assuming full BAB progression) there is very little differenc between a Standard Action & a Full-Attack (barring specific feats and abilities that are governed with specific rules pertaining to their use). When you only get 1 attack action with either a Standard or Full round action the general rules don't come into effect much.
Once you hit BAB 6/1 and have iterative attacks without relying on special abilities or feats it makes sense that the clarification pertaining to Attack actions and Full Attack actions be presented under the Full Attack heading - afterall, the Standard action has remained the same throughout.
Not sure if that makes sense as I am neither articulate or eloquent...
Long post
First of RAI trumps RAW for most people. With that said, by RAW and RAI you are incorrect. RAW the book says an attack or a full attack. It does not say full attack A or full attack B. RAI=listen to Skip, and playing the game for 10 years does not mean a lot. I have corrected a lot of people that have been playing longer than myself, and people who have played for a shorter time than me have also been right when I was wrong. This however is a fundamental part of the game, and you are incorrect, no matter if you go by RAW or RAI. You can't just ignore the word "or" because you don't like it. Well you can, but you are incorrect when doing so.
Now putting RAW aside you should remember that Monte Cook(another guy that wrote the game) has written compatible books that fail if Skip is incorrect. So are you going to tell me that two of the people the wrote the game, are wrong.
PS:I just got word that James Jacobs another guy that used to work for WoTC, and works for Pathfinder also agrees with my interpretation.
|
|
I wish I knew how to edit my own posts.There's an "Edit" button in the top right corner of each post, except it's only there for 1 hour after the post is made. Once an hour has passed, it's no longer possible to edit.
Cheers Are! : )
Yes Karlgamer, I concur. : )
Since the PF version of 'Deciding between' evolved from the 3.5 version, and the 3.5 version evolved from the 3.0 version, I'll refer to 3.0 to make this next point, which gets to the heart of what I'm basing my reading on:-
'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack Action: After your first attack, if you have not yet taken a 5-foot step, you can decide to move instead of making your remaining attacks. Essentially, you can decide whether to take the normal attack action or the full attack action depending on how the attack turns out.' 3.0 PHB p.124.
So, to clarify, the 'Essentially' part could mean either:-
• 'Essentially' means the action 'actually becomes' a normal, standard attack action
OR
• 'Essentially' means 'resembles' a normal, standard attack, in that you can choose to move after, just like if you had originally chosen to take a standard attack followed by a move in the first place
The reason I believe the latter is correct is this: if it were the former and you attack, see what happens, and then decide if it was a standard attack action or the first attack of a full attack action, then if you choose the standard attack option you would be left with a move action, which could be ANY move action from the Actions In Combat table!
But this is NOT the case! Read it again, carefully! If you choose to give up your remaining attacks you do NOT get a move ACTION, you just get to move (your speed). If it really DID change into a standard action attack then you'd get a proper move ACTION. You don't, you just get to move. This shows that it has not actually BECOME a standard action, it just resembles one because you can move your speed after it.
Skip didn't write the 3.0 PHB; Jonathan Tweet did. There were discrepancies between the 3.0 PHB, DMG and Monster Manual, like hardness/hit points of enchanted weapons for instance, so if Skip and Jonathan disagree on a rule in the PHB then what is in the PHB takes precedence according to the SRD, so if they disagree Jonathan OS right and Skip is wrong.
I hope I've made my position, and the reasons I hold to it, clear. That we disagree is a separate issue. : )
I'm beginning to feel as you do; we'll get no further solving the Manyshot issue by continuing to dwell on this point. So let's move on without either side backing down; I believe there is a way we can do that in this case.
Let's say (for the sake of moving on, not because I've changed my position) that your version is correct. By this I mean that, specifically, you can choose (after your first attack) that you can either:-
• Take the rest of the attacks to which you would be entitled as if you made a full-round action full attack all along
OR
• Decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, in which case the attack you took retrospectively became a standard attack action
Since the game came out (3.0) we understood that when you take a Whirlwind Attack, Rapid Shot, TWF, etc. you had to take the full attack action and take the penalties (if any) associated with the particular full attack (TWF penalties, -2 to all attacks in the round for Rapid Shot, etc.). So, you are using the TWF feat with a light weapon in your off hand, therefore you are at -2/-2 to attack. BUT, after the first attack in this full attack (which was taken at the -2 penalty) you can decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks. This may mean that you are only making a standard attack after all, and we know that if we had just done that in the first place then there wouldn't be the -2 attack penalty. Since I only missed that attack by one, does it now retrospectively hit, in the dame way that it 'retrospectively' becomes a standard action AFTER the attack is roed and I choose which action it was?
No! And you would say no also. The principle is absurd! Deciding between a standard and full attack after the attack is rolled IN NO WAY enables you to go back in time to change the past and change it from a miss to a hit, or even to change the fact that you DID make that attack at a -2 penalty! I trust I have your agreement here.
Similarly, you can't take an unpenalised attack, and the decide to make a Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, TWF full attack afterward! I trust you agree with me on that!
To even have a choice, you must treat the first (as yet undefined in terms of action type) attack as if you were going to make a full attack, taking any penalties that apply. If you then decide to take a move action instead of the remainder of your attacks you may (yes you may! It says so on p. 124 of PHB 3.0, p.143 of PHB 3.5 and on p.187 of PF Core!), but your decision only affects the game world AFTER that decision is made! No going back in time!
So, with Manyshot, you make a full attack with your bow so your first attack fires two arrows (p.130 Core). After making the attack you decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks. Yes, you MAY do this, it specifically says you can on p.187 of the core rulebook! Although your first attack has retroactively become a standard attack action, it in NO WAY goes back in time and make that extra arrow disappear! It has already hit and killed Orc A and his family are already mourning him as they rifle his pockets. Just because you chose to retrospectively and by definition AFTER YOU HAVE SEEN HOW YOUR FIRST ATTACK TURNS OUT make it a standard attack action does NOT mean Orc A comes back to life, does NOT mean the extra arrow appears back in your quiver, does NOT mean his family un-laments him, does NOT mean the past is changed in any way whatsoever!
BTW, please understand that if I use capitals I'm using them as I would italics because I can't get italics on the phone I'm typing this on. I'm not shouting, honest! : )
Earlier it was mentioned that the combat system has not changed from 3.0 to 3.5 to PF, unless a change is specifically made. I agree.
But Manyshot HAS changed. In 3.5 it was specifically a speci standard action which fired 2, 3 or 4 arrows, depending on the archer's base attack and with increasingly steep attack penalties. If could NOT be taken as part of a full attack, as it was not an 'attack action' but a special standard action, but you could obviously take a move action (including actually moving your speed) before or after the Manyshot. I read what the writers said about this at the time. They wanted to give archers a way to fire more than one arrow and still move in the same round.
I don't know WHY it was changed from requiring a special standard action to requiring a full attack. But they did.
To summarise, even IF we go with your interpretation, using Manyshot, Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows etc., while being full attacks, does NOT make the later choice of 'deciding to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks' unavaialable! There is STILL no rule whatsoever limiting that choice only to attacks which could have been made as a standard action. There is NO 'locked into a full attack' rule! There is a choice that is in no way restricted in the Rules As Written, even if Skip is right!
Good luck Malachi, I've been making the exact same point in virtually the exact same words for the last 400 or so posts.
They don't WANT to see it your way. So they won't.
I love that this thread has hit the point where we're having to sub in adorable fuzzy animals for violent actions to achieve clarity.
Tis wonderful, tisn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi:
So operating under the assumption that Skip (WotC developer) and James Jacobs (Paizo developer) are correct we have:
Deciding between an Attack and a Full-Attack is in fact deciding between a Standard attack action and a Full-round attack action.
Based on that we can now discuss how this affects Manyshot.
First, you are correct that 'locked in' is not a rule term. Just like you stated earlier that 'declare' it is not a rule term but a term for discussion.
Manyshot specifically calls out a full-attack action as a requirement to use it. But, it is a single attack.
So what happens if we apply the 'Deciding between...' rule based on the single attack language?
Well: If we cease firing after one attack and then take a move action then we have just taken a standard action and a move action. This means you just used Manyshot via a standard action which is against the rules of Manyshot. So, we can use 'Deciding between...' to perform an illegal action or to perform a legal action. Seems pretty clear at that point doesn't it?
- Gauss
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.
Bingo!
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'd be comfortable going so far as to allow the guy that's two-weapon fighting to opt out before iteratives, but after he made the first attack with his off-hand weapon.
I'd also let the Rapid Shot guy opt out before iteratives, after the bonus arrow shot.
But, those are radical dwarven ideas!
:)
I never said he wrote 3.0. I said he helped to write 3.5, along with Monte Cook. 3.5 not 3.0 is where PF's rules come from. I will respond to the rest of you post if needed in my next post.
|
@ Malachi
The problem is you're reading something into the rules that doesn't exist. You are assuming an option that is neither supported by RAW, nor by any of the developers or writers who've had a hand in crafting this game. THERE IS NO MOVE ACTION OPTION IN A FULL ATTACK. It even says "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step"
You are assuming that the text that says Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack, which is referencing two separate and distinct actions, somehow opens up an option in the Full Attack which does not exist. If you make a single attack, and then move, you are not involved in a full attack action. You have just taken a standard and a move. If you use an ability that requires a full attack action, you do not have the option to move because, as is clearly stated in the rules "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step".
At this point, to say otherwise is to ignore the input of the people who created the game, and purposefully misread rules that have been carefully dissected and explained numerous times in this post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have read the rest of your post, and the book says you attack first and decide second during normal attacks. You have yet to address the point by using the book's rules. You keep trying to say you decide first, but that is in direct conflict, with the book, and the developers. Remember, for the sake of clarify we are discussing RAI, not that I think you are correct by RAW either.
I know manyshot has changed, but the fact that you must do as a feat tells you in order to use it has not changed.
If we get to 10 pages we get an official ruling. Ok, so I just made that up, but maybe....
Couldn't hurt at this point.
...
Just wanted to say that I'm enjoying your input into the discussion, Malachi. You're posts seems well-reasoned, to me.
...Just wanted to say that I'm enjoying your input into the discussion, Malachi. You're posts seems well-reasoned, to me.
Trying to say Attack or Full Attack = Full attack or Full attack is not good reasoning at all.
OK I admit it, I am posting out of boredom. You should just admit that manyshot does not work without a full attack though. You should also admit that attack or full attack does not mean full attack or full attack. That will allow the devs to answer an FAQ on something else.
FAQ Question: Why does the rules team always have the same reasoning as that Concerro guy when long threads like these come up?
Rules Team:That Concerro guy is awesome. How else could he read our minds, and provide such relevant insight. It certainly can't be luck. If you guys listened to him we could focus on other things.
Since the PF version of 'Deciding between' evolved from the 3.5 version, and the 3.5 version evolved from the 3.0 version, I'll refer to 3.0 to make this next point, which gets to the heart of what I'm basing my reading on:-
'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack Action: After your first attack, if you have not yet taken a 5-foot step, you can decide to move instead of making your remaining attacks. Essentially, you can decide whether to take the normal attack action or the full attack action depending on how the attack turns out.' 3.0 PHB p.124.
Essentially never means resembles.
If it were the former and you attack, see what happens, and then decide if it was a standard attack action or the first attack of a full attack action, then if you choose the standard attack option you would be left with a move action, which could be ANY move action from the Actions In Combat table!
Okay, so your problem stems from two things.
First you don't like the word Essentially.
Second you don't like that they say move instead of move action.
Apparently those were real problems because both were removed from 3.5.
Honestly, I think you've only strengthened my case. I have a first printing of the 3.0 PHB(cover isn't even attached anymore), DMG and MM as well as the first printings of the 3.5 PHB, DMG and MM.
Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet and Skip Williams are the Design team for the 3.0 PHB, DMG and MM.
For 3.5 they split it up.
Jonathan Tweet for the PHB.
Skip Williams for the MM.
and Monte Cook for the DMG.
Sean K Reynolds is also there :)
Of course the important thing is that Skip Williams wrote the Rules of the Game article on the Wizards site. It becomes quite apparent form reading it that Skip Williams has 3.5 Fu.
Since the game came out (3.0) we understood that when you take a Whirlwind Attack, Rapid Shot, TWF, etc. you had to take the full attack action and take the penalties (if any) associated with the particular full attack (TWF penalties, -2 to all attacks in the round for Rapid Shot, etc.). So, you are using the TWF feat with a light weapon in your off hand, therefore you are at -2/-2 to attack. BUT, after the first attack in this full attack (which was taken at the -2 penalty) you can decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks. This may mean that you are only making a standard attack after all, and we know that if we had just done that in the first place then there wouldn't be the -2 attack penalty. Since I only missed that attack by one, does it now retrospectively hit, in the dame way that it 'retrospectively' becomes a standard action AFTER the attack is roed and I choose which action it was?
You should really read the article Skip writes about this. It's under "Two-Handed Fighting (Part Two)" in the link above. Very informative.
So, with Manyshot, you make a full attack with your bow so your first attack fires two arrows (p.130 Core). After making the attack you decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks. Yes, you MAY do this, it specifically says you can on p.187 of the core rulebook! Although your first attack has retroactively become a standard attack action, it in NO WAY goes back in time and make that extra arrow disappear!
To use Manyshot your attack has to be a full-attack action. So when you decide to use Manyshot you've decided to use a full-attack action.
You may not change this decision. The rule doesn't override the feat requirement of a full attack.
Feat's often make official rules null. Sometimes when they do this the feat will make it clear which rules it's nullifying. Other times it is easy to infer which rules are being nullified.
I would agree that Manyshot might need a slight rewording, but it isn't important enough that it should be required.
Rules Team: How can we have you agree with Concerro without him getting a big head?
Rules Team: How can we deflate Concerro's head?
:D
J/K Concerro
- Gauss
Setzer9999: Out of curiousity, do you believe that you can take a move action combined with a Full-attack action? Because that is what you just advocated.
- Gauss
I will also add that Jonathan Tweet was still with WoTC when that article was written. Do you not think he would have pulled his buddy Skip to the side and said "Uh Skip before you publish that you do know that is not how it works." Those of you who have seen SKR post here know he does not seem like the type to hold back if he has something to say. I am don't think he is rude, but he is a "tell it like it is" type of person and that is with the customers at times. Most people I know "let loose" a more with their coworkers than they do with customers. You have two devs who are good with mechanics, and nobody says anything to Skip really? Not only that, but the Rules of the Game articles are not a secret to the fans and especially the other devs in the industry. With PF being backwards compatible I am sure Sean was aware of that article, and so is Jason(lead rules designer). If they intended for PF to deviate from that message they would have clearly changed the wording, but they didn't.
Skip's ruling were official for 3.5. PF is backwards compatible with 3.5 so you either use the 3.5 ruling or you change it. I do not see a change in this case.
Setzer9999: Out of curiousity, do you believe that you can take a move action combined with a Full-attack action? Because that is what you just advocated.
- Gauss
No, I'm arguing that you take a full-attack by taking one attack, and then deciding if you want to take more attacks after the fact. The problem is that the Manyshot feat is flawed in its premise. You can't decide to take a full-attack action until after your first attack really. Because there isn't any specific wording saying otherwise in the feat, you get to decide after the first attack if you want to continue making more attacks, or if you want to move instead. Since both of your arrows have already been shot simultaneously in one attack, there isn't any going back now, but per the rules on deciding to continue iterative attacks, you can decide after your first to move instead of continuing more attacks.
If they wanted to be crystal clear that you cannot move after a Manyshot, it should have instead been a separate attack at your highest bonus, but then, of course, you would have to roll twice.
I am not advocating you can move with full-attack.... I'm advocating that you don't confirm that you ARE full-attacking until you make your second attack... something that is at odds with how Manyshot works.
Special Attacks often don't always care about the general rules. This is one of them. I would not mind errata to either either Manyshot or an errata to the general rules that states something like "Special attacks that specifically call for a full round attack do not allow you to wait until after the first attack to if you want to commit to a full round attack. You must declare you intention to use the full round attack before the feat comes into play." That way by deciding to use manyshot there is no argument that by deciding to use it you are committing to a full attack.
Rules Team: How can we have you agree with Concerro without him getting a big head?
Rules Team: How can we deflate Concerro's head?:D
J/K Concerro
- Gauss
Rules Team:No reply needed.
Setzer9999: Out of curiousity, do you believe that you can take a move action combined with a Full-attack action? Because that is what you just advocated.
- Gauss
No, I'm arguing that you take a full-attack by taking one attack, and then deciding if you want to take more attacks after the fact. The problem is that the Manyshot feat is flawed in its premise. You can't decide to take a full-attack action until after your first attack really. Because there isn't any specific wording saying otherwise in the feat, you get to decide after the first attack if you want to continue making more attacks, or if you want to move instead. Since both of your arrows have already been shot simultaneously in one attack, there isn't any going back now, but per the rules on deciding to continue iterative attacks, you can decide after your first to move instead of continuing more attacks.
If they wanted to be crystal clear that you cannot move after a Manyshot, it should have instead been a separate attack at your highest bonus, but then, of course, you would have to roll twice.
I am not advocating you can move with full-attack.... I'm advocating that you don't confirm that you ARE full-attacking until you make your second attack... something that is at odds with how Manyshot works.
So you are saying the general rule, and the specific rule are at odds?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Setzer9999:
Ok, so you are not saying a Full-attack action comes with a Movement action if you are only making 1 attack. Great.
Now: If an ability states it is a full-attack to use it, why is there any discussion?
Manyshot with 1 attack (2arrows) = Full-attack. That is written into the feat. Since a full-attack does not allow a move action the rest is moot. You may choose to stop firing after the first attack. Fine. But you may still not take a move action because Manyshot is a Full-attack action.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not advocating you can move with full-attack.... I'm advocating that you don't confirm that you ARE full-attacking until you make your second attack... something that is at odds with how Manyshot works.
If it's at odds with how Manyshot works it's also at odds with Whirlwind Attack works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Karlgamer: Hell, it is at odds with ANY feat that specifies a Full-attack action if we are to go with setzer9999's interpretation.
- Gauss
See, this is why I think learning to play Magic the Gathering is important.
You should just admit that manyshot does not work without a full attack though.
Or, perhaps, you could admit that although manyshot works when making a full attack, a full attack isn't necessary.
After all, you don't require the character to make his iterative attacks, do you? You will let him just stand there for the remainder of the round (or take a 5' step, if he hasn't, already).
Firing the second arrow in the first attack requires no greater expenditure of effort than firing a single arrow. After all, both can be done with the first attack.
The iterative attacks are worth at least the equivalent of a move action (if not more). Otherwise a character wouldn't be allowed to decide to take a move action instead of his iteratives.
If manyshot required a greater expenditure of effort during the first attack than a normal first attack, it wouldn't allow time for the character's regular iteratives.
So, after the first attack, being able to choose a move instead of iteratives is simply as logical as it would be without manyshot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To use Manyshot you have to use a full attack action.
A full attack action does NOT allow you to change your action after your first attack.
Because your first attack could be ether the first attack of a full attack action or a standard attack action the rules specifically allow you to decided after that ambiguous first attack.
If that first attack isn't ambiguous then you don't get to choose because you have already chosen.
You're DM might allow you to choose anyway, especially if you didn't get any benefit from your previous choice.
There's the old saying: Dance with the girl you brought
Setzer9999:
You indicate that a full-attack action+move does not in fact exist. But then you go on and in your explanation you describe a full-attack+move action. You cannot have a it both ways.
Lets go back to Iterative attacks for a moment. No Manyshot or any other feat.
Assume I have multiple iterative attacks, no special feats are being used.
Step 1: I make one attack. Am I making a standard attack? Dont know yet. Am I making a full-attack? Also don't know yet.
Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with step 1? Please state agree or disagree, then provide reasoning.
Step 2: Now I make a decision. If I decide to move, my first attack is a standard action. If I decide to attack again my first (and subsequent) attack(s) is a full-attack action.
Question 2: Do you agree or disagree with step 2? Please state agree or disagree, then provide reasoning.
- Gauss
This feat is much clearer, in that it specifies that you give up your other attacks (which also means you give up considerations about your other attacks, as they don't exist). So, no, my interpretation of Manyshot doesn't have any negative impact on Whirlwind Attack.
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks
When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach...
If you happen to only have one opponent within reach you only make one attack.
So after that attack you're saying that you can take a move action.
So you are saying the general rule, and the specific rule are at odds?Setzer9999: Out of curiousity, do you believe that you can take a move action combined with a Full-attack action? Because that is what you just advocated.
- Gauss
No, I'm arguing that you take a full-attack by taking one attack, and then deciding if you want to take more attacks after the fact. The problem is that the Manyshot feat is flawed in its premise. You can't decide to take a full-attack action until after your first attack really. Because there isn't any specific wording saying otherwise in the feat, you get to decide after the first attack if you want to continue making more attacks, or if you want to move instead. Since both of your arrows have already been shot simultaneously in one attack, there isn't any going back now, but per the rules on deciding to continue iterative attacks, you can decide after your first to move instead of continuing more attacks.
If they wanted to be crystal clear that you cannot move after a Manyshot, it should have instead been a separate attack at your highest bonus, but then, of course, you would have to roll twice.
I am not advocating you can move with full-attack.... I'm advocating that you don't confirm that you ARE full-attacking until you make your second attack... something that is at odds with how Manyshot works.
I'm saying, strictly as written, the rules don't actually even intersect. Since there isn't any rule like the one in your previous post where it is defined that you must "declare" or "lock into" a full-attack for cases like Manyshot, Manyshot can't actually even be taken as part of a "full-attack" action.
A full-attack action, as written, is a series of decisions and other actions. Its not a single action by itself. Determining if something is a full attack action consists of attacking, deciding to continue to attack or move, then attacking more or moving. The problem is, Manyshot...
The feat calls out a full attack action. Since when can a feat call out an action, that you get to ignore? You can ignore that question but it won't go away.
You should just admit that manyshot does not work without a full attack though.Or, perhaps, you could admit that although manyshot works when making a full attack, a full attack isn't necessary.
After all, you don't require the character to make his iterative attacks, do you? You will let him just stand there for the remainder of the round (or take a 5' step, if he hasn't, already).
Firing the second arrow in the first attack requires no greater expenditure of effort than firing a single arrow. After all, both can be done with the first attack.
The iterative attacks are worth at least the equivalent of a move action (if not more). Otherwise a character wouldn't be allowed to decide to take a move action instead of his iteratives.
If manyshot required a greater expenditure of effort during the first attack than a normal first attack, it wouldn't allow time for the character's regular iteratives.
So, after the first attack, being able to choose a move instead of iteratives is simply as logical as it would be without manyshot.
So you are saying that a feat can call out action X, but action x is really an option, not a requirement?
|
|
...Just wanted to say that I'm enjoying your input into the discussion, Malachi. You're posts seems well-reasoned, to me.
Opinion seems to be divided on that, but thankyou. : )
Sometimes we ALL (me included) make the error of putting words into the mouths of our detractors that they never said or believe, in the (conscious or unconscious) attempt to make it seem as if they are arguing something absurd.
So I'll go through what I DO believe in an attempt to clarify the situation. I'll also assume that you MAY choose to take an attack and THEN choose, retrospectively, whether it was a standard action attack or a full attack (and I'm doing this so we go forward instead of backward).
Skip (who was one of the three lead writers for 3.0 but NOT 3.5) says that you attack first then choose action type later. He NEVER says that you cannot choose your action type BEFORE your first attack, so there is nothing in what he says that stops you and nothing in the rulebook either. He NEVER says that if you are taking a full attack that you are denied the choice to take a move action instead of making the remainder of your attacks. This choice is spelled out specifically. When it says that you can do this 'instead of making the remainder of your attacks' this MUST mean that the wording of the rule EXPECTS you to have more than one attack, and that is ONLY possible in the normal action economy if you ARE taking a full attack. This should not surprise us, as the rule is definately a sub-section of Full Attack! As to the 'when you take a full attack you can't move more than 5 feet' argument, I debunked that with my previous blackjack analogy. In short, when taking a full attack you can't move more than 5 feet UNLESS, after your first attack of your full attack sequence is resolved, you take a move action instead of making the remainder of your attacks (which you could only do in a full attack). In the same way that you cannot increase your wager on blackjack after the first card has been dealt UNLESS you double down.
This means that you MAY take a full attack (with or without Manyshot, Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, TWF or whatever) BEFORE your first attack if you want to, resolve your first attack as if it were the first attack in a full attack sequence, and THEN decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks. NOWHERE in the rules does it contradict this, NOWHERE have I seen Skip saying that this is not allowed nor contradicted anything he said.
So yes, Manyshot requires a full attack action. Full attack actions MAY, after the first attack is resolved, retroactively become a standard action (by choosing to give up your remaining attacks), leaving you with a move action. You cannot disagree with this 'retroactive' part because Skip himself is saying that you attack first then RETROACTIVELY decide if that was a standard or full action.
Retroactively deciding that your first attack will be your only attack and therefore a standard action IN NO WAY implies that your first attack didn't really happen the way you resolved it. It does not erase that second arrow from the past, nor does it turn back time, nor does Orc A come back to life because the second arrow was the one that took him down.
So yes, the upshot is that, RAW and Rules as Skip Says, you CAN effectively get two arrows off using Manyshot, and the action to do this became a standard action retrospectively. It's allowed because at the time you fired those twin arrows you WERE taking a full attack, even if AFTER THE ATTACK WAS RESOLVED AND THE RESULT SEEN, the action retroactively became a standard action.
I hope that this is well thought out enough that you follow my reasoning, even if your opinion differs from mine. I like that Gauss and Wraithstrike try to do the same.
As to RAW vs RAI, in this thread I've tried to keep it all about the RAW as this is a PFS thread, and I'm convinced that my opinions are either supported by, or not contradicted by, the RAW, nor are they contradicted by Skip from the posts regarding his opinions on this thread. I don't have access to any opinion he may have that is NOT posted on this thread. : )
I also believe that the intent of the rules matches what I've said. I believe that the devs are okay with taking the first attack in a Manyshot, Flurry, Rapid Shot or TWF sequence as a full attack, then take a move action instead of your remaining attacks, just like it says on p.187.