No, he doesn't. That's the whole "Since it's just a penalty that's been applied so far, I won't hold a player to it" thing. It's different when the benefit is upfront and the penalty is later. It's not a RAW issue, it's an ease-of-play issue. Allowing a player to back out of a full-round action after taking only a penalty without getting a benefit breaks nothing; the same cannot be said for what you propose with Manyshot.'I also believe what the Skip Willams says: "You do not have to choose between the attack and full attack actions until after you have made your first attack on your turn (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). However, if you intend to attack with two weapons during your action, you must take the correct penalty for each attack or give up your opportunity to use your second weapon...Even if you decide to take the penalty, you don't have to attack with the torch, or even use the full attack action."'
So, Skip thinks you CAN choose a full attack, indeed MUST choose a full attack, to have a chance of using Two-Weapon Fighting during your turn. But he STILL thinks you can, after your first attack, take a move action instead of your remaining attacks, and thus not use the full attack action. So Skip chooses full attack BEFORE his first attack, resolves that first attack as the first of a full attack action, then sees how it turns out and takes a move action instead of the full attack!
So Skip agrees with me!
Thankyou! The objection to Manyshot benefitting from the option given in 'the rule' is NOT that 'the rule' doesn't work that way; he clearly thinks it DOES work that way!
His objection is that Manyshot gets it's benefit in the first attack, and thar Rapid Shot, TWF and the rest only get a penalty on the first attack. Although that IS a valid opinion it is not, as you point out, RAW.
Further, he does not challenge our view that 'the rule' allows you to choose a full attack, fully resolve the first attack of that full...
Where did he say that about rapidshot?
Are you saying that you need a dev to say that once you start a full attack action that you must complete it?Look guys! At this point all we are doing is re-stating our sides' opinions over and over again. The only way forward is for the devs to rule on which interpretation of 'the rule' is correct; the one as re-written by Wraithstrike, or the one as re-written by me (no ego involved).
Step forward, Wraithstrike...!
Malachi I also need for you to respond to this post. I am assuming you just did not see it.
This is starting to make me giggle out loud :)
Thankyou! The objection to Manyshot benefitting from the option given in 'the rule' is NOT that 'the rule' doesn't work that way; he clearly thinks it DOES work that way!
His objection is that Manyshot gets it's benefit in the first attack, and thar Rapid Shot, TWF and the rest only get a penalty on the first attack. Although that IS a valid opinion it is not, as you point out, RAW.
Further, he does not challenge our view that 'the rule' allows you to choose a full attack, fully resolve the first attack of that full attack, then take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks!
Again, not correct. The view is that, essentially, the RAW version of the Rule does work to disallow a PC from changing his/her mind later once already having decided to do a full attack action which uses abilities that are necessarily a part of a full attack action. However, nobody is going to disallow a PC from making a choice that places them at a disadvantage if they later change their mind and decide to not follow through with it. And he clearly doesn't think the rule works that way because the PC in that instance would not have taken a full-round action; they simply took a standard action at a penalty in the event that they chose to follow through with a full-round action.
EDIT: To clarify.
|
littlehewy wrote:-
'There is no backing out of a full attack action here. There is only a full attack action when a) I make an iterative attack, or b) I choose an action (like Manyshot) that requires me to commit to a full attack action from the get go - and then stick with it.'
Two-weapon fighting involves more than one attack. In order to get more than one attack you must choose a full attack action. If you take your first attack (only), then use 'the rule' to take a move action, then you only made one attack, so you didn't use a full attack after all.
If you choose the full attack action with a bow, if you have Manyshot, the first attack fires two arrows. If you take this first attack (only), then use 'the rule' to take a move action, then you only made one attack, so you didn't use a full attack after all.
It's applying the same rule consistently for both cases with the same result. The fact that you got a benefit instead of a penalty is an entirely separate issue!
Secondly, Manyshot does not require you to take a full attack any more than TWF does. It says 'when' you take a full attack, your first attack fires two arrows. In the same way that TWF says 'when' you take a full attack, you get an extra off-hand attack.
Neither says you have to 'complete' a full attack! Indeed, 'the rule' allows you to take your first attack then take a move action instead of your remaining attacks.
And 'remaining attacks' is not limited to iterative attacks only; where is that rule?
|
|
Wraithstrike wrote:-
'Are you saying that you need a dev to say that once you start a full attack action that you must complete it?
Malachi I also need for you to respond to this post. I am assuming you just did not see it.'
Since the book says I DON'T need to complete (specifically) a full attack action because I can take a move action instead of my remaining attacks, I don't need a dev to tell me anything! It's right there in the RAW!
The only thing a dev can do right now is to answer the question I asked you to pose them, about how 'the rule' actually works (your version or mine). We both believe the RAW backs our interpretation, therefore they need to rule on which interpretation is correct. Once we have that, all are other disagreements evaporate in short order.
Or they could give us an official errata.
Until then we are just re-stating our respective opinions; it's just so much hot air.
The book does not say you don't need to complete the full round action. You have yet to provide a supporting quote for that. The book says you attack and then decide. I have support of the word "after". You have yet to show me where the book says you start a full attack, and then get to decide to stop it.
I will also add that the first attack has no action assigned to it like manyshot does so the first attack having no action assigned to can't be really deemed a full attack action that you were allowed to stop. Skip's quote also supports the first normal attack not having an action assigned to it, so if that is basis for your argument then the devs and the rules are also not supporting.
edit:The rules also don't state that I must complete mu full round action for a charge. Are we going to support that also?
littlehewy wrote:-
'There is no backing out of a full attack action here. There is only a full attack action when a) I make an iterative attack, or b) I choose an action (like Manyshot) that requires me to commit to a full attack action from the get go - and then stick with it.'
Two-weapon fighting involves more than one attack. In order to get more than one attack you must choose a full attack action. If you take your first attack (only), then use 'the rule' to take a move action, then you only made one attack, so you didn't use a full attack after all.
If you choose the full attack action with a bow, if you have Manyshot, the first attack fires two arrows. If you take this first attack (only), then use 'the rule' to take a move action, then you only made one attack, so you didn't use a full attack after all.
It's applying the same rule consistently for both cases with the same result. The fact that you got a benefit instead of a penalty is an entirely separate issue!
Secondly, Manyshot does not require you to take a full attack any more than TWF does. It says 'when' you take a full attack, your first attack fires two arrows. In the same way that TWF says 'when' you take a full attack, you get an extra off-hand attack.
Neither says you have to 'complete' a full attack! Indeed, 'the rule' allows you to take your first attack then take a move action instead of your remaining attacks.
And 'remaining attacks' is not limited to iterative attacks only; where is that rule?
You have rather disingenuously ignored the main point of my "serious" response, but never mind, if you wish to blithely ignore the pertinent parts of the counter-arguments against you to quibble with unimportant things, that's up to you.
You are quite right - I was incorrect in using the word iterative, I should have said "extra".
Now, before we tackle Two-Weapon Fighting, let's look at Full Attack.
It states (CRB p187): "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough..., because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." It doesn't say anything about your first attack. The essence of a full-attack action is that it is not a full-attack action unless you take your additional attacks. That's why after your first attack, you decide (or not) to full-attack by taking extra attacks.
In the Two-Weapon Fighting section (CRB p202) it actually says nothing about a full-attack option, it merely says that "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round", and that you suffer penalties "when you fight that way".
So you can decide to "fight that way" without needing to declare a full-attack (unlike Manyshot, which specifically states needing to use a full-attack action). Having decided to "fight that way", you take a penalty on your first attack (which still leaves you in the realm of "not having decided to make a full-attack", which is why there is a section called "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" - you are undecided until you attack again). If you choose to make additional or extra attacks, you are then full-attacking. If you have moved excepting a 5-foot step, this option is not open to you (as per 'the rule').
Manyshot is entirely different. Unlike Two-Weapon Fighting, it specifically states that you must take a full-attack to gain the benefits of the feat. You are not "undecided" any longer. Your decision is made.
So, are you going to reply to my rebuttal of your Skip quote attempt? Or, lacking any way to get out of admitting that you may have erred, will you ignore it? Look above, I admitted I was wrong. It's quite painless, you try it.
That was pretty persuasive, littlehewy. Well put.
He really did drive me to it... Now, it's 3.30am local time, if I quit responding, don't think I ain't checking back in tomorrow!
Secondly, Manyshot does not require you to take a full attack any more than TWF does. It says 'when' you take a full attack, your first attack fires two arrows. In the same way that TWF says 'when' you take a full attack, you get an extra off-hand attack.
Neither says you have to 'complete' a full attack! Indeed, 'the rule' allows you to take your first attack then take a move action instead of your remaining attacks.
Wut?
Manyshot says you can do 'x' during a full attack action. Rules of this nature are generally like documents of limitation, meaning you can do what they tell you to do not you can do everything but what they tell you you can't. The rule does not say you can use Manyshot as anything but a full attack action.
You've admitted that if you use the rule, your first attack is only a standard action. Yet in your first paragraph here, you're emphasizing that you can only gain the benefit 'when' you take a full action. Manyshot doesn't require you to take a full attack, but it does require that if you're actually going to use it. So ... seriously, what are we even doing here?
And you still haven't addressed the whole Pounce issue that's only an issue under your interpretation of the Rule.
Secondly, Manyshot does not require you to take a full attack any more than TWF does. It says 'when' you take a full attack, your first attack fires two arrows. In the same way that TWF says 'when' you take a full attack, you get an extra off-hand attack.
Neither says you have to 'complete' a full attack! Indeed, 'the rule' allows you to take your first attack then take a move action instead of your remaining attacks.
Wut?
Manyshot says you can do 'x' during a full attack action. Rules of this nature are generally like documents of limitation, meaning you can do what they tell you to do not you can do everything but what they tell you you can't. The rule does not say you can use Manyshot as anything but a full attack action.
You've admitted that if you use the rule, your first attack is only a standard action. Yet in your first paragraph here, you're emphasizing that you can only gain the benefit 'when' you take a full action. Manyshot doesn't require you to take a full attack, but it does require that if you're actually going to use it. So ... seriously, what are we even doing here?
And you still haven't addressed the whole Pounce issue that's only an issue under your interpretation of the Rule.
What's that, not addressing something that makes one's position untenable?
I never heard of such a thing :)
