|1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.|
Is it okay (or legal) to stop what you're doing mid-way through a full round attack?
I don't think there's going to much disagreement that once the dice are rolled for that attack and the result is revealed, you can't say oh actually I don't continue with that. This is especially noticeable for when a gunslinger misfires on an attack.
But what about stopping before you roll the next attack roll? This is a strong argument for not rolling all your attack at once.
This started from this thread on whether weapon cords are kosher in PFS.
|Ed Girallon Poe|
You are not forced to execute attacks if you do not roll them. This is basically stated on CRB p187 under Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack.
In that section it talks about making one attack and then deciding to proceed with subsequent attacks (and thus making it a full attack) or stick to one attack (and thus making it a standard attack).
However, you will not find a hard rule stating you are not forced to perform attacks because there is not a rule stating you are forced to perform attacks. :)
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
One caveat to all of this - if you're using a feat or fighting technique that imposes penalties on all attacks like rapid shot or two-weapon fighting, you are expected to declare your use and take the penalty to hit even if you end up only ever taking the first attack you are allowed. In other words, you take the penalty as if you were declaring a full attack even if, in this case, you never make more than one attack and decide to move instead of taking any subsequent attacks.
I agree with all above, you can voluntarily relinquish attacks you don't wish to make. Maybe the enemy has some ability to damage foes who hit it and you don't want to take more damage. Maybe you just want to speed up play by foregoing your last iterative with no chance of hitting.
But if you declare the use of TWF, Rapid Shot, Flurry, etc then it must be before any attack and you take the penalty.
Once an attack is declared and rolled, you can't take it back.
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
No needs for a FAQ. As a matter of fact, I believe that if you begin a full attack, you can change it to a standard if you only use one of your attacks. Perhaps someone will expound on that.
The rule is referred to by Gauss above. Here's the text:
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.
The best confirmation that I know of is that you can mix any kind of attacks in a full attack and that you can pick your targets as each attack resolves. If the GM claims that you have to finish your full attack after the first two attacks, . . . touch yourself.
Oh great. Now the thread will be moved to the mature forum...
You can stop your attacks, if you haven't rolled the dices.
Rolling all your attacks at once can be problematic, as there is people that will assign their attacks on the basis of the results, using the better results to hut targets with high AC and the low results to remove mirror images or hit targets with a low AC.
If a player roll all the attacks at once I will have to declare the target of each attack before rolling the dices.
Generally, a player should not roll all of her attacks at once for that reason, unless the player gives conditions that prevent her from benefiting from the simultaneous rolls, such as "blue die first, then red, then green, and I attack the dragon until it drops, then use any remaining attacks on the vrock".
if a player is rolling all their attacks at once, they are generally doing it in an effort to speed play and reduce the total amount of time that their turn takes.
as a GM i would not (nor would I suggest anyone else) do anything that demotivates players from doing this.
If they rolled 3 attacks, and the 1st one killed their target, by all means allow them to re-target or drop the remaining attack retroactively.
The alternative is that you are all but forcing your players to plod through their turns slowly, one roll at a time to prevent them from getting screwed out of opportunities because they were doing something kind and helpful to everyone at the table.
If you've ever complained about pacing or turn times, never be restrictive with this