|
Cant you take a move action and then a full attack action sometimes (like if you've been hasted?)
No. Haste lets you add one extra attack (at your full BAB) as part of a full attack.
(That's how it works in Pathfinder - in earlier versions of the rules you did get an extra 'partial' action during your turn)
Cant you take a move action and then a full attack action sometimes (like if you've been hasted?)No. Haste lets you add one extra attack (at your full BAB) as part of a full attack.
(That's how it works in Pathfinder - in earlier versions of the rules you did get an extra 'partial' action during your turn)
Ah, thanks. (And apologies for cluttering a rules thread with what can politely be termed "scant" knowledge of the rules :p).
If it were already defined to be the first attack of a Full Attack, then the possibility of having taken a previous move action would already be negated.Cant you take a move action and then a full attack action sometimes (like if you've been hasted?)
NB: We dont really play by the rules, so apologies if this is just silly or naive from a rules perspective. It makes sense to us.
I don't know of any situation that lets you do this. Haste does not.
Pounce let's you Full Attack at the end of a charge but that's a little different.
I suppose. I just dont see where, after your first attack of a standard action, you might be able to choose to forgo any others and instead take a move action. It just doesnt seem to apply to a standard action, that's all I meant.
At the point that you take the first attack, you haven't decided which it is yet. A standard action or the beginning of a Full Attack. This is a rule about deciding between two things.
I suppose. I just dont see where, after your first attack of a standard action, you might be able to choose to forgo any others and instead take a move action.
I understand that. I'm sure that is why the text is written the way it is, and why it is placed where it is.
But...
Say you had planned to make a standard attack and then, when the monster died, move over to the next monster(a move action).
That's the plan. Right?
Now, lets say that monster doesn't die after your first attack. Well you definitely don't want to move away(you would provoke an AoO). And lets say you don't have any other reason to make a move action.
Well, hey! The GM didn't KNOW that was your plan. So hey! Why not cheat and pretend that you were doing a full attack action all along.
Some GMs might want to stop this kind of cheating by making the players verbal decide between an attack action and a full attack action BEFORE their first attack.
That seems silly to me. There is already a rule about that.
"Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack"
This rule makes it clear that you make this decision AFTER your first attack.
Now if you used Vital Strike for that first attack(gambling that you will take the monster out in one hit, and you might with the extra damage from Vital Strike) You couldn't then decide to take your remaining attacks. Why? Because you have already decided on the type of action you are using, because Vital Strike requires an attack action.
Exactly.
|
|
Some GMs might want to stop this kind of cheating by making the players verbal decide between an attack action and a full attack action BEFORE their first attack.
That seems silly to me. There is already a rule about that.
Think it through a little more carefully. There are lots of times where you should declare what kind of attack you are taking BEFORE the first attack. In the simplest case (iterative attacks with a single weapon) there is no difference between the first attack of a sequence and the only attack you get when taking a single melee atack. But in the case of two-weapon fighting (or flurry of blows, for a low-level monk) there is a difference; the first attack of a full attack is at a penalty compared to a single attack. I have known GMs to request a player declare what kind of attack they are making before they roll the dice (and, similarly, to state whether they are using power attack before rolling).
While most players won't game the system and examine the first roll before declaring, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a player to state up front what kind of attack he is making, and with which weapon. There's precedent for this kind of thing - many rules that allow you to modify a roll specifically state that the decision to invoke that modification be announced beforehand.
I think he was specifically discussing when you're making an unmodified attack...
There are lots of times where you should declare what kind of attack you are taking BEFORE the first attack.
Absolutely!
In the simplest case (iterative attacks with a single weapon) there is no difference between the first attack of a sequence and the only attack you get when taking a single melee atack. But in the case of two-weapon fighting (or flurry of blows, for a low-level monk) there is a difference; the first attack of a full attack is at a penalty compared to a single attack. I have known GMs to request a player declare what kind of attack they are making before they roll the dice (and, similarly, to state whether they are using power attack before rolling).
Certainly!
While most players won't game the system and examine the first roll before declaring, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a player to state up front what kind of attack he is making, and with which weapon. There's precedent for this kind of thing - many rules that allow you to modify a roll specifically state that the decision to invoke that modification be announced beforehand.
We're in agreement then.
Did you read my post?
Some GMs might want to stop this kind of cheating by making the players verbal decide between an attack action and a full attack action BEFORE their first attack.
That seems silly to me. There is already a rule about that.
Think it through a little more carefully. There are lots of times where you should declare what kind of attack you are taking BEFORE the first attack. In the simplest case (iterative attacks with a single weapon) there is no difference between the first attack of a sequence and the only attack you get when taking a single melee atack. But in the case of two-weapon fighting (or flurry of blows, for a low-level monk) there is a difference; the first attack of a full attack is at a penalty compared to a single attack. I have known GMs to request a player declare what kind of attack they are making before they roll the dice (and, similarly, to state whether they are using power attack before rolling).
While most players won't game the system and examine the first roll before declaring, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a player to state up front what kind of attack he is making, and with which weapon. There's precedent for this kind of thing - many rules that allow you to modify a roll specifically state that the decision to invoke that modification be announced beforehand.
To be honest, I thought that was just standard practice. We always ask what you're doing before you go in my groups. Seems kind of cheap to roll, see the result, then choose to power attack or whatever because you know you'll still hit.
With attacking, it's always just been, "I'm going to attack." Then, if you still want to attack after that, "I'm going to attack again." Never run into a game where something like the situation in this thread even became an issue.
To be honest, I thought that was just standard practice. We always ask what you're doing before you go in my groups. Seems kind of cheap to roll, see the result, then choose to power attack or whatever because you know you'll still hit.
With attacking, it's always just been, "I'm going to attack." Then, if you still want to attack after that, "I'm going to attack again." Never run into a game where something like the situation in this thread even became an issue.
You definitely should announce all modifiers that will apply to your roll up front.
I play on a VTT now-a-days. What their macro rolls is what they roll.
Occasionally they have to add due to flanking or bard.
I suppose. I just dont see where, after your first attack of a standard action, you might be able to choose to forgo any others and instead take a move action.I understand that. I'm sure that is why the text is written the way it is, and why it is placed where it is.
But...
Say you had planned to make a standard attack and then, when the monster died, move over to the next monster(a move action).
That's the plan. Right?
Now, lets say that monster doesn't die after your first attack. Well you definitely don't want to move away(you would provoke an AoO). And lets say you don't have any other reason to make a move action.
Well, hey! The GM didn't KNOW that was your plan. So hey! Why not cheat and pretend that you were doing a full attack action all along.
Some GMs might want to stop this kind of cheating by making the players verbal decide between an attack action and a full attack action BEFORE their first attack.
That seems silly to me. There is already a rule about that.
"Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack"
This rule makes it clear that you make this decision AFTER your first attack.
Yeah, that reading makes sense. So does the alternate, in my view (that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move action).
With manyshot in particular, it seems that your interpretation here is going to lead to a result that the designers likely didnt intend - the ability to make a standard action with two arrows and then move.
FWIW, which interpretation seems "obvious" might depend on default table assumptions - we always declare what we're doing before we roll, no matter what game we're playing. It's nothing to do with preventing shenanigans really, it's just how it's always been - we always declare our actions before we roll the dice. (If we roll without declaring, we'll generally impose the rule on ourselves that we're not doing anything 'tricky' but just making the obvious attack against the obvious target). Perhaps that implicit understanding leads me to find Wraithstrike's interpretation more likely.
that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move action
But don't you see how this completely goes against the concept of having different actions?
I mean really?
"OH, lets carefully define each and every action and place them each into clear category... Except Full attack action lets make that one all wibbly wobbly timey whimey after the first attack!!!"
-Bizarro world game design team
With manyshot in particular, it seems that your interpretation here is going to lead to a result that the designers likely didnt intend - the ability to make a standard action with two arrows and then move.
Absolutely not! That is what I'm arguing against. Did you not read my post?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that reading makes sense. So does the alternate, in my view (that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move action).
I agree that, what I will facetiously call, the incorrect reading could make sense before this thread and all the evidence that it holds. But to stubbornly hold to it when developers and creative directors are baffled by said incorrect reading comes across to me as wilfully pendantic and likely to be based in an unwillingness to admit being wrong.
To repeat, I'm saying that's how it comes across to me in the purely text-based medium through which we're discussing it. I'm not suggesting that anyone is actually being stubborn, pedantic, or unwilling to admit being wrong. Although they could well be :)
Yeah, that reading makes sense. So does the alternate, in my view (that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move action).I agree that, what I will facetiously call, the incorrect reading could make sense [i]before[/] this thread and all the evidence that it holds. But to stubbornly hold to it when developers and creative directors are baffled by said incorrect reading comes across to me as wilfully pendantic and likely to be based in an unwillingness to admit being wrong.
To repeat, I'm saying that's how it comes across to me in the purely text-based medium through which we're discussing it. I'm not suggesting that anyone is actually being stubborn, pedantic, or unwilling to admit being wrong. Although they could well be :)
I thought that was JJ's reading (he thinks you can't make a move action after the first of a manyshot attack, right?)
I didnt start reading this thread from the beginning though.
that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move actionBut don't you see how this completely goes against the concept of having different actions?
I mean really?
No, not really.
With manyshot in particular, it seems that your interpretation here is going to lead to a result that the designers likely didnt intend - the ability to make a standard action with two arrows and then move.Absolutely not! That is what I'm arguing against. Did you not read my post?
So would you say that, if you've elected to use manyshot, that after the first attack you dont have the option of doing anything other than making any subsequent attacks. (I have no idea what vital strike is - so although I read that bit, I didnt pay any attention to it, if it was the relevant explanatory bit).
Steve you are confusing the hell out of me right now.
What you are calling the alternate reading (deciding between two flavors of full attack), is the reading that the cheesy-team (which has really just been one guy for a few days now at least) is using to claim you can get off two arrows with Many Shot on a standard attack.
The other reading that you just agreed makes sense (when karlgamer restated it for the 10,000th time this week) is the one that denies the possibility of cheesing Many Shot for an extra arrow and still moving.
That's the one JJ agrees with. If you don't believe me go ask him in his thread it'll be the 3rd time someone has this week alone and at least the 4th time since april. He's politely answered every time.
PS: Don't really do that we've annoyed him enough lol
So would you say that, if you've elected to use manyshot, that after the first attack you dont have the option of doing anything other than making any subsequent attacks. (I have no idea what vital strike is - so although I read that bit, I didnt pay any attention to it, if it was the relevant explanatory bit).
If you use Manyshot then you have to use a full attack.
You don't HAVE to make any subsequent attacks but you can't take a standard action or a move action. A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step.
Yeah, that reading makes sense. So does the alternate, in my view (that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move action).I agree that, what I will facetiously call, the incorrect reading could make sense [i]before[/] this thread and all the evidence that it holds. But to stubbornly hold to it when developers and creative directors are baffled by said incorrect reading comes across to me as wilfully pendantic and likely to be based in an unwillingness to admit being wrong.
To repeat, I'm saying that's how it comes across to me in the purely text-based medium through which we're discussing it. I'm not suggesting that anyone is actually being stubborn, pedantic, or unwilling to admit being wrong. Although they could well be :)
I thought that was JJ's reading (he thinks you can't make a move action after the first of a manyshot attack, right?)
I didnt start reading this thread from the beginning though.
Sorry, I must have worded that poorly.
I'm fully with JJ, SKR and SW when they say that Manyshot requires a Full Attack option, and you can't back out of it to move. I think the other reading is incorrect, and has been demonstrated to be so.
I was agreeing that the incorrect reading (Manyshot, then choose to move) could have possibly been genuinely interpreted incorrectly prior to this thread and the developers comments.
Now, there's no way to justify that the incorrect reading is either RAI or RAW.
Sorry for being opaque.
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...!
Are you saying that you need a dev to say that once you start a full attack action that you must complete it?
Steve you are confusing the hell out of me right now.
That's likely to happen. We dont have much of an understanding as to how the rules actually work, so piecing through rules debates can be tough for me. (I just rely on you guys to sort through my ramblings). :)
What you are calling the alternate reading (deciding between two flavors of full attack), is the reading that the cheesy-team (which has really just been one guy for a few days now at least) is using to claim you can get off two arrows with Many Shot on a standard attack.
The other reading that you just agreed makes sense is the one that denies the possibility of cheesing Many Shot for an extra arrow and still moving.
FWIW, I think both readings make sense. That's part of why we dont worry about rules so much - if the length of some of these rules arguments is any guide you can make them say pretty much anything you want.
That's the one JJ agrees with. If you don't believe me go ask him in his thread it'll be the 3rd time someone has this week alone and at least the 4th time since april. He's politely answered every time.
PS: Don't really do that we've annoyed him enough lol
Nah, I'm comfortable with how we do it (you cant manyshot and then 'abort' your full attack to perform a subsequent move action). I just sometimes find it useful to try and work out what the controversy is.
Apologies for the confusion - looks like I got everything twisted up (no doubt partly a result of joining in after 1000 posts, huh?)
So would you say that, if you've elected to use manyshot, that after the first attack you dont have the option of doing anything other than making any subsequent attacks. (I have no idea what vital strike is - so although I read that bit, I didnt pay any attention to it, if it was the relevant explanatory bit).If you use Manyshot then you have to use a full attack.
You don't HAVE to make any subsequent attacks but you can't take a standard action or a move action. A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step.
Gotcha.
Yeah, that reading makes sense. So does the alternate, in my view (that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move action).I agree that, what I will facetiously call, the incorrect reading could make sense [i]before[/] this thread and all the evidence that it holds. But to stubbornly hold to it when developers and creative directors are baffled by said incorrect reading comes across to me as wilfully pendantic and likely to be based in an unwillingness to admit being wrong.
To repeat, I'm saying that's how it comes across to me in the purely text-based medium through which we're discussing it. I'm not suggesting that anyone is actually being stubborn, pedantic, or unwilling to admit being wrong. Although they could well be :)
I thought that was JJ's reading (he thinks you can't make a move action after the first of a manyshot attack, right?)
I didnt start reading this thread from the beginning though.
Sorry, I must have worded that poorly.
I'm fully with JJ, SKR and SW when they say that Manyshot requires a Full Attack option, and you can't back out of it to move. I think the other reading is incorrect, and has been demonstrated to be so.
I was agreeing that the incorrect reading (Manyshot, then choose to move) could have possibly been genuinely interpreted incorrectly prior to this thread and the developers comments.
Now, there's no way to justify that the incorrect reading is either RAI or RAW.
Sorry for being opaque.
I think we can safely assume that the confusion was on this side of the computer screen, not yours. :p
(I have no idea what vital strike is - so although I read that bit, I didnt pay any attention to it, if it was the relevant explanatory bit).
Okay, THIS is important.
If we ever refence a something in the rules that you don't know. Use the PRD.
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.
I take these discussions seriously and I hope you will too. (I've even been working on my grammar because of it.)
If it were already defined to be the first attack of a Full Attack, then the possibility of having taken a previous move action would already be negated.Cant you take a move action and then a full attack action sometimes (like if you've been hasted?)
NB: We dont really play by the rules, so apologies if this is just silly or naive from a rules perspective. It makes sense to us.
No, sir.
You have take a full round action or you may take standard action, and a move action. [/b]PS:A full round attack is a full round action. That rule is also repeated 2 more times in that chapter. :)
(I have no idea what vital strike is - so although I read that bit, I didnt pay any attention to it, if it was the relevant explanatory bit).Okay, THIS is important.
If we ever refence a something in the rules that you don't know. Use the PRD.
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.
I take these discussions seriously and I hope you will too. (I've even been working on my grammar because of it.)
Whilst I guarantee to take them seriously, I'm very unlikely to successfully look up rules and such (I generally get out the book and read up manyshot, actions, etcetera). I'm afraid hyperlinking just confuses me no end - I never understand how I ended up where I did or what the hell it has to do with what I wanted to know. Search functions are even worse. :(
I'll try not to ask you anything directly. That might be safer! :p
|
|
We're in agreement then.
Did you read my post?
I'm not sure we're entirely in agreement.
I don't believe that the rule allowing you to decide between a full attack and a 'regular' attack after your first attack trumps everything else, and I don't believe that usually being able to finalise this decision after the first attack is made means you don't sometimes have to make a choice before then. In particular, I believe that in order to be able to take the benefits of manyattack you need to make (and stick to) the decision to full attack.
I think it's easier and more consistent for the player to declare a full attack first; if they don't do that then manyattack isn't even an option. If the first roll misses, then the player still hasn't done anything to disallow changing his mind and switching to a 'standard+move' sequence. In fact that's still the case on a hit after the damage for the first arrow is calculated; at this point the two options are still indistinguishable. But deciding to roll damage for the second arrow carries the implicit decision to stay with the full attack sequence; trying to take a mechanical benefit that is clearly stated to only apply during a full attack, and then switch to taking an action which is prohibited as part of a full attack, is pretty clearly against other parts of RAW. I think that if one part of RAW has to yield, it should be the option to cancel out of a full attack if you have taken a mechanical benefit from full attacking.
As I've said before, I think this whole argument is overblown. By the time you've got to the level where manyshot is an option, the chances are that a single arrow's worth of damage isn't going to be all that significant. I'm not going to jump on a player the first time he does it. But if somebody is doing "two arrows plus a move action" every round of combat I'm going to have a quiet word with him.
Personally I think it would be better if manyshot and vital strike were unified into a feat more akin to weapon specialisation, and that either could be used with both standard and full attacks - I don't think this would break game balance. But that's not what RAW says, so in a situation where RAW is the goal we have to live with the ramifications.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Geddes, no harm no foul.
I was interested to see that your group, who are casual about the rules and just doing what makes sense and feels right, have the same take on things that most of us agree upon after 1000-something posts of banging our heads through sheetrock.
We're in agreement then.
Did you read my post?
I'm not sure we're entirely in agreement.
I don't believe that the rule allowing you to decide between a full attack and a 'regular' attack after your first attack trumps everything else, and I don't believe that usually being able to finalise this decision after the first attack is made means you don't sometimes have to make a choice before then. In particular, I believe that in order to be able to take the benefits of manyattack you need to make (and stick to) the decision to full attack.
I think it's easier and more consistent for the player to declare a full attack first; if they don't do that then manyattack isn't even an option. If the first roll misses, then the player still hasn't done anything to disallow changing his mind and switching to a 'standard+move' sequence. In fact that's still the case on a hit after the damage for the first arrow is calculated; at this point the two options are still indistinguishable. But deciding to roll damage for the second arrow carries the implicit decision to stay with the full attack sequence; trying to take a mechanical benefit that is clearly stated to only apply during a full attack, and then switch to taking an action which is prohibited as part of a full attack, is pretty clearly against other parts of RAW. I think that if one part of RAW has to yield, it should be the option to cancel out of a full attack if you have taken a mechanical benefit from full attacking.
As I've said before, I think this whole argument is overblown. By the time you've got to the level where manyshot is an option, the chances are that a single arrow's worth of damage isn't going to be all that significant. I'm not going to jump on a player the first time he does it. But if somebody is doing "two arrows plus a move action" every round of combat I'm going to have a quiet word with him.
Personally I think it would be better if manyshot and vital strike were unified into a feat more akin to...
You still haven't read karlgamers posts or something. Communication, reading comprehension, or something else is failing here.
Steve Geddes, no harm no foul.
I was interested to see that your group, who are casual about the rules and just doing what makes sense and feels right, have the same take on things that most of us agree upon after 1000-something posts of banging our heads through sheetrock.
We generally still play like AD&D (we have magicusers and thieves at our table) - so rules discussions happen a bit, but in situations of real disagreement, the DM just says how it is. I think it was from GURPS, but our general solution in the face of rules uncertainty can be summed up:
"When in doubt, roll and shout".
PS - If 1000 posts of head-banging were going to result in something contrary to common sense, I think one of us should be quite worried. :p
We're in agreement then.
Did you read my post?
I'm not sure we're entirely in agreement.
I don't believe that the rule allowing you to decide between a full attack and a 'regular' attack after your first attack trumps everything else, and I don't believe that usually being able to finalise this decision after the first attack is made means you don't sometimes have to make a choice before then. In particular, I believe that in order to be able to take the benefits of manyattack you need to make (and stick to) the decision to full attack.
I think it's easier and more consistent for the player to declare a full attack first; if they don't do that then manyattack isn't even an option. If the first roll misses, then the player still hasn't done anything to disallow changing his mind and switching to a 'standard+move' sequence. In fact that's still the case on a hit after the damage for the first arrow is calculated; at this point the two options are still indistinguishable. But deciding to roll damage for the second arrow carries the implicit decision to stay with the full attack sequence; trying to take a mechanical benefit that is clearly stated to only apply during a full attack, and then switch to taking an action which is prohibited as part of a full attack, is pretty clearly against other parts of RAW. I think that if one part of RAW has to yield, it should be the option to cancel out of a full attack if you have taken a mechanical benefit from full attacking.
As I've said before, I think this whole argument is overblown. By the time you've got to the level where manyshot is an option, the chances are that a single arrow's worth of damage isn't going to be all that significant. I'm not going to jump on a player the first time he does it. But if somebody is doing "two arrows plus a move action" every round of combat I'm going to have a quiet word with him.
Personally I think it would be better if manyshot and vital strike were unified into a feat more akin to...
Um, yes, you're in total agreement with Karlgamer... That's exactly what he thinks.
I don't believe that the rule allowing you to decide between a full attack and a 'regular' attack after your first attack trumps everything else, and I don't believe that usually being able to finalise this decision after the first attack is made means you don't sometimes have to make a choice before then. In particular, I believe that in order to be able to take the benefits of manyattack you need to make (and stick to) the decision to full attack.
I agree!
I think it's easier and more consistent for the player to declare a full attack first; if they don't do that then manyattack isn't even an option. If the first roll misses, then the player still hasn't done anything to disallow changing his mind and switching to a 'standard+move' sequence. In fact that's still the case on a hit after the damage for the first arrow is calculated; at this point the two options are still indistinguishable.
Ya, okay, I agree!
But deciding to roll damage for the second arrow carries the implicit decision to stay with the full attack sequence; trying to take a mechanical benefit that is clearly stated to only apply during a full attack, and then switch to taking an action which is prohibited as part of a full attack, is pretty clearly against other parts of RAW.
I agree!
Did you Finish reading my post?
Yeah karlgamer is not one of the bad guys. Wrong tree.
(unless you are referring to that thing you have about taking the first arrow of many shot and then deciding if you want the rest. That is a difference. If that's what you meant sorry for correcting you, I thought you were imagining karlgamer was in the many shot and move camp which he ain't)
|
|
You still haven't read karlgamers posts or something.
Oh, I read them. Several times. But it still wasn't clear whether he was stating that taking the decision between Full Attack and Attack after the first attack was the only time you could make that decision, or just one of the possible decision points. I could make a good guess, but there was always the possibility I was drawing erroneous conclusions.
When I said I wasn't sure we were entirely in agreement, that's exactly what I meant - I wasn't sure. We could have been, or we could have been disagreeing about one or more of the details (I didn't think we were in fundamental disagreement). It wasn't intended to be a sort of passive aggressive way of saying I totally disagreed with everything that he said.
Equally, though, I felt it was possible that I hadn't made my own position totally clear. So I tried to spell it out in full detail.
Oh, I read them. Several times. But it still wasn't clear whether he was stating that taking the decision between Full Attack and Attack after the first attack was the only time you could make that decision, or just one of the possible decision points.
Okay at the end of my post that you responded too I wrote.
"Now if you used Vital Strike for that first attack(gambling that you will take the monster out in one hit, and you might with the extra damage from Vital Strike) You couldn't then decide to take your remaining attacks. Why? Because you have already decided on the type of action you are using, because Vital Strike requires an attack action."
I think this apples to feat that require a certain type of action.
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."
My stance in nuanced and RAW.
|
|
Yeah karlgamer is not one of the bad guys. Wrong tree.
(unless you are referring to that thing you have about taking the first arrow of many shot and then deciding if you want the rest. That is a difference. If that's what you meant sorry for correcting you, I thought you were imagining karlgamer was in the many shot and move camp which he ain't)
The "decide after the first arrow" is too hair-splitting, IMO; while manyshot remains legal as part of a full attack, but not as part of a standard attack, I'd prefer the decision to invoke manyshot be made up front, even before the first attack is rolled. But if I were trying to rule strictly on RAW I'd feel I had to allow a player to change his decision up until he took the second damage roll on the first attack.
As for thinking karlgamer was in the manyshot-and-move camp; hardly. That camp seems to be pretty deserted by now, apart from the one strident and unyielding voice.
Steve Geddes, no harm no foul.
I was interested to see that your group, who are casual about the rules and just doing what makes sense and feels right, have the same take on things that most of us agree upon after 1000-something posts of banging our heads through sheetrock.
We generally still play like AD&D (we have magicusers and thieves at our table) - so rules discussions happen a bit, but in situations of real disagreement, the DM just says how it is. I think it was from GURPS, but our general solution in the face of rules uncertainty can be summed up:
"When in doubt, roll and shout".
PS - If 1000 posts of head-banging were going to result in something contrary to common sense, I think one of us should be quite worried. :p
Ah, AD&D, those halcyon days :) When you could only argue like this with the people you played with, as the 'net wasn't up to it then...
I remember when I thought that Forgotten Realms boxed CS was the best thing on the planet. Still got it somewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid hyperlinking just confuses me no end - I never understand how I ended up where I did or what the hell it has to do with what I wanted to know. Search functions are even worse.
Not that you're going to use the link but here's a funyy video just for you:
I'm afraid hyperlinking just confuses me no end - I never understand how I ended up where I did or what the hell it has to do with what I wanted to know. Search functions are even worse.Not that you're going to use the link but here's a funyy video just for you:
I can follow one link - it's after that I get lost.
PS - that would have been me, I'm sure of it.
|
|
I remember when I thought that Forgotten Realms boxed CS was the best thing on the planet. Still got it somewhere.
Oh, I know exactly where mine is - it's five feet away from me as I type, on the top shelf of the bookcase. That's the 1e version, but the 2e version is there as well, together with the 2e Waterdeep box, and assorted rulebooks (1e, 2e, and even a handful of 3e). The 1e Waterdeep box, Ruins of Myth Drannor, Ruins of Undermountain (I & II), Dragon Mountain, various modules, around 300 issues of Dragon, 100 or so issues of Dungeon, and a selection of other games (including Empire of the Petal Throne, C&S, First Fantasy Campaign, ...) live upstairs until we get the game room set up.
Pride of place, though, goes to the white box set, with supplements. Bought new in 1976 (for $10).
|
Yeah, that reading makes sense. So does the alternate, in my view (that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move action).I agree that, what I will facetiously call, the incorrect reading could make sense before this thread and all the evidence that it holds. But to stubbornly hold to it when developers and creative directors are baffled by said incorrect reading comes across to me as wilfully pendantic and likely to be based in an unwillingness to admit being wrong.
To repeat, I'm saying that's how it comes across to me in the purely text-based medium through which we're discussing it. I'm not suggesting that anyone is actually being stubborn, pedantic, or unwilling to admit being wrong. Although they could well be :)
The trouble is that none of the devs have ruled on how 'the rule' actually works. They've given their opinion about Manyshot, and said that Manyshot is different because you get the advantage up front. That's a different issue.
'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!
If you've finished re-writing my posts in an absurd manner, perhaps you have time to post, on this thread, the myriad of devs who say that 'the rule' does NOT allow you to take a full attack, resolve the first attack, then use 'the rule' to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks. You claim that 'all' the devs say this. I've yet to see a single one on this thread. Many have posted a dev answering a different question then try to pass off the devs answer as answering THIS question, but that's as unconvincing as your re-write of my post.
This is a chance for you to contribute positively for a change. I wonder if you can.
Whilst I guarantee to take them seriously, I'm very unlikely to successfully look up rules and such (I generally get out the book and read up manyshot, actions, etcetera). I'm afraid hyperlinking just confuses me no end - I never understand how I ended up where I did or what the hell it has to do with what I wanted to know. Search functions are even worse. :(
I'll try not to ask you anything directly. That might be safer! :p
Right Click - Open in New Tab
Does wonders for these sorts of things. You end up having like 5+ tabs open, but you never drift away from where you started, so retracing is rather easy.
'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!
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.
Yeah, that reading makes sense. So does the alternate, in my view (that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move action).I agree that, what I will facetiously call, the incorrect reading could make sense before this thread and all the evidence that it holds. But to stubbornly hold to it when developers and creative directors are baffled by said incorrect reading comes across to me as wilfully pendantic and likely to be based in an unwillingness to admit being wrong.
To repeat, I'm saying that's how it comes across to me in the purely text-based medium through which we're discussing it. I'm not suggesting that anyone is actually being stubborn, pedantic, or unwilling to admit being wrong. Although they could well be :)
The trouble is that none of the devs have ruled on how 'the rule' actually works. They've given their opinion about Manyshot, and said that Manyshot is different because you get the advantage up front. That's a different issue.
'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,...
Skip did not say you had to declare a full attack for TWF. He said you had to declare that you were TWF'ing so you would take the penalties.
'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,...
Ok, I was being light-hearted. Apologies for allowing a (perhaps poor) sense of humour to intrude upon so serious and important a topic :)
So, serious.
Seriously? Your above quotation is completely false. Nowhere does Skip state that you MUST choose to full attack. That is a blatant untruth. What he states is that you must take a penalty to give yourself the option of Two-Weapon Fighting. He specifically mentions the word 'opportunity' in relation to your second weapon, and then states that "you don't have to... even use the full attack action".
Read that last bit again. "Even use the full attack action." If I take one attack with a penalty as I'm intending to attack with my off-hand, I can choose not to attack with my off-hand, and I haven't "even use[d] the full attack action" at all in my turn. I've merely left myself the "opportunity" to do so.
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.
If you are going to state blatant untruths as fact, in CAPS no less, please do not get angry at me because you feel silly when your methods of debate are questioned.
Edit: Deleted some hyphens.
Edit 2: Deleted some words that may have been interpreted as mean.
Edit 3: And how you can suggest that any of this might be constructive is beyond me. Beating my children to make them stop crying would be more constructive than this stage of this thread...
1. Great points Hewey. I did not even catch that quotation by Skip. The "even use[d] the full attack action" is quiet compelling.
2. In Malachi's defense it is hard to tell tone of voice online. It is always good to use emoticons.
Yeah, that reading makes sense. So does the alternate, in my view (that what you are deciding is which of two 'flavors' of full attack you're performing - choosing to forgo the additional attacks you thought you'd need and instead perform a move action).I agree that, what I will facetiously call, the incorrect reading could make sense before this thread and all the evidence that it holds. But to stubbornly hold to it when developers and creative directors are baffled by said incorrect reading comes across to me as wilfully pendantic and likely to be based in an unwillingness to admit being wrong.
To repeat, I'm saying that's how it comes across to me in the purely text-based medium through which we're discussing it. I'm not suggesting that anyone is actually being stubborn, pedantic, or unwilling to admit being wrong. Although they could well be :)
The trouble is that none of the devs have ruled on how 'the rule' actually works. They've given their opinion about Manyshot, and said that Manyshot is different because you get the advantage up front. That's a different issue.
'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,...
Well guys, its been fun. That was the tipping point for me. Malachi was right all along. Even though he's quoted Skip saying you have to take the penalty but don't have to take the Full Attack, Malachi goes on to explain that what Skip meant to say, was you CAN and MUST take a Full Attack.
CAN and MUST.
Those are the items that have convinced me to change my mind. Specifically, the capitalization of those items is what I find so compelling.
Well guys, its been fun. That was the tipping point for me. Malachi was right all along. Even though he's quoted Skip saying you have to take the penalty but don't have to take the Full Attack, Malachi goes on to explain that what Skip meant to say, was you CAN and MUST take a Full Attack.
CAN and MUST.
Those are the items that have convinced me to change my mind. Specifically, the capitalization of those items is what I find so compelling.
I had to read this 3 times to realize you were being facetious.
|
|
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 attack, then take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks!
|
|
The trouble is that none of the devs have ruled on how 'the rule' actually works. They've given their opinion about Manyshot, and said that Manyshot is different because you get the advantage up front. That's a different issue.
Er - no it isn't. That's the issue everybody else has been discussing here.