You have to decide what type of action your making. You must take all the penalties as appropriate as if you were going to take that full attack action type (whether it be flurry, TWF, etc). After the first attack, if you find that for whatever reason you don't want to make the attacks you can instead stop and take a move action.
You've taken the penalties, but gotten no benefit.
At the very least in the instances of flurry and two weapon fighting they are full attack actions, with some caveats. But those caveats are the only way in which they are different. Otherwise, they work exactly like a full attack action. Which means you should be able to stop and take a move action.
As for the option with Manyshot, I would let it function if something occurred to make the archer realize it wasn't effective. But, if they were using it as a way to get two effective shots without taking a full round action I would simply tell them to quit abusing the system. If they did not then I would kick them from the game.
The argument is usually that taking any of these special full attack actions can only be used while taking a full attack, and the above text lets you essentially not take a full attack so the flurry and other abiltiies couldn't have been used and thus you can't take the move after they are started. This has to do with the negatives incured and the bonuses in the case of flurry since you use your level as BAB for flurry when determining Power Attack.
There is no difference. As you have said, your basic fighter can take his full iterative attack action, which is a "Full Attack" and then can abort after one attack. Likewise, a monk can take a flurry of blows, which is a "Full Attack" and then can abort after one attack.
This gets further complicated when you look at Manyshot. Which states "When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit."
No complication. If you use Manyshot and fire two arrows, you have made TWO attacks, not one. It's now too late to abort because it is no longer "after your first attack", it is "after your first and second attacks" which is too late. Sure, it was only one attack roll, but it was two attacks, you got the benefit of the "Full Attack" and you did, in fact, fire TWO arrows, so regardless of the number of dice rolled, it was two attacks.
|
This gets further complicated when you look at Manyshot. Which states "When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit."No complication. If you use Manyshot and fire two arrows, you have made TWO attacks, not one. It's now too late to abort because it is no longer "after your first attack", it is "after your first and second attacks" which is too late. Sure, it was only one attack roll, but it was two attacks, you got the benefit of the "Full Attack" and you did, in fact, fire TWO arrows, so regardless of the number of dice rolled, it was two attacks.
I don't see how you can say it's two attacks when Manyshot makes it clear it isn't.
Manyshot (Combat)
You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack <notice attack is singular hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
This gets further complicated when you look at Manyshot. Which states "When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit."No complication. If you use Manyshot and fire two arrows, you have made TWO attacks, not one. It's now too late to abort because it is no longer "after your first attack", it is "after your first and second attacks" which is too late. Sure, it was only one attack roll, but it was two attacks, you got the benefit of the "Full Attack" and you did, in fact, fire TWO arrows, so regardless of the number of dice rolled, it was two attacks.
I don't see how you can say it's two attacks when Manyshot makes it clear it isn't.
Manyshot (Combat)
You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack <notice attack is singular hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
Because two arrows hit the target. That's enough for me to say it is NOT just like hitting with a single iterative or a single hit from Flurry of Blows. I already agreed that it's a single attack roll, I know how Manyshot works, but when that target has two separate wounds in his body, you can't claim it was only a single attack either - it's a single Manyshot attack that hit/damaged two times.
Which puts it in a unique category of being both one attack (as stated) but also being two attacks (or more specifically, two injuries caused by two pieces of ammunition fired from one attack).
Yeah, manyshot is definitely 1 attack. It's basically knocking two arrows and firing them at the same time, so only 1 attack roll.
But it is clearly abusive for a player to use manyshot, then cancel the full attack repeatedly. As I stated, you should simply ask the player not to do that and if they can't abide it then ask them to leave.
There are far worse things that could happen than an archer abusing manyshot this way. ... Or he could simply be any caster.
You have solved the whole caster/martial disparity issue right there - martials should exploit badly written rules and look for any possible loophole to break the game so that they can be comparable to casters.
That sounds so much better than, oh, say, making a well-written and well-understood game with no exploits that also should be better balanced. But until that day comes, the best solution is to find and exploit as many rules as possible to balance the disparity (while hoping casters can't exploit more rules than non-casters).
|
|
There are far worse things that could happen than an archer abusing manyshot this way. ... Or he could simply be any caster.You have solved the whole caster/martial disparity issue right there - martials should exploit badly written rules and look for any possible loophole to break the game so that they can be comparable to casters.
That sounds so much better than, oh, say, making a well-written and well-understood game with no exploits that also should be better balanced. But until that day comes, the best solution is to find and exploit as many rules as possible to balance the disparity (while hoping casters can't exploit more rules than non-casters).
Until a dev comes in here and says this is isn't intended you're not going to be able to convince me this is as exploit. As far as I'm reading this is a clearly legitimate interpretation of the rules. I'm sorry if my differing interpretation of the rules that are presented to us somehow offends you.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, as far as I can see it is 100% completely and utterly clear that in the case of TWF, flurry, iterative attacks then you can move after the first attack if you wish.
Does anybody dispute that?
I agree that it isn't 100% clear how mmultishot works. Although I personally would certainly rule that one cannot move after taking a multishot
Until a dev comes in here and says this is isn't intended you're not going to be able to convince me this is as exploit. As far as I'm reading this is a clearly legitimate interpretation of the rules. I'm sorry if my differing interpretation of the rules that are presented to us somehow offends you.There are far worse things that could happen than an archer abusing manyshot this way. ... Or he could simply be any caster.You have solved the whole caster/martial disparity issue right there - martials should exploit badly written rules and look for any possible loophole to break the game so that they can be comparable to casters.
That sounds so much better than, oh, say, making a well-written and well-understood game with no exploits that also should be better balanced. But until that day comes, the best solution is to find and exploit as many rules as possible to balance the disparity (while hoping casters can't exploit more rules than non-casters).
I never said anything about being offended.
But if Manyshot is meant to work that way, why didn't they just say you can fire two shots as a Standard action (in addition to what it does)? They obviously didn't include "Hey, I use Manyshot to fire two arrows and then take my move action" as an option for this feat, and it seems to me that doing so is an exploit.
Would you let a gunslinger use Dead Shot this way? Would you let someone use Pummeling Style this way?
In short, if you want to abort a full-attack after making one attack, you can only do so if your "one attack" was not "multiple attacks disguised as one attack" (because if it is, then it is really multiple attacks despite the disguise, which invalidates the rule about aborting the full attack).
If you want to house-rule, or interpret printed rules, in such a way that people can make multiple attacks (or multiple damages disguised as a single attack) in a Standard action, then why not just make that a house rule across the board and forget all the shenanigans?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Claud,
many shot: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows
By using Many shot you have locked yourself in to a full attack. (which is not nearly as bad for an archer as it is for melee). Your first attack got two arrows. You've receieved a benefit you're locked in.
I've also seen this come up for magus using spell combat.
The way I run the rest of them is that since the only thing you took was a penalty for flurry or two weapon fighting and didn't gain any benefits you should be able to change your mind.
This is more of a parity thing than raw though
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this came up at my table the way I would rule is that if you took a penalty on your first attack (like with TWF or flurry) then you can call off the full round attack after the first hit. However if you got a bonus on your first attack (like an extra arrow from multishot) you cannot.
|
|
If this came up at my table the way I would rule is that if you took a penalty on your first attack (like with TWF or flurry) then you can call off the full round attack after the first hit. However if you got a bonus on your first attack (like an extra arrow from multishot) you cannot.
After reading the responses here and thinking about it, I think I agree.
The key here is that you can retroactively declare your first attack to be a standard action, but with a penalty to keep your options open if you were using flurry, TWF, rapid shot, etc. If you did something that couldn't have been done as a standard action (manyshot), then you no longer have the option to retroactively declare it to have been one.
|
|
...After 8th level, the first attack of a flurry of blows has a bonus in comparison to a monk's standard attack...
i haven't play a monk past lvl 1 so I didn't know that after level 8 flurry got bonuses. But my answer remains the same if you took a penalty then you can call it off and move. If you get a bonus then you are locking into a full round attack. So at my table the monk would have the right to call off the full round attack until level 8.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said anything about being offended.I'm sorry, let me rephrase that then. I'm sorry if my interpretation of the rules doesn't offend you but instead makes you respond with nigh radioactive levels of sarcasm that can easily be misread as a mask for being offended.
Much better. Apology accepted.
The first attack of a flurry of blows suffers a penalty in comparison to a monk's standard attack only for monk levels 1-4. From levels 5-8, the first attack of a flurry of blows has no penalty in comparison to a monk's standard attack. After 8th level, the first attack of a flurry of blows has a bonus in comparison to a monk's standard attack.
It would seem odd that a monk could start a flurry, then abort to a standard attack after the first hit and then move at levels 1-4 but not at levels above 8. And how would the ruling go for levels 5-8?
1-7 No change. No bonus so no lock.
Level 8 plus you've locked yourself in. The monk has to plant his feet/give his full attention to do an attack routine that advanced.
Despite the apparent oddness of the "full attack decision to change and move after the first attack" rule when considering manyshot, flurry and TWF, the cleanest way is to simply say that it works the same for manyshot, flurry and TWF.
There's definitely that going for that ruling.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
There is absolutely nothing in there that says "if you get some kind of bonus for a full attack that somehow makes your first attack in a full attack somehow better than an attack made with a standard action, then you can no longer downgrade your full attack into an attack."
So where exactly are you getting your stances on "you got a bonus so you can't downgrade" other than "I think it might be too powerful so I'm saying no"?
|
|
Manyshot: Can I fire two arrows with my shot, then cancel the full attack and take a move?
No. Though the rules for "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (Core Rulebook 187) give you the option to move after your first attack instead of making your remaining attacks, Manyshot locks you into using a full attack action as soon as you use it to shoot two arrows.
Well that answers the multishoot question. Flurry is still a little up in the air.
|
|
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.
There is absolutely nothing in there that says "if you get some kind of bonus for a full attack that somehow makes your first attack in a full attack somehow better than an attack made with a standard action, then you can no longer downgrade your full attack into an attack."
So where exactly are you getting your stances on "you got a bonus so you can't downgrade" other than "I think it might be too powerful so I'm saying no"?
Well, I'm not Cerwin, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with him. I could be convinced otherwise, but I think I have a logical reason for agreeing with him, so let me explain it.
As I mentioned earlier, my basis is that you can retroactively change your first attack of a full attack to say it was a standard action attack, as long as what you did during that first attack could have been done as a standard action. Technically, taking a penalty to hit in order to set up your additional attacks isn't in the rules as something you can do in a standard action, but who would argue that you can't voluntarily penalize yourself?
On the other hand, getting the bonus from flurrying at high monk levels, or putting a second arrow on the string for manyshot, are things that can only be done as the first attack of a full attack, and can't be done as a standard action. So retroactively saying that those attacks were standard actions doesn't make sense - you couldn't have done that if you had taken a standard action, since it's something you're only allowed to do as part of a full attack.
So where exactly are you getting your stances on "you got a bonus so you can't downgrade" other than "I think it might be too powerful so I'm saying no"?
Don't ascribe motive until after you've heard the explanation. If then
From the language in the options that give you the bonuses. They usually state something along the lines of "when making a full attack action you can......" or if you make a full attack action you...." which means that by chosing to get the bonus you've chosen to full attack.
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
Many shot Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow,
which pretty clearly say that you're chosing a full attack action, as a more specific for using the feat it overrides the general rule of when you can bail out on a full attack.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with using bonus/penalties applied to the monks flurry of blows is that it's getting a bonus to accuracy starting at level 1. It's only at level 5 that it equals the penalty from TWFing, but it's still a bonus starting at level 1, so when you flurry, you get a bonus from using a full-round attack.
But none of that is in the CRB, and is entirely houserules. In the CRB it says you can cancel after the first attack and use a move action, which would allow you to perform the manyshot abuse, except that there's an FAQ that specifically forbids you from doing so. The monk has a number of FAQs explaining how it's class features work, and none of them include a no cancelling a flurry of blows after the first attack, so it works, unless you houserule it otherwise.
It is not a house rule to say that flurry of blows et all are a more specific rule to the general rule of when you can decide to full attack. They all specifically call out that you have to full attack to use them
Yeah, manyshot is definitely 1 attack. It's basically knocking two arrows and firing them at the same time, so only 1 attack roll.
But it is clearly abusive for a player to use manyshot, then cancel the full attack repeatedly. As I stated, you should simply ask the player not to do that and if they can't abide it then ask them to leave.
And then there is this:
Manyshot: Can I fire two arrows with my shot, then cancel the full attack and take a move?
No. Though the rules for "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (Core Rulebook 187) give you the option to move after your first attack instead of making your remaining attacks, Manyshot locks you into using a full attack action as soon as you use it to shoot two arrows.
Edit: Already mentioned by Deighton Thrane.
I think the bonus or penalty for canceling a flurry after a single attack is pretty insignificant and so my stance would be to let a monk do it. The issue is an artifact of the poorly designed flurry of blows that has been fixed with monk unchained.
How does the unchained monk's flurry fix this problem?
|
|
A flurry of blows is a full attack action, and as such would fall under the rules for full attack actions, except as noted in the flurry of blows ability. There's no other specific rules over-ruling the ability to cancel after the first attack. So you can cancel after the first attack.
Unless I'm missing some piece of text that says specifically disallows it, it's a houserule to disallow cancelling after the first attack. I'm not saying it's a bad houserule, just that it is one. In fact before the FAQ on Multishot, it's quite reasonable, just to avoid that abuse.
A flurry of blows is a full attack action, and as such would fall under the rules for full attack actions, except as noted in the flurry of blows ability. There's no other specific rules over-ruling the ability to cancel after the first attack. So you can cancel after the first attack.
Unless I'm missing some piece of text that says specifically disallows it, it's a houserule to disallow cancelling after the first attack. I'm not saying it's a bad houserule, just that it is one. In fact before the FAQ on Multishot, it's quite reasonable, just to avoid that abuse.
If thats how it works then why doesnt the faq give the other answer?
|
|
I think it's more telling that there is an FAQ in the first place. If it didn't work how I stated, there would be no need for the FAQ to limit the abuse, it would just be the rules.
It's not the first time an FAQ has gone contrary to the RAW to limit abuse, or alter things to how the PDT wishes things were written. Case in point; the whole real/metaphorical hands thing.
I think it's more telling that there is an FAQ in the first place. If it didn't work how I stated, there would be no need for the FAQ to limit the abuse, it would just be the rules.
It's not the first time an FAQ has gone contrary to the RAW to limit abuse, or alter things to how the PDT wishes things were written. Case in point; the whole real/metaphorical hands thing.
You think it goes contrary to raw. it does not. It goes contrary to one sentance of raw: which is very much not the same thing because the rules are not set up without contradictions.
Its more than a little unfair to call something a house rule by only examining the raw against it, not the raw for it, or offering an explanation of how the logic would correctly predict an FAQ.
|
|
The problem is, I don't see any RAW against it. Nowhere do I find a provision that says if you're using a full round attack that has special benefits it removes the ability to cancel said full attack after the first attack and move. I don't know what RAW you think I'm ignoring. I can find nothing in the CRB that says it works the way you say it does, hence why it's a houserule.
Until you can provide a quote from the CRB, or an FAQ, that disallows this, that's what it is.
I find it perfectly acceptable to rule it how you say in a house game, but for a PFS event, if a GM told me or another player that I/they couldn't cancel our flurry of blows, I would ask him to point me to where it says I couldn't do so, either after the combat, or after the scenario. I know I can't find anything to say that it's not allowable, and would run it that way until someone can find something that specifically says otherwise.
The problem is, I don't see any RAW against it. Nowhere do I find a provision that says if you're using a full round attack that has special benefits it removes the ability to cancel said full attack after the first attack and move. I don't know what RAW you think I'm ignoring. I can find nothing in the CRB that says it works the way you say it does, hence why it's a houserule.
Until you can provide a quote from the CRB, or an FAQ, that disallows this, that's what it is.
It was found. it was provided. It was quoted. It was referenced. It was explained.
If you're just ignoring whats said then repeating your objections is not a legitimate response.
|
|
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see any text that says that a full attack action, even a special full attack action such as spell combat, or a flurry of blows, that disallows cancelling after the first attack to then take a move action. The Manyshot case is specifically not allowed due to an FAQ. Other cases don't have that provision.
The logic that you can't cancel after choosing to full attack makes no sense to me be because you always choose to full attack to do so. And then nothing says that having already decided to full attack that you can't take a move action instead of taking further attacks after the first.
I don't really know what to post to prove that this works other than posting the rules for full round attacking that the OP already did.
|
if you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), 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. 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.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
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.
pretty straightforward IMHO .... tho I suppose if you want to follow this logic down its ultimate path any of the above mentioned situations (particuarly since they are lumped together in the description of Full attack) "because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason" you would be excluded from taking a move action after the 1st attack - you know whats good for the goose is good for the gander and all
and you could even take it farther and argue that iterive attacks fall into this as well and makes the Rule about canceling the rest of your attacks a worthless rule that doesn't do anything
edit - quote is from srd due to ease of copy paste
|
|
So Manyshot has a specific FAQ that negates it--it needed the FAQ because the rules presented to us allowed it. I'm completely fine with that because now (that I'm aware of it) there is a rule that says as such. To me, that's further evidence that these other scenarios are "cancel-able" (not that further evidence is needed because the CRB is pretty unambiguous about this and it is plainly within the rules to do so).
In fact, I have flurried with a monk before and then downgraded to a single attack and moved and no one at the table (myself included) ever even raised an eyebrow or thought anything about it not being legal.
and you could even take it farther and argue that iterive attacks fall into this as well and makes the Rule about canceling the rest of your attacks a worthless rule that doesn't do anything
A slippery slope argument as no one is doing that. Though its good to know that two weapon fighting is specifically called out.
The "yes on penalties , no on bonus interpretation" is consistent with the text and the faq.
|
|
and you could even take it farther and argue that iterive attacks fall into this as well and makes the Rule about canceling the rest of your attacks a worthless rule that doesn't do anythingA slippery slope argument as no one is doing that. Though its good to know that two weapon fighting is specifically called out.
The "yes on penalties , no on bonus interpretation" is consistent with the text and the faq.
Sorry BNW ... there was a lot of Sarcasam involved because of the ridiculousness of this
Flurry is Termed as
"as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" in the Monk CRB entry
tho it also falls into "Some special reason"(Flurry on its own is an EX)
so by those Rules listed in Monk and whats listed above ... you SHOULD be able to Cancel the remainder. particuarly since we only have 1 instance of something saying you Can't cancel it (Manyshot)
and if you look again ... even iterave attacks are called out as well so its not as slippery a slope as you may think - the slippery part is NOT allowing cancellation because it then becomes punitive decisions to Monks, TWF, Magus and anyone else that gain multiple attacks through Truthfully - anything
also under the logic of "Bonus no move" come power attack, Expertise, Deadly aim, fight defensivly, full defense, Critical focus feats, etc..
and you could even take it farther and argue that iterive attacks fall into this as well and makes the Rule about canceling the rest of your attacks a worthless rule that doesn't do anything
so by those Rules listed in Monk and whats listed above ... you SHOULD be able to Cancel the remainder. particuarly since we only have 1 instance of something saying you Can't cancel it (Manyshot)
IF those are the only rules you look at then yes. But you cannot call other positions ridiculous when you only look at rules that agree with you and not the rules that agree with the other position
and if you look again ... even iterave attacks are called out as well so its not as slippery a slope as you may think -
Is ANYONE arguing against being able to stop after the first iterative attack? No, so this isn't a genuine counter argument.
Is the position that you can't break off if your action requires you to full attack or gain a bonus from full attacking stopping iteratives? No.
the slippery part is NOT allowing cancellation because it then becomes punitive decisions to Monks, TWF, Magus and anyone else that gain multiple attacks through Truthfully - anything
It very much does not.
And you cannot both deny a slippery slope and then try to grease the ramp like this. It is entirely possible to use other criteria than "do it all the time"
You're acting as if the FAQ has no underlying logic, reason, or basis in the rules, which is just silly. FAQs aren't based on nothing they're based on something.
|
|
Allow me to rearrange this for organizational stuff
IF those are the only rules you look at then yes. But you cannot call other positions ridiculous when you only look at rules that agree with you and not the rules that agree with the other position
Manyshot had Wording that forced it to only be useable as part of full attack action, Rather than it being its own Full attack action (such as FoB, Rapid, TWF, Iteratives) and as far as I was concerned Manyshot Locked you into a full attack action (and the FAQ Clarified this). While other full attack actions (FoB, TWF, Iteratives, Spell Combat, Rapid Shot) were convertable to a standard after the 1st attack - As per the Rules
Im sorry but as much as you would like to think I am ignoring "Rules that agree with other positions" (Like you are) Im not ... Manyshot is an exception to the standard , not the standard itself
So now the burden of proof is on you ... Find me some RAW with source that States if you gain a bonus from a full attack you cannot abort and take a move, find me Raw that says "Manyshot is the standard not the exception" because others are looking and not finding it.. As far as I know there is no RAW supporting the "Bonus no move" Thought process ...as far as I can tell this is a fabricated rule
It very much does not.
And you cannot both deny a slippery slope and then try to grease the ramp like this. It is entirely possible to use other criteria than "do it all the time"
Is ANYONE arguing against being able to stop after the first iterative attack? No, so this isn't a genuine counter argument.
the Slippery slope argument - as you call it - Started as Sarcasam -
however your Cherry Picking of the paragraph has given the Sarcastic comments LegitimacySpecifically - no, no one is arguing the abortion of iterative attacks, tho you are Cherry picking the Paragraph and applying Raw to one of Several listed ways of gaining multiple attacks, - Which the Rule doesn't care how you get them, only if you have them - not the Whole if it therefore by your interpretation becoming punative to anyone gaining multiple attacks through means other than BAB.
Once you look at the Rule as a whole(Rather than only the parts you dont like) this is indeed a genuine counter argument - I would prefer to not have to Legitimatly go down this path TBH - but this Debate is Trollbait and has been from the start
Will you be applying the same penalties to TWF, Iterative, FoB, Rapid Shot because if you don't then you are applying rules you like / dont like because likely as claudekennilol said "I think it might be too powerful so I'm saying no"?
I dont see any other legitimate interpretation of this
--------All 4 Allow multiple attacks "because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason."
Also Note the above Rule Does not Differentiate between the source of multiple attacks ...
--------All 4 are Full attack actions
--------All 4 use the rule "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."
the entirety of this is stated under "Full attack" in the combat section.This is RAW, and any change to this would only be because we do not like it or disagree with it
Is the position that you can't break off if your action requires you to full attack or gain a bonus from full attacking stopping iteratives? No.
as I mentioned above there is no differentiation on the Source of the attacks ... only "do you gain multiple attacks"
and as far as the "bonus no move" what about power attack, expertise, Critical Focus, deadly aim, .. if you use those are used in a full attack are you specifically precluded from breaking off and taking a move action - you ARE gaining a bonus... your Logic Not mine
You're acting as if the FAQ has no underlying logic, reason, or basis in the rules, which is just silly. FAQs aren't based on nothing they're based on something.
the FAQ is based on Logic, Reason and basis....to Manyshot which noone is arguing how it works anymore.
The FAQ doesnt even Touch FoB, Rapid Shot, TWF (or Spell combat) nor does it even pretend tothis is splitting hairs over a +1 at 9,13,and 17 - and since I know this argument started from PFS its basically a +1 at 9 and MAYBE at 13
Manyshot had Wording that forced it to only be useable as part of full attack action, Rather than it being its own Full attack action (such as FoB, Rapid, TWF, Iteratives)
Manyshot: Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
I don't see the difference in wording that you're alluding to here.
the FAQ is based on Logic, Reason and basis....to Manyshot which no one is arguing how it works anymore.
Ok, so what logic reason and rules basis make many shot works the way that they clarified?
and as far as I was concerned Manyshot Locked you into a full attack action (and the FAQ Clarified this). While other full attack actions (FoB, TWF, Iteratives, Spell Combat, Rapid Shot) were convertable to a standard after the 1st attack - As per the Rules
I'm at a loss as to what difference in wording you're getting here.
Im sorry but as much as you would like to think I am ignoring "Rules that agree with other positions" (Like you are)
I'm not ignoring them.
I see that they're there.
I see what you're saying.
What I see is that there is a contradiction between the general case where you can choose to make a full attack after your first attack and where conditions on your first attack require you to decide to full attack prior to making it.
Fighter attacks at +6 bab. he hits. Monster dies. There's no contradiction: he hasn't decided to full attack and he doesn't have to because his attack would be the same either way. its full attack yes/no status doesn't matter so it doesn't get checked.
With other abilities RAW gives me a timey whimey ball that raw cannot untangle. I don't decide to full attack until after the first attack. I have benefits on the first attack that don't exist unless I'm full attacking.
That leaves open, if not requires, other means of extrapolating the rules from the information that I have because raw has created an outright contradiction. Without acknowledging the contradiction you're not acknowledging all of the rules.
The fairest way I can resolve the contradiction is that if you get a benefit from the first attack you've actually decided to full attack. If you don't get benefits then you haven't decided to full attack. That this drops right into the manyshot faq is, to me, a good sign I'm on the right track.
So now the burden of proof is on you ... Find me some RAW with source that States if you gain a bonus from a full attack you cannot abort and take a move
Find me raw that says you can full attack without full attacking.
Thats the problem There IS no raw resolution to this and you're treating it like there HAS to be. Like the rules are perfect, don't contradict, and never but heads in opposite directions.
Which the Rule doesn't care how you get them, only if you have them - not the Whole if it therefore by your interpretation becoming punative to anyone gaining multiple attacks through means other than BAB.
By my interpretation The rapid shotter, The ierative attacker, magus, the two weapon fighter, and low level monks can all abort with no penalty. The idea that i'm trying to punish anyone for being outside of that, or dislike high level monks but not low level monks, is absurd. I MIGHT be a lunatic, but hating on builds does not fit the pattern of my lunacy here.
I just think that if you get benefit you pay the cost. Equivilant exchange and all that.
All the more reason full-attacking should be a standard action.
So we don't have to deal with stuff like this.
|
|
its really odd I cannot reply to your entire post
Manyshot: Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
I don't see the difference in wording that you're alluding to here.
Ok, so what logic reason and rules basis make many shot works the way that they clarified?
I'm at a loss as to what difference in wording you're getting here.
When Making a Full Attack Action
vs.Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action
very different Wording ... one IS .. the other happens WHEN
I'm not ignoring them.
I see that they're there.
I see what you're saying.
What I see is that there is a contradiction between the general case where you can choose to make a full attack after your first attack and where conditions on your first attack require you to decide to full attack prior to making it.
Fighter attacks at +6 bab. he hits. Monster dies. There's no contradiction: he hasn't decided to full attack and he doesn't have to because his attack would be the same either way. its full attack yes/no status doesn't matter so it doesn't get checked.
With other abilities RAW gives me a timey whimey ball that raw cannot untangle. I don't decide to full attack until after the first attack. I have benefits on the first attack that don't exist unless I'm full attacking.
That leaves open, if not requires,...
Find me raw that says you can full attack without full attacking.Thats the problem There IS no raw resolution to this and you're treating it like there HAS to be. Like the rules are perfect, don't contradict, and never but heads in opposite directions.
we have provided Raw for you - numerous times
you have to make a full attack in order to get multiple attacks, but can abort the rest of your attacks based on the result of the 1st Regardless of the method by which you get multiple attacksBy my interpretation The rapid shotter, The ierative attacker, magus, the two weapon fighter, and low level monks can all abort with no penalty. The idea that i'm trying to punish anyone for being outside of that, or dislike high level monks but not low level monks, is absurd. I MIGHT be a lunatic, but hating on builds does not fit the pattern of my lunacy here.
I just think that if you get benefit you pay the cost. Equivilant exchange and all that.
and its your interpretation because you dont like it .... and regardless of saying your not trying to punish anyone for being outside of that ... by using this Stance that IS in-fact exactly what your doing what are you gonna tell the table of 2 monks (7 and 9) having the lvl 7 abort an attack but when the 9 tries you say "Nope you get a benifit to attack from flurry" that wont go over well at all
its really odd I cannot reply to your entire post.
Technical Aside:
When you hit the reply button, the software limits the length of the quoted section. If you didn't have such a limit, post lengths would get quickly get unmanageable as people replied back and forth. The workaround is to hit reply, which will get you the quote tags and the first section of the post, and then cut and paste the rest of the post into the quote tags.
I have just been skimming through the Full Attacks and Manyshot thread. This 1200+ post thread was eventually locked because it was just rehashing the same arguments. Flurry, Rapid Shot, and TWF were all central elements of the discussion. The arguments presented there seem to be virtually the same as those presented here: the benefits vs. penalties rationale, the general vs. specifics rationale, etc. This thread seems likely to have been the impetus for the Manyshot FAQ.
If you can't do better than the second most random ad homs I've ever seen... my opinion is clouded because of my hatred of ninth level monks but i love 4th level ones just fine... you have nothing to add.