I know you believe that. But show me in the sequence I just posted how that is true. How was I "never full attacking" I was totally full attacking. I said so. I held up a friggin' banner.You don't have to declare a full attack before you make that first attack, normally.
After you see how that first attack pans out, you can decide to take the rest of a full attack, or you can decide to move. If you move, that first attack was only a standard action. In that case, you never were full-attacking.
What I'm saying is, you normally don't have to hold up that banner. But in order to Many Shot, you do.
What I'm saying is, you normally don't have to hold up that banner. But in order to Many Shot, you do.I know you believe that. But show me in the sequence I just posted how that is true. How was I "never full attacking" I was totally full attacking. I said so. I held up a friggin' banner.You don't have to declare a full attack before you make that first attack, normally.
After you see how that first attack pans out, you can decide to take the rest of a full attack, or you can decide to move. If you move, that first attack was only a standard action. In that case, you never were full-attacking.
Well fine. I totally did.
Adamantine Dragon, there are a couple points in the full attack rules that state you cannot move while using a full attack. Which is simpler? That JJ is correct and that you cannot apply a move action to a full attack and that this IS a choice between a standard attack action and a full attack action OR that JJ, the other rules, Skip, etc are all incorrect and that this one little section radically changes everything?
Note: JJ doesnt need to make a rule change. The rule is pretty well written. Honestly, I cannot comprehend how you are seeing this the way you are.
As for where you are going wrong in the RAW...step 3. You are trying to apply a move action to a full attack action when it states you cannot do this.
- Gauss
The rules say as part of a full attack that I can choose to move after my first attack. I check my state. Yep, I'm in "full attack" mode, so I can choose to forgo my remaining attacks and move. So I do so.
That is not what the rules say. The rules say you can continue attacking or take a move action.
It is even in the title,Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack. In short you have to choose to full attack or not full attack. Like I keep saying the book doe not say full attack or full attack. If that was the case they could have just said-->"When full attacking you can either make your iterative attacks after your first attack or take a move action."
That would have also have changed the rule saying that you can only 5-foot step during a full attack or at least modified to-->"If you choose to take all of your remaining attacks you may not take a 5 foot step." That however is not what the book says. The book says that the only movement possible during a full attack is a 5 foot step. My example of what would be, and what is in the book are miles apart.
To continue attacking is to go into full attack mode. Full attack mode consist of iterative attacks according to the book, unless modified by a feat such as whirlwind attack which uses the full attack action, but does not have iterative attacks.
Well fine. I totally did.What I'm saying is, you normally don't have to hold up that banner. But in order to Many Shot, you do.I know you believe that. But show me in the sequence I just posted how that is true. How was I "never full attacking" I was totally full attacking. I said so. I held up a friggin' banner.You don't have to declare a full attack before you make that first attack, normally.
After you see how that first attack pans out, you can decide to take the rest of a full attack, or you can decide to move. If you move, that first attack was only a standard action. In that case, you never were full-attacking.
If you hold up that banner you are only forfeiting an option that allows you to postpone the decision to full-attack until after you see how the first attack turns out. It makes sense to give up that option if you are sure you want to use a feat that requires you to be full-attacking, like Many Shot. If you aren't going to use a feat that only works as part of a full-attack, it makes more sense to postpone the decision.
Sorry Moglun, that's not what the full attack rule says. Show me where it says that. Taking a move action is an option in the full attack rules. I was full attacking. I chose to move. I didn't break any rules because when I used manyshot I was full attacking.
This whole thing boils down to this bizarre notion that choosing to move somehow goes back in time and changes the state of my action without my knowledge or consent.
It's like quantum entanglement or something.
If you use Manyshot, then your action for the round MUST be a full attack. If you move, then your action for the round is NOT a full attack. Therefore, if you use Manyshot then you cannot use the move action option because it would be contradictory. This is simple logic.
Geez, you guys just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if my state analysis didn't disprove it entirely and utterly.
Your argument boils down to this:
Manyshot and moving isn't fair and JJ posted something somewhere at some time that you either take a full attack or a standard and a move action.
I don't dispute that JJ posted that. But it isn't in the rules and this is the rules forum, not the "some dev posted something on a blog somewhere that is sorta relevant to this" forum.
The consequence of accepting this idea is that if you have manyshot you lose the ability to shoot and then move. You can only take a full attack or a standard and a move. The full attack option which allows you to choose after you shoot is removed from your repertoire.
Unless you allow the character to choose between using manyshot or not.
All of the RAW supports my side of this. All you have is a developer blog posting that asserts something that isn't in the rules.
But you think you have the upper hand. It's hilarious.
AD I'm not ignoring the write-up you did. I just don't think moving is part of a full-attack. I think the option to decide to move instead of taking a full-attack appears under the full-attack heading... but I still don't think when you take that option, you are full-attacking.
The full-attack rules were probably as good of a section as any to present this option in the rules, since this option is relevant to full-attacks. But in my opinion, when you take the option to move, you aren't full-attacking and you never were. You simply postponed your decision not to.
Maybe it's another case of the rules being organized differently then a technical manual would be. Or a legal document. I can see how you would interpret the decision to move as being a portion of a full-attack since the option to do so is detailed under the rules for a full-attack.
I don't think there's anything obtuse about you reading this the way you do, I just happen to disagree. After weighing everything heavily, the understanding I now have satisfies me and feels right. It's something I feel right about and can defend confidently if it comes up when I'm GM'ing.
Geez, you guys just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if my state analysis didn't disprove it entirely and utterly.
You didn't. :)
Your argument boils down to this:Manyshot and moving isn't fair and JJ posted something somewhere at some time that you either take a full attack or a standard and a move action.
I don't dispute that JJ posted that. But it isn't in the rules and this is the rules forum, not the "some dev posted something on a blog somewhere that is sorta relevant to this" forum.
For me it is not about fairness. It is about what the book allows. The major contention is that you think the book is in error when it says you have to decide between an attack and a full attack. We do not.
The consequence of accepting this idea is that if you have manyshot you lose the ability to shoot and then move. You can only take a full attack or a standard and a move. The full attack option which allows you to choose after you shoot is removed from your repertoire.Unless you allow the character to choose between using manyshot or not.
All of the RAW supports my side of this. All you have is a developer blog posting that asserts something that isn't in the rules.
But you think you have the upper hand. It's hilarious.
All of the RAW is against you. You have yet to describe how full attack or attack = full attack or full attack within the rules. The rules also say you can only take a 5 foot step for movement. That works perfectly well when you know that an attack is not a full attack. I have a developer who help to create the game while the lead devs was still working there. I listed the logic of him getting that past all the devs that were at WoTC at the time, and the chances are pretty bad. Actually they are terrible. Then there is the notion of Paizo's devs not correcting the rules assuming he somehow got past everyone at WoTC. Those are also pretty terrible odds.
For both of them to happen, I can't really buy.
But let's recap your view of things, the book is stating things incorrectly according to an earlier post of yours. In short what the book says is not what it means.
A dev who was working with several others did not know this, and he wrote an article on it. Nobody catches it. It gets published, and everyone just lets it go.
Then PF comes around, and nobody catches it again, or either they decide to not change it.
With all that aside by RAW which you claim is "all" on your side you either take an attack or a full attack, yet you claim it is a full attack either way. That is not RAW. RAW says you can't move, except during a full attack, except for a 5 ft step. Even if the "attack" was a full attack as you claim, which it is not, at best you would have a rules conflict, but since an attack is not a full attack you are incorrect.
|
I myself tend to agree with AD's interpretation of RAW but I can tell you something that DOES effectively lock someone into a full attack action without being able to switch to a move action. That is taking a 5' foot step prior to the full attack action (this would occur quite frequently in my experience). If this has been brought up previously then I apologize as I only had the patience to read through the first 100 or so posts.
What might shed some light on the issue
Dosgamer wrote:Also, does it explain that somewhere in the book? I looked at the stat block reference for melee and didn't see anything explicit in there about that. It might be elsewhere that I haven't yet found, though. Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------
I'm not quite sure what needs explaining. The Core Rulebook says that if you're making multiple attacks, you have to use the Full Attack action. If you're just making one attack, you pick any one of the attacks available to the character. Monsters work the same way as characters in this regard. So Valeros can make a full attack with two swords, or a single attack with either sword; a lion can make a full attack with claw/claw/bite, or a single attack with any one of those attacks.
Note that even SKR is saying you are full attacking or you are making an attack.
Here is the link. The date is 2009, so it is not him making a 3.5 ruling.
There is also this ability in the mythic warrior rule set.
Fleet Warrior (Ex): When the champion takes a full-attack action can also move up to his speed either before or after the attack. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. The champion must be at least 5th tier before selecting this ability.
Now if you can already move during a full attack then why is this needed?
Wraith, you obviously don't understand my state analysis. Oh well.
What I love is how the anti manyshot brigade has morphed their argument from "*snicker snicker, isn't it funny how some people can't read RAW?" to "I don't really care what RAW says, there are developer blog postings that say you can only have a full attack or a standard and move action". (And I still maintain that my analysis is consistent even with these comments, full actions describe the option of attacking and then moving, that's legal by RAW).
I stand by my RAW interpretation and think the state analysis I did is ironclad. By pure RAW manyshot does not disallow you from doing a full attack and then choosing to move. If the developers who go around posting contrary to RAW information on the boards want to fix this, then they can spend some of that time they are currently spending confusing the issue with opinions and instead create an errata and fix the actual rules.
Until they do, my analysis stands.
You need the context of the last few pages for it to make sense.
|
TOZ agrees with AD. I'm with those guys.Actually ToZ's post follows my logic for TWF not forcing you into a full attack. It does not apply to manyshot though.
You do realize that you just put yourself into a corner. How can you justify that one full-attack action allows you to make the first atack and then decide to make a move action but that another full-attack action does not allow you to make the same choice?
If you want to take a pedantic reading of the rules, that's fine. Just make sure you apply that interpretation equally to all situations that it would apply to.
Wraith, you obviously don't understand my state analysis. Oh well.
What I love is how the anti manyshot brigade has morphed their argument from "*snicker snicker, isn't it funny how some people can't read RAW?" to "I don't really care what RAW says, there are developer blog postings that say you can only have a full attack or a standard and move action". (And I still maintain that my analysis is consistent even with these comments, full actions describe the option of attacking and then moving, that's legal by RAW).
I stand by my RAW interpretation and think the state analysis I did is ironclad. By pure RAW manyshot does not disallow you from doing a full attack and then choosing to move. If the developers who go around posting contrary to RAW information on the boards want to fix this, then they can spend some of that time they are currently spending confusing the issue with opinions and instead create an errata and fix the actual rules.
Until they do, my analysis stands.
Ironclad? You are making up thing as you go along. Manyshot aside your understanding of a full attack action is FUBAR. You are incorrect by RAW and RAI.
My argument has not changed. The reason I am focusing on the full attack rules is because you keep saying both options are full attacks, and it is that defense that you keep using to try and say you can full attack and then move(not take a 5-ft step just to be clear).
That small section we keep discussing is under the full attack rules to help explain how it works. It does not mean the entire paragraph is a full attack action, just because of where it is placed. What the devs are doing is trying to give the players a choice between full attacking or attacking and moving so instead of forcing them to choose first, like in most situations, they let them do an act first and choose second.
If you want to argue that as RAW then you can. I am done discussing that with you if something as simple as "or" confuses you.
Adamantine Dragon:
I posted many many pages ago how by RAW you were incorrect. A 5' step is all you are allowed during a Full-attack action.
The only reason I bring JJ into it is because you continue to ignore what is printed.
What is printed:
CRB p187 states that the only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step.
CRB p187 states that you may decide between an attack or full attack after your first attack. If you make a single attack you may make a move.
What CRB p187 DOES NOT state is that you may decide between a full attack with a move and a normal full attack.
what CRB p187 DOES state is that you may make a move if you make a single attack.
Now, this is where James Jacobs comes in. Since a single attack is poorly defined I asked him if that single attack is in fact a standard attack action or a variation on the full-attack action. He stated it was a standard action.
Can you refute that statement? Other than by location (which is meaningless) can you show me ANYWHERE that states an attack+move = full-attack?
I state that the location is meaningless because full attack rules are in the standard attack rules. Should we then assume they apply to all standard attacks as well? Rules for stacking only appear in the magic section. Should we assume that stacking only applies to the rules for spells?
Your entire argument is based on 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' is in the Full Attack section and therefore both must be full attack actions.
- Gauss
TOZ agrees with AD. I'm with those guys.Actually ToZ's post follows my logic for TWF not forcing you into a full attack. It does not apply to manyshot though.You do realize that you just put yourself into a corner. How can you justify that one full-attack action allows you to make the first atack and then decide to make a move action but that another full-attack action does not allow you to make the same choice?
If you want to take a pedantic reading of the rules, that's fine. Just make sure you apply that interpretation equally to all situations that it would apply to.
Actually I haven't painted myself into a corner. I explained my TWF a while back, and why it does not apply to manyshot. You are free to go back through the thread if you did not read the post. Others have also explained it.
PS:I don't know if ToZ's stance on FoB is correct, but that stance does apply to TWF.
Wraith that abiliy funciotns even if you take every attack in your full attack
If I remember correctly from earlier in the thread, wraithstrike has a loose informal take on this, identical to the one James Jacobs offered when Gauss brought this question to his attention. Basically, to paraphrase, they feel that while it might not be covered by the rules, as GM's they don't mind letting players abort full-attacks after the first attack in situations where there's no net benefit, only a penalty incurred, such as the penalty to hit imposed on the first attack of a TWF routine.
Personally I feel this clouds the issue more then it's worth so I won't bother with it.
Edit: zomg quadruple ninja'd!
AD, I missed your scientific declaration or whatever somewhere in the mess that is this thread, but with the last few posts here your starting to sound like someone who is rules lawyering thier way into a power buff for as long as you can. It seems pretty obvious to me that RAW or not, the RAI are probably that you cant just declare a full, use manyshot, then cancel said full attack and move like you had always planned. If your not just trying to be a rules lawyer then you are just argueing the point for the sake of argueing. Either way, I really feel sorry for your gaming group for having to put up with it week after week. Maybe I'm a bit of a jerk for pointing this out, but I felt it needed to be said.
Asta
PSY
Reading FoB again it says "Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action."
I see his logic, but it is definitely not RAI, even if it is RAW.
That is not the same as "When making a full-attack action with a bow". <--That requires for the full attack action to actually be chosen since it has to be in progress.
When making=When doing
Wraith that abiliy funciotns even if you take every attack in your full attack
Which ability are you referring to?
That TOZ quote was from last Nov anyway, who knows if he still sees it that way or not.
The mythic one I should have quoted
Grimmy:
For clarity: The post JJ made about Manyshot had nothing to do with me. I did not ask JJ about Manyshot, that post was made several months ago anyhow.
The post I asked JJ was only about 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' and if in that context the 'Attack' listed was a standard attack or full-attack. He stated it was a standard attack.
- Gauss
That's right Gauss, my mistake. I read them both in the last couple of days in the context of considering this thread so I must have confused the two.
|
|
TOZ agrees with AD. I'm with those guys.Actually ToZ's post follows my logic for TWF not forcing you into a full attack. It does not apply to manyshot though.You do realize that you just put yourself into a corner. How can you justify that one full-attack action allows you to make the first atack and then decide to make a move action but that another full-attack action does not allow you to make the same choice?
If you want to take a pedantic reading of the rules, that's fine. Just make sure you apply that interpretation equally to all situations that it would apply to.
Actually I haven't painted myself into a corner. I explained my TWF a while back, and why it does not apply to manyshot. You are free to go back through the thread if you did not read the post. Others have also explained it.
PS:I don't know if ToZ's stance on FoB is correct, but that stance does apply to TWF.
I've read the entire thread. The issue I have is that there is a selective application of a very narrow reading of the rules. Why is the FOB full-attack action ok, but the manyshot full-attack action not?
If you didn't intend to make an extra attack, you wouldn't take the penalty.
If you didn't intend to FOB, you wouldn't initiate that attack sequence.
If you didn't intend to use manyshot, you wouldn't fire two arrows with your first attack.
TOZ explains it pretty well in the link I posted. That line of logic is equally applicable here.
The mythic one I should have quoted
That was my point. It says "When the champion takes a full-attack action can also move up to his speed either before or after the attack."
According to AD even if someone chooses to only make the one attack not take the iterative attacks that it is still a full attack.
The fact that this ability exist is saying that normally you can't move during a full attack normally, ergo taking the one attack is not a full round attack at all.
Of course he can FAQ it if he wants if he thinks it is another "prone shooter".
If your not just trying to be a rules lawyer then you are just argueing the point for the sake of argueing. Either way, I really feel sorry for your gaming group for having to put up with it week after week. Maybe I'm a bit of a jerk for pointing this out, but I felt it needed to be said.
I'm pretty sure AD's group doesn't need you feeling bad for them. How upset could they be about having a GM that rules in a way that he thinks will be more fun for them and give them more freedom? Not sure how this "needed to be said".
TOZ agrees with AD. I'm with those guys.Actually ToZ's post follows my logic for TWF not forcing you into a full attack. It does not apply to manyshot though.You do realize that you just put yourself into a corner. How can you justify that one full-attack action allows you to make the first atack and then decide to make a move action but that another full-attack action does not allow you to make the same choice?
If you want to take a pedantic reading of the rules, that's fine. Just make sure you apply that interpretation equally to all situations that it would apply to.
Actually I haven't painted myself into a corner. I explained my TWF a while back, and why it does not apply to manyshot. You are free to go back through the thread if you did not read the post. Others have also explained it.
PS:I don't know if ToZ's stance on FoB is correct, but that stance does apply to TWF.
I've read the entire thread. The issue I have is that there is a selective application of a very narrow reading of the rules. Why is the FOB full-attack action ok, but the manyshot full-attack action not?
If you didn't intend to make an extra attack, you wouldn't take the penalty.
If you didn't intend to FOB, you wouldn't initiate that attack sequence.
If you didn't intend to use manyshot, you wouldn't fire two arrows with your first attack.TOZ explains it pretty well in the link I posted. That line of logic is equally applicable here.
FoB's intent by RAI is for a full attack action, but it does not put you into the situation by RAW of a full attack in progress. Manyshot does by RAW. Therefore since one says you are full attacking when it takes place it is not comparable to the other one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Geez, you guys just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if my state analysis didn't disprove it entirely and utterly.
Your state analysis claims that you start the turn full attacking (because you use Manyshot), then decide to attack+move (per the Deciding rules), with the result that you are using both the full attack and the attack+move actions in the same turn. This is not true. In order to meet the requirement "during a full attack" you have to actually take the full attack action, which is a full round action that does not include a move. Your state analysis is false, and is built on the assumption that you can choose to break the rules by not taking a full attack action after declaring the use of an ability which requires one because nothing specifically says that you can't and normally (if you weren't using Manyshot) you would be able to, thereby creating two contradictory states. You can't choose to break the rules, period, and the CRB really shouldn't need to spell that out for you.
Again: You lose the ability to choose to move because you are required to take a full attack and if you move you are not taking a full attack. You never enter the dual states you are claiming.
And you should stop talking about RAW until you can show how the rules on "Deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack" do not refer to deciding between an attack and a full attack by RAW.
Guys I just went back and re-read that JJ quote.
FWIW, here it is:
If you make a full attack, and you "resolve" your situation after that first attack in your sequence (say, that first attack drops the foe)... only a hard-ass GM who's probably never played the game on the other side of the screen would say that you can't stop and do something other than complete your attack... even if you HAD done a flurry of blows. I mean... think it through. The difference between making 1 attack and moving and making only the 1st attack of a flurry of blows and then moving is that you may have made that one attack at a penalty to your roll. That's hardly unbalanced, in my book. Manyshot, on the other hand... that's a different story. In my book... as long as your attack was something that was a net "LESS" than a standard attack... I'm okay with letting a character move after that. Manyshot is hardly "LESS."
And you should stop talking about RAW until you can show how the rules on "Deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack" do not refer to deciding between an attack and a full attack by RAW.
His argument IIRC, is that because that paragraph is in the full attack section that no matter what you do it is a full attack. Earlier in the thread he said the book was incorrect because the devs did not write what they intended to write. I show a post with SKR basically saying an attack and a full attack were two different things. This was also mentioned by other devs. Now he is saying the devs are wrong.
So to repeat:
First he says the book does not show the devs intent. When quotes are posted to show intent he then switches his argument to say the devs are not reading their rules correctly, even though there is nothing to show that just because something that is in the "full attack" section that it must be a full attack. The fact that the devs and the book are saying you must choose is a nonfactor.
To sum it up-->If it is in the full attack section the devs can't make you choose anything different. That is his version of RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have passed 10 pages. I want my official answer. :)
Geez, you guys just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if my state analysis didn't disprove it entirely and utterly.Your state analysis claims that you start the turn full attacking (because you use Manyshot), then decide to attack+move (per the Deciding rules), with the result that you are using both the full attack and the attack+move actions in the same turn. This is not true. In order to meet the requirement "during a full attack" you have to actually take the full attack action, which is a full round action that does not include a move. Your state analysis is false, and is built on the assumption that you can choose to break the rules by not taking a full attack action after declaring the use of an ability which requires one because nothing specifically says that you can't and normally (if you weren't using Manyshot) you would be able to, thereby creating two contradictory states. You can't choose to break the rules, period, and the CRB really shouldn't need to spell that out for you.
Again: You lose the ability to choose to move because you are required to take a full attack and if you move you are not taking a full attack. You never enter the dual states you are claiming.
And you should stop talking about RAW until you can show how the rules on "Deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack" do not refer to deciding between an attack and a full attack by RAW.
I don't see any other legitimate way to interpret this. Manyshot requires you to make a full attack. You can stop a full attack after the first attack and change your mind, but the rules and all reasonable interpretations thereof mean that your first attack becomes a standard attack; it doesn't "stay" a full attack. Allowing a person to break off manyshot after the first attack would be allowing manyshot as a standard action. Then so long as an archer doesn't move first, that character will always be gaining the use of manyshot, whether a full attack is used or not.
And if that actually is the quotation being relied upon for the interruption of a full attack, this should be pretty much done. Besides, manyshot gives you a benefit on your first strike, not a penalty, as did flurry of blows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His argument IIRC, is that because that paragraph is in the full attack section that no matter what you do it is a full attack.
Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
This is from the Magic chapter, so I guess extraordinary and natural abilities are magical.
Note he said section not chapter.
I thought Moglun was over-exaggerating on purpose, but I may be wrong.
I must admit, this is a fascinating discussion (glad I'm not strongly tied to one side or the other). FWIW, I'm with Wraithstrike on the Manyshot issue at this time, though I can see the argument from the other side quite well, and I don't consider it particularly game breaking to allow the FA(Manyshot) > Revert to movement option, should a GM choose to do so.
On a related note, then, (and scream at me if you think I should just start a new thread), can anyone explain why a Standard Action should prevent me from even taking a 5-foot step (let alone moving my speed) after I've taken the action? See Pinpoint Targeting for the case in point. This is pretty much a "what are the reasons for the rule, how does it make sense?" question. To make it even more fun, consider that as written I can still mount the horse next to me when using Pinpoint Targeting, but I can't take a 5-foot step.
I don't mind a diversion.
I have never liked pinpoint targeting. I am guessing that the flavor behind it is that you are steadying your shot, and that any movement will mess it up. Of course that does not explain why other movement would not throw your shot off, if that is the reason.
I figure that if I am restricting myself to one shot I should not be forced to stand still. I would allow my players to move as a house rule.
Talonhawke & Wraith: Yes, I was just being droll.
Chemlak: I believe the idea is that you are holding still and carefully aiming, as opposed to running and gunning.
There was similar feat for 3.5 in The Complete Adventurer. I forgot what the name of it was though.
Talonhawke & Wraith: Yes, I was just being droll.
Chemlak: I believe the idea is that you are holding still and carefully aiming, as opposed to running and gunning.
That makes sense before the attack, but having taken a standard action first, fully resolved the attack, and then having a move action remaining, not being able to move with it seems... Stupid.
That makes sense before the attack, but having taken a standard action first, fully resolved the attack, and then having a move action remaining, not being able to move with it seems... Stupid.Talonhawke & Wraith: Yes, I was just being droll.
Chemlak: I believe the idea is that you are holding still and carefully aiming, as opposed to running and gunning.
I agree, but I guess they don't you to bypass the intent by taking the actions in a different order.
To cheese it:
QuickDraw bow.
Pinpoint Targeting shot.
Ride check to fast mount your horse.
Sheath bow.
QuickDraw lance.
All ready for a mounted charge next round. I don't think you could also use the mount to move, but it might be open to debate.
That seems legal to me.
I'm well aware that you said you dislike the feat, Wraithstrike, and to be honest, I do, too, having looked at it in detail, I'm really wondering if anyone can actually explain why the following sequence is NOT a legal series of actions, considering the above was (other than "because that's how the feat is written"):
QuickDraw bow
Pinpoint Targeting shot.
Sheath bow.
QuickDraw sword.
5-foot step.
How a feat is written determines what is legal so "because that is how it is written" is the only answer for mechanical purposes.
If you are asking why the devs wrote it the way they did, I don't know, especially since you need a BAB of +16, making it a high level feat. At that level there better options, even if I can move. If it was something I could pick up at level 5 or earlier then it would not be so bad because as a fighter I could pick it up as a bonus feat, and trade it out later on.
I guess I am just as puzzled as you are.
Just droppin in to clarify that:
You MAY choose between standard and full attack after a first attack.
BUT
You MAY also choose between those two before the first attack, such as when you want to use manyshot et al.