| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
This term keeps cropping up, and it seems to add nothing but confusion.
Is there any difference at all between an attack action and a standard action? Is there any point at which I can't just read it as "standard action"
This is one of those things that needs more clarification.
ToZ is correct.
It comes from here.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
If you go to the below quote in the PRD and click on the link it takes you to the above quote.
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
edit:I did link it from here, but the PRD also has it linked.
An attack action is a specific standard action and thus not compatible with other standard actions.
That's the best I got.
Well, you normally can't combine two different standard actions either.
The idea that you can't charge and sunder seems a little silly, but that's what the rules seem to imply.
Correct me if I am wrong...
Can't you perform things described as an Attack Action during an AoO, but not Standard actions?
If you mean certain combat maneuvers then yes, but it depends on the specific maneuver.
I think it is a little bit more nuanced than anyone has said so far. An Attack Action is a type of standard action. An Attack is a word used to denote that one creature is attempting to roll the dice and add the result to his Attack Bonus in order to try to match or exceed another creature's Armor Class in order to do damage or apply an effect to that creature. An attack can be part of an Attack Action (a standard action consisting of one attack), Full Attack Action (a full round action consisting of two or more attacks), an Attack of Opportunity (a non-action consisting of one attack taken on an opponent's turn when they do something to provoke while threatened), or as part of a spell, spell-like ability, extraordinary ability or supernatural ability (anywhere between a swift action to an action taking multiple rounds, which may consist of one or many attacks as well as the actual use of the spell or ability.)
So, an Attack is not an action in and of itself, but may be a part of several different types of actions (or non-actions), one of which is an Attack Action, which is an action.
Hmm, perhaps I have just engaged in obfuscation through elaboration.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no, that's wrong Dragnmoon... TOZ and Concerro have it correctly.
The Attack Action is a specific Standard Action just like Casting a Spell is a specific Standard Action.
When you have the opportunity to take an AoO, you can't use the Attack Action, Cast a Spell, Activate a Su Ability, or any other action that is a Standard Action when you get an AoO, an AoO is entirely outside of the 'Action Economy', and just lets you make a melee attack (which Attack Action also does, as does Full Attack allow multiple melee attacks).
Suffice it to say, the Attack Action is not very well named...
If one called it the 'Strike Action' (as in Vital Strike) that would probably save alot of confusion.
While I personally feel very comfortable with this, the broader community is clearly not,
so I am baffled that Paizo has STILL not issued any FAQ/Errata on this when this very issue was one of the very first problems that many people had with PRPG, since the first printing. Of course, they actually DIDN'T CHANGE the definition of attack action or anything, they just made other rules (vital strike, sunder, etc) depend on that specific distinction, which formerly was never actually used in 3.5.
EDIT: note that the 'official line' on Attack Action (which above explanation is in line with) does NOT match up with ALL RAW, wherein things like Crits, Ranged Attack details, Natural Attack details, etc, are all given as subsets of the Attack action, NOT of all attack rolls (where they properly belong). This is another 3.x junk heritage issue, but since Paize chose to EMPHASIZE the attack action distinction that previously wasn't emphasized/leveraged by other rules, it's rather important to fix. Per RAW, no other attack roll EXCEPT attack actions should use that information re: Crit Rolls, etc, etc, when obviously all of that is needed for the game to function correctly (on non-Attack Action attacks).
It would be nice if all the things that required attack actions were instead errata'd to say standard action. I don't think there's any mechanical difference but it's a lot clearer.
there is a mechanical difference, as layed out above.
just as there is a mechanical difference between the Casting a Spell Action and a Standard Action.
perhaps you may LIKE if nothing was predicated on using the Attack Action, but that's the way the game is designed.
|
Well, you normally can't combine two different standard actions either.
The idea that you can't charge and sunder seems a little silly, but that's what the rules seem to imply.
You are incorrect in assuming that Charge and Sunder are considered as combining two different standard actions. A charge isn't a standard action, it is a special full round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and make a single melee attack. A Bull Rush, Disarm, Sunder or Trip can be attempted instead of making a melee attack. Depending on the situation, these don't strike me as silly, but valid tactical options.
EDIT: Took out the last paragraph: extraneous fluff.
sunder isn't a standard action it's an attack replacement action like trip or disarm. monks can do it as part of a flurry of blows.
sunder specifically reference the attack action as to how you accomplish it.
it ALSO uses a weapon to deliver the effect, and thus benefits from weapon bonuses.
what monks do is their own business, some monks can flurry with grapples, doesn't mean squat for anybody else.
sunder specifically reference the attack action as to how you accomplish it.
it ALSO uses a weapon to deliver the effect, and thus benefits from weapon bonuses.
what monks do is their own business, some monks can flurry with grapples, doesn't mean squat for anybody else.
I had always chalked it up to poor wording, rather than monks specially being able to do multiple flurries. but seems I was wrong.
...I had to laugh at JB's line "Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics." given that the 'old topic' of Attack Actions is still provoking misunderstanding YEARS after PRPG was released, and they still haven't issued any FAQ or Errata. But I guess there would be 'no point' in doing so... 8-/
Correct me if I am wrong...
Can't you perform things described as an Attack Action during an AoO, but not Standard actions?
That would be the question at hand here.
Can you use an "attack action" in an attack of opportunity?
Can you use an "attack action" as part of a full round attack?
Can you use an "attack action" on a charge?
...I had to laugh at JB's line "Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics." given that the 'old topic' of Attack Actions is still provoking misunderstanding YEARS after PRPG was released, and they still haven't issued any FAQ or Errata. But I guess there would be 'no point' in doing so... 8-/
That's because the preview was wrong. Not the actual game.
The word "attack action" is confusing and should go away, but does it appear anyway besides Vital Strike? Cleave uses the more sensible "standard action".
ANYWAY
Can you use an "attack action" in an attack of opportunity?
Can you use an "attack action" as part of a full round attack?
Can you use an "attack action" on a charge?
No, you can't. This prohibition applies to Vital Strike and other things that say "attack action".
On the other hand, Trip, Sunder and Disarm could be used in any of those scenarios ("in place of a melee attack") and Bull Rush can specifically be used as part of a Charge.
Touch spells give you a free melee touch attack and I don't see any reason why you couldn't replace that free attack with one of those. It would no longer be a touch attack but the spell would still go off on a hit, targeting the weapon/armor in the case of Disarm or Sunder. This seems exploitable by a Magus. It seems like something that shouldn't be possible, but I can't see that it's not.
|
|
sunder specifically reference the attack action as to how you accomplish it.
No, sunder is stating that your act of attacking can be used to target a weapon or held/worn object instead of a melee attack intended to cause damage to a character. I mean, really, it's not difficult. But for some reason, people want to read into the rules and make them be more than they are intended.
@ everyone:
There are six types of actions that may be performed in a round: standard, move, full-round, free, swift, or immediate. Although the wording "attack action" has the word "action" in it, in this context, it is not intended to be construed as a missing seventh action allowed during a round. In this context "attack action" merely means "the act of attacking your opponent" which is done as either a standard action, full-round action, or a special free attack (attack of opportunity).
Except and AoO is not an attack action its just an attack otherwise you could choose to vital strike when making AoO.
Though imho that would make the feat much more useful for certian builds.
|
|
The word "attack action" is confusing and should go away, but does it appear anyway besides Vital Strike? Cleave uses the more sensible "standard action".
No, you can't. This prohibition applies to Vital Strike and other things that say "attack action".
On the other hand, Trip, Sunder and Disarm could be used in any of those scenarios ("in place of a melee attack") and Bull Rush can specifically be used as part of a Charge.
Touch spells give you a free melee touch attack and I don't see any reason why you couldn't replace that free attack with one of those. It would no longer be a touch attack but the spell would still go off on a hit, targeting the weapon/armor in the case of Disarm or Sunder. This seems exploitable by a Magus. It seems like something that shouldn't be possible, but I can't see that it's not.
In this context, I would agree that the phrase "attack action" is a poor choice of wording. My previous post still applies though, as in this context "the attack action" is referencing a standard action attack; it does not mean some separate action that is different than a standard action.
I disagree that you can replace a melee touch attack (as part of casting a spell that requires you to touch an opponent) with a combat maneuver (trip, sunder, etc.). First, the combat maneuver allows you to replace a melee attack not a melee touch attack. It is subtle, but there is a difference. Second, the combat maneuver is made in place of a melee attack as part of a standard, full-round, or AoO. The melee touch attack is a free action associated with casting a spell (which is - meta magic feats aside - at best a standard action).
Edited: Ok, I think we're on the same page. Provided that you are not trying to argue that you can Sunder as an AoO, because that you cannot do.
The word "attack action" is confusing and should go away, but does it appear anyway besides Vital Strike? Cleave uses the more sensible "standard action".
It appears in a few of the fighter archetypes and in other places. If it were limited to the CRB I would agree, but it is also bleeding into the newer content like the APG (haven't even checked UC).
First, the combat maneuver allows you to replace a melee attack not a melee touch attack. It is subtle, but there is a difference. Second, the combat maneuver is made in place of a melee attack as part of a standard, full-round, or AoO. The melee touch attack is a free action associated with casting a spell (which is - meta magic feats aside - at best a standard action).
I dunno, is "melee touch attack" just a special case of "melee attack"? I'd certainly apply the "-4 penalty to AC against melee attacks" from prone to melee touch attacks. It says you can make it in place of a melee attack without mentioning its source. Whatever! This is something I'd rather not continue to contemplate. It is far too silly.
|
|
I dunno, is "melee touch attack" just a special case of "melee attack"? I'd certainly apply the "-4 penalty to AC against melee attacks" from prone to melee touch attacks. It says you can make it in place of a melee attack without mentioning its source. Whatever! This is something I'd rather not continue to contemplate. It is far too silly.
I would apply apply it too since those types of modifiers don't differentiate between melee attack, melee touch attack, ranged attack, or ranged touch attack.
But it does! It gives +4 AC vs Ranged Attacks and -4 AC vs Melee Attacks. If they are not merely special cases of those why would the prone modifier apply to touch attacks?
I can take some small solace in the fact that the Arcane Mark thing Magi may or may not have by RAW is stupider.
|
While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver
I am pretty sure an attack action is any time you make an attack as part of any action. I would say vital strike works on sunders and even during AoOs.
They have attack of opportunity and attack action as two different things even in your quote.
An attack action is a standard action. I have a link upthread that supports it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word "attack action" is confusing and should go away, but does it appear anyway besides Vital Strike?
Vital Strike (Also Improved and Greater) Core feat, grants bonus dice with the attack action.
Sunder - Core combat maneuver, used as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
Gaze (Su)/Wearing a Blindfold - A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an attack action.
Overhand Chop (Ex) APG Two-Handed Fighter archetype - Grants bonus damage when using attack action or charge. (Verified as RAI by the author here)
Slow Time (Su) - APG Monk of the Four Winds archetype, take three standard actions, which can each be used to take a melee attack action, but cannot full-attack.
Snap Shot (Ex) APG Rogue talent, Init bonus but can only be used with ranged attack action.
Hunter's Tricks - APG Skirmisher ranger archetype "Tricks are usually swift actions, but sometimes move or free actions that modify a standard action, usually an attack action."
Gory Finish - UC Feat, drop target with attack action, get intimidate check.
Felling Smash - UC Feat, use Power Attack with attack action, get free trip.
Personally, I like this:
"Single-Attack Action
The single-attack action allows a player to take a single attack during her turn. The single-attack action is a standard action.
When using a single-attack action, a player makes only a single attack, and does not get extra attacks due to wielding multiple weapons, having a high base attack bonus, the Haste spell, or any other ability unless that ability specifically works with the single-attack action. To gain extra attacks, a player normally must use the full-attack action rather than the single-attack action."
The term "single-attack action" is abundantly clear and would not be confused with "an attack", the way "attack action" so often is. It also contrasts logically with "full-attack action".
I'd go further and say that any action that has the word 'attack' in it is an attack action.
If that were the case you could vital strike on an attack of opportunity, and you cannot.
I'd go further and say that any action that has the word 'attack' in it is an attack action.
Are you saying that's how it is, or that's how you wish it were?
The rules are pretty straight forward.
An "attack action" is a specific type of action that allows you to make one melee attack as a standard action.
Thus:
Vital Strike + Sunder = Yes - both are "attack actions"
Vital Strike + Charge = No - Charge is a full round action
Vital Strike + AoO = No - AoO does not grant you an attack action
Sunder + AoO = No - AoO does not grant you an attack action
Lastly...and this will probably start a maelstrom of WTH's.
Sunder + full attack = No - Sunder is an attack action (a standard action) and a full attack is a full-attack action (a full-round action)
"Attack Actions" are listed in the combat section under Standard Actions. The book list 4 Attack Action as being Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Unarmed Attack and Natural Attack.
"Attack Actions" are listed in the combat section under Standard Actions. The book list 4 Attack Action as being Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Unarmed Attack and Natural Attack.
Woops. Your right on that.
Attack action allows you to perform one of those 4 attacks as a standard action.|
|
I'd go further and say that any action that has the word 'attack' in it is an attack action.Are you saying that's how it is, or that's how you wish it were?
I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is.
We've been playing this way for an AP and a half and all it does is make combat maneuvers more interesting/useful.
I'd go further and say that any action that has the word 'attack' in it is an attack action.Are you saying that's how it is, or that's how you wish it were?
I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is.
We've been playing this way for an AP and a half and all it does is make combat maneuvers more interesting/useful.
This does, of course, mean that you can vital strike on every single one of your attacks in a full-attack.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd go further and say that any action that has the word 'attack' in it is an attack action.Are you saying that's how it is, or that's how you wish it were?
I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is.
We've been playing this way for an AP and a half and all it does is make combat maneuvers more interesting/useful.
Sounds great; just doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not that's how the rules are. (And how the rules are is what this thread - in the rules section - is about.)
|
|
This does, of course, mean that you can vital strike on every single one of your attacks in a full-attack.I'd go further and say that any action that has the word 'attack' in it is an attack action.Are you saying that's how it is, or that's how you wish it were?
I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is.
We've been playing this way for an AP and a half and all it does is make combat maneuvers more interesting/useful.
Vital strike explicitly says a single attack action. We take that to mean you give up any other attacks made as part of the action. In fact the language used implies that multiple attack actions is a regularly occurring thing...
conversely - You could take it to mean that one attack in your attack action gets two dice. That you are this not giving up all other attacks only that one of your attacks gets an extra die.
@Jiggy "I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is. " <- I'm arguing rules there.
::Dreaming of a pouncing vital striking barbarian::
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy "I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is. " <- I'm arguing rules there.
I think perhaps I was unclear.
I see that this is your claim about the rules. I also see that the premise you offer as support for that claim is simply "I played it the other way and nothing broke."
All I'm trying to say is that having played a successful game running Rule X in a certain way does not in any way imply/suggest that Rule X really does work the way you ran it. "By the book" is not the only way to play a great game, so success with your interpretation does not support the position that your interpretation is "by the book".
::Dreaming of a pouncing vital striking barbarian::
Truly, a wonder to behold.
Vital Strike + Sunder = Yes - both are "attack actions"
Vital Strike: "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
Sunder:: "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."
Sunder replaces the attack you make using the attack action, so instead of making the attack the attack action grants you (which would be modified by VS) it is replaced by a combat maneuver.
|
|
@Jiggy "I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is. " <- I'm arguing rules there.I think perhaps I was unclear.
I see that this is your claim about the rules. I also see that the premise you offer as support for that claim is simply "I played it the other way and nothing broke."
All I'm trying to say is that having played a successful game running Rule X in a certain way does not in any way imply/suggest that Rule X really does work the way you ran it. "By the book" is not the only way to play a great game, so success with your interpretation does not support the position that your interpretation is "by the book".
I think all the evidence has been presented. To me the conclusion is still unclear and will be until it's errata'd to be more clear, or a new edition is published.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think all the evidence has been presented. To me the conclusion is still unclear and will be until it's errata'd to be more clear, or a new edition is published.@Jiggy "I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is. " <- I'm arguing rules there.I think perhaps I was unclear.
I see that this is your claim about the rules. I also see that the premise you offer as support for that claim is simply "I played it the other way and nothing broke."
All I'm trying to say is that having played a successful game running Rule X in a certain way does not in any way imply/suggest that Rule X really does work the way you ran it. "By the book" is not the only way to play a great game, so success with your interpretation does not support the position that your interpretation is "by the book".
I don't really have an opinion on the Attack Action topic - I was just critiquing your argumentation methodology.
Because that's the kind of thing I care about. :P