WWWW's page

Well, I asked because I'll be DMing a game where this might come up, and I wanted to ensure I had a defense against something truly ridiculous happening.

None of the casters in my game will be getting to 50 strength, and I wouldn't allow the Restoration trick either, so the worst is averted.

However, the witch could still use this trick to easily cast Raise Dead at a small fraction of the price. That's only 10 strength damage (just borrow your buddy's belt of strength if you're under 10).

I'm honestly surprised that such a blatant gold economy violation was allowed in the first place.

Eh well, unless using those expensive spells permanently handicaps the characters they were going to get the money back anyway.

When I said that I could not see where Skip used 'an' instead of 'the', I was looking at the FAQs I cut & pasted, which were Skip's FAQs about Spring Attack and Shot On The Run.

I earlier posted about the dangers of yes/no questions and answers, and illustrated the potential mis-use of such answers. I used the question, 'Do you like girls?' to illustrate that whether you answered yes OR no to that your answer could be used against you. The question should be framed as either, 'Do you like girls as opposed to boys?' or 'Do you like girls as opposed to women?'

I was wary of answering his seemingly innocent yes/no question for fear it would be taken out of context and used against me, no matter if I said yes OR no!

So I provided a fair context and did my best to answer his questions so that my answer could not be misunderstood.

Since Skip was talking about 3.5 and his FAQs were about 3.5 feats I answered in 3.5 rules. In 3.5, there is no difference between attack and attack action. If a weapon attack must be taken as a standard action, then that ability is called out as a standard action and not an attack action.

The rules in this section have not changed from the 3.5 PHB to the PF CRB, and there was no reason to believe the rule had changed.

Until, that is, JB made some posts about Vital Strike. On an Internet forum. A place which I didn't even know about until recently. How can the players of PF be expected to know the rules have changed? It's not credible that Paizo think that scouring these threads is a pre-requisite for play!

Although I think you are sincere in your beliefs, I find it astonishing that you can see 'attack' as 'attack action' without seeing 'cast a spell' as the 'cast a spell' action, and therefore require a standard action to use the 'attack action' while not requiring a standard action to use the 'cast a spell action'!

If it wasn't for JB 'fixing' Vital Stike using the words he did, then this thread would not exist, and nor would the dichotomy of...

Oh, don't worry about the answer being taken out of context and used against you, that wasn't really the point in the end. I was wondering if a conversation had a hope of going anywhere and your inability give an answer answers my question. Sorry, but if you won't take a stance on anything we can't actually discuss anything.

Thanks for being patient with me; I think I've got it now. : )

I'll try to be as precise as I can.

There are two things happening simultaneously here. The first is that the attack action is not any old action you can use to attack your opponent. You can attack your opponent by casting Polar Ray or you can use a breath weapon or you can use Cleave. But none of these use the attack action as defined under 'Attack', which lists the things which are attack actions, like melee, ranged, natural, multiple attacks, etc. Polar Ray is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'cast a spell' action; a breath weapon is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'use supernatural ability' action. Using Cleave is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'use special ability' action.

The second thing is that, whatever the action is (attack, cast a spell, use special ability, etc), it burns some kind of action type (in terms of swift, free, standard, full-round, etc). Just because a kind of action may be able to burn different types of actions, that doesn't mean they break action economy! If you only have a standard action to burn then whatever kind of action you choose to take (attack, cast a spell, etc) must burn that standard action; you can't use multiple attacks or spells with a casting time of 1 round, because you only have a standard action to burn!

So, what's going on with Spring Attack/Shot On The Run?

Two things: one, you cannot take any kind of action you want just because you have a standard action to burn. The feat only allows attack actions.

Second, you only have a standard action to burn, so the attack action you take when using these feats must be both an attack action and a standard action at the same time! Not because all attack actions must be standard actions but because the limitations of the feats mean that you only have a standard action to burn (as well as a move), and that standard action can only be used to take an attack action.

That is what Skip is saying!

Does this answer your question? Please say yes! I'm trying my best!

Sorry, but that does not answer the question. Perhaps you are over thinking things. As far as I can tell it should not really require basically any explanation for the answer.

But let me rephrase the question slightly, In this one particular passage there is a series of words that are used. those words are "an attack action". The feats, however, do not contain "an attack action" but rather "the attack action". In this passage does "an attack action" mean "the attack action" and only "the attack action", or in other words are "an attack action" and "the attack action" equivalent in this one particular case.

Grimmy wrote:

I don't have a question.

WWWW had the question about the interchangeability of the articles.

Yeah, I was directing my answer at him. : )

Thanks, though. I was really finding it difficult to grasp exactly what he wanted, and I do want to answer him. He was very polite and I appreciate that. : )

Okay, allow me to try and explain the question again. In the following passage "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action) in conjunction with their allowed movement, not any kind of standard action." there is a particular term that is used. The term that I am wondering about is "an attack action" as in "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action"

Now the two feats that are referenced in the passage both function only "When using the attack action" and this means that the feats only let one use "the attack action."

So my question is, when Skip uses the term "an attack action" in the aforementioned passage is that term equivalent to "the attack action" that the two feats restrict one to using. Or to put it more simply, in this one particular case are "an attack action" and "the attack action" completely equivalent.

Skip is saying that although in this case the attack action is burning a standard action, that you cannot use any type of standard action during a Spring Attack, only attack actions (the types of attack listed under 'attack' in the combat chapter).

The warlock invocation Hideous Blow says, 'As a standard action you can make a single melee attack'. (then tells you what happens if you hit)

It's a single melee attack, right? So I can use it in a Spring Attack, right? And fold it into a full attack, right?

No. They were much more careful using attack action/standard action in 3rd ed. Every time it said 'attack action' it meant that this was the type of attack that could be a single attack (burning a standard action) or multiple attacks (burning a full-round action-Pounce excepted) or at the end of a charge (the charge itself burns the action, not the attack) or as an AoO (which is not an action). If an ability (like Hideous Blow or Manyshot) is described as a standard action then it may not be folded into a full attack or used at the end of a charge or as an AoO.

Or used during a Spring Attack, and that is was Skip is saying. It also means that you can't use Manyshot during a Shot on the Run, as Manyshot is a standard action not an attack action. Abilities described as standard action are their own actions as opposed to attack actions, at least in 3.5.

I hope that answers your question.

No, it completely ignores my question. But let me rephrase for clarity.

The spring attack feat restricts characters to "the attack action". The FAQ entry says that spring attack restricts characters to "an attack action". Are "an attack action" and "the attack action" completely equivalent in this case?

All right, if you will excuse my presumption, I am going to assume that you know the 3.5 rules. Now as someone who knows the 3.5 rules, you, of course, know the shot on the run and spring attack feats. And as someone who knows those feats you, of course, know that they say "When using the attack action with a ranged weapon," and "When using the attack action with a melee weapon,"

So please tell me when Skip says "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action) in conjunction with their allowed movement" would you say that Skip is using "An attack action" and "The attack action" interchangeably. Meaning that Skip is saying that the attack action is a type of standard action.

Now if you disagree with the idea that Skip was using the two terms interchangeably then please explain to me how we can consider someone who does not even know the rules of the PHB a reputable source of rulings.

Hmm no answer as to how you know that Skip is not saying what he is saying. Ah well I suppose I shall have to take the absence of such a post as tacit agreement that you agree that Skip Williams has ruled that the attack action is a standard action. Huh, who would have guessed that you would change your mind about this.

A recent example is when I conflated the two FAQs from Skip Williams. I knew that he had made clear that sunder could be used in a full attack because it replaced any attack, and I knew that he had said that an attack action could be folded into a full attack (paraphrasing) but that a standard action could not. My memory contained both these facts, but had not retained that they were from two different FAQs. But my conclusions were still correct.

Oh by the by, I am still wondering how you know that when Skip says the attack action is a standard action he does not actually mean the attack action is a standard action. Is it telepathy, That's what I'm betting on?

Your previous post regarding Spring Attack does not show any error on Skip's part. He is saying that the only type of standard action allowed during a SA is an attack action, not that attack actions are always standard actions!

Sometimes attack actions are standard actions! Sometimes they are not! The attack action during a SA is a standard action.

So when Skip says that the attack action is a standard action he is not actually saying that the attack action is a standard action. Huh, well how about that. Personally that would make his rulings even more suspect if he doesn't actually mean what he says in them.

Skip Williams wrote:

Can a warlock use Rapid Shot to fire two eldritch blasts simultaneously?

No. Using eldritch blast requires a standard action, not an attack action (unlike using a weapon). If something requires a standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you can’t use the full attack action to gain extra uses of that ability, even with the Rapid Shot feat.

Can you seriously tell me that the above doesn't show that, in 3rd ed., attack actions can be folded into a full attack?

When it says, 'If something requires a standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you can't use the full attack action', it implies as strongly as it is able that, 'If something requires an attack action (as opposed to a standard action) to use, you can use the full attack action'!

And the wording of attack actions has not changed between editions.

I apologise if my memory conflated the two FAQs. : )

Well that depends. Would you prefer that I say the above shows that attack actions can be folded into a full attack. But be aware that it means that we have two contradictory FAQ entries and thus the whole of Skip's rulings for 3.5 are thrown into doubt. I mean I am fine with that but you seem to like using him as a source so I am leaving it up to you to decide if you wish to demonstrate that his 3.5 rulings are unreliable.

Here it is!

Skip Williams the 3rd edition 'rules guy' wrote:

Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee attack variant? It has its own entry on the actions table, but the text describing it refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder a melee attack only in the sense of hitting something with a melee weapon, or is sunder a true melee attack?

Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive text for the Manyshot feat says).
If you make a full attack, and you have multiple attacks from a high base attack bonus, you can sunder more than once, or attack and sunder, or some other combination of attacking and sundering.
Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8–2: Actions in Combat in the PH. It needs one because unlike a regular melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of opportunity (although not if you have the Improved Sunder feat).
You can also disarm, grapple, or trip as a melee attack (or attack of opportunity)

That's how it was in 3.0 and 3.5. Altough the combat manoevre mechanic changed in Pathfinder, the wording of attack actions did not.

So tell me, how does a FAQ entry that does not contain the term "attack action" demonstrate anything about the "attack action".

Snip

Ah so you are arguing that Skip Williams is not actually an absolutely valid rules source for 3.5. If you don't understand what I mean, showing that Skip Williams has given two contradictory rulings means that he is not actually right all the time. If you demonstrate that Skip can be wrong then you demonstrate that any of his rulings can be wrong. If you really want to cast doubt on one of your sources, please feel free, but be aware of what you are doing.

Oh and by the by here's a little quiz for you. Which of these is the wording of the benefit section of the spring attack feat.

1: "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack."

2: "When using an attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack."

WWWW wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

• His understanding of 'attack action' exactly matches that of the 3.0/3.5 'rules guy' Skip Williams, and JJ's post was both recent and succinct.

Hmm, Skip was he the guy that did the 3.5 faq. I never can remember if he was responsible for that.

Skip Williams, AKA 'The Sage', was responsible for the Sage Advice column in Dragon Magazine, from which the FAQ in question was gleaned.

He also authored one of the original three core rulebooks for 3.0, either the DMG or the MM, I can't remember which.

So, yes, he was a rules guy! : )

Oh I am not questioning if he was a guy that made rules. He clearly was given credit for some books. No I was just wondering to whom I should attribute this sentence from the FAQ.

"The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use
an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action) in
conjunction with their allowed movement, not any kind of
standard action."

• His understanding of 'attack action' exactly matches that of the 3.0/3.5 'rules guy' Skip Williams, and JJ's post was both recent and succinct.

Hmm, Skip was he the guy that did the 3.5 faq. I never can remember if he was responsible for that.

Yes I do, but I do not see any reason not to equate those things.

All right, I suppose we shall just have to disagree, as I see no reason to equate those terms.

Because those things don't fight to the death, not in reality which we use as a general reference and ruler.

Fear generally is the deciding factor for creatures to decide when to fight or flee. If they believe they can win they fight if they fear they will lose then they get the emotional fear and flee (unless defending there nest or young or if they can't flee), with notable exceptions like ant colonies, in which the general rules still apply but on the scale of the colony rather then individuals.

Vermin are not immune to this in reality because they are practically mindless not actually mindless. Even ants avoid being squashed.

Paladins are compelled to fight to the death just like ants (whose cause is the survival of the colony), which doesn't always mean standing there like an idiot but rather constantly moving toward the goal their oath demands of them regardless of the chance of success, aka fighting through a hundred orcs so they can warn town so they don't get taken by surprise by the orc invasion counts for that.

Generally, vermin don't get compelled to act such.

Vermin could reasonably be said to be too simple to be magically manipulated by spells meant for more advanced minds, just like how a flashlight is a simple circut yet far less vulnerable to EM interference then a computer.

"Mindless" undead and most constructs are "programmed" by people who generally care less about the survival and more about the success of the things. Intelligent undead generally retain the minds and emotional ability of when they were living things as do some special constructs, though the magic that keeps them alive can certainly interfere with magical attempts to affect their mind there is no reason to expect that protection to exist against mundane ability (which the only way to do that would impede thinking and lock them into a single state of mind permanently)

All right I am not sure you are understanding me. When I say that you are equating the game mechanical term "Fear" with the real life emotion do you understand what I mean by that.

Not so, only that intelligent beings are the only ones to come up with a multitude of reasons to fight to the death. Natural creatures only fight to the in a select few occasions where one instinct overides another, or when the creature doesn't believe it has another open.

Fear is a basic emotion inherent in all natural and thinking beings. To say anything from that group, or has the mind from when it used to be in that group, is immune to fear is ridiculous, to say they are immune to spells and abilities designed to work on more advanced, complete, and complex minds is not so farfetched.

BTW, paladins only act for self preservation when they have no reason fight, otherwise their dedication and NLP makes their code and whatever they believe in more important then self preservation, which results in not only the fact that they don't think about self preservation as very important, but also protects them from someone trying to exploit the desire for self preservation (which in most people is something that they have to fight and control whenever they go into battle knowing they will likely die, a paladin has completely removed that desire from themselves, thus the immunity)

Yeah, I understood your concern already, but like I said I believe it is mistakenly equating the game mechanical construct (with specific results and limited scope) with the emotion normally described by the word.

But let's talk about paladins. You claim that a paladin will only be able to follow self preservation when they have not reason to fight. So I take that to mean that should any reason, no matter how small, exist the paladin must fight to the death even against completely impossible odds. How is that any different then your complaint about making all those other things mindless.

No, but (all bugs are insects not all insects are bugs, kinda thing) their belief and faith is more important then self survival (just like individual ants in a colony) the values that they believe in are more important then living, in way that very few can understand, thus even if they believe they will die the thought of self preservation doesn't occur to them, only the survival of their beliefs/values.

Immune to fear is immune to fear. If you are claiming that making these creatures immune to fear would be problematic because they would lose the ability to understand and act in the interest of self preservation, then likewise paladins would lose the ability to understand and act in the interest of self preservation upon becoming immune to fear.

Zotpox wrote:

The object of Indimidate is to provoke an emotional response to a threat.

No emotion = No response

Exactly!

But vermin do have emotions as do intelligent undead and certain exceptional constructs (one way for a wizard to achieve immortality is to transfer the soul into a special construct body for example).

Also any natural living thing has a an innate desire for survival of the species (which is ignored in games way too often as it is)

----
It seems to me that currently as near as I can tell, that shaken/frightened/panicked are untyped and thus not morale effects, which seem to me more a factor in more intelligent creatures rather then fear which is a base instinct.

To me morale has a lot to do with one's command of one's own emotions to try and accomplish a thought out goal rather then pure emotion. Thus disheartening people can make them forget for moment what they were fighting for, etc

You're equating the game mechanical construct with the real life emotion. Consider the following. Paladins are immune to fear. Do all paladins lose the ability to understand the concept of self preservation once they hit level 3?

Found an example today:

flamewolf393 wrote:

I know they cannot own equipment, and have to give up their material quest rewards to charity, but could a monk with VoP be granted permanency spell effects as rewards, aka "favors of gratitude" if the rewarding npc is/has access to wizard abilities? Or would this break the spirit of the feat?

Vow of Poverty is an alternate class ability. Not a feat. This caused much confusion in the thread from which this was taken.

Eh considering that it was a feat in 3.5 perhaps the person was merely mixing up the two.

Another thing, back from the days of 3.5:

This item gives immunity to fear and morale effects.

It's 3.5 though, so it's a toss up.

Well as far as I can see that is listing the incorrect abilities of the calm emotions spell. Calm emotions suppresses morale bonuses granted by spells and fear effects plus some other miscellaneous stuff, not a blanket removal of all morale effects if I remember the spell correctly.

WWWW wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Mindless creatures are immune to Demoralize because they are immune to Morale effects.

Ah but why are they immune to Morale effects? As far as I can see they merely have immunity to all mind-affecting effects.

That does not mean that all Morale effects are Mind-effecting effects.

That's like saying all apples are oranges because apples and oranges are both fruits.

Also, the immunity to Morale effects is in the description of the Mindless quality.

You misunderstand, I am not saying that all morale effects are mind-affecting. Rather I am saying that mindless creatures have immunity to all mind-affecting effects and that is it.

The four words "immunity to Morale effects" are not strung together in that particular sequence anywhere in the description of mindless that I can see.

Mindless creatures are immune to Demoralize because they are immune to Morale effects.

Ah but why are they immune to Morale effects? As far as I can see they merely have immunity to all mind-affecting effects.

Barry Armstrong wrote:

Yes, fear is a mind-affecting effect.

Explain Chill Touch.

"[A]s if panicked" is not the same thing as panicked. If anything, the fact that the spell had to give a pseudo-panicked condition instead of the real thing supports the idea that fear is mind effecting. That is not to say that I fall on either side of the argument, just that chill touch is not really that good of a counter example.

Dabbler wrote:

Gimelbub wrote:

I never understood why a mental stat is supposed to govern appearance.

Because charisma is not about looks. It is about your ability socialise, your 'social intelligence' and the force of personality you exude. Somebody with a low charisma can be very attractive, but they do not exploit it, are quiet, have unsociable habits, stammer, don't put their point across etc.

I know, but according to the charisma description in the CRB it governs appearance in addition to those things.

Look, there are really two main categories of how to look at things. Broadly, charisma is either an average of a bunch of stuff and a high rank in one area can offset a low rank in another or D&D characters have really weird tastes. I mean, consider some of the monsters that have above average to really high charisma. For example gibbering mouther 12, sea hag 15, intellect devourer 17, tarn linnorm 27.

Clearly a balance concern and a problem with "realism" (verisimilitude perhaps) are exactly the same thing.

Oh, so if the laser beam did d6+2 damage, then you'd be fine with it.

Gotcha.

No, since the problem is that the laser still destroys planets. But if you mean changing from a planet destroying laser to a reasonably well balanced harmful energy beam, well it might be stepping on the toes of other classes, the 3.5 warlock comes to mind. Sure they will eventually out scale it but it might be a bit unfair to give away their ability to everyone.

But like I said that is a balance concern and not one about "realism." They are different things and equating the two doesn't really strengthen your point.

LOL, I forgot entirely about this thread. I love it whenever someone says "Well, this aspect of the game is troublesome for me because it makes no sense to me."

And the immediate response is "Dude! The game has frickin' DRAGONS in it! Dragons aren't real. Therefore your argument is invalid."

Sigh... Well, using that logic we may as well allow first level characters to carry around Federation matter/anti-matter converters so they can shoot planet-destroying lasers on demand. Got a problem with that?

Dude! The game has frickin' DRAGONS in it! Dragons aren't real. Therefore your argument is invalid.

LOL

Clearly a balance concern and a problem with "realism" (verisimilitude perhaps) are exactly the same thing.

WWWW wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Those actions are all totally out of context, and thus impossible to judge.

In context, the character is Neutral Good, as all of those potentially bad things were done because said character believed they were the best/right thing to do, even if they didn't work out that way.

Ah the old good intentions justify anything no matter how evil excuse.

No, no no. No way will you ever hear that nonsense argument from me. Intentions are less important here than context. Lying to a chick to get laid is a lot different than lying to Nazis to protect the people you're hiding or even just to save someone's feelings.

In a D&D sense, I could say something like:
"Character X killed a foreign dignitary!"

You'd think such a character was evil. But what if the foreign dignitary was the king of the Orcs whose army was ravaging the city and who had just bitten the face of the character's child, right in front of them?

** spoiler omitted **

Okay, that is fine and all but if that is what you believe then you might want to rephrase for clarity. It is not that potentially bad things were done because they seemed like a good idea at the time, it is that several actions that are completely unaligned or inherently good were done to further the agenda of cosmic goodness. The actions were without exception not evil and the motivation was furthering cosmic good rather then any sort of personal benefit, such as avoiding punishment, not having evil neighbors, helping loved ones, etc.

Those actions are all totally out of context, and thus impossible to judge.

In context, the character is Neutral Good, as all of those potentially bad things were done because said character believed they were the best/right thing to do, even if they didn't work out that way.

Ah the old good intentions justify anything no matter how evil excuse.

Hmm, I would say the whole vestigial arm thing depends on how the unarmed strikes and natural weapons deal works out. If someone can make say, one set of iterative unarmed strikes and then attack with all their natural weapons that is no more attacks then one set of, say, dagger iterative attacks and then an attack with all natural weapons.

cartmanbeck wrote:

MendedWall12 wrote:

Can someone explain to me what exactly this does? Reading the descriptive language for this metamagic feat is like trying to read arcane writings without having prepped Read Magic.

Is it saying if a spell normally does 4d6 damage it actually does 6d6 damage (half again as much)? Or what is it saying?

Correct. And if the spell did 4d6 + 4, it would do 6d6 + 6. The reason they talk about "variable, numeric effects" is so that you can't empower a spell that causes a set amount of damage.

This raises another question though: does this basically translate to saying spells that are Maximized cannot also be Empowered?

Nah, there is a special rule made just for that. Max value plus half normal roll.

Fast Learner (For a Single Classed build) is closer to dreamscarred press's open minded than it is to toughness. since the real bonus isn't the hit points, it's the skill points.

open minded is a pretty good feat for what it does. i'm not sure there are many builds that wouldn't take it if they had an extra feat to spare. for the price of having to qualify for combat expertise, a human fighter can be even more skill points ahead of their nonhuman counterparts.

it allows fighters to function better out of combat.

it's definitely better than another similar feat for half-humans in the ARG.

most builds probably want the hit points anyway. so a feat to tack on the skill points isn't too bad. and any "human-blooded" race can wheedle permission to take it from their DM in a home game if they want to play a more human blooded planetouched.

for the price of a 13 int and 2 feats, i could have a human fighter with 6 skill points per level. if i bump it up to 14. i could make that 7. i'm not quite in skill monkey territory yet, but now my human fighter can have some decent noncombat skills.

I think the idea is that if one takes toughness over this learner feat the choice can just always be skill point and the same effect of +1 HP and +1 skill point is achieved.

Omission is not permission. Problems aren't problems unless they are actually causing problems.

This is actually a rather hilarious thing to say in light of the "problem" with haste being a lack of permission. But, and here is a bit more useful point, who says it is not causing problems. I'm not in every game so I can't know that and I doubt there is anyone that could. And let us not forget about organized play.

Huh well that is a strange change.

@ WWWW

Except there is nothing irrational about his "houserule." RAW, you can't even really add special effects to AoMF (including Speed) unless they can be applied to Unarmed Strikes, which guess what? None can, because none are. The RAW for that is contradictory; for it to even function, the wording must be changed. This, meaning it's just an Unarmed/Natural Attack enhancer. Does that make sense for AoMF? Not at all, but RAW is contradictory to the obvious RAI.

The same concept can easily be applied to this. Haste unable to affect Monk Unarmed Attacks, by RAW, is legal. Haste unable to affect Monk Unarmed Attacks, by RAI, is ridiculous, and even in terms of game balance, it makes no sense to enforce the rule when there is no reason why they shouldn't get the effect; this interpretation, is what we are arguing for, and is not "blithely ignoring rules".

Yeah, that is the point. Why should cases where the rules not working be ignored. Not just ignored but deliberately glossed over and claimed to not actually exist. If the rules don't work that should be acknowledged so that they can be fixed instead of pretending that they don't actually say what they do. What compensation does the new DM get for the rule causing trouble in his game. What compensation does the person participating in organized play get should his character be ruined when one DM rules one way and another the other. But you are right, it is not "blithely ignoring rules", it is a calculated ignoring to the rules and claiming they say something they do not. Houserules are fine but to call them something other then what they are is not so much.

Snip

I am going to have to disagree. I can see no reason for blithely ignoring what the rules actually say. This is even more important should I believe that the rules do not match their intent as ignoring the problem makes it less likely to be fixed.

Your idea if just ignoring things can be quite detrimental as it allows presumably broken rules to exist. For example, who can say what new DM will play things the way they are written. They do not have the experience that we can draw from and they may trust the rules over their own judgment while learning. Why let their players suffer over such an easily fixed thing. Or alternatively, in any sort of organized play this kind of possible ambiguity can completely mess up characters, should one DM make a houserule and another decide to play the rules as they lie.

Snip

Why in the world would you think someone is arguing a position that they themselves believe is wrong unless they say they are playing devils advocate or something.

Does this effect (an extra attack) work for the character as a whole? No. If it did, it would work on unarmed strikes, which it clearly does not because otherwise the only other types of weapon attacks wouldn't have been called out.

What is the differentiating factor? This effect works only on attacks made with natural or manufactured weapons.

Does this effect constitute an improvement or enhancement? Yes.

This effect is an improvement or enhancement that works only on attacks made with natural or manufactured weapons, as opposed to (specifically) unarmed strikes.

This effect meets the criteria for a monk's unarmed attack to work with it.

All right, let me ask this question. Where are you getting the restriction that any effect that grants a creature extra attacks must do so for all weapons.

WWWW wrote:

So, and I would like to be clear here as I am trying not to attribute you with a position you do not hold, your argument is just that the phrasing without the word type is less common and therefore wrong.

Yes - when researching the 'attack is always a standard action' claims it is how I saw the language presented. I didn't see the 'attack is always a standard action' that was being presented as 'set in stone'.

I, what? Seriously? You're just dismissing information because of slightly less common phrasing? Really?

WWWW wrote:

Eh, perhaps my attempt at humor was a failure due to lack of tone of voice.

And the posted clarification has the word normally in the relevant text. Seems like a rather analogous situation to me.

Well that is not entirely true. It would seem analogous except that the clarification from here http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1h21?Vital-Strike-damage-bonus#18 does not seem to include the word "type" at all. But, you know, I was trying to draw a parallel and all that.

Fair enough I miss-read it.

Yes - I'll agree he said it differently once which is odd - however the 'company line' seems to be that the word type is supposed to be there. His followup post to that one (if my timeline recollection is correct) used the word.

Further posts on 'attack action' if you search JB, SKR, and JJ's people pages show that the word 'type' is how they prefer to say it. If they left that word out (or had stopped using it) I'd be 100% on your side to be honest.

So, and I would like to be clear here as I am trying not to attribute you with a position you do not hold, your argument is just that the phrasing without the word type is less common and therefore wrong.

Jiggy wrote:

Ckorik wrote:

I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position

Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) wrote:

An attack action is a type of standard action.

Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) wrote:

Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.

Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) wrote:

Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.

You continually disregard JB having contradicted you three times, then claim that you use his posts to back your position? And then you talk to people about "intellectual dishonesty"?

2 of the 3 times it was mentioned he says type - all other posts (say for instance from SKR) use the type language.

You can ignore the word if you want however I don't disagree - attack is a type of standard action - that doesn't mean all attack actions are standard actions.

He *never* says that. Good grief go read the other 800 posts if you want to rehash it ad-infinitum

So perhaps you can tell me why the one without the word type can be discounted. I must have misunderstood when it came up earlier and it would be quite helpful if it was explained again.

WWWW wrote:

Oh, we're trusting this guy on how the rules work now. And here I thought that his clarifications meant nothing. But I suppose that if you have changed your mind the discussion is resolved on the side of sunder taking a standard action.

So when proven incorrect we stoop to kindergarten debate style?

I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position - it is not my fault you can't seem to see the word type in the relevant text. It would be intellectually dishonest to say that they are perfectly clear either way - if that were true we wouldn't have this discussion.

Eh, perhaps my attempt at humor was a failure due to lack of tone of voice.

And the posted clarification has the word normally in the relevant text. Seems like a rather analogous situation to me.

Well that is not entirely true. It would seem analogous except that the clarification from here http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1h21?Vital-Strike-damage-bonus#18 does not seem to include the word "type" at all. But, you know, I was trying to draw a parallel and all that.

wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

Quote:

Slime (Su) An omox's nauseating body is composed of sticky, acidic slime. As an attack action, it can hurl a glob of slime (range increment 20 feet). Any creature that is struck by the glob must make a DC 23 Reflex save or become entangled for 1d6 rounds. The save DC is Constitution-based.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)

The gaze attack says "once". <--RAW

There is no general rule saying that special attacks only allow a single attack.

The Babua demon also has sneak attack as a special attack, and I am sure that is usable more than once.

I also check Jason and SKR's post. I did not see any such restriction.

So my question still stands.

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz0wcm?Volner-Tain#1

Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) Feb 7, 2009, 02:42 PM

*cutting out long post*
He has multiple attacks with his paralyzing touch, as if it were a weapon (normally you do not get iterative attacks with a special ability).
*post goes on*

Oh, we're trusting this guy on how the rules work now. And here I thought that his clarifications meant nothing. But I suppose that if you have changed your mind the discussion is resolved on the side of sunder taking a standard action.

Ckorik wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

Quote:

Slime (Su) An omox's nauseating body is composed of sticky, acidic slime. As an attack action, it can hurl a glob of slime (range increment 20 feet). Any creature that is struck by the glob must make a DC 23 Reflex save or become entangled for 1d6 rounds. The save DC is Constitution-based.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)

The gaze attack says "once". <--RAW

There is no general rule saying that special attacks only allow a single attack.

The Babua demon also has sneak attack as a special attack, and I am sure that is usable more than once.

I also check Jason and SKR's post. I did not see any such restriction.

So my question still stands.

Huh, now that I think about it it would seem that the once language is limited to a particular creature, meaning that multiple gaze attacks may be perfectly fine so long as no creature is targeted more than one time per round.

wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

Quote:

Slime (Su) An omox's nauseating body is composed of sticky, acidic slime. As an attack action, it can hurl a glob of slime (range increment 20 feet). Any creature that is struck by the glob must make a DC 23 Reflex save or become entangled for 1d6 rounds. The save DC is Constitution-based.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)

Sorry, no dice. Your rebuttal used the wording of gaze attacks which, whether it proved your point or not, does not apply here.

WWWW wrote:

Ckorik wrote:

Grick wrote:

Further, if you allow any ability that uses the attack action in place of any single melee attack, then they would all work with Spring Attack. Yet they don't:

I never said that. I said all attacks are attack actions - if it only lets you make a single melee attack it *must* use your standard action - as spring attack is a full round action - it's incompatible.

You can use spring attack to make a trip, disarm, or sunder attempt though.

Okay, let me ask you this, if all attacks are attack actions why is it impossible to use vital strike on a charge.

Asked and answered - see previous answer.

No, not really.

Edit: To clarify, while vital strike says that you can make one attack that has certain extra effects it does not say that you must or that you do make that attack. Thus it does not let you only make a single attack and so does not fall under your previous answer.

Grick wrote:

Further, if you allow any ability that uses the attack action in place of any single melee attack, then they would all work with Spring Attack. Yet they don't:

I never said that. I said all attacks are attack actions - if it only lets you make a single melee attack it *must* use your standard action - as spring attack is a full round action - it's incompatible.

You can use spring attack to make a trip, disarm, or sunder attempt though.

Okay, let me ask you this, if all attacks are attack actions why is it impossible to use vital strike on a charge. Or alternatively if charge uses your standard action how can you also make a full round action.

It didn't. Except it did. Chem's standard formatting coming up : capitalised means game mechanical term.

In the English language "to take (an) action" means (in this context) "to do something purposefully". When nocking an arrow, you are certainly "doing something purposefully" - you are reaching into your quiver, drawing an arrow, and drawing your bow with the intent to be able to fire the arrow at a target. However, PF defines doing that as "not an Action", meaning that it does not itself require the use of any of the 6 Action types, nor does it affect the character's action economy in a combat turn. All Actions in PF "use up" some or all of the character's available action economy.

Every single time the word "action" appears in the rules, the GM has to make the following distinction:

Is it an action (something, ANYTHING) the character is doing, or is it an Action, something that uses up the character's available action economy?

The best case to consider is this: a paralysed character. This character cannot take any physical action/Action. Which is it? My take on it is that it means action: the character may not perform any activity which requires movement. Which includes nocking an arrow. Making a Perform check. Uncountable others. But if you go merely by the game rules, since nocking an arrow is "not an Action", there is a viable interpretation that says a paralysed character can do it. (Arguments that it is subsumed within whichever type of attack Action the character is performing aside.)

This lack of clarity is where this problem stems from, because does Sunder refer to an attack action (an action in which one or more attacks is performed), or does it refer to an Attack Action (the Standard Action called Attack which allows only a single attack roll against the target, made on your turn, using up part of your action economy)?

We simply don't know, without clarification from the devs. Certainly in previous editions of the d20 game system it has been an attack action, not an Attack Action. But because of changes to other abilities which allow them to clearly use an attack action, it is fundamentally unclear how Sunder is intended to work.

Oh I have no problem with paralyzed characters taking attacks of opportunity, so long as they do so while remaining unable to act (which should make things a bit difficult). On the other hand if we consider the common English use of cannot take any physical action, paralyzed creatures are, among other things, unable to breath. Personally I prefer the former.

Though now that I think about it the fact that paralyzed characters are frozen and frozen in place rather makes either interpretation academic.

Yeah, so perhaps someone could explain just when not an action became a type of action.

All right, here is a request. If anyone is going to claim that attacks of opportunity are actions I am going to ask that they also give the type of action. Due to the interaction of immediate actions it is of vital importance for the type of each action to be well defined.