| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Many people believe that sunder requires a standard action. I believe that it can be made in the place of an attack (like disarm or trip) and that the mention of "attack action" is an copy/paste error or a typo that just hasn't been caught and/or fixed yet.
The sunder rules are unclear as it refers to both an "attack action" and "in place of an attack." It also reads differently from all other maneuvers, making it an aberration of sorts. Sadly, the developers have not chimed in with any clarifications (at least, not that I can recall).
Apparently though, the new Ultimate Combat has a series of "Quick Maneuver" feats that let you use a variety of maneuvers in place of an attack, even when you wouldn't normally be able to.
Sunder, however, is not among these feats. Is this further evidence that I might be right about the original intent of the Sunder maneuver?
Discuss your own thoughts.
Many people believe that sunder requires a standard action. I believe that it can be made in the place of an attack (like disarm or trip) and that the mention of "attack action" is an copy/paste error or a type that just hasn't been caught yet.
The sunder rules are unclear as it refers to both an "attack action" and "in place of an attack." It also reads differently from all other maneuvers, making it an aberration of sorts. Sadly, the developers have not chimed in with any clarifications (at least, not that I can recall).
Apparently though, the new Ultimate Combat has a series of "Quick Maneuver" feats that let you use a variety of maneuvers in place of an attack, even when you wouldn't normally be able to.
Sunder, however, is not among these feats. Is this further evidence that I might be right about the original intent of the Sunder maneuver?
Discuss your own thoughts.
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.
It's not a standard action. That's why there's no 'Quick' version in Ultimate Combat.
Hope that helps!
Edit: I'm sorry, I just reread your post more carefully. Looks like I answered you with the same statement that confuses you in the first place. My regrets. What you suspect to be true, is in fact correct (as with disarm and trip as you mentioned above). Yay! :)
It's an attack, and if you had iterative attacks, the sunder might be one of those (using the appropriate BAB). It's not a standard action.
For what's worth, when writing feats I was told to avoid using the term 'attack action' because it creates just this type of confusion.
It's not a standard action. That's why there's no 'Quick' version in Ultimate Combat.
Hope that helps!
Edit: I'm sorry, I just reread your post more carefully. Looks like I answered you with the same statement that confuses you in the first place. My regrets. What you suspect to be true, is in fact correct (as with disarm and trip as you mentioned above). Yay! :)
It's an attack, and if you had iterative attacks, the sunder might be one of those (using the appropriate BAB). It's not a standard action.
For what's worth, when writing feats I was told to avoid using the term 'attack action' because it creates just this type of confusion.
Did one of the devs specifically say that you could sunder with iterative attacks? *crosses fingers*
In any case, I am EXTREMELY happy to hear that "attack action" is an archaic term they are trying to phase out. :D
Did one of the devs specifically say that you could sunder with iterative attacks? *crosses fingers*
In any case, I am EXTREMELY happy to hear that "attack action" is an archaic term they are trying to phase out. :D
I don't want to be dishonest, no developer specifically said that. The flip side of that is that it was never a question or doubt. I'm almost at a loss as to what to say, it seems so straight forward to me. However I don't mean that to be condescending or disrespectful, to either you or the people you have disagreed with.
I can say in good conscience that I was told to devise a 'Quick' feat for every single combat maneuver that requires a standard action, and they never once said, 'Hey, what about Sunder?'
Heck, we had more discussion about whether to call them Quick Maneuvers, Fast Maneuvers, or Swift Maneuvers. :D
And yes, in a draft I used the term 'attack action' and was instructed to break that habit, as it is confusing.
Hope that helps twice!
Thank you for your contributions Jim Groves! :D
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.It's not a standard action. That's why there's no 'Quick' version in Ultimate Combat.
Hope that helps!
So is there a different meaning of `attack action` in Sunder, compared to Vital Strike, for example?
(the Attack action is a SPECIFIC, already existing Standard Action, meaning abilities that key into it are compatable with Vital Strike,as opposed to abilities that simply say they use a Standard Action, which would be the `using a Feat` Standard Action.
see the Errata for Spring Attack, and d20pfsrd`s FAQ/Paizo quotes re: Vital Strike)
For what's worth, when writing feats I was told to avoid using the term 'attack action' because it creates just this type of confusion.
Huh. So did you get any sense that anybody at Paizo is going to clarify/Errata the parts of the Core Rules that describe and/or hinge upon the Attack action?
Huh. So did you get any sense that anybody at Paizo is going to clarify/Errata the parts of the Core Rules that describe and/or hinge upon the Attack action?
As a new freelancer, I mostly take their instructions and say "thank you for the opportunity".
Seriously, I don't want to put words in their mouth or imply any policy or ruling. That's above my pay grade.
But what I said was truthful.
That`s cool, it just sounded like there was specific interaction/discussion about the exact topic, so I thought I`d ask a bit more specifically. Looks like Errata is less of a back-burner issue at Paizo now, so I wouldn`t be surprised if the subject is officially and completely dealt with once and for all... sounds like they`re aware of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That`s cool, it just sounded like there was specific interaction/discussion about the exact topic, so I thought I`d ask a bit more specifically. Looks like Errata is less of a back-burner issue at Paizo now, so I wouldn`t be surprised if the subject is officially and completely dealt with once and for all... sounds like they`re aware of it.
Quandry,
I wasn't satisfied with my answer to you. I'm supposed to be a freelancer and a (junior) designer. I shouldn't take a cop-out.
On the other hand, do bear in mind that I don't want to embarrass my Editors, or put them in an awkward position. Otherwise, I might not get more work.
THAT BEING SAID, sometimes you have to have some courage and conviction. So here is the gist of it that was explained to me:
"Attacking" is a standard action.
But as we all know, at certain higher BAB's we get more attacks within the standard action that is called "attacking".
So when we get mutiple attacks (i.e. iterative attacks), all of those attacks together make a standard action.
So when you call something like 'trip' an "attack action", it's a misnomer. Doing a trip is *part* of a standard action, but if your BAB is high enough, you may have additional attacks within that same single standard action.
So the cautionary note I was given was "be careful what you call an 'attack action', because there is no other class of action. There is a just a standard action (and of course, swift, move, immediate, free, and so-on). If it's not really an action, don't call it an action, call it an attack."
The language of Sunder is confusing, but the intent is clear enough to me. It's an attack, it's not a standard action.
What the Quick Maneuver Feats do is make some maneuvers no longer standard actions, but just attacks. Which sort of speeds them up quite a bit. That is what makes them worth a feat.
That's certainly a step in the right direction. I've been looking at some of the high-level monsters, and I'm becoming increasingly skeptical about the usefulness of combat maneuvers.
After all, I'm a Monk; I hit an enemy with Stunning Fist, so they drop their weapons and sit there, with no Dex bonus to CMD, taking a -2 penalty to AC (and CMD), and I also gain +4 to combat maneuvers against them. Amazing!
Except, there's not much I can do. I can Trip them once, the only other clear-cut maneuver that can be made in place of any attack; even though Monks can explicitly Sunder for any number of attacks in a Flurry of Blows, it doesn't matter because they dropped what they were holding.
I looked at the CR 20 monsters across Bestiary 1 & 2. I noted that the CMDs are somewhat high -- the lower CMDs could be hit with a somewhat-optimized Fighter half the time (max Strength, enchanted maneuver weapon, three maneuver feats), and the greater CMD creatures would fail to be affected most of the time even on the primary attack.
The real kicker, however, is the plethora of immunities they have. Pretty much every monster has some combination of: Flying, Teleport at-will, doesn't use a weapon, and/or explicitly Untrippable. That makes it look really uncertain for Fighters, and I suspect few non-Fighters would even consider it. After all, why would I put three feats toward something that 60% of the monsters I encounter will be immune to (Trip), and the rest will only be affected by my primary attack half the time?
"Attacking" is a standard action.
But as we all know, at certain higher BAB's we get more attacks within the standard action that is called "attacking".
So when we get mutiple attacks (i.e. iterative attacks), all of those attacks together make a standard action.
I think this muddies things far more than before.
Perhaps instead of saying "standard" above, you could be saying "regular" or "normal" since you cannot make multiple attacks as a Standard Action.
Since a "standard action" is defined (a Reserved Word if that helps) using the English word standard can cause problems.
Even then it still doesn't make much sense, since the type of action you need to attack once (Standard Action to Attack, AKA Attack Action) is completely different from the type of action you need to attack more than once (Full Action - Full Attack).
A better way to clarify it is to just say "in place of a melee attack" and leave actions completely out of it.
I think this muddies things far more than before."Attacking" is a standard action.
But as we all know, at certain higher BAB's we get more attacks within the standard action that is called "attacking".
So when we get mutiple attacks (i.e. iterative attacks), all of those attacks together make a standard action.
Then I am genuinely sorry. :)
However, before I tuck into your post, let me start by saying that I think we actually agree. We might be talking past each other. Also let me add this; that post isn't how I would actually write it for any kind of formal rule document. It was a conversational attempt to grapple with the topic. When I read the last sentence of your post, I see that we've arrived at the same conclusion. The stuff in the middle was just how I arrived at that conclusion.
Perhaps instead of saying "standard" above, you could be saying "regular" or "normal" since you cannot make multiple attacks as a Standard Action.
Again, the passage you were referring to was meant to be more conversational. However, you said this:
since you cannot make multiple attacks as a Standard Action
But that's my point. :D
If your BAB is 6 or higher, you can make multiple attacks as a Standard Action. Those are your iterative attacks. (And I'm not playing the gotchya game, I'm sure you know that, I'm actually agreeing with you and everyone else about how tricky the language is here)
The act of an 'attack' is not a Standard Action. However, in our common sense understanding of things, you're doing 'something'. My 6th level fighter is doing some 'things' when he swings at two different threatened targets. You see, a Standard Action is a game term (and I know you know that too, by your remark about using a 'reserved word' versus a standard english definition). There is no formal game definition of a melee attack, only an implied one. A standard action can be one OR MORE melee attacks. The original point was that Sunder is something done in the place of a melee attack, not a standard action (as it might be misinterpreted by calling it an 'attack action').
Ack.. I feel like I'm picking your post apart here, and that is not my intent. I'm going to skip to the last sentence.
A better way to clarify it is to just say "in place of a melee attack" and leave actions completely out of it.
I agree 100%, which is what makes me think we're just talking past each other. Take a look again at something I wrote:
The language of Sunder is confusing, but the intent is clear enough to me. It's an attack, it's not a standard action.
What the Quick Maneuver Feats do is make some maneuvers no longer standard actions, but just attacks.
Again, I was more in explanatory mode than actual technical writing, but I think the gist is actually there, Grick.
Again, I regret if I added confusion rather than clarity. To go back to the original point, if something is not a standard action, language such as "a melee attack" or "in place of a melee attack", is better than the term 'attack action'.
I think we're on the same page. :)
If your BAB is 6 or higher, you can make multiple attacks as a Standard Action. Those are your iterative attacks. (And I'm not playing the gotchya game, I'm sure you know that, I'm actually agreeing with you and everyone else about how tricky the language is here)
Either I'm being quite dense, or this is simply wrong.
A level 6 fighter begins his turn. He spends a swift action to draw his sword cane. He spends a move action to move 20 feet up to a goblin. He wishes to attack the goblin. Can he make one attack, or two?
Answer: One. He has only a standard action left, and in order to get the extra attack granted by his high BAB, he must use a full attack, which is a full-round action.
This is why your posting is confusing.
However, it doesn't really have much to do with what I think your point is.
Declaring that something takes an "attack action" means you must spend one standard action to attack. Vital Strike, for example, or Overhand Chop, both of which cannot be used as part of a full attack, attack of opportunity, or spring attack.
If an ability needs to be restricted, then attack action is acceptable. (IE: The designer does not want you to be able to Vital Strike on every attack you ever make) However, if it does not need to be restricted (IMO: Sunder, Trip) then it should apply in place of a melee attack, and not mention actions at all. Which I think is the point everyone has already made =)
If your BAB is 6 or higher, you can make multiple attacks as a Standard Action. Those are your iterative attacks. (And I'm not playing the gotchya game, I'm sure you know that, I'm actually agreeing with you and everyone else about how tricky the language is here)Either I'm being quite dense, or this is simply wrong.
I'm with Grick on this one.
"A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack."
I appreciate your insight, Jim, but this is exactly why there is confusion with a lot of rules. You got to use the terminology in a very specific and consistent manner.
Right... I didn`t want to respond again to Jim, because there have already been plenty of rules discussions on this exact topic... But I agree with Tim and Grick.
We have `attacks` which include AoO`s, attacks as part of a spell (whatever the action, standard, full-round, swift), the Attack action (a Standard action allowing one attack that Vital Strike modifies), the components of a Full Attack action, a components of a Cleave action (a Standard action possibly allowing multiple attacks that Vital Strike doesn`t modify), the components of a Whirlwind Attack Full-Round action, etc, etc.
As I see it, since an Attack action is classed as a Standard Action, the only reason (under the current rules... I don`t have Ultimate Combat yet) that some Maneuvers should be/are classed as an Attack action rather than `a Standard action` (i.e. a unique Standard action that isn`t the Attack action) is so that they are compatable with Vital Strike, which modifies the weapon damage when using the Attack action. The only reason you would want to do so is if the Maneuver`s function is about doing weapon damage... Which makes alot of sense for Sunder, and working with Vital Strike is a good thing for that. Besides maneuvers, other special abilities/attacks are similar, if they work using the Attack action then Vital Strike applies, if they use a Standard action (i.e. Using a Feat action), then Vital Strike doesn`t apply... such as to Cleave.
I didn`t get the impression that Jim was 100% in-line with this understanding, and perhaps his orders from Paizo were based on the fact that they realize that alot of people, including their own writers, may not completely/accurately be operating under this understanding... And thus they are avoiding Attack action-triggered abilities until the point when they can clear things up more in Errata/FAQ. The confusion has been known about since just about when PRPG was first released, and nothing has been done about it, but I think it`s just now that FAQ/Errata is being dealt with systematically, so we can cross our fingers that they will clear it up for the general public soon...
Either I'm being quite dense, or this is simply wrong.
If your BAB is 6 or higher, you can make multiple attacks as a Standard Action. Those are your iterative attacks. (And I'm not playing the gotchya game, I'm sure you know that, I'm actually agreeing with you and everyone else about how tricky the language is here)
Neither, but I can see from the next three posts that I didn't make enough disclaimers. :) And it's going to cost me in terms of appearing to not know what I'm talking about. Which I will have to sadly accept, even though I don't agree that is true.
:) The customer is always right.
A level 6 fighter begins his turn. He spends a swift action to draw his sword cane. He spends a move action to move 20 feet up to a goblin. He wishes to attack the goblin. Can he make one attack, or two?
He can make one attack. However, when I mentioned the 6th level fighter I didn't stage the example. I was referring to full round attack, which is the only scenario where you're entitled to your iterative attacks. I didn't say that however, so you got me.
Answer: One. He has only a standard action left, and in order to get the extra attack granted by his high BAB, he must use a full attack, which is a full-round action.
I agree completely.
This is why your posting is confusing.
I accept that.
Declaring that something takes an "attack action" means you must spend one standard action to attack. Vital Strike, for example, or Overhand Chop, both of which cannot be used as part of a full attack, attack of opportunity, or spring attack.
If an ability needs to be restricted, then attack action is acceptable. (IE: The designer does not want you to be able to Vital Strike on every attack you ever make) However, if it does not need to be restricted (IMO: Sunder, Trip) then it should apply in place of a melee attack, and not mention actions at all. Which I think is the point everyone has already made =)
Vital Strike and Overhand Chop are good examples. So I take your point. I'm tempted to suggest another way to write those feats without the term 'attack action', but I going to concede defeat gracefully.
I appreciate your insight, Jim, but this is exactly why there is confusion with a lot of rules. You got to use the terminology in a very specific and consistent manner.
Thank you sir, consider me schooled. :)
Again, I think we agree more than we disagree, but I raise my hands and surrender
I didn`t get the impression that Jim was 100% in-line with this understanding, and perhaps his orders from Paizo were based on the fact that they realize that alot of people, including their own writers, may not completely/accurately be operating under this understanding... And thus they are avoiding Attack action-triggered abilities until the point when they can clear things up more in Errata/FAQ. The confusion has been known about since just about when PRPG was first released, and nothing has been done about it, but I think it`s just now that FAQ/Errata is being dealt with systematically, so we can cross our fingers that they will clear it up for the general public soon...
I am dismayed to read that, but in light of the great points you guys have made, I don't have much in the way of a counter-argument. I flee this thread with my tail between my legs! :D
But yes, I think they know it's confusing. And when they said "avoid the term attack action", I have an even greater appreciation for that advice then I did at the time.
Thanks for the education guys, if nothing else I hope I raised awareness of the topic and was in general a good sport.
No problem, and from what I`m hearing about Ultimate Combat, it sounds like you do great work so don`t take it personally.
Ultimately, the Core rules themselves are confusing, since the Attack action actually is where all the stuff like special rules for Ranged, Crits, etc, are located
(undercutting the idea that `attack action` is unique and distinct from `attack` or `actions that accomplish (an) attack(s)`)
Until they are Errata`d/FAQ`d (probably both), you can`t approach within 10` of this subject without having Improved Rules-Terminology Trap Evasion :-)
Unlike some, I don`t think the function of the rules should be changed... Having selective compatability with Vital Strike is a good thing.
...It`s just that the Core Rules could be WAY clearer about the whole thing.
Attack action being named something different (Single-Attack Action is a good one) would be utterly clear, or just capitalizing Attack action consistently would help (although that is against the style, where such terms are only capitalized as headers of sub-sections). Even without that, Attack action could have the stuff that doesn`t belong there moved earlier to the `attack roll` section, and have some wording making clear that it is a unique action and not just `does a single attack`. Or Vital Strike could be re-named Improved Attack Action just to raise the issue to such prominence that everybody WILL understand it :-)
I'm tempted to suggest another way to write those feats without the term 'attack action', but I going to concede defeat gracefully.
If you could make this happen, with force, bribery, or otherwise, you would be a hero. One of the most unclear parts of PFRPG is the muddy wording around attack action, and can you springattack/cleave/vitalstrike/whirlwind/etc. If someone with Power over the minds and hearts of those who rule could get a nicely phrased errata suggestion and bludgeon them with it until they succumb, everyone would win.
Also, please don't take this thread in a negative way. Many of the dwellers of the rules forum are extremely pedantic, so when we see "multiple attacks as a standard action" alarms go off in our brains and we rush to correct it, sometimes using the RAW a bit indelicately.
I see it more like a legal team removing potential loopholes from a contract, so when someone points out a flaw in my reasoning, or a place where I contradict the written rule, I'm pleased, as it makes the final product stronger, and I usually learn something as well.
Anyways, thank you for your contributions, it's enlightening to see inside (even unofficially) the great engine that structures the worlds we inhabit.
Attack action being named something different (Single-Attack Action is a good one)
Yeah! Here's the post I was thinking of earlier:
"Single-Attack ActionThe 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".
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The whole "attack action" versus "attack" versus "standard action" issue isn't even the entirety of Paizo's imprecision with important terms like "action".
For example, the cousin to this issue is this:
If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.
Oh goodie, now "action" and "turn" are interchangeable terms! Now during my action I can use a standard turn to ready a standard or move turn, so that I can use it outside my own action! I can even have my readied turn interrupt an enemy's action and have it resolve before the turn that triggered it!
/sarcasm
Where is Paizo imprecise with the distinction between attack action vs. attack vs. standard action?
Your quote seems just as likely to be a type-o of not including the plural `s` of `actions`,
which would be correct and not bring up the interchangeable term issue you mention.
I mean, saying `turn` would probably be preferable, but `actions` would still work fine IMHO. ...Or am I misunderstanding `/sarcasm`?
Where is Paizo imprecise with the distinction between attack action vs. attack vs. standard action?
The term "attack action" isn't actually used in the Combat rules; it has to be inferred. That's the problem.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Okay, I had a nice, thorough response typed up that vanished when I clicked "submit". I'll try and rewrite the most relevant parts the best I can:
Where is Paizo imprecise with the distinction between attack action vs. attack vs. standard action?
I'm referring to the discussion in this thread, as well as countless others, with people not understanding "attack action" and how it relates to "attack" and "standard action" with various feats and abilities. It's great that you seem to have it worked out, but there are clearly still plenty of people who are confused. That's all I was talking about with that.
I mean, saying `turn` would probably be preferable, but `actions` would still work fine IMHO. ...Or am I misunderstanding `/sarcasm`?
I'd probably be okay with saying "actions" too, as (being plural) it would refer to a group of actions, which would imply a turn (since that's when you get multiple actions). Still somewhat imprecise, but workable.
But the line I quoted from the CRB says "action", not "actions". You said it might just be a typo, leaving out the "s". However, having heard countless players (mostly veterans) also say "action" to mean "turn" (and I've never heard someone say "actions" to mean "turn") makes me think it's not a typo, but rather an archaic misnomer.
And my point was that this misnomer of calling your turn your "action" has serious consequences for clarity. Here are some things I've personally seen happen as a result of misusing "action" to mean "turn":
• New player is told that they can move and attack on their action. The player gets used to this, then eventually they have their first surprise round. They're told they get one action, and are then confused as to why they can't both move and attack during that one action like they were told before.
• A player (who knows the actual definition of "action") uses a spell/ability to produce an effect, and are told that it lasts "until your next action". Thinking that taking another action now will immediately end the effect, they choose to do nothing else on their turn, when really, the effect is supposed to last until their next turn, regardless of what other actions they take.
• A new-ish player who is not in a position to do anything helpful at their initiative count is told that they can "delay their action" (really meaning delay their turn). After having tried this a few times, they at some point decide to use one action and then "delay" their other action, and are confused when the GM suddenly says they can't (or worse, they're told they "have to delay your entire action, not just one action" - like that makes sense).
Basically, there's a bad habit among long-time gamers of calling a turn an "action", and Paizo has failed to remove all instances of this misnomer from the rules.
EDIT: Just got reminded of this, for the list above:
Something gets referred to as taking a "full action". What they mean is that it takes your whole turn - i.e., a full-round action. But the listener, if they know what "action" actually means and thought that what they're doing took a standard or move or whatever, will be confused why their GM is stopping them from finishing their turn by saying "no, that's your whole action" - of course it's my whole action; and now I'm using my other action that I get on my turn, so why are you stopping me?
No problem, and from what I`m hearing about Ultimate Combat, it sounds like you do great work so don`t take it personally.
Thanks! And I didn't take it personally. Thank you for your kind words, and that goes for all of the respondents (Grick, Some Call Me Tim, etc..) I admit to wanting to save face, but you guys taught me something here.
It's been a good discussion, and I'm going to let it continue. I *just* got my own PDF copy of the book, so I'm off to see the final versions.
one thing that solved the snider question for me is that flurry says monks can do it while flurrying.
@Jiggy: Check the wording for Ready Action/etc. Saying before your next action, etc IS COMPLETELY VALID even though it IS functionally identical to `your next turn` in 99% of cases... The only case it difers would be if you take an Immediate Action before your turn, which they probably didn`t think of when writing Ready an Action :-)
@Jim: Yeah, I would say the Attack Actin controversy is basically the hallmark issue of Pathfinder. From right after it was published, people were totally confused how it worked, how Vital Strike worked, etc. At that time, Jason B chimed in on forum threads to clarify specific functions, and imply the basic `correct reading`, though it never made it to any Errata/FAQ and people obviously continue to have a really hard time with it.
@Mojorat: Here`s a Zen Koan for you: Do Monk Class Abilities let them do anything special or out of the ordinary?
(followup: does every class or feat ability call out that those without such ability can`t normally do what the ability allows?)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy: Check the wording for Ready Action/etc. Saying before your next action, etc IS COMPLETELY VALID even though it IS functionally identical to `your next turn` in 99% of cases... The only case it difers would be if you take an Immediate Action before your turn, which they probably didn`t think of when writing Ready an Action :-)
You're funny. :) Since your reply is focused on something I wasn't actually saying, it's clear that you're not understanding me, so I'll just let it go.
Attack action being named something different (Single-Attack Action is a good one)...
I thought I would follow this up in case somebody `important` was following this thread...
Another poster (AvalonXQ) had suggested this action name, which I thought was a great improvement...But Single-Attack Action would still carry signifigant ambiguity, because there`s a decent number of abilities, etc, that say `make a single attack`. Then I realized I had been using a very clear phrase to refer to the Attack action during game play, discussions, etc, already: why not state `Standard Attack action`? That is analagous to Full Attack Action, like-wise referencing the category of action type (Full-Round, Standard Action), is reasonably un-ambiguous (i.e. vs. AoO or Iterative attack), and has that wonderful `is actually usable in average game-speak narration` quality. It also seems the least disruptive to issue as Errata, i.e. update all references and state `any reference to the attack action can now be understood as a reference to the standard attack action` or whatnot (maybe with more explanation since this is such a confusing issue for many). Anyhow, hope that does some good...
*bump*
Well that's frustrating. I can't tell what the "answered in errata" means.
It's still listed as an attack action in the CRB 5th printing though.
Here's a post during the alpha or beta about this where JB says sunder can be used as part of a full attack, just like trip and disarm. Well actually, he says that 2 posts down. Someone check to see if the text has changed from the beta.
For those not yet in the know:
Can I make multiple sunder attempts in one round as part of a full-attack action? The sunder text says that I can make sunder attempts in place of melee attacks in an attack action, which is not technically a full-attack action.
Yes you can. The text is a little unclear here. Instead of saying "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack", the text should read "in place of a melee attack", which would allow you to make multiple attempts in one round, or even make a sunder attempt as an attack of opportunity.
—Jason Bulmahn, 11/30/12