Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Rebel's Ransom (Spoilers)


Pathfinder Society GM Discussion

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Andrew Christian wrote:


But it isn’t a Standard Action, its an Attack Action. If it is used by itself, the Attack Action reverts to a Standard Action.

No, it's not. This is a weird part of Pathfinder RPG rules cruft. The Attack action (which I'll capitalize) is either a melee or ranged attack. It requires an attack roll, and so on. By itself, the Attack action takes up a Standard action amount of time.

There are other things that you can do that are attacks (lower-case) that take Standard action amount of time. For just melee combat, Vital Strike and Cleave come to mind. Casting a spell like shocking grasp is also an attack that takes a Standard action, but it isn't the Attack action. The same with supernatural abilities like channelling destructive positive or negative energy.

Sometimes, a character is allowed more than one Attack action. (Iterative attacks. Two-weapon fighting.) A Full Attack allows a character to take all of her Attack actions. It does not allow her to take all of her attacks! (If she had four shocking grasps prepared, it wouldn't allow her to cast and strike with all four!!)

When the Pathfinder RPG ruleset came out, I was running a play-by-post game that got to deal with all of these issues

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Aw, I got page-bottom'd! See my final post on the previous page for some very relevant links.

Also, some corrections here Chris:

Chris Mortika wrote:
There are other things that you can do that are attacks (lower-case) that take Standard action amount of time. For just melee combat, Vital Strike and Cleave come to mind.

Actually, Vital Strike and Cleave don't function the same way. Vital Strike is an Attack Action, while Cleave has its very own standard action usage time. The ramifications of this are that other things which modify the Attack Action could potentially stack with Vital Strike, but would not combine with Cleave. Similarly, you can't combine Vital Strike and Cleave with each other.

Quote:
Casting a spell like shocking grasp is also an attack that takes a Standard action, but it isn't the Attack action.

This one's more of a nitpick, but the attack from shocking grasp isn't a standard action (at least not on the round you cast). Casting the spell is a standard action, which then grants you a single attack that can be made as a free action - which can even be separated from the casting with a move in between. They're not the same action.

On subsequent rounds, if you have a held charge, you can attack as a standard action in an attempt to discharge the spell.

Quote:
Sometimes, a character is allowed more than one Attack action. (Iterative attacks. Two-weapon fighting.) A Full Attack allows a character to take all of her Attack actions. It does not allow her to take all of her attacks!

You've got this backwards, actually. A full-attack allows you to take all of your available attacks (iteratives, TWF, haste, etc) but none of them are Attack Actions. This is because of two things: one, a full-attack is only a single action (a full-round action) and not a collection of smaller actions. Two, as stated before, the Attack Action is always a standard action, and a full-attack is not a standard action.

Again, see also the links I provided on my previous post (bottom of page 1).

Quote:
(If she had four shocking grasps prepared, it wouldn't allow her to cast and strike with all four!!)

This is not because of anything with the Attack Action, but because of the spell having a casting time of a standard action, and you only get one of those per round. See above about the difference between casting and attacking with shocking grasp.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
So what you are saying then, when combat maneuver say they can be used in place of an attack action, that you can’t use it iteratively with a Full Attack?

Heh, now you've found the really fun part!

Disarm wrote:
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.
Trip wrote:
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.
Sunder wrote:
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.

One of these things is not like the other... ;)

Disarm and Trip don't mention the Attack Action - they can replace any melee attack, including iteratives, TWF extra attacks, AoO's, etc.

Sunder, however, uses the Attack Action - so you can only do it as a standard action.

And there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth (and nerdrage, and houserules, etc).

I personally hate the whole "attack action" thing. But alas, it exists.

I think the difference between Disarm, Trip, and Sunder is an editing error.

A Melee attack is also considered a Standard Action. Yet:

PRD: Full Attack wrote:

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

Bolded the appropriate part...

The Gaze is considered an Attack. Therefore they are getting another attack for some special reason and can use it during a Full Attack Action.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:

Bolded the appropriate part...

The Gaze is considered an Attack. Therefore they are getting another attack for some special reason and can use it during a Full Attack Action.

Except that the ability specifies it's an Attack Action, which the Lead Designer of the Pathfinder RPG has consistently stated is always a standard action. (See my last two posts - one at the bottom of page 1, the other in response to Chris.)

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Jiggy wrote:

Additional reference material:

This post, in which a forumite presents material from both the PRD and developer commentary (and he cites his sources with links).

In a similar vein, there's this post from Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn stating that "Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action."

So yeah, there you go. :)

Neither of these posts contradicts my interpretation. All they do is say that you can't use these with an ability that also takes a Full Round or Standard Action.

Attack Action is not defined in the Core Rule Book. So either you assume they meant Standard Action or Attack.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Bolded the appropriate part...

The Gaze is considered an Attack. Therefore they are getting another attack for some special reason and can use it during a Full Attack Action.

Except that the ability specifies it's an Attack Action, which the Lead Designer of the Pathfinder RPG has consistently stated is always a standard action. (See my last two posts - one at the bottom of page 1, the other in response to Chris.)

A single Melee attack is also always a Standard Action.

Yet you can take more than one Melee Attack because of BAB, two-weapon fighting, rapid shot, flurry of blows, et. al. or for some special reason with a Full Attack Action.

The Gaze attack is or for some special reason therefore it can be used with a Hag's Full Attack Action. It could not be used if the Hag Charged.

Vital Strike can also be used with a Full Attack Action, as the feat does not designate it a Standard Action, but rather an Attack Action.

That's the only reason I can see PFS using the words "Attack Action" when "Attack Action" is not defined specifically. Otherwise every feat that should not be allowed to be used with a Full Attack Action should say Standard Action. And they do not.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
Neither of these posts contradicts my interpretation. All they do is say that you can't use these with an ability that also takes a Full Round or Standard Action.

More specifically, they say (twice from Jason Bulmahn himself) that an Attack Action is a standard action.

One result of an Attack Action being a type of standard action is that it can't simultaneously be part of a different standard action or any other action (such as a full-round action).

So again:

Gaze is an Attack Action. Explicit in its description.
Attack Action is a type of standard action. Consistently asserted by the Lead Designer.
Getting more than one attack requires a full-round action. Explicit in combat rules.
An action can't be both a standard and full-round. Explicit in Core rules.

Therefore, you can't gaze during a full-attack. That's really all there is to it.

EDIT: Gah! Ninja edits:

Quote:
Vital Strike can also be used with a Full Attack Action, as the feat does not designate it a Standard Action, but rather an Attack Action.

Vital Strike is designated as an Attack Action, and Jason Bulmahn says an Attack Action is a standard action. Therefore, Vital Strike is a standard action and therefore cannot be used in a full-attack.

Cheliax ****

Andrew Christian wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Bolded the appropriate part...

The Gaze is considered an Attack. Therefore they are getting another attack for some special reason and can use it during a Full Attack Action.

Except that the ability specifies it's an Attack Action, which the Lead Designer of the Pathfinder RPG has consistently stated is always a standard action. (See my last two posts - one at the bottom of page 1, the other in response to Chris.)

A single Melee attack is also always a Standard Action.

Yet you can take more than one Melee Attack because of BAB, two-weapon fighting, rapid shot, flurry of blows, et. al. or for some special reason with a Full Attack Action.

The Gaze attack is or for some special reason therefore it can be used with a Hag's Full Attack Action. It could not be used if the Hag Charged.

Vital Strike can also be used with a Full Attack Action, as the feat does not designate it a Standard Action, but rather an Attack Action.

That's the only reason I can see PFS using the words "Attack Action" when "Attack Action" is not defined specifically. Otherwise every feat that should not be allowed to be used with a Full Attack Action should say Standard Action. And they do not.

This is most certainly incorrect.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Jiggy,

The disconnect I'm having with your reasoning is this:

Melee Attacks are considered Standard Actions. Yet you can make more than one of those in a Full Attack Action.

If that's true, then the reasoning behind Vital Strike, Gaze Attack, and any other feat or ability that's considered an Attack Action, not being allowed in a Full Attack Action, is incredibly counter-intuitive.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Counter-intuitive, yes. But correct.

A cleric with a weapon in one hand and a holy symbol in the other does not get to whack at a skeleton and also channel positive energy in the same round with a Full Attack action.

Neither does a hag get to claw and gaze, assuming that the gaze takes a standard action.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy,

The disconnect I'm having with your reasoning is this:

Melee Attacks are considered Standard Actions. Yet you can make more than one of those in a Full Attack Action.

If that's true, then the reasoning behind Vital Strike, Gaze Attack, and any other feat or ability that's considered an Attack Action, not being allowed in a Full Attack Action, is incredibly counter-intuitive.

Ah, there's the problem. The bolded part is actually incorrect. A standard action can be spent to make an attack, but an attack can be made without necessarily spending a standard action. An attack is just one of the things a standard action can be used to perform, and spending a standard action is just one of the ways to perform an attack. They are not one and the same.

For example, any attack made during a full-attack or charge is merely a portion of a full-round action, not a standard action. Similarly, an Attack of Opportunity isn't even an action at all.

So if you strike that from your mind, rewind a bit, and go through all this again without that assumption, it will hopefully all click. :)

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

The chart on what actions are what, says a Melee Attack is a standard action.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy,

The disconnect I'm having with your reasoning is this:

Melee Attacks are considered Standard Actions. Yet you can make more than one of those in a Full Attack Action.

If that's true, then the reasoning behind Vital Strike, Gaze Attack, and any other feat or ability that's considered an Attack Action, not being allowed in a Full Attack Action, is incredibly counter-intuitive.

Ah, there's the problem. The bolded part is actually incorrect. A standard action can be spent to make an attack, but an attack can be made without necessarily spending a standard action. An attack is just one of the things a standard action can be used to perform, and spending a standard action is just one of the ways to perform an attack. They are not one and the same.

For example, any attack made during a full-attack or charge is merely a portion of a full-round action, not a standard action. Similarly, an Attack of Opportunity isn't even an action at all.

So if you strike that from your mind, rewind a bit, and go through all this again without that assumption, it will hopefully all click. :)

Sorry, does not compute. There is zero reason to use the words "Attack Action" anywhere unless it is somewhere treated differently from a Standard Action.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

PRD: Standard Action wrote:

Standard Actions

Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
There is zero reason to use the words "Attack Action" anywhere unless it is somewhere treated differently from a Standard Action.

1) Actually, there is a reason for the term: as I said before in response to Chris, if you have multiple feats/abilities that all modify the Attack Action (such as Vital Strike), then your Attack Action could potentially be modified by all of them at once. If they were all listed using the term "standard action" instead (such as Cleave, or casting most spells) then they'd each need their own action to perform. So there is a function difference between an ability listed as an Attack Action and one listed as a standard action, even though they both use standard actions.

2) I do still think it's a silly term to include in the game. It'd be better if it was "Single-Attack Action" for clarity's sake, but what can you do?

3) Again, the Lead Designer of Pathfinder RPG says an Attack Action is a type of standard action. I don't feel like PMing Jason Bulmahn to tell him he's wrong. Do you?

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Then somewhere in the book, they need to explicitly define the words "Attack Action" and that it hasn't been explicitly defined is disappointing.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
PRD: Standard Action wrote:

Standard Actions

Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.

I'll do you one better:

Same section, a few inches up, under Action Types wrote:
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.

So you can't perform a standard action if you perform a full-round action. If you interpret the part you bolded the way you're trying to, then you can never attack during a full-attack because you can't use a standard action and a full-round action in the same round.

Here's a way to reinterpret what you bolded:
Me: "Hey, how much for these various candies?"
Shopkeeper: "Well, the Butterfinger is 75 cents and the Hershey's is a dollar."

The shopkeeper, in normal english usage, said the Hershey's "is" a dollar. He obviously meant that it costs a dollar. I believe the line you quoted should be interpreted the same way: a melee attack (normally) costs a standard action. You can get melee attacks without spending a standard action in special circumstances though, just like you might have a coupon for the candy bar.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
Then somewhere in the book, they need to explicitly define the words "Attack Action" and that it hasn't been explicitly defined is disappointing.

I agree 100% here. Just like it was incredibly disappointing that the Evil Eye curse didn't say "for 24 hours" on the staggering effect. :P

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
PRD: Standard Action wrote:

Standard Actions

Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.

I'll do you one better:

Same section, a few inches up, under Action Types wrote:
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.

So you can't perform a standard action if you perform a full-round action. If you interpret the part you bolded the way you're trying to, then you can never attack during a full-attack because you can't use a standard action and a full-round action in the same round.

Here's a way to reinterpret what you bolded:
Me: "Hey, how much for these various candies?"
Shopkeeper: "Well, the Butterfinger is 75 cents and the Hershey's is a dollar."

The shopkeeper, in normal english usage, said the Hershey's "is" a dollar. He obviously meant that it costs a dollar. I believe the line you quoted should be interpreted the same way: a melee attack (normally) costs a standard action. You can get melee attacks without spending a standard action in special circumstances though, just like you might have a coupon for the candy bar.

But it doesn't say that.

But that's the problem. They have instituted a rule that says:

A melee attack is a standard action.

Then they go on to define when you can make more than one attack per round using a Full Attack Action.

In the Full Attack Action, they define what types of extra attacks can be incorporated into a Full Attack Action.

So they have a rule that breaks a previous rule.

In Attacks of Opportunity, they also say that you can make an attack. Thus allowing, essentially, a type of standard action during the part of a round that is not your turn. Something you typically cannot do with a standard action.

Again, a rule that breaks a previous rule.

Feats do the same thing. They are rules that break the standard rules of the game.

So to tell me that an Attack Action is a Standard Action and thus cannot be used during a Full Attack Action because they are standard actions is like telling me that subsequent rules aren’t really breaking the standard rules, when they do.

The entire concept of DnD is that things are always a certain way, until they are otherwise defined by a smaller subset of circumstances.

In this case, the Attack Action = Standard Action interpretation by the rules designers essentially breaks the core concept of smaller subsets changing the general rules.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I believe the line you quoted should be interpreted the same way: a melee attack (normally) costs a standard action.
But it doesn't say that.

Sometimes, in a vacuum, a sentence can have two (or more) grammatically-correct meanings. For instance, "you can't put too much water in the nuclear reactor" could mean that putting too much water in would be bad, or it could mean that there's no upper limit and you should therefore put lots of water in. Both are valid meanings of the same sentence.

Similarly, "a melee attack is a standard action" can mean that "melee attack" and "standard action" are two different names for the same thing, or it can mean that a melee attack costs a standard action. As far as grammar and syntax are concerned, those are both valid meanings of that sentence.

In such cases, where a sentence has two meanings but can only mean one of them, you have to look at context - both immediate and system-wide. The first interpretation creates snags that you have to either hand-wave or work around (such as the myriad ways to attack without a standard action, the myriad standard actions that aren't attacks, etc). Meanwhile, the latter interpretation leaves everything running smoothly.

If two equally valid meanings of the same sentence produce different levels of harmony within the rest of the rules, the most harmonious one is almost always correct.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I believe the line you quoted should be interpreted the same way: a melee attack (normally) costs a standard action.
But it doesn't say that.

Sometimes, in a vacuum, a sentence can have two (or more) grammatically-correct meanings. For instance, "you can't put too much water in the nuclear reactor" could mean that putting too much water in would be bad, or it could mean that there's no upper limit and you should therefore put lots of water in. Both are valid meanings of the same sentence.

Similarly, "a melee attack is a standard action" can mean that "melee attack" and "standard action" are two different names for the same thing, or it can mean that a melee attack costs a standard action. As far as grammar and syntax are concerned, those are both valid meanings of that sentence.

In such cases, where a sentence has two meanings but can only mean one of them, you have to look at context - both immediate and system-wide. The first interpretation creates snags that you have to either hand-wave or work around (such as the myriad ways to attack without a standard action, the myriad standard actions that aren't attacks, etc). Meanwhile, the latter interpretation leaves everything running smoothly.

If two equally valid meanings of the same sentence produce different levels of harmony within the rest of the rules, the most harmonious one is almost always correct.

I don’t see how the context of, “A melee attack costs a standard action,” changes what I said above.

Whether it is, or it costs a Standard Action, you still end up with smaller subsets of the rules that change this cost.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Btw, I saw your post in the Ask James Jacobs thread. Did you miss that one of my links earlier actually quoted him from a few months ago? I re-posted the link and quote over in that thread for your convenience, but it's also here on the bottom of the first page, along with the aforementioned Jason Bulmahn quotes.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Yet it doesn't answer my primary question I posted over there.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is all moot. The hags don't last long enough for it to really matter in my experience. Spend your prep practicing the role play of the oracle. See if you can get her out of the tomb and to safety w/o ever lying.

Shadow Lodge ***

Hmmm, when I played this we used stone shape to get out of the watery maze and back into the stairwell and ran away pulling out the scepter and trapping the hag inside rather than fight her.

That said we got pretty beat up by the Oracle at the beginning and were looking to avoid any unnecessary fights. I used 57 CLW charges on myself/animal companion after that encounter.


Spoiler:
For those of you who finished this scenario, at what point did you spring the ambush on your PCs? In the last room during the mummy fight? After the mummy fight as they're coming out of the crypt with all of the plunder? Or possibly in the Hall of the Four? Did you use any notable terrain to your advantage?

I was considering springing the ambush as they're coming out of the crypt into the throne room since it made sense that Alarka would wait until the PCs secured all of the valuables. Springing it while they're taking on the mummies seems particularly diabolical, however.

Osirion *** Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Austin aka SetonAlandel

I've ran this scenario a few times and love it :D

@sixteenbiticon:

Spoiler:

In the cases where the ambush applies, I allow the players to rest up (heal/remove curse/remove disease/ect) and gather together the spoils of the crypt, asking people to position themselves in the crypt as they are gathering the treasure. Perception checks as Alkara's crew gather in the throne room (with the awesome trap!) and allow a bit of "Drop everything and we'll let you out of here!" negotiation.
Initiative, followed with Alkara's first turn of a wall of fire down the hallway to roast the party alive.

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / Pathfinder Society GM Discussion / Rebel's Ransom (Spoilers) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.