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

Sunder is an attack action = Sunder is a standard action?


Rules Questions

651 to 700 of 1,171 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

ikarinokami wrote:

yes i think it's vital strike thats misworded, because i don't see why you couldn't spring attack and sunder/trip.

If vital strike is the correct wording, then you can't do that, which makes no sense to me.

Using the current rules:

You cannot spring attack and sunder, but you can spring attack and trip.

Spring Attack was changed in errata to be a full-round action, before that it worked with many other feats and abilities.

If you change Vital Strike, that doesn't mean you can suddenly spring attack and sunder, because both of those would still be using the same rules. However, it would mean that you can no longer use Vital Strike and Overhand Chop (which was designed to work with Vital Strike). This doesn't fix the problem (spring attack and sunder) and it breaks other abilities.

So, if instead of changing Vital Strike, you change Sunder, what happens? Remove the six words from Sunder text so it reads exactly like trip. Now, you can spring attack and sunder, just like you can spring attack and trip. Vital Strike still works as intended, and everything that is supposed to work with vital strike still does.

Make sense?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I nominate that "the attack action" be used to describe the standard action which is called Attack, and that "an attack action" be used to describe any activity in which an attack roll is made, including (but not limited to): the attack action, the full attack action, attacks of opportunity, making a touch attack.

Well, either that, or my earlier suggestion that "an attack roll" be renamed "a strike", and the consequent HUGE rewrite to the combat chapter, as well as uncountable spells.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Chemlak wrote:
I nominate that "the attack action" be used to describe the standard action which is called Attack, and that "an attack action" be used to describe any activity in which an attack roll is made, including (but not limited to): the attack action, the full attack action, attacks of opportunity, making a touch attack.

So, you advocate people having to remember which game functionality goes with the definite article and which one goes with the indefinite article, but have the actual game terms be identical? And that's somehow better than having to differentiate between "attack" and "attack action"? Blech.

I prefer Grick's idea of renaming "attack action" as "single-attack action".


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
One attack - or multiple attacks - they are all attack actions.
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
Since vital strike requires an attack action (a specific KIND of standard action...

Yep - and if a feat says you get to make one attack - it limits you to one - which means your attack uses the standard action for the round.

That doesn't change the fact that a single attack only uses your standard action and more than a single attack can't be used with other action types.

The way I read it the clarification was to make sure vital strike couldn't be used with anything else that uses a standard action - because it always counts as a standard action because it's a single strike.


Chemlak wrote:

I nominate that "the attack action" be used to describe the standard action which is called Attack, and that "an attack action" be used to describe any activity in which an attack roll is made, including (but not limited to): the attack action, the full attack action, attacks of opportunity, making a touch attack.

Well, either that, or my earlier suggestion that "an attack roll" be renamed "a strike", and the consequent HUGE rewrite to the combat chapter, as well as uncountable spells.

???

if you changed the wording of vital strike then they wouldn't be using the same rule.

vital strike is the outlier, not sunder.


Chemlak wrote:
I nominate that "the attack action" be used to describe the standard action which is called Attack, and that "an attack action" be used to describe any activity in which an attack roll is made, including (but not limited to): the attack action, the full attack action, attacks of opportunity, making a touch attack.

I don't think it makes any sense to use the word "Action" for an Attack of Opportunity.

AoO arn't actions.

Actions (Part Two)By Skip Williams wrote:
Aggressive Nonactions: There's only one activity that falls into this category: the attack of opportunity. An attack of opportunity is similar to the attack action. In general, if you cannot use a standard action during your turn, you also cannot make an attack of opportunity during someone else's turn. When the notes on conditions in Part One say that you cannot act (for example, when stunned), you cannot make an attack of opportunity.

An "attack" and an "Attack action" are two different nomenclature.


ikarinokami wrote:

yes i think it's vital strike thats misworded, because i don't see why you couldn't spring attack and sunder/trip.

If vital strike is the correct wording, then you can't do that, which makes no sense to me.

You can't use vital strike with spring attack. It was that combination that was shut down, and caused the clarification to be made.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ckorik, read Jason's post in the first link. You'll find this:

Jason Bulmahn, Lead Designer wrote:

Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action.

...
An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave.

The lead designer went to the trouble of explaining that:

1) "attack action" is a type of standard action, and
2) An ability using "attack action" is (slightly) different than one using "standard action".

So if you want to keep saying that Vital Strike is a standard action for some reason other than it using the "attack action", you might consider PMing the lead designer to tell him he's wrong and you can show him the light. But the fact is, your position and his are not compatible. Deal with it.


concerro wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:

yes i think it's vital strike thats misworded, because i don't see why you couldn't spring attack and sunder/trip.

If vital strike is the correct wording, then you can't do that, which makes no sense to me.

You can't use vital strike with spring attack. It was that combination that was shut down, and caused the clarification to be made.

I know that, that was the point, if vital strike is the correct wording, then you can't spring attack and sunder, which makes no sense. Vital strike is the outlier for the phrase "attack action".


Jiggy wrote:

Ckorik, read Jason's post in the first link. You'll find this:

Jason Bulmahn, Lead Designer wrote:

Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action.

...
An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave.

The lead designer went to the trouble of explaining that:

1) "attack action" is a type of standard action, and
2) An ability using "attack action" is (slightly) different than one using "standard action".

So if you want to keep saying that Vital Strike is a standard action for some reason other than it using the "attack action", you might consider PMing the lead designer to tell him he's wrong and you can show him the light. But the fact is, your position and his are not compatible. Deal with it.

well it seems to me the lead designer forget to take into account other time the words "attack action" is used, because his definition doesn't seem to make much sense for sunder and alot other things that use the phrase "attack action".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ikarinokami wrote:
concerro wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:

yes i think it's vital strike thats misworded, because i don't see why you couldn't spring attack and sunder/trip.

If vital strike is the correct wording, then you can't do that, which makes no sense to me.

You can't use vital strike with spring attack. It was that combination that was shut down, and caused the clarification to be made.
I know that, that was the point, if vital strike is the correct wording, then you can't spring attack and sunder, which makes no sense. Vital strike is the outlier for the phrase "attack action".

The lead designer was very clear in explaining why they chose to have VS use the "attack action" instead of just using its own standard action. It was not an accident. It is not misworded. The link is just a little ways upthread.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ikarinokami wrote:
well it seems to me the lead designer forget to take into account other time the words "attack action" is used, because his definition doesn't seem to make much sense for sunder and alot other things that use the phrase "attack action".

I personally suspect the reference to "attack action" in sunder was an error and it was supposed to be worded exactly the same as disarm and trip, but that's speculation.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I assume you realize that you can never take a full round action with your opinion of how sunder works, right?
Starting a full round action is a standard action, taking a standard action precludes you from attacking, casting, using abilities or using any number of other actions, except free actions. Here's the rule:

"Start/Complete Full-Round Action

The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action."

This is why rules exist in their own vacuum with exceptions based on interactions with other rules.

Attacks are not all standard actions; AoO's, bonus attacks, a swift spell that requires an attack roll, etc...
Each individual thing you can do is some type of action. Sunder can be done as part of an attack action, even if that attack action is part of a full round action or a free action or a bonus attack action and the rules say as much.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
I nominate that "the attack action" be used to describe the standard action which is called Attack, and that "an attack action" be used to describe any activity in which an attack roll is made, including (but not limited to): the attack action, the full attack action, attacks of opportunity, making a touch attack.

So, you advocate people having to remember which game functionality goes with the definite article and which one goes with the indefinite article, but have the actual game terms be identical? And that's somehow better than having to differentiate between "attack" and "attack action"? Blech.

I prefer Grick's idea of renaming "attack action" as "single-attack action".

I advocate never having to read a post that asks "is the full attack action an attack action, and if not, why not, after all it says 'attack action' in the name?"

This entire discussion is based round the fact that there seems to be an intention of clarity when using the words "attack action" in the rules, but there are circumstances in which that intended clarity is clearly missing (this being a case in point, but the recent Manyshot thread was at least as bad).

While I know it would require a significant reprint, my "strike" suggestion is borne of the idea that removing the word "attack" from the mechanic of making an attack roll actually simplifies matters for people trying to interpret these types of rules, and makes it easier for future feat/spell/ability designers to explain what their new thing does:

Sunder either becomes "replace a strike with a CMB check to damage a weapon" or "make a CMB check instead of the strike in the attack action", depending on which usage is intended.

I'm just aware of what a huge undertaking it would be, and how much of the CRB (not to mention other book) would need to be errata'd to sort it out.

Yes, Grick's suggestion is good middle ground, since it clarifies the use of that specific action, and clearly differentiates it from the full attack action, and then allows "an attack action" to be "an action that includes an attack, such as the single attack action, the full attack action, and attacks of opportunity".

I just happen to believe that it doesn't go far enough.

Yes, my "strike" suggestion is probably something best kept in mind for PF2.0, but it never hurts to put it out there.


Jiggy wrote:
I personally suspect the reference to "attack action" in sunder was an error and it was supposed to be worded exactly the same as disarm and trip, but that's speculation.

I agree with your assessment.

Other then Sunder I have yet to see a place where they uses "attack action" when they should have used something else.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Weaponbreaker:
Are you responding to me? I think I was the last person to address you directly, but you're pointing out that not every attack is a standard action, which is something I already know. Perhaps in the future you could address your posts. :)

Anyway, regarding this:

Weaponbreaker wrote:
Sunder can be done as part of an attack action, even if that attack action is part of a full round action or a free action or a bonus attack action and the rules say as much.

Reconcile it with the following:

An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
Since vital strike requires an attack action (a specific KIND of standard action...

Thanks.


The issue some people seem to have is inability/not wanting to recognize the attack action as a specific action.
On the table of actions, under standard actions, we have 'attack' listed, as well as described under standard actions.
Now, if normal Commoners are to be able to Move + make an attack as a Standard Action, there needs to be an action to do so. OK, that's why we have Attack on the table and listed as the first Standard Action. OK, if there is a specific Standard Action accomplishing that, then that specific action does exist in the game. If it exists in the game, we need a way to refer to it... The attack action is seemingly how it is referred to... which is 100% in line with how OTHER actions are referred to, e.g. the full-attack action, the withdraw action, etc. I am unaware of this action being referred to in any other manner. It wouldn't seem like there IS any other way to refer to it (besides the attack action) while still following the same convention used to refer to other specific actions (the full-attack action, the withdraw action, etc).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

Ckorik, read Jason's post in the first link. You'll find this:

Jason Bulmahn, Lead Designer wrote:

Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action.

...
An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave.

The lead designer went to the trouble of explaining that:

1) "attack action" is a type of standard action, and
2) An ability using "attack action" is (slightly) different than one using "standard action".

So if you want to keep saying that Vital Strike is a standard action for some reason other than it using the "attack action", you might consider PMing the lead designer to tell him he's wrong and you can show him the light. But the fact is, your position and his are not compatible. Deal with it.

I never said Vital Strike was a standard action. If you want to put words in my mouth then make them funny at least :)

I said vital strike feat lets you make one attack - because it's an attack it is an attack action - because an attack action is a type of standard action it can't be used with anything else that conflicts with multiple standard actions.

That doesn't make vital strike a standard action. - It does mean it uses your standard action (as you can't attack if you have used your standard action).

That doesn't make an attack action only a standard action.

The way vital strike interacts with an attack action (that is only allowing you one attack) makes it use the standard action for your turn - which means you can always take a move action but can't do anything else that starts a full round action or another standard action.


ikarinokami wrote:
concerro wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:

yes i think it's vital strike thats misworded, because i don't see why you couldn't spring attack and sunder/trip.

If vital strike is the correct wording, then you can't do that, which makes no sense to me.

You can't use vital strike with spring attack. It was that combination that was shut down, and caused the clarification to be made.
I know that, that was the point, if vital strike is the correct wording, then you can't spring attack and sunder, which makes no sense. Vital strike is the outlier for the phrase "attack action".

I don't like it either, but that is how they wanted it to work. :(


Jiggy wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
well it seems to me the lead designer forget to take into account other time the words "attack action" is used, because his definition doesn't seem to make much sense for sunder and alot other things that use the phrase "attack action".
I personally suspect the reference to "attack action" in sunder was an error and it was supposed to be worded exactly the same as disarm and trip, but that's speculation.

I think you are right but I wonder if maybe Jason is happy with the result of the "error".

The simplest fix at this point is for sunder to just work differently then it did in 3.5 and early PF.

Maybe after the "Attack Action" clarification that came up regarding Vital Strike, we just have to live with no sunder full-attacks and AoO's. If we just accept that, the wording can stay the same and everything works. I would have no problem with it.

I'm not going to say full-attack sunders are OP exactly but it's kind of a drag tracking a bunch of broken gear. There are more fun things I'd rather be doing. Of course I know that's purely personal preference and there are people with sunder builds who would be disappointed.

Shadow Lodge

Grick wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

Uses Attack Action to use Overhand Chop(NOT CHARGE)

as part of the attack action in place of the melee attack - uses Sunder

VERY EXPLICITLY Allowed

Except for the part where sunder replaces the attack that would be adding double his strength bonus. Since that attack is replaced, the attack that would have had overhand chop and vital strike and stuff doesn't happen, instead a sunder attempt happens, in which you deal damage to the item normally.

The attack Roll and the damage roll are CLEARLY Seperate entities P178-179 CRB

Attack Roll - an attack roll represents your attempt to strike your oponent on your turn in a round. when you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus.(other modifiers may also apply to this roll). If your result equals or beats the targets Armor Class, you hit and deal damage

Next section is on attack bonus .. then Armor class ... THEN Damage rolls

Damage roll states - if your attack suceeds, you deal damage.

Sunder attempts - "If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the Item Normaly

Overhead Chop - when a two handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or charge), he adds double his strength to damage rolls

Sunder is used as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack

so the Overhand Chop Modifies the damage he deals ... not the attack roll .. and double strength damage when making a single attack IS his normal damage

RAW - not RAI you can't have both

Wraith235 wrote:
Grick wrote:
and iterative overhand chops
this was explained in the ability by "Makes a single attack"
Yes, but if, as some people say, a full-attack consists of many attack actions, each of which consist of a single attack, then iterative all that stuff would happen. It doesn't happen, because they're wrong, but it would otherwise.

it says makes a SINGLE attack .. and as we discovered above .. an attack must take place on your turn (AoO are seperate entities).. so if you are making more than one attack on your turn you cannot Overhand Chop .. thats what backswing was made for

Show me an instance where a 2 handed fighter - making a Single atack with a 2 handed weapon and does NOT deal double his strength damage (before penalties)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The attack action clarification is a good clarification. It makes something clear that was murky before.

People are assuming Jason Buhlman didn't think it through, and failed to consider how it would effect things like sunder.

Maybe he did think it through. Maybe it's better to have things clearer even if sunder doesn't work the way it did in 3.5 and beta anymore.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ckorik wrote:
That doesn't make an attack action only a standard action.

And neither does having the lead designer say so three separate times?


Ckorik wrote:
because it's an attack it is an attack action - because an attack action is a type of standard action it can't be used with anything else that conflicts with multiple standard actions.

Not all attacks are "attack actions."

Casting a Magic Missile is an attack but it isn't an "attack action"

Not all attacks are actions.

An attack of Opportunity isn't an action.

An attack and an Attack Action are two different things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Karlgamer wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
because it's an attack it is an attack action - because an attack action is a type of standard action it can't be used with anything else that conflicts with multiple standard actions.

Not all attacks are "attack actions."

Casting a Magic Missile is an attack but it isn't an "attack action"

Not all attacks are actions.

An attack of Opportunity isn't an action.

An attack and an Attack Action are two different things.

Casting a Magic Missile is not an attack - it's a spell.

Heck you don't even roll to attack with it.

Quote:

Cast a Spell

Most spells require 1 standard action to cast. You can cast
such a spell either before or after you take a move action.

That makes Cast a Spell a type of standard action - except when they are full round actions and then the action type is still Cast a Spell.

The action type is still Cast a Spell even if it's quickened and using a swift action - the action type doesn't change - the slot the action is using changes - based on rules that setup exceptions.

All attacks are attack actions - not all attack actions are standard actions - that's where you are confused.

The reason you seem to be confused is an attack you make unprovoked on your turn always takes your standard action. That's why attack is a type of standard action.

As a standard action it can't be used with other actions that take... a standard action.

If you can only make a single attack then it takes your standard action. If the feat says you can only make one attack then it can only be used as an attack action during your standard action phase.

That's why the word type is so important.

The latest quote by a dev:

Quote:


Paizo Employee James Jacobs (Creative Director) Dec 6, 2011, 07:37 PM
Flag |
List
| FAQ | Reply
James Jacobs
+

Correct. The monster's eye beams can't be enhanced by Vital Strike because using them requires a standard action. Since vital strike requires an attack action (a specific KIND of standard action, and not the one used by this monster to activate its eye beams

Note the caps was in the quote and not my doing.

That's important - considering here he's mentioning the monsters eyebeams use ... a standard action (generic - just like other abilities that say 'as a standard action) and thus can't use a vital strike which requires and actual attack.


Ckorik wrote:

Casting a Magic Missile is not an attack - it's a spell.

It is an attack. If you cast Magic Missile your invisibility will go away.

And you really trying to say that a Magic missile isn't an attack?

Quote:

Cast a Spell

Most spells require 1 standard action to cast. You can cast
such a spell either before or after you take a move action.

I didn't say Magic Missile wasn't an action. I said it wasn't an attack action.

Ckorik wrote:
All attacks are attack actions - not all attack actions are standard actions - that's where you are confused.

I'm not confused at all.

All attack actions are Standard actions.
and not all attacks are attack actions.

Ckorik wrote:
The reason you seem to be confused is an attack you make unprovoked on your turn always takes your standard action. That's why attack is a type of standard action.

Non-Sequitar.

A Charge action is an attack you make on your turn but is isn't a Standard action.

Ckorik wrote:
As a standard action it can't be used with other actions that take... a standard action.
CRB wrote:
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

Also like I said:

Not all attacks are actions.

An attack of Opportunity isn't an action.

Actions (Part Two) By Skip Williams wrote:
Aggressive Nonactions: There's only one activity that falls into this category: the attack of opportunity. An attack of opportunity is similar to the attack action. In general, if you cannot use a standard action during your turn, you also cannot make an attack of opportunity during someone else's turn. When the notes on conditions in Part One say that you cannot act (for example, when stunned), you cannot make an attack of opportunity.

An AoO is not an attack action. It's similar, but it isn't an action at all.

Taldor

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Karlgamer wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I personally suspect the reference to "attack action" in sunder was an error and it was supposed to be worded exactly the same as disarm and trip, but that's speculation.

I agree with your assessment.

Other then Sunder I have yet to see a place where they uses "attack action" when they should have used something else.

Just write in 'pizza oven' where it says 'machine gun.'


Tim Statler wrote:
Just write in 'pizza oven' where it says 'machine gun.'

Is this a crack about my grammar.

:)

You win man! I suck at grammar.

Taldor

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Not a M.A.S.H. affectionado, are you?
:)


Tim Statler wrote:

Not a M.A.S.H. affectionado, are you?

:)

Not as much as you apparently. But I am a fan of Robert Altman movies.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Karlgamer wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Casting a Magic Missile is not an attack - it's a spell.

It is an attack. If you cast Magic Missile your invisibility will go away.

And you really trying to say that a Magic missile isn't an attack?

Correct - it's listed under actions as Cast a Spell - a hostile spell is still a spell and it's not an attack - which RAW is clearly a melee action as spells get their own action.

Quote:


I didn't say Magic Missile wasn't an action. I said it wasn't an attack action.

Right - it's a Cast a spell action.

Quote:


All attack actions are Standard actions.
and not all attacks are attack actions.

Incorrect - and there isn't a single quote from anyone ever that says such - the only quotes that are found say that an attack action is a standard action - they don't say that all attack actions are standard actions.

Most of the quotes specifically go out of the way to mention that it's a type or kind of standard action. This is because attacks are a malleable action type depending on the special circumstances of the moment (like AoO). This is why they are not always standard actions but rather can be a type of standard action when you use it for your standard action. (and wow is that a tongue twister - I'm not trying to say that out loud)

Quote:


Ckorik wrote:
The reason you seem to be confused is an attack you make unprovoked on your turn always takes your standard action. That's why attack is a type of standard action.

Non-Sequitar.

A Charge action is an attack you make on your turn but is isn't a Standard action.

Quote:

Charge

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to
move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.

Charge has a double move and an attack - three normally standard actions in one - and to top it all off

Quote:

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn,

you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up
to your speed

Charge can take the place of a standard action as well. Reading the combat section it seems almost like the devs wanted some actions to be usable where it would make sense to use them.

Karlgamer wrote:


Actions (Part Two) By Skip Williams wrote:
Aggressive Nonactions: There's only one activity that falls into this category: the attack of opportunity. An attack of opportunity is similar to the attack action. In general, if you cannot use a standard action during your turn, you also cannot make an attack of opportunity during someone else's turn. When the notes on conditions in Part One say that you cannot act (for example, when stunned), you cannot make an attack of opportunity.
An AoO is not an attack action. It's similar, but it isn't an action...

And unusable if you can't take a standard action - I wonder if that's a coincidence?

I counter with Skip Williams - Actions Part IV (emphasis mine):

Quote:


Full Attack: This works just like the attack standard action except that you can make any extra attacks you have available because of your base attack bonus or equipment.

Seems like the only thing different about a full attack action is the extra attacks, and that's an article from 2005 in a different game mind you - historically this is the same guy who is on record repeatedly saying you can sunder in a full attack.


Of course he was talking about a different game when he said that. The game we are talking about didn't exist at the time. In fact the game he was talking about didn't even have a sunder combat maneuver, or any other combat maneuver. So, you know. Whatever.


OK, Ckorik here you go.

Quote:
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

Taldor

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Karlgamer wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:

Not a M.A.S.H. affectionado, are you?

:)
Not as much as you apparently. But I am a fan of Robert Altman movies.

Fourth quote down in the quote section:

http://www.tv.com/shows/mash/the-incubator-43235/


Jiggy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Yup, but you guys think a clarification for vital strike is more important than the overall tendencies of text construction within the CM section.

The biggest and most important clues for how CMs should be read should be within the CM section... not a clarification for a completely unrelated feat.

You guys have a convoluted explanation, I agree that it is plausible, but it is more complicated and relies entirely on text outside of the combat chapter, some of it not even in the book.

You would have a point if the clarification on Vital Strike only talked about Vital Strike (i.e., "Vital Strike is a standard action"). But it wasn't. It gave a specific reason ("because it's an attack action, which is a kind of standard action"). If "the attack action is a standard action" was only true in one context, it couldn't be used as a reason.

If someone asks "Why is the magus able to take a move action in between casting a touch spell and delivering it?", the answer is "Because touch spells are delivered via a free action attack in the round you cast them, not as part of the action of casting them". And you know what? That reason - how touch spells work in general - is applicable to ALL situations involving touch spells, not just the magus. The magus was the topic of the question, but the reason given in the answer is a general rule that applies to all uses of that mechanic, not just the magus.

In the same way, the question Jason was answering was about VS, but the reason given in the answer is a general rule that applies to all uses of that mechanic, not just VS.

Being able to see that the reason for X is that Y works a certain way, and apply that new knowledge of Y to other situations is the basis of critical thinking. Ignoring transferability of information means every single situation always has to be spelled out individually.

You might be right. I can even concede that. But I enjoy how you guys are unwilling to say I might be right, that my explanation is simpler than yours, uses fewer steps, fewer pages of the CRB and no outside statements to arrive at a very logical conclusion as well.

I still haven't seen actually explain why they wouldn't just use the same type of text as Overrun, instead of text similar to trip and disarm. You guys ignore this fact and instead talk about Vital Strike.

Without a dev, you're not going to convince me, because I'm partial to solutions that are simple and elegant. The vital strike explanation is not simple, nor elegant.


Ckorik wrote:
Correct - it's listed under actions as Cast a Spell - a hostile spell is still a spell and it's not an attack - which RAW is clearly a melee action as spells get their own action.

Magic missle is a Cast a Spell action... it's also an attack.

It isn't an attack action, but it is an attack.

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!

Ckorik wrote:
Incorrect - and there isn't a single quote from anyone ever that says such - the only quotes that are found say that an attack action is a standard action - they don't say that all attack actions are standard actions.

There is no such thing as "attack actions" is only one "attack action" and it's a Standard action.

There is also a Full Attack action. Which isn't an attack action.
There is also a Charge. Which isn't an attack action.

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!

Ckorik wrote:
Charge has a double move and an attack - three normally standard actions in one - and to top it all off

A Charge is a charge it isn't combination of several Standard actions. It's exactly what it says it is and nothing more.

Yes you can Charge as a standard action in a specific situation but if your really focasing on that then I can tell you aren't taking any of this seriously.

I could have used any Full-round action in which you attack.

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!!

Ckorik wrote:

And unusable if you can't take a standard action - I wonder if that's a coincidence?

I counter with Skip Williams - Actions Part IV (emphasis mine):
Quote:

Quote:
Full Attack: This works just like the attack standard action except that you can make any extra attacks you have available because of your base attack bonus or equipment.
Seems like the only thing different about a full attack action is the extra attacks, and that's an article from 2005 in a different game mind you - historically this is the same guy who is on record repeatedly saying you can sunder in a full attack.

Your quote helps make my point.

Quote:
This works just like the attack standard action

This means it's not an attack standard action.

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!!!

Quote:
An attack of opportunity is similar to the attack action.

This means it's not an attack standard action.

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!!!!

Attack is attack. The word in the dictionary. It can be a verb, noun or an adjective. And is use as such.

"Attack action" is a proper noun. It refers to a unique entity. A specific type of Standard action called "Attack".


My position has nothing to do with vital strike. It is just listed because it was in the sentence with the action action is a standard action sentence.

I also think it is simpler to say in the book what an attack action is, while also making it clear what it is not.

That keep attack actions, and things that work "as part of attack actions" the same, and able to be stacked.

To continue that means there is no need to hunt for every use of attack action. By changing a small section of the combat chapter everything can be cleared up.

If anyone has any questions point to the errata'd "attack action".

In short I don't understand how modifying one area of the combat chapter is not the easier solution.


But if you mean for it to use up a characters Standard Action in the round, why would you use a term other than Standard Action?

Silver Crusade

Karlgamer wrote:

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!!

James Jacobs wrote:-

'What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined. An attack action is the exact same thing as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity. It's no more complicated than that.'

I believe James.


That was mentioned earlier in the thread. Using "attack action" means it will work with other things that use an "attack action" rather than a "standard action".


If you use the term standard action then other abilities can't be stacked on top of it.

By keeping them separate you have two options. You get to use the term standard action for abilities that you don't want stacked with another one, and the term "attack action" would still use a standard action, and allow for stacking.

As an example Vital Strike uses an attack action. Sunder can be done as part of an attack action. That means if you use sunder or any other ability such as the giant feat that uses the "part of an attack action" phrase you can double the weapon's base damage for that attack.

It is a win-win, and all it takes is a small errata to the combat section which probably will only be a sentence or two. I don't think it would be too difficult for most gamers to understand that. I don't see the downside.

edit:This was a reply to Irontruth.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!!

James Jacobs wrote:-

'What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined. An attack action is the exact same thing as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity. It's no more complicated than that.'

I believe James.

James Jacobs does look at it the same way you do, I'll give you that. And that is a pretty big deal.

But he has admitted he was confused about this very issue recently. He recommended we talk about it in a rules thread and hit FAQ so we could get an official rules answer. So that's what we're doing.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!!

James Jacobs wrote:-

'What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined. An attack action is the exact same thing as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity. It's no more complicated than that.'

I believe James.

I am curious as to why you believe him, not but not when his statement was not agreeing with you.

What if he changes his mind again?


I remember in the many-shot thread Malachi dismissed JJ completely.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:-

'What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined. An attack action is the exact same thing as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity. It's no more complicated than that.'

I believe James.

Lets see.

"Attack Action" is an attack.

But not all attacks are the "Attack action."

Some attacks aren't actions

I believe you kind of pushed pour James into a corner here. Although, I find it strange that now you feel like actually listening to the developers.

Or the part of the book that states:

"Making an attack is a standard action."

Shouldn't exist.

If it's hardly ever true why have it as a rule.


Grimmy wrote:
I remember in the many-shot thread Malachi dismissed JJ completely.

I brought that up earlier, which is why I am bringing it up again. I don't remember getting a response.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!

Because an "attack" and an "attack action" are not the same thing!!!

James Jacobs wrote:-

'What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined. An attack action is the exact same thing as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity. It's no more complicated than that.'

I believe James.

I am curious as to why you believe him, not but not when his statement was not agreeing with you.

What if he changes his mind again?

That's a fair point, Wraithstrike. When I posted my correspondence with JJ upthread I also PMed him and said, 'at least we can put this subject to bed now!'

Boy, was I wrong!

As soon as I posted his answer all we got was, 'he's not the rules guy!'

I understand! It's human nature. I've done it myself! We all want a second opinion from someone more qualified when we don't like what we've just heard.

JJ is not the rules guy. His opinion carries weight, but is not definitive. If his opinion matches ours we'll gladly trumpet this in these threads; if his opinions differ from ours, well, 'he's not the rules guy!'

So, why do I believe him? Most importantly, his opinion matches mine! : )

There's more to it than that. I assure you, if JJs reply to me said that an 'attack action' must always be a 'standard action', I would still have posted it in these threads.

I'm very wary of so-called 'quotes from devs' when the context isn't clear. From what's been posted on these threads, often a dev is answering a totally different question and his answer is taken out of context to 'prove' a completely different case. When I contacted JJ it was with the intention of avoiding this problem. I asked him specifically about sunder and he replied about sunder. In his reply he mentioned the 'attack action' phrase, so I asked a question specifically about that, presenting both cases. He replied specifically about what 'attack action' means and it's applicability in full attacks, AoOs, etc.

It's not only JJ! Every dev quote shown on these threads or in FAQs for every d20 system, when asked specifically about if sunder could replace any melee attack or was a standard action, has said, yes, any attack can be replaced by sunder, including full attack/AoO/charge etc.

And what dev quotes say the opposite? None! That's right! When answering the specific question about if sunder can replace any attack, every single one has said yes!

The only dev quotes used by The Unbelievers are devs answering completely different questions! Those answers are then taken out of context and used to undermine the quotes that do address the specific question, with the excuse of 'ah, but he's the lead designer!' Yeah, he's the lead designer answering a different question!

Case in point: The lead designer says, 'attack action equals standard action'.

There are two possibilities:-

• The devs believe the 'attack action' can only use a standard action

• The devs believe that any 'attack action' that uses a standard action is an action type in it's own right, therefore that standard action cannot also be used as a 'cast a spell' action.

Both possibilities are equally possible given the language of the reply. It's us who interpret it one way or the other, without actually knowing which one he meant!

So, I'm comparing years of dev answers to the specific sunder question, to a lead dev answering a different question where that answer can be interpreted to either support OR contradict the answers we already have.

In that comparison, in this case, I believe JJ.

If anyone manages to get a specific question answered by either JB or SKR on either sunder or 'attack action' I'll take that as gospel.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
I remember in the many-shot thread Malachi dismissed JJ completely.
I brought that up earlier, which is why I am bringing it up again. I don't remember getting a response.

I was composing my reply the whole time! I'm a slow typer and I compose long posts, okay. : )


I agree with you on Sunder Malachi Silverclaw. It was a long road but I agree that you can sunder as a full attack just like 3.0 and 3.5.

I think they made a mistake here in pathfinder by leaving in the words "attack action."

I'm certain they will remove the offending word.


The problem isn't really how Sunder itself is supposed to work, but the bigger picture. If Sunder can be used during a full-attack action, then the words "attack action" mean different things in different sections of the rules. That's what the problem truly is, as opposed to how Sunder is supposed to work. And I believe that's the purpose of this thread. Clarification on Sunder itself would only be gravy, compared to clarification on the "attack action" used for Sunder (and Vital Strike).

(Personally, I would prefer it if Vital Strike worked any time you make a single non-AoO attack, such as by using Charge or Spring Attack. I don't particularly care how Sunder works, since neither I nor any of my players have ever used it.)

651 to 700 of 1,171 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Sunder is an attack action = Sunder is a standard action? All Messageboards

©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.