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

701 to 750 of 1,171 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

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

I do have to give you credit for being honest. :)

As for the other devs no Paizo devs has said Sunder could replace "any" melee attack as part of the current(post beta) rules set.

Now if Jason had made the full attack comment once the final rules were released I would agree that it was a full attack, but I would still ask for instructions on how to use the attack action.

As of now I want an answer for sunder and for the attack action to be defined.

I don't think any of the devs believe an attack action is an action type. If so they would not say that it needs a standard action. That is like saying you need a move action to use a standard action for example.

I think the term "Attack action" should just have a different name. Both of those words should be replaced, but I doubt that will happen. We can hope for an "in book" definition though.

JB and SKR are busy, very busy. I think another FAQ was schedule for this week, but it did not happen so I am assuming they are still playing catchup with the mythic rules.

I have never used sunder so I don't really care which way that falls. I am more concerned with this "attack action" issue.


Karlgamer wrote:

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.

That isn't exactly agreeing with him. He thinks it works that way even with the "offending word" present.


Are wrote:
If Sunder can be used during a full-attack action, then the words "attack action" mean different things in different sections of the rules.

Or it was an accident made because a of the new Combat Maneuver rules.

I mean they are kind of the least playtested part of the new rules.

It's possible that they just made a mistake.


Grimmy wrote:
That isn't exactly agreeing with him. He thinks it works that way even with the "offending word" present.

Oh, I know. Just making sure everyone sees me with the crow in my mouth.


Yes. But there's no way of knowing that it was a mistake unless that's specified by a member of the rules team, and/or errata issued to remove the words in question.

Edit: Why do you say they're the "least playtested part"? I would have thought that, given the CMB/CMD system was one big selling point when Paizo wanted to convert 3.5 players, that it would have undergone a thorough playtesting.


Are wrote:
Yes. But there's no way of knowing that it was a mistake unless that's specified by a member of the rules team, and/or errata issued to remove the words in question.

Correct.

I infer that it is likely that it was a mistake.


I have to wonder how many players would like to face an ascetic master of sundering with reach.. Not only do you likely lose a number of your best gear, but once you defeat the encounter there's nothing to replace your lost gear :)


In the other thread it was brought up that if an attack action can be used multiple times in one round then monsters with gaze attacks can force multiple saves.

Does anyone really want to make several saves against a medusa, and that does not even include the free gaze you have to deal with?


O_O


Are wrote:
I have to wonder how many players would like to face an ascetic master of sundering with reach.. Not only do you likely lose a number of your best gear, but once you defeat the encounter there's nothing to replace your lost gear :)

Ya, now your talking.

A Lore Warden / Maneuver Master Weapon Adept.

Oh, my players should be scared.


Grimmy wrote:
O_O

You don't like multiple saves in one round that can turn you to stone? ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karlgamer wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
That isn't exactly agreeing with him. He thinks it works that way even with the "offending word" present.
Oh, I know. Just making sure everyone sees me with the crow in my mouth.

At least the crow won't be there for long because you're not afraid to eat it.

Some people walk around with like 12 of those things stuffed in there and just refuse to choke them down.


Are wrote:
Yes. But there's no way of knowing that it was a mistake unless that's specified by a member of the rules team, and/or errata issued to remove the words in question.

I think you're overlooking: Some people REALLY REALLY want it to work that way... The last word to RAW analysis :-)

Quote:
Edit: Why do you say they're the "least playtested part"? I would have thought that, given the CMB/CMD system was one big selling point when Paizo wanted to convert 3.5 players, that it would have undergone a thorough playtesting.

Given I was involved there, I can say that the CORE mechanic of CMB/CMD WAS given tons of attention.

Perhaps the other parts (details for each maneuver) WOULD HAVE been given more attention by playtesters,
if the fundamental mechanic of CMD had been confirmed to work like it does earlier on...
As it ended up, it wasn't really confirmed until the final rules were out, so the most motivated people interested in the maneuver system spent their time re-hashing the same points about what bonuses should apply to CMD and how to present that information to the player, since it was never confirmed that 'hey, all this playtesting and number-crunching is great, we're going to use all the touch AC modifiers for CMD' and so everybody reasonably felt that it was still important to convince Paizo of that goal.

I'm still unclear on how a fundamental part of Grapple, the no-move restriction, is actually supposed to be implemented.


Grimmy wrote:

At least the crow won't be there for long because you're not afraid to eat it.

Some people walk around with like 12 of those things stuffed in there and just refuse to choke them down.

Okay,Okay. The RAW stills says "attack action"

which is a Standard action.

Which isn't a Full attack action

or a charge

or a partial charge.

or an AoO

RAW still says you can only sunder as a Standard Action.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Karlgamer wrote:

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.

You accused me of not taking it seriously up above - I wanted to use this quote to respond, but allow me to explain.

I do take it seriously - and I believe that sunder can replace an attack, however I'll freely admit to enjoying the debate about it - I did (in the outset) try to play some logic games with the all attacks actions are standard actions - to see how it would break down. IMO it just doesn't work.

But that's because I take the same position as JJ - that all attacks are 'attack actions' - and that 'an attack is a standard action' is only meant to describe that if you make an unprovoked attack (with a melee weapon - and that includes unarmed) then you use your standard action at minimum to make that attack.

I also believe that this is the actual intent behind attack is a standard action language.

The reason why I quoted you above is because I think they won't change the word and leave it as is - and (like many others) I did FAQ the question about 7 pages ago and hope they chime in with official clarification.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

In the other thread it was brought up that if an attack action can be used multiple times in one round then monsters with gaze attacks can force multiple saves.

Does anyone really want to make several saves against a medusa, and that does not even include the free gaze you have to deal with?

Medusa

Spoiler:
Speed 30 ft.

Melee dagger +10/+5 (1d4/19–20), snake bite +5 (1d4 plus poison)
Ranged mwk longbow +11/+6 (1d8/×3)
Special Attacks petrifying gaze
Statistics
Str 10, Dex 15, Con 18, Int 12, Wis

This is the reason for the eyebeam comment and vital strike - special attacks don't fall into the normal rules for attacks.

This type of attack in particular is defined in the bestiary and I'll put it behind another spoiler for those who like to keep the mystery:

Spoiler:
Quote:


Gaze (Su) A gaze special attack takes effect when foes
look at the attacking creature’s eyes. The attack can
have any sort of effect: petrification, death, and charm
are common. The typical range is 30 feet, but check the
creature’s entry for details. The type of saving throw for a
gaze attack varies, but it is usually a Will or Fortitude save
(DC 10 + 1/2 gazing creature’s racial HD + gazing creature’s
Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s text). A
successful saving throw negates the effect. A monster’s gaze
attack is described in abbreviated form in its description.
Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt
a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her
turn in the initiative order.

This part shows the passive part of Gaze - that is anyone within range must save (no attack needed) if they are not protecting themselves. This save is made on the PC's turn.

Quote:


A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an
attack action by choosing a target within range. That
opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to
avoid this as described above. Thus, it is possible for an
opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during
the same round, once before the opponent’s action and
once during the creature’s turn.

This is an active attack - but like vital strike if used it's a single attack which means that the creature can't use more than one active gaze and can't make any other types of attacks if they use the 'gaze' ability as the attack.


wraithstrike wrote:

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.

Because that isn't how the game is designed. The game is designed for you to use full round, standard, move, swift, immediate, free and non-actions. If something is supposed to be one of those things, it should be one of those things. It is still extremely possible to do the things you are talking about without adding attack action.

When making only a single attack in a round...
May be combined with...

I'm sure there are other ways to word it as well. Bull Rush and Charge both use up specific action types that are not compatible for use together in a round, yet you can combine them because the rules say you can.


Hah, hadn't seen that FoB specifically calls out sunder as usable during a full attack.

I still haven't seen a very convincing argument for why sunder language is more similar to trip and disarm, but should be treated like Overrun. You guys have a long and convoluted one. If they intended it to work like Overrun, Grapple or Bull Rush, why would they use the language from trip/disarm?

You guys might be right, but I'm very amused at how adamant you are. Many of you are so strongly, unwilling to see how you might be wrong.


The fact is that I and others put more weight on JB's statement designating Attack Actions as Standard Actions than we do for JJ's statement that Attack Actions "consume" Standard Actions, among other things. Does that guarantee that we're interpreting JB's statement correctly? No. But you've got to make a decision somewhere and you've got to make the best assumption you can, given the info provided and the ability of your own mind to process it. Some of us chosen to assume that JB is more likely to be right than JJ and that we're understanding what JB wrote correctly. Others claim that JJ is correct and JB's statement was poorly worded so as to lead us to a faulty conclusion. Some claim that since Sunder and Disarm were worded a particular way in beta and the wording changed for only one of them, the simple solution was that the wording was supposed to be changed for both and the discrepancy is an oversight. The simple solution isn't always correct.

A scientist had a container with 100 frogs in it. He methodically took one frog at a time, placed it on a table, and made a loud noise behind it. Each frog jumped at the noise. He then repeated the test, but this time he removed each frog's hind legs first. None of the frogs jumped at the noise. He concluded that frogs hear through their hind legs.

Considering how potentially OP multiple sunders can be, I think it very likely that the rules team took a look at Sunder and Disarm and:

- "Multiple disarm attempts per round is perfectly fine, but I have a problem with multiple sunder attempts. I think these two should be different."

- "Yeah, you're right. Item destruction is a risky maneuver but we don't want to promote wholesale item destruction. Sure, it's fun to do it to monsters but it'd be more than problematic for it to be a big thing to do vs players and might deter a lot of people from the game if we set that standard."

- "Ok, so we only change the wording on Disarm, as we intended, but we leave Sunder the way it is. I hope no one gets confused expecting us to port them both over the same way."

- "Don't worry, people who play these kinds of game are smart enough to figure it out."


Irontruth: The reasoning, IIRC, is that you use a weapon to sunder. You don't use a weapon to overrun, grapple, or bull rush.

Edit: Also, it's a fallacy to claim that people are "unwilling" to see it another way. Several of the people who are arguing in this thread have said that they personally don't ever use Sunder (or use it very rarely), and/or houserule it to work with full attacks, and/or don't particularly care which way the ruling eventually falls. They only want this area of the rules to be clarified.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Irontruth - Careful. You keep saying you haven't seen XYZ and asking why people still don't have an explanation for ABC, but some of those things have already been brought up and you've apparently missed them.

For instance, on of Jason Bulmahn's cited comments about what "attack action" means has been linked (about a dozen times, probably) to a post where he carefully explains the difference between one thing using an "attack action" and something else using "a standard action". There's a difference, and he notes it, and says that's why some things use the attack action.

Additionally, Grick has repeatedly discussed the exact ramifications of sunder and vital strike using the attack action instead of just any ol' standard action.

Yet you keep saying that no one is offering these explanations. Explanations that you have apparently missed, dozens of times.

If you want to make claims about people's willingness to see other views, you might start with yourself and at least read what those people are writing.

EDIT: I also PM'd you a link to this post, lest you again miss what you'll later claim no one can produce.


Ckorik wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

In the other thread it was brought up that if an attack action can be used multiple times in one round then monsters with gaze attacks can force multiple saves.

Does anyone really want to make several saves against a medusa, and that does not even include the free gaze you have to deal with?

Medusa** spoiler omitted **

This is the reason for the eyebeam comment and vital strike - special attacks don't fall into the normal rules for attacks.

This type of attack in particular is defined in the bestiary and I'll put it behind another spoiler for those who like to keep the mystery:
** spoiler omitted **

...

I forgot gaze had the word "once", but there are not special attacks that use the "attack action" that don't. What would you say about those.


Irontruth wrote:

Hah, hadn't seen that FoB specifically calls out sunder as usable during a full attack.

I still haven't seen a very convincing argument for why sunder language is more similar to trip and disarm, but should be treated like Overrun. You guys have a long and convoluted one. If they intended it to work like Overrun, Grapple or Bull Rush, why would they use the language from trip/disarm?

You guys might be right, but I'm very amused at how adamant you are. Many of you are so strongly, unwilling to see how you might be wrong.

I am not saying Sunder can't be used with a full attack with 100 percent certainty with regard to RAI. I am saying that as it is written it does not work that way.

In other words Paizo would need to say an attack action uses a standard action or (insert other features of attack action) or sunder just needs to be errata'd.

All I know is that the attack action is only defined in a devs post, and that post calls it a standard action.


Jiggy wrote:

@Irontruth - Careful. You keep saying you haven't seen XYZ and asking why people still don't have an explanation for ABC, but some of those things have already been brought up and you've apparently missed them.

For instance, on of Jason Bulmahn's cited comments about what "attack action" means has been linked (about a dozen times, probably) to a post where he carefully explains the difference between one thing using an "attack action" and something else using "a standard action". There's a difference, and he notes it, and says that's why some things use the attack action.

Additionally, Grick has repeatedly discussed the exact ramifications of sunder and vital strike using the attack action instead of just any ol' standard action.

Yet you keep saying that no one is offering these explanations. Explanations that you have apparently missed, dozens of times.

If you want to make claims about people's willingness to see other views, you might start with yourself and at least read what those people are writing.

EDIT: I also PM'd you a link to this post, lest you again miss what you'll later claim no one can produce.

I have also explained it. I was pretty sure myself and Irontruth went back and forth about why it is good to stack attack actions, and why just replacing the phrase with the term "standard action" is not the best idea.

Now he might not like my answers, but that is a lot different than it not being addressed.

Silver Crusade

Kazaan wrote:

The fact is that I and others put more weight on JB's statement designating Attack Actions as Standard Actions than we do for JJ's statement that Attack Actions "consume" Standard Actions, among other things. Does that guarantee that we're interpreting JB's statement correctly? No. But you've got to make a decision somewhere and you've got to make the best assumption you can, given the info provided and the ability of your own mind to process it. Some of us chosen to assume that JB is more likely to be right than JJ and that we're understanding what JB wrote correctly. Others claim that JJ is correct and JB's statement was poorly worded so as to lead us to a faulty conclusion. Some claim that since Sunder and Disarm were worded a particular way in beta and the wording changed for only one of them, the simple solution was that the wording was supposed to be changed for both and the discrepancy is an oversight. The simple solution isn't always correct.

A scientist had a container with 100 frogs in it. He methodically took one frog at a time, placed it on a table, and made a loud noise behind it. Each frog jumped at the noise. He then repeated the test, but this time he removed each frog's hind legs first. None of the frogs jumped at the noise. He concluded that frogs hear through their hind legs.

Considering how potentially OP multiple sunders can be, I think it very likely that the rules team took a look at Sunder and Disarm and:

- "Multiple disarm attempts per round is perfectly fine, but I have a problem with multiple sunder attempts. I think these two should be different."

- "Yeah, you're right. Item destruction is a risky maneuver but we don't want to promote wholesale item destruction. Sure, it's fun to do it to monsters but it'd be more than problematic for it to be a big thing to do vs players and might deter a lot of people from the game if we set that standard."

- "Ok, so we only change the wording on Disarm, as we intended, but we leave Sunder the way it is. I hope...

I have a problem with this. We start off with both disarm and sunder worded the same way that sunder is still worded, and in beta both were definitely able to replace any melee attack (full, charge,AoO, etc). This is known.

Now we speculate on intent. Fair enough.

The intent you are postulating is that the devs deliberately changed sunder to be once per round, consuming a standard action, like bull rush/overrun.

You are then postulating (nothing wrong with postulating BTW, this has a legitimate purpose) that the devs chose to enact that change in the rules by leaving the wording unchanged!?!

Then you postulate that the reason the players will know that the rules for sunder changed is that 'attack action' will be redefined.

Great! Where do I find this 'redefinition' of 'attack action'? Which page?

Er...it's not in the CRB...

Oh! Where is it then?

Um... The lead designer is going to post something about it online when talking about how Vital Strike is meant to work...

Do you see why I find that scenario implausible?


Well we know Jason defined an attack action as a standard action

We also know that an attack action, and a full attack action or not the same.

Jason wrote:
Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action. It cannot be used as part of a full-attack action, which is a full round action.

We also know that because an AoO is an attack that does not use an action, and an attack action has been said by Jason to use a standard action that not all attacks are "attack actions"

We know that sunder's word did not change, but in beta it was said to be usable with a full attack, which is now defined as a full attack action.

We also have overland chop which last an "attack action or a charge" as two ways to activate one feature.

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

This is not a natural attack so can it be used multiple times? If not then why, assuming you believe that you can just insert an attack action into a full attack to get multiple attack actions. Unlike the gaze attack the word "once" is not there.

Now with the above info we have a few possibilities:

1. The wording for sunder should have been "as part of an attack action or full attack action" in order to make it usable for a full attack action also since both terms are separate even in the instructions for CM's. That would also mean it can not be use with AoO's

or

2. The attack action was not fully defined, and it may been the same as James's latest interpretation, even though he has said different things before now.

I am not going with this since Jason is normally good with explaining things, I don't see him missing it 4 times. I also think that if that were true James would not have changed him mind on the issue twice.

or

3. It should have been worded like disarm or trip, so it could be used with any melee attack.

I can go with 1, 3, or the notion that sunder is intended to be use an attack action as defined by Jason. 2 however is the least likely to be true IMHO.


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

Not mine, AvalonXQ's. I just support it =)

Wraith235 wrote:

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

It doesn't replace the attack roll, it replaces the attack.

Overhand Chop (and Vital Strike) are both contingent on the attack in the attack action landing. If you miss, you don't get that damage. If the attack is negated due to a parry or something, you don't get that damage. And if the entire attack itself is replaced with something else (like a Sunder attempt), you don't get that damage.

The attack that Vital Strike and Overhand Chop apply to doesn't happen. It's replaced by a Sunder. That sunder attempt deals damage normally.

Wraith235 wrote:
it says makes a SINGLE attack .. and as we discovered above .. an attack must take place on your turn (AoO are seperate entities)..

Attacks of Opportunity: "An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack"

As you can see, an AoO is an attack, and it can happen outside your turn.

If you mean "an attack action must take place on your turn" then yes, that's true of all standard actions.

Wraith235 wrote:
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)

Ok. He makes an attack of opportunity, dealing normal damage because it's not an attack action or charge. Or he uses Spring Attack making a single melee attack during his move, dealing normal damage because it's not an attack action or charge. Deadly Stroke technically would deal double strength damage, but that's not because of Overhand Chop, it's because it deals double damage for the entire attack.

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

Actually, what you got was 'He's said the exact same thing before, then realized he was mistaken, and recanted all of it.'

Recognizing that he's said the same thing before then changed his mind is not the same thing as dismissing him out of hand due to his title.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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.

That doesn't make sense, nor does it answer the questions they were attempting to answer.

If they were saying that "any attack action that uses a standard action is a standard action" then that isn't saying anything! That's like saying "if a blue thing is blue, then it's blue."

They didn't say "SOME attack actions are standard actions" and even if that's what they meant, that doesn't leave you with any way to determine which ones are. The only reason we know that Vital Strike cannot be made with iterative attack is because it uses the attack action, which they told us is a standard action.

If it's sometimes a standard action, and sometimes a full-round action, and sometimes not an action, then that means VS and OC and Sunder could be used with all of them.

As to why the clarification for the attack action happened as a result of people asking about Vital Strike, it's because VS was new and shiny and if you don't know how the attack action works, VS looks REALLY amazingly good. Most people probably assumed they knew how sunder works, or didn't care because it's freaking sunder and breaks all your loot. It's only because "attack action" was used in something that was extremely popular that enough people cared to get it addressed.


Ckorik wrote:
I do take it seriously - and I believe that sunder can replace an attack, however I'll freely admit to enjoying the debate about it - I did (in the outset) try to play some logic games with the all attacks actions are standard actions - to see how it would break down. IMO it just doesn't work.

I pretty certain that sunder can replace an melee attack. -Strictly because it did so in previous editions. So I think there was a mistake in writing sunder.

Ckorik wrote:
But that's because I take the same position as JJ - that all attacks are 'attack actions' - and that 'an attack is a standard action' is only meant to describe that if you make an unprovoked attack (with a melee weapon - and that includes unarmed) then you use your standard action at minimum to make that attack.
jj wrote:
An attack action is the exact same as an attack

An Attack action is an attack.

Not all attacks are attack actions.

jj wrote:
What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined.

The action which is called "attack" is defined.

But as we know not all attacks are actions.
And not all attacks are standard actions.

So "attack action" is used to describe the specific attack that you use as a standard action.

Just as "full attack action" is used to describe the specific attacks that use the Full-round action.

Just as "attacks of Opportunity" is used to describe the Specific attacks that don't use an action.

jj wrote:
I also believe that this is the actual intent behind attack is a standard action language.

The problem is that the word attack is used in the book as a verb, noun, adjective. We can't place the word action at the end of each of those words. And we can't remove the word action at the end of "attack action" and still have it make sense.

Quote:
as part of an attack in place of a melee attack
wow that's all needlessly wordy. Why even have:
Quote:
as part of an attack
Quote:
in place of a melee attack

is much more specific.

"Vital Strike wrote:
When you use the attack, you can make one attack

When "I use the attack" what?

Ckorik wrote:
The reason why I quoted you above is because I think they won't change the word and leave it as is - and (like many others) I did FAQ the question about 7 pages ago and hope they chime in with official clarification.

If they don't change the wording then Sunder will be only usable as a Standard action. Meaning that you will not be able to use it as a Full Attack action or and AoO or a Charge.


Jiggy wrote:

@Irontruth - Careful. You keep saying you haven't seen XYZ and asking why people still don't have an explanation for ABC, but some of those things have already been brought up and you've apparently missed them.

For instance, on of Jason Bulmahn's cited comments about what "attack action" means has been linked (about a dozen times, probably) to a post where he carefully explains the difference between one thing using an "attack action" and something else using "a standard action". There's a difference, and he notes it, and says that's why some things use the attack action.

Additionally, Grick has repeatedly discussed the exact ramifications of sunder and vital strike using the attack action instead of just any ol' standard action.

Yet you keep saying that no one is offering these explanations. Explanations that you have apparently missed, dozens of times.

If you want to make claims about people's willingness to see other views, you might start with yourself and at least read what those people are writing.

EDIT: I also PM'd you a link to this post, lest you again miss what you'll later claim no one can produce.

I'm seeing explanations for how your rules interpretations work with other aspects of the rules. I'm not seeing an explanation of why. What is leading you to the belief that the devs thought sunder was too (whatever) to use in a full attack, but okay to combine with vital strike or cleave? This is an extremely specific claim with little to no proof and relies on a lot of assumptions. If sunder we're to be a unique case, why wouldn't they word it more carefully, instead of using what is commonly considered sloppy language (which most rules causing confusion with the phrase 'attack action' being identified as unintended and a little sloppy).

I have been willing to see your guys point. I readily admit, it's possible sunder is intended to be used alone. I think the pro-standard action side has to do a lot more twisting to validate their point though.

Maybe I've missed it, there are so many posts and so many that are so similar that it really does all blend together in this thread. Seems like I look away for a few hours and there are 150 new ones.

People arguing this over and over aren't looking for dev clarification. You see that by hitting the FAQ button, not repeating things over and over with other posters.


Irontruth wrote:


I'm seeing explanations for how your rules interpretations work with other aspects of the rules. I'm not seeing an explanation of why. What is leading you to the belief that the devs thought sunder was too (whatever) to use in a full attack, but okay to combine with vital strike or cleave?

We are not saying RAI that sunder was not intended to work with a full attack. We are saying that as it is written it does not work in our opinion.

What part of our rules interpretations did you not understand or believe? Calling those out would help. If you don't call out something specific we can't really give a better explanation because we will assume you either understood it or accepted it.

Quote:
This is an extremely specific claim with little to no proof and relies on a lot of assumptions. If sunder we're to be a unique case, why wouldn't they word it more carefully, instead of using what is commonly considered sloppy language (which most rules causing confusion with the phrase 'attack action' being identified as unintended and a little sloppy).

Personally I think it is a bad idea to use the term "attack action" anywhere in the book as part of official instructions without defining it "in the book". We do have the devs quote on what action it uses though, so that is all we can go by.

Quote:


I have been willing to see your guys point. I readily admit, it's possible sunder is intended to be used alone. I think the pro-standard action side has to do a lot more twisting to validate their point...

Read this.

Silver Crusade

Grick wrote:-

'Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
As soon as I posted his answer all we got was, 'he's not the rules guy!'
Actually, what you got was 'He's said the exact same thing before, then realized he was mistaken, and recanted all of it.'

Recognizing that he's said the same thing before then changed his mind is not the same thing as dismissing him out of hand due to his title.'

In the series of posts where JJ 'changed his mind/recanted', he did nothing of the sort!

First, he gave an unequivocal answer about sunder, including using 'attack action' as it always had been used, ie attack/full attack/AoO/etc.

Then he was told that JB had recently said that 'attack action' equals exclusively 'standard action'.

Quite naturally, JJ didn't think that this was the appropriate medium to disagree with JB, so bowed out of the debate and recommended creating a thread that could be FAQed. That is not the same as 'changing his mind'!

Since then, JJ has had plenty of time to consider his views on 'attack action', and even talk to JB and/or SKR about it. After all that, he said, YESTERDAYish, that not only was sunder able to replace any attack, that 'attack action' is basically a synonym for 'weapon-like attack'.

JJ has not shown any evidence of 'changing his mind' on these issues of 'sunder' or 'attack action'.


You mean he has not changed him mind since yesterday. In one of his post he did admit that he may have been wrong.

At first he said sunder was ok with a full attack action

Later a post present the evidence of an attack action being a standard action so he changed his stance.

Then yesterday he gave a completely different answer again.

That amounts to "changing your mind".


wraithstrike wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I'm seeing explanations for how your rules interpretations work with other aspects of the rules. I'm not seeing an explanation of why. What is leading you to the belief that the devs thought sunder was too (whatever) to use in a full attack, but okay to combine with vital strike or cleave?

We are not saying RAI that sunder was not intended to work with a full attack. We are saying that as it is written it does not work in our opinion.

What part of our rules interpretations did you not understand or believe? Calling those out would help. If you don't call out something specific we can't really give a better explanation because we will assume you either understood it or accepted it.

Quote:
This is an extremely specific claim with little to no proof and relies on a lot of assumptions. If sunder we're to be a unique case, why wouldn't they word it more carefully, instead of using what is commonly considered sloppy language (which most rules causing confusion with the phrase 'attack action' being identified as unintended and a little sloppy).

Personally I think it is a bad idea to use the term "attack action" anywhere in the book as part of official instructions without defining it "in the book". We do have the devs quote on what action it uses though, so that is all we can go by.

Quote:


I have been willing to see your guys point. I readily admit, it's possible sunder is intended to be used alone. I think the pro-standard action side has to do a lot more twisting to validate their point...

Read this.

I agree, attack action isn't clearly defined in the book, I also don't think it should be a term at all. Abilities and feats that require an action should reference one of the six that already exist.

Even if Attack Action gets defined, you don't get one Attack Action per round. You use a Standard Action to use an Attack Action which makes an attack. That seems like you could just skip a step in the rules process and just list an attack as one of your options when using a Standard Action.


An attack action is not an action though. It just has the word "action" in it. I also think the name was a bad idea.

From a rules point of view an attack action is an option that uses a standard action, just like casting most spells uses a standard action. I doubt they will reword it though so I don't get hung up on the name.

If it makes parsing the rules easier replace "Attack action" with "single attack". That is how I see it anyway. I just know that "single attack" uses a standard action and allows it to stack with other things.


Irontruth wrote:

Hah, hadn't seen that FoB specifically calls out sunder as usable during a full attack.

I still haven't seen a very convincing argument for why sunder language is more similar to trip and disarm, but should be treated like Overrun. You guys have a long and convoluted one. If they intended it to work like Overrun, Grapple or Bull Rush, why would they use the language from trip/disarm?

You guys might be right, but I'm very amused at how adamant you are. Many of you are so strongly, unwilling to see how you might be wrong.

We're not ignoring any of your points. We can all see that Sunder has worked the way you say it does for a long time. It's just that with the recent clarifications about attack action, there is now a conflict in the rules if sunder continues to work that way. The attack action clarification is valuable. I don't want to go back to having an ill-defined term at the heart of the game mechanics just to keep one combat maneuver working the way it always did. They either have to remove the attack action from sunder, or sunder doesn't work that way any more.


I haven't looked at this thread since the third post - can one of your guys summarize the progress that you have made in the last 732 posts?


Grimmy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Hah, hadn't seen that FoB specifically calls out sunder as usable during a full attack.

I still haven't seen a very convincing argument for why sunder language is more similar to trip and disarm, but should be treated like Overrun. You guys have a long and convoluted one. If they intended it to work like Overrun, Grapple or Bull Rush, why would they use the language from trip/disarm?

You guys might be right, but I'm very amused at how adamant you are. Many of you are so strongly, unwilling to see how you might be wrong.

We're not ignoring any of your points. We can all see that Sunder has worked the way you say it does for a long time. It's just that with the recent clarifications about attack action, there is now a conflict in the rules if sunder continues to work that way. The attack action clarification is valuable. I don't want to go back to having an ill-defined term at the heart of the game mechanics just to keep one combat maneuver working the way it always did. They either have to remove the attack action from sunder, or sunder doesn't work that way any more.

And the problem is using a strict definition of a term after it was used in the book without that definition in place when the book was written. Which is why I dislike these legalese treatments of the rules and outside documents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
IronTruth wrote:
If they intended it to work like Overrun, Grapple or Bull Rush, why would they use the language from trip/disarm?

Sunder is most similar to Charging Bullrush, just with different specified actions, while Trip/Disarm don't specify actions. Trip/Disarm have language indicating they use a weapon, or can be made when an attack (using a weapon) would otherwise occur, regardless of action type. If another maneuver does specify an action, I would regard that to be valid... Just like saying 'whenever I punch a guy, I knock him out' is distinct from 'whenever I punch a guy after spinning around 5 times, I knock him out'. ('spinning around 5 times' being equivalent to using a specific action)

Discussion of RAW is inherently going to be a 'legalistic' activity. If you don't like that, great, just don't pretend that you can participate in a discussion of RAW. I've repeatedly seen you use 'attack' when you meant to say 'attack action', and just recently you suggested that others (on the attack action side) were claiming that Sunder was usable with Cleave, which is a total butchering of their position. You've also expressed that you don't believe others have expressed WHY Sunder would have the 'in place of melee attack' wording, when the exact functional benefit of doing so (using weapon bonuses and reach qualities) has in fact been directly laid out - for you to ignore. That comes off to me as either utter incompetence at rules issues, or extremely bad faith, or both.

wraithstrike wrote:

An attack action is not an action though. It just has the word "action" in it. I also think the name was a bad idea.

From a rules point of view an attack action is an option that uses a standard action

It certainly is an action. The named actions on the Table of Actions in Combat, also described in the text, indeed ARE the actions that one takes in the game. They are all categorized according to TYPES of actions, which standard and move are examples of.

PRD wrote:

Action Types

An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.

Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly to make an attack or cast a spell. See Table: Actions in Combat for other standard actions.

Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat for other move actions.

The stuff on the Table are actions. Standard/Move/etc are TYPES of actions.

Recall abilities that say 'as a standard action': they don't say 'as THE standard action' because 'standard action' isn't an actual action, but rather, is an action TYPE. "As *A* Standard Action" is properly referencing that Standard Action is the type, of which the given example action (for the ability) is but one example/member of.

The phrase 'attack action' (or more accurately 'attack' action) uses the EXACT same format as 'full-attack action' or 'withdraw action' etc are referenced by. I don't see why 'attack action' isn't exactly the correct way to refer to the action named attack. I mean, do you have trouble understanding what a 'diesel engine' means vs. 'an engine that uses diesel'? Actions as a whole are a well defined concept in game, so appeareance of the phrase 'action' shouldn't cause confusion. Honestly, given there is only one action named 'attack', I would say the phrase 'attack action' is LESS confusing than 'move action' which is both a specific action AND an action type (which said action belongs to).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quandary wrote:-

' ...so appeareance of the phrase 'action' shouldn't cause confusion...'

I bet you 739 posts that it does!


FYI, I have no idea what RAI is.
Maybe the wording is a mistake. But that could be true of ANY wording.
So in the meantime, I will just go by the RAW.
Just going on the RAW, it can and does work fine as-is for this specific topic, albeit I would make some editing changes to make things clearer, and to remove problems in OTHER areas.
There is certainly plausible reasons why Paizo would want to limit Sunder to the Standard "Attack" Action, albeit if they changed the RAW to work like Trip/Disarm that of course would work as well (likewise, they chould change Disarm to work like Sunder if they wanted that).


Humphrey Boggard wrote:
I haven't looked at this thread since the third post - can one of your guys summarize the progress that you have made in the last 732 posts?

Okay, let me know when you guys reach a conclusion.


60 FAQs...

Shadow Lodge

Grick wrote:


Wraith235 wrote:

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

It doesn't replace the attack roll, it replaces the attack.

your mostly right - it does not replace the attack action - if it did it would be a standard action (as per Bull Rush / Overrun / Grapple)

Attack - as per RAW in the CRB has NOTHING to do with dealing Damage - it means DID you hit

Sunder - AS PART of an attack action ... IN PLACE OF a melee attack - the Attack Roll Remains the same .. the effect is changed ... the damage is calculated normally

I see what you are claiming .. that sunder is its own standard action ... if that were the case See Bull Rush and Grapple - those Specifically state they are standard actions and therefore Replace both the Roll and the effect

Grick wrote:
Overhand Chop (and Vital Strike) are both contingent on the attack in the attack action landing. If you miss, you don't get that damage. If the attack is negated due to a parry or something, you don't get that damage.

Mostly Correct ... they are Contingent on the Attack Roll hitting... if you miss you dont deal damage

Grick wrote:
And if the entire attack itself is replaced with something else (like a Sunder attempt), you don't get that damage.

The entire attack itself is NOT Being Replaced

I see nowhere that Sunder REPLACES YOUR ATTACK ACTION which is what you are claiming ... it is used AS PART of an attack action IN PLACE of a melee attack - that is NOT the same thing as replacing the attack action

Attack Action is Defined as-
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can
strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet
are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have
reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical
reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but
you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet)

1 I take an attack action
2 as part of the attack action I will Sunder
3 in place of the melee attack I make a Combat Maneuver check
4a I missed
4b I Hit and I roll Damage
5a it was the only attack I made this round and it was made with the attack action so I roll Damage to the weapon and add Double my strength
5b it was the only attack I made this round and it was made with the attack action so I roll Damage to the weapon and add an additional Weapon damage die (or dice depending on the weapon)

That is RAW

Grick wrote:
The attack that Vital Strike and Overhand Chop apply to doesn't happen. It's replaced by a Sunder. That sunder attempt deals damage normally.

again Sunder - By RAW is not its own action - it MODIFIES the attack action and is used IN PLACE of a Melee attack

Wraith235 wrote:
it says makes a SINGLE attack .. and as we discovered above .. an attack must take place on your turn (AoO are seperate entities)..
Grick wrote:

Attacks of Opportunity: "An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack"

As you can see, an AoO is an attack, and it can happen outside your turn.

If you mean "an attack action must take place on your turn" then yes, that's true of all standard actions.

Which by the definition disallows you from using overhand chop / Vital Strike / Sunder (tho theres an argument here based on shoddy wording) on an AoO because you cannot take the prerequisite Attack action - which is a type of standard action

Grick wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:
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)
Ok. He makes an attack of opportunity, dealing normal damage because it's not an attack action or charge. Or he uses Spring Attack making a single melee attack during his move, dealing normal damage because it's not an attack action or charge. Deadly Stroke...

ok you got me on some of my own wording there ... I'll give you the points

Spring attack - Errata Turnd this into a full round action which does not include an Attack Action - which is a type of standarad action

Deadly stroke - "as a standard action" which means it is it Own action

EVERY PIECE of Errata Says that Vital Strike Cannot be used in conjunction with an ability that also uses a Standard action or a full round action

Explixitly

Overhand Chop says when you when you make a Single attack USING an Attack Action

Same With Vital Strike - When you use THE ATTACK ACTION

a Sunder attempt USES the Attack Action

That is RAW ... Not RAI ...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Wraith235 wrote:


Attack Action is Defined as-

This is not in the book.

Wraith235 wrote:


Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can
strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet
are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have
reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical
...

This is in the book - note that it doesn't say attack action. It says only making an attack.

(lord help me but I'm going to do a little hyperbole here - as the last time it blew up in my face I'm going to preface it this time so people might understand the point I'm trying to make by taking this 'attack is a standard action' to the extreme)

If you want to be literal about it RAW all attacks are standard actions (including AoO's) because that's exactly what's written in the text.

'That of course is silly because you can't take standard actions in a full round action!' - and whatever I say - if you are going to go on about RAW then read the text - it's 100% plain and un-ambiguous. The rest of us will continue to understand that this doesn't make all attacks standard actions in the same way that it doesn't invent a new type of action that only defines one type of attack.

People who see 'attack action' like this seem to also understand that the clarification from vital strike was to make sure you couldn't combine vital strike with other actions that take the place of a standard action, not to redefine attacks.

That's the heart of the difference between the two camps. If this is ever actually replied to with an official answer one side will be wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:


Attack Action is Defined as-

This is not in the book.

Wraith235 wrote:


Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can
strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet
are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have
reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical
...
This is in the book - note that it doesn't say attack action. It says only making an attack.

Ok. Lets do a comparison here. It has been claimed that the phrase 'Attack action' refers to the standard action named Attack and it's called 'Attack action' under various abilities (Sunder, VS, etc) to distinguish it from the generic English term, 'attack' (note, lower-case rather than capitalized). You, however, cite the above passage from the Combat section and say that the phrase 'Attack action' has no meaning; this is a definition for just Attack.

Lets look at another standard action; Total Defense.

CRB wrote:

Total Defense

You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.

You'll notice that, in the Combat section, the actual defined term is Total Defense. It does not say Total Defense action. However...

UC wrote:
Shield of Blades (Ex): At 15th level, the cavalier gains an expert sense of impending violence around him. When taking the total defense action, the cavalier can extend his protection to those around him, granting a +2 circumstance bonus to AC to all adjacent allies. In addition, while taking the total defense action, as an immediate action, the cavalier can attempt to deflect an attack by making an attack roll opposed by the attacker's original attack roll. If successful, the attack is deflected and deals no damage.

and

UM wrote:
Serenity: You fill the targets' minds with feelings of tranquility. Those attempting to commit violence become stricken with wracking pain and take 3d6 points of nonlethal damage each round they attempt to harm another creature. If attacked, affected individuals can defend themselves and may participate in combat by using Combat Expertise, fighting defensively, or taking the total defense action without triggering the spell's nonlethal damage.

and

ARG wrote:
Uncanny Defense (Combat): While fighting defensively or taking the total defense action, you gain a bonus on your Reflex saving throws and to your CMD equal to 1/2 of the dodge bonus to AC you gained from taking that action.

Where is this term, Total Defense Action defined in any book? A search for "Total Defense Action" in the PRD comes up with 18 search results but none of them define the term... they just refer to it in description of a spell, feat, or other ability. I see an entry for a standard action called Total Defense in the Combat section but no such entry for Total Defense Action. Do you see the problem here in claiming that Attack Action is not a valid PF system term because only Attack is defined under the combat section?

Here lies the controversy
over 'Attack' vs 'Attack action'
in eternal repose.
May it R.I.P.

Shadow Lodge

Ckorik wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:


Attack Action is Defined as-

This is not in the book.

Wraith235 wrote:


Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can
strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet
are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have
reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical
...

This is in the book - note that it doesn't say attack action. It says only making an attack.

(lord help me but I'm going to do a little hyperbole here - as the last time it blew up in my face I'm going to preface it this time so people might understand the point I'm trying to make by taking this 'attack is a standard action' to the extreme)

If you want to be literal about it RAW all attacks are standard actions (including AoO's) because that's exactly what's written in the text.

'That of course is silly because you can't take standard actions in a full round action!' - and whatever I say - if you are going to go on about RAW then read the text - it's 100% plain and un-ambiguous. The rest of us will continue to understand that this doesn't make all attacks standard actions in the same way that it doesn't invent a new type of action that only defines one type of attack.

People who see 'attack action' like this seem to also understand that the clarification from vital strike was to make sure you couldn't combine vital strike with other actions that take the place of a standard action, not to redefine attacks.

That's the heart of the difference between the two camps. If this is ever actually replied to with an official answer one side will be wrong.

I will clarify

on Page 181 we have "Actions In Combat"

In standard Actions - PG 182

ATTACK (which it does say Making an attack is a standard action)
-Melee Attacks (which is defined by what is quoted above)

-Unarmed Attacks
----Attacks of Opportunity (Which covers how Unarmed attacks Provoke)
----"Armed" Unarmed Attacks(Which Covers IUS, Monks, Spellcasters delivering Touch spells"
----Unarmed Strike Damage (Which covers how much damage an unarmed strike deals based on Size and Strength)
----Dealing Lethal Damage (which covers how to do it without IUS)

-Ranged Attacks
-Natural Attacks
-Multiple Attacks - See Full attack Action (Full round actions)
-Fighting Defensivly as a standard Action

Then we have Magic stuff

then we come down to Move Actions on Pg 186
(which I will skip since they dont apply to this debate)

and then to Full Round Actions on pg 187

- Full Attack (which Covers having more than 1 attack per round due to High Base attack, Multiple weapons, or for some other special reason) which is NOT a standard action anymore ... it is a FULL ROUND Action

then more magic stuff
then Movement stuff

then Free and Swift Actions on pg 188
Immediate Actions pg 189
and then Miscellaneous

Hmm wait ... AoO's don't appear in the "Actions in Combat" Segment .. where are they ? OH Look before that section in
"How Combat Works"

Huh - who knew

AoO's aren't a standard, Move, Full Round, Swift, or Immediate,

In fact when reading "Making AoO's" they "Interrupt the Normal flow of actions in the round" if an AoO is provoked, Immediately resolve the AoO then continue with the next characters turn (or complete the current turn, if the AoO was provoked in the midst of a characters turn)

so no ... RAW does Not allow interpretation of Multiple attacks being Multiple attack Actions (or Multiple Standard actions)

Nor does it allow AoO's to be considered attack actions (or standard actions)

the reason I argue RAW is people can Argue RAI till the cows come home and Rot

My PERSONAL Opinion - is that Sunders SHOULD be able to be done like trip / disarm ect - but I am just not seeing it

and it would be easy if it were 2 sides ...
its at least 3 ...

the - NO to everything (standard action and thats all there is to it)- camp
the - Intended to be used like trip / disarm - camp

and the Inbetweeners (a combination of the 2 groups)

Kazaan wrote:

Ok. Lets do a comparison here. It has been claimed that the phrase 'Attack action' refers to the standard action named Attack and it's called 'Attack action' under various abilities (Sunder, VS, etc) to distinguish it from the generic English term, 'attack' (note, lower-case rather than capitalized). You, however, cite the above passage from the Combat section and say that the phrase 'Attack action' has no meaning; this is a definition for just Attack.

Lets look at another standard action; Total Defense.

CRB wrote:
Total Defense

You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.
You'll notice that, in the Combat section, the actual defined term is Total Defense. It does not say Total Defense action. However...

UC wrote:
Shield of Blades (Ex): At 15th level, the cavalier gains an expert sense of impending violence around him. When taking the total defense action, the cavalier can extend his protection to those around him, granting a +2 circumstance bonus to AC to all adjacent allies. In addition, while taking the total defense action, as an immediate action, the cavalier can attempt to deflect an attack by making an attack roll opposed by the attacker's original attack roll. If successful, the attack is deflected and deals no damage.
and

UM wrote:
Serenity: You fill the targets' minds with feelings of tranquility. Those attempting to commit violence become stricken with wracking pain and take 3d6 points of nonlethal damage each round they attempt to harm another creature. If attacked, affected individuals can defend themselves and may participate in combat by using Combat Expertise, fighting defensively, or taking the total defense action without triggering the spell's nonlethal damage.
and

ARG wrote:
Uncanny Defense (Combat): While fighting defensively or taking the total defense action, you gain a bonus on your Reflex saving throws and to your CMD equal to 1/2 of the dodge bonus to AC you gained from taking that action.
Where is this term, Total Defense Action defined in any book? A search for "Total Defense Action" in the PRD comes up with 18 search results but none of them define the term... they just refer to it in description of a spell, feat, or other ability. I see an entry for a standard action called Total Defense in the Combat section but no such entry for Total Defense Action. Do you see the problem here in claiming that Attack Action is not a valid PF system term because only Attack is defined under the combat section?

Here lies the controversy
over 'Attack' vs 'Attack action'
in eternal repose.
May it R.I.P.

I love it

Sarcasm on
tho sadly I fear you have broken Total defense and 3 other abilities


Wraith235 wrote:

Sarcasm on

tho sadly I fear you have broken Total defense and 3 other abilities

Only 3? Did you miss the part where I said I found it a total of 18 times? It gets even worse than that, though. "Aid Another action" appears 19 times. "Feint Action", 7 times. "Charge action", 16. I just broke 60 abilities right there.[/sarcasm]

Shadow Lodge

Kazaan wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

Sarcasm on

tho sadly I fear you have broken Total defense and 3 other abilities
Only 3? Did you miss the part where I said I found it a total of 18 times?

no I didn't ... but its easier to reference what is in front of my face


Kazaan wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

Sarcasm on

tho sadly I fear you have broken Total defense and 3 other abilities
Only 3? Did you miss the part where I said I found it a total of 18 times? It gets even worse than that, though. "Aid Another action" appears 19 times. "Feint Action", 7 times. "Charge action", 16. I just broke 60 abilities right there.[/sarcasm]

Heh, I wonder how many times the full attack action comes up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:


Ok. Lets do a comparison here. It has been claimed that the phrase 'Attack action' refers to the standard action named Attack and it's called 'Attack action' under various abilities (Sunder, VS, etc) to distinguish it from the generic English term, 'attack' (note, lower-case rather than capitalized). You, however, cite the above passage from the Combat section and say that the phrase 'Attack action' has no meaning; this is a definition for just Attack.

No - you might want to re-read what I said as you apparently read my last post opposite of how it was intended

My position is that 'attack action' is simple english for exactly that - any action that is an attack.

My position (and the position of *many* others - I am happy to concede that your position has many adherents but by this thread alone you must concede that many people read it the way I do) is that all attacks are 'attack actions' and that the vital strike ruling was only clarifying that a feat that makes an attack is incompatible with other actions that use a standard action.

My position is that 'attack action' as you claim the definition is not defined in the RAW or the RAI.

This last point - is the point you keep changing.

If your definition of 'attack action' is incorrect then sunder works just fine as written and like it did in 3.5 etc.

While I disagree with your definition should whatever clarification happens say it is correct then I'll concede that sunder as written is not correct.

Dose this clear up the argument here? You keep quoting me and then try to tell me why 'attack action' has to mean what you say.

I keep saying 'no it doesn't - because it's never been defined that way' - don't bother with the quotes because we'll go back to the circular argument over the word type which is why I think this definition is wrong. I take the position that the quotes from vital strike fit my position without changing the text of the book.

Finally, it is my opinion the position that 'attack action' is well defined can not be backed up by any source - including dev quotes on the forums.

I say this because the quote about vital strike was in 2009. It's 2012 now and we are on the 5th printing of the CRB - if it was meant to be defined it would have been changed to define the term considering all the confusion it causes.

At this point after the vital strike ruling having to go back to dev quotes to define 'The attack action' should not happen. So my position is that trying to re-interpret things is a stretch that requires out of book knowledge to even understand.

701 to 750 of 1,171 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 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.