Malachi the attack action can not be folded into the a full attack. You either take the attack and move or you take the full attack, but we went over that in the other thread, which shall not be named, but I am waiting for an answer on. :)
When you attack (in the sense of the kind of attack that would lose you your invisibility), that doesn't imply the attack 'action'
I agree attack and attack action are not the same thing.
'Attack' is pretty much the same word we all know and love. We can find it's definiton in the dictionary.
The action which is called 'attack' is however very specifically a standard action.
The action which is called 'full attack' does not refer to the action called 'attack' because it's an action itself.
it can't be coupled with a standard
Coupled or folded or snuggling or colluding.
Standard action + Full-Round Actions = bad.
Standard action + move action = good.
move action + Full-Round Action = bad.
Move action + Standard action = good.
The attack action is a standard action.The cast a spell action is a standard action.
The activate magic item action is a standard action
The use spell-like ability is a standard action.
All by the very same rules.
But they're not all exclusively standard actions, and we all know it.
Did anybody else read this to themselves in John Locke's voice from Lost? :D
You can apparently attack with a cast a spell action. But you think this not an attack. But it is. But it's not.
LOL - this is the same reaction I have when you try to call actions non actions.
So, while the term 'attack action' is never defined as distinct from the 'attack' meant by this kind of action, it is distinct from just any old attack. That's why the term 'attack action' is ever used at all!
Attack action is defined in the Actions section of the rules.
Attack rolls along with damage rolls are defined in a previous section of the combat chapter, several sections before the Actions section.That would count as being distinctly defined.
People have mentioned several uses of the Attack action, RD said there was about 20 usages he found.
(which is probably more than the majority of named actions listed on the Actions in Combat Table)
Seriously, posting stuff like this that anybody can trivially show is just outright false just undermines any credibility your argument may have.
During one turn, there are a wide variety of actions that your character can perform, from swinging a sword to casting a spell.
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.
AoOs aren't actions per the rules. They aren't done during one's turn, and don't have any action type.
LOL - this is the same reaction I have when you try to call actions non actions.
I don't try to call actions nonactions.
I've never called AoO an action.
AoO isn't listed as an action anywhere.
Because it isn't.
You should really read the Rules of the game.
People have mentioned several uses of the Attack action, RD said there was about 20 usages he found.
It's actually a little over 10. Many of them have been errata'd out over the years. You only get close to 20 if you are using outdated PDFs (which I apparently as when I posted that number).
I find the fact that they are trying to eliminate it to be quite telling.
LOL - this is the same reaction I have when you try to call actions non actions.I don't try to call actions nonactions.
I've never called AoO an action.
AoO isn't listed as an action anywhere.
Because it isn't.
You should really read the Rules of the game.
It's frustrating that when I post how in 3.5 sunder was used in a full attack - people jump all over me for using rules that aren't pathfinder - but when it's used to backup the opposite opinion everyone is fine with it.
You are calling it 'the attack action' - and I'm saying no such thing. I see the following actions 'defined' as special in the CRB:
(truncated)
Action Types:
Standard Action: (in my CRB this is bold and listed as a heading)
Move Action: (same)
Full-Round Action: (same)
Free Action: (same)
Swift Action: (same)
Immediate Action: (same)
Not an Action: (same)
Restricted Activity: (same)
That's it. Speaking to your point above - the Pathfinder CRB gives the following definitions for 'not an action'
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are
not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take
any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of
doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of
an attack with a bow.No Action
Delay
5-foot step
Attacks of opportunity are outside of the 'actions in combat' definition so they are special - but the Combat Maneuvers section says that a CM must be used as an action and lists 'attack of opportunity' as a type of action they can be used with. So I'll go ahead and state (without looking up previous definitions) that AoO's are actions as pathfinder rules define them - they just are outside of the 'defined actions' list for combat.
Going further I note that no other actions are listed as legal - everything else has to be a type (there is that word again) of other action that is listed above. Calling attacks 'attack actions' is just defining the activity that you are doing - the actual type of action it is using changes depending on how the attack is progressed.
Then again - that's true of every action. 5 foot step takes the place of move for instance - but can still be used in a full round action (unlike a move). Attacks take a standard action - but can be used in a full round action. Spells can take a Swift action, a Standard action, a full round action, or multiple full round actions depending on the spell being cast. Without pointing outside the book - how do you claim that attack is special and different than everything else in the combat section?
That's my problem here - 5 printings with full errata and no change to anything above - it seems to me that when you say type of standard action they aren't making 'the attack action' be special - they are saying that attacks uses your standard action at minimum. That fits the rules as written without having to go redefine terms, words, and actions to fit the text.
People have mentioned several uses of the Attack action, RD said there was about 20 usages he found.It's actually a little over 10. Many of them have been errata'd out over the years. You only get close to 20 if you are using outdated PDFs (which I apparently as when I posted that number).
I find the fact that they are trying to eliminate it to be quite telling.
That would be an assumption. You have to look at how it interacted with other feats to see why the change. :)
It's frustrating that when I post how in 3.5 sunder was used in a full attack - people jump all over me for using rules that aren't pathfinder - but when it's used to backup the opposite opinion everyone is fine with it.LOL - this is the same reaction I have when you try to call actions non actions.I don't try to call actions nonactions.
I've never called AoO an action.
AoO isn't listed as an action anywhere.
Because it isn't.
You should really read the Rules of the game.
You are only frustrated because you are not paying attention. 3.5 sunder is not accepted because it does not read the same.
For the attack action the phrase was not printed in the 3.5 of PF rule book. However both Skip and Jason have said it is a standard action. As you can see one is consistent and the other is not. The same logic applies with any other rules when trying to use 3.5 to clarify PF rules.
Another poster also brought the use of aid another action and total defense action, which also are not in the book. Don't forget full attack action. Are you going to say you don't know the intent of those either?
I also explained why an AoO is not an action. Do you need for me to give you a link to that?
edit:I might have explained the AoO's in the other thread.
It's frustrating that when I post how in 3.5 sunder was used in a full attack - people jump all over me for using rules that aren't pathfinder - but when it's used to backup the opposite opinion everyone is fine with it.
Sunder can be used with a full attack action in 3.5, and I suspect that it was also intended for it to work that way in pathfinder but they left in the word "attack action."
I'm fairly sure they will remove the words "as part of an attack action" from the description to Sunder.
You are calling it 'the attack action' - and I'm saying no such thing.
Your saying there is no such thing as an attack action?
So I'll go ahead and state (without looking up previous definitions) that AoO's are actions as pathfinder rules define them - they just are outside of the 'defined actions' list for combat.
If they are defined as actions outside of the "action types" section there where?
If AoO is a action what type of action is it?
Is it a Standard Action?
Is it a Move Action?
Is it a Full-Round Action?
Is it a Free Action?
Is it a Swift Action?
Is it a Immediate Action?
Since it doesn't fit the definition for any of these actions I pretty sure that means it isn't an action.
5 foot step takes the place of move for instance.
A 5-foot step is a move but it isn't a move action. It isn't an action at all.
Attacks take a standard action - but can be used in a full round action.
Attack actions take a standard action.
Attacks don't require any type of action.
Otherwise Full attack actions would contain multiple standard actions.
Remember what the book says about actions:
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round)
If each attack was the same amount of time as a standard action.
Since at least 4 attacks can happen(from the same weapon) in a Full attack action that would imply that a Full attack action was 4 times as long as a Standard action.
This even get more ridiculousness when you consider Two weapon fighting and Multiple Arms. Imagine a Xills Full attack action as 10 times as long as a standard action.
If you think this is ridiculous... So do I.
That's my problem here - 5 printings with full errata and no change to anything above - it seems to me that when you say type of standard action they aren't making 'the attack action' be special - they are saying that attacks uses your standard action at minimum. That fits the rules as written without having to go redefine terms, words, and actions to fit the text.
I don't think that the attack action is simply a type of Standard action.
I think it is a standard action.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
I don't think that every attack is a standard action. If I did AoO wouldn't work and neither would a Full Attack action.
I think that attack actions are Standard actions because that is how they are defined.
I think it is a standard action.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
I don't think that every attack is a standard action. If I did AoO wouldn't work and neither would a Full Attack action.
I think that attack actions are Standard actions because that is how they are defined.
In the same section (under standard actions) it says:
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
So 'a' Cast a Spell action is a standard action by your definition. This is exactly how you just justified 'an attack action'.
If you are trying to say the text under spell makes it a qualified action - then you'd have to say what you are trying to define can't be 'an attack action' but instead 'making an attack' action.
Otherwise the title of the action is what's giving you the defining characteristic of 'an attack action'
Same with 'use a special ability' - both 'cast a spell' and 'use a special ability' are defined in two places. Which doesn't work if you use the same rules you are using to define 'attack action'.
That's the problem. Saying all attacks are attack actions isn't trying to define the actions within the 'big framework' just like saying AoO is an action doesn't define it in the 'big framework'. An AoO is an action - by the rules of the English language and the definition of 'action' your character isn't standing still and not moving during the AoO so it's an 'action' - no one is trying to call it 'standard' or anything here.
If you can explain to me how 'attack' under standard action defines 'an attack action' (when that's not stated under the heading) and 'cast a spell' doesn't do the same thing then I might even be convinced - but I'm reading it and I don't see it.
#123#
Making a #123# is a standard action....
Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one #123 per round must use the #ABC# action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one #123.
...
#ABC#
If you get more than one #123 per round because your base #123 bonus is high enough (see Base #123 Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional #123s. You do not need to specify the targets of your #123 ahead of time. You can see how the earlier #123s turn out before assigning the later ones....
Deciding between a #123 or a #ABC#: After your first #123, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining #123s, depending on how the first #123 turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
...
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of a #123# action in place of a melee #123.
And if you read it like above it makes perfect sense.
Couldn't help but share this, from the latest Kobold Quarterly (#23).
To balance the new rules ... sunder becomes a standard action rather than part of a melee attack.
So 'a' Cast a Spell action is a standard action by your definition. This is exactly how you just justified 'an attack action'.
yes casting a spell is a Standard action.
And casting a spell can also be a Full-round action.and casting a spell can also be a swift action.
Spells however aren't actions really. Spells are spells. They can be cast using the appropriate action they require.
This seems like a ridiculous argument.
An AoO is an action - by the rules of the English language and the definition of 'action' your character isn't standing still and not moving during the AoO so it's an 'action' - no one is trying to call it 'standard' or anything here.
What type of action is it? It has to be one to the action types or it isn't an action. Not as far at the game mechanic are concerned anyway.
If your argument is that any movement is an action that gets ridiculous quickly.
knocking an arrow is also an action
moving your left foot is also an action
moving your right foot is an action
moving your sword up is an action
moving your sword down is an action
Dodging a blow is also an action
And each of these action could be further broken down into billions more. This is kind of why actions are defined andorganised/separated.
Attack doesn't have this problem. Although I'm sure you'll do your best to prove me wrong.
I might even be convinced - but I'm reading it and I don't see it.
I have given up on convincing you. If you post something that is wrong I'll point it out. I don't like people spreading false information on "Rules Questions".
I also like a good argument, but I truly think you are unwilling to take this seriously.
All right, here is a request. If anyone is going to claim that attacks of opportunity are actions I am going to ask that they also give the type of action. Due to the interaction of immediate actions it is of vital importance for the type of each action to be well defined.
I wish I had thought of that. I have an idea of what to expect though.
All right, here is a request. If anyone is going to claim that attacks of opportunity are actions I am going to ask that they also give the type of action. Due to the interaction of immediate actions it is of vital importance for the type of each action to be well defined.
Hrmmm I have said now twice they are untyped according to the 'types' of combat actions - and that they are special - that doesn't make them less of an action, it just makes them special.
If you want to define them we'll go to the RAW... what does it have to say about it.
Attacks of Opportunity
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or
takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her
can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for
free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.
See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of
how they work.
If you wanted to nail me down to requiring a specific definition of a combat type based on all actions fitting the combat types section - I would use your own view of how 'an attack action' is being defined to read the 'attacks of opportunity' section.
As they are called 'free attacks' - I'd say they fit into the 'free action' type.
But again that's using... common sense and how the language normally works -
If your argument is that any movement is an action that gets ridiculous quickly
Actually those are defined under the combat section as well and they are typed - as 'non-actions' which is a type of action (bizarre enough) that are meant to classify things that don't matter to combat.
knocking an arrow is also an action
That's even used as a specific example.
Actually those are defined under the combat section as well and they are typed - as 'non-actions' which is a type of action (bizarre enough) that are meant to classify things that don't matter to combat.
No, they are not.
Here is a challenge.
Using the text in the PRD prove that "Non-actions" are actions.
I'll give you a hint "Non-actions" don't appear in the text anywhere.
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
And "No Action" is listed under "Table: Actions in Combat"
I suppose it's not out of the realms of possibility that the devs could have created the Interrupt action type to account for AoOs and the Ready action, but that would add a seventh action type to the game, when it's not really necessary just for two very specific actions (design principle KISS violated).
As it stands, an AoO is definitely an action (being something that a character does using a game mechanic), however it does not use one of the defined action types to do it (case in point: what action type does it take to use Perform to earn money? You're playing an instrument for a significant period of time, but the rules don't mention whether you're using a standard, full-round, free, swift, immediate or move action during the performance, so clearly it's NOT an action, so a paralysed Bard can still earn money!).
The advantage of an RPG is that there is a GM to adjudicate, but I am well aware that this is the rules forum and here RAW is king. I don't think any of us would dispute that there are problems with the RAW, either because they contradict themselves, make no sense, or have multiple interpretations.
Personally, I'm going to assume that Sunder referring to "attack action" is an error until clarification is provided.
My take-away from all this is that two words are overused in the rules: attack and action (not to mention level). It's why I'm going to continue casually lobbying for a change in terminology for "make an attack roll" (as usual, knowing full well what a nightmare job the Errata would be) to something else (I still like "strike") because it would allow the term "attack action" to have only one possible meaning: A standard action used to make a single attack roll.
|
That is like saying a BMW is a type of automobile, but it is not always an automobile. The word "type" refers to a form of sub-categorization. If you are in a subcategory of something you are still that thing.Another example is that a laptop is type of computer. I am sure that all laptop are computers.
I understand what you are saying, but you chose a bad example.
A BMW is a type of automobile, but as any motorcyclist will tell you, not all BMW's are automobiles. Sometimes they are motorcycles.
After reading through this thread, I think that we are all just running around the mulberry bush waiting for the weasel to pop out.
FAQ'ed.
Actually those are defined under the combat section as well and they are typed - as 'non-actions' which is a type of action (bizarre enough) that are meant to classify things that don't matter to combat.No, they are not.
Here is a challenge.
Using the text in the PRD prove that "Non-actions" are actions.
I'll give you a hint "Non-actions" don't appear in the text anywhere.
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.And "No Action" is listed under "Table: Actions in Combat"
You are correct - I didn't cut/paste the action type and called it the wrong thing. They are still considered actions, just not tracked by the combat system. That would be what considered an inherent part of doing something else means in this context - sometimes common sense wins out.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK. To finally put to rest the issue between Attack and Attack Action:
You think that people who weren't convinced by the Lead Designer saying it three different times are going to be convinced when they have to do the logic themselves?
That is like saying a BMW is a type of automobile, but it is not always an automobile. The word "type" refers to a form of sub-categorization. If you are in a subcategory of something you are still that thing.Another example is that a laptop is type of computer. I am sure that all laptop are computers.
I understand what you are saying, but you chose a bad example.
A BMW is a type of automobile, but as any motorcyclist will tell you, not all BMW's are automobiles. Sometimes they are motorcycles.
After reading through this thread, I think that we are all just running around the mulberry bush waiting for the weasel to pop out.
FAQ'ed.
I used laptop just in case they did make motorcycles, and someone wanted to argue semantics, and ignore the point. :)
OK. To finally put to rest the issue between Attack and Attack Action:
Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces armor training 1.
If the attack at the end of Charge were an attack action (using Ckorik's, Malachi's, et al. generic meaning of the term), then why does Overhand Chop need to specify the attack performed as part of a charge as something distinct from an attack action? Overhand Chop only need specify a single attack with the attack action, by your definition, and that would encompass all single-attacks (charge, attack as a standard action, AoO, Free attack from Spellstrike, etc). But, instead, it specifies two separate actions; one being the Attack action and the other being a standard action that is claimed to involve making a generic attack action.
It's like saying, "All cake has sugar. Cakes with frosting also have sugar." If all cakes already have sugar, you need not specify that a cake has sugar because of the addition of frosting.
As an aside, if they really are dodging the issue by just making Sunder a standard attack (which, mind you, would indicate it was their intent all along that it does not work in full-attacks) it still leaves the open problem lying on the table: What constitutes and what does not constitute, officially speaking, an 'Attack action'?
I brought this up pages ago. Nobody even replied to it. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they missed it. I think it was in the other thread also. :)
Yeah, so perhaps someone could explain just when not an action became a type of action.
It didn't. Except it did. Chem's standard formatting coming up : capitalised means game mechanical term.
In the English language "to take (an) action" means (in this context) "to do something purposefully". When nocking an arrow, you are certainly "doing something purposefully" - you are reaching into your quiver, drawing an arrow, and drawing your bow with the intent to be able to fire the arrow at a target. However, PF defines doing that as "not an Action", meaning that it does not itself require the use of any of the 6 Action types, nor does it affect the character's action economy in a combat turn. All Actions in PF "use up" some or all of the character's available action economy.
Every single time the word "action" appears in the rules, the GM has to make the following distinction:
Is it an action (something, ANYTHING) the character is doing, or is it an Action, something that uses up the character's available action economy?
The best case to consider is this: a paralysed character. This character cannot take any physical action/Action. Which is it? My take on it is that it means action: the character may not perform any activity which requires movement. Which includes nocking an arrow. Making a Perform check. Uncountable others. But if you go merely by the game rules, since nocking an arrow is "not an Action", there is a viable interpretation that says a paralysed character can do it. (Arguments that it is subsumed within whichever type of attack Action the character is performing aside.)
This lack of clarity is where this problem stems from, because does Sunder refer to an attack action (an action in which one or more attacks is performed), or does it refer to an Attack Action (the Standard Action called Attack which allows only a single attack roll against the target, made on your turn, using up part of your action economy)?
We simply don't know, without clarification from the devs. Certainly in previous editions of the d20 game system it has been an attack action, not an Attack Action. But because of changes to other abilities which allow them to clearly use an attack action, it is fundamentally unclear how Sunder is intended to work.
|
Yeah, so perhaps someone could explain just when not an action became a type of action.It didn't. Except it did. Chem's standard formatting coming up : capitalised means game mechanical term.
In the English language "to take (an) action" means (in this context) "to do something purposefully". When nocking an arrow, you are certainly "doing something purposefully" - you are reaching into your quiver, drawing an arrow, and drawing your bow with the intent to be able to fire the arrow at a target. However, PF defines doing that as "not an Action", meaning that it does not itself require the use of any of the 6 Action types, nor does it affect the character's action economy in a combat turn. All Actions in PF "use up" some or all of the character's available action economy.
Every single time the word "action" appears in the rules, the GM has to make the following distinction:
Is it an action (something, ANYTHING) the character is doing, or is it an Action, something that uses up the character's available action economy?
The best case to consider is this: a paralysed character. This character cannot take any physical action/Action. Which is it? My take on it is that it means action: the character may not perform any activity which requires movement. Which includes nocking an arrow. Making a Perform check. Uncountable others. But if you go merely by the game rules, since nocking an arrow is "not an Action", there is a viable interpretation that says a paralysed character can do it. (Arguments that it is subsumed within whichever type of attack Action the character is performing aside.)
This lack of clarity is where this problem stems from, because does Sunder refer to an attack action (an action in which one or more attacks is performed), or does it refer to an Attack Action (the Standard Action called Attack which allows only a single attack roll against the target, made on your turn, using up part of your action economy)?
We simply don't know, without clarification...
Wise words!
This is why we do need direct dev input about attack action/Attack Action!
This is also why, without this input, it's the DM's call, even in PFS, where there isn't supposed to be any!
It shouldn't surprise you how I'd judge it! But my choice isn't made in a vacuum. When you've played D20 for 13 years or so with both sunder and 'attack action' working a certain way, you'd have to see some pretty convincing arguments to change, and I just haven't.
It reminds me of the 'coach's challenge' of the decision of the officials in american football; that decision can be reversed, but only if 'incontrovertible' video evidence shows that the original decision was wrong. For these issues in our game, that standard has not been met.
OK. To finally put to rest the issue between Attack and Attack Action:
Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces armor training 1.
If the attack at the end of Charge were an attack action
It's a feat - it says make a single attack - which by the rules means you can't make more than one attack.
Make a single attack = must use standard action = incompatible with other actions that would include move/full round
Charge is a special full round action = not compatible with feats that say 'make a single attack'
This feat has a special rule that lets you use it with charge - that's not complicated at all - in fact it's common sense.
and that would encompass all single-attacks (charge, attack as a standard action, AoO, Free attack from Spellstrike, etc).
No - I've stated repeatedly that vital strike (and overhand chop) have the same language - that they only allow a single attack - which means you can't make more than one attack - that's not incompatible with calling all attacks attack actions. I do believe (and would allow) the use with AoO.
It's like saying, "All cake has sugar. Cakes with frosting also have sugar." If all cakes already have sugar, you need not specify that a cake has sugar because of the addition of frosting.
Wow that's just horrible - it's not that at all. It's saying that cake is cake even if you serve it as a single serving (1 cake) or multiple pieces (iterative cakes).
Are you saying if you cut the cake up it's no longer cake? The humanity!
It's a feat - it says make a single attack - which by the rules means you can't make more than one attack.
Overhand Chop is not a feat, it's a class ability.
Here's the guy who wrote it explaining:
Overhand Chop can be used when you make a single attack using the attack action (which is a specific type of standard action) or the charge action (which is a specific type of full-round action).
Make a single attack = must use standard action = incompatible with other actions that would include move/full round
It's specifically a single attack with the attack action or charge. This means any other single attack that doesn't involve the attack action or charge doesn't apply.
I've stated repeatedly that vital strike (and overhand chop) have the same language - that they only allow a single attack - which means you can't make more than one attack - that's not incompatible with calling all attacks attack actions.
Yes it is.
If each instance of the Attack Action involves a single melee attack, granting extra dice from Vital Strike and extra damage from Overhand Chop, then if you 'fold' multiple Attack Actions into a full-attack, you're making multiple instances of that single melee attack, each of which grants extra dice/damage.
That's obviously not the case, a full-attack is a full-round action and it doesn't include multiple Attack Actions.
I do believe (and would allow) the use with AoO.
Lets check in with Jason again:
from a RAW and RAI perspective, the two examples listed for Overhand Chop are not open-ended examples, they are specific and exhaustive examples. That is to say, that list of examples is the full, explicit, and complete list of examples to which the ability applies. Attack action and charge action are the sole and only examples of where OC may be used when making a single attack.
If they had been meant merely as representative examples, it would have been phrased ("such as with the attack action or a charge"; or
"with the attack action, a charge, or other actions that result in a single attack per round); that would have left the case open to include other situations in which a single attack can occur. It is intentionally not phrased that way to avoid the kind of ambiguity that some seem to want to read into it.
So no AoO. Even though the AoO is a single attack, it's not a single attack with the attack action or charge.
Further, if you allow any ability that uses the attack action in place of any single melee attack, then they would all work with Spring Attack. Yet they don't:
As for Spring Attack, this feat lets you make a single melee attack at any point during a movement; that attack has to be a pure-vanilla attack, basically. You can't fancy it up with things like Cleave or Vital Strike, as those are their own standard actions, basically. If you have all three of those feats, you can do one of the following:
1) Run up to a foe, stab it, and run away, all without provoking an AoO (Spring Attack).
2) Run up to a foe and stab it, and then stab a dude standing next to the guy you just stabbed (Cleave).
3) Run up to a foe and stab it and do extra damage (Vital Strike).
A generous GM might allow you to mix and match these feats and even use them all at the same time... but that's not the intent of the rules.
So,...
So if you make a single #123 it takes a standard action (the action type - a rules distinction) and it is incompatible with other action types. (which you would need to use - in order to perform more #123 actions in a single turn).
Works fine if you don't try to go out of your way to complicate it.
So if you make a single #123 it takes a standard action
Only if the attack is made using the attack action.
If the attack is made as an AoO, or Charge or Spring Attack or Full-attack, it uses whichever action the relevant use requires.
Not every single attack uses the attack action.
Further, if you allow any ability that uses the attack action in place of any single melee attack, then they would all work with Spring Attack. Yet they don't:
I never said that. I said all attacks are attack actions - if it only lets you make a single melee attack it *must* use your standard action - as spring attack is a full round action - it's incompatible.
You can use spring attack to make a trip, disarm, or sunder attempt though.
Okay, let me ask you this, if all attacks are attack actions why is it impossible to use vital strike on a charge.Further, if you allow any ability that uses the attack action in place of any single melee attack, then they would all work with Spring Attack. Yet they don't:
I never said that. I said all attacks are attack actions - if it only lets you make a single melee attack it *must* use your standard action - as spring attack is a full round action - it's incompatible.
You can use spring attack to make a trip, disarm, or sunder attempt though.
Asked and answered - see previous answer.