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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

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


Rules Questions

851 to 900 of 1,171 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>

Ckorik wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Grick wrote:

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.
Asked and answered - see previous answer.

No, not really.

Edit: To clarify, while vital strike says that you can make one attack that has certain extra effects it does not say that you must or that you do make that attack. Thus it does not let you only make a single attack and so does not fall under your previous answer.


Ckorik wrote:
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're contradicting yourself.

How about you write it again, without all the weirdness, and state what exactly you think the attack action is.

Because the only way I can parse that sentence you wrote is "all attacks are attack actions, and if it's a single melee attack it requires a standard action, and since Spring Attack grants a single melee attack yet is a full-round action, this proves my interpretation is incorrect."


Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

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.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?


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

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.

Better. And close enough for government work. I never go out of my way to make something simple complex. I'll often go out of my way to point out to someone that they have over-simplified something to the point that it no longer works as intended. And, for the final corrections:

You don't make a "single #123#", you make a "single attack". This "single attack" could be a #123# or it could be the single melee attack at the end of Charge. You can make one #123# by using a standard action. Full-Attack does not give you "multiple #123#s" in a single turn. Monk of the Four Winds, however, can give you multiples and, if coupled Overhand Chop, you could make up to 3 Overhand Chop attacks because you're making 3 single attacks as #123#. Now do you get it?

Light at the end of the tunnel - *I* (personally) never felt our definitions were that far off - in fact the only difference that I can find is on Sunder itself.

You (not specifically) seem to be so caught up on the difference in how we see 'attack action' that you can't reconcile that the way I read it works. I may be wrong (I did FAQ the thread after all) - but the logic doesn't break down IMO - it feels wanky trying to defend that doing *something* is an action - again because everyone is so focused on trying to attack the word instead of seeing the difference between 'Action - meaning Standard, Full Round, etc) and action (anything you do at any time).

I think attack is the later - the logic fits - I'm not going to say your logic doesn't work - it doesn't break down either, the only ability in the entire text that I can find that has this problem is sunder.

Find another ability that has the same issue and I might be convinced - I don't think there are any (as RavingDork pointed out it seems like they are systematically eliminating the confusion).


The demons ability should be fixed using the find/replace function of the word processor the author is using. It should be clearly stated what kind of action is used for special abilities (of the normal six listed in the glossary).

I've seriously had many GMs argue that they could use monster at-will abilities as free actions. Just toss in the Standard Action (3 more letters than attack action) and bam, never any confusion ever again.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

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.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)


Irontruth wrote:

The demons ability should be fixed using the find/replace function of the word processor the author is using. It should be clearly stated what kind of action is used for special abilities (of the normal six listed in the glossary).

I've seriously had many GMs argue that they could use monster at-will abilities as free actions. Just toss in the Standard Action (3 more letters than attack action) and bam, never any confusion ever again.

At will is defined in the book.<--- I am assuming you are talking about SLA's.

I do agree that this one should have been a standard action, and not an attack action since SU's are standard actions anyway.


Ckorik wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

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.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)

Sorry, no dice. Your rebuttal used the wording of gaze attacks which, whether it proved your point or not, does not apply here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that was really just a matter of GMs who were players for a really long time and ever having read the monster rules very well.

They've been reducing the umber of times attack action appears in the core book. I very honestly think the phrase should disappear entirely from all rules. The word action should probably itself be used very sparingly when not a direct reference to the rules of actions.


Ckorik wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

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.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)

The gaze attack says "once". <--RAW

There is no general rule saying that special attacks only allow a single attack.

The Babua demon also has sneak attack as a special attack, and I am sure that is usable more than once.

I also check Jason and SKR's post. I did not see any such restriction.

So my question still stands.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Grick wrote:

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.

I, like many others here, it seems, am having trouble parsing this comment.

You either mean "all attacks are attack actions" - all attacks require the character to take actions which involve attacking - which is sort of redundant, or you mean "all attacks are Attack Actions" - all attacks, regardless of the ability that is allowing them to be made, are Standard Actions made with the Attack option. The latter is not true. Cleave springs to mind. Spring Attack. Charge. The Full-attack Action. I'm sure there are others.

Here's a question to try and help me understand: I have 4 iterative attacks as a result of BAB. Is each attack I make an Attack Action (which would require me to have up to four Standard Actions each round, and why can't I use those to do anything except make attack rolls)?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Chemlak wrote:

Here's a question to try and help me understand: I have 4 iterative attacks as a result of BAB. Is each attack I make an Attack Action (which would require me to have up to four Standard Actions each round, and why can't I use those to do anything except make attack rolls)?

No - because Attack Action is not always a Standard Action.

just that simple.


wraithstrike wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

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.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)

The gaze attack says "once". <--RAW

There is no general rule saying that special attacks only allow a single attack.

The Babua demon also has sneak attack as a special attack, and I am sure that is usable more than once.

I also check Jason and SKR's post. I did not see any such restriction.

So my question still stands.

Huh, now that I think about it it would seem that the once language is limited to a particular creature, meaning that multiple gaze attacks may be perfectly fine so long as no creature is targeted more than one time per round.


Ckorik believes that "attack actions" are not restricted to standard actions if I am reading him correctly.


WWWW wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

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.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)

The gaze attack says "once". <--RAW

There is no general rule saying that special attacks only allow a single attack.

The Babua demon also has sneak attack as a special attack, and I am sure that is usable more than once.

I also check Jason and SKR's post. I did not see any such restriction.

So my question still stands.

Huh, now that I think about it it would seem that the once language is limited to a particular creature, meaning that multiple gaze attacks may be perfectly fine so long as no creature is targeted more than one time per round.

That is a fine point.

RAW-->Gaze is not restricted to being used once. It says it can only make any one creature save once, so if everyone is within 30 feet they all have to save because of that, and then the monster can make them make an additional save.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Here's a question to try and help me understand: I have 4 iterative attacks as a result of BAB. Is each attack I make an Attack Action (which would require me to have up to four Standard Actions each round, and why can't I use those to do anything except make attack rolls)?

No - because Attack Action is not always a Standard Action.

just that simple.

I think I'm almost there... Please point out to me where, in the book, there exists an Action called Attack that is anything but a Standard Action.

For clarity, Full-attack is not called Attack. It's called Full-attack. I will merrily concede to all and sundry that both Full-attack and Attack are attack actions (no capitals, they are actions in which one or more attacks are made), but I have not been able to see an example of the Attack Action (capitals - the Standard Action called Attack in the rules) that is anything but a Standard Action, because that is how it is defined.

Silver Crusade

Chemlak wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Here's a question to try and help me understand: I have 4 iterative attacks as a result of BAB. Is each attack I make an Attack Action (which would require me to have up to four Standard Actions each round, and why can't I use those to do anything except make attack rolls)?

No - because Attack Action is not always a Standard Action.

just that simple.

I think I'm almost there... Please point out to me where, in the book, there exists an Action called Attack that is anything but a Standard Action.

For clarity, Full-attack is not called Attack. It's called Full-attack. I will merrily concede to all and sundry that both Full-attack and Attack are attack actions (no capitals, they are actions in which one or more attacks are made), but I have not been able to see an example of the Attack Action (capitals - the Standard Action called Attack in the rules) that is anything but a Standard Action, because that is how it is defined.

You're looking for clarity? In this thread??

You're a 'glass half full' kinda guy, ain't ya?

The trouble is that we, the reader, don't know if the RAI in any given instance is 'attack action' or 'Attack Action'!

Part of the case in one camp is that the cast a spell action (and others) are all defined as standard actions, in the very same section of the rules that the attack action is defined as a standard action. Yet all of these 'other' actions are not limited to a standard action, and none of us disagree on that! Yet the attack action somehow is limited? Without any RAW saying that attack actions can't be as 'action-type' flexible as the other actions on the same list, and the very kinds of attacks in this very section definitely are useable in many of the 'action-types' in the game, including the non-action that is an AoO!


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

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

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.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)

The gaze attack says "once". <--RAW

There is no general rule saying that special attacks only allow a single attack.

The Babua demon also has sneak attack as a special attack, and I am sure that is usable more than once.

I also check Jason and SKR's post. I did not see any such restriction.

So my question still stands.

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz0wcm?Volner-Tain#1

Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) Feb 7, 2009, 02:42 PM

*cutting out long post*
He has multiple attacks with his paralyzing touch, as if it were a weapon (normally you do not get iterative attacks with a special ability).
*post goes on*


Ckorik wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Ckorik ,so once again I ask what about the Omox Demon?

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.

There is no mention of one attack, and the ability is not a natural attack. Does it get to make multiple attacks with it?

I answered this one previously also (with Medusa as an example) - special attacks only allow a single attack and thus use the standard action. (unless specifically noted).

There is actually a dev quote on that somewhere but I'm not looking it up - see the previous post somewhere like 400 posts ago :)

The gaze attack says "once". <--RAW

There is no general rule saying that special attacks only allow a single attack.

The Babua demon also has sneak attack as a special attack, and I am sure that is usable more than once.

I also check Jason and SKR's post. I did not see any such restriction.

So my question still stands.

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz0wcm?Volner-Tain#1

Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) Feb 7, 2009, 02:42 PM

*cutting out long post*
He has multiple attacks with his paralyzing touch, as if it were a weapon (normally you do not get iterative attacks with a special ability).
*post goes on*

Oh, we're trusting this guy on how the rules work now. And here I thought that his clarifications meant nothing. But I suppose that if you have changed your mind the discussion is resolved on the side of sunder taking a standard action.

Silver Crusade

I believe that when a special ability says 'as an attack action' that that phrase is there because it is intended to use iterative attacks!

If that was not the intention, they would just say 'use the use spell-like (or supernatural) ability action, or more likely not mention action type at all, since you have to use that kind or action to use that kind of ability, unless the description of a particular ability says otherwise!

So these acidic globs and those hot rocks that those giants chuck, they use the attack action so that iterative attacks apply, because iterative attacks are the purview of attack actions, not use spell-like or supernatural ability actions.

The kind of SLA that gets this kind of language are 'weapon-like', and attack actions are the rules for 'weapon-like attacks!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
WWWW wrote:


Oh, we're trusting this guy on how the rules work now. And here I thought that his clarifications meant nothing. But I suppose that if you have changed your mind the discussion is resolved on the side of sunder taking a standard action.

So when proven incorrect we stoop to kindergarten debate style?

I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position - it is not my fault you can't seem to see the word type in the relevant text. It would be intellectually dishonest to say that they are perfectly clear either way - if that were true we wouldn't have this discussion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I believe that when a special ability says 'as an attack action' that that phrase is there because it is intended to use iterative attacks!

If that was not the intention, they would just say 'use the use spell-like (or supernatural) ability action, or more likely not mention action type at all, since you have to use that kind or action to use that kind of ability, unless the description of a particular ability says otherwise!

So these acidic globs and those hot rocks that those giants chuck, they use the attack action so that iterative attacks apply, because iterative attacks are the purview of attack actions, not use spell-like or supernatural ability actions.

The kind of SLA that gets this kind of language are 'weapon-like', and attack actions are the rules for 'weapon-like attacks!

While that makes sense I (personally) tend to err on the side of caution - most special abilities are devastating so I use the 'not intended to be iterative' as a guideline. I'll more than likely use this logic to evaluate them in the future though.


He says normally. <--He is not even saying it is a rule. He is just saying how most of them work.
That and my Babau citation means it is not a rule.


wraithstrike wrote:
Ckorik believes that "attack actions" are not restricted to standard actions if I am reading him correctly.

I suspect he's not going to clarify his stance, because then we could show how it's wrong, which wouldn't further his real goal which seems to be keeping the thread going in order to gain attention.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ckorik wrote:
I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.

You continually disregard JB having contradicted you three times, then claim that you use his posts to back your position? And then you talk to people about "intellectual dishonesty"?


With all that aside the monster in the example only has one attack by his stack block.

By my reading of the rules both an attack action, and SU's use standard actions unless otherwise stated so that attack should only be used once.

Since we had a situation where we had an SU, and an attack action which is being argued to not have a definite action attached to it I was wonder if how Ckorik would argue it.

Now Malachi just made a good argument, but his logic is not fitting with the statblock.

Ckorik's argument still allows for multiple gaze attacks though since no rule is preventing it.

edit:

statblock wrote:

Melee 2 slams +21 (1d6+8 plus 3d6 acid and grab)

Ranged slime +20 (1d6 plus 3d6 acid and entangle)


Ckorik wrote:
WWWW wrote:


Oh, we're trusting this guy on how the rules work now. And here I thought that his clarifications meant nothing. But I suppose that if you have changed your mind the discussion is resolved on the side of sunder taking a standard action.

So when proven incorrect we stoop to kindergarten debate style?

I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position - it is not my fault you can't seem to see the word type in the relevant text. It would be intellectually dishonest to say that they are perfectly clear either way - if that were true we wouldn't have this discussion.

Eh, perhaps my attempt at humor was a failure due to lack of tone of voice.

And the posted clarification has the word normally in the relevant text. Seems like a rather analogous situation to me.

Well that is not entirely true. It would seem analogous except that the clarification from here http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1h21?Vital-Strike-damage-bonus#18 does not seem to include the word "type" at all. But, you know, I was trying to draw a parallel and all that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
You continually disregard JB having contradicted you three times, then claim that you use his posts to back your position? And then you talk to people about "intellectual dishonesty"?

2 of the 3 times it was mentioned he says type - all other posts (say for instance from SKR) use the type language.

You can ignore the word if you want however I don't disagree - attack is a type of standard action - that doesn't mean all attack actions are standard actions.

He *never* says that. Good grief go read the other 800 posts if you want to rehash it ad-infinitum

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
You continually disregard JB having contradicted you three times, then claim that you use his posts to back your position? And then you talk to people about "intellectual dishonesty"?

I'm wary of taking this at face value; I suspect that the actual question he is answering is important, given other possibilities (as discussed above).

It would be helpful to post the full questions and answers so that we can all see for ourselves.

Again, I apologise for my complete uselessness re: computers. : )


Ckorik wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
You continually disregard JB having contradicted you three times, then claim that you use his posts to back your position? And then you talk to people about "intellectual dishonesty"?

2 of the 3 times it was mentioned he says type - all other posts (say for instance from SKR) use the type language.

You can ignore the word if you want however I don't disagree - attack is a type of standard action - that doesn't mean all attack actions are standard actions.

He *never* says that. Good grief go read the other 800 posts if you want to rehash it ad-infinitum

So perhaps you can tell me why the one without the word type can be discounted. I must have misunderstood when it came up earlier and it would be quite helpful if it was explained again.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ckorik wrote:
attack is a type of standard action - that doesn't mean all attack actions are standard actions.

Yes, it does. If an attack action is a type of standard action, then every attack action is a standard action, but not every standard action is an attack action.

So basically, you've got it backwards. Is english not your native language? I know some languages structure their sentences differently, which would explain your mistake.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

With all that aside the monster in the example only has one attack by his stack block.

By my reading of the rules both an attack action, and SU's use standard actions unless otherwise stated so that attack should only be used once.

Since we had a situation where we had an SU, and an attack action which is being argued to not have a definite action attached to it I was wonder if how Ckorik would argue it.

Now Malachi just made a good argument, but his logic is not fitting with the statblock.

Ckorik's argument still allows for multiple gaze attacks though since no rule is preventing it.

edit:

statblock wrote:

Melee 2 slams +21 (1d6+8 plus 3d6 acid and grab)

Ranged slime +20 (1d6 plus 3d6 acid and entangle)

If the phrase 'attack action' is not meant to show that the special ability uses iterative attacks, why is the phrase there at all?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
You continually disregard JB having contradicted you three times, then claim that you use his posts to back your position? And then you talk to people about "intellectual dishonesty"?

I'm wary of taking this at face value; I suspect that the actual question he is answering is important, given other possibilities (as discussed above).

It would be helpful to post the full questions and answers so that we can all see for ourselves.

Again, I apologise for my complete uselessness re: computers. : )

If you click on Jason's name in Jiggy's post it takes you directly to the post in question.

If you don't want to leave the current page you can open a new tab by "right clicking" on the link and then selecting open a new tab.

PS:I am not picking on Malachi. From our conversations he really might not know this.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
WWWW wrote:


Eh, perhaps my attempt at humor was a failure due to lack of tone of voice.

And the posted clarification has the word normally in the relevant text. Seems like a rather analogous situation to me.

Well that is not entirely true. It would seem analogous except that the clarification from here http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1h21?Vital-Strike-damage-bonus#18 does not seem to include the word "type" at all. But, you know, I was trying to draw a parallel and all that.

Fair enough I miss-read it.

Yes - I'll agree he said it differently once which is odd - however the 'company line' seems to be that the word type is supposed to be there. His followup post to that one (if my timeline recollection is correct) used the word.

Further posts on 'attack action' if you search JB, SKR, and JJ's people pages show that the word 'type' is how they prefer to say it. If they left that word out (or had stopped using it) I'd be 100% on your side to be honest.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

With all that aside the monster in the example only has one attack by his stack block.

By my reading of the rules both an attack action, and SU's use standard actions unless otherwise stated so that attack should only be used once.

Since we had a situation where we had an SU, and an attack action which is being argued to not have a definite action attached to it I was wonder if how Ckorik would argue it.

Now Malachi just made a good argument, but his logic is not fitting with the statblock.

Ckorik's argument still allows for multiple gaze attacks though since no rule is preventing it.

edit:

statblock wrote:

Melee 2 slams +21 (1d6+8 plus 3d6 acid and grab)

Ranged slime +20 (1d6 plus 3d6 acid and entangle)

If the phrase 'attack action' is not meant to show that the special ability uses iterative attacks, why is the phrase there at all?

You have to remember that to me an attack action is a standard action "all day long", and that fits perfectly with the statblock.

Personally I don't think the phrase is needed since they could have left it out, and it still would have been a standard action.

Either I am correct or that statblock should allow him to toss 3 of those out with a BAB of +13 and he can entangle 3 party members. It is only a touch attack, and even when he gets down to +10 he would still be unlikely to miss.

If he can get more attacks against touch AC while using ranged attack for damage that is almost equal to his melee damage and entangle someone then why would he ever engage in melee, barring some corner case?


Ckorik wrote:
WWWW wrote:


Eh, perhaps my attempt at humor was a failure due to lack of tone of voice.

And the posted clarification has the word normally in the relevant text. Seems like a rather analogous situation to me.

Well that is not entirely true. It would seem analogous except that the clarification from here http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1h21?Vital-Strike-damage-bonus#18 does not seem to include the word "type" at all. But, you know, I was trying to draw a parallel and all that.

Fair enough I miss-read it.

Yes - I'll agree he said it differently once which is odd - however the 'company line' seems to be that the word type is supposed to be there. His followup post to that one (if my timeline recollection is correct) used the word.

Further posts on 'attack action' if you search JB, SKR, and JJ's people pages show that the word 'type' is how they prefer to say it. If they left that word out (or had stopped using it) I'd be 100% on your side to be honest.

So, and I would like to be clear here as I am trying not to attribute you with a position you do not hold, your argument is just that the phrasing without the word type is less common and therefore wrong.


The thing is, if there are two interpretations that aren't completely impossible, and one is very easy for most to understand, produces few weird results, and definately works (attack action is the specific Attack standard action), and one interpretation requires like 8 pages on a forum to explain to those who don't share it, still produces a lot of weird results, has the proponents contradicting themselves by accident, and just probably works - the first one is probably the intended one. I guess it's a variant of Occam's Razor.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
You continually disregard JB having contradicted you three times, then claim that you use his posts to back your position? And then you talk to people about "intellectual dishonesty"?

I'm wary of taking this at face value; I suspect that the actual question he is answering is important, given other possibilities (as discussed above).

It would be helpful to post the full questions and answers so that we can all see for ourselves.

Again, I apologise for my complete uselessness re: computers. : )

If you click on Jason's name in Jiggy's post it takes you directly to the post in question.

If you don't want to leave the current page you can open a new tab by "right clicking" on the link and then selecting open a new tab.

PS:I am not picking on Malachi. From our conversations he really might not know this.

Your help is appreciated, Wraithstrike! Yes, I really am that useless!

I'm finding it really difficult to 'right click' on my touch-screen phone, but I'll manage, somehow! : )

I have to get ready for work now. Those cards won't deal themselves!

I can check the threads on my breaks, but can't really compose my usual 'TL;DR' posts at work. : (


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
attack is a type of standard action - that doesn't mean all attack actions are standard actions.

An apple pie is a type of fruit pie.

One of the many types of fruit pie is the apple pie.

Not all fruit pies are apple pies, but all apple pies are fruit pies.

Find and replace: s/apple/attack s/pie/action s/fruit/standard


Grick wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
attack is a type of standard action - that doesn't mean all attack actions are standard actions.

An apple pie is a type of fruit pie.

One of the many types of fruit pie is the apple pie.

Not all fruit pies are apple pies, but all apple pies are fruit pies.

Find and replace: s/apple/attack s/pie/action s/fruit/standard

Is it sad that I laughed at that regex?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Here's a question to try and help me understand: I have 4 iterative attacks as a result of BAB. Is each attack I make an Attack Action (which would require me to have up to four Standard Actions each round, and why can't I use those to do anything except make attack rolls)?

No - because Attack Action is not always a Standard Action.

just that simple.

I think I'm almost there... Please point out to me where, in the book, there exists an Action called Attack that is anything but a Standard Action.

For clarity, Full-attack is not called Attack. It's called Full-attack. I will merrily concede to all and sundry that both Full-attack and Attack are attack actions (no capitals, they are actions in which one or more attacks are made), but I have not been able to see an example of the Attack Action (capitals - the Standard Action called Attack in the rules) that is anything but a Standard Action, because that is how it is defined.

You're looking for clarity? In this thread??

You're a 'glass half full' kinda guy, ain't ya?

The trouble is that we, the reader, don't know if the RAI in any given instance is 'attack action' or 'Attack Action'!

Part of the case in one camp is that the cast a spell action (and others) are all defined as standard actions, in the very same section of the rules that the attack action is defined as a standard action. Yet all of these 'other' actions are not limited to a standard action, and none of us disagree on that! Yet the attack action somehow is limited? Without any RAW saying that attack actions can't be as 'action-type' flexible as the other actions on the same list, and the very kinds of attacks in this very section definitely are useable in many of the 'action-types' in the game, including the non-action that is an AoO!

Believe me, Malachi, I'm vastly aware of the ambiguity in RAI. As I mentioned earlier, every time the word "action" is used in the book, the GM has to interpret whether the RAI is "action" or "Action", and I'm less than pleased that is the case.

And yes, I'm pretty much a "half full" kind of guy.

I have a friend, one of my players, that I bring these huge threads up with every time they come up, and his answer to me is pretty much always the same : What does common sense tell you?

Common sense tells me that you should be able to Sunder with any attack - if you want to batter your enemy's sword with all of your iterative attacks, you should be allowed to. If you want to ruin your enemy's armour when he leaves you an opening (AoO), you should be able to. That is how I play, that is how I rule Sunder to work. But the description of the combat manoeuvre in the book does not support my interpretation, since there are remarkably few cases in the game rules where the term "attack action" could mean anything except "the standard action called attack", and some where if it's meant to mean "any action in which an attack occurs" the game could actually break horribly.

When I come here to debate these things, though, it's from two viewpoints: Firstly, to improve my own understanding of the precise nuances of the game system, and secondly to bring to the attention of the developers places where what is written in the rules isn't making sense.

I have rarely seen Wraithstrike make an assertion that I don't agree with, but I'm not afraid to understand the "other side" just because I disagree with them. I want this game to be one where we can all agree that what the rules say makes sense and isn't self-contradictory. I don't want the rules written in legalese, I don't want them written in computer code, but I want the terminology to be consistent throughout the rules. Right now they're not.

That's why I take the trouble to spell out my perception of a difference between "attack action" and "Attack Action", because a consistent means of identifying what is being referred to is, in my opinion, essential for a clean game system - case in point: did you know that, throughout the rules and sourcebooks, spell names are not capitalised (except where sentence structure demands it), but are written in italics, while feat names are never in italics and always capitalised? The developers use text formatting to differentiate types of abilities. An ability that requires command undead is vastly different to one that requires Command Undead.

I'm certainly not "against" anyone here. I just want us to all be singing from the same hymn sheet when we use the terms used in the game rules, and right now the three biggest contenders for use overload are "attack", "action", and "level".


Ckorik wrote:

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 not a cake."

"It's still cake."

"But it's not a cake."

"Of course it's cake!"

...

"Not a cake though."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Grick wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
attack is a type of standard action - that doesn't mean all attack actions are standard actions.

An apple pie is a type of fruit pie.

One of the many types of fruit pie is the apple pie.

Not all fruit pies are apple pies, but all apple pies are fruit pies.

Find and replace: s/apple/attack s/pie/action s/fruit/standard

That analogy doesn't hold up to the other actions listed under standard - I'm not sure why you think attack is so special - other than trying to find things that have nothing to do with Pathfinder rules to try to prove your correct.

WWWW wrote:
So, and I would like to be clear here as I am trying not to attribute you with a position you do not hold, your argument is just that the phrasing without the word type is less common and therefore wrong.

Yes - when researching the 'attack is always a standard action' claims it is how I saw the language presented. I didn't see the 'attack is always a standard action' that was being presented as 'set in stone'.

stringburka wrote:

Spectre of Fadiyah Al'qirym

The thing is, if there are two interpretations that aren't completely impossible, and one is very easy for most to understand, produces few weird results, and definately works (attack action is the specific Attack standard action), and one interpretation requires like 8 pages on a forum to explain to those who don't share it, still produces a lot of weird results, has the proponents contradicting themselves by accident, and just probably works - the first one is probably the intended one. I guess it's a variant of Occam's Razor.

One way works without looking outside of the book - the other requires dev posts and history and all kinds of explanation about how 'actions' are not 'actions' and attacks are not attacks unless they use the 'attack action'

I do agree - Occam's Razor - perfect. It could be in this instance that each of us however see's the situation as simple because we already have accepted it - or is that too hard to admit?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
I have used his (JB's) quotes on the matter to back my position
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
You continually disregard JB having contradicted you three times, then claim that you use his posts to back your position? And then you talk to people about "intellectual dishonesty"?

I'm wary of taking this at face value; I suspect that the actual question he is answering is important, given other possibilities (as discussed above).

It would be helpful to post the full questions and answers so that we can all see for ourselves.

Again, I apologise for my complete uselessness re: computers. : )

If you click on Jason's name in Jiggy's post it takes you directly to the post in question.

If you don't want to leave the current page you can open a new tab by "right clicking" on the link and then selecting open a new tab.

PS:I am not picking on Malachi. From our conversations he really might not know this.

Your help is appreciated, Wraithstrike! Yes, I really am that useless!

I'm finding it really difficult to 'right click' on my touch-screen phone, but I'll manage, somehow! : )

I have to get ready for work now. Those cards won't deal themselves!

I can check the threads on my breaks, but can't really compose my usual 'TL;DR' posts at work. : (

You can open new tabs on phones to, but if are having trouble using computers I wont go into that right now. What you can do is go to the first link, read it, and then come back to this page.

Rinse....repeat.


The chart listing spells as standard action is only listing the default time. We are not saying the chart counts for all cases involving spells, just to be clear.
No I am not trying to have my cake, and eat it to.

magic chapter wrote:

Casting Time

Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

The chart listing spells as standard action is only listing the default time. We are not saying the chart counts for all cases involving spells, just to be clear.

No I am not trying to have my cake, and eat it to.

magic chapter wrote:

Casting Time

Most spells have a casting time of [/b]1 standard action[/b]. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action.

And, importantly, in the text "Cast a Spell" has a section in Standard Actions and in Full-round Actions.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ckorik wrote:
Grick wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
attack is a type of standard action - that doesn't mean all attack actions are standard actions.

An apple pie is a type of fruit pie.

One of the many types of fruit pie is the apple pie.

Not all fruit pies are apple pies, but all apple pies are fruit pies.

Find and replace: s/apple/attack s/pie/action s/fruit/standard

That analogy doesn't hold up to the other actions listed under standard - I'm not sure why you think attack is so special - other than trying to find things that have nothing to do with Pathfinder rules to try to prove your correct.

The analogy wasn't an argument why attack actions are standard actions, it was illustrating that Malachi had the meaning of "X is a type of Y" backwards. If X is a type of Y, then it's Y that is not always X. Malachi had it the other way around. Whether you think it proves anything about the nature of the attack action doesn't change the fact that Malachi was clinging to an argument that's dismantled by understanding english.

Silver Crusade

stringburka wrote:
The thing is, if there are two interpretations that aren't completely impossible, and one is very easy for most to understand, produces few weird results, and definately works (attack action is the specific Attack standard action), and one interpretation requires like 8 pages on a forum to explain to those who don't share it, still produces a lot of weird results, has the proponents contradicting themselves by accident, and just probably works - the first one is probably the intended one. I guess it's a variant of Occam's Razor.

Occam want's his razor back! You're using it wrong!

It's human nature to characterise the 'other side' as full of morons who's motives are entirely selfish/misguided, while characterising 'your side' as being peopled with those of a higher understanding and morally superior motives. It doesn't help anyone's case, though.

As to your point, we've managed to play 3.0, 3.5 and PF using the same interpretation of 'attack action' that was true for 13 years or so, the same interpretation that James Jacobs told me that it was a few days ago, without any trouble. To think that we have to jump through intellectual hoops now or for 13 years is simply not true!


Ckorik wrote:
WWWW wrote:
So, and I would like to be clear here as I am trying not to attribute you with a position you do not hold, your argument is just that the phrasing without the word type is less common and therefore wrong.
Yes - when researching the 'attack is always a standard action' claims it is how I saw the language presented. I didn't see the 'attack is always a standard action' that was being presented as 'set in stone'.

I, what? Seriously? You're just dismissing information because of slightly less common phrasing? Really?


I guess he is saying that gaze attacks can be used several times a round then. If he wants to go with that he can.....

851 to 900 of 1,171 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 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.