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

251 to 300 of 1,171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

if you read 'attack action' and think you are reading 'attack', i don't think you are going to reach any productive end by participating in this thread.


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


And I'm agreeing with you - and yet even if an attack is a type of standard action - it's also a type of move action when used as a full attack (it's actually both at that point)

Negative. The rules prevent full round actions, and move or standard actions to be used in the same round. So there is no way you are getting all 3.

My other post takes care of the combat maneuver section.

If that is true you can't attack on a full round action - because if an attack is a standard action then it is illegal to do during a full round action.

That's my point - an attack is like a 5 foot step - a 5 foot step is a move - but you can still use it during a full round action - an attack is a standard action - but you can still do it as part of a full round action.

Just like a 5 foot step (with feats this time) you can also perform the movement outside of your normal turn (step up for instance) much like AOO's.

If the attack action *wasn't* special like a 5 foot step - then it would be illegal to use on a full round action.

*edit*

And it is 100% legal to perform a full round action - attack - and take a 5 foot step - as in I full round attack - at +6,+1 (2 attacks) - I swing once at +6 - then take a 5 foot step - then swing again at +1

and a 5 foot step is considered a move - if you take a 5 foot step you can't move in your turn - and it's allowed during a full round attack.


Ckorik wrote:
concerro wrote:


So is the attack action a standard action as posted by two devs, or is it "fdiojfd"?

If an attack is a standard action - then when you have an AOO you can substitute any other 'standard action' in it's place right?

Otherwise an attack is *not* always a standard action.

You can not use a standard action outside of your turn, so an AoO is not a standard action.

I am not yelling, but this is at least my 3rd time saying this to include one of my last 3 post.-->WE ARE NOT ARGUING THAT ALL ATTACKS ARE STANDARD ACTIONS.

We are saying that the an "attack action" is standard action.

Once again-->Not all attacks are "attack actions". I specifically stated that twice before now.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Ckorik wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:

So if you think "attack action" is just any attack then you must think that you can use Vital Strike as part of a Full Attack action.

Each attack being "one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."

I think this would be a little broken. I think "attack action" probably refers to a Standard action as it is defined in the Combat chapter.

Vital Strike is a feat - not a combat maneuver - so isn't covered by the special rule for combat maneuvers - the feat also doesn't say 'in place of a melee attack'.

If 'attack action' were clear, Vital Strike would not have been queried in the first place. That was poor wording, and all of us have seen plenty of examples of poor wording in the rules.

So Vital Strike was originally queried because we were genuinely unsure if 'When you use the attack action' meant 'As an attack' or 'As a standard action'.

The correct response should have been either:-

• Change 'When you use the attack action' to 'As an attack'

OR

• Change 'When you use the attack action' to 'As a standard action'

Reading the rest of the feat it's clear(ish) that only the second one makes sense.

Instead of an errata, the reply seemed to want to avoid the need to errata it at all. The response of 'Attack action=Standard action', while making it clear that Vital Strike is intended to be a standard action, had the unintended consequence of giving the impression that attack action=standard action throughout the rules, when this had never been the case!


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If only one instance of the term "attack action" is ruled a standard action, then why must all the others be the same?


Ckorik wrote:


If that is true you can't attack on a full round action - because if an attack is a standard action then it is illegal to do during a full round action.

That's my point - an attack is like a 5 foot step - a 5 foot step is a move - but you can still use it during a full round action - an attack is a standard action - but you can still do it as part of a full round action.

Just like a 5 foot step (with feats this time) you can also perform the movement outside of your normal turn (step up for instance) much like AOO's.

If the attack action *wasn't* special like a 5 foot step - then it would be illegal to use on a full round action.

Quote:
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.

As you can see you can not use all three.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
concerro wrote:


Once again-->Not all attacks are "attack actions". I specifically stated that twice before now.

And I'm saying all attacks are attack actions - they are just special like a 5 foot step - which is a move action - except when it isn't.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:

So if you think "attack action" is just any attack then you must think that you can use Vital Strike as part of a Full Attack action.

Each attack being "one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."

I think this would be a little broken. I think "attack action" probably refers to a Standard action as it is defined in the Combat chapter.

Vital Strike is a feat - not a combat maneuver - so isn't covered by the special rule for combat maneuvers - the feat also doesn't say 'in place of a melee attack'.

If 'attack action' were clear, Vital Strike would not have been queried in the first place. That was poor wording, and all of us have seen plenty of examples of poor wording in the rules.

Hi 5's Malachi. I also misread it when it first came out. <grumble grumble>.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
If only one instance of the term "attack action" is ruled a standard action, then why must all the others be the same?

What I am saying is that the default action to use an attack action is a standard action, just like the default action to dismiss a spell is a standard action.


Ckorik wrote:
concerro wrote:


Once again-->Not all attacks are "attack actions". I specifically stated that twice before now.

And I'm saying all attacks are attack actions - they are just special like a 5 foot step - which is a move action - except when it isn't.

You sir are incorrect. Not all attacks are standard actions. I know this because the book only allows you to have one standard action a round. I also know this because the book says a full round action, and a standard action can not take place in the same round. I also know this because an AoO is an attack, and you can not take an action outside of your turn unless you are speaking or unless it is an immediate action.

For the sake of argument, even if you want to believe that every attack is a standard action, you can at best argue that you have a rules conflict.

Now before we go any farther are you trying to argue RAW or RAI?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just for giggles...this what it sounds like your saying concerro...

I take an action to attack, its an attack action.

I take an action to make multiple attacks...its not an attack action.

I get where your coming from man. I do.

But it feels like your clinging very tightly to one comment from a Dev, a comment that dev made in regards to a specific feat. I'm not him, but I am willing to bet he did not parse the CRB to see if attack action was used in the wording of other feats, indeed, from books published since then, the pattern would indicate the phrase is not the preferred wording due to the issue at hand.

When one of the writers who writes for Paizo has said they designed feats to alter the action it takes to use maneuvers but did not write one for sunder because it was their understanding sunder was already interchangeable with attacks, whether standard, full, or AoO, why not think a little more in regards to RAW?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This is rather frustrating.

I really hope this gets answered, by a Developer, or in some errata/FAQ.

It is poorly worded, and needs some clearing up.

Silver Crusade

The 'attack action' does not exist as a game action.

What does exist is 'attack', which may be a standard action.

When the phrase 'attack action' is used (when correctly used c.f. Vital Strike) it is a synonym for 'attack, using the appropriate action'.

If the devs wanted Sunder to take a standard action specifically, they'd have used the phrase 'As a standard action' like they did for Bull Rush, Grapple and Overrun. Since they knew Sunder was an attack (as opposed to a special standard action) in 3.5, if they intended Sunder to be a standard action in PF they would know that this represented a change and would have spelt it out using the phrase 'As a standard action'.


Krigare wrote:

Just for giggles...this what it sounds like your saying concerro...

I take an action to attack, its an attack action.

I take an action to make multiple attacks...its not an attack action.

I get where your coming from man. I do.

But it feels like your clinging very tightly to one comment from a Dev, a comment that dev made in regards to a specific feat. I'm not him, but I am willing to bet he did not parse the CRB to see if attack action was used in the wording of other feats, indeed, from books published since then, the pattern would indicate the phrase is not the preferred wording due to the issue at hand.

When one of the writers who writes for Paizo has said they designed feats to alter the action it takes to use maneuvers but did not write one for sunder because it was their understanding sunder was already interchangeable with attacks, whether standard, full, or AoO, why not think a little more in regards to RAW?

Actually this dev(the lead rules guy) was friends with the people who created 3.5. One of those creators(SKR) also work for the dev I am quoting. :)

I am also going my ability to read the rules, and I am rarely wrong, especially about simple think like which actions are in place. It is my knowledge on the basic rules that makes other rules interpretations much easier.

I also know the rule are not always written well when the rules don't make sense you have to be able to decide what the intent was.

I also provided quotes from the book that says which actions can not be combined in the same rounds. So far nobody has a counter quote. I am still betting on me. Now if I am providing devs quotes and rules quotes then why would you not believe me?

Now it is possible that sunder was intended as to be used as part of a full attack action, but in that case they should have not have used the word "attack action". Since the phrase "attack action" was assigned a specific action by the rules guru from 3.5, and the head designer from Pathfinder I am pretty sure that I at least have that much right. :)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, if anyone hasn't hit the FAQ button next to the OP, then please do so.

This crap needs clearing up.

I don't want my sunder build to suck half the time due to table variation.

Then again, who does?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The 'attack action' does not exist as a game action.

What does exist is 'attack', which may be a standard action.

Quote:


We already said that a few pages back, no argument there. :)
Quote:
When the phrase 'attack action' is used (when correctly used c.f. Vital Strike) it is a synonym for 'attack, using the appropriate action'.

The devs disagree with you.

Malachi wrote:


If the devs wanted Sunder to take a standard action specifically, they'd have used the phrase 'As a standard action' like they did for Bull Rush, Grapple and Overrun. Since they knew Sunder was an attack (as opposed to a special standard action) in 3.5, if they intended Sunder to be a standard action in PF they would know that this represented a change and would have spelt it out using the phrase 'As a standard action'.

You mean like they did for vital strike? ;)


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


Once again-->Not all attacks are "attack actions". I specifically stated that twice before now.

And I'm saying all attacks are attack actions - they are just special like a 5 foot step - which is a move action - except when it isn't.

You sir are incorrect. Not all attacks are standard actions. I know this because the book only allows you to have one standard action a round. I also know this because the book says a full round action, and a standard action can not take place in the same round. I also know this because an AoO is an attack, and you can not take an action outside of your turn unless you are speaking or unless it is an immediate action.

For the sake of argument, even if you want to believe that every attack is a standard action, you can at best argue that you have a rules conflict.

Now before we go any farther are you trying to argue RAW or RAI?

I'm saying RAW an attack action (which is a standard action) is performed during a 'full attack' - it's just a special rule just like the 5 foot step which is a 'move action' but can be used during a 'full-round action'

This is the part where we disagree I believe - I don't see anything in the RAW or in RAI where because you use the 'full attack' option that it makes the attack *not* a standard action.

In fact I'd say RAI the only reason for the extra wording and setup is because they don't want you to take a 'full round' action to use two standard actions (which cover much more than just an attack) - otherwise the rule would be like movement and let you sub 'standard' for movement as it already lets you sub 'movement' for standard.

I'd say RAW *and* RAI this shows that the attack action isn't as important as a real 'standard action' - otherwise they could have removed a ton of words and made it much clearer.


Krigare wrote:

Just for giggles...this what it sounds like your saying concerro...

I take an action to attack, its an attack action.

I take an action to make multiple attacks...its not an attack action.

I get where your coming from man. I do.

But it feels like your clinging very tightly to one comment from a Dev, a comment that dev made in regards to a specific feat. I'm not him, but I am willing to bet he did not parse the CRB to see if attack action was used in the wording of other feats, indeed, from books published since then, the pattern would indicate the phrase is not the preferred wording due to the issue at hand.

When one of the writers who writes for Paizo has said they designed feats to alter the action it takes to use maneuvers but did not write one for sunder because it was their understanding sunder was already interchangeable with attacks, whether standard, full, or AoO, why not think a little more in regards to RAW?

I forgot to add the the full attack action says it allows you to make multiple attacks as apart of that full round action. That means all of those attacks constitute a full round attack. We know they are not attack actions, which is a standard action because the rules say that standard actions, and full round actions can't take place within the same round, and I had quotes for that.

So I am not saying "I take an action to make multiple attacks...its not an attack action."

The book is saying those multiple attacks are a full round action, while also saying one attack take a standard action. Personally it should have been written better, but it is what it is.

I am just repeating what I have read. :)


I have always said they need to break down the basic rules of the game, just like WoTC did. Not all of us have close to 10 years of rule-fu to fall back on.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The 'attack action' does not exist as a game action.

"Attack action" is defined under "attack" under "Standard Actions" under "Action Types"

We use the words "Attack action" instead of "attack" for clarity's sake.

I'm sure that we could agree that "Attack action" is certainly an action?

Not simply part of an action but actually an action?

Is it a Standard action?
Is it a Full round action?
Is it a free action?
Swift?

Is it a special kind of action not defined in the Combat section?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
concerro wrote:


I forgot to add the the full attack action says it allows you to make multiple attacks as apart of that full round action. That means all of those attacks constitute a full round attack. We know they are not attack actions, which is a standard action because the rules say that standard actions, and full round actions can't take place within the same round, and I had quotes for that.

So I am not saying "I take an action to make multiple attacks...its not an attack action."

The book is saying those multiple attacks are a full round action, while also saying one attack take a standard action. Personally it should have been written better, but it is what it is.

I am just repeating what I have read. :)

Quote:

Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.

No where in the rules does it say that an AOO or a full attack changes that definition.

You are trying to say that because it's a standard action (actually a type of standard action as there are listed 6 types in the rules) that it would be illegal to use outside of the standard action part of a turn.

I'm saying I agree with you and it still doesn't matter because they list ways it can be used outside of the standard action part of a turn.

None of the ways they list say that the attack is no longer a standard action - RAW an attack is always a standard action.

Show me the rule that specifically states where the attack changes from a standard action to something else - without an example I have to read it just like it says - in which case I am forced to accept that some attack actions happen specifically outside of the 'standard action' part of a turn - and then I turn to the other rule that states combat maneuvers can be used in place of an attack.


Ckorik wrote:


I'm saying RAW an attack action (which is a standard action) is performed during a 'full attack' - it's just a special rule just like the 5 foot step which is a 'move action' but can be used during a 'full-round action'
Quote:


There is no rules exception that says the full attack action includes other standard actions.

A 5 foot step is also not a move action. It is just a way to move.

The rules say that you can take a 5 ft step, and you still get your move action. Despite the name, not all movement requires a move action. As another example you can use your standard action to move.

Quote:


This is the part where we disagree I believe - I don't see anything in the RAW or in RAI where because you use the 'full attack' option that it makes the attack *not* a standard action.

The RAW says

Quote:

Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.

"An" is single so that means one attack.

Multiple attacks require a full attack which is a full round action, which by the books means no standard actions.

Quote:

Full-Round Actions

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

3.5 rules of the game wrote:
You decide between the full attack and attack actions after you make your first attack. If you decide to use a move action after attacking, then your first attack is considered the attack standard action. Even if you choose the full attack action, you can take a 5-foot step before, after, or during the action. You can interrupt your attacks with a 5-foot step to bring new opponents within reach.

Note that you have to choose an attack action or a full attack. Why bother with that bolded area if all of the attacks are standard attacks anyway.

The following is the area it is explaining, and those same rules are in 3.5. Malachi can attest that the meaning of those words has not changed between editions.

combat chapter PF wrote:


Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack 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.


Ckorik wrote:


Quote:

Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.
No where in the rules does it say that an AOO or a full attack changes that definition.

An attack and an "attack action" are two different things.

An AoO isn't an action so it can't be an "attack action"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If only Jason had cleared up Vital Strike in a different manner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The 'attack action' does not exist as a game action.

What does exist is 'attack', which may be a standard action.

'Attack action' refers to the action called attack, just like 'full-attack action' refers to the action called full attack, 'aid another action' refers to the action called aid another, 'charge action' refers to the action called charge, and so forth. 'Action' means it refers to the action section of the rules and 'attack' or 'full attack' is the name of the action referred to. If we follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion then Manyshot (full attack action), Medusa's Wrath (full attack action), Ride By Attack (charge action), Spirited Charge (charge action), Two Weapon Defense (total defense action), Bodyguard (aid another action), and many more all fall apart because they all refer to actions which "do not exist as a game action".


blackbloodtroll wrote:
If only Jason had cleared up Vital Strike in a different manner.

It still would not have meant than an "attack action" was not a standard action.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
If only Jason had cleared up Vital Strike in a different manner.
It still would not have meant than an "attack action" was not a standard action.

Yes, it would change things, as the "attack action" was not defined by any Developer before.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
concerro wrote:


There is no rules exception that says the full attack action includes other standard actions.

Multiple attacks require a full attack which is a full round action, which by the books means no standard actions.

Quote:

Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start
undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete
in the following round by using another standard action.

That shows the 'full round action' does indeed include other standard actions.

I'm not sure what you are getting at - nothing in the 'full attack' action says that an attack is no longer a standard action.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Yes, it would change things, as the "attack action" was not defined by any Developer before.

YOu mean like how "Full Attack action" hasn't been defined? :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
concerro wrote:
I have always said they need to break down the basic rules of the game, just like WoTC did. Not all of us have close to 10 years of rule-fu to fall back on.

I've got over 25 years of it to fall back on, for a whole host of systems and types. So I guess that makes my opinion more valid? The arrogance your trying to display doesn't prove anything other than the fact you are not going to be convinced by anything short of a dev telling you you're wrong.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

Anyway, I've said my peace. Hopefully they FAQ it, the wording in sunder, as a whole for when it is used, is unique to sunder. The confusion exists because it needs better wording. Until they do, guess it is a DM call issue.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Karlgamer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Yes, it would change things, as the "attack action" was not defined by any Developer before.
YOu mean like how "Full Attack action" hasn't been defined? :)

It's already listed as a Full Round Action.

That means it's a defined term.


Ckorik wrote:

I'm not sure what you are getting at - nothing in the 'full attack' action says that an attack is no longer a standard action.

"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action..."


blackbloodtroll wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
If only Jason had cleared up Vital Strike in a different manner.
It still would not have meant than an "attack action" was not a standard action.
Yes, it would change things, as the "attack action" was not defined by any Developer before.

I will rephrase that. It would not change intent. We would just not have proof of the intent. :)

It would also liken "Attack action" to that imaginary word I made up earlier, which does not really make anything better.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It's already listed as a Full Round Action.

That means it's a defined term.

Where under Full Round Actions is "Full Attack action" listed? :)

Silver Crusade

Karlgamer, you say:-

''Attack action" is defined under "attack" under "Standard Actions" under "Action Types''

No it isn't. 'Attack Action' is not defined at all. What is defined is 'attack' .

What kind of action is 'attack'? It depends. It could be a standard action. It could be one element of a full attack so it wouldn't be an action itsf but part of a full-round action. It could be part of the full-round action that is a charge. It might not even be an action at all, such as an AoO. It could even be a free action granted when you cast a touch attack spell.

You may certainly attack as a standard action, but 'attack' itself is not limited to standard actions.

RAW, there is no such thing as an 'attack action' any more than there is such an action as a 'spell-casting action'. Casting a spell is described under the Standard Action heading, but do any of us believe that therefore casting a spell=standard action? Feather fall? Sleep? Not standard actions.

By the same logic, just because 'attack' is under the Standard Action heading does not mean an attack equals a standard action.

When it comes to Actions In Combat there is no such thing as ''Spell-Casting', there is only 'Cast a Soell with a casting time of one standard action' and 'cast a spell with a casting time of one full-round action' and 'cast a spell with a casting time of one swift action' etc.

Similarly, there is no 'attack action', just attacks that can use a standard action OR be one element of a full attack or charge or AoO or as a free action granted by a touch attack spell etc.


Krigare wrote:
concerro wrote:
I have always said they need to break down the basic rules of the game, just like WoTC did. Not all of us have close to 10 years of rule-fu to fall back on.

I've got over 25 years of it to fall back on, for a whole host of systems and types. So I guess that makes my opinion more valid? The arrogance your trying to display doesn't prove anything other than the fact you are not going to be convinced by anything short of a dev telling you you're wrong.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

Anyway, I've said my peace. Hopefully they FAQ it, the wording in sunder, as a whole for when it is used, is unique to sunder. The confusion exists because it needs better wording. Until they do, guess it is a DM call issue.

I don't have 10 years by the way, so I was not being arrogant. My point was that many of us know the rules only because we came from 3.5, and if they bothered to break down the basics it would help a lot. Anyway thanks for assuming.

PS:Next time try asking what someone means..


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Karlgamer, you say:-

''Attack action" is defined under "attack" under "Standard Actions" under "Action Types''

No it isn't. 'Attack Action' is not defined at all. What is defined is 'attack' .

Then "Full attack action" also isn't defined.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Karlgamer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It's already listed as a Full Round Action.

That means it's a defined term.

Where under Full Round Actions is "Full Attack action" listed? :)

See here.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Yes, it would change things, as the "attack action" was not defined by any Developer before.
YOu mean like how "Full Attack action" hasn't been defined? :)

It's already listed as a Full Round Action.

That means it's a defined term.

"Full Attack" is a defined term, but the term "Full Attack action" is not. It is still used as if it is an official term though, just like "attack action" is used in a similar manner.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
See here.

That only lists a "full attack" not a "full attack action"


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Karlgamer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
See here.
That only lists a "full attack" not a "full attack action"

It states "full attack action" in the description.

Look closer.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It states "full attack action" in the description.

Look closer.

Copy, past and bold the text that says "full attack action" under "full attack."

I don't see it.


Ckorik wrote:
concerro wrote:


There is no rules exception that says the full attack action includes other standard actions.

Multiple attacks require a full attack which is a full round action, which by the books means no standard actions.

Quote:

Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start
undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete
in the following round by using another standard action.

That shows the 'full round action' does indeed include other standard actions.

I'm not sure what you are getting at - nothing in the 'full attack' action says that an attack is no longer a standard action.

The full round rules say they can't be coupled with standard actions. Since the full attack is a full round action it would need a rules exception to be allowed to bypass that rule.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I need a break from this thread.


KG, Malachi is correct.

Attack actions are not action types in the sense that move and standard actions are.

The following are actions types.

Quote:

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.

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.

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.

You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.

Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.

Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.

Immediate Action: An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn.

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.

Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I need a break from this thread.

No you are stuck here. <forces BBT to read thread until conclusion>


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

I'm not sure what you are getting at - nothing in the 'full attack' action says that an attack is no longer a standard action.

"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action..."

Start/Complete Full-Round Action

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

Because you see a 'full round action' is just two standard actions or a standard and a move (in terms of time) - none of these rules state that attacking is no longer a 'standard' action. Only that a full-attack lets you use more than one in a turn as long as you don't move.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
PRD wrote:

Full Attack

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

That doesn't say "full Attack action."

But here:

PRD wrote:

Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.

This doesn't say "Attack action"

See the similarity.

Both of these are, However listed under "Action Types"


Ckorik wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

I'm not sure what you are getting at - nothing in the 'full attack' action says that an attack is no longer a standard action.

"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action..."

Start/Complete Full-Round Action

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

Because you see a 'full round action' is just two standard actions or a standard and a move (in terms of time) - none of these rules state that attacking is no longer a 'standard' action. Only that a full-attack lets you use more than one in a turn as long as you don't move.

A full round action is not a combination of other actions. It is its own action. If it were just a combination of other actions then charge would not be possible since it would potentially use up 2 move actions, and one standard action.

What you quoted is a rule allowing you to use 2 standard actions to complete a full round action across 2 rounds as a special exception to the rules, since not all full round actions can cross 2 rounds/turns.


Ckorik wrote:


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

You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.

251 to 300 of 1,171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.