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

RPG Superstar 2015

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


Rules Questions

1,151 to 1,171 of 1,171 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

cp wrote:
I get that its a reasonable inference to suppose that attack is the attack action.

If you mean that when the rules say "attack action" they're referring to the action called Attack, which is a standard action, then yeah, that's totally reasonable.

If you mean any time the rules say "attack" they mean "attack action" then I don't see how that's reasonable at all.

cp wrote:
I just go the other way when it comes to the inferences on sunder.

So if you mean the first thing I said up there, how do you decide when the rules actually mean attack action, and when they mean "a bunch of things, including but not limited to the attack action"?

If you mean the second thing, then no wonder that you think the rules are inconsistent.


cp wrote:
Grimmy wrote:


If you just read the material in it's entirety though, or even that chapter, or even just those couple of...

I've read all the source books in nauseating detail.

The actual problem is that the rules are not consistent enough to draw inference on one side or the other. No offense to paizo - managing hundreds of contributors and building on an inconsistent platform - etc.. I personally think there are more important things to be and to do than be consistency nazi's. Its a standard too high.

I get that its a reasonable inference to suppose that attack is the attack action. Hell, its an inference I presume and use myself. I just go the other way when it comes to the inferences on sunder.

Didn't mean to imply you hadn't read it. I meant "If one reads..."

About inferring that attack = attack action though, I'm not inferring that. Attack =/= Attack Action. All I'm saying is that in the list of standard actions, the one listed as "Attack" is the "Attack Action". Is that even inferential? It's a pretty short road from the premises to the conclusion. 1.)It's in a list of actions. 2.)It's called attack. 3.)It's the "Attack Action". That's practically explicit, there isn't really much to work out.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

I don't have a question.

WWWW had the question about the interchangeability of the articles.

Yeah, I was directing my answer at him. : )

Thanks, though. I was really finding it difficult to grasp exactly what he wanted, and I do want to answer him. He was very polite and I appreciate that. : )

Okay, allow me to try and explain the question again. In the following passage "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action) in conjunction with their allowed movement, not any kind of standard action." there is a particular term that is used. The term that I am wondering about is "an attack action" as in "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action"

Now the two feats that are referenced in the passage both function only "When using the attack action" and this means that the feats only let one use "the attack action."

So my question is, when Skip uses the term "an attack action" in the aforementioned passage is that term equivalent to "the attack action" that the two feats restrict one to using. Or to put it more simply, in this one particular case are "an attack action" and "the attack action" completely equivalent.


cp wrote:

The actual problem is that the rules are not consistent enough to draw inference on one side or the other. No offense to paizo - managing hundreds of contributors and building on an inconsistent platform - etc.. I personally think there are more important things to be and to do than be consistency nazi's. Its a standard too high.

Maybe paizo's doing a little better on achieving consistency then we've been giving them credit for (in this case at least. I know there are other problem areas.) I would say that JB clarifying the attack action recently is a step in the right direction. It solves way more problems then it causes.

He straightened a bunch of things out by just taking a stance on something. The stance he took is consistent with what is already written in the book. It might conflict with the understanding that some players and even developers have had for who knows how long but it's consistent with what it already says on the page.

Silver Crusade

Grimmy wrote:

If you just read the material in it's entirety though, or even that chapter, or even just those couple of paragraphs, without any prejudice, you can easily satisfy yourself that the Attack Action is clearly described in the rules.

It's a standard action that allows you to make one of a number of kinds of attacks.

By that logic the cast a spell action is clearly described in the rules; it's a standard action that allows you to cast one of a number of spells.

But what about Feather Fall (immediate action) or Summon Monster (1 round)? Are they not spells? Do not the rules governing 'cast a spell' apply to spells not cast as a standard action?

The same logic, whatever that logic is, must apply to 'attack' and 'cast a spell' equally; and to the 'attack action' and the 'cast a spell action' equally, if these last two even exist which I doubt.

If 'cast a spell' is an action that can burn different action types (in terms of swift, standard, full-round, etc), then so is 'attack'.

If the 'attack action' must, by definition, burn a standard action, then the 'cast a spell action' must, by definition, burn a standard action. But it doesn't, does it?

That is why there is no such thing as 'attack action' but there is such a thing as 'attack' action. There is no such thing as the 'cast a spell action', but there is such a thing as the 'cast a spell' action.

This is why Skip and JJ say that 'attack action' has never been defined, there is just an action called 'attack'.

There are special rules which apply to 'attack' that don't apply to 'cast a spell', or any other type of action. There are no 'iterative spells' cast as a full-round action, but there are iterative attacks that can be made as a full-round action, and this is such a prevalent and important concept that it has it's own game jargon, 'full attack', but the attacks useable in a full attack aren't different than the attacks useable in a standard action.

You can't cast a spell as an AoO, but you can attack. To put it another way, you can't use the 'cast a spell action' as an AoO, but you can use the 'attack action' as an AoO.

'Attack' and 'attack action' are the same thing, where the attack in question is of the type defined under 'Attack' in the Actions In Combat chapter. Although all the actions of attack, cast a spell, activate magic item, use special ability, etc. are first described under the heading 'Standard Action', none of those actions is limited to a standard action.

Grand Lodge

"attack" and "attack action" are not the same thing, per explicit rulings by the game designers. They have said that an "attack action" is a standard action. They have not said that "all attacks are standard actions" nor is it printed in the rules.

Please post a page reference for your argument on "cast a spell action" because I'm not finding it refered to in the CRB. Each individual spell lists what kind of action it is to cast, and I'm not finding "cast a spell action" defined anywhere. A link from a game designer would also satisfy me. How you choose to apply someone elses logic is not the same thing as official rules as written.

Silver Crusade

WWWW wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

I don't have a question.

WWWW had the question about the interchangeability of the articles.

Yeah, I was directing my answer at him. : )

Thanks, though. I was really finding it difficult to grasp exactly what he wanted, and I do want to answer him. He was very polite and I appreciate that. : )

Okay, allow me to try and explain the question again. In the following passage "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use

an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action) in
conjunction with their allowed movement, not any kind of
standard action." there is a particular term that is used. The term that I am wondering about is "an attack action" as in "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action"

Now the two feats that are referenced in the passage both function only "When using the attack action" and this means that the feats only let one use "the attack action."

So my question is, when Skip uses the term "an attack action" in the aforementioned passage is that term equivalent to "the attack action" that the two feats restrict one to using. Or to put it more simply, in this one particular case are "an attack action" and "the attack action" completely equivalent.

Thanks for being patient with me; I think I've got it now. : )

I'll try to be as precise as I can.

There are two things happening simultaneously here. The first is that the attack action is not any old action you can use to attack your opponent. You can attack your opponent by casting Polar Ray or you can use a breath weapon or you can use Cleave. But none of these use the attack action as defined under 'Attack', which lists the things which are attack actions, like melee, ranged, natural, multiple attacks, etc. Polar Ray is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'cast a spell' action; a breath weapon is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'use supernatural ability' action. Using Cleave is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'use special ability' action.

The second thing is that, whatever the action is (attack, cast a spell, use special ability, etc), it burns some kind of action type (in terms of swift, free, standard, full-round, etc). Just because a kind of action may be able to burn different types of actions, that doesn't mean they break action economy! If you only have a standard action to burn then whatever kind of action you choose to take (attack, cast a spell, etc) must burn that standard action; you can't use multiple attacks or spells with a casting time of 1 round, because you only have a standard action to burn!

So, what's going on with Spring Attack/Shot On The Run?

Two things: one, you cannot take any kind of action you want just because you have a standard action to burn. The feat only allows attack actions.

Second, you only have a standard action to burn, so the attack action you take when using these feats must be both an attack action and a standard action at the same time! Not because all attack actions must be standard actions but because the limitations of the feats mean that you only have a standard action to burn (as well as a move), and that standard action can only be used to take an attack action.

That is what Skip is saying!

Does this answer your question? Please say yes! I'm trying my best!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
But what about Feather Fall (immediate action) or Summon Monster (1 round)? Are they not spells? Do not the rules governing 'cast a spell' apply to spells not cast as a standard action?

Standard Actions: Cast a Spell: "Most spells require 1 standard action to cast."

Full-Round Actions: Cast a Spell: "A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action."

Swift Actions: Cast a Quickened Spell: "You can cast a quickened spell (see the Quicken Spell feat), or any spell whose casting time is designated as a free or swift action, as a swift action."

If you had a feat that says something happens when you use the Cast a Spell standard action, it wouldn't work when you use the Cast a Spell full-round action or the Cast a Quickened Spell action. I don't see anywhere that the rules say "when you use the cast a spell action" or any of the other actions that can be made multiple ways. The rules do say "when you use the total defense action" and they explicitly mean the action called "total defense" which is always a standard action, not an AoO or whatever.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The same logic, whatever that logic is, must apply to 'attack' and 'cast a spell' equally

It does. If there was a feat that said "You can make an attack action as a swift action" then that's what it would do.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
If the 'attack action' must, by definition, burn a standard action, then the 'cast a spell action' must, by definition, burn a standard action. But it doesn't, does it?

Yes, it does, if you're referring to the Cast a Spell standard action (rather than the Cast a Spell full round action).

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
That is why there is no such thing as 'attack action' but there is such a thing as 'attack' action.

Since the relevant rules don't use that single quote, that's meaningless.

"use an attack action" (which is actually used in the rules) means to use the action called Attack. That action is a standard action.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
there are iterative attacks that can be made as a full-round action, and this is such a prevalent and important concept that it has it's own game jargon, 'full attack', but the attacks useable in a full attack aren't different than the attacks useable in a standard action.

Sure they are. Manyshot is only available with a full-attack, not an attack action. Backswing applies only to attacks made with a full-attack, not an attack action. The extra attack from Two-Weapon fighting only works with a full-attack, not an attack action.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
you can't use the 'cast a spell action' as an AoO, but you can use the 'attack action' as an AoO.

Not true.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
'Attack' and 'attack action' are the same thing, where the attack in question is of the type defined under 'Attack' in the Actions In Combat chapter.

This doesn't make any sense. The attack you make with the attack action is the same as the action, as long as it's the attack used with that action? It's meaningless.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Although all the actions of attack, cast a spell, activate magic item, use special ability, etc. are first described under the heading 'Standard Action', none of those actions is limited to a standard action.

Feel free to present some evidence that the attack action can be made as an AoO, or in a full-attack, or anything other than a standard action.

Silver Crusade

Victor Zajic wrote:

"attack" and "attack action" are not the same thing, per explicit rulings by the game designers. They have said that an "attack action" is a standard action. They have not said that "all attacks are standard actions" nor is it printed in the rules.

Please post a page reference for your argument on "cast a spell action" because I'm not finding it refered to in the CRB. Each individual spell lists what kind of action it is to cast, and I'm not finding "cast a spell action" defined anywhere. A link from a game designer would also satisfy me. How you choose to apply someone elses logic is not the same thing as official rules as written.

The attack action is described on p.182 of the CRB, and describe the kinds of attacks which are attack actions: melee attacks, unarmed attacks, ranged attacks, natural attacks and multiple attacks.

The cast a spell action is described on p.184 of the CRB, and it describes rules which apply when casting a spell: spell components, concentration, maintaining spells, casting time, AoO provoked, touch spells and other things.

Both the attack action and the cast a spell action are described under the heading 'Standard Actions', but these rules do not only apply when these actions are used as a standard action! Spell components, concentration, maintaining spells, casting time, etc all apply no matter the action burned to cast a spell. Melee attacks, unarmed attacks, ranged attacks etc, these rules apply whether or not a standard action is burned to use the attack action.

Attack actions are no more limited to burning a standard action than the cast a spell action.

Now, you may say that the section does not describe the 'cast a spell action', it just describes 'cast a spell'! You'd be correct.

By exactly the same logic the section does not describe the 'attack action', it just describes 'attack'! Whichever way you interpret it you must interpret them all the same way! If you say it's 'cast a spell' not 'cast a spell action' then you must also say that it's 'attack' not 'attack action'. If you say that it's 'attack action' then you must also say 'cast a spell action, and both can only be used in a standard action! But we know that isnt the case!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

If you just read the material in it's entirety though, or even that chapter, or even just those couple of paragraphs, without any prejudice, you can easily satisfy yourself that the Attack Action is clearly described in the rules.

It's a standard action that allows you to make one of a number of kinds of attacks.

By that logic the cast a spell action is clearly described in the rules; it's a standard action that allows you to cast one of a number of spells.

But what about Feather Fall (immediate action) or Summon Monster (1 round)? Are they not spells? Do not the rules governing 'cast a spell' apply to spells not cast as a standard action?

Your answer's right there in the description of "Cast a Spell". We're looking at a list of Standard Actions and one of them is "Cast a Spell". They describe this as an action that is used to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action.

PRD wrote:


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.

Yes, Feather Fall and Summon Monster are spells.

Look at Full-Round Actions, Cast a Spell is on there too. That's the one you use for Summon Monster.

Under the list of Swift Actions, Cast a Quickened Spell is listed. In the description it says this includes any spell with a casting time of swift or free.

Under the list of immediate actions, casting feather fall is specifically listed. So that's the action you use to cast feather fall I guess.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The attack action is described on p.182 of the CRB, and describe the kinds of attacks which are attack actions: melee attacks, unarmed attacks, ranged attacks, natural attacks and multiple attacks.

Those are just rules that apply to attacking. They don't re-print them all under full-attack because by then you already know them.

Nice to see you admit the attack action exists, though. Progress.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The cast a spell action is described on p.184 of the CRB, and it describes rules which apply when casting a spell: spell components, concentration, maintaining spells, casting time, AoO provoked, touch spells and other things.

Also rules that apply to spellcasting. They don't re-print them all under full-round actions because by then you already know them.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Both the attack action and the cast a spell action are described under the heading 'Standard Actions', but these rules do not only apply when these actions are used as a standard action! Spell components, concentration, maintaining spells, casting time, etc all apply no matter the action burned to cast a spell. Melee attacks, unarmed attacks, ranged attacks etc, these rules apply whether or not a standard action is burned to use the attack action.

Attack actions are no more limited to burning a standard action than the cast a spell action.

The gap between those paragraphs is the leap of logic you're making. Spell components can work with any method of spellcasting, that doesn't mean spellcasting can happen with any action.

Absolutely no evidence that when the rules refer explicitly to a particular action which is only defined under one action type, that somehow it means that action type doesn't apply and you can do whatever you want.


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


You can attack your opponent by casting Polar Ray or you can use a breath weapon or you can use Cleave. But none of these use the attack action as defined under 'Attack', which lists the things which are attack actions, like melee, ranged, natural, multiple attacks, etc.

This is not quite right. Melee, ranged, natural, and so on, are not attack actions. They're just attacks. Some of them can take place as part of Full-Attacks, or as AoO's, and who knows what else. Attack Action is a standard action that lets you make one of those attacks.


the info about crits, ranged attacks, and so on probably doesn't really belong under the attack action, rather it belongs under the attack roll section earlier in the chapter. you could claim that some of that info doesn't apply to attacks other than the attack action, although MOST of them have wording applying to any attack roll, disregarding where it is located. but that doesn't have any bearing to whether there is a distinct attack action, distinct from the full attack action, or the charge action, or the action cleave uses, or non-action AoO's.

JB went into this, explicitly stating that you aren't making attack actions when you take a full attack, charge, partial charge, etc.
that is the entire logical basis for his ruling about vital strike, which doesn't make any sense (nor does the existence of Backswing when Over Hand chop already applies to attack actions), if you think that any attack can be called an 'attack action'. There is an entire section of the rules called 'actions in combat'. Those are what 'actions' are in the game, not other events (such as any old attack roll). That is why Paizo gives advice to it's freelancers: "don't use the phrase 'action' when you don't need to, it means a specific thing in the game, and can be confusing if you use it when not referring to that specific meaning".

Grand Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Victor Zajic wrote:

"attack" and "attack action" are not the same thing, per explicit rulings by the game designers. They have said that an "attack action" is a standard action. They have not said that "all attacks are standard actions" nor is it printed in the rules.

Please post a page reference for your argument on "cast a spell action" because I'm not finding it refered to in the CRB. Each individual spell lists what kind of action it is to cast, and I'm not finding "cast a spell action" defined anywhere. A link from a game designer would also satisfy me. How you choose to apply someone elses logic is not the same thing as official rules as written.

The attack action is described on p.182 of the CRB, and describe the kinds of attacks which are attack actions: melee attacks, unarmed attacks, ranged attacks, natural attacks and multiple attacks.

The cast a spell action is described on p.184 of the CRB, and it describes rules which apply when casting a spell: spell components, concentration, maintaining spells, casting time, AoO provoked, touch spells and other things.

Both the attack action and the cast a spell action are described under the heading 'Standard Actions', but these rules do not only apply when these actions are used as a standard action! Spell components, concentration, maintaining spells, casting time, etc all apply no matter the action burned to cast a spell. Melee attacks, unarmed attacks, ranged attacks etc, these rules apply whether or not a standard action is burned to use the attack action.

Attack actions are no more limited to burning a standard action than the cast a spell action.

Now, you may say that the section does not describe the 'cast a spell action', it just describes 'cast a spell'! You'd be correct.

By exactly the same logic the section does not describe the 'attack action', it just describes 'attack'! Whichever way you interpret it you must interpret them all the same way! If you say it's 'cast a spell' not 'cast a spell...

You're application of this logic has been explicitly refuted by rulings from the game designers. It also makes assumptions that those you are arguing against are not using, so your assertion that they must apply the logic in the same way to both cases doesn't apply.

You are ignoring the fact that actions that let you attack or cast spells are also defined under full round actions, and immediate actions (and other places too). When you spend a standard action to make an attack action (listed under standard actions available) you use the rules under standard actions options. When you make a full attack action, you use the rules under the full round action options.

You use the same 'logic' for spells. When casting a spell with a 1 action casting time, you use the rules under the standard action options. When you cast a spell with 1 round casting time you use the rules under the full round actions options. You don't follow the full round action rules when casting a spell with a 1 action casting time, just like you don't get to use the full attack action rules when making a attack action (as listed under standard actions).


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Thanks for being patient with me; I think I've got it now. : )

I'll try to be as precise as I can.

There are two things happening simultaneously here. The first is that the attack action is not any old action you can use to attack your opponent. You can attack your opponent by casting Polar Ray or you can use a breath weapon or you can use Cleave. But none of these use the attack action as defined under 'Attack', which lists the things which are attack actions, like melee, ranged, natural, multiple attacks, etc. Polar Ray is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'cast a spell' action; a breath weapon is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'use supernatural ability' action. Using Cleave is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'use special ability' action.

The second thing is that, whatever the action is (attack, cast a spell, use special ability, etc), it burns some kind of action type (in terms of swift, free, standard, full-round, etc). Just because a kind of action may be able to burn different types of actions, that doesn't mean they break action economy! If you only have a standard action to burn then whatever kind of action you choose to take (attack, cast a spell, etc) must burn that standard action; you can't use multiple attacks or spells with a casting time of 1 round, because you only have a standard action to burn!

So, what's going on with Spring Attack/Shot On The Run?

Two things: one, you cannot take any kind of action you want just because you have a standard action to burn. The feat only allows attack actions.

Second, you only have a standard action to burn, so the attack action you take when using these feats must be both an attack action and a standard action at the same time! Not because all attack actions must be standard actions but because the limitations of the feats mean that you only have a standard action to burn (as well as a move), and that standard action can only be used to take an attack action.

That is what Skip is saying!

Does this answer your question? Please say yes! I'm trying my best!

Sorry, but that does not answer the question. Perhaps you are over thinking things. As far as I can tell it should not really require basically any explanation for the answer.

But let me rephrase the question slightly, In this one particular passage there is a series of words that are used. those words are "an attack action". The feats, however, do not contain "an attack action" but rather "the attack action". In this passage does "an attack action" mean "the attack action" and only "the attack action", or in other words are "an attack action" and "the attack action" equivalent in this one particular case.


WWWW is basically asking a yes or no question. You came really close to answering it earlier but then went on to say some things that obfuscated the answer you gave.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

Malachi, I think he's asking about "an attack action" vs "the attack action".

Instead of hoping you've answered his question you could just answer it.

The article 'a' or 'the' isn't indicating any difference.

I can't see any place in the above FAQs where Skip says, 'an attack action', he says 'the attack action' consistently, unless my old eyes are playing tricks.

Here you seemed to answer the question directly ("The article 'a' or 'the' isn't indicating any difference.")

But then you go on to say Skip was using the article "the" exclusively which wouldn't be worth pointing out if they're interchangeable.

Now I'm not sure where WWWW is going with this, I think it's been a while since anyone used the whole "article" thing to make a case that there are more then one kind of attack actions, and I'm not sure if it was you who did that in the first place (maybe ckorik?).

All I know is WWWW has been asking you a "yes" or "no" question for like days now and you keep writing 500 word replies that end with "I hope I've answered your question" and the only thing missing is the one word that would have actually answered the question, be it "yes" or "no".

And for whatever it's worth (not much I'm sure), yes, your eyes were playing tricks on you.


WWWW wrote:


So please tell me when Skip says "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action) in conjunction with their allowed movement" would you say that Skip is using "An attack action" and "The attack action" interchangeably. Meaning that Skip is saying that the attack action is a type of standard action.

Silver Crusade

When I said that I could not see where Skip used 'an' instead of 'the', I was looking at the FAQs I cut & pasted, which were Skip's FAQs about Spring Attack and Shot On The Run.

I earlier posted about the dangers of yes/no questions and answers, and illustrated the potential mis-use of such answers. I used the question, 'Do you like girls?' to illustrate that whether you answered yes OR no to that your answer could be used against you. The question should be framed as either, 'Do you like girls as opposed to boys?' or 'Do you like girls as opposed to women?'

I was wary of answering his seemingly innocent yes/no question for fear it would be taken out of context and used against me, no matter if I said yes OR no!

So I provided a fair context and did my best to answer his questions so that my answer could not be misunderstood.

Since Skip was talking about 3.5 and his FAQs were about 3.5 feats I answered in 3.5 rules. In 3.5, there is no difference between attack and attack action. If a weapon attack must be taken as a standard action, then that ability is called out as a standard action and not an attack action.

The rules in this section have not changed from the 3.5 PHB to the PF CRB, and there was no reason to believe the rule had changed.

Until, that is, JB made some posts about Vital Strike. On an Internet forum. A place which I didn't even know about until recently. How can the players of PF be expected to know the rules have changed? It's not credible that Paizo think that scouring these threads is a pre-requisite for play!

Although I think you are sincere in your beliefs, I find it astonishing that you can see 'attack' as 'attack action' without seeing 'cast a spell' as the 'cast a spell' action, and therefore require a standard action to use the 'attack action' while not requiring a standard action to use the 'cast a spell action'!

If it wasn't for JB 'fixing' Vital Stike using the words he did, then this thread would not exist, and nor would the dichotomy of understanding have arisen in the PF community, even amongst the devs, to such an extent that devs now have to be advised not to use the word 'action' any more! JB could easily have fixed Vital Strike using another form of words; he could have said 'standard' instead of 'attack' action, or hr could have said 'When making an attack as a standard action...' But either fix would have required an errata! Just posting that 'attack action=standard action' means that it wouldn't need to go through the errata process, and anyway, what harm could it do...!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

When I said that I could not see where Skip used 'an' instead of 'the', I was looking at the FAQs I cut & pasted, which were Skip's FAQs about Spring Attack and Shot On The Run.

I earlier posted about the dangers of yes/no questions and answers, and illustrated the potential mis-use of such answers. I used the question, 'Do you like girls?' to illustrate that whether you answered yes OR no to that your answer could be used against you. The question should be framed as either, 'Do you like girls as opposed to boys?' or 'Do you like girls as opposed to women?'

I was wary of answering his seemingly innocent yes/no question for fear it would be taken out of context and used against me, no matter if I said yes OR no!

So I provided a fair context and did my best to answer his questions so that my answer could not be misunderstood.

Since Skip was talking about 3.5 and his FAQs were about 3.5 feats I answered in 3.5 rules. In 3.5, there is no difference between attack and attack action. If a weapon attack must be taken as a standard action, then that ability is called out as a standard action and not an attack action.

The rules in this section have not changed from the 3.5 PHB to the PF CRB, and there was no reason to believe the rule had changed.

Until, that is, JB made some posts about Vital Strike. On an Internet forum. A place which I didn't even know about until recently. How can the players of PF be expected to know the rules have changed? It's not credible that Paizo think that scouring these threads is a pre-requisite for play!

Although I think you are sincere in your beliefs, I find it astonishing that you can see 'attack' as 'attack action' without seeing 'cast a spell' as the 'cast a spell' action, and therefore require a standard action to use the 'attack action' while not requiring a standard action to use the 'cast a spell action'!

If it wasn't for JB 'fixing' Vital Stike using the words he did, then this thread would not exist, and nor would the dichotomy of...

Oh, don't worry about the answer being taken out of context and used against you, that wasn't really the point in the end. I was wondering if a conversation had a hope of going anywhere and your inability give an answer answers my question. Sorry, but if you won't take a stance on anything we can't actually discuss anything.

Assistant Software Developer , Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I removed a post and the replies to it. Please refrain from talking down to others.

Also, after nearly 1200 posts, an answer has either been reached and discarded, or will not be reached. I'm going ahead and locking this one.

1,151 to 1,171 of 1,171 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 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.