So since it says:
"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."
Does that mean that sundering is a standard action (since it's part of an attack action and "attack action" -> "standard action")?
OK, I got it: "attack action" is jason's secret back-door for "wu xia" fighter powers: throw an "attack action" down, and all enemies suffer utter confusion for an UNDEFINED number of rounds, randomly rolling their every action and target.
Seriously though,
As far as I can tell, Sunder should work as either a Standard Attack, an Iterative Attack, or an AoO (w/ Imp. Sunder). So is this a new side to "attack action"? Does she "swing both ways"? Tune in next time, and see how Seoni and Amiri get their attack action on...
I think you misunderstood. Lets say there is an enemy with an AC of...30, sure why not? If you have a attack bonus of 15, that hit is probably your best chance at doing anything, as all subsequent attacks will be requiring you to confirm crits, in order to hit.
Actually, even in that situation, it's quite possible that the iterative attacks are the better option. Let's intentionally stack the deck in favor of Vital Strike: take a level 11 fighter with a standard +3 longsword, a +5 strength bonus, no other damage bonuses, and the 2nd tier of Vital Strike. He needs a 15 to hit on his first attack.
With Vital Strike, you have a 20% chance to hit for 3d8+8 damage, a 10% chance to threaten a critical hit, and a 30% chance to confirm the critical hit for 4d8+16 damage. That averages to:
avg(3d8+8) * 0.2 = 4.3 average damage
0.1 * 0.3 (chance to successfully critically hit) = 0.03
0.1 - 0.03 (chance to threaten but not crit) = 0.07
avg(4d8+16) * 0.03 = 1.02 average damage
avg(3d8+8) * 0.07 = 1.505 average damage
4.3 + 1.02 + 1.505 = 6.825 average damage from an Improved Vital Strike
With iterative attacks, you have a 20% chance to hit for 1d8+8 damage, a 10% chance to threaten a critical hit, a 30% chance to confirm that critical hit for 2d8+16 damage, then you have two 5% chances to hit for 1d8+8 and one 5% chance to confirm the crit for 2d8+16. That averages to:
avg(1d8+8) * (0.2 + 0.07) = 3.375 average damage
avg(2d8+16) * 0.03 = 0.75 average damage
0.05 * 0.05 (chance to successfully critically hit with iteratives) = 0.0025
0.05 - 0.0025 (threaten but not crit) = 0.475
avg(1d8+8) * (0.05 + 0.0475) = 1.21875 average damage
avg(2d8+16) * 0.0025 = 0.0625 average damage
3.375 + 0.75 + 1.21875 + 0.0625 = 5.40625
In this case, Vital Strike wins out by about 1.4 average damage per round. However, let's add an extra attack from haste (and what 11th level fighter isn't going to have a haste in an important fight like this one obviously is, since even the fighter is having a b#~+& of a time hitting the thing?). We'll ignore the +1 to hit for simplicity's sake, even though it greatly favors the iterative attacks. Instead, we just add the first attack's average damage again, since the math is identical:
3.375 + 5.40625 = 8.78125
That's almost 2 points of damage higher, on average.
The advantage similarly swings to iteratives when you have a greater proportion of non-weapon-dice damage (flaming weapons, weapon specialization, weapon training which I didn't include above, melee weapon mastery feat from PHB2, bardic performance, etc etc ad nauseum). Basically, it's only advantageous to Vital Strike if you're only doing weapon + a small amount of extra damage.
This does, indeed, make the feat chain rather useless.
I'd also like to point out that if you're fighting a creature that even the fighter -- who will have the highest chance to hit an arbitrary creature out of the whole party, thanks to having the feats to spend on nickel-and-dime attack bonus feats (weapon focus chain, etc) and the weapon training class feature -- cannot hit, then it's likely a fight that the party isn't meant to solve with brute force anyway, and Vital Strike isn't really going to help. Doing 1.4 average damage per round more really isn't going to kill a tough melee monster like that.
...just to check: vital strike works on a single attack when using Cleave?
This is something I would like to know as well.
Here's a situation where you really want vital strike:
Joe the highly dextrous and not particularly strong Eldritch Knight is monkeygripping a greatsword. He has vital strike and power attack.
Round 1, he Enlarges himself, moves into the combat.
Round 2, he casts True Strike and, with his boots of speed, moves 60' toward the enemy.
Round 3, takes a 5' step to his enemy, vital strike with full Power Attack. He then moves another 60' to his next enemy...
Generally, vital strike works well in the many many situations where you have to move around the battlefield and charge is a bad idea or impossible.
In the above example, at level 12, that would be something like 12d6+6 damage (not counting Str or anything extra), attacking with a +15 bonus...
... and by the time he attacks, the fight is over. At 12th level, you're taking 3 rounds and using 2 spell slots, after already investing nearly half of your feats (VS + IVS + MG), in order to inflict the same damage the wizard's chain lighting does on the very first round (while it's also dealing damage to all of the target's minions)! Yeah, chain lightning grants a save, but you're saving 2 rounds and 3 feats out of the deal, damaging minions, don't need to roll to attack, and don't even have to expose yourself to risk. And before we start with the "fighter can do it all day," remember the EldKt is using two spell slots to the wizard's one.
Generally, Vital Strike is a total waste of feats. Adding limitations to it (no charging, etc.) adds insult to injury.
Other possibilities:
He's permanently Enlarged, someone casts Enlarge on himself while he casts True strike.
Also, an enemy that has blisteringly high SR or is immune to magic or has insane DR (hello, mr. iron golem).
(And SR comes up a LOT at higher levels)
Also, an enemy that has blisteringly high SR or is immune to magic or has insane DR (hello, mr. iron golem).
Chain lightning bypasses DR; VS doesn't. And unless it's infinite (golems), SR is pretty easily bypassed -- even more so now that elves get a free +2. Keep in mind as well that a number of spells don't allow SR, but if you want to bypass DR you need to spend even more feats (Penetrating Strike chain) or else shell out a large fraction of your wealth for adamantine or +4 weapons.
Vital Strike is not a good deal. Not even remotely. Certainly not good enough to start tacking on pointless extra limitations like "not on a charge."
SR is pretty easily bypassed??
Yeah, I don't think this can be productive. My views have been registered, take care.
SR is pretty easily bypassed?? Yeah, I don't think this can be productive. My views have been registered, take care.
I will agree this can't be productive if you won't look it it, so feel free to ignore this. Those interested in "easy" can click the tab.
The Vital Strike tree goes hand-in-hand with Spring Attack. If you are a skirmisher-type combatant, the 2x/3x/4x damage dice is an invaluable addition to a skirmisher's damage output for that one swing per round. Sadly, the VS/IVS/GVS tree does not stack with a charge at the present time.
Against certain foes, forcing them to close - or, with Spring Attack, being able to ignore that foe's enormous reach - is a worthwhile capability. Combined with a typical base speed and haste, you can move in 30', thwack the baddy with a GVS and move 30' back out without provoking an attack of opportunity for movement if my memory of Spring Attack is accurate. Since any character with sufficient base attack can use the Vital Strike tree to varying degrees of effectiveness, skirmish combat remains a vital tactic in the game.
If you are a skirmisher-type combatant, the 2x/3x/4x damage dice is an invaluable addition to a skirmisher's damage output for that one swing per round.
Agreed. If Pathfinder allowed the 3.5 Scout's option of extra damage when moving, in addition to VS damage, you could potentially be looking at +11d6 damage per round, which would make up for the loss of iteratives if you're fighting a high-AC opponent.
|
...just to check: vital strike works on a single attack when using Cleave?This is something I would like to know as well.
Hey RD, I've seen you about on the SWRPG boards and am glad to see you've made the transition to Pathfinder.
Unfortunately, Cleave and VS can't be used in the same round. Botha standard actions (per the rules) and since you only have a single standard action each round...
Jason answered this in another thread somewhere, but I'm on my droid phone and I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
Welcome to the boards!
-Skeld
Edit: Making VS usable with Cleave, charges, etc. Is one of the few things I'll houserule when my group moves from SWRPG to PF.
My thoughts on the matter.
My initial reading of the feat was positive. It looked like, at first glance, that you may, if you desire, trade in your iterative attacks (which apprently never hit) for extra damage on the first attack (which is, after all, your best shot).
I guess I have to look harder, but that seems good to me.
Batts
My thoughts on the matter.
My initial reading of the feat was positive. It looked like, at first glance, that you may, if you desire, trade in your iterative attacks (which apprently never hit) for extra damage on the first attack (which is, after all, your best shot).
I guess I have to look harder, but that seems good to me.
Batts
That sounds like how it worked in the Beta. It is not so in the core rules.
lol CR 12 with SR 23? That's what we call a mediocre DM. Our enemies at level 12 and higher generally have SRs of around 30 or more (if they have SR). We needed our mages to have both Spell Pen and Greater in order to even have a chance, and not everyone prepares to face creatures with SR every day. (I do, specifically for situations like this, but the general player does not.) 60% chance? NO GOOD. I've had a 90%+ chance multiple times and still failed (not just on SR checks). Thank goodness for the Spell Compendium. Whenever someone gives me statistics as proof I generally tell them to stop talking, because statistics do not generally compute well into the actual gaming experience.
The problem with optimizers: they think everyone does what they do, all the time. Generally, no. I have to remind myself of this now and again. If not, then you see the same four builds over and over again and it makes the game boring.
:D
I gotta ask. Are you a robot?
It has been stated earlier somewhere (can't find it) that vital strike is not usable with cleave or any Standard Action. In fact, the way it is TODAY it is a standard action by itself.
I liked the feat when I first saw it, but it's ONLY good for a Barbarian with a greatsword that has mobility. I loved the idea of that feat and Spring attack with a high mobility character, maybe a rogue a barbarian or a monk with some feats to increase mobility and itens, but that doesn't work no more...so, to sum up... it sucks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol CR 12 with SR 23? That's what we call a mediocre DM. Our enemies at level 12 and higher generally have SRs of around 30 or more (if they have SR). We needed our mages to have both Spell Pen and Greater in order to even have a chance, and not everyone prepares to face creatures with SR every day. (I do, specifically for situations like this, but the general player does not.) 60% chance? NO GOOD. I've had a 90%+ chance multiple times and still failed (not just on SR checks). Thank goodness for the Spell Compendium. Whenever someone gives me statistics as proof I generally tell them to stop talking, because statistics do not generally compute well into the actual gaming experience.
Defensive Abilities uncanny dodge; DR 5/magic; Immune acid, paralysis, sleep; SR 23
DR 5/magic; Immune acid, paralysis, sleep; SR 23
Immune electricity; Resist cold 10; SR 27
Diamond Soul (Ex): At 13th level, a monk gains spell resistance equal to his current monk level + 10. (13+10=23) In order to affect the monk with a spell, a spellcaster must get a result on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) that equals or exceeds the monk's spell resistance.
So sure, if your DM is making custom homebrew monsters with super high SR, it ain't so easily bypassed. But if playing by the rules printed in the book is 'mediocre', well, I guess there are a lot of mediocre DMs out there.
lol CR 12 with SR 23? That's what we call a mediocre DM. Our enemies at level 12 and higher generally have SRs of around 30 or more (if they have SR). We needed our mages to have both Spell Pen and Greater in order to even have a chance, and not everyone prepares to face creatures with SR every day. (I do, specifically for situations like this, but the general player does not.) 60% chance? NO GOOD. I've had a 90%+ chance multiple times and still failed (not just on SR checks). Thank goodness for the Spell Compendium. Whenever someone gives me statistics as proof I generally tell them to stop talking, because statistics do not generally compute well into the actual gaming experience.Defensive Abilities uncanny dodge; DR 5/magic; Immune acid, paralysis, sleep; SR 23DR 5/magic; Immune acid, paralysis, sleep; SR 23Diamond Soul (Ex): At 13th level, a monk gains spell resistance equal to his current monk level + 10. (13+10=23) In order to affect the monk with a spell, a spellcaster must get a result on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) that equals or exceeds the monk's spell resistance.So sure, if your DM is making custom homebrew monsters with super high SR, it ain't so easily bypassed. But if playing by the rules printed in the book is 'mediocre', well, I guess there are a lot of mediocre DMs out there.
I have to agree with TOZ here, the normal for SR is 10+HD for most monsters, there were SOME that had a higher and that it was based on 15+HD.
Sorry mate, your DM is just hosing the spell casters, not cool.
It has been stated earlier somewhere (can't find it) that vital strike is not usable with cleave or any Standard Action. In fact, the way it is TODAY it is a standard action by itself.
I liked the feat when I first saw it, but it's ONLY good for a Barbarian with a greatsword that has mobility. I loved the idea of that feat and Spring attack with a high mobility character, maybe a rogue a barbarian or a monk with some feats to increase mobility and itens, but that doesn't work no more...so, to sum up... it sucks.
I would disagree - I would say it is an asset to any combat-oriented character with any weapon for the circumstance in which you have to move and strike a single target in the same round. It may not be as much of an advantage as full-attacking, but that doesn't make it useless because it makes your single attacks more effective.
I would disagree - I would say it is an asset to any combat-oriented character with any weapon for the circumstance in which you have to move and strike a single target in the same round. It may not be as much of an advantage as full-attacking, but that doesn't make it useless because it makes your single attacks more effective.It has been stated earlier somewhere (can't find it) that vital strike is not usable with cleave or any Standard Action. In fact, the way it is TODAY it is a standard action by itself.
I liked the feat when I first saw it, but it's ONLY good for a Barbarian with a greatsword that has mobility. I loved the idea of that feat and Spring attack with a high mobility character, maybe a rogue a barbarian or a monk with some feats to increase mobility and itens, but that doesn't work no more...so, to sum up... it sucks.
I do understand your point, but would anyone REALLY expend the feat slots for it? If it increased by itself, meaning, if it was ONE feat that got better on it's own, sure. The way it is now, no.
I do understand your point, but would anyone REALLY expend the feat slots for it? If it increased by itself, meaning, if it was ONE feat that got better on it's own, sure. The way it is now, no.
Well I know I would, with a character I have right now that works a lot with Improved Feint I'll take it as soon as I can. To turn it around another way, would a rogue take a feat that gave him just 1d6 extra on his sneak attack? I think so, and in the circumstances under which I plan on using it, this is effectively what it will do.
I do understand your point, but would anyone REALLY expend the feat slots for it? If it increased by itself, meaning, if it was ONE feat that got better on it's own, sure. The way it is now, no.Well I know I would, with a character I have right now that works a lot with Improved Feint I'll take it as soon as I can. To turn it around another way, would a rogue take a feat that gave him just 1d6 extra on his sneak attack? I think so, and in the circumstances under which I plan on using it, this is effectively what it will do.
Improved feint with it is a nice thought. It's not optimized, but it's cool.
I'll take cool over optimised any day!
But if I can make cool function reasonably well, that helps.
I'll take cool over optimised any day!
But if I can make cool function reasonably well, that helps.
Me too mate, me too. Too bad a rogue can't take the whole chain... :(
I've gone fighter/rogue and will be going duelist. The sneak attack isn't so hot this way, but I can make better use of Combat Expertise.
Personally, I think Pathfinder needs a feat that allows you to do a standard action attack at the end of a charge - be it Vital Strike, Cleave or whatever.
I do understand your point, but would anyone REALLY expend the feat slots for it? If it increased by itself, meaning, if it was ONE feat that got better on it's own, sure. The way it is now, no.Well I know I would, with a character I have right now that works a lot with Improved Feint I'll take it as soon as I can. To turn it around another way, would a rogue take a feat that gave him just 1d6 extra on his sneak attack? I think so, and in the circumstances under which I plan on using it, this is effectively what it will do.
Suggestion: Since two-weapon fighting only works on full attack and vital strike doesn't, I guess you'll be using only one weapon. If that is the case, why not make it a greatsword or curve blade? That way, you add a lot more from vital strike!
Thus my houserule: use it as a standard attack or as one attack at the end of a charge, for +2d6 at BAB +6, +4d6 at BAB +11, and +6d6 at BAB +16.
I really don't have much to say for this thread, but I LOVE this rule, Kirth. Consider it under adoption for all of my games.
Not thread-relevant, BUT the way Kirth expressed this is perfectly in line with one of my biggest gripes with D20 style gaming in general - it tries to mix and match "realistic" with "abstract" principals all over it's design. Magic gets this ever increasing scaling damage and effects, but sword swingers get measly little +1's to hit and damage doled out in miniscule quantities. Then something like Vital Strike comes out, and on the surface looks awesome, but then it's completely undercut in it's utility and potential under closer inspection.
Large weapons do more damage because "they're big" and it's more "real" but isn't this THE system of HP abstraction? Doesn't really mesh well. Then you get stuff like bigger critters = higher STR, so they're going to do more damage ANYWAY even if the weapon was the same size, or rated the same in damage - but it's "real" that way, so it's preferred. That doesn't even make much sense to itself, really.
There there's the automatic 2-handed damage is better than 1-handed ... because it's "real" that way. First off - if a weapon needs 2-hands to use, it needs 2-hands to use. I don't see how you're 2nd hand can give extra benefit if it's NEEDED to operate the weapon in the first place. The extra damage it does is already factored in the weapon's damage isn't it? Why give 2-handers, already getting a higher damage rating, more damage on top when they NEED 2-hands to use it? It makes NO sense. What's more? The system has moved towards one with Feats (read as: intensive combat training), so why not make bonus damage w/2-hands on 1 weapon a feat instead? No - it's the default, because it's "real" yet it double dips up front to grant a benefit compared to all other weapons - that's just crazy design, IMO.
So, to hear the idea that a feat will grant an equal, skill-based bonus to any damage inflicted is just a fantastic thing to me. Well done, Kirth! You nailed what feat's should do and how they should operate overall. I salute you!
Suggestion: Since two-weapon fighting only works on full attack and vital strike doesn't, I guess you'll be using only one weapon. If that is the case, why not make it a greatsword or curve blade? That way, you add a lot more from vital strike!
Because the bonus to attack and defence from Duelist will only apply if I have a one handed piercing weapon - and that bonus is worth having especially for all the other times when I'm NOT using Vital Strike.
Oh, and it was ruled (in the end) that Vital Strike can be used with Spring Attack - which gives me some other options!
I do like that rule for Vital Strike too, stringburka, but I don't know if my DM will!
Suggestion: Since two-weapon fighting only works on full attack and vital strike doesn't, I guess you'll be using only one weapon. If that is the case, why not make it a greatsword or curve blade? That way, you add a lot more from vital strike!Because the bonus to attack and defence from Duelist will only apply if I have a one handed piercing weapon - and that bonus is worth having especially for all the other times when I'm NOT using Vital Strike.
Good point. Totally forgot that.
Everyone is focused on Vital Strike for fighter types, what about sorc's and wizzies, case point:
Wizard with BAB of +6 uses shocking grasp + vital strike.
10d6 damage instead of 5d6. Why? read the rules on spells using touch attacks, the spell is cast as a swift action and then the wizard must make a melee touch attack, per the rules (touch attacks from wizard spells are treated as Armed "unarmed attacks", therefore satisfying the make an attack action (unarmed) of the feat and doubling the dice damage, so instead of 5d6 no save, you get 10d6 no save for taking this feat. Could also be used with touch of idiocy. You would double the amount of drain dice you roll. Who cares about a weapon, the wizard pretty much gets a free intensified spell, not costing higher spell slot and can do it every round.
My opinion (broken)
another point, why use weapon focus, weapon spec, burn two feats to get +1/+2 damage for a single weapon when you just take vital and apply it to all weapon types.
Feat should be re-written for a specialized weapon, IE vital strike (longsword), or vital strike (touch or specific spell) better yet.
vital strike is a standard action. a wizard cannot cast shocking grasp then swift action vital strike.
that said I don't know how vital strike works with touch spells.
Everyone is focused on Vital Strike for fighter types, what about sorc's and wizzies, case point:
Wizard with BAB of +6 uses shocking grasp + vital strike.
10d6 damage instead of 5d6. Why? read the rules on spells using touch attacks, the spell is cast as a swift action and then the wizard must make a melee touch attack, per the rules (touch attacks from wizard spells are treated as Armed "unarmed attacks", therefore satisfying the make an attack action (unarmed) of the feat and doubling the dice damage, so instead of 5d6 no save, you get 10d6 no save for taking this feat. Could also be used with touch of idiocy. You would double the amount of drain dice you roll. Who cares about a weapon, the wizard pretty much gets a free intensified spell, not costing higher spell slot and can do it every round.
The bolded section is not true. If it was, touch spells would prevent you from casting quickened spells in the same turn. Rather, you cast a spell as a standard (or swift) action and get to make a single touch attack as a free action. If you miss, or choose not to make the touch attack, you hold the charge and can make a touch attack as a standard action on any future round.
You can make a case that on subsequent rounds you could vital strike with your held spell, and/or that you can cast a touch spell quickened and then make a vital strike attack with it on the same turn. At that point, I'd almost allow it - you're either wasting an entire turn of spellcasting to double your damage, or you're quickening a spell (+4 spell levels!) and using your standard action to double your damage. In either case, it's effectively the same as casting the spell twice, except it only takes one spell. However, then I go read the actual touch spell rules for holding the charge:
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
It's clear from reading this that I have two options to deliver a held spell: I can make a touch attack, or I can do an unarmed/natural attack. Either one delivers the spell. From this I infer that the spell is never the weapon I'm attacking with - it's a bonus that happens when I make a 0 damage touch attack or a normal damage melee attack. Using vital strike would either double 0, or double the normal melee damage. In neither case would it damage the spell.
So no, vital strike isn't overpowered with spellcasting, and there was no need to revive a 11-month-old thread.
Edit: Just in case anyone wants to argue that my inference above is not RAW, bring a quote which says that the held spell counts as a weapon , not just being armed. Vital strike specifically doubles the "the weapon’s damage dice, not the attack's damage.
I don't know how vital strike works with touch spells.
There's no weapon damage, so vital strike would do nothing.
If a caster had a held charge and delivered it via an Unarmed Strike, they could use VS to double their fist damage, but not the spell damage.
A Magus could use Vital Strike with Spellstrike, but VS would only multiply their weapon dice, not the spell. (Not the free attack from casting, but delivering a held charge via a weapon with a standard action attack)
|
Learn to read....
Look for the word weapon in there...
NOT SPELL. stop trolling.
"Vital Strike
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total."
That is not a good argument because Weapon Focus feat can apply to magical rays like hellfire ray. However, in the FAQ it was ruled that VS doesn't work with spells. So not RAW but RAI is that VS is not a cheap way for casters to get extra spell damage through their ray spells.
Casting a ray is not an attack action, it's a standard action to cast a spell with a ranged touch attack built in. So that's RAW as well as RAI.
I don't know how vital strike works with touch spells.There's no weapon damage, so vital strike would do nothing.
If a caster had a held charge and delivered it via an Unarmed Strike, they could use VS to double their fist damage, but not the spell damage.
A Magus could use Vital Strike with Spellstrike, but VS would only multiply their weapon dice, not the spell. (Not the free attack from casting, but delivering a held charge via a weapon with a standard action attack)
I figured it did not work with spells but couldn't tell him rules wise why it did not. but that makes sense.
If "attack action" were explicitly defined somewhere, we wouldn't get questions like this. :-P (Cf. "precision damage")
I think Jason mentioned in the preview for the fighter class that Vital Strike should be usable with a charge. But should Vital Strike be usable with a full attack, i.e. is a full attack just a bunch of "attack actions" that you can use Vital Strike on? I assume that's not the case!
They are explicitly defined. They are Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Natural Attack and Unarmed Attack. They are listed as type of standard action called Attack and where these 4 specific attack actions are listed.
Interesting point with Spring attack though. It works only with Melee attacks so not Natural or Unarmed attacks. Now ranged makes but you can't spring attack and claw someone, that's just odd.
If "attack action" were explicitly defined somewhere, we wouldn't get questions like this. :-P (Cf. "precision damage")
I think Jason mentioned in the preview for the fighter class that Vital Strike should be usable with a charge. But should Vital Strike be usable with a full attack, i.e. is a full attack just a bunch of "attack actions" that you can use Vital Strike on? I assume that's not the case!
They are explicitly defined. They are Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Natural Attack and Unarmed Attack. They are listed as type of standard action called Attack and where these 4 specific attack actions are listed.
Interesting point with Spring attack though. It works only with Melee attacks so not Natural or Unarmed attacks. Now ranged makes but you can't spring attack and claw someone, that's just odd.
Natural attacks are melee (or on rare occasion ranged) attacks. Unarmed attacks are melee attacks. Otherwise, there's a lot of things that would break. Anything that triggered "when you are hit with a melee attack" for instance.
There's melee and ranged. Within melee there's manufactured, natural, and unarmed, but they're all melee attacks.
The problem is you simply state that an attack action is a standard action, but under the combat section it clearly indicates under the special attacks section, that attacks made as either a full-attack action or standard attack action are attack action while all other attacks such as attacks of opportunity are just attacks.
I doubt he's suddenly going to change his interpretation after 3 years...