I believe I have seen reference to this type of action before in the book, but right now I am referring to Vital Strike feat which states:"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
I'm unsure if this wording is intentional or accidental. There are no rules which define an "attack action". "Attack" is an option available under a "standard action", as is "Activate a Magic Item" and "Cast a Spell". However, I don't recall seeing any references in the book to "Activate a Magic Item Action" or "Cast a Spell Action".
If the intent was to limit the use of this feat to only one attack a round, then why does this not state: "As a standard action, you can make your attack deal additional damage"? (I'm also not sure why they explained that the attack is at the highest BAB? Whenever you make your 1 attack in a standard attack action, it's always at your highest BAB.)
Is there some reason this is worded like this?
I believe I have seen reference to this type of action before in the book, but right now I am referring to Vital Strike feat which states:"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
I'm unsure if this wording is intentional or accidental. There are no rules which define an "attack action". "Attack" is an option available under a "standard action", as is "Activate a Magic Item" and "Cast a Spell". However, I don't recall seeing any references in the book to "Activate a Magic Item Action" or "Cast a Spell Action".
If the intent was to limit the use of this feat to only one attack a round, then why does this not state: "As a standard action, you can make your attack deal additional damage"? (I'm also not sure why they explained that the attack is at the highest BAB? Whenever you make your 1 attack in a standard attack action, it's always at your highest BAB.)
Is there some reason this is worded like this?
Jason has stated the intent was for Vital Strike to be a standard action and he alluded to it either being included in errata or a FAQ clarification.
Jason has stated the intent was for Vital Strike to be a standard action and he alluded to it either being included in errata or a FAQ clarification.
Thanks for mentioning that... I really hope it does get clarified. I'm reading another thread about this, and Jason's comments include:
"Vital Strike can be used in place of an attack action. This means that whenever you take an attack action, you can use Vital Strike instead."
And
"Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action. You cannot use it as part of a full-attack action."
Here he says its used "as an attack action", and also "used in the place of an attack action". I guess either are a mute point, since its really just saying its a standard action.
EDIT
I have read more threads about this now. Seems like this reference to an "attack action" has indeed created some confusion.
Request to Publisher: Please remove all references to "attack action" and replace them with "standard action".
I believe I have seen reference to this type of action before in the book, but right now I am referring to Vital Strike feat which states:"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
I'm unsure if this wording is intentional or accidental. There are no rules which define an "attack action". "Attack" is an option available under a "standard action", as is "Activate a Magic Item" and "Cast a Spell". However, I don't recall seeing any references in the book to "Activate a Magic Item Action" or "Cast a Spell Action".
Actually this sort of wording is fairly common, it's just almost always used referencing a full-attack action instead of an attack action. For an example of a feat or ability that references the attack action, you might check the 3.5 version of Spring Attack. For examples of the same wording being used for full-attack actions, just check out Rapid Shot, Manyshot, or Whirlwind Attack.
If the intent was to limit the use of this feat to only one attack a round, then why does this not state: "As a standard action, you can make your attack deal additional damage"? (I'm also not sure why they explained that the attack is at the highest BAB? Whenever you make your 1 attack in a standard attack action, it's always at your highest BAB.)
Is there some reason this is worded like this?
I can't speak for the intent of designers, but I can speak to the rules effects of using this wording instead of "as a standard action."
Feats requiring a standard action can never be used together, as they'll each require their own unique action to employ.
Feats modifying one of the standard actions (Such as Vital Strike, Rapid Shot, or Manyshot) could potentially be used in combination with other feats modifying the same action, but not with feats requiring a standard action.
For example, if you had two feats that said something like...
Life Eater: When you use the attack action, you gain 1 temporary hit point per 5 points of damage dealt.
... and...
Tempest: When you use the attack action while wielding two or more weapons, you may make a melee attack with each weapon at your highest attack bonus.
Then you could use both at the same time, as they both simply apply a modifier to the same action "Attack"
If, on the other hand, you had a feat that said...
Magus of the Blade: As a standard action you may make a single melee attack and cast a single spell with a casting time of one standard action that is of third level or less, without provoking attacks of opportunity.
You could not then use it with the first two feats, as it requires it's own unique standard action, and does not modify the standard Attack action.
Unfortunately for Vital strike, there are no other feats in the Pathfinder core book that modify Attack actions, so it's somewhat stranded on it's own. The 3.5 version of Spring attack did, but for some reason the language was removed in Pathfinder and nothing was put in it's place. It's possible this was an oversight, and if so, then it might be possible to use Vital Strike and Spring Attack together once Spring attack has errata.
...
Feats modifying one of the standard actions (Such as Vital Strike, Rapid Shot, or Manyshot) could potentially be used in combination with other feats modifying the same action, but not with feats requiring a standard action....
Just to make sure I am on the same page here. Rapid Shot and Manyshot use a "Full-Attack Action" not standard, but the point is the same as Rapid Shot and Manyshot can be combined because neither takes a Full-Round Action which prevent the two from working together.
Which is why I am leaning towards agreeing with you Brogidggan Gale about the Vital Strike and Spring Attack.
Just to make sure I am on the same page here. Rapid Shot and Manyshot use a "Full-Attack Action" not standard, but the point is the same as Rapid Shot and Manyshot can be combined because neither takes a Full-Round Action which prevent the two from working together.
Which is why I am leaning towards agreeing with you Brogidggan Gale about the Vital Strike and Spring Attack.
I think we're on the same page, yeah, Rapid Shot and Manyshot aren't actions, in and of themselves, they just modify the full-attack action when you're using a ranged weapon. Vital Strike works the same way, but there's just not any other feat (right now) that also modifies the Attack action, all the rest take an action of their own to use.
The one possible exception is Spring Attack, which also modified the Attack action in 3.5, but had the wording removed in the changover (and had nothing added in it's place, which is what makes it seem like a mistake, not a deliberate design decision).
With regards to Spring Attack, I think the intent was that it only change how you take your move action. I think you can make any standard action attack with it, although the wording of the feat doesn't completely back this up.
From what I've read on various posts, the standard action attacks are: default - single attack at full BAB; & various 'single attack as a standard action' feats- Cleave/Great Cleave, Deadly Stroke, Scorpion Style & Vital Strike that I know of.
As far as I can tell, when you make an attack as a standard action, you can use Spring Attack, in conjunction with a default attack or an attack using any one of the other above mentioned feats. However, you cannot combine these other feats and perform a 'Vital Cleave' attack or a 'Vital Scorpion Style Strike'
I really think this is what is intended, and I hope it helps.
With regards to Spring Attack, I think the intent was that it only change how you take your move action. I think you can make any standard action attack with it, although the wording of the feat doesn't completely back this up.
From what I've read on various posts, the standard action attacks are: default - single attack at full BAB; & various 'single attack as a standard action' feats- Cleave/Great Cleave, Deadly Stroke, Scorpion Style & Vital Strike that I know of.
As far as I can tell, when you make an attack as a standard action, you can use Spring Attack, in conjunction with a default attack or an attack using any one of the other above mentioned feats. However, you cannot combine these other feats and perform a 'Vital Cleave' attack or a 'Vital Scorpion Style Strike'
I really think this is what is intended, and I hope it helps.
Pretty close, and I think you're just about right on Spring Attack.
With very few exceptions outside of metamagic, the benefits line of most combat feats contain one or more clauses showing when or how they may be used. Most of them fall into two groups, the first group, feats that require an action are laid out like this:
As a standard/full-round/move-equivalent/free action, do X
-or-
You may do X as a standard/full-round/move-equivalent/free action.
These feats are used just like any of the usual actions from the Actions in Combat table in the Combat chapter, and are usually mutually exclusive, simply because you only get one standard and one move, or one full round action per turn, and even when you could potentially use two feats in a single turn, they would still be separate actions. Cleave, Arcane Armor Training, and Deadly Stroke are all examples of this feat type.
The other group is laid out like this:
When you do X, you can also do Y
-or-
Whenever you X, Y happens
These feats don't require an action of their own, instead they modify one of the other actions or abilities. These types of feats can be used together, but only when you have multiple feats that all modify the same action. Deafening Critical, Diehard, and Vital Strike all fall into this group.
The reason you cannot use Vital Strike and Cleave together is that Vital Strike modifies the Attack action, while Cleave uses it's own separate standard action.
Feats of both types may include restrictions on their use in the form of other clauses that come before or after these. Dazzling Display for instance begins with the restriction "While wielding the weapon in which you have Weapon Focus" and continues with "you can perform a bewildering show of prowess as a full-round action."
I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see a practical difference right now between Vital Strike modifying the default attack action, and the other feats (Cleave/Great Cleave, Deadly Stroke & Scorpion Style) which offer alternative standard action attacks. I admit the wording of the feat is slightly different than the others, but I don't get the significance.
I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see a practical difference right now between Vital Strike modifying the default attack action, and the other feats (Cleave/Great Cleave, Deadly Stroke & Scorpion Style) which offer alternative standard action attacks. I admit the wording of the feat is slightly different than the others, but I don't get the significance.
No worries, this throws a lot of people for a loop. I think what makes it so confusing is that they chose to use the word "Attack" in two different contexts with two different implications. I think I found a good way of explaining this in another thread, which I'll paraphrase here:
During combat, everything you do has to be an action or part of an action, and the specific actions that are available are, for the most part, listed on the Actions in Combat table. The specific actions we're interested in for this are Attack and Full Attack which are a standard and a full round action, respectively.
Melee, ranged, and unarmed attacks don't actually have an action of their own, they're always made as part of another action. The part that makes it confusing is that they chose to name the standard action that allows you to make a melee, ranged, or unarmed attack the Attack action. But it could really be easily named anything else. To make it a bit easier to follow, lets rename it strike, just temporarily.
So with the change, the wording on Vital Strike would be:
Benefit: When you use the strike action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
and the wording on Cleave would be:
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
"Strike" and Cleave are both standard actions, that allow you to make one or more attacks, but Cleave is not the same as, or a subset of, "strike." Cleave is it's own action in the same way Lay on Hands is it's own action, and Vital Strike can only modify the "strike" action.
Which makes it a little clearer (I hope) why Vital Strike would not work with something like ray/orb attack spells, Full Attacks, or Cleave. All involve making an attack of some sort, but none are the Attack action.
Just to make sure I am on the same page here. Rapid Shot and Manyshot use a "Full-Attack Action" not standard, but the point is the same as Rapid Shot and Manyshot can be combined because neither takes a Full-Round Action which prevent the two from working together.
I think we're on the same page, yeah, Rapid Shot and Manyshot aren't actions, in and of themselves, they just modify the full-attack action when you're using a ranged weapon. Vital Strike works the same way, but there's just not any other feat (right now) that also modifies the Attack action, all the rest take an action of their own to use.
I have to disagree with you both. The wording in the rules is unclear (at least compared to 3.5).
As I interpret both Rapid Shot and Many Shot the two are separate full-attack options. If you look at the power of the feats and the general dinamics of full attacks, and combat bonusses/penalties the two cannot be combined in a single full-attack action.
I have to disagree with you both. The wording in the rules is unclear (at least compared to 3.5).
As I interpret both Rapid Shot and Many Shot the two are separate full-attack options. If you look at the power of the feats and the general dinamics of full attacks, and combat bonusses/penalties the two cannot be combined in a single full-attack action.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, unlike a few feats (such as spring attack) the wording on Rapid Shot and Manyshot is crystal clear.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Rapid Shot.
The first line of each is all that really matters for this:
When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.
Both of which are a very simple <conditional clause> + <effect> pairing.
You'll noticed that unlike Cleave, neither at any point says "as a full round action" instead they trigger off of the full-attack action. The only conditions for their use are "Are you making a full attack?" and "Are you using a bow/ranged weapon?" If you are, there's really no leeway in the wording.
Both of which are a very simple <conditional clause> + <effect> pairing.
You'll noticed that unlike Cleave, neither at any point says "as a full round action" instead they trigger off of the full-attack action. The only conditions for their use are "Are you making a full attack?" and "Are you using a bow/ranged weapon?" If you are, there's really no leeway in the wording.
Unless of course this is another example of poor wording. This new interpretation diverges a lot from previous use of the feats and thus a clarification under a Special: header would have been usefull.
Unless of course this is another example of poor wording. This new interpretation diverges a lot from previous use of the feats and thus a clarification under a Special: header would have been usefull.Both of which are a very simple <conditional clause> + <effect> pairing.
You'll noticed that unlike Cleave, neither at any point says "as a full round action" instead they trigger off of the full-attack action. The only conditions for their use are "Are you making a full attack?" and "Are you using a bow/ranged weapon?" If you are, there's really no leeway in the wording.
a single melee attack is the same an attack action
a singe ranged attack is the same an atttak actiona single unarmed attack is the same as an attack action
an attack action is not the same as a single melee attack
an attack action is not the same as a single ranged attack
an attack action is not the same as a singe unarmed attack
for the same reasons as all squares are rectangles but not all rectanges are squares.
an attack action is a standard action
a mellee attack is a standard action
a ranged attack is a standard action
an unarmed attack is a standard action
cleave uses the word single melee attack because it only affects melee weapons and it does not work with a full round attack
vital uses "attack action" because it applies to melee attacks, ranged attacks and unarmed attacks but not full round attacks,
so spring attack would work with vital attack/cleave/deadly stroke
you can't use cleave or vital attack or deadly stoke on the same attack
an attack action is just standard action that is any type of attack, but not a full round attack.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Is there some reason this is worded like this?
There are two ways to attack someone. Attack action and Full Attack action. This is from 3.0, carried over in 3.5 and present in 3.p rules.
So Attack action = Standard Action to gain one attack and Full Attack action = Full Round Action to gain iterative based attacks, etc.
I believe I have seen reference to this type of action before in the book, but right now I am referring to Vital Strike feat which states:"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
One of the problems that I have with the interpretation that this only works on Standard Attacks is the wording "one attack at your highest base attack bonus". I only recall seeing this wording when you have the option of doing multiple attacks. Plus, every where else that it is only a standard attack, it clearly states so.
We have also:
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC for the same round."
That shouldn't be combined with other standard actions, like Cleave, nor with Vital Strike, or Charge, etc.
Anyway, my group uses this action as a modifier to any type of attack.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action
That shouldn't be combined with other standard actions, like Cleave, nor with Vital Strike, or Charge, etc.
Anyway, my group uses this action as a modifier to any type of attack
It can't be combined with other standard actions, what do you mean you use it as a modifier to any other attack?
If you are keying into the "all attacks in a round" that is to cover AoO.
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action
That shouldn't be combined with other standard actions, like Cleave, nor with Vital Strike, or Charge, etc.
Anyway, my group uses this action as a modifier to any type of attack
It can't be combined with other standard actions, what do you mean you use it as a modifier to any other attack?
If you are keying into the "all attacks in a round" that is to cover AoO.
I know it can't be combied per RAW, it's a house rule.
I mean that we treat "fighting defensively" the same as Power Attack: you can apply it to any kind of combat action that includes an attack. For ex: you can "Cleave Defensively".Of course you must declare it when it is you action, and lasts for the whole round.
I really really wish Jason would come back and settle this topic. As much as I like the Pathfinder RPG I am more than a bit miffed about the mushy and imprecise language. The Vital Strike Feats are a prime example, even the sole reply Jason gave to that topic is rather vague.
I would not expect a new answer.
I think neither the feat description or his answer where vague.I have also been more than a bit puzzled by some of the rules, but am starting to realize that PF is not D&D3.5 and that many of these questions are in themselves answered within the rules.
I have not finished reading the entire rules yet, but as i get through the book I can see that many of the problems I have faced are due to actual changes from 3.5.
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action
That shouldn't be combined with other standard actions, like Cleave, nor with Vital Strike, or Charge, etc.
Anyway, my group uses this action as a modifier to any type of attack
It can't be combined with other standard actions, what do you mean you use it as a modifier to any other attack?
If you are keying into the "all attacks in a round" that is to cover AoO.
I know it can't be combied per RAW, it's a house rule.
I mean that we treat "fighting defensively" the same as Power Attack: you can apply it to any kind of combat action that includes an attack. For ex: you can "Cleave Defensively".
Of course you must declare it when it is you action, and lasts for the whole round.
Basically you are going by 3.5 whith defensive fighting.
But how about total defense? Are you using it as a standard action (PF) or a full-round action (3.5)?
..
Basically I can't understand why he did choose this mushy wording:
"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack ... "
Instead of
"As a standard action, you can make a single attack ..."
or
"As part of a standard action, you can make a single attack..."
The reason I think was covered pretty clearly with what Brodiggan Gale said towards the beginning of this thread.
The purpose is that a feat that modifies your Attack Action can be combined with other feats that modify your Attack Action, but not with ones that require a Standard Action.
This is why currently you can combine Rapid Shot and Many Shot together as they both use a Full-Attack Action which modifies your Full-Round action.
In the PFRPG their is only one feat that modifies your Attack Action and that is Vital Strike, but their will more than likely be more in the future from paizo.
Basically you are going by 3.5 whith defensive fighting.But how about total defense? Are you using it as a standard action (PF) or a full-round action (3.5)?
I think that 3.5 was no different in fighting defensively.
SRD 3.5
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action
You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a -4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round. See also: Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action. "
PRD:
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC for the same round."
Total Defense was also a standard action in 3.5. From SRD 3.5:
"Total Defense
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can’t combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat (since both of those require you to declare an attack or full attack). You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using total defense. "
I'm a little confused seeing all these different viewpoints. Here's how it's played in all of my games:
"Attack" action: a standard attack where an attack is made at full bonus. This doesn't include the "As a standard action" feats such as Cleave or Deadly Stroke. You can use Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and/or fighting defensively with this action. Yes, they can all be used at the same time and the penalties to hit as well as dodge bonuses all stack. Only this action can be used with Vital Strike.
"As a standard action" feats: Cleave and Deadly Stroke each use a standard action and an attack at your highest bonus. This attack can also be modified by Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and/or fighting defensively. The attack made by these feats isn't considered an "attack" action. . . it's an attack granted as part of using the feat.
Spring Attack: this feat is odd because it affects your movement while using the "attack" action above. It's not an "as a standard action" feat like Cleave or Deadly Stroke -- it doesn't grant an attack for using the feat. Instead, it modifies how you can move and it restricts you to using the "attack" action.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.
The confusion comes in that they're interchanging the "attack" action and an attack made. Typically, if you're not using a full attack action and you're moving, you're using the "attack" action. The exceptions are Cleave and Deadly Stroke, which grant an attack as part of using the feat and can't be used with Spring Attack. Since the "attack" action is used with Spring Attack, Vital Strike can also be used. Note as above, Power Attack/Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively can all be used with this usage of the "attack" action.
Spring Attack: this feat is odd because it affects your movement while using the "attack" action above. It's not an "as a standard action" feat like Cleave or Deadly Stroke -- it doesn't grant an attack for using the feat. Instead, it modifies how you can move and it restricts you to using the "attack" action.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.The confusion comes in that they're interchanging the "attack" action and an attack made. Typically, if you're not using a full attack action and you're moving, you're using the "attack" action. The exceptions are Cleave and Deadly Stroke, which grant an attack as part of using the feat and can't be used with Spring Attack. Since the "attack" action is used with Spring Attack, Vital Strike can also be used. Note as above, Power Attack/Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively can all be used with this usage of the "attack" action.
PRD:
"Spring attackBenefit: You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack."
The problem with this feat is that it doesn't name any action at all.
In 3.5 it was as you say: "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack".
The wording has changed and it seems now it is a full-round action, but it is just an assumption. It is based on the inclusion of the movement in the things you can(must) do, and the "single melee attack" part; while in 3.5 it was an "attack action".
The problem with this feat is that it doesn't name any action at all.
In 3.5 it was as you say: "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack".
The wording has changed and it seems now it is a full-round action, but it is just an assumption. It is based on the inclusion of the movement in the things you can(must) do, and the "single melee attack" part; while in 3.5 it was an "attack action".
If it were a full-round action, it would say full-round action. Precedents: Whirlwind Attack and Shot on the Run. Notice specifically here the difference in wording in Shot on the Run, particularly in comparison with the 3.5 wording.
The only action that it could be is the "attack" action. If you move and take a melee attack, it would be a standard action "attack" action combined with a move action.
The problem with this feat is that it doesn't name any action at all.
In 3.5 it was as you say: "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack".
The wording has changed and it seems now it is a full-round action, but it is just an assumption. It is based on the inclusion of the movement in the things you can(must) do, and the "single melee attack" part; while in 3.5 it was an "attack action".If it were a full-round action, it would say full-round action. Precedents: Whirlwind Attack and Shot on the Run. Notice specifically here the difference in wording in Shot on the Run, particularly in comparison with the 3.5 wording.
The only action that it could be is the "attack" action. If you move and take a melee attack, it would be a standard action "attack" action combined with a move action.
...and if it were an attack action, it would say attack action and they wouldn't changed the text from 3.5 where it explicitly says "When using the attack action". They instead use "a single melee attack", which should be obvious if it were an attack action.
As I said it is an (my) assumption, as the action is not specified.
First, I'd like to correct myself in that fighting defensively with a single attack (standard action) or with multiple attacks (full-round) as well as Combat Expertise cannot be combined with Cleave and Deadly Stroke. My bad. . .
...and if it were an attack action, it would say attack action and they wouldn't changed the text from 3.5 where it explicitly says "When using the attack action". They instead use "a single melee attack", which should be obvious if it were an attack action.
As I said it is an (my) assumption, as the action is not specified.
So, based on what you're saying, the attack made as part of the Spring Attack is not an "attack" action because it doesn't say it's an attack action.
However, based on what I'm saying, the overall action is not a full-round action because of the same principle: it doesn't say it's a full-attack action, like Shot On The Run clearly does.
The attack and movement do add up to a full-round action. We both agree to this.
But both concepts above cannot be true. Either the wording of Spring Attack needs to specify a full-round action (which it doesn't) or it needs to state that the attack made is part of an attack action (which, based on the wording, it doesn't explicitly). However, I'd argue that the "Normal" text clarifies the poor language usage.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.
The "attack" mentioned here has to be an "attack" action. What else could it be? The feat gives a benefit over a normal condition. The benefit is that you can use the "attack" action before or after moving a prescribed amount.
I have to explain further to show how I came to the conclusion that it should be a full-round action.
SRD 3.5
"Spring attack: When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack"
"Shot on the run: When using the attack action with a ranged weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. "
PRD
"Spring attack: You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack."
"Shot on the Run: Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single ranged attack at any point during your movement."
First of all, both feats shared the same mechanic in 3.5. I don't know why the designers would have changed it for one of the feats and not for the other: only to not apply Vital Strike on SotR?
Second, they changed the wording of Spring attack. If they wanted it to remain the same, why would they change the text of the feat? They have a text that explicitly says it is Attack Action + Move, and they want it to be that way, and they change it so it no more says it is AA+M. That is too weird for me.
What I think is that they just forgot to add the "Full-Round Action" part that they included in SotR.