I am sorry but this term "Attack Action" just seems bulky, unnecessary, and confusing.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
It seems to me that it would have been simpler just to replace attack action with standard action. This simple change would help with things like cleave and spring attack.
Was wondering if I am the only one here who feels this way.
|
Totally agree.
It's intuitive to assume 'attack action' is 'whenever you make an attack'.
Therefore Full Attack gives you multiple 'attack actions'.
Even if that isn't the case, and it's spelled out in the rules, every DM out there is going to have to waste time debating it with every player, who picks a feat, and then tries to apply it that way.
Let's face it, a lot of groups don't have the time to sit down and read the book from cover to cover, or even if they do, it's going to take time to work through it, and many will want to start playing, assuming things are the same as 3.5 until they hear different.
That rule may never be spotted, and a group could play for years, unaware of the intent.
It would reduce a lot of the threads re Cleave, Vital Strike, etc, if they actually stated they use a standard action.
From Jason's posts (amongst others), A "Standard Action" Attack is clearly not identical to "Attack Action"... But I agree that a clearer wording could have been used, like "Standard Attack Action" or something, as well as clearly pointing out this distinction in relevant sections. From James' posts the wording WILL be updated, though apparently not before the end of the year. :-/
We can just keep out fingers crossed that a FAQ gets bumped up in priority...