The whole issue of combat actions first struck me during the Vital Strike debate: Vital Strike is worded to work off an 'Attack', which is a (relatively rare) use of the standard action sub-term, Attack Action. That was confusing for two reasons;
(1) the term 'Attack' sounds like it could mean any 'attack', and
(2) the great majority of attacks remain almost completely undefined in terms of action type. I'd never really clocked this. It's an inheritance - it's not Pathfinder's fault - but it isn't clear, and it becomes very confusing when some feats work off standard actions, some off attack actions, some off any attack, and some off swift or immediate actions.
I think it would be useful to do something about this. Especially useful if there are to be more feats like Vital Strike, that work off the attack action; but useful in any case, since there are other ambiguities that arise out of the lack of complete combat action definitions.
So that's where I'm coming from, on what might seem a rather dry point. I was surprised at how many types of attack are undefined or ambiguously defined in action terms - really, the only type of attack which is *clearly* defined is that you take before or after a move: in other words, the standard 'attack action'. Everything else is pretty hazy. Undefined and ambiguously defined attack actions include;
* (1) Charge. It's a 'melee attack', but that term is ambiguous (is it an 'attack action', which is a standard action?), and the ambiguity is compounded by recent designer suggestions that Vital Strike can't be used on a charge, which would make it not an attack action (not a standard action);
* (2) Spring Attack: this too is worded as a 'single melee attack' - so presumably what goes for a charge goes for a spring; but again, it's ambiguous and basically unclear
* (3) Shot on the Run: you can 'fire a ranged weapon', but again there's no clue as to whether this is a standard action, or something else entirely. It should probably chime with charge and spring attack (which should probably chime with one another), but already this is entirely my personal definition, since I've not much else to go on.
* (4) Full Attack attacks: there is no definition for the action involved in an attack made as part of a full attack. That's pretty weird, when you think about it, since iterative attacks are one of the more common types of attack. What are they? Dunno. A special kind of swift action ('swift attack'; can be performed multiple times) might fit the bill.
Would it be useful to have such a definition? Well, that depends what terms are being used for the wording of feats and so forth. If there are feats that can be used on 'an attack', then yes. If there are feats that can be used as a swift action, then also yes - because it isn't clear if the sub-attacks in a full attacks are modified swift actions, or free actions, or something else entirely. A definition here would clear the field for the wording of future feats and other abilities.
* (5) Attacks of Opportunity: again, remarkably, the only thing close to an action-type definition here is that an AoO is a 'single melee attack'. That doesn't mean it isn't a standard attack action. We know it's not, because otherwise you'd be getting multiple standard actions (and out of turn). An AoO is something else, a different kind of action. What is it? Search me. A special type of immediate action might fit the bill (one usable multiple times under special conditions). Would it be useful to have a definition? Yes, because as is it's not clear what types of feats (attack, standard, swift, immediate) and what kind of combat maneuvers can be utilised on an AoO.
* (6) Combat Maneuevers: I don't know where to begin with these. In PF, every maneuver *does* have a definition...but to be honest, I'd be hard-pressed to know which goes where and when during an AoO, a full attack, or a spring attack. Disarm and Trip look like they can be used anytime at all you're in melee ('in place of a melee attack), Sunder is worded as an attack action (so can't be used during a full attack, or charge?), Grapple is a standard, Bull Rush is a standard *or* a charge (aha, so they're different, maybe), and Overrun...appears to be a standard action that you can use during a move, without even using an attack at all.
Would it be useful if combat manuevers were more clearly defined in action type terms? I think so. As things stand, the wording is confusing and offputting. Because the maneuvers vary so much, their action types are easy to forget. There should be one action type for all these maneuevers.
What I'd love to see:
- Clear-cut action type definitions for 1-6. Isn't it a bit bizarre that we don't have these already? If we do - sorry, I missed them, and I've been playing around with the game for a while.
- The creation of new action types where necessary. The fewer the better. I think special-case swift- and immediate actions might be useful ('special case' because with the right special abilities, they can be used more than once per round). Those aside, I'm not sure any new actions are needed, and it might be that none are.
- Eradication of all uses of 'attack action'. This is confusing to experienced players; I can't bear to think how it comes across to those just coming to the game. An attack is an attack, but it isn't an attack? What? Fortunately, uses of 'attack action' are rare: Sunder uses it. Vital Strike now uses it. These should be reworded. If they're standard actions, call them standard actions.
- the 5' step moved from 'nonaction' to 'special swift action' or somesuch. As written in Pathfinder, this can be taken out of turn, just as a foe attacks, even flatfooted.
**
That's all I've got for the time being. I suspect there are other examples of blurring - please add them if they occur to you.
The Porp.
|
Outstanding proposal. I am happy when people who can write clearly take the time to do so. I had wanted to make a post along these lines but could never have constructed it so clearly. Hopefully the language will get cleaned up in one of the reprints but your post will let the editiors know exactly where to work.
Thanks.
let's hope this doesn't disappear to the archives.
I utterly agree with the over-all gist of this.
Some things to clarify, though:
TRUE, But you're not mentioning the fact that when Jason uses this he is using the term "attack action", not just "attack". (The problem is that since all attacks OBVIOUSLY require 'action' in the english-language sense, "attack action" doesn't pop out as a specific term in the rules/ action economy sense). "Attack" doesn't indicate an Action Type, but "attack action" does (or is meant to). I notice you ARE *capitalizing* the term (like I prefer myself) - I think that is the direction needed to clarify that this is in fact a crucial rules term (distinct from normal English usage). Replacing "attack action" with "Standard Attack Action" would be 100% more clear, IMHO.
Look at the Actions in Combat Table. Charge is Full-Round Action. This hasn't changed.
The Full-Action "Charge" contains a melee attack, but that is not it's own ACTION, it is simply an ATTACK. Not all attacks need to have an Action, they just need something to trigger them, one of which is a Standard or Full Attack Action. Non-action attacks don't qualify for things like Vital Strike, much less Cleave (though the current wording doesn't make this as obvious as it should).
To my knowledge, Spring Attack is the only thing that is truly untyped in error.
Shot on the Run is a Full Round Action 'containing' a (non-action) melee attack, just like Charge.
Again, all attacks don't need an action. Full Attack is a Full Round Action 'containing' (potentially) multiple attacks (ranged/melee). None of those attacks themselves have an action type - The Full Attack Action consumed your Full-Round Action.
AoO's are 2000% NOT a "Standard Attack Action" (the clear terminology we're both suggested :-) ) or ANY Action Type, because they DON'T HAPPEN ON YOUR TURN, which is the only time you CAN TAKE ACTIONS (besides Immediate Actions, which are clearly indicated as such, since they impact your next Swift Action). "Action Types" exist to trigger effects (within Action Economy limits), but AoO's are triggered WITHOUT Actions of your own (though within limits of # of AoO's) - This is similar to how making a Saving Throw isn't itself an Action, though "interacting with an illusion" thru your own Action (which may be a Free Action, for example) may be another opportunity to trigger a Saving Throw.
I personally have no problem making all Combat Maneuvers happen in place of melee attacks (requirements like movement, etc, can still exist), but I think that's a design decision that's not changing, and not really related to this Action Terminology issue. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE is actually list all the Combat Maneuvers (Trip, Sunder, Grapple, etc) in the "Actions in Combat" Table - Feint is there, so why not the rest? Putting them in the core table that is easily 'scanned' is 100% clearer than burying them in the maneuver description prose itself. There could be a sub-section indicating that Trip, Disarm, etc can be made in place of ANY attack, and Bullrush can be part of a Charge, etc. (so all Maneuvers' Action Type is listed on the Actions in Combat Table).
You're right, no new actions are needed. Special Attacks CAN and ARE currently typed as Swift or Immediate Actions, or simply NON-Actions triggered by certain events.
I can't agree enough. CLEARLY, trying to attack anybody INHERENTLY requires "action", so relying on such non-obvious terminology will fly over the heads of practically every reader. I really think "Standard Attack Action" is distinct enough that it could actually work.
The (non) action type of 5' Step hasn't changed at all, there is simply a new option available by Feat (Step Up) allowing you to 5' Step in a new way (off your turn) at the cost of Immediate Action (your next Swift). Certainly the mis-execution of (Standard) Attack Action may have made it seem like the rug was pulled out from EVERYTHING, but this aspect is really no different than 3.5, Feats always have enabled you to do new stuff with the rules.
Thanks, people. I'm glad to see this is chiming, and also hope it doesn't disappear into the quicksand depths of the archives too quickly (as slightly long, dry posts are wont to do).
@ Quandary:
I agree with your agreements (of course), but there's two things I'm wondering:
(1) Why do we need the term 'Attack Action' at all? If something is a Standard Action, why not just call it a Standard Action? Why do we need to ever use 'As an Attack', which is going to confuse many?
(2) If the attacks within a Full Attack, a Charge, a Spring Attack or a Shot on the Run or an AoO are 'nonactions', then what can be used with them? Can a swift or immediate action be used? If this isn't quite clear, wouldn't it be useful to have all these attacks clearly defined in terms of action type? That's what I'm saying for these things.
In fact, 'Non-action' is becoming a bit of a book-virus. If that's what a 5' step is, and what many but not all of these different kinds of attacks are...well, that's introducing un-clarity. When you have feats that work off attacks, attack actions, standards, swifts, immediates and fulls, it gets confusing when you want to know what works with what. Define the attacks, and it's all clear.
Now, I'm not sure some of these attacks fit any of the existing action types exactly. I think it'd be quite straightforward to design a Swift Attack Action and an Immediate Attack Action that covered them all. Both can be used once as by default, but special abilities (including iterative attacks) allow multiple uses. Both can be used once by default alongside a normal swift or immediate.
So, for example, an AoO would be an Immediate Attack Action. Like an Immediate Action, you can use it out of turn. Like an Immediate Action, you get one by default. Like an Immediate, an IAA is much shorter than a move or standard, and can't be used with feats etc that require those things.
Having said that...yeah, the fewer action types the better. The trouble is, as things stand, every type of attack except the move-and-attack is ambiguously defined. That didn't matter so much in the goode olde days when there were only 4 action types commonly referred to, but these days we have swifts and immediates, and Attack Action being referred to by a new feat - and 'Nonaction' proliferating. That's 8 action terms referred to quite often - and yet most attacks are still only ambiguously defined as 'Nonactions', if at all.
My feeling is that Charge, Spring Attack and Shot on the Run should all contain a Standard Action attack (or whatever that should be called: Standard Attack Action, if you like), but that is just personal preference. It opens up combat - mmakes it more dynamic - if these things can be used with Standard Action feats etc.
Equally, my feeling is that Full Attack attacks and AoO should contain something smaller, and clearly defined, so everyone understands that Standard Actions can't be used with them.
And Combat Maneuevers - well, they've needed a clean-up forever. IIRC, Iron Heroes had them down as all 'special standard actions' which couldn't be used out of turn (ie on an AoO): that's a bit messy, but at least it's consistent. Just making them all Standards would be even clearer...or they could be clearly divided into 'slow' (Standard) maneuevers and 'fast' (Swift Attack or Immediate Attack, or something like that)
It would also help in certain corner cases (like those being debated HERE and HRE) to know what type of action it is, if any at all, to switch grips on a weapon or to let go of a two handed weapon with one of your hands.
Example: Can you make an AoO with a ranged weapon by using it as an improvised weapon? If so do you need to switch grips? If you do then what action, if any, is required to switch grips?
Example: Can you make an AoO with a spiked gauntlet while holding a two handed weapon? If so are you required to let go of the weapon with one hand? If you are then what type of action is required to let go?
Hey Porpentine (if you're new to the boards/ Pathfinder, welcome!)
To your questions:
Just because two things are deemed to have the same "Action Economy" (consume the equivalent amount of actions/turn) doesn't mean they should be the same for ALL PURPOSES. (Standard) Attack Action and (Standard) Spellcasting are pretty different things, and a certain Feat should work with one and not the other. Specifically for Combat, the (Standard) Attack Action is the one available to everybody to use as a Standard Action. Now when you start taking Feats, there are other options available, like Cleave, which ALSO uses a Standard Action, but because it ISN'T a "(Standard) Attack Action", it doesn't work with effects/combos specifically using the (Standard) Attack Action: like Vital Strike (and probably Spring Attack if it conforms to 3.5's Move + (Standard) Attack Action).
This is obviously the DESIGN INTENT, because it prevents "stacking" an infinite number of attack effects, like Greater Vital Strike + Great Cleave (while allowing a way to 'upgrade' the basic Move + (Standard) Attack Action combo). So whenever there is an attack option using the key-phrase "...as a Standard Action", you know that the designer DOESN'T want it to combine with other effects that DO stack on a (Standard) Attack Action or in combos that only work with (Standard) Attack Action (VS & Spring Attack are the only 2 things I'm aware of that only work w/ Attack Action).
Obviously, the only reason you take a Feat or something else to give you an OPTION to make a different type of Attack as a Standard Action than the "basic" one granted by (Standard) Attack Action is because it is BETTER.
Well, you obviously can't use anything that requires you to be making a (Standard) Attack Action. Haste gives you an extra attack only if you are using the Full Attack action - You see this isn't THAT different than 3.5. The biggest new use of Immediate/Swift Actions is the Barbarian Rage Powers, many of which indeed allow you to apply their effect to ANY attack roll, sometimes after you make the first roll (i.e. to auto-confirm a Crit), as well as Arcane Strike/ Arcane Armor Training. If something applies to an 'attack', it applies to ANY attack roll: pretty simple.
If you start adding Swift/Immediate Action Types to things that are non-actions (which always have been such since 3.0), you will quickly f$@+ up the balance for characters who want to use their Swift Actions for this other stuff. You could make the game MORE complicated by adding a NEW action type to create an Action Economy for non-actions, but what is that really getting you? Such non-actions only happen under specific circumstances (i.e. AoO's) so why limit them further?
5' Steps, AoO's, and Iterative Attacks have ALWAYS been 'non-actions' in and of themselves.
"Action" is a specific thing you only do ON YOUR TURN (+Immediates), 'attack' = attack roll.
This has long been part of the game, nothing new to Pathfinder:
"Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow."
re: 'changing grips', no action cost is mentioned when the multiple ways to use double weapons are described, so it would seem to be a non-action - otherwise they would have mentioned it. dropping a weapon is probably the same - but you should only be able to do these things on your turn, unless otherwise 'triggered' (such as option to drop weapon used for failed AoO Trip attempt)
What would this get you? Unless you want to make AoO's impinge on next round's Iterative Attacks, etc. That isn't 'solving a problem', but is just changing how the entire game dynamic works.
It's not really as complicated as you're making it out to be (sure, the wording is bad, but I mean the over-all outcome): Vital Strike (and probably Spring Attack) doesn't work with any attack beside the (Standard) Attack Action. ALL Attacks apply normal damage modifiers, and any effect applying to an attack roll. Swift/Immediate Actions may allow/trigger their own attacks (that don't work with VS) or modifiy other attack rolls.
If it helps, I personally wish Vital Strike had simply been rolled into the (Standard) Attack Action, giving everybody it for free as their BAB qualifies. So when using that action you get it's benefit, but things like Cleave are it's own action. Other than being 'free', that is exactly how the current set-up works, though.
I don't think 5-foot steps, described as No Action, are the same as actions that are Not An Action.
When it is thrown in the No Action part of the actions chart I think that is just saying that it doesn't cost you an action in your turn. The list of things under No Action (Delaying action and 5-foot steps) are not the same as the things discussed in the Not An Action section of combat rules.
Quandary -
Thanks for the welcome - much appreciated (though truth be told, I've been around since the boards began here, and was on the wotc and enworld boards through 4.0 and 3.5 before it).
Issue 1: Why do we need the 'Attack Action?
As you say, an Attack Action can't be used in conjunction with a Standard Action. This is because an Attack Action *is* a Standard Action. Feat A (Bogus Wallop) and feat B (Infernal Backdraft) can be worded to work as Attack Actions or Standard Actions - in stacking terms it doesn't matter. Both terms indicate the same action type.
In other words, stacking is handled perfectly well by wording feats as working off Standard Actions, if that's what is intended. The Attack Action wording is redundant, and confusing to many. Using it makes the rules less clear, and offers no advantages over the use of Standard Action, which is clearer, simpler, more familiar, and more uniform across the ruleset. Using 'Attack Action' is no more useful than using the other subcategories of Standards as bases for other rules descriptions; the 'Light a Torch With a Tindertwig Action', or the 'Use Skill That Takes 1 Action Action'. These are examples of Standards, no more; as are 'Attack (melee)', 'Attack (ranged)' and 'Attack (spell)'.
That some Standard Action feats apply to spells and some to melee or ranged attacks isn't an issue. All properly worded feats make this distinction clear, and have over a couple of editions, by reference to 'A melee weapon' or 'A melee attack', or their ranged or spell equivalents.
The purpose of action types isn't to make that distinction: the purpose of action types is to clarify what can be done in what quantum of time, at what point in the round. In particular, an action type should clearly distinguish itself from all other action types, so that the player/DM knows when feats/abilities can interract and when they must remain discrete. The thing about 'An Attack Action' is that it doesn't perform this well, because it sounds like it could mean 'An attack'. In addition, it is not defined in the rules as one of the six types of actions (which, incidentally, don't include 'Not an Action' either).
As things stand, I've only noticed Vital Strike and Sunder as working off an Attack Action in Pathfinder. This is a reduction in uses of the term since 3.5, when more feats (Shot on the Run, Spring Attack) used it. That's not necessarily an improvement, since the few uses in Pathfinder are now orphaned: players/DMs are less likely to be familiar with the term, because it's used so rarely. And, it offers no advantage over using Standard Action to begin with.
Issue 2: What kind of attacks takes place during Charge/Shot on the Run/Spring Attack/Full Attack/AoO?
Note that in 3.5, both Shot on the Run and Spring Attack work off the Attack Action. In other words - and put more simply - they both allow a Standard Action attack. Charge is no clearer
in 3.5 than it is in PF, but if you root around in 3.5 it's clear that a Charge allows an attack, but not a Standard Action attack. You really have to root around, though, and Pathfinder doesn't lay it out any more clearly.
Issue 3: 'Not an Action' is a bad, imprecise catch-all term for anything that doesn't fit another action type. It's lazy, inaccurate, and it creates confusion.
That you write "Action is a specific thing you can only do on your own turn" highlights this. You're wrong, of course - not only because Immediate Actions are out-of-turn, or because some Free Actions can be, but because 'Not an Action' actions can be, or maybe can't be, and no one really knows which...* (edit below)...a good DM will use common sense, of course, but we're here to play Pathfinder, a great system which lays out its stall firmly in the 'Guide the DM' area of game design. Which I like, personally. I want to be able to turn up at any Pathfinder game and know what kind of action takes up what kind of *action*, if you know what I mean - and I think that would help the game, not just now, but as new feats and special abilities are created for it.
Footnote: Swift/Immediate Actions and Swift/Immediate Attack Actions: I'm suggesting these could be akin but distinct: ie, by default, you can make one of each of 4 types each round. The purpose of having such definitions is to distinguish quick attacks clearly from more time-consuming attacks, so that any player/DM will be able to pick up the book and know exactly what feat can be used when.
Now, your mileage may vary. Personally, I think introducing new action types should be a last resort. On the other hand, I think throwing everything that doesn't quite fit into an ever-expanding sack of 'Not-an-Action' is a bad idea. 'Not an Action' is woefully unclear. It already includes all kinds of odd things (like the 5' step, as in 3.5) as well as acting as a repository for various actions that aren't defined elsewhere (like using a spiked gauntlet and glaive to make AoO at 5' and 10' in the same round). It may be convenient, but it's messy, and the more action types there are (at least 8, currently), the messier an ill-defined sack of nonactions becomes.
Your last question is "So what would this get you?". That's the nub of it. What clear action type definitions would get is a system that is easier for new players to approach, and is easier to write new material for. That's why I think the action types in the Combat chapter should be cleaned up - whether that means introducing new action types, or clarifying using the action types already in use.
* Edit: know one knows which, because a 'Not an Action' is "Considered an inherent part of doing something else," and an AoO is a "melee attack" - potentially several melee attacks. At which point, for example, shifting one's spiked gauntlet from a glaive haft to threaten a flanking foe's jaw may well consitute a 'Not an Action'; but it's not clear, because neither that action nor the 'Not an Action' category is clearly defined.
I would really love a little guidance about this topic. I can't believe it is still unclear if Zombies (staggered) are allowed attacks of opportunity...