| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can Vital Strike be combined with Spring Attack? Trying to build a fighter for the next game and want to use this combo if legal.
No. Vital Strike requires a standard action, while Spring Attack only allows an attack action.
|
I'd allow it. Spring Attack doesn't seem to specify that you're using a standard action to make the attack, but it also doesn't mention that this attack isn't just part of a move action. In this case, I would equate the two (attack and standard action) and just go ahead and allow it.
Edit: Otherwise the answer is no, because the other way would be to equate the whole feat to a full-round action and you cannot use Vital Strike then.
If you find a way to get a fly speed you can use Flyby attack, which IIRC lets you take any standard action during the move.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Spring attack is one of the worst worded feats out there I think. I believe you are not able to stack them, but I may be wrong and it seems dumb to me to be this way.
I think this question has come up several times before, and as far as I know there hasn't been an official answer yet.
|
|
No. Vital Strike requires a standard action, while Spring Attack only allows an attack action.
What exactly is an "attack action"?
The chapter on combat lists the following types of action: Standard Action; Move Action; Full-Round Action; Free Action; Swift Action; Immediate Action; Not an Action (and then it mentions Restricted Activity).There is no mention of an attack action as such in that list.
However, under Standard Action it states "Attack - Making an attack is a standard action" (although this must obviously exclude full attack).
Moreover, there are many references to "attack actions" in that same chapter.
So it seems there is a lack of consistency, or maybe it's just me who's confused by the terminology, or both.
In any case, does this
Cleave
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach.
imply that using the "Cleave" feat is a standard action that is NOT an attack action?
(That would look slightly counterintuitive).
|
|
Can Vital Strike be combined with Spring Attack? Trying to build a fighter for the next game and want to use this combo if legal.From the Vital styrike Feat: "Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
from the Spring attack Feat: "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."
They stack fine according to the wording.
Yep. And what about Cleave?
CLEAVE: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach.
Do Spring Attack and Cleave stack fine as well?
A single melee attack is not the attack action. The attack action allows you to make a single melee attack. They are not the same, just as a cup of coffee is not necessarily a coffee mug.
This is perhaps the most F of the FAQ. :P
|
|
A single melee attack is not the attack action. The attack action allows you to make a single melee attack. They are not the same, just as a cup of coffee is not necessarily a coffee mug.
I don't understand. Please list what the attack actions allows you to do, and not to do (a few good examples will suffice).
Why the attack action is not listed in Chapter 8 together with all the other actions?
And, most of all, do Spring Attack and Cleave stack? :D
So there is no real answer for this question then. I guess I will have to talk to the DM to find out how he feels about it.
I also wonder about this;
Also; can Vital Strike be used with an Attack of Opportunity?
Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most.. blabla
Is this an 'attack action' as well?
As a DM, I would allow Vital Strike to be used with Spring Attack (this used 4 feats! Whirlwind also needs 4 feats and should be on par with Vital Strike IMHO). Besides, Vital Strike is not that powerful, nor is Spring Attack. Combining them will provide more fun for the combat oriented PC, but hardly break your game. I would be much happier if my players would choose this chain of feats, instead of the **** annoying Step Up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vital Strike CAN be stacked with Spring Attack or Shot on the Run. It CANNOT be stacked with Cleave (which also requires a standard action) or attacks of opportunity (which are not attack actions--or rather, attacks that are also standard actions). Once the game designers unofficially clarified what an attack action was (see above) everything else fell into place.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
An "Attack" Action is a type of Standard Action, just like Casting a (standard) Spell is type of Standard Action, or Aid Another is a Standard Action, or Cleave is a Standard Action (notice, Cleave is it's "own type" of Standard Action so can't combine with anything specifying the "Attack" Action). (see Actions in Combat Table)
Obviously, things would be ALOT clearer if the "Attack" Action (I'm capitalizing for clarity, but the book doesn't) was instead named the "Standard Attack" Action or something equivalent which gave some hint of distinction between a specific (though default) action and any attack ROLL whatsoever. (AoOs, components of Full Attacks, Cleaves, etc)
Spring Attack is screwed up because it never specifies the action type, either for the Spring Attack as a whole, or the component "single melee attack". At this point, I am assuming it DOES in fact use an "Attack" Action interspersed within the movement, allowing for VS but not for Cleave. But the current wording could be anything you want that allows a single melee attack for all we can tell from the RAW. Expect this to be amended in the next printing/Errata, though for whatever reason Jason has deigned NOT to answer this specific question as far as I've seen (he answered a bunch more about every other aspect of Vital Strike, which are summarized on the "FAQ" section of d20pfsrd.com)
An "Attack" Action is a type of Standard Action, just like Casting a (standard) Spell is type of Standard Action, or Aid Another is a Standard Action, or Cleave is a Standard Action (notice, Cleave is it's "own type" of Standard Action so can't combine with anything specifying the "Attack" Action). (see Actions in Combat Table)
Obviously, things would be ALOT clearer if the "Attack" Action (I'm capitalizing for clarity, but the book doesn't) was instead named the "Standard Attack" Action or something equivalent which gave some hint of distinction between a specific (though default) action and any attack ROLL whatsoever. (AoOs, components of Full Attacks, Cleaves, etc)
Spring Attack is screwed up because it never specifies the action type, either for the Spring Attack as a whole, or the component "single melee attack". At this point, I am assuming it DOES in fact use an "Attack" Action interspersed within the movement, allowing for VS but not for Cleave. But the current wording could be anything you want that allows a single melee attack for all we can tell from the RAW. Expect this to be amended in the next printing/Errata, though for whatever reason Jason has deigned NOT to answer this specific question as far as I've seen (he answered a bunch more about every other aspect of Vital Strike, which are summarized on the "FAQ" section of d20pfsrd.com)
I don't see why you couldn't combine spring attack and cleave...
Like I said, things aren't at all 100% clear, that was my supposition on how it would work.
"Single melee attack" would seem to conflict with the parts of Cleave after the first attack, though.
3.5 actually used the "Attack" Action (though nobody payed attention to that distinction then), and I expect it to work that way. Expectation is not the same as knowledge, of course.
As a DM, I would allow Vital Strike to be used with Spring Attack (this used 4 feats! Whirlwind also needs 4 feats and should be on par with Vital Strike IMHO). Besides, Vital Strike is not that powerful, nor is Spring Attack. Combining them will provide more fun for the combat oriented PC, but hardly break your game.
This is my view as well... it seems hardly gamebreaking and 4 feats is quite the commitment for something that isn't going to be used all the time.
I would be much happier if my players would choose this chain of feats, instead of the **** annoying Step Up.
I have to disagree with your opinion on Step Up though. When I first read this feat I was overjoyed. Finally Melee combatants could interfere with Casters and Archers who would just "take the 5 foot step" and then blast away with no consequences. This is the way it should be.
I have to disagree with your opinion on Step Up though. When I first read this feat I was overjoyed. Finally Melee combatants could interfere with Casters and Archers who would just "take the 5 foot step" and then blast away with no consequences. This is the way it should be.
I agree
Quandary is right.
'Attack Action' is a horrible leftover usage from 3.5. It means 'Standard Action' - it's a subtype of Standard.
I wish the designers wouldn't use it. It's not one of the listed action types, and it's unhelpfel and ambiguous. In the meantime:
A: In 3.5, Spring Attack allowed an Attack Action. In Pathfinder it doesn't (at the moment). You can make a melee attack, but you can't use a feat (or anything else) that requires a Standard/Attack Action.
@ Quandary - creating a Standard Attack Action is unnecessary, and it doesn't work tidily at all, because there are three different types of Attack Action - melee, ranged and unarmed - and they operate differently (eg with regard to Attacks of Opportunity). Already, then, you would have to define three types of action - Standard Melee Action, ditto Ranged, ditto Unarmed - to which you would have to add Spellcasting, etc etc...you see the problem. The neat little list of 6-odd actions becomes immemorably long.
There would be no disadvantage at all to describing Vital Strike or the Attack Action combat maneuvers as Standard Actions. Indeed, most new feats are already described that way. The remainder are not being distinguished with 'Attack Action' because they are different from the rest, but because the term has stuck (in the case of the remaining combat manuevers) and been poorly applied (in the case of VS).
The core action types don't distinguish between uses of actions, like spellcasting or archery - they distinguish between units of time. That's all they need to do. They can be applied most cleanly if that is all they describe. Any other requirements - for example, melee/ranged/spell - are easily laid out in the description of a feat, maeuever or etc. This results in a smaller, cleaner list of action types, which can be applied to all kinds of things which are further defined in their descriptions.
Hope you agree, Quandary. I only mention all this since I've seen you make the same point elsewhere, and I think an Occam's Razor approach to action type definition is important - it's a disadvantage to tangle the actions up with specific flavours of action.
There would be no disadvantage at all to describing Vital Strike or the combat maneuvers as Standard Actions.
Yes, there would. As it stands, some of them are actually usable as part of a full attack or on the charge. Change them all to standards and none of them can be.
Zurai, you misunderstand me. I am suggesting that the single combat manuever and the single feat currently defined as Attack Actions could just as easily (and more clearly) be described as Standard Actions.
I'll edit my post above to make it clearer.
(1) Example current wording, for Sunder:
"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."
Example clearer wording:
"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as a standard action in place of a melee attack."
(2) Example current wording, for Vital Strike:
"When you use the attack action..."
Example clearer wording:
"As a standard action, you can make a single melee or ranged attack..."
(3) Spring Attack - ie back on topic; do the above and you still need to rewrite this, to make clear whether it allows an attack as a standard action.
Can Vital Strike be combined with Spring Attack? Trying to build a fighter for the next game and want to use this combo if legal.From the Vital styrike Feat: "Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
from the Spring attack Feat: "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."
They stack fine according to the wording.
Yep. And what about Cleave?
CLEAVE: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach.
Do Spring Attack and Cleave stack fine as well?
As far as I can tell under Standard Actions there is heading called Attack. Below that they list the Attack which has a list of actions as all of those actions are under the attack heading I'm assuming they are attack actions. So here is the list as follows:
Melee Attack
Unarmed Attack
Ranged Attack
Natural Attack
Multiple Attack (this one is listed as attack action but references full round actions: Full attack action)
That's the list. So taking that list applying them to the feats works as follows:
Vital Strike would work with Spring Attack as vital strike uses an attack action and Spring Attack allow you to use a specific attack action, being melee attack.
Vital Strike does not work with Cleave as Cleave is not an attack action. It is it's own standard action so you can't vital strike a Cleave.
Vital Strike on a full Attack does work because a Full Attack action is an attack action listed under Multiple Attacks. Vital strike even has line to address full attacks by specifying that it only applies to a single attack at you highest BAB.
That's how I read at least and I have been playing it like that since the book came out. We haven't had a issue with confusion with the feats.
|
(1) Example current wording, for Sunder:"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."
Example clearer wording:
"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as a standard action in place of a melee attack."
(2) Example current wording, for Vital Strike:
"When you use the attack action..."
Example clearer wording:
"As a standard action, you can make a single melee or ranged attack..."
(3) Spring Attack - ie back on topic; do the above and you still need to rewrite this, to make clear whether it allows an attack as a standard action.
Not to pick nits, but this wording would not work, since AFAIK sunder works as a melee attack and thus you could try it several times in a row if you have a high enough BaB (or during a monk's FoB).
Not to pick nits, but this wording would not work, since AFAIK sunder works as a melee attack and thus you could try it several times in a row if you have a high enough BaB (or during a monk's FoB).
(1) Example current wording, for Sunder:"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."
Example clearer wording:
"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as a standard action in place of a melee attack."
(2) Example current wording, for Vital Strike:
"When you use the attack action..."
Example clearer wording:
"As a standard action, you can make a single melee or ranged attack..."
(3) Spring Attack - ie back on topic; do the above and you still need to rewrite this, to make clear whether it allows an attack as a standard action.
Sunder is currently a standard action to do. It says as an attack action in place of a melee attack. Attack Actions are standard actions.
Trip and disarm may be attempted multiple times a round or on AoO, since they are in place of melee attacks.
|
|
Sunder is currently a standard action to do. It says as an attack action in place of a melee attack. Attack Actions are standard actions.Trip and disarm may be attempted multiple times a round or on AoO, since they are in place of melee attacks.
okay, so it is just a melee action when used by a monk in FoB's. No problems, did not catch that.
There would be no disadvantage at all to describing Vital Strike or the Attack Action combat maneuvers as Standard Actions. Indeed, most new feats are already described that way. The remainder are not being distinguished with 'Attack Action' because they are different from the rest, but because the term has stuck (in the case of the remaining combat manuevers) and been poorly applied (in the case of VS).
Here's one:
If you completely get rid of that distinction, there is no way to allow a Vital Strike or Sunder in combo with Spring Attack without also allowing Cleaves and other 'Special Attacks' (not to mention Spellcasting, Potion usage, etc). One could of course exhaustively SPECIFY allowable qualities/disallowed qualities, but leveraging the distinct "Attack" Action is an open-ended insurance against FUTURE non-standard attacks (that are Standard Actions).As I see it, besides Spring Attack (which does not as you suggest DISALLOW Standard Attacks/Vital Strike, it simply doesn't speak to what kind of actions are even happening - Moving before and after a Standard Attack (ala 3.5) DOES conform to what is described, but so would the entire sequence being classed as a Full-Round Action, or even a Swift Action, and 'including' a free melee attack), there is no "technical" problem with RAW conforming to the RAI, it is simply a matter of 95% of people NOT picking up the RAI from looking at the RAW (I myself had to see multiple clarifications posted by Jason for the true RAI to 'click').
'Attack Action' is a horrible leftover usage from 3.5. It means 'Standard Action' - it's a subtype of Standard.
Creating a Standard Attack Action is unnecessary, and it doesn't work tidily at all, because there are three different types of Attack Action - melee, ranged and unarmed - and they operate differently (eg with regard to Attacks of Opportunity). Already, then, you would have to define three types of action - Standard Melee Action, ditto Ranged, ditto Unarmed - to which you would have to add Spellcasting, etc etc...you see the problem. The neat little list of 6-odd actions becomes immemorably long.
All those Attack modalities CURRENTLY use the Attack Action, yet operate under variant rules (AoO's, etc) which apply depending on the quality of action being undertaken, and which generally apply equally to Full Attack Action or Full Round Casting, etc. RENAMING the "Attack" Action into something more OBVIOUSLY DISTINCT (from attacks/attack rolls in general), say "Battle Strike", would not necessitate changing or altering any other actions. I don't see how you claim that, because it wouldn't CHANGE anything in the current RAW beyond RENAMING a feature.
The core action types don't distinguish between uses of actions, like spellcasting or archery - they distinguish between units of time. That's all they need to do.
They certainly do, though I can see how your experience coming from 3.5, which didn't bring this distinction to the forefront (though it was still there), may make you beleive that. Just looking at 3.5: Spring Attack allowed an Attack Action. Not a Standard Action. Not Casting a Spell, not quaffing a Potion. Now Pathfinder has introduced some more stuff ON TOP of this frame-work, that perhaps might seem to blur the lines that you thought were so solid, by allowing (non-Standard, enabled by Feats) special attacks that ALSO use a Standard Action (in essence, "their own type" of Standard Action) making the "Attack" Action no longer the ONLY way to make an attack with a Standard Action.
You certainly COULD design a game that SOLELY made distinctions between "Basic" Action Types (Standard, Move, Swift, Free) and anything conforming to those Basic units was freely substitutable. But that's not what Paizo is trying to do. Being able to allow certain combos (SA+VS) but not others (Cleave or Grapple) is a valid design goal. Obviously, they need to do a better job at PRESENTING this to readers, but it seems a valid approach (and certainly one I don't expect them to CHANGE just because they screwed up the wording a bit).
@ Quandary -
Have a think about it. With respect, I think you're creating complications where there are few, but I'm not going to yammer on about it.
Quote: "If you completely get rid of that distinction, there is no way to allow a Vital Strike or Sunder in combo with Spring Attack without also allowing Cleaves and other 'Special Attacks' (not to mention Spellcasting, Potion usage, etc)"
No way to avoid potion usage/spellcasting? How about this, based on the Sunder text:
"You can move up to your speed and use a standard action to make a single melee attack..."
Yes, this currently allows the Pathfinder version of Cleave. So decide clearly what Spring Attack works with. If it works with standard attacks, bingo, you can cleave or sunder. After all, you could spring attack-cleave/sunder etc in 3.5; we're not reinventing the wheel here.
My take is this:
* Desirable: a short core list of action types. Say 6-8 or less. New action types should never be added unless they are absolutely necessary. If we do need a new action type, it should likely deal with the 'Non Action/Not An Action' mess, not this one.
* Not a problem: quaffing potions, &c &c. Feat/maneuver/ability text defines (see Sunder text, above, for an existing example).
Upshot? 'Attack Action' is ambiguous (hell, just look at the posts on this thread) and should go. 'Standard Action' can replace it. Simple. There is no logic or advantage in the use of 'Attack Action'.
Don't worry about the quaffable potions. Clarification is what feat/maneuver descriptions are for. But I think you're quite right to worry about the action types, which are a mess. And this is at the heart of the game. It makes the whole combat chapter confusing, and a lot of people will have been playing these things not RAI for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No. Vital Strike requires a standard action, while Spring Attack only allows an attack action.
No you are wrong. The text doesn't say “attack action” it says “a single melee attack”. Spring attack isn't an action. It only describes what kind of actions can be used and how they can be used.
You can move + use a melee attack + move, and as a bonus, no AoO.So you could move + use VS as a melee attack + move.
You can't however move + cast spell + move
Nor can you: Move + fire a ranged weapon + move. If you want to do this you must have the Shot on the Run feat
There is a big difference between SotR and SA. SA is not an action, where as SOTR is defined as a full-round action.
I agree the rules are unclear. I'm not sure you can use SA and Cleave, but my guess is no since SA says you make one attack and cleave is more than one attack.
As for Vital strike Jason has made it clear in several threads that using Vital Strike is a Standard Action. So no VS and Cleave since you can't use two standard actions the same turn.
No VS and Whirlwind Attack because VS is a standard action and WA is a full attack action (and a full attack action is a full round action). Since you can't make a full attack action and a standard attack the same round, this can't be done. That is you can’t make a full round action and a standard action the same round, but you can use a standard action as a part of a full round action. (You can't however use a standard action as a part of a full attack action).
Here is one of Jason's many answers, and Link
Hey there all,
Couple of notes. Generally speaking, when reading feats, the descriptive sentence at the very beginning is just that, descriptive. It is not generally rules text.
As for the Vital Strike issue... just roll the damage dice for the weapon twice. Everything else is as normal. If you normally deal 1d8+4 with a longsword, you would deal 2d8+4 with a longsword using Vital Strike.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action. You cannot use it as part of a full-attack action.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
and another one and the Link
Hey there everybody,
Let me see if I can clean this up a bit.
Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action. It cannot be used as part of a full-attack action, which is a full round action. You cannot use Cleave as part of a charge, since that is a special full-round action (partial charge not withstanding). The same applies to Great Cleave.
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. An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave. The two feats cannot be used in conjunction.
I am not sure that answers all the questions here.. but I will check back later to see if there is anything I have missed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
@ Zark -
"So you could move + use VS as a melee attack + move."
As the wording of Spring Attack stands, it isn't clear that you can do this. 'Melee attack' does not equal 'Attack Action'. Nor does 'Single melee attack.' 'Attack Action' is specifically a Standard Action: 'Single melee attack' is not. I don't know what the RAI are, but RAW, Spring Attack doesn't allow Vital Strike.
Spring Attack allowed an Attack Action (ie a Standard) in 3.5: the wording in Pathfinder has changed, whether accidentally or on purpose. re Cleave, it might be worth noting again that 3.5 allowed this - the admissable Standard attack was irrelevant to that, in any case - and also allowed, for example, Bull Rush, Disarm, Feint, Grapple (FWIW), Sunder, and Trip (possibly Overrun too, though that's fuzzy). In Pathfinder, any of those designated as Standard Actions or Attack Actions are currently disallowed.
I agree with the rest of what you say.
@ porpentine
Well I was talking about Patfinder, not 3.5
RAW spring attack is not an attack action nor standard action or standrad attack action, so RAW in Pathfinder SA + Vital is OK.
Talking 3.5 only confuse stuff since Pathfinder have changed some rules/feats. Cleave for one.
@ porpentine
Well I was talking about Patfinder, not 3.5
RAW spring attack is not an attack action nor standard action or standrad attack action, so RAW in Pathfinder SA + Vital is OK.
Talking 3.5 only confuse stuff since Pathfinder have changed some rules/feats. Cleave for one.
By raw, spring attack only allows you to make a melee attack. That is the same as an AoO. Vital Strike is not valid, as it requires a specific type of standard action, an attack action, which is not the same as a single melee attack.
Due to ambiguities between 3.5 and PF versions of Spring Attack, there's really no answer to this question. . . nor is there an official answer. This is yet another example of where PF is strictly less clear than 3.5. 3.5 clearly talks about "the attack action with a melee weapon", which is the same attack action that Vital Strike references. The PF writing talks about "attacks" and uses the word "move" but doesn't mention what kind of actions (standard/move/free/full-round -- or the attack action in 3.5) are involved. So really, we can guess, but we don't really know for sure.
By raw, spring attack only allows you to make a melee attack. That is the same as an AoO. Vital Strike is not valid, as it requires a specific type of standard action, an attack action, which is not the same as a single melee attack.@ porpentine
Well I was talking about Patfinder, not 3.5
RAW spring attack is not an attack action nor standard action or standrad attack action, so RAW in Pathfinder SA + Vital is OK.
Talking 3.5 only confuse stuff since Pathfinder have changed some rules/feats. Cleave for one.
You are going to have a itch of a time trying to convince me that swinging my sword at an opponent's head with vital strike is not a melee attack.
You are going to have a itch of a time trying to convince me that swinging my sword at an opponent's head with vital strike is not a melee attack.By raw, spring attack only allows you to make a melee attack. That is the same as an AoO. Vital Strike is not valid, as it requires a specific type of standard action, an attack action, which is not the same as a single melee attack.@ porpentine
Well I was talking about Patfinder, not 3.5
RAW spring attack is not an attack action nor standard action or standrad attack action, so RAW in Pathfinder SA + Vital is OK.
Talking 3.5 only confuse stuff since Pathfinder have changed some rules/feats. Cleave for one.
It is a melee attack, but it is a specific type of melee attack that can only be used in place of an attack action. It is not the same as what you get from an AoO or spring attack.
You are going to have a itch of a time trying to convince me that swinging my sword at an opponent's head with vital strike is not a melee attack.
The problem is not a melee attack -- it's whether or not Spring Attack uses an attack (melee) action.
You can't use Cleave and Vital Strike together because Cleave has a "use feat" standard action. It's not the same as the attack (melee) action. Look at the actions table in the combat chapter. There's a Use Feat (varies) action. There's also an Attack (melee) action. To use Vital Strike, you can only use the attack (melee) action -- which is a standard action.
The core problem with SA + VS is that there's no mention of the attack (melee) action like there is in 3.5. With PF, because the text is gone the common belief is that Spring Attack is Use Feat (varies) action. If it is, you can't do SA + VS. But honestly, there's not enough information to tell one way or the other.
I personally recommend using the 3.5 version over something clearly broken.
Zark, I'm talking about Pathfinder too. I'm quoting 3.5 because it highlights the weaknesses of the changes made to the wording.
The Pathfinder wording of Spring Attack allows "A single melee attack."
By your definition, this means any one melee attack, regardless of its action type. You're saying that a Standard (like Vital Strike) is fine, and that Spring Attack isn't an action at all ("SA is not an action"). This broad interpretation allows single full-round attacks, immediate attacks, and swift attacks...which leads to a lot of mess.
If this were correct, the only rider would be that the spring-attacker would have to move 10' before his single melee attack. That would allow:
(1) Spring Attack and Spirited Charge to combine, rendering Ride-By Attack largely redundant (since the charge fulfils the need to move 10', and the charging attack fulfils your requirement for any single melee attack) - RBA would still allow double movement, but only in a straight line, and SA is much more versatile;
(2) A readied Spring Attack - even a readied Spring Attack with Strike Back: ie. you could ready a Strike-Back-Spring-Attack to spring at a foe who comes within reach of your Spring Attack;
(3) Arguably, Spring Attack on an attack of opportunity. An AoO is "A single melee attack." Since you're saying that Spring Attack has no action type itself and can be used on any single melee attack, the only thing that would disallow an out-of-turn immediate single melee attack would be the 10' move...but the AoO description doesn't disallow this. So - by your definition - an attacker with Spring Attack could move 10' as his adversary leaves his threatened square, and attack as an AoO, by springing. Which is a nonsense, obviously;
(4) Spring Attack to include Deadly Stroke, Gorgon's Fist, Greater Vital Strike, a Sunder, or etc. I'm not necessarily opposed to any of these, but I'm pointing out that allowing any single Standard Action melee attack makes Spring Attack very punchy.
My take: Pathfinder should revert to something like the 3.5 Spring Attack wording, which specified a Standard Attack. What it shouldn't revert to is the 3.5 use of 'Attack Action' - and it should get rid of that confusing term in the few places it still exists, eg in Vital Strike.
PS.
I opened a thread - some months ago, now - about how nice it would be to have all attack actions clearly defined. Not only your basic primitive standard attack, but the attacks within a full attack, and attacks of opportunity.
It still strikes me as surprising that we don't know exactly what type of action the attacks within a full attack are, or what type an attack of opportunity is (a special kind of immediate?).
It's this lack of definition which is at the heart of confusions like that illustrated in this thread. Clearly define attack actions, and reference feats and manuevers to those attack action types, and threads like this cease to exist.
By your definition, this means any one melee attack, regardless of its action type. You're saying that a Standard (like Vital Strike) is fine, and that Spring Attack isn't an action at all ("SA is not an action"). This broad interpretation allows single full-round attacks, immediate attacks, and swift attacks...which leads to a lot of mess.
No what I meant is that SA is a full-round action.
Move + melee attack action + move or if you willMove + melee standard attack + move or if you will
Move + melee standard action + move
The key to this is reading the feat. The last line in the feat:
"Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack."
See it as a single melee attack sandwiched in a move. That attack is an attack action/standard action.
SA does it tell you the attack is a melee attack action or a standard melee attack. It only describes that you can move before and after an attack. It does however not provide you with an additional move (or additional attacks).
So a rogue with a 30 move can move 15ft + attack + move ft.
He can't move + make full attack action + move
Nor can he move + AoO + move (since AoO is a free action triggered by an action by a foe within reach). Or as James Risner put it: "Attack Action" is a Standard Action and not "any action that provides an attack."
Basically you can move + attack + move.
Or if you will: move + standard action as long as the standard action is a melee attack + move.
So you can't move + cast spell + move
Nor can you move + drink potion + move
Etc.
The reason I think you can't use SA and Cleave is not because Cleave is a standard action. It's because Cleave is two attacks and SA says: you can make a “single melee attack”
BTW, here is a quote from James, link
To move, yes. Was the design goal to allow it during Move->Vital->Move say from Spring Attack?I'd certainly let my players do that in games I run.
@ Zark -
I agree that Spring Attack should be a full-round action. That's not what you said earlier, though, and (more importantly) it's not what the Spring Attack feat says.
I also happen to think that the attack within a Spring Attack should be a standard attack (YMMV); but the Pathfinder feat doesn't stipulate that either, and since a standard attack is the most option-rich single attack action in the game, it is very liberal to read "Single melee attack" as encompassing "Standard Attack." As the text stands, a balanced reading reduces that attack to a single "Melee attack" - which *is not* the same thing as an "Attack Action", which is a badly-named subtype of Standard Action.
(@ Ravingdork, re your itch - a Vital Strike is indeed a melee attack. It's also an attack action. An attack of opportunity is a melee attack, but it isn't an attack action. Ditto an iterative attack executed during a full attack. Not all melee attacks are attack actions, but all attack actions are melee attacks. Except for Attack Action [Ranged], which is another confusing subtype of Standard Action by which feats should never be defined. Savvy?)
"Single melee attack" is fuzzy wording, in that it is a term used for - for example - Attacks of Opportunity. Obviously we don't want Spring Attack to apply to those, nor do we want it to interract with single full-round attacks like charges, or Spirited Charge. We don't want it being readied either. Right? So "Single melee attack as a Standard Action" and "Full-round action" would make good sense, and cut out lots of undesirable things. That would be great, but at present it's not what we've got.
As things stand, the text does not define the feat as a full-round action, nor does it define the attack as a standard action. (To be fair, it didn't define the feat as a full-round action in 3.5 either - but it should have). I agree with you that this is how Spring Attack should be defined, but this is not what the feat says as currently written.
@ Zark -
I agree that Spring Attack should be a full-round action. That's not what you said earlier, though, and (more importantly) it's not what the Spring Attack feat says.
Not what I said earlier?
First I never said it wasn't,second, some of my post was eaten and ended up in another thread,
Third: can't I change my mind?
I am only trying to help and you act like you want to pick I fight. Well I don't wan't to fight.
- You can't move more than 5 feet during a ful attack.
- AoO: You may not move at all during av AoO. AoO is a sort of free - imidiate action triggered by an action taken by a foe within your reach
- You can't move after a charge.
As for your "As the wording of Spring Attack stands, it isn't clear that you can do this. 'Melee attack' does not equal 'Attack Action'. Nor does 'Single melee attack.' 'Attack Action' is specifically a Standard Action: 'Single melee attack' is not. I don't know what the RAI are, but RAW, Spring Attack doesn't allow Vital Strike." Well my take is that they did't write attack action or stadard action is because they wanted it to be a melee attack and only a melee attack (not a ranged on or a touch attack, casting a spell, etc)
I agree the wording on SA is fuzzy.
I given you my view on SA. If you don't like it or if you missread it I can't help you.
I hope a Jason release a FAQ that might help or that someone else can help you.
I've not read all the recent posts but thought it worth mentioning that a npc uses this under her tactics in PF#30. Its on print page 42. It might be worth asking this question on the product thread for this issue.
Thanks for the information. :-)
Zark, apologies. I was impolite. Always difficult to gauge mood via the net, but I assure you I'm not looking for a scrap either. Sorry, especially as we're in broad agreement that these feats need to be rewritten - as I think is everyone on-thread.
Zark, I think I agree with you.
A Spring Attack is a single move action combined with a standard action (an 'attack action') sandwiched somewhere in the move. It's the same as taking a move action and then a standard action, except you can move again afterwards if you haven't moved your full normal move rate for the round.
In my mind, this makes any standard action that involves an attack permissible, be it sunder, Cleave, Vital Strike, Great Cleave etc. I don't see any benefit in saying that it cannot be combined with these, as a common complaint of 3.x combat is that it is often too 'static.'
I've been thinking about this and I may houserule it to just be a standard action. It doesn't hurt anything to do so and actually inspires player creativity and flexibility.
There's no reason my Druid in Air Elemental form should be able to, with one feat, fly 60', cast a spell, and fly another 60' and the poor fighter can't eviscerate a dude while running past them after taking 3 feats.
Zark, apologies.
No problem :-)
Always difficult to gauge mood via the net
Yes I agree. I have myself many times written stuff I'm sorry for later. Partly because My English suck, but most often because I get too excited.
we're in broad agreement that these feats need to be rewritten - as I think is everyone on-thread.
Yes. Paizo need to release a FAQ dealing with al least some of the most vague stuff. Like Spring attack; Vital strike; etc
attack action vs. standard attack/standard action, etcenergy drain, etc.
etc.
BTW I think Dabbler put it well: "A Spring Attack is a single move action combined with a standard action (an 'attack action') sandwiched somewhere in the move. It's the same as taking a move action and then a standard action, except you can move again afterwards if you haven't moved your full normal move rate for the round.
The only problem with SA and Cleave is that Cleave give you more than one attack and spring attack only allow a single attack. I would however allow SA + Cleave as a houserule.
Kind regards Zark
I don't have a problem putting a Cleave attack in there - I think one argument for making Cleave a standard action rather than a feature of an attack is that it makes combat more mobile by letting you get more attacks in during a moving fight. It makes as much sense as allowing a Vital Strike, at any rate, and that's how I'd play it. If players have invested in the feats, they should get to use them.