Neither you can use Vital Strike when charging.
True. VS + Charge = no. Let me quote JB
Edit:
Charge is a specific type of full round action, Vital Strike and its associated feats cant be used in conjunction with a charge as they use standard actions.This is correct.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Now that's the best argument I see for Vital Strike not being allow with Spring Attack due the change to Full Round Action.
Still I'm not changing, Vital strike works with spring attack in the APs I have. So I'm keeping with precedent set there. For PF society play that's a different story. Since I don't play that no issues.
So Spring attack allows a Melee Attack which is Attack Action.
Not all melee attacks are attack actions that are standard actions.
AoO is one.edit:
We still need a FAQ answer.
Skirmishers everywhere are now screwed!This is new?
It is to me.
Also, why the hell does everyone keep touting this about like it somehow fixes the problem? Why should I accept a problem just because it may have always been a problem?
So Spring attack allows a Melee Attack which is Attack Action.Not all melee attacks are attack actions that are standard actions.
AoO is one.
edit:
We still need a FAQ answer.
+1 on FAQ answer and as part of that answer a matrix of what feats work with the movement and attack feats. If charge, spring attack and shot on the run are only suppossed to be plain vanilla attacks then do any feats except those which specifically modify them like spirited charge work. Can I use power attack with SA or deadly aim with SR?
The combination of spring attack with the vital strike tree made a fencer style character possible. Sorry for the rant but I want Errol Flynn not Conan.
So Spring attack allows a Melee Attack which is Attack Action.Not all melee attacks are attack actions that are standard actions.
AoO is one.
edit:
We still need a FAQ answer.
Yeah that doesn't confuse things, not! LOL
So...what kinda builds do Spring Attack show up in given this change? I mean, Great Cleave is just so much better...
If Spring attack were just plainly changed to "Move, use Standard action, can move again assuming you have not moved more than your standard speed" then it'd be awesome. Why should Flyby-Attack get all the fun?
Even spellcasters would take the feat then.
The combination of spring attack with the vital strike tree made a fencer style character possible. Sorry for the rant but I want Errol Flynn not Conan.
I know. It seems like Paizo is determined to crush anything that isn't a two-hander or a tank.
The combination of spring attack with the vital strike tree made a fencer style character possible. Sorry for the rant but I want Errol Flynn not Conan.I know. It seems like Paizo is determined to crush anything that isn't a two-hander or a tank.
I allow vital strike even on full attacks in my games. But then I treat full attacks as a standard action + a move action and not full round action.
I always figured Spring attack just specified melee so you can't use for spell and ranged attacks.
|
Skirmishers everywhere are now screwed!This is new?It is to me.
Also, why the hell does everyone keep touting this about like it somehow fixes the problem? Why should I accept a problem just because it may have always been a problem?
Because your missing the point of it not being a problem at all. You all weren't play by RAW in the first place so it's no problem to just keep playing as you always have been.
Because your missing the point of it not being a problem at all. You all weren't play by RAW in the first place so it's no problem to just keep playing as you always have been.
How is it not a problem? It's a needless roadblock against perfectly viable and balanced character concepts!
How is it not a problem? It's a needless roadblock against perfectly viable and balanced character concepts!
No, it's not. It's a bit of errata. No one is going to show up at your house flashing Pathfinder badges to confiscate your character sheets.
How is it not a problem? It's a needless roadblock against perfectly viable and balanced character concepts!No, it's not. It's a bit of errata. No one is going to show up at your house flashing Pathfinder badges to confiscate your character sheets.
Just because I can house rule it away doesn't mean that there's no problem with the game design.
The Spring Attack clarification isn't really the problem - it makes more sense as a full attack action, because you get the package (move and attack at any point during the move), not just any old attack and move actions.
The problem is Vital Strike. Those feats fail to do what they were supposed to do: Allow more kinds of characters to do passable damage by allowing you to do a bit more damage in situations where you give up extra attacks.
Vital Strike has two big problems:
Just because I can house rule it away doesn't mean that there's no problem with the game design.How is it not a problem? It's a needless roadblock against perfectly viable and balanced character concepts!No, it's not. It's a bit of errata. No one is going to show up at your house flashing Pathfinder badges to confiscate your character sheets.
How is it a problem?
The Spring Attack clarification isn't really the problem - it makes more sense as a full attack action, because you get the package (move and attack at any point during the move), not just any old attack and move actions.
The problem is Vital Strike. Those feats fail to do what they were supposed to do: Allow more kinds of characters to do passable damage by allowing you to do a bit more damage in situations where you give up extra attacks.
Vital Strike has two big problems:
The wording that you need to use a standard action. It should work whenever you make a single physical attack (i.e. with a weapon or unarmed, as opposed to touch spells and the like) on your turn. That would allow it to be used with spring attack, charge, and all that (but not cleave, for example). The fact that they're feats. Vital Strike should be a general combat option - whenever you can only make one attack, you get an extra weapon damage die (or damage dice, in case of stuff like greatswords) for every BAB-enabled attack you give up. Maybe have a Two-Weapon Vital Strike Feat that allows you to make one attack using two weapons (at -2 or maybe even -4) that allows you to gain extra dice for the off-hand attacks you gave up as well as for the rest. And maybe state that "haste attacks" (i.e. from haste, boots of speed, divine power, a weapon of speed, and so on) gives you another die in cases where you only get to make one attack.
Ah. Is this what everyone's trying to get at? If so, then I agree. Actually, I agree regardless. :P
Pathfinder Police!
This is an illegal game.
Throw the book at 'em!
The Spring Attack clarification isn't really the problem - it makes more sense as a full attack action, because you get the package (move and attack at any point during the move), not just any old attack and move actions.
The problem is Vital Strike. Those feats fail to do what they were supposed to do: Allow more kinds of characters to do passable damage by allowing you to do a bit more damage in situations where you give up extra attacks.
Vital Strike has two big problems:
The wording that you need to use a standard action. It should work whenever you make a single physical attack (i.e. with a weapon or unarmed, as opposed to touch spells and the like) on your turn. That would allow it to be used with spring attack, charge, and all that (but not cleave, for example). The fact that they're feats. Vital Strike should be a general combat option - whenever you can only make one attack, you get an extra weapon damage die (or damage dice, in case of stuff like greatswords) for every BAB-enabled attack you give up. Maybe have a Two-Weapon Vital Strike Feat that allows you to make one attack using two weapons (at -2 or maybe even -4) that allows you to gain extra dice for the off-hand attacks you gave up as well as for the rest. And maybe state that "haste attacks" (i.e. from haste, boots of speed, divine power, a weapon of speed, and so on) gives you another die in cases where you only get to make one attack.
+1
As shown by some of the confusion in this thread,
`fixing` the Spring Attack wording didn`t really take on the elephant in the room:
widespread confusion over Attack Action terminology and usage.
I understand that terminology and usage, Jason Buhlman understands it, plenty of people understand it by now, but plenty more simply don`t, and tend to just imagine an even more mangled version of it by their readings of Mr. Buhlman`s messageboard posts on the topic - which are the ONLY clarification of the topic up to now.
One of the major problems is that all of the GENERAL information decribing attacks in general (melee vs. ranged, crits, unarmed, etc) is all placed under the Attack ACTION... which pretty much directly undermines the concept that Attack Action is something specific and distinct from any and every attack roll. All of that information needs to be moved from where it is, and moved `up` in the book to where the `Attacks` sub-section begins, i.e. along with attack roll calculation. As long as it exists where it is, anybody `confused` as to the attack roll/attack action distinction actually has a VERY good reason to be so, as the RAW`s structure is essentially sending very mixed messages.
Yet that apparently didn`t make it to the new print run, even though `Vital Strike` related subjects (Spring Attack) were dealt with. This isn`t any new or different text, it`s cutting it from one place, scrolling up and pasting it back in where it belongs. I don`t know if that changes page references or what... and I don`t know if Paizo has a stack of Errata that they would apply except for wanting to maintain static page # references... But it seems like at a certain point, deciding that new products will stop page # references, and new Core Rule printings will be incompatable with old page # references, is just a less worse thing than having the Core Rules have horribly misleading wording and structure.
Pathfinder Police!
This is an illegal game.
Throw the book at 'em!I love this guy!
*applaudes, then handcuffs Haiku Monster*
You're under arrest for mixing puns and haiku!
Book 'em Studpuffin.
A post has been removed. There is no need to act like children or belittle other posters.
|
Can Scouts Charge be used in conjunction with Vitial Strike?
Scout’s Charge (Ex): At 4th level, whenever a scout
makes a charge, her attack deals sneak attack damage
as if the target were flat-footed. Foes with uncanny
dodge are immune to this ability. This ability replaces
uncanny dodge.
Or do you have to wait until EL 8 when you get Skirishmer to use Vitial
Strike.
Skirmisher (Ex): At 8th level, whenever a scout moves
more than 10 feet in a round and makes an attack action,
the attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was
f lat-footed. If the scout makes more than one attack this
turn, this ability only applies to the first attack. Foes with
uncanny dodge are immune to this ability. This ability
replaces improved uncanny dodge
Vital Strike cannot be made as part of a charge, so you can't use it with Scout's Charge.
So Spring attack allows a Melee Attack which is Attack Action.Not all melee attacks are attack actions that are standard actions.
AoO is one.
edit:
We still need a FAQ answer.+1 on FAQ answer and as part of that answer a matrix of what feats work with the movement and attack feats. If charge, spring attack and shot on the run are only suppossed to be plain vanilla attacks then do any feats except those which specifically modify them like spirited charge work. Can I use power attack with SA or deadly aim with SR?
The combination of spring attack with the vital strike tree made a fencer style character possible. Sorry for the rant but I want Errol Flynn not Conan.
You can always use PA / DA since they are not actions but part of an attack. The reson why I want FAQ answers is because I think things are still not clear to everyone. Sloppy wording.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
As shown by some of the confusion in this thread,
`fixing` the Spring Attack wording didn`t really take on the elephant in the room:
widespread confusion over Attack Action terminology and usage.I understand that terminology and usage, Jason Buhlman understands it, plenty of people understand it by now, but plenty more simply don`t, and tend to just imagine an even more mangled version of it by their readings of Mr. Buhlman`s messageboard posts on the topic - which are the ONLY clarification of the topic up to now.
+1
One of the major problems is that all of the GENERAL information decribing attacks in general (melee vs. ranged, crits, unarmed, etc) is all placed under the Attack ACTION... which pretty much directly undermines the concept that Attack Action is something specific and distinct from any and every attack roll. All of that information needs to be moved from where it is, and moved `up` in the book to where the `Attacks` sub-section begins, i.e. along with attack roll calculation. As long as it exists where it is, anybody `confused` as to the attack roll/attack action distinction actually has a VERY good reason to be so, as the RAW`s structure is essentially sending very mixed messages.
I'm not sure this is the only problem. I will try to explain what I mean.
Pathfinder rules tend to mix words that are 'game terms' with words that are not game terms.Page 182
Standard Actions
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from
movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can
strike any opponent within 5 feet.[...]
So now the reader thinks all melee attack are stadard actions, but they are not. AoO is a not. Nor is spring attack or Whirlwind Attack.
"Melee attack = melee attack action" is a specific game term
"melee attack = attack with a melee weapon" is not a game term, but describes what someone does.
Another problem with the rules is all that is that it's based on 3.5 but it's not 3.5 also there are flaws in the rules and some of the wording is sloppy and you are nbot sure which is whitch. Things have changed, but when you read the rules you're not sure if what you read is errata or a actual change from 3.5.
Example. Pathfinder have created rules on Ability damage, Penalty and Drain. (I hate they chose penalty as a specific game term).
In the section on ability damage, penalty and drain they list how damage, penalty affects a creature. It does not state if this list is exhaustive. The list is however very specific so you do think it is exhaustive. So you read and think you have it all figured out until you read spell description of Touch of Idiocy.
Page 360.
With a touch, you reduce the target’s mental faculties. Your
successful melee touch attack applies a 1d6 penalty to the target’s
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. This penalty can’t
reduce any of these scores below 1.
This spell’s effect may make it impossible for the target to cast
some or all of its spells, if the requisite ability score drops below the minimum required to cast spells of that level.
The problem now is that the "touch of idiocy" description isn't phrased as a modification, but rather as a reminder -- which makes sense, because it's word-for-word the same description in the 3.5 version of the spell, where that particular paragraph was simply a reminder of the way the rules actually worked. This looks like missed holdover text, but you can't be sure. They have created rules and start off with exceptions.
You can't even be sure the list is how damage/penalty affect a creature is exhaustive. Things get more confusing when you read stuff like Jason's old answer on Vital strike:
"The list of things being multiplied is not exhaustive.. as that would have taken up way too much space. Only the damage dice are multiplied. Nothing else. I am looking at cleaning up this language."
So if the list of things is not exhaustive when you read the Vital strike rules how are you sure the list is exhaustive when you read the rules on ability/penalty. Is carrying capacity affected by strength damage/penalties or not. What about spell casting? What about access to feats like power attack (str damage), TWF (dex damage), or combat expertise (int damage)?
What about Blasphemy, Bestow Curse and Feeblemind? Drain, damage or penalty or perhaps drain? Well James Jacobs have already answered all these question but he shouldn't have to.
Things get even more absurd when you look at feats like Whirlwind Attack. "When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities."
So no weapon focus, no weapon finesse, no power attack or rage or smite evil or weapon specialization or bonus from your bard, or bonus from weapon training, or bonus from favored enemy, or bonus from ......
The fact that they're feats. Vital Strike should be a general combat option -
I can see how vital strike must be a feat.. but a SINGLE feat. Why should I re-buy each time my BAB goes up? Is not so strong to justify it.
Power Attack and Combat Expertise scale up nicely.. why shouldn't vital strike?
Yes, one of the Designers said he was allowing VS with SA in his home game and that it didn't seem unbalanced. But that was a suggestion of his own house-ruling not an official answer. Later on the Designers came down and said SA was not to be used with all these other attack modifying feats that people were trying to use it with. That was the official answer. And that was what got posted to the d20pfsrd.com FAQ referencing that commonly asked question. It has been out for several months at least, I was pointed to that quote (I believe from Jason B.) quite some time ago, although it is new to printed errata. IMO it really isn't that big a deal. They needed to reword it to make their intent clear and they have. I suppose if I had a character who used SA and the VS chain I might be a little more upset about it, but I have always though of SA in a different light.
So...what kinda builds do Spring Attack show up in given this change? I mean, Great Cleave is just so much better...
If Spring attack were just plainly changed to "Move, use Standard action, can move again assuming you have not moved more than your standard speed" then it'd be awesome. Why should Flyby-Attack get all the fun?
Even spellcasters would take the feat then.
The way I think of SA is that it is the perfect feat for a Rogue who has gone into Shadowdancer: Ideally you would start any given round under the protection of Stealth (Via HiPS), use SA to close distance to a target and attack (Gaining Sneak Attack damage), and finally using the remainder of your movement to slink away and fade back into the shadows (Initiating a new Stealth).
For those purposes it is still a fantastic feat. Most Rogues like to get in and do all kinds of Flanking DPR but when the big bad guy turns their full attention on the Rogue he is in a bad position, one that could quickly get him killed. But with SA and HiPS not only can you disappear and move away, you can still reliably get one attack with Sneak Attack damage each round and still remain under the protection of Stealth, thereby not getting mauled by the bad guys Full Attack Action.
Plus there is the fact that SA and its prerequisites allow you to move around the battle field with little or no concern for AoO from enemy combatants. Again, a Rogue's best friend since they are constantly trying to move away from anyone who has focused their full attention / Full Attack on them, as well as move into Flanking positions. Really for the purpose of battle field maneuvering it is great for anyone. But it is a feat intended for positional tactics and defensive tactics, not stacking with other combat feats to make one ridiculously powerful attack.
Yes, one of the Designers said he was allowing VS with SA in his home game and that it didn't seem unbalanced. But that was a suggestion of his own house-ruling not an official answer. Later on the Designers came down and said SA was not to be used with all these other attack modifying feats that people were trying to use it with. That was the official answer. And that was what got posted to the d20pfsrd.com FAQ referencing that commonly asked question. It has been out for several months at least, I was pointed to that quote (I believe from Jason B.) quite some time ago, although it is new to printed errata. IMO it really isn't that big a deal. They needed to reword it to make their intent clear and they have. I suppose if I had a character who used SA and the VS chain I might be a little more upset about it, but I have always though of SA in a different light.
But WHY? WHY did the game designers make the feats/combat options exclusive to one another? If it has been proven to be fun, balanced, and intuitive to let them stack, why then did the game designers deem it necessary to release an errata entry that is the antithesis to fun, balance, and intuitive sense?
I'm very happy with the errata changes, not because of balance issues -- but because the errata corrects real problems in the actual writing. I'm just glad *some* of the endless arguments and confusions can disappear. Major kudos to fixing uncanny dodge!
That said, I fully sympathize with people who designed whole character concepts around this consistency failure. (Why fix Shot on the Run and not Spring Attack?) As far as balance is concerned, I don't think the Vital Strike mechanic was intended to be combined with other mechanics; it was an attempt to buff melee in the situations where full attacks were impossible or move -> hit chains were required. 3.5's wording was alright because there weren't any "buff standard action melee only" moves in the core book.
In any case the previous situation where Spring Attack was an unknown action, was unacceptable.
I'm very happy with the errata changes, not because of balance issues -- but because the errata corrects real problems in the actual writing. I'm just glad *some* of the endless arguments and confusions can disappear. Major kudos to fixing uncanny dodge!
I agree completely.
Meabolex, have they put out recent errata for Uncanny Dodge, I haven't seen it could you post a link? That was something I have been trying to track down clarification on for a while.
But WHY? WHY did the game designers make the feats/combat options exclusive to one another? If it has been proven to be fun, balanced, and intuitive to let them stack, why then did the game designers deem it necessary to release an errata entry that is the antithesis to fun, balance, and intuitive sense?
I doubt anyone on these forums, besides designers themselves, can give you an accurate answer to "WHY?" But you are assuming a few things: 1) That because a few people felt it was balanced, that equates to the designers as a whole feeling it was balanced; which may not be the case. 2) That the change incorporated by the new errata wasn't what they intended to begin with. Your interpretation lead you to use it in a manner not intended, so you are upset when the change when errata comes down clarifying the designer's intent. You seem to think the designers backpedaled and changed their intent for these feats. But it is not a change in their intent. They haven't changed anything, they have only clarified a confusing bit of writing.
One of the major problems is that all of the GENERAL information decribing attacks in general (melee vs. ranged, crits, unarmed, etc) is all placed under the Attack ACTION... which pretty much directly undermines the concept that Attack Action is something specific and distinct from any and every attack roll. All of that information needs to be moved from where it is, and moved `up` in the book to where the `Attacks` sub-section begins, i.e. along with attack roll calculation.I'm not sure this is the only problem. I will try to explain what I mean.
Pathfinder rules tend to mix words that are 'game terms' with words that are not game terms.
That´s a difficult aspect of how the rules were designed, but it´s really a legacy of 3.5. That´s the thing - nothing about the ´attack´ action itself actually changed from 3.5, and I can see how Paizo may have wanted to continue it´s naming convention for ´bw compatabiliy´. The only thing that changed was that now Core abilities were directly tying into distinguishing the attack action from any and every attack roll. What´s confusing is that Paizo kept the same organization as 3.5, with all general attack info under the attack action. To me, that suggests that the 3.5 designers themselves weren´t even properly distinguishing between these actions even though attack action was just as much it´s own distinct action as in PRPG.
Page 182
Standard Actions
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from
movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can
strike any opponent within 5 feet.[...]
Everything below ´Making an attack is a standard action´ doesn´t really belong under Attack Action, as it´s general to all attack rolls. If people want to make faulty logical conclusions like A is a B is a C therefore all C´s are A´s, they are going to do so no matter how Paizo writes the game.
But including all the general attack rules under Attack Action directly undermines the notion that attack action is distinct and so forth. The ONLY feature that per RAW would apply to all attacks is Crits, which are mentioned in the general attack section with a ´see the attack action for more info´ line. All other aspects, including ´Unarmed´ and Ranged Attacks provoking, Shooting into Melee Penalties, Natural Attack mechanics, etc, do not have any link to non-attack action attack per RAW. If the reader DOESN´T decide to explain the presence of general attack rules under attack action as indicating that attack action isn´t really something unique, but refers to ANY attack roll, and Standard Action Attack Action is just one way to make an attack action, then you end up with a broken game per RAW. (or the alternative, every reader is expected to be able to meta-analyze the rules like I´m doing here, and know when to strictly apply RAW against common English usage and when RAW can be ignored/bypassed)
What´s problematic here is exemplified by Morgen´s post, that many players find it too easy to continue using 3.5 rules because the PRPG rules don´t appear to be different on casual reading. In this case, the RAW for attack actions HASN´T ACTUALLY CHANGED AT ALL but Paizo is expecting readers to interpret the same text radically different than how it was interpreted in 3.5... even though all the rules for melee/ranged/unarmed/etc continue being located under Attack Action, i.e. in line with the 3.5. paradigm that in effect WAS using plain English usage because attack action wasn´t actually as distinct as it is in PRPG, it was just a Standard Action to make an attack action/roll. PRPG latched onto the fact that ´attack action´ was a specific action (which was true in 3.5) and played that up via Vital Strike, but while believing they were simply continuing the RAW/RAI of 3.5, they actually were doing something DIFFERENT. (To be clear, BOTH 3.5 and PRPG had problematic RAW, just in different ´directions´. 3.5 simply worked well with common English usage, while PRPG doesn´t)
Personally, I would never choose the name ´attack action´ for something I want to distinguish from any and every attack roll, when 99% of readers are going to think ´well if I´m knocking a steel blade into the guy´s head, that qualifies as ´action´, right?´ But that´s how it´s gone over, and I don´t think is going to be changed to something different at this point. Cut-and-Pasting the general attack rules to where they belong IS something that seems do-able IMHO.
If people want to make faulty logical conclusions like A is a B is a C therefore all C´s are A´s, they are going to do so no matter how Paizo writes the game. But including all the general attack rules under Attack Action directly undermines the notion that attack action is distinct and so forth.
They should define what the hell an attack action is. Use a table like the ones for move and standard actions.
It is on the table. Under Standard Actions. ´Attack´, with sub-variants for Melee/Ranged/Unarmed.
And is the first Standard Action described in text (with general attack rules misleadingly attached)
It is on the table. Under Standard Actions. ´Attack´.
But wasn't there already an "attack" there? What is an attack action? Where is it employed?
What do you mean ´there already was an ´attack´ there?´
Like I wrote in above long post, attack action itself didn´t change from 3.5.
What do you mean ´there already was an ´attack´ there?´
Like I wrote in above long post, attack action itself didn´t change from 3.5.
Like you said in your above post, yes it did. Pathfinder added a bunch of specific mechanics and rules to create separate categories of attacks that do and don't fall underneath attack action or do and don't grant an attack action as such.
Like you said in your above post, yes it did. Pathfinder added a bunch of specific mechanics and rules to create separate categories of attacks that do and don't fall underneath attack action or do and don't grant an attack action as such.What do you mean ´there already was an ´attack´ there?´
Like I wrote in above long post, attack action itself didn´t change from 3.5.
Here´s what I wrote:
That´s the thing - nothing about the ´attack´ action itself actually changed from 3.5, and I can see how Paizo may have wanted to continue it´s naming convention for ´bw compatabiliy´. The only thing that changed was that now Core abilities were directly tying into distinguishing the attack action from any and every attack roll. What´s confusing is that Paizo kept the same organization as 3.5, with all general attack info under the attack action.
(...)
In this case, the RAW for attack actions HASN´T ACTUALLY CHANGED AT ALL but Paizo is expecting readers to interpret the same text radically different than how it was interpreted in 3.5... even though all the rules for melee/ranged/unarmed/etc continue being located under Attack Action
I repeatedly point out that the text of Attack Action hasn´t changed.
You can verify that by comparing to the 3.5 SRD.The only text I can see that actually changed was in the general attack rules, where Paizo added the text ´(see the attack action)´ to the general attack rules´ sub-section for ´automatic misses and hits´.
One can add Vital Strike to a 3.5 game and it technically should work exactly the same as in a PRPG game, because the interfacing rules haven´t changed at all. PRPG did change other parts of the rules to use the attack action specifically (e.g. Sunder), but those are auxiliary rules, not the rules for ´attack action itself´ which is what I was writing about.
|
"When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities."
That language might be hard to parse, but aren't the words "bonus and extra" both modifying the word "attacks"? I mean, that's redundant and should just use one adjective or the other, but the intent was never to say "you don't get any bonuses of any kind", it was to say "one attack, one attack only" -- the clear intent of the feat.
I've never saw that as unclear, although I'd say the language could have been more direct. Just like Vital Strike -- all along, it should have said "This is a standard action, and cannot be combine with anything else that is a standard action. Just roll the weapon damage dice again, that's it".
But Vital Strike CAN be combined with other things,
as long as they work using the Attack Action, e.g. Sunder.
It CAN´T be combined with anything that doesn´t use the Attack Action,
e.g. AoO´s, Full Attacks, other Standard Action attacks (say, Grapple).
I agree that removing the attack action/attack roll distinction would have been a better idea,
just making Vital Strike it´s own Standard Action, including text making it also allow Sunders,
and have any future Vital Strike-compatable actions / special effects be specifically worded to apply to Standard plain-vanilla attack actions OR Vital Strike actions (but that still requires distinguishing the standard attack action from OTHER standard action special attacks, e.g. Cleave and Grapple). But that isn´t how Paizo went, and one can see why because this distinction WAS already in place in 3.5 it just happened to be ignored by everybody (for one because if one didn´t ignore it, the rules don´t work per RAW because the general attack rules are placed under the attack action not under attacks in general).
3.5 was really just as much technically in error as PRPG by including general attack info along with the ´attack´ action, but because they never made abilities distinguishing the ´attack´ action from any attack roll
But there was no reason to confuse them. An attack roll was part of an attack. They weren't confused they were just not confusing.
I don't remember ever hearing anyone being confused about when you could Grapple in 3.5 even though it said "initiated with an attack roll" which "isn't distinguished from the 'attack action'." It doesn't need to be distinguished because they aren't confusing.As opposed to Pathfinder where they have an attack action and then make subactions. An attack action can be a normal melee attack! Or used to apply X mechanic. Or X mechanic grants a melee attack.. or is it an attack action? Who knows? The Pathfinder rules have needlessly convoluted the problem without defining the details thereof. This is only compounded by sloppy or nonexistent editing of items copied straight from the 3.5 SRD. I don't see any table in the SRD listing "X...Z are attack actions" which is, itself, a subaction under Standard Actions. In fact, the "attack" portion of the table is the same as it was in 3.5.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
That language might be hard to parse, but aren't the words "bonus and extra" both modifying the word "attacks"?
I don't think so, Michael. I've been interpreting that as "forfeit any bonus and (any) extra attacks" and I've been pretty confident that that ws the plain wording of the rules. When I ran PFS OP at Gen Con, the polearm-weilding Ranger did not get either her favored enemy bonus, nor the benefits of the cleric's bless spell, when she was doing her Whirlwind Attack. That's because she was trying to hit every orc, goblin, tree, and root vegetable in the area around her, at the cost of her training and the gods' guidance on how to hit a particular target.
The ´bonus and extra attacks´ seems to me solely in reference to extra attacks, not attack bonuses.
Because if it WERE in reference to attack bonuses, ´bonus´ should be plural ´bonuses´
(as ´attacks´ and ´feats, spells, or abilities´ are)
"When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities."That language might be hard to parse, but aren't the words "bonus and extra" both modifying the word "attacks"? I mean, that's redundant and should just use one adjective or the other, but the intent was never to say "you don't get any bonuses of any kind", it was to say "one attack, one attack only" -- the clear intent of the feat.
It should use neither - both should be scrapped and replaced with "additional." And obviously the intent is not clear because bonus is often applied to things besides additional attacks.