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.That language might be hard to parse, but aren't the words "bonus and extra" both modifying the word "attacks"?
It should be read as "bonus attacks or extra attacks from..." not "bonuses to attacks or extra attacks from..."
|
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 bolded quote from the feat speaks to bonus attacks. "bonus or extra attacks" Granted - it's redundant.
Better wording:
"you also forfeit any extra attacks granted by feats, spells, or abilities"
I think your interpretation is not what was intended. Otherwise the wording would be
"You also forfeit all bonuses to your attack rolls and all extra attacks granted by..."
Robert
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?
|
|
I'll chime in here:
The feat Spring Attack has never truly worked the way RavingDork was using it (if following the RAW to its fullest) - so to most of us the errata didn't nerf the feat.
That being said - RD's concerns that spring attack is not worth it's cost in feat tree progression has merit. True he or I or anyone else can "houserule" it any which way; but that still doesn't validate the concern and certainly gives no clout to forcing that intrepretation of the rules into other game settings/venues.
Someone else said the problem isn't w/ SA, it's with Vital Attack - which I will completely agree with.
With a change in Vital Strike to allow w/ Spring Attack, it may make Spring Attack a bit more on par for its cost.
As is, however, there are few true situations or designs to make spring attack have it's impact in the game that is worthy of it's 3-feat progression - compared to other feat tree alternatives that are available. If dodge/mobility were molded into one or one of the prereqs removed, or Vital Strike was worded to work with SA, then I would say Spring Attack is once again on the par for its balance and merit and relative effectiveness.
Robert
Page 134—In the Benefit paragraph of the Spring
Attack feat, at the beginning of the first sentence,
add “As a full-round action,”.
First, I haven't read the whole thread, so if this was said, sorry.
Spring Attack in '3.5E' was always a 'full-round' action, perhaps yet another tid-bit of Paizo editing that got overlooked... when used in conjunction with their Vital Strike feat. :p
For what it's worth, our home campaign/group uses vital strike whenever it's a 'single' attack, charge or otherwise, despite the waves of errata and heaps of clarifications.
You move up to your speed and attack (once) as long as you move before and after the attack. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
It describes your entire round and no where does the feat say standard, move or attack "action". *shrug*
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?
An attack action is a standard action in which you make one of the attacks listed under the text
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?
No one knows.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?
ATTACK ACTION is an attack (melee or ranged) that is taken on your turn as part of your normal sequence of actions.
ATTACK is any offensive action taken against another using a D20 to adjudicate.
Note that not all ATTACKs are ATTACK ACTIONS.
Attacks of opportunity for instance is an attack (with a roll of a die), but not an ATTACK ACTION as it was not taken during your normal sequence of actions on your turn.
An ATTACK ACTION is a TYPE of STANDARD ACTION. (so is casting a spell a type of STANDARD ACTION).
Note - once again, ATTACK ACTION is a type of STANDARD ACTION, where as an Attack of Opportunity is a type of attack, but not a type of STANDARD ACTION and thus it is not an ATTACK ACTION - because all ATTACK ACTIONS are STANDARD ACTIONS, but not all attacks are ATTACK ACTIONS.
An ATTACK ACTION allows a MOVE ACTION to be done in conjunction with it - just like ALL other STANDARD ACTIONS do.
Again note not ALL types of attacks allow you to have a MOVE ACTION in conjunction with it - an attack of opportunity as mentioned above is NOT an ATTACK ACTION - not a STANDARD ACTION at all - thus it does not allow a MOVE ACTION to accompany it. (which I'm sure you already know).
So now hopefully you see the difference between a specified category: ATTACK ACTION, and the idea of making an attack.
So just because it's an ATTACK and it's an ACTION - doesn't classify it in game terms as an ATTACK ACTION; unless it fits certain criteria.
Robert
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.
Page 34—In the Uncanny Dodge class feature, in the first paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows:
She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her
Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible.
Thus, invisible attackers do not cause a creature with uncanny dodge to lose their Dex bonus to AC. All that flatfooted mess mixed with invisibility is gone.
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.That language might be hard to parse, but aren't the words "bonus and extra" both modifying the word "attacks"?
This is why errata is written -- to prevent basic misreadings like these. In terms of actual content, there's nothing wrong with that interpretation. However, based on historical information from 3.X, this is simply not how the ability should work. The phrase:
"any bonus or extra attacks"
is really
"any (bonus or extra) attacks"
not
"any bonus (luck, enhancement, insight, morale, size, etc.) or extra attacks"
Ideally, it should be written:
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any additional attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
Unfortunately, it's pretty difficult to write information clearly. And thus, you end up with two people reading something radically different. Writing clearly is also hard when you use terms that aren't explained.
For instance,
When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
What is a regular attack? Is one attack more regular or less regular than another attack? Do you get to keep your irregular attacks? (:
I'm being facetious, but the point is that alternative readings are very easy to make when you don't define your terminology clearly.
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?An attack action is a standard action in which you make one of the attacks listed under the text
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
And where PRECISELY is it defined?
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?No one knows.
This is what I figured. I really don't believe it is an official game term via RAW. It comes up in all these weird places and isn't clearly defined. If the game designers weren't so hell bent on using it, I would think it a mistake in terminology.
I've worked with game designers before. They HATE admitting mistakes. I suspect that's what's happening here. Jason and others made a mistake in terminology (or perhaps it was an unnecessary holdover from 3.5) and rather than fix the mistake they simply try to cover it up and save face by saying "we meant to do that all along."
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?ATTACK ACTION is an attack (melee or ranged) that is taken on your turn as part of your normal sequence of actions.
ATTACK is any offensive action taken against another using a D20 to adjudicate.
Note that not all ATTACKs are ATTACK ACTIONS.
Attacks of opportunity for instance is an attack (with a roll of a die), but not an ATTACK ACTION as it was not taken during your normal sequence of actions on your turn.
An ATTACK ACTION is a TYPE of STANDARD ACTION. (so is casting a spell a type of STANDARD ACTION).
Note - once again, ATTACK ACTION is a type of STANDARD ACTION, where as an Attack of Opportunity is a type of attack, but not a type of STANDARD ACTION and thus it is not an ATTACK ACTION - because all ATTACK ACTIONS are STANDARD ACTIONS, but not all attacks are ATTACK ACTIONS.
An ATTACK ACTION allows a MOVE ACTION to be done in conjunction with it - just like ALL other STANDARD ACTIONS do.
Again note not ALL types of attacks allow you to have a MOVE ACTION in conjunction with it - an attack of opportunity as mentioned above is NOT an ATTACK ACTION - not a STANDARD ACTION at all - thus it does not allow a MOVE ACTION to accompany it. (which I'm sure you already know).
So now hopefully you see the difference between a specified category: ATTACK ACTION, and the idea of making an attack.
So just because it's an ATTACK and it's an ACTION - doesn't classify it in game terms as an ATTACK ACTION; unless it fits certain criteria.
Robert
Wow. That's pretty complex.
Wouldn't the game be much simpler if they just removed the term "attack action" altogether and replaced it with more appropriate terminology?
As is, "attack action" only really appears in two feats, if I'm not mistaken.
And where PRECISELY is it defined?Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?An attack action is a standard action in which you make one of the attacks listed under the text
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
It never is explicitly defined, but that's what it is. "Making an attack is a standard action". The standard action that you use to make a single attack (as outlined in the next several paragraphs) is called the "attack action", although the term itself doesn't appear in those paragraphs.
The thing isn't really that confusing. All they really need to do is add a single sentence to this section that specifies that they're talking about the "attack action".Yes, they made a mistake not explicitly including it, but it's abundantly clear that that's what the "attack action" is referring to.
|
|
Sadly, RavingDork is quite accurate in the COMBAT chapter is just states "an attack is a standard action" and goes on to define or describe different types of attacks (melee, ranged, unarmed).
There is a chart on page 183 of the CORE RULES that lists ATTACK under the STANDARD ACTION umbrella; but there is not clear definitions of "ATTACK ACTION"
Robert
This is what I figured. I really don't believe it is an official game term via RAW. It comes up in all these weird places and isn't clearly defined. If the game designers weren't so hell bent on using it, I would think it a mistake in terminology.I've worked with game designers before. They HATE admitting mistakes. I suspect that's what's happening here. Jason and others made a mistake in terminology (or perhaps it was an unnecessary holdover from 3.5) and rather than fix the mistake they simply try to cover it up and save face by saying "we meant to do that all along."
Oh no, it's not a mistake. In fact, they have built their system mechanics around it. It's just EXTREMELY poorly defined and is most certainly defined in no single place and is just spread all over without addressing what it is and what it constitutes.
Sadly, RavingDork is quite accurate in the COMBAT chapter is just states "an attack is a standard action" and goes on to define or describe different types of attacks (melee, ranged, unarmed).
There is a chart on page 183 of the CORE RULES that lists ATTACK under the STANDARD ACTION umbrella; but there is not clear definitions of "ATTACK ACTION"
Robert
I agree with you..it is my understanding that Attack Action is a naming convention from using a standard action to make an attack. therefor the prefix is replaced with attack and it becomes an attack action. The use of this is certain feats will apply to your attack actions made as a part of a standard action. The problem in the wording of this is that I believe the feat application was not reviewed thoroughly enough and feats should maybe have a header of what they apply to instead of reading descriptive text to try to decipher the meaning.
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?
Simply put, an "attack action" is a single, ordinary attack made as a standard action on your turn. That's really all it is.
So you can modify it with any feat/power/maneuver/etc. that alters your attack(s) or is used in place of an attack. Examples are: using Power Attack or making a trip maneuver.
Since it requires a standard action, you can't use it in conjunction with other actions that require their own standard action. Hence no Vital Strike or Cleave combos with an "attack action" for instance.
FWIW, the term really needs to just go away though. It would have been far simpler just to say "when you make an attack as a standard action…" instead of "when you use the attack action…"
FWIW, the term really needs to just go away though. It would have been far simpler just to say "when you make an attack as a standard action…" instead of "when you use the attack action…"
True but then Tome of Battle characters get even MORE damage, since they already have big damage stuff on their standard action Strikes.
Anyhow, I will repeat myself: To make Spring Attack attractive, let it work like Fly-by Attack and allow a Standard Action (any standard action, including spellcasting) in the middle.
Director of Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there all,
Robert basically has this right here and I will look to clarify up the terminology a bit in the next printing.
I do want to point out one thing here. Messageboard posts are never official, no matter who they come from. The only official source of changes and rulings is the FAQ and the update documents at this time. We here at Paizo will give out opinions and you can feel free to use those as you see fit in your game, but beyond that it is left for your GM to decide (as it should be with all such matters).
We are never going to be able to rule on every single issue that comes up. This game is just too complex for that, so this is the only way to keep our sanity intact (and yours).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hey there all,
Robert basically has this right here and I will look to clarify up the terminology a bit in the next printing.
I do want to point out one thing here. Messageboard posts are never official, no matter who they come from. The only official source of changes and rulings is the FAQ and the update documents at this time. We here at Paizo will give out opinions and you can feel free to use those as you see fit in your game, but beyond that it is left for your GM to decide (as it should be with all such matters).
We are never going to be able to rule on every single issue that comes up. This game is just too complex for that, so this is the only way to keep our sanity intact (and yours).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hey, it is still a great game.
You and Pazio as brought life to 3.x in a way that is just fantastic.
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 bolded quote from the feat speaks to bonus attacks. "bonus or extra attacks" Granted - it's redundant.
Better wording:
"you also forfeit any extra attacks granted by feats, spells, or abilities"I think your interpretation is not what was intended. Otherwise the wording would be
"You also forfeit all bonuses to your attack rolls and all extra attacks granted by..."
Robert
Thanks for the clarification. I never tought of "bonus or extra attacks" meaning "bonus attacks or extra attacks", since "bonus attacks or extra attacks" seam to be a tautology.
By bad, so thanks for the info :-)
The only official source of changes and rulings is the FAQ and the update documents at this time.
Possibly a stupid question but when you say FAQ are you talking about the FAQ section of the d20pfsrd.com site? I ask because the only FAQ I have been able to find on the Paizo site is HERE and it seems to have only general information about your website and business.
|
|
The only official source of changes and rulings is the FAQ and the update documents at this time.Possibly a stupid question but when you say FAQ are you talking about the FAQ section of the d20pfsrd.com site? I ask because the only FAQ I have been able to find on the Paizo site is HERE and it seems to have only general information about your website and business.
Try Here.
There is a tab near the discussion that leads you to the FAQ.
Page 34—In the Uncanny Dodge class feature, in the first paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows:
She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her
Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible.Thus, invisible attackers do not cause a creature with uncanny dodge to lose their Dex bonus to AC. All that flatfooted mess mixed with invisibility is gone.
Outstanding, I was hoping that would get cleared up eventually. Thank you for pointing that out.
The only official source of changes and rulings is the FAQ and the update documents at this time.Possibly a stupid question but when you say FAQ are you talking about the FAQ section of the d20pfsrd.com site? I ask because the only FAQ I have been able to find on the Paizo site is HERE and it seems to have only general information about your website and business.Try Here.
There is a tab near the discussion that leads you to the FAQ.
Thank you. This is more toward what I was looking for, but not a long list. Is this the official FAQ so far? Or is there more somewhere else?
|
|
This is more toward what I was looking for, but not a long list. Is this the official FAQ so far? Or is there more somewhere else?The only official source of changes and rulings is the FAQ and the update documents at this time.Possibly a stupid question but when you say FAQ are you talking about the FAQ section of the d20pfsrd.com site? I ask because the only FAQ I have been able to find on the Paizo site is HERE and it seems to have only general information about your website and business.Try Here.
There is a tab near the discussion that leads you to the FAQ.
AFAIK, they're working on it still. The FAQ feature of the messageboards is drawing them to certain questions that need attention first. If you think something should be in the FAQ, go ahead and click on the FAQ button for that post.
An ATTACK ACTION is a TYPE of STANDARD ACTION. (so is casting a spell a type of STANDARD ACTION).
Note - once again, ATTACK ACTION is a type of STANDARD ACTION,…
Not picking on RB, but just using his entry to illustrate why this specific piece of terminology is too confusing and should simply be done away with:
If an "attack action" is a type of standard action, and so is casting a spell, then why isn't the act of casting a spell called "casting action"?
The same could be said for all general actions in the core book that require a standard action. Why don't they have their own specific names? Why is a single attack made as a standard action an exception, getting its own name? It's just an added wrinkle of complication that simply doesn't need to be. In JB's own words, this game is too complex for that kind of stuff.
That wouldn't help because it doesn't address the issue.
The only official source of changes and rulings is the FAQ and the update documents at this time.Possibly a stupid question but when you say FAQ are you talking about the FAQ section of the d20pfsrd.com site? I ask because the only FAQ I have been able to find on the Paizo site is HERE and it seems to have only general information about your website and business.
The d20 site is fan content so it is not official, but I think it should still be used, at least until the FAQ here becomes more robust.
That wouldn't help because it doesn't address the issue.Define the issue. It seems to me that the problem is about people confusing "attacks" and "attack actions", which are different things but look like the same things unless you read the rules many times.
That problem is addressed, if your issue is different then I wasn't even refering to whatever it was.
It needs to be specified what are ALL members of the attack action and everything needs to be combed through and fixed to specify what it is and is not.
Calling things a "Standard Attack Action" or a "Full Around Attack Action" completely misses the point that an attack action is both inherently a standard action and not defined.
|
|
Outstanding, I was hoping that would get cleared up eventually. Thank you for pointing that out.Page 34—In the Uncanny Dodge class feature, in the first paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows:
She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her
Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible.Thus, invisible attackers do not cause a creature with uncanny dodge to lose their Dex bonus to AC. All that flatfooted mess mixed with invisibility is gone.
Hey Shadowlord - didn't you and I as a matter of fact actually go round and round with each other on this very topic?
I can't remember which of us protested which way - but regardless, I think whatever the hang-up was, I'm pretty sure this clarified it for us both and validated one of our interpretations.
Robert
Outstanding, I was hoping that would get cleared up eventually. Thank you for pointing that out.Page 34—In the Uncanny Dodge class feature, in the first paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows:
She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her
Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible.Thus, invisible attackers do not cause a creature with uncanny dodge to lose their Dex bonus to AC. All that flatfooted mess mixed with invisibility is gone.
Hey Shadowlord - didn't you and I as a matter of fact actually go round and round with each other on this very topic?
I can't remember which of us protested which way - but regardless, I think whatever the hang-up was, I'm pretty sure this clarified it for us both and validated one of our interpretations.
Robert
As a matter of fact we did. And I don't remember all the details but it was a good debate. IIRC you were on the side of the way the ability "should have read" and I argued for the side of the way "it was written" which is not to say I actually disagreed with you, but rather I wanted to point out that the RAW was not clearly written. I am glad to see that they cleared it up.
|
|
As a matter of fact we did. And I don't remember all the details but it was a good debate. IIRC you were on the side of the way the ability "should have read" and I argued for the side of the way "it was written" which is not to say I actually disagreed with you, but rather I wanted to point out that the RAW was not clearly written. I am glad to see that they cleared it up.
I'm inclined to agree w/ your recollection - for as I take a look at the (new) wording again and really process it, I do not see us doing anything different in my group from what we have been doing - so it further clears up how I guess we've always felt it worked.
I too am glad that they have - and that we've been doing it as it should have been so as to prevent any needless Ret-Con actions on anyone's characters.
Robert
Oh no, it's not a mistake. In fact, they have built their system mechanics around it. It's just EXTREMELY poorly defined and is most certainly defined in no single place and is just spread all over without addressing what it is and what it constitutes.
This is what I figured. I really don't believe it is an official game term via RAW. It comes up in all these weird places and isn't clearly defined. If the game designers weren't so hell bent on using it, I would think it a mistake in terminology.I've worked with game designers before. They HATE admitting mistakes. I suspect that's what's happening here. Jason and others made a mistake in terminology (or perhaps it was an unnecessary holdover from 3.5) and rather than fix the mistake they simply try to cover it up and save face by saying "we meant to do that all along."
How do you know this? Were you part of the alpha/beta test for pathfinder and have some insider knowledge that I don't? (sincere question)
An attack action is a standard action or part of a full round action when you full attack. When you do a full attack, you do multiple attack actions but these would not be standard actions. So any action that can take place of an attack on a full attack is an attack action.
Can someone please define for me EXACTLY what an attack action is?It is an action, in which you make an attack.
According to the game designers, you're both wrong.
The term needs to be done away with entirely, in large part because its not a defined term (nor should it be) and is only serving to muck things up royally.
I don't understand what was wrong with Spring Attack's original ruling?
You can move both before and after making a melee attack.
Making a move is a Move Action. Therefore, your Move Action is used up. Making a melee attack is, normally, a Standard Action. So your Standard Action is used up. Also, anything requiring a Standard Action in conjunction with a melee attack is legal. How is this confusing? Looks like Vital Strike would work perfectly with it, too, since it is a Standard Action attack. I can see Vital Strike being stated to be a Standard Action due to the fact they don't want AoO turning into Vital Strike attacks. It does lock it from being used in a Charge Attack, sadly. Less of a reason to Charge more often, it seems.
Making Spring Attack a Full-Round Action is only causing more harm with characters based on utilizing Spring Attack, and I am sticking with 3.5e version. It really does feel like Paizo is nerfing things that don't need to be nerfed.
I don't understand what was wrong with Spring Attack's original ruling?
You can move both before and after making a melee attack.
Making a move is a Move Action. Therefore, your Move Action is used up. Making a melee attack is, normally, a Standard Action. So your Standard Action is used up. Also, anything requiring a Standard Action in conjunction with a melee attack is legal. How is this confusing? Looks like Vital Strike would work perfectly with it, too, since it is a Standard Action attack. I can see Vital Strike being stated to be a Standard Action due to the fact they don't want AoO turning into Vital Strike attacks. It does lock it from being used in a Charge Attack, sadly. Less of a reason to Charge more often, it seems.
Making Spring Attack a Full-Round Action is only causing more harm with characters based on utilizing Spring Attack, and I am sticking with 3.5e version. It really does feel like Paizo is nerfing things that don't need to be nerfed.
Exactly! And it does absolutely nothing good for the game in return!
|
According to the game designers, you're both wrong.The term needs to be done away with entirely, in large part because its not a defined term (nor should it be) and is only serving to muck things up royally.
Cite please? Because other then JJ mucking things up, I don't remember any other game designers contradicting what has been used since 3.x days.
Cite please? Because other then JJ mucking things up, I don't remember any other game designers contradicting what has been used since 3.x days.
According to the game designers, you're both wrong.The term needs to be done away with entirely, in large part because its not a defined term (nor should it be) and is only serving to muck things up royally.
Try these out.
As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two. The preview was in error. Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics.
Hope that helps...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
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
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
At least he is consistent.
As you can clearly see, according to the game designers, an attack action is ALWAYS a standard action. Your posts indicated that this was not necessarily the case. If you are taking a full attack action to make multiple attacks, you are NOT taking the attack action.
It is not defined anywhere in the rules, only here on the forums (which as Jason himself says, is wholly unofficial).
I'll say it again: This pseudo-game term should just be taken out of the game. It's easy enough to say "if you make only one attack on your turn in a round you may [gain x benefit]" instead.
EDIT: Also, JJ was the only one who had any sense in the matter.
|
Creative Director
|
Cite please? Because other then JJ mucking things up, I don't remember any other game designers contradicting what has been used since 3.x days.
According to the game designers, you're both wrong.The term needs to be done away with entirely, in large part because its not a defined term (nor should it be) and is only serving to muck things up royally.
Don't tell Lisa! I'll get fired!
On a more serious note; threads like this kind of make me sad. Think of all the fun gaming time that could have been had instead of spending hours arguing over a a rule!
I often miss the days where the GM got to decide how things worked in the game.
Cite please? Because other then JJ mucking things up, I don't remember any other game designers contradicting what has been used since 3.x days.
According to the game designers, you're both wrong.The term needs to be done away with entirely, in large part because its not a defined term (nor should it be) and is only serving to muck things up royally.
Don't tell Lisa! I'll get fired!
On a more serious note; threads like this kind of make me sad. Think of all the fun gaming time that could have been had instead of spending hours arguing over a a rule!
I often miss the days where the GM got to decide how things worked in the game.
We can't game every minute of our lives. "Discussions" such as this one is one of the many things we can do to take up the time in between gaming sessions.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
On a more serious note; threads like this kind of make me sad. Think of all the fun gaming time that could have been had instead of spending hours arguing over a a rule!
I would much rather get things straight here and now, than in the middle of a tabletop combat when I try to figure out what a character can or cannot do.
I often miss the days where the GM got to decide how things worked in the game.
In my home campaign, that's never a problem. In PFS OP, I want to make sure I can run my table according the Pathfinder rules.
On a more serious note; threads like this kind of make me sad. Think of all the fun gaming time that could have been had instead of spending hours arguing over a a rule!I often miss the days where the GM got to decide how things worked in the game.
Amen, James, amen. Discussing things that are fuzzy to oneself is one thing, cutting rules up and analyzing not only the rules, but the thought process that went into the rules, and the lunch that the designers likely had the day the rules were written just gets a bit tiresome.