|
I think all the evidence has been presented. To me the conclusion is still unclear and will be until it's errata'd to be more clear, or a new edition is published.@Jiggy "I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is. " <- I'm arguing rules there.I think perhaps I was unclear.
I see that this is your claim about the rules. I also see that the premise you offer as support for that claim is simply "I played it the other way and nothing broke."
All I'm trying to say is that having played a successful game running Rule X in a certain way does not in any way imply/suggest that Rule X really does work the way you ran it. "By the book" is not the only way to play a great game, so success with your interpretation does not support the position that your interpretation is "by the book".
I don't really have an opinion on the Attack Action topic - I was just critiquing your argumentation methodology.
Because that's the kind of thing I care about. :P
I understand and didn't take it personally. I am mainly getting at that there likely wont be a PFS style 'correct' answer to this one so we have to try and see what works and what is clearly broken (like my 'vital strike means one of your attacks gets double dice' argument.)
I'm saying that I'm not convinced that's not how it is.
The PRD says "(see the attack action)" which links to "Attack: Making an attack is a standard action."
Table: Actions in Combat lists the three attack actions under Standard Actions.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Since vital strike requires an attack action (a specific KIND of standard action, and not the one used by this monster to activate its eye beams—see the entry for eye beams under its special attacks), it can't be used at the same time the monster uses a standard action instead to use its eye beams.
The two people most responsible for writing the book have both stated flat out that the rule means what it says.
The only evidence you've presented is the section on combat maneuvers: "While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack)"
If the attack action is any action in which you attack, there's no reason to mention it in that quote, as every other thing it mentioned would also be an attack action. The fact that it's specified as a separate action should be enough to show you that the attack action is not the same as a full-attack action or an attack of opportunity, it's its own specific action.
If you removed the word "action" from your declarations you would be correct. An "attack" is any time you make an attack, regardless of what type of action is used to do so. A single attack made as a standard action is an attack. Every swing as part of a full-attack is an attack. The thing you do when someone provokes an AoO is an attack. Anything that says it can happen in place of "an attack" could replace any of those things.
Part of the instructions given to contributors was the following: "If it's not really an action, don't call it an action, call it an attack."
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The only place I disagree with Grick is that I believe the language in Sunder is an error; that is, the words "as an attack action" should be removed from the Sunder rules description and Sunder is designed to be an attack-replacement maneuver.
This issue has gone back and forth across the boards for years; have we ever had actual developer input on this question?
The only place I disagree with Grick is that I believe the language in Sunder is an error; that is, the words "as an attack action" should be removed from the Sunder rules description and Sunder is designed to be an attack-replacement maneuver.
This issue has gone back and forth across the boards for years; have we ever had actual developer input on this question?
Only when they marked the Sunder FAQ thread as "no reply required"
I take this to mean the rules are correct as written. Others have taken it to mean that the rules are so clearly incorrect that they don't need to bother mentioning it until the next errata is released.
-edit- the last post in that thread was on April 8, 2011. The last errata was released on Nov 22, 2011, but we don't know for certain when the thread was flagged no response, so it's possible that they waited 7 months then released errata, then later flagged the thread.
|
|
The only place I disagree with Grick is that I believe the language in Sunder is an error; that is, the words "as an attack action" should be removed from the Sunder rules description and Sunder is designed to be an attack-replacement maneuver.
This issue has gone back and forth across the boards for years; have we ever had actual developer input on this question?
Combing back over things, I agree with this. (even to the agreeing with grick part)
My larger reason for being so disagreeable is the implication that you wouldn't be able to do trip/disarm/sunders as part of an attack chain. Reading closer, only sunder has the prohibitive language (I was operating under the notion that they were all worded the same).
So basically I was merging 'in place of an attack' and 'as an attack action' language.
My larger reason for being so disagreeable is the implication that you wouldn't be able to do tip/disarm/sunders as part of an attack chain.
If it helps, I totally house rule it to let people sunder in place of any attack. I figure if my players want to destroy their gear, or waste actions applying a minor penalty, I'll let them! I don't even plan on hitting them with a sundering dragon. (Bite, weapon gone. Claw, armor gone. Claw, shield gone. Wing, magic belt gone, Wing, spell component pouch gone. Tail, bag of holding gone....)
They have attack of opportunity and attack action as two different things even in your quote.
An attack action is a standard action. I have a link upthread that supports it.Yea... but it's by JB...
We have a running joke at our table the JB rulings don't count :p
What is JB?
|
|
What is JB?They have attack of opportunity and attack action as two different things even in your quote.
An attack action is a standard action. I have a link upthread that supports it.Yea... but it's by JB...
We have a running joke at our table the JB rulings don't count :p
Jason Bulmahn though this is another case where I'm wrong, I pretty sure we joke about James Jacobs and rules calls.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The only place I disagree with Grick is that I believe the language in Sunder is an error; that is, the words "as an attack action" should be removed from the Sunder rules description and Sunder is designed to be an attack-replacement maneuver.
This issue has gone back and forth across the boards for years; have we ever had actual developer input on this question?
I marked this for the FAQ. The use of "an attack action" is inconsistent with how "attack action" is used in other situations. Is sunder intended to be able to replace any melee attack (allowed to replace iterative attacks) or is it intended to be a type of standard action attack?
I ask, not for debate in the forum, but to have a clear question for the FAQ
I'd go further and say that any action that has the word 'attack' in it is an attack action.If that were the case you could vital strike on an attack of opportunity, and you cannot.
Making an Attack of Opportunity is not an action. It is a result of Threatening.
Jason Bulmahn though this is another case where I'm wrong, I pretty sure we joke about James Jacobs and rules calls.What is JB?They have attack of opportunity and attack action as two different things even in your quote.
An attack action is a standard action. I have a link upthread that supports it.Yea... but it's by JB...
We have a running joke at our table the JB rulings don't count :p
For official purposes his rulings are the rules. For a home game his words may have no merit.
That quote above(upthread) is from the PRD and the book, and those are official. The attack action link takes you to where it says actions are a standard attack. People can argue that the link is an accident it is just a coincidence the link takes you to that point in the PRD, but I think the intent is clear.
Hats off to Gricky for his excellent linkage skills regarding the history of this discussion and the nebulous places including the attack action. However, he forgot the Rogue Archetype: Scout and the Skirmisher (Ex) class ability.