This thread has made me curious about what "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack" means. If an attack action is a standard action and only a standard action, how does one subdivide it? Does it simply mean that you can combine it with feats that are used as standard actions? For instance, what about combining vital strike and sunder? What about deadly stroke and sunder? Are these valid combinations?
Also, how often does sunder even get used? I've always considered it a combat maneuver made against my pocketbook, no matter who's doing the sundering.
I was wondering the same thing a few posts above. Sunder + Vital Strike might work, which kind of makes sense.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This thread has made me curious about what "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack" means. If an attack action is a standard action and only a standard action, how does one subdivide it?
This question has lead some to believe that the reference to the attack action in the sunder text is an error, and needs to be removed. A legitimate thought, in my opinion.
I think Sunder and vital strike would work. One uses an attack action, and the other(Sunder) is like a rider affect.
This thread has made me curious about what "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack" means.
It means you have to use the attack action, which is a specific standard action, and the Sunder replaces the melee attack. You can't do a ranged sunder, because that's not a melee attack. You also can't benefit from Vital Strike or Overhand Chop, because the Sunder maneuver replaces that attack.
What about deadly stroke and sunder? Are these valid combinations?
Deadly Stroke is a standard action. It can't be combined with anything, just like you can't combine Cleave or casting Fireball or drinking a potion.
Also, how often does sunder even get used? I've always considered it a combat maneuver made against my pocketbook, no matter who's doing the sundering.
More often now that it's easier to repair stuff. Non-magical weapons are simple to repair, a few castings of Mending and you're good to sell it. For magic weapons, it depends on how much of a threat it is to the party. Might be better to lose a couple thousand gold from selling the item to prevent 7000 gold to raise and restore someone, if anyone survives.
This question has lead some to believe that the reference to the attack action in the sunder text is an error, and needs to be removed.
I agree with the first part. Especially with Disarm having similar wording in beta, I think it's likely they just forgot to remove it (like they forgot to remove the second instance of "wielded" in arcane bond). That doesn't explain why it hasn't been changed, especially after they addressed the old FAQ thread, so maybe it was originally a mistake and they decided to keep it.
Where was the old FAQ thread? I skipped...470 posts.
Where was the old FAQ thread? I skipped...470 posts.
You skipped 482 posts. ;)
-edit- added smiley
Ah yes. "No reply required." We meet again.
Very interesting.
Does anyone have an example of the previously ambiguous text that the PRD apparently changed to make more clear?
This thread has made me curious about what "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack" means. If an attack action is a standard action and only a standard action, how does one subdivide it?This question has lead some to believe that the reference to the attack action in the sunder text is an error, and needs to be removed. A legitimate thought, in my opinion.
I could see that. It's very easy to paste something into a sentence and forget to delete what it's replacing. Usually things like that get caught because it's likely that they aren't grammatically correct. In this case, there isn't any grammatical error to draw attention to it.
Does the phrase "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack" appear anywhere else in any of the rulebooks? The presence or absence of this phrase anywhere else might help shed some light on it.
Also out of curiosity, what else uses the attack action explicitly, besides the vital strike feats and sunder? It seems like the more common wording is "As a standard action, make a single attack"
Going to try to truly quantify this question, which is, I believe, as follows:
Does the phrase "an attack action" as mentioned in the Sunder combat maneuver refer to the "attack action" (standard action) and the "full attack action" (full round action) (plus any other activity a character may take which involves making a melee attack), or does it mean "the attack action" (standard action)?
Linguistically, "when making an attack action" confers the same meaning as "when taking an action in which an attack occurs", which seems to be the root cause of the confusion, since the game itself defines the term "attack action" very specifically, and this does not tie up for certain interpretations of the Sunder rules.
And now we learn why Paizo is apparently shying away from making abilities Attack Actions :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The attack action may be taken either either as a standard action or as a full round action.
The lead designer of Pathfinder RPG disagrees with you, and has been quoted (with links, even!) multiple times throughout the thread.
According to him, the "attack action" is a specific kind of standard action, not something you can take either as a standard action or a full round action.
Unless you have something more authoritative than the lead designer, stating that the attack action can refer to a full-round action?
Sorry Malachi, when you debate on the rules boards 3.5 rulings are only accepted by posters when the wording has not changed. Otherwise you get the "well that was 3.5" comments. I also reference 3.5 at times, but I know to only do so when the wording has not changed. If the wording has significantly changed like it has in this case I won't even waste my time no matter what Skip has said.
You can keep repeating what Skip says, but since Skip and Jason specifically called out an attack action as a standard action, and the combat maneuver rules specifically separate a full attack action from an attack action that argument won't work to convince anyone.
Now you might want to argue that the idea of using an attack action, which is a standard action according to the devs, and the fact that the "attack action" is present in sunder's instructions is a fluke, but you will need to present something other than 3.5 as evidence in this case.
PS:Not to mention that an attack action is a valid way to use a CM, which I have already mentioned via quote. Here is a quote.
You don't actually use an "attack action", you use a "standard action" to attack. You don't get one Attack Action per round. You get a Standard Action.
Tell me why they used attack action, as you mean it, instead of Standard Action, like they did in Overrun, the subsection immediately before. If they wanted it to take a standard action, they already had clear and concise language for that, why not just use that?
|
Didn't someone post upthread the lead designer saying that you can sunder as part of a full attack?
It would be helpful if someone more computer savvy than me (which I suspect includes every single one of you!) would collate the quotes from PF devs that comment specifically on the question of whether sunders can be used in a full attack.
If memory serves, every single quote provided so far has said that sunder can be used in a full attack; none have said you can't.
Since the RAW is so ambiguous (they should have used the disarm/trip wording OR the bull rush/overrun wording), these dev posts would go a long way to divining RAI!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You don't actually use an "attack action", you use a "standard action" to attack. You don't get one Attack Action per round. You get a Standard Action.
Tell me why they used attack action, as you mean it, instead of Standard Action, like they did in Overrun, the subsection immediately before. If they wanted it to take a standard action, they already had clear and concise language for that, why not just use that?
Grick already explained quite precisely the implications of sunder's exact wording. I think if you look through some of his recent posts, you'll probably find what you're asking for.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Didn't someone post upthread the lead designer saying that you can sunder as part of a full attack?
It would be helpful if someone more computer savvy than me (which I suspect includes every single one of you!) would collate the quotes from PF devs that comment specifically on the question of whether sunders can be used in a full attack.
If memory serves, every single quote provided so far has said that sunder can be used in a full attack; none have said you can't.
Since the RAW is so ambiguous (they should have used the disarm/trip wording OR the bull rush/overrun wording), these dev posts would go a long way to divining RAI!
As I understand it, the quote of the lead designer saying you could sunder as part of a full-attack was back before the final version of PFRPG was published. Much later, the very same person confirmed (multiple times) that an attack action was a standard action only, and that's what the CRB says sunder requires.
So either he changed his mind on how sunder would end up working prior to publishing PFRPG, or else the reference to "attack action" was left in the final version of Sunder by accident.
Those are pretty much the only two possibilities that I see making sense with what evidence is currently available.
Didn't someone post upthread the lead designer saying that you can sunder as part of a full attack?
It would be helpful if someone more computer savvy than me (which I suspect includes every single one of you!) would collate the quotes from PF devs that comment specifically on the question of whether sunders can be used in a full attack.
If memory serves, every single quote provided so far has said that sunder can be used in a full attack; none have said you can't.
Since the RAW is so ambiguous (they should have used the disarm/trip wording OR the bull rush/overrun wording), these dev posts would go a long way to divining RAI!
On various sunder defs from various versions:
2nd editionSpoiler:
2nd edition didn't have "attack action" it had "Make an attack" which is more of a description. Here I think an attack is an attack is an attack. If there was something special about one kind of attack there was surely a long description of what that entails.3rd edition
Spoiler:3rd edition actually says "Attack actions"under "attack actions" it lists:
Attack(melee)
Attack(range)
Attack(unarmed)
Charge
Full Attackbut is also says "The attack action is a standard action"
Sundering is listed as "Strike a Weapon" under "attack an object"
It requires a "melee attack" which if I were running a game would work for full attacks. "melee attack" doesn't seem to be exclusive to "attack
action"The actual word "sunder" is a feat that simply remover that AoO associated with striking a weapon
The "spring attack" feat uses the words "attack action."
System reference document
Spoiler:
"Strike a weapon [Standard][AoO: Yes]
Description: A character can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that a character's opponent is holding."3.5 first printing
Spoiler:Okay no "attack actions"We have "attack" under "standard actions" under "action types."
It now reads "Making an Attack is a standard action."
We now have "Sunder" and it's listed under "standard action" on table 8-2 page 141.
"attack action" is still used for the feat "spring attack."
It basically now reads like the 3.0 SRD.
Pathfinder
Spoiler:Keeps the same wording for "Attack" as 3.5.removed "sunder" from the list of standard actions.
Changed "spring attack" to a "full-round action"
Of note - Pathfinder removes sunder from the list of standard actions.
Skip Williams from the 3.5 FAQ
'Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee
attack variant? It has its own entry on the actions table, but
the text describing it refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder
a melee attack only in the sense of hitting something with a
melee weapon, or is sunder a true melee attack?
Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special
standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive
text for the Manyshot feat says).
If you make a full attack, and you have multiple attacks
from a high base attack bonus, you can sunder more than once,
or attack and sunder, or some other combination of attacking
and sundering.
Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8–2: Actions
in Combat in the PH. It needs one because unlike a regular
melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of opportunity
(although not if you have the Improved Sunder feat).
You can also disarm, grapple, or trip as a melee attack (or
attack of opportunity).'
Skip Williams on how you can fold attack actions into full attacks (3.5)
'Using eldritch blast requires a standard action, not an
attack action (unlike using a weapon). If something requires a
standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you
can’t use the full attack action to gain extra uses of that ability.'
Jason Bulmahn on how you can use sunder on full attacks
Flag |
List
Jason Bulmahn
+
1 person marked this as a favorite.
anthony Valente wrote:
Ok, but can you clarify the disarm, sunder, and trip actions?
To me it seems to be saying 2 things:
1) they are standard actions
2) but, they can be used as part of a full-attack
Do I have this right?
Correct. You can perform them as a standard action, or you can use them in place of an attack during a full-attack action.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
James Jacobs on the vital strike ruling
Flag |
List
| FAQ | Reply
James Jacobs
+
Correct. The monster's eye beams can't be enhanced by Vital Strike because using them requires 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.
It's a hazy distinction, and one that even we editors/developers took a bit to figure out, which is why we've said (erroneously, in my opinion) things like the Jabberwock COULD use Vital Strike on its eye beams.
Honestly, I wish we'd just errata the Vital Strike feat to specifically limit it to attacks with weapons. The "common sense" solution (that a monster's high-damage unusual attack does average damage more or less for it's CR indicating that doubling that just because it has Vital Strike is not the intent of the monster) doesn't seem to work.
And after all that I don't see how the vital strike quote has anything to do with sunder - but that's my opinion :)
|
|
Didn't someone post upthread the lead designer saying that you can sunder as part of a full attack?
It would be helpful if someone more computer savvy than me (which I suspect includes every single one of you!) would collate the quotes from PF devs that comment specifically on the question of whether sunders can be used in a full attack.
If memory serves, every single quote provided so far has said that sunder can be used in a full attack; none have said you can't.
Since the RAW is so ambiguous (they should have used the disarm/trip wording OR the bull rush/overrun wording), these dev posts would go a long way to divining RAI!
As I understand it, the quote of the lead designer saying you could sunder as part of a full-attack was back before the final version of PFRPG was published. Much later, the very same person confirmed (multiple times) that an attack action was a standard action only, and that's what the CRB says sunder requires.
So either he changed his mind on how sunder would end up working prior to publishing PFRPG, or else the reference to "attack action" was left in the final version of Sunder by accident.
Those are pretty much the only two possibilities that I see making sense with what evidence is currently available.
Jason Bulmahn wrote the Beta playtest. I quoted from it upthread. In it he used the exact same wording for both disarm and sunder that still exists in sunder now, while also making clear that they could both be used in full attacks.
That is evidence on the lead designer's intent with regard to sunder. I'm asking for any dev quote that deals specifically with sunder and it's usability (or not) in a full attack. Every quote so far has said sunder can be used in a full attack; none have said you can't.
This helps us with the RAI on this issue. Devs talking about Vital Strike is not helpful.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jason Bulmahn wrote the Beta playtest. I quoted from it upthread. In it he used the exact same wording for both disarm and sunder that still exists in sunder now, while also making clear that they could both be used in full attacks.
That is evidence on the lead designer's intent with regard to sunder. I'm asking for any dev quote that deals specifically with sunder and it's usability (or not) in a full attack. Every quote so far has said sunder can be used in a full attack; none have said you can't.
This helps us with the RAI on this issue. Devs talking about Vital Strike is not helpful.
Like I said, it's possible that in the final version of the CRB they meant to remove sunder's reference to the attack action (note that it's now gone from disarm) but it was accidentally left in. That's entirely possible.
On the other hand, a few years and a few printings later, the language is still there. My guess? It was perhaps left as an "attack action" by accident but then deemed not worth fixing, letting it exist differently than its original intent.
Currently, sunder says it works a certain way, a way that the other maneuvers don't have the text for. Original intent? Who knows. :/
So far, I've only turned up one instance of "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". Sunder is the only place where those two phrases are stacked together.
In my opinion the two phrases are contradictory. Had it said "as an attack action in place of a melee attack" it would be fairly clear. It would take a standard, and couldn't be made as a ranged attack. As is, I would think that "as part of an attack action" means you can combine it with an attack action, such as vital strike. But then it says you use it in place of a melee attack. Why all the confusing wording if a standard action would do the same thing? Does the current wording differ in meaning from a single melee attack as a standard action?
|
|
So far, I've only turned up one instance of "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". Sunder is the only place where those two phrases are stacked together.
In my opinion the two phrases are contradictory. Had it said "as an attack action in place of a melee attack" it would be fairly clear. It would take a standard, and couldn't be made as a ranged attack. As is, I would think that "as part of an attack action" means you can combine it with an attack action, such as vital strike. But then it says you use it in place of a melee attack. Why all the confusing wording if a standard action would do the same thing? Does the current wording differ in meaning from a single melee attack as a standard action?
The wording that now only exists in sunder also existed in disarm in the beta Playtest, and both made it clear that you could use it in place of any melee attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wording that now only exists in sunder also existed in disarm in the beta Playtest, and both made it clear that you could use it in place of any melee attack.So far, I've only turned up one instance of "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". Sunder is the only place where those two phrases are stacked together.
In my opinion the two phrases are contradictory. Had it said "as an attack action in place of a melee attack" it would be fairly clear. It would take a standard, and couldn't be made as a ranged attack. As is, I would think that "as part of an attack action" means you can combine it with an attack action, such as vital strike. But then it says you use it in place of a melee attack. Why all the confusing wording if a standard action would do the same thing? Does the current wording differ in meaning from a single melee attack as a standard action?
...Which in turn makes it weird that later, the "attack action" language got removed from one but not the other. It was also after the statement of sundering with iteratives that Jason confirmed that the "attack action" was a standard action.
My guess on the series of events? This:
1) Disarm and sunder were both intended to work with any attack.
2) "Attack action" got solidified as standard-only
3) In order to keep the rules in line with the intent, the reference to an attack action was removed except OOPS! it didn't get deleted from sunder.
4) Someone decided it wasn't worth fixing, so now sunder uses the now-fully-defined attack action even though it originally wasn't supposed to.
Another possibility is that after the "you can full-attack sunder" ruling, Jason changed his mind, changing #3-4 above.
In any case, all we know for sure right now is:
• Sunder says it uses the attack action,
• The attack action is always a standard action,
• At some point in the past, the intent was different than the current wording
Everything else is speculation. :/
This thread has made me curious about what "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack" means. If an attack action is a standard action and only a standard action, how does one subdivide it?This question has lead some to believe that the reference to the attack action in the sunder text is an error, and needs to be removed. A legitimate thought, in my opinion.I could see that. It's very easy to paste something into a sentence and forget to delete what it's replacing. Usually things like that get caught because it's likely that they aren't grammatically correct. In this case, there isn't any grammatical error to draw attention to it.
I could totally see that.
The wording that now only exists in sunder also existed in disarm in the beta Playtest, and both made it clear that you could use it in place of any melee attack.So far, I've only turned up one instance of "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". Sunder is the only place where those two phrases are stacked together.
In my opinion the two phrases are contradictory. Had it said "as an attack action in place of a melee attack" it would be fairly clear. It would take a standard, and couldn't be made as a ranged attack. As is, I would think that "as part of an attack action" means you can combine it with an attack action, such as vital strike. But then it says you use it in place of a melee attack. Why all the confusing wording if a standard action would do the same thing? Does the current wording differ in meaning from a single melee attack as a standard action?
...Which in turn makes it weird that later, the "attack action" language got removed from one but not the other. It was also after the statement of sundering with iteratives that Jason confirmed that the "attack action" was a standard action.
My guess on the series of events? This:
1) Disarm and sunder were both intended to work with any attack.
2) "Attack action" got solidified as standard-only
3) In order to keep the rules in line with the intent, the reference to an attack action was removed except OOPS! it didn't get deleted from sunder.
4) Someone decided it wasn't worth fixing, so now sunder uses the now-fully-defined attack action even though it originally wasn't supposed to.Another possibility is that after the "you can full-attack sunder" ruling, Jason changed his mind, changing #3-4 above.
In any case, all we know for sure right now is:
• Sunder says it uses the attack action,
• The attack action is always a standard action,
• At some point in the past, the intent was different than the current wordingEverything else is...
I'm pretty sure you are on to something. This is making sense.
Any attack is a standard action!
Its like you don't read my posts at all.
We both agree that "Attack action" is an action right?
Of course it has the word "action" in it.
You could also read it as "The action which is call Attack"
However you can attack with an attack of opportunity. An AoO isn't an action so it can't be an "attack action."
Okay there must be two kinds of attacks. There Has to be.
One is an action one isn't.
• The attack action is always a standard action,
Where is that from?
I see the following from JB:
Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) Aug 20, 2009, 01:21 PM
Flag |
List
| FAQ | Reply
Jason Bulmahn
+
9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.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
Note that this ruling in no way contradicts the following:
Ok, but can you clarify the disarm, sunder, and trip actions?To me it seems to be saying 2 things:
1) they are standard actions
2) but, they can be used as part of a full-attackDo I have this right?
Correct. You can perform them as a standard action, or you can use them in place of an attack during a full-attack action.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Sorry Malachi, when you debate on the rules boards 3.5 rulings are only accepted by posters when the wording has not changed. Otherwise you get the "well that was 3.5" comments. I also reference 3.5 at times, but I know to only do so when the wording has not changed. If the wording has significantly changed like it has in this case I won't even waste my time no matter what Skip has said.
You can keep repeating what Skip says, but since Skip and Jason specifically called out an attack action as a standard action, and the combat maneuver rules specifically separate a full attack action from an attack action that argument won't work to convince anyone.
Now you might want to argue that the idea of using an attack action, which is a standard action according to the devs, and the fact that the "attack action" is present in sunder's instructions is a fluke, but you will need to present something other than 3.5 as evidence in this case.
PS:Not to mention that an attack action is a valid way to use a CM, which I have already mentioned via quote. Here is a quote.
You don't actually use an "attack action", you use a "standard action" to attack. You don't get one Attack Action per round. You get a Standard Action.
Tell me why they used attack action, as you mean it, instead of Standard Action, like they did in Overrun, the subsection immediately before. If they wanted it to take a standard action, they already had clear and concise language for that, why not just use that?
When I say use an attack action I mean use the specific use of an standard action, in the same way that casting a spell is a specific use of a standard action.
As for the difference between wording an ability so that it uses an "attack action" versus just saying" a standard action which part of my link was not clear.
I was sure that I was clear on how using the term "attack action" allows for certain things to stack, while using standard action does not.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Ckorik - Jason Bulmahn has said it multiple times, and James Jacobs has corroborated with it as well. I'm sure if you look, you can find the links that were already provided to you earlier in this thread. Forgive me, but I don't feel like linking them for you again.
@Ckorik - Jason Bulmahn has said it multiple times, and James Jacobs has corroborated with it as well. I'm sure if you look, you can find the links that were already provided to you earlier in this thread. Forgive me, but I don't feel like linking them for you again.
That's just it - I looked at the links - and nothing in them says that attack actions can't be folded into full attacks.
All I can find are clarifications about how actions that say 'as a standard action' can't be used with attack actions.
Which... is self evident to me.
*edit*
I did got to JB's 'people' page and his post history going back to 2006 or so - and searched for 'attack action' - and he never had a post (that paizo's boards can find) where he says that attack actions are always *only* standard actions - any time he mentioned attack actions and full attack it was to clarify they *could* be rolled up.
Didn't someone post upthread the lead designer saying that you can sunder as part of a full attack?
It would be helpful if someone more computer savvy than me (which I suspect includes every single one of you!) would collate the quotes from PF devs that comment specifically on the question of whether sunders can be used in a full attack.
If memory serves, every single quote provided so far has said that sunder can be used in a full attack; none have said you can't.
Since the RAW is so ambiguous (they should have used the disarm/trip wording OR the bull rush/overrun wording), these dev posts would go a long way to divining RAI!
Actually every single quote has not.
The dev however did say a full attack was possible in the beta phase, and it might actually be RAI, but the wording only mentions the attack action, not the full attack action. Now if they had intended for it to be possible as a part of a full attack action and the attack action then why would they only mention one?
Personally I have no issue with it working on a full attack action and the attack action, and that might be the intent, but the wording should be changed to support that. <---My main issue right now.
For those that keep asking about vital strike it is just here for precedence, since it shows proof that an attack action requires a standard action. Other wise every attack in a full round attack could be a vital strike.
So far, I've only turned up one instance of "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". Sunder is the only place where those two phrases are stacked together.
In my opinion the two phrases are contradictory. Had it said "as an attack action in place of a melee attack" it would be fairly clear. It would take a standard, and couldn't be made as a ranged attack. As is, I would think that "as part of an attack action" means you can combine it with an attack action, such as vital strike. But then it says you use it in place of a melee attack. Why all the confusing wording if a standard action would do the same thing? Does the current wording differ in meaning from a single melee attack as a standard action?
Other uses have been quoted. There are feats that were made for giants that use the "as part of an attack action" language. Do a search for the word "boulder" in this thread.
Devs talking about Vital Strike is not helpful.
It's completely helpful when, as part of explaining why you can't make iterative vital strikes, they explain that it's because VS uses the attack action, and they helpfully define the attack action as a specific standard action.
By explaining what the attack action is, they've also answered iterative sunders, and iterative overhand chops, and iterative anything else that uses the attack action.
They didn't just say "Vital Strike is a standard action" they said "Vital Strike uses the attack action, which is a specific standard action."
By explaining why VS works the way it does, it also explains why everything else that uses the exact same mechanic works the way it does.
If they said "You can't make iterative cleaves, because cleave is a standard action" they're also explaining that you can't make iterative deadly strokes or iterative Pinpoint Targets or iterative Scorpion Styles.
good find on the monk of 4 winds ability that allows multiple Attack actions but not ANY standard action (a bit of a ways back),
being able to do multiple vital strikes (sunders if you want) is very synergistic
for a class like monk that gets big damage dice from UAS scaling (and robes, enlarge, etc :-) )
@Ckorik - Jason Bulmahn has said it multiple times, and James Jacobs has corroborated with it as well. I'm sure if you look, you can find the links that were already provided to you earlier in this thread. Forgive me, but I don't feel like linking them for you again.That's just it - I looked at the links - and nothing in them says that attack actions can't be folded into full attacks.
All I can find are clarifications about how actions that say 'as a standard action' can't be used with attack actions.
Which... is self evident to me.
*edit*
I did got to JB's 'people' page and his post history going back to 2006 or so - and searched for 'attack action' - and he never had a post (that paizo's boards can find) where he says that attack actions are always *only* standard actions - any time he mentioned attack actions and full attack it was to clarify they *could* be rolled up.
He specifically said it was a standard action. I have never seen a post with him saying an "attack action" used a standard action, and also at times full round action.
If you have a such as quote I would like to see it.
Devs talking about Vital Strike is not helpful.It's completely helpful when, as part of explaining why you can't make iterative vital strikes, they explain that it's because VS uses the attack action, and they helpfully define the attack action as a specific standard action.
By explaining what the attack action is, they've also answered iterative sunders, and iterative overhand chops, and iterative anything else that uses the attack action.
They didn't just say "Vital Strike is a standard action" they said "Vital Strike uses the attack action, which is a specific standard action."
By explaining why VS works the way it does, it also explains why everything else that uses the exact same mechanic works the way it does.
If they said "You can't make iterative cleaves, because cleave is a standard action" they're also explaining that you can't make iterative deadly strokes or iterative Pinpoint Targets or iterative Scorpion Styles.
In other words Malachi one must show why the rules apply to X, and not to Y.
As an example if the devs say you can't do X because it uses an attack action, and similar logic can be applied to Y, then it stands to reason that Y is also off the table.
Then it boils down wether "an attack action" can mean a full attack action.
Which I say no, because these two are listed differently in the table and are different actions all together.
Yep, that's how it boils down.
But I disagree with your conclusion.And that's what we're stuck with.
I'm ok, with some variation in game play.
Other uses have been quoted. There are feats that were made for giants that use the "as part of an attack action" language. Do a search for the word "boulder" in this thread.So far, I've only turned up one instance of "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". Sunder is the only place where those two phrases are stacked together.
In my opinion the two phrases are contradictory. Had it said "as an attack action in place of a melee attack" it would be fairly clear. It would take a standard, and couldn't be made as a ranged attack. As is, I would think that "as part of an attack action" means you can combine it with an attack action, such as vital strike. But then it says you use it in place of a melee attack. Why all the confusing wording if a standard action would do the same thing? Does the current wording differ in meaning from a single melee attack as a standard action?
Those are quotes of "as part of an attack action". There are a few of those. There are places where "in place of a melee attack" are used. That, however, wasn't the statement I made. There was only one place that I found that used "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". You can find things that use one phrase or the other. Sunder is the only one that uses both phrases.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this is in response to the beastie with 5 attacks or the full attack sundering Cloud Giant - and therefore is Separate from the argument
____________________________________________________________
so I have skipped ahead on this so I could add something .. I will remove if I come across it in the next few pages
CRB page 468 - Damaging Magical Weapons
Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage
a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his
weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the
weapon struck
so unless Monsters remain capable of an equivalent Enchantment bonus to natural attacks based on HD (I recall this from a previous edition but don't have a source) ... your Monster with 5 attacks can break his claws trying to sunder my +1 Weapon and I'll laugh
Sorry I misunderstood you, but in any event that use of an attack action alone means a standard action if you believe the head devs quote and the 3.5 dev. Both of them making the same statement by accident is very unlikely. Now since the monk can sunder I think it is very possible that sunder was never fixed. Of course it is also possible that the monk gets an exception or that the monk was also never fixed.
As for the boulders they are ranged attacks so they would not use the "melee action" verbage.
This whole conversation for me isn't about sunder anymore. I believer that sunder should probably act like it did in previous edition.
So, this has simply become an extension of the "FULL ATTACKS AND MANYSHOT" thread which has been locked.
At the end of it we had 33 marks as FAQ candidate.
I think that these questions are important enough to get official rulings, or at least an unofficial reason for not getting an official ruling.
I would be find with a clarification of "attack action" and possibly it's removal from the rules. There might be some important reason for "attack action"
If "attack action" was intentionally left in the description of sunder then sunder was only meant to be used with a standard action.
Also, how often does sunder even get used? I've always considered it a combat maneuver made against my pocketbook, no matter who's doing the sundering.
I think the sunder combat maneuver, especially in conjunction with certain equipment... say a Adamantine Sword Breaker Dagger... is designed to make Players and their characters cry. It should be used any time you want to bring them in line, or any time a fit of sever mental sadism strikes.
I'm really hoping none of my group is listening...
Those are quotes of "as part of an attack action". There are a few of those. There are places where "in place of a melee attack" are used. That, however, wasn't the statement I made. There was only one place that I found that used "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". You can find things that use one phrase or the other. Sunder is the only one that uses both phrases.
It's already been covered that the COMBINATION of BOTH action phrasing and in place of attack phrasing results in a unique functional combo: Attack action usage AND weapon usage, benefitting from weapon bonuses. If it missed the latter part, Sunder wouldn't have the words to indicate it's using the weapon, any more than if I wrote a Feat that let you cast a spell with the Full-Attack Action would, because choosing an action doesn't correlate to using a weapon, making an attack with a weapon is what correlates to using a weapon. Said functionality could not have been achieved if either half (action/in place of melee attack) had not been included. 'In place of melee attack' BY ITSELF, i.e. no other action restriction results in working like Trip/Disarm, i.e. AoOs, Cleaves, Iteratives, any attack is OK because any attack qualifies as 'a melee attack'. But there is no reason you can't indicate 'in place of melee attack' AND Attack action, or Spring Attack action, etc...
I want to see a Medusa Monk of 4 Winds now though...
Those are quotes of "as part of an attack action". There are a few of those. There are places where "in place of a melee attack" are used. That, however, wasn't the statement I made. There was only one place that I found that used "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". You can find things that use one phrase or the other. Sunder is the only one that uses both phrases.It's already been covered that the COMBINATION of BOTH action phrasing and in place of attack phrasing results in a unique functional combo: Attack action usage AND weapon usage, benefitting from weapon bonuses. If it missed the latter part, Sunder wouldn't have the words to indicate it's using the weapon, any more than if I wrote a Feat that let you cast a spell with the Full-Attack Action would, because choosing an action doesn't correlate to using a weapon, making an attack with a weapon is what correlates to using a weapon. Said functionality could not have been achieved if either half (action/in place of melee attack) had not been included.
And this functionality isn't achieved by saying "make a single melee attack as a standard action"?
|
|
also I fight that Overhead chop cannot be used with a Sunder even if it turns out that you cannot iterative with Sunders
At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces armor training
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
--
Uses Attack Action to use Overhand Chop(NOT CHARGE)
as part of the attack action in place of the melee attack - uses Sunder
VERY EXPLICITLY Allowed ... and only Vital strike was clarified .. not Overhand Chop (Which IIRC was at the heart of that argument)
If your going to fight using Exact wording .. keep it to what was said and not what was intended ... RAW and RAI is the centric figure of this debate ... and even the advocates against it are using phrases that are an RAI statment
and iterative overhand chops
this was explained in the ability by "Makes a single attack"
the iterative version was Backswing which was all attacks after the 1st