
Irontruth |

Weaponbreaker wrote:Seems clear to me.Did you miss (easy to do in 10 pages) that the lead designer has affirmed on multiple occasions that the "attack action" which sunder's text requires is a type of standard action, not just any old attack?
Your explanation of how sunder is so clear did not address that part of sunder's text, so one of two things is true:
1) You missed that definition, or
2) You disregard that definition for reasons you have not been explicit about.If you knew of that definition and are simply disregarding it, explaining your reasoning would be helpful. :)
Yup, but you guys think a clarification for vital strike is more important than the overall tendencies of text construction within the CM section.
The biggest and most important clues for how CMs should be read should be within the CM section... not a clarification for a completely unrelated feat.
You guys have a convoluted explanation, I agree that it is plausible, but it is more complicated and relies entirely on text outside of the combat chapter, some of it not even in the book.

wraithstrike |

I am sure they know by now, however that does not mean an official answer is coming soon. My debate with Ciretose about whether or not you can attack someone that you don't threaten just got answered within the last month IIRC, and that was back in January 2011.
It was first marked-->"Staff response: no reply required."
I can only assume it came again after that or they changed their minds.

![]() |

Grick wrote:Interesting...research by grick
James Jacobs wrote:Sounds like instead I'm the one who's confused. I recommend taking this question over to the rules forums and ignoring what I've been saying in this case.
Isn't it just? :)
To reiterate my current theory in light of that dialogue, I suspect what happened was this:
1) Disarm and sunder are both supposed to work with any attack (stated pre-CRB by Jason Bulmahn). They are both worded with a reference to the attack action (pre-final).
2) "Attack action" becomes more solidly defined as a type of standard action (later confirmed by JB himself). This causes disarm and sunder's text to no longer reflect the original intent.
3) When it's time to publish the CRB, the reference to the Attack Action is removed from those maneuvers to return them to their intended functionality except OOPS! sunder didn't get changed (but disarm did).
4) Sunder no longer functions as originally intended, as the now-differently-meaning "attack action" did not get removed from its text, but it's deemed not a big deal and so it's left functioning differently than originally intended.
That's my theory. In light of James Jacobs thinking sunder works like it did in #1 above, then going "oops, nevermind, it references the attack action", makes me think he was remembering that #1 was the intent and forgetting the "change" that (according to my theory) happened when the CRB was released and was never "fixed".
I really think I might be on to something here...

![]() |

Yup, but you guys think a clarification for vital strike is more important than the overall tendencies of text construction within the CM section.
The biggest and most important clues for how CMs should be read should be within the CM section... not a clarification for a completely unrelated feat.
You guys have a convoluted explanation, I agree that it is plausible, but it is more complicated and relies entirely on text outside of the combat chapter, some of it not even in the book.
You would have a point if the clarification on Vital Strike only talked about Vital Strike (i.e., "Vital Strike is a standard action"). But it wasn't. It gave a specific reason ("because it's an attack action, which is a kind of standard action"). If "the attack action is a standard action" was only true in one context, it couldn't be used as a reason.
If someone asks "Why is the magus able to take a move action in between casting a touch spell and delivering it?", the answer is "Because touch spells are delivered via a free action attack in the round you cast them, not as part of the action of casting them". And you know what? That reason - how touch spells work in general - is applicable to ALL situations involving touch spells, not just the magus. The magus was the topic of the question, but the reason given in the answer is a general rule that applies to all uses of that mechanic, not just the magus.
In the same way, the question Jason was answering was about VS, but the reason given in the answer is a general rule that applies to all uses of that mechanic, not just VS.
Being able to see that the reason for X is that Y works a certain way, and apply that new knowledge of Y to other situations is the basis of critical thinking. Ignoring transferability of information means every single situation always has to be spelled out individually.

concerro |

I am thinking that is also the case Jiggy. I never use sunder in my games, but it would also clear up this "attack action" debate.
How so?
Well I am assuming they would have to errata it if sunder can be used in a full attack action. That would prove a full attack action is not composed of several attack actions.
I am assuming the new wording would read "...as part of an attack action or a full attack action". That keeps it from being used with an AoO, but still keeps it useful with a single attack or a full attack.

![]() |

If my theory were to be correct, then the intent would be that it work exactly like disarm, and therefore the fix would be to remove the attack action reference and leave the wording identical to disarm (and trip).
Same wording, same functionality, and the "attack action" term is preserved. That's the resolution I'm hoping for.

Kazaan |
Basically, first they need to ask, "Do we want Sunder to be used multiple times in a round for, essentially, no cost or drawback". In other words, do we want to promote item destruction wholesale. If we want it to take some time investment to break an item, then Sunder must be restricted to non-full-round attacks. If they say that rapid-fire sunders is perfectly acceptable, then the wording of Sunder has to be changed to be allowed with any melee attack or the definition of the Attack action needs to revert to being any d20 to-hit roll (from the current "type of Standard Action"). And the ruling is going to have fall-out, too. If Attack action is re-defined, it affects anything else currently operating under the Attack action.

concerro |

If my theory were to be correct, then the intent would be that it work exactly like disarm, and therefore the fix would be to remove the attack action reference and leave the wording identical to disarm (and trip).
Same wording, same functionality, and the "attack action" term is preserved. That's the resolution I'm hoping for.
That works also. I guess the question then is whether or not the intent was to include AoO's or not. If the intent was for AoO's then rewording it so that it works like trip or disarm seems to be an easy fix. I am also assuming they will take another look at how powerful sundering over the course of a full round really is vs how much it is likely to happen. It may turn out that the final answer may not be what the original answer was.

concerro |

Basically, first they need to ask, "Do we want Sunder to be used multiple times in a round for, essentially, no cost or drawback". In other words, do we want to promote item destruction wholesale. If we want it to take some time investment to break an item, then Sunder must be restricted to non-full-round attacks. If they say that rapid-fire sunders is perfectly acceptable, then the wording of Sunder has to be changed to be allowed with any melee attack or the definition of the Attack action needs to revert to being any d20 to-hit roll (from the current "type of Standard Action"). And the ruling is going to have fall-out, too. If Attack action is re-defined, it affects anything else currently operating under the Attack action.
That is why I am assuming "Attack action" won't change. It is a lot easier to maintain consistency by just rewording Sunder if the intent is to allow it for all melee attacks. I see no good coming from trying to re-define attack action.

![]() |

James Jacobs wrote, less than 24 hours ago:-
'Sunder attempts are made as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. You can basically declare any melee attack to be a sunder attempt, in other words.'
Devs have said that an attack action is a standard action. On the list of Actions In Combat we have standard, move, full-round, free, swift and immediate. On the list of standard actions we have 'attack', 'activate magic item', 'cast a spell', 'use spell-like ability', and others.
In the Standard Action section we see all these defined as standard actions. When someone reads the rules for the first time in order to learn them, he is first told about action types in terms of standard, move, full-round etc. When that concept is understood he then finds out about what he can do in those actions! What can he do during, say, a standard action? Well, making an attack is a standard action, activating a magic item is a standard action, casting a spell is a standard action, etc.
But we know that for every item on that list ('attack' action, 'cast a spell' action, 'activate magic device' action, 'use spell-like ability' action) the action type it consumes is not limited to consuming one standard action.
However, each of these actions, no matter what action type it consumes, is a separate and discrete action in and of itself. If you consume, say, a standard action to use the 'cast a spell' action, then you have not used that same standard action to use the 'attack' action. That's what the devs are talking about when they say that 'attack action is a standard action'! They're saying that a standard action can be consumed to use the 'attack' action OR to use the 'cast a spell' action; that standard action cannot be both types of action at the same time. An 'attack' action is a type of action discrete from a 'cast a spell' action, and if the attacker consumed a standard action to use an 'attack' action then that's the action it was! This is not about standard action vs attack action, it's about 'cast a spell' action vs 'attack' action.
As described under 'Attack' in the Standard Action section, attacks can be melee or ranged or touch etc. They can also be combined into a full attack. That ability is exclusive to attack actions, it is not a general rule about standard actions. Thus, cleave (a standard action) cannot be combined into a full attack, while sunder (attack action) may be combined into a full attack. As made clear in the section on attacks of opportunity, any 'attack' action may be used as an AoO. Again, this is unique to 'attack' actions and is not a general rule for standard actions.
The 'attack' action is about weapon or weapon-like attacks, not anything that is used to attack, such as Magic Missile.
In the whole history of the D20 system from it's inception as D&D 3.0 to now, this is how 'attack action' has been understood.
With one exception. Vital Strike and it's 'clarification' yet the very writer of this feat and it's 'clarification' said, today, in answer to the question on sunder, says that basically any attack can be replaced with a sunder attempt, while defining sunder as being made 'as part of the attack action in place of a melee attack'. He doesn't have memory problems so advanced that he forgot about the controversy his Vital Strike stirred up! The man himself, as evidenced by a quote upthread, wishes Vital Strike would get an official errata!
Given what he said today, is anyone in any doubt that sunder can be used in place of any melee attack? Every single dev answering that question has said it can, most recently in the last 24 hours. This is unchanged since the last millennium. That's a thousand years, people!
Given the implications for 'attack action' in JJ's reply, does anyone doubt how the devs themselves believe the attack action works? If you understand their comments to be 'if you use a standard action to attack then you're not using it to cast a spell, as the 'attack' action and the 'cast a spell' action are different, mutually exclusive actions, each with it's own definition', then everything (except Vital Strike) works as intended and as written.
And even the author of Vital Strike is hoping for it to be errata'd.

![]() |

Eh, considering that he has made the exact same mistake before and then reversed his decision, I would withhold judgement on the situation until it is played out completely.
This. Malachi would do well to take all information into account when forming his opinions. Especially when those opinions include the assertion that the lead designer meant something different than what he said.

![]() |

James just replied:-
Sent
52 minutes ago
From
James Jacobs Add to Contacts
To
Malachi Silverclaw
Pathfinder Society character of Matt Bray
Subject
Re: Sunder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Yeah... the confusion comes from the use of the word "action" attached to the word "attack." Since the word "action" has certain connotations, it's a word we really shouldn't use in print all that much, unfortunately. (This is why, as an aside, the spell "free action" was re-named to "freedom of movement" back during the creation of 3rd edition.)
What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined. An attack action is the exact same as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity. It's no more complicated than that
@everyone; I totally believe that this is what every single dev believes now and has always believed.

concerro |

Given what he said today, is anyone in any doubt that sunder can be used in place of any melee attack? Every single dev answering that question has said it can, most recently in the last 24 hours.
Who exactly is every dev? You make it sound like you have multiple sources.
James has flip flopped on this one already. I am sure that if I remind him of his statement before he will flip the answer again.
James also does not make the rules. If you want to say he does then you have to agree that I was right in the manyshot thread. :)
He doesn't make the rules so you don't have to agree about manyshot, but I was just making a point.
Given the implications for 'attack action' in JJ's reply, does anyone doubt how the devs themselves believe the attack action works? If you understand their comments to be 'if you use a standard action to attack then you're not using it to cast a spell, as the 'attack' action and the 'cast a spell' action are different, mutually exclusive actions, each with it's own definition', then everything (except Vital Strike) works as intended and as written.
If you are trying to push the "every attack roll based attack that is not a spell" is an attack action then no we are not agreeing.
We are saying that when you make one attack as a standard action, that is an attack action. The iterative attacks you get as part of a "full attack action" aka a full attack or not attack actions.
Are you saying James wrote Vital Strike with the intention for it to be used, but was overruled by Jason(the rules guy)? Could you provide quotes?
I have never known James to write rules(feats) for PF, but it would explain his earlier belief that Vital Strike could be combined with Spring Attack.
However the fact the Jason(the rules guy) changed it by making it into an attack action, assuming James wrote it, shows that the attack action is limited when used as instruction because if it was not limited then you could full attack with vital strike.

WWWW |
James just replied:-
Sent
52 minutes ago
From
James Jacobs Add to Contacts
To
Malachi Silverclaw
Pathfinder Society character of Matt BraySubject
Re: Sunder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Yeah... the confusion comes from the use of the word "action" attached to the word "attack." Since the word "action" has certain connotations, it's a word we really shouldn't use in print all that much, unfortunately. (This is why, as an aside, the spell "free action" was re-named to "freedom of movement" back during the creation of 3rd edition.)
What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined. An attack action is the exact same as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity. It's no more complicated than that
@everyone; I totally believe that this is what every single dev believes now and has always believed.
Hmm, looks like James is kind of mixing two of his answers from the previous thread together. So to follow the progression of that thread I think the next thing to do is to ask him about using vital strike on all attacks of a full attack.

![]() |

@everyone; I totally believe that this is what every single dev believes now and has always believed.
Except for when the very person you quoted said the exact opposite? And except for the multiple times that the lead designer also contradicted this definition of "attack action"?
So every dev always agreed with you, except for the ones who flatly contradicted you, whom you just ignore?

concerro |

James just replied:-
Sent
52 minutes ago
From
James Jacobs Add to Contacts
To
Malachi Silverclaw
Pathfinder Society character of Matt BraySubject
Re: Sunder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Yeah... the confusion comes from the use of the word "action" attached to the word "attack." Since the word "action" has certain connotations, it's a word we really shouldn't use in print all that much, unfortunately. (This is why, as an aside, the spell "free action" was re-named to "freedom of movement" back during the creation of 3rd edition.)
What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined. An attack action is the exact same as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity. It's no more complicated than that
@everyone; I totally believe that this is what every single dev believes now and has always believed.
You do know that James himself, and Jason have said quiet the opposite earlier. Sorry Malachi, but that is not going to work. Jason is going to have to come down and retract that "attack action is a standard action" remark he made earlier since that is very different from what James is saying now.
As of now an attack action is either a standard action or it is not defined.
I have no problem with the attack action being changed from a standard action to "any attack". I have no problem with sunder being used in a full attack. I just want the words to match the intent.

Kazaan |
That's what we've been looking for. A clear definition (that happens to contradict the definition given in Vital Strike) of what 'the attack action' is. You burn your Standard Action to make an Attack Action or you can burn your Full-Round action to make a series of Attack Actions or you burn your AoO to make an Attack Action. So, according to this clarification, Sunder can be used as iterative attacks in a Full-Attack action, as an AoO. It also means an ability like Overhand Chop or Gaze could be used as an AoO. Gaze could also be folded into a full-attack action.
This means that the reasoning for Vital Strike not being used in a full-attack because it requires an attack action which must be a standard action was complete bologna. As written, Vital Strike could be used in full-attack and AoO; that's just not what was intended.
Now, the question becomes, "Is this desirable? Should Sunder stay an Attack Action or should it require a Standard Action which prohibits its use with AoO, Monk of the Four Winds ability, etc. in addition?
Edit: Assuming, of course, that this definition is correct and "Paizo-approved" and not just JJ's "personal" definition for the term.

![]() |

@Concerro, it may very well be that I got the authorship mixed up. I've only been on these threads a relatively short time, am fairly new to assigning names to devs (previously, I just played!), and I may have mixed James and Jason up. If that's the case, I apologise. Any information I have regarding the 'Vital Strike question' is just from reading these threads.
That said, PF is an evolution of the D20 system, started in 3.0, continued in 3.5 and is still continuing now. What the devs of each game understood by the phrase 'attack action' has been re-iterated in each edition.
Lots of things change from edition to edition, but more things stay the same! The infamous 'backward compatability' applies to the things that have not changed! Amongst those things is the section under Standard Actions regarding 'attacks'.
I've quoted the 3.0 dev and author of the 3.5 FAQ, about 'attack action', and no dev quote presented to me on these threads contradicts this except Vital Strike, and that's ambiguous:-
'When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.'
Does this mean only one attack is allowed in the round you use it, thus the attack action defaults to a standard action? Or can it mean one of many attacks in a full attack? Hence the request for clarification. This 'clarification' is the only instance I've seen that contradicts the way 'attack action' has been understood since the game started, and all of us agree that the wording should be cleaned up!
On the question about attacking with spells and the reply being 'attack action=standard action', YOU can assume he means that everything described as an attack action can only be used as a standard action, and I can assume that he means that an attack action is just as much a kind of action a casting a spell and the standard action can be used for one or the other but not both. Both of us are making assumptions; it's not like you can peer into his brain and I'm floundering in the dark!
I'm sure most of you guys can ask questions of 'proper rules guys'; why don't you ask them what 'attack action' means in terms of useable in a full attack/charge/AoO etc.
Post the replies here!

Kazaan |
Careful, Kazaan; you're using a statement from someone who has flip-flopped on this same topic in the past in order to try and overrule the Lead Designer of PFRPG. This is unwise.
Edited: I noted that it's contingent on that being the "official" definition and not JJ's "personal" definition.

![]() |

Jiggy wrote:Careful, Kazaan; you're using a statement from someone who has flip-flopped on this same topic in the past in order to try and overrule the Lead Designer of PFRPG. This is unwise.Edited: I noted that it's contingent on that being the "official" definition and not JJ's "personal" definition.
James Jacobs has often stated that when he answers a question, he's mainly talking about how he runs HIS games. Unless he mentions having consulted with someone or knowing the intent, you can usually assume he's not overturning statements made by the Lead Designer. :)

Are |

I'm sure most of you guys can ask questions of 'proper rules guys'; why don't you ask them what 'attack action' means in terms of useable in a full attack/charge/AoO etc.
Post the replies here!
That's what people are doing, by pressing the "FAQ"-button. The rules team will either respond, by creating a new FAQ entry or by issuing an errata, or they'll say "no response needed".
That's how the proper rules guys answer this type of thing, unless one of them happens to drop in on the thread and answer it.

Shivok |

Both Vital Strike and Sunder need clarification, since we can twist the words of the english language to support both assumptions.
Had the 'attack action' never been mentioned we wouldnt have so many arguments about it.
There should be a clarification on feats and abilities that clearly separates them all.
so if every combat feat or ability should start out with one of the following we'd be depating a lot less:
1. 'as part of a melee(ranged) attack...' - which means it can be used with any type of attack: single attack, iterative attacks, natural attacks, full attacks, special attacks - basically stacks with everything #2 and #3. would include power attack, deadly aim, piranha strike, trip, disarm..etc
2. 'as a standard action...' -this basically can stack with #1 but not #3... - grapple, vital strike..etc
3. 'as a full-round action....' stacks with #1 but not #2 -- charge, coup de gras...etc

concerro |

That's what we've been looking for. A clear definition (that happens to contradict the definition given in Vital Strike) of what 'the attack action' is. You burn your Standard Action to make an Attack Action or you can burn your Full-Round action to make a series of Attack Actions or you burn your AoO to make an Attack Action. So, according to this clarification, Sunder can be used as iterative attacks in a Full-Attack action, as an AoO. It also means an ability like Overhand Chop or Gaze could be used as an AoO. Gaze could also be folded into a full-attack action.
This means that the reasoning for Vital Strike not being used in a full-attack because it requires an attack action which must be a standard action was complete bologna. As written, Vital Strike could be used in full-attack and AoO; that's just not what was intended.
Now, the question becomes, "Is this desirable? Should Sunder stay an Attack Action or should it require a Standard Action which prohibits its use with AoO, Monk of the Four Winds ability, etc. in addition?
Edit: Assuming, of course, that this definition is correct and "Paizo-approved" and not just JJ's "personal" definition for the term.
The rules guy aka Jason last said it was a standard action and so did the 3.5 dev who handled FAQ's for that system. Nothing has been put forth by anyone in charge of rules to contradict that.

Shivok |

Kazaan wrote:James Jacobs has often stated that when he answers a question, he's mainly talking about how he runs HIS games. Unless he mentions having consulted with someone or knowing the intent, you can usually assume he's not overturning statements made by the Lead Designer. :)Jiggy wrote:Careful, Kazaan; you're using a statement from someone who has flip-flopped on this same topic in the past in order to try and overrule the Lead Designer of PFRPG. This is unwise.Edited: I noted that it's contingent on that being the "official" definition and not JJ's "personal" definition.
Yup this is true he has said this before, so it kinda sucks but unless there's an errata or post by JB I dont see this going away.

Grick |

I can assume that he means that an attack action is just as much a kind of action a casting a spell and the standard action can be used for one or the other but not both.
I don't understand your reasoning there.
Yes, it's true that you can't use a single standard action to perform two acts, each of which requires a standard action.
If you have one standard action left in your turn, you could either A) drink a potion in your hand, or B) cast Fireball, or C) Sunder, or D) Cleave.
You can't do more than one of those things, because they all require a standard action, and you only have one.
I don't see how you're taking that truth, and turning it into somehow allowing those to happen multiple times in a full-attack.
Lets say next round you do a full attack. You can't also cast Fireball, or drink a potion, or Cleave, or Sunder, because those are all standard actions, and since you used a full-round action, you don't have a standard action left.
"An attack action is a type of standard action."
How in the world does that have anything to do with making multiple standard actions?

Grick |

There should be a clarification on feats and abilities that clearly separates them all.
But then there's no way for them to stack.
As it is now, if you use the attack action, you can benefit from both Vital Strike and Overhand Chop, since they both use the attack action.
If Vital Strike was changed to be a standard action, like Cleave, it would not longer stack with Overhand Chop.
And the guy who wrote Overhand Chop explicitly put "attack action" in the text so that it would stack with things like Vital Strike.
Having *something* that fulfills the current role of the attack action is a good thing. It would be great if it had a name that made it more clear. But just eliminating the mechanic means things don't work as they were designed to.

Kazaan |
Shivok wrote:There should be a clarification on feats and abilities that clearly separates them all.But then there's no way for them to stack.
As it is now, if you use the attack action, you can benefit from both Vital Strike and Overhand Chop, since they both use the attack action.
If Vital Strike was changed to be a standard action, like Cleave, it would not longer stack with Overhand Chop.
And the guy who wrote Overhand Chop explicitly put "attack action" in the text so that it would stack with things like Vital Strike.
Having *something* that fulfills the current role of the attack action is a good thing. It would be great if it had a name that made it more clear. But just eliminating the mechanic means things don't work as they were designed to.
That's definitely another valid point. As it stands now, you can get the 2x strength bonus from Overhand Chop for Sunder, Vital Strike, and the like. "Try to change any one thing, and you'll soon find it's hitched to everything else in the universe." John Muir.

concerro |

@Concerro, it may very well be that I got the authorship mixed up. I've only been on these threads a relatively short time, am fairly new to assigning names to devs (previously, I just played!), and I may have mixed James and Jason up. If that's the case, I apologise.
Fair enough.
What the devs of each game understood by the phrase 'attack action' has been re-iterated in each edition.
Agreed.
Lots of things change from edition to edition, but more things stay the same! The infamous 'backward compatability' applies to the things that have not changed! Amongst those things is the section under Standard Actions regarding 'attacks'.
I agree that most of those are the same.
I've quoted the 3.0 dev and author of the 3.5 FAQ, about 'attack action', and no dev quote presented to me on these threads contradicts this except Vital Strike, and that's ambiguous:-
If you mean that quote from the 3.5 FAQ you also need to remember that I used the same source to quote Skip as saying an "attack action" was a standard action. I also linked to it more than once. I also quoted Jason as saying the same thing, and provided links to that more than once. I do agree that using the book alone, it is not clearly defined, but with those quotes it is definitely not ambiguous.
'When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.'Does this mean only one attack is allowed in the round you use it, thus the attack action defaults to a standard action? Or can it mean one of many attacks in a full attack? Hence the request for clarification. This 'clarification' is the only instance I've seen that contradicts the way 'attack action' has been understood since the game started, and all of us agree that the wording should be cleaned up!
It means that when you make one attack, it is an action action.
Example:If I attack, and then decide to move then that first attack is considered to be a standard action. We know this because of our debate in the manyshot thread where I quoted Skip saying that was the intent.
If you take all of your attacks then obviously that first attack is not a standard action. By that logic not all attacks are attack actions, since an attack action specifically requires a standard attack.
On the question about attacking with spells and the reply being 'attack action=standard action', YOU can assume he means that everything described as an attack action can only be used as a standard action, and I can assume that he means that an attack action is just as much a kind of action a casting a spell and the standard action can be used for one or the other but not both. Both of us are making assumptions; it's not like you can peer into his brain and I'm floundering in the dark!I'm sure most of you guys can ask questions of 'proper rules guys'; why don't you ask them what 'attack action' means in terms of useable in a full attack/charge/AoO etc.
Post the replies here!
I am not saying an attack action is an action in the same sense that a move action is an action. I am saying an attack action uses a standard action in the same manner that casting most spells do. I don't need to be peer into his brain. If he says X is a standard action then that is what it is. It is no different than quicken spell using a swift action. In order for you to be correct I would have to assume that he gave a very incomplete explanation of what an attack action was. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Nope, not since the "attack action" equaling a standard action is what puts the brakes on vital strike.
As for not being able to peer into their brains:
Bobson wrote:Once you've hit the caster and know which one the caster is, you can cleave to any of the images without rolling "wrong target" chance (but the image won't pop even if you hit). Thus there's no longer a contradiction with cleave...but you never know which one is the right one. If you did there would be no miss chance, and no reason to target the images since you could just point out the correct one to your allies assuming they could not see which one you hit.
Does it make sense for you to not know which one is the correct one since the PF version does not have the images swirling around? No, but like someone pointed out above it does not make sense to get a reflex save if you are paralyzed, but the rules say you do.
That is me explaining the inability to ever know which of the images is an image, and which one is the cater.
FAQ="As you can’t specifically target an image (because you can’t tell the images from the actual caster), you likewise can’t aim for an image and try to cleave to another image."
The original thread spanned 500+posts.
That is not the only time that has happened. Now I can't read minds, but I am good at figuring out intent, with the same logic that the devs use.

concerro |

Grick wrote:That's definitely another valid point. As it stands now, you can get the 2x strength bonus from Overhand Chop for Sunder, Vital Strike, and the like. "Try to change any one thing, and you'll soon find it's hitched to everything else in the universe." John Muir.Shivok wrote:There should be a clarification on feats and abilities that clearly separates them all.But then there's no way for them to stack.
As it is now, if you use the attack action, you can benefit from both Vital Strike and Overhand Chop, since they both use the attack action.
If Vital Strike was changed to be a standard action, like Cleave, it would not longer stack with Overhand Chop.
And the guy who wrote Overhand Chop explicitly put "attack action" in the text so that it would stack with things like Vital Strike.
Having *something* that fulfills the current role of the attack action is a good thing. It would be great if it had a name that made it more clear. But just eliminating the mechanic means things don't work as they were designed to.
Ohhh, Grick says it, and now its a valid point. <cries in the corner>
Just kidding. I am glad someone else is seeing it that way also. :)

Ckorik |

If you mean that quote from the 3.5 FAQ you also need to remember that I used the same source to quote Skip as saying an "attack action" was a standard action. I also linked to it more than once. I also quoted Jason as saying the same thing, and provided links to that more than once. I do agree that using the book alone, it is not clearly defined, but with those quotes it is definitely not ambiguous.
And it's also been quoted from the same people that they meant sunder to be used in a full round attack. No quote can be found where they say different.
And they said that while believing that an attack is type of standard action.
You keep ignoring the word type in JB's quote - and sunder working with a full round attack doesn't change vital strike at all. Especially when vital strike is pretty much straightforward at this point and says you make one attack.
One attack - or multiple attacks - they are all attack actions. If you can only make a single attack it uses your standard action.

![]() |

One attack - or multiple attacks - they are all attack actions.
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
Since vital strike requires an attack action (a specific KIND of standard action...

concerro |

concerro wrote:
If you mean that quote from the 3.5 FAQ you also need to remember that I used the same source to quote Skip as saying an "attack action" was a standard action. I also linked to it more than once. I also quoted Jason as saying the same thing, and provided links to that more than once. I do agree that using the book alone, it is not clearly defined, but with those quotes it is definitely not ambiguous.
And it's also been quoted from the same people that they meant sunder to be used in a full round attack. No quote can be found where they say different.
And they said that while believing that an attack is type of standard action.
You keep ignoring the word type in JB's quote - and sunder working with a full round attack doesn't change vital strike at all. Especially when vital strike is pretty much straightforward at this point and says you make one attack.
One attack - or multiple attacks - they are all attack actions. If you can only make a single attack it uses your standard action.
The quote from Jason was before the final version of the game was out. Once the final version came out the statement about attack actions being standard actions was made. As for Skip all of the rules combat maneuvers changed from 3.5 to PF. The rules are not even close anymore. The CMB mechanic did not even exist in 3.5.
The fact that they said an attack action is a standard action says differently. <--Last quote from a dev(rules dev).
So until Jason or SKR retracts that statement I see no reason to ignore it.

Grick |

And it's also been quoted from the same people that they meant sunder to be used in a full round attack.
Jason only said that back in beta, before the rules were changed.
Even if that were true, that Jason intended all along for iterative sunders, that doesn't mean the attack action isn't a standard action, it could just as well mean that the attack action wording in the Sunder text is a mistake.
You keep ignoring the word type in JB's quote
He's said the same thing without the word "type" at all.
sunder working with a full round attack doesn't change vital strike at all.
If you're saying that Sunder is an attack action, and that you can make multiple attack actions in a full-attack, then that absolutely changes Vital Strike, since that would allow you to make multiple Vital Strikes, each of which is a single attack in the attack action, during a full-attack. Which is explicitly what Vital Strike is not intended to do.
The only way for Sunder to work the way you want it to, without breaking everything else, is for the attack action text to be removed from the description.
i think the problem is that the vital strike feat is misworded.
Are you sure it's not Sunder that is misworded? Since Vital Strike using the attack action is essential to other abilities working the way they were designed?

Karlgamer |

So "Attack action" should be changed to "single attack action."
Sunder should be reworded so it sounds more like trip.
Because the RAI for sunder is that it should be usable with any attack(like 3.0 and 3.5).
Vital strike should call for a "Standard action"
Or "as part of a single attack action."
RAI is that Vital strink shouldn't be usuable with a full Attack action or an AoO
Full Attack should make it clear that a "Single Attack Action" isn't folded into a "Full Attack Action"
This shouldn't be nesicary but RAI is that Manyshot only works with a "Full Attack action."
I'm not sure what else we can do to get the devs to clear this up but I'll be patient with them in hopes that we get a "Clear and precise" ruling.