RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to your point, we've managed to play 3.0, 3.5 and PF using the same interpretation of 'attack action' that was true for 13 years or so,
Except some sources say it worked the opposite way all that time.
the same interpretation that James Jacobs told me that it was a few days ago,
He said the opposite before, as did Jason Bulmahn.
To think that we have to jump through intellectual hoops now or for 13 years is simply not true!
So picking one of two contradictory statements from one person to believe, even while being contradicted by the Lead Designer, doesn't qualify as hoop-jumping?
I'm really struggling to come up with any explanation for your posts other than trolling. You cherry-pick statements that are heavily contradicted, you get basic english wrong and build entire arguments out of the errors, and you just keep going. My ability to believe you could actually think these things is dwindling.
sometimes common sense wins out.
"not an action" is an action?!?
What was that about common sense.
Or are you saying that "not an" is the name of the action?
AoO isn't even listed as a Miscellaneous Action.
Miscellaneous Actions
The following actions take a variable amount of time to accomplish or otherwise work differently than other actions.
If AoO was an action then it would certainly be an action that worked differently then other actions.
What was that about common sense.
The thing is, if there are two interpretations that aren't completely impossible, and one is very easy for most to understand, produces few weird results, and definately works (attack action is the specific Attack standard action), and one interpretation requires like 8 pages on a forum to explain to those who don't share it, still produces a lot of weird results, has the proponents contradicting themselves by accident, and just probably works - the first one is probably the intended one. I guess it's a variant of Occam's Razor.Occam want's his razor back! You're using it wrong!
It's human nature to characterise the 'other side' as full of morons who's motives are entirely selfish/misguided, while characterising 'your side' as being peopled with those of a higher understanding and morally superior motives. It doesn't help anyone's case, though.
As to your point, we've managed to play 3.0, 3.5 and PF using the same interpretation of 'attack action' that was true for 13 years or so, the same interpretation that James Jacobs told me that it was a few days ago, without any trouble. To think that we have to jump through intellectual hoops now or for 13 years is simply not true!
Actually, I know it isn't occam's razor. That's why I explicitly noted it as a _variant_.
And when I first read in this thread, I really had no idea what to think. I've been back and forth on the issue in the beginning of the thread, seeing both as possible, but the more examples people made of what your interpretation leads to, and the more pages had to be spent detailing exceptions to that by you and Ckorik (and I still don't know if you both use the same interpretation - his is very contradictory to itself all the time but I don't know if you share that part of the interpretation).
My main point was that if we use your interpretation (if I even understand it correctly - since you and Ckorik seem to say different things at times) a lot needs to be explained. Like, can you vital strike on a charge. Can you overhand chop on an AoO. Can you vital strike with a polar ray. And there's a lot more - I could probably make half a page of questions. And there's still the fact that you have to prove the interpretation possible with a lot of 3.5 sources. I'm not saying your interpretation isn't possible, I'm saying it's a lot of work to assume it as a standard, it will require a lot of exceptions and minor errata, and would need a big rewrite of the combat chapter.
You've (collectively) explained a few of them, but using arbitrarily defined terms that aren't game terms (such as "single attack" prohibiting vital strike/overhand chop on a charge/AoO/full attack, which doesn't really have rules support). This is where something similar to occams razor comes in.
If we use the other interpretation, everything works out fine. And it's a valid interpretation using just the rules as they are.
And if we use "how was it 13 years ago?" as a main reason for using a certain interpretation, that hurts everyone that joins now, in this version of the game - because they have to go back to sources they've never even heard of to learn how to interpret the rules now correctly.
I don't really care which interpretation can find more backup from 10 year old sources for a different version of the game. For me, the relevant thing is "what is simplest to implement without breaking the game?".
If "attack action" means "any action involving an attack" we have to go into the whole "is AoO an action?" debate. We don't need that if attack action is the Attack action. And we also have to go into the whole "what is the difference between a single attack and an attack that is the only attack in an action and an attack that is the only attack in a round and an Attack action" debate.
An explanation that just gives more questions is not a preferable explanation.
|
There was a lovely little RPG called Lace & Steel. Proper swashbuckling. It had a set of rules for duels involving a deck of cards. The cards were one of two suits-Rapiers and Roses-and three lines of attack-high, mid and low. These cards interacted with the duelist's abilities by things like: max hand size determined by Dex, the more skilful duelist getting to draw extra cards equal to the difference in skill between the duelists and keep the card he wants. Hits reduced max hand size, more serious hits reduced Con, or whatever they used instead of hit points.
The same deck and similar rules were used to adjudicate repartee! High line cards represented the more intellectual comments, low line attacks were cruder comments! Max hand size was determined by Int instead of Dex, etc.
This approach, where witty repartee is seen as as important to your character as duelling, was extremely rare in RPGs, and still is. This system needed to have rules as detailed for conversational interaction as it did for violent interaction.
The reason I'm boring you all in this thread is not to indulge in pointless reminiscence, but to illustrate that both D&D and PF do not weigh personal interaction as anywhere nearly as crucial to playing the game as they do combat. The combat rules, especially weapon-like combat, are really, really detailed while staying this side of playable. What about 'witty repartee'?
'Say what you're character would say then make a Diplomacy roll. Depending on what you said I'll apply a modifier of +2 or -2.'
Not very detailed, compared to combat. The reality of gameplay is that, frequently, rules won't be used at all, just 'role-played'.
I'm not disparaging role-playing BTW. I'm pointing out the extremely high level of rules support for weapon-like combat! Combat in our game absolutely requires this level of rules!
This is why weapon-like attacks have to have lots of game terms so that we can adjudicate it. When the original devs of 3.0, who created the system we now use, wrote the combat chapter, they had to explain this new idea that if you have a high base attack bonus you can get more than one attack in the same round. Since players of 3.0 may well have been playing 1st/2nd edition AD&D with it's own system of multiple attacks for high level warriors, this concept had to be explained in detail. So instead of having to write out 'use a full-round action to take all of your iterative and other attacks if you're entitled to more than one' every time, they coined the term 'full attack'.
This didn't (and doesn't) mean that the attacks in a standard action were each any different than the attacks in a full attack or at the end of a charge or used as an AoO.
If the game had a rule that you could cast a spell as a standard action and multiple spells (based on high caster level) as a full-round action, they would have coined the term 'full spellcasting' or something; it would have been absolutely required! But the spells cast in a 'cast a spell' action would be the same spells as those used in the 'full spellcasting' action!
There has never been any controversy about 'attack action' referring to 'whatever action used to perform weapon-like attacks', until Jason made comments online, regarding a subject which was not 'has the definition of attack actionchanged! And by definition online comments such as this are not 'Rules As Written'; the combat chapter uses the same wording in this regard as the previous editions.
I understand the concept of 'errata', and JB's comments are not errata. The confusion caused by JB's comments have created a situation where dev intervention is required!
'...help us, Obi-Wan! You're our only hope...!'
There has never been any controversy about 'attack action' referring to 'whatever action used to perform weapon-like attacks', until Jason made comments online,......
Malachi Skip said it first back in 3.5. :)
I wholeheartedly award a "+1" to Kazaan's last spoiler.
I have to wonder if SKR deliberately stays away from long threads, simply because this is what they become (he's been around several times recently, answering other minor rules questions).
Ok people, the cake is a lie so lets drop that analogy before someone develops diabetes from it.
Regarding Ckorik:
** spoiler omitted **...
Your reading isn't as logically sound as you give it credit for. It is, furthermore, refuted by statements made by JB (who remained consistent on the matter) and JJ (who flip-flopped back and fourth before ending with "I'm confused, go ask JB"). Your analysis of the verbiage only stands up in a vacuum.
HA - I'll give you partial credit - my logic holds up if attack is not always a standard action - if it is - I have no problem saying it must be your way.
I just don't think the case is made that it is that clear - and until I came to this thread I'd never seen anyone make that assumption before. That leads me to the hypothesis where the rules as written without dev comments or the history of 3.5 certainly don't make the case as strongly as you believe, and that most people (who don't come here - at least if other games where numbers have come out hold historically true - messageboards typically only account for 5% or less of a userbase) read the rules using common sense and don't see the correlation that you make.
I did mention before I think full attack sunders would be a jerk move for a DM to use against a player. Although I think it's more broken now with the errata about how damage to magic items works - than it was at first printing (where you had to have a bigger plus to damage an item)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has never been any controversy about 'attack action' referring to 'whatever action used to perform weapon-like attacks', until Jason made comments online, regarding a subject which was not 'has the definition of attack action changed!
Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) Aug 19, 2009, 07:02 PM "An attack action is a type of standard action."
Here's a post from over a year earlier wondering if the attack action is a specific standard action or not. He looks up old D&D FAQs trying to see how Spring Attack and Shot on the Run work, and if an attack of opportunity applies.
So there has been 'controversy' about the attack action prior to JB's clarification. If there wasn't, there wouldn't have been any need for him to say anything.
Look at the combat maneuver text from Alpha:
Now look at what it was changed to in release:
If the attack action was any action in which an attack was made, there would be no reason to list full-attack or AoO. The rules list them separately because they're not all the same. An attack action is not the same as a full-attack action which is not the same as an attack of opportunity.
The confusion caused by JB's comments have created a situation where dev intervention is required!
His comments are dev intervention. Some people were confused and thought the attack action was any attack, so he intervened and told them they were wrong.
Sunder is an entirely separate issue. The question is not "How does the attack action work?" because we already know that. The question is "Is Sunder really supposed to use the attack action, or was that text left in the sunder description by mistake?"
Interesting!Couldn't help but share this, from the latest Kobold Quarterly (#23).
To balance the new rules ... sunder becomes a standard action rather than part of a melee attack.
Very interesting! That works for me.
Okay, is the official ruling then that Sunder could be used in a full attack but this is a bit OP so the suggested rule change in KQ #23 is to make it a standard action?
I haven't read the whole article yet but maybe someone over there was pondering all this as we have in this thread and arrived at the conclusion they have that way.
In other words, in light of the clarifications we've had about the attack action, and the way that phrase is used in the sunder description, sunder no longer works the way it used to.
Whether this has anything to do with it being perceived as OP by the devs is probably just speculation, but I do notice that you can sunder armor in PF and you couldn't in 3.5, so maybe they think that swapping sunder for any melee attack is a little much now.
Similarly, it would better not to have a phrase "full-attack action". (Actually I'm not sure if that phrase is used in the book.)
Second-to-last sentence of the section dealing with the Full-round action called Full Attack:
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action : You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.
It also appears in numerous feats and other places.
I was thinking of defining a new sub-class of combat manoeuvres called attack-like manoeuvres, where the manoeuvre can be used in place of an attack during a full attack.
Are you talking about making new rules to change things, or just a way to conceptually group disarm and trip together?
Damn.
Guys? They've noticed us Brits are trying to take over. Tone it down a bit for Phase 2, 'kay?
While I pretty much think things are ok the way they are, if people really can't get comfortable with attack meaning one thing while attack action means another... maybe it would help if the attack action was called "basic attack".
|
It is totally botched that a consensus on it can't be reached because of odd wording. If calling it a basic attack will clarify what can be done, I'm all for it.
I find it quirky that things like vital strike and spring attack or cleave and spring attack can I only be combined in home games of the dev who penned them, and not officially in the rules. Or that a monk can sunder with a flurry, or take an archetype to do a flurry of maneuvers but a fighter can't.
Or that weapons that are historically good enough for sundering purposes to warrant the devs giving them a +2 to sunder attempts, but are completely ineffectual at overcoming hardness and actually breaking weapons (sai, sword breaker , at 1d4 vs most min hardness of 5... And don't jump on adamantine bc an adamantine great sword still works 10x better at sundering than an adamantine sword breaker :p )
They know about it, but it probably requires a long blog instead of a simple answer. When we get "Return of the Revenge of the Mother of the FAQ", it will probably be answered.
it would seem that the same treatment vital strike got would be sufficient here.
although vital strike itself is still lacking official faq, wierdly...
but if vital strike warranted a messageboard post (or 2 or 3 or 10), i don't see why this doesn't...?
|
|
This is not a specific feat or class feature, and is something that has relevance to all games.
I do see that as a reason for it to be looked over carefully, but it also a reason to have clarification.
At this point, debating either way how it works is a worthless endeavor, lest you be doing so with a PFS Judge, and it will only be debated later with the next Judge.
The clarification is in the Developer's hands now.
Note: Paizo bashing will do nothing for anyone. Do not do it.
bump. hit the FAQ button at the beginning of thread.
until it's answered, i will assume 'attack action' means something distinct,
and that the (non-FAQ) Paizo messageboard posts on Vital Strike thus have a logical rational basis.
NOTE: i also think vital strike should be clarified in FAQ along with Sunder/ attack action in general,
since it was never put in the official FAQ after the relevant messageboard posts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I waited for a year to hear about what Totem Warrior did for Barbs :)
They got rid of that rule, and made it something about increased HP and hardness per enhancement point.
We are at nearly 950 posts, and 80 FAQ hits.
Seems like an issue to me.
Aside from the old FAQ thread being marked, if they are going to say something, they might be wanting to sit on it a while to discourage people from... 'artificially inflating' threads in order to get a response.
Seeing how much of this thread was based on responses to one person who admitted to trying to stir things up, that might be a good policy.
Ok. So I FAQed it.
The way I see it though is that "attack action" is the term that needs an FAQ. Once we have that stupid term settled for the doubters (in my opinion its been well documented by devs), sunder fixes itself. If sunder doesn't work the way it's supposed to at that point, then we need an errata to bring sunder back in lines with other weapon based maneuvers.
Wait, really? I must have missed the admission.
Looking back, I might have mis-interpreted what the person was trying to say. It doesn't really matter though, and accusations of trolling are against the rules, so I'll retract what I wrote there and hope they clarify it once things have calmed down.