Great Cleave which is one of your examples, and the only one I checked does not even use the term attack action.
I checked the PRD first, which only had attack action appear about 10 times. Then I checked the PDFs which found about 9 more entries.
It's entirely possible the PRD was updated and that the PDFs were not.
I'm happy to see the term being phased out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i don't know why they just didn't see the confusion when the CRB came out,
and errata Attack action (and all mentions of it, e.g. Sunder, Gaze) to become the 'Strike Action' in the 2nd printing,
which would make sense with Vital Strike and not be confusing to people like Attack action is.
what they call it doesn't really matter, if it was less confusing to the average reader.
i'm still not sure why Vital Strike/Attack Action doesn't have a FAQ entry,
given it prompted multiple posts from the developers themself to clarify it.
probably FAQing Attack Actionj itself, and clarifing it's usage w/ VS and Sunder, as well as other cases like Gaze would be 100% clear.
|
...
If you go into the CRB or the corebook it does reference "attack action". There is hyper link to the attack section
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
If you go into the CRB or the corebook it does reference "attack action". There is hyper link to the attack section
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the [url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_attack]attack action).
When you click on it you are taken to
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
The hyperlink included is also in the PRD.
edit:I think they that hyperlink was made by accident, nor do I think we are told to reference something that has no meaning even though I do wish they would have use the words "attack action" instead of "attack".
concerro 5 hours, 20 minutes ago
It hyperlink the whole attack section, so it don't define in any way the Attack Action (game term), it define how using a standard action to attack work. A few row under the point you cited , you find:
Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.
I stay of my opinion, it is not defined in the CRB, but only by Bullman post. He has full authority about defining game terms but a definition buried in the forum isn't the best way to manage a very important game term.
|
|
two weapon warriors can indeed make attack actions that contain two attack rolls.
regardless if you think 'part of' is REDUNDANT or not, the clear existence of 'attack action' is undeniable.
that term actually means something in this game, thus is presence should mean something.
if the intent was to work like trip/disarm, that wording would have been used,
wording which successfully was copy/pasted in those two CMBs.
...i'm not really sure where you could possibly GO with this 'part of' contention,
because any and every individual melee attack (ala trip/disarm) certainly doesn't have a multitude of 'parts' either,
so arguing that point doesn't get any closer to the trip/disarm functionality...
do you think that sunder must be made as part of an action with multiple attacks, e.g. full-attack?
otherwise, perhaps 'part of' isn't ideal or something, but again, minor grammatical weaknesses in articles simply have much less substance than the inclusion or not of specific game terms.EDIT: and i would argue that actions in game can certainly be broken down into parts, namely beginning, doing, and ending them. taking the action to stand up triggers an AoO before any standing up has taken place. thus even an action seemingly containing only one component can still be validly referenced using 'part' terminology since at minimum 'starting' and 'ending' the action are always present additional parts even if they accomplish nothing in-game, they are actionable components. similar for 'ready action' triggering events, etc.
Doublestrike (Ex): At 9th level, a two-weapon warrior may, as a standard action, make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons. The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally. This ability replaces weapon training 2.
A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows.
Interesting, so a Two-Weapon Warrior archetype can make 2 sunder attempt with one attack action, the monk can make multiple attempts, any other exception?
A pouncing creature or barbarian can't as they make a full attack action:
Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It truly is not defined in the Core rulebook. That's a myth created by developers not willing to admit they made a mistake.
whoops, i was wrong, 2 weapon warrior says 'as a standard action', i.e. it's own unique standard action.
The 'Attack' action is defined exactly like the 'Activate Magic Item' action is, or the 'Total Defense' action is.
It's defined exactly like every other action in the Combat section.
Sure, regretable name (inherited from 3.5 where it was the exact same but nobody noticed because nothing else used/referenced it), but it does exist and does have a defined function in the Combat Chapter: Standard Actions, as well as 'alternate usages' as given in Gaze, Ram, etc.
.....it is not defined in the CRB, but only by Bullman post. He has full authority about defining game terms but a definition buried in the forum isn't the best way to manage a very important game term.
I agree that it should be rewritten, but we know what the RAI is.
It truly is not defined in the Core rulebook. That's a myth created by developers not willing to admit they made a mistake.
Has there been a post asking for an FAQ on the "attack action"? In any event I do agree that it should be defined in the book and not by a hyperlink, but for the purpose of this discussion we know the intent. Hopefully it will be defined. I am sure they are reading this thread. :)
technically you should probably refer to it as the "attack" action.
|
|
Without knowing of Bullman posts I wouldn't be so sure about the RAI.
I started playing with old school boardgames and game terms in them (at least in well written rulebooks) were clearly defined.
I am used to the notion that Bog (capitalized, often bolded) mean something different from bog (normal English term).
[Specifically, it was in the Cross of Iron rulebook and Bog meant "an hexagon where a vehicle incur the risk of getting bogged down", the Italian translation totally missing the difference between the game term and the general English meaning was one of the reasons that pushed me into learning to read English. This little anecdote is here only to explain why I prefer clear definitions of a game term.]
Yeah, I've suggested that they capitalize game terms before, to no avail.
Apparently their 'style guide' or whatever doesn't capitalize any game term within the rules text,
EXCEPT for 'heading' text: you can see the 'attack' action is capitalized as it's own 'header'.
(under Standard Actions, and in the Table of Actions)
I can see why it may be jarring to capitalize all rules text, because so much of the words would become capitalized.
In this case, simply using a different name, such as 'strike' action or 'single-attack' action would have been clearer.
If you're interested in the Bulmahn/other Paizo posts(?), check out the d20pfsrd.com site, they have a FAQ section which should have an entry for Vital Strike, they give their own explanation, but also quote (and link to, I believe) the Paizo posts on the topic. ALternately, you could search Bulmahn's post history for 'vital strike' or whatever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yar.
If you're interested in the Bulmahn/other Paizo posts(?), check out the d20pfsrd.com site, they have a FAQ section which should have an entry for Vital Strike, they give their own explanation, but also quote (and link to, I believe) the Paizo posts on the topic. ALternately, you could search Bulmahn's post history for 'vital strike' or whatever.
I may be way off, but I believe the issue Diego is having is that this extra digging is superfluous. It should not be necessary.
What about the person who buys the CRB and wants to play the game but does NOT have internet access? There are still people in the world who do not have internet, who also enjoy playing RPGs and are able to buy the book.
What about them?
They get the shaft. They will never get to understand the rules clearly because there are game terms that are not defined in the rule book. That is... odd, to say the least.
Searching a specific poster on a specific forum for a specific post many years ago about this game should NOT be a mandatory prerequisite to be able to understand the rules of this game. That's why we buy the CRB.
~P
100% agreed. That's why I don't understand that IT'S NOT EVEN IN THE OFFICAL FAQ.
(why it's not certainly has to do with the FAQ wasn't yet created when Bulmahn wrote those posts... still, there's no reason they can't add an item re: Attack Action NOW... many many people have started threads on related subjects since the FAQ was created)
Not to mention that even if 'attack' action isn't going to get it's name changed,
the actual grammar in the Sunder description COULD be improved to be more correct. (in place of THE melee attack vs. A melee attack)
Yar.
If you're interested in the Bulmahn/other Paizo posts(?), check out the d20pfsrd.com site, they have a FAQ section which should have an entry for Vital Strike, they give their own explanation, but also quote (and link to, I believe) the Paizo posts on the topic. ALternately, you could search Bulmahn's post history for 'vital strike' or whatever.I may be way off, but I believe the issue Diego is having is that this extra digging is superfluous. It should not be necessary.
What about the person who buys the CRB and wants to play the game but does NOT have internet access? There are still people in the world who do not have internet, who also enjoy playing RPGs and are able to buy the book.
What about them?
They get the shaft. They will never get to understand the rules clearly because there are game terms that are not defined in the rule book. That is... odd, to say the least.
Searching a specific poster on a specific forum for a specific post many years ago about this game should NOT be a mandatory prerequisite to be able to understand the rules of this game. That's why we buy the CRB.
~P
I agree, but there are situations where you have to reference several different parts of the book due to the way it is organized. Less than optimal organization does not change RAI though. :)
I think an important part of the sunder description is that sunder is that it is part of an attack action, not the entirety of the attack action.
People compare it to Vital Strike, but Vital Strike is the attack action, not part of it.
You still have to perform an attack action to use it though, which is a standard action. If you are using a standard action then you are not using a full attack, which is a full round action.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You still have to perform an attack action to use it though, which is a standard action. If you are using a standard action then you are not using a full attack, which is a full round action.I think an important part of the sunder description is that sunder is that it is part of an attack action, not the entirety of the attack action.
People compare it to Vital Strike, but Vital Strike is the attack action, not part of it.
It's the difference between being able to sunder WHILE using vital strike, and not.
So... how many people actually enforce sunders-as-standard actions when they play the game?Ask me again when your magic-item-laden PC is facing off against a monster with 5 natural attacks and some tactical acumen.
Once my gaming group was of the opinion that you could replace melee attacks with Sunders on a 1-for-1 basis. Then I GMed a game where the BBEG was a half-fiend orc Breaker with Lesser Demon Totem, Toothy, Imp and Greater Sunder and a broken Furious Falchion. I think we made it 2-3 rounds into the encounter before the Ranger had no weapon, no armor, and was at half hp simply through overflow damage from Sunders, and the players quickly agreed that Sunder should be changed to a standard action, if it ever wasn't one.
|
You could have easily designed a BBEG with insane trip. The party would be prone and fighting at a penalty or suffer AoOs getting up and use their move to do so, foregoing full attacks.
You could make a grappling BBEG that could dominate an encounter.
This doesn't mean that sunder is a standard action.
In 3.5, any attack that took an attack action could, by definition, be folded into a full attack or used as an AoO. If some special attack, like Manyshot or Hideous Blow, could not be used this way then the action cost for the attack would not be 'an attack action' but 'a standard action' or 'a special standard action'.
When the CRB was written the same assumptions were in place. It is only when the question was asked about Vital Strike that things got twisted. The response should have been 'Whoops! Change ''attack action'' to ''standard action''. Instead the reply was ''an attack action=a standard action'', causing all this confusion.
Some kind person supplied a link to the 3.5 FAQ recently; I've lost it now. I read the lot! In one answer Skip Williams specifically said that because something was described as taking an attack action that that meant it could be used in a full attack by definition. I'll try to find it again but you guys will probably be able to do it faster than me.
Once my gaming group was of the opinion that you could replace melee attacks with Sunders on a 1-for-1 basis. Then I GMed a game where the BBEG was a half-fiend orc Breaker with Lesser Demon Totem, Toothy, Imp and Greater Sunder and a broken Furious Falchion. I think we made it 2-3 rounds into the encounter before the Ranger had no weapon, no armor, and was at half hp simply through overflow damage from Sunders, and the players quickly agreed that Sunder should be changed to a standard action, if it ever wasn't one.So... how many people actually enforce sunders-as-standard actions when they play the game?Ask me again when your magic-item-laden PC is facing off against a monster with 5 natural attacks and some tactical acumen.
Without a doubt GMs can optimize an encounter just like PCs can optimize their characters.
A wizard can dump stat for a high Int, get a stat-increasing headband, Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, and then a Heighten Spell metamagic feat or rod.. and surprise! No one is making their saving throws.
That speaks as much to encounter design as it does to the validity of the rule interpretation.
**********
@Jiggy Magic items have pretty nice hardness and lots of hit points, and are relatively easily fixed in Pathfinder. Yeah, I suppose a GM *could* have their dragon use their wing attack to sunder a PC's cloak of resistance. But let's be real, that's a GM dick move. The rules present a medium through which the game can be adjudicated. You can take a perfectly good set of rules and still be a jerk and a weasel. No rules or organized play guidelines can eliminate that. We have human GMs to make the tough calls, but that's a two edged sword.
You could have easily designed a BBEG with insane trip. The party would be prone and fighting at a penalty or suffer AoOs getting up and use their move to do so, foregoing full attacks.
You could make a grappling BBEG that could dominate an encounter.
A tripping BBEG doesn't completely eliminate the ability for a weapon based player to deal significant damage, or remove 9+AC from a player, all while dealing overflow damage.
A grappler doesn't take more than one player out of combat.
Sunder is stronger than both your examples.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can Power Attack as part of an Attack Action.
Guess that means it's standard action only.
Power Attack doesn't use that wording at all. Your argument is a red herring.
It's the difference between being able to sunder WHILE using vital strike, and not.
VS: "When you use the attack action, you CAN make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage..."
then we have sunder saying you can sunder "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack'.vital strike version of attack action still has an attack action for sunder to 'substitute'.
there's still an attack roll doing damage, and nothing that negates VS' extra damage.
it works just as well if you 'apply' VS/Sunder in reverse order.
|
|
I'm on my 'proper' computer now, so I've managed to find the 3.5 FAQ.
This is copy & pasted from that 3.5 FAQ, which was written by the 3.5 dev, Skip Williams:-
'Can a warlock use Rapid Shot to fire two eldritch blasts
simultaneously?
No. 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,
even with the Rapid Shot feat.'
Skip here is absolutely clear; a standard action cannot be used in another type of action, but an attack action can be folded into a full attack.
i think you're misreading the FAQ. if you can make an attack with a weapon via the attack action, you can make multiple attacks with that weapon via the full attack action (assuming BAB/rapid shot). that doesn't mean that said full attack contains multiple attack actions, but that full-attack accomplishs multiple instances of the same thing that attack action accomplishes one of (but not other stuff the attack action may do, e.g. VS, Sunder, Gaze, Demon Ooze, Ram). unless a special ability says otherwise, you can only do one standard action per round, and the 'attack' action is a standard action... look at the table, and the listing of standard actions w/ descriptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there's other cases where wording didn't change but officially verified intent did.
This, by the way, is my #1 dislike of the Pathfinder system. If Paizo wanted to change the way something worked, they should have changed the wording, rather than keeping the wording the same but issuing rulings to the opposite effect.
yeah, i amended my post to be a little more tighter/focused...
but just because Wizards FAQ said something doesn't mean it was an accurate reflection of RAW.
they didn't use attack actions and widely, and thus there was no 'use case' for distinguishing between an attack action which accomplishes an attack, and an attack.
(gaze was also an attack action in 3.5 - clearly it isn't any sort of attack roll - but that wasn't 'controversial' because there wasn't anything else to 'interact' specifically with just attack actions)
in other cases besides this one, the RAW just wasn't clear one way or the other, and so if paizo wants to 'rule' on intent differently than WoTC did, there isn't really any 'moral' difference, WoTC isn't a holy saint or something.
|
there's other cases where wording didn't change but officially verified intent did.This, by the way, is my #1 dislike of the Pathfinder system. If Paizo wanted to change the way something worked, they should have changed the wording, rather than keeping the wording the same but issuing rulings to the opposite effect.
This occurs in all Tabletop RPGs. Pathfinder is not an exception.
Changing what is written is a bit more complicated than you might think.
|
|
i think you're misreading the FAQ. if you can make an attack with a weapon via the attack action, you can make multiple attacks with that weapon via the full attack action (assuming BAB/rapid shot). that doesn't mean that said full attack contains multiple attack actions, but that full-attack accomplishs multiple instances of the same thing that attack action accomplishes one of (but not other stuff the attack action may do, e.g. VS, Sunder). unless a special ability says otherwise, you can only do one standard action per round, and the 'attack' action is a standard action... look at the table, and the listing of standard actions w/ descriptions.
further, the writer of PRPG sunder and VS has written directly to the functioning of attack action in pRPG. if that conflicts with what anybody wrote about 3.5, even if any relevant wording is the same, i would go with what paizo wrote because they are explicitly stating that that is the intention for their game. there's other cases where wording didn't change but officially verified intent did. suck it up.
The part I bolded is correct. If an attack can be used as an attack action it can also be used as an AoO or at the end of a charge or as one attack of a full attack action. You're right that that doesn't mean that a full attack is does not comprise of lots of attack actions, and no-one thinks it does! It comprises lots of attacks, and those attacks are the same attacks that, individually, use attack actions.
well, actually some people aren't clear on the distinction between attack action and attack...
(you missed my edit, including Gaze, Demon Ooze, and Ram usage as stuff do-able via Attack action, but NOT 'iterate-able' by the Full-Attack action.)
i'm actually really glad RD brought those up, even if they are not 'broken' usages of Attack action as he thought.
i think the 3.5 gaze attack action (non attack roll) is pretty interesting in terms of the true history/nature of the attack action. it's not quite like some want to make it out to be.
there's other cases where wording didn't change but officially verified intent did.This, by the way, is my #1 dislike of the Pathfinder system. If Paizo wanted to change the way something worked, they should have changed the wording, rather than keeping the wording the same but issuing rulings to the opposite effect.
This occurs in all Tabletop RPGs. Pathfinder is not an exception.
Changing what is written is a bit more complicated than you might think.
Changing what is already written in their own books, sure.
But I'm talking about the change from 3.5 to PF, where they were already updating and changing wordings throughout the entire system. They still kept some wordings word-for-word and later issued rulings that were completely opposite to how the same rules were ruled on in 3.5.
in other cases besides this one, the RAW just wasn't clear one way or the other, and so if paizo wants to 'rule' on intent differently than WoTC did, there isn't really any 'moral' difference, WoTC isn't a holy saint or something.
I agree, and WotC certainly isn't the "holy saint" of rules. But keeping the same wording with opposite rulings certainly leads to a ton of unnecessary confusion, that would have been eliminated by changing the wording. One wouldn't automatically assume a rule worked the same way if there had been a deliberate change in wording.
i don't believe paizo kept a pile of all of WoTC's FAQs at hand when writing the new rules/determining how the rules should function/what should change/etc. it's pretty easy to say they probably SHOULD HAVE when starting a project like PRPG, but that wasn't implemented AFAIK (i believe JB/Paizo have posted implicitly recognizing that not all WoTC FAQs/Sage Advice were integrated into PRPG). i agree that one would normally assume the same text means the same thing, barring other rules interfering, but in many cases there wasn't a clear path from to RAW to WotC's stated RAI, it relied on a judgement call that wasn't dictated by RAW. so that is an aspect that isn't tied to RAW at all, thus isn't tied to 'keeping the same RAW'.
...believe me, i look forward to 'PRPG 2.0', where 3.x anachronisms are expunged and paizo takes full responsibility for the RAW and organization of said RAW, etc. so that you can honestly recommend the ruleset to a newby player without a millin caveats just to be able to play the game (not including actual house-rules).
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and put up my 2 cents.
They ruled about a specific feat with the wording attack action being a standard action. Out of (apparently) 19 feats in the whole game that use that wording.
They have, to date, ignored or said that Sunder needs no FAQ.
After gaming for as long as I have, across tabletop rpg's, wargames, card games, and to many variations of all of the above...
If out of quite a few examples, they specifically errata one but leave the others alone, and say the rest need no FAQ, I wouldn't use the one as a ruling on the rest. That tells me it is an outlier, a special case that, for example (and exactly in this case) needed a specific errata in order to keep from imbalancing the game.
Yes, it is a grey area, however, a little bit of grammar and logic would seem to back that idea up. A full attack is an action where you attack. In anyplace other than (apparently) these boards, the fact that you attack during a full attack would make it an attack action. Same with a standard attack, it is an action where you make an attack.
*shrug*
Could just be me. But an errata to one feat does not mean that errata needs to get applied to every feat. Especially when they have passed ruling on one of the feats in question at least once.
Krigare: The problem with that approach is that they didn't errata the feat in question. They simply said "it uses an attack action, therefore it's a standard action".
Personally I would very much like to forget that I ever heard about the ruling on Vital Strike, and just allow it to work with full-attacks (on one attack during the full attack), with spring attack, and with charge.
krigare: so you think the Ooze Demon that RD brought up is indeed able to Full Attack with it's Ooze?
(which it can do as an Attack Action per RAW)
why not list it as any other natural or weapon attack then?
likewise, do you believe that the Medusa can ITERATIVELY use Gaze attacks with the Full Attack action?
Why not replace all instances of "attack action" with "standard action?" It would really cut down on the confusion. There is absolutely no point in having redundant terms.
is 'use a magic item' redundant with standard action? with 'attack action'? they're not redundant.
i've already laid out functional differences in how different rules apply to attack action vs. other standard actions.
you may not LIKE the implication of these differences, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
i would agree that re-naming the attack action to 'strike' action or 'single-attack' action would be less confusing...
but assuming one can recognize and deal with a confusingly named action, changing the name doesn't functionally change how the game works, namely that 'attack'/'strike'/'single-attack' action is a distinct entity from any and all standard actions, and by having a name it is able to be referened by other abilities solely affecting (or solely NOT affecting ) the 'attack' action.
|
|
@Jiggy Magic items have pretty nice hardness and lots of hit points, and are relatively easily fixed in Pathfinder. Yeah, I suppose a GM *could* have their dragon use their wing attack to sunder a PC's cloak of resistance. But let's be real, that's a GM dick move. The rules present a medium through which the game can be adjudicated. You can take a perfectly good set of rules and still be a jerk and a weasel. No rules or organized play guidelines can eliminate that. We have human GMs to make the tough calls, but that's a two edged sword.
In that situation I would point him to:
Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
A wing buffet is a blunt weapon. It will not damage a cloak.
I've already laid out functional differences in how different rules apply to attack action vs. other standard actions.
I must have overlooked it. Would you mind directing me to it?
krigare: so you think the Ooze Demon that RD brought up is indeed able to Full Attack with it's Ooze?
(which it can do as an Attack Action per RAW)
why not list it as any other natural or weapon attack then?
likewise, do you believe that the Medusa can ITERATIVELY use Gaze attacks with the Full Attack action?
And this is why I hate these kinds of discussions.
Sure, why not? I mean, if we are going to say that a purely literal interpretation of the rules must be adhered to, disregarding common sense or demonstrated intent in similar actions, then yes, let them do so.
Sunder is a combat maneuver, so comparing its use with other combat maneuvers makes sense. Its logical.
Comparing gaze attacks, ooze attacks, vital strike, etc to a combat maneuver is trying to compare apples to oranges. Both are food. Both grow on trees. They are not the same fruit.
It's the difference between being able to sunder WHILE using vital strike, and not.You still have to perform an attack action to use it though, which is a standard action. If you are using a standard action then you are not using a full attack, which is a full round action.I think an important part of the sunder description is that sunder is that it is part of an attack action, not the entirety of the attack action.
People compare it to Vital Strike, but Vital Strike is the attack action, not part of it.
I agree that sunder should be usable with vital strike. I may have misread BBT's intent though.
You could have easily designed a BBEG with insane trip. The party would be prone and fighting at a penalty or suffer AoOs getting up and use their move to do so, foregoing full attacks.
You could make a grappling BBEG that could dominate an encounter.
This doesn't mean that sunder is a standard action.
In 3.5, any attack that took an attack action could, by definition, be folded into a full attack or used as an AoO. If some special attack, like Manyshot or Hideous Blow, could not be used this way then the action cost for the attack would not be 'an attack action' but 'a standard action' or 'a special standard action'.
When the CRB was written the same assumptions were in place. It is only when the question was asked about Vital Strike that things got twisted. The response should have been 'Whoops! Change ''attack action'' to ''standard action''. Instead the reply was ''an attack action=a standard action'', causing all this confusion.
Some kind person supplied a link to the 3.5 FAQ recently; I've lost it now. I read the lot! In one answer Skip Williams specifically said that because something was described as taking an attack action that that meant it could be used in a full attack by definition. I'll try to find it again but you guys will probably be able to do it faster than me.
Malachi I have the 3.5 FAQ as a pdf on my hard drive. Do you remember what the question was?
PS:I can probably locate the link to the 3.5 FAQ pdf so you can download it. Let me know if you want it.
PS2:What does "an action" have to do with "an attack action".
I'm on my 'proper' computer now, so I've managed to find the 3.5 FAQ.
This is copy & pasted from that 3.5 FAQ, which was written by the 3.5 dev, Skip Williams:-
'Can a warlock use Rapid Shot to fire two eldritch blasts
simultaneously?
No. 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,
even with the Rapid Shot feat.'Skip here is absolutely clear; a standard action cannot be used in another type of action, but an attack action can be folded into a full attack.
That is not what he is saying at all.
He specifically calls an attack action out as using a standard action in the FAQ, and we already know you can't use a standard action and a full round action in the same round.
It is true that no category of actions is called “attack actions” in the D&D game, but there is an action called attack—it’s the first action described under Standard Actions on page 139 in the Player’s Handbook.....Likewise, the Shot on the Run feat could allow you to make
any kind of ranged attack while moving, but it doesn’t. When
using Shot on the Run, you must use the attack action with a
ranged weapon (see the feat description on page 100 in the
Player’s Handbook).
|
|
When Skip says:-
'...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...'
He's also saying:-
'...If something requires an attack action (as opposed to a standard action) to use, you can use the full attack action to gain extra uses of that ability...'
That is not what he is saying. An an example you can make a normal melee attack as an attack action, or you can make several melee attacks as if you use a full round action.
You can not however use an attack that specifically is called out as a standard action with a full round attack. I think we agree the warlock's blast is an example of that.
The paragraph does not mean that "every" use of an attack that calls for an attack action can be used in a full round attack. It is only saying that an ability that uses a standard action can not use a full round attack. In short it is not enabling an attack action to be used with a full round attack several times. It is denying the use of a standard action in a full round attack.
As an example "Shot on the Run" 3.5 version, calls out an attack action, but you can't make use a full attack to make several ranged attacks and still get to move before an after your speed. You can move, attack, and move again because that attack action is a standard action.
Shot On The Run [General]
PrerequisitesDex 13, Dodge, Mobility, Point Blank Shot, base attack bonus +4.
BenefitWhen using the attack action with a ranged weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed.
SpecialA fighter may select Shot on the Run as one of his fighter bonus feats.