When Skip says:
So what's your point here?
"Attack action" is still a standard action. You have multiple Devs stating such.
You still can't use a full round action to do something that requires a Standard action.
You have found one obscure ruling that doesn't directly address the situation we're talking about.
This isn't enough evidence to make your case.
Shot on the Run has been errata'd to remove that term.
Again, it's being phased out. Designers are being MUCH more careful these days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
he's quoting the 3.5 version, since people were reaching back to 3.5 FAQ's and so on (attack action itself never changed from 3.5 to PRPG).
unless they remove the only way for each and every character to make a single attack with a standard action, i assume the attack action will remain. i've heard they encourage writers to not reference it/tie into it in new crunch material, but that does nothing about existing material. as is, there isn't anything 'broken' about using it (if so, nobody could attack as a standard action barring feat/abilities), it's just a confusing name for an action. if i wanted to write new crunch using it, i would probably be EXTRA clear by re-iterating that the attack action is a specific standard action. but that's not inherently different than re-iterating that a full-attack action is a full-round action, or whatever.
|
Perusing Skip Williams' FAQ again, I came across this:-
'...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 PH...'
I've checked the wording and it's the same in PF as it is in 3.5. There is no such thing, in either game, as the 'Attack Action'!
Check it out! There is the heading 'Standard Actions'. Then there is the sub-heading 'Attack' (not attack action).
The whole thing says:-
'Attack Making an attack is a standard action'
Next are other sub-headings; 'Melee Attacks', 'Unarmed Attacks', 'Ranged Attacks', 'Natural Attacks, and then:-
'Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action...in order to get more than one attack.'
We know that not every attack takes a standard action. If that were the case there'd be no ful attacks or charges or AoOs or touch spells. All of the kinds of attack mentioned above can be a standard action or part of a full attack, and the melee ones can be an AoO, and none of us think otherwise!
So 'Attack Action' is not a game term, and never was! The phrase 'attack action' got used frequently, but it just meant whatever action you're using to make the attack. Thus, anything described as an 'attack action', as long as it was one of the kinds of attack described (melee, unarmed, ranged, natural), can be folded into a full attack.
The same is not true of any attack that is described as taking a 'standard action'!
Another 3.5 FAQ by Skip:-
'Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee
attack variant? It has its own entry on the actions table, but
the text describing it refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder
a melee attack only in the sense of hitting something with a
melee weapon, or is sunder a true melee attack?
Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special
standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive
text for the Manyshot feat says).
If you make a full attack, and you have multiple attacks
from a high base attack bonus, you can sunder more than once,
or attack and sunder, or some other combination of attacking
and sundering.
Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8–2: Actions
in Combat in the PH. It needs one because unlike a regular
melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of opportunity
(although not if you have the Improved Sunder feat).
You can also disarm, grapple, or trip as a melee attack (or
attack of opportunity).'
Sunder is not described as a 'special standard action'. It's not even described as a 'standard action', just 'attack action' or 'attack'.
If it were true that the phrase 'attack action' really meant that the attack can only be a standard action, then that would also apply to every melee, ranged, unarmed and natural attack in the game, not just Sunder!
The response to the Vital Strike question was not true; attack action does not equal standard action! Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The response to the Vital Strike question was not true; attack action does not equal standard action! Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't!
Shhhhh - keep it down over there - you might derail the entire point of this argument - which is that the stupid ruling (that many of us just accepted and moved on with - because no matter what at our table we can do whatever we want) opens a logical paradox that means this argument is even possible.
:)
if you think the 'attack' action doesn't exist (contrary to the Skip Williams quote you posted), then how does a commoner make 1 attack after moving?
Malachi we already know the term "attack action" was never defined in the book, but the devs for 3.5 and PF continue to use it as a standard action, and as a way to use many abilities. Most of us also agree that they should define it officially instead of just telling us the intent in FAQ's and board postings. Even more than that we believe they should have used a different term. That is neither here nor there however since devs from both systems have stated the intent.
The intent is that an attack action requires the use of a standard action.
Also an attack action is a standard action unless you have quote that says otherwise.
We also never argued that every attack is an attack action so I don't even know where that argument is coming from. We are only saying that if an attack action is called for, that whatever used the attack action will be a standard action.
The phrase 'attack action' got used frequently...
It appears less than 20 times in the whole of Pathfinder (according to my PDFs). Possibly less than 10 times (according to the PRD) even.
the 'attack' action is just as defined as the 'use a magic item' action or the 'withdraw' action.
the skip williams quote says exactly that... 'attack action' is not a CATEGORY of actions, like swift/move/standard,
but there is a SPECIFIC action named 'attack', that is the 'attack' action.
no other action has 'action' re-iterated within their name, the 'attack' action is no different.
when something references the attack action, they are making clear that they are discussing the action named 'attack', not any and every attack roll.
just as a reference to the 'use a magic item' action would distinguish usage of that action from other ways to use a magic item (e.g. swinging a magic sword, commanding a flying carpet, voice-triggered magic items and other usages that don't require that specific action). obviously, one can make attacks, or use magic items, via other means than the actions specifically named for these usages. why is it more confusing in the case of the 'attack' action than for using magic items?
if the 'attack' action doesn't exist, then the game breaks down unless you are only full-attacking and/or using special/non-standard attacks.
For the sake of argument lets say the term "attack action" has no value because it is not in the book despite what the devs are saying and despite the fact that it appears in several places in 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Using this logic "attack action" is just as valid as "fdiojfd" meaning we can insert "fdiojfd" in place of attack action, and get the same results.
By the rules sunder uses a melee attack as part of "fdiojfd". Since "fdiojfd" has no meaning within the game would that mean that everything depending on "fdiojfd" fails since nobody can really say how it works. For all we know "fdiojfd" may require 10 rounds. Now I am sure none of us thinks that "fdiojfd" takes 10 rounds, and I am also sure the same logic applies to the "attack action".
What do we have left to go by are the developers quotes, and if they make an FAQ or errata within the next 10 minutes that defines it(attack action) in the book we know they will say it requires a standard action, so trying to argue otherwise is kind of pointless.
why go down that road?
it IS in the book, in the table and in the text of actions, it's the first described standard action - as Skip says.
or what the hell is he talking about when making specific page references?
no other action has 'action' reiterated in the NAME of the action.
why would you expect the 'attack' action to be named the 'attack action' action, contrary to every other action?
the 'attack' action is the relevant one. if it doesn't exist, it beocomes very difficult to make 1 attack with a standard action.
Malachi is trying to argue that since the exact word "attack action" is not defined that it does not matter what the devs say. At least that is the way I read his post.
From the rulebook (page 183) - from the action table - under 'perform a combat maneuver' there is a subnote.
the subnote says:
6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not
an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an
attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack
action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used
as a separate action.
As that line clarifies what it means to be used 'in place of a melee attack' I believe that lays it to rest.
If sunder is an standar action then it should be stated as such. CAlling it an "attack" action is just an unnecesary sloppy language.
Totally! Using a different term in the way they did (especially one with the word "attack") heavily implies that you could do it on a charge, as an AoO and in other situations involving attacks.
Malachi is trying to argue that since the exact word "attack action" is not defined that it does not matter what the devs say. At least that is the way I read his post.
so then NONE of the named actions are defined per this standard.
literally, if they are not defined and do not exist in the game, one cannot use them.no attacking with a standard action using the 'attack' action, no full-attacking with the 'full-attack' action, etc.
yeah, i'm really convinced Malachi is onto something.
'...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 PH...'
how would one refer to an action called attack? the attack action? hmmm...
is there evidence of this action being referred to in any OTHER way besides that?
People still ignore the "part of" before the "attack action".
i already addressed that. actions inherently have multiple parts, as seen by the interrupt mechanism for AoOs, readies, standing up, etc. said wording also prevents using a Sunder in place of Medusa Gaze or the action to help operate a battering Ram. while you can claim that said wording is redundant in the most common case of the attack action, redundancy is not a crime, and we have an explicit reference to an action, the first defined standard action, a reference which is a complete departure from trip/disarm which you aim to emulate.
have you addressed how a commoner makes an attack after moving, if there isn't an action named attack?
or is now two generations of designers utterly unaware of the game they wrote?
If sunder is an standar action then it should be stated as such. CAlling it an "attack" action is just an unnecesary sloppy language.
We agreed already agree that the term "attack action" is not a good idea. Nobody is a disputing that. Replacing the term with another term would be much better IMHO.
People still ignore the "part of" before the "attack action".
Perhaps to suite their views?
I was sure I explained that before, but in case I did not answer it well could you explain what you mean by this post?
If sunder is an standar action then it should be stated as such. CAlling it an "attack" action is just an unnecesary sloppy language.We agreed already agree that the term "attack action" is not a good idea. Nobody is a disputing that. Replacing the term with another term would be much better IMHO.
Many of the proposed alternate terms (excepting Standard Action) are equally bad as Attack Action I think.
From the rulebook (page 183) - from the action table - under 'perform a combat maneuver' there is a subnote.
the subnote says:
As that line clarifies what it means to be used 'in place of a melee attack' I believe that lays it to rest.6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not
an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an
attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack
action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used
as a separate action.The problem is that you're disregarding that part of Sunder's definition that states it's used "in place of the 'Attack' action".
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
Scroll down to Standard Actions and you'll see Attack as one of the Actions with sub-headings concerning melee, ranged, unarmed, and natural attacks. That's the 'Attack' action. As a sub-heading of 'Attack' is multiple attacks in which it notes " 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."... as in You can't use a standard attack action to make multiple attacks, that's the "full attack" action.
How does that count as a defined term? The term "attack action" doesn't even appear in that chapter except for under combat maneuvers and automatic hits and misses.
The rules you claim back up your argument seem to entirely lack the context that you describe.
Many of the proposed alternate terms (excepting Standard Action) are equally bad as Attack Action I think.If sunder is an standar action then it should be stated as such. CAlling it an "attack" action is just an unnecesary sloppy language.We agreed already agree that the term "attack action" is not a good idea. Nobody is a disputing that. Replacing the term with another term would be much better IMHO.
I think the "intent" of the term is to define a way to say attack as a standard action. I do think that in cases such as sunder just using the term "standard action" would be better.
|
|
if you think the 'attack' action doesn't exist (contrary to the Skip Williams quote you posted), then how does a commoner make 1 attack after moving?
He takes a standard action to attack.
I'm not saying you can't take a standard action to attack! I'm saying an 'attack action' can be taken as a standard action or a full action or at the end of a charge or as an AoO etc. Because, and this is the point, 'attack action' means 'attack, using the appropriate action'.
It cannot mean attack as a standard action exclusively simply based on:-
'Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.'
Because if that's the only reason, then every attack (melee, unarmed, ranged, natural) described in the same section would also only be useable as a standard action, and we know that isn't true!
can you tell me where exactly full-attack action is defined then RD? (or Malachi)
perhaps 'would be CLEARER' given the naming conventions we have for actions, but would result in different functionality... which is the reason we have rules in the first place. i rather like sunder+VS synergy, personally.
there is indeed problems with internal logic w/ the 'details' of specific attack types placed under the attack action, albeit MOST of them have wording which lets them apply to ANY attack roll. regardless, that is a potential problem for stuff that DOESN'T use the attack action, not stuff that does use it.
i'm still waiting to hear why people are quoting skip williams when they apparently don't believe in his capacity to write a coherent sentence that one can rely on.
I think the "intent" of the term is to define a way to say attack as a standard action. I do think that in cases such as sunder just using the term "standard action" would be better.Many of the proposed alternate terms (excepting Standard Action) are equally bad as Attack Action I think.If sunder is an standar action then it should be stated as such. CAlling it an "attack" action is just an unnecesary sloppy language.We agreed already agree that the term "attack action" is not a good idea. Nobody is a disputing that. Replacing the term with another term would be much better IMHO.
In every case in which the term appears (except possibly sunder, depending on the intent), it would be better to have said "as a standard action" instead.
I know. I've researched this extensively.
Sorry Malachi that is not correct.
"Attack action" according to the devs is not the same as attacking in call cases. You can make several attacks during a full round attack, but you can't make several "attack actions" during a full round attack. You also can not make an "attack action" at the end of a charge. We know this because the combat chapter says you can make use a full round action or, a move and a standard. Therefore an "attack action" can not be used if you are using a full round action.
ah, so 'would be better to have said' is the prime factor in understanding RAW, right?
anybody would agree, it 'would have been better' if attack action was named differently.
but if that was true, how 'would it be better' for Gaze to use the SDLFKSDJ action (renamed attack action) vs. an (unnamed, unique) Standard Action? It's not better at all... They may be the exact same, depending on what other effects are in play, and they may be different also depending on the same thing. Otherwise they don't differ. So how is one better than the other?
I think the "intent" of the term is to define a way to say attack as a standard action. I do think that in cases such as sunder just using the term "standard action" would be better.Many of the proposed alternate terms (excepting Standard Action) are equally bad as Attack Action I think.If sunder is an standar action then it should be stated as such. CAlling it an "attack" action is just an unnecesary sloppy language.We agreed already agree that the term "attack action" is not a good idea. Nobody is a disputing that. Replacing the term with another term would be much better IMHO.In every case in which the term appears (except possibly sunder, depending on the intent), it would be better to have said "as a standard action" instead.
I know. I've researched this extensively.
I am too lazy to check every instance, but I have the same results for the times I have seen it used so I think we agree.
I'm saying an 'attack action' can be taken as a standard action or a full action or at the end of a charge or as an AoO etc. Because, and this is the point, 'attack action' means 'attack, using the appropriate action'.
It cannot mean attack as a standard action exclusively simply based on:-
'Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.'Because if that's the only reason, then every attack (melee, unarmed, ranged, natural) described in the same section would also only be useable as a standard action, and we know that isn't true!
There is a difference between an 'attack', which is what you are describing, and an 'attack action', which is a standard action used to make a single attack on your turn. The attack at the end of a charge is an attack, but it is not an attack action. Likewise for an AoO etc. An attack is not any kind of defined action at all.
EDIT: That is to say: Using the attack action allows you to make an attack. Using the charge action also allows you to make an attack, as does the full attack action, but they are distinct actions with different rules than the attack action. If a rule refers to the attack action (like sunder does) then it refers to that action and not to every attack (like trip does).
I'm still waiting to hear how you guys play the game when NO action is 'defined' in the exact manner reproducing 'XYZ action' in the manner you insist is the only valid definition for the attack action. All of them include only the 'name' of the action, without any 'action' appended to that name, both in the table and the textual descriptions. skip williams directly points to this in reference to where the attack action is defined. WHAT COULD HE BE TALKING ABOUT?
Malachi I do agree the RAW may have issues, but RAW is a bad way to run a game on its own. I prefer to debate to find the intent of the rule. Once that is done, if the RAW does not match RAI then we can FAQ a rule to get it fixed so that it reads correctly.
If one person is debating RAI and another is debating RAW then they may talk past each other. Most people that post here want to know intent(how the game is supposed to be played). They don't generally come here to argue the "letter of the law".
From the rulebook (page 183) - from the action table - under 'perform a combat maneuver' there is a subnote.
the subnote says:
As that line clarifies what it means to be used 'in place of a melee attack' I believe that lays it to rest.6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not
an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an
attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack
action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used
as a separate action.The problem is that you're disregarding that part of Sunder's definition that states it's used "in place of the 'Attack' action".
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
Scroll down to Standard Actions and you'll see Attack as one of the Actions with sub-headings concerning melee, ranged, unarmed, and natural attacks. That's the 'Attack' action. As a sub-heading of 'Attack' is multiple attacks in which it notes " 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."... as in You can't use a standard attack action to make multiple attacks, that's the "full attack" action.
You are ignoring the part where the subsection clarifies specifically combat maneuvers that substitute for a melee attack. This is the reason that the other combat maneuvers specifically start the description with 'as a standard action'.
Also you say the definition says 'in place of the 'attack' action. - yet that *is not* in the definition.
The definition is:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your
opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee
attack.
Note it says in place of a melee attack - not attack action - in fact is says as *part* of an attack action.
That wording is loose enough that a DM might only allow one - but even that would be a house rule - when you note that in the actions table the subnote specifically sates that combat maneuvers that take the place of a melee attack can be made in place of *any* of the melee attacks in an attack action (including more than one - although without feats they provoke).
From the rulebook (page 183) - from the action table - under 'perform a combat maneuver' there is a subnote.
the subnote says:
As that line clarifies what it means to be used 'in place of a melee attack' I believe that lays it to rest.6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not
an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an
attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack
action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used
as a separate action.The problem is that you're disregarding that part of Sunder's definition that states it's used "in place of the 'Attack' action".
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
Scroll down to Standard Actions and you'll see Attack as one of the Actions with sub-headings concerning melee, ranged, unarmed, and natural attacks. That's the 'Attack' action. As a sub-heading of 'Attack' is multiple attacks in which it notes " 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."... as in You can't use a standard attack action to make multiple attacks, that's the "full attack" action.
You are ignoring the part where the subsection clarifies specifically combat maneuvers that substitute for a melee attack. This is the reason that the other combat maneuvers specifically start the description with 'as a standard action'.
Also you say the definition says 'in place of the 'attack' action. - yet that *is not* in the definition.
The definition is:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your
opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee
attack.Note it says in place of a melee attack - not attack action - in fact is says as *part* of an attack action.
That wording is loose enough that a DM might only allow one - but even that would be a house rule - when you note that in the actions table...
I have posted 2 quotes with devs(the people that make the game) saying an "attack action" requires a standard action.
I understand that it says "as part of an attack action", but that attack action is still using a standard action, and therefore no full round action is allowed.
Malachi I do agree the RAW may have issues, but RAW is a bad way to run a game on its own. I prefer to debate to find the intent of the rule. Once that is done, if the RAW does not match RAI then we can FAQ a rule to get it fixed so that it reads correctly.
If one person is debating RAI and another is debating RAW then they may talk past each other. Most people that post here want to know intent(how the game is supposed to be played). They don't generally come here to argue the "letter of the law".
This. Dear Gawd this.
RAW in this case is no where as clear as people want to argue. So it comes down to RAI.
And unfortunately, until one of devs actually puts an errata out saying, on its own( not as part of faqing/errattaing/clarifying a feat) exactly the intent behind "attack action" as a term, all we can do is discuss it and eventually decide to do it however makes sense to us.
Man, kinda like playing 1e just with more people in on the convo...
The initial section on CM's says that "many" can be used as part of the full attack action. Then in several entries, types of CM's are called out as specifically requiring a Standard Action.
Since Sunder does not specifically say it requires a Standard Action, then it should be assumed that the overall rule of CM's should apply.
By these current views of something that is noted as part of something, actually being the whole thing, the Fire Giant cannot use the Smoking Boulder and Blasting Boulder feats on a Full Attack.
The Smoking Boulder feat says "as part of an attack action" so it can not be used with a full round action. The other has the same phrase so it can't either.
It is not different than saying you can do Y while you are doing X(something that requires a standard action by RAW).
As a better example you may dance while you are channeling energy(specifically requires a standard action).
So if you think "attack action" is just any attack then you must think that you can use Vital Strike as part of a Full Attack action.
Each attack being "one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
I think this would be a little broken. I think "attack action" probably refers to a Standard action as it is defined in the Combat chapter.
I have posted 2 quotes with devs(the people that make the game) saying an "attack action" requires a standard action.I understand that it says "as part of an attack action", but that attack action is still using a standard action, and therefore no full round action is allowed.
The quotes you posted only state if you don't have a standard action (because you used it or are penalized) you can't make an attack - they don't invalidate the special rule for combat maneuvers that take the place of an attack (which can be used at any or all points where you roll a d20 to hit).
I have posted 2 quotes with devs(the people that make the game) saying an "attack action" requires a standard action.I understand that it says "as part of an attack action", but that attack action is still using a standard action, and therefore no full round action is allowed.
The quotes you posted only state if you don't have a standard action (because you used it or are penalized) you can't make an attack - they don't invalidate the special rule for combat maneuvers that take the place of an attack (which can be used at any or all points where you roll a d20 to hit).
My post says nothing about a penalty.
Jason Bulmahn aka Lead rules developer.
edit:fixed link.
edit2:What Jason said and Skip said-->" An attack action is a type of standard action." and "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action)"
So if you think "attack action" is just any attack then you must think that you can use Vital Strike as part of a Full Attack action.
Each attack being "one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
I think this would be a little broken. I think "attack action" probably refers to a Standard action as it is defined in the Combat chapter.
Vital Strike is a feat - not a combat maneuver - so isn't covered by the special rule for combat maneuvers - the feat also doesn't say 'in place of a melee attack'.
Vital Strike is a feat - not a combat maneuver - so isn't covered by the special rule for combat maneuvers - the feat also doesn't say 'in place of a melee attack'.So if you think "attack action" is just any attack then you must think that you can use Vital Strike as part of a Full Attack action.
Each attack being "one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
I think this would be a little broken. I think "attack action" probably refers to a Standard action as it is defined in the Combat chapter.
Combat maneuvers dont have a special rules saying it can ignore the term "attack action".
All it says is:
While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Note that sunder says "attack action", not full-attack action which even by that quote is a separate listing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Malachi I do agree the RAW may have issues, but RAW is a bad way to run a game on its own. I prefer to debate to find the intent of the rule. Once that is done, if the RAW does not match RAI then we can FAQ a rule to get it fixed so that it reads correctly.
If one person is debating RAI and another is debating RAW then they may talk past each other. Most people that post here want to know intent(how the game is supposed to be played). They don't generally come here to argue the "letter of the law".
I'm confident RAI is that Sunder is done as an attack, and therefore may be one or more of the attacks in a full attack or as an AoO or at the end of a charge. This was certainly true in 3.5 and as Mr. Groves said earlier the devs of PF believe it also.
RAW, there is no 'attack action' action, there is just the 'attack' action, which may be taken as a standard action or folded into a full attack etc.
Under the heading 'Standard Actions, there are these sub-headings:-
• Attack
• Activate Magic Item
• Cast a Spell
• Start/Complete Full-Round Action
• Total Defense
• Use Special Ability
Apart from 'Attack' none of us is disputing the action cost of the rest. So, under the sub-heading 'Attack' (where it says 'Making an attack is a standard action') there are several sub-sub-headings:-
• Melee Attacks
• Unarmed Attacks
• Ranged Attacks
• Natural Attacks
• Multiple Attacks
• Shooting or Throwing into a Melee
• Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action
• Critical Hits
If you interpret the sentence under the sub-heading 'Attack' ('Making an attack is a standard action') to mean 'Making an attack can only be a standard action', then that interpretation must hold true for every single item on the list of sub-sub-headings, and one look at the list will show this as absurd. The sub-sub heading 'Multiple Attacks' makes clear that all the types of attacks mentioned previously on the list can be made as a single attack of a full attack. This means that the action to attack i.e. the attack action, cannot be restricted to a standard action.
If an attack is described as a standard action it takes a standard action. If it's described as an attack or attack action then it takes an attack.
For combat manoeuvres, Bull Rush, Grapple and Overrun say 'as a standard action'. Disarm, Sunder and Trip do not.
'Attack' is special in the rules in that the type of action the attack consumes is variable. So, an 'attack' action may be a standard action, but is not restricted to that. If it was, there'd be no full attack/charge/AoO in the game.
My post says nothing about a penalty.
Jason Bulmahn aka Lead rules developer.
edit:fixed link.
edit2:What Jason said and Skip said-->" An attack action is a type of standard action." and "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action)"
I didn't say you talked about e penalty - I used the word only to illustrate *why* you might not have a standard action on your turn.
And I'm agreeing with you - and yet even if an attack is a type of standard action - it's also a type of move action when used as a full attack (it's actually both at that point)
And nothing about any of the above has *anything* to do with sunder - which is a combat maneuver - the CM's have *special* rules that say if they can be used in place of an attack and they aren't called out as 'standard actions' that they can be used in place of the iterative attacks or even as part of charges or AOO's.
The ones that are called out as 'standard actions' specifically in the text can't be used as such.
That's clear as day and not ambiguous. You are only making it murky by trying to call sunder a combat action - which it can't be when it's listed as a combat maneuver.
I'm confident RAI is that Sunder is done as an attack, and therefore may be one or more of the attacks in a full attack or as an AoO or at the end of a charge. This was certainly true in 3.5 and as Mr. Groves said earlier the devs of PF believe it also.Malachi I do agree the RAW may have issues, but RAW is a bad way to run a game on its own. I prefer to debate to find the intent of the rule. Once that is done, if the RAW does not match RAI then we can FAQ a rule to get it fixed so that it reads correctly.
If one person is debating RAI and another is debating RAW then they may talk past each other. Most people that post here want to know intent(how the game is supposed to be played). They don't generally come here to argue the "letter of the law".
As I said the combat maneuvers are not even close to what they were in 3.5 so that is not really evidence.
RAW, there is no 'attack action' action, there is just the 'attack' action, which may be taken as a standard action or folded into a full attack etc.
I agree on this, but the devs have stated intent. You can go by that or go by my "fdiojfd" post.
Now which do you think is more reasonable a dev saying ____ is X or "fdiojfd".
If you interpret the sentence under the sub-heading 'Attack' ('Making an attack is a standard action') to mean 'Making an attack can only be a standard action'
I have already said that was not my argument. I specifically argued against it and so did others.
So is the attack action a standard action as posted by two devs, or is it "fdiojfd"?
And I'm agreeing with you - and yet even if an attack is a type of standard action - it's also a type of move action when used as a full attack (it's actually both at that point)
Negative. The rules prevent full round actions, and move or standard actions to be used in the same round. So there is no way you are getting all 3.
My other post takes care of the combat maneuver section.
So is the attack action a standard action as posted by two devs, or is it "fdiojfd"?
If an attack is a standard action - then when you have an AOO you can substitute any other 'standard action' in it's place right?
Otherwise an attack is *not* always a standard action.