| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
I'm not going to re-format that monster, but here's a link to a post detailing the last time James answered the Sunder question, where he said Sunder can be iterative, then re-defined attack action, then said Vital Strike is worded wrong, then finally saying that he's confused, and that everyone should disregard what he was saying and go to the rules forum.
OK, I can take a shot at this:
According to the rules, the term "attack action" is the single attack (melee/ranged/unarmed) that uses a standard action. I base this on the italicized hyperlink in the PRD:
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 follow that hyperlink, it takes to you to:
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
just to be clear,
when the rules use a certain phrase, we should expect it to mean the same thing (whatever it does mean).
so, i would expect the following to all mean the exact same thing:
attack action as referenced by vital strike
attack action as referenced by sunder
attack action as referenced by medusa gaze ability
attack action as referenced by demon ooze ability
attack action as referenced by monk of 4 winds ability
there's probably several more abilities that utilize the attack action, but those one are off the top of my head.
hundreds of abilities reference 'attacks' or being done by [melee/ranged] attacks without reference to the 'attack' action.
I think jj is right and it's vital strike feat that is misworded.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think jj is right and it's vital strike feat that is misworded.
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...
You sure about that?
We don't really need two of these do we?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't really need two of these do we?
Not really for discussion, but in theory, the Sunder thread would result in Sunder getting fixed.
A thread specifically about the attack action could result in the attack action being fixed (by renaming it to "single-attack action" or whatever) so that people don't continue to be confused by the difference between an attack and an attack action.
A thread specifically about the attack action could result in the attack action being fixed (by renaming it to "single-attack action" or whatever) so that people don't continue to be confused by the difference between an attack and an attack action.
Well, that won't work because no one is arguing on here yet so it will never get the page count needed to justify FAQing.
What we need is for someone to profess something wrong true which is nuanced enough to justify arguing.
Humm. Let me think.
Supposing that attack = attack action and Attack action = standard action.
Since a fighter gets 4 attacks at 16th level that's 4 standard actions.
So a fighter with a NECKLACE OF FIREBALLS can launch 4 fireballs in one round as a full-round action.
The spheres are detachable by the wearer (and only by the wearer), who can easily hurl one of them up to 70 feet.
I am sure that no matter the outcome of the sunder FAQ someone will ask about the attack action as it was defined by certain parties in the other thread. At that point the dev will probably chime in.
FAQ'd
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather see the "attack action" on their permanent ban list. Every editor should run a search for the phrase and replace it with the actual action type required (full, standard, move, swift, immediate, free, none).
i'd rather see stuff that did use it, and did synergize with the vital strike feat.
enough so that it's very attractive to take the base VS + synergizing feat/ability, as well as the whole VS chain.
although I'm really OK with the amount of crunch Paizo has out now,
so just moving on to PRPG "Revised Edition" is fine with me too. :-)
I'd rather see the "attack action" on their permanent ban list. Every editor should run a search for the phrase and replace it with the actual action type required (full, standard, move, swift, immediate, free, none).
Wouldn't that mean that certain abilities couldn't stack then.
It would KG. The easy solution is to define "attack action". It is simple, and would not cause any problems. It also allows for the devs to not have to comb through all of the books and errata all of them.
I'd rather see the "attack action" on their permanent ban list. Every editor should run a search for the phrase and replace it with the actual action type required (full, standard, move, swift, immediate, free, none).Wouldn't that mean that certain abilities couldn't stack then.
You mean like how Bull Rush and Charge both use a Standard Action... but can be combined?
You mean like how Bull Rush and Charge both use a Standard Action... but can be combined?I'd rather see the "attack action" on their permanent ban list. Every editor should run a search for the phrase and replace it with the actual action type required (full, standard, move, swift, immediate, free, none).Wouldn't that mean that certain abilities couldn't stack then.
That is only because of a rules exception. We are speaking of normal cases. As an example you can't use cleave and and bull rush, and they are both standard actions, but if bullrush as an attack action, and cleave could be done as part of an attack action then you could.
Another example is that cleave and vital strike don't work together. Once again if cleave could be used "as part of an attack action" then they could.
You mean like how Bull Rush and Charge both use a Standard Action... but can be combined?
Are you expecting every feat to list the other feats that stack with them?
Even the ones from future books that haven't been publish yet?
is anybody confused about any other action being defined or not?
since the attack action is referred to, and defined, in the exact same format as other named actions,
i don't see how one can have a problem with the attack action but not these other actions.
obviously, the name of the attack action isn't ideal, but if you recognize a potentially confusing situation,
it can still be dealt with, especially when the exact same action formatting is applied to it as other named actions.
it was brought up that people felt that attack action was being mis-used in other rules cases.
none of those cases has been shown to be actually misusing the name 'attack action',
but have merely given more ammo to why attack actions should not be confused with 'an attack' which would enable Medusa Stare to be Full Attacked with.
You might consider editing in his name, as the fact that he's the lead designer of the whole game is kind of important when determining the validity of a statement.
Let's not forget that the "whole game" is 90% verbatim from the SRD v.3.5. Specifically this:
"Standard Actions
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from
movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action."
...now I think we can all agree that all attacks are NOT standard actions.
Then there is this:
"Full-Round Actions
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete.
Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action,
though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can
take a 5-foot step.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base
attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in
Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double
weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need
to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can
see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later
ones."
This implies that the attack action is subservient to the Standard and Full-Round action.
Vital Strike uses the wrong terminology.
This was hashed and rehashed back in the 3.0 era and again in 3.5. Ask SKR.
Imagine a basilisk forcing multiple saves a round to turn you into stone, and that does not even include the freebie for you being within 30 feet.
I don't think they really want that. :)
Vital Strike uses the wrong terminology.
'
How so?
Vital Strike uses the wrong terminology.
Ya, it uses the same Terminology that Spring Attack uses to use.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from, other than I guess a pedantic reading of the rules rather than an application of common sense.
This is because we are looking at working rather than intent.
What is the intent of Vital Strike for example? The intent is to allow a character to move and yet still attack and deal damage comparable to a full round attack.
Therefore, Vital Strike cannot be used as a part of a full round action.
Now, we know that Sunder is meant to be used in place of a melee attack. Therefore, we know that on a Full Round action, we can make as many sunder attacks as we have normal attacks to be replaced.
Which leads us to attacking.
We know that an attack action must subsume at LEAST a Standard action. Upon making a normal attack, we must look at the rest of our action economy. If we have already moved, we have subsumed both our move and our standard and thus our turn is done (minus any swift/free actions). However, if we have not moved, we now have a choice: Transform our standard action attack into a full round attack, and make the rest of our attacks OR move after the attack.
This is a pretty simple and straightforward explanation of the functions.
Vital Strike uses the wrong terminology.
'
How so?
Well to function as stated by devs, it should read: As a Standard Action, you make a single attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Etc.....
Well to function as stated by devs, it should read: As a Standard Action, you make a single attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Etc.....
An attack action is a standard action.
I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from, other than I guess a pedantic reading of the rules rather than an application of common sense.
This is because we are looking at working rather than intent.
What is the intent of Vital Strike for example? The intent is to allow a character to move and yet still attack and deal damage comparable to a full round attack.
Therefore, Vital Strike cannot be used as a part of a full round action.
Now, we know that Sunder is meant to be used in place of a melee attack. Therefore, we know that on a Full Round action, we can make as many sunder attacks as we have normal attacks to be replaced.
Which leads us to attacking.
We know that an attack action must subsume at LEAST a Standard action. Upon making a normal attack, we must look at the rest of our action economy. If we have already moved, we have subsumed both our move and our standard and thus our turn is done (minus any swift/free actions). However, if we have not moved, we now have a choice: Transform our standard action attack into a full round attack, and make the rest of our attacks OR move after the attack.
This is a pretty simple and straightforward explanation of the functions.
I agree, I was never confused by this. However, someone who is not as much of a rules hound as I, who didn't haunt the WotC boards back in 2000-2004 constantly, and who didn't read all FAQ articles from the original devs back in the day; this someone reads Sunder and Vital Strike and it is confusing.
Also, how do we "know" that sunder can be taken as part of a Full-Round action. It doesn't say that under Sunder. So, perhaps it can be made more clear.
Actually there is nothing to state that sunder can be used with a full attack. That thread spawned this thread.
Also, how do we "know" that sunder can be taken as part of a Full-Round action. It doesn't say that under Sunder. So, perhaps it can be made more clear.
Oh, god yes it can be.
An attack action is a standard action.
Well to function as stated by devs, it should read: As a Standard Action, you make a single attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Etc.....
You know, you're right. There is nothing wrong with the wording of Vital Strike. It's the wording in the Sunder entry that inappropriately uses the "attack action" term.
|
|
Actually there is nothing to state that sunder can be used with a full attack. That thread spawned this thread.
I saw it, I avoided it because it's silly
And your answer is here:
Sunder:
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.
and here:
Flurry of Blows (Ex):
A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows.
Sunder says that it substitutes a melee attack as part of an attack action.
Furthermore, Flurry of Blows, a full round action, tells you that you can substitute any unarmed strike with a sunder.
You know, you're right. There is nothing wrong with the wording of Vital Strike. It's the wording in the Sunder entry that inappropriately uses the "attack action" term.An attack action is a standard action.
Well to function as stated by devs, it should read: As a Standard Action, you make a single attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Etc.....
Or maybe it doesn't use it inappropriately, if we accept that sunder doesn't work the same as it did in 3.5.
To me that's simple and solves everything with no words changed. Just expectations.
Actually there is nothing to state that sunder can be used with a full attack. That thread spawned this thread.
I saw it, I avoided it because it's silly
And your answer is here:
Sunder:
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.
Sorry that does not work.
Disarm and Trip work with any melee attack because they have the phrase "in place of a melee attack."
Sunder as written works as part of an attack action that uses a melee attack. No other option is given.
Compare to:
Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces armor training 1.
CFP there is a term "attack action", and a phrase "as part of an attack action".
One of them is an actual standard action, the attack action. The other one is a rider affect that relies on an attack action.
Elamdri: Flurry of Blows specifically calls those out as being possible during a flurry. The meaning of that is presumably that otherwise they wouldn't have been possible during a flurry. So using that as an argument seems a bit odd, regardless of which side of the bigger issue a person is on.
***
Personally, I think a whole lot of discussions could have been avoided if the rules team had agreed with very many others and not issued a ruling that disallowed the use of Vital Strike alongside Spring Attack and the Charge action, but rather embraced that possibility.
|
|
Elamdri: Flurry of Blows specifically calls those out as being possible during a flurry. The meaning of that is presumably that otherwise they wouldn't have been possible during a flurry. So using that as an argument seems a bit odd, regardless of which side of the bigger issue a person is on.
***
Personally, I think a whole lot of discussions could have been avoided if the rules team had agreed with very many others and not issued a ruling that disallowed the use of Vital Strike alongside Spring Attack and the Charge action, but rather embraced that possibility.
Flurry specifically calls them out because they can be interchanged with any melee attack.
Flurry of Blows works like any full round attack action. It doesn't include those combat maneuvers because Flurry of Blows specifically allows it; it includes them because ANYONE can use them as part of a full round attack action and Flurry of Blows is a type of full round attack action.
Elamdri not everyone agrees about that Full Round Attacks are Attack Actions. I always thought an Attack Action was a type of Standard Action.
Or maybe it doesn't use it inappropriately, if we accept that sunder doesn't work the same as it did in 3.5.
To me that's simple and solves everything with no words changed. Just expectations.
Have we found reason to believe this is so?
I don't dislike the idea but I'm specious. Was there talk of this during play testing?
|
|
All Attack Actions start out as Standard Actions. If you have enough action economy, then a player may elect to graduate his attack action to a full round attack action, but it is still an attack action. You can disagree if you want, but it's the only interpretation that doesn't result in an absurd result given existing rules text.
If an attack action is only a Standard Action, then Flurry of Blows is broken and the rules text of Sunder doesn't make sense.
Think about it:
Sunder:
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.
First off: The text includes the phrase "as part of." Which implies that it is only part of the action. But a Standard action only has one attack, and therefore if an attack action was only a Standard action, it would say "in place of" rather than "as part of".
Second: It says "In place of A (emphasis on A) melee attack" Not "The" melee attack, but "A" melee attack. You cannot make multiple melee attacks as part of a standard action.
Ladies and Gentlemen: this has been a lecture on the importance of articles.
All Attack Actions start out as Standard Actions.
There is only one attack action.
And not all attacks are actions.
An AoO isn't an action. It can't be an Attack action. It's just an attack.
If it doesn't work that way, then the Flurry of Blows text is incorrect.
The problem is that you're getting caught up on this attack action wording.
Both a Full Round Attack and a Standard Action Attack are both "Attack Actions"
FoB may an error. It is also possible that the "intent" was for sunder to be used with a full attack, but the wording never got changed to be like sunder or disarm.
Also a full attack is a full attack action, not just an attack action. they are distince terms.
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 they are separated by comma's.
There are also abilities that call for attack actions and others that call for full attack actions.
|
|
All Attack Actions start out as Standard Actions.There is only one attack action.
Correct, and it takes 2 forms: A Standard action OR a Full Round Action.
And not all attacks are actions.
An AoO isn't an action. It can't be an Attack action. It's just an attack.
I never said that all attacks are actions. I said that all Attack Actions must be at minimum standard actions and can be graduated to Full Round Actions if you have a high enough BAB and enough action economy.
KG it only came up during the beta testing. In beta you could full attack and use sunder.
Sunder has the same wording it did during the beta testing.
After the final rules came out an attack action was said to use a standard action. That is the part of the problem.
Sunder needs to be reworded to work like trip or disarm or an FAQ should be posted to explain how it works and why.