|
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.
I mean, look at it this way:
It's ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that Sunder was meant to be able to be included as a Full Round action. If it wasn't, then the text would not include the phrase "in place of a melee" attack" but rather "in place of your melee attack" or "the melee attack" and it would not be included in FoB.
I believe that if you are interpreting it otherwise, you're reading in ambiguity where it doesn't exist.
Now, whether there needs to be some clarification as to what exactly is an "Attack Action," sure, go ahead, but I really don't see either of these as being complicated issues, and I CERTAINLY don't think either merits a 600+ post thread about it.
Well, we know for sure that you could swap out sunders for any melee attack back in 3.5, and even in PF Beta. We know James Jacobs still feels you can. Doing it that way has plenty of history, I get that. I also don't think it's super broken or anything.
But... there are a lot of different opinions about what is an attack action. Jason Buhlman has made statements recently about that. So with the new clarification on attack actions, Sunder either stops working the way it always has, or the attack action language has to be pulled from the Sunder description.
I'm personally happy with the clarification on attack actions. I think the tidiest thing to do is just let sunder stop working the way it did. But I really don't care about sunder so that's easy for me to say.
There are also abilities that call for attack actions and others that call for full attack actions.
Ya, the 3.5 Combat Expertise feat stats:
When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action.
It wouldn't make sense to quote both types of actions if one would due.
|
|
I mean, the easiest solution to the "problem" would be to delete the "As part of an attack action" text from Sunder and that would solve all problems. I just don't see value in this huge back and forth. We're all rational individuals, I think we can all see that the intent was for sunder to be used like disarm and trip.
I just feel like this whole argument is just being pedantic for pedantry's sake when it comes to rules interpretations.
Elamdri you said you avoided the sunder thread because it was silly but now you are in a thread spawned by that thread rehashing points that were made and responded to pages and days ago. You have to admit that's kind of silly too :)
Seriously you would be hard pressed to find an angle we haven't already worked in that thread. I'm not saying you shouldn't try, but it will be tough. Even the point you made about the usage of articles has already been discussed.
It wouldn't solve the problem of "what exactly is an attack action?". If that one is answered (and adhered to, most importantly), then nobody would need to argue about the next case where an "attack action" is involved :)
I mean, the easiest solution to the "problem" would be to delete the "As part of an attack action" text from Sunder and that would solve all problems.
Yeah, that would be fine too. They just have to decide which way they want to go with it.
Edit: Also, what Are said.
I mean, the easiest solution to the "problem" would be to delete the "As part of an attack action" text from Sunder and that would solve all problems.
I think that IS actually the solution.
If Sunder is meant to work with Full attacks and AoO it needs that removed.
And indeed I think it was probably a mistake.
|
|
Elamdri you said you avoided the sunder thread because it was silly but now you are in a thread spawned by that thread rehashing points that were made and responded to pages and days ago. You have to admit that's kind of silly too :)
Seriously you would be hard pressed to find an angle we haven't already worked in that thread. I'm not saying you shouldn't try, but it will be tough. Even the point you made about the usage of articles has already been discussed.
I know, it was a bad decision on my part, I just noticed that there was now a second thread and I just had to see what the hell was going on about this stuff.
|
|
I mean, the easiest solution to the "problem" would be to delete the "As part of an attack action" text from Sunder and that would solve all problems.Yeah, that would be fine too. They just have to decide which way they want to go with it.
Edit: Also, what Are said.
Well, again I would point to Flurry of Blows as evidence that they want it to be a part of a full round attack. But I've stated that several times already, so I'll just leave it at that.
I mean, look at it this way:
It's ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that Sunder was meant to be able to be included as a Full Round action. If it wasn't, then the text would not include the phrase "in place of a melee" attack" but rather "in place of your melee attack" or "the melee attack" and it would not be included in FoB.
Why would the word "your" matter, and I am not saying for fact that sunder was not intended to work with a full attack. I am saying it does not read that way because of the words "as part of an attack action." Why not just use the same wording as trip, unless the idea was just to make sure it can not be used on AoO's.
I believe that if you are interpreting it otherwise, you're reading in ambiguity where it doesn't exist.Now, whether there needs to be some clarification as to what exactly is an "Attack Action," sure, go ahead, but I really don't see either of these as being complicated issues, and I CERTAINLY don't think either merits a 600+ post thread about it.
An attack action is a standard action, and a full attack action is a full round action.
At least according to Jason. :)
As another example you draw a weapon while moving with a BAB of +1. The drawing of the sword itself id not an action, but it piggybacks on activity that just happens to use a standard action. That is how I am reading sunder.
It wouldn't solve the problem of "what exactly is an attack action?". If that one is answered (and adhered to, most importantly), then nobody would need to argue about the next case where an "attack action" is involved :)
I agree.
Good find KG.
Good find KG.
Well, You know SRD and the search function. :)
|
|
I mean, look at it this way:
It's ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that Sunder was meant to be able to be included as a Full Round action. If it wasn't, then the text would not include the phrase "in place of a melee" attack" but rather "in place of your melee attack" or "the melee attack" and it would not be included in FoB.
Why would the word "your" matter, and I am not saying for fact that sunder was not intended to work with a full attack. I am saying it does not read that way because of the words "as part of an attack action." Why not just use the same wording as trip, unless the idea was just to make sure it can not be used on AoO's.
I believe that if you are interpreting it otherwise, you're reading in ambiguity where it doesn't exist.Now, whether there needs to be some clarification as to what exactly is an "Attack Action," sure, go ahead, but I really don't see either of these as being complicated issues, and I CERTAINLY don't think either merits a 600+ post thread about it.
An attack action is a standard action, and a full attack action is a full round action.
At least according to Jason. :)
As another example you draw a weapon while moving with a BAB of +1. The drawing of the sword itself id not an action, but it piggybacks on activity that just happens to use a standard action. That is how I am reading sunder.
Ok, I see where you are coming from. Personally, I'm going with my gut and running it as usable as part of a full round action, but I hope you guys get the clarity.
Well, again I would point to Flurry of Blows as evidence that they want it to be a part of a full round attack. But I've stated that several times already, so I'll just leave it at that.I mean, the easiest solution to the "problem" would be to delete the "As part of an attack action" text from Sunder and that would solve all problems.Yeah, that would be fine too. They just have to decide which way they want to go with it.
Edit: Also, what Are said.
Flurry of Blows as evidence here doesn't do much for me. It just means it works that way for Flurry of Blows. Could be an exception to how it works without Flurry of Blows. Could be legacy language that is starting to clash with the definitions we have now as things get cleared up and refined.
Personally, I'm going with my gut and running it as usable as part of a full round action, but I hope you guys get the clarity.
Cool. Thanks.
|
|
Flurry of Blows as evidence here doesn't do much for me. It just means it works that way for Flurry of Blows. Could be an exception to how it works without Flurry of Blows. Could be legacy language that is starting to clash with the definitions we have now as things get cleared up and refined.Well, again I would point to Flurry of Blows as evidence that they want it to be a part of a full round attack. But I've stated that several times already, so I'll just leave it at that.I mean, the easiest solution to the "problem" would be to delete the "As part of an attack action" text from Sunder and that would solve all problems.Yeah, that would be fine too. They just have to decide which way they want to go with it.
Edit: Also, what Are said.
I understand. My only response is that Flurry of Blows mechanically doesn't really function any differently than a Regular Full Attack, except for the fact that it builds in the TWF feats and restricts your weapons. In every other way it's the same as a full round attack, in that a naked fighter TWFing with his fists and a naked monk using Flurry of Blows look identical.
Yeah I think you're probably right about the spirit in which it was written that way. But if they decide sunder is married to a standard attack now, because it mentions an attack action, and an attack action has now been defined... at least the flurry of blows won't present an explicit rules contradiction.
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"
THIS!
THIS!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"
The devs and the book abilities that specifically use attack action or full attack action disagree.
a naked fighter TWFing with his fists and a naked monk using Flurry of Blows look identical.
i thought only monks were bald??? FAQ???
a naked fighter TWFing with his fists and a naked monk using Flurry of Blows look identical.i thought only monks were bald??? FAQ???
Spawn a new thread! RAI monks are bald and fighters have luscious hair, this has been true in every iteration of the d20 system!
And they would've gotten await with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.
SKR is bald
Pathfinder monks are bald
COINCIDENCE? CONSPIRACY! TO DESTROY MONKS!
LOL. I know what you are talking about. That was crazy.
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?
By making it triggered by the attack, not the attack itself. "when using a standard action to attack, you may....", now anything with that language could be combined. Not particularly difficult and it easily denotes that it itself does not consume your action, so you can combine it with whatever. I'm not a design team, they might even be able to come up with better wording.
There are lots of things that modify attacks, either single, full or even specific ones within a round.
As it stands, you don't get one Attack Action a round. You get a Standard, that you can use to attack.
Yeah you are going to need better phrasing then that. "When using a standard action to attack," is not nearly clear enough to obviously rule out those feats and abilities that use standard actions and include attacks.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?
By making it triggered by the attack, not the attack itself. "when using a standard action to attack, you may....", now anything with that language could be combined. Not particularly difficult and it easily denotes that it itself does not consume your action, so you can combine it with whatever. I'm not a design team, they might even be able to come up with better wording.
There are lots of things that modify attacks, either single, full or even specific ones within a round.
As it stands, you don't get one Attack Action a round. You get a Standard, that you can use to attack.
This would be language for COMBINING, which people are worried about being impossible without the existence of the phrase "attack action", so it would only show up on feats/abilities intended to be combined with other attacks that are standard actions. What you are pointing out as a problem was actually the intent of what I said in that post.
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?
By making it triggered by the attack, not the attack itself. "when using a standard action to attack, you may....", now anything with that language could be combined. Not particularly difficult and it easily denotes that it itself does not consume your action, so you can combine it with whatever. I'm not a design team, they might even be able to come up with better wording.
There are lots of things that modify attacks, either single, full or even specific ones within a round.
As it stands, you don't get one Attack Action a round. You get a Standard, that you can use to attack.
That is still more work than just defining the attack action.
What is the issue with just defining the attack action like I mentioned before?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
By making it triggered by the attack, not the attack itself. "when using a standard action to attack, you may....", now anything with that language could be combined. Not particularly difficult and it easily denotes that it itself does not consume your action, so you can combine it with whatever. I'm not a design team, they might even be able to come up with better wording.
This is exactly what the term "attack action" is for. That's why Vital Strike and Overhand Chop were able to be designed to stack, because "attack action" does exactly what you just described. That's why the term exists.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
By making it triggered by the attack, not the attack itself. "when using a standard action to attack, you may....", now anything with that language could be combined. Not particularly difficult and it easily denotes that it itself does not consume your action, so you can combine it with whatever. I'm not a design team, they might even be able to come up with better wording.This is exactly what the term "attack action" is for. That's why Vital Strike and Overhand Chop were able to be designed to stack, because "attack action" does exactly what you just described. That's why the term exists.This issure really confuse me.
If attack action = Special standar action, then i rally do not see how it can be combined with vital strike.
If more than one ability uses the "attack action", then when you use the "attack action" you can apply both abilities. For instance, Vital Strike and Overhand Chop can both be used in the same attack action. However, if they had been written with "as a standard action..." language, you couldn't combine them, just like how you can't combine Vital Strike with Cleave because Cleave uses its own standard action instead of the attack action.
overhand chop do not use the "attack action".If more than one ability uses the "attack action", then when you use the "attack action" you can apply both abilities. For instance, Vital Strike and Overhand Chop can both be used in the same attack action. However, if they had been written with "as a standard action..." language, you couldn't combine them, just like how you can't combine Vital Strike with Cleave because Cleave uses its own standard action instead of the attack action.By making it triggered by the attack, not the attack itself. "when using a standard action to attack, you may....", now anything with that language could be combined. Not particularly difficult and it easily denotes that it itself does not consume your action, so you can combine it with whatever. I'm not a design team, they might even be able to come up with better wording.This is exactly what the term "attack action" is for. That's why Vital Strike and Overhand Chop were able to be designed to stack, because "attack action" does exactly what you just described. That's why the term exists.This issure really confuse me.
If attack action = Special standar action, then i rally do not see how it can be combined with vital strike.
Yes it does.
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.
lots of stuff
The "attack action" was a standard action in 3.5 also.
Kazaan I forgot to add it(attack action) was not in the book though, but was defined outside of the book. There was a rules of the game article that may have had it, and I know for sure the 3.5 FAQ defined it because I have quoted it quiet a few times over the past day or so.
Attack Action (which could, at the time, be standard or full-round) and intended to be usable as part of full-attacks. However, the definition of Attack Action was changed to be Standard Action Only and, on review, it was decided that Disarm and Trip wording could change to appropriate wording to allow use with Full-Attack but Sunder should not be changed as such.
The Definition for "attack action" has been consistent throughout the development of the d20 system.
If you want I'll be glad to go threw each and every d20 rule book I have and post the appropriate text.
"attack action" has always been a Standard Action.
Strictly speaking, there has always been a Standard Action called Attack. Just as there has always been a Full-Round Action called Full Attack (this is one of those cases where a little standardised formatting might go a long way, now that I think about it, such as always capitalising an action name).
Either there are two attack actions in the game (Attack and Full Attack), or there is the Attack action and the Full Attack action. If the former is the case, AoO might be defined as a third attack action, but in the latter it doesn't matter.
Personally, I consider the former to be more flexible, since you can define an effect as requiring any of "an attack action" (either of Attack or Full Attack); "the/an Attack action (the standard action called Attack); or "the/a Full Attack action" (the full round action called Full Attack). Not to mention being able to call out specific abilities (such as Cleave or Spring Attack) as using a standard action or full round action in their own right.
This leads to some relatively minor editing of abilities (though a lot of them, to be sure) such that intent is clear:
Vital Strike: When you use the Attack action...
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.
or
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.
|
|
The story so far:
Side A) Sunder was obviously intended to be usable with Full-Attack. Reasons: 1) Sunder can be used, along with Trip and Disarm (the other two CMs that replace melee attacks) in Monk's Flurry of Blows. 2) Sunder is worded the same as it was in Beta and in Beta, you could Sunder as part of Full-Attack. 3) Attack action has 2 forms, single attack action and full attack action. If you start with a single attack action, you can freely upgrade it to a full attack action provided you have the means for multiple attacks and sufficient action economy. (Conclusion) Sunder is intended for use as a full-attack action and, to avoid confusion, the "as part of an attack action" should be removed or all abilities not desired to be part of a full-attack should be re-worded to require Standard Actions instead.
Side B) Sunder was initially intended to be usable with Full-Attack but the devs changed their minds and decided to restrict it to standard action attacks instead. Reasons: 1) There are places in the rules that refer to Attack Action and Full Attack Action as separate and distinct entities. 2) There are abilities such as Vital Strike and Overhand Chop that were explicitly stated by the writer to function together but also not to work as part of a full-attack. Devs have stated that Vital Strike doesn't mesh with Full-Attack because it is an Attack Action. The writer for Vital Strike has said that he wanted it to work with Overhand Chop, which it couldn't if it were simply worded as requiring a Standard Action. 3) Sunder and certain other abilities (ie. Gaze) currently worded to rely on the Attack Action would be very OP if allowed to fold into a Full Attack. 4) The wording on Sunder didn't change but the definition of Attack Action did. Thus, whereas before, Sunder relied on an Attack Action that could be either a standard or full-round action, it now relies on an Attack Action that can only be a standard action. (Conclusion) Sunder is intended for use as an...
I like this a lot!
Incidentally, saying 'attack action' has always been a standard action is misleading. 'Attack' has always been a standard action, in that 'attack' is defined in the Standard Action section of the combat chapters of 3.0, 3:5 and PF rulebooks.
So has 'cast a spell'. So has 'activate magic item'. So has 'use spell-like ability'.
But we know that all of these things, while defaulting to a standard action, are in no sense married to it.
'Attack Action' has never been defined in any rulebook. 'Attack' has. 'Attacks' can be combined into a full attack, and it says so in the same section under the sub-heading 'multiple attacks', meaning that 'full attacks' are only available to the kinds of attacks that use the 'attack' action. As opposed to the 'cast a spell' action or the 'use spell-like ability' action.
In other places in the combat chapter, like Charge or Attacks of Opportunity, an 'attack' could be made as part of that action, despite the 'attack' action being, as it says at the start of 'Attack', 'Making an attack is a standard action'.
We all know this is true. Yet despite 'making an attack is a standard action' none of us restrict 'attacks' to only standard actions. Yet, using the exact same rules, you decide that 'attack action' can only be a standard action! That's contradictory!
The "attack" issue has the same issue that the word "level" does. Sometimes it means character level, sometimes it mean class level...without explaining to which one it refers. Now those that have been around for a while or that just interpret things well don't have a problem with this.
I understand the need to preserve word count in order to keep the price down, but sometimes.......Sigh.
I like this a lot!
Incidentally, saying 'attack action' has always been a standard action is misleading. 'Attack' has always been a standard action, in that 'attack' is defined in the Standard Action section of the combat chapters of 3.0, 3:5 and PF rulebooks.
So has 'cast a spell'. So has 'activate magic item'. So has 'use spell-like ability'.
But we know that all of these things, while defaulting to a standard action, are in no sense married to it.
'Attack Action' has never been defined in any rulebook. 'Attack' has. 'Attacks' can be combined into a full attack, and it says so in the same section under the sub-heading 'multiple attacks', meaning that 'full attacks' are only available to the kinds of attacks that use the 'attack' action. As opposed to the 'cast a spell' action or the 'use spell-like ability' action.
In other places in the combat chapter, like Charge or Attacks of Opportunity, an 'attack' could be made as part of that action, despite the 'attack' action being, as it says at the start of 'Attack', 'Making an attack is a standard action'.
We all know this is true. Yet despite 'making an attack is a standard action' none of us restrict 'attacks' to only standard actions. Yet, using the exact same rules, you decide that 'attack action' can only be a standard action! That's contradictory!
Incidentally!??!! This is the very core of the issue! Very well said. I agree with this completely.
By making it triggered by the attack, not the attack itself. "when using a standard action to attack, you may....", now anything with that language could be combined. Not particularly difficult and it easily denotes that it itself does not consume your action, so you can combine it with whatever. I'm not a design team, they might even be able to come up with better wording.This is exactly what the term "attack action" is for. That's why Vital Strike and Overhand Chop were able to be designed to stack, because "attack action" does exactly what you just described. That's why the term exists.
It's a middleman step though that is confusing terminology. The action you are using is a standard action. You don't get one attack action per round, you get a standard and use that to attack.
There are 6 defined types of actions in the glossary, I don't think new ones need to be added. Clear language can be used to achieve the special circumstances for abilities as necessary. The word action essentially implies a unit of time within a turn. Attack action as a useful term that you desire has nothing to do with that, therefore the phrase has a completely different use, which diminishes the usefulness of the term action within the game rules.
I'm not opposed to a different term, but attack action is a poor choice IMO.
|
|
Part of the problem is the overuse of the word 'action'.
It reminds me of a mini essay in the introduction to the PHB of either 1st or 2nd ed regarding the overuse of the word 'level'. Level could mean character level or class level or spell level or dungeon level (back when dungeon level was the way the game was played). So, a fourth level spellcaster can cast fourth level spells, right! Er, no.
Action means:-
• one of the ways to break down the character's turn as a framework of standard, move, full-round, free, swift and immediate
• one of the things you can do within that framework, such as attack, cast a spell, activate a magic item, move your speed, draw a weapon, etc.
• some activity undertaken that is not defined that way, such as attack of opportunity. If you are dazed or stunned, or if you have just cast Dimension Door, you can't take any actions. In this context, AoOs are actions, but making a saving throw is not. While we can understand this as 'if we initiate something of our own volition like an AoO, that's an action, but if somethings done to us our normal defences apply, like AC and saving throws.' But we know that these aren't 'actions' in the sense of being listed on the Actions In Combat tables
If a different word (or use of punctuation or capitals or somesuch) were in use for each of these three meanings of the 'action' concept then we'd know where we stood.
[/mini essay][/mini rant]
Another issue I've discovered:
As it stands now, with either the Attack action or the Full-Attack action, you have the option to 'fight defensively'. There are feats, most notably the Crane Style chain that rely on the 'fight defensively' mechanic. Since it's a part of the Attack and Full-Attack actions, it cannot be combined with unique actions such as Grapple, Cleave, or Shot on the Run. But abilities that affect the Attack or Full-Attack action such as Sunder, VS, or Flurry of Blows can be combined with Fight Defensively. If all such abilities were re-worked to be unique actions, then Fight Defensively could be used with none of them. No defensive flurries with extra Crane Style bonuses, no defensive sunders for if you're lacking the Improved Sunder feat to counter AoO, etc. I mentioned this in the other thread about Sunder specifically, but I'll say it here, too. It would be best to simply change the wording of Attack to be just a tiny bit less ambiguous:
Current -
Attack: Making an attack is a Standard action.Proposed -
Attack: Attack allows you to make a single attack as a Standard action.
We already agree that "making an attack" is not always a standard action, or nobody would be full attacking. So, although your rewording is more precise, it doesn't solve anything. And, I must say, though it be a significant change to you and me, I'm afraid the subtlety would be lost on many....and we'd be right back here.