I'm curious on a couple of points with the attack action and full-attack action and why they interact with some abilities the way they do.
******
First is on combat maneuvers. In the description of combat maneuver you have this:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. 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
But in the description of Charge it says this:
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.
So does it mean you can actually do a combat maneuver even if you aren't using an attack action or full attack action? I ask this specifically in regard to spell combat, which was recently ruled a full round action. I assume you could use abilities like tripping strike or grab even if you cannot do an actual trip maneuver?
******
Second is on fighting defensively. Fighting defensively is worded as:
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.
The description says as a Full-Round Action but the description says as a full-attack action. So can you choose to fight defensively when using a full-round action that involves attacking or only when doing an actual full-attack action? Again I will use spell combat as an example. If the wording is still meant to imply a full-attack action, why is it excluding the few situations like this one?
******
Lastly is on abilities like Combat Expertise. The ability says:
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
This one is fairly straight forward but comes with a question as well. This specifically says you have to use it during an attack or full-attack action but why? Why can you ONLY do this as an attack or full-attack action but something like power attack has no such requirement? Again I'll use the magus as an example as he seems the character most likely to want to use combat expertise on a regular basis. Why is he specifically excluded form using it with spell combat? I mean it seems like you want the magus to do everything pure offensive and use no defensive abilities, was that the design intent?
There aren't a lot of attack type actions that are actual attacks that don't fall into either an attack action or a full-attack action so I'm wondering if all of these are specifically intended for those special circumstances.
Combat maneuvers which replace attacks can be used on actions which are not attack actions. Sunder is an example. You can take a full-attack action, and replace every attack with a sunder attempt. You can take a standard action attack, and replace the attack with a sunder attempt. You can charge, or take an AoO, both of which are not attack-actions, but still replace the attack with a sunder attempt, because sunder replaces the attack. You could not replace the attack with a grapple attempt, as that is its own action and does not replace an attack.
You can fight defensively as a standard action, or as a full-attack action. This means you cannot fight defensively and vital strike. You cannot fight defensively and spring attack. Or, as you said, you cannot fight defensively and spell-combat. The why doesn't really matter, that is the way it works.
Why? Because it prevents weird combinations with future abilities that may not have been thought of by the people writing them. By limiting fighting defensively and combat expertise to only attack/full-attack actions, they know that future abilities which require their own action, cannot be used with those options, simplifying what you can/can't combine in a fight.
Gertak wrote: First is on combat maneuvers. In the description of combat maneuver you have this:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. 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
But in the description of Charge it says this:
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.
So does it mean you can actually do a combat maneuver even if you aren't using an attack action or full attack action? I ask this specifically in regard to spell combat, which was recently ruled a full round action. I assume you could use abilities like tripping strike or grab even if you cannot do an actual trip maneuver?
You can substitute certain maneuvers for an attack as part of basically any action that allows an attack (standard, charge, full-attack, AoO). This would include spell combat. The maneuvers that can be substituted this way are trip, sunder and disarm.
Other maneuvers may not (generally) be used as part of an attack, unless you have a class feature saying otherwise.
I just woke up, so someone else will have to answer the other questions.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Curse my sleep dulled reflexes!
I appreciate you taking the time to respond! I know it may not matter to you the why they chose to say I can user power attack but cannot use combat expertise, when they do the same type of thing, but it does matter to me so I can better understand.
As to combat maneuvers, is that clarified in a FAQ or erata somewhere? Because by reading the description it does not sound like that is possible. The description of combat maneuvers say many can be used as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or AOO (in place of a melee attack) but things like spell combat are none of those. So even though it says in place of a melee attack, the description states in exactly what situations you can replace that attack. Now due to the description of charge mentioning
Also, specifically on sunder, the description says "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" but charge does not grant an attack action, it just lets you make a melee attack.
Now, based on the description for charge under the actions in combat table I would agree with you ( 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). But that is why I am asking for clarity, specifically if anyone can point to me where it has been officially clarified. But if I am just to go on the interpretation here, then why can you not fight defensively in the same situation? Fighting defensively in the description says "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking". Now it does list that under the standard action heading and maybe that is the difference.
Each combat manuever has specific rules that is why it says "as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or AOO (in place of a melee attack)".
All of those are possible, but not all are possible with all combat maneuvers. You have to read each manuever to know how to use it.
As to charge it does grant a melee attack, that is why you can use Sunder.
FAQ on Sunder wrote: Sunder: Can I make multiple sunder attempts in one round as part of a full-attack action? The sunder text says that I can make sunder attempts in place of melee attacks in an attack action, which is not technically a full-attack action.
Yes you can. The text is a little unclear here. Instead of saying "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack", the text should read "in place of a melee attack", which would allow you to make multiple attempts in one round, or even make a sunder attempt as an attack of opportunity.
As for combat expertise and power attack they are both used when attacking.
I am not understanding your question about fighting defensively.
Ok, so there was a FAQ for sunder so that makes sense and does bring it in line with the others. My pointed issue then becomes why do they even have "attack action, full-attack action, or AOO (in place of a melee attack)" if not a single maneuver requires those? (none of them call out any of those actions in the description) It seems to me they had them there for a reason, that they are only intended to work when using one of those actions. Maybe I am just way over reading this, but consider how some of their rulings are very nit picky I want to make certain.
I agree combat expertise and power attack are both using when attacking but combat expertise specifically calls out that it has to be used as part of an "attack or full-attack action", thus ruling out things like spell combat (essentially the same as fighting defensively).
My question on fighting defensively was kind multi-part. Does it require a full round action or a full-attack action? I believe it is part of a full attack action but then I have to wonder why does it specifically exclude things like spell combat.
and then more specifically to: Fighting defensively in the description says "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking". Now it does list that under the standard action heading and maybe that is the difference.
So does that mean you have to do it as a standard action since it is under the standard action header or can you do it any time you are attacks as it says "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking"?
I would guess the difference between Combat Expertise and Power Attack comes from how and when what affects you. When you PA, you subtract from attk and add to dmg and that's it. CE, on the other hand, gives you a penalty to attk then a bonus to AC until your next turn. So it is affecting you even when not your turn. (I would guess.)
Power Attack does actually apply until your next turn as well, including any AOO that you make.
Gertak wrote: Ok, so there was a FAQ for sunder so that makes sense and does bring it in line with the others. My pointed issue then becomes why do they even have "attack action, full-attack action, or AOO (in place of a melee attack)" if not a single maneuver requires those?
That is a general rule before you get to combat manuevers in general.
Any combat maneuver that can be used in place of an attack can be used as part of an AOO(in place of an attack). Sunder, trip, and disarm are in that category. Those can also be used with a full attack action, or an attack action.
Gertak wrote:
I agree combat expertise and power attack are both using when attacking but combat expertise specifically calls out that it has to be used as part of an "attack or full-attack action", thus ruling out things like spell combat (essentially the same as fighting defensively).
CE is basically representing you fighting while giving up offense for defense. If you are not attacking you not actively fighting. Spell Combat's full round action just happened to make CE a casualty due to how it is written.
Gertak wrote: My question on fighting defensively was kind multi-part. Does it require a full round action or a full-attack action? It can be used with either one. It is not one or the other.
The rules specifically tell you how it works with both.
Quote:
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.
That is the general rule but it is the general rule FOR combat maneuvers.
I agree on the CE part, it is an unfortunate casualty and that's why I was hoping to get someone to change that ruling, or at least consider it.
You said it can be used as either but does that mean you can use it as part of a full round action (ie spell combat) or a full-attack action as you state there, or did you mean as a full-attack action or a normal attack action as in the section you quoted? I see the Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action and as a Full-Round action just not certain what clarification you are making.
I had not considered them initially but I was looking at the new combat maneuvers and they all say standard action. That means that not a single combat maneuver says you need to make an attack action, full-attack action, or aoo for it to work. What I don't understand is why would they list those specific items in the general rules for combat maneuvers if none of them require it? Like I said, if there was an Erata or FAQ update somewhere that changed that then I'd love to see that link for my future reference.
The FAQ you referenced previously changed the wording of sunder to match other combat maneuvers but doesn't change anything with the wording in the general combat maneuver section.
On the question of fighting defensively when using a full round attack type action, there are some interesting wording considerations that I hadn't noticed until now.
"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."
If you notice it does say specifically "must use the full-attack action". Now in the situation of spell combat they specifically called it as a full round action and not a full-attack action. If they make a specific consideration like that, I'm just asking that they review the other things that word choice involves and perhaps point out that things like fighting defensively, combat expertise, and combat maneuvers can be used with spell combat.
As was mentioned before, if you look at fighting defensively as a standard action it just says "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.". It says attacking and doesn't specify the need to use an attack action. Initially I assumed that since it was under the "Attack" heading then it was saying it had to be part of the attack action but under that same heading are critical hits and even a reference to multiple attacks so I'm not sure that is the case.
Lastly on that topic, fighting defensively is listed as a full round action by it's title and then in the description it says it can be used when using a full-attack action. It doesn't say the only full round action in which you can fight defensively is when using the full-attack action.
Unfortunately since some things in the rules are so very strict and some aren't, it's hard to know when I am over analyzing something. I mean the whole attack action vs attacking is a perfect example of when every word can mean a big difference. Or comparing full-attack vs full round attack.
I hate to ask for a developer to chime in but the wording can be interpreted in a couple of different ways. I would just like full clarity on how all of this is supposed to work. For me it's not a huge deal right this minute, my GM already clarified that for our game I am allowed to fight defensively while using spell combat, but I would like clarity for my PFS games where the issue will certainly come up.
Fighting defensively as a standard action only mentions "attacking" because there's really only one way to "attack" with a standard action; you get one attack.
Fighting defensively as a full round action needs to be restricted to only applying when using the "full attack action" (a specific full round action) because it would otherwise be unclear in which full round actions (many of which involve making some form of attack) you could fight defensively.
"Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn."
It comes under the more general headings of "Full-Round Actions" and "Full Attack", specifically. So it does pretty clearly restrict your ability to use full round defensive fighting to only when actually using the "Full Attack" action.
PRD wrote: Bull Rush
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.
PRD wrote: Disarm
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.
PRD wrote: Grapple
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.
PRD wrote: Overrun
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge,
PRD wrote: 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.
Note that Sunder has been errata'd to match disarm and trip.
PRD wrote: Trip
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.
PRD wrote: Feint
Feinting is a standard action.
Disarm, Sunder, and Trip can be used in place of an attack, inside other actions. The other maneuvers have their own kind of actions, usually a standard action in timing.
Fret,
I see what you are saying in most regards, but the wording is still not clear in all situations. Also, as I pointed out in my previous post, there are things that fall under those headings that are not those types of actions. As I pointed out critical strikes, and multiple attacks are both referenced under standard actions but are not actually standard actions (it also discusses ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, and natural attacks which are not a specific type of action). I don't think you can use those headings as a reason to rule a specific way.
Fighting defensively as a standard action could include things like cleave if it just requires "attacking" instead of an attack action, as the actual description text says.
The other question there becomes how is the wording meant. "Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action" could mean that fighting defensively is a standard action itself that allows you to attack or it could mean that you are able to fight defensively as part of another standard action.
I do understand the quote:
"Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn."
but it does not say you can only choose to fight defensively in that situation, it says you can do so in that situation. It might seem a bit nitpicky but there are multiple instances in those sections on actions that use the word "must".
DesolateHarmony,
I agree with you completely that you can use a disarm/trip/sunder in place of a melee attack, no debate there. Where my contention is the following wording:
" 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."
By the wording of that quote, you can use a combat maneuver as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or an attack of opportunity UNLESS it says another type of action is used instead. Disarm, Sunder, nor Trip list a different type of action and thus would seem to require one of the listed action types. They replace a melee attack, but they replace a melee attack that was made as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or an attack of opportunity.
Gertak wrote: That is the general rule but it is the general rule FOR combat maneuvers.
I agree on the CE part, it is an unfortunate casualty and that's why I was hoping to get someone to change that ruling, or at least consider it.
You said it can be used as either but does that mean you can use it as part of a full round action (ie spell combat) or a full-attack action as you state there, or did you mean as a full-attack action or a normal attack action as in the section you quoted? I see the Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action and as a Full-Round action just not certain what clarification you are making.
The description specifically calls out a full attack action, which is particular full round action so, it can not be used with spell combat, which is its own use of a full round action just like a charge would be.
It is usable with a normal attack, and while using a full attack.
I already explained "attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action."
What part of it are you not agreeing with.
Short version. Those may not be mentioned specifically. The section is not saying you have to use those exclusively. They are saying they are viable options for certain maneuvers.
As an example a disarm can be used as attack action, a full attack action, or as an attack of opportunity.
We know this because it can be used in place of a melee attack.
That means any instance where you could melee attack you can sub in disarm or trip instead. That is why that quote is in place.
I'm not sure there is much more I can argue for in regard to fighting defensively. I have challenged it from every angle I can and can't seem to sway a single person to my line of thought.
I still don't understand why they would remove that as an option for spell combat, or really any attack type ability, and I'm constantly hoping they will make another adjustment/clarification and allow such things as fighting defensively and combat expertise.
I'm not sure I don't agree perse, just that I'm not seeing the wording as clear cut as you are. I'm not sure where you are seeing it say that those are some of the options but not all of the options. The only thing I see is that you can perform a maneuver as any one of those 3 or as a specific action. If you perform the maneuver as part of an attack, full-attack, or AOO you can replace an attack with the maneuver. It doesn't say you can do it in place of any other form of attack.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
