It just seems to be an umbrella term for anything that is an attack...is the fact that "attack" is singular having people think that it is a single action, standard action etc. and not something that can be an ASPECT of an action? A lot of the threads I've read border on the bizarre behavior that strict interpretationalists have regarding religious texts....but maybe I'm missing something here regarding melee mechanics? I almost feel that people at Paizo don't make "rulings" on things because they would ignite some sort of holy war, so they just stay out of it and let people spin their wheels in the forums, then let things play out in games as they may.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just seems to be an umbrella term for anything that is an attack...is the fact that "attack" is singular having people think that it is a single action, standard action etc. and not something that can be an ASPECT of an action? A lot of the threads I've read border on the bizarre behavior that strict interpretationalists have regarding religious texts....but maybe I'm missing something here regarding melee mechanics? I almost feel that people at Paizo don't make "rulings" on things because they would ignite some sort of holy war, so they just stay out of it and let people spin their wheels in the forums, then let things play out in games as they may.
Are you saying that you still don't understand how Vital Strike works, or what?
|
I don't think it's very well spelled out in the core rulebook; I learnt about them from design team posts.
There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
Reading carefully over the combat maneuevers is probably one of the easier ways to acknowledge their existence:
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.
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.
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.
because you can either have something replace an whole attack, or you can have something replace individual attacks. like, some combat maneuvers can replace individual attacks, meaning you can get iterative maneuvers. other things like Vital strike effect an entire attack action, such that vital strike gives you a single strong attack.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attack action, per the design team and specifically Jason Buhlman, is a specific type of standard action. It is different than an attack which can be a more general term for a single roll in a full attack sequence or other offensive action, and rules and abilities are written assuming the distinction. Is it a good distinction? No, it's inherently confusing and counter-intuitive, and no one would ever figure it out without reading the FAQs and forums. But it's not something that rules lawyers made up by parsing words, it's a specific and intentional decision made by the design team.
oh and AOO are a attack and not an attack action.
Thanks for the helpful posts!
Well now that is interesting...and I can see the logic in it. I'm not sure why then if stacking is the key, if focusing on exclusivity or the singular nature within a round is the most important part, a different term hasn't been spawned to clarify it. How easy would that be?! "Non stacking action"? "Singular action"? "Exclusive attack action"? I'm sure forum readers and contributors could come up with even better terms that would lend itself to a more immediate understanding and would facilitate this conversation better...of course just putting something in a glossary would go a long way, but...and speaking of which, is there some list somewhere of all the "attack actions" that have this exclusive nature? How handy would that be! God knows I've copied and pasted a zillion little charts to my screens over the years with a lot less usefulness....
I'm still not sure where using "attack action" would differ from "standard action" unless during a round where you use an attack action you cannot use any other actions beside a move action, or with vital strike are they implying that you can only take a 5' step and one attack? Maybe this would help to explain why they came up with the much maligned feat in the first place-although from the vitriol I've read regarding how worthless the whole feat tree is I have my doubts. What is interesting is that how it is written leaves a huge barn door open for interpreting if this means that just one of your attacks gets the extra damage, or this means you can only make one attack despite how many you qualify for. I'm not sure why they left out that simple clarification but here we are today because of it in part, I guess.
Is there some designer post about why they came up with this in first place? Maybe knowing the root of their logic and what they were trying to prevent in particular would lend to a better understanding and application other than just ignoring it and thinking the less of the whole system.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was to keep martials from cleave vital striking on a charge.
Anything that differs from the full attack paradigm is beset by the hounds.
Anytime you use the standard action to make ONE attack that is an attack action. Anything else does not qualify. An an example charging is specifically a full round action so it would not be allowed.
Standard action is an umbrella term for a number of actions.
Under that umbrella you can perform an:
Attack action: perform one attack.
Cleave: specific type of standard action that is not the same as an Attack action.
Vital Strike: specific type of standard action that is not the same as an Attack action.
Not to be confused with Full-Round Actions that you can perform:
Full-Attack action: a specific type of full-round action where you can make multiple attacks.
Charge: a specific type of full-round action that involves moving and making a single attack at the end of the movement (*usually*).
So when something references "attack" it is not necessarily an "attack action". It could be anything where you are making attacks such as an Attack Action or a Full Attack Action.
When something references "Attack Action" it is a specific type of standard action and cannot be anything else.
It's not insane parsing, the attack action really is a specific action in the game. It costs a standard action and gives you a single attack.
When you take an attack as part of a full attack or as an AoO, or in a charge, that is not the attack action.
Vital Strike: specific type of standard action that is not the same as an Attack action.
Funny nought, Vital strike is one of the only one feat referring to the attack action.
The only other one I know is Gory finish. And thus, they stack.Vital Strike (Combat)
[...]
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. [...]
Gory Finish (Combat)
[...]
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can use a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus to make a single attack at your highest base attack bonus.[...]
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like Avatar-1's examples, that kind of stuff helped me figure out the whole mess when I was learning this game.
In addition, recently helping a friend build a Cad with dirty trick maximized was something we constantly had to keep checking on all the different forms of attack. Finally went a route to get spring attack and quick dirty trick (which do actually work together, finally some synergy!).
Feat intensive but by lvl 6 he should be able to move very well and attack with his bardiche (if using reach) or do a dirty trick (in melee). Can also do a full attack, start with dirty trick, then 5 foot away and swing a bardiche to the face.
On a related question, does anyone happen to know a feat that allows dirty trick to be used on an AoO? Quick Dirty Trick let's you replace a melee attack, but only on your turn so that excludes AoO's.
So if there was no such thing as vital strike or gory finish, this would all be moot? With a little disclaimer that you couldn't use cleave on a charge I guess? You've got to be kidding....
So I checked the FAQ again and it does have the mention of vital strike and charge in relation to "attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action" but why there isn't some little blurb somewhere about the actual specific nature of an attack action is beyond me. So from what I gather they are like immediate actions in that you can only have one per round (can't have two standard actions per round regardless, so?) and there are only certain feats you can use them in conjunction with. Or something.
So on a side note, perusing the FAQ I see that you can't use a weapon cord any more....well, as soon as they pop out a new Advanced Player's Guide, as a swift action....pain for the Paladin! We will soldier on, however, as long as it doesn't provoke an AOO that is....
I wonder why someone in marketing hasn't come up with the bright idea to sell some sort of official update service for $10 a year or something that you would get via email....talk about a cash dire cow!
HectorVivis, thank you for the correction. Shows that I shouldn't write when I am just waking up. The concepts get jumbled. :D
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thing would have been less confusing had they just written Vital Strike to require a standard action:
Benefit: As a standard action you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.
And hence, that's how I explain it to work when new players ask me.
|
This whole thing would have been less confusing had they just written Vital Strike to require a standard action:
Benefit: As a standard action you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.And hence, that's how I explain it to work when new players ask me.
This is the origin of this problem; this specific feat and the wording of it.
In 3rd ed, from its inception up until the 3.5 Rules Compendium through to now if you still play it (I do), and supported by FAQs from Skip Williams (who was one of the three people who wrote the rules set upon which Pathfinder is based), an 'attack action' was interchangeable with 'attack', so long as it was the kind of attack that used the attack roll mechanic. Thus, the attack at the end of a charge counted, each individual attack in a full attack (including Pounce) counted, the single attack made as a standard action counted, and every AoO counted as an 'attack action'.
We were all happy. There was no confusion. It didn't generate needless threads on whether a Disarm used your whole acton or if you could Disarm as one of your many attacks in a full attack or on a charge or as an AoO.
Then came the badly worded Vital Strike. When people asked for clarification, instead of re-wording the feat as suggested above, 'attack action' was subtly re-defined, much to the detriment of the game, all to support that one badly worded feat.
an 'attack action' was interchangeable with 'attack', so long as it was the kind of attack that used the attack roll mechanic.This whole thing would have been less confusing had they just written Vital Strike to require a standard action:
Benefit: As a standard action you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.And hence, that's how I explain it to work when new players ask me.
That is not true.
Bull Rush: You perform a bull rush as a standard action (the attack action)
The rule did not really change. It was just never spelled out well. Basically if you use sunder, disarm, etc as a standard action then they are attack actions.<----This should be spelled out clearly, but it is not. Until the vital strike thing came up I never really noticed, and during our manyshot debate a while back, is when I really noticed how unclear a lot of the writing was with the attack action.
I think part of the problem was the designers did not realize that everyone did not understand what they meant as well as they did. That is a common error since we(people) always know what we mean, so we are surprised when someone else has trouble with it.
I think it never came up because there are very few times the term "attack action" came up in a feat or special ability. The term does have it's uses that could separate it from just saying "standard action", but using vital strike was not one of them since the other attack actions are combat based maneuvers, and don't do damage.
|
|
@Wraithstrike: it's the other way around. In 3.5 'attack action' and 'attack' were interchangeable. Bull rush, disarm etc. specified whether it was an 'attack action' to use it, or whether it was a specific standard action.
Also, if you only do one move and one attack in your round, then your attack was the 'attack' standard action. In our original debate, you started with a full-attack and then exchanged the rest of your attacks for a move action, meaning your attack retrospectively became a standard action after all. I know you took the other view re: changing your mind, but in 3.5 it wasn't that an 'attack action' was a standard action, but that if you only made a single 'attack action' then in terms of action economy and definitions then you'd used the standard action attack. PF has evolved to swap these priorities around, and all as an unintended consequence of the slack wording of the Vital Strike feat.
Well that goes a LONG way to explaining things I must say, and after looker over the threads that took 100s of posts to get to this point I have to say I'm impressed! Information like this makes it easy to decide how I want to interpret the whole thing, and it also gives me a new appreciation for vital strike believe it or not...if I every play my melee characters more damage focused than endurance to wear the foe down they all three will be on the list...I'm especially interested in their use with ranged weapons since you can't get power attack with them nor benefit from two handed..ness..thanks everyone!
@Wraithstrike: it's the other way around. In 3.5 'attack action' and 'attack' were interchangeable. Bull rush, disarm etc. specified whether it was an 'attack action' to use it, or whether it was a specific standard action.
Also, if you only do one move and one attack in your round, then your attack was the 'attack' standard action. In our original debate, you started with a full-attack and then exchanged the rest of your attacks for a move action, meaning your attack retrospectively became a standard action after all. I know you took the other view re: changing your mind, but in 3.5 it wasn't that an 'attack action' was a standard action, but that if you only made a single 'attack action' then in terms of action economy and definitions then you'd used the standard action attack. PF has evolved to swap these priorities around, and all as an unintended consequence of the slack wording of the Vital Strike feat.
That is incorrect. An attack was only an attack action if it used a standard action. You NEVER had an "attack action" as a non-standard action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An attack was only an attack action if it used a standard action. You NEVER had an "attack action" as a non-standard action.
Just to clarify, I was talking about 'attack action' in 3rd ed. What I said is absolutely certain, in 3rd ed.
There were several FAQs/Sage Advice answers which touched on this, and specifically called out (for example) that when Disarm specified that it took an 'attack action' to execute, then that meant any attack that used the attack roll mechanic, whether that was a single attack as a Standard Action, any single attack out of a full attack, any AoO, any attack at the end of a charge, etc.
This was also the cause of another massive debate on the PF boards. The 'attack action' wording was cut & paste into the PF description of Disarm, despite the change to CMB/CMD. It went unnoticed at first, since the Vital Strike confusion was yet to happen. After it did, it created a problem with Disarm, because all of a sudden 'attack action' was a standard action, meaning that it couldn't be done during a full attack or AoO or charge, the opposite to 3rd ed. When the PF devs finally answered, they had to change the wording of Disarm so that it could be done as before, with any attack. The wording that had been cut & paste was just one example of what 3rd ed meant by 'attack action', and it made it into PF without any change in meaning until Vital Strike caused the ret-con.
You know what a ret-con is: it's changing or adding something that wasn't there before, and then saying it was like that the whole time! Remember Wolverine's claws? What are they made from? That's right: adamantium. They started as telescoping from gloves but because it was comics you couldn't see the join. Very quickly they became biomic, part of him. They stayed that way for a long time. In the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, the Entry for Wolverine stated that his skeleton was laced with Adamantium (itself a ret-con from pure adamantium, changed because it was pointed out that blood was created in the bone marrow), but that his claws were the pure metal.
Later, in a story about his origins, he was shown to have bone claws, long before he was ever given the adamantium. It was then ret-conned to have been bone claws the whole time, just coated with the metal. But this wasn't the case for the first quarter century of his existence as a Marvel character.
The definition of 'attack action' has been ret-conned in a similar way. After the Vital Strike FAQ, it was said to have been the new way the whole time!
When I first started on these boards, I didn't know how to ask for a FAQ, how to bold or italicise (I used to use capitals for emphasis, making people thing I was shouting all the time), and my search-Fu is still poor and I can't create a link to save my life. I was involved in the thread about Disarm in PF, and because I didn't know how to FAQ or even about his thread, I PMed James Jacobs, asking what 'attack action' meant. To his credit he replied, and his answer was 'any action used to attack', the sane as in 3rd ed.
And why not? I've played 3rd ed since it came out til this day, just like JJ, and it was supposed to be 'D&D 3.75'. Some rules were changed, but if they didn't, then it was the same! Since the wording about attacks/actions hadn't changed one iota between editions, then how can we be blamed for thinking that the same words that meant one thing in 3.5 meant the same thing in PF?
This comes up more frequently than I care for. I like PF more than 3.5 overall, but I have the benefit of knowing both systems and can compensate for the obvious mistakes in PF as a consequence of cuts which lead to confusion.
Some examples: using armour spikes with a two-handed weapon in TWF. Being able to see/hear verbal/somatic components in order to identify a spell with Spellcraft as it is cast, the lack of which leads PF players to think that you can see a still spell and hear a silent spell, and to believe that using spell-like abilities must be obvious because there must be something to see and hear, all because they didn't cut and paste that one line. Another example is reach weapons on a diagonal, meaning that in PF you can charge a reach weapon user on a diagonal without provoking, and it is impossible for him to attack a target in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor.
Knowing how 3rd ed ruled it is a huge benefit in making sense of some slack PF wording, and those who never had that 3rd ed experience are led to some very strange ideas indeed!
I have access to all of the Sage's answers. We will have to agree to disagree on our interpretation of his words.
|
|
I have access to all of the Sage's answers. We will have to agree to disagree on our interpretation of his words.
You know I respect you, Wraithstrike, but I'm curious how this question and answer from Sage Advice can be interpreted in any other way:-
Can a warlock use Rapid Shot to fire two eldritch blasts simultaneously?
No. Using eldritch blast requires a standard action, not an attack action (unlike using a weapon). If something requires a standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you can’t use the full attack action to gain extra uses of that ability, even with the Rapid Shot feat.
This definitively shows that 'attack action' is not limited to a standard action: "...requires a standard action, not an attack action"
"If something requires a standard action (as opposed to an attack action)..."
Since Rapid Shot can only be used in a full attack, this shows that 'attack action' includes each individual attack in a full attack, but since Eldritch Blast requires a standard action then it can't be used to make several attacks, because 'attack action' is not the same thing as 'a standard action used to attack'.
Can you reconcile that with the idea that 3rd ed always defined 'attack action' as 'the standard action used to attack', the way PF does now?
Stop using 3.5 FAQs. They aren't relevant, and there have been ample times when people rely on them for PF reasons, and the PDT said something else.
The PDT has, repeatedly, stated what the attack action is. What it's always been for PF. It has not changed since the CRB was first released.
Yes, it's not 100% clear from just the book. But by this point, there have been enough explanations, over a long enough time frame, that we can know the answer.
And it means an attack done as a standard action, declared using the attack action as opposed to another action. Not all attacks done using a standard action are attack actions, but all attacks done using the attack action are standard actions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop using 3.5 FAQs. They aren't relevant, and there have been ample times when people rely on them for PF reasons, and the PDT said something else.
The PDT has, repeatedly, stated what the attack action is. What it's always been for PF. It has not changed since the CRB was first released.
The questioner wanted to know what all the parsing of the phrase 'attack action' was all about, and explaining it requires understanding of the history of that term, and how the meaning of it has changed over time in Pathfinder.
I'm not denying how PF defines it now.
The idea that it has 'always been that way for PF' is a ret-con.
Malachi my friend, you're ignoring the multiple posts from 2009 by Jason about the attack action, saying what it is. Saying exactly what they said it was in the Sunder FAQ. It's not a ret-con of any sort. They've been saying the same thing for years. You just ended up on the wrong side of the Sunder FAQ, as that too wasn't clear. But it didn't redefine the attack action, as you believed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi my friend, you're ignoring the multiple posts from 2009 by Jason about the attack action, saying what it is. Saying exactly what they said it was in the Sunder FAQ. It's not a ret-con of any sort. They've been saying the same thing for years. You just ended up on the wrong side of the Sunder FAQ, as that too wasn't clear. But it didn't redefine the attack action, as you believed.
Do you dispute what I've said about the 3rd ed stance on this? If you don't, and if the words that led to that conclusion in the 3rd ed rulebooks led to that definition, then how can the very same words cut & paste into the CRB suddenly mean the opposite? Without these 'multiple posts' saying the opposite, how would the 3rd ed player who reads the CRB understand that these same words now have he opposite meaning?
We have always been at war with Eastasia
Funny nought, Vital strike is one of the only one feat referring to the attack action.
The only other one I know is Gory finish. And thus, they stack.
I once did an exhaustive search for the term and posted my findings (it appeared so seldomly that I wondered if it was a short-hand error). I'll see if I can dig up the post.
(Note though, that there is no question now--as the developers have been quite clear since then.)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This definitively shows that 'attack action' is not limited to a standard action: "...requires a standard actionCan a warlock use Rapid Shot to fire two eldritch blasts simultaneously?
No. Using eldritch blast requires a standard action, not an attack action (unlike using a weapon). If something requires a standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you can’t use the full attack action to gain extra uses of that ability, even with the Rapid Shot feat.
That does no such thing. It shows that attack action isn't a full attack action.
|
|
That does no such thing. It shows that attack action isn't a full attack action.This definitively shows that 'attack action' is not limited to a standard action: "...requires a standard actionCan a warlock use Rapid Shot to fire two eldritch blasts simultaneously?
No. Using eldritch blast requires a standard action, not an attack action (unlike using a weapon). If something requires a standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you can’t use the full attack action to gain extra uses of that ability, even with the Rapid Shot feat.
It says 'standard action (as opposed to an attack action)'.
Without the brackets it says 'If something requires a standard action to use, you can't use the full attack action to gain extra uses...'.
As opposed to the 'attack action' which (in 3rd ed) would be, 'If something uses an attack action to use, you can use the full attack action to get more uses...', as opposed to the standard action.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The important thing, of course, is not to determine how Pathfinder rules work, but to identify a thing (however distant and irrelevant it may be) to which one can point and say "Here's something I'm right about!"
Even if it takes days to establish and isn't actually helpful to anyone trying to learn how Pathfinder works, establishing at least some level of rightness about something—anything—is an essential part of participating in any thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The important thing in this thread is to help the OP, who wants to understand what the 'insane parsing' is all about re: 'attack action'.
Some rules were cut and paste from 3.5, where the phrase meant something different to what it has evolved to mean in PF. Some PF rules were written for PF, before this meaning changed, and some were written after the meaning changed. A reader doesn't automatically know which is which.
What I've done in this thread is tell him about the history of the changing meaning of that phrase, and that will help him judge how any rule which includes that phrase should be taken, and also solve the mystery about all the 'insane parsing'. He has already posted that this has been helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very helpful! Linguistics is a fascinating and continually evolving phenomena of human culture as we debate, try to express and explain, and correct our original intentions and the misinterpretations there of....so often one's tracking the etymology of a word (or just the history of a term's use for that matter) all sorts of things regarding context such are learned. As part of this debate I've learned more about a bunch of melee feats (this whole melee thing being a lot newer to me than caster related issues and terms) than I would have otherwise.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the rules forum for a relatively rules-heavy game. Insane parsing through the rules is the status quo. You don't think any of the developers for 3.5 purposefully made crap like Pun-Pun possible, do you? No, that was found by some dork who had way Way WAY too much time on his hands. And most of the people who frequent this board are no better off than he was.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
As opposed to the 'attack action' which (in 3rd ed) would be
3.5 had exactly the same language.
The 3.5 Player's Handbook on page 139 said "Standard Actions" ... "Attack - Making an attack is a standard action"
Nothing has changed in the language, the understanding, or use of the attack action since 3.5 to now.
|
|
As opposed to the 'attack action' which (in 3rd ed) would be3.5 had exactly the same language.
The 3.5 Player's Handbook on page 139 said "Standard Actions" ... "Attack - Making an attack is a standard action"
Nothing has changed in the language, the understanding, or use of the attack action since 3.5 to now.
You're right about the relaxant rules not changing, but as the 3.5 FAQ illustrated, the meaning of 'attack action' has definately changed.
Part of this is that the phrase 'attack action' isn't actually a defined rules term, despite its resemblance to a rules term. It wasn't defined in 3.5 and it isn't defined in the CRB.
How the phrase 'attack action' was used and understood in 3.5 (and initially in PF) is any attack which uses the attack roll mechanic with a weapon or weaponlike object or effect.
What both systems say about 'the standard action used to make a single such attack' is true, but it's like 'all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles'. If you use your standard action to make a single attack, then it was the 'attack standard action'. But the language used was that you can make an 'attack action' as a standard action, or at the end of a charge, or as an AkO, or to sunder, trip or disarm, and you could make several 'attack actions' as part of a full attack, whether that full attack was made as its own full-round action or (using Pounce) whether that full attack was part of the full-round (or partial) action of Charge.
This was how 3.5 used the phrase 'attack action', and how PF originally used the phrase. When it was printed in PF, Sunder said it required an 'attack action'. Just as in 3.5, this meant 'any attack', not just the attack made as a standard action. This was the case in 3.5, and in PF. When the Vital Strike feat was explored by FAQ, 'attack action' was suddenly meant to mean 'attack as a standard action', leaving people who hadn't played 3.5 thinking that a sunder had to be limited to a standard action.
Understanding all this history made it easy for me to know that sunder could be any attack. When Paizo answered the question about what action sunder required, the answer came, of course, 'any attack', and they changed the wording so it no longer said 'attack action', so as not to contradict the post Vital Strike meaning of the phrase 'attack action'.
Also, my blog's moving to the Know Direction site, so if this link stops working in the next few weeks, that's why.
The mistake people make is treating. Vital strike like its a replacement for a full attack. If you have to move and desire to strike to injure after moving its a very good option and you will do more damage.
...why there isn't some little blurb somewhere about the actual specific nature of an attack action is beyond me.
There is a HUGE blurb on it. Combat - Standard Actions - Attack
Making an attack is a standard action
under that, it lists the various choices for an Attack Action:
Melee Attacks - single melee attack at highest BABUnarmed Attacks - single unarmed attack (1d3 nonlethal damage for medium, or 1d3 lethal with -4 to hit modifier)
Ranged Attacks - single ranged attack
Natural Attacks - single attack per natural weapon
Then a note about Multiple Attacks, saying that they are a special Full-Round Action instead.
Vital Strike is just a modification to the Attack Action (adding an extra weapon damage die). By that token, it can be used with any of the bolded options above.