You could name is Standard Attack, or you could just capitalize the "A" and leave it as Attack. I understand that there is ambiguity, but my group has never once has an issue implementing this rule.
Well the way I see it, if you wanted to use something like Vital Strike or any similar action, you could not declare a full-round attack, and then break off after the first attack and change your mind.
You simply need to declare a regular move action and then the attack, or in the opposite order.
The ability to halt your attacks in the middle of a full-round attack (After the first) is useful if you are attacking something that harms your weapon, is covered in pointy barbs, etc.
I don't understand the confusion here.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, you're reading way too much into it.
A full attack is not starting with a standard action. If I'm two-weapon fighting, and I start my full attack, then I'm taking the penalty for two-weapon fighting on my very first swing. However, if my first attack downs the guy or something else happens that I didn't expect, I can still take a move action even though I took the "full attack penalty".
Nowhere does it even imply that you start your full-attack with a standard-equivalent attack and quite frankly I have no idea how you managed to pull that out of what is written.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
These rules are trying to show these actions:
If a spell or ability takes "Full Round Action", then you can do it as a full round action or do it as two standard actions in back to back turns.
A full round attack can not be split between two rounds of standard actions like all other full round actions can.
If you full round attack and kill something in the first hit, you can demote your full attack to a standard attack and then move.
The part about assuming you haven't already taken a move action is simply a reminder that you can't make a full attack if you use your move action.
Don't read so much into the rules. They aren't written with lawyers in mind, and trying to analyze it that way yields unintended and incorrect results.
I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between a standard action and an attack. While melee basic attacks do cost standard actions in normal circumstances, the melee basic attacks that make up a full attack are not multiple standard actions.
It's simply saying that in the case where you make a single melee basic attack as the first part of your full attack, you may choose to instead have that count as a single standard action attack, thus freeing up the move action for your turn.
This is an important distinction to make because of your example of vital strike. Vital strike requires that you make the Attack action. Not full attack. An Attack action is a melee basic attack that costs a standard action. This means in order to do a vital strike, you must specifically declare that you are making a standard attack action, which would thus remove your ability to continue into your full attack.
As an example of the flow:
Player is next to enemy at the start of his turn.
-Player declares a standard attack action. This damage will be increased by Vital Strike. The attack misses the target. Because he specifically made a standard action, it can't extend into a full attack. The player now has a move action and a swift action left in his turn.
-Player declares a full attack. The first attack hits and kills the target. Because he was making a regular attack as part of a full attack, he can choose to abort the full attack and take his move action instead, since there is no longer a target.
-Player declares a full attack. The first attack misses. The player may continue making attacks against the target as normal, or decide to abort the attack and move away.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The rules are written well. You're demanding they be revised to be less clear simply because you want them more legalistic.
+1
This is probably the most common confusion. Many people want the rules to be legal text, but don't understand that they are the 1% of the people that play the game. The other 99% wouldn't buy a legal text book for a game.
There's a bit of "retcon" and quantum uncertainty involved in adjudicating the turn. Think of this; when you roll a Knowledge check, the character isn't learning the new knowledge "on the spot"; the check reveals whether or not the character already had this knowledge for an indeterminate amount of time. You, the player, don't know whether or not the character knows a particular piece of knowledge until they succeed or fail at the check, in which case they either "already knew" or "never learned" the information in question.
So what you are saying is this is Schrodinger's Attack?
What about if I Pounce and then Full-Attack?
If we remove the not-quite-superfluous wording as the OP wants, then would I now be able to Pounce, single-attack, then move again?
Probably, yes you would.What about if I Pounce and then Full-Attack?
If we remove the not-quite-superfluous wording as the OP wants, then would I now be able to Pounce, single-attack, then move again?
Wouldn't that, then, mean the original wording that precluded me from doing this when I've already moved be NOT superfluous after all?
As for pounce, I don't think it works that you can charge, abort the full attack after one action, and move.
The wording in aborting a full attack specifically states "Assuming you haven't made a move action this round". The thing is, you've made a full round action, which is your charge. The rules normally demote your full round full attack into a standard action, but pounce is a full round action that is promoting the melee basic attack into a full attack.
And even should you be able to argue some corner of RAW for this, RAI clearly sees the full attack demoted to a regular attack in regular circumstances which would allow you to move, but a pounce full attack demoted to a regular attack turns into a regular charge, which would not allow you to move.
Wouldn't that, then, mean the original wording that precluded me from doing this when I've already moved be NOT superfluous after all?Probably, yes you would.What about if I Pounce and then Full-Attack?
If we remove the not-quite-superfluous wording as the OP wants, then would I now be able to Pounce, single-attack, then move again?
Well, it looks like we've found cheese. Time to exterminate it immediately before it festers into something truly nasty like Wizards or Oracles.
---
Back on topic, I highly doubt it's intended to let Pounce function as a pseudo-Spring Attack, being able to charge (get +2 to hit, -2 to AC), get a single attack, and then take a move action (which probably provokes if you plan to move away from your enemy).
Reviewing Pounce text:
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)
So, outside of the Charge Attack becoming a Full Attack, it must still follow rules of Charging (otherwise it's not a Charge, is it?).
Reviewing the Charge text:
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
So, if a Pounce is a Charge that allows players to make a Full Attack, they wouldn't be able to make any movement after their single attack. They could sheathe their sword or reach into their Handy Haversack for an item, but even if they did have a move action available to move after their attack(s), they would be forced to move to the closest space where they can attack their opponent, and when they're already on top of them, well...
It's also key to suggest that just because the Pounce allows you to make a Full Attack on a Charge, doesn't mean you're making a Full Attack Action, which is what allows you to stop after your first attack and allows for a move action. You're not taking the Full Attack Action with Pounce, you're taking the Charge Action, and the Charge Action doesn't allow the expos-facto option change that the Full Attack Action allows.
|
|
Just as an FYI: Both in 3.5 and Pathfinder, there are things (magic items, feats, Mythic, etc.,) that can give you an extra Move action or Standard Action in a turn. So it might be possible, if you have the right stuff (quickrunner shirt or some such?) to get a "free" Move action (that item converts a Swift into a Move, IIRC), and still be able to get a Full Attack in, as you still have Move and Standard Actions left to turn into a Full Attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but those are items that are specifically giving you an extra action. This is a net gain in action economy because of an outside source.
But the ruling on full attack actions is that you can decide to take a full attack action, and rescind that into a standard melee attack after the first attack if you so wish. This is not giving you a free move action; It's letting you take the move action you haven't already taken that is freed up by the full round action you took suddenly becoming a standard action. Your 3 action slots of swift-move-standard remains the same, and this rule never breaks action economy when used normally.
The suggestion that you can gain another move action after using pounce, however, does break action economy. This is why I believe it is iffy in RAW, obviously against RAI, and thus cheese. When you charge, you're making a full round action. This effectively takes up your standard and move action. Pounce turns the regular attack in the charge into a full attack. But what happens when you try to demote that full attack into a regular attack? You're left with a regular charge, which is a full round action. Deciding to abort the full attack does not in any way magically spawn a free move action, thus I say that you should not be able to use pounce to move after a charge.
|
I don't agree that it's a state of uncertainty. You certainly choose the full attack full-round action, and then have the opportunity to change it to an attack standard action after your first attack.Equivocation fallacy. I'm using "certainty" to describe the nature of revealing the actual course of the combat to the player. You are using "certainty" to describe the conviction of the player in choosing their actions. 5 Yard penalty.
Semantics aside (?), a player cannot first attack and then decide what kind of action it was later, nor can he attack and then reveal what kind of action it was later.
However you use the word 'certainly' (or 'uncertainly'), in order to take advantage of the 'deciding between' text you must already be taking a full attack. It must be a deliberate choice and it must be revealed. You must take any penalty associated with the full attack you're making (such as -2 for TWF), and must declare it if you are making such an attack.
In practice, this is handwaved by most, but it is easily possible to cheat if you don't. You could roll a d20, and if it's within 2 points of missing then decide it was a normal attack and if it isn't declare it was TWF.
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
If you're Pouncing, you're not Full-Attacking, you're Charging. Charging does not allow an expos-facto option change. Full Attack Action does.
The spell equivalency is a misnomer. There is a specific clause that allows characters to make the touch attack as a free action, when it would otherwise take its own standard action to make the attack. The casting of the spell creates an effect, and the player may make a ranged touch attack with that effect as its own action.
My point is that Pounce triggers on the Charge Action, which is a special full-round action separate from the Full Attack Action. The Charge Action does not allow for an expos-facto option change on attacks, and the Pounce feature makes no extra exception to this note other than stating that they can make all of their attacks.
There was a FAQ that had to state Pounce counts as a Full Attack for Haste, and was originally voted to not count. (It did get reversed.)
Suggesting that it counts as a Full Attack for all purposes is a stretch that I assure you many players and GMs would not want to cross.
@ Kazaan: Except that's the sort of cheese that Malachi is arguing about. People can forgo their remaining attacks just to confirm the first if they know they missed because of the likes of TWF. Bonuses and Penalties that occur on Full Attacks, such as TWF, are dependant upon you following through with the Full Attack Action, and when you don't, you're not actually TWFing, meaning the penalty can't apply, and therefore the attack hits anyway.
Any sane GM won't let that fly.
|
|
In practice, this is handwaved by most, but it is easily possible to cheat if you don't. You could roll a d20, and if it's within 2 points of missing then decide it was a normal attack and if it isn't declare it was TWF.That doesn't work. You don't roll a d20 and then decide what bonuses apply to is. If the roll is d20+16, it's d20+16, not d20 and then +16. In order to be using TWF, you must declare as such and incorporate the TWF penalties into your attack rolls. More to the point, I was illustrating the nature of the difference between what the character knows and what the player knows. Sure, from the standpoint of just looking at the rules of combat, the player is using a full-attack action with the option to step it down to a standard action. But from the meta-perspective, the full-attack never happened; it was always a standard action. You're arguing over nothing.
It seems like we agree, apart from the semantics.
The point I was answering was the idea that the player attacks without declaring what action he is using, believing that this is how the 'deciding between' clause works.
But it doesn't work that way. This choice is only given to those who declare a full attack. Not to those who make a standard attack, and not to those who try and attack first then decide what kind of action they are taking later (the game doesn't work that way).
As far as the character is concerned, there is no such thing as 'actions' in the game sense; no 'standard attack' or 'full round attack'. For the character, they are just making one or more attacks. They might be able to execute, say, three attacks using two weapons then they can start to execute that sequence, but if the enemy goes down after the first attack then they can do something else instead if the rest of the attacks.
For the character, this is not a quantum event; it's simply keep attacking til it dies and then move onto the next one.
For the player, it's not a quantum event either. The player declared a full attack, and it then got changed before it was complete. You didn't go back in time to change anything, it's that you only completed a bit of it so that bit only counts as a standard.
Nowhere in the game - and please provide examples if I'm wrong - is there a reference to being able to make all of your attacks without making a Full Attack Action. Thus, there's no reason to believe this Pounce-granted Full Attack should not use the Full Attack rules.
Well, the first example is actually the pounce attack. It's simply saying a full attack, not a full attack action. However, I will give you another example.
Magus spell combat:
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action
Spell combat FAQ:
Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes.
Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.
And to re-iterate relevant texts from pounce itself:
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
Note the lack of the word "Action" after full attack.
It's very important to note that the game differentiates between the terms: "Melee basic attack", "Full attack", "Attack action", and "Full attack action". The attack action and full attack action are simply making melee basic attacks and full attacks respectively, but an action making a melee basic attack attached to it is not an attack action, and an action making a full attack as part of the action is not a full attack action.
And finally, this is all relevant because the text that allows you to demote your full attack into a melee basic attack is listed under the rules for the "Full attack" action that is listed under "full round actions". This, in fact, specifically prevents you from using that special rule with any feature granting a full attack that is not made as part of a full attack action.
An alternate example is both monks' flurry of blows class features:
Unchained monk flurry of blows:
At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. This additional attack stacks with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality. He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what's already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects).
At 11th level, a monk can make an additional attack at his highest base attack bonus whenever he makes a flurry of blows. This stacks with the first attack from this ability and additional attacks from haste and similar effects.
Regular monk flurry of blows:
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
-snip-
These, even though they're mechanically different from a full attack action, use the same rules because it's still saying it's a full attack action. As if modifying the rules of a full attack by adding attacks to it, much like two weapon fighting.
The spell equivalency is a misnomer. There is a specific clause that allows characters to make the touch attack as a free action, when it would otherwise take its own standard action to make the attack. The casting of the spell creates an effect, and the player may make a ranged touch attack with that effect as its own action.Right. Even though he isn't specifically making a ranged attack, he's making one as part of the spell. The attack is its own event despite the wizard having performed the Cast a Spell action. Relevant FAQ.
My point is that Pounce triggers on the Charge Action, which is a special full-round action separate from the Full Attack Action. The Charge Action does not allow for an expos-facto option change on attacks, and the Pounce feature makes no extra exception to this note other than stating that they can make all of their attacks.In point of fact, Pounce dictates "When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack." It doesn't matter if you are receiving it from a Charge, you are given a Full Attack from Pounce. That's the event you're now in, that's the action you're taking. Pounce makes no extra exception to say it's a special, limited version of a full attack, so there's no reason to treat it as anything other than a full attack.
The funny thing about this FAQ is that, right now, despite Haste saying quite clearly "When making a full attack action", it works with Pounce. Pounce says it gives a full attack, it works with Haste which requires players to be making a full attack action. As the adage goes, "If it looks...There was a FAQ that had to state Pounce counts as a Full Attack for Haste, and was originally voted to not count. (It did get reversed.)
The spell itself doesn't allow the character to make the attack like you say he does. He has to spend an action separate from casting the spell to do so (a Free Action).
If we have a character with Dazing Assault able to make attacks of opportunities on casters who successfully cast a spell defensively, and successfully hits, that spellcaster could not take the Free Action to make the attack with the spell (as the Dazed condition prevents you from taking any actions), meaning no attack takes place.
If things work the way you say they do, (which they don't,) then Dazing Assault would not affect the touch attack taking place. Except it does, because you must spend a Free Action to make the attack with the spell, and when you cannot do that, then no attack takes place. This is no different than you saying a Bard automatically maintains his Performance. That's wrong too, because they too must spend a Free Action to maintain it, and when they are unable to, the Performance automatically ends.
Yes, it does matter. The Charge Action is the proxy for Pounce to trigger. If Charge isn't the proxy, then the proxy is either undefined and Pounce doesn't work at all, or works with any action (so whenever I take a Free Action, I could Pounce), and that's obviously not intended. The Pounce attacks also take the bonuses and penalties associated with Charge, something which a generic Full Attack doesn't do.
If you want to play that a Full Attack and a Full Attack Action are the same, then every Attack of Opportunity requires a Standard Action to perform, and Pounce would actually require 2 Full Round Actions to do, as you're doing both a Charge and Full Attack. If we want to homogenize these subjects, then we either do it fully or not at all, this pseudo-crap doesn't fly. I mean, why bother making the distinctions between a Full Attack and a Full Attack Action, or an Attack versus an Attack of Opportunity, if they are, according to you, fundamentally the same damn thing?
That FAQ had to be written because there was a lot of table variance (as well as the RAW disagreeing) in regards to how Haste affected things that behaved like Full Attacks, but didn't use the Full Attack Action to do so (which is what Haste required). When you put Probability and Table Variance together, it becomes one of the ugliest things you could ever hope to deal with. (I'm not talking about dice rolls, either.)
And when it comes to rules adjustments, the most conservative option is generally the choice that Devs make in their rulings; so it's much safer to say that Haste works with Full Attacks that aren't Full Attack Actions, than it is to say that Pounce and similar abilities that aren't Full Attack Actions are, in fact, Full Attack Actions.
Superfluous thread about rules that work?
Sorry... Someone had to... It is getting entirely too serious in here.
The spell itself doesn't allow the character to make the attack like you say he does. He has to spend an action separate from casting the spell to do so (a Free Action).I was referring to ranged Touch Spells like Scorching Ray and Acid Arrow. Link and Relevant Text:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.If we want to homogenize these subjects, then we either do it fully or not at all, this pseudo-crap doesn't fly. I mean, why bother making the distinctions between a Full Attack and a Full Attack Action, or an Attack versus an Attack of Opportunity, if they are, according to you, fundamentally the same damn thing?I don't want to homogenize anything. Far from it. I want - and I have said this before - I want the Attack Action to be renamed the Standard Attack to avoid exactly the conflation you're suggesting. If we did that, then making an attack and making a Standard Attack would be rightfully different. There could be no room for confusion as one(myself included, obviously given this thread) is wont to run into when reading too deeply into the rules.
Fair enough, that solution only applies to ranged touch spells. Spells like Shocking Grasp, would not receive such treatment, though.
Personally, renaming it doesn't need to be done, as there are discrepancies already made (which Johnny_Devo previously stated). The problem is determining whether the discrepancies are enough to show that they are fundamentally the same thing, but not actually the same thing, when it comes to determining options available for the PC.
Because I highly doubt it's intended for a PC with a Pounce ability to be able to cheese a single attack plus a Move Action the way that DM_Blake says they can. (And I'm not accusing DM_Blake of endorsing such cheese, though he did point it out.)