Bo9s General Questions -title changed-

[Mistwell]

Actually, yes it DOES make sense.

Flyby attack was created mostly for Dragons to use their breath weapon with a strafing-type attack.

Breath Weapons are a supernatural ability that require a standard action (not an attack action) to activate.

Flyby Attack is in the Monster Manual (only) for a reason: It is not neccesarily intended for PCs to take. It is (surprisingly, considering its source) intended for monsters to take.

It doesn't make sense to me, but it makes sense to you. Let's leave it at that. Again, it was just a side question, and not something I was looking to debate. I am happy to debate lots of rules, but this one was just a brief question about whether the Sage has ruled on something.

 

[Mistwell]

And again I refer you, Mistwell, to the feat description and the Sage's response to Time Stands Still. Spring Attack mentions 'when you take the attack action with a melee weapon'. The Sage confirms that maneuvers always use a standard, swift, full-round, immediate, or move action to initiate. And that just-any-ole'-action of one of those types does not trigger a maneuver. A full attack action is certainly a type of full-round action, but it does not activate any maneuvers that require a full-round action to initiate; because those maneuvers themselves require their own distinct full-round action to initiate.

Q: Did the Sage rule on the specific question of Spring Attack being usable with maneuvers.
A: No.

That's it. I was not asking for various opinions and interpretations of the rules and analogous Sage rules and such. I was just asking the specific question of the Sage ruling on Spring Attack and maneuvers.

And the 'attack action' is a specific type of standard action, not a general term for referring to any and every attack made. Just as an attack of opportunity is never called an 'attack action', because it does not use up a standard action; it is an 'attack', for purposes of things like determining whether or not it ends Invisibility, but it is not specifically an 'attack action', which is a particular form of standard action.

I understand your view. Thanks. I'd like the Sage to chime in on this topic because, and I will repeat since it seems lost in this discussion, sometimes the Sage rules based on the intent of things rather than just a strict constructionist view of the rules as written and I want to know his ruling on this specific question because it might be one of those times he rules more based on the intent of the author (which seems to be "Move & Attack" or Attack & Move" oriented for Bo9S classes), or if he will rule purely on the strict rules as written as you would apparently do.