Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 665323" data-attributes="member: 5100">Tend to agree.  I've never read/played Star Wars, but looking at the d20 Modern rules, I thought that naming the standard/partial action as an "attack" action was just about the dumbest thing WotC could have done.<rant>An attack action is something that includes swinging a sword, punching, tripping, grappling, etc.  When your BAB hits 6/11/16, you get an additional attack action if you take a full-round attack.Calling the segment of a round in which you do something besides attack (cast a spell, drink a potion, etc.) an "attack action" only muddies the water, especially when there is an action you can take that's called an attack.Honestly, I can't understand how anyone who can follow that you don't have to attack on your attack, but if use your attack to do something other than attack you don't get an attack, could possibly be confused by the standard/move-equiv/partial system.I'm definitely all for them streamlining things and making it easier to understand.  I don't even mind them changing the terminology.  The last thing I want to see them do, though, is name the partial/standard action an "attack action".  That makes as much sense as calling it a "magic action" (after all, the most common thing half the classes will do is cast a spell/use an item).</rant></blockquote>