Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magus_Jerel" data-source="post: 155595" data-attributes="member: 3940">and you have stated:looking under "action"... in the PHB is the term "attack action" is defined as any action in one of five other categories. It does not exist as a game term independent of these five categories. (unless you have something in the extended glossary that I am missing here - it doesn't exist independently in D&D either)the term "attack" is defined - and does exist as a game term.thus - the phrasing you are looking for is "an action of the category attack" - not "attack action".- This is an example of  the typical Accident Dicto Simpler; or accident of simpler words.now- you can try CDG is "not an action of the category attack" because while it fits the first part of the definition, but fails the second part - namely that it does NOT require an attack roll, however, you are caught in a paradox trying to describe how "fireball et al" ARE attacks, whereas CDG's aren`t attacks.- If you try to explain CDG and "fireballs et al" as "attacks which automatically hit" (ie an attack without a roll) then they DO fall into this category.  The CDG happens to be an automatic critical hit as well.  This interpretation explodes the paradox presented by attempting to take the first.Table 8-1 fundamental actions in combat, yields five "categories" - attack(melee), attack(ranged), attack (unarmed), charge, and full attack.Using our glossary we find thatCDG is definitely a "physical attack" - and it would seem suitable for close combat under the right condition (namely that your opponent is helpless).  Therefore it would be logical to place this as an attack action, and therefore executable with the feat as errated.It is also (by default) defined as a "full round" action - but the death blow feat changes this definition*** for the character.** I have gone after this definition as inconsistent with itself with respect to the "time required to perform them" portion; but in order to "debate" a point about initiative with Caliban et al, you must assume this inconsistency to be gospel truth.  It is the fact that this categorization IS inconsistent that generates the problem I am presenting here.***This feat was explicitly errataed from awarding a "partial action" to "attack action" as well, leaving exactly what "category" of action you have even more ambiguous than the origonal wording.  Your "best" phrasing would be that this feat awards a "partial action of the category (melee) attack" as a true rules lawyering SOB could try to get this now erattaed feat to award an extra "full attack action" or a CDG outright; as the "full attack action"  is an "attack action" - just a full round one instead of a partial one.Post Script -My two bones to pick with the PHB are the combat action system and that a few of the spell descriptions need some tweaking to truly balance them.  While it can be argued that the latter is a matter of taste; that argument is not so with the former.  On these two points - I "deviate" from the "norm".The bulk of the errata focus on "typographical" errors - which happen when working on a book such as this right up until publication.</blockquote>

Verification