Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kreynolds" data-source="post: 453298" data-attributes="member: 2829">That's not exactly how I would define it, but in short, I agree to an extent, which is why I wouldn't have a problem with a DM ruling that way on me.Yup, and this seems to be the basis of Skip's ruling. However, this is also the basis of my own opinion on this, where action is the key word, and not "attack".Not really. The attack action and moving are two completely separate actions. If you want to look at a full-attack action as being composed of several mini-attack actions, which I do, that's fine. However, a double-move is a special action, as described by the rules. It is an action that exceeds the normal time frame. A full-attack is no different. A single attack is a standard action, so you would think that making two attacks would eat up your whole round, just like taking two move-equivalent actions. But that's not how it works, as a 10th level Tempest/10th level fighter can make 8 attacks, and they all fit within one action.Like a double-move followed by an attack, which inexplicably does not take any longer to complete in game terms than a normal move followed by an attack, making 8 attacks inexplicably doesn't take more than a single round to pull off, even though it should take far longer. So obviously, and as is demonstrated by the rules, like a double move, the individual attacks within a full-attack action are not subject to the same rules as a full-fledged action. If they were, it would take a lot longer to make that many attacks, and you wouldn't be able to pull off a double-move followed by an attack either.My point is that both a double-move, and the separate attacks within a full-attack action, are not normal actions and the rules make exception for this.There is something I don't agree with you on though, and that is a grapple, trip, etc. These are not actions in and among themselves. They are methods to which you can modify an action (single attack) or part of an action (full-attack). But still, like you pointed out, grapples and trips do in indeed define the attacks within a full-attack action as separate attacks, and I'm not arguing that point. Spells can apply to either a single attack or to an entire action. For example, True Strike specifically applies to only one attack, so even if you take a full-attack action, it only applies to your first attack within that action. Invisibility does not make that distinction, and according to the Sage, it applies to the entire action, not just the attack itself.I don't have a problem with this ruling, and like I said, I don't have a problem with it being ruled otherwise. It makes sense to me either way. If my players disagreed with me, and they put forth an argument similar to the ones here, I wouldn't have a problem changing my ruling either.</blockquote>

Verification