Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 5512197" data-attributes="member: 20741">See, this is the part that I'm not getting from the d20pfsrd FAQ you quote (which doesn't appear to be quoting a Paizo dev):Let us return for a moment to what this might have meant before errata. Because I do not think the errata was necessarily directed at Vital Strike at all.If the question here comes down to addition of actions, does it matter if Spring attack is a standard action or a full round action? If Spring attack is a standard action, is Vital Strike then permitted?It doesn't appear to be at first blush. If spring attack was described as a standard action, it still wouldn't allow you to make another attack action (which is a standard action), which is vital strike.You get only get one standard action per round.  So this appears to me to be equivocal. The errata is not clarifying that spring attack and vital strike  are mutually exclusive. 1+1 is still equal to 2. If the interpretation of spring attack falls upon that math, then it was illegal before the errata and it's illegal after it, too. Am I missing something here?What the errata seems to be making clear is that you can't move, and do a move + attack + another move. (Or do a swift and do a spring attack.)  You move, attack, move. That's it.That's all that appears to be clarfied by the errata. Is there some other issue out there I am missing?It appears to me that the issue is whether or not vital strike is a single melee attack. If it is, it's allowable; if it isn't, it's precluded.One persuasive comment above notes that the single melee attack which forms part of the Spring Attack action is a melee attack which is not part of an attack action. I don't see where that has been stated in the Pathfinder rules -- but I admit that if that were a true characterization of what is going on, then this issue is resolved in favor of "no". Nicely reasoned, but I don't see where that conclusion is necessary or inevitable (though it may well be correct).I really don't see how the errata was aimed at clarifying this specific issue at all. The fact that I can't find a statement from a Paizo developer that states it clearly just muddles the whole situation further (which is very frustrating). So. I'll write 'em -- or call em -- and get it clarfiied if I can.</blockquote>

Verification