Spring Attack and Charge?

[Ridley's Cohort]

Oh. Sorry I was so opaque!

What really became crazy is this interpretation of Spring Attack, Charge, and 3.0 Haste. Then you could Partial Charge + Full Attack. That made Haste extremely powerful at higher levels for both spellcasters and melee specialists.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is ambiguity whether an attack action is part of a charge. Is an attack an attack action?

Spring Attack didn't require "an attack action", though. It required "the attack action". Charge may have been an attack action, but it was not the attack action.

Otherwise, since the full attack action was also "an attack action", there was nothing to stop you using Spring Attack to move before and after, up to your base speed, when taking the full attack action with a melee weapon. This was obviously not the intention... so it's clear that Spring Attack refers not to any attack action, but rather to 'the attack action'...

... just like the feat text says.

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The fact we are reduced to contextual based arguments regarding the meaning of "the" versus "an" is strong enough evidence the wording sucked rotten eggs. It is a very thin thread on which to hang a ruling given the general sloppiness of the rules in question.

As I said before, I had seen a number of threads in the 3.0 days on the Spring Attack topic including the question of charging, and I do not recall this argument being made forcefully by anyone, yourself included. Maybe I flat out missed it. It is possible. Or maybe it just did not make an impression on anyone because it was too confusing. It is also possible all this seems obvious only now when viewed through the lens of somewhat clearer 3.5 wording.

If I had to bet money, I would say that my interpretation was in the majority at the time. Whether that means anything is entirely up to you.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The fact we are reduced to contextual based arguments regarding the meaning of "the" versus "an" is strong enough evidence the wording sucked rotten eggs.

On the contrary, I'd say that there's a world of difference between "The Pope" and "A Pope."

Similarly, "The Bears" and "A Bear."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

"The Pope" is only "The Pope" when the context is unambiguous. It could mean someone else easily enough, in fact.

"My name is Pius and my mother named me after the Pope." Which Pope? John Paul II? In this case "the Pope" is actually "a Pope".

Or "My name is Pius and my mother named me after The Pope." Which Pope? Presumably the one in the office at the time.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

"The Pope" is only "The Pope" when the context is unambiguous.

Just like "The Attack Action"?

 

[Hypersmurf]

As I said before, I had seen a number of threads in the 3.0 days on the Spring Attack topic including the question of charging, and I do not recall this argument being made forcefully by anyone, yourself included. Maybe I flat out missed it.

Well, I've always contended that "the attack action" is a defined term, and I've certainly referred to it in Spring Attack arguments before.

It's also the reason you can't use Expertise (or Combat Expertise in 3.5) while Charging.

From the 3E SRD:
Expertise
Benefit: When the character uses the attack action or full attack action in melee...

Again, since the full attack action fell under the general category of 'attack actions' in 3E, we can see that the phrase "the attack action" must refer to "the attack action", and not to the general category of 'attack actions', which would include the full attack action, and thus make the inclusion of "or full attack action" meaningless.

Thus, when someone charges, using the Charge action, they are using neither the attack action nor the full attack action (despite Charge being part of the category of 'attack actions'), and cannot use Expertise.

The Expertise text makes it clear that 'the attack action' refers to the standard action 'Attack', not the category, and so you can't use Spring Attack on a Charge.

-Hyp.

 

[Len]

Doncha wish they'd called it the "single attack" action?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Doncha wish they'd called it the "single attack" action?

That would make too much sense. Instead we can say things like "the attack action consists of an attack action plus a move action", "the standard action consists of an action plus a move action".

The problem is there are not many good synonyms for the word "action" other than "move". Consider how hellacious it could get: "move equivalent moves are like move moves only without actual movement". They started with this odd concept of Standard Action and immediately sunk into a morass of confusing & vague terminology.

Really they should have made the definitions clear at the top in terms of legal "turns". The character has a turn. This is a "standard turn". This is a "full turn".

Everything below a turn is an action. "Single attack action", "multiple attack acton", "move action", "5' step action", etc. Add actions together as you please as long as they fit within a defined turn. You could actually create lists of standard actions and full actions now without the wording getting too bizarre (although I would prefer to avoid reusing the words "standard' and "full" altogether).

There are many ways to do it, and 3.0 found one of the worst.

I am not going to say Hyp is wrong, but to say his is obviously right based on what is written in the 3.0 PHB seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[Squire James]

I guess D&D 3.75e should have:

1. Clearly-defined categories of actions: immediate action (free, not your turn), swift action (free, your turn only), short action (what is now called "move-equivalent action"), standard action, and long action (what is now called "full-round action"). This section of the PHB should have the word "category" in it many, many times so that word will stick in peoples' minds when they read it. These are categories, not actions!

2. Categorized actions that don't contain any of these words: "immediate", "swift", "short", "standard", or "long". These are actions. You can take a long action, a short and a standard action, or 2 short actions during your turn. If desired, assign 0 points to swift/immediate actions, 2 points to short actions, 3 for standard actions, and 5 to long actions. You have 5 points to spend... use them or lose them!

3. Feat descriptions that clearly apply to either a specific action or a whole category of actions. A bit of fine feat balancing can be done at this point (Shot on the Run, for example, needs a little help IMO).

Limiting mechanisms for quickened spells will need to be implemented as well. Perhaps "quickened action" is a really small category of swift action that can only be performed once per round. Or it can simply be considered a special case of "swift action". Or all "swift actions" can only be done once per round, so the category already fits. Obviously, there's still a lot of rough spots.

The 5' step rules could be difficult too... I'd include it as an optional component in certain standard and long actions. There could be some strangeness like "I move 30' for my short action, then 5' step and attack for my standard action," but I think that would be bearable.