Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4940070" data-attributes="member: 5122">Of course it's there.&nbsp; It simply doesn't mean what you're saying it means.Again, not all attacks are standard actions simply because the standard action table includes the word &quot;attack.&quot;&nbsp; You appear to be presenting the argument that all attacks are standard actions, and as I've tried to point out (by using the example of an AoO), that simply is not true.To approach it from another angle, you are saying that because &quot;attack&quot; appears under &quot;standard action&quot; then &quot;attack action&quot; is a defined rules term.&nbsp; If that's the case, then I guess you also believe that there's an &quot;activate a magic item other than a potion or oil action&quot; defined in the rules, too.There's not.&nbsp; &quot;Standard action&quot; is defined in the rules.&nbsp; The things you can do with a standard action aren't &quot;X action&quot; by definition ... they're simply actions you can do as a standard action.Can you attack as a standard action?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; Is it a standard action when you attack?&nbsp; Not necessarily.&nbsp; Is it an &quot;attack action&quot; when you attack?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; It's not defined in the rules, so we use the English language, instead.&nbsp; You're acting, therefore it's an action you're taking, and the action you're taking is an attack, so it's perfectly okay (if confusing to some people) to call it an attack action.&nbsp; Even if it's an AoO.BTW, I'm not (at this point) arguing that the Pathfinder designer(s) don't intend to limit Vital Strike to being used only as a standard action.&nbsp; They very well might, and that's okay with me.&nbsp; I'm simply arguing that &quot;attack action&quot; isn't a defined rules term, and (regardless of intent) it's sloppy to use it as if it is.&nbsp; Why not simply say, for instance, &quot;When making an attack as a standard action&quot;?&nbsp; Simple, clear, unambiguous.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4940070, member: 5122"] Of course it's there. It simply doesn't mean what you're saying it means. Again, [I]not all attacks are standard actions[/I] simply because the standard action table includes the word "attack." You appear to be presenting the argument that all attacks are standard actions, and as I've tried to point out (by using the example of an AoO), that simply is not true. To approach it from another angle, you are saying that because "attack" appears under "standard action" then "attack action" is a defined rules term. If that's the case, then I guess you also believe that there's an "activate a magic item other than a potion or oil action" defined in the rules, too. There's not. "Standard action" is defined in the rules. The things you can do with a standard action aren't "X action" by definition ... they're simply actions you can do as a standard action. Can you attack as a standard action? Yes. Is it a standard action when you attack? Not necessarily. Is it an "attack action" when you attack? Yes. It's not defined in the rules, so we use the English language, instead. You're acting, therefore it's an action you're taking, and the action you're taking is an attack, so it's perfectly okay (if confusing to some people) to call it an attack action. Even if it's an AoO. BTW, I'm not (at this point) arguing that the Pathfinder designer(s) don't intend to limit Vital Strike to being used only as a standard action. They very well might, and that's okay with me. I'm simply arguing that "attack action" isn't a defined rules term, and (regardless of intent) it's sloppy to use it as if it is. Why not simply say, for instance, "When making an attack as a standard action"? Simple, clear, unambiguous. [/QUOTE]

Verification