What is an "Attack Action" and "Full Attack Action"

[blargney the second]

*watches as Hypersmurf successfully casts Dispel Confusion*

*applauds*
-blarg

 

[RigaMortus2]

Ah right, because the special attacks are substitutions for the melee attack. Gotcha.

OK, I am convinced. Thank you for clearing this issue up for me.

So does this mean that you now agree with what Patryn said earlier?

That's not his opinion; that's the rules.

 

[Goblyn]

*watches as Hypersmurf successfully casts Dispel Confusion*

*applauds*
-blarg

*agrees with this guy*

 

[Mistwell]

So does this mean that you now agree with what Patryn said earlier?

It WAS an opinion. It's an opinion I now agree with, but it wasn't any less an opinion.

I think POE was rude in what he said earlier. It was never a matter of agreeing or not with the statement. Saying "that's not opinion, it's the rules" was the equivalent in my opinion of saying "that's not RAW, take it to the house rules forum". It didn't further the debate, and could only have a negative effect on the discussion, even if technically correct.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think POE was rude in what he said earlier.

I'm sorry you think so. I was responding to your insinuation that the poster was not correct.

The poster was and is correct. That was not the poster's opinion on what the rules stated, but rather the actual fact of what the rules stated.

I, for some reason, separate "opinions" from "facts."

 

[Bagpuss]

4) Can anyone think of anything that is an "attack" which is not an "attack action" or a "full round attack action"?

Intimidating Strike - PHB II

Standard Action which includes an attack.

Again so you can't combine it with a full attack action, or other attack forms.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm sorry you think so. I was responding to your insinuation that the poster was not correct.

The poster was and is correct. That was not the poster's opinion on what the rules stated, but rather the actual fact of what the rules stated.

I, for some reason, separate "opinions" from "facts."

We were debating what those rules meant. I had an opinion on what they meant, and that poster had an opinion, and both were opinions. I never questioned the TEXT of the rules, just how to interpret it. Did you think I was insinuating that the text itself was incorrect?

Why is this topic continuing even? What exactly is it you and Rigamortus2 are seeking at this point?

 

[Umbran]

I feel a need to remind folks that snarky or passive-aggressive tactics that attempt to attack the intelligence of your fellow board-members are strongly frowned upon here. If you feel the need to attack the person, rather than their position, you are in the wrong place. Please comport yourselves as mature adults, folks.

If anyone finds this request confusing, or feels a need to discuss it, please take it to e-mail.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

[Snip]

When you posted about blargney's "opinion," it came across as "Is that what you believe, lacking rules support for your interpretation?"

I responded, and provided multiple examples in which the rules differentiate between an attack and the Attack Standard Action. You'll notice many parallels between the examples I brought up and the ones Hypersmurf used (which, apparently, you were willing to accept, having since revised your stance).

If anything was rude ...

That has got to be one of the funnier posts I have read in the rules forum. I think I might have to bring it over to CircvsMaximvs.

... "I'm going to post about you in my secret, members-only clubhouse and we're all going to laugh at you" was rude.

That may not be what you meant, but that's certainly what it sounded like.

Accordingly, I did what I thought was the mature thing and responded one last time to you before ignoring the remainder of your posts.

Why is this topic continuing even?

I was done with it. You brought it back up and mentioned me specifically.

So, uh, are we done here?

 

[Mistwell]

When you posted about blargney's "opinion," it came across as "Is that what you believe, lacking rules support for your interpretation?"

That was your inference. The initial question was genuine. I was asking what his opinion was, in context of a specific issue I raised. I wanted to know his answer.

I responded, and provided multiple examples in which the rules differentiate between an attack and the Attack Standard Action. You'll notice many parallels between the examples I brought up and the ones Hypersmurf used (which, apparently, you were willing to accept, having since revised your stance).

I found Hypersmurfs argument persuasive, that's all. I don't always (just ask him). But this time I did. Yours just didn't convince me. It wasn't intended in a personal way, I just wasn't persuaded.

If anything was rude ...



... "I'm going to post about you in my secret, members-only clubhouse and we're all going to laugh at you" was rude.

Secret member-only clubhouse? It's the official off-topic board for members of this board POE! Go to the main menu of this board, look at the "Off Topic forum currently named 'Helminthic.'", look at it's sub-forum, and you will see "This is the off-topic forum; please observe the no puns, politics & religion rule (use Circvs Maximvs for these topics)." with a link to Circvs Maximvs. One of the purposes of Circvs Maximvs is in fact to discuss the very kind of topic I mentioned, because it's much more appropriate there than here (and my mentioning it was me telling you that we should take that topic over there). It's not secret, and it's no more members-only than here (if you want to post there, just go reg and post there - in fact I encourage you to do so, and I am sure Morrus or another mod will approve your reg). It's not a clubhouse, there is no secret cabal laughing at you, it's just another set of forums and threads associated with this board.

That may not be what you meant, but that's certainly what it sounded like.

Well I am sorry I came across that way, though I can see why. I thought you were already a user at CM. My mistake. You should go there, I think you will like it.

Accordingly, I did what I thought was the mature thing and responded one last time to you before ignoring the remainder of your posts.



I was done with it. You brought it back up and mentioned me specifically.

So, uh, are we done here?

I was done as well, until RigaMortus2 (two days later, bumping the thread from another page) mentioned you specifically and quoted you to me and asked me to respond again to your comment, which I did. Wasn't me who brought it back up!

Sure, we are done here.