Spring Attack Revelation

[Bigmchuge]

I know there has been some debate on what the "attack action" is mentioned in the Spring Attack feat. It recently dawned on me that the attack action Spring Attack is referring to is a "spring attack". The feat allows you the extra option execute a spring attack instead of a full attack or a standard attack. I hope that clarify's that for anyone else who was confused.

[TuggyNE]

But … what's a spring attack, and where is it defined? This appears to beg the question.

[ddude987]

Isn't the attack action defined as a standard action to make a single attack? I'm unaware of a spring attack debate on what it does RAW or what it is thought to do et cetra. Can anyone enlighten me?

[nedz]

Spring Attack [General]

When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

Standard Actions
Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.
etc.

There is no debate really.

[ddude987]

So then the spring attack feat just lets you move your move speed and make a single melee attack as a standard action?

[juicycaboose]

So then the spring attack feat just lets you move your move speed and make a single melee attack as a standard action?

No that's something you can do normally, the spring attack feat lets you move, then attack, then move again as long as your total movement doesn't exceed your movement speed.

[Curmudgeon]

There is no debate really.
You've quoted the old Spring Attack. The version in the new Premium Player's Handbook is updated:
When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can split your move action in that round in order to move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can't use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack.
This removes some of the ambiguity of the actions involved. Spring Attack isn't some special full-round action; it's an exception to the normal rules which allows you to split a move action around an attack.

The term "attack action" is used, but never defined, in the D&D game. It could be any of the following:

standard action attack
full attack action (the only option using the exact phrase)
attack of opportunity (despite this being officially "no action")
bonus attack, such as afforded by Improved Trip
In the context of Spring Attack only the first two are possibilities. That would mean — if you had some way of getting an extra move action in the round — you could use Spring Attack with a full attack action.

[olentu]

You've quoted the old Spring Attack. The version in the new Premium Player's Handbook is updated:
This removes some of the ambiguity of the actions involved. Spring Attack isn't some special full-round action; it's an exception to the normal rules which allows you to split a move action around an attack.

The term "attack action" is used, but never defined, in the D&D game. It could be any of the following:

standard action attack
full attack action (the only option using the exact phrase)
attack of opportunity (despite this being officially "no action")
bonus attack, such as afforded by Improved Trip
In the context of Spring Attack only the first two are possibilities. That would mean — if you had some way of getting an extra move action in the round — you could use Spring Attack with a full attack action.

That is not really different from the older version of spring attack with regards to the attack action. It may or may not have clarified how the move action fits into using the feat but it still says "the attack action" in both. Since it is the attack action, the action in question can be one and only one of the applicable actions. Once that is chosen you don't get to switch between them.

[Darrin]

"Attack Action" isn't really defined well by the rules. However, we know at least two of them: standard action attack, and full round attack.

Now, there's a lot of teeth-gnashing over the wording on Spring Attack, because it might be more useful if it was worded like Fly-By Attack (which allows any standard action, not just an attack), but there is some wiggle-room with the existing wordage. Namely, if you can get an additional move action (hustle power, Marshall ability, Tempo Bloodspike, etc.), you can move + full attack + finish moving with Spring Attack.

[Edit: Yeah, swordsaged by Curmudgeon.]

[olentu]

"Attack Action" isn't really defined well by the rules. However, we know at least two of them: standard action attack, and full round attack.

Now, there's a lot of teeth-gnashing over the wording on Spring Attack, because it might be more useful if it was worded like Fly-By Attack (which allows any standard action, not just an attack), but there is some wiggle-room with the existing wordage. Namely, if you can get an additional move action (hustle power, Marshall ability, Tempo Bloodspike, etc.), you can move + full attack + finish moving with Spring Attack.

[Edit: Yeah, swordsaged by Curmudgeon.]

Hmm, you know, I just noticed that by making the claim that one could spring attack with the full attack action you have implicitly made the argument that the full attack action is the attack action. That seems at odds with the earlier part of your post, where you seem to be claiming that the attack action is not really well defined.

[Curmudgeon]

It may or may not have clarified how the move action fits into using the feat but it still says "the attack action" in both. Since it is the attack action, the action in question can be one and only one of the applicable actions. Once that is chosen you don't get to switch between them.
Agreed. However, when do you choose which of the possible attack actions to apply? I see nothing requiring you to choose when you select the Spring Attack feat, and also nothing preventing you from choosing each time you use Spring Attack. You can be consistent with your one and only choice for the rest of your turn.

[olentu]

Agreed. However, when do you choose which of the possible attack actions to apply? I see nothing requiring you to choose when you select the Spring Attack feat, and also nothing preventing you from choosing each time you use Spring Attack. You can be consistent with your one and only choice for the rest of your turn.

Well, given that the choice of which action is the attack action applies to every character with the feat in the campaign, presumably the DM tells the players what he has chosen before the game starts. Without knowing how the DM has ruled in advance the players are unable to make informed character build choices.

Edit: I suppose that, as you suggest, the DM is free to change his ruling on a round by round, case by case, or whatever basis, given that he is the DM and can do whatever he wants until the players walk out. However, the DM arbitrarily changing his rulings in the middle of play strikes me as really very rather bad DMing.

[Vogonjeltz]

You've quoted the old Spring Attack. The version in the new Premium Player's Handbook is updated:
This removes some of the ambiguity of the actions involved. Spring Attack isn't some special full-round action; it's an exception to the normal rules which allows you to split a move action around an attack.

The term "attack action" is used, but never defined, in the D&D game. It could be any of the following:

standard action attack
full attack action (the only option using the exact phrase)
attack of opportunity (despite this being officially "no action")
bonus attack, such as afforded by Improved Trip
In the context of Spring Attack only the first two are possibilities. That would mean — if you had some way of getting an extra move action in the round — you could use Spring Attack with a full attack action.

You've misbolded.

Check under actions in combat. Under standard actions is "Attack"; and under full-round actions is "Full Attack". Those are actually distinct. Spring Attack only refers to the standard action.

[Curmudgeon]

Spring Attack only refers to the standard action.
Can you produce a rules citation to back up that claim? There's certainly no reference to "standard action" in the feat.

[Vogonjeltz]

Can you produce a rules citation to back up that claim? There's certainly no reference to "standard action" in the feat.

It is referred to by name.

The full-round action in which attacks are made isn't called "Attack", it is called "Full Attack".

Therefore the "Attack action" is and can only be, the former. Inclusive language would use the phrase "when attacking" instead of referring to a particular action by name.

*The rules citation is the PHB section on combat to which I referred earlier, it provides specific and distinct names for actions.

[olentu]

It is referred to by name.

The full-round action in which attacks are made isn't called "Attack", it is called "Full Attack".

Therefore the "Attack action" is and can only be, the former. Inclusive language would use the phrase "when attacking" instead of referring to a particular action by name.

*The rules citation is the PHB section on combat to which I referred earlier, it provides specific and distinct names for actions.

Eh, if you don't have the rules directly referencing one of those sections as "the attack action" there is probably still enough wiggle room in just the headings "Attack" and "Full Attack" for people to try and throw it over to DM fiat. Without that I would suggest trying a different argument. Perhaps you could try demonstrating that the full attack action and the attack action are not one and the same.

[Vogonjeltz]

Eh, if you don't have the rules directly referencing one of those sections as "the attack action" there is probably still enough wiggle room in just the headings "Attack" and "Full Attack" for people to try and throw it over to DM fiat. Without that I would suggest trying a different argument. Perhaps you could try demonstrating that the full attack action and the attack action are not one and the same.

Page 139 and page 143 define it in that specific way. Attack is the name of the action. Nobody calls it the attack action action

If you won't accept the published rules I don't know what to tell you.

[Curmudgeon]

Page 139 and page 143 define it in that specific way. Attack is the name of the action. Nobody calls it the attack action action
I don't think too many people are disputing a standard action attack can be an attack action (even though it's not explicitly named as such). However, you haven't refuted that a full attack action can also be an attack action. Specifically, the attack action you use in Spring Attack can be the full attack action.

You've got a very good (not perfect) claim for including a standard action attack as a legal option for the attack action in Spring Attack. You've made no claim for a rule stating that's the only possibility.

[olentu]

Page 139 and page 143 define it in that specific way. Attack is the name of the action. Nobody calls it the attack action action

If you won't accept the published rules I don't know what to tell you.

Look, I am just suggesting to you a better direction in which to take your argument. Just asserting that the action named attack is "the attack action" is not going to convince the DM fiat required side without an explicit reference. If you want to progress the argument to the next step the best bet is trying to show that "the full attack action" is different from "the attack action."

Of course this is not necessarily going to resolve the argument as there is always the fallback for the DM fiat required side to propose that since "the attack action" is not a game defined term there is no assurance that "the attack action" means the same thing at different points in the text. At this point language starts to lose meaning and discussion becomes pointless, but technically when the rules are gibberish DM fiat is required.

Admittedly, that last step is not always one that occurs, but I have seen it before.

[prufock]

You've got a very good (not perfect) claim for including a standard action attack as a legal option for the attack action in Spring Attack. You've made no claim for a rule stating that's the only possibility.

Where is the rule for any action other than standard being titled "attack action"? The full round option is specifically titled a "full attack" not "attack."


Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
There is a clear difference between "attack" and "full attack." They are delimited here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack) and here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack).

TL;DR: Attack Action =/= Full Attack Action.

[Person_Man]

For what little it's worth, I allow players to make a full attack with Spring Attack, because otherwise the Feat is useless beyond very low levels. Also, pounce and free movement are fairly common, so I see no reason a player shouldn't be able to just buy some version of it with 2 Feats. But I'm not claiming that's RAW.

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't think too many people are disputing a standard action attack can be an attack action (even though it's not explicitly named as such). However, you haven't refuted that a full attack action can also be an attack action. Specifically, the attack action you use in Spring Attack can be the full attack action.

You've got a very good (not perfect) claim for including a standard action attack as a legal option for the attack action in Spring Attack. You've made no claim for a rule stating that's the only possibility.

The name of the action is "Attack", it says so on page 139. This is defined as a single attack (ranged/melee/unarmed).

Standard is an action type (defined on page 138), not an action name. The other action types are move, full-round, and free.

The other method of attacking is through the action titled on page 143, "Full Attack".

That the "Attack" (standard action) is considered distinct from "Full Attack" (full-round action) by the rules is made clear in multiple locations including (but not limited to):

Page 143: "deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" (note the use of proper names), later on that same page "you can choose to fight defensively when taking a full attack action", under cleave on that page: "This is an exception to the normal limit to the number of attacks you can take when not using a full attack action.", on page 142 under Total Defense: "You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat (since both of those require you to declare an attack or full attack)." (Emphasis added).

Also on page 140 under the heading Multiple Attacks: "A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions below) in order to get more than one attack." (Emphasis added)

On page 139: "The most common type of full-round action is a full attack" (emphasis added)

On page 138: "The most common type of standard action is an attack" (emphasis added)

Finally, references from the feats section of the PHB where feats refer to Attack actions and Full Attack actions as distinct things:

Page 92 Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee" (emphasis added)

Page 100 Shot on the Run: "When using the attack action with a ranged weapon, you can split your move action in that round to move before and after the attack" (emphasis added) note: a 5 foot step, the only movement allowed during a full attack action is specifically called put by the rules as not being a move action.

Spring Attack: "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can split your move action in that round" (emphasis added) and also "You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack". It clearly indicates only the attack action, the use of only a single attack, and the use of a move action.

At no point in the text is the term "attack action" used to refer to anything but a single attack as a standard action. In all locations the PHB uses the term "full attack action" to refer to the full-round action required for multiple attacks.


Look, I am just suggesting to you a better direction in which to take your argument. Just asserting that the action named attack is "the attack action" is not going to convince the DM fiat required side without an explicit reference. If you want to progress the argument to the next step the best bet is trying to show that "the full attack action" is different from "the attack action."

How did I do? I didn't bother leaving the rest of your post in because the quotes show the text repeatedly distinguishing between the two different actions. After reviewing the entire PHB I found 0 instances where attack action referred to multiple attacks.

My conclusion: There is no textual evidence with which to assert any confusion, and the PHB takes great pains to use the specific language that it does to maintain that clarity.

[KillianHawkeye]

I just want to chime in and say that I am in 100% agreement with Vogonjeltz. This is not something to be legitimately confused over.

Even if the text wasn't as clear cut as Vogonjeltz has shown, the intent behind the usage of the Spring Attack feat is pretty clear: changing the action sequence of "Move then Attack" to "Move, Attack, then finish Moving." Keep in mind that when this feat was written, there really wasn't any way for a Player Character to move and still make multiple attacks; the assumption is obviously that if you want to move you will only get one.

[olentu]

How did I do? I didn't bother leaving the rest of your post in because the quotes show the text repeatedly distinguishing between the two different actions. After reviewing the entire PHB I found 0 instances where attack action referred to multiple attacks.

My conclusion: There is no textual evidence with which to assert any confusion, and the PHB takes great pains to use the specific language that it does to maintain that clarity.

Hmm, looks pretty good. Well, here's hoping it works.

[Gemini476]

I just want to chime in and say that I am in 100% agreement with Vogonjeltz. This is not something to be legitimately confused over.

Even if the text wasn't as clear cut as Vogonjeltz has shown, the intent behind the usage of the Spring Attack feat is pretty clear: changing the action sequence of "Move then Attack" to "Move, Attack, then finish Moving." Keep in mind that when this feat was written, there really wasn't any way for a Player Character to move and still make multiple attacks; the assumption is obviously that if you want to move you will only get one.

Erm. Being a were-leopard, or Wildshaping into a pouncing animal, is an obvious example.
Or a were-tiger, if you absolutely want to stick with published examples.

There are some ways, at least.

Not to mention that the PHB was published after the entirety of 3.0, and thus you have things like the Lion's Charge spell from Savage Species (like Psionic Lion's Charge, but a 1st level Druid spell) or, y'know, a bunch of other more exotic races.

[KillianHawkeye]

Erm. Being a were-leopard, or Wildshaping into a pouncing animal, is an obvious example.
Or a were-tiger, if you absolutely want to stick with published examples.

There are some ways, at least.

Not to mention that the PHB was published after the entirety of 3.0, and thus you have things like the Lion's Charge spell from Savage Species (like Psionic Lion's Charge, but a 1st level Druid spell) or, y'know, a bunch of other more exotic races.

Okay, there were a couple of ways. However, pouncing requires that you charge, and is thus not compatible with Spring Attack.