"pounce is still a full-round" and "a full round action prevents other actions"

[Seppo87]

I'm having this debate with a guy, and I wanted to know your opinion about it

He says that "a full-attack always counts as a full-round action". He supports this by saying that Full Attack is listed under full-round actions in the SRD. Since nothing in the Pounce text says otherwise, one must assume that the full attack at the end of a charge is a full-round action.

So, when you pounce, you're taking a full-round action, even if you normally couldn't because that's what Pounce says. This full-round action is just spent, even if it wasn't available.

This is where it gets interesting

"since you spent a full-round action, you can't perform other standard or move actions"
To support this, he points out this part of the SRD:
"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action"

Therefore, even if you Shadow Pounce triggered by Shadow Blink, or if you charge with a free-action using Battle Jump, you "have spent a full-round action" and are therefore "unable to couple that with other standard or move actions"

I've read countless times debates about this issue, as you probably have as well, but this is a new, interesting point of view.
I never considered this possibility.

What are your reasons to support or disregard this?

[Taveena]

Utterly contradicted by Swiftblade and Factotum and other abilities that grant extra Standards. You can take a Standard and a Full Round action there - explicitly.

[Seppo87]

He went so far as saying that "heroic surge does not grant you the ability to couple a standard or move action with a Full-round action" Basically because just having an extra standard action does not invalidate the fact that it is forbidden to couple a full-round with a standard, unless it is explicitly stated in the text.

He also said that this is meant to be read as strictly RAW, as RAI is pretty clear meant to allow it.

Is it really true that RAW means this?

[Uncle Pine]

Specific trumps general: generally, you can only take two move actions, one standard action and one move action or a full-round action per round. Also, generally attacking is a standard action, while full attacking is a full-round action.
Specifically, the rules about charging say:

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Attacking on a Charge
After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
Which means: charging is a special action that enables you to move up to twice your speed (usually two move actions) and attacking once (usually a standard action) as a full-round action.
Note that if you charge you can even move and attack using a single standard action or move action (although only in specific situations, for example if you are a zombie or during the surprise round):

If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.
Pounce is an even more specific rule that trumps over the general rules about charge. It lets you do a full attack (usually a full-attack action) at the end of a charge:

When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.

Your friend/acquaintance is reading it backwards, prioritizing the general rule over the specific one. :smallwink:

[Taveena]

Specific trumps general. That extra action granted by Swiftblade/Belt of Battle/etc is the specific, and thus it trumps the inability to couple them. Same with Pounce.

[Oddman80]

This seems to be just another perfect example of specific trumping general. It doesn't matter what the SRD says about full attacks and full round actions. The descriptions of pounce / shadow pounce, specifically say you can do this thing. The fact that shadow pounce says "Any time..." it overrides typical restrictions. If you did a free action, a swift action a move action then the standard action of using the shadow blink (Su) ability, you still get to full attack afterwards, because the shadow pounce ability specifically says you can.

[Novawurmson]

That's like saying you can't take a full round action after you quicken a spell :smallconfused:

"Casting most spells is either a standard action or a full-round action.

"The quicken spell feat allows you to spend a swift action to cast a spell.

"The quicken spell feat therefore gives you a full round of actions you wouldn't normally have.

"You have now spent a full round of actions, so you don't get your normal full round of actions."

[Seppo87]

That's like saying you can't take a full round action after you quicken a spell :smallconfused:
"The quicken spell feat allows you to spend a swift action to cast a spell.
Actually
"Casting a quickened spell is an swift action. "
This explicitly modifies the type of action spent to cast a spell. Pounce does not say anything like that about the full attack it grants, so it's not the same kind of situation.
If Pounce said "you can full attack as part of the triggering action" of course it would be different, unfortunately it does not.
It just says you can follow with a full attack.

If his reading is correct, then, it means you have spent a full-round action as you performed that full-attack, hence you can't use anymore standard or move actions, based on the phrase in the SRD which apparently estabilishes this specific limitation.

I'm honestly confused, as it seems a possibly correct reading of raws. Definitely new and original, and also interesting. I'm looking forward to read more opinions about it.

[Turion]

From what I can tell, it's not that a full-attack itself takes a full-round action, but that the full-attack action costs a full round, and making a full-attack by default uses the full-attack action. Pounce doesn't say you can take a full-attack action following a charge; it says you can make a full attack following a charge, thus changing the action required. You're using the charge action, not the full attack action.

[Seppo87]

From what I can tell, it's not that a full-attack itself takes a full-round action, but that the full-attack action costs a full round, and making a full-attack by default uses the full-attack action. Pounce doesn't say you can take a full-attack action following a charge; it says you can make a full attack following a charge, thus changing the action required. You're using the charge action, not the full attack action.

But, from SRD:

"If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks"

So even if Shadow Pounce or Pounce says you can use a Full Attack, it counts as "a special reason" thus you end up spending that full-round action anyway

[OldTrees1]

The extra attack (action action) from Improved Trip does not expend an action (Swift/Move/Standard/Immediate/FullRound) when the conditions are triggered.

Things similar to Improved Trip (Pounce & Shadowpounce) work similarly. Fulfilling the trigger causes the benefit to happen without expending further actions.

However Battle Jump is worded ambiguously, expect your DM to treat it like Diving Attack (alternate charge requirements, not something that gives a charge when triggered) once he/she reads the feat.

[Troacctid]

Bah, just change all full attacks to a standard action. Then everyone can move normally and nobody needs to care about these silly pounce shenanigans. That's what they did in 5th edition and it works fine there.

[Seppo87]

The extra attack (action action) from Improved Trip does not expend an action (Swift/Move/Standard/Immediate/FullRound) when the conditions are triggered.
That is a different situation, it is made possible because it is "as if you hadn't used you attack for the trip" therefore it's explicitly a substitution.
It's not a valid counter-example, I'm afraid, as the circumnstances are entirely different. Pounce does not say anything remotely similar to that.


Fulfilling the trigger causes the benefit to happen without expending further actions
How can I prove this? As much as I would like to be right, it's not written anywhere.
Also, even if it was the case, there is no reason to assume that it applies to Pounce, as it does not say that the full-attack is a special instance of full-attack. It is a normal full-attack that causes the expenditure of a full-roud action, according to the person I mentioned in OP, and according to the parts of SRD that were previously wouted in this very same thread (check above for reference)

Maybe it's not as simple as it looks. We're all used to think of actions as slots, but that isn't mentioned anywhere. What rules actually say isthat spending certain type of actions forbid the usage of some other type of actions. It never treats action as slots.
And this appears to be raw.
It's an entirely different perspective

By this reading, actions are not slots. They simply act based on a principle of mutual exclusion.

It is also interesting to note that by this reading Shadow Blink still allows a second full-attack.

[Karnith]

That is a different situation, it is made possible because it is "as if you hadn't used you attack for the trip" therefore it's explicitly a substitution.
It's not a valid counter-example, I'm afraid, as the circumnstances are entirely different. Pounce does not say anything remotely similar to that.
Substitute Improved Trip with Cleave, Roundabout Kick, Combat Brute, or some other similar effect; each one provides additional attacks with no mention of any action cost or substitution effects.

Also consider that if it always takes a full attack to get more than one attack in a round, then a character would need to full attack to attack and later make AoOs (or to take multiple AoOs) in the same round.

[Seppo87]

Substitute Improved Trip with Cleave, Roundabout Kick, Combat Brute, or some other similar effect; each one provides additional attacks with no mention of any action cost or substitution effects.
That's not an issue actually. By his reading, as long as the feat says you "can" do something, you can... even using an action that normally wouldn't be available... It's just that, after using certain actions, certain other actions become forbidden.
I know this is unusual, but it seems supported by the text.

Most of the examples you provided are not incompatible with this assumption either.



Also consider that if it always takes a full attack to get more than one attack in a round, then a character would need to full attack to attack and later make AoOs (or to take multiple AoOs) in the same round. This seems raw as well (assuming that actions actually work as that person is saying) even if definitely not RAI

[Brookshw]

Bah, just change all full attacks to a standard action. Then everyone can move normally and nobody needs to care about these silly pounce shenanigans. That's what they did in 5th edition and it works fine there.

Really? Huh. That's pretty cool.

[Anlashok]

I'm confused as to why there's even an argument. Nothing in any 3.5 book says anything to support your assertion and "I'm right because I say so" isn't much of a defense.

You need to find a citation to support your claim before anyone can go any further.

[Seppo87]

I'm confused as to why there's even an argument. Nothing in any 3.5 book says anything to support your assertion and "I'm right because I say so" isn't much of a defense.

You need to find a citation to support your claim before anyone can go any further.
It's not "my" claim. Anyway, arguments were provided. Which parts are wrong, and how would you prove that they are?

[Karnith]

By his reading, as long as the feat says you "can" do something, you can... even using an action that normally wouldn't be available...
wat

I didn't notice this before, and I'd like some clarification on this. Your friend thinks that you just get actions you wouldn't normally be able to use from these kinds of abilities? How does that work?

This seems raw as well (assuming that actions actually work as that person is saying) even if definitely not RAI
It is a logical consequence of always needing a full attack to make more than one attack in a round, since AoOs don't have any language (that I am aware of) that specifically states that you don't need a full attack to get them. Ask him next time you see him if he thinks that a character must anticipate what AoOs will happen later in the round in order to get them, and what happens when the character gets AoOs before that character's turn comes up.

Ask him how he thinks Snake's Swiftness works next time you see him, as that spell also does not specifically say that it doesn't require the character to take a full-round action to full attack.

[Oddman80]

Maybe i'm just confused by the original assertion. Is the argument that is being tested, that one can:

do a free action, then a swift action, then shadow blink, then shadow pounce.
But that you cannot:

shadow blink, then shadow pounce, then do anything after that (move action, free action, swift action)

Or is there something else being debated? Because I agree with the above. The order of actions do matter.

[Seppo87]

wat

I didn't notice this before, and I'd like some clarification on this. Your friend thinks that you just get actions you wouldn't normally be able to use from these kinds of abilities? How does that work?
Basically, Shadow Pounce says you "can" follow with a full attack, so you can full attack, even if you already used actions that would normally have the effect of stopping you from using a full-round action.

By his reading, actions need to be allowed, not available, in order to be used.
They are not spent the same way money are. By his reading, actions simply become mutually exclusive as a consequence of their use, because some actions explicitly prevent you from using other actions.
If you read the rules carefully, this seems more likely than the other way around.
After considering this, I felt really confused, so I came here to ask for the playgrounders' opinion, hoping to find a definite answer.

Ask him next time you see him if he thinks that a character must anticipate what AoOs will happen later in the round in order to get them, and what happens when the character gets AoOs before that character's turn comes up.
I will. Or I might invite him here.


Ask him how he thinks Snake's Swiftness works next time you see him, as that spell also does not specifically say that it doesn't require the character to take a full-round action to full attack.
I can assume it works. It says you can use that attack, so you can? I'm not sure, and I will ask. Either way, if it works, you're still using a standard action, which may carry consequences.

[Karnith]

All right, so on review, it looks like your friend's rules readings can be separated into 3 main parts.

The first is that actions "build up" in a round, rather than "count down," or as you put it:

By his reading, actions need to be allowed, not available, in order to be used.
They are not spent the same way money are. By his reading, actions simply become mutually exclusive as a consequence of their use, because some actions explicitly prevent you from using other actions.
Which is essentially fine on its own; it is simply another way of looking at how a character can act in a round. The problem mainly comes in with the other ideas that your friend has.

The second is that attacks always take an action. This is the one that threw me off (because it's bizarre, particularly the part where a character somehow gets extra actions to use), but it's pretty easy to answer. As an example:

He says that "a full-attack always counts as a full-round action". He supports this by saying that Full Attack is listed under full-round actions in the SRD. Since nothing in the Pounce text says otherwise, one must assume that the full attack at the end of a charge is a full-round action.

So, when you pounce, you're taking a full-round action, even if you normally couldn't because that's what Pounce says. This full-round action is just spent, even if it wasn't available.
As an answer, Pounce (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#pounce) and Shadow Pounce are Extraordinary abilities (generally), and Ex abilities do not require actions to use unless an action is specified (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities) (and Pounce, unsurprisingly, do not say that it needs an action to use). A creature with Pounce making a charge will only ever take one full-round action to make a charge and full attack at the end of it because of this, and a character with Shadow Pounce using a teleportation effect does not require any additional actions to make a full attack after teleporting for the same reason.

The last thing has been fairly well-covered by the thread, and its your friend's misunderstanding of specific trumping general, e.g.:

He went so far as saying that "heroic surge does not grant you the ability to couple a standard or move action with a Full-round action" Basically because just having an extra standard action does not invalidate the fact that it is forbidden to couple a full-round with a standard, unless it is explicitly stated in the text.
And there's not really much to say to these things that hasn't been said already; your friend just doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on determining specificity. Taking the Heroic Surge, it says that you can take an extra standard or move action in addition to your normal actions in a round. That is obviously more specific than the regular rules on actions allowed during a turn, and so it does what it says it does, and overrides the normal restrictions on actions available to allow for it. The same (essentially) goes for other situations you mentioned, such as with Cleave (etc.) - your friend is using a general rule to override more specific rules.

[Psyren]

Bah, just change all full attacks to a standard action. Then everyone can move normally and nobody needs to care about these silly pounce shenanigans. That's what they did in 5th edition and it works fine there.

Most classes only get one attack though, rendering the point moot. It's nice for fighters though.

[aleucard]

Most classes only get one attack though, rendering the point moot. It's nice for fighters though.

Technically, most classes that would worry about this get an extra by at least 7, and this does a good job of making Monk more useful than normal too. Not sure if one should rule that SA gets restricted in such things, but I'm not entirely sure if it would be much help anyway.

[Trasilor]

I am really confused by the question.

Pounce modifies a Charge.

Charge is a specific type of Full Round Action.

This is a case of specific trumps general.

Where is the ambiguity?

[Boci]

Bah, just change all full attacks to a standard action. Then everyone can move normally and nobody needs to care about these silly pounce shenanigans. That's what they did in 5th edition and it works fine there.

The argument I've heard against that is "what about monsters?". Its fine if all PCs can do it, but if all monsters get pounce as well, squishy party members are suddenly a lot more vulnerable.

[Psyren]

The argument I've heard against that is "what about monsters?". Its fine if all PCs can do it, but if all monsters get pounce as well, squishy party members are suddenly a lot more vulnerable.

Many/most monsters do get pounce in 5e thanks to their "multiattack" ability.

[Boci]

Many/most monsters do get pounce in 5e thanks to their "multiattack" ability.

Sure, but Troacctid was recommending that for 3.5, which is the edition I was talking about.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm having this debate with a guy, and I wanted to know your opinion about it

He says that "a full-attack always counts as a full-round action". He supports this by saying that Full Attack is listed under full-round actions in the SRD. Since nothing in the Pounce text says otherwise, one must assume that the full attack at the end of a charge is a full-round action.

So, when you pounce, you're taking a full-round action, even if you normally couldn't because that's what Pounce says. This full-round action is just spent, even if it wasn't available.

This is where it gets interesting

"since you spent a full-round action, you can't perform other standard or move actions"
To support this, he points out this part of the SRD:
"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action"

Therefore, even if you Shadow Pounce triggered by Shadow Blink, or if you charge with a free-action using Battle Jump, you "have spent a full-round action" and are therefore "unable to couple that with other standard or move actions"

I've read countless times debates about this issue, as you probably have as well, but this is a new, interesting point of view.
I never considered this possibility.

What are your reasons to support or disregard this?

My opinion is that failing to take the full import of the text into consideration leads to misunderstandings of the game rules. It is also my opinion that this is an equally bad thing to do in all other aspects of life.

The text is simply explaining that normally a character can take 1 full-round action or 1 standard and 1 move action or 2 move actions per turn. Normally a full-attack action requires a full-round action, which means you can't do the other things...because they're normally mutually exclusive.

Pounce explicitly circumvents that by making the full-attack happen as part of another action, specifically a charge:
"When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack".

Specific exception to the general rule. Got it?

Also, Battle Jump isn't a free action charge, falling takes movement.


Really? Huh. That's pretty cool.

Yes, but they also changed it so extra attacks are a class feature, and only Fighter gets 4 (so if you don't take that 16th level of Fighter you're never getting a 4th attack no matter how many levels you take). Granted, they also made Fighters awesome with the Combat Masteries. But still.

*boo Psyren had it first.