3.5e Is a full attack always an action?

[Darg]

The rules say that you must use a full-round action to benefit from multiple attacks. There several exceptions to this, but I want to focus mostly on bonus full attacks such as on a pounce or shadow pounce. Are the full attacks an action on their own or simply a rider effect to the action that triggered them and full attack is simply describing a familiar scenario? The reason I am asking is that the two terms are used interchangeably. Whirlwind Attack requires a full attack action to function while the class feature Bladewind from Soulknife only requires a full attack. Would you by RAW, RAI, or for some other reason be able to use one or both on a pounce?

[Telonius]

A "Full Attack" is one type of Full-Round Action. There are several others (casting a spell with a casting time of 1 round, certain special abilities specified as full-round actions, using the Withdraw action, Running 5x speed), but Full Attack is the most common one.

Normally when you charge, it would take a full-round action to do. (A special situation is when you're limited to a single action in a round, such as from a Slow effect; you can still charge as a standard action in that special case). So by the standard rules, you would only be able to charge, and not do anything else in the round. The "Pounce" ability specifies:

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.

Note that it says "Full Attack" only, not "Full Round Action." So you couldn't charge and cast a spell with a casting time of 1 round, or any of the other full-round actions that aren't Full Attacks.

So if you have Pounce, you can follow up the charge with a Full Attack, or anything that you can use in place of a Full Attack. Whirlwind Attack's wording is friendly to that:

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks...

Shadow Pounce (from Teflammar Shadowlord) is a bit less clear. The wording of the ability implies a single target:

The shadowlord must have line of sight on his intended target from his original location, and the spot to which he teleports must be a place from which he can launch a melee attack at the intended target with whatever weapon he has in hand at the beginning of his action.

However, the wording also says that you can full attack. The regular rules for Full Attack say you don't have to use all your attacks at a single foe, and can decide who to strike with each one. So two possible interpretations: this is an exception to the regular rules on Full Attack, and you can use your multiple attacks only against a single foe you specify and target; or the wording was clunky but you can use the full attack normally against anybody you can reach from the point of teleportation. I think this would be a "DM Call" situation.

[rrwoods]

I think the question being asked is "do 'full attack' and 'full attack action' mean the same thing, or do you make a 'full attack' during a 'full attack action'?" If it's the latter, then Whirlwind Attack can't be combined with pounce (you're not "taking a full attack action", you're "making a full attack").

[Darg]

I think the question being asked is "do 'full attack' and 'full attack action' mean the same thing, or do you make a 'full attack' during a 'full attack action'?" If it's the latter, then Whirlwind Attack can't be combined with pounce (you're not "taking a full attack action", you're "making a full attack").

That is what I am asking. My issue is that full attack is only referenced in the rules as an action from what I can find. Is there some example or explanation I can look at that separates the two? Or is it simply inference that leads to the conclusion they are different things?

[Necroticplague]

I think the question being asked is "do 'full attack' and 'full attack action' mean the same thing, or do you make a 'full attack' during a 'full attack action'?" If it's the latter, then Whirlwind Attack can't be combined with pounce (you're not "taking a full attack action", you're "making a full attack").

To the best of my knowledge, it's the latter. A full-attack is a type of thing you can do, normally unlocked using the Full-Round action Full Attack action. However, you can also get it with shadow pouncing, pounce, some strikes, ect. This is just like how a single attack can be done by the standard-action Attack action, but also by AoO, or as part of a maneuver initiation. Some things can be done when you attack, and thus done on AoOs (Grapple, Trip), while others require their own standard action to perform, and so can't (bull-rush, overrun).

Thus, the interpretation about Whirlwind Attack is correct. it's an alternate use for the Full Attack Action, not a replacement for a Full Attack.

[Darg]

To the best of my knowledge, it's the latter. A full-attack is a type of thing you can do, normally unlocked using the Full-Round action Full Attack action. However, you can also get it with shadow pouncing, pounce, some strikes, ect. This is just like how a single attack can be done by the standard-action Attack action, but also by AoO, or as part of a maneuver initiation. Some things can be done when you attack, and thus done on AoOs (Grapple, Trip), while others require their own standard action to perform, and so can't (bull-rush, overrun).

Thus, the interpretation about Whirlwind Attack is correct. it's an alternate use for the Full Attack Action, not a replacement for a Full Attack.

But where does that reasoning come from? Where is it said that it isn't an action? The PHB says that making an attack is a standard action. It also says that a full attack with multiple attacks makes the attacks in order from high to low BAB. Why shouldn't any attack be considered a standard action and by extension a full attack as a full-round action making multiple attacks which are standard actions?

[Necroticplague]

But where does that reasoning come from? Where is it said that it isn't an action? The PHB says that making an attack is a standard action.

It says the Attack action is a standard action, not that making an attack is a standard action.

Why shouldn't any attack be considered a standard action and by extension a full attack as a full-round action making multiple attacks which are standard actions?

The former is incompatible with AoOs and strikes off the top of my head (since you’re not using any action for the former, and using the ‘initiate a maneuver’ action for the latter, not the attack action ), while the latter is gibberish. A full attack action is a type of full-round action, not multiple standard actions. Your normal character doesn’t have multiple standard actions to use.

[Darg]

It says the Attack action is a standard action, not that making an attack is a standard action.

Except that is exactly what it says under the attack action as you say: "Making an attack is a standard action." Is there another location that defines what an attack is?

The former is incompatible with AoOs and strikes off the top of my head (since you’re not using any action for the former, and using the ‘initiate a maneuver’ action for the latter, not the attack action ), while the latter is gibberish. A full attack action is a type of full-round action, not multiple standard actions. Your normal character doesn’t have multiple standard actions to use.

Actions are abstractions for fractional amounts of time it takes to do something within a round. It isn’t incompatible with AoOs or strikes because of that. In that same fashion a full attack with 2 or more attacks could posses multiple attack actions.

Where does the understanding that attacks aren't just standard actions come from? Where does the divide between an attack and its action come from? I am trying to find out where the "common sense" of that originated. In a vacuum with 3.5e it doesn't seem to be common sense. Maybe its a thought pattern holdover from OD&D and AD&D? Maybe it's something I'm just not seeing in the 3.0 handbook?