Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Attacking is a standard action I think so you can't do that right?

You can do a move and a standard or 2 moves, but not 2 standards as far as I understand it. Looking for confirmation.

share|improve this question
I've gotten hung up on standard actions, full actions, moves, etc. as well. Why did D&D make combat/movement more complicated anyways starting with v3.0? – RobertF Apr 2 '14 at 13:42
@RobertF In trying to explain pre-3e combat to people who got into D&D post 3e, I've discovered that pre-3e combat is very flexible and loose to an experienced DM... which is the same as unclear and arbitrary to a novice. WotC was trying to clarify and regiment combat so it wasn't arbitrary "mother may I" with the DM, but that brought its own compromises too. Both are complicated to someone, just for different reasons. – SevenSidedDie Apr 2 '14 at 16:27
up vote 11 down vote accepted

That is correct. You get either a full-round action, or one each of a standard and a move. A second move can be substituted in place of the standard, but a second standard cannot be substituted for the move.

Here's a complete overview of action types, as well as a nifty overview of what action is of which type.

share|improve this answer
I'd add this link for a full reference on Actions in Pathfinder ^^ – Landir Apr 2 '14 at 9:09
@Landir I took the liberty to edit that Link to the answer. – MrLemon Apr 2 '14 at 11:49
@MrLemon thank you :) – Landir Apr 2 '14 at 14:26
@Nerevar Not exactly. Casting a Spell is not always a standart action. Some spells use move actions, others even swift actions. You need to look at the spell description to check. – Thales Sarczuk Apr 2 '14 at 16:07
@Nerevar Also note that it's entirely possible for something to create an exception. A feat or class feature could say something like "You're allowed one free attack after performing a standard action to do something other than attack," or "You may make a single attack as a swift action," or something, any of which would allow you to attack after a standard action. You simply cannot do that in absence of anything saying otherwise. – KRyan Apr 2 '14 at 16:27

Well, you are correct in that point. You can't normally do two standards, but you can do two moves or a move and a standard.

However, regarding this comment of yours on the answer of Matthew Najmon:

makes sense, so casting a spell and then attacking with a weapon is not doable in 1 round right?

That is perfectly doable with the right spell. It seems to me that the doubt is not exactly about actions but about Actions and Spells. While it's true that you can't do two Standard Actions on the same turn, there are lots of spells that don't use up a Standard Action, using only a Move or a Swift Action. Sure Strike, for example, only uses a Swift Action, so you could use Sure Strike, attack, and even move, all in a single turn!

Keep that in mind when talking about Spells and Attacks. There are lots of spells that can be used as a Swift or a Immediate, so it's good to have a reference at hand when doubts arise.

share|improve this answer
thanks, that makes sense! A spell witch casting time of standard action cannot be used in tandem with an attack though correct? For example Shillelagh which enhances the weapon it is cast on. – Nerevar Apr 2 '14 at 16:45
@Nerevar that´s right. That spell is a Standard, so you can´t cast it and attack on the same round. Your reasoning is correct. However, as KRyan said on a comment to the other awnser, feats and other things can open exceptions. – Thales Sarczuk Apr 2 '14 at 16:50

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.