Timeline for Can I combine Path of War maneuvers with Power Attack?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 2016 at 7:37 | comment | added | Firebreak | Had it been intended to read "an attack action or a full attack action", couldn't it say "one of the attack or full attack actions"? There are many better alternatives to what they put down. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 7:24 | comment | added | Zachiel | @KRyan had it been intended to read (an attack) or (a full attack action), wouldn't the first already cover the second? | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 3:34 | vote | accept | Rapida | ||
| Jan 27, 2016 at 17:28 | |||||
| Jan 19, 2016 at 18:31 | comment | added | KRyan | Yup, looks good to me. By the way, did some research myself: it might be worth pointing out that 3.5 used wording that explicitly said “attack action or full-attack action.” Whether you want to read that as being how it should still be, or Paizo changing it as meaning they didn’t want it to read that way any longer, is still pretty up in the air though. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 18:29 | history | edited | MrLemon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 557 characters in body
|
| Jan 19, 2016 at 18:15 | comment | added | KRyan | That might be valid in a legal argument, but there’s no way it’s valid to hang a game rule on the presence or absence of a comma. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 18:02 | comment | added | KRyan | I would read the line in Combat Expertise as saying “making an (attack) or (full-attack action),” not “making an (attack or full-attack) action,” do you have any basis for your reading over the other? | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 17:57 | history | answered | MrLemon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |