You are missing the effect of initiative on combat and that initiative isn't strictly a combat construct, it applies to any "encounter" where order or timing matter (slamming a door shut for example). In our group by the time intent is known, initiative is rolled. Even if the rogue is invisible, there is still the possibility that they could be detected (low roll vs high roll, penalties and bonuses or counter abilities). Basically once opposed rolls are coming into play (perception vs stealth) initiative should be coming into play as well. In turn, this means your actions become considered.
Now that order is determined, once the rogue decides to "attack" they are getting their action as per the rules. Maybe it will be a short charge (as they are limited to a standard action being the initiator of combat) or maybe it will be a standard action attack. What we do is they aren't getting a full round attack barring some magical item or ability that allows it (exception to the general rule in surprise round). This is also a balancing issue, getting a full round attack during a surprise round would possibly end an encounter before it begins (both ways). By limiting what you can do, in most cases this preserves some possibility of challenge and prevents all or nothing encounters.
If you are starting combat against unaware opponents all you get is a standard action ever, by the base rules. You aren't even allowed to start a full round attack during the surprise action as you are incapable of using a full round attack as a standard action (again generally). Even if you had amazing rolls and were keeping pace adjacent to that opponent with them unaware and effectively "held" your action so you could "go first" on the following round, you still get limited to a "standard action during the surprise round" you initiated.
|
It's a single action only and making the attack is the surprise round.
If the rogue wants to get a full attack off in the surprise round, they want to have Sandals of Quick Reaction, which allow taking a move and a standard in the surprise round. That should allow a full attack. If the rogue also wins initiative, that means two full attack sneak attacks before the enemy goes, and hopefully that means the enemy never gets a chance to go.
I believe that initiative should not be rolled unless someone is initiating an action that lets the other party know combat is beginning.
I.E.
invisible rogue attacking -> roll initiative
invisible rogue lurking around -> do not roll initiative
When that action (the one that informs the other party that combat is starting) is declared, it must be a standard or move action, by the rules on surprise rounds.
It's a single action only and making the attack is the surprise round.
If the rogue wants to get a full attack off in the surprise round, they want to have Sandals of Quick Reaction, which allow taking a move and a standard in the surprise round. That should allow a full attack. If the rogue also wins initiative, that means two full attack sneak attacks before the enemy goes, and hopefully that means the enemy never gets a chance to go.
Doesn't work that way. In your example, that surprise round you get a standard and a move, period. You don't get to mix and match and get "creative" when restrictions are imposed. That is why the restrictions exist.
How about this:
The "start full-round action" standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
Edit: damn. Better read thoroughly next time.
One thing I didn't see addressed in this thread is the static chance to notice that someone is within 30'. This could allow someone to act in the surprise round even if they weren't sure where the lurker was.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack.
One thing I didn't see addressed in this thread is the static chance to notice that someone is within 30'. This could allow someone to act in the surprise round even if they weren't sure where the lurker was.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack.
I did actually touch on that with the whole invisible rogue being detected and why initiative isn't "just" a combat construct.
|
|
a move + a standard is not a full round attack
like the scout archetype, specifically giving a move and standard
I'm not sure what ability of the Scout archetype you're referring to. Nothing I see in the archetype says anything about the surprise round or getting a move and a standard. All I see it doing is limiting sneak attack to the first attack, not preventing taking additional attacks.
I'd argue the move+standard=full round point more strongly if the FAQ about the nauseated condition hadn't come out, but with as finely as the PDT drew the lines of what actions are allowed there, you may be right.
The rules state what you can do, exceptions are made and will counter what rules allow. Exception based rule set.
The rules state "normally" (when you have no limitation) during a "normal" round you can decide to take a full round action and a 5' step, a standard action and a movement action. There are no rules for having a standard action and movement action to "build up" to a full action anywhere in the rules that I have seen. Without a rule stating it is possible, it isn't an option.
An unimpeded full round action can be broken down into a standard and move.
There are no rules anywhere (that I've run into since PFRPG came out) that state you can build a standard and move action into a full round action. It isn't even hinted at via tangential rules (IE items that enable the potential possibility don't state you are allowed to). And as those are the "exceptions" that is exactly where they would be mentioned if it were possible.
Not to mention that the game rarely takes the "two way street" approach. Very often things that are "like" something are not totally interchangeable with that something. It gets used to reference things without the word count of restating the references. So we get things like having a full round action is equal to a standard and move action, yet a standard and move action are not equal to a full round action. The rules tend to be written very "logically" in that sense, but people often argue them because the results don't "make sense" (or they don't like the results, which in turn becomes 'the rules don't say I can't' camp).
What bothers me is that this means that the surprise round can actually be a disadvantage for some characters. As in, sometimes it's better to have a full round action and have *every* enemy able to react to you than it is for you (and half of your enemies) to have a standard action because that one guy in the corner didn't instantly notice you.
What bothers me is that this means that the surprise round can actually be a disadvantage for some characters. As in, sometimes it's better to have a full round action and have *every* enemy able to react to you than it is for you (and half of your enemies) to have a standard action because that one guy in the corner didn't instantly notice you.
Not really, a surprise round means you gain actions over those not in it. A standard action to be exact. Action economy is a big thing. Flat footed is a denial of defenses or reaction to your actions (minus Dex, no AoO, not being able to act until their initiative, etc). It is strictly beneficial.
Not really, a surprise round means you gain actions over those not in it. A standard action to be exact. Action economy is a big thing. Flat footed is a denial of defenses or reaction to your actions (minus Dex, no AoO, not being able to act until their initiative, etc). It is strictly beneficial.
I admit it's an edge case, but if you're a two-weapon fighting (or whirlwind attacking) glass cannon surrounded by by a bunch of weaker enemies, the difference between a full round action and a standard action can be the difference between taking down most enemies before they get their turn... or taking down one enemy and taking several hits from his allies before you can continue.
It's only an upgrade if the enemy loses more of their damage potential than you do. Which happens most of the time, but isn't necessarily always the case.
|
a move + a standard is not a full round attack
like the scout archetype, specifically giving a move and standard
I'm not sure what ability of the Scout archetype you're referring to. Nothing I see in the archetype says anything about the surprise round or getting a move and a standard. All I see it doing is limiting sneak attack to the first attack, not preventing taking additional attacks.
I'd argue the move+standard=full round point more strongly if the FAQ about the nauseated condition hadn't come out, but with as finely as the PDT drew the lines of what actions are allowed there, you may be right.
my bad, it's the BANDIT archetype,
4th level ability:Ambush (Ex): At 4th level, a bandit becomes fully practiced in the art of ambushing. When she acts in the surprise round, she can take a move action, standard action, and swift action during the surprise round, not just a move or standard action. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.
specifically mentioning "move+Standard+swift" is for me a clear way of saying "not a full-round"
I highly doubt that the person who wrote that ability used the specific phrasing they did to prohibit full round actions. That is insanely pedantic reasoning to use in a game whose writers tout "Pathfinder is not written to the standards of a technical manual" as something we should be grateful for (instead of a sad but unavoidable reality at best).
Besides, if we want to play the technicalities game, I can't see anything that explicitly prohibits taking a full-round action when you can only take a standard or move action. It is just strongly implied, kind of like how it is strongly implied that the reason you can't take a full-round action is solely because you don't have a standard and a move available i.e. if you have both then you can "swap" them out for a full-round action, regardless of why you have them, barring specific prohibitions on the use of the actions ala Quick Runner's Shirt.
|
|
as a non-native english speaker, I'll presume that " insanely pedantic " means that I did not interpret the sentence correctly :)
however, the ambush ability mentions std+move+swift. not a 'normal round' of actions. it's still surprise round with its limitations.
if you check the SRD under Combat ,
you'll see the "Action types" (chapter title) under which are listed the possible actions for a round :
* Standard Action: ...
* Move Action: ...
* Free Action: ...
* Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round...
so (as far as I understand) a full-round is an action on its own and is not allowed in the surprise round, even by the archetype.
Nothing prevents the rogue from delaying his action until the second round, or enter full defense on the first round, or any other kind of standard action to wait until the surprise round is over. But that can be done only after the combat has started and initiative rolled.
The surprise round, however, should only be applied in case some (or all) of the sides of a combat were not ready for combat.
So, when a character decides to ambush someone, they are aware of their opponent, but their opponent is not aware of her. If she decides to attack, we enter the surprise round, and everybody roll initiative. We check who is aware of who (perception checks), and those who fail cannot act on the surprise round.
The ambushing character then has two advantages, they have their weapons draw, and they have one standard action before the opponent (which also has lower AC) had even the chance of drawing his weapon (a move action unless they have quick draw).
So with enough luck, you can make an attack and then a full-attack before your opponent tries to attack you.
Wouldn't you roll initiative when you're moving up to them, and that move up to them while you're still invisible would be your one free surprise round action? Then just unleash a full attack when your turn comes up, right?
@Gulthor
That's one interpretation.
But i believe a combat starts only when both sides are aware of each other (even if surprised), which could mean a knife on the back, an arrow being shoot, or a stealth check failing.
Either that or we assume that "combat" has started the moment that both walked into the same room, aware or not of each other.
Lets change things slightly and say it is an invisible magus initiating combat with spell combat, casting Bladed Dash. He is standing 35' away from his target.
You no longer have that DC 20 perception check to notice "something" is present.
Options:
1. We roll initiative, the magus delays until the end of surprise round, the target is making an opposed perception roll vs an invisible opponent. Even if he rolls a 20, it is unlikely he succeeds. Magus attacks on 1st full round against an unaware opponent. Initiative roll becomes irrelevant: the attacker, coming off delay, automatically goes first.
2. We concede that the attacker is going to get a full attack and skip the 6 second delay in initiating combat. Initiative still matters, the attacker might, or might not, go first in the 1st full round.
Since a full round action is not allowed in the surprise round, would it not be advantageous for a "full round attack" based character to hold his action in the surprise round until the start of the regular round and take his full round of actions then?
Can you hold your action from the surprise round in this manner?
Can you hold your action from the surprise round in this manner?
Nothing in RAW prevents it.
There is no "hold" there is only "delay" and "ready".
There is no "hold" there is only "delay" and "ready".
Delay was the term I used in my initial post.
You are nitpicking syntax, not addressing intent - which is a legal action under RAW.
I highly doubt that the person who wrote that ability used the specific phrasing they did to prohibit full round actions. That is insanely pedantic reasoning to use in a game whose writers tout "Pathfinder is not written to the standards of a technical manual" as something we should be grateful for (instead of a sad but unavoidable reality at best).
Besides, if we want to play the technicalities game, I can't see anything that explicitly prohibits taking a full-round action when you can only take a standard or move action. It is just strongly implied, kind of like how it is strongly implied that the reason you can't take a full-round action is solely because you don't have a standard and a move available i.e. if you have both then you can "swap" them out for a full-round action, regardless of why you have them, barring specific prohibitions on the use of the actions ala Quick Runner's Shirt.
If you had a rule, anything even tangentially implying you could do it, to set a precedent... Maybe you cold argue "it could happen" and even then, your entire stance is based on "it doesn't tell me I can't" and "I doubt it was their intent" which are the two largest red flags you can run into on a rules debate. You aren't the developer, neither am I, we can't know "intent" beyond what the rules state you can or cannot do in any given situation . No rules to state you can add a standard action and move action together to make a full round action, means you cannot do it.
There is absolutely nothing regarding 'building up' your actions into a full round action that I could find. It just isn't "allowed" by the rules, because there are no rules that let you do it nor even exceptions to rules that imply you could. You need something to enable it, and there isn't anything. It is the exact same argument as "my dead character can continue to do xyz because it doesn't say I cannot, so obviously the intent is I can".
If you really truly think it is allowed, make an FAQ thread and link it here. I will happily give it a click.
|
|
Skylancer4 -
Again, I'm not really arguing that my reading is the correct and only reading, because I accept that the FAQ on nauseated and only allowing a move action (not swifts and free actions as a lot of people previously assumed) is pretty strong evidence that a very strict reading of the rules may be correct.
That being said, what you're offering is a very strict reading of the rules. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It also doesn't mean it's the only reading of the rules. At a table, I wouldn't insist that the alternative is the only viewpoint, either.
There are no rules anywhere (that I've run into since PFRPG came out) that state you can build a standard and move action into a full round action. It isn't even hinted at via tangential rules (IE items that enable the potential possibility don't state you are allowed to). And as those are the "exceptions" that is exactly where they would be mentioned if it were possible.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.
Bolding mine. That bolded sentence is a rule that is drawing an equivalency between a move+standard and a full-round action. It does not directly state that you can swap a move and a standard for a full-round action, but it does suggest an equivalency. In other words, that line can be read as defining a normal round as one in which you can perform a move+standard (or full-round) action. Which can then mean, if you can perform a move+standard, you have a normal round. Again, not the only reading of that sentence.
The next question is, if a full-round action is not a move+standard, then what is it? Well, we have this from later on in that section:
A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.
Bolding mine again. That would seem to support the idea that a Full-round Action is something different. It could have said it consumes your move+standard, but it instead says all your effort, then it goes on to specifically allow swift and free actions. So by all your effort, it really means all your effort except your swift and free actions. What does that leave us with? Move+standard. Still not definitive, and there won't be anything definitive, but it's reasonable for a GM to look at that as further evidence for the equivalency.
Where things get interesting is when an ability or rule allows for more than a move+standard in a normal round. If it truly means a Full-round Action uses all of your effort in the round except for your swift and free actions, then what happens if you spend a Hero point to get an extra standard action in a round when you've taken a Full-attack? Does the Full-attack consume that standard action as well? Or does it only consume the move+standard from the normal round? The Hero Point rules don't say you get a standard in addition to a Full-round action. They just say you get another standard action. Whenever I've played a game with Hero Points, that standard has been allowed in addition to a Full-round action. But, Hero Points are meant to break the rules, so not definitive.
I can't remember which item or spell it is, but there's something that allows you to take an additional move action in a round where you already have a move+standard. Would you be able to move then Full-attack in that situation? (EDITED:)Or does the Full-attack consume the additional move action as well?(END EDIT)
To me, when I'm running a table, I see that equivalency, and it makes sense that if you can take a move and a standard, then you can take a full-round action. If you get extra actions on top of a move+standard, then you can take them with a Full-round Action. Is that a looser reading of the rules? Sure. Is it wrong? I don't think that can be said definitively without a more direct statement somewhere in the rules. Is it the one and only interpretation of the rules? That can't be said either, without something more direct.
But, then the nauseated FAQ enters the picture, and it says:
Nauseated and Actions: Does the nauseated condition really mean what it says when it says “The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn” or does it just mean I can’t take a standard action?
The nauseated condition really means what it says. You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions. Compare to the staggered condition, which says “A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions.”
We've been told FAQs only apply to the thing they are talking about, but this does seem to say read the language as literally as possible, in which case we have this, "In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action." There's that word "only" which causes a problem. Fortunately, later under the Surprise Round heading, swift and free actions are specifically allowed.
So it all comes back to whether or not the GM feels that a Full-Round Action=Move+Standard. I don't think the fact that that is not said more specifically is enough to definitively say that it isn't true, but I don't think the line that is there, using the word "or" is enough to definitively say that it is true. But I think the way the ruling was made in the nauseated FAQ probably means if the question were ever given an FAQ, the PDT might lean more towards the conservative, stricter interpretation. So if a GM tells me move+standard does not equal full-round action, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong. But if I'm a GM and a player is treating a move+standard as equal to a full-round action, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong either.
Which means, if you're thinking about buying an item like the Sandals in order to make a full-round action in the surprise round, ask your GM first. If you're buying them for PFS, expect table variation.
Skylancer4 -
Again, I'm not really arguing that my reading is the correct and only reading, because I accept that the FAQ on nauseated and only allowing a move action (not swifts and free actions as a lot of people previously assumed) is pretty strong evidence that a very strict reading of the rules may be correct.
That being said, what you're offering is a very strict reading of the rules. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It also doesn't mean it's the only reading of the rules. At a table, I wouldn't insist that the alternative is the only viewpoint, either.
There are no rules anywhere (that I've run into since PFRPG came out) that state you can build a standard and move action into a full round action. It isn't even hinted at via tangential rules (IE items that enable the potential possibility don't state you are allowed to). And as those are the "exceptions" that is exactly where they would be mentioned if it were possible.In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.
Bolding mine. That bolded sentence is a rule that is drawing an equivalency between a move+standard and a full-round action. It does not directly state that you can swap a move and a standard for a full-round action, but it does suggest an equivalency. In other words, that line can be read as defining a normal round as one in which you can perform a move+standard (or full-round) action. Which can then mean, if you can perform a move+standard, you have a normal round. Again, not the only reading of that sentence.
The next question is, if a full-round action is not a move+standard, then what is it? Well, we have this from later on in that secction.
So again, we are at "The rules don't tell me I cannot do this." The rules are full of items that are "like" something yet not interchangeable with. Case in point, Gauntlets. They are equivalent to unarmed strikes for damage and provoke attacked of opportunity like an unarmed strike while doing lethal damage. Yet they are not interchangeable with all abilities that function on unarmed strikes. This literally shows how you cannot "just" decide something is 'equivalent' because it looks like it should be in the rules. It sets the precedent for "this thing is like another, but not equal to" and isn't the first or only rule/item/what have you, that does so. Just because it "seems" like it could be used that way, doesn't mean it is actually allowed to be. It all goes back to, in the game the rules tell you what you can do, those are your only options until a specific rule makes an exception. The game is full of A=B, B=C, but C does not equal A logic. This bothers some people, but that doesn't change the fact it is a "way of life" in this game, you just have to learn to deal with it.
1)Are there rules that allow you to do this specific "thing"? No.
2)Are there circumstancial/tangential rules that do something similar? Yes (the Bandit archetype). Do those rules allow you to do this "equivalent" thing? No. And as a matter of fact they spell out exactly that it doesn't happen.
When no rules allow it and tangential rules that would do exactly what you think should happen, spell out it doesn't happen, all roads lead to it not being allowed. We are in the "Rules" forum to hash out what the rules say. What we can all agree on is they definitely don't say you can do it, and you actually have to work at trying to get it to happen with things like "obviously they didn't intend for it to not work this way" or "If we look at it like this, and these two things together can be used like that, and ignore the fact the one ability published that would do exactly what I think should happen but states it doesn't occur, we could make a case for this to happen"...
You are jumping through too many hoops to get your desired result. A sure sign you aren't following the rules. That is what this forum is for, to find out what the rules say on the subject, to remove table variation. Not "how I think it should be run" but what the actual rules state/imply (and which occasionally doesn't make sense).
|
|
The Bandit Archetype does not spell out exactly that it doesn't happen. If Bandit said you get a move and a standard, but cannot take a full-round action, that would be spelling out that it doesn't happen. It doesn't say that. You can't add words to the rules anymore than I can. If there's an equivalency elsewhere in the rules to indicate you can take a full-round action in place of a move+standard, then Bandit does nothing to change that.
You're trying to boil my viewpoint down to "The rules don't tell me I cannot do this," so I can, and that's not what I'm saying at all. It's not nearly that simple. The question is, what evidence is there in the rules that a move+standard=a full-round action?
The rules don't say one way or the other, but they do draw that equivalency by presenting move+standard as one option or full-round action as another, so an interpretation must be made. It's not an automatic "well then I can do it." What it means is, we need to look deeper into the rules to try to figure it out. I've looked at what the rules do say, and I've outlined above how I came to my conclusion. I'm not just dismissing it as well it doesn't say I can't. I'm looking at other situations where the question comes up, and how those situations are handled.
What is your take on Hero Points and other instances where you're granted additional actions in a round, but it doesn't specifically say how those actions interact with a full-round action? Does a full-round action replace all of those actions, or just the move+standard? The answers to those questions are important in getting a larger understanding about how everything interacts with each other.
And finally, again, I'm not even saying I'm right (an in fact am pointing to the FAQ, the only actual rules source that might directly state that I'm wrong). I'm just pointing out that more thought has gone into this than just, "the rules don't tell me I cannot do this."
EDIT:
You are jumping through too many hoops to get your desired result. A sure sign you aren't following the rules. That is what this forum is for, to find out what the rules say on the subject, to remove table variation. Not "how I think it should be run" but what the actual rules state/imply (and which occasionally doesn't make sense).
If this were the case, I would be insisting that I am correct and a GM must rule in my favor. I'm not saying that, and I haven't said that. It's not about a desired result. I'm trying to understand how the rules work, and trying to explain what I'm seeing in them. I get that you disagree, and I get where your viewpoint is coming from. I'm not even trying to convince you. I'm just laying out my interpretation for anyone who hasn't made up their mind yet.