How would you rule if a player declared “I’m going to full attack, firing both shots on that guy!” and then proceeded to kill the target with the first shot. The various possibilities put forth were:
1. You’ve declared your target and fire the second shot at the corpse
2. You’ve declared your target, so can’t switch to shoot someone else (though you can refrain from firing)
3. You’ve declared your action but not the target, so have to shoot a second time from the available targets (including the dead guy)
4. You’ve declared your action but not the target, however you can choose not to fire a second time
5. You can amend your plan, having made a single attack at -4 which “counts” as a standard action and can now take a move/swift action
What would people say? (Is there another option we didn’t think of?)
I don’t really care what people think the rules say - hence its placement in homebrew rather than in the rules forum. I just wonder how people would adjudicate this situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Old Pathfinder full attack rules specified that when full attacking, you do one attack at a time. I would assume the same carries over.
You're full attacking, in Starfinder this is limited to 2 attacks at -4. You have the -4 penalty applied regardless of the outcome after you make the decision. Your first attack kills the target. From there, if combat is ended the second attack needs not go off. If combat continues, your options are to:
A) Make the second attack with a new target.
B) Stop attacking, in which case you can use your move and swift actions as normal.
Granted, this was Pathfinder's ruling on it, and how it also applied to two-weapon fighting (which had the same taking a penalty before starting your attack), in Pathfinder. Starfinder is different in a number of ways.
As a GM's ruling on one of my other tables where we used Unchained's action rulings on TWF, where two attacks was one action, many of our players rolled both attacks against a single target at the same time in order to keep the game moving faster. This resulted in wasted attacks, but it was the player's choice to do the action in such a way that the attacks couldn't be divided appropriately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roll both attacks first, roll damage afterwards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would you rule if a player declared “I’m going to full attack, firing both shots on that guy!” and then proceeded to kill the target with the first shot. The various possibilities put forth were:
I would let them change the target of their next attack if possible. They full attacked so both attacks are still at -4.
Nothing forces you to make a second shot if there are nothing else to shoot at.
How would you rule if a player declared “I’m going to full attack, firing both shots on that guy!” and then proceeded to kill the target with the first shot. The various possibilities put forth were:I would let them change the target of their next attack if possible. They full attacked so both attacks are still at -4.
Nothing forces you to make a second shot if there are nothing else to shoot at.
If there was nothing else to shoot at (or if they had extreme cover or something) would you let them move instead of making the second attack?
Roll both attacks first, roll damage afterwards.
Oh, we didn’t think of that option. Rolling to-hit and damage at the same time is heavily ingrained in us.
Roll both attacks first, roll damage afterwards.Oh, we didn’t think of that option. Rolling to-hit and damage at the same time is heavily ingrained in us.
I'm always astonished when I see people doing this. Why would you roll damage even before you knew that you hit? It's a waste of a roll if you miss! The time saved is so minimal, and it's not worth losing the antici
...
pation of knowing that you hit and that you are gonna do some sweet, sweet damage.
Oh, we didn’t think of that option. Rolling to-hit and damage at the same time is heavily ingrained in us.
That sounds frustrating.
"Oh, full damage. Too bad I missed. Again. That'd be 57 points of non-damage so far."
There is one guy who does that, for sure (and doesn’t notice when the damage is minimum). Rolling the damage makes no difference mathematically, of course (you just see it). So it doesn’t bug the rest of us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually a useful strategy in PbP campaigns.
At home? I'd go with #5 on the grounds that it creates the most fun
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose my "go with how Pathfinder did it" is technically number five. And I agree with Crystal, most fun. They can continue the full attack, or move to a better position. Player agency and choice is always the best option.
Thank you all.
I went with the fifth option, but the rest of our group went with 4 (though I’m betting they’ll come around).
The old Pathfinder way is impossible in Starfinder, because the full attack penalty applies to the first attack made. I suppose you could allow a player to accept that anyway, and cancel their second attack to move. They would still have to accept the -4 ( or whatever ) penalty to that first attack, though.
I was more referencing Two-Weapon Fighting than Full Attacking in Pathfinder. Same general idea: penalty to even the first attack, but you can still opt to stop after the first attack.
The old Pathfinder way is impossible in Starfinder, because the full attack penalty applies to the first attack made. I suppose you could allow a player to accept that anyway, and cancel their second attack to move. They would still have to accept the -4 ( or whatever ) penalty to that first attack, though.
Yeah, the -4 to the first attack has already happened at the point the ruling has to be made.
The scenario was that they unexpectedly killed the enemy with the first shot and there were no more in sight, so then wanted to convert their declared full attack into an "attack at -4" action and then continue with their move/swift actions.