dvrobiqu's page

No it's you trying to find justification for not letting a *core class feature* work.

That is simply not true.

** spoiler omitted **

emphasis mine.

The context is provided in the first paragraph: I'm willing to concede that if you decide that the first paragraph of the "Observing" rules does not provide context for the second paragraph of the "Observing" rules, but that instead you should apply the second paragraph to checks that are outside of the current discussion, then we might have a problem.

That sentence, if taken in a vacuum, would prevent stealth checks of any description from being attempted, I can agree on that.

That is honestly not how I read it.

The first paragraph is describing the conditions that need to be met in order to determine if you are observing a creature. It then lists examples of what situations would warrant being considered observed. The first paragraph does not require the creature to make a stealth check to hide, it is saying that if a stealth check to hide is impossible to make the creature generally is considered observed. The second paragraph is stating the ramifications of being observed. Neither of the paragraphs requires the creature to make a stealth check to hide.

Ok maybe I was a little too subtle.

Is it possible to break observation for part of your body? Can you break observation as part of the move by passing behind another creature, either ally or hostile?

There are ways to make it work if the player can give a reasonable justification. I believe the intent of the designers is for the player to use a class feature even of if they are observed.

So table variance time I guess.

The Trick Attack does not require the player to justify how you do the Trick Attack.

You don't need to give justification for how you do your trick attack.

Which is exactly where a lot of the issues I have with the Trick Attack lie. If a player does not give a justification for how she is using the Trick Attack then I as GM must apply the rules as written. If you can stealth while being observed because the trick attack doesn't say you can't, then can a paralyzed player move? Of course not, which is why saying a player doesn't need justification, in my opinion, does not excuse a GM from applying the situational mechanics of the game.

I know there's a better example than paralyzed out there but it's fairly early where I'm at and I think it gets the general point across that not needing a justification should not mean that you do not need to apply limitations.

This has been discussed, with very good points on either side, in another thread. I think we just need to FAQ it and wait for an answer.

I agree, I think a FAQ is the only way to get a clear-cut answer. And I am sorry if I am coming off as argumentative. It's honestly not my intent. I will leave this alone until we hopefully get an answer from the FAQ.

The hide application of the stealth check is not applicable here, and not all stealth checks are subject to the Hide rules.

You can use stealth while being observed. You are applying a specific application of stealth (Hide) that has not been asked for.

The rule of not being able to do a stealth check while being observed does not state that this is only applicable to 'hide'. It says it is generally used for the 'hide' aspect of a stealth check but clearly says you cannot attempt a stealth check while being observed:

In cases where there's additional requirements to rolling the dice other than just changing the check, they are mentioned: ie hacker needs nearby computers and it covers this.

If you want an example of why doing otherwise would be problematic, if you apply the logic to the other specializations:

Detective should probably require an opposed bluff check vs their sense motive for trick attack
Thieves using sleight of hand might require opposed perception checks because "hide object" entry requires it.

The Trick Attack rule gives you a DC that you are rolling against.

Unless a specific skill check calls out a specific rules entry usage, it may not actually be using that usage.

So do you apply bonuses such as racial bonuses if it is not specifically called out?

Who is to say that the stealth check is to draw the holdout blaster that your future husband is blocking line of sight from the stormtrooper?I

It is a class feature. Let's not over think it.

That's still a stealth check to do the Trick Attack in your scenario. Nothing that I have read says you ignore rules if it's a class feature. And I don't consider it over thinking it.

You kinda forgot a big portion of the text.

The quoted bit of the stealth skill only applies to using stealth to Hide, not to make a trick attack.

You're also not using the skill to Snipe.

You're making a Stealth check to Trick attack.
There is nothing in the skill that adds or subtracts anything from that.

Edit, nvm, just noticed that the quoted text is from a different part of the book.

Anyway, this is a case of applying common sense.
Do you want to purposefully make it impossible for an operative to use the Stealth skill for his trick attack, read it as restrictive as possible.
Do you want the class feature to work, allow the stealth skill to be made even when observed.

Why would it be impossible to use the trick attack if you apply the rules involving stealth? You only need to break observation in order to make a stealth check, and a full-speed movement is part of the ability, why couldn't you just hide behind a box?

The way I read the Trick Attack, it is a class features that allows your character to do something unexpected that provide a benefit if successful.

The specific rule thus overrides the general rule. The specific rule related to Trick Attack overrides the general rule of no stealth if observed.

Bonuses granted by race or feats would apply. Penalties caused by external conditions like undergrowth would also apply.

Since Armor Check Penalties are on the skill check, they would still apply.

What is the specific rule that overrides the general rule? The rules on Trick Attack itself says that you must succeed at a check in order to deal the extra damage. Regardless of your success you still can move up to your speed and you use a full action. I see nothing in the rule that explicitly says it is overriding a rule that would affect the outcome of the check and I can't find anything in the rules that would suggest it is implicit.

The thing to bear in mind is that succeeding on the Trick Attack, be it stealth or otherwise, ONLY grants the bonus dice to damage after you hit. The end.

Trying to bring in all of the other parts of the skill, such as the penalty to move as well as the benefits, such as being targeted, DO NOT APPLY.

What does it matter if the only result of the Trick Attack only grants the bonus dice to damage after you hit (It also grants flat-footed)? It still requires a skill check to succeed. I'm sorry, I'm not following your logic which could be entirely my fault.

Trick Attack is its own thing and does not require all the additional rules for the specific skill in question. Otherwise... a Ghost Operative could never utilize their Trick Attack option in Combat and would be absolutely worthless. You are not hiding to gain the Trick Attack per se, but doing something in a stealthy way that helps your attack be more successful.

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Nowhere in the rules that I can find does it say that when you are making a skill check for an ability that you ignore the conditions of the skill check. If you can find it I would love it! No joking, I'm not trying to argue against ignoring the additional rule, I am trying to find the justification to do so.

Also, there are many ways you can use stealth in combat. The stealth check only requires that you break observation. They can still be aware of you and you can take a stealth check. So anything from smoke to dim light can allow you to make a stealth check.

The rules for Trick Attack state that you must attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or Sealth check and if you succeed at the check you deal additional damage. The question I have is can you attempt a check even if the conditions normally would not allow it?

An example of this would be can you make a stealth check to perform a trick attack if you are being observed? The rules on observation state that you can't:

If this does not apply, then do any of the rules both aiding or otherwise still apply?

What about armor check penalties?

That last part is easy enough.

Make a thread in Rules Questions entitled:
"Trick Attack and Skill Check Question."

And then in the main body of the thread, type something not unlike:
"Are the skill checks made to perform a Trick Attack subject to the same rules as normal skill checks?
I.e., If I use Acrobatics as part of a Trick Attack check, do the rules for using Acrobatics in Difficult Terrain apply?"

As for questioning things like the "attempt a Stealth check" problem; if you look up the rules for the Stealth skill, I think you will find that there is no general "you must be unobserved in order to make a stealth check" rule. You need cover or concealment in order to make a stealth check to hide, but you aren't attempting to hide when making a Trick Attack; you're trying to attack an opponent in such a way as to make them unable to adequately defend themselves.

Take Acrobatics as another example. If I use Acrobatics to make a Trick Attack, am I trying to Balance, Escape, Fly, Hover, or Tumble? The answer is: None of the above; I'm attempting a Trick Attack, so none of the rules for Acrobatics that apply to it's other uses will apply here.

First off, thank you for your instructions!

I will make a thread about it in the Rules Questions. I just didn't want to make a new thread if this one is too similar.

As far as the argument that none of the rules that apply to a Stealth check would apply because you are making a Trick Attack and not a Stealth Check, then does this mean you don't add the Ysoki's Scrounger racial ability (+2 to Stealth checks) to a Trick Attack? The rules for Observing (Page 206) use the same generic wording of "Stealth check" in the second paragraph.

That's a good catch, dvrobiqu, and it does muddy the waters for looking at rules as written. I suspect that this part of the text is conflating "attempt a Stealth check" with "attempt a Stealth check to hide," but that's just a gut feeling based on how many of us have done that here, including me.

I still think that if there were intended to be restrictions on the use of the skill, it would be listed in the trick attack section, and I'll rule it that way at my table. It's going to be very frustrating for ghost operatives to be told that they can't use their associated skill very often when, say, Daredevils would be allowed to attempt it every turn, and I really don't think that there's supposed to be that kind of disparity between specializations. The observation text probably makes this FAQ-worthy, though.

There are other aspects, aside from using stealth while being observed, that I find troubling with the way the trick attack rule is written. In particular, once I start questioning which aspects of a skill check apply and which ones don't I am left with a lot of gray areas for my players to make arguments.

Such as, do you increase the DC of the trick attack if the players are in the undergrowth of a forest biome (page 397 - Forrest Terrian)? Is it subject to armor check penalties if you are using a dex based skill (Page 134 - Skill Description)? Does it benefit from any items or serums that increase the Stealth skill? Does it benefit from Stealth Warp (Page 106 - Stellar Revelations)?

If they simply wrote, "Just before making your attack, make a Trick Attack check using either Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth..." I would have no issue what-so-ever.

We are in agreement that this probably needs a FAQ. And I certainly would not argue with you if I was sitting at your table about it. Admittedly I am a newb here and I have no idea how one would request that, or what is the proper procedure for that.

How closely are they observing you though? Are there others providing momentary distractions? Are you possibly moving so slowly and with no obvious aiming motions that would tell the observer that you are the threat right that second? It doesn't have to be a HUGE distraction, and it doesn't require that they take enough attention off you that you could hide behind a curtain, but enough that your strike would leave the target unexpectedly off kilter.

I could definitely see that as the case. However, if you're intention is to deceive an opponent does that not fall under the scope of a bluff, or if you are hiding your weapons or motions is that not sleight of hand?

For example:

When you use Stealth to make a trick attack, you gain a +4 bonus to the skill check.

Versus this:

You can use Sleight of Hand to make a trick attack by concealing your weapons and motions.

The rules for the Thief specifically lists how you can use Sleight of Hand out of the scope for that skill. The same goes for Detective, Explorer, and Hacker (Even goes into finer details for the expanded scope). This is not true for the Daredevil and the Ghost.

I am fine if you argue if RAI is that you can attempt a skill check even if you don't satisfy the rules to do so. However, I call into question whether this is true if RAW.

RAW and RAI I'm pretty sure Kate's entirely correct. Nothing about the stealth skill itself requires concealment, only the specific uses noted. Trick Attack is an entirely different and mechanically distinct usage.

I certainly can see where you guys are coming from and you are likely correct. However, the programmer in me cannot get past parts of the rules like this without bringing it into serious question:

A creature currently being observed can’t attempt a Stealth

check without first breaking that observation.

This would suggest the stealth skill requires that you are not being observed. You could make the argument that a bluff is being used to break this observation and is implicit with the trick attack. However, nowhere that I have read states that the trick attack changes the rules on observation.

Like I said though, you're probably right. I just can't reconcile it in my head.

Does it help to look at it not as the character making a Stealth check but rather the character is using the Stealth skill to make a Trick Attack check? I see this as a specific use of the skill for operatives that doesn't need to follow the rules for other uses of the skill. I do expect that operatives will attempt trick attacks just about every round they can, and players will get really frustrated if some GMs start limiting that without the support of the text. (I am also an SFS GM.)

Honest question here, doesn't the trick attack explicitly state that the player must make a skill check? Doesn't that mean the player must be able to do the skill check? If you are only supposed to use the bonus of the skill why wouldn't the rules state it that way?

Sorry if I am missing something. Running my first game on Friday and I just know this is going to come up!

"Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or
Stealth check" Page 93 Trick Attack

"On occasion, it’s impossible for you to attempt a skill check.
Sometimes the situation prevents you from rolling a skill check,
and other times the skill in question requires special training in
order to attempt." Page 132 Skill checks

Wow! Thank you all for all the suggestions. I certainly forgot to consider "Guardians of the Galaxy" characters, which seems like a huge oversight on my part! And I also didn't consider anime when I was racking my brain for examples.

Also, Lord Fyre, thank you for the link to the other post. I hope this thread wasn't too close to that one.

I will likely go back and add a few more examples to the Themes as well.

You guys are awesome! Thanks again.

At least in The Force Awakens, Rey is a perfect example of a Mechanic. Even before Finn and BB-8 bring the plot to her, she's been surviving on Jakku by scavenging parts from old battleships, and she repeatedly demonstrates technical know-how in the first act of the movie before she really gets the hang of her Force abilities.

And basically any Jedi character in Star Wars is a fine example of a Mystic. Mystics even have a spell that's called psychokinetic strangulation, which allows you to find people's lack of faith disturbing!

Rey is perfect for the mechanic! I will likely have to use Jedi for the others as well. I was hoping to avoid using all Jedi. Maybe Tali from Mass Effect for the Technomancer...

Thank you for the Rey suggestion!

I am GMing a game with a table of eight players (long story, not necessarily my choice) and this will be the first roleplaying experience for four of the players. To make the character creation night easier on them (and me) I have been posting daily "Starfinder Spotlight" posts that highlight the different races, themes, and classes sans stats.

After I got through all the races I went through the themes. In order to make this less abstract, I posted a picture of a popular Sci-Fi character from movies/TV/Video games for each of the themes.

The problem I am running into is I can't think of any characters that would fit some of the classes. In particular: Mechanic, Mystic, Solarian, Technomancer.

Anyone have any ideas for characters that fit these classes?