If you fail your trick attack roll can you then decide to full attack instead or can you only attack once since you tried to trick?
*sigh*
I suppose it depends on if you pay the costs for your actions before you take the action and start rolling dice.
If not, just tell a cool story and do whatever you feel like.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely not. You already took a full action to attempt a trick attack. You can not change your mind about what action you're using, after a bad roll.
There is no vaguely sound interpretation where you could do this, since you have already started taking the action and rolling dice.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you fail your trick attack roll can you then decide to full attack instead or can you only attack once since you tried to trick?
No. You had to perform the Trick Attack Full Action to be allowed to make the attempt to trick. That means you no longer have an action left to perform the Full Attack Full Action.
Thanks, the way you all interpreted it was how I understood it, but there is a player in a game I am in that attempted to do that. It is a play by post game so I still don't know how the DM is going to rule on it.
|
Likewise, if you declared a full attack, but killed your target after the first hit, you couldn't then decide to move away.
Note that this is very different to the same situation in Pathfinder, where you CAN make one attack, and then decide to either follow up with a full attack routine, or move away. This may explain why the player mentioned is confused here.
Of course, in Starfinder, there are consequences to declaring a Full Attack, so you can't change it around after. Similarly with a Trick Attack.
There's no way to try a trick attack without spending a full action. Once you've rolled the dice thats definitely what you've done.
*sigh*
I suppose it depends on if you pay the costs for your actions before you take the action and start rolling dice.
If not, just tell a cool story and do whatever you feel like.
Didn't say that
Didn't hint thatDidn't imply that.
*sigh*
I suppose it depends on if you pay the costs for your actions before you take the action and start rolling dice.
If not, just tell a cool story and do whatever you feel like.
Didn't say that
Didn't hint that
Didn't imply that.
Then what, precisely, are you saying?
If the skill roll, without any movement, locks you into a full round trick attack, why doesn't the movement without the skill roll? How do you tell the difference between a bluff check made for a trick attack, and a bluff check made for a feint?
I don't understand. What exactly am I debating against?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW has been saying that the move around the corner and then trick attack is valid, because in moving around the corner, you haven't done anything that isn't part of trick attack.
Rolling a trick attack skill check, which fails, is not part of a full attack.
These two questions are not equivalent, and you really can't extrapolate his interpretation of trick attack movement to this question without misrepresenting the position that is written all over that other thread, already.
Sure, but I could roll a bluff check, and get the results. If I succeeded at the check, then it becomes part of a trick attack. If it fails, then I call it a feint that failed, and use my move action to move behind some cover and my swift action to drop prone.
It still meets all of the criteria for the argument. There is no noticeable distinction between one bluff check and the other. Both scenarios fit into the round's action slots. And both require getting the results of one partial round action before making a decision on which type of action it was that was made.
If that isn't his argument, then what is?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that. But if 5 pages of spelling it out won't do that I don't hold out much hope for 6
Not that. But if 5 pages of spelling it out won't do that I don't hold out much hope for 6
Thanks for that. Always great to be called out for failing to understand what someone means.
I suppose I could go through the 5 pages and pull out direct quotes from you to support my interpretation of the logic. But I would probably be accused of straw man attack again. So I don't think I will bother with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise, if you declared a full attack, but killed your target after the first hit, you couldn't then decide to move away.
This is true, but fwiw I always allow the player to switch a full attack to "an attack at minus four and then a move" since it's lousy if you declare a full attack and suddenly find yourself with no target halfway through.
I don't think it's exploitable and I don't want players to rule out an option through fear of something very unlikely only to easily hit and not kill the thing (ruling this way isn't much of a boost - it just makes full attacks marginally less risky).
Likewise, if you declared a full attack, but killed your target after the first hit, you couldn't then decide to move away.This is true, but fwiw I always allow the player to switch a full attack to "an attack at minus four and then a move" since it's lousy if you declare a full attack and suddenly find yourself with no target halfway through.
I don't think it's exploitable and I don't want players to rule out an option through fear of something very unlikely only to easily hit and not kill the thing (ruling this way isn't much of a boost - it just makes full attacks marginally less risky).
Not sure if that works.
On the one hand you've attacked at -4 so you're full attacking, which is a full round action which means you're stuck.
On the other hand you're not gaining any benefit from having full attacked, so paying the cost twice seems unfair.
I wish starfinder had the same "deciding between an attack and full attack" that pathfinder did. Probably different because there's a penalty on attack 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely not the rule (if that's what you mean by "works") - but allowing someone to convert their second -4 attack to a move isn't exploitable and just makes full attacks marginally less risky.
When we played by the rule my players would often steadfastly refuse to use full attacks in case they killed it with the first attack, thus "wasting" their turn. I can appeal to their knowledge of probability, or I can just increase the flexibility of the full attack action - haven't noticed much difference in play, it's come up maybe twice in eighteen months of weekly gaming and just meant the concerned player was happier with their choice than they would have been.
|
allowing someone to convert their second -4 attack to a move isn't exploitable and just makes full attacks marginally less risky.
My Heavy Weapons Soldier full attacks at only -1/-1, and I think there are other ways of lowering full attack penalties for other classes, so it might not be "exploitable" but it could certainly become "favorable".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you considered that the reason people don't understand your position no matter how much you "spell it out" is that there are elements that are fundamentally incompatible with how other people understand the game?
The reason I've mostly checked out of the argument (though I've still been following it) is because I'm absolutely certain you're wrong and equally certain that nothing could convince you of this because we seem to understand the game in fundamentally different ways.
Basically, RPGs are like photons. Most of us understand the game in terms of particles. BNW understands it as a wave (complete with some information paradoxes).
allowing someone to convert their second -4 attack to a move isn't exploitable and just makes full attacks marginally less risky.My Heavy Weapons Soldier full attacks at only -1/-1, and I think there are other ways of lowering full attack penalties for other classes, so it might not be "exploitable" but it could certainly become "favorable".
But not a terribly huge boost. It hardly ever comes up and it’s annoying when it does.
If you unexpectedly kill something and now want to move because you have no target. It seems mealy mouthed (to me) to insist that you can’t - you can do nothing but fire a useless shot into the corpse an minus one.
Basically, RPGs are like photons. Most of us understand the game in terms of particles. BNW understands it as a wave (complete with some information paradoxes).
look, there's nothing that says that my future self from an alternate timeline that didn't play PFS can't have a PFS number in this timeline...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although, this might be an interesting question:
If you've already declared your full attack, must you expend ammunition for both attacks, even if the first attack drops your target?
I don't play that way currently.
You generally don't have to decide what weapon you use for your second attack when you declare a full-attack. You can use your firearm as an improvised melee weapon against an empty square for your second attack if you want.
Although, this might be an interesting question:
If you've already declared your full attack, must you expend ammunition for both attacks, even if the first attack drops your target?
I don't play that way currently.
Obviously (given my laxity above) i don’t require this. However, I wonder if the rules are explicit on targeting (I can’t check as I’ve lent mine out).
For those following the letter of the rule, do you think you have to declare your target(s) at the outset?
Like can you wait to see if your first shot kills mood one and then decide to shoot mood two or do you have to declare all targets when you declare your action?
If my players declare a full attack action with a firearm or melee weapon and the first attack kills their target, I let them attack a second target in their cone of vision (usually 60 to 90 degrees in the direction they are facing) with a firearm and for melee weapons any other adjacent enemy.
Okay, my iPad clearly decided "mook" = "mood".
So, I've always played and run it with my players rolling both attack rolls at the same time. So, they aren't always sure the first attack killed the target anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as you have different colored dice, you can roll everything at once and assign values when you decide your target.
I know a few people who roll simultaneous dice, but the rule has always been you don't need to declare targets until you make the attack (though it is generally expected you do so before you roll).
|
When people in my group(s) roll multiple dice, it's a time saving device. Usually with a 'blue die first, red die second' sort of comment. Some of my play venues have limited time available, so we want to speed things up.
Under these circumstances nobody worries about blowing off another round of ammo; if it wasn't needed then you didn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find anything relating to how you have to decide on targets for a full attack. However, going off of this blurb from the soldier's Sharpshooter fighting style:
When you make a full attack with a ranged weapon, you can make both attacks with a –3 penalty instead of a –4 penalty as long as they both target the same creature. If your first attack kills or knocks out the target, you can instead make the second attack against a different creature at a –4 penalty.You don't seem to have to call your targets in advance or roll your dice at the same time.
Ah cool. That’s good enough for me. Cheers.