No. The requirement is not "your shield was raised" or "your last action was an Activity including Raise Shield as a subordinate action". So you have not fulfilled the requirement for Devoted Guardian and cannot use Devoted Guardian.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That only refers to "next action" requirements, and gives no such guidance that it should be applied in reverse.Others may believe subordinate actions don't count as your "last action taken."That would be because they explicitly don't.
As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.They don't count as last action taken for the same reason they don't count for a if your next action is.
The non-exhaustive list of examples doesn't include a backwards-looking scenario.
The rules text does in fact cover both directions.
The rule
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions.
The example list
For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.
A backwards looking requirement of 'your last action you used was...' would still need to follow the Subordinate Actions rules. It would not consider an activity that uses the necessary action to be the same as the necessary action itself because "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions."
Yes, you and I have shared our readings in a previous thread, and it's the same thing Guntermench said above.
Yeah. We have.
And in future threads you are certainly allowed to present your interpretation as though it was undisputed consensus. But you should also expect that others with differing interpretations are going to present theirs in opposition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As people here have helpfully illustrated, there's debate over whether activities function like a 'chain' or a 'container', with the rules providing no explicit guidance and the examples in the book missing this particular type of interaction.
Best you can do is gather the available information and ask your GM.
We have had back and forth in other threads on this same question but I am left with this question, because for me in my home game I will just rule it in a way that plays better.
Is it a benefit to the game for the rule to be restrictive?
Or does the game actually play and feel better if actions within activities are considered as being used for the purpose of triggering abilities that look for those actions?
I know players will enjoy looking for those activities that have synergy with triggers looking for the last action to be X if it is allowed. But does allowing it break the game?
D-did you not read my very first post in this thread?
I shared both sides and I did so non-disparagingly. Why should I "present my interpretation as though it was undisputed consensus" in future threads when I didn't even do that here?
Fair.
It is only in your second post that you started hard arguing for one side. But still... expect the opposing side to pipe up.
I know players will enjoy looking for those activities that have synergy with triggers looking for the last action to be X if it is allowed. But does allowing it break the game?
I think the only one that breaks the game is allowing activities that call for X action to have X action replaced with Y activity that includes X action. Such as combining Sudden Charge and Flurry of Blows to let the character Stride twice, then Strike twice. Or letting Flurry of Maneuvers let you Grapple, then Suplex for one action.
I just think it is more fair to the players and less of a developer trap to have forward looking and backward looking 'your last/next action...' abilities be consistent.
In previous threads i believe I saw the fact that an activity calls for the player to take a particular action was sufficient to qualify for the player having taken that action. Sure the player elected to use an activity but the activity called for the player to take certain actions. Those actions called for must have been taken by the player and would therefor trigger abilities looking to trigger on a players last action, or abilities that require your last action to be X.
Saying that the player’s use of an action for the turn was for an activity is different from looking at what actions a player actually performs.
So when the ability says the next action you use, i see that as what you use the next action available to you for. If you dont use your action for what is specified the ability doesnt affect it.
But when the ability says your last action was X, that is looking at what you performed last, not what you spent an action on last.
So yes based on my read if you use everstand strike which forces the character to perform a strike and then raise a shield, devoted guardian can be used next because the last action actually performed by your character was raise a shield. The ability is not specifying what you last used one of your actions on it is asking what was the last action.
Having it work one way in one instance and another in another effectively identical instance isn't good game design, for one thing.Consistency is generally a good thing.
Yeah, but there's only a consistency issue if we accept a certain premise on how activities work. That's part of the problem. Both conclusions make complete logical and consistent sense within their respective frameworks, while making zero sense in the other framework.
And we're only given one of those frameworks in the book.
No we aren't, the book is completely silent on the topic. If anyone could actually point to a specific line that says "this is how this interaction works" or "this is how activities work" then there wouldn't be much of a discussion here.
I don't really get the posturing, tbh.
Generally go with the more restrictive interpretation of any rules discussion, that's how PF2 is designed.
From there, you can open it up more to where your table finds things enjoyable.
Yeah, but there's only a consistency issue if we accept a certain premise on how activities work. That's part of the problem. Both conclusions make complete logical and consistent sense within their respective frameworks, while making zero sense in the other framework.
Having it work one way in one instance and another in another effectively identical instance isn't good game design, for one thing.Consistency is generally a good thing.
Agreed.
And for me, the inconsistency that I can't handle is that most spellshape feats don't work Spellstrike because they look for 'your next action' being cast a spell, but a Wizard with Magus Archetype could combine Spellstrike followed by Bond Conservation.
If we are ignoring the activity and subordinate actions rules when looking backwards because that scenario wasn't in the list of examples, then why are we enforcing it when looking forwards? Why not allow 'your next action is...' abilities to trigger on the first subordinate action of an activity?
Again I have to point out that the examples illustrate the rules. The examples don't define the rules.
We were given two rules and one clear example for each. You have inferred a third.
Which two rules and corresponding examples are you mentioning?
From my count, the first paragraph of Subordinate Actions has four rules and one example.
Rules:
* An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects.
* This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action.
* The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified.
* The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.
Example:
* For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on.
And the second paragraph has one rule and two examples. Which I detailed above in this thread.
If we are ignoring the activity and subordinate actions rules when looking backwards because that scenario wasn't in the list of examples, then why are we enforcing it when looking forwards? Why not allow 'your next action is...' abilities to trigger on the first subordinate action of an activity?
I think you're misunderstanding the position a bit, because in no case are we ignoring or enforcing subordinate action rules. They have nothing to do with this mechanic. Nor are you 'ignoring' activity rules if you use the paradigm that allows this to work. Characterizing it as enforcing/ignoring is missing the point and implicitly defining one side as fraudulent (which is fair if that's your position, everyone is going to have one, but it's important to understand where each argument is coming from, otherwise we don't really have an informed opinion).
... I was going to use your example as a starting point, but that's not how bond conservation works so I'm not sure what you were going for, so instead looking at the OP's
If you view an activity as a container with elements inside it, then you run into this: Everstand Strike > Devoted Guardian which obviously doesn't make sense, because Everstand Strike is not raising a shield.
But if you instead view an activity as part of a series of things you do, then you get Everstand Strike > Strike > Raise A Shield > Devoted Guardian, under which the combination makes perfect sense, because the last thing you did was raise a shield.
Why not allow 'your next action is...' abilities to trigger on the first subordinate action of an activity?
From the former perspective, it doesn't make sense because the next thing in line is the container, from the latter perspective it's the same as asking why you can't Spellshape > Stride > Cast A Spell.
Part of the problem stems from people treating all these different triggers as identical when they clearly aren't. Regardless of perspective, it doesn't really make sense to argue that a certain ability should have certain restrictions because an entirely different ability that works in an entirely different way has certain restrictions.
Again I have to point out that the examples illustrate the rules. The examples don't define the rules.
Right, but neither the examples nor the rules are particularly illuminating here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, right. Spellstrike does that in the other order than I was thinking. Senior moment, I guess.
Mistakes in examples aside, my point is that
Again I have to point out that the examples illustrate the rules. The examples don't define the rules.Right, but neither the examples nor the rules are particularly illuminating here.
The entire opposing side hinges on the example list being the full entirety of the rules. If it doesn't have an example entry, then it isn't the rule.
Taking an activity and substituting a specified action with another activity has an example.
The forward looking 'your next action is' has an example.
But since the backward looking 'your last action was' doesn't have an example, then it isn't a rule.
That is why I am saying that the examples don't define the rules. And why I am saying that the backward looking 'your last action was' abilities need to still use the rule of "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions." Not doing that is very literally ignoring the rule part of that paragraph in preference of using only the example list.
Basically my argument is that the rule text defines the 'container' model of activities - to use your terminology. The fact that the only example that they give is the forward looking option doesn't change that.
|
Activities can NEVER trigger things that rely on specific basic Actions, period. Yes, it puts a damper on a ton of ability combinations but them's the brakes and that's what the rules say and how it works.
If you don't like it that's fine, but you came to the Rules subforum section and homebrew, houserules, and rule 0 mean precisely jack squat here.
In thinking about this way too much last night while trying to fall asleep, I have one more approach that I am going to use to try and present this in a convincing manner. And then I am going to leave it to rest since I feel like we are about to the point of talking in circles.
That rules text sentence: "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions." Is defining 'use' as it relates to your character and actions or activities, and subordinate actions as two different things. That is why the word 'using' is in the sentence twice.
This paragraph in question of the Subordinate Actions rule applies when an ability is checking to see which actions you 'used' meaning that you spent actions on that action or activity directly - or if you 'used' them as a consequence of a different Activity and they were 'used' as a Subordinate Action.
So yes, while you may - in natural English language - say that you 'used' Strike as the last part of Spellstrike , from a game mechanics perspective you didn't 'use' Strike. You 'used' Strike as a Subordinate Action and that is "not the same".
-----
One category I would exclude from the list of further examples is the reaction ones where you are reacting to a actions from an another character - an enemy or ally. In no case was the Strike you are reacting to for All In My Head an activity or subordinate action that you used. The Subordinate Rules rule wouldn't apply in those cases.
Another one is abilities that are modifying all actions of a type. These don't make any distinction of when you are using these actions or why. Any ranged Strike action using a thrown weapon benefits from Ricochet Stance - whether it is a primary action Strike that you use or a Subordinate Action Strike that you use.
And with those two categorical exclusions, I think the only one left on the list is Triumphant Inspiration, and even that one could be ruled to be the in the second category - abilities that modify all actions of a type.
>"Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions" is not the same as "subordinate actions don't happen".
This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. If you try to say that the Strike you made after the Stride you made after the Stride you made after you used Sudden Charge ISN'T your last action, you're denying that it was its own action
Correct. I am denying that it was its own action that you used. It is a subordinate action. That doesn't mean that the action didn't happen. Just that you didn't use it.
And yes, this whole mess is caused by the natural language that the rules text is written in. The name collision of 'action', 'action', and 'action' (yes, three different game mechanics meanings) is one of the worst things about PF2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, well have fun explaining to all the rogues they can't Twist the Knife after Twin Feint, Underhanded Assault, Head Stomp, etc.
That's the "cost" of using an Activity or other special named Action, they're not able to be combined with other things like follow-up Activities and other special/unique Actions. If they do not understand how the rules work then it falls to the GM to correct them, that's the normal and expected outcome.
Strikes being called out when they're part of an Activity is very explicitly explained as being different and incompatible with considering it a basic Strike for all intents and purposes in the Subordinate Actions rules...
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.
This is soo cut and dry you might as well call it jerky.
>"Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions" is not the same as "subordinate actions don't happen".
This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. If you try to say that the Strike you made after the Stride you made after the Stride you made after you used Sudden Charge ISN'T your last action, you're denying that it was its own action
Correct. I am denying that it was its own action that you used. It is a subordinate action. That doesn't mean that the action didn't happen. Just that you didn't use it.
And yes, this whole mess is caused by the natural language that the rules text is written in. The name collision of 'action', 'action', and 'action' (yes, three different game mechanics meanings) is one of the worst things about PF2.
There is even more distinction in on this point.
You did use the action, you were forced to by the activity, but you did not use an action to use it, the activity paid for it.
Okay, well have fun explaining to all the rogues they can't Twist the Knife after Twin Feint, Underhanded Assault, Head Stomp, etc.That's the "cost" of using an Activity or other special named Action, they're not able to be combined with other things like follow-up Activities and other special/unique Actions. If they do not understand how the rules work then it falls to the GM to correct them, that's the normal and expected outcome.
Strikes being called out when they're part of an Activity is very explicitly explained as being different and incompatible with considering it a basic Strike for all intents and purposes in the Subordinate Actions rules...
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.This is soo cut and dry you might as well call it jerky.
Abilities that look backward are written differently than ones that look forward.
Forward abilities look for the next ability you use an action for.Backward abilities look only at what you actually performed, and you do have to perform basic actions that an activity requires you to perform. We all know the container idea looking backward is not clearly established as it is looking forward.
The language that gives the container conception is actually in the description for activities.
There it says "within" when referring to sub-actions you take as part of an activity.
This is what to me implies the container conception. I dont think the message is clear enough and errata can help clear that up, as with anything where two sides both think the rules clearly state their side.
One more thing too. Does anyone actually want the rules to be container based? I don't. But op combinations that are not intended to combine could be errataed as well to clearly make them unusable in that fashion.