Can Operatives take 10 in combat?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I've seen all over the forums about operatives being able to take 10 on their trick attack in combat. I'm not sure where that came from or if I'm missing something.

Taking 10:
"Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter. Also, you can’t take 10 when the GM rules that a situation is too hectic or that you are distracted"

This seems somewhat explicit to me. The operative ability sounds like its only mentioning the second instance, not combat.

Operative Skill mastery:
"...even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so"

It only mentions distractions, nothing to do with combat. The skill section separates the two issues (Combat vs distracted) when referring to taking 10.

Is there any specific ruling that says you CAN take 10 in combat with an operative?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It says "stress or distractions". Combat is generally considered a form of stress.


David knott 242 wrote:

It says "stress or distractions". Combat is generally considered a form of stress.

I was hoping it was based on more than assumptions about stress levels when the ruling for Take 10 specifically says an ability has to state that you can do it in combat.


I believe that Owen has mentioned that you can take 10 in combat somewhere on the forums, but I can't remember where. If someone could find a link to that that would be awesome as I know I've seen another thread discussing this as well.


Lebel 7 ability. Boost when skill good matches operative edge. Only good fit skill focus skills.

Grand Lodge

One of the devs specifically said the level 7 unlock from Operative's Edge is designed to enable you to be able to take 10 on your trick attack during combat.

I'll see if I can find the post where they said it.


I found it! Mark mentions auto succeeding in skill for trick attack. Here's a link for those who are interested. You may have to scroll around some, I'm not sure how to set up the link to go to the specific post.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udzk&page=2?Concerns-about-combat-math#86


Here is the ability excerpt from the operative class:

Specialization Skill Mastery 7th Level
You become so confident in certain skills that you can use them
reliably even under adverse conditions. When attempting a skill
check with a skill in which you have the Skill Focus feat, you can
take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent
you from doing so.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
baggageboy wrote:

I found it! Mark mentions auto succeeding in skill for trick attack. Here's a link for those who are interested. You may have to scroll around some, I'm not sure how to set up the link to go to the specific post.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udzk&page=2?Concerns-about-combat-math#86

Just do keep in mind that "one of the devs saying something somewhere" is not the same as an official FAQ/Clarification. The early years of Pathfinder were full of controversy because unofficial comments from devs on these boards were treated as gospel by readers, even though different decisions were reached when an official ruling was necessary.


That is true, but since it is something that is already a question, I feel that the Dev input is a good clarification at least until there is an FAQ/errata.


IMHO, auto-success is used loosely here. There may be circumstances where it negates an auto-success, though likely very rare.

From what I can see, the ability to take 10 in combat, combined with an operative with a high dex and full ranks can hit DC 33+ easily and more for races that give a stealth bonus.

This doesn't even count the Cloaking Field ability or any other nifty tricks.

You can see how auto-success simply implies the DC would have to be ridiculously high not to succeed.

Silver Crusade

Jhaeman wrote:
baggageboy wrote:

I found it! Mark mentions auto succeeding in skill for trick attack. Here's a link for those who are interested. You may have to scroll around some, I'm not sure how to set up the link to go to the specific post.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udzk&page=2?Concerns-about-combat-math#86

Just do keep in mind that "one of the devs saying something somewhere" is not the same as an official FAQ/Clarification. The early years of Pathfinder were full of controversy because unofficial comments from devs on these boards were treated as gospel by readers, even though different decisions were reached when an official ruling was necessary.

This has always seemed an unnecessary clarification to me. Obviously Specialization skill mastery lets you take 10 in combat. Otherwise it is of VERY limited value

Scarab Sages Starfinder Design Lead

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 29 people marked this as a favorite.

Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat.


Thank you Owen, I know there was some contention on this point as what are "stress or distractions would normally prevent you" from taking 10 is somewhat open for interpretation. Now there is a clear place to point to if a GM is unsure. As always we really appreciate your time in clarifying things.

Scarab Sages Starfinder Design Lead

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same wording as the rogue skill mastery advocated talent in Pathfinder, and I've never seen anyone question how that ability works.

But new game, new context.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same wording as the rogue skill mastery advocated talent in Pathfinder, and I've never seen anyone question how that ability works.

But new game, new context.

I almost commented on that; but then I thought that perhaps such an observation might not be welcome, what with it being more or less a separate rule system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same wording as the rogue skill mastery advocated talent in Pathfinder, and I've never seen anyone question how that ability works.

But new game, new context.

I'll be honest... I don't like this.

The reason why? People can power game so that at level 7 they auto-succeed. Auto-success vs equal or greater level opponents is never cool in a game.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Auto-success vs equal or greater level opponents is never cool in a game.

Perhaps not, but time savers are DEFINITELY cool!

It's bad enough that we have to wait on the operative players to roll all those dice. At least now we can cut an extra roll out of the mix.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same wording as the rogue skill mastery advocated talent in Pathfinder, and I've never seen anyone question how that ability works.

But new game, new context.

I'll be honest... I don't like this.

The reason why? People can power game so that at level 7 they auto-succeed. Auto-success vs equal or greater level opponents is never cool in a game.

Its not even power gamed.

You get the ranks in skills for FREE as an operative.
Every operative will have 16+ability mod to the skill check. And probably an extra +4 from class thing. Vs dc 27. Most characters will pass on low rolls anyway.
Its intended to work this way.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's how it's ment to be

You shouldn't arbitrarily be denied a primary class ability.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

HWalsh, the take ten is meant to allow them to autosucceed against certain opponents. It's part of what the operative is. Skill monkey damage dealer. In order to get that damage output, he needs to get those tricks off.

However, against level appropriate enemies and higher level boss fights, he's still going to need to roll (I believe, haven't done the math yet).

The Exchange

Ravingdork wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Auto-success vs equal or greater level opponents is never cool in a game.

Perhaps not, but time savers are DEFINITELY cool!

It's bad enough that we have to wait on the operative players to roll all those dice. At least now we can cut an extra roll out of the mix.

This is the second time I've seen time as an issue for dice rolling.

Do you guys not do simultaneous rolls with different coloured dice? It takes about the same time as roiling one dice.

I mean, the maths in Starfinder is far less complex than Pathfinder too, so my group are finding the whole multi attack, or trick and shoot thing just fast as all hell.

The other thing we do to speed things up is give AC values for many fights. Against boss fights etc we don't, but generally it's a faster battle if the players know their success range on the dice before rolling.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I'll be honest... I don't like this.

The reason why? People can power game so that at level 7 they auto-succeed. Auto-success vs equal or greater level opponents is never cool in a game.

There's no need to power game. It happens basically automatically.

And is thus intended. Characters are simply assumed to have Trick Attack as an available, no risk of failure, option as of 7th level.

This occurs right around the level you get a third attack, and the damage winds up about even vs. CR appropriate foes for the most part. So it provides an alternative option rather than a straight buff.

Wrath wrote:
HWalsh, the take ten is meant to allow them to autosucceed against certain opponents. It's part of what the operative is. Skill monkey damage dealer. In order to get that damage output, he needs to get those tricks off.

Yup. This.

Though I'll note that their damage is something like half that of a Soldier or Solarian who focuses on it.

Wrath wrote:
However, against level appropriate enemies and higher level boss fights, he's still going to need to roll (I believe, haven't done the math yet).

This, however, is not true as levels rise.

Assuming a starting Wis of 10 on, say, a Detective and raising Wis when you get level-up Ability points you'll have a +18 to Trick Attack at 7th (and can auto-succeed vs. CR 8). By 11th it's +24 and works vs. CR 14.

And that's a pretty marginal Operative setup. Someone who focuses can get much better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not auto-success: they still have to roll to hit.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Wrath wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Auto-success vs equal or greater level opponents is never cool in a game.

Perhaps not, but time savers are DEFINITELY cool!

It's bad enough that we have to wait on the operative players to roll all those dice. At least now we can cut an extra roll out of the mix.

This is the second time I've seen time as an issue for dice rolling.

Do you guys not do simultaneous rolls with different coloured dice? It takes about the same time as roiling one dice.

Many people can't afford that many dice. :'(

Those of us that can, generally invest in expensive short-term video games and play those instead, rather than occasionally buying a roleplaying book that will get years and years of use for a whole group of poor people.

The Exchange

Ravingdork wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Auto-success vs equal or greater level opponents is never cool in a game.

Perhaps not, but time savers are DEFINITELY cool!

It's bad enough that we have to wait on the operative players to roll all those dice. At least now we can cut an extra roll out of the mix.

This is the second time I've seen time as an issue for dice rolling.

Do you guys not do simultaneous rolls with different coloured dice? It takes about the same time as roiling one dice.

Many people can't afford that many dice. :'(

Those of us that can, generally invest in expensive short-term video games and play those instead, rather than occasionally buying a roleplaying book that will get years and years of use for a whole group of poor people.

I'm assuming this is humour.

Because I can buy a plastic d20 for 50cents at my local hobby shop


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Wrath wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Auto-success vs equal or greater level opponents is never cool in a game.

Perhaps not, but time savers are DEFINITELY cool!

It's bad enough that we have to wait on the operative players to roll all those dice. At least now we can cut an extra roll out of the mix.

This is the second time I've seen time as an issue for dice rolling.

Do you guys not do simultaneous rolls with different coloured dice? It takes about the same time as roiling one dice.

Many people can't afford that many dice. :'(

Those of us that can, generally invest in expensive short-term video games and play those instead, rather than occasionally buying a roleplaying book that will get years and years of use for a whole group of poor people.

I'm assuming this is humour.

Because I can buy a plastic d20 for 50cents at my local hobby shop

Mostly yes, humor. However, if I'm regularly making three attacks with a 14 dice weapon, that means I need at least 42 dice in three matching sets of 14.

Unless they happen to be d6s, getting that many sets of matching dice is not likely going to be cheap at all.

Most standard sets of seven run around $6-8 these days, and that only gets you ONE die of the kind you need. 6 x 42 = 252, 252 x 5 (players and GM) = $1,260

I'm sure you could custom order a specialized set for far, far less than that, but it still won't be cheap I'd wager.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Mostly yes, humor. However, if I'm regularly making three attacks with a 14 dice weapon, that means I need at least 42 dice in three matching sets of 14.

Why would you not just make each attack individually, roll damage, and see if the enemy falls?

Indeed, I think that's the proper way to do it rules-wise. And it shouldn't take too much longer.

The Exchange

Ravingdork wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Auto-success vs equal or greater level opponents is never cool in a game.

Perhaps not, but time savers are DEFINITELY cool!

It's bad enough that we have to wait on the operative players to roll all those dice. At least now we can cut an extra roll out of the mix.

This is the second time I've seen time as an issue for dice rolling.

Do you guys not do simultaneous rolls with different coloured dice? It takes about the same time as roiling one dice.

Many people can't afford that many dice. :'(

Those of us that can, generally invest in expensive short-term video games and play those instead, rather than occasionally buying a roleplaying book that will get years and years of use for a whole group of poor people.

I'm assuming this is humour.

Because I can buy a plastic d20 for 50cents at my local hobby shop

Mostly yes, humor. However, if I'm regularly making three attacks with a 14 dice weapon, that means I need at least 42 dice in three matching sets of 14.

Unless they happen to be d6s, getting that many sets of matching dice is not likely going to be cheap at all.

Most standard sets of seven run around $6-8 these days, and that only gets you ONE die of the kind you need. 6 x 42 = 252, 252 x 5 (players and GM) = $1,260

I'm sure you could custom order a specialized set for far, far less than that, but it still won't be cheap I'd wager.

Ah yeah....I forgot how many dice weapons roll at higher levels.

Point taken.


Even with dice bucket syndrome, I still think you all are overestimating price severely. Checking Amazon, you can get a sack of 100 funny shaped dice for $19 which at least claim to have multiple sets of d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20s and come with a handy bag too. Even assuming every person at the table needs to buy one of those (which is more than likely insane amounts of overkill) that's $95 spread over 5 people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a Sci-Fi game...

Any GM's out there allowing dice roller apps from phones during game play?

This would solve for actually buying tons of dice. :D


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Oh I'm sure I could get a thousand random dice real cheap, but the suggestion was to have multiple sets of dice, one color set for each attack. That's what I'm basing my calculations on.


Kalderaan wrote:

This is a Sci-Fi game...

Any GM's out there allowing dice roller apps from phones during game play?

This would solve for actually buying tons of dice. :D

We have an Alexa app for it. For the small dice rolls we do physical dice, and for big dice rolls we just ask her. Been really handy, she reads out each dice value and the total. Get to listen to her talk for 3 minutes after a 20d6 roll.

Also think the whole AI fits Starfinder in a fun way.


Hijiggy wrote:
Kalderaan wrote:

This is a Sci-Fi game...

Any GM's out there allowing dice roller apps from phones during game play?

This would solve for actually buying tons of dice. :D

We have an Alexa app for it. For the small dice rolls we do physical dice, and for big dice rolls we just ask her. Been really handy, she reads out each dice value and the total. Get to listen to her talk for 3 minutes after a 20d6 roll.

Also think the whole AI fits Starfinder in a fun way.

This is awesome! Going to ask Alexa to roll dice ASAP.

Allowed for Society games you think?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat.

Just as a point of order, the Skill Mastery states "you can take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so." However at no point does it say it allows you to do so if in immediate danger. From the Take 10 text: "When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 ..." (CRB p133).

In combat you are in immediate danger so by the above interpretation you might not be able to use Skill Master in a trick attempt. It would purely be a GM decision.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castrin wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat.

Just as a point of order, the Skill Mastery states "you can take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so." However at no point does it say it allows you to do so if in immediate danger. From the Take 10 text: "When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 ..." (CRB p133).

In combat you are in immediate danger so by the above interpretation you might not be able to use Skill Master in a trick attempt. It would purely be a GM decision.

ahahhem....

NO

It isn't a "DMs call" in the sense that the rules might say one thing or might say another. The rules said you could take 10 in combat and they were re affirmed by the developer to mean you could take 10 in combat.

Reading the rules to not allow the ability to work was persnickety legalistic and overly literal. That isn't the right rules, that isn't the real rules, that isn't the developers going all faqratta when they calrify that they didn't mean things that way.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Castrin wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat.

Just as a point of order, the Skill Mastery states "you can take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so." However at no point does it say it allows you to do so if in immediate danger. From the Take 10 text: "When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 ..." (CRB p133).

In combat you are in immediate danger so by the above interpretation you might not be able to use Skill Master in a trick attempt. It would purely be a GM decision.

Sure, GMs are free to rule however they want in their homegames. They can also rule that Humans have natural attacks and Mystics must worship deities. But if you're interested in Starfinder's core rules, or are playing in Society, then you heard it from the Starfinder Design Lead:

"Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat."


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Castrin wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat.

Just as a point of order, the Skill Mastery states "you can take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so." However at no point does it say it allows you to do so if in immediate danger. From the Take 10 text: "When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 ..." (CRB p133).

In combat you are in immediate danger so by the above interpretation you might not be able to use Skill Master in a trick attempt. It would purely be a GM decision.

ahahhem....

NO

It isn't a "DMs call" in the sense that the rules might say one thing or might say another. The rules said you could take 10 in combat and they were re affirmed by the developer to mean you could take 10 in combat.

Reading the rules to not allow the ability to work was persnickety legalistic and overly literal. That isn't the right rules, that isn't the real rules, that isn't the developers going all faqratta when they calrify that they didn't mean things that way.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. It NEVER says you can take 10 in combat in RAW. You are taking a statement by a dev as gospel but no such FAQ change has been posted.

The problem I have with this is there should never be a "can't fail" situation in combat. If you allow a Take 10 in combat that will be what you have. Maybe you don't see the slippery slope here but you should.

Anyway, peace, I'm out.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Castrin wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat.

Just as a point of order, the Skill Mastery states "you can take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so." However at no point does it say it allows you to do so if in immediate danger. From the Take 10 text: "When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 ..." (CRB p133).

In combat you are in immediate danger so by the above interpretation you might not be able to use Skill Master in a trick attempt. It would purely be a GM decision.

Sure, GMs are free to rule however they want in their homegames. They can also rule that Humans have natural attacks and Mystics must worship deities. But if you're interested in Starfinder's core rules, or are playing in Society, then you heard it from the Starfinder Design Lead:

"Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat."

Until it's posted in the FAQ it isn't official. That's what these forums are for. Debating and getting clarity but also to get this kind of stuff in the FAQ.

I can understand the joy the "Take 10 in combat" statement gives to Operatives. Well at least until NPCs start lighting them up with their own guaranteed bonus damage. Bummer about that.

Later.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Operative NPCs don't get specialization skill mastery, they never auto trick attack...

Yes, technically a GM could ignore developer clarification and disallow taking 10 in combat due to a perfectly literal reading of the rules until this is updated in a FAQ. I don't know why they would, but they could.

Auto trick attacking is no where near as good as you make it sound. Depending on the weapon used, it gives them the ability to move and make a single attack with similar damage to their own full attack as a full action. The operative's small arm + 1/2 spec based full attack, not the blitz soldier's advanced melee + full spec + 1 1/2 STR mod full attack.

Taking 10 in combat lets the operative limp along behind the real damage dealers, it doesn't make it the god of the battlefield.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

RAW is not God. What's more, when the developers themselves say what a given phrase means, they probably know better what it means than a random player.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Castrin wrote:

I'm sorry but you are wrong.

I'm not. If you want to read combat as a separate category from stressful and distracting that's entirely on you, not the rules. It's not that horrible of a reading, but its definitely not one thats objectively in the text. The words that are there can easily include combat as a distracting and stressful situational... because combat is distracting and stressful. It doesn't have to be read as an entirely separate clause.

RAW is largely a myth. Objective readings don't exist in plain english.

Quote:
Maybe you don't see the slippery slope here but you should.

Slippery slope is a bonified logical fallacy. Not an ideal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castrin wrote:

[SNIP]

Until it's posted in the FAQ it isn't official. That's what these forums are for. Debating and getting clarity but also to get this kind of stuff in the FAQ.

I can understand the joy the "Take 10 in combat" statement gives to Operatives. Well at least until NPCs start lighting them up with their own guaranteed bonus damage. Bummer about that.

Later.

I find it interesting that you quoted Owen but forgot to include a clarifying side remark he made:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same wording as the rogue skill mastery advocated talent in Pathfinder, and I've never seen anyone question how that ability works.

But new game, new context.

Though I do understand the source of the problem; The change of the wording of "Take 10"

Pathfinder Core Rulebook 6th printing, page 86 wrote:
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.
Starfinder Core Rulebook 1st printing, page 133 wrote:

Take 10

Most of the time, you attempt skill checks while under pressure or during times of great stress. Other times, the situation is more favorable, making success more certain.
When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 on a skill check. When you take 10, you don’t roll a d20, but rather assume that you rolled a 10 on that die, then add the relevant skill modifiers. For many routine tasks, or for tasks you are particularly skilled at, taking 10 ensures success. If you still fail when taking 10, you might require more time and energy to succeed at that task (see Take 20 below).
Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter. Also, you can’t take 10 when the GM rules that a situation is too hectic or that you are distracted, and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story.

(Emphasis mine)

The change of the structure of the wording is likely what's causing the issue. Because in Starfinder Combat is being called separate to the information on immediate danger or distraction(at least at first glance), it's being considered a separate clause by some.
However, I notice that the second clause states that you cannot do it in combat [em]unless you have an ability that states otherwise[/em] and then goes on to clarify that you simply can't do it at all if the GM rules a situation too hectic or you are distracted.

If ANYTHING, I would assume people would assume this means the ability in question specifically bypasses the first part(because that part mentions the existence of something that would do so) rather than the second part(which does not).


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Metaphysician wrote:
RAW is not God. What's more, when the developers themselves say what a given phrase means, they probably know better what it means than a random player.

Well then I'm glad I'm not a random player.

Never said RAW is anything more than what it is but rules are important. As you're just a random player you likely don't understand that.

Thanks.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Garretmander wrote:
Operative NPCs don't get specialization skill mastery, they never auto trick attack...

Assuming the NPC is created by the rules in AA yes, you are correct. However that doesn't apply if a GM creates an NPC via the PC creation rules.

Garretmander wrote:

Yes, technically a GM could ignore developer clarification and disallow taking 10 in combat due to a perfectly literal reading of the rules until this is updated in a FAQ. I don't know why they would, but they could.

Auto trick attacking is no where near as good as you make it sound. Depending on the weapon used, it gives them the ability to move and make a single attack with similar damage to their own full attack as a full action. The operative's small arm + 1/2 spec based full attack, not the blitz soldier's advanced melee + full spec + 1 1/2 STR mod full attack.

Taking 10 in combat lets the operative limp along behind the real damage dealers, it doesn't make it the god of the battlefield.

Good point however with the trick attack there is more than just additional damage. Automatic continual damage or conditions can tilt the battle greatly as well.

Still I do get that Operatives, without a guaranteed boost, would be behind the damage output of a Soldier. As an "expert" class though isn't that to be expected? Why must every class do the same amount of damage in combat? I never understood the "grass is greener" mentality regarding this.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
AtlasSniperman wrote:
Castrin wrote:

[SNIP]

Until it's posted in the FAQ it isn't official. That's what these forums are for. Debating and getting clarity but also to get this kind of stuff in the FAQ.

I can understand the joy the "Take 10 in combat" statement gives to Operatives. Well at least until NPCs start lighting them up with their own guaranteed bonus damage. Bummer about that.

Later.

I find it interesting that you quoted Owen but forgot to include a clarifying side remark he made:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same wording as the rogue skill mastery advocated talent in Pathfinder, and I've never seen anyone question how that ability works.

But new game, new context.

The omission was on purpose for two reasons:

1. The reference is Pathfinder and while certainly valid as an example the talent is one of many that are possible and not automatic at 10th level. A full 3 levels above the Operative automatic specialization.

2. There is no use (that I'm aware of) of the Pathfinder Skill Mastery talent to double/triple/quadruple damage and automatically inflict conditions on targets in combat. I could be wrong as I have not played not GM'ed a Rogue above 10th level.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

AtlasSniperman wrote:

Though I do understand the source of the problem; The change of the wording of "Take 10"

Pathfinder Core Rulebook 6th printing, page 86 wrote:
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.
Starfinder Core Rulebook 1st printing, page 133 wrote:

Take 10

Most of the time, you attempt skill checks while under pressure or during times of great stress. Other times, the situation is more favorable, making success more certain.
When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 on a skill check. When you take 10, you don’t roll a d20, but rather assume that you rolled a 10 on that die, then add the relevant skill modifiers. For many
...

Yes, and that is the main problem. Here is the rest of the entry from the Starfinder CRB (p133) noted above:

Starfinder Core Rulebook 1st printing, page 133 wrote:
Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter.

They call out combat as a separate situation than "distracted" or "stressed" thus we must assume they feel it is different. The dev has further muddied the water saying that now combat isn't a separate condition. I feel that is an over simplification of combat but then I'm likely in the minority here.

For the record, while I disagree with the allowing of Operatives to Take 10 in combat, I'm not disallowing it. It is what it is. I'm okay with it even if I find it counter to the spirit of all other combat rules and the ideal of "there is a 1 (or 20) on every die" that's the foundation of combat in a d20 system. Bypassing things just to artificially increase one class's combat stats is not unheard of but it is annoying.

Thanks for the discussion.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You misunderstand. With the guaranteed boost, they are still behind the damage output of a soldier, a solarian, a well built mechanic, etc. Their shtick isn't damage, it's debuffs, but they're designed to also add in a little bit of damage.

At the mid levels, casters aren't running out of tricks, the envoy's action economy has improved, melee bruisers have their mobility tricks, combat oriented builds for 3/4 BAB classes have probably picked up heavy weapons or advanced melee weapons. Unlike the operative, their class features still work if they use better weapons.

Unlike every other class in the game the operative is SOL if they want to build for damage but can't auto trick attack because their class feature uses small arms and operative melee weapons.

The technomancer with a sniper rifle can choose to cast a spell, or shoot the rifle for good damage, or they might have picked up heavy weapons.

The envoy with a heavy weapon can move, use improved get 'em and shoot for good damage.

The mystic with a swoop hammer can mind thrust, or run in an bash the possibly immune creature for decent damage.

The mechanic can full attack, plus his drone can attack. The exocortex mechanic can boost a heavy weapon even further.

The soldier and the solarian are doing their damage job almost by default.

If the operative can't auto trick attack by mid levels, they have a 40% chance of not using their class feature, and not doing damage either. At this level, trick attack is not better than get 'em, or spells, or full attacks from the other classes, but those other class features are automatic, why isn't the operatives?

Every other class has a way to make use of their class features and contribute to the damage game. They don't have to be built this way, but they can.

Why should the operative be any different?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castrin wrote:
They call out combat as a separate situation than "distracted" or "stressed" thus we must assume they feel it is different.

No. You don't.

If someone tells you no X Y Z then X Y Z are probably different things.

But if someone tells you no carbs no doughnuts no cookies you know that one is a subset of the other because you know what those specific things are. Combat is both stressful and distracting, not an entirely separate clause.

Without a special ability ... what special ability do you think they're talking about? It's not like there's another ability somewhere that says you can take 10 in combat but not while in danger or distracted by non combat stuff to compare it to.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would have been surprised if someone argued that Operatives can't take 10 before, but now that Owen Stephens has weighed in I'm seriously wondering how there's still an argument.

1. It's not overpowered.

2. It saves time in play.

3. It makes sense based on a casual, non-lawyer-y reading of the rules.

4. It makes sense logically. (If the "stress and distraction" of combat isn't what keeps you from taking 10, then what feature of combat is the problem?)

5. It's not a guarantee for high level threats (i.e. Where it actually matters)

6. It's consistent with the root game system (Pathfinder)

7. A developer has flat out stated it works, and is mildly surprised that it was even a question.


Castrin wrote:

2. There is no use (that I'm aware of) of the Pathfinder Skill Mastery talent to double/triple/quadruple damage and automatically inflict conditions on targets in combat. I could be wrong as I have not played not GM'ed a Rogue above 10th level.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

A build designed to make feinting a move action, combined with Skill Mastery, basically functions exactly the same as here.

Feint -> Target is flat-footed -> Flat-footed is subject to sneak attack.

There are probably others, but that is the automatic first to mind.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Garretmander wrote:

If the operative can't auto trick attack by mid levels, they have a 40% chance of not using their class feature, and not doing damage either. At this level, trick attack is not better than get 'em, or spells, or full attacks from the other classes, but those other class features are automatic, why isn't the operatives?

Every other class has a way to make use of their class features and contribute to the damage game. They don't have to be built this way, but they can.

Why should the operative be any different?

If the powers that be want auto trick attacks then so be it but to say it isn’t as good is false and a misrepresentation of the class.

An Operative debilitating trick is as good as an Envoy’s Get’em. An Operative’s ability to do three attacks is as good as any other class’s full attacks. (Note however full attacks aren’t automatic.) They’re better than spells too as the Operative will never run out of tricks, there is no use limit. Operatives also get sniper weapons which they can further extend their debilitating attacks through giving bleeding and flatfooted to targets 500ft or more away with the proper weapon.

So in the end they are just as good as any other class to deal damage and conditions, maybe better in some ways. That they can’t use a trick attack with non-Operative or sniper weapons is irrelevant. They don’t need to, to aid in the damage game.

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / Can Operatives take 10 in combat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.