| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So last night I ran my first game and full attacking seems like it's just always a good option due to the fact that monsters have such a high to hit. It only caused me to miss completely once, and I got 2 attacks to hit more than once.
However on Core Rulebook page 420:
MELEE
The creature’s melee attacks are listed here, each starting on a
separate line. The attack roll modifier appears after the attack’s
name, followed by the attack’s damage, damage type, and critical
effects in parentheses.
MULTIATTACK
If the creature can make multiple melee attacks with a full action
(usually with different weapons), the attacks and attack roll
modifiers are listed in this entry, followed by the attack’s damage,
damage type, and critical effects in parentheses.
RANGED
This entry lists the creature’s ranged attacks in the same format
the Melee entry uses for melee attacks.
Bold for emphasis.
Now one interpretation is that only monsters that have a multiattack section would be able to full attack. Another interpretation is that full attack is a basic combat action that anyone can do. Having yet another rule difference for what PC's can do vs what NPC's can do is going to cause quite a bit of consternation with one of my players. However the full attack option just seems too good on NPCs due to their high attack bonus.
Anyone know for sure how the rule works? How have people been ruling it?
I think this might be a reference to monsters with multiple natural attacks, covering something like a bite/claw/claw routine that breaks the normal full attack = two normal attacks formula. Can someone with Alien Archive confirm?
I think this might be a reference to monsters with multiple natural attacks, covering something like a bite/claw/claw routine that breaks the normal full attack = two normal attacks formula. Can someone with Alien Archive confirm?
That's what I thought as well. But someone in another thread posted the alternate interpretation so I figured I'd double check. Full attack just seems to be something everyone should always do unless they're trying to use cover or special attacks.
Yes, they can full attack (as it stands now).
This is unfortunate, as they do have those higher attacks. But it does explain why some battles were easy for our group that I've heard are hard for others.
This doesn't mean NPCs always do so, as tactics might say otherwise for balance purposes. I've already come across some strong NPCs with bad tactics written in which helped us quite a bit.
The reasoning goes that Full Attack is just a combat choice, like attacking defensively. The stat block doesn't show the AC & attack mods for that because they're universal. Same for Full Attack.
I think the only way for an NPC to not be able to choose full attack would be if regular combat options were only open to PCs, and that'd be lame.
The stat line for multiple attacks muddies the issue though.
If a monster has an inferior second attack listed, could they just use their primary twice (if not natural)?
Are natural attacks able to be used twice in a turn (unlike in PF)?
Good question, this topic came up at our table as well. FAQ'd. :)
|
Full attack,drops your to,hit by 4. If it's the enemies best to hit mod, that still leaves them hurting in trying to beat high AC (especially with cover in play)
If its their worst to hit mod then it's really not worth trying (unless your fishing for criticals).
But that isn't really the case. I have been seeing modifiers in the low teens at low tier. My vesk wears Heavy armor with max dex for it, and he would get hit 75% of the time. Letting them attack twice is begging to kill half your party every fight.
|
But that isn't really the case. I have been seeing modifiers in the low teens at low tier. My vesk wears Heavy armor with max dex for it, and he would get hit 75% of the time. Letting them attack twice is begging to kill half your party every fight.Full attack,drops your to,hit by 4. If it's the enemies best to hit mod, that still leaves them hurting in trying to beat high AC (especially with cover in play)
If its their worst to hit mod then it's really not worth trying (unless your fishing for criticals).
Yeah, I've seen that for a few level 5 critters but that's about it. When you're taking on big guys, normal tactics are not going to work. In this case, cautious move every round should mitigate full attack and then you work,the group advantage to take it down.
I mean, if you're up against a APL+2 or +3 creature, then full attacks are going to hurt. But the majority of times I'm not seeing much benefit to it. Crit farming is a thing though, and I know of DM's who do it.
Meh, these are all just suggestions and generalisations though.
This is the multiattack universal creature rule from the Alien Archive (pg 155):
"When making a full attack, the creature can make all the
listed attacks, instead of two attacks, at the attack bonuses
indicated. It can make the attacks in any order."
so basically any creature can full attack, but if it has multiattack it can attack with all it's natural weapons rather than just 2.
|
This is the multiattack universal creature rule from the Alien Archive (pg 155):
"When making a full attack, the creature can make all the
listed attacks, instead of two attacks, at the attack bonuses
indicated. It can make the attacks in any order."
so basically any creature can full attack, but if it has multiattack it can attack with all it's natural weapons rather than just 2.
And it looks like the monster alien does not take a penalty for using their multiattack option during a full round. They would if they choose to full-round with their single attack.
I've had this happen in other games too. Not sure if it means spelling out tactics better in NPC slots or not, but...
Commando-style tactics are great...for commandos. Not every NPC has the battle training necessary to hold up and be flawlessly tactical in battle. Take a miner from Akiton - would they display the same tactics as a group of soldiers? Likely not.
Just because rules allow, doesn't mean you should.
Not sure how this gets communicated or messaged in a SFS module though.
|
|
And it looks like theThis is the multiattack universal creature rule from the Alien Archive (pg 155):
"When making a full attack, the creature can make all the
listed attacks, instead of two attacks, at the attack bonuses
indicated. It can make the attacks in any order."
so basically any creature can full attack, but if it has multiattack it can attack with all it's natural weapons rather than just 2.monsteralien does not take a penalty for using their multiattack option during a full round. They would if they choose to full-round with their single attack.
Most monster with a listed multi attack have the attacks at 4 lower than their single attack bonus
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most monster with a listed multi attack have the attacks at 4 lower than their single attack bonusAnd it looks like theThis is the multiattack universal creature rule from the Alien Archive (pg 155):
"When making a full attack, the creature can make all the
listed attacks, instead of two attacks, at the attack bonuses
indicated. It can make the attacks in any order."
so basically any creature can full attack, but if it has multiattack it can attack with all it's natural weapons rather than just 2.monsteralien does not take a penalty for using their multiattack option during a full round. They would if they choose to full-round with their single attack.
I just wanted to put the complete rule into the post... AA p. 155
MULTIATTACK (EX)
When making a full attack, the creature can make all the
listed attacks, instead of two attacks, at the attack bonuses
indicated. It can make the attacks in any order.
Format: Multiattack bite +10 (3d6+5), 2 claws +10 (2d8+5).
Guidelines: Use the appropriate damage column for the
creature’s array, and impose a –6 penalty on these attacks
instead of a –4 penalty.
[\quote]
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rule for ,multiattack specifically mentions that a creature can full attack!
It stays that if it does so, and has multi attack, it can make all of its listed ones, "instead of two attacks"
This isn't open to interpretation.
Monsters and NPCs are built with different rules to player charcater creation, and that's it for differences.
The combat rules are universal, so the option to full attack aplies to everything
If you guys are going to start saying that enemies can't full attack, then you better start applying that interpretation to every action listed in the combat section. Which of course means there is no combat.
You can't cherry pick which rules apply in PFS.
For your home games, go wild.
I believe there is some guidance in the current AP that says those specific NPC's don't full attack. I haven't looked at the text as I'm playing the AP, but that was something that our GM mentioned when we were discussing starfinder mechanics in general. Maybe someone who has read the AP can chime in.
Anyways my point is there's no reason to give guidance to GMs that these particular NPCs don't full attack unless they are capable of doing so.
|
|
I believe there is some guidance in the current AP that says those specific NPC's don't full attack. I haven't looked at the text as I'm playing the AP, but that was something that our GM mentioned when we were discussing starfinder mechanics in general. Maybe someone who has read the AP can chime in.
Anyways my point is there's no reason to give guidance to GMs that these particular NPCs don't full attack unless they are capable of doing so.
Nope. Nothing states they don't full attack.
There are given tactics for most of the scenarios in the first part (which is the only one I've read). They describe the general tactics (eg, randomly target PCs and other NPCs, or engage in close combat until too damaged, then drop back for ranged special attacks).
And that's it. Just like every AP Paizo releases these are guides to the way the enemy acts. Then you apply the combat rules as needed.
Eg. The baddies are in cover caught in a fire fight between the players and a rival,gang. One of the enemy has targeted a player randomly. This is the suggested tactics for this scenario.
Since the baddy is in good cover, he chooses not to move. This lets him full attack (at -4 to both shots). Or he could Harry, or he could move for a better angle first or .....any of the combat options indicated in the combat section. The only restriction the scenario has placed in the NPC is he has to randomly target each round.
|
|
The rule for ,multiattack specifically mentions that a creature can full attack!
It stays that if it does so, and has multi attack, it can make all of its listed ones, "instead of two attacks"
This isn't open to interpretation.
...
You can't cherry pick which rules apply in PFS.
For your home games, go wild.Funny, that rule is from a book that isn't availble yet(PDF anyway) and more importantly isn't actually legal (yet) for SFS. Is it really strange that someone attempting to play SFS with the ruleset that is currently legal would have some confusion about the matter?
I consider the matter settled (once alien archive is out) and will expect SFS GMs to allow monsters to double attack as PCs can (and expect a lot more downed PCs).
Please tell me where in the core rule book it says the NPCs and monsters don't use the same rules as the players for combat?
Because until people were told that the monsters are built with a different design focus they had no idea. That isn't mentioned in the core rules any where. People thought the stats were wrong, then got pointed to a book called the introductory bestiary which explains monster stat blocks don't work the same as player stat blocks.
So, if you're going to start using core book only, you're completely off the mark.
|
|
Full attack works for ranged weapons as well as melee.
So the rules your discussing mention full attack, with melee weapons.
In other words, an addendum to the usual full attack rules.
What the rule is saying is multi attack allows a creature with more than one type of melee attack available, to use all of them.
Unlike every other creature that uses full attack, which can only make two attacks with the same weapon.
You're seriously misreading a rule to add far more to it than should be. You're taking one addendum which gives more ability to a creature, and making it take away everything from all creatures.
Sorry for reviving the post. We are playing dead suns 3. I am reading the marrowbligth and its multi-attack is worse than a full attack (-5 to hit). What conclusion did you reach? Can monsters Full attack or not?
I noticed that as well. I think that the rule in Alien Archive shows that monsters can make full attacks, and in place of that full attack (two attacks at -4 with the same weapon), they can instead choose the multiattack. In this case a marrowblight multi-attack isn't the most optimal, but it may make for a more colorful combat with two types of damage in a single full action, albeit at -5 to hit.
However, there are some powerful creatures where the multiattack is a much more deadly attack than the standard full attack:
CE Colossal magical beast (colossus)
...
OFFENSE
Melee bite +35 (4d12+29 P) or
claw +35 (4d12+29 S) or
slam +35 (8d6+29 B)
Multiattack bite +32 (4d12+29 P), 2 claws +32 (4d12+29 S), slam +32 (8d6+29 B)
Note how these multiattacks are only at a -3 from the normal attack!
LE Colossal outsider (devil, evil, extraplanar, lawful)
...
OFFENSE
Melee slam +32 (4d12+30 B)
Multiattack 2 slams +26 (4d12+30 B), 4 legs +26 (6d10+30 P)
Ranged hellfire glare +34 (8d8+19 F; critical burn 5d6)
Note how these multiattacks are at a -6 from the normal attack, but there are a lot of attacks!
Search for "multiattack" if you have the PDF Alien Archive for other examples.
I just noticed that AA2 and AA3 have a different wording:
Multiattack: If the creature can make more than two melee
attacks with a full action (usually with different weapons),
the attacks and attack roll modifiers are listed in this entry,
followed by each attack’s damage, damage type, and critical
effects in parentheses.
Multiattack (Ex)
In addition to its standard melee or ranged attack, the
creature has a multiattack entry. When making a full
attack, the creature can make all the attacks listed in the
multiattack entry at the attack bonuses listed, rather than
make two attacks. It can make the attacks in any order.
Format: Multiattack bite +10 (1d4+11), 2 claws +10
(1d4+11).
Guidelines: Use the appropriate damage column for the
creature’s array for all attacks in the multiattack, and impose
a –6 penalty on these attacks (rather than the usual –4
penalty for a full attack).
I have seen multiple statblocks and tactics sections for NPCs and Monsters that specifically call out them making full attacks.
NPCs, monsters, aliens—they can all take the full attack full action.What happens when a PC uses a spell like Carnivorous to get a bite attack?
When they full attack, do they get their normal 2 melee swings + the bite attack?
They get two attacks of whatever combo they choose.
|
@Xenocrat - that is certainly RAW from the Full Attack section and I agree with you. But, maybe I wasn't quite clear - my question was really intended to be whether or not spells like Carnivorous were intended to change that limitation (but just omitted).
I realize that Carnivorous doesn't say anything about extra attacks (and therefore doesn't offer them by RAW). But, Carnivorous is kind of a useless spell. However, if it were to offer an extra bite attack like a full-attacking NPC, alien, etc., that would make it much more useful and popular. So, was there any intent to do that? Should spells that offer natural attacks confer them as extra attacks? None of the polymorph spells are PFS-legal...maybe that's why.
Philosophically, who cares about 2d4 damage at 7th level as a caster or even 1d4 damage at 1st that you can do with a stick without having to cast anything and waste a slot? Or, just use a Telekenetic Projectile cantrip for 1d6. OK...piercing damage...whoopee. Get a Needler. Still much cheaper resource-wise.
Known spells, spell slots and spell progression are already very nerfed/borderline in Starfinder, not to mention the 140 credit cost for basic 1st level spells that used to cost 25-50gp in PF or were easily obtainable with prestige.
No pun intended, but Carnivorous is mostly just flavor unless it is intended to offer something more for the very pricey slot or credit use for casters that have much better options available to them.
So, that's why I raised this question. Otherwise, I absolutely agree with you on RAW.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extra attacks are such an abnormal thing in Starfinder that there is basically no possibility that anyone ever intended carnivorous to add an extra attack, and didnt make it explicit.
Also, I don't know where you're getting the idea that the polymorph spell is banned in society. It is legal, according to the additional resources page.
|
|
re: extra attacks - I understand. And Carnivorous is, therefore, a spell of marginal utility that nobody should ever take, especially given the cost and nerfing in Starfinder magic. Or, it's about as useful as making everything in Starfinder an insight bonus. My point is that if the designers wanted to make this spell useful or attractive, it should have conferred the bite as an extra natural attack (like NPCs, monsters, etc.). It would hardly be balance-breaking when PCs fight creatures that have multi-attack capability (without -4 to hit on a full attack).
Also, I don't know where you're getting the idea that the polymorph spell is banned in society. It is legal, according to the additional resources page.
Great - so then Archives of Nethys, the official Starfinder online PRD, needs to be updated, because the mystic spell definitions and the technomancer spell definitions both currently show that none of the polymorph spells are SFS legal.
The additional resources for Alien Archive 2/Polymorph were changed on 12/7/2018. So, why is the official PRD (the main resource I happen to use) still out of sync and what is the enterprise process in place to ensure that when a change occurs to Additional Resources that it is propagated to the online PRD in a timely manner?
Also, my comment above referred to "polymorph spells (plural)," which includes Baleful Polymorph. And, Polymorph is limited/conditionally legal. So, now you know where the idea comes from, and where differences in understanding should be expected owing to the fact that Paizo doesn't keep its critical resources in sync.
Carnivorous is fine, it's long lasting, only a 1st level spell, and substitutes higher dice for basic unarmed attack and provides an attack without any hands. A longarm mystic can easily justify having it up as a melee option once you've got a few levels.
|
|
Xenocrat: With apologies, I'm just not seeing the value for a spell that lasts for 1 fight and does 1d4 damage. If I'm a mystic and not using the terrain to my advantage to mindthrust or even psychokinetically strangle an enemy at upper level or taking strategic actions (or healing, lifelinking, etc.), I'm not really doing my job. Maybe if Carnivorous lasted 1 hr/level, it would be slightly more useful and maybe it's cheaper than a 6K credit T7 tactical knife (but meh). If Carnivorous were 1 hr/level and conferred an extra attack, it would probably be on everyone's spell list. Super bonus utility, flavor and theme points for some kind of racial or other fusion upgrades (later spell, perhaps, racial synergies, etc., that would upgrade bite...or spell progression for bite with downcasting) that would make it work with poison, disease, acid, bleed or other cool effects...but there's nothing. I see it as a lost space-themed design opportunity and a dead-end spell. Enemies should fear the mystics with enlarged mouths with sharp teeth dripping with acidic saliva like an Alien. A foe could rush in and try to stop such a mystic, but should think twice about facing the well-known wrath of a vicious bite if they interrupt a spell...or if they fail, facing the spell itself.
Pantshandshake: I see what you're saying, but for me, it will probably always be Pathfinder in space, just like Pathfinder has always been better D&D 3.5. I don't know...maybe my opinion will change over time as I play more (or not). But, that being said, from my current level of exposure, I think there are things that partly mitigate the increased cost and reduced slot/level access for casters. Those are: downcasting (which virtualizes a spell at lower slots and provides some flexibility), connection (which offers an extra spell slot/spells known, with automatic progression and replacement), increased BAB progression (which helps casters be slightly better in combat...maybe offering alternatives - have to see how that plays out), and maybe even eliminating concentration checks in favor of AC (which, for me, makes spellcasting more exciting and realistic and inspires casters to be strategic in their use of terrain and cover...including balancing with armor acquisition). These changes are interesting ones where the intent is obviously to shift the balance, but, to me, the cost of spells for primary casters (especially for utility items) is still too high. More generally, my character can't even afford to buy a Ring of Resistance +1 to offset his crappy fort and reflex saves, because it's not upgradeable and the SFS loot curve doesn't seem to support frequent level-based upgrades. So, in the least, it requires long-term purchase plans which are still falling short for me. Chronicle items are usually of little utility in the near term, and I haven't needed or wanted to purchase 1 thing off a SFS chronicle sheet, which is an indication of distorted game balance. Boon spaghetti seems to be more important than mostly mundane chronicle items. There are just no extra credits available. If I were designing chronicle access, I would offer 10-15% off on standard items on chronicles which would encourage players to want to play more games and acquire the rewards on chronicles (especially basic items) to better equip their characters and save some credits to make up for the other cost distortions and non-upgradeability. It would support the players and the business model. But, many chronicle items in PF1 were useless for the same reason and maybe nobody has considered that a subtle shift to the CS cost mechanic would drive increased gameplay.
Starfinder has gone out of its way to avoid pathfinders "pile as many attacks as you can with as many bonuses as you can" possibilities. Extra attacks are a design space they're deliberately ignoring.
If carnivorous wasnt treated like an operative weapon it would likely replace the mytics melee weapon for the cheap price of one spell. How useful it is would vary wildly based on how often you know a fight is coming or not.