|
Well, first I don't see "Debilitating Strike" as an operative ability.
So I assume you mean "Debilitating Trick".
When you hit an enemy with a trick attack, you can make the creature flat-footed or off-target until the beginning of your next turn. You might learn exploits that grant you additional options for your debilitating trick, but you can select one option each time you hit with a trick attack.
Clearly it is Example 2. Example 1 would mean the character would gain always gain the benefit of being flat-footed or off-target all the time. That is clearly OP.
Hitting someone with Trick Attack involves the Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth skill check, not with a weapon.
This recent FAQ helps clarify some as well.
side related question, if you're immune to flat footed, can you still get trick attacked ala it does extra damage, triggers possibly a debilitating trick but no flat footed (and no extra effects that trigger if flat foot) or is it a 'trick attack attempt, successful roll, but target immune to flat foot so no extra damage and no trick extras applied?
Starfinder Design Lead
|
side related question, if you're immune to flat footed, can you still get trick attacked ala it does extra damage, triggers possibly a debilitating trick but no flat footed (and no extra effects that trigger if flat foot) or is it a 'trick attack attempt, successful roll, but target immune to flat foot so no extra damage and no trick extras applied?Nothing in the attack says the dmg is reliant on the target being flat-footed. Also, if the target is already flat-footed, you don't automatically do the extra damage. So I'd have to say being immune to flat-footed just means you are immune to being flat-footed, it does not make you immune to the extra damage.
rook1138 is correct.
The fact an ability applies a condition as one of its effects does not mean creatures immune to that one condition are immune to all its effects, unless either the ability or the creature's immunity specify such.
|
All right, I'll necro this because we still need an answer or consensus on this. Here's my two cents:
You can trick or startle a foe and then attack when she drops her guard. As a full action, you can move up to your speed. Whether or not you moved, you can then make an attack with a melee weapon with the operative special property or with any small arm. Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth check (or a check associated with your specialization; see page 94) with a DC equal to 20 + your target’s CR. If you succeed at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is flat-footed.[...]
When you hit an enemy with a trick attack, you can make the creature flat-footed or off-target until the beginning of your next turn.[...]
The only requirement for Debilitating Trick is that you hit an enemy with a trick attack, not that you also succeed at the preceding skill check. And Trick Attack doesn't have any language indicating that failing the skill check invalidates the remainder of the action; if you hit, you will deal your weapon damage and trigger any hit-dependent effects, regardless of the results of the skill check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if the skill check fails you weren t hit by a trick attack you just got hit
I'm inclined to believe that you don't get the benefits if you fail the skill check, but I agree that it could be more clear.
FAQ'd.
if the skill check fails you weren t hit by a trick attack you just got hitWhat leads you to believe that? If you declare an action to trick attack and hit, how have you not hit with a trick attack?
You succeeded at an attack, but you failed at the trick part.
|
|
You succeeded at an attack, but you failed at the trick part.if the skill check fails you weren t hit by a trick attack you just got hitWhat leads you to believe that? If you declare an action to trick attack and hit, how have you not hit with a trick attack?
I've heard people express this view before, but I don't see where the system supports it. At no point in the Trick Attack class feature or the Operative class do the rules talk a failed skill check rendering the entire trick attack action invalid. I've seen plenty of players talk about the skill check as the "trick" and the attack roll as the "attack," but I haven't seen any rules supporting that belief.
Let me be clear: I really hate Operatives. They are a blight on the Starfinder power curve. But, until Paizo gives us errata or FAQ on the class, we have to run them as written.
You succeeded at an attack, but you failed at the trick part.if the skill check fails you weren t hit by a trick attack you just got hitWhat leads you to believe that? If you declare an action to trick attack and hit, how have you not hit with a trick attack?I've heard people express this view before, but I don't see where the system supports it. At no point in the Trick Attack class feature or the Operative class do the rules talk a failed skill check rendering the entire trick attack action invalid. I've seen plenty of players talk about the skill check as the "trick" and the attack roll as the "attack," but I haven't seen any rules supporting that belief.
Let me be clear: I really hate Operatives. They are a blight on the Starfinder power curve. But, until Paizo gives us errata or FAQ on the class, we have to run them as written.
wait.. so why make a separate roll then? You roll to see if your trick attack was successful then roll to see if your attack hits. Both could fail / miss, both could be successful. But if your attack misses your hosed and if your trick attack is successful but you miss your hosed. at least thats my understanding of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
]I've heard people express this view before, but I don't see where the system supports it. At no point in the Trick Attack class feature or the Operative class do the rules talk a failed skill check rendering the entire trick attack action invalid. I've seen plenty of players talk about the skill check as the "trick" and the attack roll as the "attack," but I haven't seen any rules supporting that belief.
If you succeed at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is flat-footed.
So if you have not succeeded at the check there is no additional 1d4 (or more damage at higher levels) and the target is not flat footed (and whatever other riders go on it later)
debilitating strike basically adds off target to the list of possible conditions and makes flat footed against everyone, not just that one attack. It's still reliant on the trick attacks original "if you succeed at the check"
So this all brings up something that ive never really considered or that our group has questioned and seeing as I have a Operative in the group I run for it would be great to know.
are the affects other than damage dependent on the attack hitting? To be clear if my players operative makes his Trick attack check but the attack misses do the rider affects for the trick attack portion of this attack still affect his target? Ive always assumed no but now this has be thinking maybe?
It’s no in Pathfinder, I think I remember it explicitly in the core rules being that way in Starfinder, 65% confidence.
It’s no in Pathfinder, I think I remember it explicitly in the core rules being that way in Starfinder, 65% confidence.
Yeah Ive always thought its a no as well. However in Pathfinder you get one check, you sneak attack and it hits or it doesn't so its pretty cut and dry. In Starfinder there is two separate checks one for the Trick attack itself and one for the actual attack. My operative always gets frustrated when the check works out and he gets all excited only to be let down by the attack missing.
Anyway all or nothing is how we have been playing but this thread sort of jogged the what if im doing it wrong question in my head so I thought Id get opinions.
