How exactly is Systems knowledge supposed to work? You need to spend entropy points but you can only have entropy points in combat. Most of those skills are used out of combat
General question but seems more important to a vanguard
Combat manuevers are an attack. Can they be made with dex instead of strength normally? What about with entropic strike?
This was answered, actually - since combat maneuvers are a melee attack, anything that would affect that melee attack role (including the operative property on your entropic strike) would affect the combat maneuver.General question but seems more important to a vanguard
Combat manuevers are an attack. Can they be made with dex instead of strength normally? What about with entropic strike?
So can you make a bullrush with entropic strike? An unarmed strike? A dagger?
|
So can you make a bullrush with entropic strike? An unarmed strike? A dagger?This was answered, actually - since combat maneuvers are a melee attack, anything that would affect that melee attack role (including the operative property on your entropic strike) would affect the combat maneuver.General question but seems more important to a vanguard
Combat manuevers are an attack. Can they be made with dex instead of strength normally? What about with entropic strike?
Also, from level 5 onwards, if you use Entropic Strike to do the maneuver, you target EAC+8 instead of KAC+8. (Page 11, last paragraph of Entropic Strike.)
So can you make a bullrush with entropic strike? An unarmed strike? A dagger?This was answered, actually - since combat maneuvers are a melee attack, anything that would affect that melee attack role (including the operative property on your entropic strike) would affect the combat maneuver.General question but seems more important to a vanguard
Combat manuevers are an attack. Can they be made with dex instead of strength normally? What about with entropic strike?
Yes, no, yes (currently every "dagger" has the operative quality).
Unarmed strikes only have the archaic and nonlethal qualities, no operative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So can you make a bullrush with entropic strike? An unarmed strike? A dagger?Yep, as per Owen in this very thread (from Dec 6th):
Ooo thank you!
Yes, Trying to make a Ysoki vanguard and bullrushing was off the table if she couldn't use dex.
In Starfinder, combat maneuvers are just melee attacks with an effect other than damage to a target creature (though sunder still does damage). So everything that applies to melee attacks, including reach and properties of your weapons, applies to combat maneuver attack rolls.Do operative weapons allow you to perform any combat maneuver using Dexterity instead of Strength?
This seems like an over simplification Owen. If a combat maneuver is simply a melee attack with a different effect, you open the door for a lot of misinterpretation and rule engineering. Most notably we have had a discussion in the Rule forums about AoO and combat maneuvers.
Because of this post players contend that a combat maneuver should be allowed as an Attack of Opportunity because they are both 'melee attacks'.
I contend that while they both use the melee attack roll to determine success, they are different actions from one another. If any attack that uses the melee attack roll is a melee attack, a case could be made that a spell that uses touch is a melee attack and could also be substituted as an AoO?
g). I don't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to use an Combat Maneuver as an AoO as long as it doesn't require movement.
Combat Maneuver
As a standard action, you can attempt one of the following combat maneuvers. For each maneuver, choose an opponent within your reach (including your weapon’s reach, if applicable) and then make a melee attack roll against the opponent’s KAC + 8. The effects of success vary depending on the maneuver, as described below.
Likewise casting a spell is a standard action, which you can't do as a reaction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
g). I don't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to use an Combat Maneuver as an AoO as long as it doesn't require movement.Combat Maneuver
As a standard action, you can attempt one of the following combat maneuvers. For each maneuver, choose an opponent within your reach (including your weapon’s reach, if applicable) and then make a melee attack roll against the opponent’s KAC + 8. The effects of success vary depending on the maneuver, as described below.
Likewise casting a spell is a standard action, which you can't do as a reaction.
Yes, Melee Attack has similar wording under Standard Actions. But Attack of Opportunity says you can make a melee attack as a reaction, and Owen says
In Starfinder, combat maneuvers are just melee attacks with an effect other than damage to a target creature
So they work just fine in full attacks and AOOs.
Weird that people resist this given that it was the Pathfinder rule, too. Reach and dex on a combat maneuver because of the weapon you're wielding seem pretty strange to me, but you all accepted that just fine. Not sure why keeping the old rule for AOO is driving people to intense motivated reasoning or why the motivation exists.
Can you take a standard action Aoo or two standard actions as a full attack?
People aren't resisting anything. You re taking a quote completely out of context and running with it in direct contradiction to the core rules of the game.
And no, that was NOT the pathfinder rule. You could trip disarm or sunder(REPOSITION?) As an AOO. You could not grapple, overrun, bullrush or dirty trick.
People don t to need to be overly emotional to reject a position that has far more evidence against it than for it. Trying to read the rules as a perfectly sensible, non contradictory system is folly. Doubly so for out of context developer quotes
Trying to read the rules as a perfectly sensible, non contradictory system is folly.That's exactly how you should read rules. RAW should interact correctly. If there are contradictions, they're eventually fixed with Errata or FAQ clarification.
It is a terrible way to read rules. It is all too easy to have statement A logically imply statement B only to have another rule say not B. This only works perfectly with a perfectly logical system and a perfect logician. Game systems are not perfect and gamers definitely are not perfect logicians (especially when drooling over a possible mechanical bonus)
A far better way to read the rules is to keep an open mind and evaluate evidence for or against competing positions. The right answer can have thngs imply it is wrong. The wrong answer may have things that imply that it's right. Otherwise you have A---B and C imply not B and the only thing you can do is arbitrarily choose a starting point.
Trying to read the rules as a perfectly sensible, non contradictory system is folly.That's exactly how you should read rules. RAW should interact correctly. If there are contradictions, they're eventually fixed with Errata or FAQ clarification.It is a terrible way to read rules. It is all too easy to have statement A logically imply statement B only to have another rule say not B. This only works perfectly with a perfectly logical system and a perfect logician. Game systems are not perfect and gamers definitely are not perfect logicians (especially when drooling over a possible mechanical bonus)
A far better way to read the rules is to keep an open mind and evaluate evidence for or against competing positions. The right answer can have thngs imply it is wrong. The wrong answer may have things that imply that it's right. Otherwise you have A---B and C imply not B and the only thing you can do is arbitrarily choose a starting point.
Both of these are good approaches depending on what the person applying them wants the result to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both of these are good approaches depending on what the person applying them wants the result to be.
trying to get the answer you want is also a horrible way to read the rules. The rules exist for the sole purpose of trying to tell you what they are. Trying to get them to say something else isn't particularly hard , creative, or above all USEFUL when rules require both a DM and player to agree how they work.
Can a Vanguard make an attack of opportunity with Entropic Strike without a weapon?
Entropic strike counts as a magical advanced melee weapon. The Vanguard is therefore armed.
There is no reason they would be unable to take an AoO.
Can I get clarification on what this line actually means?
If the melee weapon or shield is no more than 2 item levels below your vanguard level, you can also apply any weapon special property, critical hit effect, or weapon fusion the melee weapon or shield has to your entropic strike.
I seem to be reading that completely differently than my players. I've been refusing to argue and letting them get their way, but I would like to be correct going forward (even if it means I'm wrong now).
I read it as (no more) (than 2 below), but my players seem to be consistently reading it as (no more than 2) (below).
For clarification on what I mean, let's say you have a level 5 vanguard.
By my reading, you couldn't use Entropic Strike on a weapon higher than item level 3. 3 is 2 below 5 and you can't use it on a weapon more than 2 below. I think this is the way its intended to be read to limit the fusions you can apply to your Entropic Strike.
But my players seem to be reading it as you couldn't put Entropic Strike on a weapon lower than item level 3. Anything lower would be more than 2 below. The few that I've asked to justify their argument (which honestly makes just as much sense) is that it encourages you to constantly be upgrading your weapons as you play.
I tend to think the latter is OP, but I want to know what it's supposed to be before I provide feedback through the surveys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I get clarification on what this line actually means?
If the melee weapon or shield is no more than 2 item levels below your vanguard level, you can also apply any weapon special property, critical hit effect, or weapon fusion the melee weapon or shield has to your entropic strike.I seem to be reading that completely differently than my players. I've been refusing to argue and letting them get their way, but I would like to be correct going forward (even if it means I'm wrong now).
I read it as (no more) (than 2 below), but my players seem to be consistently reading it as (no more than 2) (below).
For clarification on what I mean, let's say you have a level 5 vanguard.
By my reading, you couldn't use Entropic Strike on a weapon higher than item level 3. 3 is 2 below 5 and you can't use it on a weapon more than 2 below. I think this is the way its intended to be read to limit the fusions you can apply to your Entropic Strike.
But my players seem to be reading it as you couldn't put Entropic Strike on a weapon lower than item level 3. Anything lower would be more than 2 below. The few that I've asked to justify their argument (which honestly makes just as much sense) is that it encourages you to constantly be upgrading your weapons as you play.
I tend to think the latter is OP, but I want to know what it's supposed to be before I provide feedback through the surveys.
Your players are correct.
The level 5 Vanguard can apply the weapon effects of a weapon of 3rd level or higher to their Entropic Strike.
The game-logic rationale behind this is that a Vanguard will be immune to the gear treadmill if they only have to buy the lowest possible level weapon that has the traits that they want on it. Almost everyone else would need to upgrade periodically, but your Vanguards would just get a level 1 Taclash for Reach and call it a day.
The fluff reason for this would be that the only way to really channel your entropy powers through an object is if they were sturdy enough to endure the destructive forces being marshaled.
It has nothing to do with fusions. If anything, Paizo wants us to put MORE fusions on our Entropic Strike weapons, because that means that we're actually spending our wealth by level on fun toys.
EDIT: Nevermind on needing clarification. I see Owen already gave it in another thread, I just didn't find it initially. I'm not here to argue about it, I just wanted to know which it was before filling out the survey.
