This really isn't a power boost. At all
How often are you in initiative but for some reason you're not aware of anyone on the map to trick attack at the start of your round? Why are you even in initiative at that point? At worst it's like a bonus against three armed skittermanders.
If you're trying to back door it into an the operative must see someone at the start of the round limitation, that's the sort of thing they have to spell out.
This really isn't a power boost. At all
How often are you in initiative but for some reason you're not aware of anyone on the map to trick attack at the start of your round? Why are you even in initiative at that point? At worst it's like a bonus against three armed skittermanders.
If you're trying to back door it into an the operative must see someone at the start of the round limitation, that's the sort of thing they have to spell out.
We're in initiative because someone, somewhere has pulled iron and we need to know what each person does until everybody is either friendly, fled, or dead.
I don't think that the operative needs to be able to see their Trick Attack target at the start of their round, but they do need to announce their bloody actions just like everyone else. If an operative with no visible targets announces a trick attack, and doesn't have a target by the end of the move associated with their trick attack, they basically forfeit the attack portion of their full action. Congratulations, Operative, you outsmarted yourself. That's why you don't try to get cheeky and Trick Attack your way down a hallway; if circumstances suggest you do something other than shoot/stab, you've lost your second action.
There is a whole slew of reasons that it is good that we announce specific actions taken as we take them; it isn't just Quantum Trick Attacks. The metagame could get very, very silly if everybody felt entitled to change whether they were doing a move or full action partway through their turn. Part of doing a full action is acknowledging that you can'd do anything else.
but they do need to announce their bloody actions just like everyone else
Again, incredibly circular in assuming everyone else has to announce actions and then do them. Also gets very complicated with regards to targeting.
So if a soldier has a haste going, when do they have to announce their attacks and movement?
Congratulations, Operative, you outsmarted yourself. That's why you don't try to get cheeky and Trick Attack your way down a hallway;
Yes well then someone might get ahead of you. Like that blitz soldier you keep around specifically to walk down cooridoors and run into things for you...
This really isn't a drawback either.
The metagame could get very, very silly if everybody felt entitled to change whether they were doing a move or full action partway through their turn.
No one has been able to name a single instance of silliness without presuming the rule you're trying to show with the silliness.
Operatives A and B on my table
Operative A moves to the corner and trick attacks
Operative B moves to the corner and then moves down the hall
Operatives A and B on your table
Operative A announces trick attack moves to the corner and trick attacks
Operative B announces a move B moves to the corner and then Announces a move and moves down the hall
No one at my table is DOING anything that they can't otherwise do at yours. If there is in fact "a slew" some should be easy to name.
WITHOUT... and seriously, think this part through, without circularly assuming that you are right.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if a soldier has a haste going, when do they have to announce their attacks and movement?
They have to announce at the start of their turn that they want to use a full action: full attack and benefit from the extra movement given by haste.
Then they decide if they want to move first or attack first.
If they decide to attack first, then they get to decide after that attack if they want to move or attack again.
Repeat until all attacks and the move have been done.
Edit: in actual play I generally hear the following if the soldier wants to use the move granted by haste before attacking:
"I will move there and then full attack."
Not "I will move."
Mini moves.
"Now I full attack."
but they do need to announce their bloody actions just like everyone elseAgain, incredibly circular in assuming everyone else has to announce actions and then do them.
Again, it is not announce, then do. It is announce when you do it.
Also gets very complicated with regards to targeting.
Not really.
So if a soldier has a haste going, when do they have to announce their attacks and movement?
They announce they are doing a thing when they do a thing.
This is such a fundamental aspect of the game design it is difficult to explain, but you can look to both versions of pathfinder for examples where it comes up.
For instance, the specific rules in Pathfinder allowing you to take a move action by sacrificing the rest of your full-attack. If you declared a full attack, but only made your first attack, you don't have a move action to spend. This rule is a specific exception for a relatively common case.
Again, incredibly circular in assuming everyone else has to announce actions and then do them. Also gets very complicated with regards to targeting.
It isn't circular, it's how the game continues without becoming utter chaos. Might as well play cops & robbers in the back yard.
So if a soldier has a haste going, when do they have to announce their attacks and movement?
As Damanta said, no, but they do have to announce that they are taking a full attack action, and each portion of their full action as it comes up. Move, attack, attack or attack, move, attack, or attack, attack, move.
No one has been able to name a single instance of silliness without presuming the rule you're trying to show with the silliness.
Operatives A and B on my table
Operative A moves to the corner and trick attacks
Operative B moves to the corner and then moves down the hall
Operatives A and B on your table
Operative A announces trick attack moves to the corner and trick attacks
Operative B announces a move B moves to the corner and then Announces a move and moves down the hall
No one at my table is DOING anything that they can't otherwise do at yours. If there is in fact "a slew" some should be easy to name. WITHOUT... and seriously, think this part through, without circularly assuming that you are right.
The Operatives at my table are doing it the appropriate way outlined in the rules.
That's really all there is to it. If you took your full action to Trick Attack, you can't decide halfway through to take a standard action. If you take a move action to walk up to the corner, you can't go back in time and retroactively have made it a Trick Attack.
What you're basically arguing is "what's the harm of allowing this?"
That's fine. If you want to let people get away with this sort of temporal manipulation, that's fine and great. It is your house rule, though. I think the harm is that the already incredibly powerful and flexible Operatives have even fewer limitations on their powerful and flexible ability than normal, which is not really fair to other player characters. It does have a lesser impact on other PCs, such as the aforementioned hasted or hit & run soldier, but Operatives are the biggie... and Operatives don't really need that kind of lax adherence to the rules.
you can look to both versions of pathfinder for examples where it comes up.
This is the exact opposite of an example for your case
You say its CHANGING a full attack action into a move action.
But every single word you quote describes Deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack midway through your turn. Or in other words, you aren't changing a full attack into an attack and move because it was never an attack and move to begin with. There is zero point in declaring full attack or attack with that rule because they are 100% interchangable. The action has absolutely no identity outside of what you do. There's no declaration and then doing they're the same thing.
Not really.
Look at the people that think you can't switch full attack targets you've called in advance.
The Operatives at my table are doing it the appropriate way outlined in the rules.
Horribly circular and only cementing my opinion that people are not thinking this through.
It isn't circular
Your argument is circular. You cannot get to your conclusion without assuming your premise.
The Operatives at my table are doing it the appropriate way outlined in the rules.Horribly circular and only cementing my opinion that people are not thinking this through.
It isn't circularYour argument is circular. You cannot get to your conclusion without assuming your premise.
The only circular thing is the temporal loop you're causing by not abiding by the basic tenet of turn-based roleplaying games and allowing your players to have Schrödinger's turns that could be move actions or trick attacks based on what would be most advantageous to them at any given moment.
|
|
The rules of Pathfinder are pretty clear.
You can turn your full-round action: full attack into a standard attack + move.
It doesn't say you can take a standard action: attack, then decide to turn your move action into more attack.
That actual gameplay is pretty much "I attack." mob doesn't go down. "I attack again." doesn't mean that the rules are standard attack into full attack.
Haste in Starfinder is also quite explicit. Unless you are making the full action: full attack you do not get the extra move.
So as soon as they do not perform a full-action full attack they are quantumlocked out of the extra move action.
Though again, as stated, in actual play, pretty much all people I GM for will tell me that they are moving and then full attacking if they want to use the extra move from haste, before picking up their mini and moving to the position they want to full attack from.
Nor can you.
I can actually.
Actions are described as being performed. They aren't described as being declared.
Without some evidence of a declaration phase, there is no declaration phase.
I can get to my conclussion by just letting the player do their thing. they move the minnie, get all cinematic about it, and I don't need to know what they're doing with the cash register as long as it adds up at the end of the day. My rule emerges from not ruling. (zen rules?)
The only circular thing is the temporal loop you're causing by not abiding by the basic tenet of turn-based roleplaying games and allowing your players to have Schrödinger's turns that could be move actions or trick attacks based on what would be most advantageous to them at any given moment.
there is no temporal loop unless you enforce that there must be a prophecy and an action. If there is only an action there is only one thing that happens, this no possibility for a paradox.
Neither system is discernible from the other as long as the turn based game stays turn based. It's when you interupt the turn (even with new information) that things diverge. And the rules really don't go into that very far.
The rules of Pathfinder are pretty clear.
That you decide if you're taking an attack or a full attack after the first attack. It's the title of that paragraph.
|
|
That you decide if you're taking an attack or a full attack after the first attack. It's the title of that paragraph.The rules of Pathfinder are pretty clear.
However it's part of the Full Attack rule, which is part of the Full-Round Action section.
It is not part of the Attack rule, which is part of the Standard Action section.In conclusion: by the rules you perform a Full-Round Action: Full Attack. After the first attack you are allowed to stop the full-round action and take a move action instead of finishing the full attack. You're not performing an Attack and then upgrading to a Full Attack.
It is not part of the Attack rule, which is part of the Standard Action section.
Okay, this is beyond absurd. A rule that point blank says you decide between an attack and a full attack MEANS that its really a full attack that just BECOMES an attack because of where it's placed in the rules?
No. It doesn't have any action type until after your first attack then you decide if it becomes a full attack or an attack. It's specifically and explicitly spelled out as Schrodinger's action.
This really isn't a power boost. At all
How often are you in initiative but for some reason you're not aware of anyone on the map to trick attack at the start of your round? Why are you even in initiative at that point? At worst it's like a bonus against three armed skittermanders.
I disagree with the gameplay you are describing on principle rather than because I think that this particular example is going to be used regularly or abused.
Basically it is that once a character has taken an action, they have to have spent some of their action economy at the same time. The player can't then change what action was spent after the event happened.
Some other scenarios that would cause problems for the exact same problem:
GM: OK, Fred, your turn. You and James are both toe-to-toe with the Vesk soldier.
Fred: Well, I am a bit low on HP at the moment. I am going to move over here behind these shipping crates. Looks like that is about 25 feet.
GM: Sure. The Vesk decides to AO you as you leave.
GM: * starts gathering dice *
Fred: Wait. He is burning his reaction on me instead of waiting for James to start casting something?
GM: Yeah. This guy hasn't seen a high level spellcaster before. Only low level ones and that only occasionally. I don't think this guy has ever seen a level 2 spell cast in his life.
Fred: Oh. Well I'm glad I haven't taken my rifle shot I was planning on. In that case I will count the movement as part of a Withdraw action so that I don't provoke AO.
You just can't re-interpret actions already taken to be more advantageous to you after the fact and after the results are known.
GM: Fred, you are up. You have your laser rifle out and there is the strange lizard thing gnawing on your friend.
Fred: I fire a shot.GM: Sounds good.
Fred: * rolls 19 *
Fred: Sweet. A 19... for a total of... 28.
GM: That hits. Quite easily actually. Damage?
Fred: * rolls dice *
Fred: 14 fire damage.
GM: Cool. He is looking rather ragged at this point.
Fred: Awesome. I take another shot. Even if we recalculate the first attack with the -4 it would still hit, yeah?
Fred: * picks up dice *
You just can't re-interpret actions already taken to be more advantageous to you after the fact and after the results are known.
GM: Fred? What are you up to?
Fred: I am headed down the hallway to rejoin the battle. So I move 30 feet.GM: Which path exactly?
Fred: Uh... I guess straight down this line of squares along the wall.
GM: Cool. Once you are there, make a perception check.
Fred: OK.
Fred: * rolls *
Fred: 22 in total.
GM: OK. you can make out a bit of a shimmer *here* that you are sure is another guy with a cloaking module or something like that that is making him hard to see.
Fred: Cool. That is still in line with the movement I have already done. In that case I'll count that as part of a charge action and continue down the hall and make an attack. I have an attack bonus larger than +1, so I can draw my sword as part of the movement.
You just can't re-interpret actions already taken to be more advantageous to you after the fact and after the results are known.
|
|
No it's not beyond absurd. It's simply the text on page 187.
If in Pathfinder you want to make more than 1 attack during your turn you MUST use the Full-Round action: Full Attack.
During this action you get the option of stopping with attacking after your first and to take a move action.
There is nothing Schrodinger about it.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Chapter 3), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
- Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack:
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
The word instead is used here, which to me as a non-native english speaker signifies that you are going from a full-round action to a standard and move, instead of the other way around.
If you do not have to specify that you are taking a full attack, then how would you ever apply two-weapon fighting penalties? Those are applied only on a full-round action: full attack, and not on a standard action: Attack
If it really was changing a standard action: Attack into a Full-Attack, wouldn't those rules be in the Standard Action: Attack section?
And worded something like: After your first attack you can choose to forgo your move action and continu attacking if you get more than one attack per round?
The word instead is used here, which to me as a non-native english speaker signifies that you are going from a full-round action to a standard and move, instead of the other way around.
That signification seems entirely random to me.
On the other hand
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack is INCREDIBLY clear that the decision between taking an attack or a full attack is made after the first attack. Before the first attack and during the first attack it is neither a full attack nor an attack action you haven't decided yet.
breithauptclan You just can't re-interpret actions already taken to be more advantageous to you after the fact and after the results are known.
I am not arguing that you can and this is a strawman you really should be able to see at this point.
Leaving a square without guarded stepping is leaving a square. that triggers the aoo. To change the outcome he'd have to not leave the square, but he's decided to leave the square. Leaving the square cannot appear to be staying in the square instead.
Trick attack moving is indistinguishable from moving moving . If i don't ask the player whether they are moving moving or trick attack moving then I don't know. 99.44% of the time... why would I need to know which it was?
There is a difference between the player describing what they're doing and the player spelling out the mechanics they're using to do it.
|
|
Cool
So my dualwielder can make an attack without dualwield penalty. Then decide to continu attacking and only then start taking penalties.
No, just no.
Edit: also we're going really far away from Starfinder now.
Anyway.
While I agree that the action economy stays the same, I require my players to tell me (declare) the action they are doing before picking up the mini (in case of moving) or the dice (in case of attacking / skill use).
I failed my mind reading classes pretty hard, so I want to know what they are going to do because I might have reactions / readied actions.
Cool
So my dualwielder can make an attack without dualwield penalty. Then decide to continu attacking and only then start taking penalties.
No, just no.
that doesn't drop out of anything that was said.
You take penalties for dual wielding, not full attacking.
But you cannot dual wield unless you are full attacking.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon
You can dual wield any time you want but you can never leave... i mean you get no benefit unless you full attack.
|
|
Yet I can evaluate after my first attack if I want to make it a full attack.
That completely falls apart for dual wielding (two-weapon fighting). If it fall apart for that case, wouldn't it be logical to count for other full attack situations?
Or only specify that it counts for fighting with two weapons, instead of now that it counts for fighting with two weapons, having a high enough BAB or other special reasons which grant more than a single attack?
To me the way those sections are set up and written are that you can have a chance of heart about pressing your attacks during a full attack and moving instead but not about oh I will keep on going after this attack because I am not going to move.
But, this will be my last post about this entire action economy thing, 9-1, concerning the trick attacking operative gives me an impression which I am pretty okay with.
It doesn't fall apart for dual wielding
I can't find a rule that specifically says you must full attack to dual wield. Only that you have to full attack to gain any benefit from it.
It's also not a view. It says, flat out, you decide between a full attack and an attack action when it's relevant. Not its a full attack action and then you decide it's something else.
If it fall apart for that case, wouldn't it be logical to count for other full attack situations?
No. Because even if it did fall apart (it didn't) there's no guarantee that it doesn't fall apart on some other instance if you take the other view.
The assumption that the rules are this perfectly coherent non contradictory thing that cover every possible corner case just isn't true. There are oddball contradictions and they will break with each other somewhere. You can't just say A is problematic therefore B. B could be even worse.
There are feats that trigger on a full attack. By what you're saying how full attacks work, you could use those feats (because it is a full attack) and then change your mind (because a full attack can have a move stuck on the end if you don't make extra attacks) and take a move.
As opposed to the "problem" of dual wielding where you took a penalty but didn't gain a benefit. Not really a problem.
You take penalties for dual wielding, not full attacking.
Are you still talking about Starfinder? If so, I'm certain that, that is incorrect. You can full attack with a single weapon, or with multiple weapons; you are still going to take a -4 penalty to hit unless you have an ability or item that says otherwise.
Conversely, I could wield two weapons, and as long as attack with only one each round, I don't suffer any of the aforementioned penalties (and am thematically still dual-wielding).
EDIT: Relevant rules:
So if you take one move action and can now see them, with a 50 foot bowling alley charge lane, why wouldn't you just shoot them for a real trick attack?
You just can't re-interpret actions already taken to be more advantageous to you after the fact and after the results are known.I am not arguing that you can and this is a strawman you really should be able to see at this point.
It's not a straw man attack if it is actually what you said.
As you said. You take a move action. After the move action has finished and you get the results, you learn that there is now an enemy that you can see. So now you want to re-interpret the move action that has already finished into the move part of a trick attack.
In all of the other cases that I pointed out earlier the player was trying to do the exact same thing. Start with a partial round action, either a move action or a standard action. Then after learning the result of that, try and transform the action already taken into part of a full round action.
Trick attack moving is indistinguishable from moving moving
That is the very point. The move part of a trick attack is actually distinguishable from a normal 'move your speed' move action. Most notably in regards to what actions and activities are available for the remainder of the turn. But also like Dracomicron pointed out, you can't draw a weapon as part of a trick attack. The move action and the terrain traversal part of a trick attack are very similar - I'll grant that. But that doesn't mean that they are the same or that they are interchangeable.
And since you are liking to throw around the names of logical fallacies, I'll put out argument from ignorance. The only rules support you have for your position is that there does not exist any rule that explicitly states that you are wrong.
It's not a straw man attack if it is actually what you said.
As you said. You take a move action.
NOT what I said. The distinction is important and you've been corrected on it enough times to know better by now.
I said you MOVE. My entire point is that doesn't necessarily have to be a move action with the operative.
You KEEP using this idea that he must declare and use a move action to move and then change his mind to make it a trick attack in order to show that he must declare and use a move action to move and then change his mind and make a trick attack. There is either an error in your logic or an error in understanding what you're arguing against: which I really think has been clearly laid out at this point.
. But also like Dracomicron pointed out, you can't draw a weapon as part of a trick attack.
If someone draws a weapon as they move then I know they're move moving. (since i assume starfinders are semi competent quasi trained murderhobos) Move + draw weapon + trick attack won't clear at the register.
And since you are liking to throw around the names of logical fallacies, I'll put out argument from ignorance. The only rules support you have for your position is that there does not exist any rule that explicitly states that you are wrong.
1) You're arguing that there exists a declaration phase seperate from doing things. Arguing for somethings existence gives you the burden of proof.
2) all I have to do to have the game drop out my way is not ask and not care as long as the register winds up balanced at the end of the day.
3) because you would need rules for what happens when you can't do you declared action and they don't exist either.
3) because you would need rules for what happens when you can't do you declared action and they don't exist either.
Yes they do. See Stand Still or any number of other interrupt actions that cause you to lose the rest of your action.
Yes they do. See Stand Still or any number of other interrupt actions that cause you to lose the rest of your action.3) because you would need rules for what happens when you can't do you declared action and they don't exist either.
Standstill tells you how to handle standstill (you lose the rest of your movement. Your other action can't be to move) You have NOT lost the rest of your action: a trick attacking operative* would still be able to make the attack part of the trick attack. They'd just have to do it from where they were.
So if you take one move action and can now see them, with a 50 foot bowling alley charge lane, why wouldn't you just shoot them for a real trick attack?
That is exactly what you said.
You "take one move action".
If you are going to change your mind on what you said, just go ahead and post a correction.
We all get things wrong sometimes in such a complicated game as this.
I think the technical term that I am looking for is called opportunity cost. Taking an action has an opportunity cost for it. In order to actually have the action resolve and take effect, you have to pay the costs for it.
To take a move action, the opportunity cost is that you can't take a full round action that round.
That is the biggest difference between doing a move action to move your speed and doing the movement part of a trick attack. So trying to say that you move under some undetermined movement ability that you will decide on later feels like you are gaming the system. You are trying to keep all of your options open.
So yes. Just like you have to determine what type of movement you are doing so that we know if you can pull a weapon while moving, or if you get threatened by AO for leaving your original location - we also need to know what movement type you are doing so that we know what options remain to your character for the rest of the turn.
We all get things wrong sometimes in such a complicated game as this.
Oh, and english is a horribly imprecise language. So that causes problems too.
all I have to do to have the game drop out my way is not ask and not care as long as the register winds up balanced at the end of the day.
As a GM, I have to ask. Before I give out information mid-turn, I need to know what has actually happened. It affects what the character is able to do with the rest of their turn considering the new information that they now have.
If I am giving no new information, then no: I don't have a problem with a player not precisely defining their action types mid-turn as long as the register balances.
BNW: I am going to move over *here* and do a trick attack against *this* enemy.
Me: Sure. Roll your skill check and attack.
BNW: I am going to move over *here*.
Me: OK.
BNW: Anything new that I see?
Me: Well, I am assuming that you are doing a move action to move there, yes? I'm not giving new information until I know that. Decision time. This now affects the rest of your turn.
I think the technical term that I am looking for is called opportunity cost. Taking an action has an opportunity cost for it. In order to actually have the action resolve and take effect, you have to pay the costs for it.
Lets go with that idea.
For most people the opportunity cost is that you've moved.
What is the difference between an operative that has moved with a move action and an operative that has moved with the not a move action part of their trick attack that lets them move?
None.
So why bother making people apply game mechanics that don't actually limit what they can do to their character every time for a weird corner case?
As a GM, I have to ask. Before I give out information mid-turn, I need to know what has actually happened.
And AGAIN Circular. It has to happen because it has to happen is not an argument.
What has happened is the operative has moved from point A to point B.
What in world differences is there if that move is part of a trick attack or if he's just waltzing across the floor?
In world you cannot pull away from someone get hit and then undo the hit by changing your mind
In world you cannot spit something out of your cheek pouch do a back flip and sneakily blast someone with a laser.
in world you cannot pull out your blaster backflip off the wall and then sneakily blast someone with a laser.
In world, what is the difference between the two moving operatives? Except for the player and the DM talking where is the difference?
So if you take one move action and can now see them, with a 50 foot bowling alley charge lane, why wouldn't you just shoot them for a real trick attack?
That is exactly what you said.
You "take one move action".
3 pages ago before I knew people wanted to draw a distinction without a difference and make up technicalities to nitpick.
I think the technical term that I am looking for is called opportunity cost. Taking an action has an opportunity cost for it. In order to actually have the action resolve and take effect, you have to pay the costs for it.Lets go with that idea.
For most people the opportunity cost is that you've moved.
What is the difference between an operative that has moved with a move action and an operative that has moved with the not a move action part of their trick attack that lets them move?
Opportunity cost is the things that you can no longer do because of something that you did decide to do.
So the opportunity cost for an operative that has moved with a move action is that they are no longer able to do a trick attack that round.
The opportunity cost for an operative that moves as part of a trick attack action is that they can't use their standard action to do a retreat move or something like that.
What in world differences is there if that move is part of a trick attack or if he's just waltzing across the floor?
It isn't an in-world difference. I'm aware that the movement part of a trick attack is practically identical to a normal move action.
The difference is in the game mechanics.
So this here:
So why bother making people apply game mechanics that don't actually limit what they can do to their character every time for a weird corner case?
Sounds like you are asking, "why bother applying game mechanics to the game mechanics?"
Which I am reasonably certain is not what you are trying to say. But I don't know how else to interpret that.
Maybe, "Why bother constraining the cinematic description of events on minor details of the game mechanics?"
I can agree with that. But usually the description of events happens after the mechanics of the events are known. No sense describing your character doing some cool event and then failing the roll. You would then have to re-describe the event.
Since we're completely derailing the operative's pounce, I decided to make a new post
Indeed. New thread would probably be a good plan.
Though, I am not sure how the discussion on the new thread is different from the one on here. Other than maybe being a bit less heated.