RAW, what does Operative's Pounce actually let you do?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Starfinder Armory wrote:
As a standard action, you can make a charge without the normal penalty to attack rolls when attacking on a charge, provided that you use an operative melee weapon to make the attack at the end of the charge. If the attack hits, you can substitute a debilitating trick effect for the damage the attack would deal.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but the phrase 'debilitating trick effect' is an interesting one, and I can think of a half dozen ways to interpret it - some much more legalistic than others. What is a debilitating trick effect and how does it interact with rules around the usual debilitating trick? I only ask because the notion of 'close distance and make a debilitating trick instead of dealing damage' seems awfully underwhelming, which makes me wonder if that interpretation is correct.

1) Imposing flat-footed or off-target is simple, but what about Debilitating Tricks that allow a save? An operative with the Stunning Shot exploit charges an enemy, hits, and opts to substitute a debilitating trick effect for the damage the attack would deal. He wants to stun the target. Is the 'effect' of a Stunning Shot 'forcing an enemy to make a Fortitude save or be stunned'? Or is the stun itself considered to be the 'effect' of that debilitating trick - thus bypassing the save and stunning without a save if the operative hits and substitutes damage?

2) Does Operative's Pounce count as a debilitating trick, or does it simply borrow elements from it? "Once you’ve used this ability to try to
stun a creature, it’s immune to your stunning shot for 24 hours." By using Operative's Pounce to stun, or to attempt a stun - have I used the Stunning Shot ability, thus rendering that enemy immune to Stunning Shot? This feels like a very legalistic question, but conversely the Debilitating Sniper exploit uses the phrase "you can use debilitating tricks" versus Pounce's "you can substitute a debilitating trick effect" which sets something of a precedent, which makes me uncertain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It should be in every way like applying debilitating trick from a trick attack. Saves and 1/24 hr attempts included.

The ability probably should have read something like: 'You can use a debilitating trick instead of dealing damage'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:

It should be in every way like applying debilitating trick from a trick attack. Saves and 1/24 hr attempts included.

The ability probably should have read something like: 'You can use a debilitating trick instead of dealing damage'.

Agreed. The main point of this is to avoid the charge penalty, they tossed in debilitating trick instead of damage as an alternate choice, but it's not the primary draw. If you want both damage and debilitation you need to be within one move action distance.


I have no idea what this ability is supposed to do. Why on earth wouldn't you just do a regular trick attack against against someone? I mean, a strength operative without a thrown weapon under a full moon might find a use for this, but any other operative would be better off moving once and shooting them. They'd have to be what.. 50 feet away or further that a charge was neccesary?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I have no idea what this ability is supposed to do. Why on earth wouldn't you just do a regular trick attack against against someone? I mean, a strength operative without a thrown weapon under a full moon might find a use for this, but any other operative would be better off moving once and shooting them. They'd have to be what.. 50 feet away or further that a charge was neccesary?

If you really, really, really want to quad attack in melee?

No, I don't get it either.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I have no idea what this ability is supposed to do. Why on earth wouldn't you just do a regular trick attack against against someone? I mean, a strength operative without a thrown weapon under a full moon might find a use for this, but any other operative would be better off moving once and shooting them. They'd have to be what.. 50 feet away or further that a charge was neccesary?

Maybe using the extra movement to get into melee range on a caster or the like?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And, potentially triple your operative's ridiculously high movement may make some sense.

I will go with 'as situational as other weak abilities some classes have' rather than 'useless'.


Only needing to spend a Standard Action to "make a trick attack + move double your speed", in-place of the Full-Action to "make a trick attack + move your speed" or Full-Action to "attack + move double your speed" can be useful in some situations.

You're taking two full-actions at the same time, as a standard action.


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?


BigNorseWolf wrote:

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?

Because if you've already taken your move action, you can't take a full action?


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

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?

Because if you've already taken your move action, you can't take a full action?

An operative with a 50 foot movement that has moved 50 feet can still trick attack . The trick attack full action has a move built into it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

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?

Because if you've already taken your move action, you can't take a full action?
An operative with a 50 foot movement that has moved 50 feet can still trick attack . The trick attack full action has a move built into it.

Yes, but if you take a move action and then decide you want to trick attack, you effectively have to rewind the move action. And if that decision is based on information obtained after the move action, I don't think most GMs would be generous enough to allow that.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:

Yes, but if you take a move action and then decide you want to trick attack, you effectively have to rewind the move action. And if that decision is based on information obtained after the move action, I don't think most GMs would be generous enough to allow that.

So as soon as you move more than 5 feet you've guarded stepped and half to stop? That's the kind of forced actioning you're talking about here and I don't see anything to indicate that the action economy works that way.


I don't think it's truly useful until your move speed approaches the ridiculous. Enough to outrange your pistol's first range increment, probably needs to outrange the second too.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Well, if both of your hands are full of battle ribbon, you can't trick attack with a pistol?


HammerJack wrote:
Well, if both of your hands are full of battle ribbon, you can't trick attack with a pistol?

Isn't that what the throwing enchantment is for?


You can use your move action to fly, which you can't(?) do with a normal trick attack.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:

Yes, but if you take a move action and then decide you want to trick attack, you effectively have to rewind the move action. And if that decision is based on information obtained after the move action, I don't think most GMs would be generous enough to allow that.

So as soon as you move more than 5 feet you've guarded stepped and half to stop? That's the kind of forced actioning you're talking about here and I don't see anything to indicate that the action economy works that way.

When you declare your action, your action is declared.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:

When you declare your action, your action is declared.

When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative order, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. For some exceptions, see Other Actions; for example, delaying can change the order in which you take your turn. Regardless, in a normal combat round on her turn, a character can perform either a full action or a handful of shorter actions

In a normal round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift action, or you can instead perform one full action. Most characters will rarely perform swift actions, though occasionally using a special ability or class feature is a swift action. You can use your standard action to perform either a move action or a swift action, if you wish, and you can also use your move action to perform a swift action.

Full Action

A full action consumes all your effort during your turn, meaning if you choose to take a full action, you can’t take any other standard, move, or swift actions that turn. The most common full action is the full attack.

Emphasis added so you can see where my thought process is going.
Declaring actions is something that only comes up with delay. Other actions aren't declared and then taken they're just done.


whew wrote:
You can use your move action to fly, which you can't(?) do with a normal trick attack.

You can certainly move with a fly speed and trick attack. You do have to move and not hover, but you can fly and trick attack.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:

When you declare your action, your action is declared.

When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative order, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. For some exceptions, see Other Actions; for example, delaying can change the order in which you take your turn. Regardless, in a normal combat round on her turn, a character can perform either a full action or a handful of shorter actions

In a normal round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift action, or you can instead perform one full action. Most characters will rarely perform swift actions, though occasionally using a special ability or class feature is a swift action. You can use your standard action to perform either a move action or a swift action, if you wish, and you can also use your move action to perform a swift action.

Full Action

A full action consumes all your effort during your turn, meaning if you choose to take a full action, you can’t take any other standard, move, or swift actions that turn. The most common full action is the full attack.

Emphasis added so you can see where my thought process is going.
Declaring actions is something that only comes up with delay. Other actions aren't declared and then taken they're just done.

I don't see that flying at most tables - a standard action and a move action do not normally occur at the same time (hence why feats like Shot On the run exist).

There's nothing in the rules, at all, to suggest that you can take part of an action and then decide what that action was - you have to decide on the action before you take it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BigNorseWolf idk why you think move-actions can magically turn into full-actions despite it specifically saying in the section you quoted that it's an "or". If you've already taken a move-action, then you've taken your move-action.... There is zero text support for move-action and then changing your mind part way or after the movement. Otherwise it would just be a standard action to do a trick attack.


Milo v3 wrote:
BigNorseWolf idk why you think move-actions can magically

No. Ask the question so it allows an answer other than the one you want or it's not a discussion. This level of derision here is completely inverse to the level of evidence you're presenting for your argument: none.

There's nothing magical about it, any more than there's something magical about walking 10 feet but not having it be 2 guarded steps.

Quote:
Otherwise it would just be a standard action to do a trick attack.

This is objectively wrong. You could not stand up and then trick attack, or take an item out of your backpack and trick attack, or activate a haste circuit and trick attack, or even as a ysoki pull something out of your cheek pouch and still trick attack. Or move and move again because trick attack allows a move as part of it.

Trick attack has very specific limitations but moving and then tricking is not one of them.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:

There's nothing in the rules, at all, to suggest that you can take part of an action and then decide what that action was - you have to decide on the action before you take it.

There's nothing in the rules that suggest THAT. You're trying to say there's a system where you declare your action and try to take it AND if you can't take it then you lose the action. Something which should have some kind of evidence for it, but it doesn't seem to exist. Declaring your action as seperate from taking it doesn't seem to be part of the game.

You have the burden of evidence to show that here and -it's not proven that i'm wrong- doesn't do that.

What suggests that you can take the action is that there's no requirement on what actions you can declare only on the ones that you can take. An operative that has moved 50 feet and then trick attacked has not taken any more actions than their alloted amount for the round.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Operative with 50 ft. movement speed wielding a small arm in one manipulator and an operative melee weapon in the other:

The operative performs their move action.
Moves 50 ft.
Spots enemy whom no-one had line of sight to before and who is within 100 ft.
Operative Player: Wait! This is a trick attack, so now I get to roll my trick attack skill and try to get extra damage with my small arm.
Operative performs their full action trick attack.

This is not gonna fly on any table I GM at, but you do you.

No, instead it will be:
The operative performs their move action.
Moves 50 ft.
Spots enemy.
Operative performs their standard action Operative's Pounce, moves up to another 100 ft and does a melee attack with the operative melee weapon.

This is an example how operative's pounce could work.

Also, it's how I personally view actions are taken in combat. No retroactive changing of an action because new information gained by the action taken reveals a more optimal way of gaming the system.


Damanata wrote:
Also, it's how I personally view actions are taken in combat. No retroactive changing of an action because new information gained by the action taken reveals a more optimal way of gaming the system.

This is completely circular. There's nothing retroactive about it at all unless there's an unstated rule about declaring actions before hand. Which is whats being used to object to the idea that the rule must me there.

There is zero rules support to say that actions need to be declared in advance. At all. Moving your speed and making a trick attack is a valid and legal action economy for the round. There's no grounds to say it doesn't work.

If you do that the operative is never going to declare a double move if they're in front, they're just going to declare a trick attack every time.

Quote:
his is an example how operative's pounce could work.

Without that rules interpretation operatives pounce would still do SOMETHING (an operative standing next to you is different than one down the hall) but starfinder has enough weirdly bad and minor increase to very rare circumstances abilities that I wouldn't try to derive rules from it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

There is however also no support in the rules for turning a move action into a full action, which is what you are doing.

You perform either: a full action, or you perform a move action, a standard action, and/or swift, whereupon you can downgrade the standard action to either a move or swift, or the move action down to a swift.

Nothing in there says you can turn the performing of a move action which you used for the action to move up to your speed into the performing of a full action that happens to include moving up to your speed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damanta wrote:
There is however also no support in the rules for turning a move action into a full action, which is what you are doing.

This is entirely circular.

Please take a look at your argument and consider how good it is to someone that doesn't already believe it. Whether you're right or wrong the way you're getting to your position is problematic.

That i am "changing a move action into a full action" relies on the idea that it was at some point declared a move action and was then changed into a full rouond action.. which only makes sense if you have to declare your action types in advance which the very thing you're trying to demonstrate.

You can't use your conclusion as the sole source of your argument and that IS what you're doing. Try to make an argument that proceeds from knowns to a conclusion for your position and it seems a little lacking.

If you cannot find any rules support for your position besides your position please reconsider your position.

Quote:
You perform either: a full action, or you perform a move action, a standard action, and/or swift, whereupon you can downgrade the standard action to either a move or swift, or the move action down to a swift.

And an operative with a 50 foot movement that has walked 50 feet and trick attacked has spent a full round action and they are done. That is a legal action to perform, it's a valid action economy, and it is the only way the rules describe taking actions.

If there is something in the rules that you think hints at it working another way you have to show that, not just say my idea disagrees with yours so it must be wrong.

Quote:
Nothing in there says you can turn the performing of a move action which you used for the action to move up to your speed into the performing of a full action that happens to include moving up to your speed.

This relies on the idea that it has to be declared a move action, otherwise it can't be "Turned" into some other kind of cation.

You can't call not using your frame of reference a contradiction with the rule to show that your frame of reference is correct. You would need to show some sort of rules citation, internal inconsistency, or rules inanity that follows from the idea that you're spending actions until you run out or want to end your turn. -Your idea doesn't agree with my idea- isn't an argument.

My view is that actions are done,spent, not declared. The rules describe them repeatedly as performed without ever calling out that they need to be declared or types. The operative walks 50 feet, trick attacks. Valid action economy next guys up.

You're arguing that there is some sort of declare actions phase.... when? The start of the round? Before the action? Two rounds in advance? That takes some evidence. I don't see it going through the rules and you don't seem to be able to point to it or make a valid argument for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In every roleplaying game I've ever played in, online and off, it was plainly understood by all involved (though not always effectively practiced) that you declare your actions for the round first, then performed them.

If a mistake was made, it was entirely up the GM on whether or not to allow a change in course. I've had some GMs not have any issue with it whatsoever, so long as what you were doing (and why) was clearly communicated to the table. I've had other GMs who would shut it down immediately while sternly declaring "NO TAKE-BACKS!"

The only rule that I've ever seen supporting it (one way or the other) was in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder where it said you can attack once, then either move or make it into a full attack. I've also seen (Pathfinder) devs say you can move your character square by square, and not have to be locked into a predefined path after beginning your movement.

For example, if you have 6 squares of movement, you could use 3 to go around a blind corner, allowing you to see the hulking beast on the other side, then use your remaining 3 to move back around the corner, rather than continuing to move forward as you originally planned (which would likely result in senseless harm to your character).

I know of no such rules in Starfinder, one way or the other. So, I'd expect some table variation on the matter.

EDIT: For me at least, allowing some level of leeway is extremely important, as I have severe hearing loss, and am often prone to missing valuable information as a result. It would strike me as really silly to try and attack an enemy who, unbeknownst to me, is already dead, then have the GM "stick it to me" by saying I attack the corpse or that effectively lost my turn. That would serve no purpose whatsoever other than to undermine everyone's fun and to actively hinder players with disabilities.


Ravingdork wrote:

In every roleplaying game I've ever played in, online and off, it was plainly understood by all involved (though not always effectively practiced) that you declare your actions for the round first, then performed them.

Pathfinder and starfinder clearly do not work this way. Pathfinder flat out said you were making the decisions as you did them: You could attack, and then decide to move 30 feet thataway or take other attacks. You could even pick when you 5 foot stepped.- That rule is still there in the haste rules actually

When making a full attack, a hasted creature can also take a separate move action in order to move. The movement can occur before, after, or between the attacks from the full attack.

How would that even be possible if you had to declare your actions at the start of the turn? You don't know who you're going to attack when where or how until you do it. It's pretty explicit that you're flying by the seat of your pants, not declaring it ahead of time *

When are actions declared? At the start of the round? Right before you try to do them? These are important rules considerations that oddly enough, get absolutely zero mention. If actions are supposed to be declared at the start of the round, shouldn't that sort of nitty gritty be worked out?

Bob: Okay, I'm going to walk Squizzard the space wizard 30 feet over there and then cast magic missile

You get 5 feet, are tripped by the invisible pole arm wielder, cast your spell which you have to do because you declared it, and get whacked in the face with the AOO while prone

Does that sound like the game we're playing? Where your character is a wind up robot you let lose at the start of the round?

Or is it "I try to walk over ther...OMF... well THAT bites.. change of plans invisibility spell amp .... also.. MEDIC....


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does that sound like the game we're playing? Where your character is a wind up robot you let lose at the start of the round?

No. Nor does it sound like what I was trying to say in my post.

I was essentially saying it's common practice to declare your intended actions first, then perform them. That's called clear communication. The game falls apart without it.

EDIT: Lord knows, I find it annoying when one of my players rolls a die, then declares what it was for only after he sees if it was a good roll! Actions must be declared first, lest cheating run rampant.

Making adjustments along the way to accommodate new information is usually fine, but it MUST be communicated clearly.

And there are plenty of situations where it ISN'T fine. For example, if a player moved forward into a trap, then after the GM declares there is a trap present, says "I think I'll buff up instead of moving forward." That's blatant metagaming/cheating, and absolutely should be stopped by the GM. Ultimately though, it's up to the GM to decide where to draw the line, which is what I was trying to represent in my above post.

Not sure why you're so adamant about it. I don't honestly believe anything in my above post actively conflicts with any of your claims.

Please take a moment to calm down before responding again.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There is zero rules support to say that actions need to be declared in advance.

It's not about declaring it "in advance". It's about declaring it when it's taken. If you move your character, you need to say what action you're taking to move your character. If you move your character around a corner and see an enemy you did not know about or did not know was there, you cannot retroactively say that you were using a trick attack against an enemy you were not aware of when you moved.

I've never met a GM who would allow what you're suggesting.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There is zero rules support to say that actions need to be declared in advance.
It's not about declaring it "in advance". It's about declaring it when it's taken.

And I've never seen a game actually do this. People don't call out what kind of action they're taking as they take it, their character just does things. The only exception is when someone has an ability that makes something a different action type (like kip up up being a ysoki) to let the DM know that their action economy will add up.

Or in a play by post where people get all rhetorical there's an in game summation at the end.

Quote:
you cannot retroactively

There's nothing retroactive about it. As soon as you get that in your head, you'll see there's nothing inherently contradictory with what I'm saying. As soon as you accept that, you'll see there's no evidence for your position. (the evidence against it isn't exactly ironclad either but hey, rules)

Quote:
you were using a trick attack against an enemy you were not aware of when you moved.

And you're also disallowing it's use if you try to call it in advance. So what you wind up dropping out of your interpretation are a bunch of back door restrictions on trick attack that should be spelled in trick attack but aren't : like needing to see the guy at the start of the round.

Show me something in the rules that suggests the game has to work the way you're describing. - You have to call things in advance so changing your mind is retroactive- is only causing a problem that it made, not a timey whimey ball in how I'm saying it works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

umm, wow guys, this is pretty amazing for me. i've never played in a game like most of you are describing. i'm currently playing a level 3 operator daredevil (shut up, i know), and i've never declared that i'm doing a trick attack. i say something like, "i move over to here", and then once i've moved my miniature, i say something like, "i kick flip off the wall and do a backflip, and shoot mid flip at enemy x", then i roll acrobatics to see if i get a trick attack. and if something happens while i'm moving, say an AoO from an invisible enemy, i change what i was going to do. maybe target whoever took a swipe at me, or change where i was moving, and this has never been a problem, ever. is this not how you guys play? in your games, i have to say i'm doing a trick attack, and then if something happens to interrupt me, i can't react to it? i have to keep moving to my original goal? honestly confused here, because that seems very limiting, and not fun for anyone. also, to BNW's point, not supported at all by RAW. i would not play at a DM's table who did not let me react on the fly to what was happening, and forced me into some kind of a script, when i quite clearly have actions left to use as i see fit.


Quote:
here's nothing retroactive about it. As soon as you get that in your head, you'll see there's nothing inherently contradictory with what I'm saying. As soon as you accept that, you'll see there's no evidence for your position. (the evidence against it isn't exactly ironclad either but hey, rules)

past the edit window but sorry, that's a little too much me directing your brain... Rephrasing

There's nothing retroactive about it.

Without the argument that it's retroactive there's no argument against it.

With no argument against it there's no argument for the need to call out action types as you're doing them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
angryscrub wrote:
umm, wow guys, this is pretty amazing for me. i've never played in a game like most of you are describing. i'm currently playing a level 3 operator daredevil (shut up, i know), and i've never declared that i'm doing a trick attack. i say something like, "i move over to here", and then once i've moved my miniature, i say something like, "i kick flip off the wall and do a backflip, and shoot mid flip at enemy x", then i roll acrobatics to see if i get a trick attack. and if something happens while i'm moving, say an AoO from an invisible enemy, i change what i was going to do. maybe target whoever took a swipe at me, or change where i was moving, and this has never been a problem, ever. is this not how you guys play? in your games, i have to say i'm doing a trick attack, and then if something happens to interrupt me, i can't react to it? i have to keep moving to my original goal? honestly confused here, because that seems very limiting, and not fun for anyone. also, to BNW's point, not supported at all by RAW. i would not play at a DM's table who did not let me react on the fly to what was happening, and forced me into some kind of a script, when i quite clearly have actions left to use as i see fit.

In our games, we do need to declare things clearly as we do them. Trick attacking is a full round action. Therefore, in a round in which I would trick attack, I would declare that first thing (along with anything else the table needed to know). If I felt like it, I would then describe what that looked like, possibly after I see whether or not it succeeded. The level of description and roleplaying varies from player to player, but communicating the intent of the action before the action is taken doesn't vary at all.

You can't do things in the game without letting the table know what it is you're doing (unless you're the GM).

Let's use an example for our discussion:

A player declares he is trick attacking Enemy A. Enemy A had readied an action to turn on his force field when he is attacked. Since it is a strictly defensive readied action, it triggers prior to the attack, giving him some protection. Seeing Enemy A throw up the forcefield, the player then opts to direct his attack to Enemy B instead, who is unprotected.

One GM might say "No, you can't redeclare targets, otherwise defensive readied actions would never really work out as intended." and he would be totally within his rights to do so.

Another GM might be totally fine with the scenario, and let the player target Enemy B, since he sees actions as being more granular. Though the action itself has already been declared, the attack has not yet been delivered, and so the character is still free to change targets, but not his action.

Yet another GM might even allow the player to change the action altogether.

This is why I said to expect table variation, because none of it is supported or prohibited by the rules, and different GMs can (and do) run it differently.

But I've never seen a game in which players could (as the default standard*) take their actions before clearly communicating what it is they were attempting. That leads to things like a player rolling a 1 on his attack roll, then saying it was his trick attack skill roll and not an attack roll, so he still gets a chance to hit with an attack. That's blatantly dishonest and not at all the intent of the game's developers.

* Individual exceptions abound, e.g., giving a new player who doesn't understand the rules extra leeway.


Ravingdork wrote:

In our games, we do need to declare things clearly as we do them. Trick attacking is a full round action. Therefore, in a round in which I would trick attack, I would declare that first thing (along with anything else the table needed to know). If I felt like it, I would then describe what that looked like, possibly after I see whether or not it succeeded. The level of description and roleplaying varies from player to player, but communicating the intent of the action before the action is taken doesn't vary at all.

You can't do things in the game without letting the table know what it is you're doing (unless you're the GM).

Let's use an example for our discussion:

A player declares he is trick attacking Enemy A. Enemy A had readied an action to turn on his...

ok, wait a second. maybe i'm missing something, but i feel like this isn't addressing my question at all. at your table, i have to say "i'm doing a trick attack on enemy a" (still say that's a weird way to role play), and then during my move, invisible guy AoO's me. are you saying my only option is to continue on with my trick attack of enemy a? i can't maybe instead move somewhere else? or stop and attack the guy that just hit me?

and fyi, i don't think i've said anything about rolling dice before i say why i'm rolling the dice. when i say i kickflip off the wall, i then, and only then roll the dice. and no matter the result of the roll, i still kickflip off the wall, i just maybe don't do it cool enough to land my trick attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
angryscrub wrote:
At your table, I have to say "I'm doing a trick attack on Enemy A" (I still say that's a weird way to roleplay), and then during my move, invisible guy AoO's me. Are you saying my only option is to continue on with my trick attack of Enemy A? I can't maybe instead move somewhere else? Or stop and attack the guy that just hit me?

I think there would be a whole lot of table variation on that. If I were GMing, it would depend on the specifics. If the AoO, tripped or disarmed you, for example, then I would say you lose the action. If it was just a normal attack, I may allow you to change targets, but not take back the trick attack action.

Also, I don't understand what's weird about declaring your actions. How else would you communicate your intent to your fellows? Explaining what you're doing clearly doesn't necessarily preclude roleplaying; I'm not really sure where you got that idea from.


Ravingdork wrote:
angryscrub wrote:
At your table, I have to say "I'm doing a trick attack on Enemy A" (I still say that's a weird way to roleplay), and then during my move, invisible guy AoO's me. Are you saying my only option is to continue on with my trick attack of Enemy A? I can't maybe instead move somewhere else? Or stop and attack the guy that just hit me?

I think there would be a whole lot of table variation on that. If I were GMing, it would depend on the specifics. If the AoO, tripped or disarmed you, for example, then I would say you lose the action. If it was just a normal attack, I may allow you to change targets, but not take back the trick attack action.

Also, I don't understand what's weird about declaring your actions. How else would you communicate your intent to your fellows? Explaining what you're doing clearly doesn't necessarily preclude roleplaying; I'm not really sure where you got that idea from.

hmmm. it's not about declaring your actions, it's about declaring an entire rounds worth of actions in advance, and then being forced to stick to that, no matter what happens. let's say the AoO misses (not even getting into whether or not RAW supports trip AoO's), i can't even change the direction of my movement? something that i, as level 0 nobody in real life, can do all day, every day. i'm essentially walking during a trick attack, and in real life, if someone unexpectedly takes a swing at me, i can react to that. yet, in the fantasy role playing game where i'm some kind of bad ass whatever, i can't even do the things that are trivial in real life? i really don't see how the designers are trying to limit you to be less than reality. yes, you can purposely choose to gimp yourself if that's your thing, but how do you justify shutting down an option that a normal human on earth has? i find it hard to believe that you really play in a game that forces you to not react to changing circumstances.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
here's nothing retroactive about it. As soon as you get that in your head, you'll see there's nothing inherently contradictory with what I'm saying. As soon as you accept that, you'll see there's no evidence for your position. (the evidence against it isn't exactly ironclad either but hey, rules)

past the edit window but sorry, that's a little too much me directing your brain... Rephrasing

There's nothing retroactive about it.

Without the argument that it's retroactive there's no argument against it.

With no argument against it there's no argument for the need to call out action types as you're doing them.

In every game I've ever played, you're taking an action when you move - and when you get new information after that move, you can't just change what action you were taking based on that information. I've never met a GM who would rule it like you're suggesting; it's patently ridiculous.

This is one of those "just because it doesn't say you can't, doesn't mean you can" times; that's not something most designers would think they'd have to write down.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


I've never met a GM who would rule it like you're suggesting; it's patently ridiculous.

Still completely circular and entirely unevidenced.

Operative A walks around the corner and trick attackes someone

Operative B walks around the corner and trick attacks someone

What is the difference between the two? They have performed the same action.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


I've never met a GM who would rule it like you're suggesting; it's patently ridiculous.

Still completely circular and entirely unevidenced.

Operative A walks around the corner and trick attackes someone

Operative B walks around the corner and trick attacks someone

What is the difference between the two? They have performed the same action.

You're missing a step in the scenario:

Operative A walks around a corner, becomes aware of an enemy, declares that they were already trick attacking that enemy before becoming aware of them.

Operative B walks around a corner, becomes aware of an enemy, and uses Pounce because they obviously can't pretend that movement was part of a trick attack based on this new information.

Under your scenario, you can initiate a trick attack before becoming aware of the target, which is (again) patently ridiculous.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


You're missing a step in the scenario:... they obviously can't pretend that movement was part of a trick attack based on this new information

I have already shown where the rules said that actions are performed. They are done. So operative A and operative B have performed the same action.

Using the idea that there is an unwritten declaration phase in order to demonstrate that there is a problem with not complying with the declaration phase is circular thinking. You are simply declaring that you are right, my interpretation violates that idea if you're right, therefore you are right.

If you cannot make an argument that is not a textbook logical fallacy then you cannot make an argument.

Quote:
Under your scenario, you can initiate a trick attack before becoming aware of the target, which is (again) patently ridiculous.

So are you saying you can trick attack before having line of sight to the target? Or that you need to see your target at the start of the round?

Spoiler:
The answer is that trick attack is a compound action. The attack part is the only part where you need line of sight. Same thing with awareness.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


You're missing a step in the scenario:... they obviously can't pretend that movement was part of a trick attack based on this new information

I have already shown where the rules said that actions are performed. They are done. So operative A and operative B have performed the same action.

Using the idea that there is an unwritten declaration phase in order to demonstrate that there is a problem with not complying with the declaration phase is circular thinking. You are simply declaring that you are right, my interpretation violates that idea if you're right, therefore you are right.

If you cannot make an argument that is not a textbook logical fallacy then you cannot make an argument.

Quote:
Under your scenario, you can initiate a trick attack before becoming aware of the target, which is (again) patently ridiculous.

So are you saying you can trick attack before having line of sight to the target? Or that you need to see your target at the start of the round?

** spoiler omitted **

And how, precisely, are you supposed to perform a full action after you've performed a move action?


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


And how, precisely, are you supposed to perform a full action after you've performed a move action?

That's not whats happening. Neither operative performed a full action after a move action. They performed the other part of their full action after the other part of their full action. Which is legal.

If an operative with a 50 foot move moved 50 feet, and then moved 50 feet again and THEN attacked, THAT would be performing a full action after a move action. Moving 50 feet and then trick attacking is just 1 full round action, legal action economy for the round.

Every violation you're mentioning is from inside the paradigm that you're right, which you can't use to show that you're right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


And how, precisely, are you supposed to perform a full action after you've performed a move action?

That's not whats happening. Neither operative performed a full action after a move action. They performed the other part of their full action after the other part of their full action. Which is legal.

If an operative with a 50 foot move moved 50 feet, and then moved 50 feet again and THEN attacked, THAT would be performing a full action after a move action. Moving 50 feet and then trick attacking is just 1 full round action, legal action economy for the round.

Every violation you're mentioning is from inside the paradigm that you're right, which you can't use to show that you're right.

Okay, let me ask you this: Are you seriously arguing that you can use a full action to attack an enemy you're not aware of when you begin that action? Because that equally can be justified only under the paradigm that you're right, but also happens to be patently ridiculous - it just doesn't pass the smell test.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel part of the confusion is "move actions" and "move actions". It confusingly overlaps what you do with what it costs. Let's call it a Stride ("move your speed") which costs a move action.

Now when you start moving, you have to say what kind of movement you're doing. Are you doing a guarded step? Running? Charging? Striding? Moving as part of a trick attack? Because each of these has different consequences.

If you think there may be an invisible enemy next to you and you start walking away, you could do so as a guarded step so that you don't provoke. If no attack happens, you can't say that it was a Stride all along and move your full speed instead of only 5ft. At the moment you start the action, you have to decide what kind of action you're actually taking. You don't have to decide what you'll do after that, but you do commit to that action and its accompanying cost.

Now, trick attack is a bit different from what we're used to in Pathfinder. In Pathfinder stuff like charge attacks required you to choose an enemy when you started. Trick attack doesn't require that, but if you have the Uncanny Mobility exploit you can get a benefit for doing so.

So you can say "I suspect there are enemies around the corner, I'm going to do a trick attack. First I move around the corner as part of the movement I get from trick attack, and then if I see any enemies I'll decide which one to shoot."

What you could not do is say "I'm going to Stride around this corner, oh gosh there's enemies I didn't expect, I'd better turn that into a trick attack". Just because a trick attack involves movement doesn't mean you can upgrade your Stride into a trick attack.

---

I think the main uses for operative's pounce are in "less than ideal situations" and mostly for melee focused operatives. So that's rather niche. It's a bit like Vital Strike gets a bad rep in PF1 from people saying full attacks are better, but they forget that you very often can't make full attacks. Operative's Pounce could be of use when:

* You have to draw a (concealed) weapon. For example when launching a surprise attack at a social situation.
* You need an action to open a door and then need to get into the room and attacking, so that enemies can't bottleneck the whole party at the entrance.
* You need to stand up from prone before closing into melee. This could come up if you're voluntarily dropping prone to protect yourself from a distant sniper that you're trying to close in on.

It's niche, but I could see my dwarven melee operative making use of it.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


Okay, let me ask you this: Are you seriously arguing that you can use a full action to attack an enemy you're not aware of when you begin that action? Because that equally can be justified only under the paradigm that you're right, but also happens to be patently ridiculous - it just doesn't pass the smell test.

Absolutely. There's no argument otherwise and repeatedly claims of incredulity aren't helpful or remotely persuasive.

Hacky Mc Slashy Slash Full attacks.

He hits mook 1 for 19 points of damage.

The Invisible technomancers readied action goes and and pokes Hacky in the back with Zappy hand IV, dropping his invisibility.

Hacky Decides Mooks are Mooks and he's got damage reduction, and whirls around to Clock the Big bad.

Perfectly legal full round attack.

If you disagree, please cite some rule. Or start with a known and make an argument from there. Not just "thats not how it works so that's not how it works".


Ascalaphus wrote:
Now when you start moving, you have to say what kind of movement you're doing. Are you doing a guarded step? Running? Charging? Striding? Moving as part of a trick attack? Because each of these has different consequences.

Well heres the difference. Guarded step collapses the wave function the second you start it. You're moving slower, the game ramifications start before you even leave the square etc. For an operative moving vs one trick attacking there's no difference at all for that first movement range. If you're only counting actions Performed as the character spends their action economy there's still enough for a trick attack in the tank.

I don't think it comes up because its not that often you're in initiative but not aware of someone on the field.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Now when you start moving, you have to say what kind of movement you're doing. Are you doing a guarded step? Running? Charging? Striding? Moving as part of a trick attack? Because each of these has different consequences.

Well heres the difference. Guarded step collapses the wave function the second you start it. You're moving slower, the game ramifications start before you even leave the square etc. For an operative moving vs one trick attacking there's no difference at all for that first movement range. If you're only counting actions Performed as the character spends their action economy there's still enough for a trick attack in the tank.

I don't think it comes up because its not that often you're in initiative but not aware of someone on the field.

But almost all actions "collapse the wave function": if you run you become flat-footed and are limited to straight lines, if you charge you have to pick a target and are limited to straight lines, if you make a full attack vs. a regular attack you immediately take a -4.

I don't see any support in the rules for Schrödinger actions. The way they read, it very much sounds like you start out the round picking a "budget":

CRP p. 244 wrote:

In a normal round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift action, or you can instead perform one full action.

(...)

Performing a standard action is generally the main component of your turn. Most commonly, you use it to make an attack, cast a spell, or use a special power.

(...)

Performing a move action allows you to take tactical actions that, while secondary to your standard action, are still key to your success. The most common move action is to move up to your speed (see Speed on page 255).

(...)

A full action consumes all your effort during your turn, meaning if you choose to take a full action, you can’t take any other standard, move, or swift actions that turn. The most common full action is the full attack.

The way all this sounds to me is that at the start of your turn you either decide to take a full action or split the budget. Then you start performing move/standard/swift actions by doing particular things until you're done spending your action budget.

The rules keep talking about "perform a standard action" or "choose to take a full-round action". It's not "start moving and then decide whether it was a trick attack or not".

1 to 50 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / RAW, what does Operative's Pounce actually let you do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.