Actions in combat


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Also the meta is about acting on information that your character doesn't have. You character doesn't know they're in initiative order. But you as a player do need to know how to tell everyone else what you're doing, and by what rules elements you do it, so everyone knows how to respond.

If you are fighting, and thus making lots of noise, I would understand this kind of movement even if you actually don't know if there's someone.

And if there are no more enemies, then you're supposed to be out of initiative. If the DM stays in initiative, he has to expect players to act like in combat. If you are outside of combat, you should go out of initiative. I personnally dislike when the DM stays or goes in initiative outside combat.


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

There are other times when you are not actively in combat, but events are sufficiently time critical (inbound reinforcements, ticking down the last minute before the bombs you haven't found yet go off, building is collapsing around you, etc.) that you should be in initiative, though they are edge cases.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I move here and its 5 feet away thats going to be a guarded step. I move here and attack and its 10 feet away it's not.

From what you've been saying, it seems you don't like to use terms like "I'm going to take a guarded step" or "I'm going to move up to my speed" because you "prefer to see combats described".

So if you only move 5 feet, it will be a guarded step. If you move more than 5 feet then it can't be a guarded step, it more than likely would be moving up to your speed. You say you don't need to explain this since your actions speak for you.

Concerning Trick Attack, from what you have said, during play you would move your character up to its speed and then perform a Trick Attack, no doubt describing this along the lines of "Starknight rushes across the map, deceives his opponent with a wicked taunt and slicing into him doing massive damage!"

So what happens when your opponent is 5 feet away? "Starknight steps out of cover, taking a noiseless step, unobserved by his opponent he slices into him doing massive damage!"

Unfortunately, your GM states, "Oh, that's unfortunate BigNorseWolf, since you only moved 5 feet you took a guarded step. That means you didn't perform a Trick Attack because you can't include a guarded step as part of a Trick Attack."

Trick Attack states while you don't have to move, but if you do then "you can move up to your speed". It doesn't say you can take a "move action", it specifically calls out "you can move up to your speed". You can't take a guarded step, you can't use a move action to stand up, or crawl.

This is one reason why, as a player, you need to communicate with your GM as to what you are doing. You can by all means flourish it with a nice descriptive explanation but you need to describe your actions for your turn. It helps in all sorts of situations such as if there is an unexpected AOO, if there is difficult terrain or an unexpected pit trap the character might be unaware of, etc, etc.


HammerJack wrote:
There are other times when you are not actively in combat, but events are sufficiently time critical (inbound reinforcements, ticking down the last minute before the bombs you haven't found yet go off, building is collapsing around you, etc.) that you should be in initiative, though they are edge cases.

Technically, initiative has only to be rolled in combat. Outside combat, rolling initiative is a "DM choice".

I've seen DMs doing that, but if they keep the initiative track, you lose simultaneity. So, in the case of the ticking bomb, if a player wants to try to disarm it, another one can't help without changing initiative, and very quickly we end up with "ready actions to aid another" and players interrupting each other's initiative round to ask current player to wait for them.
I far prefer when the DM asks each player what they are doing, allowing them to coordinate themselves, and resolve the situation as a whole. Segmenting, if necessary, the action into small periods of time that you could call "rounds".


Hiruma Kai wrote:

The trick attack action explicitly does not require an attack and thus does not require a target. A trick attack action at its base is use a full action to move your speed. That is the core of the action. It happens to have clauses that let you do other stuff if you want (can versus must), and those other clauses can include targets, but at the end of the day, it is "As a full action, you can move up to your speed." In order to use certain exploits, like Uncanny Mobility, you do need to declare your target before hand.

Quote:

Uncanny Mobility wrote:

When you make a trick attack, if you choose the target of your attack before you move...

However, that exploit also makes clear it must be possible not to choose the target of your attack before you move using a trick attack.

I agree with BNW at least this far. If a player wants to describe their operative as going around a corner ready to trick attack, I let them. It is just the same as a soldier deciding to single move instead of double moving or using the run action around the corner so they can stop and shoot if they want.

I mean, I feel it is completely out of line for the GM to tell a player that no, their character has chosen to run, guarded step twice, or double move instead of a single move to go around that corner. If they want to play a cautious character, that is completely up to them. If the operative has their weapon out, then in my mind that is sufficient justification that the character can choose to be cautious when turning corners, since by my definition having a weapon out is an unusual situation.

Strongly disagree. If you read the ability the way you suggest it's a full action to do nothing.

Quote:
You can trick or startle a foe and then attack when she drops her guard. As a full action, you can move up to your speed. Whether or not you moved, you can then make an attack with a melee weapon with the operative special property or with any small arm. Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth check (or a check associated with your specialization) with a DC equal to 20 + your target’s CR. If you succeed at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is flat-footed. This damage increases to 1d8 at 3rd level, to 3d8 at 5th level, and by an additional 1d8 every 2 levels thereafter. You can’t use this ability with a weapon that has the unwieldy special property or that requires a full action to make a single attack.

Both the movement and attack say can. So if I follow what you're saying, it's a full action to do do nothing, but you can move and can attack.

So you can't say it's a full action to move anymore than I can say it's a full action to attack, and allows the other action to also be done. Except, I lean towards saying it's an attack because it's in the name. Not strong evidence, I admit, but more than you have. It's not called Trick Moving.

And yes, it's possible to not choose your target before you move, but that doesn't mean that you don't need to have a target, or need to make an attack for it qualify as a Trick Attack. It just means you can wait until after you've moved to do so.

Why would this come up? Maybe your enemy has readied an action to move away from you if you come within a certain range. And now is out of the first range increment of your weapon. Maybe they move behind cover. There are many possibilities.

I'm not saying you have to select a target in advance, I'm saying you need to be capable of selecting a target, which you can't do if there are no enemies.


SuperBidi wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Also the meta is about acting on information that your character doesn't have. You character doesn't know they're in initiative order. But you as a player do need to know how to tell everyone else what you're doing, and by what rules elements you do it, so everyone knows how to respond.

If you are fighting, and thus making lots of noise, I would understand this kind of movement even if you actually don't know if there's someone.

And if there are no more enemies, then you're supposed to be out of initiative. If the DM stays in initiative, he has to expect players to act like in combat. If you are outside of combat, you should go out of initiative. I personnally dislike when the DM stays or goes in initiative outside combat.

I agree, but if there is an enemy around the corner (that the party is unaware of) and headed to the party I could see keeping things in initiative order.

Although personally I resolve these sorts of situations saying, "What do you now that combat is over?" And if they say "We loot the bodies" I say "Place yourselves". Basically skipping the "time" where they wouldn't really be doing anything.

If they save, "I check around the corner" I will place the enemy down the hall around the corner and tell them to roll new initiative.

But yeah, this sort of situation can be hard to run and will vary GM to GM.


Claxon wrote:
But yeah, this sort of situation can be hard to run and will vary GM to GM.

Clearly. As a DM, I would either consider the enemy is not around the corner and will arrive in a few minutes, or that one of the characters heard him, so I can continue initiative without screwing my players.

But technically, it's supposed to be 2 combats separated only by a few seconds...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Strongly disagree. If you read the ability the way you suggest it's a full action to do nothing.

If the player chooses to do nothing with the declared action, then yes, I suppose you might interpret it as nothing. However, I argue there is nothing inconsistent with my reading of the rules and the game doesn't break if you use my interpretation.

However, I view it as a full action which lets you move up to your speed (which includes 0 feet as an option), and then gives you the option to make a special kind of attack, and when combined with feats and exploits adds additional effects, like ignoring attacks of opportunity. In my book that is a full action that potentially could do nothing, but generally does do something.

However, that is just like declaring a move action, and choosing to move 0 feet. Consider the situation where you decide draw a weapon while moving, do the weapon drawing first, then an adjacent invisible enemy has a readied action to disarm you if you draw a weapon, they become visible after attacking with the disarm, and then you now realize moving from your square will provoke an attack of opportunity.

I mean, you don't need to get that convoluted as the above, but I feel not moving after declaring a move action is a valid choice. Zero feet is equal to or less than your move speed in all cases.

Do you have an issue with a player declaring a move action and then not moving out of their square?

Quote:
You can trick or startle a foe and then attack when she drops her guard. As a full action, you can move up to your speed. Whether or not you moved, you can then make an attack with a melee weapon with the operative special property or with any small arm. Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth check (or a check associated with your specialization) with a DC equal to 20 + your target’s CR. If you succeed at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is flat-footed. This damage increases to 1d8 at 3rd level, to 3d8 at 5th level, and by an additional 1d8 every 2 levels thereafter. You can’t use this ability with a weapon that has the unwieldy special property or that requires a full action to make a single attack.
Claxon wrote:
Both the movement and attack say can. So if I follow what you're saying, it's a full action to do do nothing, but you can move and can attack.

Yes. Just like the run action, or the move action or any number of other actions which include the "can" phrasing. Similarly, you can declare a valid charge, and then not make the attack at the end of the movement at that time (like say, you realize the illusion of the bad guy is hiding a bomb that will explode once hit).

Claxon wrote:
So you can't say it's a full action to move anymore than I can say it's a full action to attack, and allows the other action to also be done. Except, I lean towards saying it's an attack because it's in the name. Not strong evidence, I admit, but more than you have. It's not called Trick Moving.

My apologies, I'm having a little difficulty parsing the above statement.

I'm not saying its a full action to move only. I'm saying its a full action which then gives you the option to move, and then the option to attack (or with feats a whole host of other combinations, like attack then move, or move without provoking attacks of opportunity). If a player wants their character to use it just for the movement portion, that is fine.

As far as my evidence, I present the fact that use word can for both the move and the attack, and then explicitly reference the case where you do not move: "Whether or not you moved,"

So, my question is, why is the "can" in "you can move up to your speed" different from the "can" in "you can then make an attack"?

As for name implying rules, perhaps the question is why isn't it called "trick moving and attack"? Clearly, the name by itself does not tell you the rules associated with it. The reason they call it trick attack and not "trick moving" or "trick moving and attack" is it sounds cooler and is a short hand for the rules text themselves.

Claxon wrote:
I'm not saying you have to select a target in advance, I'm saying you need to be capable of selecting a target, which you can't do if there are no enemies.

We'll probably just have to disagree then. I read the rules and find no support for a requirement that there be a valid enemy around to declare the full action trick attack.

For a bit of philosophy beyond this debate, I'd also probably go farther and let character's declare attack actions (which probably automatically fail) even when enemies are not around, even the trick attack's attack option. That is a classic illusion, mentally affecting curse, or invisibility situation. I feel it would be even more metagame-y if you did not let characters make attacks when enemies are not around in cases like that.

As far as I'm concerned, any action you can take in combat, you should be able to take outside of combat. Otherwise, somehow, the characters know when hostiles are around (not players), irregardless of the perceptions or mental states of the characters, which really throws me out of the narrative. For example, I'm not a big fan of the Solarian stellar mode rules from a game design perspective.


Xris wrote:

So what happens when your opponent is 5 feet away? "Starknight steps out of cover, taking a noiseless step, unobserved by his opponent he slices into him doing massive damage!"

Unfortunately, your GM states, "Oh, that's unfortunate BigNorseWolf, since you only moved 5 feet you took a guarded step. That means you didn't perform a Trick Attack because you can't include a guarded step as part of a Trick Attack."

No, because as a DMI can see they're picking up 2 d20s or hitting a trick attack macro and a fistfull of D8s I can tell they're not taking a 5 foot step they're trick attacking. Unless the player was successfully stealthing before the attack I'll point out 'you're gonna get whacked doing that, you sure?"

My dice LOVE it when the players are sure....

I do a lot of Starfinder society with a lot of different players. So you have to get on the same page with how things work with the dm.

As a player you might go through the math and the steps the first time pointing out what you can do.. so round 1 of the fight is "I trick attack this sucker using uncanny mobility to move around them without drawing an AOO and then change my fighting style from prison gank to an almost fluid dance to use my snowgarden productions knife and my ranks in dance to deal nonlethal damage" and by round 5 of the fight its "non lethal knife to the butt!" roll "So long left cheek!"

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we can all agree that if the player clearly meant to do one thing
(for example:
* Moves his mini 5ft before casting a spell or firing a gun: looks like guarded step
* Soldier moves his mini up to his speed adjacent to an enemy and attacks with a sword: move action to move
* Operative with Uncanny Mobility moves away from the solo boss and picks up 2d20 to trick attack, just like he did last round
)
then in those cases it's really not a problem that the player didn't explicitly state what he was doing. We get it, there was no confusion.

The question we're grappling with is, what to do if there was doubt?

If an operative goes around a corner to see what's there, was he taking a Move to Move, or the beginning of a Trick Attack? First case, he can open the door, or move the hell back. Second case, he can shoot for bonus damage.

My position is that if there's reasonable doubt, you have to explicitly say what you're doing as you start doing it.


@Hiurai Kai

I don't have time to respond to the entirety of your response, and I'm sorry for that.

But a couple points I would like to respond to:

With my statement that was unclear to you, what I was tryign to say is, I feel that your argument that Trick Attack is a full action to move that allows and attack is no different than my argument that Trcik Attack is a full action to attack which also allows movement.

And I vew the statement of "Whether you move or not" to actually reinforce that view point, "Regardless of whether you move, here's your attack" is basically the essence of it.

I think the only way to properly resolve this is to ask for an FAQ on whether Trick Attack is:
1) A full action to do noting that also allows you to move and/or attack - this is out in left field but technically possible
2) A full action to move that also you to attack - Personally I still think is unlikely as you can explicitly not move
3) A full action to attack that also allows you to move - Obviously the view I take

With that view point I say the attack is required and you must have the intention to attack something (which requires awareness of an enemy) to perform a trick attack.

However, if there was a ruling that Trick Attack we're option 1 or 2, and not 3 as I see it, then I would actually agree with BigNorseWolf. If Trick Attack were (bizarrely) ruled to be primarily a movement type action and not attack type action then you would be able to Trick Attack around a corner without being aware of an enemy or intending to attack and if you became aware of an enemy at the end of the movement you would be able to attack.


Unless there is a requirement to pick a trick attack target at the start of your round, you can at the very least go around the corner with the intent of attacking a square to look for an invisible critter.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Unless there is a requirement to pick a trick attack target at the start of your round, you can at the very least go around the corner with the intent of attacking a square to look for an invisible critter.

I disagree, you would have to be aware that a creature is there. That doesn't mean seeing it but your character needs to have a reason to believe something is there.

And being suspicious that something might be there doesn't count, IMO.

But we're at a point where the rules aren't clear about this sort of thing. And that's something you've mentioned before BNW, and I agree with you on that point.

But to me this is an awful lot like attacking the ground to get the benefit of a the weapon enhancement that gives a defensive bonus by attacking (in Pathfinder, and I can't remember the name). And that never sat right with me.

Of course, the whole issue is basically avoided if you stop running things in initiative order once enemies the party is aware of are defeated.


The big difference is that one is a magic physics property of a weapon (which probably doesn't work when you attack the ground and the other is actions under their characters control. IF you posit a difference in some sort between walking 50 feet to the fridge and walking 50 feet to back flip trick attack, there is no reason you can come up with for the character not being able to do it. Any way of doing so imposes restrictions on trick attack that would need to be spelled out in trick attack (needing to pick them at the start of your turn, need to see them at the start of your turn, etc)

that doesn't rely on an idea that is 99% likely false


I guess I'm of the opinion that restrictions are implied, but not explicitly stated.

And that could be an issue of writing, or it could be an issue of the legalistic way I'm used to interpreting Pathfinder rules.

In any event I'm not sure we can resolve this difference in reading the rules without having the developers clarify.

But again, I can reiterate that simply not running things in initiative order once know threats are eliminated side steps the issue and is the correct answer.


Claxon wrote:

I guess I'm of the opinion that restrictions are implied, but not explicitly stated.

What in the rules do you think is implying them?

Do you really think developers planned people to bounce implied rules off of implied rules to reach your conclussion?

Your argument is tenuous. Just because you argued from point A to point B to point C doesn't mean that C is a rule.


I feel the same way about your position though.

To me, your position results in non-sense, using what appears to be an attack oriented action to move without attacking.

And the whole situation only exist to deal with meta-issue of the game which is running the game in initiative order (when it shouldn't be) and asking players to tell you what they're doing.

To me, Trick Attack is akin to charge. Charge is definitely an attack ability that also allows for movement (with restriction) which has explicit requirements for seeing the enemy.

Now, you're correct that Trick Attack doesn't explicitly state those requirements. However, I think that's more about the writer of Trick Attack not thinking to include such things. Charge went through a lot of iterations with Pathfinder so they knew how to get that one right.

But you're right I am reading between the lines, and we should ask for clarification to understand how it's intended to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I feel the same way about your position though.

To me, your position results in non-sense, using what appears to be an attack oriented action to move without attacking.

Which one? that you don't need to see the target of the trick attack at the start of the round or that you don't need to declare a trick attack at the start of the round? They're not the same.

There's nothing nonsensical about it.

Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then walk

Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then do the attack part of the trick attack.

Those are both valid actions Squeeky can take.

Quote:
To me, Trick Attack is akin to charge. Charge is definitely an attack ability that also allows for movement (with restriction) which has explicit requirements for seeing the enemy.

Right, you're running trick attack, which doesn't have any restrictions listed on it, like charge which HAS restrictions listed on it.

The fact that trick attack doesn't have those restrictions listed is a VERY strong indicator that it doesn't have those restrictions. Your argument that those restrictions are implied are incredibly weak. Taking an incredibly weak argument over a very strong one either overvalues your argument (because you think you can logically argue from point A to point B to point C with certainty) or is trying to push the rules into a desired result.


We're rehashing the same arguments over and over again.

I will reiterate mine viewpoint one final time and then I'm going end my participation in this thread.

I agree you don't need to declare which target you will attack before you move, but you do need to have a target available to attack in order to use Trick Attack.

I view it this way because:
1) Trick Attack as primarily an attack action, which also allows you to move.
2) You can't make an attack against something you're unaware of. An invisible creature which has been attacking you is something you aware of, even if you don't know its precise location.
3) I don't find your argument that the lack of restriction to be an indicator that it's not supposed to have them. Based on experience with Pathfinder, a lot of rules have been implied over the years or restrictions forgotten and abilities we're later rewritten or FAQ'd. So I guess in essence, I think that the ability was written somewhat poorly.

You're right, I am combining several different points to reach my conclusion. But I still think it's the correct conclusion.

But most importantly I want to reiterate all of this is irrelevant unless you run things in initiative "combat mode" order after combat seems to be over (for whatever reason).

The only way to mete this is to ask for an FAQ on the topic. Until that time, you run your game your way and I'll run my games mine.

Best of luck BNW.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then walk

Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then do the attack part of the trick attack.

Those are both valid actions Squeeky can take.

You keep trotting out this nonsense but you don't make it clear what you actually mean.

Are you claiming that Squeeky can walk to the corner and then decide to (a) either walk again, or (b) perform a trick attack?

Or are you claiming that before the Squeekster moves, they have to decide they are going to take a Full Action, or a Move and Move action?

Anyway, how exactly is Squeekykins going to perform a Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth check against an invisible opponent that may or may not be in that space? That seems to place restrictions against Trick Attack.


xris wrote:


You keep trotting out this nonsense

Thats strike 2

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then walk

Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then do the attack part of the trick attack.

While both are valid, Squeeky the operative has to choose between performing a full action or performing a move action, standard action, swift action before moving.

There is no language in this permissive rulesystem that allows someone to go from a move action into a full-action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:


1) Trick Attack as primarily an attack action, which also allows you to move.

I don't think you can arbitrarily assign something a quality like primary and then use that quality as a justification for other things.

Robots are smurfy. Smurfy things aren't trick attackable. So robots can't be trick attacked.

2) You can't make an attack against something you're unaware of. An invisible creature which has been attacking you is something you aware of, even if you don't know its precise location.

This is not a rule. This is also something you're infering from.. something. Absolutely nothing prevents you from taking a Doshko and swinging it at every square on the battlemat you want even if you're just sitting in the tavern.

3) I don't find your argument that the lack of restriction to be an indicator that it's not supposed to have them.

This is out and out inane. You can't possibly believe in indicators and then deny that somethings lack of a mention isn't an indicator. It's one thing to say that the lack of mentioning it isn't absolute proof, but to say that it's not an indicator, that it's not evidence at all, is absolutely horsefeathers. You're house ruling at that point.

I get trying to nerf operatives (especially at the lower mid levels) but if you're doing that then do it, don't say that the rules do it for you.

Quote:
You're right, I am combining several different points to reach my conclusion. But I still think it's the correct conclusion.

If A then B. If B then C If C then D.

If you have a 75 percent chance of being right at each step (which would be generous) you have a ~43 percent chance being right in total. You cannot argue unsure things one on top of the other on top of the other and have any assurance of your conclusion. That kind of Aristotelian logic requires surety that the rules just don't have.


Damanta wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then walk

Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then do the attack part of the trick attack.

While both are valid, Squeeky the operative has to choose between performing a full action or performing a move action, standard action, swift action before moving.

There is no language in this permissive rulesystem that allows someone to go from a move action into a full-action.

And the language requiring a prior declaration is....?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Damanta wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then walk

Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then do the attack part of the trick attack.

While both are valid, Squeeky the operative has to choose between performing a full action or performing a move action, standard action, swift action before moving.

There is no language in this permissive rulesystem that allows someone to go from a move action into a full-action.

And the language requiring a prior declaration is....?

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


Damanta 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

Right.

If Squeeky moves to the corner and trick attacks he has performed one full action

If squeeky moves to the corner pulling out a weapon, pulls a package of cheezits out of his cheekpouch, and then makes an attack he has performed one move action one swift action and one standard action.

If squeeky Moves to the corner and then moves again and then takes out his packet of cheezits from his cheekpouch they have performed two move actions and a swift (trading one standard for a move as you're allowed to)

All of those are legal actions to PERFORM. Which doesn't answer the question of wheres the declaration phase? Actions are only performed, not declared.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Then show me where in the rules I can find the text that permits me to use Trick Attack, Shot on the Run, Agile Casting, Parting Shot, and Spring Attack without performing a full action but as a move action during or after which I get to make it a full action.


pg. 244 CRB - Action Types 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.
pg. 244 CRB - Move action wrote:

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).
pg. 244 CRB - Full Action wrote:

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.

If you perform a move action to move up to your speed, you have performed a move action, and now cannot perform a full action (trick attack). If you discover a target hiding around a corner, or are AoO'd by an invisible enemy during your move action, you are still currently taking a move action. Since you have taken/are taking a move action you cannot take a full action (trick attack).

You can take a trick attack full action then select a target after moving. You cannot take a move action to move, then decide after spotting a new target to instead take a full action to trick attack. You've already taken a move action to move at this point in your turn.

Edit: Actions taken aren't decided after the turn is over, actions taken are decided as you take them.


Damanta wrote:
Then show me where in the rules I can find the text that permits me to use Trick Attack, Shot on the Run, Agile Casting, Parting Shot, and Spring Attack without performing a full action but as a move action during or after which I get to make it a full action.

You're really not getting the circularity of your line of inquiry.

You're saying there is a discrepancy in BNWs view because in Damanantas view the action was a move action and was then turned into a trick attack.

In BNWs view since there is no need to call the actions in advance (There is no spelled out declaration phase. The point of turn based combat is you get to take your turn) the action is always what you perform. Because that's how the book describes actions: as being performed. If the character uses shot on the run or a spring attack then it was a full round action. It doesn't have any existence outside of what was done.

That doesn't show an internal inconsistency with my view or an inconsistency between my view and the rules. That just shows an inconsistency in our views (which really won't matter until you stress the system and break the rules really...) which doesn't show I'm wrong unless you're right, which you can't use to prove that you're right.


Garretmander wrote:
If you perform a move action to move up to your speed, you have performed a move action, and now cannot perform a full action (trick attack).

By definition yes, but thats not the issue.

Without assuming a declaration phase.....

If you move up to your speed, you have performed a move action, and now cannot perform a full action (trick attack).

This no longer follows for an operative. If you have moved up to your speed you could have moved it as a move action or as part of a trick attack. It could be a move action it could be a trick attack. If you're in initiative and it's an operative its probably a trick attack...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You are quite literally the only person in this thread argueing that you do not need to be performing an action while performing them, but after having performed them. So it's more of a BNW's view against several others, not just mine.

Squeaky the operative is performing a full action trick attack. Result is moving up to his speed and attacking.
Or instead:
Squeaky the operative is performing a move action to move up to his speed and performing a standard and swift action after the move. Result is that after the move Squeaky the operative can still attack but it's not a trick attack because he wasn't performing that.

I know you keep calling it circular, but I frankly do not see any other way of trying to get my point across.

As I just see Garretmander stating actions taken are decided as you take them, not after wards.

Operative also have to follow this. They aren't excluded from performing either a full action or a move action, standard action, swift action because they have an ability that allows them to move up to their speed.


Damanta wrote:

I know you keep calling it circular, but I frankly do not see any other way of trying to get my point across.

that may be a sign the idea isn't as rock solid as you'd like.

Quote:
Operative also have to follow this. They aren't excluded from performing either a full action or a move action, standard action, swift action because they have an ability that allows them to move up to their speed.

I'm not saying that they're excluded from this. Again, they're not gaining any actual action economy from this. Its just that the weird action economy of a trick attack breaks harder when you break the turn based rules system.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

One last attempt before I bow out, because I don't think I can find enough supporting words.

You perform either a move action, standard action, and swift action.
Or you perform a full action.

You do not move.
You perform a move action or you perform a full action that allows movement.

Squeaky the operative performs a move action, a standard action, and a swift action.
Or Squeaky the operative performs a full action.

Squeaky the operative can post/say Shakespearean sonnets to describe his actions during his turn.

Squeaky the operative does not get to move with a 5 page essay, then ask the GM to describe the situation he's now in and then submit a 10 couplet song that he's pulling fancy stuff to trick attack an enemy. That bit should've been in the 5 page essay.


Declaration happens before the actual action. You don't need to declare all your actions at the beginning of your turn, but you must declare the action before you do anything associated with it.

So before you can even move out of your square, you must already have declared the action that is letting you move out of the square, because in some circumstances that matters. And if it matters in some circumstances, then to be consistent, you must treat all situations the same and make the declaration at the same point.

Imagine the GM has an invisible enemy adjacent threatening you, without you or your character being aware of it. You move away to the next square. It matters as soon as you move that first 5 feet (which could equally be a guarded step, a normal move, a run, or a class specific action).

So you must declare the type of action that moved you. In that situation, a guarded step is going to behave different from a normal move action, which is going to differ from a 10th level operative trick attack with improved uncanny mobility, which is going to differ from a Solarian using Blazing Orbit to move. And thats on the very first square.

So in essence, because the trick attack movement potentially has benefits a standard move lacks, they cannot be assumed to be the same up to the point where you've simply moved your speed. They have different rules associated (like avoiding AoOs).

As I noted earlier, I personally have no problem with an operative declaring they are making a trick attack and then just move up to their speed without attacking if nothing presents itself. I also have no problem with a character declaring they will always use trick attack to move unless otherwise stated. Same as if a Solarian declares they always use blazing orbit when moving.

I do have an issue with moving a mini, the GM advancing game state (i.e. telling you the invisible enemy takes their AoO), and then after the fact determining what actual action was used. If you wouldn't let a Solarian suddenly change their move to blazing orbit after the first square of movement (for 20% miss chance), then I wouldn't let an operative change a move action to a trick attack after moving to a corner.

I think it should be on the player to make sure the GM understands what their intentions are. A good GM will check when unsure, but GMs tend to have the most to keep track of so spreading the responsibility around is helpful.


Damanta wrote:

You perform either a move action, standard action, and swift action.

Or you perform a full action.

And what part of that does Squeeky violate if

Squeeky moved to the corner and trick attacks

Squeeky moves to the corner pulls out his gun, pulls out his cheeze nips and fires down the hall with a regular attack?

Squeeky moves to the corner, then moves down the hall.

All of those are PERFORMING legal actions.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Case 1:
Squeaky performs a full action.

Case 2:
Squeaky performs a move action, a swift action, and a standard action.

Case 3:
Squeaky performs a move action, then uses a standard action to perform another move action.

Yes, they are all legal.
No, the actions performed are not designated after being performed but while being performed.

This is what I'm trying to get across. Performance does not need declaration, but designated of action type.
It doesn't matter that at the end of the turn action economy has not been violated.
Action economy is being violated during the turn by performing a part of a full action after performing a move action.


A brief return but not to hash the earlier side argument.

I want to remind everyone that this (declaration of actions) was the actual point of this thread and not the side discussion that happened about how Trick Attack itself works.

The statements I made with how I think Trick Attacks functions doesn't really factor in except for BNW's leading question to attempt to justify his method of essentially turning a move action into a full action on the fly.

When your turn starts and you're about to move you must tell people you're either taking a move action to move, or guarded step, or moving as part of a Trick Attack.

I simply argued that you couldn't, in the arbitrary situation BNW described, take a Trick Attack with no known enemies in the area.

If you can do so, then you would be allowed to just always move as part of Trick attack. However you would always be limiting yourself to your normal move speed each round, and for instance couldn't use two move actions to move, or an action to open a door. You are locking in your action economy, which is why you have to tell what kind of action your taking even if you haven't decided exactly where you will move or whom you will attack.


Trick attack was the original instigator, but there's also: agile casting movement, shot on the run movement, spring attack movement, charge movement, the run action.


I am always amazed by these debates. I must be the luckiest GM on the planet because I just don't have issues like this coming up.

At my table you state what you are going to do on your turn PRIOR to you executing your turn. As a note I have done away with miniatures and grid sheets. I give my players an description of the scenario and what the see.

As A GM I will interpret the player's statement of action in the best way possible for the player (unless directed otherwise). So we get this:

Player Situation #1: I drop back 5 feet and take shot at the akata that I was standing next too. (1 move action and 1 standard action).

My Interpretation: ok 5 foot guarded step and then a single shot.

Player Situation #2: I fire twice at the wounded mercenary 30 feet away and if I kill him on the first shot I will shoot my second shot at the mercenary that is 15 feet behind him. (full attack action).

My Interpretation: Full attack action with a conditional second attack.

Player Situation #3: I run to the corner that is 25 feet away and duck around 5 feet and then using Get' Em to assist her teammates, then finally dropping prone. (move action, standard action, swift action).

My Interpretation: duck into cover 25-30 feet away, assist teammates while facing the direction of the action, drop prone maximizing cover.

Now how I handle something coming up mid player turn.

Using situation #3 but with an enemy around the corner, 10 feet from the corner and unseen.

Player states their action as above - however when they reach the end of the move section of their stated actions I have to inform them of the enemy standing there. I usually end the player's turn right there with the player in a position to defend themselves from the new threat.

I would have allowed a player to this with respect to situation #3 had they stated as such.

Player I move feet 25 to the corner and go around 5 feet and if there is a target of opportunity I shoot it with my pistol and then drop prone facing the direction I came from. (move action, ready action as a standard action, swift action).

In this case the player's statements took into account the possibility of a threat around the corner. The player can now shoot at the threat.

I really try to keep it simple and flowing around the table. We play to tell a story, face challenges and have a good time.

Counting every blade of grass and then debating how it affects every other blade of grass just is not my cup a tea. So if we do it wrong at times we do it wrong.

The story and the entertainment provided are what's important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
I am always amazed by these debates. I must be the luckiest GM on the planet because I just don't have issues like this coming up.

Most of these sorts of things? They never come close to showing up in actual play.

But, seeing everyone else's thought process, seeing rules brought into new light, etc. does help me learn new things about the game, or correct things I've been doing wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Garretmander wrote:
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
I am always amazed by these debates. I must be the luckiest GM on the planet because I just don't have issues like this coming up.

Most of these sorts of things? They never come close to showing up in actual play.

But, seeing everyone else's thought process, seeing rules brought into new light, etc. does help me learn new things about the game, or correct things I've been doing wrong.

Quite right, this is all game theory discussion on practical applications of game mechanics as interpreted by BNW and others.

I've never had anything of the sort come up at any table I've ever been at.


Garretmander wrote:


But, seeing everyone else's thought process, seeing rules brought into new light, etc. does help me learn new things about the game, or correct things I've been doing wrong.

Of course these forums are invaluable for learning and improvement of my game for my players.

I would slightly disagree with:

Garretmander wrote:


or correct things I've been doing wrong.

There is no right or wrong at your table. There is your way of doing things verses others.


Damanta wrote:


This is what I'm trying to get across. Performance does not need declaration, but designated of action type.
It doesn't matter that at the end of the turn action economy has not been violated.
Action economy is being violated during the turn by performing a part of a full action after performing a move action.

Performance requires a designation of action type before it's done

therefore Squeaky needs to designate his action type

Squeeky has not designated his action type, which is a violation

Therefore performance requires a designation of action types before they're done.

I get that things are logical fallacies because they are common and sound convincing but you are making a declaration here, not providing evidence for a point of view.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Okay. Maybe it's my failing grasp of the English language here.

You perform action set A or instead action set B.
The way I read this does in no way allow for performing part of action set A and then part of action set B.

How is this a logical fallacy? The system gives you an or. Not a variable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BNW, do you allow a player to start moving and then part way through decide it's a charge attack?

Most people would agree no, you wouldn't do that. Now, I can't think of a reasonable scenario in which someone would even want to do that, as the requirements for charge make it very clear that you would have to be able to charge from the beginning of your turn.

But a player moving and then finding an enemy mid way along that movement doesn't mean you can convert what was a move action into something else.

You're essentially asking to execute a move action, but then turn it into something else mid way.

Everyone else is just saying, when you start moving you need to tell the table that you're Trick Attacking, or using Shot on the Run, or whatever. Because how you do it has ramifications and can prevent you from doing other things.

For instance, if you decide to move using Shot on the Run as a full action you can move up to your speed and make an attack at any point in that movement. However, since it's a full action you can't stop mid way and do other things. Like if your movement into the last of speed you had triggered a trap which created a wall that blocked sight of anyone else, you couldn't turn your Shot on the Run into 2 move actions to try to get around the wall. You would end your turn unable to take a shot because you wouldn't be able to see a target.


Damanta wrote:


How is this a logical fallacy?

Because the thing you're complaining about happening to show that it can't be that way only happens if you're right.

If you're wrong or the answer is 'I don't know' then there's no violation.

You can't show a violation to say that you're right by saying that you're right. Arguments have to proceed From A to B to C to D . At no point can you use A to get to D.

You are using A.

IF I know, never happened before but bear with me, IF I am right

Squeaky 'I'm going to ignore the last remaining mook. I'm going to come around this corner and....'

'RAAARRR Space asaurus bites your tastey face

'Gah!!!.. trick attack trick attack.l get it off meeeeee...'

You are trying to show the problem is that Squeaky left his square with a move action and thus can't trick attack. Or that squeeky MUST declare move action or trick attack at the start of the round.

But the idea that he must declare as soon as he moves is the thing you're trying to prove. YOu can't use that as evidence.

What if I don't care as long as his actions add up at the end of the round? Because I think that actions are performed and as long as the action economy adds up that's all that matters. Besides "you're wrong therefore you are wrong" where's the argument?

There's no clear declaration phase spelled out in the rules

There's no hint what you're supposed to do if you declare something and then don't want to follow through with that exact plan. How much can you change and how much are you busted?

Declaring an action type isn't going to cut down on wonkyness later.
.................SAS
________________I___I______

Squeeky___________Mook______

Now if Squeeky declares a trick attack against the mook, he can come down see the SAS (space a saurus) back in the coordoor and decide he'd rather make that flat footed instead: because his action was the rather arbitrary and meta declaration of a trick attack.

But for some reason if squeeky was only walking down the hall he can't now trick the space a saurus.

I'm aware this gets wonky in some situations. But frankly any consistent method of interrupting the turn based nature of play seems to go wonky somewhere. In order to shift from one method to the other requires a LOT of bandwith that... just doesn't seem to be worth it and doesn't seem to be spelled out in the rules.

This seems like the question and answer thing people do for knowledge checks. Its a common table practice but isn't actually the rules.


Claxon wrote:
BNW, do you allow a player to start moving and then part way through decide it's a charge attack?

In pathfinder Until the die lands yes.

In starfinder someones not going to want to charge unless they absolutely have to, so... if they have to then I know they're charging and if they don't have to I'm going to assume they don't and probably remind them that charge is a little different in starfinder....

Quote:
Everyone else is just saying, when you start moving you need to tell the table that you're Trick Attacking, or using Shot on the Run, or whatever. Because how you do it has ramifications and can prevent you from doing other things.

I get what they're saying it's just that the rules citations for it seem to be a bit lacking. And the rules for what happens when your planned action goes fubar are non existant.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Squeaky 'I'm going to ignore the last remaining mook. I'm going to come around this corner and....'

'RAAARRR Space asaurus bites your tastey face

'Gah!!!.. trick attack trick attack.l get it off meeeeee...'

I would not allow this at my table. Squeaky effectively gets briefly startled and his turn ends.

If Squeaky had stated: 'I'm going to ignore the last remaining mook. I'm going to come around this corner in trick attack mode and attack any foe around the corner!'

I would allow that.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


What if I don't care as long as his actions add up at the end of the round? Because I think that actions are performed and as long as the action economy adds up that's all that matters.

Your table your rules. I have no problem with that.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

2) You can't make an attack against something you're unaware of. An invisible creature which has been attacking you is something you aware of, even if you don't know its precise location.

This is not a rule. This is also something you're infering from.. something. Absolutely nothing prevents you from taking a Doshko and swinging it at every square on the battlemat you want even if you're just sitting in the tavern.

However, you cannot just Trick Attack every square on the battlemat, as you must have a creature to roll the skill check against.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Here's my problem:
You state: Squeaky is moving.
However moving is not an action as per the rules as they are laid down in the tactical rules section of the CRB.

The actions are Move Action, Standard Action, Swift Action (set A), or instead a Full Action (set B).

Move actions contain among others:
- Moving your speed (moving)
- Crawling (moving)
- Guarded Step (moving)

Standard actions can be used as move actions, so they can also contain moving.

Full actions have a couple of things that also including moving during the performing of them.
- Trick attack (includes moving)
- Shot on the Run (includes moving)
- Agile Casting (includes moving)
- Parting Shot (includes moving)
- Withdraw (includes moving)
- Charge (includes moving)
- Spring Attack (includes moving)
- Run (includes moving)

So if Squeaky is moving which action is it?

You check afterwards to see what action set Squeaky used and thus which moving it was, and as long as it's either set A or B it's fine with you.

I check before to see which action set is being used. This to me results in a more consistent application of the action sets as players perform either set A or set B instead of starting with something from A then finishing in B.
Because that's the way I see your description of the Trick Attack scenario; A character performs part of action set A (Move Action: Move your speed) followed by part of action set B (the rolling a check to make an enemy flatfooted to deal more damage and/or apply a condition and then rolling to see if they can land the hit part of the Full Action: Trick Attack).

In case of the spaceasaurus scenario: Squeaky would have a standard and a swift action to do something about the spaceasaurus that readied an attack against someone coming around the corner, after spaceasaurus finished their attempt at gnawing on Squeaky. Would Squeaky be performing a trick attack instead he gets to attempt to trick the spaceasaurus into taking more damage after the attempted gnawing.

Checksum result should be the same and yes, neither has explicit text in the rules to support either of us. Hence neither you nor I and the others are able to convince you or us. Most people do seem to follow the same train of thought as I do considering their posts.

As for no rules about what to do if you are doing something then it gets invalidated ... players love to use actions to invalidate monster turns. For example:
- Attack of Opportunity or Readied action to Trip a charging monster
- Readied Action to Close the door when a monster wants to shoot

If your action set gets invalidated then your turn is over. Yes, again, no explicit text in the rules anywhere, nor something I try to trick my players into. Paranoid players/characters are a pain to deal with unless the campaign supports it.

Edit: I actually try to work with the players that are less tactically inclined to give them the most beneficial course of actions, and I allow them to redo their turn or change their mind and do something else if they haven't rolled a die, as long as nothing else in the meantime has changed the current situation. For example the player who keeps forgetting to guarded step before casting. I give him some leeway in this because I know he keeps forgetting those parts of the rule. Or the player who keeps looking at me for tactical advice because she has analysis paralysis during combat if there's more than one or two enemies.

That the to be performed action is described rather than specifically called out doesn't in my mind change the fact that there are 2 sets of actions that can be performed.

As for knowledge checks: I do not allow my players questions. I give them knowledge that I deem useful for either the character rolling the knowledge check or the group they are with.

Basically this boils down to:
You have your table rules, I have my table rules and it appears that I am not solitary in this, so that's what I'm taking away from this.
Maybe we're doing logical fallacies, but they make the tactical rules make a lot more sense to me than to freely allow a character to switch from set A to B because it's more beneficial (even though we are talking about a scenario that is pretty much non-existent).

51 to 100 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / Actions in combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.