Actions in combat


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Nerdy Canuck wrote:


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

By that logic you can't because you also need some AC to roll against.

As opposed to you CAN roll the check it's just irrelevant unless there's something there (like the attack roll)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I'll move around that corner and trick attack an enemy if there's someone there".

I don't see a problem, it's within RAW. I'd allow it.

If there isn't anyone there, he just moves and that ends his turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


By that logic you can't because you also need some AC to roll against.

As opposed to you CAN roll the check it's just irrelevant unless there's something there (like the attack roll)

Agree 100%. Absolutely you can let players trick attack and or attack an empty square. They don't know if an invisible creature is there or not.

If the square is empty the player would be making a Trick Attack check verses a DC 20. I would rule that regular air is a CR 0 creature for trick attack purposes. So if they make their 20 then they can add their trick attack damage verses air (my ruling AC 0 with 0 hit points. On all but a 1 they hit the air (what to do if they roll a 1.....LOL).

As a GM I would have to describe that their successful melee weapon hit did not seem to offer any resistance of any kind or in the case of a small arms shot the fact that despite a successful hit the projectile seem to not stop until it hit the back wall or the like. Add in the lack of blood/ fluid or any sound from the successfully attacked air and I would hope that someone at my table would realize that they square in fact was empty.


The Ragi wrote:

"I'll move around that corner and trick attack an enemy if there's someone there".

I don't see a problem, it's within RAW. I'd allow it.

If there isn't anyone there, he just moves and that ends his turn.

Exactly how we play it at our table.


Damanta wrote:
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.

Wait, so they don't get to come up with any plan based on things you haven't decided are relevant?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

By that logic you can't because you also need some AC to roll against.

As opposed to you CAN roll the check it's just irrelevant unless there's something there (like the attack roll)

Please explain how you're meant to roll, say, Sense Motive (via the Detective specialization) against empty air.

Sovereign Court

Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Damanta wrote:
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.
Wait, so they don't get to come up with any plan based on things you haven't decided are relevant?

A knowledge check gives you relevant knowledge. The rules don't say anything about asking specific questions. Questions are useful if the GM isn't sure what information would be relevant to the PCs, so he can allow them to ask them. But he doesn't have to.

There's also reasons not to allow questions, or to choose some bits of information and allow questions for the remaining ones. For example, there's something really important about the monster that everyone who's heard of the monster would know, but that's rather random for players to think of asking. Like a really scare gaze attack on a monster that looks more like a melee brute. Or if an ooze would split if the PCs attack it with their usual melee weapon.

Asking questions can also take a lot of time, if you have indecisive players who go have a long conference in the middle of combat about which questions to ask.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Damanta wrote:
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.
Wait, so they don't get to come up with any plan based on things you haven't decided are relevant?

A knowledge check gives you relevant knowledge. The rules don't say anything about asking specific questions. Questions are useful if the GM isn't sure what information would be relevant to the PCs, so he can allow them to ask them. But he doesn't have to.

There's also reasons not to allow questions, or to choose some bits of information and allow questions for the remaining ones. For example, there's something really important about the monster that everyone who's heard of the monster would know, but that's rather random for players to think of asking. Like a really scare gaze attack on a monster that looks more like a melee brute. Or if an ooze would split if the PCs attack it with their usual melee weapon.

Asking questions can also take a lot of time, if you have indecisive players who go have a long conference in the middle of combat about which questions to ask.

I'm just gonna say, based on this I would not play at your table. Asking questions is how a player tells you what is relevant to what they're trying to do or figure out; deciding for them what is relevant and taking away their input on that takes away huge pieces of their agency as a player. By deciding for them what is relevant, you've decided for them what kind of plans they can so much as consider.

And there's nothing, at all, about allowing questions that prevents you from providing information beyond that which is important/valuable.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Asking questions is how a player tells you what is relevant to what they're trying to do or figure out

I'm all with Ascalaphus. Relevant means that you don't give players the ecology or general alignment of monsters, but it doesn't mean you know exactly what you really want to know. The most relevant piece of information about a medusa is it's gaze, not it's damage reduction.

I remember a fight where I forgot to roll my knowledge check, and remembered it after making the killing blow. The DM told me to ask questions, so, I asked the only useful one:
"Is there anything triggered on this monster death?
- Yes, it explodes after one round!" :D


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


Please explain how you're meant to roll, say, Sense Motive (via the Detective specialization) against empty air.

If you're rolling sense motive against empty air you've missed.

If you're rolling sense motive against an invisible creature in a square you've analyzed the room and if you were hiding somewhere inviibly your head would be right....there


SuperBidi wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Asking questions is how a player tells you what is relevant to what they're trying to do or figure out

I'm all with Ascalaphus. Relevant means that you don't give players the ecology or general alignment of monsters, but it doesn't mean you know exactly what you really want to know. The most relevant piece of information about a medusa is it's gaze, not it's damage reduction.

I remember a fight where I forgot to roll my knowledge check, and remembered it after making the killing blow. The DM told me to ask questions, so, I asked the only useful one:
"Is there anything triggered on this monster death?
- Yes, it explodes after one round!" :D

A question wouldn't be "what's it's damage reduction", but it could be "when does it sleep".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
A question wouldn't be "what's it's damage reduction", but it could be "when does it sleep".

For me, asking questions is not logical, because when you learned about the monster you did not know in what situation you'd need the knowledge. So you just get the most interesting pieces of information. You know that it turns people to stone, but don't know when it does sleep because you were not trying to kill it when acquiring information about it.

Also, we all (here) know about the Medusa's petrifying gaze, and noone knows when it sleeps. Because most documents you'll find about monsters are not manuals about how to kill them.

Sovereign Court

Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Damanta wrote:
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.
Wait, so they don't get to come up with any plan based on things you haven't decided are relevant?

A knowledge check gives you relevant knowledge. The rules don't say anything about asking specific questions. Questions are useful if the GM isn't sure what information would be relevant to the PCs, so he can allow them to ask them. But he doesn't have to.

There's also reasons not to allow questions, or to choose some bits of information and allow questions for the remaining ones. For example, there's something really important about the monster that everyone who's heard of the monster would know, but that's rather random for players to think of asking. Like a really scare gaze attack on a monster that looks more like a melee brute. Or if an ooze would split if the PCs attack it with their usual melee weapon.

Asking questions can also take a lot of time, if you have indecisive players who go have a long conference in the middle of combat about which questions to ask.

I'm just gonna say, based on this I would not play at your table. Asking questions is how a player tells you what is relevant to what they're trying to do or figure out; deciding for them what is relevant and taking away their input on that takes away huge pieces of their agency as a player. By deciding for them what is relevant, you've decided for them what kind of plans they can so much as consider.

And there's nothing, at all, about allowing questions that prevents you from providing information beyond that which is important/valuable.

I find your lack of faith disturbing :P You have to have enough trust in the people you play with that if they say they're giving you relevant information, they know what they're doing and that they're GMing in good faith.

I disagree that the GM making that decision removes agency. Agency is being able to make meaningful choices. If the players get very little relevant information because they ask the wrong questions, then they had agency in making choices maybe, but very little agency in the actual encounter.

Imagine the PCs meet a bodak. One of the most common questions I head form players is "is it vulnerable to something". Yeah, it's vulnerable to sunlight. Does it have DR, is another common question. Yes it does, cold iron, which should rarely be a problem when you're high enough level to encounter CR 8 monsters.

But the players didn't know that it has a gaze attack, and that its melee attack deals only 1d8+1 damage which is practically nothing at CR 8. So the players don't know that by closing their eyes the encounter becomes much easier.

By insisting that the players ask the questions, you've not really improved their agency because now they're missing very relevant information that would have given them tactical options.

You say that "you could give them extra information anyway" - if you're going to that, you've also nullified the importance of the players' choice of question, because you're answering the question you decided they should choose to ask.


There's always the option for the player (given the character in game isn't asking questions - it is a metagame interaction between player and DM) to ask for what the DM thinks the most important piece of information the character should know about a given monster. If they get another question, ask for what the DM thinks the second most important piece of information is and so on.

Or mix and match. Ask what the GM thinks the most important thing is first, then ask about your particular tactic (Soldier asking does it have DR?)

As noted earlier, the character isn't asking a question, they're simply recalling information. Exactly which piece is determined by the DM and the player in any way they are both comfortable with.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Once got attacked by a cloaker, which flew down from the dark shadows of the cave ceiling and enveloped one of the PCs. Upon making a high knowledge check, the GM gave us the following three pieces of "relevant" info:

1) It can fly
2) It can envelop its prey
3) It is an ambush predator the hunts in the Underdark.

All of which we knew already just by watching it for the first six seconds of the encounter!

Well no thanks. I'll be asking the questions thank-you-very-much. If I don't learn about bodak's gaze because I didn't think to ask about special attacks, then that is on me.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In my games, a successful knowledge check always gets the player the creature's proper name, physical description, and creature type and subtypes (along with knowledge on the traits inherit to that type or subtypes).

They also get to ask me one or more questions, depending on their check result (but always at least 1 on a success). The more specific the question, the more specific the answer.

For example, a possible answer to "What defenses does it have?" might be "damage reduction and spell reaistance." However, "What is its damage reduction?" would result in "DR 10/silver."


BigNorseWolf wrote:

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...

Here it is you who is begging the question. There is no place in the rules for "could have". You either perform one action or you perform the other. There is no messy declaration phase afterwards.


Ravingdork wrote:

Once got attacked by a cloaker, which flew down from the dark shadows of the cave ceiling and enveloped one of the PCs. Upon making a high knowledge check, the GM gave us the following three pieces of "relevant" info:

1) It can fly
2) It can envelop its prey
3) It is an ambush predator the hunts in the Underdark.

It makes only one relevant piece of information (the second one). So, the issue was with your DM, not about the rules.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Once got attacked by a cloaker, which flew down from the dark shadows of the cave ceiling and enveloped one of the PCs. Upon making a high knowledge check, the GM gave us the following three pieces of "relevant" info:

1) It can fly
2) It can envelop its prey
3) It is an ambush predator the hunts in the Underdark.

It makes only one relevant piece of information (the second one). So, the issue was with your DM, not about the rules.

Relevant, but in no way useful. We SAW the monster fly down and envelope our comrade. The GM basically threw away the high knowledge check by not telling us anything we didn't already know.


Ravingdork wrote:
Relevant, but in no way useful. We SAW the monster fly down and envelope our comrade. The GM basically threw away the high knowledge check by not telling us anything we didn't already know.

That's what I say, he gave you only one piece of information. The fact that the monster flies is useless, and it's ecology, too. The fact that he envelops its prey can be relevant, if he explains you a bit more about the ability. He should have given you all three special abilities of the Cloaker, and there is no way you could have had more information by asking, as it's all about the Cloaker.


I use a system where the higher you roll verses your relevant knowledge check the more information you get.

So when one of my players states "I wish to identify the creature and it attributes."

I then let them roll.

Usually it is a DC20 to get the name of the creature and fairly obvious attributes.

Every increment of 5 over gets more and more detail.


GM OfAnything wrote:


Here it is you who is begging the question. There is no place in the rules for "could have". You either perform one action or you perform the other. There is no messy declaration phase afterwards.

*begs for treat out of reflex...* ahehehem

There is no requirement to list an action type as you're doing it.

There is definitely no requirement that as the DM, I care what action type the character does as long as what they perform adds up to a legal action economy.


Yeah, that's going to be a no from almost everyone BNW.

If you move in such a way that it could be a charge, you can't decide at half way through your movement you want to stop and turn your charge into a move action and some standard action.

You charged and it used up your full action. If you decide you don't want to follow through on the charge, you lose the rest of your action, i.e. can't attack or do anything else. Because you don't have a standard action left. You used it up, even though you decided not to make the attack allowed as part of a charge.


I don't see an Add it All Up step in the rulebook anywhere. You're adding a phase where there isn't one.


GM OfAnything wrote:
I don't see an Add it All Up step in the rulebook anywhere. You're adding a phase where there isn't one.

There's no declaration phase anywhere.

There is a requirement that the actions add up.

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.

The ironic echo you're going for just isn't there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's no declaration phase anywhere.

Nice!

I roll a die, 1. Ok, this was my knowledge check.
I roll another die, 20. Ok, this was a full attack. So next attack.

Of course, there is a declaration phase. Every time you do an action you have to state what action it is. The fact that we don't state it when it's obvious doesn't remove the declaration phase when there is a doubt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Well no thanks. I'll be asking the questions thank-you-very-much. If I don't learn about bodak's gaze because I didn't think to ask about special attacks, then that is on me.

That GM is not very sporting.

I offer my players, according to what I believe is more relevant to the combat: this beast has a nasty special attack; some defenses; and a weakness. And let them choose, already aware of how I rank information.

Name and meaningless details come for free with a successful check.


yeah, unless it's Rumpelstiltskin knowing the creatures name isn't a useful piece of information.


This thread is interesting in that it shows how different groups / players interpret certain rules. If you want to get to the salient point, please skip to the final paragraph or two :)

Can I suggest that people stop trying to persuade BNW he is playing incorrectly. It should be clear by now that no matter what is suggested, he is going to stick to his guns and play they way he is currently playing.

That's fine, it shouldn’t be our job to tell him how he should play. The majority of posters here don't seem to agree with his interpretation, if we are correct or if he is correct doesn't seem to matter. Whatever counterpoint gets raised, BNW claims that in most cases there is no justification and there isn't a rule for what is suggested.

Fine. Let's just leave it at that. BNW interprets the rules in a way the majority here seem to disagree with.

Despite the fact that the rules tell us...

Page 244 CRB 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.

Note that as far as I can tell, the CRB doesn't tell us that a Full Action consists of a Standard Action, Move Action, and a Swift Action. It tells us that a Full Action is a different type of Action.

Later on we are told that..

Page 248 CRB wrote:

A full action requires your entire turn to complete. If you take a

full action, you can’t take your usual standard, move, and swift
actions. The following actions are full actions.

Again, the CRB doesn't seem to make any reference that you can swap a Full Action for the other three.

No doubt BNW will reply (or not as he seems annoyed with me, he has after all threated me with the dreaded "second strike", eek! :) ) that since it doesn't say we can't swap a Standard/Move/Swift for a Full, it therefore is allowed (or maybe that it isn’t disallowed?). Fair enough. If he wants to think that then fine. Who knows, maybe he’s right! It just seems the majority here don't agree with him.

And yes, I seem to be disregarding the suggestion I made at the start of this thread. Heh.

What I would like to do is continue the discussion on the idea that Trick Attack can be performed on an empty space.

Let’s consider the following scenario. Let’s assume it has occurred while in Initiative.

Your character has invisibility cast on them. You are moving down a corridor slowly and stealthily. Suddenly from around a nearby corner a enemy security guard appears, one that you have not seen or noticed before. He walks towards your apparently empty space and makes a few inappropriate remarks to the empty air a couple of feet away from your left ear and then randomly stabs the air around you. The GM then tells you that you’ve been Trick Attacked and have taken a boat load of damage. Do you find this OK?


SuperBidi wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's no declaration phase anywhere.

Nice!

I roll a die, 1. Ok, this was my knowledge check.
I roll another die, 20. Ok, this was a full attack. So next attack.

Of course, there is a declaration phase. Every time you do an action you have to state what action it is. The fact that we don't state it when it's obvious doesn't remove the declaration phase when there is a doubt.

The two aren't the same.

1) The action your character is doing, raising a gun and looking down the sight vs trying to place something with 6 legs and a hard carapace bigger than a bread truck on a dichotomous key are both mechanically different to the players and visibly different

2) That's still a table convention (albiet a good idea with some groups) not a rule. You absolutely can let your players do that if you want. (although after the 4th or 5th time they rolled a 2 on their knowledge check and a 19 on the attack you may want to revise the policy or color code the dice...)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
yeah, unless it's Rumpelstiltskin knowing the creatures name isn't a useful piece of information.

LOL!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
xris wrote:
Do you find this OK?

When I play FPSs and have a rocket launcher, I very often shoot at places where "there is nothing". For example, I like to shoot in front of me when I'm in a corridor, so if someone arrives at the other end, the fight starts with one rocket coming in his direction.

So, it very rarely happen for me to score a kill, but it happened. Attacking thin air is a perfectly valid move if you are in a stressfull situation.


SuperBidi wrote:
xris wrote:
Do you find this OK?
The guard made a pretty amazing Bluff check, you saw nothing, and now you're dead. Luck happens, but, in the end, invisible or not, a bullet in the head is a bullet in the head.

Actually, it was an Intimidation check but fair enough. EDIT: SuperBidi's reply changed as I was typing this post.

I don't object to the conclusion. I'm not sure as a GM I would perform such an action against a player, it seems mean to pull that out of the blue. But I actually want to hear other people's opinion on the matter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
xris wrote:
Do you find this OK?

In the way that you that you described it no.

If you had said something like: 'The guard approaches your square weapon drawn, eyes full of intent to locate the invisible interloper, but stops short, staring in your general direction, saying in a threatening voice " I know you're here and I will gut you, like a fish.", then thrusts the knife violently at your position.'

Yes I would have no issue with it as a player and would allow it as a GM.

The actions as stated clearly intends a trick attack using intimidation.

I will try it this weekend on my group and let you know how it goes.


Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
If you had said something like: 'The guard approaches your square weapon drawn, eyes full of intent to locate the invisible interloper, but stops short, staring in your general direction, saying in a threatening voice " I know you're here and I will gut you, like a fish.", then thrusts the knife violently at your position.'

You seem much better than I when it comes to describing the scene but in honesty what I was trying to describe wasn't that much different to what you described. Edit: Ah, another reply that changed before I replied. I preferred your first reply.

How about if I said
"Suddenly from around a nearby corner a enemy security guard appears, one that you have not seen or noticed before. He draws a weapon as he approaches your apparently empty space, he makes a few inappropriate derogatory remarks to the empty corridor and peers tight-eyed into the area around him. Suddenly he stabs the air around you."

I would like to point out that there wouldn't be a real reason for the security guard to think there was an invisible intruder but who knows, maybe it's in his contract that he has to make such random acts to gain a monthly bonus?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The two aren't the same.

Exactly what I want to point out. For the player, it's the same, it's rolling a die or moving on the battlemat. But for the character, it's not the same at all, he doesn't move the same way between a guarded step, a normal move, a withdraw, a charge, a run or a trick attack.


SuperBidi wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The two aren't the same.
Exactly what I want to point out. For the player, it's the same, it's rolling a die or moving on the battlemat.

Attack Roll: This represents your character’s attempt to strike another creature in combat. An attack roll is the result of a d20 roll plus your attack bonuses with your weapon, and it is compared to your target’s relevant Armor Class.

Your character is doing something vastly different

Your player is adding different numbers to the d20.

Quote:
But for the character, it's not the same at all, he doesn't move the same way between a guarded step, a normal move, a withdraw, a charge, a run or a trick attack.

agreed, disagree, agree, agree, agree, disagree. What is an operative walking to the fridge doing different from one trick attacking? It's a very weird corner case where there's no distinction.


xris wrote:
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
If you had said something like: 'The guard approaches your square weapon drawn, eyes full of intent to locate the invisible interloper, but stops short, staring in your general direction, saying in a threatening voice " I know you're here and I will gut you, like a fish.", then thrusts the knife violently at your position.'

You seem much better than I when it comes to describing the scene but in honesty what I was trying to describe wasn't that much different to what you described. Edit: Ah, another reply that changed before I replied. I preferred your first reply.

How about if I said
"Suddenly from around a nearby corner a enemy security guard appears, one that you have not seen or noticed before. He draws a weapon as he approaches your apparently empty space, he makes a few inappropriate derogatory remarks to the empty corridor and peers tight-eyed into the area around him. Suddenly he stabs the air around you."

Yes perfect. Just enough detail is needed so I as a player understand that the guard is acting aggressively and may possibly attack me.

Shame on me as a player for moving too far and not have a ready action stated.

Sorry about editing my response. I changed it to intimidate to match your earlier post.


There's really no reason to use offensive readied actions in this system


BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's really no reason to use offensive readied actions in this system

At my table offensive ready actions have proven to be used quite often.


Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's really no reason to use offensive readied actions in this system
At my table offensive ready actions have proven to be used quite often.

What BNW is getting at, is that since they resolve after the trigger they're not very good.

Like readying to trip someone if they move, doesn't actually happen until they finish moving. At which point they are probably out of your reach. Although you would still get an attack of opportunity, but you get the point.

Which does actually lead me to ask, does your group still use Pathfinder rules and have all readied actions occur before the trigger?


Claxon wrote:
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's really no reason to use offensive readied actions in this system
At my table offensive ready actions have proven to be used quite often.

What BNW is getting at, is that since they resolve after the trigger they're not very good.

Like readying to trip someone if they move, doesn't actually happen until they finish moving. At which point they are probably out of your reach. Although you would still get an attack of opportunity, but you get the point.

Which does actually lead me to ask, does your group still use Pathfinder rules and have all readied actions occur before the trigger?

No the trigger has to go first. We have always done it that way, even in Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Claxon wrote:
Which does actually lead me to ask, does your group still use Pathfinder rules and have all readied actions occur before the trigger?

It hasn't come up in play yet, but I can certainly say we would like to.

Readied actions are rather useless otherwise.

Sovereign Court

Ravingdork wrote:

Once got attacked by a cloaker, which flew down from the dark shadows of the cave ceiling and enveloped one of the PCs. Upon making a high knowledge check, the GM gave us the following three pieces of "relevant" info:

1) It can fly
2) It can envelop its prey
3) It is an ambush predator the hunts in the Underdark.

All of which we knew already just by watching it for the first six seconds of the encounter!

Well no thanks. I'll be asking the questions thank-you-very-much. If I don't learn about bodak's gaze because I didn't think to ask about special attacks, then that is on me.

You're conflating two different things:

- The GM choosing what information to give instead of letting the players ask questions
- The GM not not giving new and relevant information.

The second thing is your problem.
1) You already knew the critter flew so the GM didn't actually give you information, much less relevant information. He owes you another piece of info here.
2) If he explains that the "envelop" ability means that hitting the cloaker also deals damage to the enveloped PC, then that is indeed relevant information. Just the base "it envelops" is not new or relevant information.
3) That it hunts in the Underdark is probably not "relevant" information. Unless you're encountering it somewhere completely different, and this is a clue that there's a deeper plot going on.

A GM who's this measly with the information he chooses to give out, could have also given you useless (vague, misleading) answers to any questions you asked. "Does it have special attacks?" "Yes it does, that's one question." Or "Does it have DR?" "No" (but he doesn't say it has hardness)


Ravingdork wrote:

Readied actions are rather useless otherwise.

Very interesting. We use offensive ready actions all the time and find them invaluable.

Just some examples:

If the soldier draws his weapon I shoot him.

If the creature leaves its current position I shoot it.

If the technomancer begins to cast a spell I shoot her.

If the soldier in the building on the left exits the building via the door on the right hand side of the building I shoot him.

Once the lead vehicle of an enemy column reaches the midpoint of the bridge I detonate the explosives.

and so on...

Edit: spelling & grammer


Claxon wrote:
Like readying to trip someone if they move, doesn't actually happen until they finish moving. At which point they are probably out of your reach. Although you would still get an attack of opportunity, but you get the point.

Has this been confirmed? I'm relatively new to Starfinder (played Pathfinder a number of years ago), so I'm not familiar with previous rulings.

My understanding was non-defensive ready actions occurred immediately after the triggering event. To me, this doesn't suggest that they occur at the end of the action that triggered them , but immediately after the event.

So, as per the example on page 249, you can return a shot after you have been shot, not before. But I don't see a reason why you have to wait until the end of a move action before you can trip someone up.

If you ready an action to "trip someone up as soon as they move", then I would assume that it would trigger immediately after the move starts. This would mean that as the move started, the trip occurs. It doesn't occur when the move ends, it occurs after the event has been announced.

This interpretation seems to fix both defensive ready actions and offensive ready actions.


Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Readied actions are rather useless otherwise.

Very interesting. We use offensive ready actions all the time and find them invaluable.

Just some examples:

If the soldier draws his weapon I shoot him.

If the creature leaves his current position I shoot it.

If the technomancer begins to cast a spell I shoot her.

If the soldier in the building on the left exists the building via the door on the right hand side of the building I shoot him.

Once the lead vehicle of an enemy column reaches the midpoint of the bridge I detonate the explosives.

and so on...

I would agree, all those ready actions can occur immediately after the triggering event. The rules don't say the they occur after the triggering action, they say they occur after the triggering event.


xris wrote:
Your character has invisibility cast on them. You are moving down a corridor slowly and stealthily. Suddenly from around a nearby corner a enemy security guard appears, one that you have not seen or noticed before. He walks towards your apparently empty space and makes a few inappropriate remarks to the empty air a couple of feet away from your left ear and then randomly stabs the air around you. The GM then tells you that you’ve been Trick Attacked and have taken a boat load of damage. Do you find this OK?

Sure. It means you were detected and didn't realize it.

The guard also has to roll a total concealment check, unless he has blindsight.


The Ragi wrote:
xris wrote:
Your character has invisibility cast on them. You are moving down a corridor slowly and stealthily. Suddenly from around a nearby corner a enemy security guard appears, one that you have not seen or noticed before. He walks towards your apparently empty space and makes a few inappropriate remarks to the empty air a couple of feet away from your left ear and then randomly stabs the air around you. The GM then tells you that you’ve been Trick Attacked and have taken a boat load of damage. Do you find this OK?

Sure. It means you were detected and didn't realize it.

The guard also has to roll a total concealment check, unless he has blindsight.

The GM would have included a total concealment check as part of the sequence of rolls the guard would need to make. Certainly.

As to the fact your character had been detected. No.
True, he might have been, but it's not a requirement for that event to have played out that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
xris wrote:
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Readied actions are rather useless otherwise.

Very interesting. We use offensive ready actions all the time and find them invaluable.

Just some examples:

If the soldier draws his weapon I shoot him.

If the creature leaves his current position I shoot it.

If the technomancer begins to cast a spell I shoot her.

If the soldier in the building on the left exists the building via the door on the right hand side of the building I shoot him.

Once the lead vehicle of an enemy column reaches the midpoint of the bridge I detonate the explosives.

and so on...

I would agree, all those ready actions can occur immediately after the triggering event. The rules don't say the they occur after the triggering action, they say they occur after the triggering event.

The game proceeds on an action within turn basis. It introduces chaos (and ignores the clear intent behind the "offensive readied actions happen after the triggering even") if you try to slice stuff like this.

I'd let you shoot the soldier after he draws his weapon (action complete) and before his next action (which is probably to attack you). That seems a reasonable use of a readied action.

I'd allow you to shoot the creature who moved when it's movement completed. This might let you beat an attack following that movement, and so could be useful.

The technomancer one is where you don't get what you want. He completes casting the spell, then you shoot him. This is exactly what the rules want to happen and is why concentration checks were removed in the port from Pathfinder to Starfinder. Stopping spells via readied attacks isn't a thing, only AOOs.

The Soldier exiting example is fine.

The vehicle would complete it's movement that took it up to or past the bridge midpoint before you could detonate.


Xenocrat wrote:
The game proceeds on an action within turn basis. It introduces chaos (and ignores the clear intent behind the "offensive readied actions happen after the triggering even") if you try to slice stuff like this.

But doesn't the game already slice things like this? Shot on the Run, Parting Shot feats?

Xenocrat wrote:
The technomancer one is where you don't get what you want. He completes casting the spell, then you shoot him. This is exactly what the rules want to happen and is why concentration checks were removed in the port from Pathfinder to Starfinder. Stopping spells via readied attacks isn't a thing, only AOOs.

But the triggering event is that the technomancer starts to wiggle his fingers.

But fair enough!

I will plan to house rule such triggers are triggered by events, not actions.

101 to 150 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.