| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Does an operative need to see their target at the start of the round to trick attack them?
Argument Yes: The trick attack is a full round action. You have to be able to do a full round action for the entire round
Argument No. The trick attack is a compound action and one of the parts is moving. The attack occurs at a specified point, after the move. If the trick attack had a limitation it would say so.
(Full disclaimer i'm a strong no on this one)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quoted from the Operative Class description, but broken up into steps:
1) As a full action, you can move up to your speed.
2) Whether or not you moved, you can then make an attack
3) Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth check (or a check associated with your specialization)
So you start by declaring that you're spending a full action doing a Trick Attack. Next, you move. Then, you roll your skill check. Finally, you attack.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Compare Trick Attack to Charging:
Charge
Charging is a full action that allows you to move up to double your speed and make a melee attack at the end of the movement. You can draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
Charging carries tight restrictions on how you can move. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares), and all movement must be directly toward the designated opponent, though diagonal movement is allowed. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and you must move to the space closest to your starting square from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or blocked, you can’t charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement (such as difficult terrain), or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge.
You can still move through helpless creatures during a charge.
If you don’t have line of sight (see page 271) to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent.
Trick attack has no clause about line of sight to an opponent in it. And also:
Uncanny Mobility (Ex)
When you make a trick attack, if you choose the target of your attack before you move, your movement doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that target. When you use your standard action to move, you can choose one creature; you don’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that creature for this movement.
This makes it clear you don't have to an particular opponent when you begin the movement part of your trick attack.
And trick attack says:
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.
"You can"; not "you must". The rules don't force you to designate an enemy when you begin the trick attack, and after you've done the first part of the trick attack (the optional movement), you don't have to make an attack.
So I don't think you need to have any enemy in sight to make a trick attack, and also, if you want to declare a trick attack and just not move and make any attack, just do nothing, that's an allowed way to spend a full action.
Do you need to know there’s someone there?
Can I declare a trick attack, move around a corner into an unexplored room (maybe I suspect there’ll be a guard post or something) and then make my skill roll and attack if there’s anything I want to shoot at?
This makes it clear you don't have to an particular opponent when you begin the movement part of your trick attack.Uncanny Mobility (Ex)
When you make a trick attack, if you choose the target of your attack before you move, your movement doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that target. When you use your standard action to move, you can choose one creature; you don’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that creature for this movement.
This was the nail in the coffin in our group for those who believed you had to designate a target as soon as you declared a trick attack.
There didn’t seem any situation where you wouldn’t meet the precondition of this feat, unless the designers anticipated you not being able to see the target at the start of your turn.
There didn’t seem any situation where you wouldn’t meet the precondition of this feat, unless the designers anticipated you not being able to see the target at the start of your turn.
As much as I agree with the conclusion. I think the choose your target clause is written to avoid this
Operative runs past giant crab monsters 1 and 2 to hit giant grab monster number 3 in order to focus fire and bring him down.
Giant crab monster 1 makes an AOO by rolling a 1, crab monster 2 rolls a nat 20. Operative decides they'd like to be all uncannily mobile and sneak attack 2 instead.
There didn’t seem any situation where you wouldn’t meet the precondition of this feat, unless the designers anticipated you not being able to see the target at the start of your turn.
As much as I agree with the conclusion. I think the choose your target clause is written to avoid this
Operative runs past giant crab monsters 1 and 2 to hit giant grab monster number 3 in order to focus fire and bring him down.
Giant crab monster 1 makes an AOO by rolling a 1, crab monster 2 rolls a nat 20. Operative decides they'd like to be all uncannily mobile and sneak attack 2 instead.
You were a little too succinct for me there I didnt get what you meant.
In no interpretation did we think you can wait to see what the enemy rolled before you decide if they're able to make that attack against you.
You were a little too succinct for me there I didnt get what you meant.In no interpretation did we think you can wait to see what the enemy rolled before you decide if they're able to make that attack against you.
But what if the exploit read
When you make a trick attack your movement doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity from the target of your trick attack.
Then it could be read that way, or at least lead to an argument about who didn't get to AOO you this round, crab monster 1 or crab monster 2.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. To be clear, are you saying that Uncanny Mobility proves you don't need to have line of sight to the target of your Trick Attack?
It proves that you don't have to have to choose a target to attack until you decide to make an attack roll, possibly after your movement.
The situation you've outlined is the 'typical' use for uncanny mobility, but it also shows that the full action trick attack is:
Move.
Now that you're done moving, select a target, attempt your skill check and then make an attack roll.
So, you don't need line of sight to your target at the start of your turn, but you need line of sight after you've moved.
This makes it clear you don't have to an particular opponent when you begin the movement part of your trick attack.Uncanny Mobility (Ex)
When you make a trick attack, if you choose the target of your attack before you move, your movement doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that target. When you use your standard action to move, you can choose one creature; you don’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that creature for this movement.This was the nail in the coffin in our group for those who believed you had to designate a target as soon as you declared a trick attack.
There didn’t seem any situation where you wouldn’t meet the precondition of this feat, unless the designers anticipated you not being able to see the target at the start of your turn.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. To be clear, are you saying that Uncanny Mobility proves you don't need to have line of sight to the target of your Trick Attack?
What about the situation where the Operative starts his turn adjacent to the target? The Operative wants to move away from the target and then use his small arm for a ranged (trick) attack. Since Uncanny Mobility allows the Operative to choose his target before movement, then it means he can move away without provoking an attack of opportunity from the target.
Or did I misunderstand the point you are making?
It wasn’t really my point, but it wasn’t related to people avoiding Opportunity attacks from their target. That’s a given.
The holdouts at our table (who were adamant that you define all aspects of an action when you declare it, therefore you had to pick your target at the start of your turn) conceded that, given this wording, you’re clearly allowed to declare your target after you’ve moved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to argue in this thread BNW, because you already know where I stand.
But I'm curious, what made you want to rehash this argument?
Operative runs past giant crab monsters 1 and 2 to hit giant grab monster number 3 in order to focus fire and bring him down.
Giant crab monster 1 makes an AOO by rolling a 1, crab monster 2 rolls a nat 20. Operative decides they'd like to be all uncannily mobile and sneak attack 2 instead.
In no shape manner or form would you be allowed to do this at my table.
Assuming a crab with a 5 foot reach here. You do not get opp attacked until you leave the threatened square, so you are heading toward crab 3 when crab 2 nails you in the back.
You are getting hit for a critical by crab 2, period end of story. I might allow you to alter your move at this point (if the critical effect does not change it for you).
At my table you will live with the consequences of a dubious action decision. (Yes I am stating running through the first two crabs to get to the third is dubious).
As for the original question.
In my game no, you do not have to see the target to make a trick attack, but you do have to have an idea of a target.
I will allow: "I trick attack the invisible guy in the back of the room"
or "I move around the corner with the intent of trick attacking any enemies in the hall"
My game works on this very simple premise.
1: You decide what you want to do.
2: You tell me what and how you are going to do what you want to do.
3: We execute your turn based on what you told me you were doing.
4: You reap the reward or suffer the consequences of you actions.
I just want to point out that, during the various incarnations of this debate, I've been unable to find a rule that says you declare your actions before you take them.
You don't necessarily need to declare your actions before you take them, but you definitely must declare your actions as you take them.
In no shape manner or form would you be allowed to do this at my table.
Nor at mine. Note the context.
But what if the exploit lacked the choosing the target clause
Steve Geddes thinks the clause disproves needing to start the trick attack with LOS to the target. I think it's there to avoid having an argument about which space crab gets to hit you. IE, it serves a purpose even if you need LOS to the trick attack target.
I'm not going to argue in this thread BNW, because you already know where I stand.
But I'm curious, what made you want to rehash this argument?
1) FAQ bait. They prefer the question be straight up the first question in the thread right at the top, not burried under 3 miles of back and forth.
2) It came up at a convention so it's not JUST you doing that.
In no shape manner or form would you be allowed to do this at my table.
Nor at mine. Note the context.
But what if the exploit lacked the choosing the target clause
Steve Geddes thinks the clause disproves needing to start the trick attack with LOS to the target. I think it's there to avoid having an argument about which space crab gets to hit you. IE, it serves a purpose even if you need LOS to the trick attack target.
Reading is a skill. Missed the context part. My bad.
Reading is a skill. Missed the context part. My bad.
Happens. Some of these conversations need a yarn conspiracy board.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The exploit says "When you make a trick attack, if you choose the target of your attack before you move".
1) This implies that you can also not choose the target of your attack before you move.
2) You can't conveniently decide to avoid AoOs from a particular enemy in the middle of the move, because you had to have made that choice before you started movement. So the whole crab story doesn't fly.
If you don't have to choose targets at the beginning of your turn, I don't think you have to have line of sight to any (potential) targets either.
There's also nothing in the rules that says a blind operative can't trick attack, or that you can't trick attack invisible enemies.
I'm not going to argue in this thread BNW, because you already know where I stand.
But I'm curious, what made you want to rehash this argument?
1) FAQ bait. They prefer the question be straight up the first question in the thread right at the top, not burried under 3 miles of back and forth.
2) It came up at a convention so it's not JUST you doing that.
I feel slightly insulted at your point 2, but moving past that I understand since this seems to be something coming up in standardized play format that you would want to nail down exactly how it functions.
And yes, it is easier to get an FAQ if the first post has the question clearly stated.
To summarize my point where this was previously discussed (but I myself am hoping not to be drawn into this argument):
In my opinion Trick Attack requires awareness of (but not necessarily sight of) a specific enemy to be used. So you would be unable to perform a trick attack without being aware of any enemies.
Normally such a thing wouldn't come up, unless a player wants to try to metagame the turn based system by saying they move by Trick Attacking everywhere just in case there's an unknown enemy that reveals itself.
The exploit says "When you make a trick attack, if you choose the target of your attack before you move".
Right. And with that rule there you definitely can't decide Critty Crab number 2 can't hit you as he whacks you.
But without that rule there you could try to argue it. That's why I think that clause is there. While i agree with the conclusion that you can trick attack someone you can't see at the start of the round I disagree how good of an argument that clause makes for that conclusion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The charge action is very explicit about needing to designate a target at the beginning. Trick attack says nothing of the sort.
I see nothing in the rules that prevents you from trick attack moving around a corner on the off chance there's something there. And I'm just not accepting the premise that it would be some kind of awful metagame thing to do.
If you're not already in combat, then it doesn't matter because the initiative roll would break up your action so you've gained nothing.
If the GM won't let you go out of initiative when there's no more enemies in sight, then you're already "metagaming" by taking combat style turn based actions. Except the GM is the one forcing you to metagame. So I guess your character hears that the combat soundtrack is still playing.
If the GM wants the players to treat the monster around the combat as a new and separate combat, then so should he. Go out of initiative, check for surprise and start a new combat when the players turn the corner. If you don't go out of initiative, don't complain if the players act like there's still danger around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point all FAQ optimization strategies are indistinguishable from cargo cults.
|
|
I've been unable to find a rule that says you declare your actions before you take them.
Core Rulebook, Page 244:
"An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform within the framework of a 6-second combat round. There are five types of actions: standard actions, move actions, swift actions, full actions, and reactions.
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 colloquial nickname for this is "action economy", meaning your round has a budget of action types you can spend.
In the specific example of a Trick Attack, which is a Full Action, you wouldn't have a move action left to do anything else (except a free action, like drop your weapon). If you spent a move action to move around a corner, thus granting you line of sight to an enemy, you couldn't then declare a Trick Attack.
Exception: if you were a Skittermander, which 1/day can gain a bonus move action, you could first spend your normal move action to move around a corner, then declare you're using your Skittermander racial ability, and combine that bonus move action with your remaining standard and swift to perform a full action.
(there are probably a couple other corner case exceptions as well)
It's a slightly separate issue, and I don't want to clog up this threads narrow issue with that threads deep dive into the rules. But your actions being budgeted works with your action limit whether they're declared before/while/ or after doing them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. Didn't realize there was another thread.
Regardless of whether your GM asks you to formally "declare" your actions ahead of time, or whatever, what you definitely could not do would be spend your move action to move around a corner, see an enemy, and then change your mind and do a full action trick attack.
Similarly, if you miss with a single attack against an adjacent enemy, you couldn't then change your mind to perform a full attack.
(there are lots of full actions that combine minor actions; you could not piece apart any of them in this manner)
This, I agree with 100%.Ah. Didn't realize there was another thread.
Regardless of whether your GM asks you to formally "declare" your actions ahead of time, or whatever, what you definitely could not do would be spend your move action to move around a corner, see an enemy, and then change your mind and do a full action trick attack.
Similarly, if you miss with a single attack against an adjacent enemy, you couldn't then change your mind to perform a full attack.
(there are lots of full actions that combine minor actions; you could not piece apart any of them in this manner)
The problem is that if you don't have to declare your action as you're taking it (which is essentially before) then you can just say you always intended to trick attack. And no one, except you, would know otherwise.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Oh, yeah, that I would have a problem with.
Regarding this thread, and the question asked in the OP, I would have worded it this way:
"Can an Operative who has just moved up to their speed then perform a Trick Attack? Or must the full action Trick Attack be announced before they move?"
If that question were FAQ'd, I would hope the answer sided with the second half.
Oh, yeah, that I would have a problem with.
Regarding this thread, and the question asked in the OP, I would have worded it this way:
"Can an Operative who has just moved up to their speed then perform a Trick Attack? Or must the full action Trick Attack be announced before they move?"
Yeah, that's what the OP is really asking.
No, that was the old thread.
This thread is: 'Can an operative declare a trick attack, move, then make the skill check and attack roll against a target they weren't aware of before moving.'
None of that turn a movement into a full action bit that was a part of the other thread.
I'm pretty sure the answer to this thread's question is yes.
I let my player operatives absolutely state.
"I move around the corner with the intent of trick attacking any enemy that I see."
or
"I move to the back corner of the room and trick attack the square where the technomancer just went invisible"
This is perfectly valid to me, even though they cannot see a target at the beginning of their turn. Just the knowledge of their may be a threat is enough for me.
Reasons being the following reasons.
1: Maybe in the previous round the enemy ran around the corner.
2: Maybe in previous rounds enemies have come around that corner towards the players.
3: I saw the technomancher in the back corner go invisible.
4: maybe their is a new visual hindrance like smoke that has appeared on battlefield now obscuring the operative's vision and the target they he knows is there.
If my players are wrong about the enemy around the corner then they don't make an attack. Trick attack states you may make an attack.
If my players are wrong about the invisible technomancher then they swing/shoot at air.
I don't think anyone is trying to be vitriolic, at least not in this thread and at least not yet.
And I actually think I still haven't crossed the line into argument. My previous post was to (in my opinion) clarify what was being stated and understood. Though I could see where I might cross the line. Obviously I am following this thread because the topic interests me. But I guess I'm about to cross into argument anyway...so....
I don't think any game has ever explicitly stated you need to state your actions prior to performing them, and that you only need to account for what was done at the end of the turn to ensure you didn't violate action economy.
But I do think there is a strong argument to be made that its a built in assumption of the game, much like the "two hands of effort" ruling or the "magic is super obvious" ruling. The dev team may have never thought it needed to be written down because they never imagined you might not do it that way. The specific issue of defining how you spend your actions is however a separate topic form the specific topic of this thread.
And the ruling for that wouldn't also answer this question so the debate on this is still...valuable. Maybe. I'm not sure on that. Time will tell I guess.
|
|
No vitriol here, but I personally equate the "piecing apart" of a full action and the "only you know what you're doing" behavior to my all-too-often observation of players who roll their dice before deciding what they do for their turn.
I call it "cheating".
When I give my GM spiel before a game at a Convention I ask players to roll their dice out in the open for everyone to see, and if they fall back into their habits of rolling dice behind objects or literally covering them up with their hands, I call them on it.
I guess maybe I should add "you must declare your actions" to my ever-increasing list of ways to get everyone on the same page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is: 'Can an operative declare a trick attack, move, then make the skill check and attack roll against a target they weren't aware of before moving.'
I'm pretty sure the answer to this thread's question is yes.
Okay, I would agree with that.
This example seems okay to me
Player: I move forward 30' toward that mook as part of a trick attack
GM: Okay, when you come around those boxes, you see a another baddie who was hiding behind them.
Player: I choose to attack the other baddie
*rolls dice*
I'm pretty sure the answer to this thread's question is yes.Can you elaborate why?
I am pretty solidly in the "no" camp, for many of the reasons stated, but am open to changing my mind.
The bolded parts of the below quotes, especially the period after 'you can move up to your speed.'
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.
Uncanny Mobility (Ex)
When you make a trick attack, if you choose the target of your attack before you move, your movement doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that target. When you use your standard action to move, you can choose one creature; you don’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that creature for this movement.
You're still taking a full action to trick attack no matter what, but the trick attack is broken down into multiple parts resolved separately, just like a full attack, but unlike a charge.
Yeah, that's what the OP is really asking.
No actually, I'm not. I'm really asking the question I'm really asking. I hate doing otherwise, hate when others do otherwise, and do not like the implication there.
I've seen a few DMs online and one in person say that you cannot trick attack someone you didn't have LOS to at the start of the round. Even if you knew they were there. Including things that shot at you and hid behind walls.
If the operative needs LOS to trick attack at the start of the round that would obviously answer the question of moving up to attack something they didn't even know was there. If the operative doesn't need LOS that still wouldn't mean that my Schrodinger's operative interpretation would drop out of that ruling
The exact situation I'm asking about, as it happened online and in conventions.
Evil Space squids are heard talking around the corner.
DM ruling: you don't have line of sight to them so you can't trick attack them, trick attack is a full round action so if you can't attack at the start, you can't trick attack them at all.
Space squids come out and shoot for a few rounds, some move behind walls.
DM ruling: you don't have line of sight to them so you can't trick attack them, trick attack is a full round action so if you can't attack at the start, you can't trick attack them at all.
_W___O
SW
_W
O= operative
S= Space squid
W= wall
This is NOT the deep dive into the rules weirdness and schrodingers operative we were doing last week. Not trying to trick the developers into signing off on something (although a no answer would answer no for that. A yes answer would not answer it at all)
I'm asking exactly what's in the thread title, and exactly what's in the original post.
I think I may have reversed my no and yes in the last post...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The exact situation I'm asking about, as it happened online and in conventions.
Evil Space squids are heard talking around the corner.
DM ruling: you don't have line of sight to them so you can't trick attack them, trick attack is a full round action so if you can't attack at the start, you can't trick attack them at all.
Space squids come out and shoot for a few rounds, some move behind walls.
DM ruling: you don't have line of sight to them so you can't trick attack them, trick attack is a full round action so if you can't attack at the start, you can't trick attack them at all.
_W___O
SW
_WO= operative
S= Space squid
W= wallThis is NOT the deep dive into the rules weirdness and schrodingers operative we were doing last week. Not trying to trick the developers into signing off on something (although a no answer would answer no for that. A yes answer would not answer it at all)
I'm asking exactly what's in the thread title, and exactly what's in the original post.
Again at my table, in this scenario you may attack the Space Squid all day long.
1: Do you have an idea where the threat is? = yes
2: Is he within a full movement (as best the player knows)? = yes
3: Do you have a operative weapon or small arm in hand (cause you can't draw one during a trick attack)? = yes
4: Can he be trick attacked? = yes
All the operative has to state (at my table anyway).
"I move around the corner in trick attack mode and attack the squid." 100% within the rules.
Now if it turns out that the space squid is 65 feet away and your full move is 60 feet, then you cannot attack the space squid with an operative weapon but if you had the small arm in hand at the start of the turn then please make your trick attack roll and roll to hit.
Seems simple enough to me.
I think the answer is no, an operative declaring a trick attack at the beginning of their turn doesn't need to see (and maybe not be aware of) an enemy, they can move and then shoot once they have line of sight.
Ruling otherwise would do a lot of damage to the Shot on the Run feat for a Trick Attack vs. a standard move and attack, which I can't believe is the intent.
In no shape manner or form would you be allowed to do this at my table.
Nor at mine. Note the context.
But what if the exploit lacked the choosing the target clause
Steve Geddes thinks the clause disproves needing to start the trick attack with LOS to the target. I think it's there to avoid having an argument about which space crab gets to hit you. IE, it serves a purpose even if you need LOS to the trick attack target.
It’s not strictly important, but to be clear I don’t think it disproves this.
I am in the camp that says you can trick attack even if you can’t see your target (I think of it more as a “stance” or “fighting style” rather than a “backstab” or “sneak attack” to use analogies from other games).
We had a group who were of the “choosing an action includes stipulating all components of that action at the outset” camp. The wording of that clause persuaded them that their reasoning was wrong (clearly it is possible to choose your target after moving, nullifying the root of their objection).
It’s definitely not a proof, more evidence against - same way Mozart’s music doesn’t disprove solipsism but does tend to make people discard it.