Telekinetic Projectile for Harrying / Covering Fire?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

The subject sort of says it all, here. Because this spell makes "a ranged attack," can the caster choose to try and perform either harrying or covering fire rather than dealing damage with the spell?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.


would seem to work

Can't see why not. You could do the same thing with a cheap laser pistol


Strictly speaking, no; covering fire and harrying fire are seperate actions from an attack. Entirely reasonable as a ruling to permit it, though.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Strictly speaking, no; covering fire and harrying fire are seperate actions from an attack. Entirely reasonable as a ruling to permit it, though.

Yeah, weirdly you are actually using your standard action to 'cast a spell' which is exclusive with the standard action harrying fire/covering fire.

I don't think there's a GM that would disallow it in play though.


Garretmander wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Strictly speaking, no; covering fire and harrying fire are seperate actions from an attack. Entirely reasonable as a ruling to permit it, though.

Yeah, weirdly you are actually using your standard action to 'cast a spell' which is exclusive with the standard action harrying fire/covering fire.

I don't think there's a GM that would disallow it in play though.

Yeah, it's not one of the more important "actions with attack rolls are not interchangeable" cases (see combat maneuvers and attacks of opportunity for one of the important ones).


Starfinder Superscriber

There have been valid arguments against it, discussed in This Thread, but I am of the opinion that it works.


pithica42 wrote:
There have been valid arguments against it, discussed in This Thread, but I am of the opinion that it works.

By RAW, it does not - for the same reason that an Attack of Opportunity does not permit a Combat Maneuver. But it is a pretty harmless ruling to allow it.


Starfinder Superscriber

I disagree, for reasons I've already been over in that other thread.


After reading everything I say I have to agree with NC on this one.

By RAW you cannot do it, but it makes sense to house rule it in.

And to muddy the waters a bit would you allow a caster to do this with magic missile?


pithica42 wrote:
I disagree, for reasons I've already been over in that other thread.

What makes this different from using an Attack of Opportunity to use a Combat Maneuver?


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
pithica42 wrote:
I disagree, for reasons I've already been over in that other thread.
What makes this different from using an Attack of Opportunity to use a Combat Maneuver?

Allowing trip as a combat manuever and absolutely brutal to characters trying to move around vs people with reach. It would change the game a fair bit, especially fights with large monsters with reach and enough hit to spare.

If someone can't harrying fire with their free 1d3 magic ray they just... use their .1 credit per charge laser pistol. Pew pew.


If the ruling for Telekinetic Projectile is that it does work as covering/harrying fire, I assume that it would work for Energy Ray too.

Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
And to muddy the waters a bit would you allow a caster to do this with magic missile?

As long as you can explain how you can fire off a magic missile and don't manage to actually hit the target with it.


Starfinder Superscriber
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
And to muddy the waters a bit would you allow a caster to do this with magic missile?

As explained in the thread I linked. No.

Magic Missile isn't a ranged attack and therefore in no way could work for harrying/covering fire.

Ranged Attack has a definition in the rules. Spells like TkP qualify. Spells like Magic Missile do not. Covering/Harrying Fire require ranged attacks.


breithauptclan wrote:

If the ruling for Telekinetic Projectile is that it does work as covering/harrying fire, I assume that it would work for Energy Ray too.

Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
And to muddy the waters a bit would you allow a caster to do this with magic missile?
As long as you can explain how you can fire off a magic missile and don't manage to actually hit the target with it.

I guess not since the target requirement is creatures.


Reading the thread you've linked I still have to disagree.

Performing a ranged attack with a weapon is a small part of many other actions (attack, full attack, harrying/covering fire, mechanics overcharge iirc).

Casting a spell that then allows you to make a ranged attack can't be combined with those actions. Mostly because casting takes a standard action, and harrying takes a standard action, you don't get two of those in a turn.

Again, I would allow it at my table, but it is not RAW.


Starfinder Superscriber
Garretmander wrote:


Performing a ranged attack with a weapon is a small part of many other actions (attack, full attack, harrying/covering fire, mechanics overcharge iirc).

Casting a spell that then allows you to make a ranged attack can't be combined with those actions. Mostly because casting takes a standard action, and harrying takes a standard action, you don't get two of those in a turn.

Except that,

A- There are plenty of Ranged Attacks with weapons that cannot be part of full attacks or other actions but can be used for Harrying Fire. (See unwieldy weapons)

B- There are ways to combine standard action spell casting into weapon attacks even though both require a standard action. (See Spell Shot)

C- Firing a weapon (making a Ranged attack) and using Harrying Fire both take a standard action, and by your own ruling this would mean you can't do both because you don't get two standards.


I'm also of the mind that this is a houserule.

A & B: Unweildy weapons and Spell Shot are both specific rules that change or override the general rules.

C: Firing a weapon is not actually the action taken. It is an event that is caused by an action that is taken. A standard action attack allows you to make an attack roll with your weapon. Harrying fire also allows you to make an attack roll with your weapon. So don't make the equivalence that firing a weapon is the same as making a ranged attack.

------

For a thematic or cinematic reason why not to allow this: Covering fire would be described as readying a weapon and preparing to shoot at anyone who starts to attack your friend. Once someone starts to attack, you then fire your weapon at them - making them spend a bit more time considering their own mortality and a bit less time lining up the perfect shot. For point and click weapons like pistols, that works fine. But for a spell that has a bit more preparation time, that wouldn't work.

Now, certainly that isn't the only way to describe covering fire or harrying fire (or even spells) cinematically. But it is one way that is consistent with the rules as written and would make the houserule of using spells to provide covering fire less reasonable.


When you cast magic missile at what point do you make an attack roll to hit or miss AC 15?


Eh, a closer example:

Would you allow someone to attempt harrying fire with disintegrate?

Sadly, the text for harrying fire and covering fire is that they are standard actions by themselves.

You can't replace any ol' attack roll with harrying fire. You can't full attack to harry two targets without some other ability.


Starfinder Superscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
C: Firing a weapon is not actually the action taken. It is an event that is caused by an action that is taken. A standard action attack allows you to make an attack roll with your weapon. Harrying fire also allows you to make an attack roll with your weapon. So don't make the equivalence that firing a weapon is the same as making a ranged attack.

No where in Harrying or Covering fire does it say, "with your weapon".

Here are the appropriate lines:

Covering Fire wrote:
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that provides covering fire for an ally.
Harrying Fire wrote:
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that distracts a foe in your line of effect.
Telekinetic Projectile wrote:
You fling an object weighing up to 5 pounds (less than 1 bulk) at the target, making a ranged attack against its KAC.
Energy Ray wrote:
You fire a ray at the target, and you must make a ranged attack against its EAC.

TkP and Energy Ray (and honestly, yes, several other spells) are ranged attacks. They say so right in the description, and can therefore be treated as such for things that include 'making a ranged attack' unless that thing explicitly says 'with weapons' or indicates in some other way that spells can't be used.

Quote:
For point and click weapons like pistols, that works fine. But for a spell that has a bit more preparation time, that wouldn't work.

Pistols are not 'point and click' weapons. There's a reason you can normally only fire them once or twice (with a massive penalty) in a 6 second round. Casting a spell requires no more preparation (in game terms, they're both standard actions) than firing a pistol accurately.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pithica42 wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
C: Firing a weapon is not actually the action taken. It is an event that is caused by an action that is taken. A standard action attack allows you to make an attack roll with your weapon. Harrying fire also allows you to make an attack roll with your weapon. So don't make the equivalence that firing a weapon is the same as making a ranged attack.
No where in Harrying or Covering fire does it say, "with your weapon".

You don't need a weapon to perform those actions, I agree. You still can't take two standard actions in a turn. Harrying/covering fire is not a form of ranged attack, it is a form of standard action, just like the spell telekinetic projectile. They are mutually exclusive.

Covering Fire wrote:
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that provides covering fire for an ally.
Harrying Fire wrote:
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that distracts a foe in your line of effect.
Telekinetic Projectile wrote:
Casting time 1 standard action
Energy Ray wrote:
Casting time 1 standard action

Spells that allow ranged attack are (typically) standard actions that include a ranged attack roll.

Harrying/covering fire is a standard action that includes a ranged attack roll.

Casting these spells is standard action. Harrying fire is a standard action. You cannot do both in the same turn.

You can't full attack with energy ray. You can't shot on the run with telekinetic projectile. (you have to use agile casting)


Starfinder Superscriber

Full attack specifies that it only works on weapon attacks, so does shot on the run. They aren't good examples for comparing with Harrying/Covering fire, because in both cases, it's clear in the text that they only work on weapon attacks (and in both cases, only weapons with or without specific properties). I contend that if Harrying/Covering fire were meant to only work with weapon attacks, the word 'weapon' seems easy enough to add to 'make a ranged attack'.

Harrying/Covering fire is a standard action that includes the standard action normally required to make an attack. The standard spent to 'Harry' or 'Cover' includes the standard normally spent to attack. The standard action spent casting the spell is a standard action used to make a ranged attack, so it, too, would be consumed by the standard action you spend with harrying fire.

You aren't doing two standard actions, you have a specific rule about a type of standard action consuming another type of standard action to create a different result. Just like you do with a dozen other examples in the game of one action consuming/including another, some of which explicitly only work with spells (spellshot), others with weapons (overcharge), and some (like this) with both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rereading 'ranged attack':

Ranged attack, pg 240 CRB wrote:

When making a ranged attack, you use a ranged weapon to shoot

at an opponent from a distance.

You technically do need a weapon to perform a ranged attack.

pithica42 wrote:
Harrying/Covering fire is a standard action that includes the standard action normally required to make an attack. The standard spent to 'Harry' or 'Cover' includes the standard normally spent to attack. The standard action spent casting the spell is a standard action used to make a ranged attack, so it, too, would be consumed by the standard action you spend with harrying fire.

No. An attack roll is not an action. It is part of another action, such as: attack, full attack, covering fire, some spells, spellshot, overcharge, attacks of opportunity, etc.

The standard action to make a ranged attack includes a ranged attack roll against the opponent's AC.

The standard action to provide covering fire does not include the standard action to attack. It includes a ranged attack roll against AC 15.

Casting telekinetic projectile is a standard action to cast a spell targeting an object. The spell effect allows you to make an attack roll.

Covering fire is a different standard action than the standard action to attack. They both include attack rolls, one action does not consist of the other. Casting the spell in question is a third, entirely different, standard action that also happens to involve a ranged attack roll.


Harrying/Covering not working with TkP and other spells is not the same as saying it only works with weapons.

It's about action types, not attack types.

You can't stack casting Supercharge Weapon with making an attack with that weapon, because they are both standard actions.

The Overcharge mechanic trick specifically includes an attack with the weapon, you are not taking two standard actions, you are making an attack as part of the standard action.


Starfinder Superscriber
Garretmander wrote:
You technically do need a weapon to perform a ranged attack.

As was already gone over in the other thread I linked, the specific text of the spells and the section on spellcasting both override that rule. You quoted that section from spellcasting yourself.

Quote:
No. An attack roll is not an action.

I didn't say it was. I said an ATTACK was an action, which you yourself say in the next sentence.

Quote:
Casting telekinetic projectile is a standard action to cast a spell targeting an object. The spell effect allows you to make an attack roll.

Correction, it allows you to make a ranged attack. It says so, right in the text I've already quoted. A ranged attack is it's own thing, defined under the rules, and is all that is required for Harrying Fire and/or Covering fire to be applicable.

Quote:
Covering fire is a different standard action than the standard action to attack. They both include attack rolls, one action does not consist of the other. Casting the spell in question is a third, entirely different, standard action that also happens to involve a ranged attack roll.

I don't know why you're adding the word 'roll', here. The spells in question both say, 'make a ranged attack'. 'Ranged Attack' is a thing defined under the rules (which includes a roll, sure, but is its own thing). Harrying covering fire use exactly the same phrase as the spells, 'make a ranged attack'. They're therefore, the same thing.

GhostInTheMachine wrote:
The Overcharge mechanic trick specifically includes an attack with the weapon, you are not taking two standard actions, you are making an attack as part of the standard action.

And Harrying/Covering fire specifically includes 'making a ranged attack' as part of the standard action used to Cover/Harry. TkP and ER are both ranged attacks, so you aren't taking two standard actions, you are making the attack (with the spell) as a part of the standard action to harry.


Let me cut the word 'roll' out. It ends up the same.

pithica42 wrote:

Correction, it allows you to make a ranged attack. It says so, right in the text I've already quoted. A ranged attack is it's own thing, defined under the rules, and is all that is required for Harrying Fire and/or Covering fire to be applicable.

I don't know why you're adding the word 'roll', here. The spells in question both say, 'make a ranged attack'. 'Ranged Attack' is a thing defined under the rules (which includes a roll, sure, but is its own thing). Harrying covering fire use exactly the same phrase as the spells, 'make a ranged attack'. They're therefore, the same thing.

Exactly, that's the issue. You have now spent your standard action to cast a spell. You can no longer spend your standard action to provide harrying/covering fire. You can't cast as spell as a standard action, then use the ranged attack provided by that spell to perform the standard action harrying fire. They are each called out explicitly as a standard action by themselves You cannot blend two standard actions into one. The attack standard action is not being blended into either of the other two. They all involve a ranged attack, they are not each using the attack action.

A ranged attack is not an action. It's part of 'combat basics', pg 240.

The attack action to make a ranged attack is. It's part of 'actions in combat', pg 244-245.

Quote:

GhostInTheMachine wrote:
The Overcharge mechanic trick specifically includes an attack with the weapon, you are not taking two standard actions, you are making an attack as part of the standard action.
And Harrying/Covering fire specifically includes 'making a ranged attack' as part of the standard action used to Cover/Harry. TkP and ER are both ranged attacks, so you aren't taking two standard actions, you are making the attack (with the spell) as a part of the standard action to harry.

You are using your standard action to provide covering fire.

How are you also using a standard action to cast the spell telekinetic projectile?

If I followed your interpretation I could, with a envoy 6/mechanic 2/mystic 1, with a single standard action: Edit - Envoy needs 6, whoops

Cast telekinetic projectile (a ranged attack)
Clever attack (an attack)
Improved get 'em (an attack)
Harrying fire (a ranged attack)
Covering fire (a ranged attack)
Overcharge (an attack)

All at the same time. Each of those is a standard action that involves an attack (just like harrying fire) Why can't I combine them all in the same action under your interpretation?


If I'm reading correctly, because once you have an opportunity to make a ranged attack, it doesn't matter what kind of ranged attack you make.

Basically, I'm spending a standard action to do *something.* Part of that standard action allows me to make a ranged attack. It doesn't matter what kind of ranged attack I make, because all of them say "Spend a standard, shoot the thing." Well, I spent a standard, now I'm shooting the thing.

Pithica, is that basically a dumbed down version of how you see this working?

As far as it working that way, I still don't think so, personally, but I'm willing to admit this might be one of those "I know this is wrong, because it isn't how I play the game" things, rather than "Here's the rules, they say Pithica is always wrong."


Starfinder Superscriber
Garretmander wrote:
You have now spent your standard action to cast a spell.

What I'm saying, that you keep ignoring, is that the spellcasting action to make the ranged attack works the same way as any other attack, because it is an attack.

It's not, Cast Spell > Make Ranged Attack > Covering Fire.

It's Covering Fire > Make Ranged Attack

Make Ranged Attack is any action that is itself a ranged attack, which is under the 'Attack action', but also includes spells that make ranged attack. Per spellcasting, pg 331, "Anytime you would need to make an attack roll to determine whether your spell hits a target, you are considered to be making an attack."

Spells with attack rolls are attacks. They fall under the general rule of attack actions. They can be used with any ability that works with attacks that doesn't specify otherwise. Spells that say, 'make a ranged attack' are ranged attacks.

Quote:

If I followed your interpretation I could, with a envoy 6/mechanic 2/mystic 1, with a single standard action: Edit - Envoy needs 6, whoops

Cast telekinetic projectile (a ranged attack)
Clever attack (an attack)
Improved get 'em (an attack)
Harrying fire (a ranged attack)
Covering fire (a ranged attack)
Overcharge (an attack)

All at the same time. Each of those is a standard action that involves an attack (just like harrying fire) Why can't I combine them all in the same action under your interpretation?

No, you couldn't. Let's see if I can break this down.

Attack is an action, of which Ranged Attack is a subtype.

Per the rules for spellcasting, a spell with an attack roll is, itself, an attack. They are equivalent. ((Cast Spell with Attack Roll))==((Attack))

Per the rules for the specific spells in question, those spells are further qualified as ranged attacks. ((Cast TkP))==((Attack))==((Ranged Attack))

So you have this thing ((Ranged Attack)) that's equivalent under the rules to casting a TpK spell. It's in it's own little box that normally requires a standard action.

Covering Fire lets you wrap that thing in a separate action that is, itself a standard action: Covering Fire((Ranged Attack)). That's a new thing. It is not the same thing as a ranged attack because it's defined by its own rules, has different target (DC) than normal for a ranged attack, and different results. Covering Fire((Ranged Attack))!=((Ranged Attack)) they are not the same thing.

Clever Attack lets you wrap an ((Attack)) in an action. But it doesn't let you wrap a Covering Fire((Ranged Attack)) in an action, so the two cannot be used together. Nor does it work with any of the other actions in your list for the same reason. I don't believe it is RAI for this to work with spells (most class abilities seem to be written assuming everyone is single classed), but I do think it's allowed by RAW, unless I missed a caveat in there somewhere about weapons. I don't see any under Clever Attack, Clever Feint, Feint, or any of the Feint feats.

Improved Get'Em lets you wrap an ((Attack)) in an action. But it doesn't let you wrap a Covering Fire((Ranged Attack)) in an action, so the two cannot be used together. Nor does it work with any of the other actions in your list for the same reason. As with Clever attack, I don't believe it's RAI for this to work with spells, but I likewise see no caveats about weapons in it or its parent abilities, so I'd probably go with that being allowed under RAW, too.

Harrying Fire lets you wrap a ((Ranged Attack)) in an action. But it doesn't let you wrap a Covering Fire((Ranged Attack)) in an action, so the two cannot be used together. Nor does it work with any of the other actions in your list for the same reason. There is, however, under Envoy an ability called Fire Support that lets you do both at once as a single action. You could do Fire Support((Harrying Fire((Covering Fire((Ranged Attack)))))) as a single standard action if you have the Fire Support improvisation. And, if you go check that one out, it lets you do it twice as a full round action. Before anyone asks, I definitely don't think it's RAI for it to allow you to cast this (or any other spell) twice in the same round. I keep looking for a rule that says you can't cast more than one spell in a round or more than one spell that normally has a standard action or something, but can't find it. There were a bunch of action economy rules like that in other 3.x games though, so I'd say no to this on principle even though I think RAW might allow it under a very broad reading. That being said, the effect (in real terms) is identical to you using a weapon for this unless you're using a weapon with ammunition (and then it just saves you a couple credits).

Overcharge explicitly only works on ranged energy weapons or melee weapons with the Powered property, not all attacks, and certainly not spell attacks, so I'm not even sure why this is brought into the mix, except to try to pack on as many things as you could. Even if you could wrap any of the other actions in a Overcharge, which you can't because none of them are just attacks anymore, you can never use it with spells, at all. The same goes for any other action that says it only works on weapons or weapon attacks or says 'this has no effect on spellcasting' or when paired with any spell that has a casting time other than a standard action or doesn't have an attack roll because those spells are no longer attacks.

Pantshandshake wrote:
Pithica, is that basically a dumbed down version of how you see this working?

Maybe? I'm saying spells with attack rolls are themselves attacks under RAW because the rules say they are. They can be treated like attacks for other specific rules that work on attacks unless those specific rules say otherwise. At least, by RAW. I don't think this is RAI, and I don't know that I'd always allow it to work that way for everything out there that works on 'attacks', but at least in the case of Covering/Harrying Fire, I don't see what it could possibly hurt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pithica42 wrote:

It's not, Cast Spell > Make Ranged Attack > Covering Fire.

It's Covering Fire > Make Ranged Attack

Where in the second one is the standard action to cast the spell?

pithica42 wrote:
Per the rules for spellcasting, a spell with an attack roll is, itself, an attack. They are equivalent. ((Cast Spell with Attack Roll))==((Attack))

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from, and where we disagree. Casting Telekinetic Projectile is not an attack. It is a standard action that contains an attack within it.

Similarly Covering Fire is a standard action that contains an attack action.

The issue is not whether or not TkP is an attack (no one is arguing it isn't), it is a question of how you get two standard actions in the same turn.


pithica42 wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
You have now spent your standard action to cast a spell.

What I'm saying, that you keep ignoring, is that the spellcasting action to make the ranged attack works the same way as any other attack, because it is an attack.

It's not, Cast Spell > Make Ranged Attack > Covering Fire.

It's Covering Fire > Make Ranged Attack

By the same logic, you could use Trip on an Attack of Opportunity.

Because of the Clothesline Vanguard Discipline from the playtest, we have confirmation that this is not the case (as the function of that discipline is to allow exactly this).

Additionally, Ranged Attacks are a specific defined subset of the Attack action. Just because an action involves making an attack does not mean that you can stick another action that involves making an attack in there.

You are wrong. End of.


OK, pithica42 I like the action syntax you presented. That actually helps quite a bit in understanding. I'm going to borrow that. And probably make some modifications here.

So, first I need to define the pieces that an action is made up of. I think I will call them 'acts'. I was going to call them 'events' but that term is already being used in readied action rules.

Anyway, an act is denoted with parentheses. So things like (skill check) or (attack roll) or even (apply penalty).

Movement needs a bit more syntax since it needs a value. How about curly brackets to give any needed arguments. So (move {speed}) or (move {2x speed}). Some other acts may need arguments too.

So now actions that can be used in combat have a name and a list of acts that they are composed of. I'll use square brackets for the list.

Some actions only have one act. For example Move Your Speed[(move{speed})] or a standard action Attack[(attack roll)].

Other actions have several acts. Full Attack[(apply penalty) (attack roll) (attack roll)] and Trick Attack[(move{speed}) (skill check) (attack roll)]

Now this:

pithica42 wrote:
Covering Fire lets you wrap that thing in a separate action that is, itself a standard action

is what doesn't happen in my interpretation of the rules. Actions are composed only of acts. So Covering Fire[Attack[(attack roll)] (apply bonus)] is incorrect. It should instead be Covering Fire[(attack roll) (apply bonus)].

There is an unfortunate point here in spell casting for some spells where it says that you 'make a ranged attack'. Under the more formal syntax that I am using, it would be more appropriate to say that you 'make a ranged attack roll'. This point is able to be debated, but that is how I interpret it.

So casting a spell without an attack roll is done with Cast Spell[(focus energies) (choose target)] and a spell with an attack roll uses Cast Spell[(focus energies) (choose target) (attack roll)]

(focus energies) is what I am calling the replacement of the concentration check. (focus energies) always succeeds unless you take damage during the spellcasting action - at which point the spell is interrupted.

With this interpretation it is not possible to do Covering Fire[Cast Spell[(focus energies) (choose target) (attack roll)] (apply bonus)] because you can't include one action inside another.

It is also not possible to do Cast Spell[(focus energies) (choose target) (attack roll)] and then Covering Fire[(apply bonus)] because that version of covering fire doesn't exist and because both spellcasting and covering fire are standard actions.

What we are looking for is a new action Covering Spellcasting[(focus energies) (attack roll) (apply bonus)]. This action also doesn't exist in the standard rules. Note that the (choose target) act is missing - because the target is the first enemy that attacks your covered ally.

So it is a houserule. One that a lot of GMs (including myself) would allow.


pithica42 wrote:
What I'm saying, that you keep ignoring, is that the spellcasting action to make the ranged attack works the same way as any other attack, because it is an attack.

It doesn't though. The spellcasting action to make a ranged attack is a standard action. You can't make a second standard action.

Harrying fire is also a standard action.

At some point in this hypothetical turn, you would have to take the cast a spell standard action (you can't cast TkP without this standard action) it is not just an attack is has to be a standard action to cast this spell. This spell is not just a ranged attack, it's a standard action casting time spell. You can't downgrade this standard action just because it includes an attack.

You also have to take the harrying fire standard action. This again, has to be a standard action.

Quote:
Attack is an action, of which Ranged Attack is a subtype.

yes.

Quote:


Per the rules for spellcasting, a spell with an attack roll is, itself, an attack. They are equivalent. ((Cast Spell with Attack Roll))==((Attack))

No. A spell with an attack roll is an attack. You still must spend the actions required under 'casting time' end of story.

A spell with an attack and a casting time of 1 standard action is essentially the same in the action economy as improved get 'em, clever attack, overcharge, harrying fire, covering fire, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would allow this at my table if it was an on the spot idea and sounded Fun.. however, i agree it shouldn't work.. this thread was not fun to read.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Artificer wrote:
I would allow this at my table if it was an on the spot idea and sounded Fun.. however, i agree it shouldn't work.. this thread was not fun to read.

Yeah, it's absolutely harmless to allow it - but it's absolutely not RAW, and pretending that it is opens the door to much, much bigger problems.


Starfinder Superscriber
GhostInTheMachine wrote:
pithica42 wrote:

It's not, Cast Spell > Make Ranged Attack > Covering Fire.

It's Covering Fire > Make Ranged Attack

Where in the second one is the standard action to cast the spell?

The exact same place the standard action normally needed to make a ranged attack with a weapon goes when you wrap it in Harrying/Covering Fire.

If you compare a weapon attack with a gun and an attack with a spell like TkP or Energy Ray, per the rules, both are Standard actions, both are attacks, and both are ranged attacks. Both inherit the rules of standard actions, attacks, and ranged attacks. Several people here keep arguing that Harrying Fire can get rid of one Standard Action but not the other, but not showing anywhere where that is explicitly said.

You can certainly say it's not meant to, and I'd probably agree with you. But, other abilities that are meant to be limited say they are and say how they are. The fact that the only caveat on H/C is that it's applied to a ranged attack, means, to me, that 'ranged attack' is the only caveat (unless and until a FAQ or Errata corrects this, or a dev comes by and says, "Yeah, this should say 'with a weapon'", or someone shows where it says this in the extant rules). These spells are ranged attacks. They have no extra properties that are incompatible with the listed requirements or behavior of H/C. To me, this means they work for H/C under RAW.

I don't know how else to word this.

Scrolling down, I see several other responses, and my 'internet argument' impulse is tingling, but I'm going to leave it at that. I've obviously said my peace more than once and people here disagree. That's fine. I debated even posting this, because continuing to argue just wastes everyone's time. I am in no way trying to upset anyone, and some of the responses feel like they were meant to be taken as personal attacks. I'm certainly not intending to ruin anyone's fun, and if I have, I'm genuinely sorry. So, I'm out.


pithica42 wrote:
GhostInTheMachine wrote:


Where in the second one is the standard action to cast the spell?
The exact same place the standard action normally needed to make a ranged attack with a weapon goes when you wrap it in Harrying/Covering Fire.

In summary:

I disagree that you can substitute an attack with a standard action to cast spell that includes an attack.

Acquisitives

I see nothing in the wording of harrying fire/covering fire that specifies the ranged attack must be with a weapon. So long as the spell doesn't take more than a standard action to cast, the arguments to exclude them don't seem convincing to me.


Gabbers "Gab" McTalkington wrote:
I see nothing in the wording of harrying fire/covering fire that specifies the ranged attack must be with a weapon. So long as the spell doesn't take more than a standard action to cast, the arguments to exclude them don't seem convincing to me.

The issue is, again:

Spell takes 1 standard action to cast.

Harrying fire takes 1 standard action to perform.

1 + 1 = 2 standard actions a turn.

Acquisitives

Garretmander wrote:

The issue is, again:

Spell takes 1 standard action to cast.

Harrying fire takes 1 standard action to perform.

1 + 1 = 2 standard actions a turn.

Weapon takes 1 standard action to fire.

Harrying fire takes 1 standard action to perform.

1 + 1 = 2 standard actions a turn.

Therefore, Harrying Fire is never allowed. (Nor covering fire.)

Acquisitives

If I can throw a rock with my arm and have it be harrying fire, throwing the rock with my mind (in the same amount of time) should be able to accomplish the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pithica42 wrote:
GhostInTheMachine wrote:
pithica42 wrote:

It's not, Cast Spell > Make Ranged Attack > Covering Fire.

It's Covering Fire > Make Ranged Attack

Where in the second one is the standard action to cast the spell?

The exact same place the standard action normally needed to make a ranged attack with a weapon goes when you wrap it in Harrying/Covering Fire.

Ah, I see how it is you are interpreting now. I thought I did before, but I was slightly off.

As I see it, there is a distinction between an attack and a standard attack action.

An attack is literally the act of rolling the die and your attack modifier, etc.; a standard attack action is the game mechanic entity that is part of the action economy.

With this distinction, Harrying fire is a standard action that contains an attack. It does not contain a standard attack action.

Harrying Fire, Covering Fire, Casting Telekinetic Projectile, and a Standard Attack are all variations of the same thing - standard actions that entail an attack.


GhostInTheMachine wrote:
As I see it, there is a distinction between an attack and a standard attack action.

This exactly.

There is a standard action you can perform called 'Attack'. This standard action consists solely of a melee attack or a ranged attack.

Not all ranged attacks or melee attacks are the standard action 'Attack' action.

Gabbers "Gab" McTalkington wrote:
Weapon takes 1 standard action to fire.

This is false. Ranged and melee attacks are, at their most basic, non-actions that are performed when the action you are actually taking is performed. The action tells you when you make an attack. The attack is not the action by itself.

A weapon may be fired whenever an action you are taking allows a ranged attack.

Actions that involve a ranged (or melee) attack as part of the action itself:

Standard action attack - subtypes of melee attack or ranged attack
Harrying fire
Covering fire
Improved get 'em
Clever attack
The mechanic's overcharge
Casting the spell telekinetic projectile
Casting the spell energy ray
Casting the spell disintegrate
Full attack
Charge
Attack of opportunity

You may fire a weapon as part of any of these (except the spells of course, and some may/must be used with melee). You are making an attack when you do so. You are not taking that standard action attack action when you do so.


Gabbers "Gab" McTalkington wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

The issue is, again:

Spell takes 1 standard action to cast.

Harrying fire takes 1 standard action to perform.

1 + 1 = 2 standard actions a turn.

Weapon takes 1 standard action to fire.

Harrying fire takes 1 standard action to perform.

1 + 1 = 2 standard actions a turn.

Therefore, Harrying Fire is never allowed. (Nor covering fire.)

However, Harrying Fire specifically permits a Ranged Attack. Ranged Attacks are specifically defined to use a ranged weapon; you make a Ranged Attack with a spell in specific overrides general, but without that you are only permitted to use a weapon. Please see the definitions of a Ranged Attack on pages 240 and 245 of the Core Book for more.

Acquisitives

Nerdy Canuck wrote:


However, Harrying Fire specifically permits a Ranged Attack. Ranged Attacks are specifically defined to use a ranged weapon; you make a Ranged Attack with a spell in specific overrides general, but without that you are only permitted to use a weapon. Please see the definitions of a Ranged Attack on pages 240 and 245 of the Core Book for more.

Yup, that takes care of it. The requirement of a "weapon" was what I was missing, but it's there on page 240 in the ranged attack definition. I would probably still allow it as a house rule, but I now see that the RAW doesn't include it. Thanks!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

just my 2 cents cuz we were discussing this spell in another thread.

I would definitely have to disagree that the ranged attack for harrying fire which is a physical action would be any different than the physical action of casting the TkP spell. You cast the spell as a standard action which includes making a ranged attack roll to hit with said projectile, the projectile being the weapon, the roll is a mental part of the casting of the spell it does not count as a separate action. I don't see how that would be any different if you are using it as a covering fire action rather than an attack action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mainly, it's because Harrying and Covering Fire both start with this line: You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack.

So, you need to spend a standard action to do either Harrying or Covering fire.

If you cast a spell with your standard action, it may (depending on the spell) grant you a ranged attack, but this isn't an extra standard action, it is just an attack roll.

If harrying and/or covering said 'as part of an attack (or full attack) you may perform a harrying or covering fire,' then it would work. But since it requires a standard action, not just an attack, you're out of luck.

I look forward to this discussion happening again.


Mai Shael wrote:

just my 2 cents cuz we were discussing this spell in another thread.

I would definitely have to disagree that the ranged attack for harrying fire which is a physical action would be any different than the physical action of casting the TkP spell. You cast the spell as a standard action which includes making a ranged attack roll to hit with said projectile, the projectile being the weapon, the roll is a mental part of the casting of the spell it does not count as a separate action. I don't see how that would be any different if you are using it as a covering fire action rather than an attack action.

Strict rules, You can't substitute one attack made as part of something that's a standard action for harrying fire.

Thats why Suppressive fire is a feat and not just something you can do attacking people with an automatic weapon (good job to person who caught that example)

I don't see a problem with it here.. i mean all you're doing is saving on battery charges that are free anyway.


Pantshandshake wrote:
I look forward to this discussion happening again.

At least it is a different line of reasoning from the action wrapping logic proposed by pithica42.

----------

Mai Shael, would it be an accurate representation of your proposed rule interpretation to say that for your standard action you are doing the spell casting action, and since the spell being cast involves a ranged attack roll you can add the Covering Fire or Harrying Fire rules as a rider onto the action? So instead of Covering Fire or Harrying Fire being their own action, they would be modifiers to any ranged attack roll.

At that point in the specific case of a standard action attack with a ranged weapon, that is the example given in the rules block for both Harrying Fire and Covering Fire. But the change to the attack can be applied to any ranged attack roll.

Is that accurate?

-----------

You do at least see that this is a house rule, right? Again it may not be overpowered or broken. But it is not what the rules actually say.

For example, as Pantshandshake mentioned, it could then be done twice as part of a full attack action. Or as part of the Improved Get'em ability.

Why would an Envoy want to do this with Improved Get'em, considering that one of the main benefits of Improved Get'em over the normal Get'em ability is the opportunity to do damage with the ability? It is so that my Envoy can move behind cover with his move action, and still be able to apply both the effects of Get'em and Covering Fire during the same round.

You do notice that this is strictly more powerful than the normal rules? The rules that require you to spend your standard action in its entirety to apply only the benefits of Covering Fire.

Right?

Or are you instead thinking that this interpretation of the rules will only be applied to spellcasting?

Because if you only want the ability to be applied to spellcasting, the better option is to leave alone the interpretation of what Covering Fire and Harrying Fire do and instead add Covering Spellcasting and Harrying Spellcasting actions to do only what you are wanting.


Starfinder Superscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
At least it is a different line of reasoning from the action wrapping logic proposed by pithica42.

You know, I did link an entire other thread from last year that had other arguments besides that one and the consensus of that thread was that the RAW was, at best, unclear, or at least conflicted with itself and needed a FAQ. (At one point it had something like 30 FAQ requests, but those seem to have gone away and we still don't have a FAQ.) The reasoning I used in this thread was a direct response to the arguments made in this thread.

I'm still of the opinion that it needs a FAQ, I'm just also of the opinion that until we get that FAQ, allowing it is a valid reading of the RAW, for multiple reasons. (So, by the way, is not allowing it.)

There have been multiple instances in this thread where people have implied that I can't read or am unintelligent or that I'm just wrong and am ruining the game. I'd appreciate it if you left me out of it, going forward.


@Pithica

I mean, I believe your interpretation of this is incorrect, yes.

I don't think you're unintelligent (You've had a few other posts where you convinced me you were correct, and plenty where we agreed before talking,) I have no doubt that you can read (because... well, look what we're doing,) and whether you ruin your own game or not has so little bearing on anything, literally anything, that I don't see why anyone would care if you were ruining your own game or not.

I apologize if any post that I've made hurt your feelings. It isn't my intent to do that, though I am known to be jerk in real life, and sometimes it happens anyway.

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / Telekinetic Projectile for Harrying / Covering Fire? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.