Covering / Harrying Fire and Area Weapons


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Is there any rule preventing weapons with area attack properties other than automatic, such as Line or Blast, from being used for Covering and Harrying Fire? If they're valid for these actions, do they provide that effect in their standard attack area?

For no particular reason, my instinct is that it shouldn't work, but it would be a pretty interesting enhancement to things like Fire Support and the Tactical fusion if it works...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spoiler:

Harrying Fire
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that distracts a foe in your line of effect. Make an attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage, but the next ally to attack that foe gains a +2 circumstance bonus to her next attack roll, as long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

Covering Fire
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that provides covering fire for an ally. Make a ranged attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage but the selected ally gains a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against the next attack from a creature in your line of effect (see page 271), so long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

I spoiled the Harrying and Covering rules, for ease of whoever wants to talk about this. For Harrying fire, it's pretty specific that it effects one target in your line of effect, so it shouldn't matter what way your weapon fires, you just get to pick one monster that you could have shot.

For Covering Fire, you select an ally, and then a monster in your line of effect, so it still wouldn't matter, you're just picking the one monster.

If you take the feat Suppressive Fire, then you can use harrying or covering fire with more than 1 NPC as a'target,' so long as you use an automatic weapon.


There are tons of rules about only impacting one target; the area rules are a specific rule that override that, and I'm not sure about the way that interfaces here.

To be more specific, properties like Blast and Line both specify that they modify attacks you make with that weapon; it doesn't define a new action, but rather defines modifications to the existing ranged attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Harrying Fire

You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that distracts a foe in your line of effect. Make an attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage, but the next ally to attack that foe gains a +2 circumstance bonus to her next attack roll, as long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

No matter what weapon you're using harrying fire sucks up a standard action and will only work against one target. A weird weapon having a line effect doesn't impact that at all.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Harrying Fire

You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that distracts a foe in your line of effect. Make an attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage, but the next ally to attack that foe gains a +2 circumstance bonus to her next attack roll, as long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

No matter what weapon you're using harrying fire sucks up a standard action and will only work against one target. A weird weapon having a line effect doesn't impact that at all.

The book also states "When making a ranged attack, you use a ranged weapon to shoot an opponent from a distance" (p. 240), and "With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or otherwise attack a target that is within the weapon's maximum range and within your line of effect".

These properties are already overriding the usage of singular terms; the text of Harrying Fire isn't meaningfully different in that regard.

The structure of the rules appears to be that Covering Fire and Harrying Fire involve a Ranged Attack, and the general rule for Ranged Attacks involves using a ranged weapon. Certain ranged weapons have properties that effectively override ranged attacks - after all, Line and Blast (I have yet to check others) both do not specify a new action, they simply say what happens when you use that weapon to make an attack.

There are obviously two questions here - first, how do the rules resolve, and second, how are the rules supposed to resolve. I'm not certain that either of those is at all clear, nor that they are the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The line weapon property specifically overrides attacking a target. It does not specifically override the rules for harrying fire.

It wouldn't be overpowered if it did , but thats a really big rules leap of logic and.. there's no argument there. Harrying fire requires a specific standard action to harass one foe, not a specific standard action to harrass everyone your weapon can attack at once.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

The line weapon property specifically overrides attacking a target. It does not specifically override the rules for harrying fire.

It wouldn't be overpowered if it did , but thats a really big rules leap of logic and.. there's no argument there. Harrying fire requires a specific standard action to harass one foe, not a specific standard action to harrass everyone your weapon can attack at once.

It specifically overrides ranged attack, which the rules for Harrying Fire use.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


It specifically overrides ranged attack, which the rules for Harrying Fire use.

There's no direct nesting there. There's too many differences between an attack and a standard action that involves an attack roll.

You can make a ranged attack as part of a full round action to full attack. You can't harrying fire twice.

You can make an attack as a part of a trick attack, you can't trick attack harrying fire.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, but it's pretty open and shut.

The specific thing you want to do is perform Harrying or Covering Fire.

The specific rules for these actions make it clear that both of them effect a single (enemy) target at a time. I might consider that weapons with different modes of firing, such as Line or Blast, could effect more than one enemy, except for two things:

1. Harrying and Covering both being very clear that they are vs a single enemy.

2. The Suppressive Fire feat exists, if this feat exists just to give a weapon with the Automatic property a way to effect more than one enemy with Harrying or Covering Fire, then with this feat you absolutely, 100%, no arguments can only effect one target with Harrying or Covering fire without the feat and an automatic weapon.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's no direct nesting there. There's too many differences between an attack and a standard action that involves an attack roll.

And if Line or Blast told you to use a standard action to do X and forbade the Attack action, you would be correct. But that's not the case - in fact, they don't reference actions at all.

That's where the nesting is in- the Harrying Fire and Covering Fire actions specifically instruct you to make a ranged attack, which also happens to be the reason you need a ranged weapon to perform the action in the first place.

If we say that the ranged attack rules are not relevant (despite the fact that they're specifically cited), we're saying that you don't need a ranged weapon to do it in the same way that you don't for a spell - which is absurd.

I get that you're referencing to the "combat maneuver/trick attack" discussion, but this is something radically different. That was a question about whether two actions sharing a rule element defined outside of actions (both ranged and melee attacks are first defined as a subset of attack rolls) allowed two actions to be mashed together; the resolution there is actually pretty obvious.

This is different, because Line or Blast do not involve their own defined action - they change how other actions work. In fact, the rules go so far as to specify the interaction between Line/Blast and Trick Attack (specifically as an example of an ability which increases the damage of a single attack, which Line and Blast do not benefit from), so we know for a certainty that it isn't limited to any single specific action.

This is effectively a question about inheritance; because the rules element of a "ranged attack" (which is itself distinct from the Attack action, being defined under Attack Rolls 4 pages before the Actions In Combat section) is being altered by a weapon property, that has to have some interaction with any ranged attack involving that weapon. So what is the interaction here?

If you want to continue to go to the "mashing actions together" argument, the deficiency that argument has here that you'll need to deal with is that Line and Blast are not explicitly bound to any given action - so you're arguing for some sort of implicit binding, and you're going to need to be able to prove that chain.


Pantshandshake wrote:

Sorry, but it's pretty open and shut.

The specific thing you want to do is perform Harrying or Covering Fire.

The specific rules for these actions make it clear that both of them effect a single (enemy) target at a time. I might consider that weapons with different modes of firing, such as Line or Blast, could effect more than one enemy, except for two things:

1. Harrying and Covering both being very clear that they are vs a single enemy.

2. The Suppressive Fire feat exists, if this feat exists just to give a weapon with the Automatic property a way to effect more than one enemy with Harrying or Covering Fire, then with this feat you absolutely, 100%, no arguments can only effect one target with Harrying or Covering fire without the feat and an automatic weapon.

By that logic, Line and Blast also don't work with the Attack action, either. There is, in fact, no defined action to use Line and Blast.

The reason you need to use Automatic with Covering Fire or Harrying Fire is actually because you normally have to make a full attack to make use of Automatic.

In contrast, Line and Blast actually explain their interaction with abilities like Trick Attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
That's where the nesting is in- the Harrying Fire and Covering Fire actions specifically instruct you to make a ranged attack, which also happens to be the reason you need a ranged weapon to perform the action in the first place.

No. They tell you to take a standard action and take a ranged attack.

Not all standard actions are attacks.

Not all attacks are standard actions.


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

Do they not teach kids critical thinking anymore? Seems to me BNW's arguments are the only one that make any sense as of late.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Do they not teach kids critical thinking anymore? Seems to me BNW's arguments are the only one that make any sense as of late.

You probably want to see someone about that...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
That's where the nesting is in- the Harrying Fire and Covering Fire actions specifically instruct you to make a ranged attack, which also happens to be the reason you need a ranged weapon to perform the action in the first place.

No. They tell you to take a standard action and take a ranged attack.

So, how is it that you think Line and Blast interact with the Attack and Trick Attack actions (which the text specifically calls out), based on this logic? What is it that makes it interact with those and not Covering/Harrying Fire?


Well with the attack action it's pretty straightforward. the weapon tells you how to attack with them.

For trick attacks they specifically don;t work with lines

A line weapon doesn’t benefit from feats or abilities that increase the damage of a single attack (such as the operative’s trick attack).

or blasts

A blast weapon doesn’t benefit from feats or abilities that increase the damage of a single attack (such as the operative’s trick attack).


And if they only worked with the attack action, that text would not be necessary (and there's the separate question of whether that means they can be used for Trick Attack but don't get the damage, whether they can apply Debilitating Trick, whether you can trick attack for Uncanny Mobility, etc - but that's out of the scope of this thread).

That's part of where this becomes plainly different from the Combat Maneuver issue.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
And if they only worked with the attack action, that text would not be necessary

Really not following you here.

Attacking with a line weapon or a blast weapon is not a standard action.

It is an attack. Without that line that blast/line weapons don't work with trick attack, you could trick attack blast away (and you'd either need to specify one person took the trick damage or it would be horrifically OP)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
And if they only worked with the attack action, that text would not be necessary

Really not following you here.

Attacking with a line weapon or a blast weapon is not a standard action.

It is an attack. Without that line that blast/line weapons don't work with trick attack, you could trick attack blast away (and you'd either need to specify one person took the trick damage or it would be horrifically OP)

Okay, so where is the rules element distinguishing Trick Attack's relationship with Line/Blast, versus Harrying/Covering Fire?


Nerdy Canuck wrote:

Okay, so where is the rules element distinguishing Trick Attack's relationship with Line/Blast

-In the line/blast weapon property it explains that they've got an order of protection against each other. Its the italic parts a few quotes up.

Quote:
versus Harrying/Covering Fire?

An operative can take a full round action to move and make an attack.

Harrying fire requires a standard action. An operative that is trick attacking is using a full round action and doesn't have a standard action available to use harrying fire.

A ysoki operative can pop up from prone as a swift action, scurry across the map, and let loose with some harrying fire.

A ysoki operative cannot cannot pop up from prone as a swift action, scurry accross the map, and trick attack someone. (the trick attack consumes their full round action and they've already spent their swift)


You misunderstand me - perhaps I should be more clear. I'm not opening up the "mashing attack actions together" question, because the answer there is clear.

Your contention is that Line and Blast are compatible with, but gain no benefit from, Trick Attack, but are not compatible with Harrying/Covering Fire. My question is, what rules element distinguishes between Trick Attack and Harrying/Covering Fire in this way? What rules element determines whether any given attack with a ranged weapon is impacted by the Line or Blast properties?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Your contention is that Line and Blast are compatible with, but gain no benefit from, Trick Attack

I wasn't contending that. Not sure where you got that idea.

Quote:
My question is, what rules element distinguishes between Trick Attack and Harrying/Covering Fire in this way?

Trick attack allows an attack during it, harrying fire requires a standard action during the trick attack. Trick attack allows for the attack it doesn't allow for a standard action.

Quote:
What rules element determines whether any given attack with a ranged weapon is impacted by the Line or Blast properties?

backfoot headscratch.... they have the line or blast property?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Trick attack allows an attack during it, harrying fire requires a standard action during the trick attack. Trick attack allows for the attack it doesn't allow for a standard action.

To repeat, with further character: Trick Attack + Harrying Fire is not the question here. The distinction between Trick Attack + Line/Blast vs Harrying Fire + Line/Blast is the question here - you're claiming they resolve differently, and have yet to provide a reason why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Trick attack allows an attack during it, harrying fire requires a standard action during the trick attack. Trick attack allows for the attack it doesn't allow for a standard action.
To repeat, with further character

That really isn't a phrase and you're getting very hard to understand.

Quote:
: Trick Attack + Harrying Fire is not the question here. The distinction between Trick Attack + Line/Blast vs Harrying Fire + Line/Blast is the question here - you're claiming they resolve differently, and have yet to provide a reason why.

Trick Attack + Harrying Fire : resolves to no because harrying fire requires a standard action, trick attack is a full round action, and trick attack includes an attack action, and attack and standard actions aren't interchangeable.

Trick attack plus line or blast weapons resolves to no because both line and blast weapons have rules preventing that sort of thing. They were quoted above and italicized.

Harrying fire plus a line attack providing harrying fire against everyone in the line resolves to no because harrying fire is a standard action to trick one person. Trying to harrying fire multiple people requires an automatic weapon with a feat.

I have no idea what alleged contradiction you think you've found, but I'm pretty sure it's in what you're reading not what I'm saying.


Trick Attack + Harrying Fire is not part of the scope of this thread. Please stop wasting time with it.

However, based on the existence of the specific rule regarding Trick Attack and Line/Blast, it is clear that the intent is for Line/Blast to be compatible with Trick Attack, but not benefit (what that means, specifically, is a broader question that is not the subject of this thread).

Given that Line and Blast are compatible with Trick Attack, and in the absence of a specific rule otherwise, I still cannot see a rule element that prevents the combination - your "single target" argument would apply to literally every single action you could ever use Line/Blast with, and thus can be dismissed out of hand unless you have some way to draw a distinction.


So you're saying i can trick attack someone and cast a spell, because a standard action and an attack are the same thing then.


...

No.

I'm not.

I'm not talking about combining Trick Attack and Harrying Fire? How many times do I need to say that?


Nerdy Canuck wrote:

...

No.

I'm not.

I'm not talking about combining Trick Attack and Harrying Fire? How many times do I need to say that?

I really have no idea what you're trying to argue besides being able to swap a standard action for an attack or an attack with a standard action.

If you can use a standard action to harrying fire everyone your gun would hit, why is suppressive fire a feat?


...

You use a standard action to Attack, Harrying Fire, Covering Fire, etc.

You use a Full Action for things like Trick Attack.

We know Line and Blast are valid for Attack and Trick Attack (though they do not benefit from Trick Attack). You contend that they are not valid for Harrying Fire and Covering Fire. I have seen absolutely no determinant in rules that makes that accurate while being compatible with the actions we know it does work with. Can you provide one?


Line and blast weapons will work fine to harrying fire [against one person]


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

Covering Fire
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that provides covering fire for an ally. Make a ranged attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage but the selected ally gains a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against the next attack from a creature in your line of effect (see page 271), so long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

Covering fire doesn't target an enemy in any way, so area of effect won't matter.

Harrying Fire
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that distracts a foe in your line of effect. Make an attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage, but the next ally to attack that foe gains a +2 circumstance bonus to her next attack roll, as long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

Harrying fire doesn't target an enemy, it just happens to be distracting to one. So having multiple targets in the area that should be affected if it wasn't a normal attack doesn't matter there, either.

In either case, you could still use an AoE weapon. In neither case do you target enemies, or would enemies in the normal attack area expand the effect.


HammerJack wrote:

Covering Fire

You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that provides covering fire for an ally. Make a ranged attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage but the selected ally gains a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against the next attack from a creature in your line of effect (see page 271), so long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

Covering fire doesn't target an enemy in any way, so area of effect won't matter.

Harrying Fire
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that distracts a foe in your line of effect. Make an attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage, but the next ally to attack that foe gains a +2 circumstance bonus to her next attack roll, as long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

Harrying fire doesn't target an enemy, it just happens to be distracting to one. So having multiple targets in the area that should be affected if it wasn't a normal attack doesn't matter there, either.

In either case, you could still use an AoE weapon. In neither case do you target enemies, or would enemies in the normal attack area expand the effect.

Oh, hey, finally an actual attempt to answer the question!

Does that then mean Harrying Fire doesn't care about your weapon's range, if it doesn't have to hit the enemy?

So, by that reasoning, any attack which does target an enemy would be valid for a Line or Blast weapon. So, what about Clever Attack and Improved Get 'Em? Seeking Shot and Phase Shot? What about the full action variant of Fire Support?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

why are you trying so hard to wheedle this one particular conclusion by twisting everything someone else says?


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

Harrying fire and covering fire would not care about a lot of things that would normally interfere with your attack, like range and cover.

There is nothing about clever attack or improved get 'em that would prevent them from being used with any type of AoE weapons. The improvisation effects are still single target.

The full action variant of fire support should be usable with a blast or line weapon, if it is not unwieldy. I believe there is currently a single line of blast weapons, and no line weapons, that meet that qualification.

Seeking shot and phase shot are going to be an unclear mess, and I can see a few different ways, with varying levels of weirdness, that each could be treated for a line or blast, largely depending on how much you take the hack's description of how it works as a basis for logical resolution, or treat it as nonmechanical fluff. That's a very different can of worms than harrying or covering fire, though.


I make a standard action

I use that to attack

My attack WOULD hit all of these people

So the covering fire should affect all of these people to...

In so far as the logic that you should be able to harrying fire everyone in a line is... less than certain, we know it doesn't pan out. If the underlying logic for trying to do that was correct covering fire wouldn't be a feat at all. You'd just be able to do it with any automatic weapon. There's no discernable reason that "my automatic fire cone" hits all these people drops out "you need a feat for that" but a line would give a different answer.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
why are you trying so hard to wheedle this one particular conclusion by twisting everything someone else says?

I'm trying to find the actual determinant for what does and does not work with the Line/Blast properties.

There's certain actions we know it works with, so any form of reasoning on this has to be consistent with those actions. One has yet to be provided.

The reason why Automatic requires a feat to provide Covering Fire is because you have to make a Full Attack to make use of the property, making it otherwise impossible to have that property active when using Covering Fire/Harrying Fire. By contrast, you do not need to take a specific action for Line/Blast to be active - in fact, it's not possible to fire those weapons [b]without[b] that property being active, far as I can tell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
One has yet to be provided.

No.

The answer you like hasn't been provided.

You need a standard action to harrying fire one individual. Not all individuals your gun could affect. Attack actions are not hot swapable for standard actions. This is the rules forum, that is the rules. RAW, RAI, right side up upside down there isn't a good argument to be made otherwise.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
One has yet to be provided.

No.

The answer you like hasn't been provided.

You need a standard action to harrying fire one individual. Not all individuals your gun could affect. Attack actions are not hot swapable for standard actions. This is the rules forum, that is the rules. RAW, RAI, right side up upside down there isn't a good argument to be made otherwise.

Okay, I can't possibly be clearer that we're not talking about some kind of action substitution. That is something you've brought in from outside of this question that has no relevance here.

Line and Blast do not care about actions. At all. You don't use an action to use it; they modify actions that you take involving that weapon. You are not even in the neighbourhood of the question right now.


HammerJack wrote:
There is nothing about clever attack or improved get 'em that would prevent them from being used with any type of AoE weapons. The improvisation effects are still single target.

See, that's actually one of the points where I'm really not sure, because I can't find a line of reasoning outside of "it only says one", which is already the case for any other attack action.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:

Line and Blast do not care about actions. At all. You don't use an action to use it; they modify actions that you take involving that weapon. You are not even in the neighborhood of the question right now.

If they're valid for these actions, do they provide that effect in their standard attack area?

Again, the answer is clearly they are valid for those actions but they do not work against everyone in their area.

When attacking with such a weapon, make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment.

vs

Harrying Fire

You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that distracts a foe in your line of effect. Make an attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage, but the next ally to attack that foe gains a +2 circumstance bonus to her next attack roll, as long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

Even if your line of effect includes the shirren barbershop quartet the rules are very clear that you can only harrying fire one of them. The argument you're making that line weapons make everything anyone does with them a line does not follow and runs counter to the evidence.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:

Line and Blast do not care about actions. At all. You don't use an action to use it; they modify actions that you take involving that weapon. You are not even in the neighborhood of the question right now.

If they're valid for these actions, do they provide that effect in their standard attack area?

Again, the answer is clearly they are valid for those actions but they do not work against everyone in their area.

When attacking with such a weapon, make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment.

vs

Harrying Fire

You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that distracts a foe in your line of effect. Make an attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage, but the next ally to attack that foe gains a +2 circumstance bonus to her next attack roll, as long as that attack occurs before your next turn.

Even if your line of effect includes the shirren barbershop quartet the rules are very clear that you can only harrying fire one of them. The argument you're making that line weapons make everything anyone does with them a line does not follow and runs counter to the evidence.

So, are you saying that Harrying Fire does not care about things like weapon range, due to some notion of not targeting an enemy?


I'm saying you're trying to argue for metaphysical consistency in a role playing game but only when it gets you the answer you want to get rather than the answer the evidence says you should get.

You're deliberately and blatantly ONLY doing that when it helps your case and not when it hurts it to get a specific result. Thats not rules interpretation anymore.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm saying you're trying to argue for metaphysical consistency in a role playing game but only when it gets you the answer you want to get rather than the answer the evidence says you should get.

You're deliberately and blatantly ONLY doing that when it helps your case and not when it hurts it to get a specific result. Thats not rules interpretation anymore.

I don't think you've understood the subject of this thread well enough to see what anyone's thinking, frankly. All I'm trying to do is find a rules basis to determine which actions do and do not become multi-target when used with an area weapon which does not require a specific action to use.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


I don't think you've understood the subject of this thread well enough to see what anyone's thinking, frankly. All I'm trying to do is find a rules basis to determine which actions do and do not become multi-target when used with an area weapon which does not require a specific action to use.

But you want to try to do that by ONLY looking at the gun itself and not the action, when most of that information is on the action.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


I don't think you've understood the subject of this thread well enough to see what anyone's thinking, frankly. All I'm trying to do is find a rules basis to determine which actions do and do not become multi-target when used with an area weapon which does not require a specific action to use.
But you want to try to do that by ONLY looking at the gun itself and not the action, when most of that information is on the action.

No, I'm finding something which is identical to things that are elements to the actions we know it works with to not be sufficient, for obvious reasons. The "not actually targeting an enemy" thing is about as close as we've gotten this entire time, but that has some incredibly weird implications.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:

No, I'm finding something which is identical to things that are elements to the actions we know it works with to not be sufficient, for obvious reasons. The "not actually targeting an enemy" thing is about as close as we've gotten this entire time, but that has some incredibly weird implications.

You're looking for a deeper unifying field theory where none are guaranteed to exist (and they probably don't) . There doesn't NEED to be any deeper rhyme or reason to why and how line weapons work with ABC but not XYZ and only sorta FGH other than someone took a look at those and said "what if you did it with a line.. oh yeah, totally OP lets nix that..."


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:

No, I'm finding something which is identical to things that are elements to the actions we know it works with to not be sufficient, for obvious reasons. The "not actually targeting an enemy" thing is about as close as we've gotten this entire time, but that has some incredibly weird implications.

You're looking for a deeper unifying field theory where none are guaranteed to exist (and they probably don't) . There doesn't NEED to be any deeper rhyme or reason to why and how line weapons work with ABC but not XYZ and only sorta FGH other than someone took a look at those and said "what if you did it with a line.. oh yeah, totally OP lets nix that..."

Maybe not, but a rules forum is not the place of "it doesn't work because you say so". Though "the rules on this are unclear" would be a valid answer.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


Maybe not, but a rules forum is not the place of "it doesn't work because you say so".

It is completely disingenuous of you to list that as my reasoning.

Harrying fire does not work (let you apply harrying fire to multiple targets in the line) because the rules say it does not work. The rules were clearly quoted. Repeatedly. There is no room for "misunderstanding" multiple rules quotes and that many clarifications.

Coming up with an argument that a direct rules citation is wrong shows nothing. You can take the disparate rules and make an argument for anything. There are more and better arguments going the other way as well as the direct citation of the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When rules don't say you can, you can't. BigNorseWolf is right on this one. Trust the smell test, it works out for the best most of the time.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


Maybe not, but a rules forum is not the place of "it doesn't work because you say so".

It is completely disingenuous of you to list that as my reasoning.

Harrying fire does not work (let you apply harrying fire to multiple targets in the line) because the rules say it does not work. The rules were clearly quoted. Repeatedly. There is no room for "misunderstanding" multiple rules quotes and that many clarifications.

Coming up with an argument that a direct rules citation is wrong shows nothing. You can take the disparate rules and make an argument for anything. There are more and better arguments going the other way as well as the direct citation of the rules.

Attack specifies a single target, Trick Attack specifies a single target; it's clear that in at least some cases, the Line and Blast properties override that. So which ones does it override, and which ones does it not?

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / Covering / Harrying Fire and Area Weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.