Yeah, I understand why there is a difference of ruling on this.
I just don't think that a difference in the punctuation:
Sudden Charge (Stride, Stride, Strike)
Sudden Charge: Stride, Stride, Strike
should cause a difference in game ruling and the power of feats by this much.
Pretty much, the game devs need to errata/clarification this just like with next action / previous action looking across turns.
Thank you Finoan for coming up with the pre and after move terms. I think that makes the topic easier to discuss.
Player Core 416 describes a basic action, it also says that other actions might have you do one or more of these basic actions.
I couldn't see a glossary entry for subactions so here is my take.
It would seem any ability that tells you to do basic actions is actually making you do those basic actions. meaning there is no difference between sudden charge and stride stride strike for aftermove to trigger but there is a difference for premove to take affect.
So when an ability says to change your next stride in some way its looking for the basic action stride to be your next action. If you do a sudden charge then your next action was sudden charge and even though that action will make you stride you really sudden charged first which told you to stride. We all agree on this point.
If there is a trigger looking for your last action to be a strike then that strike at the end of sudden charge is every bit as much of a basic strike as if you just used a stride stride and then strike for the turn.
Ruling that the aftermove doesn't trigger abilities that look for a basic action of some kind is saying that the moves that tell you to take a basic action dont actually count as a basic action of that kind actually occurring. 416 would disagree with that assumption because it says other actions actually can make you do one or more basic actions.
There is also still the examples given in Subordinate Actions on page 415.
Using an activity is not the same as using any of
its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened
condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend
an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you
couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that
includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you
used an action that specified, “If the next action you use
is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t
count, because the next thing you are doing is starting
an activity, not using the Strike basic action.
So it gives as a specific example for the 'next action is...' scenario. But unfortunately it doesn't give the 'previous action is...' as an example either way.
I'm saying that 'previous action is...' scenarios would still fall under the actual rule of "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions" even if it isn't given a specific example.
I'm not saying that Sudden Charge doesn't mean that you take two Stride actions and a Strike action. I'm saying that you didn't use Strike as your last action - you used Sudden Charge as your last activity, just like a feat looking forward would see that you are going to use Sudden Charge as your next action, not Stride.
For more concrete examples:
Why do Spellshape feats not work with Spellstrike, but Gunslinger feats like Finish the Job and Clear a Path do?
Why does that make narrative and/or balance sense?
I see what you mean, so there they say what a subordinate action is and that using an activity is not the same as using any of its individual subordinate actions. I see that working only to say the activity itself is not counted as a basic stride, but when you use the activity it tells you to stride at which point a basic stride sometimes changed in some way was used. The activity wouldn't trigger anything looking for a basic action but the activity still is telling you to do the basic action and when you do the basic action as part of the activity it will trigger anything as normally using the basic action would. The main limits will be in the actual wording of the trigger.
But even in that sidebar it says you use the basic action and that it has all of its normal traits and effects. It also talks about an augmented stride still triggering things triggered by stride as normal.
Also the subordinate action doesn't gain the traits of the larger action unless specified kinda supporting the concept that the stride subordinate action is still its own thing.
Yes. The rules are ambiguous. The example doesn't list backwards looking action checks, but the lack of example can't be used to exclude backwards looking checks from the general rule as stated. Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. But you are effectively using those subordinate actions - just inside the activity.
Without clarification from game devs, we need to make individual rulings at the table. Or come to a consensus based on game balance or intent.
And so far, no one has taken up my challenge to propose any sort of balance or intent argument saying why backward looking action checks should be handled differently than forward looking ones. All I am getting are people saying effectively, "well, that's what the rules say" even though the rules don't actually say that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to quibble over some of the details of the argument (some stuff is getting overly generalized) but I really wanted to draw attention to one specific point instead:
[...]But for some unknown reason[...]
There's nothing really 'unknown' about it. Someone sees a character activate flurry of blows, then strike twice and thinks "okay well the last thing they did was punch someone, so obviously they can use a followup to that strike" There is nothing particularly mysterious or 'unknowable' about this logic, even if it's not what the rules are designed to convey. The concept of activities as a container, or other bits of minutiae at play here, are not super well defined.
Mre importantly, I think this line highlights one of the big problems with rules discussions on this forum. Rather than engaging people over why they're confused with understanding, or laying out the specific mechanics for why the game should work in a certain way, we see posts prioritizing 'dunking' on those people by belittling their ability to comprehend language. They follow 'mysterious' or 'unknown' trains of thought that defy logic, rather than simply not fully understanding the nuances of a complicated game with lots of rules ambiguity.
It's not really a healthy way to have a discussion.
Does anyone know if Predators Pounce and Furious Grab would work?
LOL I was just hoping it would be a diff answer