In the original printing of COM - Quick trick kept the baked in movement of Trick Attack. Allowing the Operative to move as part of the trick and attack as a standard while then being able to use their move action in the same round either before or after the quick trick.
The Blitz soldier gets Charge Attack and the solarian can take Stellar Rush. Each of these convert charge from a full attack to a standard allowing them to move double movement as part of a charge and attack without the normal charge penalty and still have a move action either before or after the charge for whatever.
In the errata, Quick Trick was changed to specifically exclude the built in movement of Trick attack. However, both Charge attack (blitz soldier) and Stellar Rush both still contain the built in movement.
I am confused why errata one of these abilities but not be consistent with the other two. They seem like comparable abilities. After the errata the charge abilities are quite a bit more powerful in my mind. I would understand if they also had changed Charge Attack and Stellar rush to be half speed charge.
Thoughts?
The operative ability gave you more actions. Move Move Attack. It allows for a lot more unseen options. Such as move, do a trick attack, move and hide with the ghost exploit.
I agree, moving and trick attacking then moving, especially with a ranged weapon is significantly more powerful than charging into melee as a standard action.
The operative ability gave you more actions. Move Move Attack. It allows for a lot more unseen options. Such as move, do a trick attack, move and hide with the ghost exploit.
They give the same number of actions.
Charge Attack or Stellar Rush:
Can move into a better position then charge.
Guarded step then charge
Charge then guarded step
Charge then move
And many other combinations of Charge and Move action
I don't see much difference at all.
The key difference between the two is that trick attack can be a ranged attack. Standard action charge means you must move into melee.
Double move and trick attack means you can move in and out of total cover while still shooting. It means you can move out of hiding, trick attack and then attempt a stealth check to become hidden again.
It also means you can use your operative's high movement speed to easily kite monsters while still trick attacking.
Also, standard action charge is difficult/dangerous to perform round after round against a single enemy, a ranged trick attack is not.
The key difference between the two is that trick attack can be a ranged attack. Standard action charge means you must move into melee.
Double move and trick attack means you can move in and out of total cover while still shooting. It means you can move out of hiding, trick attack and then attempt a stealth check to become hidden again.
One can do this with Charge Attack too. A little more awkwardly, and requires an acrobatics to avoid AoO.
It also means you can use your operative's high movement speed to easily kite monsters while still trick attacking.
Operative with quick trick does not get additional movement, so the "high movement speed" is incorrect. Blitz Soldier does get enhanced speed though, and could use this to hit and run round after round.
Also a trick attack (original not quick trick) with the operative fast movement still intact is just as easy to kite.
Also, standard action charge is difficult/dangerous to perform round after round against a single enemy, a ranged trick attack is not.
Alas for the melee focused operative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One can do this with Charge Attack too. A little more awkwardly, and requires an acrobatics to avoid AoO.
Yes, but you are still risking an AoO, which is the problem. That's much more dangerous compared to shooting from 30+ feet away.
Operative with quick trick does not get additional movement, so the "high movement speed" is incorrect. Blitz Soldier does get enhanced speed though, and could use this to hit and run round after round.
Operatives have bonus speed baked into their class features, which is what I was referring to. Also, we're discussing the original printing of quick trick which incudes a bonus move action, which can be used to, you know, move a second time. A standard action charge character can technically do this too, but their speed and default distance from target (0ft vs 30+ft) is lower than the average operative and they still risk an AoO, unlike the operative.
Also a trick attack (original not quick trick) with the operative fast movement still intact is just as easy to kite.
No... having a second move action ala the original printing of quick trick makes kiting... literally twice as easy as the original trick attack. You know, because double movement speed.
Alas for the melee focused operative.
It might, maybe not be unbalanced if it only worked for melee trick attacks, but ranged trick attacks are a completely different story.
Operative with quick trick does not get additional movement
An asmodean reading of the original quick trick did give you more movement
You can take a trick attack as a standard action.
= You can take a trick attack, a move, and a swift.
Since a (trick attack) INCLUDES moving your base speed =
(Movement + sneak Attack)+ a move action (which could be used to move) + a swift action.
[
Operative with quick trick does not get additional movement, so the "high movement speed" is incorrect. Blitz Soldier does get enhanced speed though, and could use this to hit and run round after round.Operatives have bonus speed baked into their class features, which is what I was referring to. Also, we're discussing the original printing of quick trick which incudes a bonus move action, which can be used to, you know, move a second time. A standard action charge character can technically do this too, but their speed and default distance from target (0ft vs 30+ft) is lower than the average operative and they still risk an AoO, unlike the operative.
Operatives with Quick Trick give up the class based baked in movement to get quick trick. This configuration allows combinations of 60' movement with an attack (before the errata). Since most characters can charge 60' not sure how Kite strong this is.
So an operative with Quick Trick getting two movements is compared to an operative with Trick Attack and Increased Movement. This combination allows UP to 80' movement with an attack after the movement. Seems pretty kite strong.
Meanwhile a Blitz soldier moves up to 120' and attacks or depending on armor 90' and attacks.
Quick trick is a feat, not an alternative class feature.
Quick trick is a feat, not an alternative class feature.
Incorrect.
Quick Trick (Ex)3rd Level
Source Character Operations Manual pg. 82
Class Operative
You can make a trick attack as a standard action if you do not move as part of that ability. You cannot make any other attack during a round when you do this, and cannot take any action that affects or modifies your attack or the weapon you are attacking with.
This replaces quick movement.
Alright then
as for kiting, you can charge 60 feet but that 60 feet has to be in a straight line. But the operative isn't limited to a straight line or from crossing difficult terrain or from moving through an ally (or other enemies...) all they have to do is go around the corner or behind their tank, and with 60-80 feet of movement there's likely something around, unless the DM has an all tatooine adventure..
Quick movement isn't the only way to get a little more movement than the other guy, bionic legs are cheap, fleet isn't a terrible feat.
Alright then
as for kiting, you can charge 60 feet but that 60 feet has to be in a straight line. But the operative isn't limited to a straight line or from crossing difficult terrain or from moving through an ally (or other enemies...) all they have to do is go around the corner or behind their tank, and with 60-80 feet of movement there's likely something around, unless the DM has an all tatooine adventure..
Quick movement isn't the only way to get a little more movement than the other guy, bionic legs are cheap, fleet isn't a terrible feat.
All characters and NPCs have equal access to accelerated movement from other sources. People who invest in them will have advantages in movement. They apply equally to both Quick Trick, Trick attack, and Charge Attack.
I find it interesting that the main argument in favor of the errata is due to someone kiting (which can be done equally using other abilities), and someone going cover to cover ranged. Both of which provide situational advantages.
But I can be very creative with a Charge Attack soldier so get situation advantages in a similar way with more movement.
I guess because it requires less thought to get the situational advantage? Or because enemies don't react wisely to a character trying these strategies after 1 or 2 rounds?
Alright then
as for kiting, you can charge 60 feet but that 60 feet has to be in a straight line. But the operative isn't limited to a straight line or from crossing difficult terrain or from moving through an ally (or other enemies...) all they have to do is go around the corner or behind their tank, and with 60-80 feet of movement there's likely something around, unless the DM has an all tatooine adventure..
Quick movement isn't the only way to get a little more movement than the other guy, bionic legs are cheap, fleet isn't a terrible feat.
Keep in mind the Charge attack is 60 feet of strait movement (more likely 70 or 80 due to blitz movement ability) and another 30-40 movement not in a strait line.
The reason I found it odd was that I gave up "quick movement" which would have let me move forty feet and trick attack, so now I can move sixty feet and attack.
Balance issues are difficult to parse but the intended meaning seemed clear to me.
I think this was always the intention. I suspect the author fell into the same trap players often do - namely thinking trick attack is "like sneak attack in pathfinder". They forget its a full round action and think of it as move + trick attack.
I find it interesting that the main argument in favor of the errata is due to someone kiting (which can be done equally using other abilities), and someone going cover to cover ranged. Both of which provide situational advantages.
It cannot be done equally.
Someone charging the monster with big sharp pointy teeth has to go towards the monster. Likely getting an attack of opportunity. That limits their starting positions and makes the combo at best one whack to one whack.
Someone trick attacking with the unerratad quick trick can move attack move or move move attack, and only needs to be in line of sight of the monster with big sharp pointy teeth. That pistol range gives you a LOT more opportunities to kite or in the case of an operative, start stealthing once you hit the corner. The guy with a pistol has a head start over the guy with a sword AND functionally has double powered version of shot on the run.
It also synergizes way too well with other operative abilities, especially the cloaking field. Freeing up that move action gives the operative if not quite improved invisibility, a lot of the same problem as only being visible when they attack.
But I can be very creative with a Charge Attack soldier so get situation advantages in a similar way with more movement.
Every time I see someone say they can be more "creative" with something without actually showing it it's either patently contrary to the rules or just does not work.
Every time I see someone claim that they're right because they're smarter than everyone else it's a case of tell don't show.
The reason I found it odd was that I gave up "quick movement" which would have let me move forty feet and trick attack, so now I can move sixty feet and attack.
Balance issues are difficult to parse but the intended meaning seemed clear to me.
I think this was always the intention. I suspect the author fell into the same trap players often do - namely thinking trick attack is "like sneak attack in pathfinder". They forget its a full round action and think of it as move + trick attack.
I agree that it was intended to always work like the errata, and it was missed in original. Proven by the fact they did make errata.
I just would have preferred they also changed the Charge attack to be include say standard attack as long as the move no more than a single move. Then its balanced again.
Every time I see someone say they can be more "creative" with something without actually showing it it's either patently contrary to the rules or just does not work.
I already listed examples. But I can do so again in summary.
* L3 Operative with quick movement and trick attack can move. 40' and shoot. They can start from cover and end in cover (but not full cover). L9 that's move 50' and attack, L15 that's move 60 and attack. That does not include the highly valuable Improved Quick Movement which makes those numbers 50, 70, and 80' movement and attack. So with normal quick attack and a ranged weapon I can kite quite effectively and attack from cover (but not full cover). Also note that in order to be effective I must be in range when I shoot of my small arms.
- Total movement max 80+trick attack
* L3 Operative with quick trick can move twice 30' each and shoot. They can start from cover and end in cover (including cover). No increase in this for levels 9 and 15. So I can use the coveted cover to cover shooting when that is available. Unless someone changes their strategy to prevent this. I can also Kite 60', which may or may not be enough to avoid a charge. Also note that in order to be effective I must be in range when I shoot of my small arms.
- Total movement max 60+trick attack
- movement 30+trick+movement 30
* L5 blitz soldier can move 40 (or 30 or 35 depending on their armor), then charge another (80, 70, or 60). this allows me to move into position before my charge, or fly up then charge. I could also instead charge, then guarded step. or Charge then ready shield, or charge and then tumble a move away. or charge then tumble into a flank. Sure tumble allows AoO, its not hard to beat it. (and often in order to use trick to escape melee in the above examples tumble is needed too). In addition to all this my charge is at no attack and AC penalty like normal. Additionally I can charge away from my foes at x3 movement and attack nothing. This getting to escape at x3. This also changes to allow a full attack at level 11 instead of 1.
- Total movement up to 120 (realistically 90 or 105 due to armor) then attack (full?).
or movement 80(70/60) + attack (full?) + movement (40/35/30)
So I disagree that the abilities are not similar and scrutinized comparatively. If you remove the movement from quick trick, then remove some of the movement from charge attack IMO. With the movement removed from Quick trick its value over standard Trick attack becomes unclear.
Every time I see someone say they can be more "creative" with something without actually showing it it's either patently contrary to the rules or just does not work.
I've shown examples since the beginning. Nothing I have suggested is against the rules or won't work. In this case all the counter arguments have been as subjective as my assertion that the abilities are similar in function and use.
Basically the argument is you can cheese quick trick to kite or cover to cover. Reasonably true for that one build (other builds like melee operative, who cares since it is harder to cheese?). But then nothing stops you from cheese on charge attack or original trick. Except the situation, enemies reacting smartly, etc.
Every time I see someone claim that they're right because they're smarter than everyone else it's a case of tell don't show.
Been showing plenty of examples since the beginning.
Never claimed smarter, but I have seen you many times on these boards try to shut down a discussion by using this sort of comment.
I haven't seen a single comment on here yet that I hadn't considered before posting and has convinced me that there isn't a double standard being applied and the abilities shouldn't be more compared balance wise.
So "Additionally I can charge away from my foes at x3 movement and attack nothing" isn't actually a thing.
So "Additionally I can charge away from my foes at x3 movement and attack nothing" isn't actually a thing.
Why not?
Is it Cheesy? Yes. Would any sane GM frown? Yes.
Also why would I be able to move 120' and attack something twice, but I can't move 120' without? no logic
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.
As for being able to move 120' and not attack, of course you can. You can Run.
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.
"Opponent" is undefined in the rules as far as I know. as a result it can be an object or air.
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.As for being able to move 120' and not attack, of course you can. You can Run.
Run applies flat footed but using it as a charge in some circumstances allows x3 with an extra action and no penalties.
I just would have preferred they also changed the Charge attack to be include say standard attack as long as the move no more than a single move. Then its balanced again.
I don't understand what you are referring to here. You get an attack at the end of a charge. What change are you looking for?
I just would have preferred they also changed the Charge attack to be include say standard attack as long as the move no more than a single move. Then its balanced again.I don't understand what you are referring to here. You get an attack at the end of a charge. What change are you looking for?
Fair question. I guess I was trying to highlight a bit of half-baked ability comparisons. To highlight from a balance standpoint Charge Attack is higher action economy than something else after an errata. I'd love to see an errata on charge attack to be match where the baked in movement is single move instead of double to keep it in line with the normal action economy of Starfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair question. I guess I was trying to highlight a bit of half-baked ability comparisons. To highlight from a balance standpoint Charge Attack is higher action economy than something else after an errata. I'd love to see an errata on charge attack to be match where the baked in movement is single move instead of double to keep it in line with the normal action economy of Starfinder.I just would have preferred they also changed the Charge attack to be include say standard attack as long as the move no more than a single move. Then its balanced again.I don't understand what you are referring to here. You get an attack at the end of a charge. What change are you looking for?
I guess I can see the point, but thinking of my players and how they are built, it wouldn't stop anything save on the largest of battlemaps.
* L3 Operative with quick movement and trick attack can move. 40' and shoot. They can start from cover and end in cover (but not full cover)
What is the rationale for not being able to end in full cover?
Also note that in order to be effective I must be in range when I shoot of my small arms.
Keep in mind that trick attack unlike sneak attack doesn't have a range limitation. You can shoot from 2 range increments away and functionally be attacking their normal AC.
Even If you're avoiding a penalty only needing to get within 30 feet of an opponent as opposed to adjacent to them gives you a lot more options.
You cannot math or write an equation to show parity between the two. Its a tactical positioning consideration not a numeric consideration.
- Total movement max 80+trick attack
Math isn't the issue. This is not something you can plug into an equation.
The important thing here is not the amount of movement. Its the restrictions on movement that a charge has. It has to move you directly towards an opponent and you need to stop in the first square you can hit them from. The operative has none of those restrictions. That makes the operative with this ability far better at kiting.
The operative gets to shoot anyone and anything without a reasonable fear of being hit back. Your acrobatic Blitz soldier/solarion does not. The best situation you're presenting is that with a successful tumble check they can kite something with half of their movement.
L5 blitz soldier can move 40 (or 30 or 35 depending on their armor), then charge another (80, 70, or 60). this allows me to move into position before my charge, or fly up then charge. I could also instead charge, then guarded step. or Charge then ready shield, or charge and then tumble a move away.
You could. But now you need to invest in dex and probably stay in light armor/ spend a mint mitigating your heavy armor ACP to do reliably.
You're also going to wind up either a five foot step and whack or a move and whack away from the bad guy. Or with a readied shield and getting full attacked from the bad guy. (a five foot step away mitigates WAY more damage than a shield in most cases. Thats a big problem with shields)
One whack to one whack is hardly a problem. You can get the same combat rhythm with just a five foot step.
Additionally I can charge away from my foes at x3 movement and attack nothing....
"Opponent" is undefined in the rules as far as I know. as a result it can be an object or air.
Yeah..no. Remember when I said "Creative" solutions turn out to just plain not work? You're trying one of those here. Bending the rules to the point of breaking and then some is not a creative strategy. It's banal willful misinterpretation of the rules.
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.
You have to charge at an opponent. No, you are not your own worst enemy, no, the party operative is not your rival, no, your reflection in the pillar is not your opponent. Your opponent is the other person you're trying to beat with a weapon. The rules may not define it but english does. The rules are meant to be read with common sense and plain english in mind.
So I disagree that the abilities are not similar and scrutinized comparatively.
You're not scrutinizing them. You're adding up their movement as if that was all that mattered, and ignoring the point that everyone is making. That
1) The operative has no placement restrictions on their movement
2) The operative gains one full round attack (their trick attack) to the opponents inability to hit back. The soldier or solarion gets at most one hit to one hit. One hit to one hit is really common in this system. One hit with no ability to respond is kind of cheesy.
nemies reacting smartly, etc.
Again. Unbacked claims like this do not make your point. They only show that you don't have one.
I've been showing plenty of examples since the beginning.
You haven't. You've shown the ability to get the same amount of movement like a math problem. This isn't a math problem. Its a space and game problem. The operative has no restrictions on their movement, the solarion does. The operative can Kite for attacks and not have the opponent be able to retaliate, your charging solarion at best winds up half a movement away so the opponent can walk up and whack him. (and if they don't have reach could easily wind up at one whack to two against an opponent with reach)
I have seen you many times on these boards try to shut down a discussion by using this sort of comment.
If that shuts someone down it's because I'm right. Everyone here is used to being the rules guy at their table. Welcome to the bigger ocean. Just saying you have a better solution doesn't mean you have one.
Math is not the issue. Showing the math works out does not make your point.
Your problematic combat routines kiting are not problematic. You wind up with one whack to one whack. The trick attacking operative winds up with one full round whap to no whacks.
* L3 Operative with quick movement and trick attack can move. 40' and shoot. They can start from cover and end in cover (but not full cover)What is the rationale for not being able to end in full cover?
I meant "Total Cover" not "full cover" as a clarification. And my thought it that it you have total cover then there is no line of effect between you and the opponent in question meaning you cannot shoot them. Might not be RAW. I can't say in this case. Note: Quick trick does not have this problem as you can trick then move into total cover. However, at that point you may have lost line of sight as well as line of effect, so might have no idea what your enemy is doing in response. Cover is all a bit vague on its implications really. boils down to if a player is using total cover then they probably are using total cover and that's going to have costs (i.e. is it transparent?). Not that this is super critical to this discussion. Other than to highlight cover to cover is only as good as a GM lets it be.
Also note that in order to be effective I must be in range when I shoot of my small arms.Keep in mind that trick attack unlike sneak attack doesn't have a range limitation. You can shoot from 2 range increments away and functionally be attacking their normal AC.
Even If you're avoiding a penalty only needing to get within 30 feet of an opponent as opposed to adjacent to them gives you a lot more options.
I agree you can stay at higher range if you want. Range + lower BAB vs flat-footed AC vs Soldiers melee attack is lower hit chance. Safer? yes. perfect? no. nothing stops someone from shooting back at you.
Yeah..no. Remember when I said "Creative" solutions turn out to just plain not work? You're trying one of those here. Bending the rules to the point of breaking and then some is not a creative strategy. It's banal willful misinterpretation of the rules.Additionally I can charge away from my foes at x3 movement and attack nothing....
"Opponent" is undefined in the rules as far as I know. as a result it can be an object or air.
Not really going to spend much debating this one here because it is a terrible cheese hack on the rules and no GM would allow it. But most people agree any character can charge a door and attack it in order to knock it down (even though its not an armed enemy). if you can move x3 and attack a person, you can move x3 and attack a door. Now you can easily replace door with statue, or pillar with reflection. something that sounds silly and "creative" is perfectly within logic of the original ability.
enemies reacting smartly, etc.
Again. Unbacked claims like this do not make your point. They only show that you don't have one.
I didn't think it was necessary to show strategic counters to this and failing to do so would suddenly negate everything I said before. Enemies can take cover from ranged fire too. Enemies can ready attacks for mobile cover darting enemies. Enemies can log grenades behind cover. Enemies can use ranged against ranged foes. I think its safe to say a basic simple tactic like kite and cover darting only works if the enemies stand there baffled by your actions. Not listing out counterstrategies for a few examples is more an exercise of not wasting time and less about not being able to come up with them.
Your problematic combat routines kiting are not problematic. You wind up with one whack to one whack. The trick attacking operative winds up with one full round whap to no whacks.
Blitz soldier gets a full rounds of attacks in a charge at level 11. and no whacks comparison is limited to someone simply trying to chase ( and never charging) with a melee weapon. And is true for both trick attack and quick trick attack.
I meant "Total Cover" not "full cover" as a clarification.
Nomenclature isn't the issue here.
The operative can move to total cover, and start their round in total cover, move out of total cover, and go back to total cover very easily . That is VERY easy to do when you don't need do be closer than 30 feet to their opponent. That is much harder to do when your charge action requires you to get right next to your opponent and limits one of your moves.
You do not need total cover all the time to defend. Only when your opponent shoots. You do not need line of sight to attack all the time, only when YOU shoot.
The greater ease that the operative can get from LOS and shoot and back to no LOS is the problem here, not the total amount of movement.
I agree you can stay at higher range if you want. Range + lower BAB vs flat-footed AC vs Soldiers melee attack is lower hit chance. Safer? yes. perfect? no. nothing stops someone from shooting back at you.
Full cover stops people from shooting back.
Being a melee creature stops them from shooting back too.
Going cloaking field and invisible will very likely top them from being able to shoot back. (doable at 5th)
But most people agree any character can charge a door
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Not permission to wind up attacking air molecules in your way.
I didn't think it was necessary to show strategic counters to this and failing to do so would suddenly negate everything I said before.
Nothing you said before was really relevant to the problem. This is why you need to ask other people their what their thought process is.
Enemies can take cover from ranged fire too.
Cover is directional and the operative has a better chance to move around it.
Enemies can ready attacks for mobile cover darting enemies.
And wind up taking no action at all for the round when the party radios him or has the shirren send him a telepathic message "hey he's readying something"
These rules exist in the context of a party working together. What works for one on one chess in a thought exercise may not be applicable to actual play. You have an entire rest of the party to worry about when you're playing rock paper scissors with schrodingers space rogue.
Enemies can lob grenades behind cover.
IF the opponent is a humanoid. If the humanoid has grenades. If the humanoid opponent with grenades know where he is and if no one else in the party is standing next to him with a whap of opportunity when he throws the grande.
Assuming not total cover where you can see where the operative is then you're throwing grenades at an operative with a high dex high reflex save and evasion. Reducing your opponent to a strategy that bad is way too good of an ability.
Not listing out counterstrategies for a few examples is more an exercise of not wasting time and less about not being able to come up with them.
None of your counter tactics are particularly good. They're not reliable for a number of creatures, or really workable in game when facing a party. The disadvantage that they put the NPCs at vs. your character are too big for one class feature that you can replace with a feat or two. Taking the mathematicians answer of "yes/no there are counter tactics" in a binary fashion doesn't answer the question of whether or not the ability is too good. You have to look where those tactics leave you relative to the regular workings of a wide variety of creatures. Forcing a creature into the counter-strategies you suggested reduces their effectiveness far more than any third level ability should.
Blitz soldier gets a full rounds of attacks in a charge at level 11. and no whacks comparison is limited to someone simply trying to chase ( and never charging) with a melee weapon. And is true for both trick attack and quick trick attack.
Level 11 is not level 3. Getting the equivalent of an 11th level ability at 3 is evidence that that ability is overpowered. And again, charge in and walk away will get you a whap of opporunity. Charge in and tumble away is hard for most soldiers to pull off. Charge in and tumble away results in the monster walking up to the soldier and hitting them unless the monster doesn't have reach AND has less than half the soldiers movement. Charge in and tumble away requires an open charge lane (else the soldier needs to move to an open charge lane and charge from there)
I think there is some mistake that I am arguing against the errata of quick trick. I am actually saying Charge Attack should also be errata'd.
Quick trick was a 3 action ability that was never intended to work the way it did, and was errata's to fix a mistake.
Charge Attack is a 4 action move with restrictions that also should be fixed in the same way. It should be a standard action with a single movement movement instead of the x2. Thus allowing the soldier to use their normal movement action before or after the standard charge.
I think there is some mistake that I am arguing against the errata of quick trick. I am actually saying Charge Attack should also be errata'd.
Quick trick was a 3 action ability that was never intended to work the way it did, and was errata's to fix a mistake.
Charge Attack is a 4 action move with restrictions that also should be fixed in the same way. It should be a standard action with a single movement movement instead of the x2. Thus allowing the soldier to use their normal movement action before or after the standard charge.
I don't think the number of actions it adds up to matters all that much. Since you have 1 move to line up your charge lane it's going to be exceedingly rare that you have a straight line for one movement to your target but would need 2 moves to get you there... especially when the blitz soldier has increased speed.
99% of the time it is a move and then a one move charge. The two moves from the charge being stuck together and both having the same restrictions is what takes a lot of versatility out of the combo, which is why the quick trick is a lot better despite the number of actions it adds up to.
Two moves in a straight line without anything in the way directly towards your opponent is not as nearly as valuable or exploitable being able to move anywhere, attack and move anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I found it odd was that I gave up "quick movement" which would have let me move forty feet and trick attack, so now I can move sixty feet and attack.
Balance issues are difficult to parse but the intended meaning seemed clear to me.
I think this was always the intention. I suspect the author fell into the same trap players often do - namely thinking trick attack is "like sneak attack in pathfinder". They forget its a full round action and think of it as move + trick attack.
I agree that it was intended to always work like the errata, and it was missed in original. Proven by the fact they did make errata.
I just would have preferred they also changed the Charge attack to be include say standard attack as long as the move no more than a single move. Then its balanced again.
I don't think "balance" is as objective as people think it is.
At our table the two aren't comparable - quick trick allowing a move was exploitable but the charge attack (and other similar like stellar rush) isn't creating any issues.
The main issue we saw was the operative essentially being able to trick attack while remaining safe from counterattack. That doesn't happen with other move/attack combinations (at least at our table).
In our game the operative had never used the quick trick cover to cover. In fact need to use two moves on the trick hadn't come up at all yet. So it was a non-factor, even before we discovered the errata.
The soldier and solarian just acquired charge attack/solar rush. Ranged enemies have been so far very ineffective against their ability to close into melee even without x3 movement. I doubt now they will fare much better now.
The soldier and solarian just acquired charge attack/solar rush. Ranged enemies have been so far very ineffective against their ability to close into melee even without x3 movement. I doubt now they will fare much better now.
A large monster with reach or anyone holding a pike would do a number on the attack routines you were describing.
In our game the operative had never used the quick trick cover to cover. In fact need to use two moves on the trick hadn't come up at all yet. So it was a non-factor, even before we discovered the errata.
The soldier and solarian just acquired charge attack/solar rush. Ranged enemies have been so far very ineffective against their ability to close into melee even without x3 movement. I doubt now they will fare much better now.
They certainly won’t fare any better, but isn’t that expected? Your soldier and Solarion have been shutting down ranged combatants effectively - now they’ve gone up a few levels wouldn’t you expect them to be improving?
It never came up in our game either, because I felt it was clearly against the spirit of the power. I don’t get that same feel from the stellar rush power though (when I played a Solarion) - it clearly is designed to allow a Solarion to close and attack very rapidly.
I think the analysis you’re presenting is missing the difference between two classes. If there was another operative exploit which allowed what the errata to quick trick forbids, then I’d think it was fruitful. But trying to adjudicate which operative feature is balanced with which Solarion feature based on action economy leaves out the strengths and limitations of the two classes, in my opinion.