|
This came up in during a session during PaizoCon this weekend and it kind of set Me off. I was playing an Operative during a SFS adventure and I was kind of stuck too close to a mob with reach. My Operative uses trick attack to make an attack on the monster with their pistol, and wildly succeeds the trick attack roll. This should apply the Flat-Footed condition and all the effects of Flat-Footed should apply, which is a penalty to their AC and no reactions for that attack. The GM insists that I take an attack of opportunity for the attack because its with a ranged weapon, even though the creature should be flat-footed for the attack. Apparently he has heard it from some big-wig in Starfinder Society Organized play that the rules as intended are that Trick Attacks at melee range with ranged weapons still provoke because of some Operative Exploit which is only tangentially relevant.
We go to break and he apparently when to check with that bigwig and gives the following exploit as the reason why this has to be the intended interpretation.
Uncanny Shooter (Ex)
Source Starfinder Core Rulebook pg. 96
Level Required 6
Your ranged attacks with small arms do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
First of all, usually when a feat or class ability changes a general rule, or affects a rule that could be easily misinterpreted, it provides an explanation of what the original rule is so you can compare the result. This does not.
Secondly, my interpretation of this exploit is that it is for when you fail the trick attack (it does happen) or if you get too close and want to full attack the mob with a small arm. It is not supposed to be an exploit you need in order to not provoke an AOO from a successful trick attack.
Please resolve this for me so I know what the rules actually are if they are not present in the book, or others do not have to suffer this misinterpretation.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, to answer your main question:
There is no "Society Specific" ruling on this. If there were, it would appear on the FAQ/errata page.
While Society VLs and VCs do not have the authority to create binding rulings for all Organized Play, your table GM does have the authority to rule on something that happens at the table. In this case he ruled one way, you questioned it, and he conferred with someone else who agreed with his ruling. Unless whatever the GM is doing is creating a toxic table environment, at that point the thing to do - which it sounds like you did - is to accept the ruling for that game, even if it is incorrect.
After that, you can ask your question on the messageboards like this. Maybe you were wrong, or maybe the GM was, or maybe it's a gray area and you're going to get multiple answers and table variation. If consensus is that the GM is wrong, you can respectfully send a private message to the GM saying "hey, it was bothering me so I looked into this some more and the consensus is that it works the way I thought" along with a link to the thread.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the actual rule, you were correct.
Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth check (or a check associated with your specialization; see page 94) with a DC equal to 20 + your target’s CR. If you succeed at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is flat-footed against your attack.
You make the check before you make the attack. If you succeed at the check the target is flat-footed and can't take a reaction (such as an AoO) from your attack.
Your ranged attacks with small arms do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
What Uncanny Shooter does is make it so all of your attacks with small arms do not provoke. If you have Uncanny Shooter then you can take a full attack without provoking, fire an unwieldy small arm without provoking, take a move-equivalent and shoot without provoking, and even if you are trick-attacking and fail the trick DC you don't provoke with the attack.
But that's not true, there are multiple ways of not provoking with a small arm attack. Just to name a few you could feint, you could trick attack, or you could put a guarded fusion on the weapon.
|
|
You're correct. And this is probably why bigwigs don't like to make rules declarations while under caffinated and without bouncing the idea around the office a little bit. Just before making the attack and the operative being flat footed to the attack are very clearly spelled out.
Uncanny shooter is more useful for non operatives, and Would be more useful for a tripple attacking operative or one that can't trick attack for some reason (such as being slowed) . The starfinders rules have several ways to wind up with a hairless space cat.
|
|
I will admit I was a little salty about as this happened in the last game I played at PaizoCon, and needed to vent a little. This is because this ruling of the GM appeared to change the rules specifically for Society play, or it was the GM in question taking someone else's house rule and applying it to all their Starfinder games because of their authority within the Organized Play organization. That is why I brought it up here and not in the general SF rules question forum.
I also wanted to ensure there was a post about this on the forum should this issue come up again on some other table. I'm not a vengeful person or wanting to poke fingers. I just wanted a clear, concise, mostly emotionless expression of an issue that I feel should never have come up.
Thank you for settling this issue.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you will still find table variation on this. The phrase "flat-footed against your attack" appears not only in this ability but also in the envoy's clever feint improvisation, and many GMs take it to mean that the enemy has the flat-footed penalty to AC but can still take reactions. Others interpret it as you did and think that flat-footed to the attack means that the enemy can't take reactions based on the attack (but still could for, say, your movement).
This isn't a GM applying a house rule, but a totally reasonable interpretation of the language. The phrase "against your attack" was actually added in the errata for the most recent printing, so some GMs have changed their minds on this based on the addition of those words.
The last few games I've played where this came up, the GM ruled that the enemy gets an AoO, so definitely be prepared to roll with it if future GMs rule it that way again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flat-footed doesn't just impose -2 AC. It also prevents reactions.
I think the issue isn't "what does Flat-footed mean?" but, rather the problem is "how do you parse 'against this attack'?"
Like Kate says, it's a perfectly supportable position to say "the baddies is flat-footed against the attack, but for no other purposes, including reactions provoked by same attack."
As a GM, I try to rule in favour of the players whenever I can, but, as written, there's enough ambiguity there to make a case for either side.
Is there an official ruling? Something more definitive than this thread we can point to?
|
|
Flat-footed doesn't just impose -2 AC. It also prevents reactions.I think the issue isn't "what does Flat-footed mean?" but, rather the problem is "how do you parse 'against this attack'?"
I don't know how you can parse it in any way except "flat-footed while this attack is going on, then not flat-footed."
What about feinting? That allows you to "treat your opponent as flat-footed for your next attack against it before the end of your next turn." Is "treating your opponent as flat-footed" different than "the target is flat-footed against your attack?"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flat-footed doesn't just impose -2 AC. It also prevents reactions.I think the issue isn't "what does Flat-footed mean?" but, rather the problem is "how do you parse 'against this attack'?"
How else could you parse it?
Flat-footed does two things:
1) a penalty to AC
2) no reactions
Ergo, "against this attack", the opponent is -2 AC, and cannot use reactions.
|
|
Kate brings up a good point, though:
If you succeed at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is flat-footed.
I would probably read that as imposing the flat-footed condition as a rider effect of the damage, and therefore, the attack would be susceptible to reactions.
If you succeed at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is flat-footed against your attack.
That update is a much less ambiguous reading, IMO.
|
|
Heh. Ninja'd by 11 seconds.
Like Kate says, it's a perfectly supportable position to say "the baddies is flat-footed against the attack, but for no other purposes, including reactions provoked by same attack."
I already responded to that point by saying it doesn't make sense to impose half of the flat-footed condition, and not the other half.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you will still find table variation on this. The phrase "flat-footed against your attack" appears not only in this ability but also in the envoy's clever feint improvisation, and many GMs take it to mean that the enemy has the flat-footed penalty to AC but can still take reactions. Others interpret it as you did and think that flat-footed to the attack means that the enemy can't take reactions based on the attack (but still could for, say, your movement).
This isn't a GM applying a house rule, but a totally reasonable interpretation of the language. The phrase "against your attack" was actually added in the errata for the most recent printing, so some GMs have changed their minds on this based on the addition of those words.
The last few games I've played where this came up, the GM ruled that the enemy gets an AoO, so definitely be prepared to roll with it if future GMs rule it that way again.
The problem with this interpretation is that it is the wording of "against the" is being applied differently in one situation than another. If the ability says "Flat-Footed against the player" is it stating that all effects of Flat-Footed apply to that player. The same should apply to "against the attack." If the application is "against the attack" then all aspects of that condition should apply during the attack, which is not simply the attack roll. If a caster has an ability that makes a target "Flat-Footed against next spell" then the target is Flat-Footed in every way against the next spell that caster casts and only the next spell the caster casts.
The reason for the change from the first printing was so that the Flat-Footed condition wasn't applied the movement phase of Trick Attack, and only the Attack part of Trick Attack
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I already responded to that point by saying it doesn't make sense to impose half of the flat-footed condition, and not the other half.Like Kate says, it's a perfectly supportable position to say "the baddies is flat-footed against the attack, but for no other purposes, including reactions provoked by same attack."
Agreed. If trick attack was only intended to give the target a -2 penalty to AC, why would you write "flat-footed against your attack" instead of "-2 penalty to AC against your attack?"
|
|
Muaa ha ha, I win, by 11 seconds :D
If trick attack was only intended to give the target a -2 penalty to AC, why would you write "flat-footed against your attack" instead of "-2 penalty to AC against your attack?"
Let me turn that around and answer with another question: if trick attack wasn't supposed to provoke an attack of opportunity, why would they specifically add in a sentence in errata stating "against your attack"? This makes it clear it just impacts the specific trick attack, and not reactions provoked by that attack?
Anyways. I'm not really interested in debating the point, especially since, you know, I don't personally rule this way in my games :D
All I'm saying is - in some contrived situation where a player was arguing with their GM saying that successfully tricked ranged attacks should provoke (perhaps there are zero operatives in the party, but you're fighting a group of high level operative enemies, so this ruling is really in the party's favour or something?) - I don't think that I could definitively argue the point. I think there's enough wiggle room for either side to make a case.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Muaa ha ha, I win, by 11 seconds :DIf trick attack was only intended to give the target a -2 penalty to AC, why would you write "flat-footed against your attack" instead of "-2 penalty to AC against your attack?"Let me turn that around and answer with another question: if trick attack wasn't supposed to provoke an attack of opportunity, why would they specifically add in a sentence in errata stating "against your attack"? This makes it clear it just impacts the specific trick attack, and not reactions provoked by that attack?
Anyways. I'm not really interested in debating the point, especially since, you know, I don't personally rule this way in my games :D
All I'm saying is - in some contrived situation where a player was arguing with their GM saying that successfully tricked ranged attacks should provoke (perhaps there are zero operatives in the party, but you're fighting a group of high level operative enemies, so this ruling is really in the party's favour or something?) - I don't think that I could definitively argue the point. I think there's enough wiggle room for either side to make a case.
The change makes it so that the Flat-Footed condition would no longer take place on movement after the attack should the attacking player have Shot on the Run, as it would in the original printing text.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyways. I'm not really interested in debating the point, especially since, you know, I don't personally rule this way in my games :D
I started writing a post refuting your arguments, then I re-read this sentence. It’s clear that you are “just playing devil’s advocate.” After I just wrote how much I enjoyed that Starfinder rules discussions were more about finding a reasonable answer than debating how the grammar could be twisted. My points are made; anything else I write at this juncture is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
The strange thing about the ruling that it still provokes is that, such a ruling, splits the shooting action into somehow separate, not rules defined parts.
When the opponent in a space you threaten makes a ranged attack, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent.
The ranged attack that would provoke is a one in the same as the action that the enemy is flat-footed against. It is all the same action. To say that it does still provoke would require one to split the ranged attack into separate actions which is definitely not not defined by the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I was on lunch for that post earlier, I will be more thorough.
As a full action, you can move up to your speed. Whether or not you moved, you can then make an attack with a melee weapon with the operative special property or with any small arm. Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth check (or a check associated with your specialization; see page 94) with a DC equal to 20 + your target’s CR. If you succeed at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is flat-footed against your attack.
When the opponent in a space you threaten makes a ranged attack, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent.
The attack that would provoke the AoO is the same attack that the target is flat-footed against. To separate the attack roll from the attack has absolutely no rules support. As such I passionately refute the claim that it is a perfectly supportable position that a tricked target can make an AoO against the attack part of the trick attack.
Let me turn that around and answer with another question: if trick attack wasn't supposed to provoke an attack of opportunity, why would they specifically add in a sentence in errata stating "against your attack"? This makes it clear it just impacts the specific trick attack, and not reactions provoked by that attack?
Because in the previous iteration there was no duration.
All of that said...
While the ruling of the GM may be incorrect, I echo what many others have said previously. Accept the GM's ruling. At the end of the day a GM's role is not an easy one. If anything, play by their ruling out of thanks for them taking the time to GM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit, as someone who plays operatives, it never even occurred to me that my trick shots wouldn't provoke from the target...But you've been playing since 1st Printing, so that makes sense.
Keeping up with Errata isn't everyone's forte.
Possibly more to the point, I played since first printing, then stopped for a year when PF2 came out. Yeah, I am *way* behind on errata...
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
The update in the 3rd printing in the CRB at least adds some clarification to the duration of the flat-footed condition, but I fear, that without a developer commentary this is still subject to significant table variation (partially because many might have based their interpretation on the first reading, and I am not sure that the new wording significantly changes that).
I echo the other suggestions, accept the table ruling and move on, it might make sense to forward any official clarifications if there are any, but personally, I have bad experiences with players sending me the only argument that support their interpretations - though that was one noticeable instance in PFS1.
In general, if an experience with another GM or player is causing friction, the best option is just to avoid them.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not wholly caffeinated myself, but I think I'm in agreement with most of the folks here on the rules call.
The thing I can say differently, though, is that I'm one of the organizing committee members for this past PaizoCon. As such, if you felt this caused any major problems or friction beyond just a rules call, please feel free to drop me a line.
|
|
I am not sure that the new wording significantly changes that
Just asking a question, so I can understand where this camp is coming from, but when the new wording states "the target is flat-footed against your attack", why do you not impose the entire flat-footed condition, and how do you determine which half to apply, and which half not to apply?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The target is flat-footed against your attack. It doesn't say your attack is against a 'flat-footed AC' (which would imply the target was not flat-footed otherwise).
Really unsure how flat-footed against your attack can be construed as anything other than what it says, flat-footed against that attack whether with a melee weapon, ranged weapon, or a handful of bananas. Not flat-footed to anything else you might subsequently do, or flat-footed against your buddy Steve.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I am not sure that the new wording significantly changes thatJust asking a question, so I can understand where this camp is coming from, but when the new wording states "the target is flat-footed against your attack", why do you not impose the entire flat-footed condition, and how do you determine which half to apply, and which half not to apply?
I have only a moderately vague recollection of my reasoning about the subject from ages ago, but I think it was mostly timing-based. Though this line of thinking likely developed, after people argued, that the flat-footed also applied to the movement part of trick attack.
So I guess the reasoning is that the flat-footed condition might apply at the precise moment when the attack actually hits, rather than including all the other parts of trick attack, like moving or shooting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I as a GM can choose to not apply the –2 AC half of Flat-footed, and apply only the half that prevents reactions?
Just checking in case a player cries foul in the future.
That would be incredibly useful against melee Operatives, where losing a reaction isn't as important.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Not really what I meant to convey, the other interpretation only really looks at the flat-footed condition at the moment of impact into the enemy (so the only reaction that could interact at that point is something like the vanguard's ability to reduce incoming damage).
Honestly, I would just wait for a FAQ and if it really bothers a player, they can ask the GM ahead of time and just avoid that table.
EDIT: As much as this is relevant in the org play space, people that feel strongly about this could just ask for a clarification from the people that can actually give it.
|
|
I don't think there's going to be an FAQ on this. It was already Errata'd, and the Errata seems pretty clear (or at least a lot less ambiguous than the initial printing).
We don't need Designers to chime in on every sentence. We should be able to ask questions, look for evidence, and come to a conclusion on our own.
I obviously recognize there are plenty of grey areas throughout Starfinder, but most of them can be solved when you go through a checklist of questions.
If there was any support for this "half applies, half doesn't", I'd be there right with you calling for an FAQ, but it seems instead that one side has support, and the other side is just "that's how GMs rule it".
|
|
Agreed. If this were, in any way vague, I'd chime in with "expect table variation". It is not vague. 'The attack' is what provokes the AoO, but the target is flat-footed against 'the attack'. To rule that it does provoke is incorrect. Some GMs may rule that it does provoke. Just because some people think that it does still provoke doesn't somehow, by that fact, make it vague. Therefore, I would not expect a FAQ or errata.
...rather than including all the other parts of trick attack, like moving or shooting.
Whether or not you moved, you can then make an attack with a melee weapon with the operative special property or with any small arm. Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth check...the target is flat-footed against your attack.
Looks like they already addressed the timing.
So I guess the reasoning is that the flat-footed condition might apply at the precise moment when the attack actually hits...
??!?? How does this make any rules sense?
|
|
Not really what I meant to convey, the other interpretation only really looks at the flat-footed condition at the moment of impact into the enemy
1) Seperating that from the attack is incredibly arbitrary
2) Trick attack is very specific that the order of operations is move trickskill attack. The trickskill is what imposes the flat footed. For bluff for exampleRun away
Look a monkey
Shoot them while they're looking for the monkey
It is entirely arbitrary to split shooting them into discrete parts that really don't exist, and then have step 2 split step 3 in half.
Or to assume that the person would be perfectly fine ducking out of the way for with the .0000001 seconds it takes the bullet to go from the operative to the target but that they can dodge with that amount of lead time.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nefreet just asked how the other side of the argument looks like, so I tried to explain what another interpretation might be (though I did not do that very well).
I do not have a horse in this race, I just wanted to explain that once someone has made up an interpretation about how something works (likely based on the first printing) it can be tough to change that.
And as far as rules discussions are concerned, they are usually not worth having during the game.