A player in our game tonight insisted that they did not take MAP to their Escape action to escape a black tentacles spell (even though it was their third such attempt that round). Specifically, they said that a friend in another game said that a designer said in an online vlog that skill checks were not attacks, and thus didn't deal with things like MAP. (Not kidding.)
I suspect that is incorrect and that there may have been a misunderstanding of some kind, but I'd thought I'd check here for confirmation.
Does anyone know of a video online where a developer clarifies how skills with the attack trait work? I'd love to see it for myself.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The very short version - no time for more atm, sry - is that the player is wrong. Escape and all maneuvers have the attack trait, meaning the follow the normal MAP rules.
The only thing that was clarified with the last round of errata was that they are skill checks, not attack rolls.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
a friend in another game said that a designer said in an online vlog
I mean... That's not really a compelling chain of evidence. You'll never find such a video because there isn't one that says that.
Skill checks in general don't have MAP (if there's a video, I'd bet that was what they were saying), but Escape HAS THE ATTACK TRAIT.
If it has the attack trait, it suffers MAP.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if the player argues that it shouldn't have that trait, explain them that it's because if there wasn't, escaping would be way too easy since you could do 3 attempts each round at full bonus.
But if he really doesn't back down, you could say no manoeuver has the attack trait and let them enjoy ennemies doing 3 trip checks every round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if the player argues that it shouldn't have that trait, explain them that it's because if there wasn't, escaping would be way too easy since you could do 3 attempts each round at full bonus.
But if he really doesn't back down, you could say no manoeuver has the attack trait and let them enjoy ennemies doing 3 trip checks every round.
Well, it would be a great improvement to maneuvers and some weapon traits, but I don't feel it would imbalance the game. Most martials would end up with a pretty straightforward third action, and melee fights would look very messy with lots of trips and grapples every round.
At the same time, it would be quite realistic. Staying at weapon range and striking is quite uncommon in real life. When you look at free fights, unless a fighter is able to knock the other one out with one or two blows, the fights very often end up with grapples and trips (especially grapples).Still, it would be a great buff to monks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say it'd make a pretty straightforward action and it's true, but it'd be too likely to work. It's too good of a use of your 3rd action.
In irl fights, you rarely see someone attempt a grab right after exchanging a few blows, to "combo into the grab" so to speak.
It can happen, but usually you setup for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You say it'd make a pretty straightforward action and it's true, but it'd be too likely to work. It's too good of a use of your 3rd action.
In irl fights, you rarely see someone attempt a grab right after exchanging a few blows, to "combo into the grab" so to speak.
It can happen, but usually you setup for it.
actually in MMA that's exactly the most effective way to grab somebody. Look at a GSP or Daniel Cormier highlight reel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The errata made it so that skill actions with the attack trait are no longer attack rolls.
But they are still attacks, that's literally what the trait means.
The errata made it so that skill actions with the attack trait are no longer attack rolls.
But they are still attacks, that's literally what the trait means.
That's something that matters a lot, quite a few silly yet effective builds could tecnically pump dex and dump str but use a finesse weapon with agile. It obviously does not work as intended but it was a fun idea...
You say it'd make a pretty straightforward action and it's true, but it'd be too likely to work. It's too good of a use of your 3rd action.
In irl fights, you rarely see someone attempt a grab right after exchanging a few blows, to "combo into the grab" so to speak.
It can happen, but usually you setup for it.
In video games we call that a tick throw.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They were probably referring to the How It's Played ask a designer video on shoving or tripping while prone. The point made by Mark Seifter was that the attack penalty from being prone doesn't apply to maneuver checks that are skill checks because penalties to attack rolls only apply to attack rolls, not skill actions with the attack trait.
Is it just me or are these manoeuvres a little too rules intense/convoluted? Something with the Attack trait isn't an Attack Roll? Seems pretty counter intuitive.
It is, but that's what you get with such a 'programming style' rules sets using tags.
It helps to remind oneself that if you roll a skill, it is not a strike, but if it has the 'Attack' trait, it still adds to MAP.
As opposed to a feint or knowledge check for example.
I get that, but I also do seem to recall every time we'd talk about how the game is written in a "programming style" we'd get a dev saying "no, it's not a programming style rules set. use common sense." confusing, man.
It's a game where you're expected to read it in a "natural" way until it makes a 180 degree turn in some cases where it expects you to parse things in a highly technical way instead, like a roll with an attack action being something other than an attack roll. It means there really isn't a default way to read the rules so any ambiguous wording is left up in the air until a DEV weighs in [which is few and far between] or errata/FAQs come out [which are pretty glacial in pace IMO]. It leaves you with a game where it plays much different depending on how a particular DM reads them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not expecting you to parse things in a highly technical way, it's saying a skill check is a skill check is a skill check, even if it picked up the attack trait somewhere.
You say that but it wasn't thought of that way until the errata/FAQ because a "natural read" doesn't get you there.
The issue isn't one of technical language vs. casual language, but of player intuitive leaps not landing where the authors thought they would.
But that's the disconnect: a natural read IS what "intuitive leaps" the reader makes when reading vs having to be told something that is contrary to what you'd otherwise naturally think it means. As such, it's is contrary to the natural read we're told is the expected default and to do so, IMO they used a technicality of attack actions not using attack rolled by default. It's like saying Witch feats aren't feats a Witch gets: they can do it but it's like it was meant to be opposite from what a natural read would be and it's sure to cause comfusion.
|
The point made by Mark Seifter was that the attack penalty from being prone doesn't apply to maneuver checks that are skill checks because penalties to attack rolls only apply to attack rolls, not skill actions with the attack trait.
Wait...I stopped following much of the nuance because it was getting too convoluted and annoying. I am out of the loop which means I had not heard this "clarification."
So, to be clear, does this mean that if I am prone and Strike, I incur the -2 penalty on the check. However, if I am prone and I decide to Shove, I do not incur the -2 penalty?
|
Correct.
Skill checks are skill checks. Attack rolls are attack rolls. The attack trait is a trait that can be applied to any ability. When applied, it causes the ability to be a part of the MAP process.
The reasonable confusion is that the application of the attack trait does not cause the ability to be considered an attack roll.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's not the best. A different trait name might have been enough to make it clear from the beginning (offensive trait, maybe) and avoid the issue. But then again, given past FAQratta behaviour I'm not so sure it was supposed to be that way from the beginning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. A 'natural reading' of the rules will lead, I dare say, most people to figure 'Ah-ha! So a trip/shove/grab is an attack, you just roll Athletics instead of Martial Weapons, so it is subject to all modifiers attack rolls are subjected to'.
It also makes sense and I would not consider this terribly unbalanced, what with the carefully curated math.
Then again, tripping the opponent who just tripped you back from prone without penalty is neat too.
So... each table might want to experiment which ruling woks best for them?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the absolute worst types of errata. It defined a new concept that no one thought was in the game (on the forums at least), plus was not needed.
It added complexity for no benefit. Fixing an issue almost no one cared about. Screwed over finese weapons. While major real problems in the game are not addressed.
A total disaster area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the rules for Multiple attack actions create a lot of this confusion because they first say that they apply a penalty to attack rolls. You have to really get into the weeds of the game mechanics to understand that the words attack, attack roll, and attack trait are all different things and interact with the rules mostly the same but sometimes differently.
Meanwhile the attack roll section does tell you that only strikes, spell attacks are attack rolls, so the MAP rules directly complicate what was just said in the preceding rules section.
At the very least Attack Rolls that are a unique thing really should be capitalized in a similar fashion as Strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to really get into the weeds of the game mechanics to understand that the words attack, attack roll, and attack trait are all different things and interact with the rules mostly the same but sometimes differently.
Also 'attack' and 'hostile action' are very different too.
Escape has the attack trait, but really shouldn't be considered hostile. But Feint does not have the attack trait, but probably should be considered hostile since it is applying a negative condition on the target.