How do these two features interact?
Investigator's Stratagem
Choose a creature you can see and roll a d20. If you Strike the chosen creature later this round, you must use the result of the roll you made to Devise a Stratagem for your Strike's attack roll instead of rolling
and
Swipe
Make a single melee Strike and compare the attack roll result to the ACs of up to two foes
Are they completely separate and don't interact? Or does Swipe bypass the negative result? Or does Swipe use the Stratagem die normally?
I don't know if there really is an answer to that question, but personally I would rule it as follows:
First the player rolls as normal for the activity activity, but then the specific rule of devise a stratagem kicks in on the strike against the target that you devised the stratagem on while the original roll is used on the other target. The way I see it, because the ability doesn't mention the next strike action/activity you make but instead limits itself to "if you Strike the chosen creature" that the replacement only happens for that creature no matter what. Though, I can easily see someone making a different ruling either more restrictive or looser.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's messy.
Made messier by the idea that if your Devise a Strategem roll is bad, what happens if you instead attack the other creature first and collect the first one in the swipe?
Do you get to roll again because you directly attacked a different target than you Devised against? Or is that just too much cheese? Would you instead have that work the same as if you attacked the first creature first - where you have to use your Devise roll for the entire Swipe attack any time it includes the target of the Devise a Strategem?
I'm not sure I like anywhere that this line of thinking is going.
I'm considering just not letting Swipe work completely if you have a Devise target as one of the targets of Swipe. You can still make the attack against both targets, roll the damage once (though they may have different bonuses to their damage), and only increase MAP after the attack is done. But you have to use the result of Devise against the target of Devise, and you have to roll again against the other target.
I would apply DaA only to its target, not to both since there is any underlying Swipe roll its replacing, but only for that target.
Also it fits the PF2 paradigm of avoiding multiplicative or additive bonuses. Should Swipe double the effectiveness of DaA? No, because it's specifically single target. Compare that to True Strike which applies to the next attack roll period. That would function w/ Swipe since it'd only be affecting a single attack roll.
How do these two features interact?
Investigator's Stratagem
Choose a creature you can see and roll a d20. If you Strike the chosen creature later this round, you must use the result of the roll you made to Devise a Stratagem for your Strike's attack roll instead of rolling
andSwipe
Make a single melee Strike and compare the attack roll result to the ACs of up to two foesAre they completely separate and don't interact? Or does Swipe bypass the negative result? Or does Swipe use the Stratagem die normally?
There are several valid interpretations, but I can assure you that using Devise a Stratagem and Swipe and expecting to use the Devise a Stratagem roll to affect both targets is obviously not intended, since the ability is meant to affect a single target, not multiple targets, otherwise it would be more open-ended with its rolling conditions.
That being said, a GM could rule that the Devise a Stratagem roll applies to your initial target, and still require a different roll on the second target, or that Swipe would not be an eligible activity to benefit from Devise a Stratagem entirely, since Strike in Devise's entry refers to the specific action and not an activity of striking (which would preclude other specialty actions, such as Power Attack).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or that Swipe would not be an eligible activity to benefit from Devise a Stratagem entirely, since Strike in Devise's entry refers to the specific action and not an activity of striking (which would preclude other specialty actions, such as Power Attack).
I think that ruling would also prevent it from working with Spellstrike. And I'm not sure anyone would be happy with that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I understand the concerns. I'm fiddling with builds, for some unknown reason I enjoy doing that. To put it in context I'm working on this outline:
If you want to role play someone smarter upstairs, this is an intelligent Fighter build which is effective. You can out-think your opponent. Devise a Stratagem is like a True Strike you can use every turn. Providing you have something else you can do, like trip that opponent or Strike at a different opponent, it is exceptionally good value. If you don’t have another option, don’t waste an action on it. You can also choose to go with a Power Attack if you have a good opening.
Str 18 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 12 Cha 10
Basic equipment: Breastplate or Full Plate, Guisarme
Class Feats: Level 1: Power Attack, Level 2: Investigator Dedication Level 4: Investigator's Stratagem, then Swipe
I don't think it is in itself an earth shattering build just reasonable. I like the idea of Power Attack. I just don't have a good understanding on how to use Swipe here.
If Swipe just doesn't interact with DaS then its a good way to avoid a bad roll. It costs action(s) though.
If the roll is good , they no matter how many targets I have I'm Power Attacking.
If the roll is bad. Then if you have only one target available you Swipe anyway and end up paying 3 actions total for a result close to casting True Strike and Striking. If you have two targets then its just a normal Swipe as a fall back option.
That seems the safest option. Its compares Ok to Furious Focus.
If Swipe does interact with DaS, then Like Power Attack, Swipe is an effective option when you get a good number. But you still need to do something else like Trip if its a bad number. If you actually are in reach of two targets, you could instead just attack the second foe normally - this being already the default behaviour of DaS that this sort of build was looking for.
If you actually have two enemies I'm pretty sure you cannot just Swipe the second one first. The Swipe feat doesn't open up that option.
Trying to create some custom ruling to make the Swipe two separate Strikes seems messy.
DaS is not a particular concern for Spell Strike as the Magus is just so action starved anyway. A bad DaS number would effectively mean no Spell Strike that round. Maybe it makes sense from a resource management conserving spell slots angle.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is pretty straightforward : you use the Strike's attack roll (which comes from DAS) and apply it to both targets (per Swipe).
It sounds extremely strange and awkward but nothing in the RAW contradicts it.
If you have Known weaknesses, better target the creature with the lowest level to increase your likeliness of getting a crit on RK against it.
|
|
Yeah. I understand the concerns. I'm fiddling with builds, for some unknown reason I enjoy doing that. To put it in context I'm working on this outline:
If you want to role play someone smarter upstairs, this is an intelligent Fighter build which is effective. You can out-think your opponent. Devise a Stratagem is like a True Strike you can use every turn. Providing you have something else you can do, like trip that opponent or Strike at a different opponent, it is exceptionally good value. If you don’t have another option, don’t waste an action on it. You can also choose to go with a Power Attack if you have a good opening.
Str 18 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 12 Cha 10
Basic equipment: Breastplate or Full Plate, Guisarme
Class Feats: Level 1: Power Attack, Level 2: Investigator Dedication Level 4: Investigator's Stratagem, then SwipeI don't think it is in itself an earth shattering build just reasonable. I like the idea of Power Attack. I just don't have a good understanding on how to use Swipe here.
If Swipe just doesn't interact with DaS then its a good way to avoid a bad roll. It costs action(s) though.
If the roll is good , they no matter how many targets I have I'm Power Attacking.
If the roll is bad. Then if you have only one target available you Swipe anyway and end up paying 3 actions total for a result close to casting True Strike and Striking. If you have two targets then its just a normal Swipe as a fall back option.
That seems the safest option. Its compares Ok to Furious Focus.If Swipe does interact with DaS, then Like Power Attack, Swipe is an effective option when you get a good number. But you still need to do something else like Trip if its a bad number. If you actually are in reach of two targets, you could instead just attack the second foe normally - this being already the default behaviour of DaS that this sort of build was looking for.
If you actually have two enemies I'm pretty sure you cannot just Swipe the second one first. The Swipe feat doesn't open up that...
I thought about a Fighter MC Investigator too, but I am not sure the action used for DaS is better than just doing a second attack. Maybe if you are critfishing with Fatal weapons ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are several valid interpretations, but I can assure you that using Devise a Stratagem and Swipe and expecting to use the Devise a Stratagem roll to affect both targets is obviously not intended, since the ability is meant to affect a single target, not multiple targets
I mean, you could say the same thing about Striking in general.
I thought about a Fighter MC Investigator too, but I am not sure the action used for DaS is better than just doing a second attack. Maybe if you are critfishing with Fatal weapons ?
I'm not sure it is a better use of your action. I'm more interested in the build for roleplaying reasons, and I'm a little tired of seeing low intelligence martials.
I figure that I'm mostly trading away my third attack to have two rolls at my first attack. To me that makes sense and should be a reasonable gain. (Certain Strike and Furious Focus complicate it)
Or if I have to spend an action moving, I'm trading away my second attack to have two rolls at my first attack. Which is less helpful.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a combo that looks legit to me. It's unconventional but it's really not so OP that you need to twist the rules to prohibit it. Swiping in general is pretty limited by your enemies cooperating with where they stand. And they pretty often won't, because they'll be trying to flank you.
---
As an aside: I've made it a general design principle to give all my martial PCs at least a 14 in one mental stat, if not more. PFS combat is forgiving enough to get away with it, and you get to play a much bigger role in out of combat skill challenges. That's more screen time, but also often 30-70% of where your loot comes from.
I find each class has at least one obvious mental stat to map to as well; champions drift towards Cha (social skills, some class features) or Int (Crafting to repair a higher level shield), barbarians and rangers towards Wisdom (nature-y skills). Rogues lean either Wis (perception driven) or Cha (feint/demoralize driven).
The optimal distribution for any sad class is 18 in core stat and 14 in wis, Dex,conIt's a combo that looks legit to me. It's unconventional but it's really not so OP that you need to twist the rules to prohibit it. Swiping in general is pretty limited by your enemies cooperating with where they stand. And they pretty often won't, because they'll be trying to flank you.
---
As an aside: I've made it a general design principle to give all my martial PCs at least a 14 in one mental stat, if not more. PFS combat is forgiving enough to get away with it, and you get to play a much bigger role in out of combat skill challenges. That's more screen time, but also often 30-70% of where your loot comes from.
I find each class has at least one obvious mental stat to map to as well; champions drift towards Cha (social skills, some class features) or Int (Crafting to repair a higher level shield), barbarians and rangers towards Wisdom (nature-y skills). Rogues lean either Wis (perception driven) or Cha (feint/demoralize driven).
I find it odd to mention the importance of mental stats. Of course one of them should be 14+ to be useful outside of combat/inside cities if not in Wis for combat-centered PCs (Will/Medicine/Perception/Trick Magic Item/etc.).
And I agree with you, Siegfried. Though I seldom see it recommended I prefer that array too; usually I take an Ancestry w/ a penalty in a less useful stat. The drawbacks can be patched w/ Ancestry or skill feats.
Of course many PC concepts I like diverge from that and I might tune a PC to peak at a specific level for a limited run, but for a pure 1st-20th campaign (or 1st-14th) that seems the best array.
And yes, I've drafted up many Dwarves. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have an elven fighter I have been toying with picking up an investigator archetype for this reason. Swipe with a maul has already been a lot of fun and I find myself with a number of lower level feats that I rarely use at all anymore. Sudden Leap though has been the moment this character jumped the shark from being a good gritty fighter character into being a Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Gonzo character. Between that and blind fighting, I think a lot of APs write tactics for enemies that get shattered when the fighter doesn't need to see and can easily leap 20ft in any direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a combo that looks legit to me. It's unconventional but it's really not so OP that you need to twist the rules to prohibit it. Swiping in general is pretty limited by your enemies cooperating with where they stand. And they pretty often won't, because they'll be trying to flank you.
I disagree that it's twisting the rules to prohibit it. I agree that it's probably not overpowered to allow it to just work on both, but I don't think that's the most likely interpretation to be correct. It's very possible that I'm wrong, as I think the wording could easily be interpreted that way, but it's not the way I read it.
The way I see it DaA doesn't affect the next roll that includes a strike against the target, but instead the next strike effect against the target, effectively replacing the roll with the DaA roll for that target. With this interpretation the words "instead of rolling" are just there to basically say "hey, since you're replacing the roll anyway you don't really need to roll". But, when effecting multiple targets the roll is still being used, just not against that target, and so you'd still do the roll.
Again, I think it's reasonable to read the ability differently, but I think it's pretty bold to say that the opposition is twisting the rules for the purpose of nerfing the combo when I know for me personally I couldn't care less about the power level of the combo. It doesn't seem OP to me, and I'm all for giving investigators some extra tools.
I mean, you could say the same thing about Striking in general.
There are several valid interpretations, but I can assure you that using Devise a Stratagem and Swipe and expecting to use the Devise a Stratagem roll to affect both targets is obviously not intended, since the ability is meant to affect a single target, not multiple targets
I could, but most abilities that affect multiple creatures with an attack roll tell you whether to roll separately or to use a single roll against all targeted creatures. All I'm saying is that Devise can only be used on that target and no others.
A GM could rule that a Strike of any kind involving more than that specifically targeted creature cannot benefit from Devise whatsoever.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is pretty straightforward : you use the Strike's attack roll (which comes from DAS) and apply it to both targets (per Swipe).
It sounds extremely strange and awkward but nothing in the RAW contradicts it.
If you have Known weaknesses, better target the creature with the lowest level to increase your likeliness of getting a crit on RK against it.
My bad. I had not read Swipe carefully enough. You are not Striking the target of your DAS per se, so DAS does not apply. You are making a non-targeted melee Strike and comparing the result to the ACs of up to 2 foes. You are not, strictly speaking, Striking them. So DAS is not triggered, even if one of those foes was the target of your DAS.
So, I reverse my stance on this case.
It opens a whole lot of possibilities.
But definitely expect table variance on this and check with your GM their take on it beforehand.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I reread Subordinate Actions reference and now completely certain that this won't work at all: you can't use DaS on Swipe at all, in any version. Because Swipe is not a Strike at all, it's a 2-action activity.
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.Incidentally I don't see any activities which include Strikes in Investigator feats. Probably the designers knew they won't work with DaS.
Not true because DAS is triggered by you Striking your DAS target. Not by using the Strike action. So it works even when Striking is a subordinate action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a case where it's safe to say that there will be GM variations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I read through the Subordinate Actions rule as it interacts with Devise a Strategem, what I see is that Devise a Strategem does not call for a Strike action as a subordinate action of DaS - which indeed wouldn't be able to be replaced with Swipe or Spellstrike or anything other than just a basic Strike. But it instead modifies the next strike that you make against that target.
So similar to other abilities that change the basic actions, that change applies to subordinate actions too. For example, a Catfolk with Light Paws and Tiger Stance would have a 10 foot step distance - which would apply to the subordinate Step action in Light Paws.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If you Strike the chosen creature" and "the first Strike you make against the creature this round" both mean exactly "use a Strike action".
Do you have rules text supporting this claim?
True Strike
Not an applicable example since there are more attack rolls than Strikes, True Strike works with spell attacks as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If you Strike the chosen creature" and "the first Strike you make against the creature this round" both mean exactly "use a Strike action".
It says
If you Strike the chosen creature later this round
Do you know how it would look like when they really mean 'your next blow' (avoiding any game terms)? Look at the True strike:
The next time you make an attack roll before the end of your turn, roll the attack twice and use the better result.There's a difference, right?
Which is mechanically the same as True Strike
The next time you make an attack roll
If Devise a Strategem did actually say "Use a Strike action", then it would cause a Strike action as a subordinate action of Devise a Strategem and an Investigator character wouldn't have to pay action cost on another Strike action in order to attack the target.
But it doesn't. The Investigator does have to make a separate Strike at some point later in the turn. And Devise a Strategem must change the behavior of that next Strike action (otherwise it wouldn't do anything at all).
The idea that a change to a named action only applies when taking that action as a single action is problematic. That is very limiting to feats that change those named actions and is not what is intuitively understood.
|
|
You can also check this here Rules forum using the Search engine, as well as the guides to character builds that you can find in the Advice forum. You will find out that we are far from alone in our understanding of how DAS and Strike work.
"If you Strike" is not "If you use the Strike action".
And, as Onkonk mentioned, True Strike is worded differently so that it works with spell attacks (which are not Strikes), which DAS does not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
DaS refers to Strikes.
Quick Draw, Eldritch Shot and etc. all ask you to make strikes... so they work.
DaS does not say you must take the Strike Action specifically. There are feats and abilities that do make this distinction. Devise isn't one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can also check this here Rules forum using the Search engine, as well as the guides to character builds that you can find in the Advice forum. You will find out that we are far from alone in our understanding of how DAS and Strike work.
"If you Strike" is not "If you use the Strike action".
To me they are the same because the word Strike is capitalised. Which means its referring to a particular game defined term, and there is only one Strike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me they are the same because the word Strike is capitalised. Which means its referring to a particular game defined term, and there is only one Strike.
I'm not sure what that has to do with their point.
There's only one Strike, but you can use Strikes in different ways. The Quickened condition from Haste specifically requires you to perform the Strike action... but an ability that simply modifies Strikes would apply to any Strike no matter where it comes from, because a Strike is still a Strike.
Neither do I but it is a statement that is flat wrong so I had to interject.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neither do I but it is a statement that is flat wrong so I had to interject.
I don't see how they are flat wrong. If you "Strike your enemy" would include any time that you use an activity that includes the strike action within it. If you "use the Strike action" is calling out spending one action to perform the Strike activity. Isn't that was specifically being said?
Strike, capitalized, does mean the Strike action, but the Strike action can be used and is used as a subordinate activity often. So Striking is one specific activity, but it is also a part of a number of other activities. If you preform one of those activities, you have performed a Strike action on your turn, even if you have never spent an action to preform a Strike. I think a little confusion in this is perfectly understandable.
What helps me is to separate activities from actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neither do I but it is a statement that is flat wrong so I had to interject.I don't see how they are flat wrong. If you "Strike your enemy" would include any time that you use an activity that includes the strike action within it. If you "use the Strike action" is calling out spending one action to perform the Strike activity. Isn't that was specifically being said?
Strike, capitalized, does mean the Strike action, but the Strike action can be used and is used as a subordinate activity often. So Striking is one specific activity, but it is also a part of a number of other activities. If you preform one of those activities, you have performed a Strike action on your turn, even if you have never spent an action to preform a Strike. I think a little confusion in this is perfectly understandable.
What helps me is to separate activities from actions.
But as soon as you capitalise Strike, you are referrring to the Action Strike. There is no activity Strike. It is just the action Strike. An activity that include a Strike subbordinate action can't be called Striking, it is striking or something else.
If an effect happens on a Strike, it doesn't matter if that Strike is part of an activity or not. A Strike is a specific thing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But as soon as you capitalise Strike, you are referrring to the Action Strike. There is no activity Strike. It is just the action Strike. An activity that include a Strike subbordinate action can't be called Striking, it is striking or something else.
If an effect happens on a Strike, it doesn't matter if that Strike is part of an activity or not. A Strike is a specific thing.
I'm not entirely sure if we disagree or not.
The (capitalized) action Strike is still a (capitalized) Strike action even when it is a subordinate action as part of an activity.
Make a melee Strike...
Make two unarmed Strikes. ...
So: "If you Strike the chosen creature later this round" can still be referring to a subordinate action Strike. Not just the single action taken separately and paid for from the round's actions directly.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that one of the major downsides to DaS is that you have to use the roll of you Strike that target, even when it’s bad. If DaS doesn’t apply to subordinate Strikes, then it’s extremely easy to get around that restriction by just getting any single action feat that combines a Strike with any other action.
But as soon as you capitalise Strike, you are referrring to the Action Strike. There is no activity Strike. It is just the action Strike. An activity that include a Strike subbordinate action can't be called Striking, it is striking or something else.
If an effect happens on a Strike, it doesn't matter if that Strike is part of an activity or not. A Strike is a specific thing.
I'm not entirely sure if we disagree or not.
The (capitalized) action Strike is still a (capitalized) Strike action even when it is a subordinate action as part of an activity.
Make a melee Strike...Make two unarmed Strikes. ...So: "If you Strike the chosen creature later this round" can still be referring to a subordinate action Strike. Not just the single action taken separately and paid for from the round's actions directly.
Correct I'm not disagreeing with you. Just a particular statement further up the list which I directly quoted.
|
|
Correct I'm not disagreeing with you. Just a particular statement further up the list which I directly quoted.But as soon as you capitalise Strike, you are referrring to the Action Strike. There is no activity Strike. It is just the action Strike. An activity that include a Strike subbordinate action can't be called Striking, it is striking or something else.
If an effect happens on a Strike, it doesn't matter if that Strike is part of an activity or not. A Strike is a specific thing.
I'm not entirely sure if we disagree or not.
The (capitalized) action Strike is still a (capitalized) Strike action even when it is a subordinate action as part of an activity.
Make a melee Strike...Make two unarmed Strikes. ...So: "If you Strike the chosen creature later this round" can still be referring to a subordinate action Strike. Not just the single action taken separately and paid for from the round's actions directly.
Yes, it is because I should have specified the 1-Action Strike vs other uses of Strike (as a subordinate action or not). I hope it is clearer this way : DAS applies to all.