| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But quick jump doesn’t say you can high jump without using a stride action first. It says you can use high jump as one action instead of two. If you use only one action to high jump, then you can jump without striding. How do you do that as a subordinate action chain?
Quick Jump Feat 1
General, SkillSource Core Rulebook pg. 264 3.0
Prerequisites trained in Athletics
You can use High Jump and Long Jump as a single action instead of 2 actions. If you do, you don’t perform the initial Stride (nor do you fail if you don’t Stride 10 feet).
The player simply says, "I am using the Quick Jump one-action version of High Jump in my Sudden Leap, so I don't need to Stride."
This is similar to a cleric casting Heal in post-combat Exploration Mode, where actions are not counted, saying, "Everyone gather around me. I am going to do a three-action group Heal." Although the exact action cost is irrelevant when the party is going to spend half a minute gathered together, the player can still chose the number of actions to select an option for the spell.
If the opposite were true, if there was a “steady leap” that let you add an action to the leap action in order to add 5ft to you leap, then I don’t think anyone would think you could use the modified version of the action inside another activity.
The extra 5 feat to Leap is called Powerful Leap and it does not increase the number of actions to Leap. It works fine with Sudden Leap.
The monk in my party took a feat that lets him jump great distances. I think it is Cloud Jump. It modified High Jump and Long Jump to triple their distance. That works fine with Sudden Leap. However, Cloud Jump also says, "You can jump a distance greater than your Speed by spending additional actions when you Long Jump or High Jump. For each additional action spent, add your Speed to the limit on how far you can Leap." This is similar to Unicore's hypothetical situation. How can the character spend extra actions when subordinate actions don't spend actions?
Cloud Jump Feat 15
General, Skill
Source Core Rulebook pg. 260 3.0
Prerequisites legendary in Athletics
Your unparalleled athletic skill allows you to jump impossible distances. Triple the distance you Long Jump (so you could jump 60 feet on a successful DC 20 check). When you High Jump, use the calculation for a Long Jump but don't triple the distance.
You can jump a distance greater than your Speed by spending additional actions when you Long Jump or High Jump. For each additional action spent, add your Speed to the limit on how far you can Leap.
Long Jump says, "The DC of the Athletics check is equal to the total distance in feet you’re attempting to move during your Leap (so you’d need to succeed at a DC 20 check to Leap 20 feet). You can’t Leap farther than your Speed." Since the monk is legendary in Athletics, I presume he has Athletics +28. His speed is 40 feet. Suppose he wants to jump a 70-foot-wide river. That would take three actions since 70 feet is greater than his speed. A 75-foot jump would have Athletics DC 25, which the monk can handle.
Suppose he wants to punch a river dragon as he leaps over the 70-foot-wide river with Sudden Leap. That would take two actions. The designers of Sudden Leap forgot to take Cloud Jump into account.
If the monk had both Quick Jump and Cloud Jump, then in a single turn he could drop the cost of Long Jump down to one action via Quick Jump and add two additional actions to increase the maximum distance to thrice his Speed. That would be a three-action 120-foot Long Jump with Athletics DC 40.
And if he wanted to punch something during that 120-foot jump via Sudden Leap, that would be only two actions.
Could he jump 160 feet? That would take 4 actions and have Athletics DC 54. Rolling a natural 20 would improve a failure result of 48 to a success. But he does not have 4 actions available in a turn. Would Sudden Leap make that possible? Cloud Leap puts no limit on the number of additional actions, but I believe that the action cost system itself does not recognize a cost beyond three actions. Three actions is the limit, even for Sudden Leap.
Hmm. Well, if you are correct that would make the Felling Strike version require being quickened to pull off.
I don't understand the context. Sudden leap says, "Special If you have Felling Strike, you can spend 3 actions to make a Sudden Leap and use Felling Strike instead of a normal Strike." That is explicitly three actions, which can be managed without a 4th action from quickening.
Besides, all available versions of quickening don't allow the extra action to be used for Sudden Leap. The extra action from Haste that can be used only for Strike and Stride actions cannot be used for a Sudden Leap, despite Sudden Leap containing a Long Jump that contains a Stride.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The line in the Disrupting Actions dies not say, "Lose 1 action, lose the whole activity." It says lose the activity, do not get a refund on the costs. An activity spends a number of actions from the three-actions-per-turn budget, and those are lostDisrupting Actions
Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
...
Is this relevant?
In my example of the second Stride subordinate action of a Sudden Charge activity being disrupted, the Stride was disrupted but the Sudden Charge was not disrupted.
It is very relevant, seeing that your example directly violates the quoted rule: Lose 1 action, lose the whole activity.
So the monk disrupts the whole Sudden Charge, stopping the Barbarian dead in their tracks and wasting all 2 actions spent. Because it is the Sudden Charge that gets disrupted, not a Stride action that happens to be part of it.
Yeah I could have worded that better but please re-read what Baarogue said: "In my example of the second Stride subordinate action of a Sudden Charge activity being disrupted, the Stride was disrupted but the Sudden Charge was not disrupted."
So I pointed out that, even if it is one of the Strides pulling the AoO, it is still the whole Sudden Charge that gets cancelled.
The line in the Disrupting Actions dies not say, "Lose 1 action, lose the whole activity." It says lose the activity, do not get a refund on the costs. An activity spends a number of actions from the three-actions-per-turn budget, and those are lostDisrupting Actions
Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
...
Is this relevant?
In my example of the second Stride subordinate action of a Sudden Charge activity being disrupted, the Stride was disrupted but the Sudden Charge was not disrupted.
It is very relevant, seeing that your example directly violates the quoted rule: Lose 1 action, lose the whole activity.
So the monk disrupts the whole Sudden Charge, stopping the Barbarian dead in their tracks and wasting all 2 actions spent. Because it is the Sudden Charge that gets disrupted, not a Stride action that happens to be part of it.
Yeah I could have worded that better but please re-read what Baarogue said: "In my example of the second Stride subordinate action of a Sudden Charge activity being disrupted, the Stride was disrupted but the Sudden Charge was not disrupted."
So I pointed out that, even if it is one of the Strides pulling the AoO, it is still the whole Sudden Charge that gets cancelled.
I said the line about the second Subordinate action that you attributed to Baarogue. Deep nestings are hard to track.
My understanding of the rules is that disrupting the subordinate action does not disrupt the containing action. The highlighted sentence in the Disrupting Actions quote does not say that the containing action is disrupted. It can honestly be interpreted that way if "lose" means "disrupt," due to ambiguity in what the phrase "actions spent" means. Nevertheless, note that the sentence refers to the containing action as an "activity" but says actions are lost, not activities.
My understanding of the rules is that disrupting the subordinate action does not disrupt the containing action.
Disrupting Actions
Source Core Rulebook pg. 462"When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity." So it says you "usually" would lose the entire activity if a subordinate action was disrupted and "the action’s effects don’t occur".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in the example of a spell, a spell requires that all components are satisfied. If one of them was disrupted, then yeah the spell is not going to work.
Many times, the rest of the activity just doesn't make much sense if the early setup actions get disrupted. Quick Draw doesn't make much sense if you were going to draw a weapon (disrupted!) and the Strike with the weapon you aren't holding.
But "usually" means not always. If the first Stride of a Sudden Charge is disrupted, there's no hard rule saying you always have to come to a full halt. With the second Stride you might still get close enough to Strike someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in the example of a spell, a spell requires that all components are satisfied. If one of them was disrupted, then yeah the spell is not going to work.
It's just an example not a limitation on what "usually" is. You can pick most activities and it would apply as that is the definition of "usually": if this isn't true then "usually" is the incorrect term to use.
Many times, the rest of the activity just doesn't make much sense if the early setup actions get disrupted. Quick Draw doesn't make much sense if you were going to draw a weapon (disrupted!) and the Strike with the weapon you aren't holding.
And if that is true, then "usually" applies: if not the DM can rule it's one of the times "usually" doesn't apply.
But "usually" means not always. If the first Stride of a Sudden Charge is disrupted, there's no hard rule saying you always have to come to a full halt. With the second Stride you might still get close enough to Strike someone.
Usually means it's the default: the onus to prove it's doesn't apply is on the person that claims it's an unusual situation. That's why I disagreed when you said "My understanding of the rules is that disrupting the subordinate action does not disrupt the containing action." This isn't correct as it straight up tells you you "usually" do while your quote makes it sound like it never does. You'd have to say 'My understanding of the rules is that disrupting the subordinate action does not [have to] disrupt the containing action' for it to be correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That paragraph seems to be speaking about losing actions as in the currency/unit, is the thing; I think it was written when Cast A Spell's action cost was directly tied to the number of components. It has nothing to do with subordinate actions. Losing the actions (unit) committed to an activity is not the same as that activity being disrupted when a subordinate action (ability) is disrupted.
The example being a poor one in no way makes the rest of the section or that specific paragraph incorrect. Nothing you said makes "In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn" incorrect, nor does limiting it to the action currency make sense when the sentence right before mentions "but the action’s effects don’t occur": The second sentence reads as an extension of the first noting the difference [losing multiple actions vs a single action/reaction] while making no mention of other changes [like only the disrupted subordinate action’s effects not occuring].
Like Ascalaphus said, you obviously can't Strike with a weapon you haven't drawn if the Interact part of a Quick Draw is disrupted, but I think that's more in the vein of (e.g.) Liberating Step removing any valid targets for subsequent attacks in a Draconic Frenzy (which doesn't involve disruption at all) than something that can be derived from that block of rules text.
That may be the RAI, I don't know. I DO know what it specifically says though: if it's an activity and ANY of its subordinate actions gets disrupted the usual result is "lose all actions spent for the activity". Saying otherwise isn't correct from what is plainly written in the core book/pdf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That paragraph seems to be speaking about losing actions as in the currency/unit, is the thing; I think it was written when Cast A Spell's action cost was directly tied to the number of components. It has nothing to do with subordinate actions. Losing the actions (unit) committed to an activity is not the same as that activity being disrupted when a subordinate action (ability) is disrupted.The example being a poor one in no way makes the rest of the section or that specific paragraph incorrect. Nothing you said makes "In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn" incorrect,...
My view aligns with egindar's description. And I like egindar's distiction between action as a unit for measuring tasks per turn and action as a task itself.
graystone is correct that a weak example does not contradict anything; nevertheless, it serves as a warning flag that maybe the example seems poorly chosen because the reader misunderstood what it is an example of.
My understanding of the rules is that disrupting the subordinate action does not disrupt the containing action.Disrupting Actions
Source Core Rulebook pg. 462
"When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity." So it says you "usually" would lose the entire activity if a subordinate action was disrupted and "the action’s effects don’t occur".
Let me take apart the Disrupting Actions rule (Core Rulebook pg. 462 3.0) sentence by sentence to give how I see it.
1. "Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an action."
That calls out an example of a reaction that can disrupt an action, Attack of Opportunity. Other examples are Disrupt Prey, which cam disrupt a manipulate or move action, and https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=447, which can disrupt a move action. Cast a Spell and Activating Items also say that for long casting or activation times, such as minutes or hours, " If combat breaks out while you're casting one, your spell is disrupted (see Disrupted and Lost Spells below)."
2. "When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur."
I take that to mean that everything you would have consumed if the action went through will still be consumed when the action is disrupted. Disrupting a ranged strike with a bow cost the archer both the action used for the Strike and the arrow the archer shot. Furthermore, the disrupted Strike still increases the archer's multiple attack penalty.
3. "In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn."
I view this one as an elaboration on sentence 2. If the activity cost multiple actions, such as the two actions for Administer First Aid, then the character counts as having spent the action cost. The player cannot argue, "When I was casting my two-action spell, I started with the somatic component and had not reached the verbal component yet, so I was still on the first action when it was disrupted. I still have the 2nd action of my turn available, so I use that action and the 3rd action to Cast a Spell."
Though some people think that "activity" means a containing action with subordinate actions, it really means a task that costs two or more actions on a turn.
4. "For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity."
An example to clarify sentence 3. Notice the lack of subordinate actions in Cast a Spell.
The last paragraph in Cast a Spell further clarifies the cost of disruption:
Disrupted and Lost Spells Some abilities and spells can disrupt a spell, causing it to have no effect and be lost. When you lose a spell, you've already expended the spell slot, spent the spell's costs and actions, and used the Cast a Spell activity. If a spell is disrupted during a Sustain a Spell action, the spell immediately ends. The full rules for disrupting actions appear here.
5. "The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action."
For example, if the Interact to Reload a crossbow is disrupted, what happens to the crossbow bolt? They typically are not consumed during a reload; instead, they move from the quiver to the crossbow, so the cost rule does not apply.
6. "For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn’t transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away."
Just some examples.
Let me look at Quick Draw to pose a question.
Quick Draw Feat 2
Gunslinger, Ranger, Rogue
Archetypes Alkenstar Agent*, Butterfly Blade*, Vigilante*
* This archetype offers Quick Draw at a different level than displayed here.
You draw your weapon and attack with the same motion. You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon.
Imagine that an enemy ambushes you and swings a longsword at you. On your turn, you use Quick Draw, and the enemy takes an Attack of Opportunity to you drawing your own weapon and critically hits. Thus, the Interact to draw a weapon is disrupted and you do not draw and attack with your weapon. You use Quick Draw again, succeed in drawing your weapon, and Strike.
What is your multiple attack penalty?
If the Strike from the first Quick Draw was disrupted, then it still counts as taking an attack action, so you have a -5 multiple attack penalty. If the Strike from the first Quick Draw was cancelled because you could not attack with a weapon you failed to draw, then the Strike does not count as taking an attack action, is you have a +0 due to no multiple attack penalty.
Though some people think that "activity" means a containing action with subordinate actions, it really means a task that costs two or more actions on a turn.They're basically right. An activity is one of the four types of actions.
Core Rulebook pg. 461There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.
...
Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect.
The Core Rulebook also defines activity on pages 10 and 17, which are clearer that "activity" is a task that costs multiple actions rather than a task that contains subordinate actions. The page 461 definition relies on the versatile word use which could mean either.
See my comment #45 from Wednesday, Oct 5, 2022 for quotes of the other definitions.
At the same time:
An activity typically involves using multiple actions to create an effect greater than you can produce with a single action, or combining multiple single actions to produce an effect that’s different from merely the sum of those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action.And the section on subordinate actions uses "activity" and actions that contain subordinate actions interchangeably, especially in the second paragraph quoted.
For some reason, Cast a Spell is always called an activity. Perhaps because Cast a Spell was envisioned during the playtest as being built out of components, with each component requiring one action.
Thus, Cast a Spell for a spell that costs a single action, a free action, or a reaction is still an activity.
As I understand it, "activity" refers both to anything that takes more than 1 action to perform, and to any action with subordinate actions.Subordinate Actions
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.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.
I take the position that since "activity" is ambiguous, I reject the logic that saying "activity" means the rule is talking about subordinate actions. A rule has to say "subordinate action" in order to be a rule about subordinate actions.
EDIT: In contrast, if a feat marks itself with an action cost and lists other actions performed inside it, then I accept those inner actions as subordinate actions. I don't recall any feat that uses the phrase "subordinate action."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
graystone is correct that a weak example does not contradict anything; nevertheless, it serves as a warning flag that maybe the example seems poorly chosen because the reader misunderstood what it is an example of.
IMO, it's more the example matches the original playtest version of spell casting, where actions equaled individual spell components, than a warning flag of any kind. As such, it seems to me an instance of an outdated example that was overlook and not updated, not one that was poorly chosen per se.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have things listed as basic actions that take more than one action to perform (Ready) and things listed as skill actions that contain subordinate actions (Long Jump). Meanwhile something like Flurry of Blows costs only one action but is almost certainly an "activity".
The distinguishing line between action and activity is so blurry that I don't think you can make useful rulings by saying "well X works in this case because Y is an activity and not an action".
Rather, "activity" is just a convenient word that means the same as action but hints to the reader that this action is probably more elaborate in some way.