| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a thread Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow? I learned that diffeent players have different ideas about how subordinate actions work. Thus, I started this thread here to discuss subordinate actions in general, hoping to clear up misconceptions. Perhaps I myself have misconceptions.
The full rule about Subordinate Actions is fairly short:
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.
Subordinate actions break the costing rule of three actions per turn.
Let me convert that into a list:
(1) Subordinate actions do not count as one of the three actions per turn; instead, only the action value of the containing action is counted.(2) The containing action can contain any number of subordinate actions.
(3) The containing action can modify any individual subordinate actions. Restrictions are typical, but sometimes we have advantages added to them, such as Twin Feint's addition, "The target is automatically flat-footed against the second Strike."
(4) The subordinate actions retain all their traits and may trigger reactions and other effects based on those traits. For example, Twin Feint makes two Strikes, so each Strike counts as an attack and increases the multiple attack penalty.
(5) The containing action does not inherit the traits of the subordinate action. For example, Twin Feint is not an attack; rather, it contains two attacks. Likewise, the subordinate action does not inherit the traits of the containing action.
(6) Subordinate actions are usually Basic Actions, but that is not necessary.
(7) A containing action can include only a single Subordinate action. For example, Hunter's Aim gives a +2 circumstance bonus to hit to a single subordinate ranged weapon Strike.
I view subordinate actions as a way to treat Basic Actions and skill actions as Lego Building Blocks. Snap together a few well-defined actions in order to create a new action or activity that does more and has a particular flavor. Or enclose a single well-defined action in an envelope that changes it under well-defined conditions. By building with well-defined actions rather than building from scratch, the developers avoid rule conflicts. "Well-defined" is a favorite property for us mathematicians.
I remember a famous Pathfinder 1st Edition rules conflict due to weakly-defined actions: Vital Strike and Spring Attack. Vital Strike says, "Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage...," and goes on to define the additional damage. Spring Attack is complicated enough to need the full quote:
Spring Attack (Combat)
You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.
Pazio developers had to clarify that Spring Attack did not combine with Vital Strike. The attack in Spring Attack did not qualify as an "attack action" for Vital Strike. I suspect that the dispute led them to create clearer categories for actions in PF2.
The well-defined building blocks lead to both disappointment and opportunity. For disappointment, moving through a closed door and wanting to close it behind me is awkward, because the operation requires a Stride to reach the door, an Interact to open the door, another Stride or Step to go through the doorway, and another Interact to close the door. The Quick Draw feat is Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon. The Interact part triggers enemy Attack of Opportunity, and the Strike part means standing within reach of that enemy because no movement can fit between the Interact and Strike.
The opportunity is that feats are measureable about what they offer. Quick Draw gives two actions for the price of one, so it is worth learning for a weapon wielder who does not regulary carry a weapon in hand. Sudden Charge costs two actions for two Strides and a Strike, an efficient opener for the first round of combat. The fighter's Double Slice is two actions for two Strikes, no action economy advantage, but it says that both Strikes use the multiple attack penalty of its first Strike. Bundling them left an easy way to adjust the penalty.
Yet despite all this clarity, two ideas in the thread on firing a bow seem wrong to me. People insteaded that firing a bow (a Reload 0 weapon) without a preliminary Interact action to reload meant that a costless Interact was hidden somewhere. I myself asked whether they meant as a subordinate action, and some people favored that interpretation. However, I feel that the rules cannot support inserting an entire subordinate action into a Strike because that would change the nature of the Strike too much. Strike is a very flexible basic action, changing with the weapon used, but building blocks ought to be solid.
And when the thread revived in September, Darksol the Painbringer posted in comment #268,
But they did not cost actions to do them, so they can't trigger reactions.The others still circle back to interacting/manipulating without spending an action for it, though, which was the point being thrown at me: if you don't spend an action for it, you don't trigger reactions on it. Just because it's a subordinate action for a specific activity doesn't mean anything when the point being disputed was that the action cost is what creates the trigger, not the action itself (such as if it didn't cost an action for Reload 0).Subordinate actions still trigger reactions, because they are actions. Thus, if my character uses Quick Draw next to an enemy with Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact action to draw a weapon subordinate to the Quick Draw action is a manipulate action and triggers the Attack of Opportunity.
Consider that if the enemy makes a critical hit with the Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact is disrupted and my character fails to draw the weapon. Quick Draw gives only one Interact action to draw a weapon, so I cannot try to draw again during the Quick Draw. Next, Quick Draw says to Strike with the weapon I drew, which I failed to draw, so the Strike is cancelled. Thus, the action used for Quick Draw is wasted.
I don't know whether that was Dearksol the Painbringer's own interpretation of subordinate actions or whether he was echoing what he thought other people were saying, but I decided to create a separate thread about subordinate actions in order to clear up that subordinate actions do trigger reactions.
Or am I wrong?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action...Subordinate actions still trigger things if they would otherwise. Which...I was wrong in the other thread, Draw is a defined game term and still has Manipulate so it still triggers.
This is the same for Cast a Spell being a subordinate of Spellstrike and triggering.
Now if there was something that said "this doesn't trigger" on the action or activity, then the subordinate actions are modified to not either. To use an example from the other thread, Mobile Shot Stance would make bow Strikes not trigger because the Strike is modified to not trigger, so the subordinate action of drawing shouldn't either.
Mobile Shot Stance has very deliberate text. "your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack."
AoO and other reactions that are triggered by anything else are fair game. Essentially, MSS is altering the AoO and other reactions of would-be reacters like so: "Trigger: A creature within the monster’s reach uses a manipulate action or a move action,
makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using."And that doesn't matter anyway, because it's not the ranged Strike that's triggering the reaction. It's the draw, which is not covered by MSS
Which would entirely defeat the point of MSS, and thus does not pass the "too bad to be true" test (or rather, too bad to be intended).
I don't think that you can deduce hard principles like this from the game. Some of these are stated in the game. I hope that if these principles existed the designers would have put them in a book for us. Only some of these are.
Ultimately the game is natural language and overwrites rules its own rules as it wishes.
I agree with your list 1-7 except for point seven which seems to directly contradict point two. Do you care to rephrase that?
1. Yes, you can't feed activities into each other unless something specifically allows it (like Sudden Leap and Felling Strike having special rules written for that.)
2. Correct, you can't stick one of those inside the other. They are totally separate.
3. You can't stick Power Attack inside of other Activities either.
4. Strike is a basic action. No there isn't any special "Strike plus other stuff" actuon that gets to get substituted inside of things.
5."you can use this whenever a Strike would be used as a subordinate action" is a kind of rule i would never expect to see exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your shots become nimble and deadly. While you're in this stance, your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack.
If you have Attack of Opportunity, you can use it with a loaded ranged weapon you're wielding. The triggering creature must be within 5 feet of you for you to do so.
On the question of whether MSS erases the AOO on an Interact, it was written to be used with any ranged attack. If I have a belt full of daggers and draw them to throw in MSS stance, I would expect the drawing of the dagger to trigger applicable Reactions. If I had a heavy crossbow, I would expect loading the heavy crossbow to trigger applicable Reactions.
So the existence of Mobile Shot Stance an whether or not AOOs on an Interact makes the feat "pointless" is not an argument about, well, anything.
I don't think MSS was designed to let you load your weapon without risking a Reaction. It's bigger benefit--making AOOs with loaded ranged weapons--doesn't even work with bows as they are never loaded until you are actively striking with them. It looks like more of a crossbow/firearm feat (and yes, I know it's in the Archer archetype, but the feat is written weapon agnostic).
I totally respect the effort that you are putting into this Mathmuse, and so I don't want to side track your conversation if this is a valuable exercise for you. If this comment is unhelpful, please ignore it.
I don't think trying to establish a set of formal rules for an order of operations and how subordinate actions can work is that necessary.
I think the game itself tells us that any activity that is going to include them will tell us specifically how they work and when, and if they fail to do that, the issue is with that ability and is not something that can sorted out by applying a formula to the execution of subordinate actions.
I think the issue with reload 0 is explicitly that the rules did not add a subordinate action and tell us where that fits in the process of making a strike. If they did that, then the action couldn't be a strike anyway, so trying to figure out where the subordinate action goes is trouble shooting an impossible scenario that is always going to terminate in a logic error.
Instead of adding subordinate actions to actions and turning them into activities, the other option the rules present is just adding the relevant traits to the action to simulate the idea of an action being a combined action, without falling into the trap of existing as a subordinate action.
So I think it might be best to summarize the rules around subordinate actions as:
"The rules will tell us when they happen and how, and if they don't, the issue is with the rule that doesn't do that. When trying to trouble shoot issues with these rules, attempt to simplify rather than expand. Can a trait fix the problem instead of calling out a subordinate action? If yes, then it should. If this is a unique special ability of a feat, creature or class, then specifying that it combines subordinate actions is the way the rules tell you that you should not think this activity to be interchangeable with other actions. If it is not a unique special ability, but a common action or activity that crosses many aspects of the game, then you either look for traits, or you assume that a lack of traits means there are none."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Subordinate actions break the costing rule of three actions per turn.
Let me convert that into a list:
(5) The containing action does not inherit the traits of the subordinate action. For example, Twin Feint is not an attack; rather, it contains two attacks. Likewise, the subordinate action does not inherit the traits of the containing action.
Yeah, contradicting yourself right there.
I don't think that you can deduce hard principles like this from the game. Some of these are stated in the game. I hope that if these principles existed the designers would have put them in a book for us. Only some of these are.
Ultimately the game is natural language and overwrites rules its own rules as it wishes.
Sometimes when creating an unprecidented ability, Pathfinder has to use natural language. For example, the investigator's Devise a Strategem ability from the Advanced Player's Guide rolls a d20 while not making a check. Instead, it reserves the result for a later check. That required natural language to explain.
In contrast, the Gunslinger class is almost entirely described with conventional proficiencies, bonuses, and actions. The Gunslinger's Way uses a little natural language to explain how deeds are handed out, but the deeds themselves use subordinate actions routinely, such as Raconteur's Reload [One Action]. "Interact to reload and then attempt a Deception check to Create a Diversion or an Intimidation check to Demoralize."
I agree with your list 1-7 except for point seven which seems to directly contradict point two. Do you care to rephrase that?
Oops, I am embarrassed. I used bad grammar in item 7 and said something false. I meant to say, "(7) A containing action might include only a single Subordinate action. For example, Hunter's Aim gives a +2 circumstance bonus to hit to a single subordinate ranged weapon Strike." My examples had many cases of a containing action stringing together two or more subordinate actions, and I wanted to remind readers that a single subordinate action was possible, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Unicore in that interrogating the Subordinate Actions rules isn't going to yield a universal decoder for any Action/Activity published in PF2's lifespan, and that when things in the rules--even from the CRB--don't match the Subordinate Action rules nor exempt or explain the rule, then the issue is with the specific ability or feature.
In a thread Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow? I learned that diffeent players have different ideas about how subordinate actions work. Thus, I started this thread here to discuss subordinate actions in general, hoping to clear up misconceptions. Perhaps I myself have misconceptions.
I have had similar thoughts/questions in that thread. I clearly failed to explain them well last time it was discussed and so far haven had time to get into it again so I thank you for separating this out as I see this as a general discussion that needs to have a clear(ish) answer before that thread can be concluded.
So to try to keep this as a general and separate discussion I'll pose some questions to the hivemind to try to clear up how actions/subordinate actions work.
1) As I understand it Actions are Actions and Activities are Activities and while Actions make up the parts of Activities then Activities still cannot be inserted into other Activities (or into other Actions)?
I have seen no rule that an Activity cannot be a subordinate action. The only activities listed among the Basic Actions are Activate an Item and Cast a Spell, and I have not seen those used as subordinate actions. I think have an example of a subordinate activity among the skill feats, Glad-Hand.
Glad-Hand Feat 2
General, Skill
Prerequisites expert in Diplomacy
First impressions are your strong suit. When you meet someone in a casual or social situation, you can immediately attempt a Diplomacy check to Make an Impression on that creature rather than needing to converse for 1 minute. You take a –5 penalty to the check. If you fail or critically fail, you can engage in 1 minute of conversation and attempt a new check at the end of that time rather than accepting the failure or critical failure result.
Make an Impression is an activity. However, Glad-Hand does not have an action-cost mark on it. Apparently, Glad-Hand was written for Exploration Mode rather than Encounter Mode, but I think that it still counts as an activity, so it would be an activity with Make an Impression as a subordinate activity.
Sadly, the word "action" has three separate meanings in Pathfinder 2nd Edition:
(1) An action is a task performed during Encounter Mode that that counts as one of the three actions allowed in a turn.
(2) An action by definition 1 can also be used as a subordinate action.
(3) Action is the general name for any of an action (definition 1), activity, free action, reaction, or subordinate action.
The multiple definitions sometimes make the rules ambiguous. Perhaps an action by definition 3 can also be used as a subordinate action.
2) I can have an Activity such as "Quick Draw [Interact+Strike]" or "Sudden Charge [Stride+Stride+Strike]" but I cannot substitute in a "Quick Draw" into the "Sudden Charge" because even if the "Quick Draw" includes a "Strike" it isn't a "Strike"?
That is correct and exactly what the rules mean by, "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."
3) The above would hold true even if the Activity I try to substitute in is a"Power Attack [Strike]". Even if the only subordinate action is a "Strike" that still doesn't mean that the Activity is/becomes the equivalent of a "Strike"?
Also correct.
4) "Strike" is a basic action right? There is no "Strike [?+?] Activity that contains a "Strike" and something more?
Strike is listed among the Basic Actions. However, Strike is written to gain additional features from the weapon. For example, a weapon with a Flaming Rune on it also deals an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike, plus 1d10 persistent fire damage on a critical hit. More strangely, a thrown weapon with a Returning Rune on it flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete, without any subordinate action to make it return. It is all part of the Strike. And some classes have a feature that adds a critical specialization to weapons, so that counts as another weapon feature. A rogue's Sneak Attack damage is also added to weapon damage during a Strike. A lot can happen during a Strike without subordinate actions.
5) If there was such a "Strike" Activity would that be able to be used in all the places where a "Strike" Action normally goes?
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is careful to not use the same name for two different actions or activities. While mistakes do happen, I doubt they will make the mistake of naming anything else "Strike" besides the Strike basic action. ... oh wait, according to Archives of Nethys, Book of the Dead has a Strike action that is not the Strike basic action. I have not yet purchased Book of the Dead, so I don't know exactly what is going on with that, but it appears to be an item 3 named Lady's Chalice is sometimes used as a held item and sometimes used as a weapon. The chalice's Strike could be used as a subordinate Strike in a Sudden Charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(4) Action is a unit of currency that can be spent to perform Actions or Activities during Encounter Mode.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, contradicting yourself right there.
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.
Subordinate actions break the costing rule of three actions per turn.
Let me convert that into a list:
(5) The containing action does not inherit the traits of the subordinate action. For example, Twin Feint is not an attack; rather, it contains two attacks. Likewise, the subordinate action does not inherit the traits of the containing action.
Nope, I am not contradicting myself nor contradicting the rules right there. I should clarify what "inherit" means in this context. Inherit means that it copies the traits from another action.
Consider Sudden Charge
Sudden Charge Feat 1
Barbarian, Fighter, Flourish, Open
With a quick sprint, you dash up to your foe and swing. Stride twice. If you end your movement within melee reach of at least one enemy, you can make a melee Strike against that enemy. You can use Sudden Charge while Burrowing, Climbing, Flying, or Swimming instead of Striding if you have the corresponding movement type.
Imagine a barbarian using Sudden Charge to charge at an enemy wizard. But on his second Stride, he passes an enemy monk minion who uses Stand Still reaction against the barbarian, triggered by that Stride. The monk gets a critical hit, which disrupts the Stride. The barbarian stops short, out of reach of the wizard.
But only the second Stride is disrupted, not the melee Strike that follows it. And Sudden Charge calls out that the Strike does not have to be against a target named at the beginning. Thus, the barbarian Strikes the monk minion instead.
If Sudden Charge did inherit the move action from its subordinate Strides, then the monk would have been able to disrupt the entire Sudden Charge because it would be a move, "Trigger A creature within your reach uses a move action or leaves a square during a move action it’s using." This would cancel the rest of the Sudden Charge, including the Strike.
Likewise, the two Strides and one Strike in Sudden Charge do not copy the flourish trait of the Sudden Charge, "Flourish actions are actions that require too much exertion to perform a large number in a row. You can use only 1 action with the flourish trait per turn." Since the rules allow only one flourish per turn, a flourish Stride, a second flourish Stride, and a flourish Strike could not be used together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disrupting 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.
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. 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.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, I am not contradicting myself nor contradicting the rules right there. I should clarify what "inherit" means in this context. Inherit means that it copies the traits from another action....
Imagine a barbarian using Sudden Charge to charge at an enemy wizard. But on his second Stride, he passes an enemy monk minion who uses Stand Still reaction against the barbarian, triggered by that Stride. The monk gets a critical hit, which disrupts the Stride. The barbarian stops short, out of reach of the wizard.
But only the second Stride is disrupted, not the melee Strike that follows it. And Sudden Charge calls out that the Strike does not have to be against a target named at the beginning. Thus, the barbarian Strikes the monk minion instead.
If Sudden Charge did inherit the move action from its subordinate Strides, then the monk would have been able to disrupt the entire Sudden Charge because it would be a move, "Trigger A creature within your reach uses a move action or leaves a square during a move action it’s using." This would cancel the rest of the Sudden Charge, including the Strike.
Tautology much? 'I say that subordinate actions being disrupted does not disrupt the whole action/activity, therefore disrupting a subordinate action does not disrupt the whole action/activity'.
The whole point of subordinate actions is that they combine multiple actions for a reduced overall action cost. They become, in fact, their own actions/activities. Therefore it does not follow that an ability that expressively disrupts an action/activity should not be cancelling the activity in its entirety.
If we accept that Strike + Reload for a bow become their own 1 action activity, and that disrupting any one of the subordinate actions cancels the whole strike, then the same goes for Sudden Charge.
Furthermore, your own example contradicts your #5 on the list again. Sudden Charge happens to include 2 Stride actions. If your argument was valid, then Sudden Charge would not provoke an AoO since non-ranged strikes don't, and the Strides, as subordinate actions, do not trigger, since: "The containing action does not inherit the traits of the subordinate action.", in this case, being Move actions.
So, if you argue that Suden Charge still triggers AoO for containing a Stride action, then you must concede that a ranged Strike with a Reload-0 weapon also triggers AoOs by virtue of containing a Reload action.
If, however, the bow-shot is supposed to have lost the Manipulate/Interact trait upon being bundled with the Strike action, thus no longer provoking outside of being a ranged attack, then not only does MSS negate all reactions towards the Strike, it would also mean that Sudden Charge is no longer eligible to be disrupted for using a Move action (still ought to trigger for leaving a threatened square though).
See the problem there?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disrupting 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.
Disrupting 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.
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. 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.
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.
I think it falls totally into the domain of the GM as to what happens when an action that is part of an activity is disrupted.
The rule text uses the word usually and The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating...The activity does not have the traits of the action and so it is typically the action which gets disrupted. But I would look at it and make a judgement call. If I felt the action was a necessary requirement for the activity to succeed I would stop the activity.
In this case when you are doing a Sudden Charge as a GM I would require a target to be chosen when you declared the activity. I don't see the activity as just just the sum of its parts Stride/Stride/Strike, rather you are charging at something. So if your movement got disrupted as described I would effectively stop the whole activity and you wouldn't get to retarget your Strike. I wouldn't increase your MAP though as the Strike was never attempted.
Disrupting 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.
Read the Disrupting Actions clause again:
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.
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. 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.
The first paragraph is clear that you only lose the actions, not the activity itself. In this case, you would lose the Stride. This doesn't mean you lose the rest of the activity, only the actions spent, which reinforces that you can't just "retain" actions you committed to the activity. (Even if you could, it's not exactly easy to adjudicate that.)
The second paragraph basically says that it's GM FIAT for determining the effects of a disruption. Usually, rules have guidance as to what to include for a disruption (such as the examples, as well as the rules for Casting a Spell requiring Components to be fulfilled, and any "lost" due to disruption cause the spell to fail), but if it's unclear (such as in the original thread), it's strictly a GM FIAT call.
Incidentally, this was also the end result of the dreaded pre-errata Battle Medicine debate: That is, what counted as acceptable/appropriate manipulation for the activity in question (Battle Medicine) was determined by the GM.
I don't know whether that was Darksol the Painbringer's own interpretation of subordinate actions or whether he was echoing what he thought other people were saying, but I decided to create a separate thread about subordinate actions in order to clear up that subordinate actions do trigger reactions.
To be clear, my quotation there was an example of Reducto ad Absurdum. That is, the extreme shenanigans permitted when we consider that things which don't cost actions somehow aren't affected by reactions or disruptions. This was an argument that was posed to me repeatedly in regards to Reload 0: If you don't spend an action for it, it can't trigger reactions.
And ultimately, that's irrelevant: If something costs 0 actions to do (such as a free action activity), but still has traits that would trigger reactions, and is an activity (I can't call it an action, because it doesn't cost an action to do, and isn't defined as a basic action), it still continues to do so, because a reaction doesn't care whether you spend an action or not, it's whether you take an action (subordinate or otherwise) or an activity that possesses the trait it triggers from, regardless of how many actions it costs to do. If I possess Effortless Concentration and am adjacent to an enemy in Disruptive Stance, does that mean I don't trigger reactions for taking the activity, despite it not costing me an action to do?
Expanding upon that concept further: Subordinate Actions don't cost actions (their cost is subsumed into the action cost of the activity), but by clear intention and inherent nature, should trigger reactions. But does it really mean anything if it's disrupted, if the idea is that you simply "lose actions spent"? What if, in the case of a Subordinate Action, it wasn't an action you spent? Does is still get disrupted? Many would say yes, but in the case of Reload 0, not only has it been argued that it can't be disrupted (or even that disrupting is pointless), but that it can't even be reacted against for the simple reason of "it didn't take an action to do," and is hiding behind not being a subordinate action as protection from the rules regarding reactions. To which I say: So what if it is or isn't a subordinate action? Why does that matter?
Incidentally, the rules don't actually say what happens in regards to a disruption universally (at least, one that's not simply an action to do), and basically state that it's GM FIAT that determines what happens in a disruption. Of course, there are some clear-cut rules that steer GMs in the proper direction of how the disruption takes place for reduced table variance (such as Cast a Spell with Spell Components and a couple other examples in the Disrupting Actions rules), it's not as easily defined for other things, such as the original thread topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disrupting 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.
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 lost.
Does disrupting a subordinate action disrupt the containing action? Well, I created this thread to find differences in interpretation, so I can give only my interpretation rather than a definitive answer. My interpreation is that only the subordinate action is disrupted but the containing action continues as well as it can.
My evidence is the wording of disruptive actions.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=8Attack of Opportunity[url] says, " If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action." If the containing action lacks the manipulate trait, then the containing action cannot be disrupted this way. Instead, only the subordinate action was disrupted.
I had trouble finding a feat that serves as a good example of this. Something like the gunslinger's Reloading Strike has a Strike and then an Interact to reload. If the Interact is disrupted, the Strike already occurred, so the Interact was the last bit of Reloading Strike anyways. Quick Draw has the Interact to draw before the Strike, but requires that the Strike be with the drawn weapon, so the Strike is cancelled regardless of the Interact is disrupted. Fane's Escape [Two Actions] from the PFS Guide is a feeble example. An Interact action to draw and toss a deck of cards makes the character hidden, and the character can Sneak. Well, the enemy that disrupted the Interact to draw the cards can see the Fane's Escape character, but maybe the character is already hidden from a 2nd enemy in the room and can continue the Sneak past them. Disrupting a toss of cards does not prevent moving stealthily. Ten Paces gunsliner deed from the Way of the Pistolero has a bonus to initiative, an Interact to draw a firearm or crossbow, and bonus distance to Stepping as first action on first turn. If the drawing a firearm is disrupted, should it prevent the bonus distance to Step? If an enemy made an Attack of Opportunity to my pistolero, I would definitely want to Step farther away from that enemy.
I already gave the example of Stand Still disrupting movement but not disrupting the Strike after the movement of Sudden Charge. Sudden Charge does not have the move trait, so Stand Still cannot disrupt it. It can disrupt a subordinate Stride but not the Sudden Charge itself. For example, imagine that the monk stopped the barbarian's Sudden Charge on the 1st Stride after the barbarian had moved 10 feet. But the barbarian with Speed 25 feet needed to travel only 35 feet to reach his target, so he uses his 2nd Stride to reach his target and Strike.
Way of the Pistolero is a complicated example. It is a free action taken when you roll initiative so nobody can AOO it (barring some other screwy initiative feature).
Way of the Pistolero is a complicated example. It is a free action taken when you roll initiative so nobody can AOO it (barring some other screwy initiative feature).
Many tables assume you start battle with a Reaction available, though yeah, it's kinda odd that the minor benefit would incur such a severe deficit.
Way of the Pistolero is a complicated example. It is a free action taken when you roll initiative so nobody can AOO it (barring some other screwy initiative feature).Many tables assume you start battle with a Reaction available, though yeah, it's kinda odd that the minor benefit would incur such a severe deficit.
I can understand how this becomes the local status quo, but it's a GM choice. Default is no reactions until your turn starts.
Your reactions let you respond immediately to what’s happening around you. The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens.
Once your first turn begins, you gain your actions and reaction.
Sometimes I think people look at the Battle Oracle's War Cry and determine you must get resctions before your turn because the Mystery spell is a reaction that triggers off of You're about to Roll Initiative, so the GM has to allow that reaction before the turn else negate the entire focus spell. It should have been a free action like they ultimately made the Ways.
Regardless, you definitely don't have Reactions while rolling initiative (barring some wacky feature) to interrupt things triggering off the initiative roll.
Way of the Pistolero is a complicated example. It is a free action taken when you roll initiative so nobody can AOO it (barring some other screwy initiative feature).
Both examples with Attack of Opportunity disrupting a manipulate subordinate action without disabling the containing action are weak. I suspect that Paizo designs subordinate-based activities to feel like a unified whole, with each subordinate action naturally following the others. That makes them prone to failing when any step inside them is disrupted.
Examples with Stand Still disrupting a move subordinate action are easier to find. Moving into the right place is not as vital to an activity as preparing the right weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you surely do, or stuff like the battle oracle call to arms focus spell wouldn't work at all.Way of the Pistolero is a complicated example. It is a free action taken when you roll initiative so nobody can AOO it (barring some other screwy initiative feature).Many tables assume you start battle with a Reaction available, though yeah, it's kinda odd that the minor benefit would incur such a severe deficit.
Sometimes I think people look at the Battle Oracle's War Cry and determine you must get resctions before your turn because the Mystery spell is a reaction that triggers off of You're about to Roll Initiative, so the GM has to allow that reaction before the turn else negate the entire focus spell. It should have been a free action like they ultimately made the Ways.
Your reactions let you respond immediately to what’s happening around you. The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens.
Once your first turn begins, you gain your actions and reaction.
Aberrant features don't redefine the default assumptions of the game. That the "GM determines" that the Battle Oracle gets their initiative modifying reaction before their turn starts doesn't mean every rogue gets Nimble Dodge and every fighter gets Attack of Opportunity before their turn starts as the default state of Encounter Mide.
...and to at least tie this subdiscussion back to this thread original question, aberrant features that don't fit the subordinate action rules neither redefine the subordinate action rules. Their specific idiosyncrasies exist within themselves.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Way of the Pistolero is a complicated example. It is a free action taken when you roll initiative so nobody can AOO it (barring some other screwy initiative feature).Many tables assume you start battle with a Reaction available, though yeah, it's kinda odd that the minor benefit would incur such a severe deficit.I can understand how this becomes the local status quo, but it's a GM choice. Default is no reactions until your turn starts.
Your reactions let you respond immediately to what’s happening around you. The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens.
Once your first turn begins, you gain your actions and reaction.
Sometimes I think people look at the Battle Oracle's War Cry and determine you must get resctions before your turn because the Mystery spell is a reaction that triggers off of You're about to Roll Initiative, so the GM has to allow that reaction before the turn else negate the entire focus spell. It should have been a free action like they ultimately made the Ways.
Regardless, you definitely don't have Reactions while rolling initiative (barring some wacky feature) to interrupt things triggering off the initiative roll.
It's not definite at all; all the rules say is that the GM decides. It doesn't say that you usually can't or that you usually can't, just that it depends on the situation in which the encounter begins.
And there are quite a few abilities that hint that having reactions before initiative is not supposed to be rare:
* Almost all complex hazards have a reaction to some event, which ends with "and then the hazard rolls initiative". If by default you don't have reactions before your first turn, then complex hazards can never trigger.
* The Tengu feat Squawk! seems intended for use in out of combat social situations, but is a reaction.
* The gnome feat Empathetic Plea would be very hard to use, because you can only use it to protect yourself against people you haven't been hostile to yet.
* Investigators couldn't use their Clue In reaction outside combat.
* Investigators couldn't use Suspect of Opportunity on someone who ambushes them (using Stealth for initiative perhaps), while the flavor text is "Sometimes something intrudes upon your case unexpectedly, such as an ambush sent to bring your investigation to a close."
* Investigators couldn't use Foresee Danger on enemies who win initiative. Despite it being about foreseeing things.
* Swashbucklers couldn't use Charmed Life against simple hazards, which tend to trigger outside combat.
* Barbarians couldn't use Spiritual guides outside combat. Since it has the concentrate trait, they also can't use it while raging...
* Bards couldn't use Accompany outside combat.
* Clerics couldn't use Premonition of Avoidance against hazards, which is the only thing it's for, unless those hazards trigger mid-combat.
* Druids couldn't use Reactive Transformation when the bad thing they want to react to happens outside combat / is the trigger for rolling initiative.
* Rogues couldn't use Inspired Stratagem outside combat, despite it requiring 10 minutes of prep in the morning and being about thinking ahead.
* Sorcerers couldn't use Spell Relay outside combat.
* Wizards couldn't use Convincing Illusion outside of combat (like, to maybe prevent the combat)
* Dandy can't use Distracting Flattery outside combat, which is pretty much the key time to care about NPC attitudes.
There are a bunch more, most of this is just from the APG, since then more stuff has been published. But there are so many abilities that don't make sense with a default stance of no reactions before your first turn. I can't believe that that's really intended, and there is no rule saying that that's the standard, only that the GM decides.
PF1 made you flat-footed at the start of combat, and as a side effect of that you couldn't take immediate actions. Starfinder doesn't make you flat-footed at the start of combat, but you can't use reactions until your first turn. PF2 only says that the GM decides. But there's a lot of things that point to a default being more like "yes, unless you were particularly ambushed/deceived".
I would even go further and say that that's a very good way to make ambushing people do something, since PF2 doesn't have the concept of a surprise round. If successfully using Stealth or Deception (disguise..) to surprise people is a way to get some stuff done before they have Reactions, that's a nice mechanic.
Your reactions let you respond immediately to what’s happening around you. The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens.
Once your first turn begins, you gain your actions and reaction.
Sometimes I think people look at the Battle Oracle's War Cry and determine you must get resctions before your turn because the Mystery spell is a reaction that triggers off of You're about to Roll Initiative, so the GM has to allow that reaction before the turn else negate the entire focus spell. It should have been a free action like they ultimately made the Ways.
Regardless, you definitely don't have Reactions while rolling initiative (barring some wacky feature) to interrupt things triggering off the initiative roll.
I'd just like to note that your don't lose your reaction unless you use it, or at the start of your turn. So technically it is possible to have a reaction before the encounter begins, hung over from the previous encounter.
Yes that is a nasty raw argument. Which I don't really approve of, because there are technical problems that you can't solve without applying some arbitrary common sense.
The best answer is it is up to the GM.
Since this thread is on Subordinate Reactions, so I will leave it at I respectfully disagree.
I will also point out that the section I'm quoting is titled "Reactions in Encounters" so any example of something used outside of Encounter Mode, which itself includes Social Encounters, doesn't fit the argument.
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 lost.
I disagree it does say lose an action and the remaining actions in that activity don't happen. You never get a refund on an activity or actions.
I already gave the example of Stand Still disrupting movement but not disrupting the Strike after the movement of Sudden Charge. Sudden Charge does not have the move trait, so Stand Still cannot disrupt it. It can disrupt a subordinate Stride but not the Sudden Charge itself. For example, imagine that the monk stopped the barbarian's Sudden Charge on the 1st Stride after the barbarian had moved 10 feet. But the barbarian with Speed 25 feet needed to travel only 35 feet to reach his target, so he uses his 2nd Stride to reach his target and Strike.
Which I already rejected because
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted actionIt is explicitly in the GM domain.
You are trying to derive principles, when the rules are explicitly: the GM decides.
If an action is disrupted it may or may not disrupt the activity it is part of.
The biggest problem with the definition of subordinate actions is the use of term “larger actions” instead of activities. This massively complicated the definition of subordinate actions and opens a lot of otherwise straightforward rules to interpretation.
The reason I think this choice was made was to let there be four types of actions, basic, activities, reactions and free actions. But having the actions word as the largest grouping and one of the smallest is going to create problems.
Also, my reading of subordinate actions is that the term primarily exists to describe basic actions that have been modified in some fashion.
So, in my reading, any rules texts that combines actions together should be read as an activity. The rules will explicitly tell you what actions the activity combines (regardless of how many actions the acting takes to complete), what additional traits the activity gets in Addison to each combined action retaining its original traits, and it will tell you how any subordinate actions are modified. Beyond this, activities don’t really follow set rules other than general action rules and that is so that developers can make new activities that do what they say, and not get caught up in having to follow an elaborate flow chart of rules about actions, and they don’t have to worry about anything made as an activity getting used as a basic action within all the existing activities and potentially breaking the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the division between actions and activities is really rigorous enough to be useful for parsing rules. There's no clear enough dividing line you can draw between what would be an activity and what would be an action, unless the thing itself says what it is.
* "Actions" typically take 1 action, but not always. The Basic Actions include Aid (a reaction), Delay (a free action), Ready (takes two actions), Release (free), Arrest a Fall (reaction) and Grab an Edge (reaction).
* "Actions" do sometimes have subordinate actions, such as Long Jump, which is described as a skill action, but contains a subordinate Stride.
* Activities "typically" involve multiple actions. That means often but not always, so it's not usable to strictly determine what is an activity or not.
* Activities usually cost multiple actions, but there are single-action, free and reaction activities.
* Activities can contain multiple subordinate actions that they bundle for cheap or modify. But sometimes it's just a single action, or even no particular standalone action at all. Like exploration activities such as Cover Tracks (although that one lives under a heading of "Survival Trained Actions").
* Activities can contain activities: spellstrike is an activity that contains the cast a spell activity.
* Various paragraphs lurch back and forth referring to things now as an activity, then as an action, as if this wasn't a problem at all.
---
My take on that is that there simply isn't a hard thick line separating them. "Activities" is just a word of convenience when we want to indicate that the action package we're talking about is more than just a simple elementary piece.
I am fine with specific rules breaking general ones, but I am skeptical that is what is happening when the new specific rule does not explicitly state what actions are being combined. Using similar language that doesn’t explicitly state what it is but is supposed to be the thing it sounds like feels like a bigger mistake than accidentally encouraging players to think actions or traits might be there, but are not. Also, a subordinate action can just be a single modified action. So an activity containing just one action that does something slightly different than that action does normally still qualifies as an activity.
Let’s look closer at the long jump action, the sudden leap feat and the wall jump feat. What part of these actions and activities can be combined?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let’s look closer at the long jump action, the sudden leap feat and the wall jump feat. What part of these actions and activities can be combined?
I don't really understand what you're trying to ask here. Sudden Leap contains a Long Jump, and Wall Jump can modify a Long Jump.
There's nothing really to "combine" because doing the first is part of the second, and the third is just a feat that adds on, it's not an activity at all.
Let’s look closer at the long jump action, the sudden leap feat and the wall jump feat. What part of these actions and activities can be combined?I don't really understand what you're trying to ask here. Sudden Leap contains a Long Jump, and Wall Jump can modify a Long Jump.
There's nothing really to "combine" because doing the first is part of the second, and the third is just a feat that adds on, it's not an activity at all.
I agree. These feats make it clear, using the terminology of the game how long jump becomes a subordinate action of a larger activity. Can the feat quick jump be used to modify the subordinate long jump action? Predicated in the quick jump feat is that you would only use one action to long jump without striding first. I think that would mean you cannot because the number of actions the action takes is a dependent clause of quick jump. This sudden charge will always include a stride as well as the jump, right? Luckily (or intentionally) wall jump is in the same boat, but makes quick jump unnecessary and tells you that the stride action doesn’t happen. Without the added language to wall jump, I think there would be a lot of confusion about whether quick jump could be be applied to modify the long jump action.
Where actions are being combined, this kind of rules clarity is necessarily, and needs to be stated in the terminology of the game. Right?
I myself had interpreted the word "activity" to mean a task that took more time that a single action in a turn, like Long Jump [Two Actions] and Administer First Aid [Two Actions]. Long Jump contains a subordinate Stride and Leap, and Administer First Aid contains no subordinate actions.
In this thread and the firing-a-bow thread, I see that some people interpret "activity" to mean a task that contains subordinate actions. This alternative definition makes sense. The definition of Activities on page 461 of the Core Rulebook begins: "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." Using multiple actions is characteristic of an action that contains subordinate actions. And so long as we have a name for a subordinate action, having a name for an action that contains a subordinate action would be complementary. I have been calling them "containing actions" but I made up that name.
Besides, what is the point of a special word for a task that costs two or three actions during a turn? Privately, I think of them as double actions and triple actions, not as a separate category from single actions. Okay, a task performed for a minute, ten minutes, or an hour during Exploration Mode could have its own name, since it does not use the action-based timing of Encounter Mode, but why also try to apply that name to Encounter Mode?
However, I had learned the definition of "activity" from the Playtest Rulebook, which used a different wording. And that different wording is still used on page 17 in the Introduction chapter of the Core Rulebook.
While exploration is handled in a free-form manner, encounters are more structured. The players and GM roll initiative to determine who acts in what order. The encounter occurs over a number of rounds, each of which is equal to about 6 seconds of time in the world of the game. During a round, each participant takes a turn. When it’s your turn to act, you can use up to three actions. Most simple things, such as drawing a weapon, moving a short distance, opening a door, or swinging a sword, use a single action to perform. There are also activities that use more than a single action to perform; these are often special abilities from your character’s class and feats. One common activity in the game is casting a spell, which usually uses two actions.
Activities
Activities are special tasks that you complete by spending one or more of your actions together. Usually, an activity uses two or more actions and lets you do more than a single action would allow. You have to spend all the actions an activity requires for its effects to happen. Spellcasting is one of the most common activities, as most spells take more than a single action to cast.Activities that use two actions use this symbol: [Two Actions]. Activities that use three actions use this symbol: [Three Actions]. A few special activities, such as spells you can cast in an instant, can be performed by spending a free action or a reaction.
All tasks that take longer than a turn are activities. If an activity is meant to be done during exploration, it has the exploration trait. An activity that takes a day or more of commitment and that can be done only during downtime has the downtime trait.
For some reason, casting a spell is always called an activity, regardless of whether it is a single action, double action, triple action, free action, or reaction.
I will continue using the phrase "containing action" for an action or activity that contains subordinate actions. The word "activity" is too ambiguous.
Let’s look closer at the long jump action, the sudden leap feat and the wall jump feat. What part of these actions and activities can be combined?I don't really understand what you're trying to ask here. Sudden Leap contains a Long Jump, and Wall Jump can modify a Long Jump.
There's nothing really to "combine" because doing the first is part of the second, and the third is just a feat that adds on, it's not an activity at all.
I agree. These feats make it clear, using the terminology of the game how long jump becomes a subordinate action of a larger activity. Can the feat quick jump be used to modify the subordinate long jump action? Predicated in the quick jump feat is that you would only use one action to long jump without striding first. I think that would mean you cannot because the number of actions the action takes is a dependent clause of quick jump. This sudden charge will always include a stride as well as the jump, right? Luckily (or intentionally) wall jump is in the same boat, but makes quick jump unnecessary and tells you that the stride action doesn’t happen. Without the added language to wall jump, I think there would be a lot of confusion about whether quick jump could be be applied to modify the long jump action.
Where actions are being combined, this kind of rules clarity is necessarily, and needs to be stated in the terminology of the game. Right?
And I see no rule that a containing action cannot contain a subordinate containing action, though defining a task that way would annoyingly require an additional lookup.
Squiggit's example of Sudden Leap contains Leap, High Jump, or Long Jump followed by a Strike. The nested definition definition is justified because it offers a choice of three kinds of jumping.
In contrast, Quick Jump changes the definition of High Jump and Long Jump rather than nesting them in a containing action. This means that on a character with Quick Jump will use the alternative definition of High Jump and Long Jump inside Sudden Leap. The shorter time for a Quick Long Jump or Quick High Jump won't matter, because the action cost of Sudden Leap is defined by Sudden Leap rather than by Long Jump or High Jump, but not requiring the initial Stride for a successful Long Jump or High Jump will make a difference.
The definition of Wall Jump is problematic. It says, "Furthermore, since your previous jump gives you momentum, you can use High Jump or Long Jump as a single action, but you don’t get to Stride as part of the activity." Since High Jump unmodified by Quick JUmp says, "If you didn’t Stride at least 10 feet, you automatically fail your check," skipping the Stride would lead to automatic failure. Long Jump has a similar restriction. Clearly, Wall Jump is supposed to say that the Stride is no longer necessary, because of momentum, but Pathfinder has no momentum rules so it does not say that.
The premise of quick jump is using one action instead of 2 to high jump or long jump. How do you do that with sudden leap?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The premise of quick jump is using one action instead of 2 to high jump or long jump. How do you do that with sudden leap?
You don't. When an action is converted into a subordinate action, its action cost--two actions for High Jump and one action for Quick High Jump--becomes irrelevant. Only the action cost on Sudden Leap itself matters.
Sudden Leap [Two Actions] Feat 8
Barbarian, Fighter
Source Core Rulebook pg. 149 3.0
You make an impressive leap and swing while you soar. Make a Leap, High Jump, or Long Jump and attempt one melee Strike at any point during your jump. Immediately after the Strike, you fall to the ground if you're in the air, even if you haven't reached the maximum distance of your jump. If the distance you fall is no more than the height of your jump, you take no damage and land upright.
When attempting a High Jump or Long Jump during a Sudden Leap, determine the DC using the Long Jump DCs, and increase your maximum distance to double your Speed.
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.
Sudden Leap's purpose is for a melee combatant to jump into the air to hit a flying creature. It offers a little bit of action discount, since a two-action High Jump and a one-action Strike cost only the two actions for Sudden Leap. On the other hand, if the combatant had chosen to Leap instead of High Jump, Sudden Leap offers no action discount. Likewise, Quick High Jump has no discount.
The special sentence allows using a two-action Felling Strike instead of a one-action Strike. Using the more costly option increases the action cost of Sudden Leap to three actions. That had to be called out explicitly, because using more costly subordinate actions does not change the action cost of the containing action either.
Using High Jump with the Quick Jump option inside Sudden Leap does remove the requirement to Stride 10 feet as part of the High Jump. That would be handy if the flying enemy was directly above the character.
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?
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.