| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I don't, because thankfully the game tells us toLess than a shorthand, and more like building blocks, yes.
That's why activities often change how the base actions behave (adding dices, speed, removing stuff, adding and removing traits from them, and etc).
The game has a handful of said base actions, and uses them to build the more complex actions (activities). All the rules are easily referenced this way without having to repeat them all the time, and stuff that are suppossed to influece the base parts of the game (like weapon specialization adding damage to your attacks as an example) can be easily accounted for in current and future content with extreme ease.
The thing is, either the game is telling you to use a strike when it says to strike, or it isn't. You are saying that the game is not telling you to use a Strike when it says to use a strike inside of an activity; it is saying this in lieu of copypasting the rules for Strike into every activity.
So you would say Rogue does not get Sneak Attack on any attack but a Basic Action Strike. This is a necessary consequence of your position. Do you agree with that statement?
This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effectsAnd sneak attack is an effect of a Strike.
This is not logically available to you. Strike is a named action. Sneak Attack specifically refers to a Strike by name. It does not refer to any trait or effect of Strike; it specifically says Strike.
When your enemy can't properly defend itself, you take advantage to deal extra damage. If you Strike a creature that has the off-guard condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about you answering my question for a change though:
If you can only do an action after an activity completely finishes, if a subordinate action is the same as the base action, how do you start it?
This only makes sense if you think the game isn't telling you to do other actions as part of activities to begin with. But it is! It even says you don't need to spend more actions or reactions to do so (which effectively makes them free actions, one might note).
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's 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.
Note the wording is literally saying you use the basic action.
And since you get ALL the effects of stuff that affect "the named Action Strike" with a subordinate action Strike, you get it.
...So Double Strike should proc off-guard, because I get all the effects of a named action strike, including effects that ask for Strike by name, even though using an activity isn't the same as using its subordinate actions and you don't think you ever actually use a strike and just drop in the rules text of strike?
Got damn, I'm glad I was afk and that you tagged in here Witch.
I would not have been as gracious there, thank you for being patient with this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While resolving the subordinate actions treat them as if you used the referenced base action, potentially modified by the activity. While not resolving the subordinate actions only the activity exists.
That's why a subordinate strike gets everything a regular strike gets, but when not resolving it the only thing that you can refer to is the activity, so next/previous action and the like won't see the subordinate actions.
This is generally my interpretation, but for certain things like Hide or Create a Diversion I think the first attack should benefit (in the given example of Double Slice), even if the RAW doesn't support that.
Now that I think about it, Sneak has a subordinate Stride. Sneak is one of the three actions that doesn't automatically break Stealth, but Stride is not one of those actions, and the subordinate Stride is not Sneak.
Of course, the subordinate Stride is explicitly modified by the encompassing Sneak action to be stealthy. But this gets me wondering how much this Hide rule actually cares about the subordinate actions of the revealing action. Double Slice may contain Strikes, but it's not a Strike itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...So Double Strike should proc off-guard, because I get all the effects of a named action strike, including effects that ask for Strike by name, even though using an activity isn't the same as using its subordinate actions and you don't think you ever actually use a strike and just drop in the rules text of strike?Yes. That is what that sidebar says.
While resolving the subordinate actions treat them as if you used the referenced base action, potentially modified by the activity. While not resolving the subordinate actions only the activity exists.
That's why a subordinate strike gets everything a regular strike gets, but when not resolving it the only thing that you can refer to is the activity, so next/previous action and the like won't see the subordinate actions.
No. This contradicts the text.
Subordinate Actions
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."
Hide
"You cease being hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise."
The Hide text specifies Strikes. You are starting the activity Double Slice; Double Slice is in the "anything else" bucket, because Double Slice is not the same as using strike twice; therefore it requires GM fiat for the enemy to be off-guard to the first hit of double slice. I think every GM should rule that the enemy is off-guard to the first hit of double slice, mind, but it is GM fiat by the rules.
If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed.
This part of the Hide text is functionally equivalent to saying, "when hidden, if your next action is a Strike, the enemy is off-guard to that attack and then you are observed." It is effectively identical to the example given in the sidebar. This is, in fact, the problem this whole thread is about.
===
I should also note that what I said there is internally inconsistent, to point out that shroudb's position there is internally inconsistent. It requires Double Slice to both be treated as equivalent to strike and not be treated as equivalent to strike.
My best guess is they mixed up "effect" and "affect." What they said makes some sense if you had read "This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects" as "This subordinate action still has its normal traits and whatever affects the subordinate action normally still does." That's not what the rules say, though.
...(Sneak Attack is an easy problem case for this reading, as are abilities like Debilitating Strike ...
Just as a point of note, Debilitating Strike is unaffected as it is a Free Action with a trigger that does not have the next/previous action language.
"Trigger Your Strike hits an off-guard creature and deals damage."
Per the rules on actions reactions and free actions with triggers (a la Debilitating Strike) my be used at any time, including in the middle of an activity, that the trigger is met.
Performing Sudden Charge is paying the 2A to invoke sudden charge and then performing the subordinate actions ofsteppingstriding twice and then attacking. Once you've attacked, you've done everything sudden charge told you to do, so you've completed it. There's no need to add a "sudden charge finished" step. Doing the last thing the activity tells you to is finishing the activity in my book.
In that case, your last/previous action was a Strike, not Sudden Charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And "subordinate actions" is not part of them. So, by default, a subordinate action is NOT an action.
Uhm... if a subordinate action is not an action, then a subordinate Strike is not a Strike and, therefore, Sneak Attack can never apply to a subordinate action Strike (since, you know, it is, by default, "NOT an action").
/smh
...(Sneak Attack is an easy problem case for this reading, as are abilities like Debilitating Strike ...Just as a point of note, Debilitating Strike is unaffected as it is a Free Action with a trigger that does not have the next/previous action language.
"Trigger Your Strike hits an off-guard creature and deals damage."
Per the rules on actions reactions and free actions with triggers (a la Debilitating Strike) my be used at any time, including in the middle of an activity, that the trigger is met.
That was in the context of a rules reading where you're not actually doing the Basic Action Strike as part of an activity that tells you to strike, but instead something like following the instructions of strike without actually using Strike. That would mean that you couldn't use debilitating strike because the condition isn't met (as it requires you to Strike), nor would you proc Sneak Attack (because it again mentions Strike by name).
I don't agree with the reading I was outlining here. I agree with what you're saying.
In that case, your last/previous action was a Strike, not Sudden Charge.
Yeah, that's a consequence of Trip's reading. I think it's an acceptable cost, though. I don't think the game explodes if Strike>Exacting Strike>Reap the Field is an acceptable sequence of actions for an exemplar with fighter archetype, or Skirmish Strike>Reap the Field is an acceptable sequence of actions provided that you step first. I'm not going to get annoyed if someone says those don't work at their table, though.
This reading also spares you from trying to divine if there's a difference between the requirement on followup attack and something like Reap the Field, which is nice.
If you want to think of it as [Sudden Charge starts> Stride > Stride > Strike > Sudden Charge ends] instead to let sudden strike be the last action, you can. I don't like it as much right now. But the most important thing is just that everyone agrees the game actually tells you to use Strike, so you get Sneak Attack damage and can proc Debilitating Strike and so on when an activity tells you to strike.
===
All this being said, though, there is one action I can find that doesn't play completely nice with the "the last action is the last subordinate action executed" reading: Cratering Drop. https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5540 It explicitly asks for your last action to be the activity "Pluck from the Sky" using a melee strike. Sure, the last thing Pluck from the Sky asks you to do is have the enemy make a reflex save if the strike deals damage, so maybe there's an argument "pluck from the sky" happens after the strike or something. But then we end up with the unintuitive and seemingly wrong result that if you use Pluck from the Sky and miss, your last action was a missed strike; but if you hit, your last action was Pluck from the Sky. I don't think this is really acceptable.
Weirdly, though, this ability would also violate the containerization reading. It cares about the kind of strike used inside the activity, which doesn't square with how containerization is normally explained. It's not like anyone is going to parse what the ability does incorrectly because of it, mind.
Anyways, this ability—one-off though it may be—supports the assertion there's an activity end tag. Going to think on if this is illustrative or an outlier.
Double Strike combines the damage, no? Isn't it then fair to assume that both strikes are made simultaneously and therefore should both gain the benefit of an off-guard target?
Double Strike combines the damage, no? Isn't it then fair to assume that both strikes are made simultaneously and therefore should both gain the benefit of an off-guard target?
Nah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Hide is referring to "next" or "previous" actions at all. You could easily Hide, then Step, then Strike and still benefit from off-guard.
Hide is just saying that if you Strike, you become observed after the Strike, and if you do any other action (except Hide/Sneak/Step), you become observed before the action.
The tricky thing here is that someone using Double Slice is doing both. They really are Striking, and they are also Double Slicing, which is an action other than Strike.
@shroudb
You provided a list of types of actions from the rules. You then proceded to point out that "subordinate" was not in that list.
You concluded, and I quote: "So, by default, a subordinate action is NOT an action."
Something not being an Action and something not being (as an example) a Strike are two different things.
If something is not an action, it cannot, ever, be a Strike since a Strike is an Action.
"Action" is a set. The types (Activity, Basic, Free, and Reaction) are subsets. Step, Stride, Strike, etcetera are components of the set Basic Actions. There is some overlapping as Reactive Strike is a Reaction and, technically, an Activity since it includes a Strike Basic Action subordinate action with a modified action cost and trigger conditions.
Something not being an Action, by definition, excludes all elements of the set "Action" which, thusly, excludes all elements of all subsets. If it is not an action, then it not anything from the set "Action."
You reinforce this with:
When you are performing an Activity, the "Action" you are performing is that Activity from start to finish. As part of that Activity you may do subordinate actions, but these specifically are not counted as actions, neither for cost*, nor for specification**.
So, according to your rhetorical structure, when you perform Skirmish Strike or Sudden Charge, you never perform a Strike. You only perform Skirmish Strike or Sudden Charge.
In that case, nothing that interfaces with "Strike" may apply to any part of Skirmish Strike or Sudden Charge because those are the actions and their constituent parts are not actions (based on: "a subordinate action is NOT an action"). If the constituent parts are not actions, then mechanics that apply to Actions cannot apply to the constituent parts.
In other words, if a subordinate action is not an action, then SubordinateAction[Strike] is not an Action[Strike], and, therefore, nothing that interfaces with Action[Strike] can interface with SubordinateAction[Strike]. That is what you are claiming when you assert that "a subordinate action is NOT an action."
You cannot claim that subordinate actions are not actions and simultaneously claim that mechanics about Actions (e.g. Sneak Attack, Strategic Strike, etcetera) apply to subordinate actions. The two are mutually exclusive.
While subordinate actions may be modified by the activity and do not cost any additional Actions[the currency for acting], they are, absolutely, still Actions.
The ramifications of it being otherwise as, quite simply, incredibly TBTBT.
** As pointed out since subordinate actions are not a type of "actions".
Subordinate actions are not a type of Action. They are also not a category or set. The word "subordinate" is an adjective. Adjectives describe nouns.
Subordinate Actions are Actions that are performed in a particular manner and/or order to complete an Activity, but they are, still, Actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And "subordinate actions" is not part of them. So, by default, a subordinate action is NOT an action.The game clearly tell us all the types of actions:
[quote}There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.
That sentence came from the Player Core, Chapter 8 Playing the Game, Actions, page 414. It is part of a larger description:
ou will need to track your actions carefully in an encounter. At the start of each turn you take in an encounter, you regain 3 actions and 1 reaction to spend that round. (Regaining your actions is described in detail here.) You can spend your actions in many different ways.
There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.
Single actions can be completed in a very short time. They're self-contained, and their effects are generated within the span of that single action.
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. ...
Note that the last sentence that I quoted called the Strike subordinate action in Sudden Charge an "action."
Further down the page, it gives the Action Icon Key for Single Action, Two-Action Activity, Three-Action Activity, Reaction, and Free Action. That section skips any icon for one-minute activities, since those actions are not part of tracking actions during Encounter Mode. It also skips any icons for subordinate actions.
My interpretation is that subordinate actions are actions, but they are not tracked as part of the 3 actions and 1 reaction gained per round. Thus, the section of the rulebook that describes how to track actions skipped them.
Further down the same page is a section called Activities, which has the first mention of subordinate actions.
Activities
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.An activity might cause you to use specific actions within it. You don't have to spend additional actions to perform them—they're already factored into the activity's required actions. (See Subordinate Actions.)
...
It calls subordinate actions "actions," too.
The Subordinate Actions in sidebox on page 415 says:
Subordinate Actions
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's 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.
SuperParkourio pointed out that the Sneak action contains a subordinate Stride, yet this Strike does not break the hidden condition from Hide. My interpretation is that Sneak modifies the subordinate Stride so that it also does not break the hidden condition.
I feel like shroudb is making the same mistake now that they cautioned against earlier in the thread: confusing actions (things a character does) with actions (costs to perform things). This is pretty bad semantic design from the game, to be sure, even if it's inherited from older d20 systems. I wish the "actions (cost)" were called stamina or maybe even just action points instead; AP for action points is definitely a common convention in some other games I've played, and it would be much clearer to say that you get 3 AP (action points) and 1 RP (reaction point) at the start of your turn instead of three actions and a reaction.
I don't think Hide is referring to "next" or "previous" actions at all. You could easily Hide, then Step, then Strike and still benefit from off-guard.
You're correct that I probably should have said it is equivalent to something like "if you are hidden and your next action is a Strike, then..." But I figured that was implied from context.
I also figured it wasn't implied that the if statement required your last action to be sneak or hide, because the rules as written already don't require that.
I further didn't think it was necessary to translate that entire section into a string of conditionals covering all the action buckets (step/sneak/hide, strike, anything else with GM approval, anything else without GM approval) to get the point across, but I suppose this is a topic where we're already being very nitpicky about semantics and it could've spared confusion.
Thinking about it, a lot of this is technically solved if "your next action" or "your last action" is always parsed as "the next thing you spend actions to perform" or "the last thing you spent actions to perform." As in, it only checks for named actions you paid actions to perform, not those you perform at no action cost as subordinate actions or in response to triggers as free actions or reactions.
I think this aligns with most people's intuitions here, and also doesn't require you to litigate much else about how to read the rules. It's incongruent with Trip's reading (because there's no "activity end" tags on Trip's reading), but it seems congruent with most other readings. It captures the elision of "action (cost)" and "action (activity)" that seems to occur a lot in the rules, and I can't think of any case where it produces an unclear result. It does produce the result that double-slicing while hidden won't proc off-guard, but I think most of us also agree that it proccing off-guard requires GM fiat anyways.
I decided to post this thread after a situation came up in PFS. I wanted the enemy to be off-guard before my eidolon used Furious Strike, so I contemplated having the eidolon Feint. But that inflicts off-guard on a crit fail, so I instead went with Create a Diversion. Then as I was about to have the eidolon Furious Strike, I realized it wasn't actually a Strike, and I questioned whether the eidolon would immediately reveal itself before the attempt. I even wondered if this was an intentional limitation of Create a Diversion to make Feint more appealing.
tch. So you did the stick in your own bike wheel meme. How much of the table's time did you waste on this thing?
Unless you're shouting "Furious Strike!" when you do it, what is it about starting an activity that would break hidden? The GM can determine that other actions don't break hidden, and I have never encountered a GM who would make such a troll ruling that just starting an activity breaks hidden. That breaks practically everything a rogue can do and also cripples way of the sniper gunslingers so it is surely not the intended reading
I think almost everyone (though not literally everyone in every test case—see comments wrt spellstrike) feels the RAI is that you should get it. The problem is that the RAW -really- makes it seem like you don't unless the GM gives you permission, and there's no good arguments to the contrary that we've found under RAW.
I think at bottom, I at least feel that it feels weird that something so obvious requires the GM to go "yeah, you're good." That does seem to be the case, though.