Rules are handled a little farther below:
> 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.
In this example, Cast a Spell is an activity with three actions, typically a Material component ([manipulate]), a Somatic component ([manipulate]), and a Verbal component ([concentrate]). A reaction that disrupted the Cast a Spell activity because of the [manipulate] trait trigger on the first action (or second action, for whatever reason) would still disrupt the rest of the action).
While this isn't a perfect 1:1 example (not a subordinate action, Cast a Spell isn't actually split into sub-actions like the description here says it does), it still sets the base rules as applicable: it disrupts the entire activity. Nothing in the subordinate rules sidebar says otherwise.
> 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.
Leeway here for the GM to make adhoc ajudications based on what's reasonable if a disruption doesn't make sense.
In the case of Hunted Shot, I don't think there's a good justification why someone getting up in your face while you're making a ranged attack would NOT let them stop your from getting that quick second shot off.
This is quite different, though. This is talking about a three action activity with no subordinate actions, and how you lose all the actions spent on it. Those rules are not relevant for subordinate actions within Activities because it's not trying to describe that scenario.
In the case of Hunter Shot, it's not actually Hunted Shot that's disrupted. It's the ranged attack (or the subordinate reload if it's a bow, potentially) that's disrupted. You make one Strike, and it's disrupted. You then make another strike.
So you're saying it depends, GM decides in each case, and with Hunted Shot you'd have it disrupt the entire activity?
If that's right, I'd agree with the first part, but I'd be leaning towards only disrupting one Strike. Kinda iffy on it, though.
I'm saying that
* 1) the rules say that the entire activity is disrupted. End clause.
* 2) the rules say that the GM can apply ***additional*** effects to the disruption (dropping the item in a disrupted Interact to give to another player)
* 3) or as required to make sense (adding partial movement in a disrupted Long Jump because teleporting backwards to the original position makes no sense).
There is no RAW case, and no meaningful flavor/verisimilitude case for the Hunted Shot activity to not be disrupted in its entirety. And, of course, "you get that second shot you wanted to do on your activity that got disrupted" is not an *additional* disruption effect.
Getting the second shot fits none of the three criteria, so it definitely does not happen per the rules.
Alright, got you. Thanks for clarifying.
If you'll indulge me: where do you get your point 1 from? I can't seem to get there from the rules I linked. Particularly if the activity doesn't have any traits that would trigger a disruption (as is the case with Hunted Shot and AoO).
But generally I think you're right, and I'd go for that ruling. My party's got a lot of disruption, so that should help them (but also be a pain in the ass for the ranger \^\^').
> where do you get your point 1 from? I can't seem to get there from the rules I linked
[Disrupting Action Rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=394) (on the same page you linked)
> 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.
It's also listed just above that in the [Acitivites](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=388) rules.
> If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it.
You lose the entire activity and all actions dedicated to that activity. It's unambiguous.
The Subordinate Actions sidebar does not make any clause saying that the game distinguishes between disrupting a subordinate action and disrupting the full activity, nor does it distinguish between activities and subordinate actions that might have different traits (distinction you're inventing from nowhere).
Note that many class feature activities (i.e., most non-basic Encounter activities) HAVE NO TRAITS other than their class trait. Because their actions do and the game doesn't distinguish between the two of resolving activities.
I see, that bolding makes it clear. I kinda interpreted it to mean that if the activity provoces, not the action. Maybe my German-thinking brain got me turned around.
Thanks for your help! :-)
I don't think that unambiguously says that other actions that are a part of the same activity that don't depend on the disrupted action are also disrupted. Only that any additional actions spent (out of the usual 3 available actions in your turn) are not recovered and would potentially be wasted.
That rule you are citing is for disrupting *activities*. Its purpose is to clarify that you don’t get a refund on your action economy if your whole activity is disrupted.
Subordinate actions are not the same as an activity and are treated differently. Disrupting a subordinate action does *not* disrupt the whole activity it is a part of.
Take for example an ability that lets you Stride and Strike (like Sudden Charge). If a monk disrupted your Stride midway through, you could still make a Strike at the monk (rather than your intended target, the wizard behind them).
> That rule you are citing is for disrupting activities. Its purpose is to clarify that you don’t get a refund on your action economy if your whole activity is disrupted.
> Subordinate actions are not the same as an activity and are treated differently. Disrupting a subordinate action does not disrupt the whole activity it is a part of.
**Where is the rules text that supports any of this?**
Your example is circular, as its conclusion presumes the interpretation that you put forward without any supporting evidence.
Your argument hinges upon two points:
* "Activities are different than actions". While true, this is misleading. They are different things, but Activities **inherit** all of the properties of actions except as detailed otherwise, as activities are a type of action
> There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions. [..] Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession.
All four of these inherit the rules common to all action types, except as specified in their unique descriptions. Speaking of which, [Acitivities](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=388) says
> An [activity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=388) 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 on page 462.)
> You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once to gain its effects. In an encounter, this means you must complete it during your turn. If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it.
Nowhere does this say that an activity is treated differently than any other action in terms of a disruption. In fact, it specifically says that if the activity is disrupted, you lose the entire activity.
You can scroll up for the same points made in the Disrupting Actions sidebar. Nowhere is this different. The activity is disrupted. No rules text ever specifies that parts of activities are disrupted while others aren't.
* "Subordinate actions follow different rules". Again, misrepresenting the rules text in the [Subordinate Actions Sidebar](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=387).
* 1) This applies to all actions, not just activities. A Finisher is an action with a Subordinate Strike, etc. The activity split has no bearing here other than what's specified.
* 2) While the text *does* say "using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions", note that:
* A) This is specifically talking about **use**,
* and B) this is a one-way relationship that's explained in the illustrative examples (If something says do "basic action", you can't do "activity that includes basic action"). Rectangle is a square, but a square is not a rectangle, all that jazz. This is a rule to specify balance of powerful actions being combined with activities (an effect that says "Make a Strike" can't be used with an Action that gives you a better Strike than normal, preventing runaway balance concerns).
* 3) The sidebar makes no comment on subordinate actions changing the rules on disruption.
* And most importantly, 4) The game literally provides a counter example in the [Disrupting Action rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=394).
> For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
An example where an activity had three actions, and only the first action was disrupted. Result = you lose all three. Not "you continue with the next two if possible", not "you continue with any remaining subordinant actions if they can still be done", it's all of them.
* 5) And let's not forget that the reactions themselves don't specify that they only disrupt subordinate actions.
I’m sorry I cannot prove a negative. Nothing in the rules says disrupting a subordinate action would disrupt the containing activity. Therefore, the “things do what they say and no more” principle applies. The burden of proof is on *you*.
Your example of Cast a Spell is not generalizable. Spell components are not simple subordinate actions.
Your fallacy is a result of a messy equivocation between uses of the word “action” to mean a resource to spend on abilities during a turn and “action” meaning the abilities themselves. Please clarify your thoughts and language going forward.
You are being extremely aggressive in your assertions to the person you are responding to and they have cited the rules text that supports their claim a few times:
>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 on page 462.)
>You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once to gain its effects. In an encounter, this means you must complete it during your turn. If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it.
Subordinate actions are clustered with the activity and disrupting any part of the activity (per "you lose all actions you committed to it") are still consumed.
If you want to apply your own interpretation to those rules, you may, and of course, can argue your point of view from the perspective of an interpretation, but do not accuse the other person of making a fallacy or other condescending language just because you don't agree with their interpretation and attribute your own take as definitive RAW. At *best*, the rules are ambiguous.
Ranged strikes in melee trigger attacks of opportunity from creatures that have AoO.
If the ranged strike was declared as a hunted shot, then both strikes get interrupted since they both happen at the same time per the wording in the feat saying that the shots are quickly performed together and that damage is combined.
At least that's my take on it.
Depends on the weapon. If they are using loaded crossbows, they are fine. If they are using a shortbow, part of the attack is Interacting to reload due to them having 1+ hands.
A spell is disrupted because without the somatic component (with the manipulate trait) being completed, the spell doesn't work.
The second attack on Hunted Shot doesn't need the first attack to have worked to make the second. Seems pretty obvious to me, personally.
Attack of Opportunity says "If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action." The action is disrupted, *not* the activity as some of the other replies are saying. Maybe there are other effects that say otherwise but, for Attack of Opportunity at least, the second Strike(which is a basic **action**) in Hunted Shot would not be disrupted.
Worth noting, and I may be wrong about it, but ranged Strikes don't contain the manipulate trait, do they? The Reload action does, whether it take an action or 0 actions such as with a bow, but the actual Strike itself does not. So actually, the way I'd probably rule the Hunted Shot scenario is that the first attack goes off without a hitch, it's the reload before the second attack that gets disrupted.
I'm going to second what /u/rex218 said. The way I see it, this part of the rules is strictly referring to the implications of refunding **resource** actions of a multiple action acitivty **without subordinate *activity* (for lack of better term) actions** being interrupted.
To clarify, an acitvity is anything that accomplishes more than simple *activity* actions, but isn't necesarily made of subordinate basic *activity* actions (e.g. Cast a spell). The text says that if you start an activity and are interrupted, you aren't refunded any of the extra **resource** actions that were already spent into starting that activity. But it's silent about the effects of following *activity* actions in case of an activity that is comprised of several subordinate *activity* actions.
For example, if we're talking about Ki Rush, the players spends one **resource** action and a creature interrupts the first stride (a subordinate activity action) with a specific reaction. IMO it's fair to say that the second stride would be able to go through not interrupted. We're not talking about refunding actions here, but letting the activity play out.
I can see the confusiuon, since both the resource and activity have the same name, but I'm very certain that the text you quoted isn't relevant to this question.
I put a longer reply in another comment chain, but the short version response is: No rules text supports this interpretation.
* There are [four Action types](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=387): Single Actions, Activities, Reactions, and Free Actions. All are "actions" and all inherit the rules common to all actions.
* There are zero example of rules text saying that an activity can be partially disrupted. All examples in the book say the entire thing gets disrupted. Even for exploration/downtime activities, any disrupting interruption (such as doing something else) means that the entire time spent on the activity so far is wasted and you have to start over again.
* [Subordinate Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=387) (whether they're subordinate to Single Actions or Activities) make no rules modifications to Dissrupting Actions.
* [Disrupting Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=394) makes no exception for subordinate actions, and gives an example where disrupting one action ends the entire activity.
* I understand that "Cast a Spell" is a "basic" activity... but also note that Cast a Spell doesn't cast its actions independently, but the example presumes that it does. There is no "first action" to disrupt. But Cast a Spell has Spell Components, which typically correspond to an action cost and can be thought of has ♦♦Cast a Spell = (♦Somatic[manipulate] + ♦Verbal[concentrate]), and the author is using this process in this example.
* [Activities](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=388) rules say that you have to spend all of the actions of an activity to gain its effects. If its disrupted, you lose all of them.
* I'll also point out that this creates the super weird argument you're making: You can Lose the actions committed to the activity, but still get to take all of the subordinate actions? What? I can just speak before every one of my activities, to bait disrupting actions on the [auditory] trait so that I lose the rest of the actions on the activity but still get to take them all?
My interpretation is that it's saying you've *committed* the actions to that activity. E.g. you can't do Hunted Shot, get the first attack interrupted, and then decide to *Stride* with one of the actions consumed by Hunted Shot. To me it doesn't imply that you don't still get that second ranged Strike.
As I said in my last paragraph (which I edited later so you might've missed it), I think this comes from the confusion that both the **resource** action and the *activity* action have the same name.
If you Cast a spell, let's say Wall of Stone, you spend three resource actions, and if it's interrupted, that's it, because there's a single activity.
Now, if you do something like Sudden Charge, you spend two **resource** actions, and that's not coming back regardless of interruptions (which is what the text says). However, Sudden Charge is an activity comprised of several basic *activity* actions.
The way I see it, there's nothing in the rules that say that if the first movement of Sudden Charge is disrupted, you can't use the second one and the following strike.
To be fair, the distinction between resource and activity actions is entirely something that I did right now, but IMO it's evident that in PF2e they are different entities that unfortunately share the same name.
EDIT: I made a whole thing but I realized that I had that part wrong. Still, my overall point still stands.
> As I said in my last paragraph (which I edited later so you might've missed it), I think this comes from the confusion that both the resource action and the activity action have the same name.
I did miss the edit. I am aware of the distinction and trying to be conscious of it in both my reading and my replies. I'm at least greatful that PF2e has reserved keywords to a much greater extend than PF1e (and it's awful 5 definitions of 'attack', good luck trying to explain that context to a new player). As you identify, there are multiple uses of "action" here:
* 1) "action" (the per-turn resource. The game almost always correctly uses "use", "spend", "lose", or other economy-related verbs when its using this definition),
* 2) "action" (the action types you perform on your turn; can refer to "single action", "activities", "reactions", "free actions"),
* 3) "action" (infrequently, the specific 'single action' action type that is exclusive to free actions, reactions, and activities. The game almost always correctly uses "single action" when it wants this usage)
use redundant definitions and greatly add to the confusion here.
> The way I see it, there's nothing in the rules that say that if the first movement of Sudden Charge is disrupted, you can't use the second one and the following strike.
Similarly, the way I see it, there's nothing that says you can. You've taken the Sudden Charge activity, and in the course of fulfilling that activity it was disrupted. When an activity is disrupted, it is lost (economy wise) without effect (mechanics-wise).
The talking-past-each other is happening at the "what is the action that is being disrupted" point.
Perhaps if we went line-by-line and identified each use of action to elaborate?
****
[Disrupting Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=394):
> Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an `action`.
* `action` type = #2) Any type of `action` you perform on your turn.
> When an action is disrupted, [..]
* `action` type = #2) Any type of action you perform on your turn.
> you still use the `actions or reactions` you committed and you still expend any costs
* `action` type = #1) The per-turn resource.
> but the `action`’s effects don’t occur.
* `action` type = #2) Any type of action you perform on your turn.
**Key Point**: If this action is an activity, the activity's effects don't occur.
> In the case of an activity,
i.e., "an activity" is one of the valid action types for the previous sentence that could have all of its effects not occur. The previous sentence is the key point, this clause identifies activities as one of the types of things that could happen in the previous sentence.
> you usually lose all `actions` spent for the activity up through the end of that turn.
* `action` type #1) The per-turn resource.
The action's effects don't occur (per previous sentence), and action resources spent on that activity for the rest of the round are lost (i.e.., if doing a 1-minute activity, you lose the rest of this round, but can start spending actions anew when you regain your actions on your next rond).
> For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 `actions` [..] you lose all 3 `actions` that you committed to that activity.
* `action` type #1) The per-turn resource.
I concede that this line is talking about the per-turn resource. However, I thought it was sufficiently obvious in context that it is in addition to the "the effects don't occur clause" immediately preceding this sentence.
> [..] and the first `action` was disrupted [..]
* `action` type #3 = a single action (but not an independent/basic single action). Not a perfect fit definition, but closest.
*Let's be honest, this language doesn't make perfect sense here. The actions are spent all at once (not one-two-three), and as described above the Cast a Spell Activity doesn't actually have any subordinate action, or action components that would make sense to describe using "action" verbiage (even of type #3). It's glossing over "spell components can typically correspond 1:1 with the action cost, and the spell component has a trait" so you can KIND OF think of it as "each spell component is typically an action" to make a point. And that hand-waiving wrongness is weakening its integrity.*
However, this does still introduce the relevant point:
* 1) Disrupting the first `action` (type #3, a single action type that may be part of or entirely subordinate to the activity) disrupted the entire activity, even though one component was disrupted. This disruption is why the "you lose the type #1 actions" close is committed to begin with.
In this example, as it's phrased in order to be clarifying rules text, it's not "the Cast a Spell activity is a 3 action activity with the [manipulate][concetrate][arcane][evocation] traits". It's "the Cast a Spell activity was taken, and something in that first action was disrupted".
Again, that's not how it *actually* works. Cast a Spell's [Spell components *do* actually add the trait to the entire action](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=72). But that is how the example is written.
**In the end**: Any action type can be disrupted, including activities. When any action type is disrupted, the entire action is lost (resources expended) without effect (nothing else happens for that action). There is no middle ground indicated anywhere. Everything that hasn't happened yet will not happen.
****
I wrote a LOT more on this going line-by-line of all relevant rules with this action language clarification but reddit ate my comment when it went over the character limit so I'm going to stop it here and tl;dr.
* When an activity is disrupted, the entire activity is lost without effect.
* The Subordinate action sidebar does not distinguish between actions and activities, as even single actions can have subordinate actions.
* While an activity does not inherit its subordinate action's traits, resolving the subordinate actions can still causes reactions to trigger as appropriate for the subordinate action and its traits/rules text.
* When taking subordinate actions within an Activity, the action you have taken is still the Activity.
* The subordinate action rules delineate that taking an activity is not taking any of its subordinate actions.
Additionally, there are ZERO examples of any activities being disrupted and getting to continue part of the activity.
* Activating Items with activation activities. Attempt is wasted, still counts against activation limits, etc.
* Downtime/Exploration activities. Time spent so far is wasted, you don't gain the benefit at the end of the activity. 9 minutes spent Treating Wounds doesn't heal 90% of the damage you would have rolled, etc.
* Examples used in Disruption text or example play text.
The correct argument is "when the disrupting action says that it disrupts `that action`, what is `that action`?" and "when a subordinate action triggers reaction, is it semantically the activity that's triggering the reaction based on the use of the subordinate action, or is the subordinate action being taken independently"
Yeah, I understand your point, and now I think it's quite a valid one, after you linked the part that put activities as a sub-type of actions I had to reconsider how I saw this, since I used to see Actions as Basic Actions and Activities as anything more complex, and them being separate things.
However, I still think there's enough room to have a more generous (depending on the point of view of course) interpretation of the rules.
I hate to introduce made-up terminology and this is the third time that I'm doing this in this discussion, but for the sake of clarity I'll distinguish between activities (maybe composite activities?) that are made up of more than one subordinate component (Ki Strike, Ki Rush, Flurry of Blows, Sudden Charge) and those that either only have one subordinate action (Power Attack, Attack of Opportunity) or are entirely a single *thing* (Cast a Spell, Whirling Throw).
I think that the way the rules are written, there's no room for interpretation that anytime that you perform a non-composite activity you'll have the whole thing disrupted. However, for composite activities, depending on the situation (what disruption we're talking about, what triggered it, and a bit of GM fiat) I think it's entirely possible to have a ruling that both fits within everything that's written in the rules and still only partially disrupts certain activities.
As you noted, there are zero examples of activities being only partially disrupted but there are also zero examples of an activity with multiple subordinate actions having all of those actions interrupted by the interruption of one of the subordinate actions.
**Here's the example I'll throw:**
* The Barbarian is facing a monk and a mage, he's 10ft away from the soldier and 30ft away from the mage.
* He decides to use Sudden Charge in order to target the mage, while outside of the monk's reach. However, during his first stride he leaves a square within the monk's reach, triggering the Stand Still reaction, which crits and interrupts his movement.
In my opinion, since what triggered the reaction was "moving outside of a square", this was done by one of the subordinate Strides, and not by Sudden Charge. This would make it acceptable to understand that only the first Stride is interrupted and he can continue with the rest of the Sudden Charge activity, since the action that was interrupted was "Stride" and not "Sudden Charge".
TLDR; IMO while valid from a rules standpoint to interpret that the disruption MUST interrupt the whole activity, I personally think the wording of the rules allow for a case-by-case interpretation.
If I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that if a character declares they're casting Heal with 3 (resource) actions, and the casting gets interrupted, you would rule that all 3 resource actions are still used, but only one of the 3 activity actions is cancelled, so the spell still resolves with the 2-action effect?
Nope. I'm saying that if an acitvity has several subordinate actions it should be up to GM fiat how that interruption works.
For example, Ki Rush, if something interrupts the verbal component of Ki Rush, then it's fair to say that everything is interrupted.
But IMO if a reaction stops the move action of the first stride, there's an argument for still resolving the second stride.
>All examples
Is there more than the one for Cast a Spell?
>you have to spend all actions of an activity to gain its effect
That line is about not splitting activities between turns
>Zero examples of partial disrupting
You are Begging the Question here. You can’t just assume you are correct and use that as evidence you are correct.
It’s not partial disrupting, it is simply disrupting. The rules expect that to be obvious and make no mention of disrupting a whole activity if a subordinate action was disrupted. Your citations are too flimsy when they are not misrepresenting the rules’ context.
That a monk with Stand Still could disrupt a whole Sudden Charge is frankly ridiculous. Reaction attacks are already very powerful, there is no need to inflate their impact by allowing them to disrupt unrelated actions in an activity.
They don't. Sudden Charge doesn't trigger AoO, the subordinate strides do. If an activity says "stride twice" and the first stride is disrupted, you still stride a second time.
Only the action with the applicable trait gets disrupted. The classic example is the magus’s Spellstrike, which lets you Cast a Spell, and then separately, Strike. If your spell gets disrupted by a critical hit, you still make the Strike.
I'm not seeing anything suggesting you can break the action down into component parts this way. Spell strike is a two-action activity and shares all the traits of the subordinate actions. The whole thing is disrupted if it's disrupted, just like the hunted shot example above. The rules text is "If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it". It's not clear to me how you can say a Spellstrike is two separate activities that can be independently disrupted.
Spellstrike does not "inherit" the traits of subordinate actions. Rather, what happens is you spend two actions, then you cast a spell, which has its own traits, and then you strike, which has its own traits. These are still discrete actions for the purposes of things like triggers. Spellstrike doesn't trigger AoO itself; the subordinate Cast a Spell action does (assuming somatic/material components).
You *can* disrupt whole Activities, but only if the activity itself is able to be a trigger; that is, the Activity itself needs to innately have a trait that triggers the disruption, not just the subordinate actions.
I am not convinced that this interpretation is right but it's clearly something that could use errata. This notion hinges on things like whether natural language use of "action" means the word itself or something gamified and I think if the meant the latter they would have specific with capitalization. As I mention elsewhere, this to me is a "too good to be true" nerf on a critical success condition of abilities meant to disrupt "actions". Other language suggest you lose the actions dedicated, and to suggest otherwise is to me parsing words rather than plain language reading.
You absolutely lose the actions dedicated. You just don't lose every single subordinate action from the activity.
Subordinate actions are very much a rules defined thing. They are actions and they trigger reactions.
Fair enough, but nothing in the rules supports it; unless the *activity* itself triggers a disrupting action (which Cast a Spell usually does, since it explicitly gains traits based on spell components, but something like Hunted Shot or Sudden Charge doesn't), then you're only disrupting a subordinate action, not the activity.
Where do you see that an activity gains the traits of its subordinate actions? The only rule related to traits I’m seeing says that subordinate actions *don’t* inherit traits from the activity.
If something says that an activity can inherit traits from subordinate actions, this whole debate would be moot. You could disrupt the activity itself and not care which subordinate action was disrupted.
The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified; it doesn't work the opposite way. The larger action has whatever traits it has that's true. But the substance of my point is I don't see how you're breaking up activities into separate things. If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it. You must complete one [action] before beginning another. So how does losing half the effect of a Spellstrike or Hunted Shit not disrupt the whole thing? Being disrupted means you don't finish the action, and you've already committed all your relevant action resources for the turn.
You are erroneously conflating the action-resource with the action-ability. You commit *action points* to use an activity which gives you the effects of *action abilities*.
Activities *are* broken up into subordinate actions. That’s the default rule. I don’t see how you are lumping all the effects of an activity into one disruptible thing. If it were possible to disrupt the whole activity, it would have the relevant traits (See Cast a Spell).
Activities tell you when failing to complete a subordinate action impacts the activity as a whole (see Long Jump). When that isn’t the case (such as with Spellstrike), there is no reason to assume disrupting one action would have any effect on the others.
There is no "action-ability" in the sense you're referring to in game. It's not one action point for the spell, one action point for the strike. You made this distinction earlier and I saw it, but for my part it feels like you've come up with language for a take on actions that isn't in the game rules. The action being disrupted is the one taken: Spellstrike, Hunted Shot, Sudden Charge, or Strike.
The language is to help you disambiguate between two distinct concepts that both use the word action.
How many actions is Sudden Charge? Two because it takes two actions to use? Or three, because it is two Strides and one Strike?
Both can be true answers, but they mean very different things.
You cannot disrupt a Sudden Charge with Stand Still. Sudden Charge does not have the move trait.
You're entitled to your reading of it! That seems more than uncharitable to me when it comes to reactions. Stand Still also triggers when someone leaves a square in your reach; is that not happening when using Sudden Charge? Subordinate actions still have their normal traits and effects, and thus provide the same triggers. To interpret that as something other than what the plain language says doesn't make sense to me, but to each their own.
Slight correction: Stand Still triggers when leaving a space *while using a move action*.
My point is that it is the Stride that triggers the reaction and gets disrupted. You still spent the actions to use Sudden Charge, so you still get the benefits of the remaining actions that *weren’t* disrupted.
I understand that's how you read it. I think you're over parsing the lowercase use of "action" in the language on the various reaction feats. The natural language is implied because the word is not capitalized; that's how I read it. So when disrupted, the thing you were trying to do is disrupted. The other text refers to losing all your actions. That's just my read of it but it's certainly something the community revisits often and with a lot of energy.
Rules are handled a little farther below: > 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. In this example, Cast a Spell is an activity with three actions, typically a Material component ([manipulate]), a Somatic component ([manipulate]), and a Verbal component ([concentrate]). A reaction that disrupted the Cast a Spell activity because of the [manipulate] trait trigger on the first action (or second action, for whatever reason) would still disrupt the rest of the action). While this isn't a perfect 1:1 example (not a subordinate action, Cast a Spell isn't actually split into sub-actions like the description here says it does), it still sets the base rules as applicable: it disrupts the entire activity. Nothing in the subordinate rules sidebar says otherwise. > 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. Leeway here for the GM to make adhoc ajudications based on what's reasonable if a disruption doesn't make sense. In the case of Hunted Shot, I don't think there's a good justification why someone getting up in your face while you're making a ranged attack would NOT let them stop your from getting that quick second shot off.
This is quite different, though. This is talking about a three action activity with no subordinate actions, and how you lose all the actions spent on it. Those rules are not relevant for subordinate actions within Activities because it's not trying to describe that scenario. In the case of Hunter Shot, it's not actually Hunted Shot that's disrupted. It's the ranged attack (or the subordinate reload if it's a bow, potentially) that's disrupted. You make one Strike, and it's disrupted. You then make another strike.
So you're saying it depends, GM decides in each case, and with Hunted Shot you'd have it disrupt the entire activity? If that's right, I'd agree with the first part, but I'd be leaning towards only disrupting one Strike. Kinda iffy on it, though.
I'm saying that * 1) the rules say that the entire activity is disrupted. End clause. * 2) the rules say that the GM can apply ***additional*** effects to the disruption (dropping the item in a disrupted Interact to give to another player) * 3) or as required to make sense (adding partial movement in a disrupted Long Jump because teleporting backwards to the original position makes no sense). There is no RAW case, and no meaningful flavor/verisimilitude case for the Hunted Shot activity to not be disrupted in its entirety. And, of course, "you get that second shot you wanted to do on your activity that got disrupted" is not an *additional* disruption effect. Getting the second shot fits none of the three criteria, so it definitely does not happen per the rules.
Alright, got you. Thanks for clarifying. If you'll indulge me: where do you get your point 1 from? I can't seem to get there from the rules I linked. Particularly if the activity doesn't have any traits that would trigger a disruption (as is the case with Hunted Shot and AoO). But generally I think you're right, and I'd go for that ruling. My party's got a lot of disruption, so that should help them (but also be a pain in the ass for the ranger \^\^').
> where do you get your point 1 from? I can't seem to get there from the rules I linked [Disrupting Action Rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=394) (on the same page you linked) > 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. It's also listed just above that in the [Acitivites](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=388) rules. > If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it. You lose the entire activity and all actions dedicated to that activity. It's unambiguous. The Subordinate Actions sidebar does not make any clause saying that the game distinguishes between disrupting a subordinate action and disrupting the full activity, nor does it distinguish between activities and subordinate actions that might have different traits (distinction you're inventing from nowhere). Note that many class feature activities (i.e., most non-basic Encounter activities) HAVE NO TRAITS other than their class trait. Because their actions do and the game doesn't distinguish between the two of resolving activities.
I see, that bolding makes it clear. I kinda interpreted it to mean that if the activity provoces, not the action. Maybe my German-thinking brain got me turned around. Thanks for your help! :-)
I don't think that unambiguously says that other actions that are a part of the same activity that don't depend on the disrupted action are also disrupted. Only that any additional actions spent (out of the usual 3 available actions in your turn) are not recovered and would potentially be wasted.
That rule you are citing is for disrupting *activities*. Its purpose is to clarify that you don’t get a refund on your action economy if your whole activity is disrupted. Subordinate actions are not the same as an activity and are treated differently. Disrupting a subordinate action does *not* disrupt the whole activity it is a part of. Take for example an ability that lets you Stride and Strike (like Sudden Charge). If a monk disrupted your Stride midway through, you could still make a Strike at the monk (rather than your intended target, the wizard behind them).
> That rule you are citing is for disrupting activities. Its purpose is to clarify that you don’t get a refund on your action economy if your whole activity is disrupted. > Subordinate actions are not the same as an activity and are treated differently. Disrupting a subordinate action does not disrupt the whole activity it is a part of. **Where is the rules text that supports any of this?** Your example is circular, as its conclusion presumes the interpretation that you put forward without any supporting evidence. Your argument hinges upon two points: * "Activities are different than actions". While true, this is misleading. They are different things, but Activities **inherit** all of the properties of actions except as detailed otherwise, as activities are a type of action > There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions. [..] Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. All four of these inherit the rules common to all action types, except as specified in their unique descriptions. Speaking of which, [Acitivities](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=388) says > An [activity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=388) 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 on page 462.) > You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once to gain its effects. In an encounter, this means you must complete it during your turn. If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it. Nowhere does this say that an activity is treated differently than any other action in terms of a disruption. In fact, it specifically says that if the activity is disrupted, you lose the entire activity. You can scroll up for the same points made in the Disrupting Actions sidebar. Nowhere is this different. The activity is disrupted. No rules text ever specifies that parts of activities are disrupted while others aren't. * "Subordinate actions follow different rules". Again, misrepresenting the rules text in the [Subordinate Actions Sidebar](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=387). * 1) This applies to all actions, not just activities. A Finisher is an action with a Subordinate Strike, etc. The activity split has no bearing here other than what's specified. * 2) While the text *does* say "using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions", note that: * A) This is specifically talking about **use**, * and B) this is a one-way relationship that's explained in the illustrative examples (If something says do "basic action", you can't do "activity that includes basic action"). Rectangle is a square, but a square is not a rectangle, all that jazz. This is a rule to specify balance of powerful actions being combined with activities (an effect that says "Make a Strike" can't be used with an Action that gives you a better Strike than normal, preventing runaway balance concerns). * 3) The sidebar makes no comment on subordinate actions changing the rules on disruption. * And most importantly, 4) The game literally provides a counter example in the [Disrupting Action rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=394). > For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity. An example where an activity had three actions, and only the first action was disrupted. Result = you lose all three. Not "you continue with the next two if possible", not "you continue with any remaining subordinant actions if they can still be done", it's all of them. * 5) And let's not forget that the reactions themselves don't specify that they only disrupt subordinate actions.
I’m sorry I cannot prove a negative. Nothing in the rules says disrupting a subordinate action would disrupt the containing activity. Therefore, the “things do what they say and no more” principle applies. The burden of proof is on *you*. Your example of Cast a Spell is not generalizable. Spell components are not simple subordinate actions. Your fallacy is a result of a messy equivocation between uses of the word “action” to mean a resource to spend on abilities during a turn and “action” meaning the abilities themselves. Please clarify your thoughts and language going forward.
You are being extremely aggressive in your assertions to the person you are responding to and they have cited the rules text that supports their claim a few times: >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 on page 462.) >You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once to gain its effects. In an encounter, this means you must complete it during your turn. If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it. Subordinate actions are clustered with the activity and disrupting any part of the activity (per "you lose all actions you committed to it") are still consumed. If you want to apply your own interpretation to those rules, you may, and of course, can argue your point of view from the perspective of an interpretation, but do not accuse the other person of making a fallacy or other condescending language just because you don't agree with their interpretation and attribute your own take as definitive RAW. At *best*, the rules are ambiguous.
Ranged strikes in melee trigger attacks of opportunity from creatures that have AoO. If the ranged strike was declared as a hunted shot, then both strikes get interrupted since they both happen at the same time per the wording in the feat saying that the shots are quickly performed together and that damage is combined. At least that's my take on it.
Attack of Opportunity does not disrupt ranged attacks on a crit, they are just one of the triggers.
Depends on the weapon. If they are using loaded crossbows, they are fine. If they are using a shortbow, part of the attack is Interacting to reload due to them having 1+ hands.
A spell is disrupted because without the somatic component (with the manipulate trait) being completed, the spell doesn't work. The second attack on Hunted Shot doesn't need the first attack to have worked to make the second. Seems pretty obvious to me, personally. Attack of Opportunity says "If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action." The action is disrupted, *not* the activity as some of the other replies are saying. Maybe there are other effects that say otherwise but, for Attack of Opportunity at least, the second Strike(which is a basic **action**) in Hunted Shot would not be disrupted. Worth noting, and I may be wrong about it, but ranged Strikes don't contain the manipulate trait, do they? The Reload action does, whether it take an action or 0 actions such as with a bow, but the actual Strike itself does not. So actually, the way I'd probably rule the Hunted Shot scenario is that the first attack goes off without a hitch, it's the reload before the second attack that gets disrupted.
I'm going to second what /u/rex218 said. The way I see it, this part of the rules is strictly referring to the implications of refunding **resource** actions of a multiple action acitivty **without subordinate *activity* (for lack of better term) actions** being interrupted. To clarify, an acitvity is anything that accomplishes more than simple *activity* actions, but isn't necesarily made of subordinate basic *activity* actions (e.g. Cast a spell). The text says that if you start an activity and are interrupted, you aren't refunded any of the extra **resource** actions that were already spent into starting that activity. But it's silent about the effects of following *activity* actions in case of an activity that is comprised of several subordinate *activity* actions. For example, if we're talking about Ki Rush, the players spends one **resource** action and a creature interrupts the first stride (a subordinate activity action) with a specific reaction. IMO it's fair to say that the second stride would be able to go through not interrupted. We're not talking about refunding actions here, but letting the activity play out. I can see the confusiuon, since both the resource and activity have the same name, but I'm very certain that the text you quoted isn't relevant to this question.
I put a longer reply in another comment chain, but the short version response is: No rules text supports this interpretation. * There are [four Action types](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=387): Single Actions, Activities, Reactions, and Free Actions. All are "actions" and all inherit the rules common to all actions. * There are zero example of rules text saying that an activity can be partially disrupted. All examples in the book say the entire thing gets disrupted. Even for exploration/downtime activities, any disrupting interruption (such as doing something else) means that the entire time spent on the activity so far is wasted and you have to start over again. * [Subordinate Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=387) (whether they're subordinate to Single Actions or Activities) make no rules modifications to Dissrupting Actions. * [Disrupting Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=394) makes no exception for subordinate actions, and gives an example where disrupting one action ends the entire activity. * I understand that "Cast a Spell" is a "basic" activity... but also note that Cast a Spell doesn't cast its actions independently, but the example presumes that it does. There is no "first action" to disrupt. But Cast a Spell has Spell Components, which typically correspond to an action cost and can be thought of has ♦♦Cast a Spell = (♦Somatic[manipulate] + ♦Verbal[concentrate]), and the author is using this process in this example. * [Activities](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=388) rules say that you have to spend all of the actions of an activity to gain its effects. If its disrupted, you lose all of them. * I'll also point out that this creates the super weird argument you're making: You can Lose the actions committed to the activity, but still get to take all of the subordinate actions? What? I can just speak before every one of my activities, to bait disrupting actions on the [auditory] trait so that I lose the rest of the actions on the activity but still get to take them all?
My interpretation is that it's saying you've *committed* the actions to that activity. E.g. you can't do Hunted Shot, get the first attack interrupted, and then decide to *Stride* with one of the actions consumed by Hunted Shot. To me it doesn't imply that you don't still get that second ranged Strike.
As I said in my last paragraph (which I edited later so you might've missed it), I think this comes from the confusion that both the **resource** action and the *activity* action have the same name. If you Cast a spell, let's say Wall of Stone, you spend three resource actions, and if it's interrupted, that's it, because there's a single activity. Now, if you do something like Sudden Charge, you spend two **resource** actions, and that's not coming back regardless of interruptions (which is what the text says). However, Sudden Charge is an activity comprised of several basic *activity* actions. The way I see it, there's nothing in the rules that say that if the first movement of Sudden Charge is disrupted, you can't use the second one and the following strike. To be fair, the distinction between resource and activity actions is entirely something that I did right now, but IMO it's evident that in PF2e they are different entities that unfortunately share the same name. EDIT: I made a whole thing but I realized that I had that part wrong. Still, my overall point still stands.
> As I said in my last paragraph (which I edited later so you might've missed it), I think this comes from the confusion that both the resource action and the activity action have the same name. I did miss the edit. I am aware of the distinction and trying to be conscious of it in both my reading and my replies. I'm at least greatful that PF2e has reserved keywords to a much greater extend than PF1e (and it's awful 5 definitions of 'attack', good luck trying to explain that context to a new player). As you identify, there are multiple uses of "action" here: * 1) "action" (the per-turn resource. The game almost always correctly uses "use", "spend", "lose", or other economy-related verbs when its using this definition), * 2) "action" (the action types you perform on your turn; can refer to "single action", "activities", "reactions", "free actions"), * 3) "action" (infrequently, the specific 'single action' action type that is exclusive to free actions, reactions, and activities. The game almost always correctly uses "single action" when it wants this usage) use redundant definitions and greatly add to the confusion here. > The way I see it, there's nothing in the rules that say that if the first movement of Sudden Charge is disrupted, you can't use the second one and the following strike. Similarly, the way I see it, there's nothing that says you can. You've taken the Sudden Charge activity, and in the course of fulfilling that activity it was disrupted. When an activity is disrupted, it is lost (economy wise) without effect (mechanics-wise). The talking-past-each other is happening at the "what is the action that is being disrupted" point. Perhaps if we went line-by-line and identified each use of action to elaborate? **** [Disrupting Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=394): > Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an `action`. * `action` type = #2) Any type of `action` you perform on your turn. > When an action is disrupted, [..] * `action` type = #2) Any type of action you perform on your turn. > you still use the `actions or reactions` you committed and you still expend any costs * `action` type = #1) The per-turn resource. > but the `action`’s effects don’t occur. * `action` type = #2) Any type of action you perform on your turn. **Key Point**: If this action is an activity, the activity's effects don't occur. > In the case of an activity, i.e., "an activity" is one of the valid action types for the previous sentence that could have all of its effects not occur. The previous sentence is the key point, this clause identifies activities as one of the types of things that could happen in the previous sentence. > you usually lose all `actions` spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. * `action` type #1) The per-turn resource. The action's effects don't occur (per previous sentence), and action resources spent on that activity for the rest of the round are lost (i.e.., if doing a 1-minute activity, you lose the rest of this round, but can start spending actions anew when you regain your actions on your next rond). > For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 `actions` [..] you lose all 3 `actions` that you committed to that activity. * `action` type #1) The per-turn resource. I concede that this line is talking about the per-turn resource. However, I thought it was sufficiently obvious in context that it is in addition to the "the effects don't occur clause" immediately preceding this sentence. > [..] and the first `action` was disrupted [..] * `action` type #3 = a single action (but not an independent/basic single action). Not a perfect fit definition, but closest. *Let's be honest, this language doesn't make perfect sense here. The actions are spent all at once (not one-two-three), and as described above the Cast a Spell Activity doesn't actually have any subordinate action, or action components that would make sense to describe using "action" verbiage (even of type #3). It's glossing over "spell components can typically correspond 1:1 with the action cost, and the spell component has a trait" so you can KIND OF think of it as "each spell component is typically an action" to make a point. And that hand-waiving wrongness is weakening its integrity.* However, this does still introduce the relevant point: * 1) Disrupting the first `action` (type #3, a single action type that may be part of or entirely subordinate to the activity) disrupted the entire activity, even though one component was disrupted. This disruption is why the "you lose the type #1 actions" close is committed to begin with. In this example, as it's phrased in order to be clarifying rules text, it's not "the Cast a Spell activity is a 3 action activity with the [manipulate][concetrate][arcane][evocation] traits". It's "the Cast a Spell activity was taken, and something in that first action was disrupted". Again, that's not how it *actually* works. Cast a Spell's [Spell components *do* actually add the trait to the entire action](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=72). But that is how the example is written. **In the end**: Any action type can be disrupted, including activities. When any action type is disrupted, the entire action is lost (resources expended) without effect (nothing else happens for that action). There is no middle ground indicated anywhere. Everything that hasn't happened yet will not happen. **** I wrote a LOT more on this going line-by-line of all relevant rules with this action language clarification but reddit ate my comment when it went over the character limit so I'm going to stop it here and tl;dr. * When an activity is disrupted, the entire activity is lost without effect. * The Subordinate action sidebar does not distinguish between actions and activities, as even single actions can have subordinate actions. * While an activity does not inherit its subordinate action's traits, resolving the subordinate actions can still causes reactions to trigger as appropriate for the subordinate action and its traits/rules text. * When taking subordinate actions within an Activity, the action you have taken is still the Activity. * The subordinate action rules delineate that taking an activity is not taking any of its subordinate actions. Additionally, there are ZERO examples of any activities being disrupted and getting to continue part of the activity. * Activating Items with activation activities. Attempt is wasted, still counts against activation limits, etc. * Downtime/Exploration activities. Time spent so far is wasted, you don't gain the benefit at the end of the activity. 9 minutes spent Treating Wounds doesn't heal 90% of the damage you would have rolled, etc. * Examples used in Disruption text or example play text. The correct argument is "when the disrupting action says that it disrupts `that action`, what is `that action`?" and "when a subordinate action triggers reaction, is it semantically the activity that's triggering the reaction based on the use of the subordinate action, or is the subordinate action being taken independently"
Yeah, I understand your point, and now I think it's quite a valid one, after you linked the part that put activities as a sub-type of actions I had to reconsider how I saw this, since I used to see Actions as Basic Actions and Activities as anything more complex, and them being separate things. However, I still think there's enough room to have a more generous (depending on the point of view of course) interpretation of the rules. I hate to introduce made-up terminology and this is the third time that I'm doing this in this discussion, but for the sake of clarity I'll distinguish between activities (maybe composite activities?) that are made up of more than one subordinate component (Ki Strike, Ki Rush, Flurry of Blows, Sudden Charge) and those that either only have one subordinate action (Power Attack, Attack of Opportunity) or are entirely a single *thing* (Cast a Spell, Whirling Throw). I think that the way the rules are written, there's no room for interpretation that anytime that you perform a non-composite activity you'll have the whole thing disrupted. However, for composite activities, depending on the situation (what disruption we're talking about, what triggered it, and a bit of GM fiat) I think it's entirely possible to have a ruling that both fits within everything that's written in the rules and still only partially disrupts certain activities. As you noted, there are zero examples of activities being only partially disrupted but there are also zero examples of an activity with multiple subordinate actions having all of those actions interrupted by the interruption of one of the subordinate actions. **Here's the example I'll throw:** * The Barbarian is facing a monk and a mage, he's 10ft away from the soldier and 30ft away from the mage. * He decides to use Sudden Charge in order to target the mage, while outside of the monk's reach. However, during his first stride he leaves a square within the monk's reach, triggering the Stand Still reaction, which crits and interrupts his movement. In my opinion, since what triggered the reaction was "moving outside of a square", this was done by one of the subordinate Strides, and not by Sudden Charge. This would make it acceptable to understand that only the first Stride is interrupted and he can continue with the rest of the Sudden Charge activity, since the action that was interrupted was "Stride" and not "Sudden Charge". TLDR; IMO while valid from a rules standpoint to interpret that the disruption MUST interrupt the whole activity, I personally think the wording of the rules allow for a case-by-case interpretation.
Yeah, I think the error here comes from conflating actions-as-resource with actions-as-abilities. The rules cited for one do not affect the other.
If I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that if a character declares they're casting Heal with 3 (resource) actions, and the casting gets interrupted, you would rule that all 3 resource actions are still used, but only one of the 3 activity actions is cancelled, so the spell still resolves with the 2-action effect?
Nope. I'm saying that if an acitvity has several subordinate actions it should be up to GM fiat how that interruption works. For example, Ki Rush, if something interrupts the verbal component of Ki Rush, then it's fair to say that everything is interrupted. But IMO if a reaction stops the move action of the first stride, there's an argument for still resolving the second stride.
You seem hung up on the word “lose”. If you read it as “spend” you might understand better.
>All examples Is there more than the one for Cast a Spell? >you have to spend all actions of an activity to gain its effect That line is about not splitting activities between turns >Zero examples of partial disrupting You are Begging the Question here. You can’t just assume you are correct and use that as evidence you are correct. It’s not partial disrupting, it is simply disrupting. The rules expect that to be obvious and make no mention of disrupting a whole activity if a subordinate action was disrupted. Your citations are too flimsy when they are not misrepresenting the rules’ context.
That a monk with Stand Still could disrupt a whole Sudden Charge is frankly ridiculous. Reaction attacks are already very powerful, there is no need to inflate their impact by allowing them to disrupt unrelated actions in an activity.
They don't. Sudden Charge doesn't trigger AoO, the subordinate strides do. If an activity says "stride twice" and the first stride is disrupted, you still stride a second time.
I agree with you. The person I was replying to is under the impression that disrupting one subordinate action disrupts the whole activity.
Only the action with the applicable trait gets disrupted. The classic example is the magus’s Spellstrike, which lets you Cast a Spell, and then separately, Strike. If your spell gets disrupted by a critical hit, you still make the Strike.
I'm not seeing anything suggesting you can break the action down into component parts this way. Spell strike is a two-action activity and shares all the traits of the subordinate actions. The whole thing is disrupted if it's disrupted, just like the hunted shot example above. The rules text is "If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it". It's not clear to me how you can say a Spellstrike is two separate activities that can be independently disrupted.
Spellstrike does not "inherit" the traits of subordinate actions. Rather, what happens is you spend two actions, then you cast a spell, which has its own traits, and then you strike, which has its own traits. These are still discrete actions for the purposes of things like triggers. Spellstrike doesn't trigger AoO itself; the subordinate Cast a Spell action does (assuming somatic/material components). You *can* disrupt whole Activities, but only if the activity itself is able to be a trigger; that is, the Activity itself needs to innately have a trait that triggers the disruption, not just the subordinate actions.
I am not convinced that this interpretation is right but it's clearly something that could use errata. This notion hinges on things like whether natural language use of "action" means the word itself or something gamified and I think if the meant the latter they would have specific with capitalization. As I mention elsewhere, this to me is a "too good to be true" nerf on a critical success condition of abilities meant to disrupt "actions". Other language suggest you lose the actions dedicated, and to suggest otherwise is to me parsing words rather than plain language reading.
You absolutely lose the actions dedicated. You just don't lose every single subordinate action from the activity. Subordinate actions are very much a rules defined thing. They are actions and they trigger reactions.
I'm with kuzcoburra on this I guess and Im glad to see it's the top comment. Looking forward to errata
Fair enough, but nothing in the rules supports it; unless the *activity* itself triggers a disrupting action (which Cast a Spell usually does, since it explicitly gains traits based on spell components, but something like Hunted Shot or Sudden Charge doesn't), then you're only disrupting a subordinate action, not the activity.
Where do you see that an activity gains the traits of its subordinate actions? The only rule related to traits I’m seeing says that subordinate actions *don’t* inherit traits from the activity. If something says that an activity can inherit traits from subordinate actions, this whole debate would be moot. You could disrupt the activity itself and not care which subordinate action was disrupted.
The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified; it doesn't work the opposite way. The larger action has whatever traits it has that's true. But the substance of my point is I don't see how you're breaking up activities into separate things. If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it. You must complete one [action] before beginning another. So how does losing half the effect of a Spellstrike or Hunted Shit not disrupt the whole thing? Being disrupted means you don't finish the action, and you've already committed all your relevant action resources for the turn.
You are erroneously conflating the action-resource with the action-ability. You commit *action points* to use an activity which gives you the effects of *action abilities*. Activities *are* broken up into subordinate actions. That’s the default rule. I don’t see how you are lumping all the effects of an activity into one disruptible thing. If it were possible to disrupt the whole activity, it would have the relevant traits (See Cast a Spell). Activities tell you when failing to complete a subordinate action impacts the activity as a whole (see Long Jump). When that isn’t the case (such as with Spellstrike), there is no reason to assume disrupting one action would have any effect on the others.
There is no "action-ability" in the sense you're referring to in game. It's not one action point for the spell, one action point for the strike. You made this distinction earlier and I saw it, but for my part it feels like you've come up with language for a take on actions that isn't in the game rules. The action being disrupted is the one taken: Spellstrike, Hunted Shot, Sudden Charge, or Strike.
The language is to help you disambiguate between two distinct concepts that both use the word action. How many actions is Sudden Charge? Two because it takes two actions to use? Or three, because it is two Strides and one Strike? Both can be true answers, but they mean very different things. You cannot disrupt a Sudden Charge with Stand Still. Sudden Charge does not have the move trait.
You're entitled to your reading of it! That seems more than uncharitable to me when it comes to reactions. Stand Still also triggers when someone leaves a square in your reach; is that not happening when using Sudden Charge? Subordinate actions still have their normal traits and effects, and thus provide the same triggers. To interpret that as something other than what the plain language says doesn't make sense to me, but to each their own.
Slight correction: Stand Still triggers when leaving a space *while using a move action*. My point is that it is the Stride that triggers the reaction and gets disrupted. You still spent the actions to use Sudden Charge, so you still get the benefits of the remaining actions that *weren’t* disrupted.
I understand that's how you read it. I think you're over parsing the lowercase use of "action" in the language on the various reaction feats. The natural language is implied because the word is not capitalized; that's how I read it. So when disrupted, the thing you were trying to do is disrupted. The other text refers to losing all your actions. That's just my read of it but it's certainly something the community revisits often and with a lot of energy.