Clearly when a PC runs across an open field, it's a maneuver. But when he scrambles up a small cliff using Athletics, is it "upgraded" to an action?

When a PC uses Piloting (Space) to fly though some asteroids, can he then not use Gunnery to shoot some TIEs he's pursuing?

If, in the midst of combat, your PC wants to make a Knowledge (Underworld) check to try and figure something out about the enemy, would that use up her action for the turn?

Where's the line? When is a check not an action? Or is a check always an action?

Up to the GM.

In general, a check is always an action. Several talents tell you when rolling a check is specifically NOT an action, usually as an upgrade to a particular unique action, but sometimes not.

For instance, the Supreme Inspiring Rhetoric talent lets you suffer 1 strain to use that specific action as a maneuver instead, but you still have to roll the check. Alternatively, the Master Pilot talent lets you suffer strain to use any piloting action as a maneuver.

However, absent specific talents, I would say that anytime you call for a check, it should be an action. Checks, if you recall, are those things that demand the majority, if not the entirety, of your attention during the round. They're complex enough that you might fail, so you have to focus, meaning you can't be focusing on something else.

For your specific example of Piloting checks to navigate terrain, I do something a bit different - I have all members of the conflict roll their Piloting checks at the top of the order, before the first Initiative Slot, to determine how well they're doing. Failure means the pilot is denied their action that round (but not their maneuver(s)) because they had to spend it focusing on not crashing, while Threat and Despair are spend to make bad things happen to the ship and crew. This is clearly not RAW, and for really large furballs it can take a while (multiple Minion groups is what the dice app is for ), but I think it works well. But it's the exception rather than the rule.

Your example of Knowledge checks I do keep as an action, for one reason - I treat them as a sort of "soft combat check," where you're learning information about the target, and passing that information on to the rest of your allies (or using it yourself), allowing me as the GM to not only inform you of stuff, but for you to pass on Boosts or Upgrades to your allies as they take advantage of your advice. And if you roll Threat, then you remembered some misinformation that puts someone at a disadvantage until they learn the hard way that it's not actually true...hehehe ...

This:

However, absent specific talents, I would say that anytime you call for a check, it should be an action. Checks, if you recall, are those things that demand the majority, if not the entirety, of your attention during the round. They're complex enough that you might fail, so you have to focus, meaning you can't be focusing on something else.

If it's narrative play it doesn't apply. In structured play it's possible to have checks that aren't Actions. It just depends. There isn't going to be a one size fits all answer and doing what feels right is about as much specificity as you want in a narrative system.

Multiple checks a turn is fine for systems whose results are strictly binary, but the nature of the dice mechanic for this system can grow things a little out of hand.

You could potentially run into situations where you could make checks as a maneuver (or incidental) for skills you are more than proficient at, simply to fish for advantages in order to supplement your primary action.

You can have checks that are not actions. Often in social play a check will be representative of a significant period of time passing as you try and reach a goal with an npc. Other times you will make a survival check to see how long it takes you to get back to the city when your speeder bikes got taken and you are stranded. Most crafting checks are not actions they are a culmination of tons of actions leading up to a check, I handle medicine the same way. Surgery is never done in combat rounds its handled narritvely after the battle.

But to answer your question

1. Moving is a manuver athletics is used as part of a manuver to see if you can get where you want in that manuver. so its a check but its not an "action"

2. Piloting a ship through asteroids takes a manuver but the chewie is not going to be moving over to where luke is and firing the lasers in the same turn he is piloting, however if you have the pilot say have control over the forward arc missles I would say that would be fine. Having a good map of the ship will give you an idea of what he can do. Normally a pilot will take a piloting action to make the ship harder to hit or gain the advantage repairing hull damage is expensive.

3. Not an action at all remembering stuff or figuring stuff out is fine remember this is not D&D a round is about a minute and a lot can happen in a minute. Including talking and giving the information from the check to other players. I personally like to call for the checks at the start of combat and give them the information at a narratively appropriate moment, but really its all good.

Yes, but...

By RAW, if you're in combat (or a similar conflict) any task that you take which requires a check, by definition, is an action. If not, it's a maneuver. (With some exceptions.) It's explicitly spelled out in the Actions and Maneuvers section of the combat rules in all of the CRBs. That's the difference between an action and a maneuver; an action is something you could potentially fail at so you will have to make a check. A maneuver is something that you can't fail at, so you just do it without a roll. Note that even a simple task in a conflict (something that doesn't require that you roll any negative dice at all) can potentially be a failure if you roll no successes.

The exceptions are when doing something like activating a class ability that requires using up an action, but doesn't ask for a check. I'm not aware of any exceptions where you can roll for a skill check and it counts as a maneuver; there may be a talent that allows you to do that but I'm not aware of one. Any exceptions are explicitly spelled out for you so there shouldn't be any ambiguity. If you ever have any doubt about whether something counts as an action or a maneuver, just ask whether dice need to be rolled; if yes, it's an action, if no, it's a maneuver.

Narratively it doesn't matter because you're not keeping track of rounds so it doesn't matter if some task is treated as an "action" or a "maneuver". You just do it according to the story as it's playing out.

Initiative is the most obvious, although one could argue it's what begins structured play so in a way it's outside of it and not technically going to be an Action or Maneuver. It's results are spelled out and how they can be used.

I could see a GM calling for Resilience checks in an encounter for environmental conditions. Coordination checks for fighting on top of the grav train. Perception checks to spot the dastardly fiend making for the exit mid shootout, etc. I wouldn't bill a PC any Action or Maneuver for those rolls but I could def see them happening.

Clearly when a PC runs across an open field, it's a maneuver. But when he scrambles up a small cliff using Athletics, is it "upgraded" to an action?

When a PC uses Piloting (Space) to fly though some asteroids, can he then not use Gunnery to shoot some TIEs he's pursuing?

If, in the midst of combat, your PC wants to make a Knowledge (Underworld) check to try and figure something out about the enemy, would that use up her action for the turn?

Where's the line? When is a check not an action? Or is a check always an action?

There is a talent in the pilot tree which allows one to perform an action as a maneuver, and the Enhance force power tree, among others, has the ability to activate as a maneuver even though it requires a check.

Outside of those instances I don't think there are many more RAW, but I do like doing what 2P51 mentioned and throwing in Coord/Resil/Athletics checks as incidentals when it feels appropriate.

As "Stellar Phenomena or Terrain" explicitly asks for "[a] Piloting check, even if [...] attempting a starship maneuver [...]", I infer that any activity, that is normally a manoeuvre, remains one, even under circumstances requiring a check.

As "Stellar Phenomena or Terrain" explicitly asks for "[a] Piloting check, even if [...] attempting a starship maneuver [...]", I infer that any activity, that is normally a manoeuvre, remains one, even under circumstances requiring a check.

That's contradicted by the description of an action in the CRBs, where it contrasts walking from one place to another as a maneuver, and walking across a tightrope over a chasm as an action (requiring a Coordination skill check). You're engaged in the exact same activity, the only difference is that one activity is routine and free of risk, while the other is dangerous and could lead to serious injury or death if you fail. By that example, if you're asked to make a Piloting check to fly your vehicle that becomes an action. It's the exact same scenario, the only difference is that you're in a space ship and instead of risking a fall you're risking a crash.

As "Stellar Phenomena or Terrain" explicitly asks for "[a] Piloting check, even if [...] attempting a starship maneuver [...]", I infer that any activity, that is normally a manoeuvre, remains one, even under circumstances requiring a check.

That's contradicted by the description of an action in the CRBs, where it contrasts walking from one place to another as a maneuver, and walking across a tightrope over a chasm as an action (requiring a Coordination skill check). You're engaged in the exact same activity, the only difference is that one activity is routine and free of risk, while the other is dangerous and could lead to serious injury or death if you fail. By that example, if you're asked to make a Piloting check to fly your vehicle that becomes an action. It's the exact same scenario, the only difference is that you're in a space ship and instead of risking a fall you're risking a crash.

Well, it's both in the CRBs ("This starship maneuver's difficulty [...]"). So, if RAW contradict RAW, I'll stick to the RAW that I like better.

Just wondering: While navigating an asteroid field, by your reasoning: No Master Pilot, no shooting?

Just wondering: While navigating an asteroid field, by your reasoning: No Master Pilot, no shooting?

We could try to ask the devs again, but as Jegergryte recently pointed out over here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/85346-flydrive-pilot-only-maneuver/#entry2384056 the question was already answered here .

So in order to have fights within an asteroid field like in ESB, you'd need to use NPC Rivals with the Master Pilot talent, and minions would be almost useless as long as you are in the difficult terrain. If your PCs are in freighter or a two men fighter, they wouldn't even need the talent to shoot back.

Or you could (and I think that was suggested by one of the devs/writers on the order 66 podcast once) only ask for the piloting check every two or three rounds, maybe depending on how successful their last check was. Example: Success with triumph: those asteroids are child's play to you, no piloting check required for the next two rounds. Failure with threat: Those asteroids are impossible to predict. Suffer a minor collision and test your piloting skills again next round.

The option I like best is to have a competitive roll of all pilots within the asteroid field at the beginning of the round just like you would if you use the chase rules. This probably fits the scene in ESB best, since the Falcon was being chased. Depending on how you did on the competitive roll, you can get boost or setbacks to your action, suffer collisions, etc. And in the movies, the scenes in space are almost always chase scenes, apart from those that are mass combat.

TL;DR: RAW: Maneuvering through an asteroid field upgrades the maneuver to an action and makes the Master Pilot talent very useful. Exception: During a chase, use the chase rules. Starship encounters should almost always be chases.

May the mynocks stay away from your power couplings

Fred

So, the sentence "The starship maneuver's difficulty [...]" is, in fact, an erratum. Thanks for clearing that up.

Incidently, the TIEs in ESB do hold their fire when entering the asteroid field, until they reach the big rock. Must've been busy Piloting: Incompetent Minion Scum!

Yeah I love this quote "The important thing in this situation is to remember that you don't always need to stick with the rules, when doing so could result in a tedious or even ridiculous encounter."

I think the devs point is interpret the rules and use them in a way that makes sense. Dodging asteroids I'm sure is busy work when you're on the stick and an Action is appropriate. A sort of hybrid stellar phenomenon roll at the beginning of each round like a Chase roll to determine the overall positioning and maneuvering of a ship by a pilot during a huge chaotic space battle with the roll results possibly impacting everyone's efforts could be fun. It would really let a pilot focused PC shine, or be the butt of inumerable jokes, good stuff regardless. You don't want every calorie burned accounted for by the rules.

Most of the time, making a skill check is going to be the PC's action when you're in structured play, such as combat or a chase sequence.

As others have noted, there's talents that either include a skill check as part of using that talent, or the talent itself changes making the skill check to a maneuver; I don't believe there's any talents that change making a skill check to an incidental, but I could easily be mistaken on that part.

Since the idea with the system is that the PCs should really only be making skill checks when its important, by extension the notion is that a skill check in structured play is an action. When you're in unstructured/narrative play, it's kind of a moot point, as anything major that your PC is doing is by default their action.

Thanks everyone. This has all been good food for thought.

This has been a point of minor contention in my group lately. There have been a couple times where my PCs have wanted to do something that seems innocuous and minor (like flying through difficult terrain, or making a Knowledge check), and so we all came to the conclusion that they could do that in addition to taking an action for the turn. The problem arrises when another one of my players wants to also make two checks in a turn, and argues that they should be able to because the other player was able to. I quickly state that the other player's situation was unique, and rule that this player cannot make two checks (to, say, shoot someone and patch up their own wounds at the same time.

Player Two then gets upset, and doesn't like that I seem to be making arbitrary decisions about when the rules apply and to whom. This is a fair concern on their part, as one of the things I've always strived for with my GMing is impartiality and consistency. My group -- regardless of whether or not a narrative system like this allows for abstract interpretations -- wants defined boundaries. They love pushing their limitations, and it is understood amongst us that if I push the envelope then they will as well.

So what I really want is to develop a sense of consistency. I think I've got that now, based off of this discussion. Checks will always be actions, unless a talent specifies otherwise. Assuming they are voluntary, and not an environmental imposition or something.

That sounds like a fair compromise, then. Happy gaming, and may the Force be with you!