Do you always swing twice when you flurry?

(As an aside, I don't really think arguing "my thing is RAW and yours is wrong" accomplishes anything that just presenting your arguments normally would not. Clearly both sides are interpreting things differently, and pretending one interpretation is objectively correct doesn't actually convince anyone).

I agree with BellyBeard on this point. Both sides have convincing arguments grounded in rules.

First, everyone here including yourself is interpreting what the rules mean versus what they actually say. The rules have two distinct interpretations both of which must ignore parts of the rules to work.

I'm quoting the actual rules and talking about what they say. I'm not inventing rules that don't exist and saying this is what you're supposed to do. There is no rule that says you choose both targets upfront. Now, maybe you don't acknowledge the distinction, so be it.

No, in 'my opinion' you do what the ability says you do. You combine them for the purposes of weakness and resistance and nothing else, because the rules don't say you do anything else.

That's exactly right. You do what the rule says you do. The rule does not say you need to declare your targets for both Strikes before rolling the first. That isn't RAW. That's someone tacking on a requirement that simply doesn't exist. That could be "as intended", but it's not as written.

In essence, you retroactively combine the damage if both attacks hit, or apply it only to the first.

Not quite. I'm retroactively combining damage when applying "weakness and resistance" only. Not for any other aspect, because that's literally what the rule states. Thus, I reduce the hit points after each Strike, because that's exactly what each is required when you do damage.

The second, also valid interpretation, is that since the feats requires the damage to be combined before applying resistances, and resistances must be applied before damage is applied, you cannot apply the damage to the target until both damages have been rolled.

That isn't "valid" because it's false. You absolutely can apply damage for each Strike before both damages have been rolled.

Look, if Flurry said "combine damage before reducing hit points" then you'd have more of an argument. It doesn't say that. It's only talking about weakness and resistance. And once you understand how weakness and resistance works, you can easily understand how you don't need to have all the damage determined in order to effectuate this exception. I think the problem many are having is they are ignoring how easily you can do this as written, and have some conceptual roadblock that all the damage has to be known upfront before you can get past step 3.

This does ignore the complete resolution of the attacks one by one, but follows the specific wording of the activity saying if both hit combine the damage.

It does not. It imposes a requirement on using Flurry that does not exist i.e. declaring both targets before the first Strike is resolved. That is not a valid interpretation of Flurry per the rules as written. As Squiggit says, you can house rule it, but you don't need to come to the Rules Forum to be told that.

If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn't work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution.

If you do what the rule says, it isn't problematic, at all. Not even a little. If you tack on requirements that aren't stated or necessary, then yes, it gets problematic. But the OP's real issue isn't resolved by RAW, imo.

I don't have monsters or PCs roll each magic missile before deciding who to target with them, or have them roll damage for each attack in a single activity before declaring the targets.

And Magic Missile doesn't say you make "Strikes." MM isn't using an existing construct, it's its own thing. Flurry uses two Strikes and only modifies one specific aspect of the how the damage is computed, and only with regard to that one thing.

What we are really arguing over is how those requirements interact with other parts of the rules.

What we are arguing about is imposing wholly unnecessary requirements to effectuate the exception. Requirements that essentially nerf the users ability to declare targets one at a time based on the outcome of the first Strike.

And frankly accusing those who interpret and apply ambitious rules differently than who "back-door nerfing" or "making up rules" is not helpful or productive.

It isn't about "applying rules differently." It's about objectively evaluating interpretations and their ancillary or secondary consequences. Usually (because I'm sure there are exceptions), if Paizo wants something to be specially restricted, they say that, they don't do it by forcing a GM to connect a bunch of dots or innuendos. it is helpful if it encourages GMs to have a more comprehensive approach to adjudicating the rules and be forewarned about such pitfalls. See thenobledrake's post upthread about choosing between A and B. That's an example of what I'm discussing.

Let's actually look at this claim on your part:
"If you do what the rule says, it isn't problematic, at all. Not even a little. If you tack on requirements that aren't stated or necessary, then yes, it gets problematic. But the OP's real issue isn't resolved by RAW, imo."

RAW is "make two strikes". Clearly stated two strikes. The RAW to the OP question is yes, you suffer the multiple attack for both regardless of the outcome. This is the only thing 100% clear RAW.

The question about multiple attack penalty, and whether the second attack launches is caused solely by your interpretation of the rules, and the claim that you can apply damage before combining it for the purposes of damage reduction and vulnerabilities. RAW activities can be interrupted (see page 462.), but not voluntarily (461).

All the questions about whether you can abort the second strike if you no longer have a valid target, whether you suffer MAP, the concerns about overly punitive etc, is caused by this interpretation that each strike fully resolving and using the out of order resolution of damage. Which although mathematically equivalent and more difficult is not RAW Resolution order of damage.

These strike me as "problematic repercussions".

If you use the declare target(s) when declaring actions all of these problematic questions are automatically resolved. This may feel like a "Nerf" to you, but is objectively cleaner and more direct, requiring less delays evaluation and re-calculation of resistances, and strange corner cases about aborted attacks.

Frankly you're free to run it your way, and I will run it mine.

Constantly screaming that "I'm the only one using RAW" and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong doesn't really persuade anyone to your case. And bluntly, I don't care if you agree or not.

Let's actually look at this claim on your part:...

It appears we are talking about two different things. There are two questions being discussed in this thread.

1. The OP's questions.

2. The question of whether Flurry requires you to designate both targets before the first Strike.

I have only one post which addresses 1. The rest of my discussion is all focused on 2. In your last response, you seem to think all my discussion is about answering #1. It is not. A such, you're taking my responses out of context, as it were.

However, let's look at whether RAW answers #1. In my only response on this topic, it was my "opinion" that it did not.

RAW is "make two strikes". Clearly stated two strikes. The RAW to the OP question is yes, you suffer the multiple attack for both regardless of the outcome. This is the only thing 100% clear RAW.

That isn't 100% clear. Let's look at the section you reference.

First, per RAW, Flurry is defined as an Activity, not an Action.

If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it.

This statement does not answer the OP's question. It says you "lose" the "actions," it does not say you incur any penalties that would have occurred. Strike is an action that is part of the Flurry Activity. If Flurry gets interrupted, you lose all the Strike Actions. Can that happen before or after the first strike? I'm not sure at this point.

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.

This section is not dispositive. It says you lose all the actions, for an Activity. But it's not clear whether the effects occur.

If we want to extrapolate i.e. my opinion, not RAW, interrupting the Activity is the same as interrupting all the Actions. If you interrupt an Action, the "effects" don't happen and you would not advance MAP just like you wouldn't do any damage.. This is my interpretation, it isn't RAW.

The question about multiple attack penalty, and whether the second attack launches is caused solely by your interpretation of the rules, and the claim that you can apply damage before combining it for the purposes of damage reduction and vulnerabilities.

You are conflating two separate discussions. The "when" of when you need to designate targets in order to combine damage, has nothing to do with the OP's question.

RAW activities can be interrupted (see page 462.), but not voluntarily (461).

I see nothing in RAW that says you can't voluntarily interrupt your Activity. You'll have to be more specific than page 461 if you think something specifically says that.

All the questions about whether you can abort the second strike if you no longer have a valid target, whether you suffer MAP, the concerns about overly punitive etc, is caused by this interpretation that each strike fully resolving and using the out of order resolution of damage. Which although mathematically equivalent and more difficult is not RAW Resolution order of damage.

Again, that is not what I have been discussing with shroud and Midnightoker.

If you use the declare target(s) when declaring actions all of these problematic questions are automatically resolved.

I fail to see how that is true. Per RAW you aren't required to declare all targets when making a Flurry..

but is objectively cleaner and more direct, requiring less delays evaluation and re-calculation of resistances, and strange corner cases about aborted attacks.

It's certainly not "objectively" cleaner. You may find it to be easier because you don't have any compunction or removing the right of the player to choose his or her Strike one at time.

Constantly screaming that "I'm the only one using RAW" and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong doesn't really persuade anyone to your case. And bluntly, I don't care if you agree or not.

No one is screaming. That fact that you're characterizing it that way suggest your real issue is that you don't agree, so you find it offensive that someone is asserting that the formal rules agree with them. Personally, I find it helpful when people use the RAW label as it tells me whether they are basing their ruling on a formal reading of the rules or a subjective reading.

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Let's actually look at this claim on your part:...

It appears we are talking about two different things. There are two questions being discussed in this thread.

1. The OP's questions.

2. The question of whether Flurry requires you to designate both targets before the first Strike.

I have only one post which addresses 1. The rest of my discussion is all focused on 2. In your last response, you seem to think all my discussion is about answering #1. It is not. A such, you're taking my responses out of context, as it were.

However, let's look at whether RAW answers #1. In my only response on this topic, it was my "opinion" that it did not.

Quote:

RAW is "make two strikes". Clearly stated two strikes. The RAW to the OP question is yes, you suffer the multiple attack for both regardless of the outcome. This is the only thing 100% clear RAW.

That isn't 100% clear. Let's look at the section you reference.

First, per RAW, Flurry is defined as an Activity, not an Action.

Activities p. 461 wrote:

If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it.

This statement does not answer the OP's question. It says you "lose" the "actions," it does not say you incur any penalties that would have occurred. Strike is an action that is part of the Flurry Activity. If Flurry gets interrupted, you lose all the Strike Actions. Can that happen before or after the first strike? I'm not sure at this point.

Disrupting Actions wrote:

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.

This...

Because per RAW you need to apply the resistance to the COMBINED damage.

Not "apply to the first instance of damage and do not apply to the second instance of damage" which is what you are doing.

No matter how many times you repeat this fallacy, it is still a fallacy.

Combined damage is ONE instance of damage.

The answer to me is pretty clear:
You either violate the RAW in the attack resolution. OR violate the raw in the damage resolution.

In both cases, in order to Flurry, you violate RAW.