| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Double Slice is two Strikes. Dual Onslaught aids in it doing damage even with two misses; it's not some instance of damage floating out there in a platonic void waiting for circumstance to summon it. In game, a character coordinates their attacks/Strikes with two weapons so well that one's nearly always bound to land. Parsing the language down to such granularity that this obvious truth becomes false breaks both the spirit of PF2's informal language and the spirit of the feat itself.
Unless one wants to foster an atmosphere of rules haggling, the feats should interact.
I agree with Castilliano.
I think this one is pretty clear. if you apply a hit its not applying a hit from something thats not a strike. its applying a hit from a strike. We dont need any language to tell us we cant apply a hit from a gouging claw instead of a strike right? we know its a strike and we will roll damage for a strike.
martial performance should interact with the strike damage Dual Onslaught enables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual Onslaught rides on Double Slice, altering its outcome to make one of its misses into a hit. As Bluemagetim addressed, what hit is Dual Onslaught providing the damage from? A Strike.
Are you really saying the weapon didn't connect with the target?
There's no magic here, no bizarre factors, nor even mundane ones other than two Strikes. So yeah, it feels really crazy to hear somebody think there's no Strike doing the Strike damage, just this feat that somehow manifests Strike damage on this target due to fate? What?
Dual Onslaught does not turn a miss into a hit. It merely applies the damage that would have been done on a hit to the target. PF2 things that turn misses into hits say so specifically. The Strike still misses, but the damage it would have done is applied.
I'm with Errenor here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual Onslaught does not turn a miss into a hit. It merely applies the damage that would have been done on a hit to the target. PF2 things that turn misses into hits say so specifically. The Strike still misses, but the damage it would have done is applied.
I'm with Errenor here.
The Strike doesn't have to count as a hit, nor a Success, as long as the Strike damages the enemy or damage comes from the Strike.
What is it you're imagining happens physically? Both weapons fail to contact, yet wounds spring into existence? Most of me is thinking of course you don't imagine that, except that's what you're describing: the Strike didn't hit, yet inflicted a wound (that just happens to match the damage a Strike would've done)?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets go back to what is happening and then ask if that is what is required for marital performance.
How do we know what dice to roll?
Where does it dual onslaught tell you to do?
It tells you to apply the the effects of a hit with that weapon. how do you it with weapons? what is the direct reference of hitting or missing this ability is talking about? strikes with those weapons that missed.
There is no question dual onslaught applys strike damage. Its not saying you get a success but it is saying you get the result of a hit with the weapon. What is the result of a hit?
not just weapon damage listed on the sword or axe or whatever you also add in any damage benefit you have for the strike you made. why? because now that strike damage is being applied as if it hit.
IF dual onslaught said of both strikes miss apply the weapons damage die in damage Then the result would not be a strike but a damage rider from dual onslaught but that isnt what is being applies. here it is the strikes damage and all parameters of your strike (one of the ones you just made and missed on) are applied.
Now back to martial performance. Did you do damage with a strike?
You have to answer yes because one of your strikes did damage because that's what dual onslaught forces. it applys a hit from one of the two strikes you made and missed. that strike does hit. it is different from an ability that says dual onslaught does damage equal to what you would have done with a hit(thats very MTG sounding).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And since you do apply all the effects of a "Hit with a Strike" that should be enough.Maybe enough with disinformation already? It's very much NOT "Hit with a Strike". It's 'hit with that weapon'. Yes, it's very much different.
What is it you're imagining happens physically? Both weapons fail to contact, yet wounds spring into existence?And you with all these disgustingly disingenuous 'manifests Strike damage on this target due to fate'. It's a hit with a weapon. Yes, it can be just a hit with a weapon, but not a Strike which is a specific term and a specific action.
What you are hitting with is 100% one of those specific strikes you missed with.
You still get to apply the damage from the weapon, your damage from str and any bonuses that strike had. if you had somehow had weapon surge from the zeal domain on you and missed with both weapons you would choose the weapon you placed zeal on and get the bonus damage. You are applying a hit from that specific weapon strike that missed. you are not applying just the weapon damage.If you wanted to use the other weapon strike that missed it wouldn't get weapon surge because the other weapon strike had it. Everything about the hit is in reference to the one of the strikes you missed with.
How do we know what dice to roll?Oh, I can help:
damage roll
You can thank me if you wish.
You say that but you are not directly applying a damage roll. You are applying a hit. That hit is in refference to a strike that just missed, and yes you will roll damage but you will because you are applying the effect of a hit from a strike that calls for a damage roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is it you're imagining happens physically? Both weapons fail to contact, yet wounds spring into existence?And you with all these disgustingly disingenuous 'manifests Strike damage on this target due to fate'. It's a hit with a weapon. Yes, it can be just a hit with a weapon, but not a Strike which is a specific term and a specific action.
Not disingenuous when Lia Wynn wrote:
"Dual Onslaught does not turn a miss into a hit. It merely applies the damage that would have been done on a hit to the target. PF2 things that turn misses into hits say so specifically. The Strike still misses, but the damage it would have done is applied.I'm with Errenor here."
That's explicit; no hit, yet damage.
And my comment asks for clarification on what they're imagining occurs because yeah, that interpretation is wonky enough that apparently you're disgusted by it despite it coming from someone who agrees with you.
And I understand your point that a hit with a weapon doesn't have to be a Strike, I simply disagree in gaming spirit, intent, and rigorous rules adjudication too when dealing with these missed Strikes having one of their damages applied due to what you agree is a hit. I can imagine the devs rolling their eyes at how particular you wish to interpret their informal words. I am so glad Paizo left behind 3.X/PF1 madness, yet the quibbling continues.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, to me "applying the effects of a hit with that weapon" and doing damage, is close enough to "damaging with a Strike". The feat basically says that one of the Strikes that missed hits after all.
I also don't think it's too good to be true. You need to cast Courageous Anthem and do Double Slice in the same turn, so you're only going to pull this off if the enemy was obliging you by standing exactly where you need them to.
Dual Onslaught does not turn a miss into a hit. It merely applies the damage that would have been done on a hit to the target. PF2 things that turn misses into hits say so specifically. The Strike still misses, but the damage it would have done is applied.
I'm with Errenor here.
The Strike doesn't have to count as a hit, nor a Success, as long as the Strike damages the enemy or damage comes from the Strike.
What is it you're imagining happens physically? Both weapons fail to contact, yet wounds spring into existence? Most of me is thinking of course you don't imagine that, except that's what you're describing: the Strike didn't hit, yet inflicted a wound (that just happens to match the damage a Strike would've done)?
Hit Points are not, nor have they ever been, just wounds.
Dual Onslaught triggers when you miss with two Strikes. If you miss with a Strike, that Strike clearly did not hit. Martial Performance clearly states that the damage comes from a Strike. The damage comes from Dual Onslaught, which is not a Strike, which again only happens if two Strikes miss.
Do I see it as wounds just appearing in this case? Or, for that matter, in any case where Dual Onslaught triggers? No, not at all. It could be the target takes some glancing blows, or is getting tired, or is worrying about dying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual Onslaught does not turn a miss into a hit. It merely applies the damage that would have been done on a hit to the target. PF2 things that turn misses into hits say so specifically. The Strike still misses, but the damage it would have done is applied.
I'm with Errenor here.
The Strike doesn't have to count as a hit, nor a Success, as long as the Strike damages the enemy or damage comes from the Strike.
What is it you're imagining happens physically? Both weapons fail to contact, yet wounds spring into existence? Most of me is thinking of course you don't imagine that, except that's what you're describing: the Strike didn't hit, yet inflicted a wound (that just happens to match the damage a Strike would've done)?Hit Points are not, nor have they ever been, just wounds.
Dual Onslaught triggers when you miss with two Strikes. If you miss with a Strike, that Strike clearly did not hit. Martial Performance clearly states that the damage comes from a Strike. The damage comes from Dual Onslaught, which is not a Strike, which again only happens if two Strikes miss.
Do I see it as wounds just appearing in this case? Or, for that matter, in any case where Dual Onslaught triggers? No, not at all. It could be the target takes some glancing blows, or is getting tired, or is worrying about dying.
Duel Onslaught doesn't do JUST damage.
Dual Onslaught does EVERYTHING that happens "on a hit" (of the Strike missed).
"Damage from a Strike" sounds exactly like something that happens "on a hit".
Right.
If there's poison on a blade, that poison is conveyed.If there's a bleed effect from say a Sneak Attack, there's bleeding.
One might even say that one of the effects of a hit that in turn damages the target is that the Composition gets extended another round.
It operates like a Strike, so even if one wishes to label it a "hit" instead, the effects are as if a hit from a Strike. If one argues it's only a "hit" from a weapon, one would have to subtract lots of static bonuses from the wielder, and I doubt anybody accepts that (I hope).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW I would say you do not meet the requirements with Dual Onslaught to activate Martial Performance.
As a GM, I'd probably allow it. Doesn't seem overpowered to me. Not sure a more uniform game like PFS would allow a ruling like this for Dual Onslaught, but I don't think a GM would be giving a player too much to rule the hit from Dual Onslaught activated Martial Performance. It only works every other round anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the hang up here is a miss interpretation that dual onslaught is actually doing damage. It's not. it is only telling the player to apply a hit. Specifically the hit from a strike that missed from double slice is doing damage. A strike is doing damage. If there was no strike that missed you wouldnt have any parameters of a hit to apply. you cannot reach out and pull some generic hit parameters of a weapon and use those you have to use the parameters set by a missed strike from that turn from one of double slices 2 missed strikes.
