Monk multiple attack penalty


Classes

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I found something that shouldn't work, but per Playtest RAW it seems to.

1) The section on multiple attack penalty on p305 states: "The second time you use an attack action (anything with the attack trait) during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll."

2) Flurry of Blows for Monk states: " FLURRY OF BLOWS Frequency Once per round. Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage and enhancements for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses" NOTE - no Attack trait.

3) It also states that Flurry is an action, not an activity: "Flurry of Blows You can attack rapidly with your fists. You gain the Flurry of Blows action."

4) Even if one did consider it an activity that costs 1 action, p296 states: "An activity doesn’t count as any of its dependent actions or other abilities." So the two Strikes under flurry don't count as Strike actions, thus don't gain the Strike attack trait.

So, how do multiple attack penalties work for Monks? Should Flurry have the 'attack' trait? Should it also have wording like Swipe: "A Swipe counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty."?

Or put another way, when monks flurry should it be:

Flurry & 2 Strikes - 4 attacks: full, full, full, -4

or

Flurry & 2 Strikes - 4 attacks: full, full, -4, -8

or

Flurry & 2 Strikes - 4 attacks: full, -4, -8, -8

or something else entirely?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was under the impression from the blog post that it was supposed to be Full, -4, -8, -8. It sure doesn't look like that's what it says though.

Dark Archive

Doesn't flurry just say to make two strikes? Strikes have the attack trait, so I think the penalty would apply to the second.


I would the first two under flury would have no penalty then the next would be -5 then the next -10. The flury is essentially one strike.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
A Ninja Errant wrote:
I was under the impression from the blog post that it was supposed to be Full, -4, -8, -8. It sure doesn't look like that's what it says though.

This was my understanding as well


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Page 305 says "Striking multiple times has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty applies to attacks after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the grapple use of the Athletics skill, or attacks from spells."
Page 306 refers to attacks of opportunity and tells you "Because an Attack of Opportunity is a quick and opportunistic Strike, you take a -2 penalty when using it, and even though it is an attack action, it doesn’t incur a multiple attack penalty to the attack roll."
As far as I can understand we only know it's an attack action because it tells you to make a melee strike against the target, same as with flurry. So yeah it probably takes the penalty same as everything else.

So using an attack action just means using something that involves something with the attack trait like a strike does. The action itself does not seem to need the attack trait just whatever it involves.


Compare it to Double Slice, which is vaguely similar:

Quote:
Make one Strike (see page 308) with each of your two melee weapons, each at your current multiple attack penalty. The second Strike takes a –2 circumstance penalty if it’s made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait (see page 182). If both attacks hit, combine the attacks’ damage, and then add any other applicable enhancements from both weapons. For purposes of resistances and weaknesses, this is considered a single Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty (see page 305).

Double Slice doesn't have the attack trait either. However, it does also say to make two Strikes (capital S). So I assume it's telling you to perform the Strike action twice, same as Double Slice. And since Double Slice says "at your current multiple attack penalty," and Flurry has no such proviso, I assume using Flurry and two Strikes should function equivalently to just using four Strikes -- 0, -4, -8, -8.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It feels like "what is your attack progression if you flurry and then make additional attacks" is the sort of thing that would be beneficial to indicate specifically in the book.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

It sure seems like it's written as full, full, -4, -8 or possibly full, full, -8, -12 with the fourth attack having a made up penalty.

Personally I think the flurry attacks at full bonus seems perfectly fair as an ability, but I don't think it was intended to work this way


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, I was also confused by what was intended here. Some clarity would be helpful.


Under the new rules, Flurry of Blows is rife with potential conflicting issues. It is a single action that specifically tells you to take two actions. That directly conflicts the way the new action economy is structured. As it's a single action in the economy, do the multiple attack penalties apply since they consider each strike as a separate action? It very clearly needs to be more specifically defined in how it interacts with the action economy of the new rules.

Dark Archive

I'm guessing the intended function is Flurry (0, 0) Att2 (-8) Att3 (-8)

Flurry should count as 2 attacks, but made as one action.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I found the explanation, though I had to read it a couple times. On page 296 to 297 under Dependent Abilities it says (emphasis mine)

Dependent Abilities wrote:

An action, activity, free action, or reaction might call on you to use a simpler ability—usually one of the actions under Basic Actions on page 307—in a different circumstance or with different effects. The dependent ability still has its normal traits and is modified in any ways listed in the more complex ability. For example,

an activity that tells you to Stride up to double your Speed modifies the Stride action by changing how far you can move. The dependent ability doesn’t gain any of the main ability’s traits unless specified. As noted under Activities, the ability that allows you to use the dependent action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to use it; the cost is already figured in.

So basically, that means unless there's a specific exception, both of the strikes you make as part of Flurry of Blows still count as Strikes for every purpose except actions spent. They definitely need to make this clearer though.

TLDR: it's 0,-4,-8,-8 If you flurry as part of a full attack.

Also, according to the last paragraph of Activities, also on page 296:

Activities wrote:
An activity doesn’t count as any of its dependent actions or other abilities. For example, the quick condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you took an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.

So you also can't substitute other kinds of actions that just use strikes for Flurry of Blows Strikes, so you can't for example, do a Flurry of Combat Maneuvers, or use a Fighter Attack feat with it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It would assume it is full, -4, -8, -8 since it doesn't say otherwise, though I wouldn'tbmind clarification.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Byron Zibeck wrote:
It would assume it is full, -4, -8, -8 since it doesn't say otherwise, though I wouldn'tbmind clarification.

Hi,

I just wanted to see if I got Flurry of Blows right as defined above. For example, a 1st level monk that has unarmed Strikes trained. Therefore, would not the negatives to hit be Full, -4, -9, -9. However, if unarmed Strikes count as Agile weapons, then the Full, -4, -8, -8 would make sense.

Thank you.

Dark Archive

Most unarmed attacks are agile. There are a few exceptions like the dragon style kick.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Mergy wrote:
Most unarmed attacks are agile. There are a few exceptions like the dragon style kick.

Ah, is there a section in the book that states that? I have been looking in the book for it. Thank you very much for your help.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Cyrus007 wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Most unarmed attacks are agile. There are a few exceptions like the dragon style kick.
Ah, is there a section in the book that states that? I have been looking in the book for it. Thank you very much for your help.

Hi,

I think I have this figured out. Only in certain stances are Unarmed Strikes agile. If, however, you don't enter in one of those particular stances,then your Unarmed Strikes are not going to be considered agile. At least that is what I have deduced at this point.

Thank you.

Dark Archive

Cyrus007 wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Most unarmed attacks are agile. There are a few exceptions like the dragon style kick.
Ah, is there a section in the book that states that? I have been looking in the book for it. Thank you very much for your help.

Page 180. Unarmed strike by default has agile, finesse, nonlethal, unarmed. Monk class features allow monks to ignore nonlethal.

There are other unarmed attacks, and those have their traits listed with their damage dice.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Mergy wrote:
Cyrus007 wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Most unarmed attacks are agile. There are a few exceptions like the dragon style kick.
Ah, is there a section in the book that states that? I have been looking in the book for it. Thank you very much for your help.

Page 180. Unarmed strike by default has agile, finesse, nonlethal, unarmed. Monk class features allow monks to ignore nonlethal.

There are other unarmed attacks, and those have their traits listed with their damage dice.

Yep, listed under the Simple Weapons, Fist....there you go. I wish they would state that in the description of Unarmed Attack or state that in the Monk section as well.

In any case, thank you for pointing this out. As has been stated, the book layout is nice, but needs work.

Have a great week!


I think there would be value in having this very clearly laid out, with an example. This is of course a basic ability of monks, so this should ideally not bring up questions.

If we could get clarification on how to run it during the playtest if would be great.

Dark Archive

Cyrus007 wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Cyrus007 wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Most unarmed attacks are agile. There are a few exceptions like the dragon style kick.
Ah, is there a section in the book that states that? I have been looking in the book for it. Thank you very much for your help.

Page 180. Unarmed strike by default has agile, finesse, nonlethal, unarmed. Monk class features allow monks to ignore nonlethal.

There are other unarmed attacks, and those have their traits listed with their damage dice.

Yep, listed under the Simple Weapons, Fist....there you go. I wish they would state that in the description of Unarmed Attack or state that in the Monk section as well.

In any case, thank you for pointing this out. As has been stated, the book layout is nice, but needs work.

Have a great week!

Interestingly, because fists are simple weapons, every class but the wizard has the equivalent of Improved Unarmed Strike automatically. Rogues end up doing quite a bit of damage with punches without any investment at all; I'm thinking of using unarmed in tandem with a shortbow with that class.


Mergy wrote:
Cyrus007 wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Cyrus007 wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Most unarmed attacks are agile. There are a few exceptions like the dragon style kick.
Ah, is there a section in the book that states that? I have been looking in the book for it. Thank you very much for your help.

Page 180. Unarmed strike by default has agile, finesse, nonlethal, unarmed. Monk class features allow monks to ignore nonlethal.

There are other unarmed attacks, and those have their traits listed with their damage dice.

Yep, listed under the Simple Weapons, Fist....there you go. I wish they would state that in the description of Unarmed Attack or state that in the Monk section as well.

In any case, thank you for pointing this out. As has been stated, the book layout is nice, but needs work.

Have a great week!

Interestingly, because fists are simple weapons, every class but the wizard has the equivalent of Improved Unarmed Strike automatically. Rogues end up doing quite a bit of damage with punches without any investment at all; I'm thinking of using unarmed in tandem with a shortbow with that class.
Quote:

UNARMED ATTACKS

You can Strike with your fist or another body part,
calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way
you would with a weapon. This counts as a simple weapon,
so almost all characters start out trained in unarmed
attacks. Use the statistics for a fist even if you’re kicking,
kneeing, or attacking with another part of your body.
Some ancestry feats, class features, class feats, and spells
give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks.

interesting enough, this makes you always "threaten" (enables flat-footed) when next to another, since you can always "kick"

you can also have your normal weapons/shields/hands full/whatnots and still "kick" things as trained.

Dark Archive

Unless you’re a wizard. Every other class threatens without needing to hold a weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Multiple Attack Penalty specifically states attack and not Action so to me Flurry seems like it is:
Action 1 = Flurry
-- make 2 Strikes that attack at 0, -4 then total damage as if it was 1 strike
Action 2 = Strike
-- attack at -8
Action 3 = Strike
-- attack at -8

It would appear that main benefits of Flurry are you get an additional Strike and the damage of the Strikes is combined.

Dark Archive

Rhyst wrote:

Multiple Attack Penalty specifically states attack and not Action so to me Flurry seems like it is:

Action 1 = Flurry
-- make 2 Strikes that attack at 0, -4 then total damage as if it was 1 strike
Action 2 = Strike
-- attack at -8
Action 3 = Strike
-- attack at -8

It would appear that main benefits of Flurry are you get an additional Strike and the damage of the Strikes is combined.

I agree with this. Other good uses for your net extra action is to move or enter a stance. It's powerful even with the 2nd attack taking a penalty.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Looks like the post cut off the last part. I was also going to state that the way Multiple Attack Penalty works with Flurry means that you could:
Action 1 = Strike
-- attack at 0
Action 2 = Stride
-- move up to your speed, lets say to another enemy
Action 3 = Flurry
-- make 2 Strikes that attack at -4,-8 then total damage if it was 1 strike

Basically just pick up the Multiple Attack Penalty where every it is within your turns. However there are several actions that specifically state "this attack is treated as 2 attacks for the purposes of Multiple Attack Penalty" but Flurry does not make that statement. I would love to hear from one of the developers regarding if that was an oversight or if Flurry only counts as 1 attack for Multiple Attack Penalty purposes.


This may be a boneheaded question.
I see everyone saying -4. I know I saw agile attacks attack at 1 higher, but do they also take 1 less multi-attack penalty?

If it were PF1, I know someone could say, "Look it up yourself, dummy!" But the info in the playtest is kind of spread out.


Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

This may be a boneheaded question.

I see everyone saying -4. I know I saw agile attacks attack at 1 higher, but do they also take 1 less multi-attack penalty?

They take a MAP of -4 if they're the second attack or -8 if a later attack. They do not otherwise "attack at 1 higher"; there is no advantage to them on a first attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apparently Bulhman was running it where the 2 attacks were at full bonus at the con. We may need a dev or FAQ for this.

Dark Archive

Agile unarmed strikes is interesting for some stances. Is it worth it for a strength-based monk to take only the first attack of their flurry with a dragon tail attack, and then follow it up with a regular unarmed strike because agile?


Mergy wrote:
Interestingly, because fists are simple weapons, every class but the wizard has the equivalent of Improved Unarmed Strike automatically. Rogues end up doing quite a bit of damage with punches without any investment at all; I'm thinking of using unarmed in tandem with a shortbow with that class.

Except every other class besides monk deals non-lethal damage with their unarmed strikes unless they choose to do lethal damage and take the -2 (or more) penalty to hit for it.

Dark Archive

Falxu wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Interestingly, because fists are simple weapons, every class but the wizard has the equivalent of Improved Unarmed Strike automatically. Rogues end up doing quite a bit of damage with punches without any investment at all; I'm thinking of using unarmed in tandem with a shortbow with that class.
Except every other class besides monk deals non-lethal damage with their unarmed strikes unless they choose to do lethal damage and take the -2 (or more) penalty to hit for it.

That's not actually a problem. People don't take nonlethal damage anymore, so you're still doing hp damage. If you really want to kill an enemy, just knock them unconscious first and then take your -2.


Oh, okay. So it's no bonus on its own. It's just one less MAP. Got it. Thanks.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

A Ninja Errant wrote:

I found the explanation, though I had to read it a couple times. On page 296 to 297 under Dependent Abilities it says (emphasis mine)

Dependent Abilities wrote:

An action, activity, free action, or reaction might call on you to use a simpler ability—usually one of the actions under Basic Actions on page 307—in a different circumstance or with different effects. The dependent ability still has its normal traits and is modified in any ways listed in the more complex ability. For example,

an activity that tells you to Stride up to double your Speed modifies the Stride action by changing how far you can move. The dependent ability doesn’t gain any of the main ability’s traits unless specified. As noted under Activities, the ability that allows you to use the dependent action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to use it; the cost is already figured in.

So basically, that means unless there's a specific exception, both of the strikes you make as part of Flurry of Blows still count as Strikes for every purpose except actions spent. They definitely need to make this clearer though.

TLDR: it's 0,-4,-8,-8 If you flurry as part of a full attack.

I think you're probably right that it's intended to be 0, -4, -8, -8. However, I 'm not sure how you got there from the quoted text. The Flurry of Blows is only one action, and that action has you make two strikes and combine their damage. That to me makes it sound like it's a single attack action, so the penalty should be (-0, -0), -4, -8. That is, you are resolving both of the Strikes at the same time (since it's only one action and their damage is combined), so the MAP shouldn't apply until the next Strike action you take.

That said, I don't think this is clear from the rules and I could certainly see an argument for either interpretation. This probably needs to be clarified.


Tamago wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:

I found the explanation, though I had to read it a couple times. On page 296 to 297 under Dependent Abilities it says (emphasis mine)

Dependent Abilities wrote:

An action, activity, free action, or reaction might call on you to use a simpler ability—usually one of the actions under Basic Actions on page 307—in a different circumstance or with different effects. The dependent ability still has its normal traits and is modified in any ways listed in the more complex ability. For example,

an activity that tells you to Stride up to double your Speed modifies the Stride action by changing how far you can move. The dependent ability doesn’t gain any of the main ability’s traits unless specified. As noted under Activities, the ability that allows you to use the dependent action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to use it; the cost is already figured in.

So basically, that means unless there's a specific exception, both of the strikes you make as part of Flurry of Blows still count as Strikes for every purpose except actions spent. They definitely need to make this clearer though.

TLDR: it's 0,-4,-8,-8 If you flurry as part of a full attack.

I think you're probably right that it's intended to be 0, -4, -8, -8. However, I 'm not sure how you got there from the quoted text. The Flurry of Blows is only one action, and that action has you make two strikes and combine their damage. That to me makes it sound like it's a single attack action, so the penalty should be (-0, -0), -4, -8. That is, you are resolving both of the Strikes at the same time (since it's only one action and their damage is combined), so the MAP shouldn't apply until the next Strike action you take.

That said, I don't think this is clear from the rules and I could certainly see an argument for either interpretation. This probably needs to be clarified.

Despite being 1 action, each strike has the attack trait.

Every action that has multiple strikes but doesn't incur MAP, says so in its text

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

shroudb wrote:
Every action that has multiple strikes but doesn't incur MAP, says so in its text

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If there were an action that has multiple strikes, doesn't incur MAP, and didn't say so in the text, would we know about it? In other words, without knowing for sure how the ability is intended to function, there is no way to tell whether the lack of text clarifying no MAP is an indication that it *does* suffer a penalty, or if that text was just not included for some reason.

That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Every action that has multiple strikes but doesn't incur MAP, says so in its text

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If there were an action that has multiple strikes, doesn't incur MAP, and didn't say so in the text, would we know about it? In other words, without knowing for sure how the ability is intended to function, there is no way to tell whether the lack of text clarifying no MAP is an indication that it *does* suffer a penalty, or if that text was just not included for some reason.

That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In a rulebook, absence of a rule most certainly means that you can't do something.

As an example:
Nowhere does it states that I can't autokill everything if I target the eye.

That doesn't mean I can.

In Flurry case, nowhere does it states that each strike doesn't incur MAP, hence they do.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:


That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In a rulebook, absence of a rule most certainly means that you can't do something.

As an example:
Nowhere does it states that I can't autokill everything if I target the eye.

That doesn't mean I can.

In Flurry case, nowhere does it states that each strike doesn't incur MAP, hence they do.

Just to keep playing Devil's Advocate for a moment...

A rulebook that has rules for *everything* would be infinitely huge and completely unmanageable. Sometimes perfectly acceptable things are left unsaid.

As an example:
Nowhere does it state that you can wield a sword in your left hand for most of an encounter and then switch to the right hand for a dramatically-appropriate reveal ("I am not left-handed either!").

That doesn't mean you can't.


Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:


That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In a rulebook, absence of a rule most certainly means that you can't do something.

As an example:
Nowhere does it states that I can't autokill everything if I target the eye.

That doesn't mean I can.

In Flurry case, nowhere does it states that each strike doesn't incur MAP, hence they do.

Just to keep playing Devil's Advocate for a moment...

A rulebook that has rules for *everything* would be infinitely huge and completely unmanageable. Sometimes perfectly acceptable things are left unsaid.

As an example:
Nowhere does it state that you can wield a sword in your left hand for most of an encounter and then switch to the right hand for a dramatically-appropriate reveal ("I am not left-handed either!").

That doesn't mean you can't.

There are explicit rules for switching hands. As well for speaking in combat.

:D

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:


That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In a rulebook, absence of a rule most certainly means that you can't do something.

As an example:
Nowhere does it states that I can't autokill everything if I target the eye.

That doesn't mean I can.

In Flurry case, nowhere does it states that each strike doesn't incur MAP, hence they do.

Just to keep playing Devil's Advocate for a moment...

A rulebook that has rules for *everything* would be infinitely huge and completely unmanageable. Sometimes perfectly acceptable things are left unsaid.

As an example:
Nowhere does it state that you can wield a sword in your left hand for most of an encounter and then switch to the right hand for a dramatically-appropriate reveal ("I am not left-handed either!").

That doesn't mean you can't.

There are explicit rules for switching hands. As well for speaking in combat.

:D

Really? I haven't seen a rule for switching hands. Can you provide a reference for that?

Anyway, I was going more for the fact that there aren't rules for fighting with your non-dominant hand, but that doesn't mean you can't ;-)


Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:


That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In a rulebook, absence of a rule most certainly means that you can't do something.

As an example:
Nowhere does it states that I can't autokill everything if I target the eye.

That doesn't mean I can.

In Flurry case, nowhere does it states that each strike doesn't incur MAP, hence they do.

Just to keep playing Devil's Advocate for a moment...

A rulebook that has rules for *everything* would be infinitely huge and completely unmanageable. Sometimes perfectly acceptable things are left unsaid.

As an example:
Nowhere does it state that you can wield a sword in your left hand for most of an encounter and then switch to the right hand for a dramatically-appropriate reveal ("I am not left-handed either!").

That doesn't mean you can't.

There are explicit rules for switching hands. As well for speaking in combat.

:D

Really? I haven't seen a rule for switching hands. Can you provide a reference for that?

Anyway, I was going more for the fact that there aren't rules for fighting with your non-dominant hand, but that doesn't mean you can't ;-)

Handedness rules, can't quote due to being on phone, but it's an action to put hand on weapon, free to drop hand from weapon. So switching is an action (grab with other hand, drop 1st hand)

Edit:
No rules exist for dominant hands,. So "dominant hand" is not a thing. Basically everyone in golarion is ambidextrous.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:


That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In a rulebook, absence of a rule most certainly means that you can't do something.

As an example:
Nowhere does it states that I can't autokill everything if I target the eye.

That doesn't mean I can.

In Flurry case, nowhere does it states that each strike doesn't incur MAP, hence they do.

Just to keep playing Devil's Advocate for a moment...

A rulebook that has rules for *everything* would be infinitely huge and completely unmanageable. Sometimes perfectly acceptable things are left unsaid.

As an example:
Nowhere does it state that you can wield a sword in your left hand for most of an encounter and then switch to the right hand for a dramatically-appropriate reveal ("I am not left-handed either!").

That doesn't mean you can't.

There are explicit rules for switching hands. As well for speaking in combat.

:D

Really? I haven't seen a rule for switching hands. Can you provide a reference for that?

Anyway, I was going more for the fact that there aren't rules for fighting with your non-dominant hand, but that doesn't mean you can't ;-)

Handedness rules, can't quote due to being on phone, but it's an action to put hand on weapon, free to drop hand from weapon. So switching is an action (grab with other hand, drop 1st hand)

Interesting. I searched my PDF for "handedness" before I posted the original example, but I didn't find any hits. (And "handed" appears a ton of times, most often in the context of "one-handed" or "two-handed".)

I'd be curious to know where those rules are at some point, since I didn't even know they were in the game!


Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:


That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In a rulebook, absence of a rule most certainly means that you can't do something.

As an example:
Nowhere does it states that I can't autokill everything if I target the eye.

That doesn't mean I can.

In Flurry case, nowhere does it states that each strike doesn't incur MAP, hence they do.

Just to keep playing Devil's Advocate for a moment...

A rulebook that has rules for *everything* would be infinitely huge and completely unmanageable. Sometimes perfectly acceptable things are left unsaid.

As an example:
Nowhere does it state that you can wield a sword in your left hand for most of an encounter and then switch to the right hand for a dramatically-appropriate reveal ("I am not left-handed either!").

That doesn't mean you can't.

There are explicit rules for switching hands. As well for speaking in combat.

:D

Really? I haven't seen a rule for switching hands. Can you provide a reference for that?

Anyway, I was going more for the fact that there aren't rules for fighting with your non-dominant hand, but that doesn't mean you can't ;-)

Handedness rules, can't quote due to being on phone, but it's an action to put hand on weapon, free to drop hand from weapon. So switching is an action (grab with other hand, drop 1st hand)

Interesting. I searched my PDF for "handedness" before I posted the original example, but I didn't find any hits. (And "handed" appears a ton of times, most often in the context of "one-handed" or "two-handed".)

I'd be curious to know where those rules are at some point, since I didn't even know they were in the game!

P. 174 carrying and using items, as well as p. 175 table 6-2 (which even has your changing hands example)


Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Every action that has multiple strikes but doesn't incur MAP, says so in its text

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If there were an action that has multiple strikes, doesn't incur MAP, and didn't say so in the text, would we know about it? In other words, without knowing for sure how the ability is intended to function, there is no way to tell whether the lack of text clarifying no MAP is an indication that it *does* suffer a penalty, or if that text was just not included for some reason.

That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

While that may be true in a vacuum, given there are several examples of activities with multiple strikes with text clarifying no MAP present, comparing those activities to Flurry's distinct lack would, in lack of Dev comments to the contrary, indicate that MAP applies to each strike normally.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Flurry of Blows can only be done once per round, per the feat. Therefore, you flurry at full and then next attacks would be -5/-10.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The answer is actually right on p.296, the page you originally quoted.

Page 296 wrote:
The dependent ability still has its normal traits and is modified in any ways listed in the more complex ability.

When you are using Flurry of Blows, you are Striking twice, modified so they both stack against 1 set of resistance/weakness. In this example, Strike is the dependent ability.

Aka Strike 1 has the Attack trait - normal bonus
Strike 2 ALSO has the Attack trait still - Gets a -5 penalty (-4 with agile).

Further strike actions in the round are at -10 (-8 with agile).

So the correct form of a full attack for monks looks like:

Full Attack - 0, -5, -10, -10 (not counting Agile)


Mathmatically, having the multiple attack penalty apply to Flurry of Blows as if it were two attacks each with full penalties is the simplest. In that cast, Flurry followed by Strike would be +0,-4,-8 and Strike followed by Flurry would be +0,-4,-8, the same.

If Flurry counted as one attack, then Flurry followed by Strike would be +0,+0,-4 and Strike followed by Flurry would be +0,-4,-4. This would result in the behavior of always Flurrying first.

If Flurry counted as two attacks, but both Flurry strikes have the same multiattack penalty, then Flurry followed by Strike would be +0,+0,-8 and Strike followed by Flurry would be +0,-4,-4. This does not force always-flurry-first, but it gives two different results. And it is harder to explain.

This analysis does not say which is correct for the playtest, just which one would be easier for the final 2nd Edition rules.


Mathmuse wrote:

Mathmatically, having the multiple attack penalty apply to Flurry of Blows as if it were two attacks each with full penalties is the simplest. In that cast, Flurry followed by Strike would be +0,-4,-8 and Strike followed by Flurry would be +0,-4,-8, the same.

If Flurry counted as one attack, then Flurry followed by Strike would be +0,+0,-4 and Strike followed by Flurry would be +0,-4,-4. This would result in the behavior of always Flurrying first.

If Flurry counted as two attacks, but both Flurry strikes have the same multiattack penalty, then Flurry followed by Strike would be +0,+0,-8 and Strike followed by Flurry would be +0,-4,-4. This does not force always-flurry-first, but it gives two different results. And it is harder to explain.

This analysis does not say which is correct for the playtest, just which one would be easier for the final 2nd Edition rules.

Given that Flurry combines both hits into one, for DR overcoming purposes, you already have precious little reason to ever not Flurry as your first attack.


Mathmuse wrote:
If Flurry counted as two attacks, but both Flurry strikes have the same multiattack penalty, then Flurry followed by Strike would be +0,+0,-8 and Strike followed by Flurry would be +0,-4,-4. This does not force always-flurry-first, but it gives two different results. And it is harder to explain.

Soo...Double Slice

Quote:

Make one Strike (see page 308) with each of your two melee weapons, each at your current

multiple attack penalty. The second Strike takes a –2 circumstance penalty if it’s made with
a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait (see page 182). If both attacks hit, combine the
attacks’ damage, and then add any other applicable enhancements from both weapons. For
purposes of resistances and weaknesses, this is considered a single Strike. This counts as
two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty (see page 305).

:P

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Monk multiple attack penalty All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.