Fishing for maximum number of attacks in a turn aka PLEASE don't do this to your GM.

[Edge93]

As the title implies, after seeing a thread discussing how you can't just go and make ridiculous numbers of attacks in a turn in PF2 and how honestly nice that is (GMed a quad-wielding Thri-Kreen once, it was a nightmare at times) I decided to see if that was really true, I wanted to see just how many attacks could possibly come in a turn. So here's my finding.

This sequence is only possible for a 14th+ level Fighter with the following:

Ranger Dedication
Multiclass feat to get Twin Takedown
The feat for all-day Hunt Target if you want to do this to more than one enemy per day
Twin Flurry (or Two Weapon flurry, can't remember. It's a 14th level Press feat.)
Desperate Finisher (I think that's the name)
Dual wielding, may require an agile weapon in off-hand.
Must NOT have the Fighter feat Agile Grace because Twin Flurry has an MAP requirement of -8.
Haste or other form of Quick that allows a Strike

So with all the build requirements met, the remaining requirement is that you start your turn adjacent to your hunted target, which means this has to be at least the second round of combat. Can't be wasting actions moving or hunting.

So with all that met, here's the unholy action routine:

Action 1, Twin Takedown. Attacks twice with both attacks functioning normally within MAP so now we're at the -8 required for Twin Flurry.
Action 2, Twin Flurry. Attack once each with both weapons.
Action 3, same.
Action 4, single weapon Strike from Haste (actually the Haste Strike can go anywhere in the attack routine and it changes virtually nothing, I just stuck it here because.)
And that's our routine of a ridiculous 7 atta-ph wait! We have desperate finisher! This feat procs at the end of your turn where if you haven't used any reactions this turn you can give up your ability to use reactions for the round to use one action with the Press trait. Twin Flurry again!

And there we have 9 freaking attacks in one round. 7 of which are at -8 to-hit. PLEASE don't ever do this in an actual game. XD

A couple notes:
Twin Takedown is important because it's the only way besides Twin Flurry to get two attacks with one action (well that and hunted shot but this build required dual wield. Oh and also Flurry of blows). This also serves the purpose of immediately getting MAP to -8 so the remaining actions can go straight to Twin Flurry. Granted you could do that by utilizing the Haste Strike early in the round but this still gets us an extra swing in.

This entire combo I believe would be impossible if it weren't for the fact that Multiclass Hunt Target doesn't reduce MAP. Because I'm pretty sure at least one of these feats requires an agile weapon in the off hand but Twin Flurry requires both weapons be at MAP -8 or worse. I could be wrong here though, the feats may just apply a penalty if not agile.

As mentioned Agile Grace is no good because your MAP maxes at -6 with it. No Twin Flurry.

And that's that! The ridiculously long attack sequence that probably actually sucks because over 75% of the attacks have a stupidly large penalty. XD

[Lucas Yew]

While I was snickering at the crazy awesome number of (mostly useless) attacks, I got a question.

Can you voluntarily choose not to receive benefits from feats you have, such as Agile Grace?

[Edge93]

Lucas Yew wrote:

While I was snickering at the crazy awesome number of (mostly useless) attacks, I got a question.

Can you voluntarily choose not to receive benefits from feats you have, such as Agile Grace?

That is an excellent question! I hadn't considered that but I hope so. I get the potential balance reasons for Press feats requiring -4 or worse for their failure effects or Twin flurry beeding -8 but it's kinda harsh that taking the lively Agile Grace feat makes you suddenly too graceful and majestic to do this stuff. XD

Also Rangers that may MC Fighter for Press feats. Hunt Target can easily dump your MAP below the threshold.

Though I also wonder if the -4 and -8 requirements are extended to exclude Agile Grace and Hunt Target+Agile or if it was just meant to signify tier 1 and tier 2 MAP and the specific numbers forbidding these was just an oversight.

It's probably deliberate given how out of hand Twin Flurry at -6 could be especially given this routine. XD

[hyphz]

They're not actually necessarily useless. If you can hit your opponent on a modified 10, you're actually more likely to get one on the best of 7d20-8 than on an unmodified 1d20. In other words, those extra 7d20 are at least as good as one extra attack without MAP if your to-hit is high enough. Add in the fact that a crit is significantly more likely and it looks much better.

[DM_Blake]

Feats are used. Many of them don't take an action, but even those are used. If you don't use the feat, you don't get the benefits. Using feats is your choice.

Therefore, you can choose whether to use a feat or not use it. Even feats with automatic effects that don't require actions to use.

Note: if a feat is a prerequisite for another dependent feat, then not using the prerequisite means the dependent feat is not available.

[shroudb]

I'm not sure hunt target and twin is worth it.

You replace one attack at +0 with 3 attacks at -8.

Not even sure how much dpr gain is that. *

Secondly, you actually straight up lose dpr for every target, since you have to spend an action to actually Hunt the target.

So, 1st round straight up advantage to double slice (1 attack at +0 vs 1 attack at -8)

Repeat for every target in a battle.

*with hasty maths, assuming fighter hits at 9 and deals Y damage
1 attack at +0 is 70%Y and 3 attacks at -8 is 75%Y

Laughably low difference.

Since 1st round the double slice fighter deals 35%Y more damage than Hunt target.
And Hunt recovers only 5%Y every round thereafter

You would need on average 8 rounds on each target to even start getting marginally better total damage.

[David knott 242]

I think I would have to disagree with the title of this thread. Since this is a playtest, you definitely should inflict this trick on your GM. If it proves disruptive, your GM has some useful negative feedback to provide.

[Ludovicus]

Edge93 wrote:

The ridiculously long attack sequence that probably actually sucks because over 75% of the attacks have a stupidly large penalty. XD

Perhaps surprisingly, it's pretty good! With a pair of sawtooth sabres, it doesn't quite beat the Optimal Fighter Attack Routine (wielding a falchion, Strike, then Certain Strike four times) on a baseline 65% chance to hit pre-MAP, but it comes close.

[Vic Ferrari]

Edge93 wrote:

As the title implies, after seeing a thread discussing how you can't just go and make ridiculous numbers of attacks in a turn in PF2 and how honestly nice that is (GMed a quad-wielding Thri-Kreen once, it was a nightmare at times)

Ha, I can commiserate. I DMed a 3rd Ed Thri-Kreen Monk, that stacked Flurry, MultiWeapon Fighting, and Secondary Natural Attacks (thanks to a ruling by Skip Williams in Sage Advice).

[Moro]

Definitely doing this ASAP.

[shroudb]

Ludovicus wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

The ridiculously long attack sequence that probably actually sucks because over 75% of the attacks have a stupidly large penalty. XD

Perhaps surprisingly, it's pretty good! With a pair of sawtooth sabres, it doesn't quite beat the Optimal Fighter Attack Routine (wielding a falchion, Strike, then Certain Strike four times) on a baseline 65% chance to hit pre-MAP, but it comes close.

it's actually worse than simply double slice-strike(from quick)-flurry-flurry

due to no needing that 1 action setup to pull it off.

quick math shows you need like 8 rounds to catch up to that 1 lost action.

[The Once and Future Kai]

David knott 242 wrote:

I think I would have to disagree with the title of this thread. Since this is a playtest, you definitely should inflict this trick on your GM. If it proves disruptive, your GM has some useful negative feedback to provide.

I invite my players to try something like this... They'll quickly be reminded how unviable stand and full attack is in games that I run using this action economy. Getting into position is going to be a challenge aganist intelligent foes (it would work aganist mindless foes).

[Franz Lunzer]

Well, if you have to move and are hasted and within your speed away from the target, you only lose one of the 9 attacks.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

It should totally be tested now, but it already looks like actually resolving all those attacks will take too long, but we are actually in the phase to test it right now.

[Franz Lunzer]

resolving all those attacks won't take all too long, I think. Appart from the first two, all the others have the same attack bonus.
So all those at -8 can be rolled at once.
If you have the same weapons in both hands (doubling rings!) the damage is the same as well.
And with the low chance to hit at -8, rolling the few successes at once and accounting for weaknesses/vulnerabilities by number of hits speeds things up as well.

[Vic Ferrari]

I am surprised they retained the iterative attack penalties (MAP), always seems like a way to punish non-casters.

I have questioned it, since August 2000.

[shroudb]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I am surprised they retained the iterative attack penalties (MAP), always seems like a way to punish non-casters.

I have questioned it, since August 2000.

I like MAP.

without it the fights would revert to "i full attack", "i full attack", "now, I full attack".

Now, almost always your 3rd action should never be an attack, and in a lot of cases, even the second attack may be outclassed by something else.

making the rounds more variable and enjoyable than constant spamming of Strikes.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I am surprised they retained the iterative attack penalties (MAP), always seems like a way to punish non-casters.

I have questioned it, since August 2000.

I like them here due to the accuracy based criticals and three action economy. It incentivizes doing something (demoralize, feint, trip, etc) instead of just full attacking.

[Vic Ferrari]

I like the removal of full attack, but people mention these other interesting options, but it rings hollow, as the most interesting and effective way to deal with monsters is to reduce HP; in the end

Step, Stride, and Strike, are still pretty much where it's at, despite these fascinating, raise shield and feint actions.

[shroudb]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I like the removal of full attack, but people mention these other interesting options, but it rings hollow, as the most interesting and effective way to deal with monsters is to reduce HP; in the end

Step, Stride, and Strike, are still pretty much where it's at, despite these fascinating, raise shield and feint actions.

you'd be surpirsed how much more "damage" an Intimidation can do compared to a 2nd/3rd strike.

Same with raise shield and etc, your 2nd/3rd action can negate a chunk of damage allowing your cleric to do an attack at+0 instead of spamming heals to keep you alive, resulting in overall higher party damage.

[Colette Brunel]

Why not use a 10th-level ranger/monk with Twin Takedown and Flurry of Blows? That leads to five attacks per round at a reasonable level of 10th, with -6 MAP for the third, fourth, and fifth attacks.

It is a build I have been playing (for GMPCs) repeatedly due to its fire-and-forget, idiot-proof nature.

[shroudb]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Why not use a 10th-level ranger/monk with Twin Takedown and Flurry of Blows? That leads to five attacks per round at a reasonable level of 10th, with -6 MAP for the third, fourth, and fifth attacks.

It is a build I have been playing (for GMPCs) repeatedly due to its fire-and-forget, idiot-proof nature.

persoanlly i'm staying away from using "unarmed" with any feat that requires "wielded melee weapons" until they clarify that conflicting phrasing on Unarmed trait Vs Unarmed Attack.

Although it can work with monastic weaponry (but it restricts you to "worse" weapons)

[The Once and Future Kai]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I like the removal of full attack, but people mention these other interesting options, but it rings hollow, as the most interesting and effective way to deal with monsters is to reduce HP; in the end

Step, Stride, and Strike, are still pretty much where it's at, despite these fascinating, raise shield and feint actions.

That hasn't been my experience. Perhaps if the creatures are immobile or non-threatening... But when creatures are intelligent, mobile, and threatening my players have adopted a dynamic tactical mindset to ensure every advantage. Granted - none of them are playing Clerics so they're not able to outheal damage and must instead focus on avoiding it.

As for specific examples, allow me to quote myself quoting myself.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

It makes the board seem less static, but it also makes the board kinda meaningless too, so it's not affecting the flow of battle. So yeah, you can move, but it doesn't translate to much since I don't think "which square you are standing on" has any meaningful impact if you weren't blessed with AOO.

Let me re-share an example from one of my sessions.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

What are people doing with their movement? Step, swing, step? Yeah that's moible combat.

An example from a session on Friday: The Barbarian used Sudden Charge to close the distance on an enemy (two actions for double movement/one strike) and then used his last action to Stride around the foe to flank. The Rogue used two actions to Stride into melee and then attacked the flanked foe.

Once varied terrain enters the mix the increased mobility has even greater impact. This isn't necessarily reliant on the GM designing interesting maps either. One of my players is fielding an Alchemist and has been spamming Smokebombs. The result is that players can do something, move into the cloud, and Hide to become Sensed. I've also been letting them Step out of the Smoke, do something, and then Sneak back in.

What does hiding in smoke net the player? Enemy is flat footed and has a 55% miss chance on hitting the player. (Without using Hide or Sneak, the enemy still has a 25% miss change when targeting the player while they're in the smoke.) In that case I think "which square you are standing on" makes a big difference. This is true of any terrain that offers concealment (including dim light and darkness).

[Dasrak]

Looks like a fun excuse to roll a fist full of d20's. Make sure your main-hand weapon is a scimitar, and go to town.

[shroudb]

Dasrak wrote:

Looks like a fun excuse to roll a fist full of d20's. Make sure your main-hand weapon is a scimitar, and go to town.

i don't think scimitar is a good choice.

you'd be forced to make multiple attacks with it due to how both flurry and twin need attacks from both weapons, meaning that half of your attacks will be at -10 instead of -8.

Foceful over agile imo works only with Steady, else it's a damage loss.

[Colette Brunel]

shroudb wrote:

persoanlly i'm staying away from using "unarmed" with any feat that requires "wielded melee weapons" until they clarify that conflicting phrasing on Unarmed trait Vs Unarmed Attack.

Although it can work with monastic weaponry (but it restricts you to "worse" weapons)

The build in question uses kamas.

[MerlinCross]

@The Once And Future Kai

Not every table has the players going at it like its some sort of wargame

[Elleth]

I think I like monk multiclass monastic weaponry kamas version of it, no time needed for hunt target.

[The Once and Future Kai]

MerlinCross wrote:

What are people doing with their movement? Step, swing, step? Yeah that's moible combat.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Gives examples of things his players have been doing with their movement.

MerlinCross wrote:

Not every table has the players going at it like its some sort of wargame

I mean...yes. That's true. Not every table has players who want to craft items either. That's not a comment on the strength or weakness of the system.

But players who decide to use the action economy's added mobility can certainly do interesting things with it.

[graystone]

Colette Brunel wrote:

shroudb wrote:

persoanlly i'm staying away from using "unarmed" with any feat that requires "wielded melee weapons" until they clarify that conflicting phrasing on Unarmed trait Vs Unarmed Attack.

Although it can work with monastic weaponry (but it restricts you to "worse" weapons)

The build in question uses kamas.

*nods* you can do a ranged version with shurikens and hunted shot.

[Vic Ferrari]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I like the removal of full attack, but people mention these other interesting options, but it rings hollow, as the most interesting and effective way to deal with monsters is to reduce HP; in the end

Step, Stride, and Strike, are still pretty much where it's at, despite these fascinating, raise shield and feint actions.

That hasn't been my experience. Perhaps if the creatures are immobile or non-threatening... But when creatures are intelligent, mobile, and threatening my players have adopted a dynamic tactical mindset to ensure every advantage. Granted - none of them are playing Clerics so they're not able to outheal damage and must instead focus on avoiding it.

As for specific examples, allow me to quote myself quoting myself.

Yeah, charging and flanking are pretty standard, and not that thrilling (and charge builds can be a pain in the bottom). So, I still don't really have an answer/an interesting example scenario.