So a flurry of blows is one action where you swing twice with one action, each strike taking the appropriate multiple attack penalty. So tonight my monk flurried and struck down the adjacent creature on the first strike. He then moved to the next enemy...
The question is did the second strike in the flurry happen? Did my monk swing at thin air? Or not?
Basically, can the monk move (an action) and strike (with the third action and a -8 penalty)? Or is the 3rd action (a strike) at a -4 penalty (since logically the monk wouldn't swing at empty air).
I can see both sides of the coin here. Anyone else want to chime in?
Yes. You always swing twice when you flurry.
CRB pg 156
"Make two unarmed strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purposes of resistances and weaknesses...."
You check for both hits before damage is resolved.
As a GM I think I’d rule that both strikes are resolved and the damage is added up before revealing if the enemy was killed or not. This seems to be the intention, given that the damage is combined before applying weakness and resistance.
In other words, I think the strikes happen nearly simultaneously.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
They happen simultaneously, but you can split them between targets if both are within reach.
The thing is the player must specify both targets before the attack is made so no shenanigans can be had.
Makes sense. You punch so fast the enemy hasn't had a chance to fall yet. Don't forget the worst multiattack penalty is -10 so it's not as damning as it could be, I think. 'In Vudra we call this "the double tap".'
The Gleeful Grognard wrote: They happen simultaneously, but you can split them between targets if both are within reach.
The thing is the player must specify both targets before the attack is made so no shenanigans can be had.
Where is it stated in the rules that you have to designate both targets before the first Strike is resolved?
And how is it "shenanigans" if a player waits to see if the target is dead before changing targets?
N N 959 wrote: The Gleeful Grognard wrote: They happen simultaneously, but you can split them between targets if both are within reach.
The thing is the player must specify both targets before the attack is made so no shenanigans can be had.
Where is it stated in the rules that you have to designate both targets before the first Strike is resolved?
And how is it "shenanigans" if a player waits to see if the target is dead before changing targets? Flurry specifically states that you combine the damage before calulating the weaknesses/resistances.
calculating the weakness/resistance is the Step 3 of how you apply damage (p. 452).
So, you combine the damage immediately after step 2 (which is when you determine the type of damage)
"Death" doesn't occur until after Step 4 (If Damage Remains, Reduce the
Target’s Hit Points) is fully resolved.
N N 959 wrote: The Gleeful Grognard wrote: They happen simultaneously, but you can split them between targets if both are within reach.
The thing is the player must specify both targets before the attack is made so no shenanigans can be had.
Where is it stated in the rules that you have to designate both targets before the first Strike is resolved?
And how is it "shenanigans" if a player waits to see if the target is dead before changing targets? Also it’s implied contextually by Stunning Fist.
You have to satisfy the condition of choosing the same target to receive the effects in the context of both of them.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Flurry specifically states that you combine the damage before calulating the weaknesses/resistances. So what? There are lot of two Strike abilities that do that. None of them have the requirement that you must designate all targets before the attacks rolls are made.
In fact, here is what Flurry says,
Flurry p.156 wrote: Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally Emphasis mine.
All the these double attack abilities specifically use the word, "Strike." This heavily implies that I follow the rules for each Strike as separate attacks. That means I roll and resolve the damage for each attack before proceeding to the next. The only thing Flurry changes is the application of Weakness/Resistance "if" both attacks hit the same target.
Quote: calculating the weakness/resistance is the Step 3 of how you apply damage (p. 452). This is done with essentially ALL the multi-Strike feats as a way of improving their value and allowing a feat acquired at low levels (and obviously intended to be the main attack for a character's entire lifespan) to still be useful at high level. There's nothing in these feats that suggests all targets have to be chosen a priori.
Quote: "Death" doesn't occur until after Step 4 (If Damage Remains, Reduce the
Target’s Hit Points) is fully resolved.
That's right. These steps are part of each Strike.
Let's actually review the rules for a Strike
Strike p. 471 wrote: You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll the attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using, and compare the result to the target creature’s AC to determine the effect. See Attack Rolls on page 446 and Damage on page 450 for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls. Per RAW, I get two "Strikes" with a Flurry, which means I determine the effects after each attack roll. Per RAW, I am only required to target "one" creature when I make a Strike.
Based on what the rules say, requiring a player to choose both targets before the first strike would be GM "shenanigans."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Midnightoker wrote: Also it’s implied contextually by Stunning Fist.
You have to satisfy the condition of choosing the same target to receive the effects in the context of both of them.
Uh...no it isn't.
Stunning Fist p.160 wrote: When you target the same creature with two Strikes from your Flurry of Blows, you can try to stun the creature. Stunning Fist requires that you target the same creature with "two" Strikes to get the benefit. There's nothing requiring that you choose those targets before the first Strike is made.
Nor are there any "shenanigans" possible. Whether you hit or miss with the first Strike, if you want to use a Stunning Fist attack, both attacks must target the same character. Unless it got errata'd, Stunninf Fist is not an action you declare, but an option if you meet the requirements. Unlike PF1, it doesn't appear you have to declare your intentions to use Stunning Fist until you satisfy its conditions.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: You check for both hits before damage is resolved. That's not what it says.
"If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purposes of resistances and weaknesses...." This is does not say you have to "check" for hits before rolling damage for either. It says you combine damage when applying resistance or weakness. That easily facilitates rolling all the damage for the first hit, resolving the outcome. Then if the second hit occurs, treat it as part of the first hit's damage total.
I'm not sure where people are coming up with these interpretation, but rolling all attacks before rolling damage is not a mechanic in either PF1 or PF2. PF1 has the feat Clustered Shots which does the same thing. It combines the damage from multiple ranged attacks to overcome DR. You don't roll all attacks before rolling damage.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Folks, let's not forget the question. The ACTUAL question is 'Must I make the second strike if the guy dies after the first?' The scenario is:
Monk - Foe1 - Foe2
Monk wants to flurry, step, strike.
First hit of flurry turns Foe1 into DebrisField.
Monk steps and strikes at Foe2.
The question is the multiple attack penalty for hitting Foe2: Did the second Flurry strike actually get thrown? If it did, then MAP is -10, as the player probably planned on had the first foe survived. If not, then -5 and yippee.
(Edit: Or -8 and -4, I built my first monk with Mountain stance so eh.)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: shroudb wrote: Flurry specifically states that you combine the damage before calulating the weaknesses/resistances. So what? There are lot of two Strike abilities that do that. None of them have the requirement that you must designate all targets before the attacks rolls are made.
In fact, here is what Flurry says,
Flurry p.156 wrote: Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally Emphasis mine.
All the these double attack abilities specifically use the word, "Strike." This heavily implies that I follow the rules for each Strike as separate attacks. That means I roll and resolve the damage for each attack before proceeding to the next. The only thing Flurry changes is the application of Weakness/Resistance "if" both attacks hit the same target.
Quote: calculating the weakness/resistance is the Step 3 of how you apply damage (p. 452). This is done with essentially ALL the multi-Strike feats as a way of improving their value and allowing a feat acquired at low levels (and obviously intended to be the main attack for a character's entire lifespan) to still be useful at high level. There's nothing in these feats that suggests all targets have to be chosen a priori.
Quote: "Death" doesn't occur until after Step 4 (If Damage Remains, Reduce the
Target’s Hit Points) is fully resolved.
That's right. These steps are part of each Strike.
Let's actually review the rules for a Strike
Strike p. 471 wrote: You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll the attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using, and compare the result to the target creature’s AC to determine the effect. See Attack Rolls on page 446 and Damage on page 450 for details on ... I like how you basically ignored all rules with the eloquent reason of "so what" and then called your opinion raw.
RAW:
Specific trumps generic.
Specific "combine before step 3" means, RAW, the damage doesn't resolve before you combine.
You obviously cannot combine damage if you haven't rolled it.
You roll damage after you roll attack.
You roll attack after you have a target.
So, RAW, you can't wait to see what happens and then switch.
p.s. And yes, that does apply to ALL abilities that you combine damage before resolving it. In NONE of them you can "wait and see what happens".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Qaianna wrote: Folks, let's not forget the question. The ACTUAL question is 'Must I make the second strike if the guy dies after the first?' The scenario is:
Monk - Foe1 - Foe2
Monk wants to flurry, step, strike.
First hit of flurry turns Foe1 into DebrisField.
Monk steps and strikes at Foe2.
The question is the multiple attack penalty for hitting Foe2: Did the second Flurry strike actually get thrown? If it did, then MAP is -10, as the player probably planned on had the first foe survived. If not, then -5 and yippee.
(Edit: Or -8 and -4, I built my first monk with Mountain stance so eh.)
The answer is that you don't roll the damage of the 1st strike, wait to see what happens, and then roll the 2nd attack.
You MUST combine the 2 sources of damage if they have the same target before resolving the damage.
So you actually have to roll the second attack before resolving the damage of the 1st.
So, if you target the same target, you can never have the result of "died from the 1st strike" since there is only one instance of damage for BOTH attacks.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My ruling on the matter at my table is that targets are declared as soon as whatever action/activity you decide to use is chosen. This is mostly to keep everyone honest and avoid any shenaniganery. So if a Monk decides to flurry, they designate immediately who is taking which attack then roll accordingly. Remember that you cannot normally interrupt your own action or activity in combat to perform a second action. So once that action is used, it must be finished in it's entirety.
As to whether or not the second attack "goes off" if the opponent dies before the second strike, yes. Flurry does not have any exception stating that you can avoid making that second attack, so it does go off and contributes to Multiple Attack Penalty as normal.
I see no reason to choose the less-favorable-to-the-player option between A) treating flurry as two independent Strikes, resolved one and then the other even if the damage is to be added together (which is achieved as simply as applying the resistance/weakness to the first Strike and then adding the difference caused by the second if it ends up having the same target), and B) locking the player into their guess as to how many Strikes from dead their target is, even though the character they are trying to portray probably has a much more accurate sense of that than the player does (since how much fight a creature has in it has many cues that the character can perceive but have only been vaguely described to the player at best).
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote: I see no reason to choose the less-favorable-to-the-player option between A) treating flurry as two independent Strikes, resolved one and then the other even if the damage is to be added together (which is achieved as simply as applying the resistance/weakness to the first Strike and then adding the difference caused by the second if it ends up having the same target), and B) locking the player into their guess as to how many Strikes from dead their target is, even though the character they are trying to portray probably has a much more accurate sense of that than the player does (since how much fight a creature has in it has many cues that the character can perceive but have only been vaguely described to the player at best). Thenobledrake has a very good argument. Regardless of the sequencing of "steps" in applying damage and determining results, I can see nothing to be gained by denying a player a strike at a second target within reach if his first strike takes down his first adversary. IMHO a DM should always prefer an interpretation that enhances player agency.
So let the player flurry to a second target within range, if there is one. If he has to move first, that's another story.
As a GM, I would let the extra MAP to not hit. Just to be nice, and so it doesn't feel weirdly punitive to me
Me as a rules/player, I assume its entirely determined by the Action, not the portions within an action.
Flurry is a 1 action move that has two strikes within it. I'd go with the 1 action incurring the MAPs regardless of actual hits- due to the preparation (spending the one action) to making the blows being what incurrs MAP. (whether he uses the second hit for someone else nearby, or doesn't strike anyone, and then takes the next 2 actions as normal)
Qaianna wrote: Folks, let's not forget the question. The ACTUAL question is 'Must I make the second strike if the guy dies after the first?' The scenario is:
Monk - Foe1 - Foe2
Monk wants to flurry, step, strike.
First hit of flurry turns Foe1 into DebrisField.
Monk steps and strikes at Foe2.
The question is the multiple attack penalty for hitting Foe2: Did the second Flurry strike actually get thrown? If it did, then MAP is -10, as the player probably planned on had the first foe survived. If not, then -5 and yippee.
(Edit: Or -8 and -4, I built my first monk with Mountain stance so eh.)
Quite right, let's answer the OP. The answer is...there is no answer in RAW.
All the rules for this game are contrived. This means that the rules are created specifically to effect outcomes. The rules are not a result of some natural process that is being codified.
What we really care about is whether the MAP penalty is advanced, regardless of whether the second attack occurs. In this situation, there is no specific or even implied answer from RAW. There's no logical process we can go through to determine the answer. It simply comes down to what Paizo wants to effectuate.
My ruling would be that NO, there is no advance of the MAP. Why? Because the PC/NPC isn't getting any benefit form having declared a Flurry where the second attack does not occur. Let's look at Flurry again:
Flurry p. 156 wrote: Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn. What advantage does the user of Flurry gain by declaring a Flurry that doesn't happen as compared to a normal Strike? None. So imposing a MAP penalty would be penalizing the player for guessing incorrectly about whether they needed to use a Flurry or a single strike. It'd be one thing if enemy data regarding hit points was available and an attacker could sacrifice actions to gain that info. But they can't. There is no trade-off a PC/NPC can make in terms of actions to know whether one or two attacks is necessary.
I don't perceive that PF2 is about rewarding guessing, so my opinion is that that if you do not make the second attack, then you don't Flurry and you don't impose a MAP penalty. Perhaps a tougher question is whether an aborted Flurry still counts as a Flourish maneuver. My guess is that most people would say yes because there's paradigm of having to indent to do something to get its benefit and that's coupled with a physical concept (non-RAW) of a Flurry requiring specific physical actions to achieve.
TL;DR - RAW doesn't answer the OP's question.
Yeah, you definitely can't abort the flurry midway and turn it into a regular attack. You picked an action with the flourish trait, which means you dedicated to not using a flourish elsewhere, regardless of that flourish's outcome. That said, I also wouldn't advance MAP.
I've been running flurry as targeting separately. Mostly because that's the way I originally read it. The reading of targeting first others have pointed out makes sense, and I would agree that reading would be most accurate to the rules for how attacks work, but as it doesn't add to my game I will keep playing the two separate attacks way until an FAQ or errata says it was intended to work the other way. Maybe if it's intended to be two separate attacks the way I read it, the wording could be changed to something like "if the second strike hits the same target as the first, it ignores weaknesses and resistances" or something like that, since people are getting hung up on the combining damage part.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: I like how you basically ignored all rules with the eloquent reason of "so what" and then called your opinion raw. I don't ignore RAW at all. I'm following the RAW and not concocting rules that don't exist to impose a house rule and backdoor nerf feats.
The rest of this is not directed at you and instead intended for people who are trying to figure this out for themselves and are new to Paizo.
1. The constructs and building blocks of PF2. Paizo didn't create the rules engine for PF1. For PF2, Paizo did some deliberate things to simplify the game. One of the most fundamental was to formalize and create core mechanics with constructs like Step, Stride, Strike, Interact, etc. This dramatically simplifies the game because once you know how to implement a Strike, then any feat or ability which calls upon a Strike is implemented the same way. This shortens the learning curve for players and GMs. We know Paizo used this approach because every attack feat used the "Strike" construct and the S is capitalized so we know the rules are talking about the specific construct/game term and not using a synonym for an attack.
In this situation, Flurry specially calls out two "Strikes." Paizo is telling us that the Strikes are going to be the same Strikes as any other Strike. We follow the same steps. Paizo is not inventing a special form of Strike, but referencing the existing construct.
2. Specific trumps general. This is a rules design approach used by Paizo (and others). It means that any specific exception supersedes a general rule. So if a Strike normally costs one Action, then as written, Flurry allows two Strikes for one Action. The specifics of Flurry supersede the general rule of a Strike.
In this case, Flurry has added an exception that is common to many combat feats:
Quote: If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Emphasis mine.
To understand how this modifies the Strike process, we need to look at Strike.
So per RAW, every strike chooses "one" target, checks AC, then determines damage.
Here's what the Damage rules say:
Damage p.450 wrote: In the midst of combat, you attempt checks to determine if you can damage your foe with weapons, spells, or alchemical concoctions. On a successful check, you hit and deal damage. That tells us for each successful Strike, the attack deals damage. So far, Flurry's exception of combine damage, has no impact. But Damage has several steps:
p.450 wrote: 1. Roll the dice indicated by the weapon, unarmed attack, or spell, and apply the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply to the result of the roll.
2. Determine the damage type.
3. Apply the target’s immunities, weaknesses, and resistances to the damage.
4. If any damage remains, reduce the target’s Hit Points by that amount.
Emphasis mine.
As you can see step 3 is the only step to which the Flurry exception applies. It doesn't apply to 1,2, or 4.
3. RAW means you do what the rule states.
What does Flurry say again, combine damage "for the purpose of weakness and resistance." Understanding that the combination of damage is ONLY applicable to determining the effect of "weakness and resistance" is critical. The only time you need to combine the damage is to determine how much the weaknesses and resistance reduce the damage. As the nobledrake correctly observes, there is no situation where implementing the attacks one at a time, gives you the wrong answer.
thenobledrake wrote: treating flurry as two independent Strikes, resolved one and then the other even if the damage is to be added together (which is achieved as simply as applying the resistance/weakness to the first Strike and then adding the difference caused by the second if it ends up having the same target) This method gives the correct outcome, 100% of the time. If resistances and weaknesses are never implemented as percentages, but as fixed amounts, then there is no requirement to determine all the damage before applying any of it.
To put it simply, to effectuate the Flurry exception, we do not need to roll all the attacks. Any requirement to do so would be a house rule. You roll and resolve each attack separately, except when determining the reduction based on resistance or weakness. As the subsequent attacks come in, you consider it part of the previous attacks only with regard to weakness and resistance.
4. Simple and straightforward One of Paizo's goal with PF2 is to simplify the game. That means they are going to leverage their own constructs. It is fully consistent with that objective that all the Feats/Abilities that use multiple "Strikes" intend for the players to treat all Strikes the same. Requiring a player to roll all attacks before rolling damage is totally inconsistent with any previous PF1 or concurrent Pf2 mechanics. Combining damage for the purpose of Resistance/Weakness is consistent with both PF1 and PF2. In PF2, this is very simply achieved as thenobledrake points out.
5. Paizo doesn't backdoor nerf. One of the traps I see a lot of players/GMs fall into is the backdoor nerf. This occurs when a person interprets the rules to impose a penalty that is not directly or indirectly stated. If Paizo wanted a Flurry (and every other attack that uses two "Strikes") to impose a substantive penalty of committing to your targets and rolling all attacks before any damage is rolled, then it would have been stated. Paizo would have specifically stated that you must designate ALL targets before attacking. This would be necessary because the rules call for two "Strkes' and a strike only requires you designated "one" target.
Declaring the intent to use something before attacking is a part of the game design, so Paizo knows how to make the requirement if intended. As thenobledrake recognizes, you can 100% effectuate the requirements of Flurry without requiring the player to choose all targets a priori. As such there is no reason why Paizo would fail to mention that requirement if it was intended.
This assumes a convoluted order of not resolving checks to allow multiple checks before calculating damage.
Damage specifically says that it resolves after the check:
Quote: In the midst of combat, you attempt checks to determine if you can damage your foe with weapons, spells, or alchemical concoctions. On a successful check, you hit and deal damage. So yes you have to resolve damage before the second check and you therefore must decide on the same target at the time of use of the ability.
I think it’s strange that people think a single action ability doesn’t have to resolve its conditions at the time of using it. No other ability in the game works like that.
As for should MAP apply, I haven’t done enough reading but you may not apply it if you’re not forced to make the check (not sure if there’s an explicit “you do not have to roll a check” rule or not) which should absolve you from being subject to MAP
Also, there’s is nothing to say you can’t drop a foe and then still strike them again if they’re “dying”, so the whole “it’s a waste” isn’t even necessarily true, just normally you should be allowed to not roll the check.
I wouldn’t apply MAP if I was the GM if the person forgoes making the second attack, but they most certainly can’t redirect the flurry mid turn.
That’s RAW. You do have to decide because that’s not how rolling damage works, the combining specifically occurs after both damage rolls are resolved which requires that both checks be completed already.
Midnightoker wrote: So yes you have to resolve damage before the second check and you therefore must decide on the same target at the time of use of the ability. Incorrect. There is nothing that requires this. There is nothing stated in Flurry or any other two Strike ability that says you must designate targets for both Strikes before rolling the first attack. In fact, ALL of these abilites specifically use "Strike" which quires identification of "one" target prior to the check.
You're imposing a rule that specifically contradicts the RAW of a Strike.
Quote: I think it’s strange that people think a single action ability doesn’t have to resolve its conditions at the time of using it. No other ability in the game works like that. What condition? There is no condition whatsoever that you have to pick all your targets for both Strikes. The only condition is that for "weaknesses and resistance" you combine the damage.
Quote: That’s RAW. You do have to decide because that’s not how rolling damage works, the combining specifically occurs after both damage rolls are resolved which requires that both checks be completed already. RAW doesn't say that. The combining occurs when you apply weakness and resistance, and that's it.
I tell you what. Give me situation where combining the damage before you apply weakness and resistance gives me a different answer than when doing it as thenobledrake says, and I'll concede the point.
If Paizo intended for these abilities to require you to pick all targets before the attack, they would have said it. These abilities would all state something like, "Choose your intended targets and then make the appropriate Strike.
Taking this statement:
Quote: If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses ...as Paizo intending to impose a requirement to designate both targets before any attacks are rolled, without them explicitly stating this, is illogical in the context of how Paizo writes their rules.
You will definitely waste your second attack.
It is an attack with the Flourish trait
Quote: Flourish actions are actions that require too much exertion to perform a large number in a row. You can use only 1 action with the flourish trait per turn So, the moment it starts, it executes the whole stuff.
If one hit is ok you waste the other.
K1 wrote: You will definitely waste your second attack.
It is an attack with the Flourish trait
Quote: Flourish actions are actions that require too much exertion to perform a large number in a row. You can use only 1 action with the flourish trait per turn So, the moment it starts, it executes the whole stuff.
If one hit is ok you waste the other.
The only implication of Flourish is that you can only use one per round. Per RAW, it says nothing about what happens to the second Strike, MAP, or anything else.
N N 959 wrote: K1 wrote: You will definitely waste your second attack.
It is an attack with the Flourish trait
Quote: Flourish actions are actions that require too much exertion to perform a large number in a row. You can use only 1 action with the flourish trait per turn So, the moment it starts, it executes the whole stuff.
If one hit is ok you waste the other.
The only implication of Flourish is that you can only use one per round. Per RAW, it says nothing about what happens to the second Strike, MAP, or anything else.
Indeed, but it describe Flourish moves as something wide, which requires too much exertion.
That's why the Flurry is not a strike but 2x. You can't interrupt part of the action.
Like Sudden Charge or shield of reckoning. Once you declare the flourish action you do the whole stuff.
K1 wrote: Indeed, but it describe Flourish moves as something wide, which requires too much exertion. There are Flourish maneuvers that involve a single Strike and don't impact MAP beyond that. So "exertion" doesn't impose MAP penalties.
Quote: That's why the Flurry is not a strike but 2x. You can't interrupt part of the action. Whether that's true or not, isn't clear from RAW. There are plenty of situations where a two part Flourish can fail to be executed. For example,
Skirmish Strike p.173 wrote: Your feet and weapon move in tandem. Either Step and then Strike, or Strike and then Step. What happens if there's a Hazard trigger that as soon as X dies, the player falls into a pit and can't Step? Are you going to make the person move through solid dirt? It should seem obvious that any Flourish can be interrupted for lack of purpose by changing conditions.
Quote: Like Sudden Charge or shield of reckoning. Once you declare the flourish action you do the whole stuff. So what happens if the player's first 5' triggers a Hazard and is instantly teleported away. Are you still going to give them their Strike against their target? Are you going to make them run the extra 20' or more off a cliff and swing? That would seem silly. If one Flourish can be interrupted, then so can them all.
Now, would it still count as a Flourish maneuver I'm inclined to say that if you complete any part of it, then probably. I don't think the game wants players to be able to declare a Flourish and then opt out of it if they can't complete it. But as of yet, I am unaware of any RAW that confirms or denies this.
I just noticed they don't have a FAQ button on threads anymore to flag down possible areas for clarification. I was going to flag this, since there's obviously some confusion.
In my opinion, to answer the OP's question about whether or not MAP applies, I think that if you only make 1 attack of the Flurry, and then the enemy goes down, then you should only count 1 attack towards MAP if you attack another target.
However, if you have to take an action to move so you can get in range of another target, then I think you should NOT get to make the 2nd attack in the Flurry, since the action used to Flurry has been resolved. I also think that the Flurry counts as the one Flourish action used per round.
So, a Monk could Flurry, drop an enemy on the first attack, and then move to another target to make an attack at -5 (-4 agile) as they've only made one attack in the round so far.
Whether or not this is RAW, I don't know, and I'm not interested in debating. I just think this is the most fair way to adjudicate the question with regard to player enjoyment and game balance.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Phntm888 wrote: So, a Monk could Flurry, drop an enemy on the first attack, and then move to another target to make an attack at -5 (-4 agile) as they've only made one attack in the round so far.
Whether or not this is RAW, I don't know, and I'm not interested in debating. I just think this is the most fair way to adjudicate the question with regard to player enjoyment and game balance.
IMHO that there is the bottom line, in case of unclear mechanics. It's fair to only impose one step of MAP if only one attack was made, just as allowing a second attack against a second opponent within reach is fair. Anything else is an unfair penalty on the player.
Midnightoker wrote: This assumes a convoluted order of not resolving checks to allow multiple checks before calculating damage.
Damage specifically says that it resolves after the check:
Quote: In the midst of combat, you attempt checks to determine if you can damage your foe with weapons, spells, or alchemical concoctions. On a successful check, you hit and deal damage. So yes you have to resolve damage before the second check and you therefore must decide on the same target at the time of use of the ability.
I think it’s strange that people think a single action ability doesn’t have to resolve its conditions at the time of using it. No other ability in the game works like that.
As for should MAP apply, I haven’t done enough reading but you may not apply it if you’re not forced to make the check (not sure if there’s an explicit “you do not have to roll a check” rule or not) which should absolve you from being subject to MAP
Also, there’s is nothing to say you can’t drop a foe and then still strike them again if they’re “dying”, so the whole “it’s a waste” isn’t even necessarily true, just normally you should be allowed to not roll the check.
I wouldn’t apply MAP if I was the GM if the person forgoes making the second attack, but they most certainly can’t redirect the flurry mid turn.
That’s RAW. You do have to decide because that’s not how rolling damage works, the combining specifically occurs after both damage rolls are resolved which requires that both checks be completed already.
it's not at ALL convulted.
it's specific trumps generic.
the general rule is damage is calculated as such:
1)roll damage
2)determine type
3)determine resistance/vulnerabilities
4)apply damage
Flurry SPECIFICALLY says to combine the damage before step 3.
So, no, RAW, you CANNOT "apply the damage because the generic rule says so" before rolling the damage for BOTH attacks, hence you need, by RAW to have rolled both attacks first.
Then roll their damage.
THEN apply it.
You cannot, possibly, "kill" something with "just the first attack". Flurry is ONE instance of damage (when targeting the same target with both attacks).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: Flurry is ONE instance of damage That's wrong. You combine the damage for the purposes of weaknesses and resistances, but you're still Striking twice. You only treat them as one damage source for that specific thing, because that's what the ability says you do.
Squiggit wrote: Quote: Flurry is ONE instance of damage That's wrong. You combine the damage for the purposes of weaknesses and resistances, but you're still Striking twice. You only treat them as one damage source for that specific thing, because that's what the ability says you do. That's wrong. So, in your opinion, you combine them at step 3 and split them again at step 4? how do you even split up the damage after you combined it?
that's simply imposible to do.
after you combine the damage, which is before you apply it, it is one source of damage.
if it's 1 or 2 or 45 strikes that lead to that damage is 100% irrelevant.
so yeah: 2 strikes but 1 damage.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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.
Squiggit wrote: 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. The ability says to "combine them" it never says to split them up again, that's purely your own opinion and can lead to uncalculatable damage. Those "purposes" are BEFORE you apply the damage.
again, explain to me, you roll 7 and 7, and the target has resistance 5.
how do you "split" the damage? 4.5 and 4.5?
what if the opponent choses to block? does he blocks 4.5 damage?
so yes, RAW it is 1 source of damage
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
The ability says to "combine them" it never says to split them up again.
It says to combine them for a specific purpose. Not treat them as one attack.
If you want to houserule it that way, that's fine, but the text says what it does.
Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
The ability says to "combine them" it never says to split them up again.
It says to combine them for a specific purpose. Not treat them as one attack.
If you want to houserule it that way, that's fine, but the text says what it does. i never said to treat it as 1 attack. i specifically said to treat it as 2 different strikes that lead to 1 source of damage. Or, to use actual game language: an single activity, compromising of 2 strikes, that does X damage.
that "purpose" is BEFORE you apply the damage.
the houserule is 100% you saying that you split it again.
Again, in a very common scenarion, your houserule implies that we need to have fractional HP and fractional Shield hardness.
shroudb wrote: The ability says to "combine them" it never says to split them up again, that's purely your own opinion and can lead to uncalculatable damage. Those "purposes" are BEFORE you apply the damage. No. It says to combine them for "weaknesses and resistances" It doesn't say any of the other stuff you're intimating.
Quote: again, explain to me, you roll 7 and 7, and the target has resistance 5. Very easy. The first attack is reduced to 2 points. The second attack does the full 7 because for "weakness and resistance" you combine the damage. So when you go to apply resistance for the second attack, you only apply what's left over from the first attack. It's very simple and straight forward.
The point of all these abilities is the second attack doesn't have to pay the resistance penalty of the first attack. Conversely you don't get double benefit from a Weakness, it's only applied once.
Quote: how do you "split" the damage? 4.5 and 4.5? ??? Why are you splitting the damage?
Quote: what if the opponent choses to block? does he blocks 4.5 damage? It depends on what attack he blocks. Does a Shield Block reduce your damage before you apply Resistances? If yes, then he's blocking 7 on both attacks. What's left over has to go through his Resistance.
Quote: so yes, RAW it is 1 source of damage ONLY when you are applying weaknesses and resistance, not for any other purpose, including reducing hit points. It's done this way because a "resistance" reduces the damage you do, per attack. The exception in Flurry means you only have to pay that resistance one time, that's the entire purpose of that exception. It's not written to make you choose your targets before you attack for both Strikes, nor is that necessary to effectuate the exception.
Qaianna wrote: Folks, let's not forget the question. The ACTUAL question is 'Must I make the second strike if the guy dies after the first?' The scenario is:
Monk - Foe1 - Foe2
Monk wants to flurry, step, strike.
First hit of flurry turns Foe1 into DebrisField.
Monk steps and strikes at Foe2.
The question is the multiple attack penalty for hitting Foe2: Did the second Flurry strike actually get thrown? If it did, then MAP is -10, as the player probably planned on had the first foe survived. If not, then -5 and yippee.
(Edit: Or -8 and -4, I built my first monk with Mountain stance so eh.)
The text of Flurry implies the second attack to be mandatory.
"make TWO unarmed attacks" ie, exactly two no more or less.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I think anybody who says you're forced to take the 2nd attack and progress the penalty are kind of overthinking things a bit.
N N 959 wrote: Incorrect. There is nothing that requires this. I literally quoted exact text that says that.
"On a successful check, you succeed and roll damage"
You roll the check, you roll damage, you roll second attack, you roll second damage.
It's not really a debate. Stating "incorrect" does not make it so.
Unless you are trying to argue that you can do things in whatever order you please despite when the book dictates orders of resolution.
The metric for success determination is Part 4 of resolving a check on the same section of the book. You cannot move on to your second check until you fully resolve the first, which for Attack Rolls specifically requires rolling damage on a success (part of resolving the success).
You can't resolve an attack roll without rolling damage.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
It's possible it's just poorly worded and doesn't actually account for the proper steps later on in the book.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Midnightoker wrote: N N 959 wrote: Incorrect. There is nothing that requires this. I literally quoted exact text that says that.
"On a successful check, you succeed and roll damage"
You roll the check, you roll damage, you roll second attack, you roll second damage. You've taken my response out of context. This is what you said,
Midnightoker wrote: So yes you have to resolve damage before the second check and you therefore must decide on the same target at the time of use of the ability. Emphasis mine, and that part is incorrect.
I don't need to "decide" anything when using Flurry differently from using a normal Strike. Each Strike is fully resolved before I pick the next target for my second Strike. If the second target is the same as the first, and if there are any resistances/weaknesses, then I only apply them to the combined damage.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: Midnightoker wrote: N N 959 wrote: Incorrect. There is nothing that requires this. I literally quoted exact text that says that.
"On a successful check, you succeed and roll damage"
You roll the check, you roll damage, you roll second attack, you roll second damage. You've taken my response out of context. This is what you said,
Midnightoker wrote: So yes you have to resolve damage before the second check and you therefore must decide on the same target at the time of use of the ability. Emphasis mine, and that part is incorrect.
I don't need to "decide" anything when using Flurry differently from using a normal Strike. Each Strike is fully resolved before I pick the next target for my second Strike. If the second target is the same as the first, and if there are any resistances/weaknesses, then I only apply them to the combined damage.
How do you combine them if the first strike is already resolved? That would seem to make them separate, which goes against the wording of the power.
Mellack wrote: How do you combine them if the first strike is already resolved? That would seem to make them separate, which goes against the wording of the power. Give me a bunch of examples and I'll show you.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
An Example of how a flurry of blows goes down at the table:
Player: "I'll start this turn with a flurry of blows using my +1 striking katar. First Strike against this skeletal champion.
*D20 gets rolled, some math is done*
"20 to hit?"
GM: "That's a hit, roll your damage."
*player rolls damage dice, does some math*
Player: "Looks like 10 piercing."
GM: "The strike lands true, but you know the lack of flesh and guts to pierce reduces the effectiveness."
*subtracts 5 HP because of piercing resistance 5*
Player: "Yeah, I know, dang skeletons. The second Strike is also going at the same skeletal champion."
*D20 gets rolled, some math is done*
"19 to hit?"
GM: "Yup."
Player: "So that's...
*rolls damage dice, does some math*
9 more piercing damage, and since this is from Flurry of Blows and both strikes hit the same target, that piercing resistance only applies once!"
*GM subtracts 9 more HP from the skeletal champion*
et voila, combining damage just like the ability says to do without changing anything else about the way in which Strikes are normally resolved.
Midnightoker,
Your idea of how Flurry of Blows should work requires quite a lot of logical deduction. It goes something like:
Damage is combined -> second attack damage must be rolled before first attack is resolved -> both attacks must be rolled at the same time -> targets of both attacks must be declared before any rolling is done
I'm not even talking about whether I agree these steps necessarily follow each other. Leaving that aside, that's a lot of logical steps to get from "combine damage" to "both attacks targeted at same time". Now, if that were the intention of Paizo when writing the rules, do you think they would have written it the way its currently written, or do you think they would instead say something like "Make two strikes simultaneously", which would capture the same idea?
(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).
BellyBeard wrote: (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). While I get what you're trying to say, the intention with such statements is to differentiate between people who are talking about what they think the rule intends versus what it actually says.
Quote: If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. That is the rule as it is written.
Quote: you therefore must decide on the same target at the time of use of the ability. This is not a rule that's written anywhere in the book.
But yes, if people say the latter and insist that's RAW, then it becomes meaningless.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I have literally no idea what you're trying to say I said but let me express my opinion more clearly:
- You do not apply damage rolls in whatever order you want. Damage occurs directly after a check as part of the success conditions.
- Resistance specifically says it applies every time damage is rolled. You roll damage after a check.
- Flurry of Blows says "If both attacks hit the same target, combine the damage for purposes of resistances and weaknesses", meaning the combination of said damage occurs after you resolve both checks.
- You must attack twice. The first condition of FoB states as much "You make two strikes."
- Strikes are separate checks, so this is two checks on one action.
- There is nothing that says you can avoid a check, but I, as a GM, would allow a monk to not roll a check (because logically, you can always choose not to do something) and therefore avoid MAP
- You cannot choose to make a FoB a strike, ever, because you chose FoB as your action.
- You can hit a downed foe with a FoB second strike, so therefore you do not waste an attack
When an action requires a target is up to the action. Strike does say at the time of the strike, so maybe it works, but you certainly do have to swing twice unless there's something explicitly stating "you do not ever have to make a check you do not want to" which is more or less implied but not explicitly stated.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote:
While I get what you're trying to say, the intention with such statements is to differentiate between people who are talking about what they think the rule intends versus what it actually says.
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.
Your interpretation boils down to the two separate strikes resolve completely independent of each other. It must ignore the fact that applying damage only occurs after the mandatory step of applying resistances. In essence, you retroactively combine the damage if both attacks hit, or apply it only to the first.
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. 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.
In both cases however, we are really using the rule on page 444: Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways... 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.
Personally, I find it cleaner and better to declare the targets of the activity when the activity is declared. 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.
The only two things 100% clear from the rules are: "Make two strike attacks", and "if both hit combine the damage before applying weaknesses and resistances". What we are really arguing over is how those requirements interact with other parts of the rules.
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.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32
