So, we all know the age old argument over how Fortuitous works.
Now let's shake it up a bit.
How does any form of interpretation of Fortuitous work in cooperation with Seize the Opportunity?
I imagine at the very least the first attack of opportunity on one target must be an actual attack of opportunity in order for Fortuitous to give the second.
If seize the Opportunity is used to replace the second AoO, would it remove the -5 since that -5 is part of the attack roll for the second AoO? The idea being Seize is changing the action from an AoO into a normal attack action?
The first AoO would have to be taken as an AoO to activate Fortuitous, since if you replace it with StO, you no longer make an AoO, you make an attack action.
I think the common interpretation of carrying over penalties would apply, even though here it’s unspoken.. it might not, and I can’t think of any official ruling on it. But generally when you change one attack to another (such as with certain style feats where you forego an iterative to attempt to parry with it), you typically carry your penalty with you.
It’s not the combat maneuvers that confuse on the penalty carryover, it’s that you’re trading a bonus attack of opportunity at -5 (via fortuitous) and you’re gaining a stand-alone attack action, instead of an AoO. I think the intent is to carry the -5, but this is a pretty unique feat (path of war feats, sigh) and nothing is specific written regarding carrying this penalty.
Honestly, it's a Path of War feat, so 3pp, which means that any discussion about mechanical balance is inherently moot. In fact, I am not even sure this is the right place to post this, as it might be off-topic.
We can argue either position, but at the end of the day we will have no way to come to a conclusive answer since we are comparing two different systems that are like apples and oranges: somehow similar but still totally different.
So yeah, either you use Fortuitous OR Seize the Moment but not both, or you indeed get an extra attack action at -5 penalty. Either way is complete speculation.
I think it has been appropriately argued. thank you guys.
I could probably try to appeal to a gm for my benefit (who wants a -5?) but it does seem clear the intent is for it to carry over because both are attacks even if one is an attack action and the other is an attack of opportunity.
as a side note, theres another path of war feat that cranks this combo up into 4 attacks from an attack of opportunity triggered, Insane.