Do the typical restrictions apply? Meaning would a barbarian need Titan Wrestler to grab a Huge creature? Or is it an automatic grab on any size creature?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My answer would be yes, the usual restrictions apply.
You grab your foe while it’s distracted by your attack. The
foe you hit becomes grabbed, as if you had succeeded at an
Athletics check to Grapple the foe.
The ability functions as if it were grab, which would include any restrictions of that action, unless the feat were to tell you that those restrictions do not apply. Which it does not.
|
My answer would be yes, the usual restrictions apply.
The ability functions as if it were grab, which would include any restrictions of that action, unless the feat were to tell you that those restrictions do not apply. Which it does not.You grab your foe while it’s distracted by your attack. The
foe you hit becomes grabbed, as if you had succeeded at an
Athletics check to Grapple the foe.
Does Furious Grab work after Flurry of Blows?
"Requirements Your last action was a successful Strike, and either you have a hand free or your Strike used a grapple weapon."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately Furious Grab would not work after Flurry of Blows.
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its
subordinate actions. For example, the quickened 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 used 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.
Since your last action was Flurry of Blows, and not "Strike" you couldn't use Furious Grab.
Unfortunately Furious Grab would not work after Flurry of Blows.
Since your last action was Flurry of Blows, and not "Strike" you couldn't use Furious Grab.Using an activity is not the same as using any of its
subordinate actions. For example, the quickened 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 used 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.
I would think yes provided your second attack under Flurry of Blows was a hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think yes provided your second attack under Flurry of Blows was a hit.Unfortunately Furious Grab would not work after Flurry of Blows.
Since your last action was Flurry of Blows, and not "Strike" you couldn't use Furious Grab.Using an activity is not the same as using any of its
subordinate actions. For example, the quickened 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 used 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.
I would argue that your last action wasn't a Strike, it was starting the Flurry of Blows activity, which includes 2 strikes. Those strikes are not themselves distinct actions, but sub-actions of the Flurry of Blows activity.
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions.
Since using an activity is not the same as using any of it's subordinate actions, you can't say that your last action was a successful Strike. See what I mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but....
The activity Flurry of Blows is an action.
It includes two subordinate actions Strike 1 and Strike 2
Both the activity and the actions are all actions.
Which is last? I'd say the last subordinate action - Strike 2.
The CRB is stating that an action inside an activity can not be used in another activity. Not that the subordinate actions have lost their property of being an action.
Furious Grab doesn't not contain that Strike action is merely a prerequisite for Furious Grab to occur.
The boundaries between activities are preserved. There is no crossing of the streams. That is what "Subordinate Actions" is about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but....
The activity Flurry of Blows is an action.
It includes two subordinate actions Strike 1 and Strike 2Both the activity and the actions are all actions.
Which is last? I'd say the last subordinate action - Strike 2.
The CRB is stating that an action inside an activity can not be used in another activity. Not that the subordinate actions have lost their property of being an action.
Furious Grab doesn't not contain that Strike action is merely a prerequisite for Furious Grab to occur.
The boundaries between activities are preserved. There is no crossing of the streams. That is what "Subordinate Actions" is about.
In my games it would work, because why not, but I'm pretty sure Beowulf is right here. If things like flurry of blows can't proc abilities that require your next action to be a strike (we know this is the case because the rules specifically call it out. See quote below), then it shouldn't be able to proc things in which your last action needs to be a strike either.
As another example, if you used 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.
I could see allowing it, but to me Flurry just doesn't satisfy the requirement of, "Your last action was a successful Strike," in good faith. Because your last action wasn't a strike, it was beginning Flurry of Blows. At least by my reckoning.
Basically I don't see Subordinate Actions as "counting" as actions. They are freebies more or less, and don't count as or against your Actions that you get every turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish that abilities that wanted you to make vanilla Strides and Strikes (such as Quickened from Haste, and possibly abilities like Furious Grab) would use Basic Strike and Basic Stride as the terminology. In a way, make Stride and Strike subordinates of actions named Basic Strike and Basic Stride - and make Stride and Strike "subordinate only" actions; i.e. no action cost by themselves, but a consequence of other actions.
Feel like that would reduce the number of these scenarios, and clear up things like quickened.
Basically I don't see Subordinate Actions as "counting" as actions. They are freebies more or less, and don't count as or against your Actions that you get every turn.
Totally get that.
They are two different things that they are calling actions here, without bothering to make a distinction.
I wish that abilities that wanted you to make vanilla Strides and Strikes (such as Quickened from Haste, and possibly abilities like Furious Grab) would use Basic Strike and Basic Stride as the terminology. In a way, make Stride and Strike subordinates of actions named Basic Strike and Basic Stride - and make Stride and Strike "subordinate only" actions; i.e. no action cost by themselves, but a consequence of other actions.
Feel like that would reduce the number of these scenarios, and clear up things like quickened.
As far as I can tell (maybe someone else on these forums will rip me apart for this, who knows), you can do exactly that. It is just a mental recatigorization that will have no mechanical effect, but might help you keep things straight.
Though you will probably want to add Step (subordinate only) and Basic Step (actual action) to the list.
But yeah, anything that is modifying Step, Stride, or Strike is modifying these subordinate actions that all these other actions (and many more) are using. Then Basic Step, Basic Stride, and Basic Strike are empty wrapper actions that just tell you to use the subordinate actions directly.
I wish that abilities that wanted you to make vanilla Strides and Strikes (such as Quickened from Haste, and possibly abilities like Furious Grab) would use Basic Strike and Basic Stride as the terminology. In a way, make Stride and Strike subordinates of actions named Basic Strike and Basic Stride - and make Stride and Strike "subordinate only" actions; i.e. no action cost by themselves, but a consequence of other actions.
Feel like that would reduce the number of these scenarios, and clear up things like quickened.
As far as I can tell (maybe someone else on these forums will rip me apart for this, who knows), you can do exactly that. It is just a mental recatigorization that will have no mechanical effect, but might help you keep things straight.
Though you will probably want to add Step (subordinate only) and Basic Step (actual action) to the list.
But yeah, anything that is modifying Step, Stride, or Strike is modifying these subordinate actions that all these other actions (and many more) are using. Then Basic Step, Basic Stride, and Basic Strike are empty wrapper actions that just tell you to use the subordinate actions directly.
Yeah sorry I agree that you could make that mental substitution for all basic actions, I just wished that abilities with action triggers or requirements referenced them as such. Would clear up questions like this and some similar questions regarding Tiger Stances improved Step distance.
Yeah sorry I agree that you could make that mental substitution for all basic actions, I just wished that abilities with action triggers or requirements referenced them as such. Would clear up questions like this and some similar questions regarding Tiger Stances improved Step distance.I wish that abilities that wanted you to make vanilla Strides and Strikes (such as Quickened from Haste, and possibly abilities like Furious Grab) would use Basic Strike and Basic Stride as the terminology. In a way, make Stride and Strike subordinates of actions named Basic Strike and Basic Stride - and make Stride and Strike "subordinate only" actions; i.e. no action cost by themselves, but a consequence of other actions.
Feel like that would reduce the number of these scenarios, and clear up things like quickened.
As far as I can tell (maybe someone else on these forums will rip me apart for this, who knows), you can do exactly that. It is just a mental recatigorization that will have no mechanical effect, but might help you keep things straight.
Though you will probably want to add Step (subordinate only) and Basic Step (actual action) to the list.
But yeah, anything that is modifying Step, Stride, or Strike is modifying these subordinate actions that all these other actions (and many more) are using. Then Basic Step, Basic Stride, and Basic Strike are empty wrapper actions that just tell you to use the subordinate actions directly.
I remembered the big example I was trying to recall (failed my Recall Knowledge check last night) which is Mobility and Stride. Does it only apply to basic Stride actions? Or any activity that includes a Stride? That's another one that would be explicitly clear if the rules had used a concept of basic Stride reference.
I wish that abilities that wanted you to make vanilla Strides and Strikes (such as Quickened from Haste, and possibly abilities like Furious Grab) would use Basic Strike and Basic Stride as the terminology. In a way, make Stride and Strike subordinates of actions named Basic Strike and Basic Stride - and make Stride and Strike "subordinate only" actions; i.e. no action cost by themselves, but a consequence of other actions.
Feel like that would reduce the number of these scenarios, and clear up things like quickened.
.
.
.I remembered the big example I was trying to recall (failed my Recall Knowledge check last night) which is Mobility and Stride. Does it only apply to basic Stride actions? Or any activity that includes a Stride? That's another one that would be explicitly clear if the rules had used a concept of basic Stride reference.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you literally just describing the rules around subordinate actions. Things that only affect the so-called basic actions you mentioned don't really exist. Actually, that's not true. They exist, but they're definitely clearly stated. True Hypercognition, for example, goes out of its way to say
You instantly use up to five Recall Knowledge actions. If you have any special abilities or free actions that would normally be triggered when you Recall Knowledge, you can’t use them for these actions.
There are also actions like Battle Medicine which isn't a treat wounds action to begin with, and therefore feats that have to be used with treat wounds can't be used for it (though, some go out of their way to say they work on both treat wounds and battle medicine). But other than that and other things like it that don't interact with the subordinate action rules at all everything just kind of works, which makes sense. If you get better at moving without opening yourself up to attacks I don't see why doing so becomes impossible just because that movement is tied to an activity.
That's not to say the question in this thread isn't worth clarifying, but it seems to be the only thing that this change would actually help clarify, so I'd rather just include it in the example for subordinate actions. They already have an example about the next action being the start of an activity with a subordinate action, but they apparently didn't make it clear enough whether or not that should apply if your previous action was a subordinate action that's part of an activity. I know how I'd run it, but I can understand others seeing it differently.
P.S.
To answer your question about mobility the answer is yes, it works. It's a passive effect that applies to all stride actions, and no concept of "basic stride actions" exists within the game.
I wish that abilities that wanted you to make vanilla Strides and Strikes (such as Quickened from Haste, and possibly abilities like Furious Grab) would use Basic Strike and Basic Stride as the terminology. In a way, make Stride and Strike subordinates of actions named Basic Strike and Basic Stride - and make Stride and Strike "subordinate only" actions; i.e. no action cost by themselves, but a consequence of other actions.
Feel like that would reduce the number of these scenarios, and clear up things like quickened.
.
.
.I remembered the big example I was trying to recall (failed my Recall Knowledge check last night) which is Mobility and Stride. Does it only apply to basic Stride actions? Or any activity that includes a Stride? That's another one that would be explicitly clear if the rules had used a concept of basic Stride reference.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you literally just describing the rules around subordinate actions. Things that only affect the so-called basic actions you mentioned don't really exist. Actually, that's not true. They exist, but they're definitely clearly stated. True Hypercognition, for example, goes out of its way to say
You instantly use up to five Recall Knowledge actions. If you have any special abilities or free actions that would normally be triggered when you Recall Knowledge, you can’t use them for these actions.There are also actions like Battle Medicine which isn't a treat wounds action to begin with, and therefore feats that have to be used with treat wounds can't be used for it (though, some go out of their way to say they work on both treat wounds and battle medicine). But other than that and other things like it that don't interact with the subordinate action rules at all everything just kind of works, which makes sense. If you get better at...
I agree with the ruling around Mobility, but in my game I would also allow a Furious Grab off the last Strike in a Flurry of Blows. But I have seen people state that Mobility only works on basic Strides. Here is an example thread about it Nimble Roll and Mobility.
Anywho, it's just a thought. I think it would add quite a bit of word count and is beyond the scope of any errata (since it would affect all books) so it isn't something that would see the light of day. It's probable that there would be the same end result with a bit more rules and example text around activities and subordinate actions.
I believe the important bit is order of operations. The relevant text from subordinate actions states "If the next action you take", opposed to just "When you Stride" for Mobility or "if your previous action".
Maybe I've been thinking too much at work, but I just think of them all as functions in a program (which could be completely wrong) and this way it would work. If you call Flurry of Blows, it calls Strike twice, which would make the last thing you did a Strike. If it calls Nimble Roll then that calls Stride, which doesn't really care about the order it just gets blanket modified when you grab the feat. But if you used an ability that said "if the next action you use is a Strike" then call Flurry of Blows, that's not going to work.
This is because of the rules on Activities.
It clearly states you're still using those actions, they just don't make you spend additional actions for them.Activities
An activity typically involves using multiple actions to create an effect greater than you can produce with a single action, or combining multiple single actions to
produce an effect that’s different from merely the sum of those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action. An activity might cause you to use specific actions within it. You don’t have to spend additional actions to perform them—they’re already factored into the activity’s required actions.
Yeah that tends to be how I think of it as well, but it seems valid to also think about the question of "last action" as "what did you spend your last action (as a resource) on". In the end, you also have to consider the spirit of the rules. If you Striked, which provoked a reaction from the opponent, which in turn triggered a Shield Block from yourself - would that disqualify you from using Furious Grab? Technically your last action was a reaction on Shield Block, but I think the spirit of the rule is maintained and you should be able to Furious Grab.
Alas, that gets into RAW vs RAI, which is a fully explored conversation and not worth going into again.Unfortunately we don't know the intent of how subordinate actions and activities interact with abilities like Furious Grab so it seems like a great FAQ candidate to me.
I believe the important bit is order of operations. The relevant text from subordinate actions states "If the next action you take", opposed to just "When you Stride" for Mobility or "if your previous action".
Maybe I've been thinking too much at work, but I just think of them all as functions in a program (which could be completely wrong) and this way it would work. If you call Flurry of Blows, it calls Strike twice, which would make the last thing you did a Strike. If it calls Nimble Roll then that calls Stride, which doesn't really care about the order it just gets blanket modified when you grab the feat. But if you used an ability that said "if the next action you use is a Strike" then call Flurry of Blows, that's not going to work.
This is because of the rules on Activities.
It clearly states you're still using those actions, they just don't make you spend additional actions for them.Activities
An activity typically involves using multiple actions to create an effect greater than you can produce with a single action, or combining multiple single actions to
produce an effect that’s different from merely the sum of those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action. An activity might cause you to use specific actions within it. You don’t have to spend additional actions to perform them—they’re already factored into the activity’s required actions.
The rules on activities also supports Not allowing Flurry of Blows to qualify for Furious Grab depending on how you read it. "An activity might cause you to use specific actions within it."
If the strikes are happening "within" Flurry of Blows, then when you go to Furious Grab and check what the last thing you did was, the answer is Flurry of Blows since the strikes happen "within" Flurry of Blows.
The other angle to look at is common parlance. If you ask a Monk player what the last action they took was, assuming they used Flurry of Blows, they are going to say Flurry of Blows, not Strike. I think this follows for pretty much every Activity, regardless of what subordinate actions they may or may not contain.
So if an enemy moves past me and I make an Attack of Opportunity, I cannot start my next turn with a Furious Grab?
Man, I hate it when the rules get in the way of fun common sense combos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules on activities also supports Not allowing Flurry of Blows to qualify for Furious Grab depending on how you read it. "An activity might cause you to use specific actions within it."If the strikes are happening "within" Flurry of Blows, then when you go to Furious Grab and check what the last thing you did was, the answer is Flurry of Blows since the strikes happen "within" Flurry of Blows.
That is a fine linguitic point. Sadly the sort of thing we are reduced to with unclear rules. Not quite sure its a knockout blow, because actions are indivisible - exactly what is between actions? Also you can easily consider which action was last started instead of which action was last finished. I guess we are supposed to work it out.
Where is this relevant? Animal barbarians maybe....
The other angle to look at is common parlance. If you ask a Monk player what the last action...
He may well respond with his last stike hit. Tha angle is not going to help.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if an enemy moves past me and I make an Attack of Opportunity, I cannot start my next turn with a Furious Grab?
Man, I hate it when the rules get in the way of fun common sense combos.
I'm pretty sure you couldn't do that anyways. Same way you can't "pre-load" metamagic. Each turn is treated as an entirely new thing.
FWIW, I/we use the Guntermench approach... basically a mathematic/programmatic review. That seems to both align with the rules and provide a consistent way to resolve edge cases. Have not had a munchkin problem with that approach as of yet, although I guess it's early days (have not been playing Pathfinder all that long).
Eh, is it really super imbalanced or broken? No, not really as far as I'm concerned. I am only arguing about how I think the rules should be interpreted.
I totally get the stance that the character did make a Strike. And you don't even have to multi-class to find situations where you have to make this kind of adjudication. Assume a Barbarian takes Sudden Charge and Furious Grab. Can they Sudden Charge into a Furious Grab? I say no, because their last "action" was a Sudden Charge. Does that mean that it's crazy to say that they could make that grab? Maybe.
I view Furious Grab as a "free lunch" feat that tacks onto the success of a previous attack. To me, it feels balanced around proccing off of a standard strike, rather than allowing said Barbarian to Stride twice, whack their foe and grab them all with 1 check (barring any checks caused by the strides that is).
YMMV I suppose.
That is a fine linguitic point. Sadly the sort of thing we are reduced to with unclear rules. Not quite sure its a knockout blow, because actions are indivisible - exactly what is between actions? Also you can easily consider which action was last started instead of which action was last finished. I guess we are supposed to work it out.
Where is this relevant? Animal barbarians maybe....
I mean, actions clearly aren't indivisible since they can be interrupted to a degree by reactions. Activities are the same, since a character can be AoO'd in the middle of an activity that contains Strides. My stance is that the Activity doesn't end until after each of it's subordinate actions end, meaning that it remains the "last action" you performed throughout.
He may well respond with his last stike hit. Tha angle is not going to help.
Nah, it's a weak argument, but I felt should be brought up. In my personal experience, I can't think of a time where someone spoke about an activity they performed without calling it that activity. Your experience may very well be different. Then again I'm sure I've had a player (probably drunk) just declare that they beat the tar out of such and such creature with their great monk fists.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So if an enemy moves past me and I make an Attack of Opportunity, I cannot start my next turn with a Furious Grab?
Man, I hate it when the rules get in the way of fun common sense combos.
but that makes sense? Unless your AoO stops them from moving you shouldn't be able to grab them from across the room.
If Furious Grab required a no-frills Strike to work, then it should have been a two-action activity. It's a pretty high level feat for what it gives you. Compare to Combat Grab, Fighter 2, though that is a Press that's a 10 level difference!
By 12th, a martial should be using attacks within larger activities, one would think. It seems odd that to use Furious Grab one would be forced into choosing a no-frills Strike without the ability calling that out...or simply linking them to begin with as mentioned above.
If Furious Grab required a no-frills Strike to work, then it should have been a two-action activity. It's a pretty high level feat for what it gives you. Compare to Combat Grab, Fighter 2, though that is a Press that's a 10 level difference!
By 12th, a martial should be using attacks within larger activities, one would think. It seems odd that to use Furious Grab one would be forced into choosing a no-frills Strike without the ability calling that out...or simply linking them to begin with as mentioned above.
To be fair, it is better than a 2 action activity because it doesn't use the second action if you miss on the initial Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Each turn is treated as an entirely new thing.
Since when? I've not seen that rule before.
I call nonsense. Time is continuous!
If Furious Grab required a no-frills Strike to work, then it should have been a two-action activity. It's a pretty high level feat for what it gives you. Compare to Combat Grab, Fighter 2, though that is a Press that's a 10 level difference!
By 12th, a martial should be using attacks within larger activities, one would think. It seems odd that to use Furious Grab one would be forced into choosing a no-frills Strike without the ability calling that out...or simply linking them to begin with as mentioned above.
I mean, it gives you a lot. Provided you hit an enemy, likely with your First attack in a given round, you get to automatically succeed at a grab. May be corner case, but if the opponent has a higher Fort save than AC, this could matter quite a bit, and even if not, it stops you from having to choose between grabbing a foe and striking them without MAP.
I mean, this is a feat that mimics a Monster Ability (grab) that is pretty strong imo. Anything that lets you automatically succeed at anything, even if there are caveats or requirements, is pretty strong.
Then you have to factor in the existence of things like Brutal Bully or Thrash that just add on to what your Furious Grab can do. I mean, sure just dealing your STR in damage to a foe doesn't feel all that good. But it's automatic damage, no roll required in this case since your Grab is automatically successful (contingent on a successful strike).
And Barbarians don't really have all that many options for no frills strikes to be honest. Power Attack and Swipe maybe. But generally I've never known a character to NEVER use basic Strikes. They are just the standard bread and butter imo.
Actually that brings up another interesting rules quaffle. Suppose a Barbarian uses Swipe. Assuming you allow Furious Grab to proc from "non-basic" strikes, does this mean that any creature within your Swipe range could be grabbed with Furious Grab? Or one particular creature?
Or how about this idea from a previous thread regarding Simultaneous actions: Which strike from Flurry of Blows was your Last strike? You add the damage together before applying weaknesses and resistances, so the damage at least is simultaneous. Assuming you hit once and missed once, was your "last action" a successful strike or not? What determines which strike was your "last" one?
Food for thought. I'm not 100% convinced one way or the other at this point, I just err on the side of not letting abilities and feats pile into each other in ways that aren't pretty clearly allowed by the text.
I could see allowing it, but to me Flurry just doesn't satisfy the requirement of, "Your last action was a successful Strike," in good faith. Because your last action wasn't a strike, it was beginning Flurry of Blows. At least by my reckoning.
Basically I don't see Subordinate Actions as "counting" as actions. They are freebies more or less, and don't count as or against your Actions that you get every turn.
This is an issue I made a thread about way back when. There's no real conclusive ruling that came out of it, but for me, even though I would have agreed with your ruling from the rules text alone, the examples I cite from the Bestiary (among others) have convinced me that the restriction concerning subordinate actions is not meant to be quite as tight as it seems on a first reading.
@painted_green
Hmm, an interesting point. Improved grab, improved knockdown, etc. aren't really relevant to this thread, as those trigger regardless, but the Kraken is an interesting counterpoint to the idea that your last action was finishing up the activity and not the last strike in said activity.
I still don't think it's conclusive, nor will the wording of a specific enemy ever convince me 100% about the ability as a whole. But, the fact that it seems to be assumed to be possible elsewhere, even if rarely, is pretty big IMO.
This is an issue I made a thread about way back when. There's no real conclusive ruling that came out of it, but for me, even though I would have agreed with your ruling from the rules text alone, the examples I cite from the Bestiary (among others) have convinced me that the restriction concerning subordinate actions is not meant to be quite as tight as it seems on a first reading.I could see allowing it, but to me Flurry just doesn't satisfy the requirement of, "Your last action was a successful Strike," in good faith. Because your last action wasn't a strike, it was beginning Flurry of Blows. At least by my reckoning.
Basically I don't see Subordinate Actions as "counting" as actions. They are freebies more or less, and don't count as or against your Actions that you get every turn.
Care to cite some examples? EDIT: Never mind. There are plenty in the linked thread.
This is an issue I made a thread about way back when. There's no real conclusive ruling that came out of it, but for me, even though I would have agreed with your ruling from the rules text alone, the examples I cite from the Bestiary (among others) have convinced me that the restriction concerning subordinate actions is not meant to be quite as tight as it seems on a first reading.I could see allowing it, but to me Flurry just doesn't satisfy the requirement of, "Your last action was a successful Strike," in good faith. Because your last action wasn't a strike, it was beginning Flurry of Blows. At least by my reckoning.
Basically I don't see Subordinate Actions as "counting" as actions. They are freebies more or less, and don't count as or against your Actions that you get every turn.
That is a fair point, and a good catch. My rebuttal would be that in the first two examples, the Roc and the Kraken specifically, each of those situations involve monster abilities that are a part of the given attacks profile. When reading a Roc's Wing attack Plus Push is a part of the attack itself, rather than a separate ability on the stat block, so would naturally apply in any situation where a Roc makes a Wing attack.
Furious Grab on the other hand is a separate feat with requirements that is itself an action not directly tied to an attack. An argument could be made that Plus Grab or Plus Push are similar to feats and are their own actions I suppose. But the situation is not 1/1 imo.
And this would not be the first example of how the rules treat NPCs slightly different from PCs.
This is an issue I made a thread about way back when. There's no real conclusive ruling that came out of it, but for me, even though I would have agreed with your ruling from the rules text alone, the examples I cite from the Bestiary (among others) have convinced me that the restriction concerning subordinate actions is not meant to be quite as tight as it seems on a first reading.I could see allowing it, but to me Flurry just doesn't satisfy the requirement of, "Your last action was a successful Strike," in good faith. Because your last action wasn't a strike, it was beginning Flurry of Blows. At least by my reckoning.
Basically I don't see Subordinate Actions as "counting" as actions. They are freebies more or less, and don't count as or against your Actions that you get every turn.
It makes me believe that there are multiple authors to the rules and they have some minor conceptual differences.
It makes me believe that there are multiple authors to the rules and they have some minor conceptual differences.This is an issue I made a thread about way back when. There's no real conclusive ruling that came out of it, but for me, even though I would have agreed with your ruling from the rules text alone, the examples I cite from the Bestiary (among others) have convinced me that the restriction concerning subordinate actions is not meant to be quite as tight as it seems on a first reading.I could see allowing it, but to me Flurry just doesn't satisfy the requirement of, "Your last action was a successful Strike," in good faith. Because your last action wasn't a strike, it was beginning Flurry of Blows. At least by my reckoning.
Basically I don't see Subordinate Actions as "counting" as actions. They are freebies more or less, and don't count as or against your Actions that you get every turn.
Indeed.
Question, after I Suplex someone can I Furious Grab them?
I love necro'ing my own threads years later.
Question, after I Suplex someone can I Furious Grab them?
Depends on how 'your last action' is defined by your GM.
The last action you used was Suplex - not Strike. Strike is only a Subordinate action of Suplex.
It is similar to how you can't use metamagic spellshape on Spellstrike. The next action you use is Spellstrike even though the first subordinate action of Spellstrike is to cast a spell.
It is similar to how you can't usemetamagicspellshape on Spellstrike. The next action you use is Spellstrike even though the first subordinate action of Spellstrike is to cast a spell.
I think it's a little misleading to conflate next action and last action abilities.
"Next action" abilities clearly don't work because you have to activate the activity in question before you can get to the subordinate action, the interposing activity is clear and obvious.
With 'last action' abilities, the structure is not the same at all, you have to analyze the action structure differently to reach the correct conclusion.
I don't think you're wrong on the rules, but the explanation misses why this might be ambiguous and confusing for some people by conflating it with a separate thing entirely.
Question, after I Suplex someone can I Furious Grab them?
I love necro'ing my own threads years later.
Definite maybe. There is a clear rules argument either way. Depends on your GM style.
Some are more flexible and enabling and will say "yes, its near enough and not unbalanced (the last action you did was a Strike as part of the Suplex activity)".
Others are going to say "no, technically Suplex was your last action not Strike".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Make an unarmed melee Strike against the creature you have grabbed or restrained". It literally says "Make an unarmed Melee strike". For Furious Grab the requirement says "Your last action was a successful Strike".
Devs are probably reading this like "how clearly do we have to write this for these guys to get the idea...."
The hardcores may even say it says "Your last action was a successful Strike, not an Unarmed Strike!"
Basically I don't see Subordinate Actions as "counting" as actions. They are freebies more or less, and don't count as or against your Actions that you get every turn.
So do you think abilities that trigger "when you strike" or change "your strikes" don't work for subordinate actions?
I don't think you're wrong on the rules, but the explanation misses why this might be ambiguous and confusing for some people by conflating it with a separate thing entirely.
To explain better:
I don't think that 'next action is...' and 'previous action was...' are meant to be handled differently.
'next action is...' abilities are pretty much universally ruled to not work with activities that have the required action as the first subordinate action of the activity. Such as Spellshape feats and Spellstrike.
So 'previous action was...' abilities should work the same way. It shouldn't be able to look at the last subordinate action of an activity to qualify for the action. But that is a lot less universal of a ruling.
-----
For a hypothetical example to illustrate: Consider two hypothetical feats. Both are free actions. One has the requirement 'your next action is Stride' and one has 'your previous action was Stride'. Call the first one "Premove" and the second one "Aftermove" just so that they are easier to identify.
Ideally, the difference would be what position the character is in when they take the free action from the Feat. In the case of Premove, it would happen at the character's location before the Stride action. In the case of Aftermove, it would happen at the character's new location.
However, then we look at how people are ruling these actions that have action requirements.
In the case of Premove, it doesn't work with anything other than Stride. You couldn't use Premove, then Sudden Charge. Or Premove then Sneak.
But for some unknown reason, there are a lot of people who - in addition to having the free action of Aftermove happen at the new location after the Stride - would allow it to be used after Sneak or after Light Paws (but only if you Step first and then Stride second).
For a hypothetical example to illustrate: Consider two hypothetical feats. Both are free actions. One has the requirement 'your next action is Stride' and one has 'your previous action was Stride'. Call the first one "Premove" and the second one "Aftermove" just so that they are easier to identify.
Ideally, the difference would be what position the character is in when they take the free action from the Feat. In the case of Premove, it would happen at the character's location before the Stride action. In the case of Aftermove, it would happen at the character's new location.
However, then we look at how people are ruling these actions that have action requirements.
In the case of Premove, it doesn't work with anything other than Stride. You couldn't use Premove, then Sudden Charge. Or Premove then Sneak.
But for some unknown reason, there are a lot of people who - in addition to having the free action of Aftermove happen at the new location after the Stride - would allow it to be used after Sneak or after Light Paws (but only if you Step first and then Stride second).
I don't think it's odd at all. Premove is more restrictive than aftermove. Yes. That's true. It's also the case that premove and aftermove are pretty much invariably going to be used in different ways. Premove is almost always going to function as a sort of metamagic effect for the stride you are about to do. It's thus important that you not have any other metamagics firing at the same time. Aftermove, in this system, would almost invariably have some other requirement. It's not "your previous action was a strike", it's "your previous action was a successful strike" or "your previous action was a strike that achieved critical success". So in this case it would be something like "your previous move was a stride that ended adjacent to an enemy" or similar. Premove actions are pretty much all about augmenting the action in some way. Aftermove actions are pretty much all about taking advantage of some situation that the preceding action set up. They are not the same.
I mean, let's look at quick draw. You take the following actions:
- You choose to take the Quick Draw action
- Quick Draw causes you to take an interact action
- Quick Draw causes you to take a strike action
At this point, your most recent action was a strike action.
It seems pretty straightforward to me.
I don't think it's odd at all. Premove is more restrictive than aftermove. Yes. That's true.
Why?
That's my point. Why is Premove more restrictive than Aftermove? Inherently. Without knowing anything else about those actions.
Why is it simply that checking if your next action is... is more restrictive than checking if your previous action is...?
I'm not seeing anything in that list of example actions that you listed that answers that question. Why is a feat that "Your previous action was a successful Strike" is allowed to be used with Sudden Charge, when a feat that "Your next action is Stride" isn't allowed to be used with Sudden Charge?