I've come across this issue some times already, and i don't have a clear answer to that (outside of saying "because i said so")
Do you have to declare the targets of your Flurry attacks before both attack rolls, or can you roll the first Strike, see if it hits or not, and then declare the second target?
Same thing with Flurry of Maneuvers:
Can you declare the first flurry attack a Grapple (as an example), see if it lands or not, and then decide what the second attack will be?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Do you have to declare the targets of your Flurry attacks before both attack rolls, or can you roll the first Strike, see if it hits or not, and then declare the second target? The latter.
Flurry tells you to make two Strike actions. The Simultaneous Actions rule (see quote) tells us you must complete an action before starting the following one, even when using Activites that unite multiple actions (such as Flurry of Blows), and the rules for Strike tells us that both choosing the target and rolling are a part of the Strike action itself, meaning that both must be done before the action is considered complete, allowing you to move on to the second Strike, which obviously follows the same rule.
Simultaneous Actions Rule wrote: You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn’t have a trigger at a time. You must complete one before beginning another. For example, the Sudden Charge activity states you must Stride twice and then Strike, so you couldn’t use an Interact action to open a door in the middle of the movement, nor could you perform part of the move, make your attack, and then finish the move.
Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.
Strike 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. Flurry of Blows does not contain any specific language that would override the general rule on simultaneous actions, so the general rule of resolving each action fully before the following action still stands. Same thing for Flurry of Maneuvers.
No, there's nothing in the rules that mandates pre-declaring your targets for attacks. They resolve one at a time, so you can target them one at a time.
So far I've allowed my players to do so, but the Simultaneous Actions rule actually kinda clashes with Flurry because by design, You cannot fully complete the 1st Strike before doing the second since you need to combine the damage before resolving it. So, at the very least, you go up to step 2 on the "dealing damage phase" and then do the 2nd Strike, and then do a combined Step 3+4 for both of the Strikes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: So far I've allowed my players to do so, but the Simultaneous Actions rule actually kinda clashes with Flurry because by design, You cannot fully complete the 1st Strike before doing the second since you need to combine the damage before resolving it. So, at the very least, you go up to step 2 on the "dealing damage phase" and then do the 2nd Strike, and then do a combined Step 3+4 for both of the Strikes. I see your point, but I think the Simultaneous Actions rule still stands, and the only part overriden is the damage step. If the targeting step was intended to be modified, there would be wording indicating that, much like how there is for Activities like Double Slice or Twin Takedown.
I agree that simultaneous action rule still stands.
You fully resolve the first attack in the flurry, including subtracting resistance if any applies and adding weakness if that applies.
Then when you move on to resolve the second attack, if you pick the same target and hit you then adjust the damage total to be appropriate for having added the two together. Because only explicit changes are actual exceptions to general rules, and flurry doesn't explicitly override that you don't have to select your second target until after the first Strike is completed.
shroudb wrote: So far I've allowed my players to do so, but the Simultaneous Actions rule actually kinda clashes with Flurry because by design, You cannot fully complete the 1st Strike before doing the second since you need to combine the damage before resolving it. So, at the very least, you go up to step 2 on the "dealing damage phase" and then do the 2nd Strike, and then do a combined Step 3+4 for both of the Strikes. You should expect GM variation because of this portion.
I have both players and monster declare their targets when they declare the action or activity because they cannot be resolved completely one at time.
RAW there isn't actually a way to resolve both the proper order of two strikes and combining the damage before the strikes resolve.
Damage is applied after resistances/weakness are applied. Flurry specifically calls out to combined them before resistances are applied. Make two strikes specifically allows you to do them one at a time.
You have to violate a rule somewhere, and some GMs retroactively combine the damage as Noble Drake does. I combine the declarations, and resolve them together.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: You should expect GM variation because of this portion.
I have both players and monster declare their targets when they declare the action or activity because they cannot be resolved completely one at time.
Would you let them change their target if it's dead/downed before the Strike allocated to it is made? If not it seems like a fairly big mechanical disadvantage compared to the other way.
Thezzaruz wrote: Jared Walter 356 wrote: You should expect GM variation because of this portion.
I have both players and monster declare their targets when they declare the action or activity because they cannot be resolved completely one at time.
Would you let them change their target if it's dead/downed before the Strike allocated to it is made? If not it seems like a fairly big mechanical disadvantage compared to the other way. Damage is combined for the purposes of damage resistance or weakness. Damage resistance is applied before damage is resolved. Therefore this never happens, as no damage is resolved from the first strike until the second also resolves.
As I said, you either have to violate this order of damage resolution or the targeting strike order.
I run it this way for all multi-attack options, and it is cleaner in my mind than retroactively combining damage. Though I do recognize the mechanical disadvantage, it applies evenly to all characters and monsters.
It also avoids some of the other problematic implications of MAP after declaring a flurry and actually dropping your only valid target in a single strike.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: Damage is combined for the purposes of damage resistance or weakness. Damage resistance is applied before damage is resolved. Therefore this never happens, as no damage is resolved from the first strike until the second also resolves. That is false.
The damage from the first Strike is fully resolved. If the second Strike hits, then you modify the second Strike based on whatever resistance or weakness would apply.
Quote: As I said, you either have to violate this order of damage resolution or the targeting strike order. No, you don't have to violate anything to compute damage. The first Strike is never modified. It is only the second Strike which is modified based on the first.
This discussion came up before and someone tried to use the same reasoning and it was no more correct then than it is now.
Quote: I run it this way for all multi-attack options, and it is cleaner in my mind than retroactively combining damage. No, it's not cleaner in any objective sense. All you do is determine what Ressistance or Weakness applies to the second Strike (if any).
Quote: It also avoids some of the other problematic implications of MAP after declaring a flurry and actually dropping your only valid target in a single strike. This was also discussed previously. I am not sure if there is anything in the rules that say you avoid the MAP penalties if you cannot physically make the second attack, though I don't think it is unreasonably for a GM to allow it in specific situations.
The other question is whether someone can voluntarily stop attacking after the first Strike. I would think the answer has to be yes, and the compromise is that your MAP still progresses..
N N 959 wrote: That is false.
Yeah, I've heard these arguments before, and still disagree with your interpretation as you disagree with mine. I have no interest in rehashing this.
You are not fully following combining the damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses which as written happens before hit points are reduced.
I am still not following resolve one strike then the other.
As I said at the beginning expect GM variance.
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
You are not fully following combining the damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses which as written happens before hit points are reduced. Yes, I am. You're simply inventing complications to justify doing something that is wholly unnecessary. The rules are 100% satisfied by applying any Resistance and Weakness outcomes to the second Strike. 100%. The rules are NOT telling you to combine damage to resolve the first Strike.
There are number of feats that use this tactic and none of them are intended to create some unresolved state of the first Strike.
I actually won't expect table variation on this.
I was thinking that too, but if the second attack does less damage than the target's resistance, the remaining resistance wouldn't apply to the first attack like it's supposed to, so the attack would do more damage than it should that way.
But it's really not a big deal if they're combined a bit out of order. If the first attack would be enough, just let them know and let them change targets if desired, it's silly and potentially life-threatening to make a trained martial artist keep pummeling an unconscious enemy (or corpse).
Alfa/Polaris wrote: I was thinking that too, but if the second attack does less damage than the target's resistance, the remaining resistance wouldn't apply to the first attack like it's supposed to, so the attack would do more damage than it should that way. That doesn't make sense. You apply all the resistance to the first Strike and if there is any left over Resistance, its subtracted from the second Strike as well. So if R=10 and D1=5 and D2 = 4, then no damage gets through on either Strike.
Not sure I can follow your logic. Perhaps you can use an example using numbers?
Quote: it's silly and potentially life-threatening to make a trained martial artist keep pummeling an unconscious enemy (or corpse). Perhaps, perhaps not.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: Alfa/Polaris wrote: I was thinking that too, but if the second attack does less damage than the target's resistance, the remaining resistance wouldn't apply to the first attack like it's supposed to, so the attack would do more damage than it should that way. That doesn't make sense. You apply all the resistance to the first Strike and if there is any left over Resistance, its subtracted from the second Strike as well. So if R=10 and D1=5 and D2 = 4, then no damage gets through on either Strike.
Not sure I can follow your logic. Perhaps you can use an example using numbers?
Quote: it's silly and potentially life-threatening to make a trained martial artist keep pummeling an unconscious enemy (or corpse). Perhaps, perhaps not.
yeah, but to do so you invenet new rules that dont exist.
Once damage is applied and an attack resolved, there's no "backtracking and reducing the damage" that's something that you do arbitrary.
I do agree, that as written you have to violate the simultaneous actions one way or another, and the GM is the one who gets to decide which way he violates said rule.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: Yeah, I've heard these arguments before, and still disagree with your interpretation as you disagree with mine. I have no interest in rehashing this. Don’t be surprised when a few people in here take their typical “I know better than you” position and refuse to accept an opinion different then theirs as valid.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: I actually won't expect table variation on this. Then expect to be disappointed
shroudb wrote: Once damage is applied and an attack resolved, there's no "backtracking and reducing the damage" that's something that you do arbitrary. There is no "backtracking and reducing damage" in following the rules. Nothing modifies the first Strike that hits.
Quote: I do agree, that as written you have to violate the simultaneous actions one way or another, and the GM is the one who gets to decide which way he violates said rule. Suggesting that there is a rules violation would mean that Paizo, themselves, wrote the rules to be in conflict, despite them specifically contemplating the rules in effect.
A more likely outcomes is that there is no rules violation and anyone who sees one isn't actually understanding what the rules require.
TwilightKnight wrote: Jared Walter 356 wrote: Yeah, I've heard these arguments before, and still disagree with your interpretation as you disagree with mine. I have no interest in rehashing this. Don’t be surprised when a few people in here take their typical “I know better than you” position and refuse to accept an opinion different then theirs as valid. Ah yes. If someone can insist the different interpretations are "opinions" then we can insist nobody is wrong.
This is isn't a matter of opinion.
Quote: Then expect to be disappointed As someone who plays two Rangers in PFS, whose base attacks use this rule, when I run into a GM who reads the rule this way, it will be the first.
EDIT: In this post, I am only talking about whether you can fully resolve one Strike before moving to the next for abilities like FoB, TT, HS. I have not been commenting on declaring targets ahead of time.
shroudb wrote: Do you have to declare the targets of your Flurry attacks before both attack rolls, or can you roll the first Strike, see if it hits or not, and then declare the second target?
My discourse so far has not actually been about the OP's question. Let me attempt to answer it.
Flurry of Blows p. 156 wrote: If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. The "If" clearly indicates that both attacks can hit different creatures. As you can fully resolve the first Strike before moving to the second Strike, I see no reason why you are obligated to declare the target of both attacks prior to rolling the first. That is my opinion as I haven't seen rules that explicitly cover this, or, I read it and haven't processed it as deciding the matter definitively.
N N 959 wrote: shroudb wrote: Once damage is applied and an attack resolved, there's no "backtracking and reducing the damage" that's something that you do arbitrary. There is no "backtracking and reducing damage" in following the rules. Nothing modifies the first Strike that hits.
Quote: I do agree, that as written you have to violate the simultaneous actions one way or another, and the GM is the one who gets to decide which way he violates said rule. Suggesting that there is a rules violation would mean that Paizo, themselves, wrote the rules to be in conflict, despite them specifically contemplating the rules in effect.
A more likely outcomes is that there is no rules violation and anyone who sees one isn't actually understanding what the rules require.
The damage, RAW, is calculated simultaneously on both hits.
Doing the damage of the 1st strike, and then backtracking and reducing it if there's resistance on the second strike, is something that's simply not RAW.
You can't simultaneously say "i follow the rules" and "i also go back and change the damage of the 1st strike"
one way or another, Simultaneous actions rule is getting broken here.
You can break it by backtracking (that's what i also do) but that doesnt mean that the other interpetation isnt valid.
shroudb wrote: The damage, RAW, is calculated simultaneously on both hits. No, it isn't. FoB says you make "Make two unarmed Strikes." Full stop. By using that phrasing, we know the damage is specifically not simultaneous. In addition, the rules regarding these attacks clearly indicate that they can attack two different creatures. Nothing says they are simultaneous. Even the Ranger versions use "quickly" and "swiftly" which implicitly tells us that the attacks happen sequentially.
As stated, the entire damage for the first Strike is unaffected by the second Strike.
Quote: Doing the damage of the 1st strike, and then backtracking and reducing it if there's resistance on the second strike, is something that's simply not RAW. Please explain to me how there can be Resistance on a second Strike that retroactively applies to the first Strike?
Maybe there is some rule or ability or type of Resistance that I am unaware of?
EDIT:
There could be an argument made that if the second Strike punches through the Resistance, then any riders on the first Strike apply. However, since the rules say you're only combining damage for the purpose of Resistance, and not anything else, if the first Strike doesn't clear Resistance, then nothing gets through from the first Strike.
In other words, the you only get to use damage from the first Strike to see if any Resistance applies to the second Strike (or if you miss with the first Strike, if you apply Weakness to the second Strike).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
FOB has two keys points: see CR156.
1) Make 2 strikes
2) If they hit the same target, combine the damage for the purposes of damage resistance and weakness.
Damage resolution has 4 steps: see CR 450-453
1: Roll the damage dice and apply modifiers, bonuses and penalties
2: Determine the Damage Type
3: Apply target's immunities weakness and resistances
4: If damage remains, reduce the target's hit points.
Simultaneous action (quoted above):
..You must complete one before beginning another..
See also Ambiguous rules CR 444 sidebar
"Sometimes a rule could be interpreted in multiple ways...work with your group to find a good solution..."
a couple definitions from Webster:
combine: "merge" "bring together"
The only case with issues is when both Fob hits the same target.
FOB #2 has a direct effect on step 3 of damage resolution. Which RAW always applies before hit points are reduced. Anything other than combing the damage is ignoring the combined damage point of Fob#2, or the damage resolution order.
example case:
monk FOB and hits the target twice against a creature with DR 5.
Method 1: "3 + 8" ok 11 reduces by the damage reduction of 5 loses 6 HP.
Method 2: 3 damage reduced by 5 does go through. Ok second attack, 8 damage ok he had 2 leftover damage reduction so that does 6.
Method 1 is actually combining the damage, but not following the sequential action guidelines.
Method 2 is following the sequential action guidelines, but is retroactively doing math to have the same net effect for damage, but it is not actually combining the damage during the step 3 of damage resolution.
Both methods are perfectly valid per the guidelines on pg 444.
Method 1 has one math step of addition and one of subtraction with no variables to be tracked. Method 2 has two instances of addition and two of subtraction and an additional variable (remaining damage reduction). Method #1 is objectively cleaner.
With 4 of the 6 posters recognizing the rule conflict and Piazo specifically putting "just in case" language in the rule book, it is very conceivable that they expected some things might not have been as clear as they intended.
I won't fault others for retroactive damage resolution, as it is a very reasonable solution. In my mind however, the combining effect specific to FOB overrides the more general simultaneous action process.
N N 959 wrote: Ah yes. If someone can insist the different interpretations are "opinions" then we can insist nobody is wrong.
This is isn't a matter of opinion.
Which is the position most know it all rules lawyers take when they think their interpretation is the only possible one and want to dismiss any other "opinion."
I wonder which of the following situations most reasonable people will more readily agree with:
"My opinion is the only one that is right and everyone else is wrong"
vs
"I think it works [this way], but that's just my interpretation and there might be some table variation"
Hmmm
TwilightKnight wrote: N N 959 wrote: Ah yes. If someone can insist the different interpretations are "opinions" then we can insist nobody is wrong.
This is isn't a matter of opinion.
Which is the position most know it all rules lawyers take when they think their interpretation is the only possible one and want to dismiss any other "opinion." No, that's not the position held by rules lawyers, but it must be nice to be able to post in rules discussion and make all kinds of disparaging assertions about a person without actually addressing the facts or the actual topic, yes?
Your argument is simply to attack me on a personal level and accuse me of not accepting others "opinion" on something that is not a matter of opinion. The rules on this topic are not ambiguous. Nor do they involve, refer to, or invite GM discretion.
Quote: I wonder which of the following situations most reasonable people will more readily agree with:
"My opinion is the only one that is right and everyone else is wrong"
vs
"I think it works [this way], but that's just my interpretation and there might be some table variation"
Hmmm
Well, this is the rules forum, not the Everyone-gets-a-trophy-for-pariticipation forum. Some interpretation are simply wrong. It's been known to happen on occasion. But instead of acknowledging that, or debating the actual rules, you're obviously more focused on attacking someone on a personal level.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: FOB has two keys points: see CR156.
1) Make 2 strikes
2) If they hit the same target, combine the damage for the purposes of damage resistance and weakness..
Emphasis mine.
You're overlooking the obvious. The first Strike does not satisfy the requirements for #2, so it isn't combined with anything before it is resolved. Thus, you do not combine the damage after one Strike. You're attempting to invoke a rule to a part of the action that it does not apply.
You can only "hit the same target' if the second Strike hits the same target. THEN you combine damage and resistance. Doing so, works 100% of the time in exactly the way the rules intend it to.
To rephrase the rule:
2) If the second Strike hits the same target as the first, _then_ "combine the damage for the purposes of damage resistance and weakness."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
To be fair, all I said was expect table variation, which is true almost all the time. To say you will not, especially from an org play perspective is ridiculous. Unless you are the GM you do not control how rules will be interpreted at the table which inherently creates table variation.
Besides, I'm not your dancing monkey. We can all read. Most of us are at least relatively intelligent. If there was only one way to read the published rules there would be no need for the rules forum. There are those who arrogantly believe their interpretation of the rules is the only valid one. There are others who believe their interpretation is correct, but accept that they are not the game designers nor have any magic insight into their intentions thus acknowledge that some people will interpret things differently. Everyone gets to choose which group they belong to. Choose wisely. Good luck!
To the OP, I would recommend that you consider the fact that there are numerous people interpreting the rules in at least two different ways combined with a lack of clarification in either the FAQ or errata as proof that you will need to decide for yourself. Despite what some have said, this isn't a clear matter. The simple fact is, some GMs will consider some attack activities as the combination of individual actions that can be separated if circumstances change. There are other who will deem that a multiple action activity is declared and cannot be separated. And that decision may not apply the same across the entire library of multi-action activities depending on a number of situations.
At the end of the day the GM has the final say so while the rules forum can give you something to think about, we cannot say definitively how it will or should work in your game. Org play is a bigger problem because the table GM technically is not the campaign GM. If there is a clarification in the Guide or online it should generally be followed by the GM even if its not in an official location, but even then you should expect the occasional GM will rule differently than you would. Table variation is a fairly common trope in org play.
TwilightKnight wrote: To be fair, all I said was expect table variation, which is true almost all the time. To say you will not, especially from an org play perspective is ridiculous. And then you tried to clown me by telling me to be disappointed when I disagreed. Yeah, thanks for looking out.
1. Uh...no it's not ridiculous. I don't expect table variation on a longsword doing 1d8 or where I need to stand to flank.
2. I don't know if we are talking about the same things. I don't expect table variation with regards to how Resistance is applied. I do expect table variation on whether you can call off your second Strike and whether MAP is advanced. I don't expect GMs will require me to declare both targets before I roll the first, as declaring all targets for multiple attacks is something I've never seen in PFS and I don't believe is part of the genre paradigm.
Quote: Unless you are the GM you do not control how rules will be interpreted at the table which inherently creates table variation. Players are entitled to RAW in PFS. Not all interpretations are valid. In many cases, a GM simply doesn't understand/know/aware/not familiar with all of the rules, especially if they are inexperienced/new to the edition. So yes, players can provide guidance and input as to how the rules are intended to work. The GM doesn't own the game. i certainly don't take that attitude when I GM.
Quote: Besides, I'm not your dancing monkey. I have no idea what that comment is suppose to mean.
Quote: We can all read. Most of us are at least relatively intelligent. If there was only one way to read the published rules there would be no need for the rules forum. Sometimes the rule are ambiguous but sometimes they are not. When I ask questions in the rules forum to see if I've understood the rules correctly. Sometimes I do not. Being intelligent doesn't automatically make my interpretation valid. An interpretation is valid when it is objectively supportable.
Quote: There are those who arrogantly believe their interpretation of the rules is the only valid one. Rejecting someone's interpretation as invalid is not the same as insisting there is only one interpretation. The two are wholly separate, so let's avoid the inflammatory conflation.
Quote: There are others who believe their interpretation is correct, but accept that they are not the game designers nor have any magic insight into their intentions thus acknowledge that some people will interpret things differently. And in the rule forum, there is an impetus to weed out interpretations that are inconsistence with the rules and/or are objectively incorrect. That's right. Some interpretations are incorrect and it can be determined by those who are not the designers. And that is the whole point of coming to the rule forum. To talk out the logic behind the interpretation and figure out what is valid and invalid.
Berating and disparaging posters who attempt to do this is uncalled for.
Ignoring all the nonsense above...
Again to the OP, I don't know if you are aware of or already tried it, but there is a THREAD that allows you to specifically ask questions of the designers and they might answer them on their Twitch channel. You might take a shot and post your inquiry there. Though that thread has almost as much non-Paizo commentary as other threads in the rules forum with a lot of arguments and little resolution. Good luck!
N N 959 wrote: Jared Walter 356 wrote: FOB has two keys points: see CR156.
1) Make 2 strikes
2) If they hit the same target, combine the damage for the purposes of damage resistance and weakness..
Emphasis mine.
You're overlooking the obvious. The first Strike does not satisfy the requirements for #2, so it isn't combined with anything before it is resolved. Thus, you do not combine the damage after one Strike. You're attempting to invoke a rule to a part of the action that it does not apply.
You can only "hit the same target' if the second Strike hits the same target. THEN you combine damage and resistance. Doing so, works 100% of the time in exactly the way the rules intend it to.
To rephrase the rule:
2) If the second Strike hits the same target as the first, _then_ "combine the damage for the purposes of damage resistance and weakness."
As I've said from the beginning and actually quoted from the CRB damage resistance applies before hit points are reduced. Any effect combining damage must resolve in step 3 of damage resolution. Which is 100% RAW before hit points are reduced. As long as a possibility is pending for combined damage, it is RAW unable to proceed to reduction of hit points.
The retroactive combining of resistances and damages, while it may mathematically be equivalent has no precedence in the CRB. This is a common house rule, brought on by pg 444 as a workable solution to the conflicting order of simultaneous strikes, and damage resolution with combined damage.
If retroactive combining of damage reduction is in the rules, feel free to quote a page number that describes it.
FOB doesn't say "if the second strike also hits apply only the remaining resistances, and don't apply weaknesses" which is the text you are advocating for. It also doesn't say "if.. apply damage resistances only to the first strike" It says to combine them.
As I've said from the beginning, you keep ignoring that proper order of damage resolution which is very clearly laid out in the CRB.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The proper order of damage resolution is clear. As is the rule on simultaneous actions telling us to resolve one at a time.
And that "if they hit the same target" part doesn't force us to decide the target of the second strike any sooner than we would for a multi-strike ability that doesn't have combining damage for resistances and weaknesses.
Specific overrides general, but only in the ways it specifies. That is why it's actually RAW to fully resolve the first Strike as normal (and as appropriate for if you're not targeting the same creature with the second strike), and then make the necessary adjustments to the second Strike for it to have fit the rules - that's the change specifically stated, made with as little impact on the general rules as is possible.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: The proper order of damage resolution is clear. As is the rule on simultaneous actions telling us to resolve one at a time.
And that "if they hit the same target" part doesn't force us to decide the target of the second strike any sooner than we would for a multi-strike ability that doesn't have combining damage for resistances and weaknesses.
Specific overrides general, but only in the ways it specifies. That is why it's actually RAW to fully resolve the first Strike as normal (and as appropriate for if you're not targeting the same creature with the second strike), and then make the necessary adjustments to the second Strike for it to have fit the rules - that's the change specifically stated, made with as little impact on the general rules as is possible.
After having a chance to mull over the simultaneous rules you've quoted, I'm convinced to allow the first strike to determine level of success, before declaring target of second strike. Did it crit, did it miss, etc.
While I understand the appeal of retroactive combination of damage and it's minimal impact of flow, I'm still not sold that it is RAI or RAW. I still prefer the actual combining of the damage roll and applying damage reduction just once. This seems to fit the overall ease of use objective, and rapid flow of PF2. Basically, this becomes one combined instance of damage in my mind.
In practice, 90% of the time I've seen flurry or similar combine damage abilities used, they always target the same creature anyway, and it becomes a moot point. Tactically, it's almost always better to down a single target than wound 2.
on a side note, let me just say that I've always appreciated that you are polite with those you disagree with and quote the rules to support you position. It's refreshing in a forum that becomes toxic at times.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jared Walter 356 wrote: Tactically, it's almost always better to down a single target than wound 2. It's also true that it's tactically almost always better to not lose an attack as a result of downing one, which is part of why I advocate for resolving the entire first Strike of such an ability before having to commit to the target of the second Strike.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: on a side note, let me just say that I've always appreciated that you are polite with those you disagree with and quote the rules to support you position. It's refreshing in a forum that becomes toxic at times. I appreciate that. I try not to be a part of the problem that led to me taking a few years off from visiting this forum, as people used to basically try to bully me out of expressing my opinion if it differed from theirs.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: It's refreshing in a forum that becomes toxic at times. Yes, these forums can be highly toxic. Especially since the mods essentially ignore the increasingly common passive aggressive attacks/insults people use in thinly (and not so thinly) veiled attempts to censure posters who they disagree with or disagree with them or disagree with someone else. Combine that with the ad hominem's, the misrepresentation and the dog-piling, and it gets pretty disgusting.
The mods don't "ignore" anything.
What happens is that the mods, a very limited staff, have a lot of posts/reports to look through. As a result of that it takes time between posts that will be moderated getting made and that moderation happening. This creates the appearance of the rules not being enforced, and leads certain posters to behave as if there aren't any rules. That feeds the cycle of mods having too much to do and thus appearing to not be doing much, people breaking the rule, and round and round.
Unfortunately, the solutions for this situation are extremely unlikely to be put into place because getting more moderation staff isn't likely in budget, volunteer mods often abuse their power so aren't really a viable option, and ramping up the consequences of misbehavior to long enough bans to let the mods get through the backlog of reports might just kill forum traffic nearly completely.
thenobledrake wrote: The mods don't "ignore" anything. You're misquoting me. The actual statement was that they "essentially" ignore. Which is another way of saying that while they may not technically ignore passive aggression, the end result is functionally the same.
Quote: What happens is that the mods, a very limited staff... While I won't deny that there may be much truth to what you propose, I stand by my assertion that they do ignore passive aggression in almost all circumstances. How can I say that? Because I've seen them go through and cleanse contentious threads, stripping the directed aggression and ignoring the, imo, equally inflammatory passive aggression. In the past, I've had to specifically point out to a mod, in a moderated thread, posts that were clearly meant to be inflammatory and left untouched as the posts responding to it were deleted. And yes, the Mod agreed and went back and deleted it.
And to be fair, this pattern is hardly unique to Paizo. It's rare to find forum moderators who will consistently take action against passive aggression. I can imagine that some of the reason is that posters aren't flagging passive aggression as they would direct aggression, but, when the directly aggressive responses get flagged and deleted, it's fairly standard for the passive ones to remain.
I think, but correct me if I am wrong, Paizo actually changed the forum rules to identify blatant misrepresentation as a violation. If so, I give them kudos for that.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
