| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah it's multiple strikes not an area attack. 2 targets is 2 hits as each strike is a single target attack.Then you’d have a summoner and eidolon both take damage from chin lightening as well?
The rulebook is pretty clear, the effects of Skittering Strike should not be doubled against a summoner.
Yes, the rules are clear:
"For instance, if you and your eidolon are caught in an
area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the
greater amount of healing or damage applies. "
You're not caught in an area of effect, a creature is making a strike at the Summoner and a strike at the Eidolon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you’d have a summoner and eidolon both take damage from chin lightening as well?
Of course I would: it's not an area attack but single attacks one after the other and the summoner and eidolon are 2 different that are NOT being simultaneously being attacked by the spell.
The rulebook is pretty clear, the effects of Skittering Strike should not be doubled against a summoner.
I can't agree with that reading: it's NO different than saying you can't attack both the summoner and the eidolon with strike from Hunted Shot as both feats involve separate subordinate attacks.
EDIT: "chin lightening" made me laugh. Now I want a spell that lets me uppercut someone with a lightning fist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's going to be a case by case decision.
The functional clause is:
In any case, if you are both subject to the same effect, you take the effects only once (applying the worse effect, if applicable)In general, this should mean no ability can double up damage if it catches both bodies in it. It doesn't have to be an area effect - Electric Arc would only deal damage to whoever got the worse save.
An effect like Barbarian's Swipe would only resolve the worse of two results.
The tricky part is multiple-strike abilities. If it just lets make multiple strikes, it should let you hurt the summoner with each strike. If it has restrictions (e.g. Swipe) then it shouldn't.
Basically, no ability should be able to do more damage to a summoner than it would another player who got the same result (as the worse outcome between the two).
Edit: In fact, I'd probably just add that last part to the book in some way, as it's the easiest way to judge what the outcome should be I think.
Like this is a no-brainer, you are not subject to the same effect; the strike made to the summoner is not the strike made to the Eidolon.
This is literally exactly how Summoner plays, there's no ambiguity with the rules here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like this is a no-brainer, you are not subject to the same effect; the strike made to the summoner is not the strike made to the Eidolon.This is literally exactly how Summoner plays, there's no ambiguity with the rules here.
Your reading of this does not fit with the implied intent, which is to limit the damage a Summoner can receive from any given effect or attack to the same potential damage any other players character could receive.
While your reading isn't illogical in a vacuum, given that there is an alternative reading which serves the intent of the rule, that is the one that I prefer to rely on.
The path of least resistance, not the one that causes the most issues.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your reading of this does not fit with the implied intent, which is to limit the damage a Summoner can receive from any given effect or attack to the same potential damage any other players character could receive.While your reading isn't illogical in a vacuum, given that there is an alternative reading which serves the intent of the rule, that is the one that I prefer to rely on.
The path of least resistance, not the one that causes the most issues.
Idk if you know this, i can make 2 strikes against a fighter as well; this is literally just how Summoner plays.
There is nothing here that is adverse to the intent or rules, these are 2 completely separate strikes made to 2 completely different creatures.
The creatures share an HP pool, that is why you're seeing the Summoner take on more damage from this type of scenario; you could replicate the exact same damage simply by striking twice at the Eidolon or the Summoner.
The intent of the rules is to avoid double damage via area of effects, not gain immunity to 2nd strikes in single or multi-enemy encounters.
Your problem is with the shared HP pool; 2 targets sharing 1 resource, you get hit more often than other classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intent of the rules is to avoid double damage via area of effects, not gain immunity to 2nd strikes in single or multi-enemy encounters.Your problem is with the shared HP pool; 2 targets sharing 1 resource, you get hit more often than other classes.
You're sitting here manufacturing this problem by reading the rules in the way that most supports your position, as opposed to the apparent goal of those rules - which is to limit the damage the Summoner receives.
A Fighter is not at risk of being Struck twice in the case being discussed, as the creature is prohibited from Striking any given target more than once. It follows that in this case, it is reasonable that the Summoner is not intended to be exposed to any more possible damage than any other player.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is literally how the action works:
Skittering Assault [Two Actions]: "The gogiteth Strides three times. Once per Stride, it can attempt a leg Strike against a creature in its reach at any point during the Stride; it must make each attack against a different creature, but it doesn’t apply its multiple attack penalty until after making all its Strikes. If any of the Strikes result in a critical failure, Skittering Assault ends."
1. It makes a strike per creature
2. It has to be a different creature
3. This is not an AoE or Area of Effect
4. These are separate instances of damage
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're sitting here manufacturing this problem by reading the rules in the way that most supports your position, as opposed to the apparent goal of those rules - which is to limit the damage the Summoner receives.
A Fighter is not at risk of being Struck twice in the case being discussed, as the creature is prohibited from Striking any given target more than once. It follows that in this case, it is reasonable that the Summoner is not intended to be exposed to any more possible damage than any other player.
I'm saying the damage potential is not beyond what a Fighter would receive with 2 strikes, just like how the Summoner's HP pool is reduced by 2 strikes.
The Summoner is more vulnerable than the Fighter in that it is 2 targets, that is why Summoner is the most vulnerable class and why it takes more hits/damage on average.
This is literally the intent of the rules, you seem to not like that is how the Summoner plays.
Unless you are suggesting the Summoner be immune to the 2nd strike of a creature that attacks it or the Eidolon, this is literally how the class plays and how combat plays.
It is by design exposed to more possible damage because there are 2 targets, neither of which is being affected by the same instance of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you are suggesting the Summoner be immune to the 2nd strike of a creature that attacks it or the Eidolon, this is literally how the class plays and how combat plays.
I'm not suggesting anything of the kind - I'm suggesting following the rules that say what happen when the summoner is damaged by an effect that targets both the summoner and the eidolon, and suffers the worst damage of the two strikes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm suggesting following the rules that say what happen when the summoner is damaged by an effect that targets both the summoner and the eidolon, and suffers the worst damage of the two strikes.
The strikes being made are separate, strikes are a clearly defined term in Pathfinder 2e.
The Summoner is not suffering the same effect or damage as the Eidolon; they are being targeted by completely different strikes, there is not 1 strike that is affecting both creatures at once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm suggesting following the rules that say what happen when the summoner is damaged by an effect that targets both the summoner and the eidolon, and suffers the worst damage of the two strikes.The strikes being made are separate, strikes are a clearly defined term in Pathfinder 2e.
The Summoner is not suffering the same effect or damage as the Eidolon; they are being targeted by completely different strikes, there is not 1 strike that is affecting both creatures at once.
The Strikes were generated by a common source, Skittering Assault. It is an entirely reasonable reading of the rules to suggest that since Skittering Assault generated identical effects on both the Summoner and the Eidolon, the damage is from the same effect.
But maybe you have a rules quote that indicates otherwise?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Strikes were generated by a common source, Skittering Assault. It is an entirely reasonable reading of the rules to suggest that since Skittering Assault generated identical effects on both the Summoner and the Eidolon, the damage is from the same effect.
But maybe you have a rules quote that indicates otherwise?
Are you telling me that because the strikes came from the same creature (common source) that means the Summoner should only suffer only 1 strike even though the creature made 2 completely separate strikes?
Yes, i have a quote from the actual source of this.
This is literally how the action works:
Skittering Assault [Two Actions]: "The gogiteth Strides three times. Once per Stride, it can attempt a leg Strike against a creature in its reach at any point during the Stride; it must make each attack against a different creature, but it doesn’t apply its multiple attack penalty until after making all its Strikes. If any of the Strikes result in a critical failure, Skittering Assault ends."
1. It makes a strike per creature
2. It has to be a different creature
3. This is not an AoE or Area of Effect
4. These are separate instances of damage
Note: A Strike is a clearly defined term in Pathfinder 2e
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Strikes were generated by a common source, Skittering Assault. It is an entirely reasonable reading of the rules to suggest that since Skittering Assault generated identical effects on both the Summoner and the Eidolon, the damage is from the same effect.
But maybe you have a rules quote that indicates otherwise?
Are you telling me that because the strikes came from the same creature (common source) that means the Summoner should only suffer only 1 strike even though the creature made 2 completely separate strikes?
Yes, i have a quote from the actual source of this.
This is literally how the action works:
Skittering Assault [Two Actions]: "The gogiteth Strides three times. Once per Stride, it can attempt a leg Strike against a creature in its reach at any point during the Stride; it must make each attack against a different creature, but it doesn’t apply its multiple attack penalty until after making all its Strikes. If any of the Strikes result in a critical failure, Skittering Assault ends."
1. It makes a strike per creature
2. It has to be a different creature
3. This is not an AoE or Area of Effect
4. These are separate instances of damage
Note: A Strike is a clearly defined term in Pathfinder 2e
Don't worry, I got it.
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.
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.
Full text in spoiler, but I'll bring out the best bit -
"Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. ... 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."
In this context, Skittering Assault is the activity, that creates subordinate actions. The Strikes it generates are not their own actions and are NOT the same as individual strikes, they're part of the Skittering Assault activity, which is the source of the damage.
Therefore, the Summoner and Eidolon only suffer the worst result.
What do you have that contradicts this rules quote?
Simultaneous Actions is also relevant, as this indicates that you can't interrupt the actions in an activity due to their simultaneousness.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Skittering assault has you make strikes, it has like 6 subordinate actions in it, that's not the point; the point is that it is not an area of effect and a strike is not something that is affecting both the Summoner and Eidolon at once. The actual quote from Skittering Assault quite literally goes out of it's way to tell you that each strike is a separate instance of damage.
The actual quote from Skittering Assault quite literally goes out of it's way to tell you that each strike is a separate instance of damage.
It does in fact not say that - it says they're separate Strikes, which per the rules on Simultaneous and Subordinate actions are all part of the same source, Skittering Assault.
As they're all from the same source/effect, it can't damage the Summoner twice.
If Mark is around to clarify it'd be great - but I'm pretty sure there's a very strong position actually supported by the rules on my side here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does in fact not say that - it says they're separate Strikes, which per the rules on Simultaneous and Subordinate actions are all part of the same source, Skittering Assault.
As they're all from the same source/effect, it can't damage the Summoner twice.
If Mark is around to clarify it'd be great - but I'm pretty sure there's a very strong position actually supported by the rules on my side here.
You're misinterpreting the rules.
If that were actually the case, that would mean that only 1 strike in Flurry of Blows would actually affect the Summoner. You understand that right?
Because after all "They are separate strikes from the same source" as you put it, so a Monk could not hit both a Summoner and Eidolon with it's separate strikes.
You're trying to house-rule what the actual intent of the rules are because this is one of those scenarios that clearly defines how vulnerable the Summoner really is.
You're misinterpreting the rules.If that were actually the case, that would mean that only 1 strike in Flurry of Blows would actually affect the Summoner. You understand that right?
Because after all "They are separate strikes from the same source" as you put it, so a Monk could not hit both a Summoner and Eidolon.
You're trying to house-rule what the actual intent of the rules are because this is one of those scenarios that clearly defines how vulnerable the Summoner really is.
Uh... no, that's an extremely limited example
This only comes up if an attack targets both the Summoner and the Eidolon. That means, yes, that a monk COULD 'waste' their Flurry like that... but how likely is that?
That said, Flurry is even extra explicit about combining the damage of the two strikes against a single target, making it even MORE clear that its a single source of damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Strikes were generated by a common source, Skittering Assault.
So a hunted shot couldn't target one strike at the summoner and one at the Eidolon but could strike either one of them twice? They are 'common source' damage. If not, how is it different than Skittering Assault?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh... no, that's an extremely limited example
This only comes up if an attack targets both the Summoner and the Eidolon. That means, yes, that a monk COULD 'waste' their Flurry like that... but how likely is that?
That said, Flurry is even extra explicit about combining the damage of the two strikes against a single target, making it even MORE clear that its a single source of damage.
Why would it be a waste for a Monk to literally target 2 separate creatures within reach with 2 separate instances of damage?
How does that even make sense to you?You can target 2 different targets with Flurry, it is only when both strikes hit the same creature (The Summoner and Eidolon are not the same creature) that it combines for the purposes of resistance and weakness.
Like you're just house-ruling at this point so you don't have to face the music.
There is no way that the Eidolon is immune to the 2nd strike of a Monk with Flurry of Blows.
The Strikes were generated by a common source, Skittering Assault.So a hunted shot couldn't target one strike at the summoner and one at the Eidolon but could strike either one of them twice? They are 'common source' damage. If not, how is it different than Skittering Assault?
I mean, what are the chances that both the Summoner AND the Eidolon are your prey, and therefore legit targets for splitting a Hunted Shot? I'm not sure how that's even possible?
So far as I can see, the only option for hunted shot is to take two shots at your prey - a single creature.
Is there some feat that allows this? Is there a legitimate reason in this scenario not just to shoot the Summoner twice in most scenarios?
|
It does in fact not say that - it says they're separate Strikes, which per the rules on Simultaneous and Subordinate actions are all part of the same source, Skittering Assault.
As they're all from the same source/effect, it can't damage the Summoner twice.
If Mark is around to clarify it'd be great - but I'm pretty sure there's a very strong position actually supported by the rules on my side here.
You're misinterpreting the rules.
If that were actually the case, that would mean that only 1 strike in Flurry of Blows would actually affect the Summoner. You understand that right?
Because after all "They are separate strikes from the same source" as you put it, so a Monk could not hit both a Summoner and Eidolon with it's separate strikes.
You're trying to house-rule what the actual intent of the rules are because this is one of those scenarios that clearly defines how vulnerable the Summoner really is.
Is it possible that Flurry of Blows might work that way? Hear me out here- what if the way it's worded currently allows for the full damage if Flurry of Blows only targets the Summoner, or the Eidolon; but, if both are targetted by the Flurry of Blows strikes separately, it would then become a case of "pick whichever took the most damage." Is it possible that this would be the most accurate current ruling?
Granted, this isn't really a nerf for Flurry of Blows, since in its particular case, the user has no reason to not just punch the Summoner twice in any case where they'd have a choice, but it would still affect the DPS potential of several monsters that have multi-target striking abilities.
EDIT: Shoutout to 4 people posting while I was typing this response on my phone.
Like you're just house-ruling at this point so you don't have to face the music.
There is no way that the Eidolon is immune to the 2nd strike of a Monk with Flurry of Blows.
You're ignoring the fact that there's no reason to ever target them both instead of hitting one of them twice.
You're ignoring all logic to manufacture this issue. The monk is always going to strike one of the two of them twice instead of splitting attacks for no good reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Strikes were generated by a common source, Skittering Assault.So a hunted shot couldn't target one strike at the summoner and one at the Eidolon but could strike either one of them twice? They are 'common source' damage. If not, how is it different than Skittering Assault?
Well, most rangers can only have one prey at a time. So easy answer is you are suggesting invalid targets.
Krispy has the rules correct on this one. If an ability can not target the same creature twice, the summoner only takes the worse damage. (If it can target the same creature twice, why would you split between them? Just target the summoner with both)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, what are the chances that both the Summoner AND the Eidolon are your prey, and therefore legit targets for splitting a Hunted Shot? I'm not sure how that's even possible?
So far as I can see, the only option for hunted shot is to take two shots at your prey - a single creature.
You can take the Double Prey feat at 12th level. But that does raise the question of why you would even target the eidolon instead of the summoner twice.
You can take the Double Prey feat at 12th level. But that does raise the question of why you would even target the eidolon instead of the summoner twice.I mean, what are the chances that both the Summoner AND the Eidolon are your prey, and therefore legit targets for splitting a Hunted Shot? I'm not sure how that's even possible?
So far as I can see, the only option for hunted shot is to take two shots at your prey - a single creature.
In general, its almost never tactically more sound to split fire than focus it in any case - regardless of whom you're targeting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does in fact not say that - it says they're separate Strikes, which per the rules on Simultaneous and Subordinate actions are all part of the same source, Skittering Assault.
As they're all from the same source/effect, it can't damage the Summoner twice.
If Mark is around to clarify it'd be great - but I'm pretty sure there's a very strong position actually supported by the rules on my side here.
You're misinterpreting the rules.
If that were actually the case, that would mean that only 1 strike in Flurry of Blows would actually affect the Summoner. You understand that right?
Because after all "They are separate strikes from the same source" as you put it, so a Monk could not hit both a Summoner and Eidolon with it's separate strikes.
You're trying to house-rule what the actual intent of the rules are because this is one of those scenarios that clearly defines how vulnerable the Summoner really is.
Is it possible that Flurry of Blows might work that way? Hear me out here- what if the way it's worded currently allows for the full damage if Flurry of Blows only targets the Summoner, or the Eidolon; but, if both are targetted by the Flurry of Blows strikes separately, it would then become a case of "pick whichever took the most damage." Is it possible that this would be the most accurate current ruling?
Granted, this isn't really a nerf for Flurry of Blows, since in its particular case, the user has no reason to not just punch the Summoner twice in any case where they'd have a choice, but it would still affect the DPS potential of several monsters that have multi-target striking abilities.
EDIT: Shoutout to 4 people posting while I was typing this response on my phone.
There is plenty of reason to target 2 creatures separately with your Flurry of Blows, yes.
Just a common scenario at the top of my head is wanting to use Flurry of Maneuvers on both.
You can't possibly insist that if i trip both the Summoner and the Eidolon that only 1 instance of damage from tripping is applied to the Summoner's shared HP pool or that only either the Summoner or the Eidolon is actually tripped, right?
They are 2 separate trips on 2 separate creatures using Flurry of Blows.
It does in fact not say that - it says they're separate Strikes, which per the rules on Simultaneous and Subordinate actions are all part of the same source, Skittering Assault.
As they're all from the same source/effect, it can't damage the Summoner twice.
If Mark is around to clarify it'd be great - but I'm pretty sure there's a very strong position actually supported by the rules on my side here.
You're misinterpreting the rules.
If that were actually the case, that would mean that only 1 strike in Flurry of Blows would actually affect the Summoner. You understand that right?
Because after all "They are separate strikes from the same source" as you put it, so a Monk could not hit both a Summoner and Eidolon with it's separate strikes.
You're trying to house-rule what the actual intent of the rules are because this is one of those scenarios that clearly defines how vulnerable the Summoner really is.
Is it possible that Flurry of Blows might work that way? Hear me out here- what if the way it's worded currently allows for the full damage if Flurry of Blows only targets the Summoner, or the Eidolon; but, if both are targetted by the Flurry of Blows strikes separately, it would then become a case of "pick whichever took the most damage." Is it possible that this would be the most accurate current ruling?
Granted, this isn't really a nerf for Flurry of Blows, since in its particular case, the user has no reason to not just punch the Summoner twice in any case where they'd have a choice, but it would still affect the DPS potential of several monsters that have multi-target striking abilities.
EDIT: Shoutout to 4 people posting while I was typing this response on my phone.
There is plenty of reason to target 2 creatures separately with your Flurry of Blows, yes.
Just a common scenario at the top of my head is wanting to use Flurry of Maneuvers on both.
You can't possibly insist that if i trip both...
There's barely ever any good justification for splitting fire if you don't have to. Removing enemies is too strong tactically to warrant splitting fire.
Did you use two separate actions or activities?
If the answer is yes, then of course they both take damage.
If the answer is no, they take the worse effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
So Kripsy, go back to the most common Monk scenarios i listed where Monks do use Flurry to target separate creatures at reach.
Does the Summoner and Eidolon only take 1 instance of damage from Flurry of maneuvers and is only one of them tripped or shoved?
You tell me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, most rangers can only have one prey at a time. So easy answer is you are suggesting invalid targets.
Double Prey is a feat ANY ranger can take, so it's not a crazy question. But if it worries you how about flurry or Double Slice?
Krispy has the rules correct on this one. If an ability can not target the same creature twice, the summoner only takes the worse damage. (If it can target the same creature twice, why would you split between them? Just target the summoner with both)
Disagree: we aren't talking about simultaneous attacks but sequential ones. These are abilities that make one individual attack, then makes another unlike an area attack that deals an attack to multiple creatures all at once: the summoner and Eidolon are protected in one case and not the other.
There's barely ever any good justification for splitting fire if you don't have to.
Why does it matter? It's a question on how the rules work and if they are applied consistently. It really doesn't matter how often it comes up vs what happens when it does compared to skittering assault. The answer should be the same for both.
...So Kripsy, go back to the most common Monk scenarios i listed where Monks do use Flurry to target separate creatures at reach.
Does the Summoner and Eidolon only take 1 instance of damage from Flurry of maneuvers and is only one of them tripped or shoved?
You tell me.
I already answered you. The rules for Simultaneous attacks and Subordinate Actions imply that the actions generated by other actions and activities are not themselves normal actions.
The source of damage is Flurry of Blows. If a monk chooses to attack the summoner and the eidolon - presumably, to cause trouble instead of to deal damage - the Summoner will suffer the worst result of the two attacks.
Its not unclear, really. And I'm not being inconsistent - its easy. If the source is one action or activity, its one source - regardless of subordinate actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I already answered you. The rules for Simultaneous attacks and Subordinate Actions imply that the actions generated by other actions and activities are not themselves normal actions.
The source of damage is Flurry of Blows. If a monk chooses to attack the summoner and the eidolon - presumably, to cause trouble instead of to deal damage - the Summoner will suffer the worst result of the two attacks.
Its not unclear, really.
You did not answer.
A Monk uses Flurry of Maneuvers to trip both the Summoner and Eidolon (a very common Monk scenario where you try to target separately) does only one of them actually get tripped?
And does only 1 instance of damage from those trips actually apply?
The Monk is using Flurry of Blows to make 2 separate trips on 2 separate creatures.
Tell me which one is actually tripped and if the damage from those trips only applies once.
I already answered you. The rules for Simultaneous attacks and Subordinate Actions imply that the actions generated by other actions and activities are not themselves normal actions.
The source of damage is Flurry of Blows. If a monk chooses to attack the summoner and the eidolon - presumably, to cause trouble instead of to deal damage - the Summoner will suffer the worst result of the two attacks.
Its not unclear, really.
You did not answer.
A Monk uses Flurry of Maneuvers to trip both the Summoner and Eidolon (a very common Monk scenario where you try to target separately) does only one of them actually get tripped?
And does only 1 instance of damage from those trips actually apply?
The Monk is using Flurry of Blows to make 2 separate trips on 2 separate creatures.
Tell me which one is actually tripped and if the damage from those trips only applies once.
They clearly suffer the worst result of the action.
If its a Failure, they are tripped. If its a critical failure, they are tripped and suffer 1d6 damage.
Its no different than a spell which caused knockdown on a failed save. They'd both be knocked down.
This isn't hard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They clearly suffer the worst result of the action.
If its a Failure, they are tripped. If its a critical failure, they are tripped and suffer 1d6 damage.
This isn't hard.
Hold on here, so let me get this straight.
You believe, that if i get a failure on tripping the Summoner (meaning nothing happens to the Summoner)
But then if i attempt to trip the Eidolon, a separate creature not occupying the same space, and get a success (meaning the Eidolon falls and is prone).
That the Summoner is now also fallen and prone?
They clearly suffer the worst result of the action.
If its a Failure, they are tripped. If its a critical failure, they are tripped and suffer 1d6 damage.
This isn't hard.
Hold on here, so let me get this straight.
You believe, that if i get a failure on tripping the Summoner (meaning nothing happens to the Summoner)
But then if i attempt to trip the Eidolon, a separate creature not occupying the same space, and get a success (meaning the Eidolon falls and is prone).
That the Summoner is now also fallen and prone?
Absolutely. When subject to the same effect, both suffer the worse result. Its the same as if you hit them with a spell that did this.
Well, most rangers can only have one prey at a time. So easy answer is you are suggesting invalid targets.Double Prey is a feat ANY ranger can take, so it's not a crazy question. But if it worries you how about flurry or Double Slice?
... same problem
Both Strikes must have the same target.
Isn't that bit referring to when both summoner and eidolon are effected by the same effect, as in "at the same time"? A trip action is two separate instances, it would have to be an AoE trip effect to cover that bit, or at least I think that's the intent going by the example they use in that part of the document.
EDIT: Flurry of Manoeuvres would be two separate trip actions, even if they're done as part of the one activity. And would only come close to triggering this clause if one trip was made on the eidolon and the other on the summoner.
See Simultaneous and Subordinate actions.
Any actions generated by Flurry of Maneuvers fall under Simultaneous Actions, and Flurry of Maneuvers remains the common "effect" targeting the Summoner and Eidolon.
And yes, as noted, this only happens in a very specific scenario that is extremely unlikely to come up in play.
It requires a PC monk to be attacking a PC Summoner, or and NPC built with very specific rules elements from these classes when most NPCs borrow a single thing from an inspiring class in most cases...
Flurry of Blows would be the exception to the general rule, for me. Flurry does allow you to either target two separate creatures or the same creature twice. I'd rule Flurry works normally and doesn't trigger the eidolon rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flurry of Blows would be the exception to the general rule, for me. Flurry does allow you to either target two separate creatures or the same creature twice. I'd rule Flurry works normally and doesn't trigger the eidolon rules.
Skittering Assault, Flurry, Whirlwind Strike, and there are a lot more examples in both what PCs and especially monsters can do that are just like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, most rangers can only have one prey at a time. So easy answer is you are suggesting invalid targets.Double Prey is a feat ANY ranger can take, so it's not a crazy question. But if it worries you how about flurry or Double Slice?... same problem
Both Strikes must have the same target.
Oops: meant Double Shot: "Make two Strikes, each against a separate target"
Flurry of Blows would be the exception to the general rule, for me. Flurry does allow you to either target two separate creatures or the same creature twice. I'd rule Flurry works normally and doesn't trigger the eidolon rules.Skittering Assault, Flurry, Whirlwind Strike, and there are a lot more examples in both what PCs and especially monsters can do that are just like this.
Flurry is the exception in that list. It is not like the others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oops: meant Double Shot: "Make two Strikes, each against a separate target"
Yeah, that is an example of an ability that would trigger the eidolon's "take the worst" clause. Two chances to crit the summoner is scary enough without stacking that damage on top of another hit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flurry is the exception in that list. It is not like the others.Flurry of Blows would be the exception to the general rule, for me. Flurry does allow you to either target two separate creatures or the same creature twice. I'd rule Flurry works normally and doesn't trigger the eidolon rules.Skittering Assault, Flurry, Whirlwind Strike, and there are a lot more examples in both what PCs and especially monsters can do that are just like this.
What is it about Flurry that's not like the others?
The others also allow you to target separate creatures.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that is an example of an ability that would trigger the eidolon's "take the worst" clause. Two chances to crit the summoner is scary enough without stacking that damage on top of another hit.
But Flurry also has two chances to crit the Summoner.
Flurry is the exception in that list. It is not like the others.Flurry of Blows would be the exception to the general rule, for me. Flurry does allow you to either target two separate creatures or the same creature twice. I'd rule Flurry works normally and doesn't trigger the eidolon rules.Skittering Assault, Flurry, Whirlwind Strike, and there are a lot more examples in both what PCs and especially monsters can do that are just like this.What is it about Flurry that's not like the others?
The others also allow you to target separate creatures.
Yes. Flurry lets you target the same creature, twice. That is not something you can do with Skittering Assault.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Flurry lets you target the same creature, twice. That is not something you can do with Skittering Assault.
You are not targeting the same creature with Skittering Assault; the Summoner and Eidolon are separate creatures and none of these are examples of any Area of Effects occurring.
Yes. Flurry lets you target the same creature, twice. That is not something you can do with Skittering Assault.
You are not targeting the same creature with Skittering Assault; the Summoner and Eidolon are separate creatures and none of these are examples of any Area of Effects occurring.
Its one Effect that targets multiple creatures with subordinate actions.
Its one effect, imposing identical effects on the Summoner and the Eidolon.
They take the worst result from Skittering Assault.
Note that the only place 'area effect' occurs in the description of how shared effects like this work is in an example. Area of effect is not a required aspect here, just an example of how the duo could be subject to the same effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its one Effect that targets multiple creatures with subordinate actions.
Its one effect, imposing identical effects on the Summoner and the Eidolon.
They take the worst result from Skittering Assault.
Note that the only place 'area effect' occurs in the description of how shared effects like this work is in an example. Area of effect is not a required aspect here, just an example of how the duo could be subject to the same effect.
Not for nothing Krispy, but i just want to remind everyone that you think if somebody trips the Eidolon that the Summoner also falls prone even if the Summoner wasn't targeted.
Based on how you've decided to interpret the rules.