Do Complex Hazards suffer Multiple Attack Penalty?

[Hell's Messenger]

Just curious, if there is a hazard that for its routine makes multiple attacks, would the attacks beyond the first one suffer from MAP?

[Castilliano]

If you want it to.
Though I'd think the Level/danger of trap would be based on zero MAP.
And I'd build my own traps w/ zero MAP as the PF2 default.

A trap w/ tons of attacks would be difficult to gauge, as its base attack bonus would only represent a small fraction of its attack lethality. Attacks at -10 (depending on comparative level and target) would be very swingy, often minor, but against a squishy would squash them.
And would a trap benefit from Agile? Backswing? etc.
That all seems in the "creatures w/ weapons" territory. Which works fine as a (faux) trap! The party may think it's a trap, and in-game it could be a trap even if its game mechanics are those of a creature. You might even allow Disable A Device to damage/stun/hamper the creature.

Also I think MAP is only something that happens to creatures (and even then there are rare outside cases). If a complex trap represented a non-creature* entity or sentience, then I'd lean toward having MAP though some, like a Numerian supercomputer, I wouldn't.
Also, if the trap had one weapon making those multiple attacks, I might lean toward having MAP, though if it were many weapons, I'd think of them acting on their own, unconnected in their functioning, even if part of the same event(s).

*In the sense of the game term, not philosophically.

[GM OfAnything]

Complex hazards with multiple attacks should specify whether and how MAP applies, but in general I don't think they incur a MAP.

[Squiggit]

I don't see why they wouldn't suffer from MAP. There's nothing in the rules for MAP or Hazards that apply any sort of exception to how MAP works.

You only incur MAP on your turn, so it wouldn't apply to any reactions, but if they make multiple attacks as part of a routine, they should incur MAP normally.

[Captain Morgan]

Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why they wouldn't suffer from MAP. There's nothing in the rules for MAP or Hazards that apply any sort of exception to how MAP works.

You only incur MAP on your turn, so it wouldn't apply to any reactions, but if they make multiple attacks as part of a routine, they should incur MAP normally.

Yeah, and I think they started specifying when a hazard doesn't suffer from MAP. So by default I think they do, and hazards are pretty dangerous as is.

[Ascalaphus]

I think the typical approach is that when the hazard attacks the same person multiple times, it takes MAP; but hazards that are supposed to launch a barrage of attacks against multiple people simultaneously don't take MAP (or take MAP, but don't increase it until all the attacks are done).

[Kelseus]

Scythe Blades, Poisoned Dart Gallery, and Hammer of Forbiddance all specify "no multiple attack penalty".

You wouldn't need to specify that in each individual write up if the standard rules was "Hazards get no MAP"

[Ascalaphus]

Yeah true, I think the default is Everything Has MAP. It's simply a common feature of abilities that attack a range of targets all at once that they don't increase the MAP until after they're done with that. Whether that's a hazard that shoots arrows at everyone in the room (one shot per person) or a hydra that focuses a different head on each hero - they don't increase MAP until after that ability is fully resolved.

It's an elegant design principle really, it pushes the GM to not focus fire down one PC but to spread the luv.

[Kelseus]

Ascalaphus wrote:

it pushes the GM to not focus fire down one PC but to spread the luv.

This.

Focus fire from a monster even with MAP can quickly down a PC. By spreading the damage around, it reduces the likelihood of party death while simultaneously increasing how dangerous the monster "feels".