Multiattack and reactions


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Is a reaction meant to "interrupt" an attack pattern?

For example:

1) A monk is next to a creature and decides to use its flurry of blows.
2) He roll the first strike, which hits.
3) The Paladin uses its reaction to deal with the monk, giving its friend damage reduction and striking the monk as well.
4) The paladin has a Polearm or Club weapon and scores a critical hit, so he decides to move ( or shove, if the weapon was a club ) the enemy far from his friend.

Now, what happens to the monk second attack?

A reaction occurs in response to a specific trigger, so it happens between attacks.

Also, would this be the same with any ability which allows a creature to hit twice or just to abilities which gives 2 different strikes with different map ( for example, flurry of blows, twin takedown and twin feint, but no double slice )?

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

My opinion is apparently in the minority here, so take with a grain of salt.

I firmly believe that attacks that combine damage for purposes of reduction and damage resistance (flurry, twin feint etc.) resolve both attacks before applying the combined damage to the target.

The implication of this is that the Paladin cannot reaction until both attacks have resolved and the combined damage is to be applied, so no.

Most others resolve the damage one at a time and retroactively combine for the purposes of damage reduction and resistance. In this case the second attack is essentially interrupted and lost if there is not a valid target.

This is one of the myriad of corner cases that can pop-up if you resolve each attack separately rather than combining them.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

There is more evidence to support Jared's interpretation than I think a lot of people give credit for. Even if you roll the damage of the first attack first, because you are instructed to add the two together before applying weaknesses and resistances, the Monk hasn't actually damaged their target until both attacks have been rolled.

Damaging a creature happens in 4 steps, and Flurry of Blows/various other activities mess with how those steps are resolved, delaying step 4 until the second attack has reached step 3.

1. Roll the Damage.
2. Determine the Damage Type.
3. Apply resistances, weaknesses, and Immunities.
4. Reduce the target's hitpoints.

It is only after step 4 that I consider the Trigger: "An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you," to be satisfied, assuming damage remains. Or would you consider an attack that is fully resisted triggering Retributive Strike as well? I don't think many people would.

Now a reaction that triggers on Targeting, or an Attack Roll, that would trigger between the attacks just fine. So a Contingencied Dimension Door triggered by being targeted by the monk or some similar trigger would stop the flurry altogether for example.

Edit: A good example of a reaction that I believe Would stop the second attack from connecting is Roll with It

Since this reaction is triggered by being hit by an attack, the first attack in Flurry of Blows would satisfy that trigger. However I doubt that the Monk in question would choose to move the Goblin away from themselves, so they'd likely still get the second attack anyway. Unless they had the opportunity to roll the goblin by their 4 fighter friends and make it incur 4 AoO's, or bounce him straight into a convenient lava flow. Then they probably wouldn't want/need that second attack anyway.

Armored Rebuff would allow the triggering character to shove the monk before they would get their second attack.

There are a few other examples of similar Reactions, but they usually have riders like requiring a critical miss or similar.

So to answer the OP after all this waffling: Kinda. It depends. But the example given should not deprive the Monk of their second attack.

Horizon Hunters

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I completely agree here that both strikes would apply before the champion reaction. If the champion didn't move the monk and they continued with the second strike what would happen then? Would the reaction only apply to the first strike or to both? If it only applies to the first one, that causes a bunch more issues than just allowing both strikes to land as a single "attack" or how I like to call it, damage instance.

The main difference here is the trigger, like beowulf mentioned. The trigger for Champions is when the ally takes damage, and since both strikes are added together into a single damage instance it would only apply after both resolve. If the trigger mentions a strike, like Riposte or what was mentioned earlier, it would trigger off the first strike, and could stop the second from having a valid target anymore.

Horizon Hunters

Strike 1: resolve hit, resolve damage.
Strike 2: resolve hit, resolve damage with the special condition in mind ( both attacks counts as the same for purpose of damage reductions/weakness )
For example, if you kill the target at attack one, you can use the second attack at a new target.

Target has hardness 5
First attack 4 damage ( zero damage total, can't trigger champion reaction for example )
Second attack 6 damage, (1 hardness yet) total 5 damage.

Target has weakness 5 cold iron
First attack cold iron 5 damage, total 10 damage.
Second attack cold iron 8 damage, no weakness applied, total 8.


That seems like meta-gaming to me.

Flurry of blows only states that you combine the damage if you hit the same target. These are described as rapid blows, so at what point are they going to be aware of the target dying when they are not supposed to even be aware of what Hit Points are or know exactly how close to dying an enemy is?

I think that the implication here is clearly that you have to choose your target or targets before making the attack rolls. You don't get to see if the target dies before making the second strike.


LordVanya wrote:

That seems like meta-gaming to me.

Flurry of blows only states that you combine the damage if you hit the same target. These are described as rapid blows, so at what point are they going to be aware of the target dying when they are not supposed to even be aware of what Hit Points are or know exactly how close to dying an enemy is?

I think that the implication here is clearly that you have to choose your target or targets before making the attack rolls. You don't get to see if the target dies before making the second strike.

I can definitely see this. I also know that most of the tables I've played at allow this sort of thing for similar abilities. Most notably Magic Missile. I see it like one of those "rules" that doesn't really exist that everyone just assumes does, like stacking draw 4 wilds in Uno.

In a lot of cases, allowing a player to allocate their attacks in the most efficient manner is just a time saver. If the only enemies left on the field are just mooks, then why not just let the wizard have an epic wizard moment and kill them all in one fell swoop?


LordVanya wrote:

That seems like meta-gaming to me.

Flurry of blows only states that you combine the damage if you hit the same target. These are described as rapid blows, so at what point are they going to be aware of the target dying when they are not supposed to even be aware of what Hit Points are or know exactly how close to dying an enemy is?

I think that the implication here is clearly that you have to choose your target or targets before making the attack rolls. You don't get to see if the target dies before making the second strike.

Totally agree with you.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LordVanya wrote:

That seems like meta-gaming to me.

Flurry of blows only states that you combine the damage if you hit the same target. These are described as rapid blows, so at what point are they going to be aware of the target dying when they are not supposed to even be aware of what Hit Points are or know exactly how close to dying an enemy is?

I think that the implication here is clearly that you have to choose your target or targets before making the attack rolls. You don't get to see if the target dies before making the second strike.

Nowhere in the flurry of blows says anything about choose before attack, or to resolve damage only after both strikes, and the normal thing is resolve one attack before resolve another.

Roll first attack, resolve damage and everything else ( crit specialization, reactions, etc )
Roll second attack, if against the same target, if both attacks had hit, you calculate the damage as part of the same attack.


Samir Sardinha wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

That seems like meta-gaming to me.

Flurry of blows only states that you combine the damage if you hit the same target. These are described as rapid blows, so at what point are they going to be aware of the target dying when they are not supposed to even be aware of what Hit Points are or know exactly how close to dying an enemy is?

I think that the implication here is clearly that you have to choose your target or targets before making the attack rolls. You don't get to see if the target dies before making the second strike.

Nowhere in the flurry of blows says anything about choose before attack, or to resolve damage only after both strikes, and the normal thing is resolve one attack before resolve another.

Roll first attack, resolve damage and everything else ( crit specialization, reactions, etc )
Roll second attack, if against the same target, if both attacks had hit, you calculate the damage as part of the same attack.

I disagree. The strikes made as a part of Flurry of Blows are an example of simultaneous actions being that they are a part of an activity. In reality you aren't choosing targets for either strike individually, you would choose your targets for Flurry of Blows when you begin the Flurry of Blows.

As to resolving the damage, this depends on the targets of your Flurry. If you target the one creature with your Flurry of Blows, as in the OP's example, then you would definitely not "resolve" damage before both strikes are made. You can roll it, but that damage will not be "resolved" until the second strike is complete. Hence why I stand by my opinion that Flurry wouldn't trigger a Champion's reaction between strikes targeting the same creature: You don't deal the damage until you deal with resistances and weaknesses, and Flurry instructs you to add your damage from both strikes together before applying either.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, you definitely do NOT get to choose one target for FoB, wait until you see the result, roll damage, see the result, and then choose the second target.

You choose both before you even pick up your d20s for the check.

Horizon Hunters

Themetricsystem wrote:

Yeah, you definitely do NOT get to choose one target for FoB, wait until you see the result, roll damage, see the result, and then choose the second target.

You choose both before you even pick up your d20s for the check.

Flurry: http://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=9

Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn.

Strike: http://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=89

There is NOTHING saying that you MUST choose targets from both strikes before resolve each one.


Samir Sardinha wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

Yeah, you definitely do NOT get to choose one target for FoB, wait until you see the result, roll damage, see the result, and then choose the second target.

You choose both before you even pick up your d20s for the check.

Flurry: http://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=9

Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn.

Strike: http://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=89

There is NOTHING saying that you MUST choose targets from both strikes before resolve each one.

That is true, though I will point out that there is also nothing stating that you can choose your targets individually. The strikes made as a part of Flurry of Blows are subordinate actions of Flurry of Blows, not sequential actions.

But let's table that discussion since it really doesn't matter whether you choose targets first (my preference) or choose them before each strike (Samir's).

As I pointed out before when you target the same creature with both strikes you are instructed to add the damage together prior to applying resistances and weaknesses. So the target is never in a state of being "damaged" between the strikes. This means that the champion doesn't have an opportunity to use their reaction until after both attacks have damaged the target. Again, if you haven't reduced a creatures hitpoints, step 4 in damaging something, then the trigger, "An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you," isn't satisfied in my opinion.

So it really doesn't matter altogether too much when you declare targets, ideally you wouldn't apply any damage until you've made both flurry attacks anyway, in the event that you end up targeting the same creature, and thus have to add the damage together before applying resistances and weaknesses.


OP has the right order, everyone who disagrees is inferring randomness from somewhere I couldn't begin to imagine. For the record, in 2e reactions are designed to specifically interrupt actions, as the only one that specifically states to occur after the triggering action is using move action that does not move you out of the square (i.e. standing up from prone).

HumbleGamer wrote:

1) A monk is next to a creature and decides to use its flurry of blows.

2) He rolls the first strike, which hits.
3) The Paladin uses its reaction to deal with the monk, giving its friend damage reduction and striking the monk as well.
4) The paladin has a Polearm or Club weapon and scores a critical hit, so he decides to move ( or shove, if the weapon was a club ) the enemy far from his friend.

Flurry of Blows:

Make two unarmed Strikes[/u]. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn.

"Make two unarmed Strikes" - this is two separate strikes that must be unarmed attacks or monk weapons, pure and simple. It's very simple math, 2 is more than 1.

If both hit the same creature - implies that each strike can hit different creatures if you want and since they are two separate strikes, you decide when you specifically roll for them.

combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses - states that if they both hit the same creature you only combine their damage for the purposes of resistances and weaknesses and NOTHING else. It's still 2 separate strikes that when used together help bypass resistances or boost weaknesses.


Katapesh Fried Chicken wrote:
OP has the right order, everyone who disagrees is inferring randomness from somewhere I couldn't begin to imagine. For the record, in 2e reactions are designed to specifically interrupt actions, as the only one that specifically states to occur after the triggering action is using move action that does not move you out of the square (i.e. standing up from prone).

I disagree. Reactions are not designed, "specifically to interrupt actions," they just can due to their nature as long as their trigger is satisfied in the middle of an action. This is important for things like AoO or similar reactions disrupting a Stride mid move, or disrupting a caster in the middle of casting a spell. There are plenty of reactions that Can't interrupt an action because their trigger doesn't happen in the middle of an action. Retributive Strike happens to be one that triggers specifically on Damage, so won't typically interrupt an action, since Damage is nearly always the last thing done during an attack.

As to "inferring randomness," quite the opposite. There is an order to how actions are resolved. Flurry of Blows alters the way that Damage is resolved in it's two strikes by instructing you to add together the damage of both strikes before applying resistances and weaknesses. So sure, in the case that you strike two different creatures with Flurry, the Champion could use their reaction between attacks. It still wouldn't prevent the monk from getting their second strike against a second foe however.

As I said before, it really doesn't matter in what order or when you decide which strike hits who. You can't say that a creature has been "damaged" before reducing it's hit points, and you can't reduce a target of Flurry of Blows hit points until you have either added together the damage of both strikes, or made your second strike on a second creature. How could you if you don't know how much damage to apply to the creature's resistances and or weaknesses?

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
How could you if you don't know how much damage to apply to the creature's resistances and or weaknesses?

Math.

Hardness 10
Punch 1 does 7 damage, reduced to 0 by hardness.
Punch 2 does 10 damage, reduced to 7 by the "remaing hardness" ( hardness 10 - 7 dmg = 3 hardness )

Same way with weakness:

Punch 1 does 10 damage, trigger weakness for extra 5 damage: total 15
Punch 2 does 8 damage, cant trigger weakness again, total 8.

Horizon Hunters

Hardness isn't Resistance, so it is calculated differently. How it is, I'm not sure. I think it would apply to both strikes individually, maybe?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I should have known as soon as I tried to use an illustrative analogy that what would happen as a result would be a complete rephrasing of the analogy that is entirely incompatible... congratulations, you have proven my analogy doesn't hold up to a completely different scenario than it was intended to illustrate, and that has not even the tiniest bit of merit towards suggesting my point regarding language allowing things to be "the same enough" was incorrect.

"Where there is a difference is in the application of a third factor, abilities that trigger on damage specifically."

Not really, because either it's just more damage that triggers on damage so it's added together (where there is no material difference between when/how that is done, as you've agreed), or the effect has it's own clear rules for how it works.

Or, if there is some scenario that I can't think of in which it genuinely matters which order steps are taken in, I think it'd still be clear how to proceed based on what the intent of "combine damage for the purpose of weakness or resistance" seems to be, which is a simple "don't double-dip" case.


thenobledrake wrote:

I should have known as soon as I tried to use an illustrative analogy that what would happen as a result would be a complete rephrasing of the analogy that is entirely incompatible... congratulations, you have proven my analogy doesn't hold up to a completely different scenario than it was intended to illustrate, and that has not even the tiniest bit of merit towards suggesting my point regarding language allowing things to be "the same enough" was incorrect.

"Where there is a difference is in the application of a third factor, abilities that trigger on damage specifically."

Not really, because either it's just more damage that triggers on damage so it's added together (where there is no material difference between when/how that is done, as you've agreed), or the effect has it's own clear rules for how it works.

Or, if there is some scenario that I can't think of in which it genuinely matters which order steps are taken in, I think it'd still be clear how to proceed based on what the intent of "combine damage for the purpose of weakness or resistance" seems to be, which is a simple "don't double-dip" case.

Wait, are you not aware of what this conversation is even about? Refer to the original post. The question at hand was would a Champion triggering Retributive Strike with a polearm with a critical hit be able to shove a Monk out of position to finish their Flurry of Blows between strikes.

I don't care about what your point was, apparently you weren't following the original conversation. The whole conversation was about the effect that your application of resistances and weaknesses to the damage from the two attacks in a Flurry of Blows has on that exact scenario.

If you resolve it the way Samir and Katapesh Fried Chicken say, then the Champion would shove the monk between strikes, depriving them of their second attack. If you resolve it the way Jared and I believe it should be resolved, then the Monk would get both strikes and be shoved after the Flurry has been resolved.

So yeah, I answered your reply by trying to get back on topic, rather than follow a tangent that I don't disagree with generally, excepting only how it applies to this exact scenario.

So in the OP's example, in your opinion, how should that situation be resolved?

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

I should have known as soon as I tried to use an illustrative analogy that what would happen as a result would be a complete rephrasing of the analogy that is entirely incompatible... congratulations, you have proven my analogy doesn't hold up to a completely different scenario than it was intended to illustrate, and that has not even the tiniest bit of merit towards suggesting my point regarding language allowing things to be "the same enough" was incorrect.

"Where there is a difference is in the application of a third factor, abilities that trigger on damage specifically."

Not really, because either it's just more damage that triggers on damage so it's added together (where there is no material difference between when/how that is done, as you've agreed), or the effect has it's own clear rules for how it works.

Or, if there is some scenario that I can't think of in which it genuinely matters which order steps are taken in, I think it'd still be clear how to proceed based on what the intent of "combine damage for the purpose of weakness or resistance" seems to be, which is a simple "don't double-dip" case.

Creature Flurries, rolling 7 damage on the first strike. A Champion uses their reaction, giving the target Resistance 10 to All Damage against the triggering damage. Note the triggering damage was the initial 7 that was rolled. This nullifies the 7 damage. The creature then rolls a nat 20 and maxes the damage die, dealing 32 damage. Since the reaction only applies to the triggering damage, none of the remaining resistance applies to the second strike, so your ally wouldn't get the remaining 3 resistance.

This is how it would work with the proposed "See what happens first then roll the second Strike" method. You can not argue that the second strike still applies to the resistance, since the resistance is temporary and wears off as soon as damage is applied.

But if you wait until both strikes are made and apply damage only once, it would work just fine. The Champion wouldn't be able to use the reaction until both strikes happen, and damage is dealt as a whole. This way the Resistance applies to all the damage dealt, since the whole thing is the trigger.

I know people just want to use Retributive Strike in the middle of the Flurry and hope for a crit so that they can reposition the creature so that the target is out of reach, thus negating the second hit, but that's just a fringe case that it's not worth breaking the flow of the game for.


beowulf99 wrote:
The whole conversation was about the effect that your application of resistances and weaknesses to the damage from the two attacks in a Flurry of Blows has on that exact scenario.

There is no difference in when the monk get's shoved between the monk using their flurry Strikes on two different targets, or on a single target. The first Strike is resolved in its entirety before any part of the second Strike, such as choosing a target, is done. If this weren't the case, the rules would specify that, despite generally choosing your target for each Strike as you make it, the Strikes granted by this action need their targets chosen at the same time (because that's how exception-based rule design works - you only change what is explicitly said to change)

Cordell Kintner wrote:
You can not argue that the second strike still applies to the resistance, since the resistance is temporary and wears off as soon as damage is applied.

I can, and I'd be correct according to the rules text to do so because specific "combine the damage for the purposes of resistance or weakness" trumps general "against the triggering damage" (which as I type I note isn't even in contradiction - both pieces of text are in agreement that if the second Strike gets added to this target the full resistance would be applied against the total damage dealt)

And your argument creates a clearly unintended situation in which if the paladin uses their reaction on the 1st Strike of the flurry it is less effective overall than if they wait and apply it to the 2nd Strike, where the fully known total of damage would even more clearly be "the triggering damage" given the "combine the damage" clause. The game just doesn't try to gotcha players like that.

Horizon Hunters

So why does one rule overwrite the other rule? Isn't the trigger of the Champion more specific than the strikes combining? That's like saying if you strike with Bludgeoning for the first strike, and Slashing for the second they still combine and apply even though the target only has resistance to Bludgeoning.

You can't have it both ways here. It triggers as soon as damage is applied, which you're claiming happens after the first strike, so the whole reaction would occur and wear off before the second strike even happens. In this case it wouldn't apply to the second strike since the resistance has already faded at that point.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the trigger is what makes this case occur. A lot of things trigger off being targeted by or hit by a Strike, which would indeed trigger as soon as the first strike is declared or hits, but since Champion reactions trigger off receiving damage, you need to know how much damage over all you are receiving before being able to use it.

When you deal damage you follow the 4 steps. What Flurry is supposed to do is have two different strikes combine themselves at step 3, which is the resistance step. This is much simpler than going through all 4 steps, then backtracking to add the second strike to the damage at step 3, just to go back to step 4 again.

Here's another weird example: When someone Shield Blocks a flurry, will it only block one or both attacks? If you combine it, it applies to both, but it's using Hardness to block the attacks not resistance, so the attacks don't combine, meaning you can only Shield Block a single strike. So what if someone blocks the first strike, reducing the damage to 0, while the champion wants to also trigger their reaction at the same time? Both have the same trigger, which is that the target "takes damage", so who's reaction activates first? Or couldn't you just simply block the first Strike, and any remaining damage from that strike would be combined with the second strike before the Champion could react? This is a way simpler solution, and doesn't require jumping through mental hoops to justify backtracking through the 4 steps of damage.

thenobledrake wrote:
And your argument creates a clearly unintended situation...

Also, please read the original post of this thread.


Cordell Kintner wrote:
So why does one rule overwrite the other rule?

Because that's what the rules tell us to do when rules are apparently in conflict.

Cordell Kintner wrote:
Isn't the trigger of the Champion more specific than the strikes combining?

Definitely not, because the champion ability would apply whether the 2nd Strike of the flurry had the same target or not, but the "combine" condition only applies if that specific extra choice is made.

Cordell Kintner wrote:
Here's another weird example: When someone Shield Blocks a flurry, will it only block one or both attacks?

A shield block is not resistance or weakness, and those are the only things the flurry attacks are combined for the purpose of... this isn't even kind of unclear how it works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
I can, and I'd be correct according to the rules text to do so because specific "combine the damage for the purposes of resistance or weakness" trumps general "against the triggering damage" (which as I type I note isn't even in contradiction - both pieces of text are in agreement that if the second Strike gets added to this target the full resistance would be applied against the total damage dealt)

If the champion used their Reaction on the second strike, would you have it heal the target for any 'leftover' resistance?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Shield Block discussion had me intrigued, so I did some research and came to a conclusion. Let's break this down:

A Paladin Champion and a Shield Fighter both charge an enemy Monk. The Champion whiffed, but a decent hit from the Shield Fighter's Longsword draws aggro. Enemy Monk's first action in this combat is to enter a stance, and then Flurry the Shield Fighter, whose shield is raised.

Boom, the enemy Monk lands a 1-2 combo hit. But, the Paladin uses his reaction on the first hit, getting some reprisal for hitting his ally with both attacks, while the Shield Fighter also has his reaction to Shield Block.

So, based on this situation, the result from the steps of calculating damage is as follows:

1. The monk rolls his Style damage dice, plus any Striking or Elemental Runes from Handwraps.
2. The damage type on both attacks is physical, Bludgeoning. No other damage types are on these attacks.
3. Flurry of Blows combines for its damage total in this case, and is met with Resistance from the Champion, regardless of whether the reaction's strike was successful or not. If the Champion had the Divine Reflexes feat and used both reactions on the Flurry effect, the Reaction's reduction would only apply once.
4. At this point, the Shield Fighter takes the remaining damage. However, he chooses to utilize the Shield Block reaction, as its trigger, "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack," is met. The effects of Shield Block resolve as normal, and the combat carries on.

Pretty simple stuff, really.

Horizon Hunters

The wording "You would take damage" implies that you have not yet taken that damage, but the attack is about to cause damage. This means the reaction happens after Step 3 but before Step 4. Meanwhile, the Champion Reaction wording of "An enemy damages your ally" implies that the damage has already been applied. This means the reaction happens after Step 4, and reverses it back to step 3 to apply the Resistance.

This means the Shield Block would apply first, then the Champion would reduce any remaining damage. You also can only block one of the two strikes, since the damage isn't combined for Hardness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[warning: the following post is a joke]

Then the Champion's reaction reduces the damage to 0, so the shield user wouldn't be able to block because they wouldn't take damage, which means they retroactively don't, causing them to take damage, so they block, which causes the Champion's reaction to trigger, reducing the damage to 0, which retroactively means the shield user wouldn't take damage so they fail to block, causing them to take damage-

Time screeches to a winding flux as the Champion and Fighter work together to pull the world of Golarion into an infinite loop. Eventually it crashes, taking with it death, suffering, life, love, and all memory of anything ever having been there.

Millennia pass. Spacefaring begins on a backup of the universe.

And that's why shields don't work that way in Starfinder!


Cordell Kintner wrote:
The wording "You would take damage" implies that you have not yet taken that damage"

Or that, if not for the thing with that trigger, you would take damage - but with the thing with that trigger, perhaps you won't.

Timing is open to interpretation because of the casual language style in which the rules are written, and that's fine, because the game is played by people and those people can adjust for when things aren't necessarily going to work.

That's the whole point of the second half of the Ambiguous Rules section, to tell us all, to paraphrase, if the rules seem to be telling you to do a thing that makes no sense and you can't figure out how to apply... change your interpretation to something that works, even if it is barely what the text makes you think it is saying, rather than lamenting that the rule just doesn't work.


thenobledrake wrote:


That's the whole point of the second half of the Ambiguous Rules section, to tell us all, to paraphrase, if the rules seem to be telling you to do a thing that makes no sense and you can't figure out how to apply... change your interpretation to something that works, even if it is barely what the text makes you think it is saying, rather than lamenting that the rule just doesn't work.

I couldn't agree more. So why not just do exactly as Flurry of Blows says, and Combine the two strikes damage for the purposes of Resistances and Weaknesses? This neatly solves any issue you could have with this scenario and timing.

A shield block would be able to block damage from both hits instead of only one, giving the shield user a bit of a boost while also making it a bit more likely that their shield will take excessive damage.

The Paladin can trigger their reaction on the proper trigger, an ally taking damage.

The Monk doesn't get shafted out of an attack due to being repositioned by a Paladin or having their target Step away due to a Redeemer reaction or similar ability.

Everyone's abilities go off just fine this way, unless the Shield Block happens to block all of the damage. Not likely, but not impossible depending on the levels at play and how high the monk rolls for damage. But worst case scenario, the Champion doesn't have to spend their reaction because the entire flurry did no damage.

Feels like the simplest way to resolve the situation in my book, which makes it my choice for the "Ambiguous Rules" ruling. Though obviously everyone else is fully entitled to their opinions. If running the situation the other way happens to be easier for you, then by all means go ahead. I just happen to not agree.


beowulf99 wrote:
The Monk doesn't get shafted out of an attack due to being repositioned by a Paladin or having their target Step away due to a Redeemer reaction or similar ability.

This comes down to, to borrow your phrasing, someone is getting shafted.

Either it is the monk because repositioning reactions leave them without their desired target in reach, or it's whoever is using an ability that clearly says it repositions someone because they aren't able to actually benefit from an aspect of their ability (because, for whatever reason, the GM has apparently decided to favor the monk).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
or it's whoever is using an ability that clearly says it repositions someone because they aren't able to actually benefit from an aspect of their ability (because, for whatever reason, the GM has apparently decided to favor the monk).

This isn't true though. In beowulf's scenario the reposition ability still functions normally.


Squiggit wrote:
This isn't true though. In beowulf's scenario the reposition ability still functions normally.

The "normal" function of a shove in response to an attack is that everything after that attack is also after the shove - so no, the monk getting to attack again and then be shoved isn't "still functions normally."


Okay, then how do you rule the same situation with Double Slice?

Double Slice wrote:

You lash out at your foe with both weapons. Make two Strikes, one with each of your two melee weapons, each using your current multiple attack penalty. Both Strikes must have the same target. If the second Strike is made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait, it takes a –2 penalty.

If both attacks hit, combine their damage, and then add any other applicable effects from both weapons. You add any precision damage only once, to the attack of your choice. Combine the damage from both Strikes and apply resistances and weaknesses only once. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty.

In Double Slice it's very clear that you roll both attacks before rolling and combining their damage. Arguably it's just a better worded feat, though I think that is because you are required to target the same creature. Flurry of Blows is worded more loosely granted, likely due to being able to target independent targets.

But in both cases you are combining damage for the purposes of Resistances and Weaknesses. So do they operate differently, or the same? Can the double slicing character be shoved between Double Slice attacks? If so, why? If not, then why would the Monk be able to be shoved between Flurry attacks?

Edit: I'd also put in that the reposition Does still function normally in either case. If the character had taken a single attack, rather than a flurry, it's not like the shove or redeemer reaction would have saved them from that attack, right? I think of Flurry as 2 simultaneous attacks, so it's not unreasonable that they'd both hit before the character could be shoved imo.

If the reaction triggered on an attack roll, then I'd be cool with it, since it could disrupt the attack/flurry entirely. But none of the abilities cited have the ability to stop the attack that triggered it from happening in the first place, so why should they disrupt a Flurry mid-way through?


beowulf99 wrote:
In Double Slice it's very clear that you roll both attacks before rolling and combining their damage.

No, it's not.

Because generally you resolve the first Strike entirely before adding on any effects from or doing anything with a second Strike, and while this feat explicitly alters the damage resolution process (in the case where both Strikes hit) it does not explicitly say to roll the attack roll for both Strikes, then the damage rolls.

So in this case, just like in the case of Flurry of Blows, or any other multiple-Strike-in-one-activity ability that I've seen in the game rules, a reaction that moves the attacker out of position used on the first Strike can make the second Strike impossible.


This was supposed to be an eddit to address more, but the site won't let me actually submit editted posts:

beowulf99 wrote:
Edit: I'd also put in that the reposition Does still function normally in either case. If the character had taken a single attack, rather than a flurry, it's not like the shove or redeemer reaction would have saved them from that attack, right?

You're not looking at the full picture. It's not about being "saved" from the attack reacted to, it's about altering the creature's plan after the attack reacted to.

Compare the following: Without a reaction that repositions the attacker, a creature Strides toward a target, Strikes once, and then Strikes a second time.

With a reaction that repositions the attacker, the same creature Strides toward a target, Strikes once, and because of the repositioning can only use their 3rd action to Strike if they have reach or range.


thenobledrake wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
In Double Slice it's very clear that you roll both attacks before rolling and combining their damage.

No, it's not.

Because generally you resolve the first Strike entirely before adding on any effects from or doing anything with a second Strike, and while this feat explicitly alters the damage resolution process (in the case where both Strikes hit) it does not explicitly say to roll the attack roll for both Strikes, then the damage rolls.

So in this case, just like in the case of Flurry of Blows, or any other multiple-Strike-in-one-activity ability that I've seen in the game rules, a reaction that moves the attacker out of position used on the first Strike can make the second Strike impossible.

And I disagree. Double Strike has a pretty explicit set of instructions. Make two strikes. If both hit, combine their damage, then add any applicable effects from both weapons (so things like Backstabber, Forceful, Twin etc...) then apply weaknesses and resistances to the sum of that. Again, in my opinion, you can't say that a creature has "been damaged" or would "Take Damage" before you at least have these steps completed, so a Champion couldn't react between either attack since you don't know what that sum is until both attacks have been rolled.

What you are saying basically comes down to, don't do what the ability says to do, instead just act like you are making 2 independent strikes. That is clearly not correct.

thenobledrake wrote:

You're not looking at the full picture. It's not about being "saved" from the attack reacted to, it's about altering the creature's plan after the attack reacted to.

Compare the following: Without a reaction that repositions the attacker, a creature Strides toward a target, Strikes once, and then Strikes a second time.

With a reaction that repositions the attacker, the same creature Strides toward a target, Strikes once, and because of the repositioning can only use their 3rd action to Strike if they have reach or range.

And the monk has to stride back towards the shoving creature after their flurry if they get shoved under my interpretation. The only difference is whether they are denied their second Flurry attack. And I say no, they should not be denied that attack.

To be denied an attack, you need an effect that triggers on an attack roll or targeting. In my opinion, an effect that triggers on damage shouldn't be able to stop the effect that triggered the damage from ever happening, unless it says that it does so explicitly.


The standard order of things that happens when you make one Strike is 1) pick your target, 2) choose which weapon you are using if you have multiple at the ready, 3) roll the attack, 4) roll damage. The process for two Strikes, generally, is to do all those steps for the first, then all those steps for the second.

Double Slice only changes what it explicitly states changing about that process: a) you have to choose one weapon for the first strike and a different weapon for the second, b) you have to choose the same target, c) if both Strikes hit the damage figuring gets altered, even if retroactively.

Because nothing in Double Slice actually says "make both attack rolls before rolling any damage for either of these Strikes," or anything like it.

And getting interrupted in the middle of a multi-Strike activity is not "stop the effect that triggered the damage from ever happening" or it'd prevent the damage from the first Strike too, it's just changing conditions as the effect is being resolved in the order it is actually resolved in because "Make two Strikes" and "Make two Strikes that resolve simultaneously and can't be reacted to individually" are not the same thing.


thenobledrake wrote:

The standard order of things that happens when you make one Strike is 1) pick your target, 2) choose which weapon you are using if you have multiple at the ready, 3) roll the attack, 4) roll damage. The process for two Strikes, generally, is to do all those steps for the first, then all those steps for the second.

Double Slice only changes what it explicitly states changing about that process: a) you have to choose one weapon for the first strike and a different weapon for the second, b) you have to choose the same target, c) if both Strikes hit the damage figuring gets altered, even if retroactively.

Because nothing in Double Slice actually says "make both attack rolls before rolling any damage for either of these Strikes," or anything like it.

And getting interrupted in the middle of a multi-Strike activity is not "stop the effect that triggered the damage from ever happening" or it'd prevent the damage from the first Strike too, it's just changing conditions as the effect is being resolved in the order it is actually resolved in because "Make two Strikes" and "Make two Strikes that resolve simultaneously and can't be reacted to individually" are not the same thing.

Oh, so now we are supposed to retroactively re-calculate damage rolls that we've already applied to the opponent then? Why make extra steps? Does that feel like the more natural way to resolve this ability?

So you should resolve strike 1 in it's entirety, reducing the damage by resistance and reducing the targets hit points, as you would normally, then roll a second attack and if it hits, go back and re-work out resistance with the new damage in mind? Why? Why not just do exactly as the ability says and roll both attacks first, then Combine their damage for resistances and weaknesses?

And turnabout being fair play and all, "'Make two Strikes' and 'Make two Strikes that resolve simultaneously and can't be reacted to individually' are not the same thing," except when they are. Being that they are subordinate actions of an activity, they are "simultaneous" actions, with all the restrictions that come with that.

Edit: Which strike would you apply Sneak Attack to, since you are resolving them as you would "normally?" Say you strike with a mace and a sword, and your target has resistance against both, but their slashing resistance is greater. You strike first with the mace. Do you apply the blunt resistance? Your second strike is with the sword dealing slashing. Once it hits, do you retroactively go back, remove the blunt resistance from the equation, and add the slashing resistance?

Why make these extra steps?


There is also the case of Specific Trumps General, in that the rules for resolving damage assumes a basic Strike, not any abilities that require multiple strikes in the same activity.

IMO, the specifics of the activities of Double Slice and Flurry of Blows would overturn any general rules of resolving damage where it's specified in the activity.

In these cases, Flurry and Slice would resolve both attacks before resistances and HP loss are applied.

For the questions about when the reactions take place, the Champion Reaction would take place essentially at the beginning of Step 1 of applying damage, because we know damage is going to be applied, regardless of what value that might be. Shield Block, on the other hand, can be done at Step 4, when you would be taking that damage to your HP value.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


For the questions about when the reactions take place, the Champion Reaction would take place essentially at the beginning of Step 1 of applying damage, because we know damage is going to be applied, regardless of what value that might be.

Are you referring to thenobledrake 1) which is "pick your target" ( or even my "A monk is next to a creature and decides to use its flurry of blows")?

If so, no.

We are not even sure that there would be damage to begin with.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


For the questions about when the reactions take place, the Champion Reaction would take place essentially at the beginning of Step 1 of applying damage, because we know damage is going to be applied, regardless of what value that might be.

Are you referring to thenobledrake 1) which is "pick your target" ( or even my "A monk is next to a creature and decides to use its flurry of blows")?

If so, no.

We are not even sure that there would be damage to begin with.

Nope. I'm talking about the 4 steps of applying damage.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


For the questions about when the reactions take place, the Champion Reaction would take place essentially at the beginning of Step 1 of applying damage, because we know damage is going to be applied, regardless of what value that might be.

Are you referring to thenobledrake 1) which is "pick your target" ( or even my "A monk is next to a creature and decides to use its flurry of blows")?

If so, no.

We are not even sure that there would be damage to begin with.

Nope. I'm talking about the 4 steps of applying damage.

Oh, sorry then ( too many numbers here ).

I agree with you.

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Multiattack and reactions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.