Confident Finisher with Exemplary Finisher

[yarrchives]

Does the failure effect of confident finisher's strike, which still deals damage, count as a hit for exemplary finisher?

Quote:

You execute your finishing moves with spectacular flair, adding special effects to your finishers. If a Strike you make as part of a finisher hits a foe, you add one of the following effects to the Strike, depending on your swashbuckler's style.

[HammerJack]

No

[The Raven Black]

Yes. To deal damage, you had to hit them.

[Super Zero]

Confident Finisher's effect is that you can still deal a little damage on a miss, so that's not true in this case.

[The Raven Black]

Super Zero wrote:

Confident Finisher's effect is that you can still deal a little damage on a miss, so that's not true in this case.

Not on a miss. On a failure but not a critical failure. So IMO this means that even on a failure you managed to scratch your opponent. So, you did hit them however lightly. Which explains why the damage dealt is of the exact same type as your attack. Because it did hit.

[Ferious Thune]

Exemplary Finisher wrote:

If a Strike you make as part of a finisher hits a foe, you add one of the following effects to the Strike, depending on your swashbuckler's style.

The Strike did not hit. Confident Finisher applies damage on a failure, but the Strike didn’t hit. Strike is its own subaction. If it said when you deal damage with a Finisher, it would work.

[The Raven Black]

"Damage
Source Core Rulebook pg. 450 2.0
In the midst of combat, you attempt checks to determine if you can damage your foe with weapons, spells, or alchemical concoctions. On a successful check, you hit and deal damage."

I link hit and deal damage. You link successful check and hit.

Note however that the above rule also applies to say a successful save on a fireball, which IMO is very similar to confident finisher. I would say that the creature that succeeded on its save (but did not critically succeed) was indeed hit by the fireball (hence the damage). Only one who critically succeeds has not been hit at all.

[Ferious Thune]

But your Strike is dealing 0 damage. It's only half the bonus damage from the finisher. Nothing from the Strike itself. Otherwise your strength bonus would apply, your property runes would apply, and everything else that triggers on a hit would apply, but they don't. If a splash weapon's splash deals damage to a target, but the attack itself missed, it's still a miss.

[graystone]

Ferious Thune wrote:

But your Strike is dealing 0 damage.

Not relevent.

"Make a Strike with a weapon or unarmed attack that would apply your precise strike damage, with the following failure effect.

Failure You deal half your precise strike damage to the target. This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike."

"When you hit with an ability that grants you precision damage, you increase the attack's listed damage, using the same damage type, rather than tracking a separate pool of damage." This means that the precision damage from precise strike MUST be from the strikes weapon even if that damage is 0 as it's ALL from the same pool.

[Squiggit]

The Raven Black wrote:

Not on a miss. On a failure but not a critical failure.

This is a distinction without a difference as far as I can tell. Miss and failure are used completely interchangeably in the book.

[iNickedYerKnickers]

The Raven Black wrote:

Yes. To deal damage, you had to hit them.

That is patently false.

Failing on a roll to Strike equals a miss. Simple.

There are two things, that I know of, that still deal damage when a Strike fails to hit (i.e. misses): Splash ( ?"On a failure (but not a critical failure), the target of the attack still takes the splash damage.") and Confident Finisher ("Failure You deal half your precise strike damage to the target."). In both cases, damage is applied even if the strikes miss.

So, no, to deal damage you didn't have to hit them necessarily.

[Ferious Thune]

graystone wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

But your Strike is dealing 0 damage.

Not relevent.

"Make a Strike with a weapon or unarmed attack that would apply your precise strike damage, with the following failure effect.

Failure You deal half your precise strike damage to the target. This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike."

"When you hit with an ability that grants you precision damage, you increase the attack's listed damage, using the same damage type, rather than tracking a separate pool of damage." This means that the precision damage from precise strike MUST be from the strikes weapon even if that damage is 0 as it's ALL from the same pool.

And I’ll respectfully disagree. It says you deal half your precise strike damage. It doesn’t say on a failure your Strike still hits but deals half damage. A failure effect is an effect on a failure. The Strike failed. It is a miss.

[Super Zero]

graystone wrote:

Not relevent.

...

"When you hit with an ability that grants you precision damage, you increase the attack's listed damage, using the same damage type, rather than tracking a separate pool of damage." This means that the precision damage from precise strike MUST be from the strikes weapon even if that damage is 0 as it's ALL from the same pool.

You're right that it's not relevant. It doesn't say a Strike that deals damage, it says a Strike that hits.

We are discussing a Strike that did not hit. It's... not really ambiguous.

[graystone]

Ferious Thune wrote:

graystone wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

But your Strike is dealing 0 damage.

Not relevent.

"Make a Strike with a weapon or unarmed attack that would apply your precise strike damage, with the following failure effect.

Failure You deal half your precise strike damage to the target. This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike."

"When you hit with an ability that grants you precision damage, you increase the attack's listed damage, using the same damage type, rather than tracking a separate pool of damage." This means that the precision damage from precise strike MUST be from the strikes weapon even if that damage is 0 as it's ALL from the same pool.

And I’ll respectfully disagree. It says you deal half your precise strike damage. It doesn’t say on a failure your Strike still hits but deals half damage. A failure effect is an effect on a failure. The Strike failed. It is a miss.

I think you missed my point: I wasn't debating a hit or miss. I was pointing out that precision damage and weapon damage aren't separate damages but are a combined pool of damage. It specifically says it additional to not separate hence saying the weapon deal damage has nothing to do with a hit or miss.

Super Zero wrote:

We are discussing a Strike that did not hit. It's... not really ambiguous.

Ferious Thune was incorrect as he referenced just weapon damage when in this case it's a combined pool with a damage type that must be added to another source. Precision damage is in addition to/an increase to another damage and not damage source itself.

As to hit or miss... *shrug* The rules can seem funky. For instance, take the mimic with it's adhesive slime: a failure when using Confident Finisher means you'd damage it with your weapon but because it wasn't a hit, it's not stuck as weapons are only stuck on a hit and it only damaged.

But, yeah, most times it boils down to Checks [Core Rulebook pg. 443]: "When you swing your sword at that foul beast, you’ll make an attack roll against its Armor Class, which is the DC to hit another creature."

[Cordell Kintner]

Not all finishers deal damage on a miss, take Unbalancing Finisher for example. Why would Confident Finisher trigger Exemplary Finisher on a fail, but not Unbalancing Finisher? Balance wise, it makes no sense that some finishers would get that additional power over others.

Also, while a "hit" isn't described in depth in the rules, everyone agrees a "hit" is when you succeed or critically succeed on your strike. The fact Confident Finisher adds damage on a miss doesn't mean it's not a miss.

[Ferious Thune]

graystone wrote:

Ferious Thune was incorrect as he referenced just weapon damage when in this case it's a combined pool with a damage type that must be added to another source. Precision damage is in addition to/an increase to another damage and not damage source itself.

I think you missed my point then. I said that the Strike deals 0 damage, because it’s Confident Finisher that is dealing the damage. The requirement for Exemplary Finisher is that the Strike hits. Not that Confident Finisher deals damage.

Confident Finisher does exactly what is says it does and nothing else. If the Strike fails, then Confident Finisher deals half the precise strike damage. That’s it. It doesn’t trigger anything else that would trigger on a hit.

[The Raven Black]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Also, while a "hit" isn't described in depth in the rules, everyone agrees a "hit" is when you succeed or critically succeed on your strike.

Hmm.No. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion ;-)

[Cordell Kintner]

The Raven Black wrote:

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Also, while a "hit" isn't described in depth in the rules, everyone agrees a "hit" is when you succeed or critically succeed on your strike.

Hmm.No. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion ;-)

If you were to make a standard Strike, would you not only "hit" the target when it's a Success or Crit Success, and "miss" the target when it's a Failure or Crit Failure?

Confident Finisher does not change anything about the Strike other than adding a bit of damage if your attack is a Failure. You still miss on a Fail, you just also deal a small amount of damage in the process.

Also, you're ignoring the balance issue I have raised about other Finishers that don't deal damage on a Failure. In fact, Confident Finisher is the ONLY Finisher that deals damage on a Failure, so why should this one Finisher be allowed to gain extra effects on a Failed Strike, but not any other Finisher?

[Ferious Thune]

It would be great if they had included "hit" in the glossary, and it is definitely a poor choice of word for an ability like Exemplary Finisher, when almost everything else uses a degree of success. The closest thing we have to defining a "hit" is under Damage:

Damage wrote:

On a successful check, you hit and deal damage.

Notice that hit and deal damage are two separate things there. Confident Finisher deals damage, but it does not say that you "hit and deal damage." You "hit" on a successful check. Yes, it's reasonable to assume that it's weapon damage, given that Confident Finisher says:

Confident Finisher wrote:

You deal half your precise strike damage to the target. This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike.

But Exemplary Finisher doesn't trigger off of weapon damage, either. It triggers off of the Strike hitting, which we are told happens on a successful check. Confident Finisher triggers off of the check failing, so it was not a successful check for the Strike, so the Strike did not hit.

Expand this out to think of other implications. What if multi classing into Magus allows for Striking Spell. Is your held charge going to trigger when you fail the Strike, but Confident Finisher deals damage? In my opinion, no, because Confident Finisher doesn't say that anything else happens other than dealing half of your Precise Strike damage. That's it.

[_benno]

The word hit is not mentioned for strikes as well. We only assume that the strike misses because it does no damage. Now the Finisher deals damage. If it doesn't hit the opponent please explain to me how it does that.

Anyway that was nothing new to this post. What wasn't mentioned before is Precise Finisher:

Quote:

Even when your foe avoids your Confident Finisher, you can still hit a vital spot. On a failure with Confident Finisher, you apply your full precise strike damage instead of half.

There it specifically says "you hit a vital organ". That's the most specific thing whether the strike hits or misses on a failed attack roll.

So to conclude the whole thing I think based on Precise Finisher Confident Finisher should be a hit but not on a vital organ and therefore trigger Exemplary Finisher. But otherwise it says avoids so not sure on that as well.

[Cordell Kintner]

Your strike is so precise, you only graze the target on a Failure, dealing a bit of damage.

So, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Confident Finisher is the only finisher that deals damage on a Failure. Why would this finisher count as a "hit" on a failure, while every other one wouldn't?

[breithauptclan]

In general regarding melee and ranged attacks I think of 'hit' as rolling a success on a Strike action.

So if something triggers on a 'hit', then it only happens on a success of the Strike. If the fail effect of a Strike has been upgraded to still deal damage, that still doesn't count as a 'hit'.

But since the term 'hit' isn't actually defined...

[_benno]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Your strike is so precise, you only graze the target on a Failure, dealing a bit of damage.

So, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Confident Finisher is the only finisher that deals damage on a Failure. Why would this finisher count as a "hit" on a failure, while every other one wouldn't?

Where I come from we have a saying that translates to 'just next to it is also over'. If you turn that to the opposite barely hitting (only grazing the target) is still a hit.

[Ascalaphus]

CRB p. 443 wrote:

Checks and difficulty classes (DC) both come in many

forms. When you swing your sword at that foul beast,
you’ll make an attack roll against its Armor Class, which
is the DC to hit another creature.

CRB p. 447 wrote:

Armor Class

Attack rolls are compared to a special difficulty class called
an Armor Class (AC), which measures how hard it is for
your foes to hit you with Strikes and other attack actions.

CRB p. 450 wrote:

Damage

In the midst of combat, you attempt checks to determine
if you can damage your foe with weapons, spells, or
alchemical concoctions. On a successful check, you hit
and deal damage.

Hitting is consistently described at succeeding at an attack roll. You don't conclude that you scored a hit because you dealt damage, you deal damage because you manage to score a hit.

[Jared Walter 356]

RAW a hit is a successful attack role CR450.
"on a successful check, you hit and deal damage"

So even if you deal some damage on confident finisher, it is not a hit.

[SuperBidi]

Sorry, Raven, but to hit, you need a success. This one is pretty straightforward.

As a side note:

The Raven Black wrote:

Not on a miss. On a failure but not a critical failure.

On a critical failure, too. You don't apply the failure entry to critical failures only if there is a critical failure entry. Otherwise, the failure entry is applied to both failures and critical failures (critical failures are failures).

[Super Zero]

"Some actions with the finisher trait also grant an effect on a failure. Effects added on a failure don't apply on a critical failure. If your finisher action succeeds, you can still choose to apply the failure effect instead. For example, you might do this when an attack deals no damage due to resistance."

That's how the similar Fighter abilities work, too. It's standard for adding a Failure effect to Strikes, which normally don't have one.

[SuperBidi]

Ok, I missed this line. Sorry about that.

[_benno]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

RAW a hit is a successful attack role CR450.

"on a successful check, you hit and deal damage"

So even if you deal some damage on confident finisher, it is not a hit.

Not really.

successful attack roll => hit
No equivalence is implied.
And you can't turn it around to say:
no successful attack roll => no hit
That's logically wrong.

[Jared Walter 356]

_benno wrote:

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

RAW a hit is a successful attack role CR450.

"on a successful check, you hit and deal damage"

So even if you deal some damage on confident finisher, it is not a hit.

Not really.

successful attack roll => hit
No equivalence is implied.
And you can't turn it around to say:
no successful attack roll => no hit
That's logically wrong.

A hit is defined in no less than three places as a successful attack roll. Because success and failure on a attack roll are mutually exclusive, an unsuccessful attack roll is not a hit. This argument is logically sound.

In order to disprove, you need to cite some other definition of a hit in the rules.

[shroudb]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

_benno wrote:

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

RAW a hit is a successful attack role CR450.

"on a successful check, you hit and deal damage"

So even if you deal some damage on confident finisher, it is not a hit.

Not really.

successful attack roll => hit
No equivalence is implied.
And you can't turn it around to say:
no successful attack roll => no hit
That's logically wrong.

A hit is defined in no less than three places as a successful attack roll. Because success and failure on a attack roll are mutually exclusive, an unsuccessful attack roll is not a hit. This argument is logically sound.

In order to disprove, you need to cite some other definition of a hit in the rules.

Exactly

If you want to be that reliant on math language and logic:
Pf2 rules are written with permissive language.
Aka you can only do what the rules say you can, and not the other way around.

So, since there is no rule that says that "if you deal damage you hit", then simply doing damage isn't a hit.

On the other hand, we do have raw that says that if a check is a success it is a hit.

So, while indeed, we only have
Successful check => hit
And not
Successful check <=> hit
We do NOT have
Damage => hit

So things that trigger on hit, by raw, only work on successful checks.

[_benno]

shroudb wrote:

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

_benno wrote:

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

RAW a hit is a successful attack role CR450.

"on a successful check, you hit and deal damage"

So even if you deal some damage on confident finisher, it is not a hit.

Not really.

successful attack roll => hit
No equivalence is implied.
And you can't turn it around to say:
no successful attack roll => no hit
That's logically wrong.

A hit is defined in no less than three places as a successful attack roll. Because success and failure on a attack roll are mutually exclusive, an unsuccessful attack roll is not a hit. This argument is logically sound.

In order to disprove, you need to cite some other definition of a hit in the rules.

Exactly

If you want to be that reliant on math language and logic:
Pf2 rules are written with permissive language.
Aka you can only do what the rules say you can, and not the other way around.

So, since there is no rule that says that "if you deal damage you hit", then simply doing damage isn't a hit.

On the other hand, we do have raw that says that if a check is a success it is a hit.

So, while indeed, we only have
Successful check => hit
And not
Successful check <=> hit
We do NOT have
Damage => hit

So things that trigger on hit, by raw, only work on successful checks.

I think that's as intended. And for Confident finisher there is indeed nothing else then how does it deal damage if the strike doesn't hit speaking for it.

But for Precise Finisher like I cited earlier the feat states it's a hit.

Quote:

Even when your foe avoids your Confident Finisher, you can still hit a vital spot. On a failure with Confident Finisher, you apply your full precise strike damage instead of half.

There it specifically says it's a hit.

But I think the best way might be to just say that this is a unlucky chosen flavor text.

[_benno]

shroudb wrote:

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

_benno wrote:

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

RAW a hit is a successful attack role CR450.

"on a successful check, you hit and deal damage"

So even if you deal some damage on confident finisher, it is not a hit.

Not really.

successful attack roll => hit
No equivalence is implied.
And you can't turn it around to say:
no successful attack roll => no hit
That's logically wrong.

A hit is defined in no less than three places as a successful attack roll. Because success and failure on a attack roll are mutually exclusive, an unsuccessful attack roll is not a hit. This argument is logically sound.

In order to disprove, you need to cite some other definition of a hit in the rules.

Exactly

If you want to be that reliant on math language and logic:
Pf2 rules are written with permissive language.
Aka you can only do what the rules say you can, and not the other way around.

So, since there is no rule that says that "if you deal damage you hit", then simply doing damage isn't a hit.

On the other hand, we do have raw that says that if a check is a success it is a hit.

So, while indeed, we only have
Successful check => hit
And not
Successful check <=> hit
We do NOT have
Damage => hit

So things that trigger on hit, by raw, only work on successful checks.

And for Damage => hit I never said that thats in the rules. That was just my logic since I didn't know the rule Success=>hit. I think thats quite apparent from my earlier comment and was already cleared up by Ascalaphus.

[Cordell Kintner]

The first part of Precise Finisher is flavor text, not rules text. The rules are "On a failure with Confident Finisher, you apply your full precise strike damage instead of half." If they just had that in the feat, it would still work exactly the same, it would just be really dry and bland.

[_benno]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

The first part of Precise Finisher is flavor text, not rules text. The rules are "On a failure with Confident Finisher, you apply your full precise strike damage instead of half." If they just had that in the feat, it would still work exactly the same, it would just be really dry and bland.

Yes but now there is a term from the natural language "hit" that exists in the rule language and means something different there. You can hit an enemy with a strike but not hit him in rules therms. Thats a bit of a failure in the rules in my opinion.

I think it would have been much better to let "hit" be the natural language hit and say on a success or crit success instead.