I need an advice.
I have a monk and I got her a +1 shuriken Striking Returning.
and, i have a problem,
the shuriken is a Martial weapon with trait monk (among other), and my question is...
Can i use the +1 shuriken Striking Returning with Flurry of Blows action?
If is positive. Do I need 1 or 2 shurikens?
If is negative. Do i need the feat Monastic Weaponry?
Or, If I'm wrong, how could I use it?
If it is true that it will not be my primary attack mode, it is more to cover a lack that my PC has right now.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You need Monastic Weaponry. This gives you proficicency with the Suriken and allows you to use it with Flurry of Blows. You do not need two of them.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
maybe it's a silly question.
Monastic Weaponry say: You can use melee monk weapons with any of your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks.
Shuriken is ranged, can it be used anyway? It's the Monk Trait weapon that I can't understand.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You would need the 2nd level Monk feat Shooting Stars Stance to allow you to flurry with them:
Shooting Stars Stance wrote: You enter a stance that lets you throw shuriken with lightning speed. While in this stance, you can use your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks with shuriken instead. It has the prerequisite of Monastic Weaponry, so you would grab that at first level, and Shooing Stars Stance at second if you wanted to focus on shuriken as your weapon of choice.
ohhhh I had not seen this feat. thanks for the advice
It does mean you have to spend your first action each combat dropping into stance, but that gets mitigated later on as well
Blave wrote: You do not need two of them. Well, no. You need like 20 of them.
They are still thrown weapons. Even though they have a reload 0.
Edit:
Furansisuco wrote: Can i use the +1 shuriken Striking Returning with Flurry of Blows action? Ah. With the Returning rune...
It returns after each Strike. Not after each action taken. So yes. It would be in hand in order to make the second Strike with Flurry.
I always liked the wuxia movies where the trainee is punching sand to build up their fists or muy thai with bamboo beating of shins. Now we have shuriken training with repeated stabs into the hand with a returning shuriken :) (yes, I know it comes back into the hand held not grabbed)
Garulo wrote: I always liked the wuxia movies where the trainee is punching sand to build up their fists or muy thai with bamboo beating of shins. Now we have shuriken training with repeated stabs into the hand with a returning shuriken :) (yes, I know it comes back into the hand held not grabbed)
Friendly reminder that despite Returning saying "the item flies back into your hand" there isn't really anything stopping you from describing the weapon as teleporting back into your hand, or dissolving and an identical replacement weapon materializing in your hand, or my favourite, swapping the thrown weapon with the same weapon from an alternate timeline/universe where you didn't throw the weapon.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
And your alternate self in the alternate universe is a PF1 oracle with the haunted curse and the opposite problem, wondering why all their shurikens keep teleporting away.
Tender Tendrils wrote: Garulo wrote: I always liked the wuxia movies where the trainee is punching sand to build up their fists or muy thai with bamboo beating of shins. Now we have shuriken training with repeated stabs into the hand with a returning shuriken :) (yes, I know it comes back into the hand held not grabbed)
Friendly reminder that despite Returning saying "the item flies back into your hand" there isn't really anything stopping you from describing the weapon as teleporting back into your hand, or dissolving and an identical replacement weapon materializing in your hand, or my favourite, swapping the thrown weapon with the same weapon from an alternate timeline/universe where you didn't throw the weapon. Unfortunately, the rules specifically state that the weapon "Flies back." Not appears back, not teleports back. Played a game where the bad guy was in a dead end cave at the end of a tunnel and had a disrupting action that when hit by a ranged attack, a wind wall appeared blocking the tunnel. By the rules the disrupting action stopped the returning weapon since the interrupt prevents completion of the action.
Garulo wrote: Tender Tendrils wrote: Garulo wrote: I always liked the wuxia movies where the trainee is punching sand to build up their fists or muy thai with bamboo beating of shins. Now we have shuriken training with repeated stabs into the hand with a returning shuriken :) (yes, I know it comes back into the hand held not grabbed)
Friendly reminder that despite Returning saying "the item flies back into your hand" there isn't really anything stopping you from describing the weapon as teleporting back into your hand, or dissolving and an identical replacement weapon materializing in your hand, or my favourite, swapping the thrown weapon with the same weapon from an alternate timeline/universe where you didn't throw the weapon. Unfortunately, the rules specifically state that the weapon "Flies back." Not appears back, not teleports back. Played a game where the bad guy was in a dead end cave at the end of a tunnel and had a disrupting action that when hit by a ranged attack, a wind wall appeared blocking the tunnel. By the rules the disrupting action stopped the returning weapon since the interrupt prevents completion of the action. Nah, RAW it's no longer part of a strike when flying back so wall of wind does nothing. Wall of Wind also refers to "ammunition", which is a specific type of item. Shuriken are not ammunition.
Dubious Scholar wrote: Garulo wrote: Tender Tendrils wrote: Garulo wrote: I always liked the wuxia movies where the trainee is punching sand to build up their fists or muy thai with bamboo beating of shins. Now we have shuriken training with repeated stabs into the hand with a returning shuriken :) (yes, I know it comes back into the hand held not grabbed)
Friendly reminder that despite Returning saying "the item flies back into your hand" there isn't really anything stopping you from describing the weapon as teleporting back into your hand, or dissolving and an identical replacement weapon materializing in your hand, or my favourite, swapping the thrown weapon with the same weapon from an alternate timeline/universe where you didn't throw the weapon. Unfortunately, the rules specifically state that the weapon "Flies back." Not appears back, not teleports back. Played a game where the bad guy was in a dead end cave at the end of a tunnel and had a disrupting action that when hit by a ranged attack, a wind wall appeared blocking the tunnel. By the rules the disrupting action stopped the returning weapon since the interrupt prevents completion of the action. Nah, RAW it's no longer part of a strike when flying back so wall of wind does nothing. Wall of Wind also refers to "ammunition", which is a specific type of item. Shuriken are not ammunition. Wall of wind includes the "...objects of similar size" after the ammunition is quite reasonably interpreted as includes shuriken due to their size since the spell include Javelins as a size which only has a -2 (given shuriken much smaller it would stop it completely). If it meant ONLY specific ammunition then it would not reference javelins explicitly.
Of course you are free to interpret the words as you wish (same as I can) but it is NOT cut and dried
Also, RAW means that it happens AFTER the strike so the Wall does apply since the wall lasts 1 minute.
<edit> also interesting in your interpretation that flying creatures are considered ammunition on a failure (since they get stopped)
Garulo wrote: Tender Tendrils wrote: Garulo wrote: I always liked the wuxia movies where the trainee is punching sand to build up their fists or muy thai with bamboo beating of shins. Now we have shuriken training with repeated stabs into the hand with a returning shuriken :) (yes, I know it comes back into the hand held not grabbed)
Friendly reminder that despite Returning saying "the item flies back into your hand" there isn't really anything stopping you from describing the weapon as teleporting back into your hand, or dissolving and an identical replacement weapon materializing in your hand, or my favourite, swapping the thrown weapon with the same weapon from an alternate timeline/universe where you didn't throw the weapon. Unfortunately, the rules specifically state that the weapon "Flies back." Not appears back, not teleports back. Played a game where the bad guy was in a dead end cave at the end of a tunnel and had a disrupting action that when hit by a ranged attack, a wind wall appeared blocking the tunnel. By the rules the disrupting action stopped the returning weapon since the interrupt prevents completion of the action. That sounds like a fun encounter design. Luckily, the GM can add a little flavor to the disrupting action that it interrupts conjuration effects on ammunition and the like.
Garulo wrote: Unfortunately, the rules specifically state that the weapon "Flies back." Not appears back, not teleports back. Played a game where the bad guy was in a dead end cave at the end of a tunnel and had a disrupting action that when hit by a ranged attack, a wind wall appeared blocking the tunnel. By the rules the disrupting action stopped the returning weapon since the interrupt prevents completion of the action. People should be free to reflavor the mechanics of things. It makes the game more interesting.
And generally reactions happen after the action that caused them. So even a flying returning weapon could fly back to the thrower before the wall of wind comes up. It is part of the Ranged Attack activity even if it isn't part of the Strike action.
breithauptclan wrote: Garulo wrote: Unfortunately, the rules specifically state that the weapon "Flies back." Not appears back, not teleports back. Played a game where the bad guy was in a dead end cave at the end of a tunnel and had a disrupting action that when hit by a ranged attack, a wind wall appeared blocking the tunnel. By the rules the disrupting action stopped the returning weapon since the interrupt prevents completion of the action. People should be free to reflavor the mechanics of things. It makes the game more interesting.
And generally reactions happen after the action that caused them. So even a flying returning weapon could fly back to the thrower before the wall of wind comes up. It is part of the Ranged Attack activity even if it isn't part of the Strike action. That is why I quoted "disrupting" action/reaction which actually occurs during the other turn.
"Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur. ... The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn’t transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away." (p462 CRB). Thus, the loss of items in the transfer would imply that it occurs in the middle of the other person's action. SO for example if you move or do a ranged attack, you would normally lose the move or the attack.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Garulo wrote: That is why I quoted "disrupting" action/reaction which actually occurs during the other turn. Well, sure. But this looks like a custom reaction ability for this particular enemy. So why are you deliberately ruling the effect to work in this order? Specifically to punish a player for having a returning thrown weapon?
breithauptclan wrote: Garulo wrote: That is why I quoted "disrupting" action/reaction which actually occurs during the other turn. Well, sure. But this looks like a custom reaction ability for this particular enemy. So why are you deliberately ruling the effect to work in this order? Specifically to punish a player for having a returning thrown weapon? No, contingency allows a spell to occur as a reaction to an event. If they had fired an arrow it would have triggered the wind wall also (designed so the creature had time to do things without being peppered with arrows). The fact that a returning weapon was used was just the way it was. So no it was not a custom ability unless using a spell is a custom ability
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Garulo wrote: No, contingency allows a spell to occur as a reaction to an event. If they had fired an arrow it would have triggered the wind wall also (designed so the creature had time to do things without being peppered with arrows). The fact that a returning weapon was used was just the way it was. So no it was not a custom ability unless using a spell is a custom ability My point is that there are three options to run a reaction that interacts with a projectile weapon like this.
1) The reaction happens first and the ranged attack is unsuccessful.
2) The reaction happens after. The ranged attack is successful, but subsequent attacks are blocked.
3) The reaction happens in some strange in-between time where the attack connects and the wall is brought up in that exact instant.
If the thrown weapon triggered a reaction of type 1, then the weapon would be blocked by the wall, but would successfully fly back to the thrower.
If the thrown weapon triggered a reaction of type 2, then the attack would be successful, the weapon would fly back to the thrower, and then the wall would come up.
So only option 3 actually prevents the returning rune on the thrown weapon from putting the weapon back into the hands of the thrower. Why would you run the reaction in that fashion?
breithauptclan wrote: Garulo wrote: No, contingency allows a spell to occur as a reaction to an event. If they had fired an arrow it would have triggered the wind wall also (designed so the creature had time to do things without being peppered with arrows). The fact that a returning weapon was used was just the way it was. So no it was not a custom ability unless using a spell is a custom ability My point is that there are three options to run a reaction that interacts with a projectile weapon like this.
1) The reaction happens first and the ranged attack is unsuccessful.
2) The reaction happens after. The ranged attack is successful, but subsequent attacks are blocked.
3) The reaction happens in some strange in-between time where the attack connects and the wall is brought up in that exact instant.
If the thrown weapon triggered a reaction of type 1, then the weapon would be blocked by the wall, but would successfully fly back to the thrower.
If the thrown weapon triggered a reaction of type 2, then the attack would be successful, the weapon would fly back to the thrower, and then the wall would come up.
So only option 3 actually prevents the returning rune on the thrown weapon from putting the weapon back into the hands of the thrower. Why would you run the reaction in that fashion? Because that is the way the rules and example in the CRB work? Take the example of the transfer of items in the CRB. Option #1 (transfer doesn't take place), Option #2 (transfer takes place), Option #3 (item drops). The example shows option #3 occurs. Now every rule can adjudicated differently but it is unclear why Option #1 or Option #2 would be more likely than the example. You could also do an AoO on movement, trip example. Option #1 (trip occurs after all movement), Option #2 (trip stops any movement at all), Option #3 (Trip occurs in the middle of movement). I believe you mentioned option #3 occuring in another thread. Edit Or the ability to deflect arrows. The rules specifically show the interrupt happening during the action (not Option #1 attack never happened, or Option #2 attack hit, but it was Option #3, during the flight of the arrow, it was deflected
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Reactions are not inherently disrupting. See Attack of Opportunity for example [cr142].
... If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action...
This indicates that it is only disruptive in some circumstances. Niether contingency or wall of air say they are disruptive, so they aren't. The strike completes, and the shuriken returns to the hand. Future attacks however would be affected as arrows, bolts, or other objects of similar size cannot pass through.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: Reactions are not inherently disrupting. See Attack of Opportunity for example [cr142].
... If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action...
This indicates that it is only disruptive in some circumstances. Niether contingency or wall of air say they are disruptive, so they aren't. The strike completes, and the shuriken returns to the hand. Future attacks however would be affected as arrows, bolts, or other objects of similar size cannot pass through.
So the example in the book is incorrect. Since the Leap action is a move action and does not have the manipulate trait, then it can not be disrupted. In fact, no movement can ever be disrupted by an AoO
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Garulo wrote: Jared Walter 356 wrote: Reactions are not inherently disrupting. See Attack of Opportunity for example [cr142].
... If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action...
This indicates that it is only disruptive in some circumstances. Niether contingency or wall of air say they are disruptive, so they aren't. The strike completes, and the shuriken returns to the hand. Future attacks however would be affected as arrows, bolts, or other objects of similar size cannot pass through.
So the example in the book is incorrect. Since the Leap action is a move action and does not have the manipulate trait, then it can not be disrupted. In fact, no movement can ever be disrupted by an AoO No, the example in the book is saying that it is possible for reactions to disrupt other actions when it makes sense. It then gives a couple of examples where it makes sense. But that is not the default for all reactions. Or even the standard for interruptive reactions.
interesting warnings, I will take it into account when using the Shuriken, it is not usually very common but the last two games I have missed a Range Attack.
Usually I am the master's headache, not the other way around. XD
Asethe wrote: It does mean you have to spend your first action each combat dropping into stance, but that gets mitigated later on as well Admittedly, it is less of a problem for a ranged monk, since you don't have much need to move close to the targets before attacking. Flurry+attack is a perfectly viable set of actions on turn 1.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
