So far in the games I've been part of as GM or player we have usually had a disrupted attack count towards the multi attack penalty. Primarily due to the rules for disrupting actions on page 415 of Player Core:
"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."
If your have an attack disrupted then you still use the action you committed to and hence as that action has the attack trait it would still count towards your multiple attack penalty.
Initially the specific rules for multiple attack penalty on page 402 of the Player Core seems to agree:
"The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your check. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your check."
However it then goes on to say:
"Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others."
If an attack is disrupted there is no check so it would fall foul of this definition. As this provides additional definition to the multiple attack penalty does this take precedence and therefore should disrupted actions with the attack trait no longer count towards the multi attack penalty?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others."
If an attack is disrupted there is no check so it would fall foul of this definition.
I don't think that is the intent or what the rule text actually says.
The naming difference between using actions with the attack trait and making checks with the attack trait is mildly annoying, but doesn't cause direct conflict.
I can't think of any checks that have the attack trait directly. It is the actions that have the trait or not - whether those are simple actions, activities, or subordinate actions.
I suppose if there was an ability that specifies a check that it could also specify that the check has the Attack trait too. Even if the ability is not an action or if the ability is an action but the action doesn't have the Attack trait itself.
It is also possible that there may be actions with the attack trait that require multiple checks. Though as I mentioned, I can't think of any currently. In that case, that last rule quoted would mean that each of the checks in that action would add to MAP.
The benefit of wording it the way that it is written is that it is clear that activities that have multiple subordinate actions with the attack trait (Flurry of Blows and Double Slice to name a couple) will count each attack rolled when calculating MAP progression.
Writing it that way doesn't prevent counting the subordinate actions with the attack trait individually instead of counting checks though. But the number should come up being the same in either way of counting it.
What it doesn't do is override the previous rule that actions with the Attack trait will count towards MAP whether the check is made or not.
I suppose if there was an ability that specifies a check that it could also specify that the check has the Attack trait too. Even if the ability is not an action or if the ability is an action but the action doesn't have the Attack trait itself.
As an example of this, consider:
A versatile heritage related to Abberations to be similar to the Nephilim.
That versatile heritage could have an Ancestry feat named "Very Tentacly".
When you end a Stride or Step action adjacent to an enemy, you may make an Athletics check with the Attack trait against the target's Fortitude DC. If you succeed, the target is off-guard until the end of your current turn. If you critically succeed, the target is off-guard until the start of your next turn.
The ability isn't an action. It isn't using a subordinate action either. But the ability does involve a check and the check itself specifies that it has the Attack trait.
On a tangent:
There are feats that specify that certain effects (or the checks related to them) have certain traits; the one I recall seeing the most often is "this is an incapacitation effect," such as Dazing Blow.
But there's explicit GM fiat for the consequences of what happens to a disrupted action, so I'd say there's RAW support for either interpretation- however, I would say that MAP advancement is akin to a "cost" of an Attack action, and advance it regardless.
Also, I just had a thought that if you fail an Exacting Strike, you don't advance your MAP, but if it were disrupted, or critically failed, you would.
I'm just curious about the conditions that are causing disrupted actions.
I'd thought second edition got rid of a lot of that.
But my group has also ruled things to be more like Starfinder where purely defensive reactions happen before triggers and offensive reactions happen after triggers*, but also said no one (neither PC or NPCs) is locked into a specific course of action and ignore the logical problem of "you took a reaction a thing that didn't happen" so we kind of ruled away things being disrupted in the first place.
*Unless it would break the ability's purpose for it to be that way
I'm just curious about the conditions that are causing disrupted actions.
The simplest one I can think of is Reactive Strike crit against a spellcaster casting a spell with the Attack trait.
I agree with the first post and it's reasoning. MAP penalty accrues even when disrupted.
I'm just curious about the conditions that are causing disrupted actions.The simplest one I can think of is Reactive Strike crit against a spellcaster casting a spell with the Attack trait.
Reactive strike is the only example I could think of, and specifically why I made a note about "unless it would break the ability's purpose".
Some monsters have similar reactions to Reactive Strike but disrupt on a success and critical success- Fighters in a disruptive stance can disrupt manipulate or concentrate actions on a success or critical success. Casters can counterspell spells with the Attack trait.
but also said no one (neither PC or NPCs) is locked into a specific course of action and ignore the logical problem of "you took a reaction a thing that didn't happen" so we kind of ruled away things being disrupted in the first place.
I don't really understand this "not being locked into a course of action" thing- are you saying like someone casts a spell at you and you react to get +2 to your saving throw, but then someone counterspells it, so you would let the first reactor take back their reaction?
Disrupt is a defined game term in PF2e, and I think Reactive Strike, Counterspell, and their variants are common enough that it probably comes up in most campaigns at least occasionally.
I don't really understand this "not being locked into a course of action" thing- are you saying like someone casts a spell at you and you react to get +2 to your saving throw, but then someone counterspells it, so you would let the first reactor take back their reaction?
Eh, I probably can't give a simple explanation because it's a complicated issue.
Things that are a simple "either it did or didn't happen" aren't what I'm really talking about. I'm talking more about a case where someone decides to move toward a target, and that target has a reaction that allows them to move, or do anything really. The originally mover might decide they no longer want to move to the person that was their target. They'll have expended the movement up to the point where the reaction triggers, but can decide what to do with their movement after that point.
We're also "generous" in that if you have an action (for example) that allows multiple attacks that (assuming there is no restriction on who can be a target) you can change targets if the target does something that would make you want to change.
Overall, it's in player's favors because it gives them flexbility in situations where they might otherwise say "okay, I do nothing then".