Devise a Strategem and the Fortune trait

[Ludovicus]

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I have some questions about how the investigator's Devise a Strategem interacts with the
Fortune trait. Imagine two scenarios:

SCENARIO ONE. I use Devise a Strategem and get a roll I don't like. Fortunately, I'm a tengu with the Eat Fortune feat. So I spend my reaction to use it, which applies the Misfortune trait "to the same roll the triggering effect would have," cancelling out the effect of Devise a Strategem. As a result, I roll for my next Strike normally.

SCENARIO TWO. I use Devise a Strategem and get a roll I don't like. Fortunately, I can cast Sure Strike. So I use next action to cast the spell, which, like Devise a Strategem, both has the fortune trait and applies to my next attack roll. So, now the attack roll for my next Strike has two fortune effects that apply to it, and "if multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use." So I pick the effect of Sure Strike, and make two new d20 rolls instead of using the old, bad one.

Now, it's not clear to me that either scenario is consistent with the rules-as-intended, since presumably the intent of giving Devise a Strategem the fortune trait is to minimize shenanigans. But as a GM I'd certainly allow them, both because I believe that a player who finds a non-obvious way to circumvent the limits of such an ability deserves to be thrown a bone, and--more importantly--because I think they're consistent with the rules-as-written. But what do other people think? Am I reading the rules correctly?

[Ferious Thune]

I think in your second scenario, both Fortune effects aren’t applying simultaneously. The Devise effect has already applied. So it’s more like if you roll and then use a hero point and don’t like the result. You can’t then sure strike and choose to have that one work instead.

If you had a fortune effect before you devise, then you could choose between the two before your roll. But once you’ve rolled, it’s already applied.

I don’t know if that also answers your first question, because I’m not familiar with the Tengu ability.

[Finoan]

I have seen Eat Fortune mentioned before. I'm pretty sure that it works. It is rather expensive to use though - both in build cost and that you only get one use of Eat Fortune per day.

I'm not sure that I have seen Sure Strike interaction discussed. It also looks rather expensive to use since it costs a spell slot likely from a spellcasting archetype's very limited number of spell slots.

The RAW on that interaction is a bit fuzzy to me. On one hand, you are right that the Fortune effect says that you can choose which to use if multiple Fortune effects would apply. On the other hand, by rolling the Devise a Strategem, you have already rolled the die roll for the check and have arguably already chosen to use that effect - even if you don't like the result.

[graystone]

Finoan wrote:

The RAW on that interaction is a bit fuzzy to me. On one hand, you are right that the Fortune effect says that you can choose which to use if multiple Fortune effects would apply. On the other hand, by rolling the Devise a Strategem, you have already rolled the die roll for the check and have arguably already chosen to use that effect - even if you don't like the result.

RAW, this ends up being a 'ask your DM' question as I agree, it's a bit fuzzy.

Myself I'd take the middle ground: have them keep the Devise a Strategem roll and allow a second roll for Sure Strike. That way, they get a benefit from the spell but do not get 3 rolls for the Strike.

[qwerty3werty]

DAS says you "must" use the d20 result if you Strike a specific creature. IMO that's a specific rule that override the general rule of fortune traits (allowing you to pick which fortune to use). So you must use your DAS roll against your next Strike vs that creature.

[mpyts]

Devise a Stratagem: "[...] Choose a creature you can see and roll a d20. If you Strike the chosen creature later this round, you must use the result of the roll you made to Devise a Stratagem for your Strike's attack roll instead of rolling [...]."

Sure Strike: "[...] The next time you make an attack roll before the end of your turn, roll the attack twice and use the better result. [...]"

Surestrike makes you roll twice in the next attack roll, but when you used the device a stratagem you already made the attack roll. On your next strike you will not roll, just replace them with the die of devise

[SharedStratagem]

The topic was touched on preMaster in this thread. As in this thread, the reasoning is largely caught up in the imagery of DaS, neglecting the (counter-)arguments for electability between DaS and Sure Strike.

What if DaS wrote:

"When you would roll to attack, instead of rolling the d20 randomly, place it down so it has the same number facing upwards as the DaS-roll."

Would one read the above phrasing as dominating Sure Strike? I think that's less likely. But while the imagery differs significantly, it implements the same mechanical framework. The presentation of DaS invokes the sense that it modifies the attack roll before the attacking action is made - but you're setting up an effect that will trigger later, as Sure Strike also does. The dice-maniupulation differs, but both can be conceptualized as taking place at the same step: After declaring the strike-action and a target, when you're about to roll you then apply the fortune effect to alter how that roll is made.

Fortune trait wrote:

"A fortune effect beneficially alters how you roll your dice. You can never have more than one fortune effect alter a single roll. If multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use."

When you're about to roll is the moment of application for both Sure Strike and DaS, and when you would have to choose between them. (As opposed to for instance Cat's Luck, which unambiguously applies at a later stage with a retroactive effect, and would be dominated by either DaS or Sure Strike)

Predetermined effect?
DaS' effect is previously determined, but the roll just generates a value that you later substitute in. Sure Strike is still stochastic after you've finished casting the spell - but that doesn't make it subdominant to other Fortune effects. If Slightly Lucky Stab [fortune] gave a +1 circumstance bonus to the roll, you could still choose between it and Sure Strike when rolling to stab. That would still be the case if Slightly Lucky Stab had you roll a d8 to pre-generate a -2 to +2 circumstance bonus. The substituting value being pre-generated hints at priority, but doesn't substantiate it.

Pre-roll?
In actual play, you're likely to roll the DaS-die, and then keep it around until the Strike is resolved. This creates a suggestive imagery that the DaS-die actually is the attack roll. But it's just a value that you substitute in. Conceptually, the step where the subsitution takes place is the same step you would apply Sure Strike's effect.

"Must"?
That DaS uses the word "must" is in the same sense Ill Omen uses "must" (see below). Ill Omen is undesirable to the striker, so stronger language is used to affirm that the effect is unavoidable. Sure Strike doesn't need that affirmation as you'll always want the effect, so space is saved by leaving it out - but mechanically it's equally unavoidable. "Must" doesn't do any actual mechanical work, it's just communicating underlying mechanics. DaS is sometimes undesirable, and shows up constantly when playing an Investigator, so it was deemed relevant to make the unavoidability explicit.

Ill Omen wrote:

"Failure The first time during the duration that target rolls an attack roll or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result."

Unless one rules Ill Omen as superceeding Sure Strike, DaS' "must" doesn't interact with base assumptions of Fortune-effects.

Speaking of Ill Omen - if DaS superceeds Sure Strike, it also does Ill Omen, leaving Investigators practically immune to such Misfortunes. Which both seems kinda silly and kinda awesome. Nonetheless I think there is better justification for electability between Sure Strike and DaS than the latter dominating. There's plenty of ambiguity, though, and freedom for the DM to judge as befits their table - including forsaking possible RAW entirely for a preferred outcome as Graystone.

[Finoan]

SharedStratagem wrote:

The topic was touched on preMaster in this thread. As in this thread, the reasoning is largely caught up in the imagery of DaS, neglecting the (counter-)arguments for electability between DaS and Sure Strike.

The counter-argument being that since you have rolled the die roll for the check and seen the result, that Fortune effect has already happened. You don't get to see that result and then elect to use a different Fortune effect instead hoping to get a better result.

Similarly, you can't roll a Reflex save, then Hero Point the roll, then decide that neither of those rolls are something that you like and elect to use Cat's Luck and roll that and choose to use your favorite of the two Fortune effects after seeing the roll results.

SharedStratagem wrote:

Unless one rules Ill Omen as superceeding Sure Strike, DaS' "must" doesn't interact with base assumptions of Fortune-effects.

Wait, what? Ill Omen is a Misfortune effect. How does that have any relevance to the interaction of two Fortune effects? A Misfortune effect and a Fortune effect like Devise would simply cancel out and neither would take effect.

So if you were affected by Ill Omen, you could use Devise a Strategem to cancel the Misfortune effect of Ill Omen and attack normally. There really isn't any other possible ruling.

[Ludovicus]

Finoan wrote:

SharedStratagem wrote:

The topic was touched on preMaster in this thread. As in this thread, the reasoning is largely caught up in the imagery of DaS, neglecting the (counter-)arguments for electability between DaS and Sure Strike.

The counter-argument being that since you have rolled the die roll for the check and seen the result, that Fortune effect has already happened. You don't get to see that result and then elect to use a different Fortune effect instead hoping to get a better result.

Similarly, you can't roll a Reflex save, then Hero Point the roll, then decide that neither of those rolls are something that you like and elect to use Cat's Luck and roll that and choose to use your favorite of the two Fortune effects after seeing the roll results.

Right. But compare DaS to the following imaginary ability:

Quote:

Assured Attack <one action>

traits: Concentrate, Fortune

You empty your mind of all distractions and allow your training to guide you. Treat the d20 result for the attack roll for your next Strike as a 10.

Suppose I use Assured Attack and then (for whatever reason) cast Sure Strike, before finally Striking with my third action. I think it's clear that I get to pick which Fortune effect applies--either I can roll 2d20 and pick the highest, or I can take 10. What I can't do is double-dip by rolling the 2d20, getting results I don't like, and then take 10 by picking Assured Attack as the Fortune effect to apply. SharedStratagem's point, I take it, is that Devise a Strategem can reasonably be interpreted the same way, except that the number to be substituted for your d20 roll is random instead of fixed. And this strikes me as right: at any rate, I'm not aware of any justification in the rules text for thinking that randomness makes a difference in this respect.

Having said that, I certainly agree that there's a clear intuitive sense that using Sure Strike to preempt a bad DaS result amounts to using two Fortune effects to manipulate the same roll in the way the rules are meant to disallow; the problem is that the wording for the Fortune trait is just too imprecise to decisively support a corresponding ruling. (So I think SharedStratagem is clearly right that the issue ultimately comes down to GM judgment.)

[Finoan]

I can see several problems with that hypothetical ability. Not sure why it would have the Fortune trait, for one.

But yes, if that ability did exist, then the result could be pre-calculated and you would probably know in advance if it would be a successful Strike or not. Which would cause a lot of problems with other Fortune effects being able to work. Which is why this hypothetical ability shouldn't have the Fortune trait.

So I'm still going to go with my previous idea. If you roll the d20 for Devise a Strategem, that is when the Fortune effect happens. There are a few ways to avoid using that roll if you don't like it. Using a different Fortune ability shouldn't be one of them. That is the entire point of putting the Fortune trait on the action.

[Ludovicus]

Finoan wrote:

I can see several problems with that hypothetical ability. Not sure why it would have the Fortune trait, for one.

But yes, if that ability did exist, then the result could be pre-calculated and you would probably know in advance if it would be a successful Strike or not. Which would cause a lot of problems with other Fortune effects being able to work. Which is why this hypothetical ability shouldn't have the Fortune trait.

So I'm still going to go with my previous idea. If you roll the d20 for Devise a Strategem, that is when the Fortune effect happens. There are a few ways to avoid using that roll if you don't like it. Using a different Fortune ability shouldn't be one of them. That is the entire point of putting the Fortune trait on the action.

I'm not sure why you find the hypothetical ability so weird. After all, it was based on the monk's 19th level feature, which is indeed a fortune effect.

But to your substance: you're giving your judgments about how you think the rules, intuitively, should work--about what you think is the "point" of them. And nobody is disputing those judgments--I essentially expressed them myself, in my last paragraph! But the question isn't about how the rules should work--it's about what they actually say. And you haven't cited a single bit of text to support your view that my interpretation is wrong.

[Finoan]

Most of what we are left with at this point is opinion. Those are allowed to be different. And quite often opinions don't have rules citations to prove them. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinions on the matter by giving voice to mine.

So yes, it is 100% opinion of mine that a Fortune effect can't be displaced by another Fortune effect once you have seen the result of the roll (or lack of roll) caused by that Fortune effect. That is my interpretation of the same Fortune trait rules that we have all been looking at.

I do find it strange to use a hypothetical ability in a discussion like this. Though there are times that it is useful. I'm not trying to criticize using the hypothetical. I just noted the problems with having the Fortune trait that the ability shows.

I also find the Monk ability to be a bit strange that it has the Fortune trait. It wouldn't be the first time that I have thought that something published was a bit off. I also think that because this Monk ability has the Fortune trait that it does cause problems with using other Fortune effects. At least you can choose to not use the class feature ability if you want to keep the opportunity to Hero Point the roll afterwards. You would have to declare that you are doing that before you roll your attack roll though. Because again, I think that once you have rolled and seen the result of a Fortune effect, that the Fortune effect has been applied and you can't then choose to use a different one.

[SharedStratagem]

Finoan wrote:

The counter-argument being that since you have rolled the die roll for the check and seen the result, that Fortune effect has already happened.

Refer to the section on Predetermined effect for the counter-counter. I suspect people's intuition would tend quite differently if for instance DaS was a coin-flip where you get a +1 or a -1 to the roll. You know the effect you're applying when applying Sure Strike. It's a distribution of outcomes tending towards higher values within the range. You know what effect you're applying when applying DaS. It's whatever you rolled when first making the roll.

In the case you're describing, one has already applied a fortune effect to alter the roll so the choice has been made. With DaS, you're not applying the effect until the strike action, you're just receiving information that benefits your decision making. No one is gonna send the Pinkertons after a DM who considers that too good to be true and rules differently than me. But it doesn't follow that the fortune effect has been applied to the roll just because one knows how the application will affect the roll.

Quote:

Wait, what?

Wait, consider what I've written, then consider why I might have written it. Consider that I might in fact be aware of the distinction between fortune and misfortune and the relevant rules-text. What?

The argument, in a version often presented, is that you're not making the roll that Sure Strike gets to affect. If there's no such roll, no Ill Omen triggers either. Since it never applies, there never occures a conflict between Ill Omen and DaS - as only DaS goes through. I agree, it doesn't make sense, and Sure Strike's effect should be invoked at the same step that DaS' effect is.
(Note though - for no particular reason other than that it is cute - that if Ill Omen can negate a DaS-roll and Sure Strike can't, you could hypothetically end up in a niche situation where Ill Omen is a beneficial to an Investigator)

OP wrote:

I certainly agree that there's a clear intuitive sense

If one reads the investigator and tries to understand how they work, imagining how it plays out on the table, it IMO seems weird to not have the intuition about DaS that makes it wonky with Sure Strike. It's only when trying to conceptualize an underlying structure for how Fortune-effects work and interacts that the challenge to this intuition presents itself. But I think the intuition should fall to that challenge.

At least in terms of raw hermeneutics, which is only a starting point for actual play. I also think that game-balance, this reading works just fine - but a DM being apprehensive about player's double-dipping into Fortune effects isn't Pinkerton-worthy. Sure Strike is somewhat cheaply accessible to an investigator. While the class isn't overpowered, one might want to avoid player's feeling they're playing the class wrong by not archetyping casters. Or just prevent a Magus with a free DaS from feeling overly awesome.
Eat Fortune, though, is a heavy investment for a minor cool interactions that isn't transparently excluded by RAW. While you're equally entitled as a DM to rule against it, it's the kind of dumbass build I'm absolutely here for and my heart sinks at the thought of a player being denied it.

Although in terms of consistent rulings based on RAW, it doesn't make sense to me to allow Eat Fortune and deny Sure Strike, though. (In the sense one would actually want to use either. One could decide that "use a fortune [...] effect" is when you make the action with the fortune trait, but in that case the trigger starts before the DaS-roll is determined.)

Finoan wrote:

I can see several problems with that hypothetical ability. Not sure why it would have the Fortune trait, for one.

Presumably for similar reasons why Paizo have given Assurance the [fortune] trait in both its printings. It's a feat that alters how you determine the outcome of a roll. Which also happens to be how Paizo have chosen to define the nature of the (mis)Fortune trait.