| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing a fighter who picked up Tactical Reflexes.
I was talking about the feat with someone and they said "If you take two reactive strikes on the same other creature's turn, MAP applies. I think it's in the errata. MAP is per turn."
I've looked through the errata for anything about "Reactive Strikes," "Attacks of Opportunity," and "Multiple Attack Penalty," but haven't found the section they're referring to yet.
Could anyone point out where this was clarified? Thanks!
If we look at the rules for Multiple Attack Penalty you will see that it says it does not apply to attacks made outside of your turn.
Moreover, as Red Metal points out, Reactive Strike itself says it does not suffer from nor contribute to MAP. Every time you use Reactive Strike, whether on your turn or someone else's, it will be without MAP, no exceptions.
I was talking about the feat with someone and they said "If you take two reactive strikes on the same other creature's turn, MAP applies. I think it's in the errata. MAP is per turn."
That sounds like either wishful thinking, or trauma-based houserules after their party got wrecked by a Vrock.
As noted by the others in this thread, the rules are very clear that MAP does not apply when it is not your active turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is one exception in that you do use MAP when you Ready an attack for outside your turn. That prevents people from escaping normal MAP and has nothing to do with attack abilities like Reactive Strike whose values are balanced around not having MAP.
ETA: And the main reason it's an exception is it says so.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your DM is mistaken. Reactive strike doesn't advance your MAP at all. You can make 100 of them, you will never factor in the penalty. This is called out explicitly in reactive strike's description:So I brought this to my DM and he responded with:
I know Weapon of Judgment specifically calls out that sort of thing -- are there any other examples of that?What I understood was: it's within a turn. The reason it doesn't normally apply is that you have one reaction --- so one reaction during another actor's turn.
... so if you 're fighting A and B and you take one reaction on A and one reaction on B, it still doesn't apply.
But if you take two reactions on A, and those reations have the attack tag, then it applies.
In other words, it's a pretty specific, narrow case.
This Strike doesn't count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to this Strike.
Doesn't matter, MAP explicitly does not apply outside of your turn unless otherwise stated in it's own definition.I think the DM's argument is that that section is written under the assumption people only have one reaction per enemy turn which changes at higher level with the Tactical Reflexes feat.
A character doesn't get one reaction per enemy turn, they get one reaction per round regardless of the number of enemies, which can be increased by class features or feats.
That said, as others have pointed out, your GM is simply wrong here. MAP applies during your turn, so reactions you take during other people's turns never suffer MAP unless specified (like the Ready action). And to top it all off, Reactive Strike is a reaction with a further clause that it never adds to or suffers from MAP. You make all your Reactive Strikes at your full attack bonus, it doesn't matter when they happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't matter, MAP explicitly does not apply outside of your turn unless otherwise stated in it's own definition.I think the DM's argument is that that section is written under the assumption people only have one reaction per enemy turn which changes at higher level with the Tactical Reflexes feat.
I don't know what that assumption would be based on, since abilities that give you more than one were in the original Core Rulebook. Paizo knew about them when writing it.
It sounds like the GM just wants it to work a certain way and is reaching for justifications to try to back that, rather than being willing to accept how it actually works.
Because the rules on this are very clear: MAP never applies outside your own turn unless the reaction you're using says it does (because MAP says so), and MAP never applies to Reactive Strike under any circumstances (because Reactive Strike says so).
Sorry, I mean a maximum of one reaction per enemy turn (because you only have one reaction initially).
It's not until Tactical Reflexes (or something similar) at higher level where you can do multiple reactions within the same enemy turn.
Guardian has two at level 5 as a base class ability, though they're not typically going to be attacking with Intercept Strike. But still, having multiple reactions is not just a high level thing anymore.
Sorry, I mean a maximum of one reaction per enemy turn (because you only have one reaction initially).
It's not until Tactical Reflexes (or something similar) at higher level where you can do multiple reactions within the same enemy turn.
None of it really matters.
The definition of MAP and Reactive Strike are incredibly clear, and your GM is just fabricating things from half remembered bits of information and conflating things.
Reactive Strike
[reaction]
Source Player Core pg. 138 2.0
Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it's using.
You lash out at a foe that leaves an opening. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action. This Strike doesn't count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to this Strike.
Nothing else matters rule text wise because Reactive Strike is very explicit. It doesn't count towards MAP and the MAP penalty doesn't apply. Period. End of Story.
Now, could there ever be a more specific rule that says something like:
As a reaction, make a strike against a creature in range, if you hit, it dies (no save). Unlike normal, this strike is affected by MAP and increases MAP
But you need something in the reaction ability that says it suffers from or increases MAP, because MAP normally only applies to strikes made during your turn.
If you use an action with the attack trait more than once on the same turn, your attacks after the first take a penalty called a multiple attack penalty. Your second attack takes a –5 penalty, and any subsequent attacks take a –10 penalty.
The multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to attacks you make when it isn't your turn (such as attacks made as part of a reaction, like Reactive Strike). You can use a weapon with the agile trait (page 282) to reduce your multiple attack penalty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And to address something that would technically be possible, you could potentially use a reaction during your own turn, by reacting to another characters reaction. In such a case, it's possible that MAP might apply.
For example, if a Ranger had the Disrupt Prey feat. And was facing a Rogue enemy (we're not supposed to fight PC built enemies normally by this is just for an example) that had Nimble Roll & Dodge.
Let's say the Ranger attacks, the Rogue uses Nimble Roll/Dodge and the attack misses and the Rogue strides 10ft. Which triggers Disrupt Prey.
Disrupt Prey doesn't say (like Reactive Strike does) that it doesn't suffer from or increase MAP, so it does. And it's your turn*.
In such a scenario, Disrupt Prey might** cause you to increase MAP and to also suffer from any accrued MAP.
*Questionable if it's still "your turn" when an enemy is taking their reaction, but I think so.
**Disrupt Prey doesn't explicitly have the attack trait referenced by MAP, but since it includes a strike (which does) I think the subordinate action rules apply which say:
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn't use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action
I think this doesn't normally come up, because it's rare (I think) to use a reaction during your own turn. There are probably some monsters that have reactions to your attacks, but they're likely to say they don't trigger reactions. But we can still imagine this scenario and I think it's valid. Somebody let me know if I've missed something here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to address something that would technically be possible, you could potentially use a reaction during your own turn, by reacting to another characters reaction. In such a case, it's possible that MAP might apply.
For example, if a Ranger had the Disrupt Prey feat. And was facing a Rogue enemy (we're not supposed to fight PC built enemies normally by this is just for an example) that had Nimble Roll & Dodge.
Let's say the Ranger attacks, the Rogue uses Nimble Roll/Dodge and the attack misses and the Rogue strides 10ft. Which triggers Disrupt Prey.
Disrupt Prey doesn't say (like Reactive Strike does) that it doesn't suffer from or increase MAP, so it does. And it's your turn*.
In such a scenario, Disrupt Prey might** cause you to increase MAP and to also suffer from any accrued MAP.
You're correct, it would. Disrupt Prey lacks the language that makes it never apply MAP and it's making a strike (which has the Attack trait), so if it got used on your own turn, it applies MAP. Opportune Backstab on Rogue is another example of this where if it triggers during your turn, MAP applies (and you thus may not want to take that reaction).
This doesn't tend to happen a lot, but it can happen. Using the ready action or monsters with reactions that trigger player reactions. An example I ran into in SoT is a monster with a reaction that causes a Stride (with no wording about avoiding reactions), triggering a Fighter's reactive strike, which triggers Opportune Backstab.
The rules in this are are well written and it's clear what happens in any given situation when it comes to MAP and reactions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is pretty clear when you read the rules, but I think think a lot of people (going from memory) misapply the rules. People tend to think of Reactive Strike which doesn't apply MAP and misapply that to other kinds of reactions that make strikes, and also take the phrase "The multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to attacks you make when it isn't your turn (such as attacks made as part of a reaction, like Reactive Strike)" out of context and take it to mean ANY reaction doesn't interact with MAP, when the statement was really just trying to give an example of when/how you make an attack when it isn't your turn.
I say this, because I've seen tables play it that ALL reactions don't increase or become affected by MAP, which actually isn't true. It just doesn't come up very much because it's not very common that it's your turn and a monster takes a reaction that you can then react to.
I honestly suspect a lot of tables play it that all reactions don't suffer from MAP, and it's honestly not a bad house rule IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I brought this to my DM and he responded with:
...
I know Weapon of Judgment specifically calls out that sort of thing -- are there any other examples of that?
It doesn't really matter how many such examples there are. They are all examples of a specific rule overriding a general rule.
Trying to use these examples the other direction is the Specific Defines General fallacy. Weapon of Judgement has a specific rule that will override the general rules regarding MAP, but only specifically for Weapon of Judgement. Weapon of Judgement's specific rule does not completely redefine what the general rules are for all other instances of reactions with the Attack trait.
What I understood was: it's within a turn. The reason it doesn't normally apply is that you have one reaction --- so one reaction during another actor's turn.
It would still need an override of the general rules for MAP in order for abilities that cause gaining a second (or more) reaction to apply MAP to those reactions when they are made during a different character's turn. And an override of the specific rule note in Reactive Strike saying that MAP doesn't apply.
This argument is basically, 'the game devs forgot how MAP works and how Reactive Strike works when they wrote Tactical Reflexes'. Which is a very hard argument to try and support. MAP is a core concept of the game and is a foundational principle of the game balance. And Reactive Strike is one of the most common and iconic reactions available to PCs and enemy monsters both.
I'm agreeing with Tridus: "It sounds like the GM just wants it to work a certain way and is reaching for justifications to try to back that, rather than being willing to accept how it actually works."
The GM can 100% simply say "this is how it's going to work in my game", if that's what they want. But they should accept and point out to players that it's not how the rules normally work. I agree the GM seems to be trying to find a reason to interpret the rules to work the way they've decided they do, without actually looking at the rules that matter.