Flurry of Blows in light of Rules Compendium change.

70 posts / 0 new
Last post
I added a thread in the PHB 3 errata forum regarding how this change affects a monk's ability to use free action attacks or take free action attacks given by other characters, such as warlord.   I strongly feel that FoB should be an exception to the 1 per turn rule.


How does this affect your ability to benefit from a warlord's granted attack?

You were never allowed to use FoB on someone else's turn.



Yes, but now you can't benefit from the warlord's granted attack either, as they are typically free actions.   All a monk can do is say, "Sorry! I used Flurry of Blows already, but I can still stare at him menacingly." 

Why wouldn't he say "okay, I hit him for you"?  It's on a different turn.

I added a thread in the PHB 3 errata forum regarding how this change affects a monk's ability to use free action attacks or take free action attacks given by other characters, such as warlord.   I strongly feel that FoB should be an exception to the 1 per turn rule.


How does this affect your ability to benefit from a warlord's granted attack?

You were never allowed to use FoB on someone else's turn.



Yes, but now you can't benefit from the warlord's granted attack either, as they are typically free actions.   All a monk can do is say, "Sorry! I used Flurry of Blows already, but I can still stare at him menacingly." 

You misunderstand the new rule.

It's one free-action attack per turn, not per round.

In a round, each combatant gets one turn.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
Indeed this is true. Monks can still be granted free action attack on other character's turns, such as the user of Commander's Strike. So all is well!
HEADS UP PEOPLE!

1.) An attack power is an attack power. Once it's said to be an attack power, it is one. Commander's Strike is an attack power. An attack power with a target line is an attack. Likewise, Flurry of Blows is an attack-your ability to cause it to not deal damage doesn't make it a non-attack when not dealing damage.

2.) Divine Challenge: if it's an attack power, then it's also an attack, because it has a target line. So... that would mean you meet the condition of attacking the target when you use DC. Anyone else think that'd be stupid?
OMG divine challenge has issues? That's never been the case before!
I think my head just sploded from your rule lawyer mastery. I applaud you good sir!
2.) Divine Challenge: if it's an attack power, then it's also an attack, because it has a target line. So... that would mean you meet the condition of attacking the target when you use DC. Anyone else think that'd be stupid?

Yes.  I know I was the one that pointed this out ... but that's because I think it is stupid. 

2.) Divine Challenge: if it's an attack power, then it's also an attack, because it has a target line. So... that would mean you meet the condition of attacking the target when you use DC. Anyone else think that'd be stupid?

Yes.  I know I was the one that pointed this out ... but that's because I think it is stupid. 


So, I would hold that Divine Challenge doesn't really meet the criteria for being an attack power. Inflicting a condition that can cause damage isn't the same thing as a power that deals damage, even though the language for "When your divine challenge deals damage-" is what it is.

But I concede that that's largely an ad-hoc decision, not really supportable by RAW.
So, I would hold that Divine Challenge doesn't really meet the criteria for being an attack power. Inflicting a condition that can cause damage isn't the same thing as a power that deals damage, even though the language for "When your divine challenge deals damage-" is what it is.

But I concede that that's largely an ad-hoc decision, not really supportable by RAW.


Also this thread is about Flurry of Blows?  Wink
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
So, I would hold that Divine Challenge doesn't really meet the criteria for being an attack power. Inflicting a condition that can cause damage isn't the same thing as a power that deals damage, even though the language for "When your divine challenge deals damage-" is what it is.

But I concede that that's largely an ad-hoc decision, not really supportable by RAW.


Also this thread is about Flurry of Blows? 

As usual, I mix up the threads in my head, and only respond to the most recent post.
On a slightly different note regarding flurry of blows, how does the timing now play out? The rules are a little more specific since the Rules Compendium.

It's a free action (not an OA or immediate), so functions as a reaction (unless the power specifically requires functioning as an interrupt to work, which it does not).

The trigger is hitting an enemy on your turn.

Does Flurry now occur after that hit is fully resolved? After damage is dealt? After rider effects are resolved?

How does this interact with mark of storm and polearm gamble? Can a lightning monk invalidate its own Flurry of Blows by sliding the target out of range before Flurry goes off?

What about Mobile Warrior? It occurs after the triggering attack, but when does it occur relative to Flurry of Blows? Can you push an enemy out of range with a sliding attack, follow them with Mobile Warrior, and then hit them with Flurry of Blows?
On a slightly different note regarding flurry of blows, how does the timing now play out? The rules are a little more specific since the Rules Compendium.

It's a free action (not an OA or immediate), so functions as a reaction (unless the power specifically requires functioning as an interrupt to work, which it does not).

The trigger is hitting an enemy on your turn.

Does Flurry now occur after that hit is fully resolved? After damage is dealt? After rider effects are resolved?

How does this interact with mark of storm and polearm gamble? Can a lightning monk invalidate its own Flurry of Blows by sliding the target out of range before Flurry goes off?

What about Mobile Warrior? It occurs after the triggering attack, but when does it occur relative to Flurry of Blows? Can you push an enemy out of range with a sliding attack, follow them with Mobile Warrior, and then hit them with Flurry of Blows?

I made a case before that Flurry of Blows acts as an interrupt if your hit with an attack causes the target to be no longer a valid target for Flurry of Blows, but it's a pretty weak case. Officially, Crane's Wings just can't be used with Flurry of Blows. Same with lots of strength based monk powers.
Yeah, it's a bit of a weird situation!

I was also musing along the same lines of the argument you just laid out. And I think I agree, it's a bit weak

I guess Crane's Wings can be used if you have pointed step style. OR if you choose not to push the target... But that doesn't really seem like an appropriate restriction on the power.

It seems to me that mobile-warrior like effects and pointed step or starblade flurry are almost required patches for a monk that wants to slide or push enemies away from time to time.

But actually, at epic, it goes from tragic to pretty nice. For a polearm momentum monk with mobile warrior and long step, you can slide the target 2 amongst some of its allies, shift 2 after it, and then flurry - hitting all the allies too.

That is, assuming that mobile warrior can intervene between an attack and FoB.
As I suggested, one way of reading the Free Action Timing rules is that, a Free Action works as an interrupt if and only if to do otherwise would mean that it would invalidate the power. When you hit an enemy that you push as part of the hit, the power would be invalidated if you pushed first then flurried. What that sort of interpretation would mean, though, is that the timing of Flurry of Blows changes based on whether or not you push the target.

I prefer that kind of timing but, it requires a VERY non-standard understanding of the timing rules.
Edit: Ah here it is: 2. There are 2 types of powers, attack and utility.  If the type is not specified and the power has an attack roll or deals damage, it is an attack power. Otherwise it is a utility power.  (p. 89/90)  That's from the first RC rules changes thread posted up last week, I still don't have my RC.

WotC really needs better writers.

By RAW, that says that any power actually labelled "Attack Power" doesn't meet the first criterion for being an attack power ("the type is not specified") and therefore is a utility power. 

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I can see the merit in the (non-standard) interpretation that you suggested, although in certain cases it might have some strange complications.

A monk utilitising mark of storm cheese and mobile warrior intends to pull off the same trick I described above. Thus, he hits the target, and slides it 2 squares away towards a mob of other foes.

At this stage, Flurry of Blows has been invalidated, but it would only be a temporary problem, because as soon as the attack is resolved, mobile warrior kicks in, the monk shifts after his target, and he is now within range and can use FoB.

However, it was still invalidated by the attack (if only temporarily), and therefore it needs to be an interrupt. Therefore the monk must use Flurry of Blows as an interrupt and not a reaction, and cannot use it after mobile warrior has kicked in.

That would be rather annoying.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure that we actually ever get to make FoB interrupt the attack. The specific wording in the RC is:

"If an effect has a trigger but is neither an immediate action nor an opportunity action, assume that it behaves like an immediate reaction, waiting for its trigger to completely resolve. However, ignore this guideline when the effect has to interrupt its trigger to function. For instance, if a triggered power allows an adventurer to use a free action to reroll an attack roll, with the hope of turning a miss into a hit, the power must interrupt the trigger ("You miss with an attack") to function; otherwise the attack would be resolved as a miss."

My hunch is that the correct interpretation here would be that when they refer to "has to interrupt to function" they probably mean it as a categorical rule. E.g. the power as a general rule has to interrupt its trigger to function, every time. Therefore each effect is either always an interrupt or always a reaction. But I'm not sure if the Rules Compendium gives strong reasons for favoring this interpretation over the one you suggested.

At this stage, Flurry of Blows has been invalidated, but it would only be a temporary problem, because as soon as the attack is resolved, mobile warrior kicks in, the monk shifts after his target, and he is now within range and can use FoB.

However, it was still invalidated by the attack (if only temporarily), and therefore it needs to be an interrupt. Therefore the monk must use Flurry of Blows as an interrupt and not a reaction, and cannot use it after mobile warrior has kicked in.

If they can update all magical items to add scarcity, they can update all free-action powers to add "Interrupt" or "Reaction" to the action types.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Edit: Ah here it is: 2. There are 2 types of powers, attack and utility.  If the type is not specified and the power has an attack roll or deals damage, it is an attack power. Otherwise it is a utility power.  (p. 89/90)  That's from the first RC rules changes thread posted up last week, I still don't have my RC.

WotC really needs better writers.

By RAW, that says that any power actually labelled "Attack Power" doesn't meet the first criterion for being an attack power ("the type is not specified") and therefore is a utility power. 


Ahhh, I see. You used the Boolean Logic where "If and Only If the type isn't specified AND it has an attack roll or deals damage."

Hah. Good point-technically speaking (though only someone deliberately trying to break it) all attack powers are utility powers. However, by the same logic, they're not suddenly not attack powers-they just happen to be BOTH attacks and utilities (Note that at no point does it state that the two types of powers are mutually exclusive ;D)


By RAW, that says that any power actually labelled "Attack Power" doesn't meet the first criterion for being an attack power ("the type is not specified") and therefore is a utility power. 




Everyone knows what they meant. I guess they could have been a little clearer, but is this going to be an issue for anyone? Even a LFR player that interpreted the passage the way you suggested is going out of their way to be pedantic.

I agree that Wizards needs to get more exact with their language, but really.
Edit: Ah here it is: 2. There are 2 types of powers, attack and utility.  If the type is not specified and the power has an attack roll or deals damage, it is an attack power. Otherwise it is a utility power.  (p. 89/90)  That's from the first RC rules changes thread posted up last week, I still don't have my RC.

WotC really needs better writers.

By RAW, that says that any power actually labelled "Attack Power" doesn't meet the first criterion for being an attack power ("the type is not specified") and therefore is a utility power. 




How droll.


By RAW, that says that any power actually labelled "Attack Power" doesn't meet the first criterion for being an attack power ("the type is not specified") and therefore is a utility power. 




Everyone knows what they meant. I guess they could have been a little clearer, but is this going to be an issue for anyone? Even a LFR player that interpreted the passage the way you suggested is going out of their way to be pedantic.

I agree that Wizards needs to get more exact with their language, but really.



doesn't that assume that being labeled as an attack power isn't being specified as being an attack power?

If I label myself as human, I have specified myself as human.


By RAW, that says that any power actually labelled "Attack Power" doesn't meet the first criterion for being an attack power ("the type is not specified") and therefore is a utility power. 




Everyone knows what they meant. I guess they could have been a little clearer, but is this going to be an issue for anyone? Even a LFR player that interpreted the passage the way you suggested is going out of their way to be pedantic.

I agree that Wizards needs to get more exact with their language, but really.



doesn't that assume that being labeled as an attack power isn't being specified as being an attack power?

If I label myself as human, I have specified myself as human.

It's specified as an attack power, and as thus is an attack power.

But the actual boolean language they used was "Unless it meets the very specific cases, it's a utility power."

Any power that is specified as an attack power fails to meet the condition "The power is unspecified." Ergo, it'd be a utility.

It's just a language snafu. It's obvious what their intention was in this case.
WotC really needs better writers.

Definitely should have said "if the type is not already specified ...

I'll also point out that I've had it pointed out to me any number of times that english use of 'and' does not equal a boolean 'AND'.

WotC really needs better writers.

Definitely should have said "if the type is not already specified ...

I'll also point out that I've had it pointed out to me any number of times that english use of 'and' does not equal a boolean 'AND'.


That's true. But people always talk about RAW and it's kind of hard to make meaningful decisions without taking it as literally as possible.
But people always talk about RAW and it's kind of hard to make meaningful decisions without taking it as literally as possible.


Trust me, I find it hard to stop thinking that way.

Rather than "already", it should probably say:
Either the type is alreay specified, or if it is unspecified ...
I'd note that you can add radiant damage to FOB when you deal damage with Radiant Fist at level 16 with Radiant Hammer Fists, which could possibly open up other keywords. 


Good Summary TomuReborn!

So, beyond the 1/turn free attack limitation and rushing cleats, are there any other effects of this change to Flurry of Blows? Any other feats or items that now work but didn't before?

Important to note that Flurry of blows still:
a) Doesn't "hit" (has no attack roll)
b) Doesn't use an implement or weapon (no keywords)
c) Normally has no damage keyword and most means of adding a damage keyword are ineffective (e.g. lightning weapon only applies to attacks with that weapon - and flurry has no weapon or implement keyword. A rules lawyer might argue that technically lightning weapons add the keyword to Flurry of Blows IF you use starblade flurry, but I think this argument is stretching it a bit!) 



I'd note that you can add radiant damage to FOB when you deal damage with Radiant Fist at level 16 with Radiant Hammer Fists, which could possibly open up other keywords. 




Yeah, that PP was the exception I had in mind when I said "normally".
Yeah, it's a bit of a weird situation!

I was also musing along the same lines of the argument you just laid out. And I think I agree, it's a bit weak

I guess Crane's Wings can be used if you have pointed step style. OR if you choose not to push the target... But that doesn't really seem like an appropriate restriction on the power.

It seems to me that mobile-warrior like effects and pointed step or starblade flurry are almost required patches for a monk that wants to slide or push enemies away from time to time.

But actually, at epic, it goes from tragic to pretty nice. For a polearm momentum monk with mobile warrior and long step, you can slide the target 2 amongst some of its allies, shift 2 after it, and then flurry - hitting all the allies too.

That is, assuming that mobile warrior can intervene between an attack and FoB.

Along the same lines but using this to your advantage...
Lets say you attacked with Five Storms (with the Starblade Fury feat) at paragon with a few adjacent enemies and one enemy 2 squares away.  You hit an adjacent enemy triggering FoB auto hitting the enemy 2 squares away with a dagger and slide him adjacent.  Would he now be a viable target for the Five Storms since he is now in the burst range? (and with a Blurred Strike Ki focus could you do this to two enemies that are 2 squares away?)