Flurry of Blows

[Easy_Lee]

In another thread, I realized I don't know how flurry of blows works.

At first glance, it seems similar to shield master. Take the attack action and you can use the bonus action. With shield master, as long as you take the attack action, you can take the bonus before, during, or after your attack(s).

The wording of flurry is different. And the only sage advice I've found talking about it says exactly that. From Crawford: Flurry of Blows happens "immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn" (PH, 78).

So, what does that mean?

It could mean you have to complete the action and then you may flurry after your attacks.

It could mean you have to take the action, but must immediately flurry when you do. In that case, flurry would be the first two attacks you made that round, and you wouldn't be able to move between them because of the word "immediately." Or maybe you would be able to move, but wouldn't be able to make an attack action attack before you flurry, since flurry has to happen immediately after taking the action (as opposed to immediately after your attacks).

It could mean that you simply add two attacks to your total number of attacks that round with the attack action. That's basically how the attack action and other bonus action attacks work, since taking the action and making the attacks don't have to occur at the same time.

What do you guys think? I know how I rule it - just make the attacks whenever and don't worry about it. But it's only now occurred to me that there are many possible interpretations.

[Bubzors]

In my last campaign I played a monk and this came up. The DM and I both settled on just adding in the two flurry attacks wherever I felt like. Doesn't really break anything and it is how other attacks like this work

[nickl_2000]

I've always played that you have to flurry after you have made at least one attack. If you have multiple attacks it can be between, but it has to be after one.

My mental image of this was always the monk making a strike, and then rapid firing off multiple more strikes against the opponent who is distracted by the first strike.

[LeonBH]

This is my guess, but from the name of the feature, "Flurry of Blows," I think it's strongly implied that it's a continuous barrage of attacks. A flurry of blows, in other words.

[Moredhel24]

I can see it being used a couple of ways

1. Attack = opener
2. Flurry of blows = combo
3. Extra attack = finisher

or

1. Attack + Extra Attack = opener + start of combo
2. Flurry of blows = rest of combo + finisher

[Mikal]

In another thread, I realized I don't know how flurry of blows works.

At first glance, it seems similar to shield master. Take the attack action and you can use the bonus action. With shield master, as long as you take the attack action, you can take the bonus before, during, or after your attack(s).


Actually, I don't think you can do the bonus action on SM before, during, or after the attack either.
The wording in the PHB doesn't say so, and all the SA rulings have shown that bonus attacks granted thanks to an attack action occur after the attack action has been completed.

Ex. Flurry of Blows, War Magic.

Also, the explanation in War Magic is that it's the attack action that creates the ability to use the Bonus Action, thus the attack must have fully occurred. See below, emphasis mine.


Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before?

The bonus action comes after the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus action.

[KorvinStarmast]

The wording of flurry is different. And the only sage advice I've found talking about it says exactly that. From Crawford: Flurry of Blows happens "immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn" (PH, 78).
So, what does that mean? It could mean you have to complete the action and then you may flurry after your attacks.

It could mean you have to take the action, but must immediately flurry when you do. In that case, flurry would be the first two attacks you made that round, and you wouldn't be able to move between them because of the word "immediately."

General rule:
Unless a bonus action has a restriction placed on it, it can happen in any order. (That was in a Crawford tweet a couple of years ago). Here is the rules text:

You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified
Specific Rule:
But when it has a limitation or restriction placed on it, follow that limitation or restriction (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/100542/22566). The timing on this use of a bonus action is specified.

Some insights on flurry of blows (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/73803/22566)here.

Mike Mearls, on the other hand (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/03/monk-moves-between-flurry/), offered that you could move after the initial attack and Flurry when you reached the next target.

Frank Tedeschi @dndiy_ft
@mikemearls Hey Mike! Can a monk move in between his additional unarmed attacks or his Fury of Blows?
Mike Mearls ‎@mikemearls
@dndiy_ft yes
1:57 PM - Oct 28, 2014

[Easy_Lee]

The most common interpretation seems to be: take the attack action, make at least one attack, then you may flurry and use those flurry attacks at any point during your turn. As the ability distinguishes itself with the word "immediately", this interpretation makes sense.

What isn't clear is if "after the attack action" means after declaring the action but before making attacks, after declaring the action and making an attack, or after completing the action.

I wish they'd just said "spend one ki and use your bonus action to make two unarmed strikes." But we all know that 5e can't be simple like that. After all, what about the dreaded (gasp) warlock multiclass!!

[PeteNutButter]

The most common interpretation seems to be: take the attack action, make at least one attack, then you may flurry and use those flurry attacks at any point during your turn. As the ability distinguishes itself with the word "immediately", this interpretation makes sense.

What isn't clear is if "after the attack action" means after declaring the action but before making attacks, after declaring the action and making an attack, or after completing the action.

I wish they'd just said "spend one ki and use your bonus action to make two unarmed strikes." But we all know that 5e can't be simple like that. After all, what about the dreaded (gasp) warlock multiclass!!

If we follow the sage advoce, then there are only two possible interactions.

1.) Attack, Flurry, Extra attack.

2.) Attack, Extra attack, Flurry.

If you were supposed to be able to declare attack action and then flurry, then do the attack action, then the wording and the sage advice are both basically wrong. The responses were specifically in regards to the difference between SM and flurry. Both JC and MM agreed that it has to be after the attack action, ergo different from SM.

So that leaves the options above. I'm inclined to think that option 2 is more internally consistent, as you aren't really "after" the attack action if it is still going on. That would be "during" your attack action, or after your first attack. After your attack action seems pretty clearly after, IMO.

[Easy_Lee]

If we follow the sage advoce, then there are only two possible interactions.

1.) Attack, Flurry, Extra attack.

2.) Attack, Extra attack, Flurry.

If you were supposed to be able to declare attack action and then flurry, then do the attack action, then the wording and the sage advice are both basically wrong. The responses were specifically in regards to the difference between SM and flurry. Both JC and MM agreed that it has to be after the attack action, ergo different from SM.

So that leaves the options above. I'm inclined to think that option 2 is more internally consistent, as you aren't really "after" the attack action if it is still going on. That would be "during" your attack action, or after your first attack. After your attack action seems pretty clearly after, IMO.

That suggests that attack action > shield master push > attack(s) is not possible. And yet it is. Taking the attack action is separate from actually making the attacks.

[rbstr]

Extra Attack makes it clear that the extra attack is part of the attack action "you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn".
So after you've "Taken the Attack Action", that is you've done the attack and extra attack, you can spend your ki right away and make two bonus action attacks.

If you want to argue about what take means fine I guess. Make the words mean what is least logical. What exactly are you trying to game where it actually matters? Like it's a one hit difference with Open Hand stuff, who cares?

FWIW Shield Master says "If" you take the attack action not "After"

[PeteNutButter]

That suggests that attack action > shield master push > attack(s) is not possible. And yet it is. Taking the attack action is separate from actually making the attacks.

It is sage advice. You can ignore it if you like.

[pwykersotz]

I treat it as a bonus action that grants two attacks, and that's that. So if I elbow a bad guy and then strike twice with my offhand, it works. If I chug a heal pot and flurry with my offhand, it works. If I Shove with my action, then flurry, punch a foe once, then move 10 feet and punch another foe, it works.

Getting stressed out about that level of rules minutia seems counterproductive to me.

[Lombra]

Are there any in-game scenarios where this actually matters? I can't think of any.

[PeteNutButter]

Are there any in-game scenarios where this actually matters? I can't think of any.

Open hand monk can knock foes prone with their flurry, so allowing it to happen before other attacks gives advantage on the rest of them.

[Lombra]

Open hand monks knock foes prone, so allowing it to happen before other attacks gives advantage on the rest of them.

Flurry is after the attack action, so after the attacks granted by the attack action. Taking an action without performing anything about it is not taking that action. Let's not be too cold-codeders here, it's not a videogame.

[Easy_Lee]

Open hand monks knock foes prone, so allowing it to happen before other attacks gives advantage on the rest of them.

Also stunning fist. So the situation for the DM is: your monk player wants to flurry first and put the foe in a disadvantageous position before he makes his other attacks. Do you tell the monk player no? And if you do, what reasoning do you provide?


It is sage advice. You can ignore it if you like.

FYI: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/51525/shield-master-can-the-shield-push-be-taken-before-an-attack

Includes sage advice quote.

[PeteNutButter]

Flurry is after the attack action, so after the attacks granted by the attack action. Taking an action without performing anything about it is not taking that action. Let's not be too cold-codeders here, it's not a videogame.

That's my point... you asked why it matters, and I told you. If you follow the RAW and RAI that is correct.

[PeteNutButter]

Also stunning fist. So the situation for the DM is: your monk player wants to flurry first and put the foe in a disadvantageous position before he makes his other attacks. Do you tell the monk player no? And if you do, what reasoning do you provide?



FYI: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/51525/shield-master-can-the-shield-push-be-taken-before-an-attack

Includes sage advice quote.

First, tell the player, no. His abilities do what they say they do.

I'm aware of the shield master sage advice. I'm also aware of the sage advice that asks if flurry is different from SM, to which the response is a resounding, "yes."

As an aside, I find the SM sage advice to be the problem here, but that's just my opinion.

[Easy_Lee]

Flurry is after the attack action, so after the attacks granted by the attack action. Taking an action without performing anything about it is not taking that action. Let's not be too cold-codeders here, it's not a videogame.

I take it the other way. The level 5 monk can make a total of four attacks including at least two strikes in a round that he flurries. Why do two of those unarmed strikes have to happen before the other attacks? That's the part that feels gamey to me

This is part of the reason why "gamey" is such an indefinite term.


First, tell the player, no. His abilities do what they say they do.

I'm aware of the shield master sage advice. I'm also aware of the sage advice that asks if flurry is different from SM, to which the response is a resounding, "yes."

To which my response is "why?" The wording doesn't make things clear, which is why I brought this up at all. Either way, do as you will.

[PeteNutButter]

I take it the other way. The level 5 monk can make a total of four attacks including at least two strikes in a round that he flurries. Why do two of those unarmed strikes have to happen before the other attacks? That's the part that feels gamey to me

This is part of the reason why "gamey" is such an indefinite term.

Because the ability says, "after." They have to be after his other attacks because the ability says so...



To which my response is "why?" The wording doesn't make things clear, which is why I brought this up at all. Either way, do as you will.

The wording is actually very clear if you ask me. The only thing that makes it unclear is the sage advice on shield master.

In general, I'd agree that most things in 5e could have been worded better. Telling you have to do something immediately after another is not on the top of my list of poorly worded 5e abilities.

[Lombra]

I take it the other way. The level 5 monk can make a total of four attacks including at least two strikes in a round that he flurries. Why do two of those unarmed strikes have to happen before the other attacks? That's the part that feels gamey to me

This is part of the reason why "gamey" is such an indefinite term.



To which my response is "why?" The wording doesn't make things clear, which is why I brought this up at all. Either way, do as you will.

You can fluff it the way you want, the reason I think it is like this is to actually make it feel like a flurry, you have to invest yourself in a series of hits pseudo-recklessly, therefore it requires all of you effort since the very beginning of the striking process, a way to represent staying focused I guess. But that's just flavour. It has to be gamey, it is a game, every rule is gamey, what I was referring to is the fact that it is not a computer code, the difference is subtle, but it's there.

[Easy_Lee]

Because the ability says, "after." They have to be after his other attacks because the ability says so...



The wording is actually very clear if you ask me. The only thing that makes it unclear is the sage advice on shield master.

In general, I'd agree that most things in 5e could have been worded better. Telling you have to do something immediately after another is not on the top of my list of poorly worded 5e abilities.

You're gonna make me whip out my repertoire of when and after, aren't you?

Most bonus actions attached to the attack action, not just shield master, use the term "when." Mage Slayer also uses the term "when," as does the fighting style "protection." Mage Slayer comes after the spell trigger. Protection occurs during the attack - after the attack roll but before the damage. The feat Mounted Combatant also interrupts an attack, forcing it to target someone else.

Get my meaning, yet? All kinds of crap interrupts all kinds of other crap in 5e. Taking the attack action doesn't mean making X attacks. It means declaring the action, then the attacks can occur. The order is different. Because the attacks don't occur when you take the action. You take the action, then a bunch of crap can happen, then you get your attacks.

And you didn't address the gsmeyness of my point about unarmed strikes having to happen after, either. Does that feel weird and constricting and unintuitive? Yes. But you're advocating for it anyway because you think words like "when" and "after" mean anything in 5e. They don't. They really, really don't in 5e, because exactly what happens in what order is so firmly up to the DM that it's not even worth arguing about.

I created this thread to get opinions, not to have someone start an argument about one of these words again. You really don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Trust me. Madness waits that way. I have a psychic damage spell named after me because I went too far down that hole.

[Lombra]

You're gonna make me whip out my repertoire of when and after, aren't you?

Most bonus actions attached to the attack action, not just shield master, use the term "when." Mage Slayer also uses the term "when," as does the fighting style "protection." Mage Slayer comes after the spell trigger. Protection occurs during the attack - after the attack roll but before the damage. The feat Mounted Combatant also interrupts an attack, forcing it to target someone else.

Get my meaning, yet? All kinds of crap interrupts all kinds of other crap in 5e. Taking the attack action doesn't mean making X attacks. It means declaring the action, then the attacks can occur. The order is different. Because the attacks don't occur when you take the action. You take the action, then a bunch of crap can happen, then you get your attacks.

And you didn't address the gsmeyness of my point about unarmed strikes having to happen after, either. Does that feel weird and constricting and unintuitive? Yes. But you're advocating for it anyway because you think words like "when" and "after" mean anything in 5e. They don't. They really, really don't in 5e, because exactly what happens in what order is so firmly up to the DM that it's not even worth arguing about.

I created this thread to get opinions, not to have someone start an argument about one of these words again. You really don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Trust me. Madness waits that way. I have a psychic damage spell named after me because I went too far down that hole.

And that's why you don't read rules made for humans, with the decoder of a machine. You end up creating yourself a whole lot of problems, when the solution is driven by common sense.

[rbstr]

I dono about that, seems like you're mostly deciding words don't mean things when you don't want them to so you can make a counter-intuitive argument.

If everything else uses "when" (and ShieldMaster clearly does not use "when" it uses "if"), maybe that means there's a difference between it and "after"? Just a guess given "when" implies concurrency while "after" is clearly sequential.

[PeteNutButter]

You're gonna make me whip out my repertoire of when and after, aren't you?

Most bonus actions attached to the attack action, not just shield master, use the term "when." Mage Slayer also uses the term "when," as does the fighting style "protection." Mage Slayer comes after the spell trigger. Protection occurs during the attack - after the attack roll but before the damage. The feat Mounted Combatant also interrupts an attack, forcing it to target someone else.

Get my meaning, yet? All kinds of crap interrupts all kinds of other crap in 5e. Taking the attack action doesn't mean making X attacks. It means declaring the action, then the attacks can occur. The order is different. Because the attacks don't occur when you take the action. You take the action, then a bunch of crap can happen, then you get your attacks.

And you didn't address the gsmeyness of my point about unarmed strikes having to happen after, either. Does that feel weird and constricting and unintuitive? Yes. But you're advocating for it anyway because you think words like "when" and "after" mean anything in 5e. They don't. They really, really don't in 5e, because exactly what happens in what order is so firmly up to the DM that it's not even worth arguing about.

I created this thread to get opinions, not to have someone start an argument about one of these words again. You really don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Trust me. Madness waits that way. I have a psychic damage spell named after me because I went too far down that hole.

I never said it was internally consistent or that it made any sense, just that if we go with the simplest answer RAW it's after. When asked, both designers specifically said flurry was different than the other abilities, and that it had to be after. It is in fact the only one that says after, so if it operated differently, it would make sense.

The two basic interpretations are:

1.) Words mean nothing, and the fact that they used the word after, and then backed that up with sage advice is irrelevant.

2.) It means after, is unique for a reason, and therefore it should be after.

Mechanically I think it was on purpose, as they were already aware that open hand monks were going to get the most play, so wanted to limit some of their obvious power.

[Coffee_Dragon]

For people who follow the permission slip model, the "immediately" of FoB should be ascribed no significance and the associated Sage Advice should be ignored.

For people who don't follow the permission slip model, there is no problem with a natural reading of "immediately".

[Deleted]

In another thread, I realized I don't know how flurry of blows works.

At first glance, it seems similar to shield master. Take the attack action and you can use the bonus action. With shield master, as long as you take the attack action, you can take the bonus before, during, or after your attack(s).

The wording of flurry is different. And the only sage advice I've found talking about it says exactly that. From Crawford: Flurry of Blows happens "immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn" (PH, 78).

So, what does that mean?

It could mean you have to complete the action and then you may flurry after your attacks.

It could mean you have to take the action, but must immediately flurry when you do. In that case, flurry would be the first two attacks you made that round, and you wouldn't be able to move between them because of the word "immediately." Or maybe you would be able to move, but wouldn't be able to make an attack action attack before you flurry, since flurry has to happen immediately after taking the action (as opposed to immediately after your attacks).

It could mean that you simply add two attacks to your total number of attacks that round with the attack action. That's basically how the attack action and other bonus action attacks work, since taking the action and making the attacks don't have to occur at the same time.

What do you guys think? I know how I rule it - just make the attacks whenever and don't worry about it. But it's only now occurred to me that there are many possible interpretations.

Honestly, just forget Craford said anything on the Monk.

Keep 5e simple, have all attacks (attack rolls) work the same way and don't start adding weird things into it.

Take the attack action and you get two more attacks. At most, the two additional attacks must be against the same target? Nah... Just if you take the attack actions you get two more attacks.

[Easy_Lee]

Honestly, just forget Craford said anything on the Monk.

Keep 5e simple, have all attacks (attack rolls) work the same way and don't start adding weird things into it.

Take the attack action and you get two more attacks. At most, the two additional attacks must be against the same target? Nah... Just if you take the attack actions you get two more attacks.

I'd much prefer this. It's so much simpler than trying to guess what is really meant when everything that seems the same at first glance is worded a little differently. Reactions are even more guilty of this, but I digress.

[Deleted]

I'd much prefer this. It's so much simpler than trying to guess what is really meant when everything that seems the same at first glance is worded a little differently. Reactions are even more guilty of this, but I digress.

Not going to lie, it feels like as time goes on, it seems like he is going off memory of what the 5e rules are and is just throwing stuff out there. Mearles was doing this before but then straight up said "this is how my table does it" or whatever... Crawford being the de facto rules guy though doesn't have that luxury.

The primary process of 5e was to simplify things and while I think they got away from that in the process of making 5e... The best thing to do is to apply that principal to rules.

[Easy_Lee]

Not going to lie, it feels like as time goes on, it seems like he is going off memory of what the 5e rules are and is just throwing stuff out there. Mearles was doing this before but then straight up said "this is how my table does it" or whatever... Crawford being the de facto rules guy though doesn't have that luxury.

The primary process of 5e was to simplify things and while I think they got away from that in the process of making 5e... The best thing to do is to apply that principal to rules.

I agree. I don't think 5e's...let's call it "inconsistency of phrasing" was intentional. I hear its development was turbulent, major changes happening between development cycles. The final product is not as, I would say, polished as it could be.

It's still my favorite edition thus far because I agree with many of its final principles.

But, to your point, I don't think many (if any) DMs out there try to follow every rule perfectly.

[Deleted]

I agree. I don't think 5e's...let's call it "inconsistency of phrasing" was intentional. I hear its development was turbulent, major changes happening between development cycles. The final product is not as, I would say, polished as it could be.

It's still my favorite edition thus far because I agree with many of its final principles.

But, to your point, I don't think many (if any) DMs out there try to follow every rule perfectly.

I actually don't think ots my favorite edition.

4e + House rules and tier 3 3.5 beat it out a little bit... Though I do love specific things about 5e, just the total package isn't quite up to par.

Sadly.

And part of it is how they say one thing, mean one thing, and do another thing.

Like the skill rules aren't simple, they're jsust non-existent.

[Laserlight]

Not going to lie, it feels like as time goes on, it seems like he is going off memory of what the 5e rules are and is just throwing stuff out there.

I recall a game designer/publisher saying that other people often beat him at the games he designed, because they knew the rules, whereas he knew fifteen contradictory versions of the rules.

[Cybren]

I recall a game designer/publisher saying that other people often beat him at the games he designed, because they knew the rules, whereas he knew fifteen contradictory versions of the rules.

Mark Rosewater often mentions having trouble with card names in MTG because he's remembering playtest versions of cards that had wildly different names.


ANYWAY I think if people are being overly legalistic in interpreting language in this case they're not really following the spirit of 5e. Just let people flurry whenever provided they commit to using the attack action

[Tanarii]

This depends mostly on if you think Taking an Action means declaring it, or resolving it. For that matter, if you think those are two separate things.

That's before you even get into SA that say things that imply both are correct, depending on which one you're reading. :smallyuk:

[Theodoxus]

I have more trouble with the word "immediately" than anything else in the phrasing of FoB. Immediately to me apparently has a completely different meaning than everyone else - it's gotten to the point where I have to make a ruling every time someone wants to play a monk. And I hate it, because there's really no reason for the word to be there. It just muddies the waters, but it's there, so I feel, as a rules lawyer-y type person, that I should enforce it.