The way it's written is a bit non-descriptive as to when you choose to heal or not.
My assumption is that you'd have to choose before the rolls and just roll the normal attack and choose which of the bonus flurry attacks becomes the hand of mercy.
It could be argued for instance that you are using your flurry if you are rolling and if you rolled a hit, a miss and a hit would using hand of mercy for the miss be in line (I think monk needs help so having something unique like this to recover from wasting ki doesn't seem out of line)
I'm not seeing this argument at all. RAW state that you can "replace one of your unarmed strikes". So if you make the unarmed strike, you've made it and can't replace it.
Thinking about the mechanics, if you attempt to hit someone, your blow glances off their shield or misses them entirely... you can't use that same strike to then heal a different target. You chose a target for that strike, and you missed. Sometimes you use ki, and you don't get what you wanted.
Yeah, what Philosodad is saying is how I interpet this from a written standpoint. Rules wise, it doesn't make sense you can a type of action from an Attack to a Heal. I can see where you're coming from with the wording "replace one of your unarmed strikes with a hands of healing," but you have to remember if you've made an Attack Roll with an unarmed strike the unarmed strike has already been activated or performed. The wording is vague, but its meant to imply "you can do A or B," not "change A to B."
The wording would have to be more specific if you could change the attack after the attack roll was called out. Take a look Arcane Archer's Curved Shot. It explicitly says you can choose a different target if the first attack roll misses the first target. To replace something after an attack roll, it has been be specifically worded that it does this.
Flavor-wise, it also doesn't make sense IMO. You could try to convince your DM otherwise in specific instances for Cool-points, but by no means is this RAW or even really arguable from a rules stand point IMO.
Glad I could help… one more thing to note though, just to be clear… hands of healing does NOT require an attack roll, so you choose to use one of your flirt of blows as a heal.. and you don’t miss or make an attack roll to touch an ally (or yourself)
I mean, you could try punching yourself in the Stomach like Vegetta and try to heal yourself… but obviously that wouldn’t ACTUALLY heal you
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The way it's written is a bit non-descriptive as to when you choose to heal or not.
My assumption is that you'd have to choose before the rolls and just roll the normal attack and choose which of the bonus flurry attacks becomes the hand of mercy.
It could be argued for instance that you are using your flurry if you are rolling and if you rolled a hit, a miss and a hit would using hand of mercy for the miss be in line (I think monk needs help so having something unique like this to recover from wasting ki doesn't seem out of line)
I'm not seeing this argument at all. RAW state that you can "replace one of your unarmed strikes". So if you make the unarmed strike, you've made it and can't replace it.
Thinking about the mechanics, if you attempt to hit someone, your blow glances off their shield or misses them entirely... you can't use that same strike to then heal a different target. You chose a target for that strike, and you missed. Sometimes you use ki, and you don't get what you wanted.
Yeah, what Philosodad is saying is how I interpet this from a written standpoint. Rules wise, it doesn't make sense you can a type of action from an Attack to a Heal. I can see where you're coming from with the wording "replace one of your unarmed strikes with a hands of healing," but you have to remember if you've made an Attack Roll with an unarmed strike the unarmed strike has already been activated or performed. The wording is vague, but its meant to imply "you can do A or B," not "change A to B."
The wording would have to be more specific if you could change the attack after the attack roll was called out. Take a look Arcane Archer's Curved Shot. It explicitly says you can choose a different target if the first attack roll misses the first target. To replace something after an attack roll, it has been be specifically worded that it does this.
Flavor-wise, it also doesn't make sense IMO. You could try to convince your DM otherwise in specific instances for Cool-points, but by no means is this RAW or even really arguable from a rules stand point IMO.
This more or less is what I wanted.
Confirmation that my interpretation was correct before I run into the argument.
Thanks
Glad I could help… one more thing to note though, just to be clear… hands of healing does NOT require an attack roll, so you choose to use one of your flirt of blows as a heal.. and you don’t miss or make an attack roll to touch an ally (or yourself)
I mean, you could try punching yourself in the Stomach like Vegetta and try to heal yourself… but obviously that wouldn’t ACTUALLY heal you