Is there an order in which opportunities are resolved in a check.

(i know they are resolved after strife but before successes, but in the case of two different opportunities bought in the same check).

for example;

using Katas "Breath of Wind Style" and "Veiled Menace Style"

both are "when making a martial arts check".

so, if i'm in Air stance, can I:

spend opportunities for Breath of the Wind, opponent now roll to resist it and fail, he is now Disoriented.

and then spend more of my opportunities (i had a good roll!) to use Veiled Menace Style.

now we resolve my successes and see that I succeed so Veiled Menace pops and since the target is now disoriented Veiled Menace adds a Critical strike.

anyway, that is how I see it.

and yes, since some opportunities effect only work "if you succeed" it makes them resolve after the success resolving part, but you need to call them before (which ain't a big deal really if you know the TN, because you basically know if you will succeed)

I think this is technically about the resolution order of techniques more than opportunities, but that might be semantics. I let them resolve simultaneously, so the only restriction is that one can't affect the other. Another way of looking at it is that since all techniques would come from one check, they all refer to the target pre-check. In your example, when you make the check the target is not Disoriented (or unaware, presumably) so it is not a valid target for Veiled Menace Style.

Can't say that's as intended by the devs with any certainty though, I don't think it's explained in the rules. Take it as my two cents, nothing more.

37 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

and yes, since some opportunities effect only work "if you succeed" it makes them resolve after the success resolving part, but you need to call them before (which ain't a big deal really if you know the TN, because you basically know if you will succeed)

And yet according to p. 25 "opportunities are meant... to add extra effects, additional details, and narrative flourishes that occur independently of a check's success or failure ". ? Editing, FFG, editing... Or is there supposed to be a difference between details and flourishes? ?

You resolve them sequentially in any order you want. You can Breath of the Wind Style into Veiled Menace.

27 minutes ago, WHW said:

You resolve them sequentially in any order you want. You can Breath of the Wind Style into Veiled Menace.

thats what i'm thinking too. but they don't "really mention it".

also...

on a different subject, now i'm checking (trying to compare) these 3 things, tell me what you think:

razor-edged: 1+opp = +1deadliness

fire opp spending in conflict: 1+opp = +1TN to resist the next crit before start of your next turn

striking as fire kata: 1+opp = +1severity to the next critical strike on the target until end of your next turn.

i know, there ARE slight differences between each.. but seriously ? isn't that all kind of redundant ? would you really buy the "striking as fire" kata ? since its only edge is if you don't crit but "maybe expect" to crit him (or an ally crit him) before the end of your next turn ? I can't see many situations this would be a good kata...

plus, if you crit or expect an ally to crit you can just use the regular opp spending.... So striking as fire is just for the very situational moments you don't crit during your attack but you will be the next one to crit.

edit; ok, striking as water is also redundant, but since the kata works "on all attacks until end of your next turn" it gives a great boost to your teamates and your attack next turn. basically lowering his phys resist for one full round (and 2 of your turns!)

so if striking as fire was changed to "whenever you target suffers a critical hit" instead of "the next time". then it would serve a similar purpose. being able to activate multiple times compared to only one time from the regular opp spending.

and yes, basically the Fire Opportunity Spending is better than the "razor-edged" quality. making razor-edged totally useless if you are using Fire Stance (unless you use Iaijutsu, which makes "deadliness" increase your damage, but that is the only case).

I think you have to choose what all your <OP> spends will be before resolving any of them. So you declare using them for Breath of the Wind and Veiled Menace. Whoops, VM is not valid against this target, choose another spend, or if your GM is maniacal, you lost that <OP>. Narratively, you were looking for an opening that didn't exist yet.

1 minute ago, Hida Jitenno said:

I think you have to choose what all your <OP> spends will be before resolving any of them. So you declare using them for Breath of the Wind and Veiled Menace. Whoops, VM is not valid against this target, choose another spend, or if your GM is maniacal, you lost that <OP>. Narratively, you were looking for an opening that didn't exist yet.

that is a more "gritty" way to see it, and it would logically make sense.

basically, you call Breath of the Wind AND Veiled Menace, then everything resolve in that order (opponent make resist check against Breath of the Wind) and if they resist it, you lost your opp spent on Veiled Menace.

I like it, and it is logical.

but yeah, a clarification on how that is "intended" to work would be appreciated.

11 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

i know, there ARE slight differences between each.. but seriously ? isn't that all kind of redundant ? would you really buy the "striking as fire" kata ? since its only edge is if you don't crit but "maybe expect" to crit him (or an ally crit him) before the end of your next turn ? I can't see many situations this would be a good kata...

Striking as Fire stacks . This makes it really dangerous, especially if more people in the group use it and then someone down the initiative track finally crits. It isn't a good kata for 1v1 though, which is a little dumb, yeah.

24 minutes ago, omnicrone said:

Striking as Fire stacks . This makes it really dangerous, especially if more people in the group use it and then someone down the initiative track finally crits. It isn't a good kata for 1v1 though, which is a little dumb, yeah.

Yup, it's a setup skill. And you can even choose to fail the check in order to maximize opportunities, if you expect a crit down the line regardless.

11 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Yup, it's a setup skill. And you can even choose to fail the check in order to maximize opportunities, if you expect a crit down the line regardless.

If you resolve opp sequentially couldn't you f. e. Use 1 opp from razor edged or striking as fire to increase crit deadliness /severity and THEN use 2 opp to inflict a critical strike and benefit from it? I guess that means keeping a lot of dice (since you also have to succeed in the strike) but would it be doable?

1 minute ago, Shosur0 said:

If you resolve opp sequentially couldn't you f. e. Use 1 opp from razor edged or striking as fire to increase crit deadliness /severity and THEN use 2 opp to inflict a critical strike and benefit from it? I guess that means keeping a lot of dice (since you also have to succeed in the strike) but would it be doable?

sure, that is all fine and dandy. doesnt make striking as fire any better (much anyway) than regular opp spending or razor-edge quality.

51 minutes ago, omnicrone said:

Striking as Fire stacks . This makes it really dangerous, especially if more people in the group use it and then someone down the initiative track finally crits. It isn't a good kata for 1v1 though, which is a little dumb, yeah.

the conflict Fire Opp spending stacks too. Or I don't see why it wouldn't.

the only difference then is that the fire Opp last until the beginning of your next turn, and with striking as fire it last until end of your next turn... which honestly, for a technique, is pretty weak/niche case.

Striking as Fire doesn't stack. You can only suffer from one instance of persistent effect, and applying it multiple times just refreshes the duration.
"Some effects persist for a set duration (such as “until
the beginning of your next turn,” “for one round plus
additional rounds equal to your bonus successes,” or
“until the end of the scene”). These effects end once
the stated end point is reached.
A character cannot benefit (or suffer) from more than
one instance of the same persistent effect, even if the
effect would be applied by multiple different sources.
If a character would otherwise benefit (or suffer) from
more than one instance of the same persistent effect,
the character chooses which one applies if it is benefi-
cial; the GM chooses which one applies if it is harmful."

pg 174

2 hours ago, Shosur0 said:

If you resolve opp sequentially couldn't you f. e. Use 1 opp from razor edged or striking as fire to increase crit deadliness /severity and THEN use 2 opp to inflict a critical strike and benefit from it? I guess that means keeping a lot of dice (since you also have to succeed in the strike) but would it be doable?

Well, the if bit is in question. There's a current thread about it too. Personally, I don't resolve opp sequentially but simultaneously.

im quite certain you can benefit from your own opportunity (ie: striking as water to reduce the phys resistance on the opponent armor for your own strike)

thus, if that is possible, I also think opportunities should be able to benefit from one another: (ie: striking as fire to increase severity + 2 opps to crit)

seems more "fair" to me, to balance things out.

but i'd like a dev answer on that.

Another quick one for you guys;

If you do an attack (strike) and spend 2opp to do a critical hit.

Does the opponent have to both defend against the dmg and eat the crit?

Potentially receiving 2 crits if he cannot defend against the initial dmg?

49 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

Another quick one for you guys;

If you do an attack (strike) and spend 2opp to do a critical hit.

Does the opponent have to both defend against the dmg and eat the crit?

Potentially receiving 2 crits if he cannot defend against the initial dmg?

No idea if it's intentional, but by the rules: yes.

1 hour ago, nameless ronin said:

No idea if it's intentional, but by the rules: yes.

not clear.

not. clear.