Recent Posts
Seems pretty clear to me. This never even came up for us, we never considered it any other way. BAB stacks with BAB is how we do it so BAB from other sources added to the Flurry BAB. I think we will keep doing that way but people have brought up so interesting points. I don't think the rules support them fully however so I'd say go with the way you are comfortable with until someone from Paizo says differently.
The other option is to argue back and forth till you're fingers get sore from typing.
That wasn't me being serious. That was me pointing out the flaw in that poster's reasoning.No, you were being flippant. Your comparing a Monk Class Ability like Flurry of Blows to a fundamental mechanic of the game.
Why would a Monk EX ability increase when your not taking levels of monk?
When taking levels in something other then monk, your Stunning Fist doesn't improve like a monk's does, your Slow Fall doesn't improve like a monk, your Diamond Soul doesn't improve like a monk. So what to you makes Flurry of Blows warrant BAB stacking, when your BAB is replaced with your monk level while flurrying?
Maneuver Training does improve as you level in other classes, but specifically says that the base attack bonuses granted from said classes are unaffected and are added normally. Flurry of Blows doesn't mention anything similar to that in it's description.
A Fighter doesn't gain extra Bravery, Armor Training or Weapon Training while taking levels in other classes. A Rogue doesn't advance their sneak attack while taking levels of other classes. Rangers don't improve favored enemy, Bards don't improve their bardic knowledge.
So where exactly are you getting this idea that Flurry of Blows should improve while taking levels of other classes?
Well there isn't really an Ex-monk any more unless it's for RP purposes, you can go monk paladin rogue, monk paladin rogue now.
However stunning fist does improve based on your character level, your monk level is what decides what abilities you gain, but the DC is 10 + wis + 1/2 character level. Flurry is obviously intended to grant you bonuses based on your BAB & monk level, not just monk level. You don't get the extra attacks from flurry unless you have enough levels, but extra attacks from BAB definately stack with already acquired flurry attacks.
James Risner
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
I think people aren't reading this whole thread before they post a response, what do you think?What makes you think people are not reading the thread?
They keep replying to earlier posts without reading through the whole discussion since we resolved the issue. Just seeing my earlier comments being addressed rather then the later ones too.
Seems odd. Wonder if we can get this thread closed?
James Risner
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
Just seeing my earlier comments being addressed rather then the later ones too.
You mean where the Conversion document text made you about face on opinion on the meaning of the text in the 3.p PHB?
I guess it is because they rejected your initial interpretation so much (like I did) they still feel the need to assert that it works as the Conversion document suggests as it is written in the PHB.
I guess it is because they rejected your initial interpretation so much (like I did) they still feel the need to assert that it works as the Conversion document suggests as it is written in the PHB.
Your the only other person to even address the conversion document as a source for a ruling. People are just throwing up their opinions on the matter still.
James Risner
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
Now who's not reading the thread? :PYea, as I saw it, no one commented on the conversion document because (to me) they felt it said the same thing as the core rule book said.
But that might just be me?
Not just you. That's pretty much the comment I made: that they use the same wording. But now I'm told I didn't make it. :)
I think its pretty clear....
That people can't agree on either what the RAW or RAI are for this.
Conclusion: There's obviously imprecise wording that leads to people seeing completely different things from the same sentences.
Suggested solution: Make the language more explicit/change the wording/etc.
------------------
Okay, you can all go back to your repeated assertions now :).
Excellent advice. I shall do as you say.
Henceforth, the wording is this:
When using flurry of blows, the monk treats his BAB for his monk levels as if it were equal to his level in the monk class. This BAB, of course, stacks with all other sources of BAB, such as BAB gained through multiclassing and/or taking prestige classes. When not using flurry of blows, the monk treats his BAB for his monk levels as whatever value is listed on his monk class chart for his appropriate monk level. This BAB, of course, stacks with all other sources of BAB, such as BAB gained through multiclassing and/or taking prestige classes.
There. I changed the wording just like you said I should. It can't get much more explicit than that.
Thanks for the advice.
Not just you. That's pretty much the comment I made: that they use the same wording. But now I'm told I didn't make it. :)Now who's not reading the thread? :PYea, as I saw it, no one commented on the conversion document because (to me) they felt it said the same thing as the core rule book said.
But that might just be me?
Considering you both just agreed that what I posted from the conversion document said the same thing that the core rule book said, you totally didn't read what I quoted from it. :(
I'll post it again:
"A monk’s base attack bonus when performing a flurry of blows is now equal to his level. His attacks are made as if using Two-Weapon Fighting (and its improvements at later levels). Table 3–10 summarizes these bonuses. Change your flurry of blows base bonuses to match these values (plus any increases to your base attack bonus from other classes, which might give you additional attacks with your primary strike)."
See that bolded part in that which neither of you nor anyone else ever brought up? That part that isn't posted in the main rulebook? The part that SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT YOU ADD YOUR MONK LEVEL TO OTHER CLASS LEVEL'S BASE ATTACK BONUSES? Don't pretend you brought that up, you didn't. You both are now even quoted as that being ambiguous despite having never read it in my previous post or in the conversion. Don't pretend that you did.
So when people continued to comment on the debate we were having about intention, with actual hard proof from an official Paizo document involved, I made a comment that people didn't seem to be reading the whole thing. There should be errata to clarify that in the main rulebook. Done, over, finished.
See that bolded part in that which neither of you nor anyone else ever brought up? That part that isn't posted in the main rulebook? The part that SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT YOU ADD YOUR MONK LEVEL TO OTHER CLASS LEVEL'S BASE ATTACK BONUSES? Don't pretend you brought that up, you didn't. You both are now even quoted as that being ambiguous despite having never read it in my previous post or in the conversion. Don't pretend that you did.
You're right, I did miss that bit. Now I'm just curious why we're arguing at all, because that's what I was saying right from the start.
So, like.
Why don't monks just get full BAB all the time? I don't get it.
To force monks to use unarmed strikes/special monk weapons *and* to prevent monks from getting prestige classes/feats that full progression classes are supposed to get early. Monks still have to be compatible with 3.X material.
Why does the game suddenly shatter if you give the monk those nice things that even a fighter gets?
Paizo addressed this back during the beta test. They thought that changing that would be too backward incompatible and backward compatibility was a primary goal. So whether or not the monk could use a full BAB (and the d10 hp that goes with it under PF), it was shot down by the backward compatibility goal.
It's never been a question of the game shattering, but a conflict with an important goal for the system.
James Risner
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
Don't pretend that you did.
There should be errata to clarify that in the main rulebook. Done, over, finished.
You aren't reading my posts.
I'm saying:
1) It is clear in the Core rulebook.
2) It doesn't need updated errata in the books.
3) The conversion document and/or an FAQ is sufficient.
There is no point in putting a line that says something that is clearly implied from the existing text. It is redundant and unnecessary.