Jasco's page

Your first assumption has a big problem. The spell schools overlap and Illusion *does* create and change things. It just doesn't do it in the same way as Conjuration or Transmutation. The problem is, if we're assuming that all Illusion spells necessarily effect perceivers of the target rather than the target, you might as well remove illusion as a school and make it a subschool of Enchantment. In trying to separate Illusion from Conjuration and Transmutation you make it into Enchantment-By-Proxy school.

Illusion spells simply *can* affect the physical world, even as they aren't physical. Enchantment spells affect senses, perceptions and minds. Illusion (glamer) spells attach metaphysical funhouse mirrors to things, Illusion (figment) makes metaphysical funhouse mirrors. Illusion attempts to alter that object/space which you are perceiving. Enchantment attempts to alter your perceptions directly, either as they happen or after the fact. Sense perception is a two way street like having a conversation; images and sounds are emitted by things, and they are received and interpreted by things. Illusion alters how they are emitted from its target, Enchantment alters how its target receives them.

Also, just to be clear about Illusion spells and Mind Affecting:

Indeed mind affecting spells are already comprise a subset of illusion spells and are specifically stated to “work only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.” Such spells only work against creatures with some level of intelligence. A spell such as invisibility is different and must work against something else.

I'm not so sure what you're saying here.

Mind-Affecting

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.

All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting.

So your assumption simply isn't right. Glamers and Figments are, in many ways, most effective against mindless things because they lack the ability to question the Illusion. A mindless zombie will walk up to a minor image of a human and try to hit it. After it tries, it has proof the illusion is fake and will see through it.

There isn't a rules question here, it's just asking "Wouldn't it be cool if illusion was different?"

I'm located in Mays Landing, I've been looking for new people to play with. Drop me a PM, let me know a little about the game a group?

I'm 25, off at 5 on Fridays and have committed most of the pathfinder rules to memory.

Is it intended? Nope. So using it like that is like bug abuse, which is generally shunned.

Is it possible by RAWiest RAWy-RAW? Possibly. Not sure though.

"A: An iterative attack is available, at a lower base attack bonus. "
Do you have any source that the second (say, the +1 of +6/+1) is even a Base Attack Bonus and not just an unnamed bonus?

Actually, I meant to just say Bonus. In the end, you would normally use that number as your BAB for figuring CMB.

It doesn't need to say it is a penalty, because it doesn't matter how you qualify it.

I completely disagree.

The rules are nothing except a series of ever-more complex qualifiers. If the lower bonus of an iterative attack isn't expressly called a penalty, it isn't one RAW. It's just a lower bonus, which is how it was worded in 3.5. As a "lower bonus" Without something classifying it as a penalty, it isn't one.

To reiterate, one more time, why it DOES matter how it's qualified I will go through the argument again.

A: An iterative attack is available, at a lower base attack bonus.
B: A Monk uses this iterative attack to attempt a trip.
C: The Trip is resolved using CMB
D: CMB is calculated using "Monk level" + "Strength Mod" because of Maneuver Training.

The only way that that lower bonus would carry over is if it was qualified in the rules expressly as a penalty, which get added as normal.
OR
If the Monk's BAB was increased to a number equal to his level, as Flurry of Blows dictates. In this case the BAB is higher but is still a BAB and so it follows the same rules of staggered progression.

Not to be rude, but qualifiers and semantics are inevitably going to matter RAW. I'm sure you're right if we're RAI, but that's not what this thread was made to discuss.

The number of base attacks is not the same as the base attack bonus to those attacks, though they are linked. THe base attack is a number based on level. THe number of attacks gained by it is based on how high that number is, and those iterative attacks are at a penalty from the original bonus.

This is the only part of what you said which is relevant to the discussion, as far as I can tell. Yes, Extra Attacks come from a High BAB. That doesn't change the fact that with those attacks I can make a Trip attempt, using my entire Monk level (say, 6) in place of my BAB when calculating CMB.

The problem is, the rule you quoted doesn't say it's a penalty. You get a second attack from having a sufficiently high BAB, sure. But the second attack has a lower penalty. It isn't a second attack using the higher BAB with an attached penalty, according to what you quoted.

Unless something by Paizo calls the "lower bonus" of an iterative attack a "penalty" it wouldn't be included in the class of things which is carried into Combat Maneuver Bonus when Base Attack Bonus is written out of it in favor of Monk Level.

The way I've always read it is that your BAB is 1 number. If you're a 6th Level Fighter your BAB is +6. That's it you BAB is not +6/+1. When you reach +6 BAB the rules allow you to make a second attack at BAB-5. 6-5=1. If you read it that way everything works the way intended.

I understand why you'd think of it that way, but the charts format it as +6/+1 and the rules for Base Attack Bonus only refer to the second attack as having a "lower bonus" and not a "penalty". Which is an important distinction since Maneuver Training would only carry over a penalty when writing out BAB in calculating CMB.

If you want to get pedantic, you're saying BAB stuff doesn't apply because your level replaces BAB entirely. If that's the case, you wouldn't get iterative attacks because whatever your level is, it doesn't grant you iterative attacks; only BAB does that.

So, either your level substitutes for BAB entirely, for all it's functions (not piecemeal like you appear to be arguing), or you simply use your level as, effectively, a higher BAB.

Actually, to be really pedantic: Manuever training only replaces BAB in calculating CMB. Not in general. So you would still have the iterative attack, and it's BAB would still be lower. It just wouldn't affect anything if you used a maneuver.

"a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus"

So it doesn't replace BAB for everything. Also, it also doesn't call for me to use my BAB and have it be equal to my level like Flurry does, it has me replace it in calculating my maneuver bonus and nothing else. The difference may seem trifling, but it has implications. As I mentioned, I'm talking about RAW stuff, here. This means that I will get very pedantic if it's warranted.

If you can show me a rule that refers to an iterative attack's lower Base Attack Bonus as an "attack penalty" then I'm way on board. I could not find one, myself. As best I can tell, the lower BAB on an iterative attack is a natural part of the great mechanic of having a Base Attack Bonus. It's easy to think of it as a penalty, like it is for secondary natural attacks. However, I couldn't find something that referred to it as such.

My statements on maneuver training are very straight forward. I'm suggesting that the lower BAB of an iterative attack is a natural part of Base Attack Bonus (such that it would naturally be +6/+1 rather than +6/+(6-5). As such, to replace BAB in calculating CMB would bypass the lower bonus entirely, replacing it with your full level.

Again, though, if you can find where the rules refer to iterative attacks as having "a penalty", then you're right. I only have the SRD available to me at the moment and couldn't find it.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attack-Bonus

The SRD only refers to them as having a "lower bonus" which is NOT the same thing, functionally, as a "penalty"

Jasco wrote:

Yes but you don't use the base attack bonus at all. That's what I'm saying. You use your level in place of your BAB. Since the reduction is tied to that, and not your level or maneuver training, it's not technically there.

Ah yes, but flurry of blows ALSO replaces the BAB with the monk's class level and then applies the modifiers, so clearly while not technically the BAB, the modifiers clearly still apply as if it IS the BAB.

Jasco wrote:

To clarify, any normal rules for using iterative attacks for maneuvers would be overridden by the specifics of an ability. As written, Maneuver Training is in effect anytime you use a maneuver and so long as it doesn't actually alter your BAB but just replaces it in the calculation of CMB, the iterative attacks wouldn't keep their lower bonus, necessarily.

I don't think many DM's will let you get away with up to seven attacks at what amounts to full BAB on each and every one.

In response to the second point, I'm not exactly looking to. I'm just having a discussion about the rules abstractly.

More importantly, let me stress that what Flurry does and what Maneuver Training does are distinctly different, whether intentional or not. Flurry makes it such that "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level." It increases your base attack bonus to a number equal to your level. It changes your BAB without taking the actual mechanic "Base Attack Bonus" out of the situation.

On the other hand, with Maneuver Training "a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally." So it when using, say, a second iterative attack you would be calculating using your level rather than your base attack bonus. In this case, the entire mechanic of "Base Attack Bonus" is remove in calculating your CMB, which is then used to determine success. You BAB is still deciding how many attacks you get, but it not used in determining your success should you choose to use a Trip in place of a damaging attack. So what Flurry does to the Base Attack Bonus is irrelevant, since Maneuver Training doesn't actually affect BAB at all, it only affects there way in which CMB is calculated. Since the rules which reduce ones BAB by 5 for an iterative attack are only attached to Base Attack Bonus, removing it from the equation would necessarily leave you with your new CMB Formula: Monk Level + Strength.

In order for Maneuver Training to retain the same staggered progression as Base Attack Bonus it would would have to increase your BAB to an amount equal to your level, as Flurry does. Instead, it distinctly replaces BAB with your level. Put simply, "BAB" has the staggered progression of iterative attacks inherent in it from the rules. "CMB" inherits this characteristic from using BAB in its calculation. Cut out BAB, and replace it with a single whole numner (ie. One's level) and you'd necessarily lose that characteristic unless the rules provided that it be maintained.

I'm not saying I'm looking to use this in a game. I'm definitely not saying it is intentional. I'm just saying that unless someone can point out where I've made a mistake, this is the necessary logical conclusion.

Yes but you don't use the base attack bonus at all. That's what I'm saying. You use your level in place of your BAB. Since the reduction is tied to that, and not your level or maneuver training, it's not technically there.

To clarify, any normal rules for using iterative attacks for maneuvers would be overridden by the specifics of an ability. As written, Maneuver Training is in effect anytime you use a maneuver and so long as it doesn't actually alter your BAB but just replaces it in the calculation of CMB, the iterative attacks wouldn't keep their lower bonus, necessarily.

Despite having played with and as monks for years I was rereading their class abilities, because I have that kind of time, and noticed something odd in maneuver training. In particular it's a very specific wording that I feel like has a big impact on the way in which monks would deal with maneuvers. Obviously this is all about Reading as Written and not intention.

----
Maneuver Training (Ex)

At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally.
----(emphasis mine)

Now, specifically, the issue I have is this: Using this wording, it appears to me that a monk with the level 8 +6/+6/+1/+1 Flurry BAB (or any combination of BAB with iterative attacks) would use his full level in place of the +1 if he were to make a trip (as an example) attempt instead of an attack. In effect, if tripping the last attack would also have a +6, his level minus the penalty for flurrying.

If Maneuver Training dictated that you used your Monk Level AS your BAB it would be an easy argument to say that the staggered progression would still be in effect since it's your second attack. But Maneuver Training seems to cut Base Attack Bonus out of your consideration for Maneuvers entirely. Instead it simply has you calculate your CMB without your BAB at all. You replace it with your level, which as written wouldn't necessarily be any lower for being a later attack.

To me it seems like the only way to take that, based on the writing of the ability. It would certainly make ending your turn with a trip an appealing notion.