Noobz's page

TriOmegaZero wrote:

OldSkoolRPG wrote:

This is a legitimate case of RAW not matching RAI and needs to be corrected.

'Need' feels like too strong a word. It would be nice to see an explicit wording in the text someday.

I agree!

I don't think this needs to be clarified, I've literally never heard of this interpretation in 15 years of playing 3.5 and Pathfinder. I just think clarifying this when there are so many things more pressing would be a waste.

In any event, I'd never accept an Oracle of 8th level do two +6/+6 BAB attacks and I'd be happy enough to consider it RAW interpretation.

I don't believe clarification on one of THE MOST CORE MECHANICS in the game is a waste of time.

@blackbloodtroll: Clarification.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:

The tables for each class list their attack progression. For example a 6th level fighter has a BAB of 6/1. Their BAB for the initial attack is 6. The BAB for their second attack is 1, not 6 with a -5 penalty.

Thinking of the second attack as BAB - 5 is just an easy way of quickly calculating it under normal circumstances but not technically accurate.

This, though I'm still confused as to why it would matter.

I address this multiple times on the first page of this thread.

If the BAB just IS "+6/+1" and if that itself was the thing that gave you iterative attacks (the fact that your BAB is a slashed double value!)...tThen when you "replace your BAB with your class level" at, say, level 8, your BAB is now just "+8" and you no longer have iterative attacks, because you've replaced the double value that gave them to you with a single value.

Alternatively, if you actually have two BAB's, a +6 and a +1, then they would both be +8/+8, but I don't see anything that clearly suggests this versus the other.

Ok, gotcha now. Yeah, that's basically another possible reading that adds to the ambiguity.

Is this concept a bit silly? Sure, but so is pushing the issue that there's no such thing as a -5 rule.

But...there isn't. Literally, there is no rule in Pathfinder that addresses this issue. If you can show me the rule, please do. Directing me to a table of numbers without an explanation of those numbers is insufficient.

"At his highest base attack bonus" could mean either "You have two BABs and you use the higher one" OR "You have one BAB which includes one or more bonuses separated by slashes, and you use the highest bonus within your one BAB"

The latter interpretation, although weirder, is more consistent with other text, I think, such as the class advancement tables that label the whole column "Base Attack Bonus" not "Base attack Bonuses" and other places they talk about it as if you have one.

On the other hand, it is called "Base attack BONUS" perhaps implying it should only refer to a singular bonus.

Super vague/messy, I still don't see a clear truth here either way.

Again, yeah, the vague/messy business is what I'm trying to eliminate. I don't care if it helps or hurts my player's character, I just want to be fair.

@Rhaleroad: Please do not post if you are not going to contribute.
@Everyone: It's hard to truly interpret someone's tone/attitude through text. Try to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and choose your wording so as to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Common sense, people.

Use it.

Common sense would suggest that a slippery slope might require an acrobatics check, not necessarily how the acrobatics check mechanic works.

Then we head to Chapter 3 and look for "Base Attack Bonus"...and we can't find it listed. Check the Index...nothing. So, where is this rule in Chapter 3. Oh, I found it. It's in the class tables for each class, where it's listed as a static number. Meaning THAT is the written rule. BAB progresses through a specific sequence in which each iterative is 5 lower than the previous. If someone wants to willfully misread this rule to say that by replacing a non-full BAB class's BAB with level, then you simply substitute their level for the listed BAB. In the Oracle's case as provided, the BAB would go from +6/+1 to +8 ONLY. Because the listed BAB is +6/+1, not BAB +6 and BAB +1. In this example, +6/+1 becomes +8 period; there is no iterative because the iterative is listed as a specific value rather than a separate BAB (+6/+1).

So you're saying that the ability replaces my +6/+1 BAB with only one trip at +8? Because that's different than what most people are saying on here (which is +8/+3, because of the -5), which means that another person has fallen victim of the BAB rule ambiguity!

Also, when you say "Because the listed BAB is +6/+1, not BAB +6 and BAB +1.", you are imposing your interpretation of what +6/+1 means. How do you know what it means? Where does it say that +6/+1 means one BAB and not multiple BABs? When something replaces my BAB, since according to you there is only one BAB, does that mean I only get that one attack, even when before I had multiple?

<><><>

Another example that points to having "multiple" BABs is the ruling of how to calculate an attack roll:

Base Attack Bonus + Str Modifier + Size Modifier
Base Attack Bonus + Dex Modifier + Size Modifier + Range Penalty

So if I have a sword and a BAB of +6/+1, what do my attack roll calculations look like (assume no size mod and 2 str mod)?

6 + 2 = 8
1 + 2 = 3

But wait a minute, we only have one Base Attack Bonus, so let me fix it:

6 + 2 = 8
6 + 2 = 8

That's not right...oh, I get it, the rule says I get an extra attack at BAB 6, not an extra BAB, so that extra attack would be at what value? Probably the one from the table. Let me rewrite the formula to match:

Base Attack Bonus + Str Modifier + Iterative Attack Value
6 + 2 + 0 = 8
0 + 2 + 1 = 3

Or simplified:
Base Attack Bonus/Iterative Attack Value + Str Modifier
6 + 2 = 8
1 + 2 = 3

Side Note: Interesting how the slash in Base Attack Bonus/Iterative Attack Value is the conjunction of two separate values, not much unlike the possibility that +6/+1 could be two separate but related values.

I doubt any of you believe that little farce, but that's really the ONLY WAY I can see there not being multiple BAB values and still making sense with that formula.

Noobz wrote:

Normally, you're right, he would not have two progressions. However, I could see it both ways in this instance, since it does say it replaces your BAB, which I would believe could mean it replaces the progression. Yet another clarification that would be helpful. Also, this argument could become worthless depending on the clarification of the BAB ruling.

If you read the ability closely, you'll see that doing a full replacement isn't a viable interpretation:

Quote:

Maneuver Mastery (Ex): Select one type of combat maneuver. When performing the selected maneuver, you treat your oracle level as your base attack bonus (plus the BAB from other classes) when determining your CMB.

The ability to perform the selected maneuver is predicated on the number of attacks you have with your normal BAB progression -- and only after this test is passed can you do the replacement of the BAB value.

The ability doesn't state that you gain an extra/free attack of any kind, even one of the selected maneuver. So I can't see the full replacement (Flurry of Maneuvers) interpretation as strictly correct -- although I did see this as an option earlier, granted.

But wouldn't that at least be a catch 22, because you're saying the number of attacks is based on BAB, but I'm saying the BAB is based on your choice of attack in this case.

To simplify, let's exclude switching up trips/attacks, and just say you either attack or trip for the round. Oracle 6 has BAB 4 when attacking or BAB 6 when tripping.

You say it's:
Trip: 6/--/--/--
Atk: 4/--/--/--

But why wouldn't the BAB, which normally grants an extra attack at +6, grant another trip at +6?
Trip: 6/1/--/--
Atk: 4/--/--/--

The answer is this: it depends on if Maneuver Mastery is replacing the function of BAB (and the production of iterative attacks) or just the value (simply the number in the equation) in this progression. You say value. While I agree with you semantically, syntactically it's unclear.

And this is assuming BAB as a progression. Interpretations only get worse if it's not a progression.

Allow me to demonstrate more ambiguity:

For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level.

Each attack apparently has its own base attack bonus. But I agree, the wording is a bit weird there.

When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round at your highest bonus.

That seems to imply multiple base attack bonuses. One being your "highest", and therefore some being lower.

Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus.

When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation.

I could find more, but you get my point. These imply not just extra attacks, but that they are individual base attack bonuses (although perhaps at a reduced value, thank you, Gauss).

Btw, Gauss, that's awesome and all, but that's not Pathfinder. I know, I know...it really is, but it's not lol. I played 3.5 for years before Pathfinder as well, but it's a poor decision to cut out such a key ruling that "everyone knows" except for every new person to the game. That's not a forward-minded strategy. Furthermore, they pulled some things over that don't make sense in Pathfinder's context anymore. Should we leave those in and hope that newbies will understand to ignore them just like they're supposed to magically know the parts that were lost?

We have a rule book for a reason. I can do whatever I want at my table. If you don't like it tough! I don't need this clarification for my game. I want the clarification just to solidify the common rule system to help the game and the people who play it (especially the ones who grasp the rules more tightly than others).

I find your argument shallow and pedantic.

The oracle doesn't have two progressions. It simply replaces the relative value in one progression with the value in another progression, so long as a value exists in the first progression.

So, at 6th level, the Battle Oracle has +4/-/-/-. It has only one element it can replace and if he performs the combat manueuver, it is replaced with a +6, whereas without maneuver mastery, it would be a +4.

If the original progression doesn't have a value for it's additional attacks, those null values can't be replaced: null exception.

Flurry of Blows, however, is two progressions. It replaces every attack with a new progression value.

Therein lies the difference.

Normally, you're right, he would not have two progressions. However, I could see it both ways in this instance, since it does say it replaces your BAB, which I would believe could mean it replaces the progression. Yet another clarification that would be helpful. Also, this argument could become worthless depending on the clarification of the BAB ruling.

Noobz,

I would say the same if you use maneuver mastery like flurry of blows. Flurry of blows is a full-attack replacement, whereas maneuver mastery allows for the replacement of discrete attacks within a full attack.

They are not precisely equivalent.

"Any combination of a creature's attacks during a melee full attack can be replaced by a trip, disarm, or sunder maneuver (any maneuver that says "in place of a melee attack"). When doing this, the calculation for the creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus uses the base attack bonus of the attack that was exchanged for a combat maneuver. For example, a creature with a BAB of +6/+1 who performs a trip with her second attack uses +1 as her BAB for the CMB of the trip."

So a level 6 Oracle would have two progressions, a +4 to attack or +6/+1 to trip. It would kind of make sense in a weird way to replace the +6 trip with a +4 attack, but replacing a +1 trip with a non-existent attack throws a null exception. So yeah, doesn't quite match up.

Again, that's if it's a progression as opposed to the others, and also an altered progression and not a substituted one. I think the devs need to shed just a little light on the subject.

Quote:

Given an eighth level Battle Oracle (BAB 6/1) with Maneuver Mastery (Trip), with a full-attack action, he could make two attacks: one at 6 BAB and one at 1 BAB.

3) Would the Oracle be able to make two trips, both at 8 BAB?

4) Could you mix attacks and maneuvers like before at 8/1 BAB or 6/8 BAB?

An 8th level Battle oracle (BAB 6/1) with Maneuver Master on a full attack action gets two attack actions to use. When making a action with his maneuver mastery (eg trip), it uses the enhanced value:

MM-Trip/Attack = +8/+1
Attack/MM-Trip = +6/+3

It would not use 6/8 because you have to replace the 2nd attack action value with the same relative value in the higher progression.

It clears things up if you see the progressions as:

value / value / value / value

With the values replaced with "null" if the BAB isn't high enough to get additional attacks.

So, a 6th level Battle Oracle has a progression of:

+4 / null / null / null

An 8th level Battle oracle has a progression of:

+6 / +1 / null / null

Null means "nothing", so, if you have a replacement ability, and there is nothing to replace, it cannot be substituted with any value in the series.

Your confusion stems from the fact that you were looking at them as discrete unrelated values, or as values that were in some way penalized, instead of as a series.

King: Any all. Most experience is in C, C++ and Unix Shell (bask, ksh, etc, but I've done VB as well).

Now it makes sense why we're able to communicate so well, we're fellow programmers :P (though I mostly do C#...close enough)

Very true, but then again, the book has not described if they are discreet values (which you gain at 6/11/16), a progression (that grows at 6/11/16), a derivation (20, 20-5=15, 20-10=10, etc), or what.

I think a progression makes the most sense with the wording of other feats and abilities, but then I would have to say that the Maneuver Mastery's replacement of BAB would alter the progression, gaining 6/1 to trip at level 6 Oracle.

Quote:

1) When the Oracle's level being treated as BAB reaches the point where a normal BAB would grant iterative attacks, does the Oracle gain iterative attacks with the combat maneuver? In this case, at level 6, with a full-attack action, could the Oracle attempt two trips?

2) Assuming #1 is valid, could they mix attacks with maneuvers? So for instance, attack at 4 BAB and then trip at 1 BAB?

Hmm. I've rethought this:

All this ability does is replace the value of your normal BAB in the progression with the value of the BAB in the progression if it started equivalent to your level.

So, on your first attack, your trip would be +6. At your oracle level of 6, you don't get a second attack, so there is nothing to replace.

Ok, now check out questions #3 and #4 and the bit after that. You're going down the same path I went. Maybe you'll share my agony. Join me. JOIN ME!!!

Noobz wrote:

At this point, Daniel, having scanned the pdf for every wording I can think of, I believe you that there might not be a ruling :P The only problem then is, how do we interpret this? Do you actually take a -5 penalty on your second attack, or do you just gain an extra attack at a BAB bonus that is 5 lower? We can't say either way without an actual ruling.

The reason this could be a big deal is for things that replace your BAB. If it's the -5 penalty, then things that replace your BAB would take a -5 penalty as well, but if it's just a reduced BAB, then things that replace your BAB would get massive benefits.

So while it definitely seems intuitive, an actual ruling would be helpful.

There is no descriptive text stating there is an explicit -5 to each iterative attack.

However, base attack bonus is not a singular number, it's a progression of values (a series) based on circumstances.

If you have a BAB equal to your level and that level is 6, your first attack action using that BAB series is at +6, your second attack action is at +1, just like any other full base attack bonus progression class.

If you were a 3/4 BAB class and your level is 6, you normally only get one attack. However you can replace your BAB with your level, which would get you two attack actions, one at +6 and a second at +1. However, you would restricted to actions that are allowed by your BAB replacement ability. You can't replace your ability for the first attack action, and then use a generic ability for the second.

When you have an ability that replaces your BAB, you have to replace the entire series, not just a single number.

In cases where only a single value can be replaced (see CMD), then you replace it with the first value in the series (unless an exception to this is spelled out).

In your circumstances, Noobz, if your replacement ability is being used for your 2nd attack action, you have to use the 2nd value in the series as determined by a BAB equivalent to your...

That seems pretty logical, and that's how I've always seen it as well. Unfortunately, the book is not inherently clear about that, and it can only be speculated (possibly abused). Still, let's assume that it is how you say. Could you answer in this thread my questions #1 & #2 found here?

Alric Rahl wrote:

I'm not trying to be an a+#$%~* when I say this, but im going to tell you the same thing someone told me once when I had an issue with the rules.

a little background first. My issue was with the Sha'ir Occultist Archetype. I wanted a proper faq to explain how the Jin's Schools ability worked. However the General consensus was that it worked as written, I knew it worked as written but I wanted the clarification to get Herolab to fix the class in it's program.

So one person told me that the Devs were never going to FAQ this because its pretty clear how it works.

Now im saying the same to you, It's pretty clear that iteratives are at a -5 the previous one. 5 less than the previous translates into; previous attack BAB - 5. Thus the Devs are not going to FAQ this or give a direct ruling as its pretty clear what the ruling is.

Also using your example of the 2 = 4. there is no other way to arrive at a 1 from a 6. which is why im sure the devs picked these numbers. so there would be no confusion on how they arrived at the values they got. for Example lets say it was +6/+3, well they could of done 2 things; -3, or /2 (Divide by). if it was +6/+2 it would either be /3, or -4. but the only way to get from +6 to +1 is to -5.

So Read as Written or RAW, your +1 iterative is 5 less than your primary +6 BAB, or +6 - 5 = +1.

Last I checked, 6 divided by 6 will get you 1. Maybe that is the formula used.

I believe what Noobz is asking is this:

If I have a +6/+1 BAB, is my first attack considered at my BAB of +6 and my second one is at my previous attack minus 5, or do I have an attack at my BAB of +6, then my second attack is at a BAB of +1? Is the second attack considered it's own BAB, or is it a derivative of the first?

If the second attack is considered a BAB of +1, and the value is not a derivative of the first attack, then the Battle Oracle's Maneuver Mastery would allow for the +8/+8 he is asking about.

If iterative attacks are considered derivative's of a...

Spot on, Lutzsd. I appreciate your candor, Alric, but I'm going to keep trying.

RAW or "Read as Written"

"Rules As Written"

does not exclude tables just because they are values and not specifically lettered text. any and all information in a book is called text. If you read the tables as written then the iterative BAB is 5 less than the previous attack. And what does "5 Less Than" translate into??? "-5". Therefore RAW is BAB -5.

False, Black Bear. You cannot look at the table and infer anything except that at BAB values 6, 11, and 16, an additional number appears with a value 5 lower than the last in the order. You literally CANNOT infer that it is a new attack at BAB-5 or a new BAB 5 lower than the previous.

Now if you want to argue that they are stated values and not a formula though a formula may have been used to come to this conclusion. Well I would argue that it would be stupid to include said formula in such a table. +6/+6-5 looks pretty stupid to me, and Im sure you agree, as do the devs which is why they just put the number there instead.

I agree that they should not put the formula in the table, just as they don't put the description of every ability in the table. I am suggesting that in some section (getting start or combat maybe) a simple line that says "iterative attacks suffer a cumulative -5 penalty".

I just dont understand how people are not seeing that RAW (Which includes any and all text in the book, charts included) says previous attack BAB - 5 for iteratives. Thats a lie, I can understand how people are not seeing it because they want it to be spelled out in letters, and because its not literally spelled out "Iteratives are BAB -5" then they think its a loophole they can exploit because "it's not written, therefore it doesn't exist". but the fact of the matter is that it is written, in text as a value, not letters, and common sense dictates that it be "Read as Written" as BAB -5.

I don't understand why people are not understanding that a chart of numbers does not explain mechanics. I don't understand why people think I'm the one trying to pull something from nothing, when I'm actually trying to do the exact opposite. Would I blow your mind if I said you are actually committing the crime that you're accusing me of? You're pulling something from nothing. You have no evidence of how the number is calculated, yet you have formed your own idea of how it is. I'm simply asking for clarification.

So your counter-argument is something that explicitly includes an additional non-BAB based attack? and when you take out that additional attack you find that your BAB based iteratives are still 5 lower than the previous. good example...

After rereading your argument, I see that I misunderstood it. I thought you were saying that your BAB cannot be changed. I was saying that the Monk's FoB changes the Monk's BAB for its purposes, and therefore something else might change it in another way. But again, I'm not advocating anything. I'm saying that there is no rule explaining the derived value of iterative attacks.

Also, I would ask that you refrain from insulting remarks.

There is no evidence to show that BAB based iterative attacks are anything other than 5 lower. There is a wealth of evidence in every class table to support it.

I understand that they're five lower normally...no one is arguing against that. What I'm asking is what mechanic, rule, calculation, etc makes it five lower?

It's a derived value. If you really need this spelled out for you I don't advise multi-classing.

I completely agree. It is a derived value...but how it is derived is the entire point of this thread. Can you tell me?

Your BAB, when it reaches a certain value, grants an additional attack. This is in the getting started section. The only place that tells you the value of these additional attacks is on the class tables. EVERY SINGLE ONE has iterative attacks at a value 5 less than the previous. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest you use any other value. Any claim that iterative attacks can result in a different value needs some evidence to back up such an assertion.

How about the Monk and its Flurry of Blows that we've already discussed in this thread. The monk has a 3/4 BAB chart, but when flurrying, it becomes full BAB. Therefore, I do claim that iterative attacks (and primary in this case too) can result in a different value, and here is my evidence.

Otherwise I could just claim that all my oracle iteratives are 5 higher than the previous attack, because nothing tells me it isn't.

This is not the case. I am arguing it not because there's nothing that tells me I can't do this, but because something tells me I can do this. Here's the link from before.

I don't think i saw any discussion of this above, but aren't there actually at least TWO other interpretations even without -5 being a rule?

1) "+6/+1" --> "+level/+level", i.e. you use level for both of two iterative attacks.

1) "+6/+1" --> "+level", i.e. you lose your iterative attack entirely, because you only have a single number as a BAB now instead of a double slashed number.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Can you elaborate a bit?

Allow me to address the following issue:
"Every single class level chart shows each iterative at -5 the previous BAB. its not just 5 lower, its -5 the previous one."

Like Oldskool was saying, they are just numbers, and the derivation of those numbers is not explained. It is a black box that we are only guessing at. Yes, Alric, you've brought up a couple strong points hinting at what they were thinking (the strongest being your monk example which I will look into next). But first, let me disprove the class level chart issue.

Let's say I took the number 2 and performed a single unknown operation on it that only I know what it was. The result is 4. One person might say I added 2, because 2+2=4. One person might say that I multiplied it by 2, because 2x2 also equals 4. One of those two people is right, but here is the most wrong answer: It doesn't matter, it just equals 4. The reason that is so wrong is because if instead of 2 for my input, I use the number 10, then I'm either going to get 10+2=12 or 10x2 = 20. We can no longer say those are equal.

However, you're on the right track. By looking at other examples, we might be able to reverse engineer the actual operation. For instance, if I start with 2 and get 4, or start with 6 and get 8, or start with 17 and get 19, it looks an awful lot like it's just adding 2.

So that brings me to your other examples. I still don't think the natural attack thing works. While similar, they are still quite different, and there are many rules about natural attacks that do not fit with regular attacks (including Flurry of Blows!).

The monk one is very close! It definitely adds a piece to the puzzle that helps us figure out the pattern. The only problem I could see with it is that one could relate it then to a full BAB class like a fighter (which they did in Unchained to simplify things). Therefore, they would say "Well, I'm monk level 12, which means I look at the chart for fighter and determine that I have a BAB of 12/7/2". In fact, they would have to do that, because once again, there is no rule for determining why it's -5 every iterative attack.

However, I really do think that in the case of the Oracle, it does solve the problem. Still, future problems of a similar nature might arise. A clear cut rule defining how these numbers are calculated, instead of guessing based off another class' somewhat similar ability, would be highly preferred.

James wrote:

Holy cats. When I first clicked on this, I was like "that is something only a noob would ask."

But I became far less certain as time passed.
Far less certain.

I agree. Instead it is something that only a flippant rules lawyer would ask to start a conversation. This is a non-issue. Let's all stop posting in this thread since it is so pointless.

Ignoring a problem never helps. If you're so sure it is a non-issue, then please give me the ruling. Again, I really want it to be a simple, clear-cut rule like "you take a cumulative -5 penalty to all iterative attacks", but I don't see it in the rules.

This is ridiculous, RAW says your second iterative BAB is at a -5. It's so common sense there was no need for an actual ruling, especially when there are other sources to support the -5. Like Natural Attacks. All Noobz wants is to be able to make her character OP by having +8/+8 when activating this ability so they are using twisted logic to get you all to think differently

Now let's all calm down. Don't assume things. This is not for my character at all. This is actually a point someone brought up in a game I run for their character. This is explained in my link earlier.

RAW says your second iterative BAB is at a -5

Where? Where does RAW say that? That is the whole point of this thread. I can't find it anywhere! You'd make me a happy man if you could give me a reference.

The whole secondary natural attack thing from earlier doesn't relate (300%), otherwise all iterative attacks would suffer 50% strength loss. Plus, this is with a manufactured weapon. So this is apples and oranges.

An Oracle with a BAB of +6/+1 who uses that ability will be +8/+3 for trips. Mix and match those as you want. If you attack with the +6 and then trip for your second you use the "second attack bab" from the ability which is +3.

I agree on this as RAI, and it will be what I use in my game. However, RAW, used in things like PFS, I feel this is not adequate.

Does that mean the attack penalties and damage bonuses for Power Attack are lower on iteratives?

While I don't know for sure, because that fits in with the ambiguity of BAB that I'm struggling with right now, it does say that you change it for all attacks...that would be my only guess. That is to say it seems like it's tied to your highest BAB and applied similarly to all iterative attacks.

Here is text from the FAQ in the Combat section of the PFSRD. Seems to make it clear enough.

"Any combination of a creature's attacks during a melee full attack can be replaced by a trip, disarm, or sunder maneuver (any maneuver that says "in place of a melee attack"). When doing this, the calculation for the creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus uses the base attack bonus of the attack that was exchanged for a combat maneuver. For example, a creature with a BAB of +6/+1 who performs a trip with her second attack uses +1 as her BAB for the CMB of the trip. "

Yeah, but that's the general rule. The Oracle ability is the more specific rule. Still, it is compatible in the following way:

For example, a creature with a BAB of +6/+1 who performs a trip with her second attack uses +1 as her BAB for the CMB of the trip.

Ok, so I use the +1 as my BAB for the CMB, but then my Oracle ability says I use my Oracle level, so the +1 becomes my level instead.

Yes, the second one takes the penalty too. There is no way around the lower iteratives.

But we've decided there is no such thing as the penalty, it is a new lower BAB that was gained. Therefore, the lower BAB would get replaced by the Oracle ability.

Can you give an example of something that replaces BAB? I don't know of any.

I made a post earlier about a similar question, and I concluded that the underlying problem was the question I addressed in this current thread.

The thing is that iterative attacks don't actually suffer from a -5 penalty. They just start progressing five BAB later than the previous attacks do. That's what my previous quote states. You won't find anything talking about the -5 penalty because that is not how they are defined.

Yeah, that definitely seems to be the consensus view, and maybe we all just made up or took for granted how BAB/Attack values were supposed to be calculated for years from DnD v3.0 on.

So if everyone is correct in that there is no -5 penalty, but that iterative attacks gain a separate, lower BAB as shown on character advancement tables, then I have to assume that the Oracle ability from the link above would actually grant full Oracle level to both Trip attempts (because it's replacing both BAB values with Oracle level), but that the number of trip attempts still derive from the iterative attacks granted by the class's BAB progression.

Wow...quite a mouthful. Still, this is very enlightening, and I think very bad. I don't like the idea of the Oracle being able to substitute his level for his BAB on his iterative attacks, turning his probable attack misses into a more than probable Trips (or Sunders/Disarms). That seems overly powerful.

Thanks everyone for your responses.

It would help if we knew exactly why this question us asked. What's the difference between making two attacks at 6/1 and taking one attack at six and the second at 6-5?

I answered this in my previous post:

That's how iterative attacks gained from higher BAB is. I don't see any reason to discriminate between the two.

Why is that how it is? Without a rule, we cannot just say "that's just how it is".

Also, secondary attacks and iterative attacks are not the same. Look in the bestiary for rules on secondary attacks. They are indeed taken at a -5. And usually if you gain secondary attacks in addition to your primary (say a natural weapon) or iterative attacks (like a barbarian attacking with a sword and a bite gained from a trait or class ability) it will state in the description that this is a secondary natural attack and it's taken at a minus 5 from your highest BAB, not a cumulative minus five from your previous attack in the round.

My bad, I should have been more specific. I meant iterative attacks. Basically, attacks that would either incur the -5 penalty or have the lower BAB.

Is this what you are looking for?

Unfortunately, that only tells me that I get an additional attack at those BAB values. It does not mention a penalty or a reduced BAB for secondary attacks. Thanks though.

At this point, Daniel, having scanned the pdf for every wording I can think of, I believe you that there might not be a ruling :P The only problem then is, how do we interpret this? Do you actually take a -5 penalty on your second attack, or do you just gain an extra attack at a BAB bonus that is 5 lower? We can't say either way without an actual ruling.

The reason this could be a big deal is for things that replace your BAB. If it's the -5 penalty, then things that replace your BAB would take a -5 penalty as well, but if it's just a reduced BAB, then things that replace your BAB would get massive benefits.

So while it definitely seems intuitive, an actual ruling would be helpful.

I cannot find anywhere in the CRB where it mentions taking a cumulative -5 penalty to iterative attacks.

So for instance, if your base attack bonus is high enough to grant multiple attacks (let's say 6), you get an extra attack, but instead of two attacks at +6, you get one at +6 and one at +1. Everyone knows this, but where is the actual ruling?

Sorry, couldn't edit the post for some reason. This should read:

Given a sixth level Battle Oracle (BAB 4) with Maneuver Mastery (Trip), he could make one attack at 4 BAB or one trip at 6 BAB.

I have seen similar posts on the boards, but nothing quite addresses my specific questions.

Maneuver Mastery (Ex): Select one type of combat maneuver. When performing the selected maneuver, you treat your oracle level as your base attack bonus when determining your CMB. At 7th level, you gain the Improved feat (such as Improved Trip) that grants you a bonus when performing that maneuver. At 11th level, you gain the Greater feat (such as Greater Trip) that grants you a bonus when performing that maneuver. You do not need to meet the prerequisites to receive these feats.

Given a sixth level Battle Oracle (BAB 4) with Maneuver Mastery (Trip), he could make one attack at 4 BAB or one attack at 6 BAB.

1) When the Oracle's level being treated as BAB reaches the point where a normal BAB would grant iterative attacks, does the Oracle gain iterative attacks with the combat maneuver? In this case, at level 6, with a full-attack action, could the Oracle attempt two trips?

I would say no, because I read it as only being used for purposes of calculating CMB (as in the numerical value), and not for determining his number of attacks.

2) Assuming #1 is valid, could they mix attacks with maneuvers? So for instance, attack at 4 BAB and then trip at 1 BAB?

Replacing Attacks with Combat Maneuvers

Any combination of a creature's attacks during a melee full attack can be replaced by a trip, disarm, or sunder maneuver (any maneuver that says "in place of a melee attack"). When doing this, the calculation for the creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus uses the base attack bonus of the attack that was exchanged for a combat maneuver. For example, a creature with a BAB of +6/+1 who performs a trip with her second attack uses +1 as her BAB for the CMB of the trip.

The rules here are pretty clear when using a normal BAB, but when you basically have two BAB sets, it gets a little hazy. Basically, given the first BAB set of 4 for attacks or the second BAB set of 6/1 for trips, could I cherry pick and do an attack at 4 and a trip at 1?

Given an eighth level Battle Oracle (BAB 6/1) with Maneuver Mastery (Trip), with a full-attack action, he could make two attacks: one at 6 BAB and one at 1 BAB.

3) Would the Oracle be able to make two trips, both at 8 BAB?

4) Could you mix attacks and maneuvers like before at 8/1 BAB or 6/8 BAB?

You are probably face-palming right now, as I did when I first heard it, but hear me out.

If we go by the logic from earlier where it's not really determining a new BAB set, and it really is used to replace your BAB when determining your CMB, then you would replace 6 with 8 and 1 with 8, meaning you could in fact get do 3 & 4. This is pretty powerful, considering you could turn your second attack that has a high probability of missing into a trip/sunder/disarm that has an extremely high chance of succeeding. Even a full BAB class can't turn their lower attacks into a full BAB maneuver.

If you say that it doesn't replace your BAB separately, but instead creates its own set, then you end up contradicting the reasonable answer to questions #1 & #2. So as you can see, I have quite a conundrum.

The only answer I can come up with that feels intuitively correct is that you replace the BAB values in respect to the current BAB set--that is to say, you still incur the -5 cumulative attack penalty for iterative attacks. So if you have a BAB of 6/1, you could do:
Attack 6 / Attack 1
Attack 6 / Trip 3
Trip 8 / Attack 1
Trip 8 / Trip 3

I will be handling it this way, but I feel like this could be abused in PFS where RAW is king. What is the intended way? Am I missing something?

P.S. I couldn't find ANYWHERE the rules for taking the -5 cumulative penalty for iterative attacks. I thought it would be in the Combat section with the BAB or Full-Attack Action rules, but it's not apparently. Can someone please point that out for me?

It would have been nice to have put a maul into the Pathfinder Core Rulebook once we did that... but alas that opportunity slipped by. We got the earth breaker into Ultimate Equipment though, and it IS classified as a hammer.

Really? I picked up the Ultimate Equipment at GenCon this year, and I saw it in there, but I must have missed where it was labeled as a hammer. I mean, it says it's a hammer in the description, but I learned not to assume ;P

Well thanks! That just made my day!

EDIT: Just found the weapon categories at the VEEERY end of the weapons list in UE. *facepalm* Glad someone knows what they're doing. Thanks again!

I would place the longhammer on the polearm list as well for weapon groups. Specifically because it has reach.

If you're a dwarf, one of your (in my opinion far too numerous) racial traits is "Weapon Familiarity," which lets you treat weapons with the word "dwarven" in their name as a martial weapon. As such, you would not have to take Exotic Weapon to use a dwarven longhammer, since as a dwarf you treat that weapon as a martial weapon, and as a fighter you are proficient with all martial weapons. But you WOULDN'T gain the benefits of weapon training (hammer) to your dwarven longhammer if it's categorized (as I suggest) as a polearm.

Remember, the foehammer archetype is intended to be used by up-close hammer fighters, not reach weapon users. If you want to push the boundaries on that archetype... you do need to spend more feats to make it work the way you want because you're doing things that aren't specifically intended.

My advice would be to ditch the longhammer and use some weapon from the hammer list for your character. If the loss of reach is enough to make you want to retire or give up on the character... I can't really help you. In my opinion, a character who's all about hammering stuff is still fun to play even without the cheesy addition of reach weapons...

In other words, sorry, but I'm not gonna help you game the system to save resources on feats and class abilities. That kind of character optimization kinda rubs me the wrong way.

Not at all! But you can't blame me for not wanting to throw away a feat! If I chose Weapon Focus (Dwarven Longhammer) and then it turned out to be a polearm, I would obviously choose then to use a hammer to get the Foehammer bonuses, but I would have just wasted a feat and trait that I can never get back. That's not a manipulation of the rules as much as me not wanted to get screwed over.

Having said that, I don't really care if I have to switch. I just wanted to know where the Dwarven Longhammer fell, and if you think it's a polearm, that's what I should probably assume. Thank you for clearing that up.

One last thing I have to say: when I read the Foehammer, I saw in my mind a dwarf with a big freaking hammer home-run-swinging bad guys (hence the free bull rush after the attack). It looks really fun, and I thought it would be more fun and appropriate with a giant hammer! The reach did not even come into play, although I must admit, one-hand vs two-hand did. I would be find with the Earth Breaker (same thing without reach), but it's not on the list either. So when you say it was designed for close range (or at least more close range than reach :P), I never understood it that way until now.

So I just started PFS, and I made a Dwarven Fighter with the Foehammer archetype from the ARG. I planned to use the Dwarven Longhammer (also from the ARG, but not in the UE), but then I found out that it is not on the fighter's weapon training list. One of my VL friends suggested that I should not assume it to be a hammer, because its reach could possibly classify it as a polearm like the Lucerne Hammer.

Surely a weapon with "hammer" and "dwarven" in the title, released in the same book only a page after the dwarven fighter archetype "foehammer" made SPECIFICALLY to use hammers, was designed with the intent to be used for this archetype.

However, I am forced to retire Baragrohm Bronzebones at level 1 on the off chance that it turns out to be a polearm or whatnot, because I do not want to spend Heirloom Weapon and Weapon Focus on a weapon that turns out to not be useful for my class. What can I do about this? Please help me bring him back out of retirement faster than Brett Favre! Thanks!