Tyrnd's page

Ok, I think I just mis-read starglim's post and thought he was saying that the monster would beable to reach the corner squares. Only after re-reading it did I realize he was talking about the reach weapon.

Just so I'm on the same page as well, does the large creature (bottom of the blue diagram) also threaten the corner two squares or just one as is drawn?

PRD-Combat Maneuver Defense wrote:

... A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD.

Oops...my fault on that.

I thought dodge bonuses applied to CMD?

Dex modifiers are added to CMD, but not dodge AC. CMD = 10+BAB+Str Mod+Dex Mod+Size Mod.

As to the question of why anyone would ever do it, the ki point all monks can spend does not add to your CMD, where as this one does. So if you can't use both (which seems the case to me since you can only use one swift action a round, not sure about being able to use one as a move action, I'll look into that when I get a hold of my book), then it's your choice, get a +6 to AC and a +2 to CMD, or a +4 to AC and a +4 to CMD.

No, the tripper only. Man that is a badly written feat. I will hit the FAQ button to see if it can get cleaned up.

My understanding of the feat is similar to Grick's. Only because the feat says "that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity," as opposed to saying something along the lines of, "that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity" or "attack of opportunity from you." Definitely a FAQ though if they meant only from the person performing the maneuver.

Monk 4/Wiz 1/Dragon Disciple 4: BAB +6/+1 (+5/+5/-1 when Flurrying)

Probably a typo, but +5/+5/+0 I think is what you meant. Also, I brought up the discussion here and finally got my revelation to figure it out =)!

I had a nice long post typed out for you, and then my stupid internet went crappy and I didn't get to post it =(. Well, here's round two.

1:

But if you were able to wield 4 swords, you would still be able to make multi weapon fighting with them, getting 4 attacks and extra for high BAB. Why cant this be applied to unarmed attacks, as they are also weapons. I am also pretty sure you can use bestiary feats just the same as you use regular feats, ex improved natural attack works fine on monks.

Here that should answer your question. They errata'd it and mentioned that you cannot use those feats for unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes by themselves are not considered weapons unless you get the feat Improved Unarmed Strike. Once this feat is taken, you are considered armed and begin to do lethal damage. While I can't tell you for sure what the folks at Paizo were thinking, I can only give you my interpretation of the situation. When someone trains in the method of unarmed strikes, their whole body is considered a weapon, therefore, they can only make extra attacks with this "weapon" when their BAB allows them to.

2:

yes i agree that you would get the extra attack, but since it also states you get the same penalty as if using 2wp fighting, while wielding fx a greatsword and biting. what happens if you are getting that penalty already, from dual wielding anyway? do you then get -2 from dw and -2 extra for natural attack dw? or do they overlap so you only get one -2 for dw?

If you look under natural attacks section in the core rule book (pg. 182), it states that natural attacks gets treated as if it is a secondary natural attack, getting a -5 penalty and only 1/2 str when used in conjuncture with a weapon. Furthermore, the weapon (main attack) is treated as if it was made with a light weapon in the off hand, and receives the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons (see table on pg. 202 in the core rule book). For instance, a with greatsword, you'd get a -4 penalty on the sword and a -5 penalty on the bite if you didn't have the Two Weapon Fighting feat. Likewise, if you did have the feat, you'd get a -2 penalty on the sword and a -5 penalty on the bite.

My question regarding monks is rather, i do know it states they cant combine natural attakcs and normal while using FoB, but if a fighter can dual wield his hands (wich is the same as FoB almost) and make a natural attack at the same time, then what is the reason the monk cant do it? other than it states it under FoB, why did they make that exception?

As I stated above, I think it's because your body is considered one single "weapon." If you really wanted to use a natural weapon while making a lot of other attacks, I'd say make a fighter or something of the sort with TWF, ITWF, and GTWF feats. That way you can have all your attacks and a natural attack whenever you make a full-round attack.

Hope that helps.

Say you had 6th Monk/14th Fighter:
Looking at the 6th Monk line you see: +4/+4/-1
Notice 6th level Monks have BAB of +4 so this becomes in effect: +0/+0/-5
Calculate BAB = 4 + 14 = +18
Calculate FoB:
+18/+13/+8/+3 (from 18 BAB)
+18/+13 (from Flurry)
Why? Because Flurry was granting two addition attacks for a 6th level Monk, so a 6M/14F would get 4 attacks from his BAB and 2 from Monk.

This is inaccurate. A Monk 6/Fighter 14 would flurry at +18/+18/+13/+8/+3.

If you break it down, that's +18/+13/+8/+3 from 18 BAB and then another +18 for using FoB.

A monk does not get extra attacks until 8 and 15 when they get ITWF and GTWF respectively.

The extra attack that you see for a 6th level monk is due to the fact that for FOB he has a BAB of +6, at which point in attack progression characters get an extra attack, denoted as +6/+1.

After reading Gnome's post and rationalizing it out myself, this is the way I've found is easiest for me when calculating FoBs for multiclassed monks:

1) Take the monk level and use it for BAB.
2) Add that number to the BAB they receive from their other classes.
3) Use the total from adding steps 1 and 2 to determine their FoB BAB and add any extra attacks that a high BAB would merit (for example, a BAB of 15 would be +15/+10/+0 whereas a BAB of 16 would be +16/+11/+6/+1).
4) If the number of monk levels is greater than 8 add one extra attack for ITWF (at -5).
5) If the number of monk levels is greater than 15 add one extra attack for GTWF (at -10).
6) Subtract 2 from each attack to represent TWF.

Here is an example: Monk 14/Fighter 3/Rogue 3
BAB = +15/+10/+5 (+10/+5 from Monk)+(3 from fighter)+(2 from rogue)
FoB calculation: (BAB) = 14(monk)+3(fighter)+2(rogue) = 19 --> +19/+14/+9/+4 --> +19/+19/+14/+14/+9/+4 --> +17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+2
Final Break Down: +17/+12/+7/+2 for main hand attacks and +17/+12 from off hand attacks (TWF and ITWF feats).

If we tweak our example a bit to Monk 15/Fighter 3/Rogue 2, here's what we get:
BAB = +15/+10/+5 (+11/+6/+1 from monk)+(3 from fighter)+(1 from rogue)
FoB calculation: (BAB) = 15(monk)+3(fighter)+1(rogue) = 19 --> +19/+14/+9/+4 --> +19/+19/+14/+14/+9/+9/+4 --> +17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2
Final Break Down: +17/+12/+7/+2 for main hand attacks and +17/+12/+7 from off hand attacks (TWF, ITWF, and GTWF feats).

I hope that helps.

1st:
As the bestiary states a character can attack with each limb he has a weapon in, but as unarmed strikes counts as "weapons", you can dual wield a sword and a fist. As it states under unarmed attacks in the core book, they are made with different limbs, so what is stopping a charecter from multiweapon fighting with 5 "weapons" say, 2 swords, his head and 2 legs?

Even though unarmed strikes are considered weapons in the case of monks or if you get the feat, they are still not "natural" weapons for the sake of doing multiple attacks. This is also why you cannot apply feats from the bestiary to unarmed attacks if you're a monk. This means that you would have to follow the rules for two weapon fighting in this case and just make your attack with your sword and fist with the applicable penalties.

2nd:

If an ork has the feat that grants a natural bite attack, then he will get a penalty just as if he was 2wp fighting, applyed to his greatsword and bite, as per rules. What if he is dual wielding swords, and thus already gets the penalty for fighting with 2 weapons, what happens when he makes a bite attack. Do the penalty's stack, or do they overlap? and if he can strike with 2 weapons and his bite, then why cant a monk use flurry of blows and a natural attack?

Under FoB in the monk section, it clearly states that monks cannot use natural attacks as part of their FoB. As for the orc using a weapon and making a bite attack, in the bestiary, it states that when you do such an attack you treat your natural attack as if it is a secondary attack, and you would take a -5 to your attack bonus for it. If the orc was attacking with two weapons and qualified for, and had the TWF feat, then I'd say that the bite attack is done at a -5 to attack bonus as well.

I know we're all basically arguing the same points and talking in circles, and that Solo Tactics either needs to be reworded or we need to get official word on what does and does not apply, but for the sake of discourse I'll bite =).

That depends on how you are using the word "should." As written, should the Inq get the non-numeric benefits? Nope. As I Would Have It If I Were King, should the Inq get the full Benefits? Yep.

Well, as I mentioned before, that leaves two teamwork feats in the dust as far as usefulness. Either way, I suppose we'll have to see some rewording of the ability for clarification sake.

The monster wouldn't provoke because the fighter does not get 'anything extra' from Outflank, including the ability to cause the monster to provoke when he crits it.

In order for your crit to cause a monster to provoke, you need the Benefit of Outflank. The fighter never gets the benefit/bonus/'anything extra' from Outflank, so the fighter cannot cause the monster to provoke when he crits.

Well since the inquisitor is the one getting the AoO, the fighter isn't getting any extra/benefit/bonus in this situation. He just crits, which is well within the domain of any character. Also, from my reading of the feat, it says that a person with Outflank "look(s) for every edge when flanking an enemy." Meaning that the Inquisitor sees a lapse in the monster's defense after taking a critical hit and acts upon it.

Either way, would really like to see the official word on this.

A benefit, yes. English definition. The fighter, as well as the entire team, and possibly the village you are defending, all benefit from someone hitting that goblin.

However, it is not the Benefit from the feat. So if Solo Tactics gets reworded to say "whether the inquisitor receives a Benefit from her teamwork feats..." then it would specifically apply to the "Benefit" section of the feat, which is the ability to cause the monster to provoke, not the ability to take an AoO against a monster which has provoked.

Someone else can benefit (English definition) from the Inquisitors teamwork feats. That +2 to his attacks benefits the team because he's more likely to hit, and more likely to drop an enemy. However, no one else would gain the "Benefit:" abilities and bonuses from the feats unless they have taken them.

I think I see what you mean, but Solo Tactics is more specific than the feat. ST grants you a limited subset of the feats Benefit (the Bonus only) whereas a teammate actually having the feat grants you the entire Benefit.

So an Inq with Solo Tactics gain a little bit of an edge from his Teamwork feats, but not as much of an edge as he would if his teammates actually took the feat.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're point is that the Inquisitor should only get those things that are specifically listed as bonuses under the feat description, correct? I personally don't take the comment that inquisitors get bonuses in the ST description to be that literal, but I can see where you're coming from. My only problem with that train of thought is feats like Lookout and Swap Places are useless in regards to ST.

And if we're going to use the definition of the word bonus to mean anything extra, then I don't see why an inquisitor with ST wouldn't get the AoO provoked by the monster after it's crit, since AoOs are a bonus attack after all. Just because you have the option not to use such a bonus doesn't take away from the fact that it is, in the end, a bonus attack.

While it does look like we're at a bit of an impasse, I'll just toss in my particular thoughts on this matter for the hell of it. I'll refresh our memory (as if that hasn't been done a billion times in here) about what Solo Tactics says, "all of the inquisitor's allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves."

The way I personally see this is that an AoO is considered a benefit (free attack, not sure if anyone can really argue that point). Allies are only considered as having the feat when determining if the inquisitor should get any bonuses. So an ally that crits against a monster that both the ally and the inquisitor flank should be considered as having the outflank feat. Since benefits can only apply to the inquisitor (which is what I would consider an AoO), the inquisitor should get an AoO when his/her ally crits, but not the other way around.

Now, for those, like Skylancer, who prefer to go by the literal or face value of the RAW, then I think only the +4 flanking bonus should apply since the rules clearly only mention bonuses, and not benefits.

Either way, I suppose this really comes down to a judgement call on how literal or loose you interpret the rules for now until we see something posted specifically about this.

HaraldKlak wrote:

Yes, the attack from ITWF is at -5 (or -7 counting the TWF penalty to all attacks), so that is the extra attack at +7, instead of at + 12.

He gains the same number of attacks, just as the ranger (or any class) using the TWF, and improved TWF feats.

Genau! Thanks again :) I missed that one.

GNOME

Yes, that helps a lot Gnome. I actually had a whole long post typed out, but after reading and rereading your post and looking at table 3-10 and reading the conversion guide, I think I managed to rationalize the whole thing. Thanks for the help! =)

The simplist way to explain is to take your effective BAB when flurrying and look at the monk entry line that matches that BAB. In otherwords, yes to your question.

Well my only problem with that logic (thought it originally seemed sound to me as well) is that the book states that monks basically get ITWF and GTWF at 8 and 15 respectively. Now if we have a Monk 1/Fighter 10, he shouldn't be getting those extra attacks since he hasn't reached the proper monk level, though his chart in the book would indicate otherwise.

So while it might seem like an easy answer to the question, I don't believe it's the right way of going about it, however, I am curious if either A) I'm wrong about what I just stated (please explain why) or B) If, as I asked in my original question, monks get an extra attack in their FoB for having a high BAB (not just from being level 8 and 15).

Reposting my question from another thread since it hasn't been answered yet: I know it's been hashed and rehashed that monks use their monk level along with their multiclass levels BAB when determining FoB. So here's my question:

A level 9 character with Monk 4/Wiz 1/Dragon Disciple 4 has a BAB of +6/+1. Would that mean that when he uses FoB he'd have +5/+5/-1 or +5/+5?

Also if we level him up a few more levels to level 16 as a Monk 11/Wiz 1/Dragon Disciple 4 he would have a BAB of +11/+6/+1. Would his FoB be +12/+12/+7/+7/+2/+2?

Basically I guess I'm just unsure if having an extra attack normally from having a high BAB would also get added into your FoB? From looking at table 3-10 it looks like monks get extra attacks at 8 and 15 as written in the book, but also at level 6, 11, and 16 as a class with good BAB would.

Ok, like the OP, I also have a question about multiclassing monks. I know it's been hashed and rehashed that monks use their monk level along with their multiclass levels BAB when determining FoB. So here's my question:

A level 9 character with Monk 4/Wiz 1/Dragon Disciple 4 has a BAB of +6/+1. Would that mean that when he uses FoB he'd have +5/+5/-1 or +5/+5?

Also if we level him up a few more levels to level 16 as a Monk 11/Wiz 1/Dragon Disciple 4 he would have a BAB of +11/+6/+1. Would his FoB be +12/+12/+7/+7/+2/+2?

Basically I guess I'm just unsure if having an extra attack normally from having a high BAB would also get added into your FoB? From looking at table 3-10 it looks like monks get extra attacks at 8 and 15 as written in the book, but also at level 6, 11, and 16 as a class with good BAB would.

Tom Baumbach is correct, there isn't an official epic book out for Pathfinder. However, if you look in the core rule it book it states that the game can be played as epic, and to do so it recommends multiclassing (for instance, 20 Wizard/4 Arcane Trickster). Or as Tom suggested, you can always use the 3.5 epic rules.

Phasics beat me to it, but I'm fairly certain that the spell Strong Jaw cannot be cast on your body part since they are not actually considered a natural weapon (same reason monks can't take the Improved Natural Attacks feat).

Ok, makes sense. I just wanted to get it clear before it caused any confusion for my group and me in the future.

This is a fairly basic question, and it probably has a simple answer, but while I was looking through the core rule book, I noticed that gnomes get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant type (this is done via Defensive Training). Does this bonus also apply to creatures that are larger than giant (massive, gargantuan, etc.)?