Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
According to the text, if you're a monk 10/prestige class 10, your base attack bonus when you use flurry of blows is going to be +10 at level 20. Not only does this cripple you on attack bonus, but it actually reduces the number of attacks that you can make in a round.
I'm guessing that this is not the intent, so I would change the text to read: "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus granted by his monk levels is equal to his class level. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally."
|
I'm guessing that this is not the intent, so I would change the text to read: "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus granted by his monk levels is equal to his class level. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally."
That seems like a reasonable clarification, but I'm not sure it's really necessary. There is discussion at the beginning of the book about how the BAB of all classes is added together for multiclassed characters, and the quoted paragraph says "the monk's base attack bonus" and not "the character's base attack bonus".
I would say, your reading is correct.. and probably as they intended.
Pathfinder has gone out of its way to promote "base class over prestige class". The problem that was inherent in the old 3.5 system.
If you don't want to be a monk, do not roll a monk. If you want to continue monk progressions, find a prestige class that continues the progression.
You can't roll a wizard and be mad when taking levels of fighter don't increase your spell casting.
This is along those same lines.
-S
If this is intentional, it's a shame that Paizo would tout Pathfinder as being "backwards compatible" and then completely remove the monk's ability to take any monk prestige classes.
I don't see how that ability would/should deny the inclusion of BaB from any other class; you know, just add the BaB of any other class to their BaB normally, but turn the BaB from monk levels into full BaB when using flurry...hence a Monk 10/Rogue 8 would flurry at +16 (+10 from monk, +6 from rogue)
I don't see how that ability would/should deny the inclusion of BaB from any other class; you know, just add the BaB of any other class to their BaB normally, but turn the BaB from monk levels into full BaB when using flurry...hence a Monk 10/Rogue 8 would flurry at +16 (+10 from monk, +6 from rogue)
I agree- monk should be able to multiclass just like any other. I see it working particularly well with Fighter, Ranger, Cleric, Paladin, and Rogue.
I don't see how that ability would/should deny the inclusion of BaB from any other class; you know, just add the BaB of any other class to their BaB normally, but turn the BaB from monk levels into full BaB when using flurry...hence a Monk 10/Rogue 8 would flurry at +16 (+10 from monk, +6 from rogue)I agree- monk should be able to multiclass just like any other. I see it working particularly well with Fighter, Ranger, Cleric, Paladin, and Rogue.
+2
I don't know, I could see that being intentional. You don't practice your crazy kung-fu style while focusing on other kinds of classes.
Your normal weekend bard workshop just doesn't cover the flurry like good old fashion monk trainin'.
You don't practice your sword-swinging, shield-wielding style while focusing on other kinds of classes. Stacking base attack bonus from the fighter class and other classes would be ridiculous.
You don't practice your sword-swinging, shield-wielding style while focusing on other kinds of classes. Stacking base attack bonus from the fighter class and other classes would be ridiculous.I don't know, I could see that being intentional. You don't practice your crazy kung-fu style while focusing on other kinds of classes.
Your normal weekend bard workshop just doesn't cover the flurry like good old fashion monk trainin'.
So.... how does multiclassing work in your games, out of curiosity?
That wasn't me being serious. That was me pointing out the flaw in that poster's reasoning.
That wasn't me being serious. That was me pointing out the flaw in that poster's reasoning.
Whoops. On second reading the intent was in fact obvious. My bad. :)
|
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?
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.
I think you taking this out of context. Even if a rogue's sneak attack doesn't progress - he adds Xd6 damage to his attacks when applicable and this is always meaningful. A fighter's Armor Training stays as relevant as it was when he got it too. Bards can keep increasing knowledge ranks if they wish.
A level 1 monk / 19 fighter gets a -1/-1 flurry? Or a +19/+14/+9/+4 full round attack? I think it is obvious that the *intention* here is to have the monk's flurry stack BAB from other classes.
The way you are right, of course, is that without additional monk levels the "higher" level of flurries (at monk level 8 and higher) which grant virtual access to higher two-weapon-fighting feats will of course fall away since the character never gained that level of the class ability. In other words, a level 1 monk / 19 fighter should have a flurry of +18/+18/+13/+8/+3. This is already relevant for the class ability to have any relevance whatsoever.
This is not the same as Stunning Fist not leveling when the monk multi-classes and similar things - since the class abilities remain relevant. But a -1/-1 flurry at level 20 is by no stretch of the imagination or balance relevant in the least.
|
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?
It doesn't. You get exactly the same bonus to flurrying as you did. You treat your Monk levels as full BAB levels when flurrying. However, it is still BAB so it stacks with other classes. I really can't understand why anybody would be interpreting it any other way. Do you only use your Rogue levels to work out the BAB when sneak attacking? Of course not because your other class levels make you a better overall combatant. Same applies to Monk's flurry of blows. You won't get all the extra attacks from being a higher level Monk, or the additional damage, or any of their special abilities but you will still hit using your combined BAB.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus granted by his monk levels is equal to his class level. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally."
If it makes any differences, that is how I read the Monk class ability now (without errata) and you can easily interpret it that way by RAW. Could it be more clear? Sure, but that would require more words which might not be available. This is something that (if it proves to be a common question) deserves to being a FAQ (which says it should be considered errata.)
|
|
The rules as their written specifically say that you use your monk levels in place of your base attack bonus for the purposes of attacks using flurry of blows. The question had become, was this an intentional change or an oversight in the description of the ability.
I am speaking on behalf of the side that suggests that it was an intentional change. My justification is that Flurry of Blows is a special kind of attack that is a class feature of the Monk Class, and there for was intended to work well for monks and not for monks that give up their training for other pursuits.
The Statement reads:
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level.
The Statement does not read:
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level, plus his base attack bonus from other classes or sources.
To respond to your example, why should a monk 1/ fighter 19 be able to flurry just as effectively as a monk 20? Isn't the whole point of a lot of the changes to the Pathfinder RPG over the 3rd edition WotC game to discourage these little class dip min/maxing situations and encourage people to actually progress along a class past a certain point? Wouldn't restricting how well a Monk could flurry to them actually taking levels of monk encourage the continuation of taking levels in monk?
Most of the classes take a bit of a hit in power then you mingle them with the other classes in the game. That is my example by stating out what a fighter does not get/etc. A wizard can still cast spells when she multi-classes, but not as powerful or as high level spells she could have cast if she'd stayed progressing as wizard.
You guys need to make a case why it should be the other way in this discussion. This isn't a rules argument, it's a debate over the intent of the change to Flurry of Blows.
To respond to your example, why should a monk 1/ fighter 19 be able to flurry just as effectively as a monk 20?
+1
That would open up possibilities for special Monk Prestige Classes, that allow their class levels to stack with the Monk levels for the purpose of Flurry attacks.
A level 1 monk / 19 fighter is *not* as good at flurries as a pure level 20 monk.
This is due to the lack of two-weapon-feat progression that a fighter build would not have access to.
Even should the fighter take the two-weapon feats manually, they would not apply to the monk.
Here are the relevant combat flurry modifiers
Level 20 monk flurry:
+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3
Level 1 monk / 19 fighter flurry:
+18/+18/+13/+8/+3
Clearly not as good.
|
|
A level 1 monk / 19 fighter is *not* as good at flurries as a pure level 20 monk.
This is due to the lack of two-weapon-feat progression that a fighter build would not have access to.
Even should the fighter take the two-weapon feats manually, they would not apply to the monk.
Here are the relevant combat flurry modifiers
Level 20 monk flurry:
+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3Level 1 monk / 19 fighter flurry:
+18/+18/+13/+8/+3Clearly not as good.
Don't forget that one is doing d6 damage a hit and one is doing 2d10 as well.
|
|
That would open up possibilities for special Monk Prestige Classes, that allow their class levels to stack with the Monk levels for the purpose of Flurry attacks.
It certainly would be interesting to see some of the concepts that you could go with for a prestige class that would really be special for monks, given the diversity of martial arts in the real world as well as the interesting factions in Golarion.
Level 20 monk flurry:
+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3Level 1 monk / 19 fighter flurry:
+18/+18/+13/+8/+3
Once again, just to say it, the rules as written state that your monk/fighter (FiMo for short) flurries for garbage. -1/-1
If the rules were intended to work the way you want them to work and there for are in need of errata to be changed to work how you want them to work, your FiMo is flurrying just a effectively as the straight monk, just not as often. +18/+18/+13/+8/+3. There obviously isn't any doubt about the improved two-weapon fighting mechanics and how they work in regards to Monk multi-classing and Flurry of Blows, they are not the subject at hand. This is all about his total to hit bonus when multi-classing.
We are talking about if the sentence "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level."
We need to actually have something to suggest why you think it should be your way.
His flurry would suck is not a good reason. A Wizard 1/Fighter 19's caster level sucks, a Rogue 1/Fighter 19's sneak attack dice suck, a Cleric 1/Fighter 19's channel energy sucks, a Druid 1/Fighter 19's wild empathy sucks!
So why in the name of Gygax would it be so horrifically wrong to think that perhaps the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability, probably the most iconic of its class features, was intentionally changed to function like it was actually written down as in the rule book?
It isn't like the monk can't function in multi-classing with this change. 1st level is +2 to all saves, 3 feats and your wisdom modifier to your AC if your not in armor. 2nd is +1 to all saves, +1 BAB, 1 feat and evasion. Etc, etc.
Don't forget that one is doing d6 damage a hit and one is doing 2d10 as well.
That's the monk's Unarmed Strike ability, not Flurry of Blows. Not the subject at hand and unless you've got something to bring up about it?
|
|
Morgen,
Why do this? Because, otherwise, it makes no sense.
If he doesn't flurry, the character is a badass who punches people at +19 to hit. If he tries to hit with both fists (something that every other character can do at only a -4 penalty, by the way) he takes a penalty of -20 points. Does that make sense to you? Apparently it does.
Can you name any similar penalty for any other class ability, because I can't?
A Wiz 1/Fighter 19 still gets +19 to hit with his Ray of Frost.
A Rog 1/Fighter 19 still gets +19 to hit with his sneak attack.
A Monk 1/Fighter 19 still gets +19 to hit with his fist. Unless, according to you, he flurries, when he immediately forgets all his training in fighting and reverts to the incompetent fool he was when he left the monastery. Yeah, that makes sense, doesn't it?
We are talking about if the sentence "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level."
Note the lack of "For the purpose of these attacks, the character's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level." - in which case I would agree with you.
The rules clearly state that BAB from classes stack, and that for an attack the combined BAB is used. And for the flurry, as you rightfully point out, the BAB of the monk is calculated as the monk level of the monk. And ofcourse the BAB of the rogue levels are not related to the monk levels, nor the fighter levels.
So, for a (flurry) attack you use the appropriate bonus from the monk levels, as well as the appropriate bonus from other class levels.
...
PS - as a side note, you mentioned previously the explicit inclusion of attack bonuses in some abilities. It is important to remember that these things are reminders, not exclusionary rules. The rule is to include BABs from classes, and to ignore that a rule has to explicitly disallow it.
|
|
Actually that makes a lot of sense when he's trying to use a special monk technique he's completely neglected since he left the monastery.
By your statement then why doesn't a Wizard 1/Fighter 19 cast spells as if a 20th level wizard, or a Rogue 1/Fighter 19 sneak attack at +10d6?
The answer of course is because they operate at their 1st level ability since their only first level.
Thus I must pose to you, why are you saying that it's impossible for Paizo to have meant for the monk's Flurry of Blows ability to work the same way almost every other class feature in the game?
Flurry of Blows is an Extraordinary Ability. It is not a regular attack, it is a special attack that the monk consciously chooses to use. It is not something a fighter/ranger/bard/etc learns how to do. Only monks know how to do it. You don't learn wizard stuff taking levels of fighter, you don't learn bard stuff for taking levels of fighter, you don't even learn barbarian stuff while taking levels of fighter so why is it somehow alright for you to learn monk stuff?
Somehow for Flurry of Blows it's a mistake and needs to be errata-ed? I still believe that the change is intentional and no one has made a compelling argument to discredit such an idea. Several others in this thread have even posted similar opinions on the matter.
|
|
A Monk 1/Fighter 19 still gets +19 to hit with his fist. Unless, according to you, he flurries, when he immediately forgets all his training in fighting and reverts to the incompetent fool he was when he left the monastery. Yeah, that makes sense, doesn't it?
Actually that makes a lot of sense when he's trying to use a special monk technique he's completely neglected since he left the monastery. His training isn't completely gone after all. He still hits like he was a 1st level monk backed up by 19 levels of fighter feats, he's just horrible at his one special attack because he's spent far more of his time and training learning about fighter stuff.
By your statement then why doesn't a Wizard 1/Fighter 19 cast spells as if a 20th level wizard, or a Rogue 1/Fighter 19 sneak attack at +10d6?
Why is it impossible to have meant for the monk's Flurry of Blows ability to work more in line with almost every other class feature in the game when it comes to multi-classing?
The rules clearly state that BAB from classes stack, and that for an attack the combined BAB is used. And for the flurry, as you rightfully point out, the BAB of the monk is calculated as the monk level of the monk. And of course the BAB of the rogue levels are not related to the monk levels, nor the fighter levels.
So, for a (flurry) attack you use the appropriate bonus from the monk levels, as well as the appropriate bonus from other class levels.
Flurry of Blows is an Extraordinary Ability. It is not a regular attack, it is a special attack that the monk consciously chooses to use. It is not something a fighter/ranger/bard/etc learns how to do. Only monks know how to do it. You don't learn wizard stuff taking levels of fighter, you don't learn bard stuff for taking levels of fighter, you don't even learn barbarian stuff while taking levels of fighter so why is it somehow alright for you to learn monk stuff?
I still believe that the change is intentional and no one has made a compelling argument to discredit such an idea. Several others in this thread have even posted similar opinions on the matter. You are not adding BAB onto BAB, you are making a special attack as a full-attack action which is clearly defined in the rules and functions in a method that falls in line with several of the intentions of the creation of the Pathfinder RPG.
We are talking about if the sentence "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level."
We need to actually have something to suggest why you think it should be your way.
His flurry would suck is not a good reason. A Wizard 1/Fighter 19's caster level sucks, a Rogue 1/Fighter 19's sneak attack dice suck, a Cleric 1/Fighter 19's channel energy sucks, a Druid 1/Fighter 19's wild empathy sucks!
So why in the name of Gygax would it be so horrifically wrong to think that perhaps the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability, probably the most iconic of its class features, was intentionally changed to function like it was actually written down as in the rule book?
It isn't like the monk can't function in multi-classing with this change. 1st level is +2 to...
Morgen is right. This is a special ability that only gets better when the monk gets better.
"Equal to..." means replace so a:5th level Monk/5th level Fight would have a 8 BAB but when he flurried his BAB becomes 5 because his Flurry of Blows BAB is equal to his monk level.
Flurry of Blows is a class ability that gets better when the class advances, it just so happens that this class ability has it's own BAB as well.
If you want to be good at Flurry of Blows, don't multiclass, or take a PrC that stacks with your monk levels.
Edit - and it appears I took too long writing this post and Morgen said everything I said.
We are talking about if the sentence "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level."Note the lack of "For the purpose of these attacks, the character's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level." - in which case I would agree with you.
The reason why it says Monk instead of character is because any other classes the character may possess have nothing to do with this ability.
Flurry of Blows is made up of two parts - the built in two-weapon fighting abilities and having a BAB equal to the Monk's class level. Why would the BAB part of the ability get better when the Monk multiclasses but not the two-weapon fighting?
In 3.5.0 Flurry of Blows stacked with the BAB form other classes because it was based on the Characters BAB, now it's based on the Monks level.
I'm sorry, some of this is patently ridiculous. BAB should stack with BAB. I would say that, clearly, the ability means that, as part of the ability, you use your monk levels for your BAB. But, since this is still BAB, it should stack with BAB from other classes.
You guys are acting as if this gives the monk a huuuge benefit, like it isn't already extremely underpowered. Or is the monk just not allowed to take PRCs? the 3.5 monk could certainly flurry with the BAB from other classes. It was meant to, that's how PRCs that didn't get flurry themselves worked. Do you seriously think the guys at Paizo want to poop on that, rather than simply make an oversight?
I'm sorry, some of this is patently ridiculous. BAB should stack with BAB. I would say that, clearly, the ability means that, as part of the ability, you use your monk levels for your BAB. But, since this is still BAB, it should stack with BAB from other classes.
You guys are acting as if this gives the monk a huuuge benefit, like it isn't already extremely underpowered. Or is the monk just not allowed to take PRCs? the 3.5 monk could certainly flurry with the BAB from other classes. It was meant to, that's how PRCs that didn't get flurry themselves worked. Do you seriously think the guys at Paizo want to poop on that, rather than simply make an oversight?
I'm not reading into any intent on the part of Paizo. I'm reading the language and "equal to..." means replace.
I'm not saying I like it or don't like it, I'm just talking about what is.
Even the OP, who doesn't like this rule, realizes that, as written, that's what the sentence means. He's wondering if it might need to be errata'd (sp?), and it might be. It all depends upon their intent.
I'm just saying that that is how the ability reads, as written, right now.
It doesn't matter to me if they change it.
|
|
You guys are acting as if this gives the monk a huuuge benefit, like it isn't already extremely underpowered. Or is the monk just not allowed to take PRCs? the 3.5 monk could certainly flurry with the BAB from other classes. It was meant to, that's how PRCs that didn't get flurry themselves worked. Do you seriously think the guys at Paizo want to poop on that, rather than simply make an oversight?
Why would the monk not be allowed to take Prestige classes because multi-classing hurts his flurry of blows? He still gets all his other benefits, his Flurry of Blows just suffers not being a monk. Taking levels in a PrC that improves your monk abilities probably are a little nicer to take now.
The Pathfinder RPG radically changed the mechanics behind how the Flurry of Blows special attack gets you extra attacks, and they even made it so a monk was for the most part getting much more usefulness out of the ability at most levels. We're debating if the change to how the monk's to hit bonus for Flurry is calculated is intentional or not. Given how extremely nice the monk's first few levels are, the loss of one class ability's effectiveness could easily be part of the whole keep people in their classes longer theme that Paizo was talking about.
All in all this is something that's actually kind of fun to talk about. :)
Plus at some point someone might come on and just tell us what they meant, or we'll make sure 3rd party publishers remember to mention that their monk PrC's should stack with monk levels when it comes to flurry of blows.
The Extraordinary part of a monk's flurry is the virtual feats he receives at appropriate levels. The attacks are still just regular attacks.
As you nicely point out, why should he get better at flurries, when he isn't training as a monk? That's exactly why he doesn't get extra attacks through the virtual monk feats. His actual attacks do benefit from any and every other source of bonus as every other attack.
A monk doesn't attack better with flurries because he practices to move his hands really fast and listens to what a wise master in a monastery tells him. Attacking better is because he has more experience to find weak spots in the armor of opponents, times his attacks better, etc. Saying that a monk's flurry gets horribly inefficient when multi-classing flies in the face of every single real-world comparison that can be made.
The monk part of the training is moving his hands faster - and that's why a high level monk (and only the high level monk) gets extra free virtual flurry feats at higher levels. The martial part of character growth is the bit that makes you more likely to hit.
A wizard1/fighter19 doesn't get level 9 spells because he doesn't have that high wizard levels.
A rogue1/fighter19 doesn't get 10d6 sneak attack because he doesn't have that high rogue levels.
A monk1/fighter19 doesn't get 2 extra attacks at 2d10 each (rather than 1d6) because he doesn't have that high monk levels.
...
Now I can understand how you interpret the quote as you do - but this isn't a case of RAW says you right. My interpretation (detailed in a prior post) is equally valid and is more likely to comply with Paizo's intentions (vis a vis that abilities should be fun, useful and balanced; and should enable more rather than less character concepts - henceforth referred to as LoreKeeper's Razor).
Yes - sticking to coreclasses is naturally encouraged. But this is done with the loving touch of a feather (i.e. favored class bonuses). That paladins and monks are allowed to freely multiclass (unlike 3.5 paladins and monks) lend testimony to Paizo's desire to not nail a class concept shut and shackle it.
|
|
The Extraordinary part of a monk's flurry is the virtual feats he receives at appropriate levels. The attacks are still just regular attacks.
As you nicely point out, why should he get better at flurries, when he isn't training as a monk? That's exactly why he doesn't get extra attacks through the virtual monk feats. His actual attacks do benefit from any and every other source of bonus as every other attack.
A monk doesn't attack better with flurries because he practices to move his hands really fast and listens to what a wise master in a monastery tells him. Attacking better is because he has more experience to find weak spots in the armor of opponents, times his attacks better, etc. Saying that a monk's flurry gets horribly inefficient when multi-classing flies in the face of every single real-world comparison that can be made.
The monk part of the training is moving his hands faster - and that's why a high level monk (and only the high level monk) gets extra free virtual flurry feats at higher levels. The martial part of character growth is the bit that makes you more likely to hit.
A wizard1/fighter19 doesn't get level 9 spells because he doesn't have that high wizard levels.
A rogue1/fighter19 doesn't get 10d6 sneak attack because he doesn't have that high rogue levels.
A monk1/fighter19 doesn't get 2 extra attacks at 2d10 each (rather than 1d6) because he doesn't have that high monk levels.
...
Now I can understand how you interpret the quote as you do - but this isn't a case of RAW says you right. My interpretation (detailed in a prior post) is equally valid and is more likely to comply with Paizo's intentions (vis a vis that abilities should be fun, useful and balanced; and should enable more rather than less character concepts - henceforth referred to as LoreKeeper's Razor).
Yes - sticking to coreclasses is naturally encouraged. But this is done with the loving touch of a feather (i.e. favored class bonuses). That paladins and monks are allowed to freely...
I'm with LoreKeeper on this, the BAB is for the monk flurry, but the monk BAB will then stack with other classes as per the normal BAB rules. LoreKeeper is correct, however I can see where morgen draws his conclusions from. So I can see them adding errata or mentioning it in the faq, but it's not a necessity.
Also the reason it's not a change is because it kills Backwards compatable monks who multiclassed or took PrCs before this edition. I don't see paizo killing off that many characters.
|
|
The Extraordinary part of a monk's flurry is the virtual feats he receives at appropriate levels. The attacks are still just regular attacks.
As you nicely point out, why should he get better at flurries, when he isn't training as a monk? That's exactly why he doesn't get extra attacks through the virtual monk feats. His actual attacks do benefit from any and every other source of bonus as every other attack.
I'm sorry LoreKeeper but I must disagree with you on that. I see the entire ability as the extraordinary part of a monk's flurry. It's a special ability like pretty much any of the other EX's from my reading of it.
If the attacks aren't a part of the EX then why go into such detail on how a Flurry of Blows works? Why include the whole, "A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows?" Even the first sentence implies that it's a special attack.
"A monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action."
Not;
"When a monk makes a full-attack, he can use his flurry of blows ability to make one additional attack."
That certainly says to me that the flurry itself is the special attack, not just that it's kind of two-weapon fighting.
A monk doesn't attack better with flurries because he practices to move his hands really fast and listens to what a wise master in a monastery tells him. Attacking better is because he has more experience to find weak spots in the armor of opponents, times his attacks better, etc. Saying that a monk's flurry gets horribly inefficient when multi-classing flies in the face of every single real-world comparison that can be made.
We're talking about a special ability that's dependent on your monk levels. Any kinds of feats you take that improve your ability to hit, any training you did to get stronger or faster would still have the requisite effect, it's just easy to see how learning about broad swords and the proper care and handling of a tower shield isn't really in line with practicing your tai chi every morning.
Abilities and talents deteriorate due to lack of use. Look at a lot of artistic 'talents'. People improve their skills by actually focusing on their particular medium. You don't traditionally get better at drawing by learning interpretive dance. Since my opinion is that a Flurry of Blows is a special ability, this whole part just doesn't work.
That paladins and monks are allowed to freely multiclass (unlike 3.5 paladins and monks) lend testimony to Paizo's desire to not nail a class concept shut and shackle it.
Just to point it out, technically WotC did allow Paladin's and Monk's to multi-class through their unusual method of errata by feat tax. Not that it's relevant to the subject at hand of course. :/
Why would a Monk EX ability increase when your not taking levels of monk?
We're not talking about flurry of blows progressing; we're talking about the monk's base attack bonus not crippling any monk that multiclasses or takes a prestige class. Flurry of blows doesn't progress without monk levels because it doesn't gain the additional attacks that a monk normally receives.
Suggesting that the monk's flurry of blows should remain only at the attack bonus of the monk's class levels hurts backwards compatibility, destroys character concepts, and spits in the face of anyone playing an organic character. Your ideas are bad for the game as a whole.
|
|
I still believe that the change is intentional and no one has made a compelling argument to discredit such an idea. Several others in this thread have even posted similar opinions on the matter. You are not adding BAB onto BAB, you are making a special attack as a full-attack action which is clearly defined in the rules and functions in a method that falls in line with several of the intentions of the creation of the Pathfinder RPG.
Good to know that you know the creators' minds so well.
More seriously, you are quite wrong in stating that no one has made "a compelling argument". It is just that you neglected to comment on such arguments, such as the one Lorekeeper gave by stressing how the text mentions "the monk's BAB" and not "the character's BAB".
The class descriptions in the PFRPG all mention a class's name in direct relation to the character's level in said class, not to his overall character level.
For example, if we follow the reasoning you use on the monk, a character with only 1 level of Rogue would get Improved uncanny dodge whenever he hits 8th level as a character (even if he was Rogue 1/Sorcerer 7), because the description does not explicitely state that the Rogue's 8th level is meant as his level in the Rogue class only.
But then always repeating "a Rogue gets such and such at his nth Rogue level" would have been a bit cumbersome.
|
|
More seriously, you are quite wrong in stating that no one has made "a compelling argument". It is just that you neglected to comment on such arguments, such as the one Lorekeeper gave by stressing how the text mentions "the monk's BAB" and not "the character's BAB".
The class descriptions in the PFRPG all mention a class's name in direct relation to the character's level in said class, not to his overall character level.
Disregarding your snark, I didn't comment on any of that because every class talks about itself with that terminology. It's almost always a monk's, rogue's, fighter's, etc.
The text points out what you use, that point is totally in the rules. I'm simply one of the people that think it was an intentional change to the class to work like it does now and is not in need of errata.
The backwards compatibility thing is something your DM has to work with for pretty much anything, it'd be up to them if a class ability stacked or not.
But if you guy's really can't be bothered to actually point to some ruling. You could have totally pointed to the conversion document. It specifically says that "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).
But nooooo, you guys just argued about BAB the whole time. ;)
At least that settles the matter and neatly delivers the rules in definite and official capacity.
I still like the term LoreKeeper's Razor to refer to other peoples' work and intentions. I think I'll keep using it. :P ;)
|
For what it's worth, I recall that at least in 3.0 FRCS monk NPCs did not add BAB from other classes when using Flurry (the best example being a mid-level fighter/monk/shadowdancer). I don't think it was a mistake, since my copy includes the errata.
I can't say how it worked in 3.5, because we've only had a single monk PC in my group, and she retired after the first session (we just couldn't stomach the class).
In PF RPG, I can see logical reasons behind interpreting the RAW in both ways ("stacks" vs. "doesn't stack"). However, as the design goal was to encourage singleclassing, I'd likely go with the "It's a special martial arts technique based on adrenaline and finesse and therefore does not stack"-explanation if it ever came up in my group.
I didn't comment on any of that because every class talks about itself with that terminology. It's almost always a monk's, rogue's, fighter's, etc.
...because in every case they're referring to levels in that specific class, disregarding levels from other classes. Upon reading your first post, my answer was the same as LoreKeeper's.
This bit, which you claimed supports your argument, also makes me question your general understanding of the semantics involved in these rules descriptions:
"A monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action."
It doesn't say a full-round action, which might swing toward your interpretation of the whole attack routine being extraordinary. It says a full-attack action, which has a specific definition and is absolutely not a class feature.
StuffYour lagging behind here, we already actually found a clarification of it from an official source. And by we, I mean I found it. ;)
The conversion document? But that uses the exact same class-referenced terminology which we interpret differently.
Meanwhile, I swear I remember this exact same thing coming up in beta...
Ah, yes. Well, not quite "official," but Nethys also disagrees with you.
@tejón
Ah, but you see, now he agrees with him.
Just to make a comparison...
If you take 5 levels of Sorcerer, you have access to the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list, right ?
If you then take 5 levels of Wizard, you have access to the same list.
Your total number of spells per day is the sum of both class. You don't ignore your spells from one class on the pretext that you have the same spell list... right ?
...
I am with the guys saying that Base Attack Bonus is a character's ability, not a class'. If one class ability allows to change your BAB, it reflects only on the BAB given from that class, not the others. Therefore, a monk 1/fighter 19 shouldn't flurry at -1/-1.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Note the lack of "For the purpose of these attacks, the character's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level." - in which case I would agree with you.
+1
I agree it is pretty clear the Monk's BAB is added to any BAB from other classes.
A change of the magnitude you and the others describe would need a considerably larger block of text if it truly was written to hang the Monk 1/Fighter 19 with +1 BAB during a Flurry.
To me, it's clear: When you flurry, you add the monk's class levels to the BAB gained by other classes. In other words: Monks have full BAB during flurry.
I mean, a wizard's touch attack bonus increases when he gains levels in fighter, even though he trained with weapons instead of getting better with pointing at people with his fingers.
A bard who gains levels in other classes and puts their skill points into stuff like Knowledge and Perform will still get to use those bought skill ranks with bardic knowledge, loremaster and versatile performance.
A cleric who gains levels in, say, fighter or duelist still gets to increase her aligned aura (not at the same rate as with her cleric levels, but still).
A multiclassed fighter can still use her whole BAB to qualify for bonus feats gained via the fighter class (Valeros leaves fightering for a spell, goes up from Fighter 5 to Fighter5/Wizard 4, and then takes a nother level of fighter, he can take Improved Critical as his fighter bonus feat, even though only 6 of his 8 BAB points come from fighter)
Flurry of blows might be a specific monk ability, but it applies to a general mechanic (i.e. BAB). Sure, monks have specialised combat training, but other combat training can still help. You don't get extra flurry of blow attacks (since those are gained at specific monk levels), but you do get the BAB added together.
For anyone looking for a reason "Why" the text is written like it is, with the extra explanation on Maneuver Training, here's two main things: