| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was confused on a few points by the Maneuver Master's defining ability, the Flurry of Maneuvers
From UC: At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action. The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers, though all combat maneuver checks suffer a –2 penalty when using a flurry. (emphasis added)
My first question is whether the maneuver master should use his monk level in place of his BAB for ALL maneuvers he undertakes when flurrying or only the bonus maneuvers, as written?
Second:At 8th level, a maneuver master may attempt a second additional combat maneuver, with an additional –3 penalty on combat maneuver checks. At 15th level, a maneuver master may attempt a third additional combat maneuver, with an additional –7 penalty on combat maneuver checks.
Do these additional penalties apply only to the marginal maneuvers? That is, would the base CMB for a six-maneuver flurry be 8/8/8/8/8/8, or would it be 18/18/18/18/15/8 (or 15/15/15/18/15/8, depending on the answer to the first question)?
Finally, my DM has been letting our Monk use multiple attack-action maneuvers in his flurry of blows. Is this actually legal, and, if so, isn't the base monk better at maneuver flurrying than the new archetype when using attack maneuvers since he doesn't take the penalty to flurried maneuvers while still treating his monk level as his BAB? It seems like the "master" only gains the upper hand if using nothing but standard action maneuvers, which is plenty powerful but I find myself wanting trips more often than dirty tricks.
Many preemptive thanks for your help!
|
A monk cannot normally replace an attack in flurry with a Grapple, Bull-Rush, etc. Normally they can do Sunder, Disarm or Trip only. I think this archetype is attempting to replace you ability to do normal attacks in a flurry with the ability to replace those with any maneuver. As such, I'd just use the normal flurry chart but say "only maneuvers."
You are correct, however, that this seems badly written.
A monk cannot normally replace an attack in flurry with a Grapple, Bull-Rush, etc. Normally they can do Sunder, Disarm or Trip only. I think this archetype is attempting to replace you ability to do normal attacks in a flurry with the ability to replace those with any maneuver. As such, I'd just use the normal flurry chart but say "only maneuvers."
You are correct, however, that this seems badly written.
Thanks for your response. It's sort of disappointing that the main benefit of the archetype is that I can try to grapple 7 people in one round.
I was confused on a few points by the Maneuver Master's defining ability, the Flurry of Maneuvers
From UC: At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action. The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers, though all combat maneuver checks suffer a –2 penalty when using a flurry. (emphasis added)
My first question is whether the maneuver master should use his monk level in place of his BAB for ALL maneuvers he undertakes when flurrying or only the bonus maneuvers, as written?
Second:At 8th level, a maneuver master may attempt a second additional combat maneuver, with an additional –3 penalty on combat maneuver checks. At 15th level, a maneuver master may attempt a third additional combat maneuver, with an additional –7 penalty on combat maneuver checks.
Do these additional penalties apply only to the marginal maneuvers? That is, would the base CMB for a six-maneuver flurry be 8/8/8/8/8/8, or would it be 18/18/18/18/15/8 (or 15/15/15/18/15/8, depending on the answer to the first question)?
Finally, my DM has been letting our Monk use multiple attack-action maneuvers in his flurry of blows. Is this actually legal, and, if so, isn't the base monk better at maneuver flurrying than the new archetype when using attack maneuvers since he doesn't take the penalty to flurried maneuvers while still treating his monk level as his BAB? It seems like the "master" only gains the upper hand if using nothing but standard action maneuvers, which is plenty powerful but I find myself wanting trips more often than dirty tricks.
Many preemptive thanks for your help!
As written, the rules seem to be saying that a 20th level maneuver master who flurries gets his 3 regular full-attack attacks at 15/10/5. He then gets 3 free maneuvers, which use his BAB but all take a -12, for 8/8/8. In addition, if he swaps any of his three attacks for a trip, disarm, or sunder, then they are also at -12 for 3/-2/-7.
Thus, if he went trip/grapple/disarm/bull rush/sunder/reposition, that would be at 3/8/-2/8/-7/8. If he went attack/grapple/attack/pin/attack/tie up at 15/8/10/8/5/8.
The ability to tie somebody up in 1 round is what makes this class awesome. The fact that you treat your BAB as 8 for all those grapple attempts makes it kinda useless as written.
Thus, if he went trip/grapple/disarm/bull rush/sunder/reposition, that would be at 3/8/-2/8/-7/8. If he went attack/grapple/attack/pin/attack/tie up at 15/8/10/8/5/8.
I'm a math teacher, and I find these calculations confusing to do on the fly, especially as the monk gets up into these many attacks. I get that the designers were probably trying to work it that you could be inflicting a pounding on somebody, such as making a full attack, then bull-rushing the guy back hopefully 10-feet so they can't full attack you on their turn, but I really think it would have been easier to say that maneuver masters replace the blows from flurry of blows with combat maneuvers. Yes, it would mean 7 trip attacks or 7 bull-rushes per round, but at 18+ level, is that really so bad? I would even be fine with the option for the maneuver master to substitute one of those flurried maneuvers for a normal attack at a penalty, demonstrating that the maneuver monk's training was focused on maneuvers and battlefield control rather than straight hurting.
They at least need to take out the part where only the bonus maneuvers use the monk's level instead of BAB. That's the crazy complicated part.
Also, no matter how the flurry of maneuvers ends up or is supposed to work, can the master really do overrun maneuvers with this flurry? That seems like a really cheesy exploit to get a lot of movement across the battlefield while still getting all your attacks.
Alternately, what about instead of all this language about bonus maneuvers and what not, why not let the maneuver master keep flurry of blows as normal, and replace Stunning Fist with the ability to use all maneuvers as attack actions instead of standard actions? The maneuver master is still better at maneuvers in general than any other class, and now there are no bizarre calculations depending on whether or not a maneuver is a bonus one or not, the maneuver master can still hurt stuff, and Stunning Fist, in my mind, doesn't really fit thematically with the tripping, disarming, shoving machine anyway.
Thanks for the responses. I think I'm going to see if I can get my DM to take your suggestion, Nazard, and let me replace Stunning fist with the maneuver-flurry. Maybe the flurried attacks could be maneuver-only or something.
As an aside, are the game designers active on the messageboards, and how likely is it to get them to look at an issue like this to clarify?
Thus, if he went trip/grapple/disarm/bull rush/sunder/reposition, that would be at 3/8/-2/8/-7/8. If he went attack/grapple/attack/pin/attack/tie up at 15/8/10/8/5/8.I'm a math teacher, and I find these calculations confusing to do on the fly, especially as the monk gets up into these many attacks. I get that the designers were probably trying to work it that you could be inflicting a pounding on somebody, such as making a full attack, then bull-rushing the guy back hopefully 10-feet so they can't full attack you on their turn, but I really think it would have been easier to say that maneuver masters replace the blows from flurry of blows with combat maneuvers. Yes, it would mean 7 trip attacks or 7 bull-rushes per round, but at 18+ level, is that really so bad? I would even be fine with the option for the maneuver master to substitute one of those flurried maneuvers for a normal attack at a penalty, demonstrating that the maneuver monk's training was focused on maneuvers and battlefield control rather than straight hurting.
They at least need to take out the part where only the bonus maneuvers use the monk's level instead of BAB. That's the crazy complicated part.
Also, no matter how the flurry of maneuvers ends up or is supposed to work, can the master really do overrun maneuvers with this flurry? That seems like a really cheesy exploit to get a lot of movement across the battlefield while still getting all your attacks.
Alternately, what about instead of all this language about bonus maneuvers and what not, why not let the maneuver master keep flurry of blows as normal, and replace Stunning Fist with the ability to use all maneuvers as attack actions instead of standard actions? The maneuver master is still better at maneuvers in general than any other class, and now there are no bizarre calculations depending on whether or not a maneuver is a bonus one or not, the maneuver master can still hurt stuff, and Stunning Fist, in my mind, doesn't really fit thematically with...
I agree it is badly complicated math. I think that giving the MM the ability to perform 7 maneuvers in a turn is too much (that means he could theoretically tie up 2 opponents and grapple a third with good enough rolls). It does need to be rewritten, though, and there are much simpler ways. I don't see why they used this absurdly complicated formula. I do think taking away normal flurry is good. But, that can just be replaced with an ability which is identical, except the 3 extra attacks flurry uses must be combat maneuvers and cannot be ordinary attacks. (Of course, if he is grappling someone then he can use a grapple action to damage them with an unarmed strike, getting around this, but that seems alright).
All attacks and maneuvers that round take the ordinary -2 penalty for two-weapon fighting which flurry imposes. While flurrying, all attacks and maneuvers have full rather than 3/4 BAB. It's still a little crunchy, but not terribly so.
Replacing Stunning Fist (a single feat) with the ability to use all maneuvers as attack actions is too much. That is replacing one feat with a better version of five feats which already exist (Quick Bull Rush/Overrun/Steal/Reposition/Dirty Trick) let you replace your first attack in a full-attack with a maneuver, but not other attacks; this would let the monk do it with everything) and one which was deemed too powerful to exist (Quick Grapple).
Maneuver Master also cannot use the overrun CM as part of a flurry. Overrun is a standard action taken as part of movement, or a free action taken as part of a charge. The class ability lets him get around the standard action requirement, but not the movement requirement, and if he is spending his move action to qualify for an Overrun attempt, then he can't take the full-attack action necessary to get a flurry off.
If I had my druthers, I'd like to see the Flurry of Maneuvers work the same as Flurry of Blows, only with maneuvers. I'd like the MM to be able to substitute a normal attack for a maneuver, but with a further -2 penalty to hit. I'm not really sure that being able to grapple, pin and bind two opponents at 15th level is so terribly overpowered, given how many rolls he has to succeed at, and compared with the kind of mayhem a wizard or fighter of that level is dishing out.
This way it's simpler, easier to calculate, and still focused on maneuvers rather than damage.
I mean, with the current method, nobody's even taken into account the sheer headache-ness of calculating all those maneuvers taking into account that you might have Greater of one kind, Improved of another, and no feats in a third when mixed maneuvers are involved. I can see players with spreadsheets and slide rules trying to figure out if they should do trip/disarm/bullrush/grapple, or disarm/bullrush/trip/grapple, or whatever depending on which feat bonus to apply to which attack with different bonuses to maximize success chances...
BAH!!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Two things just occurred to me while looking at the core monk:
1) Holy crap, they ALWAYS use their monk level as BAB for maneuvers. Don't know how I missed that.
2) The rules for the Flurry of Maneuvers say that the MM monk may attempt attempt additional maneuvers in the flurry (ie, the 2nd or 3rd flurried maneuver); they aren't mandatory. That seems to suggest, to me anyway, that the additional penalty only comes into effect once the subsequent trips/grapples/whathavesyous have been announced. After all, I don't see why a 20th level monk should suffer a higher penalty for making 2 bonus maneuvers than an 8th level monk would.
So my new theory is that (at 20th) you can announce the flurry or take a full-attack action filled with maneuvers; with the flurry you would have a bonus of 18/18/18/18 (because of the -2 penalty), or you could have 20/20/20. If you make the flurry, you have the option of adding a second bonus maneuver at an additional -3 penalty, and then a third at an additional -7 (18/18/18/18/15/8). This makes more sense to me, as you might choose not to make the additional bonus maneuvers unless the earlier ones didn't work. Taking a -12 penalty to make 6 maneuvers when you might only want 4 doesn't seem intuitive.
Of course, I could be wrong.