|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So when a maneuver master monk uses flurry of maneveurs and he has levels in another class how do we calculate his cmb for bonus feats.
i feel it should be monk level in place of monk bab+bab from all other classes+str+other modifiers.
my dm disagrees saying it should only be my monk level+nothing else.
|
So Flurry of maneuvers does read:Flurry of Maneuvers (Ex): 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. 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. This ability replaces flurry of blows.
I would say this was probably meant to work the same way as the monks Flurry of Blows, but they forgot to add the text that says BAB from other classes is added as normal. I would say that RAI, this works the way you think it does, but RAW, your DM is technically correct.
**EDIT** Your DM is partially correct. You would use your monk level in place of your total BAB, but would still get your STR mod and other relevant factors.
It works just like FoB does. You add the BAB of all your classes.
I will find a post using FoB, as an example. Standby.
From the FAQ using Flurry of Blows as the example
Monk: The monk rules for flurry state, "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level." How does this interact with BAB from class levels and racial Hit Dice? Does a multiclassed fighter 19/monk 1 flurry as if his BAB were only +1?
A monk using flurry treats his BAB from monk levels as equal to his monk level. He still adds BAB from other sources (such as other classes or racial Hit Dice) normally to this total.
So a fighter 19/monk 1 has a normal BAB of +19. When he flurries, he treats his monk BAB as +1 (for his 1 level of monk) and still gets BAB +19 from his fighter levels, for a total flurry BAB of +20.
—Sean K Reynolds, 09/10/10
Note that the language is basically the same. All BAB should be added.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It works just like FoB does. You add the BAB of all your classes.
I will find a post using FoB, as an example. Standby.
Wraith, I know that Flurry of blows stacks with your BAB from other classes, but that's because Flurry of blows says: For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level
Flurry of Maneuvers says: The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers
Flurry of Maneuvers lacks the text specifying that his monk level replaces only his monk BAB, and thus, RAW, Nephril's DM is correct.
As a note here though, I currently have a monk/rogue/assassin in my group with the Strangler and Neckbreaker abilities and I allow him his full BAB from these other classes in addition to his Monk level in place of monk BAB for his CMB. I think this was an oversight in the ability, but the oversight is there nonetheless.
Ssalarn-->I understand the RAW. RAW, FoB fails also since it only mentions monk levels. My point was that it does not take a leap of faith to see how they are supposed to work.
Nephril-->Tell him dead characters can continue to adventure by RAW. :)
If he is insisting on FAQ or errata he will have to wait a while, but I will FAQ your post so that if we ever get the FAQ's back this one gets answered.
So are all fighters now level 1 Maneuver Masters at some point?
What does that mean?
Maybe these threads could all be combined under Flurry of Threads?
|
|
Ssalarn-->I understand the RAW. RAW, FoB fails also since it only mentions monk levels. My point was that it does not take a leap of faith to see how they are supposed to work.Nephril-->Tell him dead characters can continue to adventure by RAW. :)
If he is insisting on FAQ or errata he will have to wait a while, but I will FAQ your post so that if we ever get the FAQ's back this one gets answered.
Hey Wraith, not trying to get in an argument, but my point was that Flurry of blows does work RAW, because it specifically calls out your monk BAB as being replaced by your monk levels, instead of your full BAB. I believe this was acutally an update at some point, I'm not exactly sure when. It probably wouldn't hurt to see Flurry of Maneuvers updated to specify that it is your BAB from monk levels being replaced with your monk level, and not your entire BAB as it currently reads. I will FAQ as well since it's an easy fix (and logic should have fixed it long ago, I kind of think Nephril's DM is being a smidge of a tool here and just trying to throw a wrench in his gears since it's obvious how it's supposed to work).
What does that mean?
So are all fighters now level 1 Maneuver Masters at some point?
I think he's saying that Flurry of Maneuvers is so powerful, every fighter will take a level of monk in order to access it.
One level of monk only gets 1 additional extra maneuver. It would not allow for a lot of extra maneuvers. To get more maneuver one must take more levels in monk.
I kind of think Nephril's DM is being a smidge of a tool here and just trying to throw a wrench in his gears since it's obvious how it's supposed to work).
I agree. Either that or he believes in RAW over common sense, no matter what, which is why I told Nephril to inform the GM that the dead condition does not stop him from adventuring. :)
And this is why I suggested a potential DM shift.
This really is a conflict of rules... hopefully Paizo will catch it in the next revision. Someone should alert them of this conflict.
I say that because Maneuver Masters still retain the default Monk's Maneuver Traning ability... so the text from Maneuver Training conflicts with the text in Flurry of Maneuvers. I feel like if Paizo wanted to exclude the BAB from other classes specifically for the Flurry, they would have specified that... but they didn't. In fact, if they DIDN'T intend on changing Maneuver Training's mechanic at all here, then that bit of text in Flurry of Maneuver's entry is completely unnecessary (and just confusing).
You're already taking a stacking penalty just for Flurrying... no need to penalize multi-classers further. That's my 2 cents, anyway... Paizo really needs to specify here whether or not the text trumps Maneuver Training's text. I don't think it should.
|
I think that the text for the Monk's Flurry of Maneuvers should be read with the understanding that unless specified, all text in a class refers to the levels in that particular class ONLY, not total Character level. Once you read it with that understanding, (the same way you read EVERY OTHER CLASS), then you can see where you calculate your CMB with your total monk levels. Once you get that number, you can clearly see your CMB from that, adds to your CMB from other existing classes for your total CMB as per the rules for calculating your Combat Maneuver Bonus in the combat section of the Core Rulebook.
Combat Maneuver BonusEach character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
MulticlassingInstead of gaining the abilities granted by the next level in your character's current class, he can instead gain the 1st-level abilities of a new class, adding all of those abilities to his existing ones. This is known as “multiclassing.”
For example, let's say a 5th-level fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, and adds one level of wizard when he advances to 6th level. Such a character would have the powers and abilities of both a 5th-level fighter and a 1st-level wizard, but would still be considered a 6th-level character. (His class levels would be 5th and 1st, but his total character level is 6th.) He keeps all of his bonus feats gained from 5 levels of fighter, but can now also cast 1st-level spells and picks an arcane school. He adds all of the hit points, base attack bonuses, and saving throw bonuses from a 1st-level wizard on top of those gained from being a 5th-level fighter.
Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class.
so the text from Maneuver Training conflicts with the text in Flurry of Maneuvers.
How so? Multiclass issues aside,
Level 1 and 2: Bonus maneuver uses monk=BAB, other maneuvers use normal BAB.
Level 3+: All maneuvers use monk=BAB.
|
|
that's why we do our rules debates between games. you don't know what your talking about and your coming off as a dick. i am asking for rules clarification. it is difficult to locate all the final rulings so after he and i look we turn to the boards for more help. bltzkrg242 your not helping. your not contributing to the discussion you said your piece and now your just causing issues please find another thread where your input will be valued.
EDIT: took out some language i am understanding is undesired in here :-)
Level 1 and 2: Bonus maneuver uses monk=BAB, other maneuvers use normal BAB.
Level 3+: All maneuvers use monk=BAB.
True. The conflict I was referring to was that Flurry of Maneuvers does not specify to add the BAB from other classes, while Maneuver Training does.
However... I'm just now realizing that Flurry of Maneuvers is gained at level 1, while Maneuver Master is gained at level 3. -_- For some reason I was thinking that monks got them at the same level. Thanks for helping me see that (even if you didn't mean to :p).
Therefore, because of the monk's Maneuver Master ability, your DM SHOULD allow you to add the BAB from other classes, Nephril. Point out to your DM that Maneuver Master is gained at level 3, so its text should trump Flurry of Maneuvers'.
|
|
Mmm... Yeah Maneuver Training would make the text in Flurry of Maneuvers redundant. They should almost just drop it (the text causing the issue) altogether instead of amending it as I'd suggested earlier, since Maneuver Training gives you the requisite ability (i.e. using monk level instead of monk BAB for CMB) and it would prevent people from one level dips to double their action economy with maneuvers.
one more question guys if the second attack of the flurry of maneuvers i.e. a trip then an attack he believes the second attack should take a -2 penalty which it specifically states it does not.
Flurry of Maneuvers lets you make an extra maneuver as part of a normal full attack action. So at level 5, for example, you would take a full attack action to make a normal attack at your full base attack bonus, then an extra trip maneuver with a -2 penalty.
At level 6, you can add an extra maneuver to the full attack by taking an EXTRA -3 penalty to both maneuvers. So as a full attack action you would make a normal attack at your full base attack bonus, then 2 trip maneuvers (or whatever maneuvers you want) both at a -5 penalty.
Hmm. This came up last night.. if you are grappled and have Maneuver Master, can you make an opposed Grapple check (as your free maneuver for the turn) and still get your other attacks if it succeeds?
Hmm. This came up last night.. if you are grappled and have Maneuver Master, can you make an opposed Grapple check (as your free maneuver for the turn) and still get your other attacks if it succeeds?
Yes. Just make the free attack first.
Once you are free you can continue your full attack.
That's how we table ruled it... so, great!
Hmm.. follow up question then (though this didn't come up and I just thought of it)
What if you fail to break free? Can you attempt again with your normal standard action?
|
|
That's how we table ruled it... so, great!
Hmm.. follow up question then (though this didn't come up and I just thought of it)
What if you fail to break free? Can you attempt again with your normal standard action?
No reason why you couldn't. The initial attempt was made with your extra action outside the normal action economy, so you could use your regular standard with Flurry of Maneuvers to just try again. Since you can grapple twice if you want to, the inverse is pretty much true as far as I can tell from the grapple text. The only penalty for failing to escape a grapple seems to be still being grappled.
Spiffy. My 1 level dip into monk just got more handy. The whole point was to be able to escape grapples so.. WOOT!
The rules say it is a part of your full round attack so I no I don't think that you could.
At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver,
|
|
The rules say it is a part of your full round attack so I no I don't think that you could.
At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver,
Good point there Wraith. I was looking over that just now and the phrasing "one additional combat maneuver" was throwing me off a bit. Technically, I guess the only time you could grapple while using Flurry of Maneuvers would be with the additional Maneuvers granted by your flurry. Which is cool when you get into your iterative attacks, since you'd have your 15/10/5 plus three maneuvers of your choice, but it has to be part of a full attack, and only the Flurry granted maneuvers break the normal action restrictions related to the maneuver.
But if you spend a full round either breaking free or doing maneuvers...
How is that not covered?
There is no movement involved.
Since grapple checks cannot be done in place of an attack, you can't make grapple maneuvers as part of a full-attack action. That means, as noted above, that the only grapple checks you can make during the flurry are your extra maneuvers.
Since grapple checks cannot be done in place of an attack, you can't make grapple maneuvers as part of a full-attack action. That means, as noted above, that the only grapple checks you can make during the flurry are your extra maneuvers.
Flurry of Maneuvers (Ex): "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."
You can make a full attack while grappled.
A Maneuver Master can make an extra combat maneuver during a full attack, and that maneuver can be a grapple.
Thus, while grappled, the maneuver master can make a full attack, using his bonus maneuver to escape (or reverse) the grapple.
I was just gonna post that part Grick. Thanks.
So given that... Should be able to try X2 to break out yeah? if needed?
You can make a full attack while grappled.
A Maneuver Master can make an extra combat maneuver during a full attack, and that maneuver can be a grapple.
Thus, while grappled, the maneuver master can make a full attack, using his bonus maneuver to escape (or reverse) the grapple.
You missed the issue, which was that ONLY your extra maneuvers can be grapple checks.
So, no -- you can only make one grapple check per available extra maneuver. You can't make any as part of the full attack.
ONLY your extra maneuvers can be grapple checks.
Correct.
So, no -- you can only make one grapple check per available extra maneuver. You can't make any as part of the full attack.
The extra maneuver is part of the full attack. You must full attack in order to get the extra maneuvers.
The penalties from Flurry of Maneuvers (-2 to all combat maneuvers) apply to every attack in the full attack, and any penalties from other parts of the full attack (for example, Two-Weapon Fighting penalties) will also apply to the bonus maneuver.
The penalties from Flurry of Maneuvers (-2 to all combat maneuvers) apply to every attack in the full attack, and any penalties from other parts of the full attack (for example, Two-Weapon Fighting penalties) will also apply to the bonus maneuver.
I think we agree on the maneuvers penalty -- it applies to all combat maneuvers in the full-attack action but ONLY to combat maneuvers.
I'm not convinced, though, that TWF penalties will apply to the extra maneuvers. Can you explain your reasoning?
My problem with applying TWF penalties is simple: is the extra maneuver a primary or off-hand attack? If it's neither, then I don't think there's any penalty to apply to it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...and any penalties from other parts of the full attack (for example, Two-Weapon Fighting penalties) will also apply to the bonus maneuver.
Suppose that a monk decides to TWF (using unarmed strikes) in conjunction with Flurry of Maneuvers despite not having the TWF feat. Thus, his penalties to his attacks are -4/-8 according to this:
"You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light."Knowing (as I know you do) that most maneuvers don't use a weapon at all (with unarmed strikes counting as weapons for this purpose), and assuming the monk in question performs such a maneuver as his bonus maneuver (let's say a Dirty Trick), which TWF penalty does he apply to said maneuver: the primary hand penalty, or the off-hand penalty? More importantly, why?
I'm not convinced, though, that TWF penalties will apply to the extra maneuvers. Can you explain your reasoning?
The TWF penalties should apply to all attacks made during the full-attack action for the same reasons that AoOs or swift action attacks don't, because TWF only applies to the action in which it's used. ("when you fight this way" = the full round action to full attack while gaining an extra attack from TWF)
which TWF penalty does he apply to said maneuver: the primary hand penalty, or the off-hand penalty? More importantly, why?
The TWF FAQ says "once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
So the question is: Do attacks outside of iterative/TWF-bonus apply to the main hand, the off-hand, or something else?
The FAQ is based off normal guy with two arms and two weapons. It breaks down with more than that (hence the FAQ request for multi-armed fighting) but I think it's more reasonable to assume any non-iterative non-TWF-granted attack would be considered main-hand for purposes of TWF penalties, rather than assume all other attacks are off-hand.
Example: Level 1 fighter, 2 arms, wielding rapier and dagger, hasted:
Rapier (main), dagger (off), rapier (main, haste)
or
Rapier (main), dagger (off), headbutt (main, haste)
etc.
Essentially, I consider "regular attack or attacks with your primary hand" to be any attack that is not specifically marked as your off-hand which is gaining the extra attack(s) from TWF. This somewhat conflicts with the general tone of the TWF FAQ, but I think that's OK since the FAQ was written with the assumption of normalcy.
Option 2 would be to have all extraneous attacks count as off-hand attacks, and I don't see any support for this at all.
Option 3 would be to have all extraneous attacks be not part of the TWF/hands stuff, but this would encourage iterative hand-swapping. IE: declaring your main hand to be an unarmed strike, off-hand to be the dagger. Then making your first attack at full BAB with the rapier, which is neither hand, thus not taking any TWF penalties on it at all.
In regards to your Option 3 loophole, I don't think that would work; any of your normal iterative attacks are "main-hand attacks" for purposes of TWF, even if you allow iterative weapon-swapping. Option 3 just allows you to take any extra attacks without worrying about TWF penalities.
In regards to your Option 3 loophole, I don't think that would work; any of your normal iterative attacks are "main-hand attacks" for purposes of TWF, even if you allow iterative weapon-swapping. Option 3 just allows you to take any extra attacks without worrying about TWF penalities.
I think what I was trying to say is that if "regular attack or attacks with your primary hand" is focused on the Hand, the physical hand you're holding a weapon in, then it wouldn't apply to non-hand-based attacks, and was trying to get that to support basing it not on hands, but simply on "normal attacks" and "extra attacks granted by TWF."
Normal attacks would be any attack you could take without using TWF, they're main hand, and any attack you get from using TWF (or ITWF/GTWF) is off-hand. Currently we kind of have to restrict those TWF-attacks to a single weapon in a single hand, and possibly restrict ALL the others to another hand with a single weapon, which doesn't really make much sense to me.