I view it as even with the TWF Penalties you are still at +18 as your Base. That is higher than the normal +15 a Monk gets.
Why is that clearly not the case? Please provide RAW justification.
Because if it were, the monk's flurry progression table would look entirely different. That should be all the RAW justification you need.
To say that only the bonus attacks got to use full base attack bonus would mean that the table would show a 1st-level monk with a -1/-2. It doesn't. It says -1/-1. Therefore, ALL the attacks are benefiting from full base attack bonus, not just the bonus attacks.
There's also no need to be rude. My interpretation is hardly twisted.
I want to start an action that requires a full-round action, gain the bonus that goes with it, then "cancel" it before the accomopanying penalty would take effect.. and keep the bonus and any beneficial outcome from the resolved part of the action.. based on taking out-of-context the wording of a clarification to a similar ability.
Not at all. It's more akin to making a normal full attack versus making extra attacks with two-weapon fighting.
I've already shown that making the additional attacks is entirely optional. Since flurry of blows acts like two-weapon fighting in all respects, except those specifically called out, it stands to reason that, like two-weapon fighting, you do NOT suffer any penalties if you do not take the bonus attacks.
I view it as even with the TWF Penalties you are still at +18 as your Base. That is higher than the normal +15 a Monk gets.
Your assuming a 20th-level monk? Using that as an example, I see it as +15 normally, +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3 with flurry of blows, and +20/+15/+10/+5 with flurry of blows when not making the bonus attacks.
It is still a full round action, it still needs to be declared in advance, and it is still limited to unarmed strikes and specific monk weapons.
In short, at this time, I honestly believe you are all wrong.
I don't believe you. I think you know it is wrong (the intent seems pretty clear), you just think you have found a loophole. I don't think it was ever intended for the monk to do what you are asking or they would have just given the monk a full BAB.
Now having said that, I'm fine with you nitpicking the rules. I like to see the different arguments and watch how these threads ramble on and on (often wandering far away from their initial point.
Oh, to actually answer your question: No.
Wasn't intending to be rude, sorry. There was no personal judgement intended with calling your interpretation "twisted". I just thought both of the interpretations I referenced were clearly wrong.
The Monk flurry of blows progression table also answers your OP. if you could use it without the penalties, it would say +2 or +0/+0 at level 2. It doesn't. It says +0/+0. You may take the additional attack(s), but you don't have to. If you are using FoB, that's the progression you use, whether you choose to use all the attack or just the first.
Why is that clearly not the case? Please provide RAW justification.Because if it were, the monk's flurry progression table would look entirely different. That should be all the RAW justification you need.
To say that only the bonus attacks got to use full base attack bonus would mean that the table would show a 1st-level monk with a -1/-2. It doesn't. It says -1/-1. Therefore, ALL the attacks are benefiting from full base attack bonus, not just the bonus attacks.
There's also no need to be rude. My interpretation is hardly twisted.
And if your interpretation was true, the flurry progression table would probably be "-1/-1 or +1". If you use the flurry progression table for the source for arguments, you have to use it in it's whole. And it is clearly defining the flurry attack bonus as monk level - Two-Weapon fighting penalties at all times.
The intent seems pretty clear.
And what pray tell is the intent? That it functions like two-weapon fighting except where specifically noted?
And it is clearly defining the flurry attack bonus as monk level - Two-Weapon fighting penalties at all times.
Is it? Would please show me where it clearly states that you must take the penalties? The table by itself is unclear and does not definitively refute my interpretation. When I read the text, all I see is a specialized form of two-weapon fighting.
Say I have a base attack bonus of +6/+1 and a shortsword and a dagger. I could attack with the shortsword @ +6, then with the dagger @ +1, or vice versa. Alternatively, I could use the two-weapon fighting rules (and feat) to attack with +4/+4/-1, with one of the attacks being my off-hand.
It is clearly established in the rules that you can do the above. I see absolutely nothing in flurry of blows that would prevent you from doing this while flurrying.
The intent seems pretty clear.And what pray tell is the intent? That it functions like two-weapon fighting except where specifically noted?
Um...yes? You get extra attacks (and you get them at the same rate as a TWFer), with your monk level as your BAB, with a -2 penalty (like the penalty a TWFer would take).
Now what is your intent? You said you believed everyone else was wrong, implying that it was the intent of the Devs to give monks the options of making a full attack at 3/4 BAB, a flurry with extra attacks at a higher BAB with a penalty, and a flurry with a higher BAB with no penalties or extra attacks. Is this correct? If so then why hasn't a Dev ever said as much? I have not been on these forums for an incredibly long time but I have seen plenty of "monks suck" threads and "flurry of misses" but never have I seen a Dev (or anyone) say: "well, you could just do a flurry without the extra attacks and not take the penalty." I have not read all the APs but the ones I have read had monks and I never saw as listed tactics "flurries without extra attacks to avoid penalty." I think for you to say you honestly believe you're right is disingenuous. You might honestly believe you have found a way to read the rules as to take advantage of a loophole. (Just sayin')
You said you believed everyone else was wrong, implying that it was the intent of the Devs to give monks the options of making a full attack at 3/4 BAB, a flurry with extra attacks at a higher BAB with a penalty, and a flurry with a higher BAB with no penalties or extra attacks. Is this correct? If so then why hasn't a Dev ever said as much?
That appears to accurately describe my stance. As to your question, the devs have said time and time again that roleplayers are not computers, but people able to think for themselves. They don't chime in on things if they don't feel there is a reason to.
With few exceptions, flurry of blows defaults to the two-weapon fighting rules, and the the two-weapon fighting rules don't penalize you if you don't take the extra attacks. Since nothing in flurry of blows appears to say otherwise, this appears to be true with flurry of blows as well. If you don't take the extra attacks, you don't take the penalty.
It is entirely possible the developers haven't chimed in because they felt this was self-evident. Or I could be wrong. Short of a developer reading this thread and stating clearly the intent behind the rules, I imagine we will just have to agree to disagree on the matter.
With few exceptions, flurry of blows defaults to the two-weapon fighting rules, and the the two-weapon fighting rules don't penalize you if you don't take the extra attacks. Since nothing in flurry of blows appears to say otherwise, this appears to be true with flurry of blows as well. If you don't take the extra attacks, you don't take the penalty.It is entirely possible the developers haven't chimed in because they felt this was self-evident. Or I could be wrong. Short of a developer reading this thread and stating clearly the intent behind the rules, I imagine we will just have to agree to disagree on the matter.
It is true that the rules don't penalize you for not taking the extra attack with TWF, but if you state you are using TWF, you get the penalties on all attacks even if you end up not taking the off-hand attack. If you didn't, you'd have to somehow apply a retroactive penalty to the first attack once that off-hand attack is taken. Since that would be silly to do, you must take t he TWF penalty any time you use TWF, expecting to take that extra, off hand attack.
The same is basically true of Flurry. By declaring you are flurrying instead of taking your regular iterative attacks, you apply two things 1) a higher BAB and 2) the attack penalty to all attacks whether you end up taking them all or not. If you are not intending to take the extra attack and want to avoid the attack penalty, you aren't flurrying and must use the lower BAB.
The same is basically true of Flurry. By declaring you are flurrying instead of taking your regular iterative attacks, you apply two things 1) a higher BAB and 2) the attack penalty to all attacks whether you end up taking them all or not. If you are not intending to take the extra attack and want to avoid the attack penalty, you aren't flurrying and must use the lower BAB.
But taking the extra attacks (and the penalty) is not a requirement of using flurry (at least, nothing specifically says it is). Conversely, the only requirements specifically spelled out in the RAW are that you declare it, spend the full attack action, and are using an appropriate weapon or weapons.
Monk should just have full BAB.
That is actually my one change I make in my Homegames now... They have Full B.A.B. and get Double Slice & TWF/ITWF/GTWF for free.
Monk should just have full BAB.
Apparently that was the intent, we were just all too dumb to figure it out. (I mean where does it say they don't? You know, other than in the rules.)
If you're just going to continue to make fun, rather than contribute to the discussion at hand, then I suggest you leave Durngrun.
Monk should just have full BAB.Apparently that was the intent, we were just all too dumb to figure it out. (I mean where does it say they don't? You know, other than in the rules.)
1. Monks have proven to be the weakest class in the game.
2. The stated reason for not giving them full BAB was "backwards compatibility" reasons with 3E.
Except Paizo made a *ton* of changes that wreck BC. Try accomodating the rage rounds per day change with 3E, for example. In any case, PF is largely its own game now and few seem to actually play with both rulesets. If you do, problems much greater than Monks come into play.
3. The flurry "solution" is clumsy and confusing, and leads to all sorts of unanswered questions.
Like how power attack works with it. Or if you can take feats w/ BAB requirements based on your flurry BAB and only use them when flurrying? SKR already said druids can take feats to boost natural attacks despite not always being in wildshape, so why not monks? What about feats that can ONLY be used by flurrying (or full attacking, which is basically the same thing, b/c why would you full attack and not flurry as a monk?), such as Clustered Shots for a Zen Archer Monk?
It seems like the only reason it hasn't been changed is Paizo doesn't want to make a change to a core class. And not due to the merits of the change at all.
If you're just going to continue to make fun, rather than contribute to the discussion at hand, then I suggest you leave Durngrun.
I honestly believe I have seen you crack a joke or two before.
There is a FAQ that says you use feats at full BAB when using flurry. I don't know about taking feats with a BAB requirement but if that's the case with Druids then that sounds fine to me (there are already plenty of feats monks pick up early)
There is a FAQ that says you use feats at full BAB when using flurry. I don't know about taking feats with a BAB requirement but if that's the case with Druids then that sounds fine to me (there are already plenty of feats monks pick up early)
Flurry of Blows specifically states that the situational higher attack bonus does not allow you to qualify for feats and other abilities (though it would increase feats you already have, such as Power Attack).
