Maneuver Monk questions

[Katz]

1. Could I use Perfect Strike to roll multiple times in a Combat Maneuver attempt? (This is in regards to maneuvers that use an attack action)

Perfect Strike:

You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). You must use one of the following weapons to make the attack: kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, and siangham. You can roll your attack roll twice and take the higher result. If one of these rolls is a critical threat, the other roll is used as your confirmation roll (your choice if they are both critical threats). You may attempt a perfect attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round.

Combat Maneuvers:

While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

2. With the Maneuver Master archetype, how do the penalties on Flurry of Maneuvers work? Are they -2/-5/-12, or -12 for all? I found the text a little confusing in this regard

Flurry of Maneuvers:

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.

[SlimGauge]

A combat maneuver check is an attack roll, so you can use perfect strike provided the maneuver is one that utilizes your weapon.

As to Flurry of Maneuvers, here's how I think it works.

Let's say you're electing to make one additional combat maneuver. Make a full-attack as normal. If any of the attacks you make as part of that full-attack are combat maneuvers, you must apply a -2 penalty to them. Now make your one additional maneuver, being sure to apply the -2 penalty.

Let's say you're of sufficient level that you can elect to make two additional combat maneuvers. All maneuver checks take the additional -3 for a total of -5 on each of them.

Let's say you're of sufficient level that you can elect to make three additional combat maneuvers. All maneuver checks take the additional -7 for a total of -12 on each of them.

[ErrantPursuit]

There is no penalty for maneuvers that do not exceed your normal allotment of actions.

Ex: Disarm and Sunder are both combat maneuvers and can be used as part of an attack action (including full attacks.) If you have 3 iterative attacks from BAB, then you can make three attempts per round without any penalty. Just like anyone else can.

If you want to use a maneuver that is its own attack action, such as Grapple, then you must Flurry to make more than one attempt per round. This then applies penalties.

I understand the penalties to apply in the same way as SlimGuage does: -12 to each check made the turn in which you do this. There is room to argue on this point and I don't have a definitive answer.

[Kazaan]

I've always read it that the larger penalties don't come into play until you've crossed the "bonus maneuver" thresholds. It doesn't make sense that, even if you're only going to take 1 bonus maneuver, the capacity to perform 3 automatically knocks that one maneuver down to -12 from the get-go. The way I do it is, up through the first bonus maneuver, all maneuvers take -2, including the bonus. Then, the penalty goes up to -5.

To illustrate, say you are lvl 8 with +6 BAB for 2 iterative attacks and 3 bonus maneuvers (at base +8 BAB from maneuver training).

You could arrange your attacks as follows, bonus maneuvers in bold, iterative maneuvers in italics, iterative attacks in normal:

A) +6/+1/+6/+3/-4
B) +6/+1/+6/+3/-4
C) +6/+6/-2/+3/-4
D) +6/+6/+3/-9/-4

This isn't an exhaustive list, but illustrates the different patterns that can be achieved. This is the way it reads, but, honestly, I feel it needs an errata to say that the additional penalties only apply to bonus maneuvers and maneuvers performed as iterative attacks only ever take the -2 penalty. Also, I think that the -7 penalty should be applied instead of the -3 rather than in addition.

[Misunderstood Monk]

You may have house-ruled this but RAW is all maneuvers are at -2 when taking 1 additional maneuver, -3 with 2 additional, and -7 with 3 additional.

[Kazaan]

Misunderstood Monk wrote:

You may have house-ruled this but RAW is all maneuvers are at -2 when taking 1 additional maneuver, -3 with 2 additional, and -7 with 3 additional.

Exactly; you aren't making 2 maneuvers until you've made the second one. It would be like saying that all 3 off-hand attacks get -10 because you have GTWF.

[Ximen Bao]

He's in disagreement with you. As are the rules, I believe. It's not written like the TWF feat chain.

ITWF and GTWF say that the specific singular attack takes the penalty.

The archetype ability says that combat maneuver checks, plural, take the penalty.

[ErrantPursuit]

The archetype indicates you take the penalties if you choose to do that many extra maneuvers and it uses the plural combat maneuver checks. I feel like the two valid interpretations are: -2 to all maneuvers if you only choose to do one extra. -5 to all maneuvers if you choose to do two extra, and -12 if you choose to do three extra. This would indicate you declare your intent to use them all before rolling any dice.

OR

First extra maneuver is -2, Second extra maneuver is -5, Third extra maneuver is -12. All checks associated with your maneuvers on that iteration are at the penalty and subsequent checks would be made at that penalty (in the case where an opponent forced a check before your turn came around again or something similar.)

It's not definitive, that's certain.

[Kazaan]

ErrantPursuit wrote:

The archetype indicates you take the penalties if you choose to do that many extra maneuvers and it uses the plural combat maneuver checks. I feel like the two valid interpretations are: -2 to all maneuvers if you only choose to do one extra. -5 to all maneuvers if you choose to do two extra, and -12 if you choose to do three extra. This would indicate you declare your intent to use them all before rolling any dice.

OR

First extra maneuver is -2, Second extra maneuver is -5, Third extra maneuver is -12. All checks associated with your maneuvers on that iteration are at the penalty and subsequent checks would be made at that penalty (in the case where an opponent forced a check before your turn came around again or something similar.)

It's not definitive, that's certain.

It's pretty obvious that the second option is the most reasonable and straight-forward. How do you know how many extra maneuvers you're going to use before you use them? I could use the extra maneuver for a trip and then they die due to AoOs from Greater Trip, Vicious Stomp, etc. and then, my anticipated 2 more extra maneuvers never get to happen; but I'd still take -12 on that initial bonus maneuver? Ridiculous. At worst, it's just as valid to read it in the way I described with the penalties applying to subsequent checks as to read it such that you apply -12 to all maneuvers from the start; and the way I described makes far more sense and is more in-line with similar abilities. In this case, both readings being equal, you chose the one that isn't retarded. Best case scenario, the interpretation I provided is more concise and correct. In short, without a FAQ or errata to specify the retarded method, the subsequent method makes the most sense to follow.

[ErrantPursuit]

Kazaan wrote:

How do you know how many extra maneuvers you're going to use before you use them? I could use the extra maneuver for a trip and then they die due to AoOs from Greater Trip, Vicious Stomp, etc. and then, my anticipated 2 more extra maneuvers never get to happen; but I'd still take -12 on that initial bonus maneuver? Ridiculous.

This is how a Full Attack Action works and how Flurry of Blows works. You declare you're going to use your turn in this way before rolling attacks and declaring who they are against. Certainly I prefer the second interpretation, as well, but I think your impassioned cry of "ridiculous" is a little melodramatic. I also think the argument "I would be taking penalties for actions I didn't get to use because I had already killed it" is not very strong.

I think we should try and get the ability FAQ'd.
Maybe something like this?

How and when are the penalties applied when using the Maneuver Master archetype's ability Flurry of Maneuvers?

[Kazaan]

ErrantPursuit wrote:

This is how a Full Attack Action works and how Flurry of Blows works. You declare you're going to use your turn in this way before rolling attacks and declaring who they are against.

With a TWF Full Attack and FoB, you take the -2 across the board as the penalty to declare making extra attacks, and then the larger penalties for subsequent extra attacks from higher-tier TWF feats/higher monk level are applied specifically to the extra attack they grant. The idea that the full penalty of -12 (-2 base, -3 for 'tier 2' FoM, -7 for 'tier 3' FoM) applies to all maneuvers from the beginning even before you've made the second and third bonus maneuver is not only out of line with the precedent set by similar abilities, not only a tenuous reading of RAW at best, but it's a huge penalty to apply. You're getting a larger penalty not for leveraging a higher-leveled ability but just for having it. This goes against every principal of game design. Even Power Attack and Combat Expertise do give you a consistent, tangible benefit for the greater penalty you take so, while you can't "roll back" on Power Attack or Combat Expertise, you always get the appropriate benefit for the penalty. If you take -12 just for having tier 3 FoM, whether you use those subsequent maneuvers or not, it's contrary to the design principal of the game (and logic and good sense in general). I'll FAQ the question you brought up, though, as an official weigh-in would probably help put a nail in the coffin of that alternative.

[ErrantPursuit]

Kazaan wrote:

I'll FAQ the question you brought up, though, as an official weigh-in would probably help put a nail in the coffin of that alternative.

Thanks! I would like to reiterate that I prefer the same interpretation you do. I just feel the phrasing leaves a hole too large to resolve simply. Sometimes developers DO fail their skill checks. Let's hope we get enough FAQ requests to generate a clarification and can walk away to our respective tables with results.