Flurry of Blows FAQ Applies to Flurry of Maneuvers?

[SiliconDon]

I have a question about the ruling that you add your non-monk BAB to Flurry of Blows attacks. Does that same ruling apply to the Maneuver Master archetype's Flurry of Maneuvers ability that also substitutes your monk level for BAB? I have a GM that believes you use your monk level as your total BAB for the combat maneuver check in flurry of maneuvers, and that you don't add your other sources of BAB at all. For example, a Maneuver Master 1/Fighter 19 would have an effective BAB of +1 for flurry of maneuvers.

I believe it should work similarly to Flurry of Blows, where a Maneuver Master 1/Fighter 19 would have an effective BAB of +20 for flurry of maneuvers. What do you think and why? If you agree with me, how should I convince my GM? His objection is based on the fact that the ruling came out before the Maneuver Master was published in Ultimate Combat and therefore does not apply.

Relevant Links:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9naz

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk#TOC-Flurry-of-Blows-Ex-

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-a rchetypes/maneuver-master

[dragonhunterq]

Why on earth would it not work as flurry of blows? I doubt you'll find a definitive RAW as there is absolutely no reason for it to work differently i.e. add your monk level to your BAB from other classes. It directly replaces flurry of blows, shares the same wording, shares the same naming conventions...

If your DM can't see that, I think playing a maneouver master just became untenable.

[JimmySC]

There's not going to be a clear cut place you can point to in the rules and say "Sorry GM, you're wrong" - hopefully you've been diplomatic so far and can persuade him to reconsider. I would point out that the way base attack bonuses and multi-classing works is by allowing the base attack bonuses from multiple classes to stack, and there's no reason to indicate that this changes due to this one ability. When an ability allows you to replace your BAB from a class with your level in that class, it still stacks with the BAB gained from other sources.

I would also point out that FAQs are NOT errata - they are instead clarifications of already existing rules language. Sometimes a FAQ leads to an errata but they always state when that is the case (for example, the errata to the Mythic Adventures spellcasting path abilities states that new language will be added in the errata). So there is a FAQ explaining that the way you should parse the language of this particular ability is a certain way; another ability that uses the same language should also be parsed in the same way.

[SiliconDon]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Why on earth would it not work as flurry of blows? I doubt you'll find a definitive RAW as there is absolutely no reason for it to work differently i.e. add your monk level to your BAB from other classes. It directly replaces flurry of blows, shares the same wording, shares the same naming conventions...

If your DM can't see that, I think playing a maneouver master just became untenable.

In all honesty, I believe it's because I'm building this character:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K356_GfIp4y3S29epR_2ZDMA9GhNanNnc8r uigVY7D4

and he believes it is too powerful. In a home game, I would respect his ruling and make a new character. However, this is a Pathfinder Societies character, and I don't believe he gets to make that call.

[SiliconDon]

And as I posted the last comment, my VC ruled that it works the way the other GM thought.

Well, s%&&. Can we please mark my post as an FAQ? This is basically going to cripple a character that I have already sunk 4 levels worth of XP into.

[Mad Alchemist]

I doubt you will get a FAQ for this because it should be just like the regular monk flurry FAQ. On the topic of FAQ vs errata I will say that sometimes the FAQ are errata. Good Luck.

[Jiggy]

Wait, your VC told you that if (for instance) you had 2 levels of Maneuver Master and 5 levels of Fighter, that your BAB is only +2 for maneuvers while full-attacking? Did I follow that right?

[James Risner]

SiliconDon wrote:

And as I posted the last comment, my VC ruled that it works the way the other GM thought.

Well, s%&+. Can we please mark my post as an FAQ? This is basically going to cripple a character that I have already sunk 4 levels worth of XP into.

Classes are written with single class in mind. Your GM is misreading the BAB rule in FoM. You add your BAB from other classes.

If you can't convince your GM this is true, you need to rebuild your character. Because you are not likely to see a reply to this as a FAQ. It isn't a heavily debated issue (there are not many that think like your GM) and FAQ are not answered quickly.

[dragonhunterq]

SiliconDon wrote:

And as I posted the last comment, my VC ruled that it works the way the other GM thought.

Well, s*#~. Can we please mark my post as an FAQ? This is basically going to cripple a character that I have already sunk 4 levels worth of XP into.

Both your VC and DM - that is unlucky. Don't play the Lottery this week...

[SiliconDon]

It gets worse. My VC also just ruled that I do not get to use Flurry of Maneuvers while wearing armor, and that it cannot be used with non-monk weapons.

[eakratz]

Wha-what? They must be the only two people on the planet who think that it works that way.

Edit: Referring to OP.

[dragonhunterq]

SiliconDon wrote:

It gets worse. My VC also just ruled that I do not get to use Flurry of Maneuvers while wearing armor, and that it cannot be used with non-monk weapons.

Wow! just wow!I'm trying to think of something comforting to say, but you sir, are (to paraphrase) attached to another object, by an incline plane, wrapped helically around an axis!

[Jiggy]

SiliconDon wrote:

It gets worse. My VC also just ruled that I do not get to use Flurry of Maneuvers while wearing armor, and that it cannot be used with non-monk weapons.

Wait, so it's not subjected to FoB's FAQs, but it is subjected to FoB's rules?

It might be time to escalate to Mike Brock. Normally that's not the route to go with rules issues, but when a local leader is willing to be internally inconsistent in order to get what he wants, well, I'd be hesitant to assume that attitude will be restricted to game rules.

EDIT: First, though, be absolutely sure that they understood your question and that you understood their answer and this isn't all just a matter of miscommunication.

[James Risner]

Jiggy wrote:

be absolutely sure that they understood your question and that you understood their answer and this isn't all just a matter of miscommunication.

You wouldn't believe how often this can be an issue. I'd do this via Facebook or email and not "just before a game starts" so they have plenty of time to reply with thought.

[Chengar Qordath]

James Risner wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

be absolutely sure that they understood your question and that you understood their answer and this isn't all just a matter of miscommunication.

You wouldn't believe how often this can be an issue. I'd do this via Facebook or email and not "just before a game starts" so they have plenty of time to reply with thought.

Not to mention that, if you do end up taking the matter further up the chain, you provide their reasoning in their own written-down words instead of what you remember from the conversation.