|
Allow me to address the following issue:
"Every single class level chart shows each iterative at -5 the previous BAB. its not just 5 lower, its -5 the previous one."
Like Oldskool was saying, they are just numbers, and the derivation of those numbers is not explained. It is a black box that we are only guessing at. Yes, Alric, you've brought up a couple strong points hinting at what they were thinking (the strongest being your monk example which I will look into next). But first, let me disprove the class level chart issue.
Let's say I took the number 2 and performed a single unknown operation on it that only I know what it was. The result is 4. One person might say I added 2, because 2+2=4. One person might say that I multiplied it by 2, because 2x2 also equals 4. One of those two people is right, but here is the most wrong answer: It doesn't matter, it just equals 4. The reason that is so wrong is because if instead of 2 for my input, I use the number 10, then I'm either going to get 10+2=12 or 10x2 = 20. We can no longer say those are equal.
However, you're on the right track. By looking at other examples, we might be able to reverse engineer the actual operation. For instance, if I start with 2 and get 4, or start with 6 and get 8, or start with 17 and get 19, it looks an awful lot like it's just adding 2.
So that brings me to your other examples. I still don't think the natural attack thing works. While similar, they are still quite different, and there are many rules about natural attacks that do not fit with regular attacks (including Flurry of Blows!).
The monk one is very close! It definitely adds a piece to the puzzle that helps us figure out the pattern. The only problem I could see with it is that one could relate it then to a full BAB class like a fighter (which they did in Unchained to simplify things). Therefore, they would say "Well, I'm monk level 12, which means I look at the chart for fighter and determine that I have a BAB of 12/7/2". In fact, they would have to do that, because once again, there is no rule for determining why it's -5 every iterative attack.
However, I really do think that in the case of the Oracle, it does solve the problem. Still, future problems of a similar nature might arise. A clear cut rule defining how these numbers are calculated, instead of guessing based off another class' somewhat similar ability, would be highly preferred.
|
|
It's a derived value. If you really need this spelled out for you I don't advise multi-classing.
I completely agree. It is a derived value...but how it is derived is the entire point of this thread. Can you tell me?
Your BAB, when it reaches a certain value, grants an additional attack. This is in the getting started section. The only place that tells you the value of these additional attacks is on the class tables. EVERY SINGLE ONE has iterative attacks at a value 5 less than the previous. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest you use any other value. Any claim that iterative attacks can result in a different value needs some evidence to back up such an assertion.
How about the Monk and its Flurry of Blows that we've already discussed in this thread. The monk has a 3/4 BAB chart, but when flurrying, it becomes full BAB. Therefore, I do claim that iterative attacks (and primary in this case too) can result in a different value, and here is my evidence.
Otherwise I could just claim that all my oracle iteratives are 5 higher than the previous attack, because nothing tells me it isn't.
This is not the case. I am arguing it not because there's nothing that tells me I can't do this, but because something tells me I can do this. Here's the link from before.
I don't think i saw any discussion of this above, but aren't there actually at least TWO other interpretations even without -5 being a rule?
1) "+6/+1" --> "+level/+level", i.e. you use level for both of two iterative attacks.
1) "+6/+1" --> "+level", i.e. you lose your iterative attack entirely, because you only have a single number as a BAB now instead of a double slashed number.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Can you elaborate a bit?
So your counter-argument is something that explicitly includes an additional non-BAB based attack? and when you take out that additional attack you find that your BAB based iteratives are still 5 lower than the previous. good example...
There is no evidence to show that BAB based iterative attacks are anything other than 5 lower. There is a wealth of evidence in every class table to support it.
|
|
So your counter-argument is something that explicitly includes an additional non-BAB based attack? and when you take out that additional attack you find that your BAB based iteratives are still 5 lower than the previous. good example...
After rereading your argument, I see that I misunderstood it. I thought you were saying that your BAB cannot be changed. I was saying that the Monk's FoB changes the Monk's BAB for its purposes, and therefore something else might change it in another way. But again, I'm not advocating anything. I'm saying that there is no rule explaining the derived value of iterative attacks.
Also, I would ask that you refrain from insulting remarks.
There is no evidence to show that BAB based iterative attacks are anything other than 5 lower. There is a wealth of evidence in every class table to support it.
I understand that they're five lower normally...no one is arguing against that. What I'm asking is what mechanic, rule, calculation, etc makes it five lower?
|
|
RAW or "Read as Written"
"Rules As Written"
does not exclude tables just because they are values and not specifically lettered text. any and all information in a book is called text. If you read the tables as written then the iterative BAB is 5 less than the previous attack. And what does "5 Less Than" translate into??? "-5". Therefore RAW is BAB -5.
False, Black Bear. You cannot look at the table and infer anything except that at BAB values 6, 11, and 16, an additional number appears with a value 5 lower than the last in the order. You literally CANNOT infer that it is a new attack at BAB-5 or a new BAB 5 lower than the previous.
Now if you want to argue that they are stated values and not a formula though a formula may have been used to come to this conclusion. Well I would argue that it would be stupid to include said formula in such a table. +6/+6-5 looks pretty stupid to me, and Im sure you agree, as do the devs which is why they just put the number there instead.
I agree that they should not put the formula in the table, just as they don't put the description of every ability in the table. I am suggesting that in some section (getting start or combat maybe) a simple line that says "iterative attacks suffer a cumulative -5 penalty".
I just dont understand how people are not seeing that RAW (Which includes any and all text in the book, charts included) says previous attack BAB - 5 for iteratives. Thats a lie, I can understand how people are not seeing it because they want it to be spelled out in letters, and because its not literally spelled out "Iteratives are BAB -5" then they think its a loophole they can exploit because "it's not written, therefore it doesn't exist". but the fact of the matter is that it is written, in text as a value, not letters, and common sense dictates that it be "Read as Written" as BAB -5.
I don't understand why people are not understanding that a chart of numbers does not explain mechanics. I don't understand why people think I'm the one trying to pull something from nothing, when I'm actually trying to do the exact opposite. Would I blow your mind if I said you are actually committing the crime that you're accusing me of? You're pulling something from nothing. You have no evidence of how the number is calculated, yet you have formed your own idea of how it is. I'm simply asking for clarification.
just because there is no text saying "Iteratives are BAB-5 " does not mean that isnt how it work. It's fairly obvious that it is how it works.Yes, everyone is clear on the intent. That was never in question so why do you keep mentioning it. We are discussing the actual RAW which doesn't spell that out.RAW or "Read as Written" does not exclude tables just because they are values and not specifically lettered text. any and all information in a book is called text. If you read the tables as written then the iterative BAB is 5 less than the previous attack. And what does "5 Less Than" translate into??? "-5". Therefore RAW is BAB -5.
I have already answered that specific argument from you! If you didn't bother to read it the first time I doubt you would if I answered it again. Noobz and I have both addressed that.
Example.:
1) I am designing my own game and start with a fighter class and I decide that his attack skill will go up by one every level and that he will get a new attack starting over at +1 every 5 levels. Now that is going to happen to make his second attack 4 lower than his first attack but I wasn't using any intentional formula to arrive at that it is just the consequences of doing that every five levels.
2) I am designing a wizard and decide that I want their attacks to always be the same as a fighter 2 levels lower with a +0 minimum attack. So at 7th level the wizard is going to get an attack bonus that is the same as the level 5 fighter +5/+1. Again the +1 happens to be four lower than the +5 but only coincidentally because of the choice I made when designing the fighter and I based the wizard off of that without any conscious choice to make the second attack always 1st attack -4.
3) I design a rogue and decide I want all of his attacks to be the same as a fighter one level lower. So at level 6 he is going to have the same attacks as said fighter, again with the second attack four levels lower and never once did I set a formula for the second attack being 1st attack - 4. It just works out that way.
The dev team could have done the exact same thing only deciding that you get a second attack starting over at +1 every time your BAB reaches 6. The fact that this will always produce a second attack that is 5 lower than the first attack is not a result of a conscious decision to make the second attack = BAB - 5 that is just how it works out.
Now is that scenario possible. Absolutely. Is it likely, I seriously doubt it. However, that means you can't say with certainty that RAW is that iterative attacks = BAB - cumulative 5 penalty.
I'm not trying to be an a+#$%~* when I say this, but im going to tell you the same thing someone told me once when I had an issue with the rules.a little background first. My issue was with the Sha'ir Occultist Archetype. I wanted a proper faq to explain how the Jin's Schools ability worked. However the General consensus was that it worked as written, I knew it worked as written but I wanted the clarification to get Herolab to fix the class in it's program.
So one person told me that the Devs were never going to FAQ this because its pretty clear how it works.
Now im saying the same to you, It's pretty clear that iteratives are at a -5 the previous one. 5 less than the previous translates into; previous attack BAB - 5. Thus the Devs are not going to FAQ this or give a direct ruling as its pretty clear what the ruling is.
Also using your example of the 2 = 4. there is no other way to arrive at a 1 from a 6. which is why im sure the devs picked these numbers. so there would be no confusion on how they arrived at the values they got. for Example lets say it was +6/+3, well they could of done 2 things; -3, or /2 (Divide by). if it was +6/+2 it would either be /3, or -4. but the only way to get from +6 to +1 is to -5.
So Read as Written or RAW, your +1 iterative is 5 less than your primary +6 BAB, or +6 - 5 = +1.
Last I checked, 6 divided by 6 will get you 1. Maybe that is the formula used.
I believe what Noobz is asking is this:
If I have a +6/+1 BAB, is my first attack considered at my BAB of +6 and my second one is at my previous attack minus 5, or do I have an attack at my BAB of +6, then my second attack is at a BAB of +1? Is the second attack considered it's own BAB, or is it a derivative of the first?
If the second attack is considered a BAB of +1, and the value is not a derivative of the first attack, then the Battle Oracle's Maneuver Mastery would allow for the +8/+8 he is asking about.
If iterative attacks are considered derivative's of a primary BAB, then no, the oracle's ability would be at +8/+3. He's simply asking for a definition of how that second number is defined/arrived at. is it derived from the first or is it a second attack at a lower BAB?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Noobz.
|
|
I'm not trying to be an a+#$%~* when I say this, but im going to tell you the same thing someone told me once when I had an issue with the rules.a little background first. My issue was with the Sha'ir Occultist Archetype. I wanted a proper faq to explain how the Jin's Schools ability worked. However the General consensus was that it worked as written, I knew it worked as written but I wanted the clarification to get Herolab to fix the class in it's program.
So one person told me that the Devs were never going to FAQ this because its pretty clear how it works.
Now im saying the same to you, It's pretty clear that iteratives are at a -5 the previous one. 5 less than the previous translates into; previous attack BAB - 5. Thus the Devs are not going to FAQ this or give a direct ruling as its pretty clear what the ruling is.
Also using your example of the 2 = 4. there is no other way to arrive at a 1 from a 6. which is why im sure the devs picked these numbers. so there would be no confusion on how they arrived at the values they got. for Example lets say it was +6/+3, well they could of done 2 things; -3, or /2 (Divide by). if it was +6/+2 it would either be /3, or -4. but the only way to get from +6 to +1 is to -5.
So Read as Written or RAW, your +1 iterative is 5 less than your primary +6 BAB, or +6 - 5 = +1.
Last I checked, 6 divided by 6 will get you 1. Maybe that is the formula used.
I believe what Noobz is asking is this:
If I have a +6/+1 BAB, is my first attack considered at my BAB of +6 and my second one is at my previous attack minus 5, or do I have an attack at my BAB of +6, then my second attack is at a BAB of +1? Is the second attack considered it's own BAB, or is it a derivative of the first?
If the second attack is considered a BAB of +1, and the value is not a derivative of the first attack, then the Battle Oracle's Maneuver Mastery would allow for the +8/+8 he is asking about.
If iterative attacks are considered derivative's of a...
Spot on, Lutzsd. I appreciate your candor, Alric, but I'm going to keep trying.
At this point, Daniel, having scanned the pdf for every wording I can think of, I believe you that there might not be a ruling :P The only problem then is, how do we interpret this? Do you actually take a -5 penalty on your second attack, or do you just gain an extra attack at a BAB bonus that is 5 lower? We can't say either way without an actual ruling.
The reason this could be a big deal is for things that replace your BAB. If it's the -5 penalty, then things that replace your BAB would take a -5 penalty as well, but if it's just a reduced BAB, then things that replace your BAB would get massive benefits.
So while it definitely seems intuitive, an actual ruling would be helpful.
There is no descriptive text stating there is an explicit -5 to each iterative attack.
However, base attack bonus is not a singular number, it's a progression of values (a series) based on circumstances.
If you have a BAB equal to your level and that level is 6, your first attack action using that BAB series is at +6, your second attack action is at +1, just like any other full base attack bonus progression class.
If you were a 3/4 BAB class and your level is 6, you normally only get one attack. However you can replace your BAB with your level, which would get you two attack actions, one at +6 and a second at +1. However, you would restricted to actions that are allowed by your BAB replacement ability. You can't replace your ability for the first attack action, and then use a generic ability for the second. The inverse is also true: If you do not perform this BAB replacement ability on your first attack action, you don't get to use it on your second, because your BAB at the start of your turn was +4/- not +6/+1.
When you get to a level where normal BAB progression gives you a second attack action, you can replace the 2nd higher bab progression value if you use that ability -- you aren't restricted to using the replacement ability as your first action.
When you have an ability that replaces your BAB, you have to replace the entire series, not just a single number.
In cases where only a single value can be replaced (see CMD), then you replace it with the first value in the series (unless an exception to this is spelled out).
In your circumstances, Noobz, if your replacement ability is being used for your 2nd attack action, you have to use the 2nd value in the series as determined by a BAB equivalent to your level (a full BAB series).
In other words, where a progression is required, substitute the progression, not singular values.
|
|
At this point, Daniel, having scanned the pdf for every wording I can think of, I believe you that there might not be a ruling :P The only problem then is, how do we interpret this? Do you actually take a -5 penalty on your second attack, or do you just gain an extra attack at a BAB bonus that is 5 lower? We can't say either way without an actual ruling.
The reason this could be a big deal is for things that replace your BAB. If it's the -5 penalty, then things that replace your BAB would take a -5 penalty as well, but if it's just a reduced BAB, then things that replace your BAB would get massive benefits.
So while it definitely seems intuitive, an actual ruling would be helpful.
There is no descriptive text stating there is an explicit -5 to each iterative attack.
However, base attack bonus is not a singular number, it's a progression of values (a series) based on circumstances.
If you have a BAB equal to your level and that level is 6, your first attack action using that BAB series is at +6, your second attack action is at +1, just like any other full base attack bonus progression class.
If you were a 3/4 BAB class and your level is 6, you normally only get one attack. However you can replace your BAB with your level, which would get you two attack actions, one at +6 and a second at +1. However, you would restricted to actions that are allowed by your BAB replacement ability. You can't replace your ability for the first attack action, and then use a generic ability for the second.
When you have an ability that replaces your BAB, you have to replace the entire series, not just a single number.
In cases where only a single value can be replaced (see CMD), then you replace it with the first value in the series (unless an exception to this is spelled out).
In your circumstances, Noobz, if your replacement ability is being used for your 2nd attack action, you have to use the 2nd value in the series as determined by a BAB equivalent to your...
That seems pretty logical, and that's how I've always seen it as well. Unfortunately, the book is not inherently clear about that, and it can only be speculated (possibly abused). Still, let's assume that it is how you say. Could you answer in this thread my questions #1 & #2 found here?
1) When the Oracle's level being treated as BAB reaches the point where a normal BAB would grant iterative attacks, does the Oracle gain iterative attacks with the combat maneuver? In this case, at level 6, with a full-attack action, could the Oracle attempt two trips?2) Assuming #1 is valid, could they mix attacks with maneuvers? So for instance, attack at 4 BAB and then trip at 1 BAB?
Hmm. I've rethought this:
All this ability does is replace the value of your normal BAB in the progression with the value of the BAB in the progression if it started equivalent to your level.
So, on your first attack, your trip would be +6. At your oracle level of 6, you don't get a second attack, so there is nothing to replace, so no second attack action at all.
|
|
1) When the Oracle's level being treated as BAB reaches the point where a normal BAB would grant iterative attacks, does the Oracle gain iterative attacks with the combat maneuver? In this case, at level 6, with a full-attack action, could the Oracle attempt two trips?2) Assuming #1 is valid, could they mix attacks with maneuvers? So for instance, attack at 4 BAB and then trip at 1 BAB?
Hmm. I've rethought this:
All this ability does is replace the value of your normal BAB in the progression with the value of the BAB in the progression if it started equivalent to your level.
So, on your first attack, your trip would be +6. At your oracle level of 6, you don't get a second attack, so there is nothing to replace.
Ok, now check out questions #3 and #4 and the bit after that. You're going down the same path I went. Maybe you'll share my agony. Join me. JOIN ME!!!
Given an eighth level Battle Oracle (BAB 6/1) with Maneuver Mastery (Trip), with a full-attack action, he could make two attacks: one at 6 BAB and one at 1 BAB.3) Would the Oracle be able to make two trips, both at 8 BAB?
4) Could you mix attacks and maneuvers like before at 8/1 BAB or 6/8 BAB?
An 8th level Battle oracle (BAB 6/1) with Maneuver Master on a full attack action gets two attack actions to use. When making a action with his maneuver mastery (eg trip), it uses the enhanced value:
MM-Trip/Attack = +8/+1
Attack/MM-Trip = +6/+3
It would not use 6/8 because you have to replace the 2nd attack action value with the same relative value in the higher progression.
It clears things up if you see the progressions as:
value / value / value / value
With the values replaced with "null" if the BAB isn't high enough to get additional attacks.
So, a 6th level Battle Oracle has a progression of:
+4 / null / null / null
An 8th level Battle oracle has a progression of:
+6 / +1 / null / null
Null means "nothing", so, if you have a replacement ability, and there is nothing to replace, it cannot be substituted with any value in the series.
Your confusion stems from the fact that you were looking at them as discrete unrelated values, or as values that were in some way penalized, instead of as a series.
|
Null means "nothing", so, if you have a replacement ability, and there is nothing to replace, it cannot be substituted with any value in the series.
Given an eighth level Battle Oracle (BAB 6/1) with Maneuver Mastery (Trip), with a full-attack action, he could make two attacks: one at 6 BAB and one at 1 BAB.3) Would the Oracle be able to make two trips, both at 8 BAB?
4) Could you mix attacks and maneuvers like before at 8/1 BAB or 6/8 BAB?
I agree with you.
P.S. What software language do you use primarily? :P
King: Any all. Most experience is in C, C++ and Unix Shell (bash, c-shell, ksh, etc, but I've done VB as well). I've also done Oracle DB scheduler jobs (PL/SQL) as well.
Note: Flurry of Blows isn't really applicable as a comparison here, as Maneuver Mastery allows for the replacment of discrete attack actions in a full-round action with enhanced combat maneuvers. Whereas flurry of blows does not allow for the replacement of specific attacks -- it's all or nothing.
|
|
Given an eighth level Battle Oracle (BAB 6/1) with Maneuver Mastery (Trip), with a full-attack action, he could make two attacks: one at 6 BAB and one at 1 BAB.3) Would the Oracle be able to make two trips, both at 8 BAB?
4) Could you mix attacks and maneuvers like before at 8/1 BAB or 6/8 BAB?
An 8th level Battle oracle (BAB 6/1) with Maneuver Master on a full attack action gets two attack actions to use. When making a action with his maneuver mastery (eg trip), it uses the enhanced value:
MM-Trip/Attack = +8/+1
Attack/MM-Trip = +6/+3It would not use 6/8 because you have to replace the 2nd attack action value with the same relative value in the higher progression.
It clears things up if you see the progressions as:
value / value / value / value
With the values replaced with "null" if the BAB isn't high enough to get additional attacks.
So, a 6th level Battle Oracle has a progression of:
+4 / null / null / null
An 8th level Battle oracle has a progression of:
+6 / +1 / null / null
Null means "nothing", so, if you have a replacement ability, and there is nothing to replace, it cannot be substituted with any value in the series.
Your confusion stems from the fact that you were looking at them as discrete unrelated values, or as values that were in some way penalized, instead of as a series.
King: Any all. Most experience is in C, C++ and Unix Shell (bask, ksh, etc, but I've done VB as well).
Now it makes sense why we're able to communicate so well, we're fellow programmers :P (though I mostly do C#...close enough)
Very true, but then again, the book has not described if they are discreet values (which you gain at 6/11/16), a progression (that grows at 6/11/16), a derivation (20, 20-5=15, 20-10=10, etc), or what.
I think a progression makes the most sense with the wording of other feats and abilities, but then I would have to say that the Maneuver Mastery's replacement of BAB would alter the progression, gaining 6/1 to trip at level 6 Oracle.
Noobz,
I would say the same if you use maneuver mastery like flurry of blows. Flurry of blows is a full-attack replacement, whereas maneuver mastery allows for the replacement of discrete attacks within a full attack.
They are not precisely equivalent.
In the books, they are described as a set, really. Each level replaces the prior set with a new one with each element in the set incremented according to the description under "getting started" in the PRD:
Base Attack Bonus (BAB): Each creature has a base attack bonus and it represents its skill in combat. As a character gains levels or Hit Dice, his base attack bonus improves. When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Combat).
It's clearly a derivative of the first. As this is based in a game of Bonuses and Penalties, its clear that it assumes your Second Attack is taken at a -5 penalty from your first because it becomes less accurate as you swing wildly to hit them again in that small 6 second space of time, while moving and dancing around.
If the Second attack was considered its own BAB then I would agree it would be +8/+8, because you use your level in place of your BAB. However this is not the case as it is BAB +6/+1, not BAB +6 / BAB +1...
How do you know the second attack is not its own BAB? You have once again made an assertion that you cannot prove. You keep saying that the first attack is derivative of the first but that is nowhere stated in the rules anywhere. That is the freaking point.
You say that it is not the case that the second attack is its own BAB but you have nothing in the rules to support that claim. You just jump to that conclusion because it happens to be 5 less than the first attack.
As has been pointed out and never even once answered by you it could be that you could just get a second BAB starting at +1 when you get a BAB of +6. You would then have two distinct BABs one of which will always happen to be 5 lower.
You have been presented with another point of view yet your answer is always "This is my point of view and it is correct so yours must be wrong". That is not a valid argument.
|
|
Right. It wouldn't really work if you interpreted the reverse of the following:Noobz,
I would say the same if you use maneuver mastery like flurry of blows. Flurry of blows is a full-attack replacement, whereas maneuver mastery allows for the replacement of discrete attacks within a full attack.
They are not precisely equivalent.
"Any combination of a creature's attacks during a melee full attack can be replaced by a trip, disarm, or sunder maneuver (any maneuver that says "in place of a melee attack"). When doing this, the calculation for the creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus uses the base attack bonus of the attack that was exchanged for a combat maneuver. For example, a creature with a BAB of +6/+1 who performs a trip with her second attack uses +1 as her BAB for the CMB of the trip."
So a level 6 Oracle would have two progressions, a +4 to attack or +6/+1 to trip. It would kind of make sense in a weird way to replace the +6 trip with a +4 attack, but replacing a +1 trip with a non-existent attack throws a null exception. So yeah, doesn't quite match up.
Again, that's if it's a progression as opposed to the others, and also an altered progression and not a substituted one. I think the devs need to shed just a little light on the subject.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The oracle doesn't have two progressions. It simply replaces the relative value in one progression with the value in another progression, so long as a value exists in the first progression.
So, at 6th level, the Battle Oracle has +4/-/-/-. It has only one element it can replace and if he performs the combat manueuver, it is replaced with a +6, whereas without maneuver mastery, it would be a +4.
If the original progression doesn't have a value for it's additional attacks, those null values can't be replaced: null exception.
Flurry of Blows, however, is two progressions. It replaces every attack with a new progression -- you can see this due to the new progression actually allowing more attacks per round than the original.
Maneuver mastery doesn't do this.
Therein lies the difference.
It's clearly a derivative of the first. As this is based in a game of Bonuses and Penalties, its clear that it assumes your Second Attack is taken at a -5 penalty from your first because it becomes less accurate as you swing wildly to hit them again in that small 6 second space of time, while moving and dancing around.
If the Second attack was considered its own BAB then I would agree it would be +8/+8, because you use your level in place of your BAB. However this is not the case as it is BAB +6/+1, not BAB +6 / BAB +1...
If we refer to the charts you keep referring to, it also doesn't say "BAB +6/+1," it has a header of BAB that applies to the column as a whole, so it could mean "BAB +6/BAB +1."
The issue that has not been resolved, which you claim is clear and evident, is whether the iterative attack is a derivative or separate BAB. You can't simply say that it is one thing without evidence.
A secondary attack is not the same as an iterative attack either, so just because it says that specifically in place doesn't mean you can apply it to all similar circumstances.
|
|
The oracle doesn't have two progressions. It simply replaces the relative value in one progression with the value in another progression, so long as a value exists in the first progression.
So, at 6th level, the Battle Oracle has +4/-/-/-. It has only one element it can replace and if he performs the combat manueuver, it is replaced with a +6, whereas without maneuver mastery, it would be a +4.
If the original progression doesn't have a value for it's additional attacks, those null values can't be replaced: null exception.
Flurry of Blows, however, is two progressions. It replaces every attack with a new progression value.
Therein lies the difference.
Normally, you're right, he would not have two progressions. However, I could see it both ways in this instance, since it does say it replaces your BAB, which I would believe could mean it replaces the progression. Yet another clarification that would be helpful. Also, this argument could become worthless depending on the clarification of the BAB ruling.
Normally, you're right, he would not have two progressions. However, I could see it both ways in this instance, since it does say it replaces your BAB, which I would believe could mean it replaces the progression. Yet another clarification that would be helpful. Also, this argument could become worthless depending on the clarification of the BAB ruling.
If you read the ability closely, you'll see that doing a full replacement isn't a viable interpretation:
Maneuver Mastery (Ex): Select one type of combat maneuver. When performing the selected maneuver, you treat your oracle level as your base attack bonus (plus the BAB from other classes) when determining your CMB.
The ability to perform the selected maneuver is predicated on the number of attacks you have with your normal BAB progression -- and only after this test is passed can you do the replacement of the BAB value.
The ability doesn't state that you gain an extra/free attack of any kind, even one of the selected maneuver. So I can't see the full replacement (Flurry of Maneuvers) interpretation as strictly correct -- although I did see this as an option earlier, granted.
and No Flurry of Blows does not do that either. all it does is add an additional attack at your Highest BAB. it does not change the Progression, nor does it replace every attack with a new progression value. when you are able to gain a second BAB attack by having +6/+1 you gain a second lower BAB attack for FoB. Its basically giving you an additional attack at each BAB iterative increment. its not changing anything.
Actually, it's a full on progression replacement, it not only adds an additional attack, all attacks in the Flurry of Blows is calculated with the higher progression (@ -2 per two weapon fighting).
Monk 1st level progression:
Normal: +0 -- uses 3/4 BAB progression
FOB: (1-2)/(1-2) -- uses Full BAB progression
Monk 20th level progression:
Normal: 15 / 10 / 5 / -
FOB: (20-2)/(15-2)/(10-2)/(5-2) x2.
I rewrote the progression for clarification.
Note, you cannot do discrete attack action replacement when it comes to FOB -- it's all or nothing.
Like many things in Pathfinder, they reduced the verbage from 3.5 in order to save space.
Base Attack Bonus: On an attack roll, apply the bonus from the appropriate column on Table 3–1 according to the class to which the character belongs. Whether a character uses the first (good) base attack bonus, the second (average) base attack bonus, or the third (poor) base attack bonus depends on his or her class. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers have a good base attack bonus, so they use the first Base Attack Bonus column. Clerics, druids, monks, and rogues have an average base attack bonus, so they use the second column. Sorcerers and wizards have a poor base attack bonus, so they use the third column. Numbers after a slash indicate additional attacks at reduced bonuses: “+12/+7/+2” means three attacks per round, with an attack bonus of +12 for the first attack, +7 for the second, and +2 for the third. Any modifiers on attack rolls apply to all these attacks normally, but bonuses do not grant extra attacks. For example, when Lidda the halfling rogue is 2nd level, she has a base attack bonus of +1. With a thrown weapon, she adds her Dexterity bonus (+3), her size bonus (+1), and a racial bonus (+1) for a total of +6. Even though a +6 base attack bonus would grant an additional attack at +1, raising that number to +6 via ability, racial, size, weapon, or other bonuses doesn’t grant Lidda an additional attack. If a character has more than one class (see Multiclass Characters, page 59), the base attack bonuses for each class are cumulative.
VS
Base Attack Bonus (BAB): Each creature has a base attack bonus and it represents its skill in combat. As a character gains levels or Hit Dice, his base attack bonus improves. When a creature’s base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Chapter 8).
The bolded section in the 3.5 version clarifies it. Additionally, the verbage used throughout is that of the first value being the BAB while the subsequent values are the attack values (not BAB) of the extra attacks.
What Paizo has done is tried to simplify and shorten the language based on what it thought everyone knew already. Of course this occasionally creates issues when new people come in or when people try to read the rules in the most pedantic or the most literal way possible. They simply weren't written that way.
|
|
Normally, you're right, he would not have two progressions. However, I could see it both ways in this instance, since it does say it replaces your BAB, which I would believe could mean it replaces the progression. Yet another clarification that would be helpful. Also, this argument could become worthless depending on the clarification of the BAB ruling.If you read the ability closely, you'll see that doing a full replacement isn't a viable interpretation:
Maneuver Mastery (Ex): Select one type of combat maneuver. When performing the selected maneuver, you treat your oracle level as your base attack bonus (plus the BAB from other classes) when determining your CMB.The ability to perform the selected maneuver is predicated on the number of attacks you have with your normal BAB progression -- and only after this test is passed can you do the replacement of the BAB value.
The ability doesn't state that you gain an extra/free attack of any kind, even one of the selected maneuver. So I can't see the full replacement (Flurry of Maneuvers) interpretation as strictly correct -- although I did see this as an option earlier, granted.
But wouldn't that at least be a catch 22, because you're saying the number of attacks is based on BAB, but I'm saying the BAB is based on your choice of attack in this case.
To simplify, let's exclude switching up trips/attacks, and just say you either attack or trip for the round. Oracle 6 has BAB 4 when attacking or BAB 6 when tripping.
You say it's:
Trip: 6/--/--/--
Atk: 4/--/--/--
But why wouldn't the BAB, which normally grants an extra attack at +6, grant another trip at +6?
Trip: 6/1/--/--
Atk: 4/--/--/--
The answer is this: it depends on if Maneuver Mastery is replacing the function of BAB (and the production of iterative attacks) or just the value (simply the number in the equation) in this progression. You say value. While I agree with you semantically, syntactically it's unclear.
And this is assuming BAB as a progression. Interpretations only get worse if it's not a progression.
Allow me to demonstrate more ambiguity:
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level.
Each attack apparently has its own base attack bonus. But I agree, the wording is a bit weird there.
When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round at your highest bonus.
That seems to imply multiple base attack bonuses. One being your "highest", and therefore some being lower.
Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation.
I could find more, but you get my point. These imply not just extra attacks, but that they are individual base attack bonuses (although perhaps at a reduced value, thank you, Gauss).
Btw, Gauss, that's awesome and all, but that's not Pathfinder. I know, I know...it really is, but it's not lol. I played 3.5 for years before Pathfinder as well, but it's a poor decision to cut out such a key ruling that "everyone knows" except for every new person to the game. That's not a forward-minded strategy. Furthermore, they pulled some things over that don't make sense in Pathfinder's context anymore. Should we leave those in and hope that newbies will understand to ignore them just like they're supposed to magically know the parts that were lost?
We have a rule book for a reason. I can do whatever I want at my table. If you don't like it tough! I don't need this clarification for my game. I want the clarification just to solidify the common rule system to help the game and the people who play it (especially the ones who grasp the rules more tightly than others).
I find your argument shallow and pedantic.
Noobz, the rules are pretty clear on this. The attacks are at the reduced value, not the BAB. Even Pathfinder's rule (that I quoted) states this. I think this is a case of you trying to overthink it. The Devs simply don't write things that way.
Silly question, where in the rules does it explain how to calculate iterative attacks for multiclass characters?
Since I assume we all agree that a level 2 fighter, level 2 ranger, and level 2 paladin gets to have +6/+1, right?
|
It doesn't state it completely. It just tells you to add your BAB from your various classes, as directed by the ninja above, and you need to know that you get a second attack when your BAB reaches +6. It should say something like this though.
Base Attack Bonus
Source: d20srd.org
A base attack bonus is an attack roll bonus derived from character class and level or creature type and Hit Dice (or combination's thereof). Base attack bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes and creature types. A second attack is gained when a base attack bonus reaches +6, a third with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher, and a fourth with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher. Base attack bonuses gained from different sources, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.
That little snippet is so fundamental they included it in the "getting started" section right at the front of the CRB. There is no need to duplicate it in the multiclass section.
But wouldn't that at least be a catch 22, because you're saying the number of attacks is based on BAB, but I'm saying the BAB is based on your choice of attack in this case.
Not if you apply order of operations as being determining number of attacks first and then the value second and it's bonuses second.
To simplify, let's exclude switching up trips/attacks, and just say you either attack or trip for the round. Oracle 6 has BAB 4 when attacking or BAB 6 when tripping.You say it's:
Trip: 6/--/--/--
Atk: 4/--/--/--But why wouldn't the BAB, which normally grants an extra attack at +6, grant another trip at +6?
Trip: 6/1/--/--
Atk: 4/--/--/--The answer is this: it depends on if Maneuver Mastery is replacing the function of BAB (and the production of iterative attacks) or just the value (simply the number in the equation) in this progression. You say value. While I agree with you semantically,...
Again, order of operations, your number of attacks doing anything is determined by your normal BAB, which determines the number of elements you get to replace. Only when you trip is your BAB differnet. So, by that logic, you could only get multiple attacks if you tripped for every attack. There is nothing in the text of ability that hints at gaining an additional attack action that must be a trip. If this was the intent, I would think that the text would say something to that effect.
I think you are attempting to stretch the ability beyond the parameters of it's text. Reading it with Occam's razor in mind, you can simply replace your lower BAB with a higher BAB value when you make a trip attack action, which replaces one or more of your normal iteratives.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, based on the "understanding" that there's no rule that reduces BAB by 5 on iterative attacks, only static numbers listed in the class tables, the prestige classes listed in the CRB do not allow for additional attacks as BAB increases. See, none of them list iteratives, only a static bonus. So, if you're a 6th level fighter and enter the duelist prestige class, at Fighter 6/Duelist 5, your total attacks are +11/+6. You'll max out at +16/+11 when you reach Fighter 6/Duelist 10. As a 20th level character, your total attack bonus will be +20/+15, and you can only gain additional attacks through two-weapon fighting or somehow adding a natural attack. Sorry. There's NO WRITTEN RULE that outlines how BAB and iterative attacks work, so you can only use the LISTED static number for your attack bonus (or add it to your current attack bonus).
Of course, the introductory section of the CRB tells us:
Base Attack Bonus: ...When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action - see Chapter 8).
So we go to Chapter 8 where we find:
Full Attack: If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Chapter 3),...
Then we head to Chapter 3 and look for "Base Attack Bonus"...and we can't find it listed. Check the Index...nothing. So, where is this rule in Chapter 3. Oh, I found it. It's in the class tables for each class, where it's listed as a static number. Meaning THAT is the written rule. BAB progresses through a specific sequence in which each iterative is 5 lower than the previous. If someone wants to willfully misread this rule to say that by replacing a non-full BAB class's BAB with level, then you simply substitute their level for the listed BAB. In the Oracle's case as provided, the BAB would go from +6/+1 to +8 ONLY. Because the listed BAB is +6/+1, not BAB +6 and BAB +1. In this example, +6/+1 becomes +8 period; there is no iterative because the iterative is listed as a specific value rather than a separate BAB (+6/+1).
Talk about a non-issue...
CWheezy,
Good job on taking me out of context. Perhaps you should re-read the post and NOT take me out of context this time. Hint: if you are boiling my post down to one word, you are taking it out of context. :)
It's sad that this is an issue.
I don't say that because this should have been so obvious as to why it was (because that's how it was done in the past). I say that because this rule is something that should be published. It should have been in the books since Day 1. ESPECIALLY if it's something that we expect our players to follow.
There needs to be an errata for this. The factor that there are rules clarifying this for alternate options (Natural Weapons) and not the base rule, shows there is a problem. It doesn't matter if the RAI is obvious, this is no different than the Hands V.S. "Hands" argument, and affects something much more fundamental, especially when by the rules, I don't suffer Iterative penalties to attacks.
I don't know why this wasn't even mentioned in the finalized product. Maybe because Paizo overlooked it? Probable, but I don't think they'd be that careless.
Maybe Paizo expected everyone to know how it works when they picked up the system of books? In which case, why even make a Base Attack Bonus entry if it's really that self-explanatory?
Maybe the Wizards of the Coast was all like "We copyrighted so and so phrases, and we'll sue you if you don't take our written examples out of our books"? In which case, I question why it would be apparently so difficult to come up with another example that conveyed the same intent (or perhaps a better-refined one).
One thing is for sure...