Situation: level 20 monk uses flurry, and wants to swap the last attack for trip attempt.
Claim A: +3, as it the last attack of the +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3 flurry.
Claim B: because BAB is "+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3" and Maneuver Training REPLACES BAB for CMB with Monk level, any Maneuver made during a flurry is at 20, for "+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+20(trip)"
I know back in 3.5 there was a line that specifically said multiple attacks were made at a penalty (so BAB never was 6/1, it was 6, and allowed a second attack at -5 penalty) but I cannot find a similar line in the Pathfinder books.
I realize this is a ruleslawyer question, but I have a player who rather passionately feels that RAW states Claim B is true. If anyone can find a similar line to the DND one, or point to anything more solid than "your interpretation makes no sense when viewed against the rest of the printed matter" I would appreciate it. I have tried to convince the player that because flurry also changes BAB to Monk Level, it is included, his argument then hinges on "raise to" being different from "use monk level in place of BAB when calculating CMB." The TWF feat chain argument also did not work, as he claims a "trip" is a different weapon from a "flurry attack."
If his claim, claim B is correct, would someone point out how please? I simply don't see it, and I figure that would be all over the CharOp boards.
Edit: missed a word. "be" in last sentence.
Flurry of Blows (Ex) wrote: Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.
Flurry of blows is stated to work similarly to two-weapon fighting, and later as improved and greater two-weapon fighting. To answer your question, just look at the two-weapon fighting rules and two-weapon fighting feat text.
Two-Weapon Fighting wrote: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting wrote: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
So we can see that each attack given in the flurry of blows (at level 20) table is actually, after some math
20-2/20-2/20-5-2/20-5-2/20-10-2/20-10-2/20-15 = 18/18/13/13/8/8/3
due to the combination of two-weapon fighting and iterative attack penalties. Note the lack of a fourth off-hand attack due to no super-duper two-weapon fighting feat.
Maneuver Training wrote: At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally.
Finally, let's take a look at what a combat maneuver roll really consists of.
Performing a Combat Maneuver wrote: Performing a Combat Maneuver
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. 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. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
So we can see that whatever affects an attack roll would also affects a Combat Maneuver roll, so when you substitute your final roll (AKA your 4th iterative attack) for a trip attempt, the roll is actually 20 Base attack bonus - 2 two-weapon fighting penalties - 15 for being your 4th iterative attack = +3. If you're wondering where the rules for penalties on your iteratives are, they come from the full attack rules and ultimately the tables of Base attack Bonuses from the classes.
The lesson is that the trip, disarm, and sunder combat maneuvers, being made with weapons and in place of melee attacks, have nearly all the same modifiers and properties as regular attack rolls, with a few notable exceptions (size modifiers & CMB only modifiers such as the ones from the Improved and Greater Trip/Disarm/Whatever feats). If you want about a 20 higher CMB roll, make use of true strike, because it does apply on trip attempts.
Oh, and be careful when you try to trip on your last iterative-- the consequences could be unfortunate.
Trip wrote: If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead.
If you do a CMB instead of an attack, you would apply the -2 from TWF and the iterative penalties for the attack in question.
James Risner wrote: If you do a CMB instead of an attack, you would apply the -2 from TWF and the iterative penalties for the attack in question. We all know these iterative penalties are there, but I cannot find where in the core book it specifically mentions them. All we have to indicate them that I can find is the phrasing of BAB in the class tables, +20/+15/+10/+5 and similar. IF anyone can find this specific line, then it all falls nicely into place. Without that, we are left in the realm of RAI, as we interpret the +x/+x-5 to be a -5 penalty when applied to Full Attack Option
Action Economist already quoted the relevant rule section.
CRB wrote: When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. Iterative penalties would fall under "other effects". Pretty straightforward.
CampinCarl9127 wrote: Action Economist already quoted the relevant
Iterative penalties would fall under "other effects". Pretty straightforward.
Really? This one:
earanhart wrote: We all know these iterative penalties are there, but I cannot find where in the core book it specifically mentions them. All we have to indicate them that I can find is the phrasing of BAB in the class tables, +20/+15/+10/+5 and similar. IF anyone can find this specific line, then it all falls nicely into place. Without that, we are left in the realm of RAI, as we interpret the +x/+x-5 to be a -5 penalty when applied to Full Attack Option Where are these penalties written? I cannot find them in the Core Rulebook, the PFSRD, nor the PRD. They do not appear to be listed in
CRB wrote: When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. The question becomes: Is BAB a series of bonuses, or can someone find the single line of rules that lists the iterative penalties for iterative attacks that we all operate by?
EDIT: As this is now a deeper question, with honestly larger effects, I'm going to move the iterative penalty question into a new thread. BAB is poorly described throughout the Core Book as a whole. I think the use of the concept may be truly RAI, unless we use RAW from DND.
Are we really going to try to argue that iterative bonuses don't apply?
What you seem to miss is the rules don't have actual language for all things. Consider them unwritten rules if you must, but there are a ton of things that are not clearly spelled out but are rules non the less.
Aside from that, is there another question regarding this?
In order to conserve space in the rulebooks, they wrote them with the presumption that players will have an intellectual capacity higher than that of horseradish and things wouldn't need to be spelled out in painfully exacting detail. The class charts list your BAB progression and it consistently follows the pattern that you gain an additional iterative attack once the last attack in your chain reaches +6 and that each iterative is 5 less than the previous. If you're having problems even handling such a simple rule, I hate to say it, but Pathfinder probably isn't an appropriate game for you. Maybe set your sights on something simpler?
Kazaan wrote: In order to conserve space in the rulebooks, they wrote them with the presumption that players will have an intellectual capacity higher than that of horseradish and things wouldn't need to be spelled out in painfully exacting detail. The class charts list your BAB progression and it consistently follows the pattern that you gain an additional iterative attack once the last attack in your chain reaches +6 and that each iterative is 5 less than the previous. If you're having problems even handling such a simple rule, I hate to say it, but Pathfinder probably isn't an appropriate game for you. Maybe set your sights on something simpler? but is that a penalty, or is that simply a second (or third or fourth) BAB? they eliminated the line that spelled out it was a penalty in Pathfinder. So when he switches to using CMB hes replacing the low BAB because of Maneuver Training.
In all honesty, his arguement's hogwash in my eyes. under his argument he could swap low BAB attacks for HIGH BAB combat maneuvers and that's clearly not intended. Id say the third attack would use the third BAB in sequence whether he switched BAB sequences (flurry to CMB) or not. so in reality he has:
Fluury BAB: +20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5 and
CMB BAB : +20/+15/+10/+5 (only distinct because different abilities are boosting BAB)
so when he reaches that fourth main hand attack, and his player switches to cmb, he grabs the fourth itteratrive attack from his CMB BAB, which is plus five, then applies the -2 from flurry and gets +3. Even if there's not an explicit BAB Penalty he doesnt get to make that first cmb attack at his highest BAB, unless the attack its riding on is supposed to use the highest BAB.
Kazaan wrote: In order to conserve space in the rulebooks, they wrote them with the presumption that players will have an intellectual capacity higher than that of horseradish and things wouldn't need to be spelled out in painfully exacting detail. The class charts list your BAB progression and it consistently follows the pattern that you gain an additional iterative attack once the last attack in your chain reaches +6 and that each iterative is 5 less than the previous. If you're having problems even handling such a simple rule, I hate to say it, but Pathfinder probably isn't an appropriate game for you. Maybe set your sights on something simpler? Harsh but true.
got an analogy, and it requires an abstraction. say i had an effect that gave me my level for longsword attacks. but im Wielding a longsword and shortsword, but im not TWF. Here is the key scenario:
Normal BAB: 16/11/6/1 Level: 20. if I swung short/short/short/long what would my final attack have for BAB? 3 or 20? 3 right? so why does your player think that they get highest BAB, not dimished BAB? if we say i got a highest bab attack (20), that would imply by the definition of BAB from page 11 in the CRB, that i have iterative attacks to use, but I dont have them do I?
Also, remember rule 0. this is clearly a munchkin argument designed to get an edge. If your willing to accept the consequences, you can allow it. Or if youd prefer a more reasoned approach, disallow it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
earanhart wrote:
The question becomes: Is BAB a series of bonuses, or can someone find the single line of rules that lists the iterative penalties for iterative attacks that we all operate by?
There are no iterative penalties. You get a BAB as listed in your class table(s). If you have a BAB of +6, you have earned the option to make a second attack at +1 if you perform a full attack.
If there was an iterative penalty, which it's not, you could make as many attacks as you wanted to try at BAB +0. "I'm going to Full Attack for three attacks! +0, -5, and -10!"
Furthermore, the rules tell us you need to use those bonuses in sequence from highest to lowest.
When your monk replaces his last attack in a flurry with a maneuver, he is replacing the BAB at the lowest it would be after adjustments (so +5, not +20).
There is only one BAB mentioned in the CRB. Not several (Base Attack Bonus, not Bonuses)
Point him back to the Flurry of Blows feature of the base Monk class. If he agrees that Flurry of Blows does not grant +18/+18/+18/+18/+18/+18 with it's wording (the table provides clarification), then he must agree that Flurry of Maneuvers, with the same wording, does not do that either.
Kazaan wrote: In order to conserve space in the rulebooks, they wrote them with the presumption that players will have an intellectual capacity higher than that of horseradish and things wouldn't need to be spelled out in painfully exacting detail. The class charts list your BAB progression and it consistently follows the pattern that you gain an additional iterative attack once the last attack in your chain reaches +6 and that each iterative is 5 less than the previous. If you're having problems even handling such a simple rule, I hate to say it, but Pathfinder probably isn't an appropriate game for you. Maybe set your sights on something simpler? There are points of information we can expect players to come with, IE the "unwritten rules." These are things like basic math (how multiplication and addition and subtraction work) and humans having two arms and two legs.
Then there points that we cannot expect them to know. If a group of 5 college friends who had NEVER played ANY tabletop game before picked up the rulebooks, how do they learn how to read the BAB tables? Other examples of debate have arisen through the ages, I remember long debates on the WotC forums concerning how far a human can see in low-light, given that low-light vision states "you can see twice as far in low-light." Reading BAB is actually more important, and has less guidance.
Consider the aforementioned complete new player party and new DM. Every level a player adds whatever his class table says to his character. He sees that at level 2 his fighter gains +2 BAB, +3 Fort, +0 Ref +0 Will, a bonus feat, and bravery +1. Because we expect him to know math, he sees the addition sign, and adds the +2 BAB from level 2 to the +1 BAB from level 1 to the +0 that always exists in every equation and comes out with a BAB of 3 at level 2. He does the same with his saves for the same reason and arrives at a Fort save of 5 total. Now, because this is level 2 and noone at the table has any experience with similar systems, they don't know this is wrong, and it doesn't seem to be breaking the game. I estimate it would be level 5-7 before these compounding errors become large enough to cause someone to question their saves or BAB. When the fighter does get to level 6 and gains his +6/+1 BAB, he thinks he has always been gaining +x/+0/+0/+0, since that makes sense. He now calculates with the wrongly assumed calculation and winds up with BABs of 21/1 (0+1+2+3+4+5+6/+1). The other interpretation would be that he now divides his BAB by the second number. This just seems stupid to him, so is clearly wrong, but now the question has been asked. The table would obviously turn to the book to figure it out. Starting at page 11, they see that "+6, +11, and +16" are example values of BAB, but nothing more. Now, in their wrongly calculated examples they have seen BAB of 21, but that is not far from "+16", especially if you consider is is including the "+6". They then turn to the Full Attack referenced in BAB on pg. 11. On pg. 187 they get "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough (the +6, +11, and +16 values from pg.11), you must make the attacks in order from highest to lowest." and "if you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in chapter 3)". Cool, they head to chapter 3, which only gives them the tables. This doesn't really answer any of their questions, nor does it say they are wrong in compounding their BABs, since the fighters class features are compounded (bonus feat after bonus feat after bonus feat) or specifically detailed in the class description. Nor are spell tables comparable, because at a given level you have exactly the spell slots listed for that level on the table, and these are listed as #/#/#/# whereas saves and BAB are listed as +#/+#.
Tell me, since you expect a player to arrive with intelligence, at what point did this fictitious table of new players behave stupidly? How many times have any of you had to explain how BAB works to a new player? Yes, they came to a conclusion that was wrong, but they did so in a manner that follows the rules of math and makes sense. The only reason to doubt these numbers are that quickly the party will have unbeatable saves and BABs clearly higher than those the DM is finding in the Bestiary. Note however, the DM hasn't played before either, so it is going to take him a while to notice this dis-balance. Again, I estimate it would take about level 6 for this difference to become egregious enough for it to be clearly wrong. Before that the DM is expected to start asking some questions of "somethings up here" but I would not expect him to figure out what unless he is using monsters with classes.
Blake's Tiger wrote: earanhart wrote:
The question becomes: Is BAB a series of bonuses, or can someone find the single line of rules that lists the iterative penalties for iterative attacks that we all operate by?
There are no iterative penalties. You get a BAB as listed in your class table(s). If you have a BAB of +6, you have earned the option to make a second attack at +1 if you perform a full attack.
If there was an iterative penalty, which it's not, you could make as many attacks as you wanted to try at BAB +0. "I'm going to Full Attack for three attacks! +0, -5, and -10!"
Furthermore, the rules tell us you need to use those bonuses in sequence from highest to lowest.
When your monk replaces his last attack in a flurry with a maneuver, he is replacing the BAB at the lowest it would be after adjustments (so +5, not +20). And here we have an example of how it is important. We have had a number of senior members reference these iterative penalties, and another claims they do not exist. This also fails to address exactly how the difference between "BAB is equal to Monk level" and "use your Monk level instead of your BAB" interact here. If he is replacing that last attacks BAB with his Monk level, it would bounce back up to 20, as it is replacement. If a later penalty exists, then it would still modify the replaced value (which is how we wind up with +3, vice +5 anyways, through TWF penalties)
burkoJames wrote: got an analogy, and it requires an abstraction. say i had an effect that gave me my level for longsword attacks. but im Wielding a longsword and shortsword, but im not TWF. Here is the key scenario:
Normal BAB: 16/11/6/1 Level: 20. if I swung short/short/short/long what would my final attack have for BAB? 3 or 20? 3 right? so why does your player think that they get highest BAB, not dimished BAB? if we say i got a highest bab attack (20), that would imply by the definition of BAB from page 11 in the CRB, that i have iterative attacks to use, but I dont have them do I?
Also, remember rule 0. this is clearly a munchkin argument designed to get an edge. If your willing to accept the consequences, you can allow it. Or if youd prefer a more reasoned approach, disallow it.
I am familiar with rule 0, and it's corollary rule -1. If need be, I will utilize rule 0 to support my end result here, which is what we are all arguing for. The reason I hesitate to do this is that I would far prefer the ability to say "this is why the numbers do not work the way you think" with something better than "because I said so." If I DM fiat this, I create a decent possibility that another DM later will need to handle this argument again, or that the player himself becomes a DM and uses this mis-interpretation against his players later.
I'd never say your fictitious table acted stupidly. But they made a clear mistake.
Quote: 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). If they're learning the game with no outside assistance and no prior experience, it's incumbent upon them to read through all the rules. There is no basis for thinking that the bonus you get at each level is cumulative. It is, of course, not explicitly written. Most things aren't. This isn't programming language, but conversational language. Either a fighter reaches +6 BAB at 3rd level, using your cumulative method, or they reach +6 BAB at 6th level, because the BAB is listed on the chart where we're told to look. Coincidentally, that same line also lists a second attack, which is what we should expect to happen, since we're told you get a second attack at that level. So again, your group didn't act stupidly, but they did fail to pay attention to detail (and detail that is relatively apparent). If we're talking about a group of 10 year olds, cut them some slack. If we're talking about college educated individuals (as you've suggested), I would expect them to be able to read rules with the sophistication necessary to draw this conclusion.
The ultimate issue in the case at bar is that the rules are being read divorced of any context. Even if the rules can be read in such a manner to allow a thing doesn't mean that thing should be allowed. There has to be room for common sense interpretation. The last attack you make in a long line of attacks is not going to be immeasurably better than it otherwise would have simply because you substitute a different method of attack. Going to +20 from +3 because you trip instead of stab is baseless.
The argument presented is essentially, "The rules are not written as clearly as they could be. This means some interpretations seem credible on their face, even if we know the rules are supposed to work that way." The honest response is, "Yes, that's true. The rules aren't written as clearly as we would always like them to be." In those instances, you have to exercise your ability to read within context and understand that if there is a choice between two interpretations based solely on language on the page with one leading to a fairly expected result and one leading to a seemingly overpowered or incongruous result, you should go with the former."
The response isn't resolving based on Rule 0; the response is resolving based on an appeal to common sense and critical, comprehensive reading. In essence, when you read the rules together (not the Maneuver rule in isolation, but looking at the ruleset as a whole), does it honestly seem like a fair reading to do what is being argued? Many (though not all) of these "The RAW literally says this!" arguments can be fairly seamlessly resolved when one realizes that "The RAW literally says this!" only in isolation, when you divorce that particular statement from the context provided by the rest of the rules.
fretgod99 wrote: In essence, when you read the rules together (not the Maneuver rule in isolation, but looking at the ruleset as a whole), does it honestly seem like a fair reading to do what is being argued? Many (though not all) of these "The RAW literally says this!" arguments can be fairly seamlessly resolved when one realizes that "The RAW literally says this!" only in isolation, when you divorce that particular statement from the context provided by the rest of the rules. This may be the approach that convinces him of the error in his logic. Thank you.
My end goal here is not even tied to this issue, but rather to teach this rules-lawyer how to read these issues so I don't have the same argument again in a month. It happens that this time we hit an actual missing part of the rules (though one with a very old, very basic, very common interpretation), rather than merely inconsistency or unanticipated combinations.
I don't have your patience with this type of rules-lawyering. I'd have quickly told him no, and consider the matter closed.
James Risner wrote: I don't have your patience with this type of rules-lawyering. I'd have quickly told him no, and consider the matter closed. If it were me, I would say that you cannot do a combat maneuver during a flurry of blows using the BAB provided by flurry of maneuvers due to them being different full attack actions.
Choose one, they cannot be combined.
Or we could dispense with the shennanigans and do it correctly.
Quintain wrote: James Risner wrote: I don't have your patience with this type of rules-lawyering. I'd have quickly told him no, and consider the matter closed. If it were me, I would say that you cannot do a combat maneuver during a flurry of blows using the BAB provided by flurry of maneuvers due to them being different full attack actions.
Choose one, they cannot be combined.
Or we could dispense with the shennanigans and do it correctly. Um, that's not what's being discussed. Flurry of Maneuvers isn't even on the table. This is an issue between Flurry of Blows and Maneuver Training; both vanilla Monk abilities.
PRD wrote: Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so, he may make on additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to use this ability). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.
-------
Maneuver Training (Ex): At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally.
The contention is that a player thought that using Maneuver Training to replace normal 3/4 Monk BAB with Monk level meant that, for the last attack of a FoB, they could replace the reduced BAB with their full Monk level. In other words, a lvl 11 Monk's last flurry attack is normally at +1 (11 - 10) BAB and the player thought you replace that +1 with a full +11 (the Monk's level) if you use a combat maneuver.
But the thing is, it's really a moot point. Flurry of Blows already uses the same language; "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus." By the player's reasoning, all the attacks in FoB should be made at full, unreduced BAB; 5 attacks at lvl 11 would all be made at +11 BAB rather than 11/11/6/6/1. It's effectively the same language in both cases. Given that this clearly isn't the case, it only makes sense that it also wouldn't be the same for Maneuver Training.
Now i know that this is 3 years later but somehow even trough the debate, it is still unclear to me what exactly happens to maneuver bonus during a flurry of blow, it is certain that it is not claimB because you suffer from the -2 on all roll from flurry and -5 -10 from the hit granted by improved and greater 2 weapons fighting. There is absolutely no reason to bybass those penalty with maneuver training. Therefore, another valid point arise, does the attack *Granted* by the BAB reaching 6 at +1 are calculated Monk level -2, or monk level -2 -5.
I came up with 2 argument myself one against and one for each of them and i would like to know what you believe RAW intended.
1 : flurry of blows state: “For the purpose of these attacks, the monk’s *base attack bonus is equal* to his monk level.” Which implies that everything is already calculated for you and use Flurry you should simply calculate the flurry bonus as BAB. Note that i put some emphasis on some important wording for the next argument.
2: maneuver training states At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level *in place* of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally. The wording specifie that we no longer use Base attack bonus and it is replaced by monk level. If you refer to the base attack bonus rules, it does not say you are granted an attack at -5 of your total BAB but grants you a new attack at +1, which is then replaced by monk level, but still have to -2 from flurry.
Base attack Bonus ruling:
"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."
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
