earanhart |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, we all operate by the concept that attacks after the first in a FAO are at cumulative -5 penalties to hit, and that these penalties are how the class tables come up with +20/+15/+10/+5.
Where are these listed? Else, where are the rules that tell how to read a BAB of +8/+3.
I am requesting either a link to the PRD or the PFSRD or a page number in the Core Rulebook.
I agree that any experienced player knows how to use these and will do so the same way, but have we all fallen into a single accepted RAI? What is the actual rule that tells us how to use the BAB table, especially with regard to multiple attacks during a full attack option. The best I can find is
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
which does not truly answer anything for this question.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
burkoJames |
So, we all operate by the concept that attacks after the first in a FAO are at cumulative -5 penalties to hit, and that these penalties are how the class tables come up with +20/+15/+10/+5.
Where are these listed? Else, where are the rules that tell how to read a BAB of +8/+3.
I am requesting either a link to the PRD or the PFSRD or a page number in the Core Rulebook.
I agree that any experienced player knows how to use these and will do so the same way, but have we all fallen into a single accepted RAI? What is the actual rule that tells us how to use the BAB table, especially with regard to multiple attacks during a full attack option. The best I can find is
Full Attack wrote:"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."which does not truly answer anything for this question.
I would suggest that the first lined in full attack is slightly more instructive. it tells you a high BAB can grant extra attacks, and refers you to Base Attack Bonus in the Classes chapter, a section that does not exist. however, that line is not present in 3.5 books, its new. the only bit on BAB in the classes section is the tables, and they clearly show that with a high enough BAB, you have more than one BAB. the combat section clearly tells you that a BAB is added to attacks, so you must have multiple attacks.
edit - and the BAB glossary section tells you you get more attacks right when those new BABs show up
Steve Geddes |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ive discovered his motivation - Flurry of Blows discussion linked he wants to argue that there are no penalties so he can cheese a +20 bab combat manuver for a +3 bab flurry attack.
Linked.
I think he's actually the DM trying to argue against the +20 interpretation.
burkoJames |
yeah i got that with the second read of that thread. I guess im too used to the player getting denied in one thread and jumping to another to get the OP generic ruling. I cant understand why a GM would start a second thread with the intent of bypassing the specifics of the situation.
BTW, I posted a analogy in the other thread
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
If he is a GM he need not have to prove his point. He just has to say 'Take your cheese elsewhere, that's not how the rule work and you know it. RAI wrong my behind'
If he is GM, I'd recommend this phrase "Your right, but for my game it works this way" and he can solve the problem well. If the player doesn't like being denied his cheese, he is still welcome to find more Gouda GM's else where.
Steve Geddes |
I can understand it - we follow a consensus based approach when it comes to rules interpretations. Because we rotate DMs but don't want the rules to keep shifting, what we decide in one game holds true in others.
We have a guy who thinks RAW means something (in fact, he thinks it means everything) so I can imagine coming here in a similar circumstance - the quickest way to persuade him of something is to cite a specific page number.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is good for a GM to show he has actually read the rules ;-)
I'm not sure that's required. Often times two people will read the same rules and come to different interpretations. Unfortunately sometimes people says "read the rules" they really mean to add "read the rules like I do".
earanhart |
I can understand it - we follow a consensus based approach when it comes to rules interpretations. Because we rotate DMs but don't want the rules to keep shifting, what we decide in one game holds true in others.
We have a guy who thinks RAW means something (in fact, he thinks it means everything) so I can imagine coming here in a similar circumstance - the quickest way to persuade him of something is to cite a specific page number.
This is the core of the issue. Both myself and my player (the other side of the argument) are very tied to using RAW unless absolutely impossible (which it never should be). It is only abuses of RAW combination that span books ("the writers never considered things working that way together, but clearly this can't be right.") that I have needed to DM fiat. In this case, though, it is the core book, and a specific page, that is causing issue. Clearly, the two rules in question (Maneuver Training and Flurry of Blows) are intended to interact. This posts question did grow from of the other, but I do feel it separate enough to merit its own post.
In truth, I consider the fact that we can even have a disagreement on how to read BAB, or more specifically how multiple attacks from high BAB values works by RAW, a glaring hole in the rules. This is not "humans only have two arms." I wouldn't expect a new player to know how BAB works until they read the instructions in the CRB, which we can't find. That means that a very basic part of the game ("How do I swing my sword?") cannot be answered by RAW.
This I feel is a severe enough issue to merit a new printing of the CRB and a revision to the PRD, unless someone can actually find the single line of text we need to answer this.
CalethosVB |
If the player is a Monk like it has been stated, he uses the base attack bonus mentioned on the table under Flurry of Blows for each attack. He then adds standard modifiers (size bonus, feats that add to attack rolls, etc). It is not listed as part of his class features what his base attack bonus for a Flurry of Blows is, so you must then refer to the table.
earanhart |
It is not listed as part of his class features what his base attack bonus for a Flurry of Blows is, so you must then refer to the table.It actually does. The problem here is that in this case it does so twice, with differing phrasing. Once, under Flurry of Blows
"For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk leveland again under Maneuver Training
"a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus."
By strict RAW, a monk performing a maneuver during FoB does replace his BAB with his monk level twice, the second one (MT) overwriting the first replacement(FoB). The issue becomes: if BAB is a series, or flat number with changes to iterative attacks, then the second replacement from Maneuver Training would override the first from FoB, resulting in resetting back to 20-TWF penalties. (Flurry specifically gives 3 extra attacks, so you do not have multiple iterations of iterative attacks.) On the other hand, if an invisible penalty applies to iterative attacks, then these would apply after any replacements same as the TWF penalties, and wind up with the same number, 20-TWF penalties-iterative penalties.
As I have stated before, all of us here know how this SHOULD be read at the end (the final attack, regardless of what it is, is at a +3 bonus, not +18 if a maneuver). The question is WHY do we all interpret it this way. I cannot find anything in RAW to give guidance here (and because no one else has posted it, I assume they cannot either) so until that happens we are in RAI.
earanhart |
I don't think RAW just means English sentences though. Whatever interpretation you think it might be (other than what it obviously actually is) has to be consistent with and explain all the occurrences of +8/+3 and similar.What does he suggest the second number means if not the obvious?
My player is arguing that those are two separate Base Attack Bonuses. First attack gets +8, second attack BAB is +3. His interpretation does fit your requirement that it explain all occurrences of +x/+x-5/+x-10/+x-15. It does not explain why things are set at fives, but that is unnecessary as you would never need to figure it out. Because each attack is at a different bonus, each bonus is a separate variable to be modified separately, which explains why Imp. TWF and Gtr. TWF put higher -5 and -10 penalties to the second and third attacks with the off hand, as it modifies the first BAB, which is all that ever gets referenced. Here, the feat would become the source of the penalty, rather than in the more common interpretation merely referencing the penalties that exist for all iterative attacks.
fretgod99 |
By strict RAW, a monk performing a maneuver during FoB does replace his BAB with his monk level twice, the second one (MT) overwriting the first replacement(FoB). The issue becomes: if BAB is a series, or flat number with changes to iterative attacks, then the second replacement from Maneuver Training would override the first from FoB, resulting in resetting back to 20-TWF penalties. (Flurry specifically gives 3 extra attacks, so you do not have multiple iterations of iterative attacks.) On the other hand, if an invisible penalty applies to iterative attacks, then these would apply after any replacements same as the TWF penalties, and wind up with the same number, 20-TWF penalties-iterative penalties.
I fail to see how the Maneuver Training language would lead to a different result than the standard Monk language.
Combat Maneuver Bonus: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
CMB is calculated based off of BAB. If a non-Monk makes four Disarms in a row, the relevant CMB for each attack is different (specifically by a cumulative -5 each time). What in the Maneuver Training language implies that this Monk works differently with respect to the interaction between BAB and CMB?
earanhart |
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifierCMB is calculated based off of BAB. If a non-Monk makes four Disarms in a row, the relevant CMB for each attack is different (specifically by a cumulative -5 each time). What in the Maneuver Training language implies that this Monk works differently with respect to the interaction between BAB and CMB?
His argument is that each time you go to reference it, the replacement happens again, so for attack one you get CMB=15(BAB)20(monk level) +Str +size, then for attack 2 you get CMB=10(BAB)20(monk level +Str +size, and so on. Because Monk Level is not "20/15/10/5" and is simply "20". I, and it seems most of the forum, operate on a concept that BAB is always the same, but an outside penalty of -5 for each iterative attack applies afterwards. The difference is whether BAB is "+20/+15/+10/+5" or merely "+20" with three extra attacks that come with penalties.
Yes, it is a ridiculous semantics argument, and I believe your statement on the other thread will satisfy him, but that is the core of it.
Quintain |
His argument is flawed in that combat maneuvers are attacks (just attacks with special consequences instead of just regular damage) and follow the exact same basis for resolution insofar as base attack bonus is concerned.
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.
If you look at flurry of blows and flurry of maneuvers in context, it simply uses longer wording to state that a monk may use combat maneuvers instead of normal attacks when performing a flurry of blows full attack action. The resolution sequence is exactly the same, because they start with the same initial base attack bonus value.
If they did not have the same starting base attack bonus, then combat manuevers would not be able to replace standard attacks in a flurry of blows full attack.
Those combat manuevers that require a "specific action" (see quote above) cannot be used with a flurry of blows or flurry of maneuvers due to being restricted to a specific action type (move/standard/swift, etc).
The Raven Black |
For added fun, the monk's player should argue that since it is his first time of using Maneuvers, his BAB starts at Monk level :-))
He might even argue that after taking his iterative attacks except the last that he replaces with a maneuver at full Monk level, he can take further iterative maneuvers ;-)
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
I feel is a severe enough issue to merit a new printing of the CRB and a revision to the PRD, unless someone can actually find the single line of text we need to answer this.
PDT will not agree with you.
PDT will not address this.Few on the forums will bother to rationally discuss this as a genuine issue.
I'd recommend interpreting the rules to match and move on to other issues.
If strongly advise asking the player to be reasonable or not be at your table.
burkoJames |
The Raven Black wrote:He might even argue that after taking his iterative attacks except the last that he replaces with a maneuver at full Monk level, he can take further iterative maneuversManaged to dodge that one by stating that FoB is a specific full round action that provides 7 attacks, which may be interlaced freely as attacks or most maneuvers.
Now youve cut out haste.
Chris Lambertz Community & Digital Content Director |
burkoJames |
earanhart wrote:Now youve cut out haste.The Raven Black wrote:He might even argue that after taking his iterative attacks except the last that he replaces with a maneuver at full Monk level, he can take further iterative maneuversManaged to dodge that one by stating that FoB is a specific full round action that provides 7 attacks, which may be interlaced freely as attacks or most maneuvers.
It appears earnhart has removed the post i was quoting here, but I have to expand on the point I was making. This actually makes the whole process worse. because youve only solved this problem for a flurry, but Ive got a great combo for this hack by NOT Flurrying. Instead I Start A full attack, then after 3 attacks switch to Combat manuvers, which resets the BAB back to 20, then switch back to normal attacks, which because you've changed again, re refrences BAB=level, and starts the whole process over again. By defining his Flurry as working on its own, when Flurry specificly was rewritten to expressly work off TWF and standard iterative attacks, youve opened up a whole other can of worms.
swoosh |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His argument is that each time you go to reference it, the replacement happens again, so for attack one you get CMB=15(BAB)20(monk level) +Str +size, then for attack 2 you get CMB=10(BAB)20(monk level +Str +size, and so on.
Tell your friend he doesn't get a second attack at all, because by his reading of the rules his BAB isn't 20/15/10/5, it's just 20. So no iteratives at all.
Steve Geddes |
swoosh wrote:Tell your friend he doesn't get a second attack at all, because by his reading of the rules his BAB isn't 20/15/10/5, it's just 20. So no iteratives at all.Or, you could not be passive aggressive and actually explain the rules.
I dont find that passive aggressive. It's pointing out the ludicrous results if one grasps at any possible meaning of the words rather than the actual, clearly intended meaning.
Buri Reborn |
Buri Reborn wrote:I dont find that passive aggressive. It's pointing out the ludicrous results if one grasps at any possible meaning of the words rather than the actual, clearly intended meaning.swoosh wrote:Tell your friend he doesn't get a second attack at all, because by his reading of the rules his BAB isn't 20/15/10/5, it's just 20. So no iteratives at all.Or, you could not be passive aggressive and actually explain the rules.
I think the Advice forum guidelines are best applied here.
What may seem like an obvious question may in fact be coming from someone who isn't as familiar with the game.
swoosh |
swoosh wrote:Tell your friend he doesn't get a second attack at all, because by his reading of the rules his BAB isn't 20/15/10/5, it's just 20. So no iteratives at all.Or, you could not be passive aggressive and actually explain the rules.
Others have explained the rules. What I'm trying to explain is why the logic being put forward is inconsistent. The OP's friend assumes that the '20' replaces every number in the BAB sequence and I'm merely suggesting that if we assume the notation isn't standardized and the 20 just replaces everything that it's no longer a given those other numbers even exist at all.
Buri Reborn |
Others have explained the rules. What I'm trying to explain is why the logic being put forward is inconsistent. The OP's friend assumes that the '20' replaces every number in the BAB sequence and I'm merely suggesting that if we assume the notation isn't standardized and the 20 just replaces everything that it's no longer a given those other numbers even exist at all.
That's not what the player thinks. He thinks things like the BAB for the last attack, if used to make a maneuver instead, is the full BAB again.
Chris deleted a lot of posts earlier so maybe that's not expressed anymore. It doesn't change what you said is only being hostile in return. It's expressing a "no" without saying no. This is why it's passive aggressive. The player simply hasn't made the leap yet and needs to be shown it, not denied fundamental aspects of the system to demonstrate a point.
Saethori |
...Do the rules not actually specify how iterative attacks work?
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).
This is nice, but it doesn't mention the -5 penalty. Taken literally, further attacks are at full.
For example, a character who's a 2nd-level rogue and a 9th-level wizard would have a BAB of +5 in the core rules: +1 from her rogue levels and +4 from her wizard levels. Using the fractional system, that character's BAB would be +6, with +1-1/2 from her rogue levels and +4-1/2 from her wizard levels—enough for her to gain a second attack at a +1 bonus.
Better, in that it explains that you get a second attack, and that it's at -5, but not why.
I couldn't find any -5 rule in 3.5 either. I think it's supposed to be an implied rule, and isn't spelled out anywhere. Which is incredibly frustrating, especially when it comes to mounting defenses against potential munchkins.
Buri Reborn |
...Do the rules not actually specify how iterative attacks work?
Glossary wrote: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).
This is nice, but it doesn't mention the -5 penalty. Taken literally, further attacks are at full.
Pathfinder Unchained wrote:For example, a character who's a 2nd-level rogue and a 9th-level wizard would have a BAB of +5 in the core rules: +1 from her rogue levels and +4 from her wizard levels. Using the fractional system, that character's BAB would be +6, with +1-1/2 from her rogue levels and +4-1/2 from her wizard levels—enough for her to gain a second attack at a +1 bonus.Better, in that it explains that you get a second attack, and that it's at -5, but not why.
I couldn't find any -5 rule in 3.5 either. I think it's supposed to be an implied rule, and isn't spelled out anywhere. Which is incredibly frustrating, especially when it comes to mounting defenses against potential munchkins.
This is a common misconception. There are no penalties with BAB. I explained this in a rather lengthy breakdown earlier that got removed albeit from my own fault. There are only penalties when it's expressly said there are. That doesn't change the effect expressed when penalties are associated with BAB and iteratives when players explain the game to others. It does allow for quicker math and stays correct. However, that's not how the system actually behaves. It's that kind of explanation the OP's player was seeking. They favorited my post earlier so they definitely saw it. I hope their player will be satisfied.
CrystalSeas |
...Do the rules not actually specify how iterative attacks work?
Yes, but they do the arithmetic for you and print it in the CRB.
If you look at page 56 in the Core Rule Book, you will see all of the fighter's BAB bonuses printed out for each level.
If you look closely, you will notice that, at each level, the numbers printed for the BAB diminish by 5 for each iterative attack.
But you don't have to know that because you don't every have to calculate that. You just read the number from the table.
There is no rule about -5 because it's not a rule. There doesn't need to be. Just use the rules as they are written in the book to figure out what the BAB is for each iterative attack.
If you prefer, you can use mental arithmetic to predict those numbers, but you don't need to. It's there in black and white on the page
Steve Geddes |
Steve Geddes wrote:Buri Reborn wrote:I dont find that passive aggressive. It's pointing out the ludicrous results if one grasps at any possible meaning of the words rather than the actual, clearly intended meaning.swoosh wrote:Tell your friend he doesn't get a second attack at all, because by his reading of the rules his BAB isn't 20/15/10/5, it's just 20. So no iteratives at all.Or, you could not be passive aggressive and actually explain the rules.I think the Advice forum guidelines are best applied here.
Chris Lambertz wrote:What may seem like an obvious question may in fact be coming from someone who isn't as familiar with the game.
You may be right.
My reading of the OP (both in his explication of his player's position here and also the other thread) was that it's a very experienced player who knows the rules backwards, rather than a beginner.
Clearly Swoosh's response wouldn't be very helpful to someone just learning the game. My take was it was more someone saying "I know what the rules are, but it doesn't actually say so explicitly, so I'm going to take this other obviously-wrong-but-literally-correct-reading of the rules and you can't prove I'm wrong.
Hard to know given the thirdhand nature of "a friend of mine argued like this and I disagree with him. What do you guys think?"
Buri Reborn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may be right.
My reading of the OP (and the other thread) was that it's a very experienced player who knows the rules backwards, rather than a beginner.
Clearly Swoosh's response wouldn't be very helpful to someone just learning the game. My take was it was more someone saying "I know what the rules are, but it doesn't actually say so explicitly, so I'm going to take this other obviously-wrong-but-literally-correct-reading of the rules and you can't prove I'm wrong.
Hard to know given the thirdhand nature of "a friend of mine argued like this and I disagree with him. What do you guys think?"
Agreed. Though, this is a common misstep to mastery, judging one's self to be farther along than where they are. There is a phase before actual mastery where there is perceived skill. With a game as vast as Pathfinder, I still find spots like this myself. With a player who's never done anything with maneuvers, not saying he hasn't - just saying, I could see an otherwise technically excellent player making very wrong assumptions.
skizzerz |
Saethori wrote:...Do the rules not actually specify how iterative attacks work?Yes, but they do the arithmetic for you and print it in the CRB.
If you look at page 56 in the Core Rule Book, you will see all of the fighter's BAB bonuses printed out for each level.
If you look closely, you will notice that, at each level, the numbers printed for the BAB diminish by 5 for each iterative attack.
But you don't have to know that because you don't every have to calculate that. You just read the number from the table.
There is no rule about -5 because it's not a rule. There doesn't need to be. Just use the rules as they are written in the book to figure out what the BAB is for each iterative attack.
If you prefer, you can use mental arithmetic to predict those numbers, but you don't need to. It's there in black and white on the page
It is a rule, just one that is implicit rather than explicit. There is that chart you mention, and the following text describing Full Attacks: "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
Note that it says your base attack bonus (singular) is high enough, meaning you only have one BAB despite that it's broken down like +11/+6/+1 on the charts. Therefore, the only way to read that and have the rule make sense is that there is a cumulative -5 applied to each subsequent attack's BAB.
Create Mr. Pitt |
There's no penalty. Just forget about the penalty concept. BAB is a series of bonuses you get to your iterative attacks. The BAB sets out what those bonuses for your character are for each iterative attack. Those bonuses tend to be five less for each subsequent iterative. There are no penalties and no further rules needed to understand it. You get a particular set of bonuses to each iterative hit at each level depending on your class level.
CrystalSeas |
Note that it says your base attack bonus (singular) is high enough, meaning you only have one BAB despite that it's broken down like +11/+6/+1 on the charts. Therefore, the only way to read that and have the rule make sense is that there is a cumulative -5 applied to each subsequent attack's BAB.
That entire column on the chart is called BAB (singular). Even when it shows four attacks. It's written out +20/+15/+10/+5
The arithmetic is the same
BAB +20 first attack
[subtract 5]
BAB +15 second attack
[subtract 5]
BAB +10 third attack
[subtract 5]
BAB +5 fourth attack
Or are you saying that by the fourth attack the fighter has a -15 penalty to that +5 BAB based on some unwritten rule that no one can find?