Full Attack Option: Where are the iterative penalties actually listed / How do I read BAB by RAW?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

skizzerz wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, I don't think there can be a single rule written around this without further misunderstanding. Since the game only grants you 3 additional attacks from BAB, there can't a blanket "every time your BAB increases by 6, you gain another attack at +1" rule. Class levels may cap at 20 but the game doesn't. You can totally have a BAB of +40 with 20 levels of 2 full BAB classes. Neatly expressing a) you only get 3 additional attacks and b) those are done at a respective -5/-10/-15 and only those numbers for only those attacks. The current class tables are a pretty good solution, imo.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The majority agrees that iterative attacks diminish -5 for each attack after the first (not counting special circumstances).

Even if the home game agreed to use a monk's level as BAB without diminishing each attack, it would only mean that adversaries with monk levels would become more dangerous than before.

GMs will always win an arms race, so it is best to stop one before it starts.


Quote:


You can totally have a BAB of +40 with 20 levels of 2 full BAB classes.

Actually, you can't. Bonuses of the same type do not stack. In this case, these are "Base Attack" bonus types. No stacking. Maximum BAB is 20, regardless of the number of class levels you get.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


You can totally have a BAB of +40 with 20 levels of 2 full BAB classes.
Actually, you can't. Bonuses of the same type do not stack. In this case, these are "Base Attack" bonus types. No stacking. Maximum BAB is 20, regardless of the number of class levels you get.

The multiclassing rules which tell us to add BAB from different classes together disagree.


Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:
skizzerz wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, I don't think there can be a single rule written around this without further misunderstanding. Since the game only grants you 3 additional attacks from BAB, there can't a blanket "every time your BAB increases by 6, you gain another attack at +1" rule. Class levels may cap at 20 but the game doesn't. You can totally have a BAB of +40 with 20 levels of 2 full BAB classes. Neatly expressing a) you only get 3 additional attacks and b) those are done at a respective -5/-10/-15 and only those numbers for only those attacks. The current class tables are a pretty good solution, imo.

The game actually grants you as many as you have +5's, which further reinforces my point. Strangely (or perhaps ironically), that appears in Pathfinder Unchained in the section on removing iterative attacks (PRD link, emphasis mine): "At first level, you can score a maximum of only one hit, but at base attack bonus +6 and at every +5 to your base attack bonus thereafter, you can score another. This is shown on Table: Maximum Hits, and also matches the progression of iterative attacks you'd gain if you were using the core rules for attacks."

So the Unchained rule on replacing iterative attacks also confirms that the Core rule gives you an additional attack every +5 you have beyond +6, without a cap (or, if you want to argue for a cap, it caps at +30 instead of +16 due to Table: Maximum Hits).


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


You can totally have a BAB of +40 with 20 levels of 2 full BAB classes.
Actually, you can't. Bonuses of the same type do not stack. In this case, these are "Base Attack" bonus types. No stacking. Maximum BAB is 20, regardless of the number of class levels you get.

Actually in Pathfinder you can:

Pathfinder Advancing Beyone Level 20 Rules wrote:

Scaling Powers

Hit dice, base attack bonuses, and saving throws continue to increase at the same rate beyond 20th level, as appropriate for the class in question. Note that no character can have more than 4 attacks based on its base attack bonus. Note also that, before long, the difference between good saving throws and poor saving throws becomes awkwardly large—the further you get from 20th level, the more noticeable this difference grows, and for high-level characters, bolstering their poor saving throws should become increasingly important. Class abilities that have a set, increasing rate, such as a barbarian's damage reduction, a fighter's bonus feats and weapon training, a paladin's smite evil, or a rogue's sneak attack continue to progress at the appropriate rate.


Ah, I stand corrected. Didn't see the beyond level 20 rule regarding BAB.


Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Hmm, that rule also debunks my idea with Pathfinder Unchained too. I looked up some statblocks of high CR monsters (with BAB of much higher than +21) and notice they also only have 4 iteratives each, so I suppose that reference in Unchained is more about the fact that each subsequent iterative still happens at +5 beyond the former rather than lifting any caps on them.


Don't beat yourself up. I can see Paizo giving monsters with insanely high HD more than 4 attacks. The rules for characters tend to be a bit different as the general assumption is the 4 man party. That's 16 attacks versus a monster's 6 per that table. The advantage is still very much on the side of the PCs.


Quintain wrote:
Ah, I stand corrected. Didn't see the beyond level 20 rule regarding BAB.

No worries my man easy enough to miss if you never plan to go that high.

My old foggy memory seems to recall that somewhere in either 3.X of Pathfinder there is a hard 4 attack limit based on iterative attacks listed somewhere in the rules besides that line but I cannot remember where at the moment.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The problem with saying "you get these iterative attacks because your class table says you do at these levels" is in regards to multiclassing. A character who is Fighter 5 / Paladin 5 / Ranger 5 / Barbarian 5 would have +20 BAB, yet going solely by the tables, none of his classes are high enough to grant him a second attack, so he has only the one.

Now, most, if not all, of us know this to be false, and that such a character has three iterative attacks. But without it stated anywhere, we can only assume it's an unstated, invisible rule that we're to extrapolate from the class tables.

But the problem with invisible, unstated rules is that they're invisible and unstated. That's not a great thing for people who like to look things up, especially for people like me who think of things rather literally at times.

Yet I get the feeling if we made a FAQ thread, it would be declared no FAQ needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not invisible at all. The BAB definition tells us when we get extra attacks.

Dark Archive

Buri Reborn wrote:
It's not invisible at all. The BAB definition tells us when we get extra attacks.

But is it true that it doesn't actually say anywhere that these extra attacks are at -5 etc. to hit?

Let alone stating whether this is a "penalty to hit" or "at a reduced BAB"?

If you were to add something to the glossary definition, would "penalty to hit" work better? It would avoid the monk issue, but are there any other unintended consequences?


amethal wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
It's not invisible at all. The BAB definition tells us when we get extra attacks.

But is it true that it doesn't actually say anywhere that these extra attacks are at -5 etc. to hit?

Let alone stating whether this is a "penalty to hit" or "at a reduced BAB"?

If you were to add something to the glossary definition, would "penalty to hit" work better? It would avoid the monk issue, but are there any other unintended consequences?

The implicit part of BAB that's not stated is that at each point where you get a new attack, the BAB for each new attack starts at +1 again and grows after that point with the same level or HD progression thereafter.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Saethori wrote:
Yet I get the feeling if we made a FAQ thread, it would be declared no FAQ needed.

+1

But you and I differ on whether or not that is the right thing. I strongly don't think it's a good idea expanding on all the little nuggets of things. Especially things like this where we know how it should work despite not having a rule saying how.


Gilfalas wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Ah, I stand corrected. Didn't see the beyond level 20 rule regarding BAB.

No worries my man easy enough to miss if you never plan to go that high.

My old foggy memory seems to recall that somewhere in either 3.X of Pathfinder there is a hard 4 attack limit based on iterative attacks listed somewhere in the rules besides that line but I cannot remember where at the moment.

That was Epic Level Handbook, which explicitly stated that past HD 20 nothing ever again gains Base Attack Bonus and instead gains Epic Attack Bonus, which does not grant additional attacks. It went on to state that further attacks would be largely pointless due to the exceedingly low chance of them hitting. But that is not related to this system.

The core question here remains: where does the pattern come from? There is a clear pattern of each attack being at -5 from the one before. In this thread I have seen three fully viable answers, each with mild differences in applications, but generally the same result.
1)We have the iterative penalty theory.
2)We have the "sliding" BAB theory.
3)We have the "reducing bonus" theory.

2 and 3 are more similar to eachother than not, but retain some distinct differences, specifically in how to calculate BAB post level 20.


You're not going to find a singular, neatly wrapped answer here, I'm afraid.


True. I had hoped there was a line of text somewhere that I wasn't finding, and this would be a two or three post long question.

Though it was removed, I do want to thank you for providing a very good, well constructed and defended interpretation of how this works.


has anyone looked back at 3.0 ed, I could have sworn there was a line in there about -5 penalty to bab. It may have been removed in 3.5 since it was understood how BAB worked. Then it was never carried over to pathfinder either. I don't have my books on me so can't check at the current time. it also could have been in 2.0 to 3.0 converter PDF that wizards put out way back then so people could understand changes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

3.0 SRD certainly doesn't cover it in any better detail, but my books are in storage:

3.0 SRD Classes, Class Table wrote:
Base Attack Bonus: The character's base attack bonus and number of attacks.
3.0 SRD Classes, Multiclassing wrote:
Base Attack Bonus: Add the base attack bonuses for each class to get the character's base attack bonus. If the resulting value is +6 or higher, the character gets multiple attacks. Find the base attack value to see how many additional attacks the character gets and at what bonuses.
3.0 SRD, Combat Actions wrote:

Full attack [Full][AoO: No]

Description: If a character gets more than one attack per action, the character must use the full attack action to use those additional attacks. A character does not need to specify the targets of a the attacks ahead of time. A character can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The character may take a 5 ft. step before, after, or between the attacks.
If a character gets multiple attacks based on a character's base attack bonus, the character must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.

Scarab Sages

dragonhunterq wrote:

It's in every class table under "Base Attack Bonus". Exactly where the combat chapter directs you too.

Also, it helps to be clear it is not a penalty, it's an iterative attack at a lower bonus.
Your BAB is set at (e.g.) +11/+6/+1, it isn't +11/11-5/11-10.

So you support the OP's player's position that his flurry of blows, which replaces his BAB with his level, should just be 20/20/20/20/20/20/20?


burkoJames wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

It's in every class table under "Base Attack Bonus". Exactly where the combat chapter directs you too.

Also, it helps to be clear it is not a penalty, it's an iterative attack at a lower bonus.
Your BAB is set at (e.g.) +11/+6/+1, it isn't +11/11-5/11-10.

So you support the OP's player's position that his flurry of blows, which replaces his BAB with his level, should just be 20/20/20/20/20/20/20?

Nope, that is not what I am saying at all. If anything I think the OPs stance is patently ridiculous.


There's no dispute here. There are theories best on intentionally misunderstanding BAB. BAB stands for base attack bonus. It is a "bonus" you get to your attack. When you progress to a certain level, attack become iterative. The bonus for each subsequent iterative is five less than that of the previous attack. It is a set of different bonuses to attacks. There is no other potential interpretation; it is not a penalty, I don't even know what the "sliding" theory is, but it's simply your base attack bonus. There is no need for more rules to understand it; the progression is spelled out clearly and simply in numbers. I have yet to see a reason in this thread that this isn't precisely how BAB works and what it is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

The only reason for a formula is that if you have a figher 4/wizard 4, you gain +4 bab from the fighter level, and +2 bab from the wizard levels yielding a +6 bab granting you the +6/+1 iterative attacks. You don't see it in the tables because the tables don't stipulate figher 4/wizard 4, you determine it based on the bab being high enough and applying a -5 to determine the bab for each iterative attack. It would be nice if it was explicitly stated but it can be inferred from the tables that this is how it is calculated.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

earanhart wrote:
True. I had hoped there was a line of text somewhere that I wasn't finding

Nope

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My advice.

Look the player in the eye and say:

You know that is not how it works. Don't be a Dick. Now smarten up and let's roll some damn dice.


In both the 3.0 and 3.5 Players Handbook the exact mechanic for BAB was fully explained in the beginning of the 'Classes' chapter on page 22 in the 'Base Attack Bonus' section and there it explicitly explains that successive attacks are determined by the BAB listing on the character class tables and are at consecutively lower bonus' to hit.

You get an additional attack at +6, +11 and +16 BAB and the attacks after the first are each reduced 5 points as indicated on the character class charts. Their exact example being

3.0 & 3.5 Player Handbook, Page 22 on both wrote:
'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, +7 for the second and +2 for the third.

This section has been trimmed in the Pathfinder rules as far as I can make out but I will readily admit to not having done an exhaustive page by page search of the Core Rules. I looked through Combat and the same area on Classes in PF Core and could not find the passage I quoted above.

Even with that though, since PF is a direct extension of the 3.5 rule set and takes the vast majority of it's combat mechanics from it as pertains to BAB, I would think this is a solid rule to accept on this topic and should be a valid answer to the OP's question.


The Combat page in d20pfsrd refers to an FAQ entry about using combat maneuvers in full attacks (I haven't found that FAQ entry, though). It says that the BAB changes for iterative attacks and that a maneuver gets the same BAB as the attack it replaces.

Quote:

Replacing Attacks with Combat Maneuvers

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.

Also, the description for Flurry of Blows references the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (Improved and Greater), which say that the extra attacks suffer the usual penalties (-5 for the second attack, -10 for the third). So that would give a lvl 20 Monk two attacks/maneuvers at +20, two more at +15, two more at +10 and a last one at +5, like any reasonable person would expect.

Dark Archive

Khudzlin wrote:
The Combat page in d20pfsrd refers to an FAQ entry about using combat maneuvers in full attacks (I haven't found that FAQ entry, though).

Thanks Khudzlin, the situation is a bit better than I thought it was.

If I don't want to "grandfather in" the rule from an unsupported and out of print game, I can rely on a reference to a FAQ entry that probably exists but we can't quite locate at the moment.

Maybe at some point we can have an additional sentence added to the BAB definition in the Glossary, so that the rule appears in the actual rule book. (Although nerfing magical hats needs to take priority, obviously.)

Dark Archive

OilHorse wrote:

My advice.

Look the player in the eye and say:

You know that is not how it works. Don't be a Dick. Now smarten up and let's roll some damn dice.

However, it sure would be nice if the rule was in the actual book, so people playing the game for the first time would also know how it works.

(Incidentally, calling one of my players a dick would be much more disruptive to my campaign than any method of calculating CMB.)

Sovereign Court

amethal wrote:
OilHorse wrote:

My advice.

Look the player in the eye and say:

You know that is not how it works. Don't be a Dick. Now smarten up and let's roll some damn dice.

However, it sure would be nice if the rule was in the actual book, so people playing the game for the first time would also know how it works.

(Incidentally, calling one of my players a dick would be much more disruptive to my campaign than any method of calculating CMB.)

This is not a first time player we are reading about in the OP. Apparently it is a player with a strong sense of the rules.

If calling a player a dick, for trying to pull a dick-ish move, would create more disruption than the dick-ish move, you have greater issues with your group than calculating BAB.


I feel like we need to go back to kindergarten on this one. Don't call each other names, period. That is a dick move. ;)


If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

Or, if you act like a duck expect to get treated like a duck.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fried Goblin Surprise wrote:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

Or, if you act like a duck expect to get treated like a duck.

This is, in many cases - both philosophically and legally, extremely immoral and unethical, and a terrible way to treat other human beings.

Sovereign Court

Buri Reborn wrote:
I feel like we need to go back to kindergarten on this one. Don't call each other names, period. That is a dick move. ;)

Smells like hypocrisy. And off base also.

I was saying that the player in question was pulling a dick move, neither the OP nor the person I was replying directly to was the object of the term.

If we take the OP at face value, and there is no reason that we shouldn't, then the problem player in question is making him "prove" the rules, of which we are lead to believe the player knows.

This creates extra work, and in some cases, stress upon the GM, who shouldn't have to feel pressured like that.

The player is twisting the rules and spirit of the game, for no real reason except to be...you know...a dick. And calling that player out on it should be perfectly acceptable.

Sovereign Court

Buri Reborn wrote:
Fried Goblin Surprise wrote:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

Or, if you act like a duck expect to get treated like a duck.

This is, in many cases - both philosophically and legally, extremely immoral and unethical, and a terrible way to treat other human beings.

I don't think you would get far in making it a legal case.

Whether it is immoral, or unethical, or the philosophy used is certainly a subjective matter.

I disagree that it is terrible and put the onus on the person causing this to take a look in the mirror first to think about their action and how they are treating people.


OilHorse wrote:
I don't think you would get far in making it a legal case.

You could. There is a concept of rights you can't sign away. These are mostly to protect people who might otherwise be forced to consent to certain treatment under duress.

Going back to the premise, if it acts like a duck and we should treat it like a duck, we shoot it, carve it up, and serve it as dinner, but it was really a little person in a really convincing duck suit that's still murder, defiling a corpse, and I'm sure a good dozen other things along the way. So, no, that kind of logic doesn't really make sense when evaluating the baseline of treatment for our fellow people.

Sovereign Court

Buri Reborn wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
I don't think you would get far in making it a legal case.

You could. There is a concept of rights you can't sign away. These are mostly to protect people who might otherwise be forced to consent to certain treatment under duress.

Going back to the premise, if it acts like a duck and we should treat it like a duck, we shoot it, carve it up, and serve it as dinner, but it was really a little person in a really convincing duck suit that's still murder, defiling a corpse, and I'm sure a good dozen other things along the way. So, no, that kind of logic doesn't really make sense when evaluating the baseline of treatment for our fellow people.

No court is going to hear a case based on the premise of calling someone a name during a game in the situation described.

Did you just equate calling someone a dick to murdering someone and performing cannibalism? Seriously? Oh my. Shooting someone that "looked like a duck" is possible, finding them and then choosing to continue the charade/mistake and eat them...yeah, no where near a real analogy to calling a guy a guy a name for doing what has been described in the OP.


amethal wrote:
However, it sure would be nice if the rule was in the actual book, so people playing the game for the first time would also know how it works.

And here we see the reason this question is worth discussing.

Thank you, Khudzlin, I think that is the closest we are going to find in any the three systems. It at least answers half of the question (How to read BAB by RAW). Fact that we had to go to the 'parent' system remains a problem, though. New players will not know to look at 3.x rulebooks, and most likely needing to do so would make them chuck the game as a whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fried Goblin Surprise wrote:
Or, if you act like a duck expect to get treated like a duck.

Actually, I do expect to be treated like a duck. But there's a lot of people who won't accept that and keep asking what I really am. As soon as they pry me to admit to not being birthed with a beak they pass me off as human.

It's hard being a duck. But what would you know?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The rule IS in the book(s)... in the BAB column for every character class ever published. There is a clear BAB progression that is shown over and over again. That they do not restate this progression every single OTHER time BAB is mentioned does not change the fact that it exists.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
earanhart wrote:
New players will not know to look at 3.x rulebooks, and most likely needing to do so would make them chuck the game as a whole.

New players only need to read their BAB from the class description page in the Core Rule book. It's all right there, in black and white, typed out clearly so that anyone, including people who have never played any RPG will know precisely what the numbers are.

Doesn't get any clearer than that. There's no need to look at old rulebooks, ever.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:
Fried Goblin Surprise wrote:
Or, if you act like a duck expect to get treated like a duck.

Actually, I do expect to be treated like a duck. But there's a lot of people who won't accept that and keep asking what I really am. As soon as they pry me to admit to not being birthed with a beak they pass me off as human.

It's hard being a duck. But what would you know?

I would know quite a lot about this, actually.

Not that I'm, you know, a duck. Or, wait, what is the duck in this allegory?

Metaphors are hard.


CrystalSeas wrote:
earanhart wrote:
New players will not know to look at 3.x rulebooks, and most likely needing to do so would make them chuck the game as a whole.
New players only need to read their BAB from the class description page in the Core Rule book.

Sometimes new players multi-class. The issue here is that there isn't actually anything telling them how to correctly calculate their iterative attacks. Easy enough to infer, but not actually explicitly listed anywhere.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
jbadams wrote:
Sometimes new players multi-class. The issue here is that there isn't actually anything telling them how to correctly calculate their iterative attacks.

Try page 30, CRB


CrystalSeas wrote:
jbadams wrote:
Sometimes new players multi-class. The issue here is that there isn't actually anything telling them how to correctly calculate their iterative attacks.
Try page 30, CRB

Which edition, and what text on that page are you suggesting explains calculation of iterative attacks?

I'm looking at the fifth printing of the CRB, and although it does contain the section on multiclassing it does not answer that question.

It does tell us that if we have five levels of fighter and add one level of wizard we should add the Base Attack Bonuses together; doing so according to the tables has us add the Fighter BAB of +5 and Wizard BAB of +1, resulting in a BAB of +6. Now, we all know that this grants an iterative attack at +1 bonus, but nothing in the rules actually says so.

Am I missing some text that you can see, or does that make sense? It's a minor issue, and we all know how it really works (and can perhaps infer it from the class advancement tables), but the rules don't explicitly tell us.


Being someone who has argued a point all the way through a thousand post thread to get an FAQ, I gotta say... can we just end this one? Please? Pretty please?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Buri Reborn wrote:
Being someone who has argued a point all the way through a thousand post thread to get an FAQ, I gotta say... can we just end this one? Please? Pretty please?

+1

This game is designed around a certain amount of parsing the rules and understanding. If someone willfully misreads, willfully twists, or similar they are actually breaking a social contract. So anyone suggesting something to the effect of being able to ignore the penalties of iterative attacks on the basis of the explains ruin was removed in 3.5 to Pathfinder, that breaks the contract in my mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Combat Chapter, PRD. wrote:
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).

Looking at any classes' BAB chart gives us a value of +6/+1 at +6 BAB.

It really doesn't get any clearer. And, to be honest, I'm kind of confused why this is even a question.


Quark!

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Full Attack Option: Where are the iterative penalties actually listed / How do I read BAB by RAW? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.