Flurry of blows, Why is it different to the core rules?

[Erekose]

Players Handbook page 40, V 3.5 states 'When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy'. Therefore, the Monk BAB at lvl 20 without Flurry of blows as:

+15/+10/+5

With Flurry of blows at lvl 20:

+15/+15/+15/+10/+5

However, developers have made a significant departure from this. Flurry of blows in game actually does the following:

While centered (unarmored, unencumbered, and wielding monk weapons), you get an increase to your attack bonus, and more of your attacks will successfully strike your opponent as a result. This attack bonus increase starts at 1 (at level 1) and increases by 1 for every four additional monk levels.

If the true intent of flurry of blows was implemented properly, we would see attack speed reduce for Monk as they would loose out on BAB. To be fair, Monks are only a 3/4 BAB class according to V 3.0+ rules.

Considering the recent DPS change, why wasn't this option implemented for Monks? Surely this change would have met the requirements for reducing the lag monster.

[Angelus_dead]

The generic answer for all deviations of the DDO Monk:
Because the D&D Monk class is badly designed and too weak too work properly.


If the true intent of flurry of blows was implemented properly, we would see attack speed reduce for Monk as they would loose out on BAB.
How could that be the result of a faithful adaptation of the D&D 3.5 Flurry of Blows rule?


Surely this change would have met the requirements for reducing the lag monster.
The D&D version of Flurry of Blows would increase a Monk's attack rate, tending to increase message load and the potential for lag.

[bobbryan2]

Now that higher BAB actually increases you attack rate, it's a much more faithful adaptation than it was originally.

In PnP, it ups the number of attacks per round at the cost of accuracy... but DDO's original interpretation was an increase of accuracy at the cost of attack speed.

It confuzzled me for a bit.

But now it's simply an increase in attack speed and also an increase in BAB.

So, it's not perfect, but it's a better adaptation than it was.

[Erekose]

The generic answer for all deviations of the DDO Monk:
Because the D&D Monk class is badly designed and too weak too work properly.


How could that be the result of a faithful adaptation of the D&D 3.5 Flurry of Blows rule?


The D&D version of Flurry of Blows would increase a Monk's attack rate, tending to increase message load and the potential for lag.

LOL, that was way too funny

Actually, it wouldn't, with BAB at +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 they would miss more often, and this Frankenstein creation called Double strike, in the off hand would proc less.

[Erekose]

Now that higher BAB actually increases you attack rate, it's a much more faithful adaptation than it was originally.

In PnP, it ups the number of attacks per round at the cost of accuracy... but DDO's original interpretation was an increase of accuracy at the cost of attack speed.

It confuzzled me for a bit.

But now it's simply an increase in attack speed and also an increase in BAB.

So, it's not perfect, but it's a better adaptation than it was.

I agree Bobby. BAB is something developers have struggled with for a long time and the result's are not perfect, nor has there been the game balance I would expect to see across all melee classes.

[oweieie]

PnP monks are dreadfully bad and their BAB is a part of that.

[voodoogroves]

PnP monks are dreadfully bad and their BAB is a part of that.
eh ... Not really. Any non full caster is bringing a knife to a thermonuclear war and the monk is certainly no worse than the other base classes. Point of fact any serious build prc-d out of the base melees about 100% of the time anyway.

monk dips though are quite effective for a few key reasons:
-flurry addds an attack ... That is huge on a dip where you can get a +16 bab as well ... huge ... # of attacks is serious win
-monks did not need to meet prereqs for their combat stlye feats ... So you could cherry pick the feat you wanted
-twf interacted differently with weapons ... You could use a greatsword and still twf in unarmed attacks (head-butt, knees, etc.)
-remember there is no centered mess...swing that greatsword and not lose your ac etc.
-touch ac mattered and the monk bonuses worked for that ... Useful versus rays and different than ddo



monks were very strong dips in 3.5 .... like many of the base melee classes ... no seriously optimized build stayed in them and even a well-optimized melee dude had serious issues competing in the arms race a full caster could bring.

[Angelus_dead]

eh ... Not really. Any non full caster is bringing a knife to a thermonuclear war and the monk is certainly no worse than the other base classes.
No, a D&D Monk is worse at standard adventuring combat than a D&D Fighter or Rogue. Their 3/4 BAB does hurt them compared to a Fighter or Barbarian, as it means (among other things) that a monster can just grapple him to turn off the dexterity and wisdom AC.

[Visty]

flurry is like rapid shot, you get an extra attack at the expense of -2 tohit

in ddo rapid shot gives an attackrate increase and flurry does the same

[voodoogroves]

No, a D&D Monk is worse at standard adventuring combat than a D&D Fighter or Rogue. Their 3/4 BAB does hurt them compared to a Fighter or Barbarian, as it means (among other things) that a monster can just grapple him to turn off the dexterity and wisdom AC.

Only grapple starts with a touch attack and the monk has the best touch ac ... And grappling is such an edge case as to not really matter anyway ... And if you are saying that monk 20 (which no one should ever do) is worse than rogue 20 (which no one should ever do) or fighter 20 (same) then i think its somewhat valueless ... No one serious about optimization would go all 20 at all

still maintain it is an effective and common dip

[DarkAlchemist]

Does anyone know the formula for the tohit that has BAB as part of the equation?

[Visty]

Does anyone know the formula for the tohit that has BAB as part of the equation?

each point BAB is +1 tohit

[Quijonsith]

Does anyone know the formula for the tohit that has BAB as part of the equation?

To-Hit is simply your BAB + your Str modifier (or dex if weapon finesse) + the base enhancement of your weapon and any feats that increase to-hit like weapon focus and any spells/effects that also increase it.

[DarkAlchemist]

Thanks, I always wondered because in all honesty I never thought much about BAB as it is pretty underwhelmingly worth much in DDO unlike PnP.

[voodoogroves]

The huge difference is basically this:

In PNP everyone gets one attack per round and if you have a higher BAB you get more at a decreasing bonus.

DDO flipped that ... everyone gets the same basic numbers based on animation schemes and the additionals INCREASE the bonus starting with your BAB.





This is what makes it so that a wizard with a greataxe isn't at that much of a disadvantage. In PNP a 20 wizard would need some way to boost their BAB if they wanted to contribute in melee as a +10 BAB yields just 2 attacks. In DDO, that 20 wizard has the same attack amounts as the 20 fighter. In PNP a wizard could offset this by polymorphing, using equipment, whatever to add attacks ... but more often a gish build would aim for a BAB of +16 or higher base anyway. In DDO, the higher BAB means higher to-hit (so you miss less) but since it doesn't provide extra attacks it is of less value.

In a general sense, and this holds pretty well across all editions the key to big damage is more attacks. That's more chances to hit, more changes to kick off your adders on the strikes, etc. To-hit is useful, but you have to compare your needed to-hit against the value of an increase, etc. (if you hit on a 2, adding to-hit bonuses is meaningless). Damage per swing is also good ... but more swings = better.

More attacks/swings = more comparisons / math / etc. in DDO and thus more attacks = more lag (at least that's my understanding).


PNP optimized melee types (melee vs caster discussion aside) - and I'm not talking silly builds like the Hulking Hurler or Chuck - often worked in tons of attacks (a good half-dozen or more by 6th level wasn't uncommon - reference King of Smack, Warshapers, dips into Monk for flurry or Whirling Frenzy barbs, etc.) or conditional attack sequences (Inescapable Fisherman on trips / standing up, AoOs, bamf fighters, the Lightning Mace / High-Sword/Low-Axe, etc.) would set up chains where you could, for instance, make multiple full-attack sequences in a single round or full-attack sequences of dozens of attacks or open-ended loops (push, trip ... enemy stands, push, trip again, free attack, etc.). Multiple-attacks = quicker finish.



So to bring the discussion back to the OP: flurry creates additional attacks, and that's something DDO is trying to avoid (presumably because of the lag it causes). Similar, I'd guess, to not allowing polymorph to forms with claw/claw/bite, similar to removal of the WF slam natty attack, similar to the changes to TWF and "double strike" instead of additional attacks, similar to not allowing for conditional attacks (AoOs, etc.) ... and so on.

[DarkAlchemist]

Ahhh, yes it makes sense now but it still sucks. I always found it odd, and makes me cringe, every time I hear someone tell mages to pick up a greataxe and use it until lvl 5/6. In pnp I would be pwnd many times over and what I laugh at is the thought of this wizard/sorc swinging a HUGE 2h Greataxe that is probably as big if not bigger than they are when they have no magic, yet, to compensate for anything in DDO.

[oweieie]

Only grapple starts with a touch attack and the monk has the best touch ac ... And grappling is such an edge case as to not really matter anyway ... And if you are saying that monk 20 (which no one should ever do) is worse than rogue 20 (which no one should ever do) or fighter 20 (same) then i think its somewhat valueless ... No one serious about optimization would go all 20 at all

still maintain it is an effective and common dip

Going all 20 has value if you're actually playing epic. Going 18 has value for fighters for weapon mastery and for many of the later classes like the book of nine swords classes, factotum and other 4E test classes.

As for touch attack, it's fairly meaningless as a monk's AC won't get high enough to really compete with monster attacks as 3.5E at higher level is based on the first attack hitting 95% of the time and only following attacks having a chance of missing. Likewise combat tends to be against higher level solo monsters who are effectively required to hit in order to inflict enough damage each round to force the cleric to actually cast a heal each round otherwise the combat is trivial and doesn't have any point.

The best bet for multiple attacks other than a splitting bow at half a mile away isn't flurry, but robilar's gambit with combat reflexes and the +4 on opportunity attacks feat. For nova strikes you have leap attack, shock trooper and the like which will take that +5 BAB from power attack and double it and double it again and with all the other bonuses multiplying on crits fighters or fighters with a couple level dip can stack up to well over a thousand damage on a strike even pre epic. For defence improved combat expertise can turn that higher BAB into higher AC. Even the "primary role" of monks being to deal with casters is better handled by a fighter with their extra feats taking mage slayer.

[voodoogroves]

It was very nice to see classes like Factotum and Dragonfire Adept which had good class abilities and features that both scaled and made sense to stay in the class - and to a lesser extent the later mechanics (BO9S, Incarnum); none of the non-caster SRD classes were like that and even those alternate mechanics were more often dipped than straight. Warblade had a decent level 20 ability, but Swordmage and Crusader didn't have anything truly spectacular that was better than multi- or PrC-ing out.

And yeah, agree w/ you on Robilars. That's the conditional attack generation I was talking about (the fisherman types / trip - push - attack - etc. looping). Still, that requires some participation by the monster to make it happen - the bamf multi-attackers generate those multiple full attacks all on their own regardless of monster activity and the natty attack spammers. Robilars only works if you can reach them (think the Fisherman was up to about 30' reach sustained, but I'd have to go back and check)

For touch attack ... dunno man ... PNP isn't like DDO where a 50 AC at 20 is meaningless. A balor is hitting at +31; elder earth elemental at +27 ... at their best attack - it goes down from there (unlike DDO which goes up). Some dex, some wis, a belt of magnificence, bit of deflection/protection, few tomes, bracers of armor, etc. without much effort you can have a very respectable touch AC without much twinkage (that quick effort puts me around 40 touch) and it is important to note that ANYONE could do that w/ a Monk's Belt starting w/ a 16 dex and 16 wis. A Sacred Fist, Ascetic Mage or (god forbid pure monk) is going to hit higher easily.

Most games I know that went into epic concentrated on finishing 10-level PrCs and casting more so than base classes like Monk (with Druid as the near constant exception). In fact, most people I know who played epic were basically all caster types. Jade Serpent (was that the name?), Ruby Knights, etc. had far more power in the later game. You could stay in to later levels w/ weapon mastery as a fighter, but honestly very very very very few of the top-tier builds in the games I played in or on the CO forums single classed to 20.

I also belong to the school of thought that if the cleric is wasting his time healing in PNP, you're already losing. Monsters hit to kill at higher levels, just like characters (or should); PNP cleric healing is a general non-optimal strategy. Build your characters to make combat as quick as possible - it gives more time for the roleplaying. If you're spending all of your time healing the fighter, you're not removing the threat - you're trying to win by attrition. Sure, you're there to rescue if needed, but if your plan is to heal up the meat - not a fun plan. In my 3.5 world the optimized clerics at low levels are all sporting hold person and carrying big crit weapons for the coup de grace. At higher levels they are Ruby Knight Vindicators, Ordained Champions, Prestige Paladins, Divine Oracles, Contemplatives, Sacred Fists, early entry Mystic Theurges or any other full or near full caster sporting divine metamagic, etc. Heck, they may even be Warmages turned into Rainbow Servants.

We're wandering off topic; happy to continue this over in the PNP area if you want.