[3.5] How about we just get rid of BAB?

[GoatBoy]

Well, we can't get rid of it, but what if BAB was simply equal to character level?

Ignore the ramifications for prestige class/feat entries for now.

Bard - A boost for combat would help with the "jack of all trades" concept of the class, and they would probably not outshine other melee classes since they need to focus on their other abilities too.

Cleric - You're either inexperienced and thus healing all the time, or you're optimized and have Divine Might persisted. Not much of a change.

Druid - If you're in melee, you're probably in Wild Shape, and your Strength is boosted into the stratosphere. +5 attack at level 20 is trivial.

Monk - Pretty much accepted that Monks should have full BAB.

Rogue - Probably the only core class who would approach overpowered levels with full BAB, since there would be less need to worry about flanking or getting past Dexterity. But combined with Power Attack, it could make Rogues less useless against monsters immune to sneak attack.

Sorcerer/Wizard - Makes touch/ranged touch attacks easier, but I don't think anyone ever misses with those. Pretty much renders Eldritch Knight useless, but that class should have actual class features anyway.

As for existing full BAB classes, Barbarian still stays ahead of the game thanks to Rage and Lion Totem (Which EVERYONE uses. Everyone. Don't tell me you know a guy who said he saw some Barbarian use his Fast Movement to dominate combat, because you'd be wrong.). Fighters and Paladins lose an advantage, but these guys need serious buffs as is. I guess dedicated Rangers might complain, but they could use a little boost, too.

So, that was a very brief evaluation of what happens if the Base Attack Bonus mechanic is removed from the game. Classes who need full BAB, now have it. Classes who don't need it aren't affected. And classes who have it still need power boosts anyway.

Would this solve more problems than it causes?

[TroubleBrewing]

I think it's less a case of "solved problems vs. created problems" and more a case of "what's wrong with the way things are now?"

I mean, is BAB such a problem that you have to "fix" it?

[Tvtyrant]

I'm not sure what the goal here is; the book keeping for BaB is nothing compared to spells/powers/binds/melds. The only class simple enough that this might be considered a major cause of extra book keeping is Fighter, and it already has full BaB.

[GoatBoy]

I wasn't planning to convince anyone to re-do all of 3.5 just with this one post. My idea is that, since the game should be as uncomplicated as possible, removing varying BAB's reduces bookkeeping by a small amount. It could actually close the power gap between classes.

[Mike_G]

And while we're at it, let's get rid of spellcasting.

[TroubleBrewing]

It could actually close the power gap between classes.

By giving classes with low BAB (that is to say, casters) full BAB?

You want to close the power gap by giving an advantage to the classes that are already winning at D&D? :smallconfused:

That's like giving steroids to the faculty at a "students vs. faculty" football game at a grade school. They really don't need the advantage. :smalleek:

[RebelRogue]

I wasn't planning to convince anyone to re-do all of 3.5 just with this one post. My idea is that, since the game should be as uncomplicated as possible, removing varying BAB's reduces bookkeeping by a small amount. It could actually close the power gap between classes.
How about removing some of the actually complicated elements of it instead? But in general, a lot of people who play 3.5 seem to prefer it because of the complications, so I'm not sure how good idea that is anyway.

[Urpriest]

4e does something like this. It's a good way to design a game, since it becomes one less variable you need to balance around, and things like AC can become standardized. It's not as useful to introduce if you're not gutting the system from the ground up, however.

[Draz74]

Cleric - You're either inexperienced and thus healing all the time, or you're optimized and have Divine Might persisted. Not much of a change.
False. Lots of Clerics fall in between these two extremes.

Before, at least the Cleric needed Divine Power (persisted or otherwise) or Polymorph shenanigans to beat the Fighter at his own game. Now ... he won't. :smallyuk:


Monk - Pretty much accepted that Monks should have full BAB.
False. Monks are not "warriors" in my book. Giving them full BAB is an easy "fix" that still leaves them underpowered, but it's a "fix" that's always bothered me.


As for existing full BAB classes, Barbarian still stays ahead of the game thanks to Rage and Lion Totem (Which EVERYONE uses. Everyone. Don't tell me you know a guy who said he saw some Barbarian use his Fast Movement to dominate combat, because you'd be wrong.).
I know a lot of DMs that ban Lion Spirit Totem.


Fighters and Paladins lose an advantage, but these guys need serious buffs as is. I guess dedicated Rangers might complain, but they could use a little boost, too.

"These classes suck, so I won't worry about making them suck more." That's a valid line of thinking if you're so inclined, but it's not a line of thinking that should get the label "balancing" or "closing the power gap" applied to it. Ever.

[Vulaas]

In all honesty, I believe this is a horrible idea.

I mean, if we're going that route anyway, why not just remove their BAB entirely for everyone except dedicated warrior archetype classes? I don't think it makes any sense having a wizard leveling up having them get that much more awesome at hitting things with their quarterstaff, unless they're dumping some serious spells/feats/prestige classes into that choice.

Neither one is really a good idea, but having it all or nothing BAB is better than powering up T1 characters even more.

[Curmudgeon]

So, in a game where Fighters aren't nearly good enough at what they do, you want to boost most other classes and leave the Fighter unchanged?

Really bad idea.

[Psyren]

It doesn't really rebalance anything. Yeah it boosts Monks and Rogues a bit, but it also boosts Wizards, Sorcerers and Clerics (who don't need the upgrade.)

In fact, it makes things worse at low levels when any caster can now whip out the crossbow (or longbow if it's an elf) when he runs out of spells and stay on par with the martial classes.

[Gnaeus]

Bard - A boost for combat would help with the "jack of all trades" concept of the class, and they would probably not outshine other melee classes since they need to focus on their other abilities too.

I'm pretty sure that with DFI and Snowflake Wardance and one or two long duration buffs on the bard list that I can outshine other melee classes already.


Cleric - You're either inexperienced and thus healing all the time, or you're optimized and have Divine Might persisted. Not much of a change.

So at level 1, do you take fighter (1 bonus feat, +2 hp) or cleric (+2 will save, turn undead, 2 domains which can easily be swapped for feats, turn undead, spellcasting)? There is never a situation favoring the fighter here, and you just made it worse.


Druid - If you're in melee, you're probably in Wild Shape, and your Strength is boosted into the stratosphere. +5 attack at level 20 is trivial.

Well, there are 5 levels before druids really adventure in wild shape. Through most of those, options including hitting things with thrown fire or a thorny stick. As with cleric, you are really removing any reason to play a fighter or a barbarian.


Sorcerer/Wizard - Makes touch/ranged touch attacks easier, but I don't think anyone ever misses with those. Pretty much renders Eldritch Knight useless, but that class should have actual class features anyway.

Again at low levels, this is a huge difference. I could make a level 3 wizard with Mage Armor, Alter Self, and Enlarge Person, and beat a level 3 fighter in melee damage. I can even use Heroics to take Power Attack if I want.

As mentioned, this solution has nothing to do with "Balancing classes"

[GoatBoy]

I'm starting to get the feeling that people aren't too keen on this idea.

[KillianHawkeye]

Barbarian still stays ahead of the game thanks to Rage and Lion Totem (Which EVERYONE uses. Everyone. Don't tell me you know a guy who said he saw some Barbarian use his Fast Movement to dominate combat, because you'd be wrong.)

So I'm wrong because my dwarf barbarian likes moving as fast as all the other characters even while he's wearing medium armor? People who make universal statements like that tend to end up just looking stupid or pissing someone off.

[sonofzeal]

Is this even worth considering? I mean, 90% of the "reasons" given boil down to "in a sufficiently high-op game it won't matter that much". Granted, but it will screw up a low-op game and doesn't actually fix any problems.

So for the love of Pelor, why?!?

[Lapak]

If you were going to do anything along this line, you'd be better off chopping the classes into 'Full BAB' and 'No BAB' categories and leaving it at that. That's 90% as simple, and would have a slightly more beneficial effect on game balance. I wouldn't go that route either, in 3.x, but it's better than what you propose.

[Yanagi]

Full BAB plus casting touch attacks/ranged touch attacks? Ouch.

[McSmack]

I think that BAB is a variable that could be done away with, but only if you were redesigning the system from the ground up. BAB is a basic principle of the game, and changing it would change the game balance in a lot of subtle ways. This would mean a looking at a lot of other aspects of the game (beyond just PrC's) and changing them accordingly. Which is a pain in the butt.

I don't think it would overly buff caster classes, since BAB doesn't matter to them. It's like giving wizards a buff to melee weapon damage rolls. Okay sure it's technically a buff, but they'd probably rather just bend the laws of reality than bother hitting something with a sword.

On the whole there are enough bigger problems that three different levels of BAB isn't too high up on the 'to do' list.

[Psyren]

I'm starting to get the feeling that people aren't too keen on this idea.

Where'd you get a silly notion like that? :smalltongue:

I don't think it's terrible... just ineffective and therefore unnecessary.

[NNescio]

I don't think it would overly buff caster classes, since BAB doesn't matter to them. It's like giving wizards a buff to melee weapon damage rolls. Okay sure it's technically a buff, but they'd probably rather just bend the laws of reality than bother hitting something with a sword.

Certain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0626.html) methods of Spanking Reality like a Red-headed StepchildTM involve precise aiming. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0629.html) Or touching (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154802) your opponents.

[GoatBoy]

I think that BAB is a variable that could be done away with, but only if you were redesigning the system from the ground up. BAB is a basic principle of the game, and changing it would change the game balance in a lot of subtle ways. This would mean a looking at a lot of other aspects of the game (beyond just PrC's) and changing them accordingly. Which is a pain in the butt.


Thanks for at least at least trying to see my point instead of throwing insults around.

I guess I should have mentioned that I suggested this as more of thought exercise, and I didn't really expect anyone to go and start erasing their character sheets. I just figured that most people who read this are at the point where they might be willing to consider something unorthodox for 3.5, and gave my personal opinion as to why my idea might be shift in a slightly positive direction, in the hopes that it could lead to something truly effective.

But, yeah, if people watch to keep repeating the same arguments how broken the system is, and having the same monk discussion every week, please don't let me stop you.

[Seerow]

Thanks for at least at least trying to see my point instead of throwing insults around.

I guess I should have mentioned that I suggested this as more of thought exercise, and I didn't really expect anyone to go and start erasing their character sheets. I just figured that most people who read this are at the point where they might be willing to consider something unorthodox for 3.5, and gave my personal opinion as to why my idea might be shift in a slightly positive direction, in the hopes that it could lead to something truly effective.

But, yeah, if people watch to keep repeating the same arguments how broken the system is, and having the same monk discussion every week, please don't let me stop you.

The problem is having the monk discussion every week wouldn't stop if the monk had full BAB. The monk would still suck.

Your suggestion here is a solution to a non-existent problem that in turn exacerbates far more problems, boosting the vast majority of classes that don't need it, not helping those that do need it, and only providing a step in a positive direction in one or two cases.

Also as someone pointed out upthread, this is basically one of the steps they took in 4e, except they went the other way around and gave everyone 1/2 BAB.

[AnonymousD&Der]

I'm starting to get the feeling that people aren't too keen on this idea.

Nah. Give 'em a bit of time (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SarcasmMode) and they'll warm right up to it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlatantLies)

If you were to do anything to Bab, I'd increase the range of it. At 20th Level, Wizards and Clerics would have 5 Bab, Sorcerors and Druids 10, Bards and Monks 15, Rangers, Rogues and Paladins 20, and Barbarians and Fighters 25. Just because the Bab reflects the kind of Job, with Wizards and Clerics (but strangly enough not the Paladin) too busy worshiping energy/gods to get some exercise, all the way up to Fighters and Barbarians, who regularly get involved in Wars.

Trying to further complicate a system that is "fine", fine being in quotes because D&D is sure as heck not "fine", is still laughable, but giving everyone the same BAB won't be fixing much in the long run, unfortunately.

If you wanted to redo most of the entire system, then you could probably try to rebalance things to the point where BAB wasn't necesarry.... but that would take a hell of a lot of hard work. What would your take be on the other saves and stuff, or are you completely focusing on BAB at this juncture?

[sonofzeal]

Thanks for at least at least trying to see my point instead of throwing insults around.

I guess I should have mentioned that I suggested this as more of thought exercise, and I didn't really expect anyone to go and start erasing their character sheets. I just figured that most people who read this are at the point where they might be willing to consider something unorthodox for 3.5, and gave my personal opinion as to why my idea might be shift in a slightly positive direction, in the hopes that it could lead to something truly effective.

But, yeah, if people watch to keep repeating the same arguments how broken the system is, and having the same monk discussion every week, please don't let me stop you.
As a thought-exercise...

- Clerics and Druids would take significantly less optimization to play appropriately. It wouldn't change their fundamental dynamic, but it would give both a solid boost to it.

- Wizards and Sorcerers gain a whole lot more out of many of their gishy spells; Tensor's Transformation is out, but Nightstalker's Transformation becomes much more powerful as do any number of other buffs. This won't affect every mage, but it does have the overall effect of reducing the need to cast spells every round since attack rolls can at least occasionally be substituted to reasonable effectiveness. End result: gishing is easier, and mages are less mana-dependant.

- Rangers are now completely overshadowed by Druids, even Wild Shape Rangers. Paladins are likewise completely overshadowed by Clerics.

- Rogues and Monks gain some ground, but neither has a fundamental change of dynamics.

- Bards are still pretty useless in melee in Core, and even more badass outside of Core.

- Barbarians have to really struggle to justify their existence, and Fighters just cry in a corner somewhere.



Overall: pretty boring for an "intellectual exercise", no real game-changing except possibly for mages. The most powerful classes get the biggest boosts; the weakest get little to nothing. There's a couple partial-BAB-and-shouldn't-be like the Monk or Soulknife that benefit, but both of those have other more pressing problems. All in all, I stand by what I said before - it doesn't really solve any problem, while introducing new ones. Bad idea all around.

[averagejoe]

You want to close the power gap by giving an advantage to the classes that are already winning at D&D? :smallconfused:

While I see your point, one might argue that the idea that anyone can win D&D is, in itself, a flawed concept.

I think the idea's an interesting one, but by itself it doesn't go far enough. One glaring problem, for example, is it would make clerics, who are already too paladin-y, even more paladin-y. The solution might be to make a class sort of halfway between the paladin and cleric, giving it divine spellcasting along the lines of the bard or adept. Maybe allow for, "Specialist," Bards (A not-too-much-work fix would be allow them to pick a school of magic at level 1, and give them some expanded learning type ability for that school of magic at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.) Maybe make it so touch attack spells are now regular attack spells. Give the warlock some sort of power attack feature for his blast. Use the PHBII druid variant.

Full BAB for everyone might not be fun by itself (though it could be!), but I could see a fun martial based setting going off of it. And, honestly, if balance is a problem in your groups, it's going to be if you don't include this unless you housrule heavily anyways (barring groups with low system mastery. If you're new to the game you shouldn't use this idea unless you really trust the people you game with to be good sports.) I dunno, could at least be an interesting experiment.

The main non-balance related problem I see is it would make it all but pointless to go past level 1 in any sneak attack class, since you could gain a SA every level by just dipping, and you wouldn't lose any attack bonus. It's up to you whether this is an actual problem, but it's worth noting that unlike with the casters it would probably drastically effect how such roles are built.

Edit:


- Wizards and Sorcerers gain a whole lot more out of many of their gishy spells; Tensor's Transformation is out, but Nightstalker's Transformation becomes much more powerful as do any number of other buffs. This won't affect every mage, but it does have the overall effect of reducing the need to cast spells every round since attack rolls can at least occasionally be substituted to reasonable effectiveness. End result: gishing is easier, and mages are less mana-dependant.

Maybe it's just because I like gishes, but this actually seems like a lot of fun. Even under these circumstances, straight spellcasting is probably more effective than gishing, but you'd also have warrior-role guys who can do other stuff besides combat without a lot of multiclassing/prestige classing shenanigans. I typically make changes to my games more because they seem like fun or interesting choices rather than because I'm worrying about balance, but this could be a subtle way to balance the game if you think of it as, "Balancing the roles," more than, "Balancing each class against each other."

[Aemoh87]

Why don't we just give all casters gestalt? Because that is what this is doing...

[Ravens_cry]

I wasn't planning to convince anyone to re-do all of 3.5 just with this one post. My idea is that, since the game should be as uncomplicated as possible, removing varying BAB's reduces bookkeeping by a small amount. It could actually close the power gap between classes.
Begging the question. Also false. The game needs to be exactly as complicated as is needed to fulfil it's goals. I don't see how making everyone equally good at combat, both attacking the hit-points and mundane battlefield control, does that in D&D. Mind you, a game with different goals has different needs. A role playing game where everyone was, say, a solider who just came through Basic, it would make some sense. In such a game, the perks from your background, like say you went hunting, would be what made the difference.
If you find it helps, fine, but I while I might change who gets what BAB, I would not remove it entirely.

[sonofzeal]

Maybe it's just because I like gishes, but this actually seems like a lot of fun. Even under these circumstances, straight spellcasting is probably more effective than gishing, but you'd also have warrior-role guys who can do other stuff besides combat without a lot of multiclassing/prestige classing shenanigans. I typically make changes to my games more because they seem like fun or interesting choices rather than because I'm worrying about balance, but this could be a subtle way to balance the game if you think of it as, "Balancing the roles," more than, "Balancing each class against each other."
It could. I'd only use the variant if it was explicitly expected that EVERYONE would be playing a full caster of some sort. It might be viable then.

[Knaight]

The concept of removing BAB is appealing, though with the current system not very functional. Moreover, unless one is using it as part of a large standardization procedure (Involving BAB, AC, and all the saves at the very least) its largely besides the point. Given the amount of tweaks needed to do this with D&D, its probably easier to start with the unified SAGA edition of Star Wars, and change it from the space opera sub genre of fantasy to whatever D&D is supposed to be.

[The Glyphstone]

Why don't we just give all casters gestalt? Because that is what this is doing...

..there's a lot more to Gestalt than BAB. You don't gestalt a caster to make his attacks hit better, you gestalt him for saves, bigger HD, passive class features, active non-casting class features, extra actions....

[Big Fau]

By giving classes with low BAB (that is to say, casters) full BAB?

You want to close the power gap by giving an advantage to the classes that are already winning at D&D? :smallconfused:

That's like giving steroids to the faculty at a "students vs. faculty" football game at a grade school. They really don't need the advantage. :smalleek:

Funny thing that: BAB doesn't matter outside of Iterative Attacks. Anyone who's played an Incarnate can tell you that much.

[Aemoh87]

..there's a lot more to Gestalt than BAB. You don't gestalt a caster to make his attacks hit better, you gestalt him for saves, bigger HD, passive class features, active non-casting class features, extra actions....

I know. But it's just as ridiculous.

[SamBurke]

Let's put it all this way:

1. Give it to magic-based classes? WHAT? For rizzle? No. No. No once a day, everyday, and twice on Sunday.

2. Give it to underpowered classes? (the obvious monk?) Yes. Yes. Oh yes.

Anything else need to be said?

[Seerow]

Let's put it all this way:

1. Give it to magic-based classes? WHAT? For rizzle? No. No. No once a day, everyday, and twice on Sunday.

2. Give it to underpowered classes? (the obvious monk?) Yes. Yes. Oh yes.

Anything else need to be said?

Heh.

Alternative possibility that may be a little less insane:
-Any class with 9th level spells gains NO BAB progression.
-All other classes get full BAB progression.



Of course, this results in making touch spells in general useless, and cripples a lot of Gish builds, without really affecting general caster power which goes back to the whole messing with BAB isn't a great balance knob thing.

[dextercorvia]

Lets give everyone wizard casting (no familiar or specialization, just the basics) and the Two Weapon feat tree for free as well. We might also want to boost the HD. d20 seems reasonable, and balanced so long as we give it to everyone....

[Godskook]

Ignore the ramifications for prestige class/feat entries for now.

No, cause that's a fairly big part of play these days. And you *CAN* get 14-17 BAB on almost any character concept with the right prestige classes, and even more, skillful weapons exist. Saying "does this effect game balance" while also saying "ignore half the game" means you're not really concerned about game balance.


Bard - A boost for combat would help with the "jack of all trades" concept of the class, and they would probably not outshine other melee classes since they need to focus on their other abilities too.

Dragonfire Inspiration bards were already scary and outshining(while also making them shine too) the melee.


Cleric - You're either inexperienced and thus healing all the time, or you're optimized and have Divine Might persisted. Not much of a change.

You're either an extreme or an extreme? Um no, again. There's many gradients, and some DMs ban or nerf persist shenanigans. You're not even aware of the situation here, let alone how this change would effect it.


Druid - If you're in melee, you're probably in Wild Shape, and your Strength is boosted into the stratosphere. +5 attack at level 20 is trivial.

At level 20. The game starts at level 1, and spends 95% of the core game *NOT* at level 20. Evaluating classes based on the last 5% of their existance is useless. Try level 10, where a +3 to-hit is pretty nice.


Monk - Pretty much accepted that Monks should have full BAB.

More or less, but that was before your idea, and your idea makes things worse for the monk, not better.


Rogue - Probably the only core class who would approach overpowered levels with full BAB, since there would be less need to worry about flanking or getting past Dexterity. But combined with Power Attack, it could make Rogues less useless against monsters immune to sneak attack.

Rogue + Full BAB != Overpowered

However:
Wizard = Overpowered

Until you appreciate that, you probably shouldn't be making massive game alterations like this.


Sorcerer/Wizard - Makes touch/ranged touch attacks easier, but I don't think anyone ever misses with those. Pretty much renders Eldritch Knight useless, but that class should have actual class features anyway.

You're ignoring most of what the change does over here. Full BAB ruins a *TON* of prestige classes who had 'full BAB' as a feature.


As for existing full BAB classes, Barbarian still stays ahead of the game thanks to Rage and Lion Totem (Which EVERYONE uses. Everyone. Don't tell me you know a guy who said he saw some Barbarian use his Fast Movement to dominate combat, because you'd be wrong.). Fighters and Paladins lose an advantage, but these guys need serious buffs as is. I guess dedicated Rangers might complain, but they could use a little boost, too.

Most of the full BAB classes start crying cause now their classes are even more useless than wizards.


So, that was a very brief evaluation of what happens if the Base Attack Bonus mechanic is removed from the game. Classes who need full BAB, now have it. Classes who don't need it aren't affected. And classes who have it still need power boosts anyway.

Essentially, you give bonuses to classes that don't need it, while devaluing classes that already got the bonus. It also mucks with game balance, since before, touch attacks were at least possible to miss, but now they're not. Essentially, the change would be horrible for 3.5


Would this solve more problems than it causes?

Yes, wholly and completely. It solves *NOTHING*, but it does cause problems.

[TroubleBrewing]

Funny thing that: BAB doesn't matter outside of Iterative Attacks. Anyone who's played an Incarnate can tell you that much.

And Power Attack. Anyone who's played a melee damage dealer can tell you that much. :smalltongue:

[Big Fau]

And Power Attack. Anyone who's played a melee damage dealer can tell you that much. :smalltongue:

Meh. I rarely see people PAing for more than 10, even with Shock Trooper (but that's because I don't send singular monsters at the players, even when it would make sense), so BAB 10 can suffice for PA.

[TroubleBrewing]

At 20th level. Again, as previously stated, rating a build/feat/anything on the last 5% of its use is pointless.

[Ravens_cry]

At 20th level. Again, as previously stated, rating a build/feat/anything on the last 5% of its use is pointless.
Even less than that. I am not sure how typical this is, but I have never been in a campaign that lasted to 20, even by design.