Ashtagon
2011-08-15, 07:27 AM
in 3e, all classes start off essentially identical in terms of BAB, and by level 20, the difference ranges from +10 to +20. In other words, they start off with all classes being more or less the same in melee, and ending up with martial characters having a clear advantage in melee. In the 3e "sweet spot", that translates into fighters having about a +3 bab advantage over wizards. That's kind of small. More importantly, this leads to the problem where by high levels, you are either reliably hitting the enemy on a 2+, or reliably missing except when you roll a 20.
Compared to this, 4e went for a flat + (level / 2) bab. Various class features then serve to give melee classes the intended boost, but the attack bonus never reaches the really big numbers. Instead, damage grows quite quickly.
I'm thinking that 4e had the right idea here. A key part of a game is to keep the players interested. Die rolls which are too easy or too hard are inherently uninteresting, because the result is so predictable. Keeping the bab numbers always close together helps preserve the level of randomness, which makes for more interesting game play. And by using damage multipliers and bonuses instead of bab bonuses, it becomes easier to calculate exactly how much of a benefit a given modifier represents.
Saving throws have a similar issue, in that by high levels, they become always win or always lose situations, especially if a characters optimises his good saves.
So, something like this...
BAB = character level / 2 (round down) for all classes.
Damage bonus = +1 per class level in a "medium bab" class; +2 per class level in a "good bab" class. Make appropriate adjustments for off-hand, natural, two-hand weapon, and other special case attack rules.
Iterative Attacks: Gone. Possibly restore them with the use of a feat, but their requirement to effectively stand still while the caster could still move and fire was a behind-the-curtains nerf for martial classes anyway.
Save bonus: character level / 3 for all classes (same as current poor save).
Good saves: Classes with good saves receive the appropriate "+2 save bonus" feat (eg. Iron Will) as a bonus feat at 1st level. If you multi-class, you don't get this bonus again for your second class with a good save.
Still a rough draft idea, but opinions? This is, as written, far from balanced, but more to throw down the idea.
Compared to this, 4e went for a flat + (level / 2) bab. Various class features then serve to give melee classes the intended boost, but the attack bonus never reaches the really big numbers. Instead, damage grows quite quickly.
I'm thinking that 4e had the right idea here. A key part of a game is to keep the players interested. Die rolls which are too easy or too hard are inherently uninteresting, because the result is so predictable. Keeping the bab numbers always close together helps preserve the level of randomness, which makes for more interesting game play. And by using damage multipliers and bonuses instead of bab bonuses, it becomes easier to calculate exactly how much of a benefit a given modifier represents.
Saving throws have a similar issue, in that by high levels, they become always win or always lose situations, especially if a characters optimises his good saves.
So, something like this...
BAB = character level / 2 (round down) for all classes.
Damage bonus = +1 per class level in a "medium bab" class; +2 per class level in a "good bab" class. Make appropriate adjustments for off-hand, natural, two-hand weapon, and other special case attack rules.
Iterative Attacks: Gone. Possibly restore them with the use of a feat, but their requirement to effectively stand still while the caster could still move and fire was a behind-the-curtains nerf for martial classes anyway.
Save bonus: character level / 3 for all classes (same as current poor save).
Good saves: Classes with good saves receive the appropriate "+2 save bonus" feat (eg. Iron Will) as a bonus feat at 1st level. If you multi-class, you don't get this bonus again for your second class with a good save.
Still a rough draft idea, but opinions? This is, as written, far from balanced, but more to throw down the idea.