PDA

View Full Version : Base attack bonus thoughts



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.

Starsinger
2011-08-15, 08:09 AM
Unless you plan on recalculating how DCs are done, this reduces saves in general, a Good Save will end up being +8 instead of +12 and thus increases the already strong power of "Save or Lose" spells.

Likewise, you'll have to recalculate AC otherwise there will be much missing.

The replacement of iterative attacks with a damage bonus was done in Starwars Saga Edition, you should check that out to see how it was done. But in concept I like the idea, multiple attacks with little chance to hit bogs the game down.

Also what will this mean for Flurry of Blows?

Roderick_BR
2011-08-15, 08:50 AM
What this will do is make classes mechanically more similar (one common complaint in 4E), AND nerf martial classes, as you are removing the only advantage they had, for a little benefit.

4E kinda avoid it by making casters depend on attack rolls (instead of just ignoring it at all in 3.x), and giving martial better abilities. In 3.x, it'll just make fighters suck more.
They don't need help to boost damage.

Ashtagon
2011-08-15, 09:08 AM
Unless you plan on recalculating how DCs are done, this reduces saves in general, a Good Save will end up being +8 instead of +12 and thus increases the already strong power of "Save or Lose" spells.

My point is, at the "sweet spot" of D&D (roughly 6th-10th level), the difference between good and poor saves is 2-3 points. So what I'm doing is setting that difference in stone, rather making an ever-widening gulf where it becomes a game of attacking the correct defence for a saving throw that is bound to fail.


Likewise, you'll have to recalculate AC otherwise there will be much missing.

Well, the exact level of BAB is open to discussion of course. Maybe 1/2 level is too low. Or too high. Or something. But the key point under this idea is that the relative difference will remain the same, so that it will be a choice to make a simple melee attack and not automatically expect it to hit or miss purely based on your class (amount of damage is another matter of course).


The replacement of iterative attacks with a damage bonus was done in Starwars Saga Edition, you should check that out to see how it was done. But in concept I like the idea, multiple attacks with little chance to hit bogs the game down.

Also what will this mean for Flurry of Blows?

Flurr of blows would be considered in the same way that offhand or natural or whatever attacks are. In other words, need to think on it. This is a draft concept at this stage.

Yitzi
2011-08-15, 11:02 AM
The point is that as you hit higher levels, the wizards and sorcerers should never need to make non-touch attack rolls, so if they can't hit it's no problem. Conversely, the fighters and barbarians have spare attack so that they can put it into combat expertise or power attack or hitting on the iterative attacks, to make up for the fact that they don't get sneak attack like the rogues or spellcasting like the clerics or druids.

Basically, the classes are somewhat more similar in early levels than in later levels.

Also, +3 attack on a d20 might not look like so much, but because it's a constant boost it actually does become quite significant.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-08-15, 11:12 AM
My point is, at the "sweet spot" of D&D (roughly 6th-10th level), the difference between good and poor saves is 2-3 points. So what I'm doing is setting that difference in stone, rather making an ever-widening gulf where it becomes a game of attacking the correct defence for a saving throw that is bound to fail.

Not everyone plays at mid-levels.