Feats That Scale to Base Attack: Do They Help?

[wayfare]

I am currently running a 3.5 game, and a few players are using combat classes. One player suggested that combat classes could use feats that get better as the character levels up, like a wizards spells get harder to resist or inflict more damage with level-up.

I've seen some fan-made feats that scale to Base Attack, and was wondering if anybody has ever used something similar. I could use advice as to incorporating this into a game.

Thanks!

[Elitarismo]

It would be far simpler and more effective to address the key problems with BAB. Those being that BAB does two things, the first of which doesn't matter much and the second ends up being at most a consolation prize.

[wayfare]

Personally, I liked the AD&D way of doing things, but damage actually meant something in that system.

My goal here is to eliminate feat tax to a certain degree -- one feat that evolves along its feat chain allows for more creative builds. Plus, this allows me to create feats that act like spells, but get better with level (nod to ToB).

[0nimaru]

Somebody posted some gigantic list of houserules on the forums earlier this week with a few mentions of that.

I believe Weapon Focus evolved into that entire line (Spec, Greater Focus, etc)
TWF Evolved naturally at the same points rangers normally advance it.
Reasonably, Dodge or similar could also be made to scale up with BAB, although I suggest using the PF +1 AC dodge over the targeted 3.5 version

[wayfare]

Somebody posted some gigantic list of houserules on the forums earlier this week with a few mentions of that.

I believe Weapon Focus evolved into that entire line (Spec, Greater Focus, etc)
TWF Evolved naturally at the same points rangers normally advance it.
Reasonably, Dodge or similar could also be made to scale up with BAB, although I suggest using the PF +1 AC dodge over the targeted 3.5 version

Yeah, thats the kind of thing we want to do. We are also introducing ToB style maneuvers that get better as you gain BA.

[Elitarismo]

Somebody posted some gigantic list of houserules on the forums earlier this week with a few mentions of that.

I believe Weapon Focus evolved into that entire line (Spec, Greater Focus, etc)
TWF Evolved naturally at the same points rangers normally advance it.
Reasonably, Dodge or similar could also be made to scale up with BAB, although I suggest using the PF +1 AC dodge over the targeted 3.5 version

That would be me. 1 AC to all is still useless. 2 or even 3? Still bad.

None of those mentioned though address the problems with BAB. They make Weapon Focus potentially worth taking, and make dual wielding potentially viable, but the ones that address the problems with BAB are:

Full attacks are a Standard action.
Iterative attacks take a static -5 penalty, just like natural weapons. This can be reduced with (Improved) Multiattack as normal.

Because BAB does 2 things:

1: It increases to hit.
2: It adds extra attacks, but at large and growing penalties.

Plenty of things increase to hit, and very often the 3/4th BAB sorts are the ones with the best to hits.

That just leaves the extra attacks. Extra attacks you only get if you can full attack, which means almost never without taking one of a short list of abilities to do that, and due to the large and growing penalties good luck hitting anything at -10 or -15. If you can hit with those, then you're better off Power Attacking for 10 or 15 as that will result in more damage.

All in all, this means full BAB is just about useless when compared to say... 3/4th. But the designers thought it was incredibly important, so almost all full BAB classes get almost nothing in the way of actual class features. Meanwhile the 3/4th types get plenty. So full BAB was overvalued, and the result is pure combat classes that are quite hopeless in combat. That isn't the only reason, but it is the biggest one. By the time the designers caught on 3.5 was just about done.

[wayfare]

That would be me. 1 AC to all is still useless. 2 or even 3? Still bad.

None of those mentioned though address the problems with BAB. They make Weapon Focus potentially worth taking, and make dual wielding potentially viable, but the ones that address the problems with BAB are:

Full attacks are a Standard action.
Iterative attacks take a static -5 penalty, just like natural weapons. This can be reduced with (Improved) Multiattack as normal.

Because BAB does 2 things:

1: It increases to hit.
2: It adds extra attacks, but at large and growing penalties.

Plenty of things increase to hit, and very often the 3/4th BAB sorts are the ones with the best to hits.

That just leaves the extra attacks. Extra attacks you only get if you can full attack, which means almost never without taking one of a short list of abilities to do that, and due to the large and growing penalties good luck hitting anything at -10 or -15. If you can hit with those, then you're better off Power Attacking for 10 or 15 as that will result in more damage.

All in all, this means full BAB is just about useless when compared to say... 3/4th. But the designers thought it was incredibly important, so almost all full BAB classes get almost nothing in the way of actual class features. Meanwhile the 3/4th types get plenty. So full BAB was overvalued, and the result is pure combat classes that are quite hopeless in combat. That isn't the only reason, but it is the biggest one. By the time the designers caught on 3.5 was just about done.

Hence my statement about AD&D. Attacks were not Iterative -- if you were of the classes that got extra attacks, you just made more than one attack in a round. No penalties.

In my revamp of the fighter I've allowed Full attacks as a standard action -- It'll be a feat for everybody else.

[Elitarismo]

Hence my statement about AD&D. Attacks were not Iterative -- if you were of the classes that got extra attacks, you just made more than one attack in a round. No penalties.

In my revamp of the fighter I've allowed Full attacks as a standard action -- It'll be a feat for everybody else.

There are more martial classes than just the Fighter.

Going from "everyone must be a Lion Totem Barbarian or Cloistered Cleric with Travel Devotion" to "everyone must spend a feat" is not an improvement.

AD&D isn't quite the same thing either, as there's more to it than being able to both move and attack.

[wayfare]

There are more martial classes than just the Fighter.

Going from "everyone must be a Lion Totem Barbarian or Cloistered Cleric with Travel Devotion" to "everyone must spend a feat" is not an improvement.

AD&D isn't quite the same thing either, as there's more to it than being able to both move and attack.

Well, sure there are. But those other classes get nicer things. The fighter needs the most help to do his job effectively (the Monk too, now that I think about it).

Honest question: Is a feat equivalent to a dip in the sense your are talking about. I honestly thought that a feat (especially one that scales to BA) would be a big improvement over the current state.

[candycorn]

There are more martial classes than just the Fighter.

Going from "everyone must be a Lion Totem Barbarian or Cloistered Cleric with Travel Devotion" to "everyone must spend a feat" is not an improvement.

AD&D isn't quite the same thing either, as there's more to it than being able to both move and attack.

I don't know. He's requiring a feat for the "full attack as a standard action", but giving full attacks no penalty.

You're requiring no feat for the "full attack as a standard action", but giving full attacks a penalty that must be removed via 1-2 feats.

Net cost? 1-2 feats for equivalent results. Wayfarer just thinks multiple non-iterative attacks are more worthy of a feat than, say, a +2-3 to hit with those secondary attacks.

I happen to agree with that.

[Elitarismo]

Well, sure there are. But those other classes get nicer things. The fighter needs the most help to do his job effectively (the Monk too, now that I think about it).

Honest question: Is a feat equivalent to a dip in the sense your are talking about. I honestly thought that a feat (especially one that scales to BA) would be a big improvement over the current state.

It is something that you HAVE to take in order to do your thing. When something is mandatory like that, then they should just get it. And no, not really. Paladins are weaker than Fighters for example.

candycorn: He said AD&D has no iterative penalties, and that he is giving full attack as a standard for a feat. He did not say that said full attack would be any different than RAW. Which means all he has done is shift what you must take to something else.

[wayfare]

Ok, allowing for full attacks as a standard action, does anybody have any experience using Scaling Feats?

[Coidzor]

Help, yes. With what, varies. So it depends upon what exactly you want them to do other than provide a general buff to the worth of BAB.

I've not yet gotten a chance to play with such feats, but I've taken a gander at 'em and liked how most of them were implemented. I think Brilliant Gameologists and the forum dedicated to Frank and K's Tome series might have a few more members who've got firsthand experience with 'em than here.


Hence my statement about AD&D. Attacks were not Iterative -- if you were of the classes that got extra attacks, you just made more than one attack in a round. No penalties.

In my revamp of the fighter I've allowed Full attacks as a standard action -- It'll be a feat for everybody else.

Or people will dip fighter for that ability and get a feat out of the deal.

Strictly speaking, Fighter is a 2 level class without being houseruled out the wazoo or a few ACFs that make it 6 levels long.

[wayfare]

Help, yes. With what, varies. So it depends upon what exactly you want them to do other than provide a general buff to the worth of BAB.

I've not yet gotten a chance to play with such feats, but I've taken a gander at 'em and liked how most of them were implemented. I think Brilliant Gameologists and the forum dedicated to Frank and K's Tome series might have a few more members who've got firsthand experience with 'em than here.



Or people will dip fighter for that ability and get a feat out of the deal.

Strictly speaking, Fighter is a 2 level class without being houseruled out the wazoo or a few ACFs that make it 6 levels long.

The fighter variant we use looks like this (the game is e10)

Level 1: Bonus Feat (x2)
Level 2: Mettle
Level 3: Bonus Feat
Level 4: Auto Confirm Crit
Level 5: Bonus Feat
Level 6: Standard Attack to inflict Status effects
Level 7: Bonus Feat
Level 8: Evasion
Level 9: Bonus Feat
Level 10: On Crit, inflict ability damage

So yeah, extensive houseruling

[Zeta Kai]

The Hourglass of Zihaja setting has Style Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10124237#post10124237), which scale with BAB. They each focus on a particular form of combat, such as sword-&-board, archery, dual wielding, swashbuckling, etc. They are basically a way to give melee combatants a one-stop shop for Nice Things, so that their finite number of feats can go much further. Unlike most scaling feats, these do not just increase attack or damage numbers with higher BAB; instead, these feats unlock more advanced abilities as the character boosts their BAB.

[wayfare]

The Hourglass of Zihaja setting has Style Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10124237#post10124237), which scale with BAB. They each focus on a particular form of combat, such as sword-&-board, archery, dual wielding, swashbuckling, etc. They are basically a way to give melee combatants a one-stop shop for Nice Things, so that their finite number of feats can go much further. Unlike most scaling feats, these do not just increase attack or damage numbers with higher BAB; instead, these feats unlock more advanced abilities as the character boosts their BAB.

Thanks, Zeta! How do they work in play? Is it a big bump for combat characters to use that kind of feat?

[Xtomjames]

Scaling feats can and do work well in other systems (Rift's is a good example), though in the D20 setting (D&D 3.5, PF, Modern, etc) it's hard to work with them at times.

Some things you can do to make the feats do work better is link their scaling to one another (ToB and ToM both do this with some feats).

It can be a huge boost to martial classes and in some cases, if done correctly, can make them jump from Tier 3 to Tier 2 and even to Tier 1.

Level progression feats are also a good idea, especially if the level progression feats do not require the taking up of extra feat slots as they progress.

I suggest, if you plan to work with these ideas, to only pick one as applying both would be overpowered. The level progression feat idea is the easiest to work with and would jump the abilities of the fighter immensely.