Something for Base Attack Bonus (3.5/PF)

[Just to Browse]

As a quick buff to fighting types, how good of an idea would it be to give combat benefits based on BAB? Specifically, I was thinking:
Medium (3/4) BAB: Once per round, one action you take that would provoke an attack of opportunity doesn't.
Full (1/1) BAB: Once per round, you can decrease the action cost of one action. 1 round -> full-round action -> standard action -> move action -> swift action -> immediate action. You don't go below an immediate action. Also, once per round, one action you take that would provoke an attack of opportunity doesn't.

This could be anywhere from potent (standard action to full attack after a move that doesn't provoke), to annoying (some swift action tiger claw maneuver to immediately jump out of an attack before it happens), or ridiculous (cleric's using divine power to cast spells as a move action). I can nerf the last one with a clause in the spell, but I actually like the first two.

Any other unintended effects I might be missing here?

EDIT: Despite being very intrigued by the idea at hand, I've been convinced by Vad that it's not a good one. If you are desirous to use such ideas, I recommend improving single actions with specific discretion, and only starting at their drop-off points (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:Article_Balance) at 4-6 and 8-10. Full attacks are a standard are always nice.

[Vadskye]

How does this interact with multiclassing? Based on your description, I assume that these benefits apply if your total BAB is at least 1/1 or 3/4. Thus, for example, a Fighter 2 / Wizard 2 would qualify for the 3/4 BAB bonus. Correct?

I think that in a "generic" situation, this essentially means that all fighters have "You can move and full attack without provoking", except it's significantly more complicated and abusable. For example, Battle Sorcerers, clerics, druids, and basically everyone except sorc/wiz never provokes from casting. For fighters, there are a boatload of swift action effects that would be broken as immediate action effects; a lowly Anklet of Translocation becomes "3/day ignore an entire full attack" or "ignore a spell effect". The Duskblade would be full of dumb. The list of unintended consequences, I think, would be immense.

If your intention is to get closer to the "generic" situation above, my recommendation would be to do what I did and just let every class full attack as a standard action. It's less complicated and goes a long way to making combat more mobile and interesting.

[Just to Browse]

How does this interact with multiclassing? Based on your description, I assume that these benefits apply if your total BAB is at least 1/1 or 3/4. Thus, for example, a Fighter 2 / Wizard 2 would qualify for the 3/4 BAB bonus. Correct?I'll be honest. I hadn't thought about it. Perhaps ranges of BAB were better.


I think that in a "generic" situation, this essentially means that all fighters have "You can move and full attack without provoking", except it's significantly more complicated and abusable. For example, Battle Sorcerers, clerics, druids, and basically everyone except sorc/wiz never provokes from casting. For fighters, there are a boatload of swift action effects that would be broken as immediate action effects; a lowly Anklet of Translocation becomes "3/day ignore an entire full attack" or "ignore a spell effect".I'm not actually worried about provoking when casting, since the concentration check for defensively casting is obnoxiously easy to make. Outsiders are what I'm most worried about, dropping scary SLAs as move actions.

On the subject of that anklet, it is kicking in when full attacks start, but spells are usually just target-based, so unless you can teleport out of range it's not a big deal. I can see it being a pain to deal with. Maybe I should make swift actions into free actions? Or perhaps I could say items can't be used with the cost reduction, though that feels more limiting.


The Duskblade would be full of dumb. The list of unintended consequences, I think, would be immense.If by "full of dumb" you mean "awesome and useful", I agree. This makes the duskblade capable of handing out two spell-enhanced attacks per turn, or use a tripping hand and follow it up with an attack on the prone creature.


If your intention is to get closer to the "generic" situation above, my recommendation would be to do what I did and just let every class full attack as a standard action. It's less complicated and goes a long way to making combat more mobile and interesting.I recognize that, but I wanted to go further. BAB is supposed to mean a lot, and I wanted that to show.

[Vadskye]

I'll be honest. I hadn't thought about it. Perhaps ranges of BAB were better.
Depends what you're looking for. My interpretation is rules-consistent if you allow fractional BAB progression.


I'm not actually worried about provoking when casting, since the concentration check for defensively casting is obnoxiously easy to make.
At mid to high levels, yes, this is true. But with this change, even 1st level casters have no reason to fear melee, either because they can ignore the AoO for casting, or because they can ignore the AoO for moving away and then casting, forcing the fighter to use their extra action just to move closer. Is that a world continuity you want?


Outsiders are what I'm most worried about, dropping scary SLAs as move actions.
Yes, that is scary. All outsiders can now use at-will SLAs twice a round. You're going to have to do some fun CR recalculations on that - making the HD of outsiders even lower relative to their CR than it already was. Sounds like a recipe for a glass cannon.


On the subject of that anklet, it is kicking in when full attacks start, but spells are usually just target-based, so unless you can teleport out of range it's not a big deal. I can see it being a pain to deal with. Maybe I should make swift actions into free actions? Or perhaps I could say items can't be used with the cost reduction, though that feels more limiting.
If you allow this as an immediate action, then that's the second time the BAB fix has helped casters more than warriors. Swift into free is better, I think.

[/quote]If by "full of dumb" you mean "awesome and useful", I agree. This makes the duskblade capable of handing out two spell-enhanced attacks per turn, or use a tripping hand and follow it up with an attack on the prone creature.[/quote]
Tripping hand? That's pretty weak, when you can do a bloody true strike and still have room to full power attack an Arcane Channeled shocking grasp or what have you. Or if you're confident you can hit, just do a double shocking grasp for 14d6 + 3x Strength damage at 5th level (assuming a greatsword, because really, why wouldn't you?). That seems like it's blowing other melee classes out of the water.


I recognize that, but I wanted to go further. BAB is supposed to mean a lot, and I wanted that to show.
I think it does show, with this revision. But I don't think that it shows in ways that are good for the game as a whole.

[Amechra]

Just make it so that you can't use spells or spell-like abilities with the shortened timespan. Done and done.

You know, if "casters not provoking when casting spells" is such a problem to you, you can just set it up so that you can spend your 1/round non-provoking action to make an AoO anyway.

You know, I kinda like this; I'm going to steal it and alter it until it works like clockwork.

[Just to Browse]

Depends what you're looking for. My interpretation is rules-consistent if you allow fractional BAB progression.Yeah, but there's a problem when you have +9 BAB at level 10 because you took one level in a 3/4 BAB prestige class. That would need to be rounded either up or down.


At mid to high levels, yes, this is true. But with this change, even 1st level casters have no reason to fear melee, either because they can ignore the AoO for casting, or because they can ignore the AoO for moving away and then casting, forcing the fighter to use their extra action just to move closer. Is that a world continuity you want?That is OK with me. At 1st level, you're afraid of melee anyways because your buff spells aren't good. At high levels where it would matter, the effect is obsolete. That fighter could move as a swift action and get a full-round strike (I don't know if ToB actually has any low-level full-round strikes, maybe?) anyways.


Yes, that is scary. All outsiders can now use at-will SLAs twice a round. You're going to have to do some fun CR recalculations on that - making the HD of outsiders even lower relative to their CR than it already was. Sounds like a recipe for a glass cannon.Alternatively their BAB could just go down a notch. Only a few creatures will really be using full attacks.


If you allow this as an immediate action, then that's the second time the BAB fix has helped casters more than warriors. Swift into free is better, I think.Well there's only one caster this helps. But your point stands.


Tripping hand? That's pretty weak, when you can do a bloody true strike and still have room to full power attack an Arcane Channeled shocking grasp or what have you. Or if you're confident you can hit, just do a double shocking grasp for 14d6 + 3x Strength damage at 5th level (assuming a greatsword, because really, why wouldn't you?). That seems like it's blowing other melee classes out of the waterI actually really like the idea of a duskblade using true strike and then attacking. Though handshake trick doesn't actually work that way. You'd need to make one attack with the spell as a standard action (reduce it to move) via Arcane Channeling, then you could make another attack, then succeed on a second attack. And that's only if your opponent was enough of a fool not to move.

This really encourages nova. I hate to make the rules more complicated, but perhaps an addendum to the benefit should go:
1) Abilities (such as spells or supernatural abilities) that enhance attack rolls or damage can only be reduced if the modified attack roll isn't made within the same turn the ability is used.

[Just to Browse]

Just make it so that you can't use spells or spell-like abilities with the shortened timespan. Done and done.

You know, if "casters not provoking when casting spells" is such a problem to you, you can just set it up so that you can spend your 1/round non-provoking action to make an AoO anyway.

You know, I kinda like this; I'm going to steal it and alter it until it works like clockwork.

Well this system was made to help gishes too. I'd like to see spell combos knocking an opponent out and attacking them, or using an AoE spell to kill minions and then turning to fight the boss. I just want to also not have crazy combos.

[Vadskye]

Yeah, but there's a problem when you have +9 BAB at level 10 because you took one level in a 3/4 BAB prestige class. That would need to be rounded either up or down.
Fractional BAB rounds down using the Unearthed Arcana system. Once you splash even a little bit, you're out of the full BAB progression.


That is OK with me. At 1st level, you're afraid of melee anyways because your buff spells aren't good. At high levels where it would matter, the effect is obsolete. That fighter could move as a swift action and get a full-round strike (I don't know if ToB actually has any low-level full-round strikes, maybe?) anyways.
Hm. Actually, now that I think about it, at 1st level a casterwill probably be dead in a round of melee, since a 1st level fighter gets two attacks with a greatsword every round if he can stand still. I withdraw my objection that it helps casters too much.

(Also, I don't think ToB has any low-level full-round strikes. It seems to have intentionally encouraged mobility.)

Instead, I'm going to complain instead that fighters are absurdly lethal. Inconsistent? Possibly! But I'm still trying to figure out the implications of the system. Anyway, let's look at a generic orc. He's CR 1/2, and he gets a single attack with... wait, the generic orc uses a falchion? But the picture uses a greataxe. And orcs always use greataxes! It's tradition! Whatever. The orc uses a falchion that deals 2d4+4 damage. That will put down all but the craziest of dwarven barbarians in two hits. Now every orc gets two attacks a round. Of course, it's worse if you're fighting orcs that don't use bad weapons like falchions. You're going to find low-level combat to be incredibly lethal, I bet; mages are going to either get off their Color Spray/Sleep (which is an insta-kill) or they will die painful and squishy deaths immediately thereafter. The situation doesn't get better on this front for a while, if ever; giving everyone a free haste means damage scales much faster. Also, two-handed weapons are even more betterer than two-weapon fighting, since the extra standard action adds a huge chunk more damage.


Alternatively their BAB could just go down a notch. Only a few creatures will really be using full attacks.
Do you want to rewrite all the outsiders for the sake of this system? That sounds like a whole heck of a lot of work.


I actually really like the idea of a duskblade using true strike and then attacking.
Me too. I don't like them doing both in the same round as many times as they have spell slots, though. Anyway, but this is the less lethal of the two tricks.


Though handshake trick doesn't actually work that way. You'd need to make one attack with the spell as a standard action (reduce it to move) via Arcane Channeling, then you could make another attack, then succeed on a second attack.
Yes, you would have to succeed on both attacks to do the full amount of damage. The damage which would one-shot a CR 5 foe if the Duskblade had at least a 14 Strength, according to http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/138024-average-ac-hp-core-monsters-cr.html]this chart). That means it's not guaranteed (though the fact that the Duskblade can use Quick Cast to Quicken a True Strike certainly helps with making sure that happens. In other words, the Duskblade laughs at things like "bosses", unless they are really above level. Or if the boss attacks first, in which case the Duskblade might be unconscious before he can act.


And that's only if your opponent was enough of a fool not to move.
So the assumption is that every opponent should not make the mistake of standing in melee with the Duskblade? What about enemies who rely on melee to attack?



This really encourages nova. I hate to make the rules more complicated, but perhaps an addendum to the benefit should go:
1) Abilities (such as spells or supernatural abilities) that enhance attack rolls or damage can only be reduced if the modified attack roll isn't made within the same turn the ability is used.
Yes, it definitely encourages novas. I think the patch solves the Duskblade issue specifically (though it also increases complication; I had to read that a couple times to figure out what exactly it would mean), but I have little doubt that there are a other builds that would demand their own fixes.

[Just to Browse]

Fractional BAB rounds down using the Unearthed Arcana system. Once you splash even a little bit, you're out of the full BAB progression.I really don't want to deny a fighter his extra actions because he's taking a dip in a 3/4 BAB class. That would run counter to the ideal of this system--not ruining the current combos while supporting new ones.


The orc uses a falchion that deals 2d4+4 damage.Hahaha. Damn falchions.

So that's 9 per hit for 18 total damage. That definitely can bring down a guy in one turn, if the orc hits him and only him and doesn't have to move that turn. An orc is CR 1, which means two orcs is a tough challenge for a level 2 party and 1 orc is pretty easy. So mobs only start at level 1. Turn 1, the orc moves in to fight and gets one attack, turn two he's probably dead because it's a 4v1. At the point where you're getting crowds of orcs (level 3 brings 2 orcs as an appropriate challenge, level 4 is 3-4 orcs, level 5 is 5), the player's have enough HP to tank any given orc and also deal some severe hits themselves, probably taking down one orc per attack. It's seems even to me.

And TWF is still better than THF. Because if you can get your iterative off-hand attacks, your attacks double from 2 to 4, as does that juicy damage. THF certainly doesn't seem more buff.

That said, I'm noticing another quirk with combats--the flow and initiation. In this mode, the best thing you can do is full attack enemies you know you can beat, and run from enemies you know you can't. So combat involves a lot of running around, which actually could be good if you have territory set up and you've got a tank or two to get some AoOs in on the bad guys.

Initiation also becomes a problem, because warriors aren't going to engage each other. If one guy can get off two attacks while the initiatior can only get one, then closing the gap is disadvantageous. At high levels the blow is lessened due to standard action full attacks, but it's still there... I'm not sure what to do.


Do you want to rewrite all the outsiders for the sake of this system? That sounds like a whole heck of a lot of work.[quote]Exercise in thought. Take a number between 2 and 20, divide it by 4, rounding up. Subtract that from the outsider's attack bonus and get rid of their latest iterative attack.

That's it. Numbers solved.

[quote]Yes, you would have to succeed on both attacks to do the full amount of damage. The damage which would one-shot a CR 5 foe -snip-I was just correcting you on the technicality. I agree on its lethality.


So the assumption is that every opponent should not make the mistake of standing in melee with the Duskblade? What about enemies who rely on melee to attack?If you can be outbursted as a full-round action, you never stand where you can be hit with a full-round action. Attack and move, attack and move. You still lose out, but the amount of damage dealt drops a lot. This even applies to fighters and barbarians--if an orc is losing out and he's any kind of smart, he'll R-U-N-N-O-F-T with his non-provoking move to where the fighter needs to run to catch him.


Yes, it definitely encourages novas. I think the patch solves the Duskblade issue specifically (though it also increases complication; I had to read that a couple times to figure out what exactly it would mean), but I have little doubt that there are a other builds that would demand their own fixes.The patch solves any self-buff combos relying on this, which seems to be the most abusable. Cool things like disables followed up with attacks, or buffs used with leftover actions from the last round, still happen. The phrase is certainly complicated, and that bothers me, but there's no good way to put it.

All in all, I really like this idea, and I want it to work. Perhaps when the kinks are all obvious there will be an elegant solution with just a couple patches.

[nonsi]

I'd go at it like this:


The following benefits never apply to actions that in anyway circumvent the laws of physics (spells / psionics / Sp / Ps / Su / Incarnum / Binding / Truenaming / . . . )


BAB +6: Once per round, one action you take that would provoke an AoO doesn't.

BAB +12: Once per round, you can decrease the action cost of one action. 1 round -> full-round action -> standard action -> move action -> swift action -> immediate action.
Note: You cannot hasten an action and avoid AoOs at the same round

BAB +18: By now, your combat insight, skill & intuition are such that you can combine both benefits mentioned above.

[Vadskye]

I really don't want to deny a fighter his extra actions because he's taking a dip in a 3/4 BAB class. That would run counter to the ideal of this system--not ruining the current combos while supporting new ones.
In that case, a "tiered" BAB system like Nonsi proposed works very well. It also solves the problem of doubling the number of 1st level attacks. Though I'd actually change something from Nonsi's suggestion - as long as you're making BAB tiers, why tie it to +6/11/etc.? Smooth out the level progression a bit more; 4/9/14, for example. That particular progression specifically rewards taking at least one level in a full BAB class, since a 3/4 BAB has loses BAB progression at 4th and 9th level.


Hahaha. Damn falchions.
Darn right!


So that's 9 per hit for 18 total damage. That definitely can bring down a guy in one turn, if the orc hits him and only him and doesn't have to move that turn. An orc is CR 1, which means two orcs is a tough challenge for a level 2 party and 1 orc is pretty easy. So mobs only start at level 1. Turn 1, the orc moves in to fight and gets one attack, turn two he's probably dead because it's a 4v1. At the point where you're getting crowds of orcs (level 3 brings 2 orcs as an appropriate challenge, level 4 is 3-4 orcs, level 5 is 5), the player's have enough HP to tank any given orc and also deal some severe hits themselves, probably taking down one orc per attack. It's seems even to me.
What if the orc doesn't move in to fight? Anyone moving up into melee with him who doesn't kill him straight out stands a very good chance of going down, because then the orc gets two attacks to the moving character's 1. Two orcs should be a CR 1 encounter for a level 1 party; in other words, they shouldn't expend too many resources. But if those two orcs attack the same person in melee, that person will die. No exceptions, save for by the whims of the dice gods. Sure, the party can deal with the problem by being tactical, but now every fight demands clever tactics and wargaming-style play to avoid serious injury or death.

Now, to be fair, some of this is due to the already swingy nature of low-level combat. But by effectively doubling the number of attacks a character can take at low levels, you're dramatically increasing lethality. There's no way around that. You might want a system that's more lethal, and you think this is an acceptable level of difficulty. If you want that, go for it! But that's a different goal than the BAB system.


And TWF is still better than THF. Because if you can get your iterative off-hand attacks, your attacks double from 2 to 4, as does that juicy damage. THF certainly doesn't seem more buff.
How does that work? Look at it this way: A greatsword wielder gets two standard action attacks, for a total of 4d6 + 3x Strength damage. If a two-weapon fighter with short swords takes two standard action attacks, he deals 2d6 + 2x Strength damage. He could take a full attack action and a swift move, dealing 2d6 + 1.5x Strength damage. He would need to take [i]two full attack actions[i] to get 4 attacks, and then - and only then - would he finally deal 4d6 + 3x Strength damage.


That said, I'm noticing another quirk with combats--the flow and initiation. In this mode, the best thing you can do is full attack enemies you know you can beat, and run from enemies you know you can't. So combat involves a lot of running around, which actually could be good if you have territory set up and you've got a tank or two to get some AoOs in on the bad guys.

Initiation also becomes a problem, because warriors aren't going to engage each other. If one guy can get off two attacks while the initiatior can only get one, then closing the gap is disadvantageous. At high levels the blow is lessened due to standard action full attacks, but it's still there... I'm not sure what to do.
Combat that involves a whole lot of running around like this strikes me as being highly unrealistic, and at the very least not fitting the D&D idiom. A half-orc barbarian or stalward paladin constantly running away from a foe to avoid death? I don't think so. Plus, it's really wargamey - players who don't understand the full implications of these mechanics are going to do the natural thing and move in to attack. Which will potentially make them be very dead.


Exercise in thought. Take a number between 2 and 20, divide it by 4, rounding up. Subtract that from the outsider's attack bonus and get rid of their latest iterative attack.

That's it. Numbers solved.
Not sure what you mean here - is this just a random number between 2 and 20, or is that their HD? If it's their HD, that makes some sense. I was thinking that this would then potentially make their attack bonus and/or CR no longer as accurate, which would necessitate refiguring such things.


If you can be outbursted as a full-round action, you never stand where you can be hit with a full-round action. Attack and move, attack and move. You still lose out, but the amount of damage dealt drops a lot. This even applies to fighters and barbarians--if an orc is losing out and he's any kind of smart, he'll R-U-N-N-O-F-T with his non-provoking move to where the fighter needs to run to catch him.
See above problems with how this breaks world continuity, character decisions, and/or suspension of disbelief, at least for me.


The patch solves any self-buff combos relying on this, which seems to be the most abusable. Cool things like disables followed up with attacks, or buffs used with leftover actions from the last round, still happen. The phrase is certainly complicated, and that bothers me, but there's no good way to put it.

All in all, I really like this idea, and I want it to work. Perhaps when the kinks are all obvious there will be an elegant solution with just a couple patches.
A fundamental rule of thumb I use when house ruling is: If I can't explain it well, it doesn't deserve to be explained. I've changed whole sections of my house rules because I had to make idiosyncratic exceptions to support them. My recommendation is to step back from the BAB system specifically and figure out what you're trying to encourage. If you're trying to solve fighter/caster imbalance in general with this, I think you're chasing a fool's errand; that's too complex to solve with BAB. If you're trying to solve a more specific problem - such as "BAB isn't necessary to be a good fighter" - you should tailor this fix to suit that problem.

For example, if the problem above is what you're trying to solve, you should look at the classes and builds that cause the problem. I think you'll find clerics, druids, and gishes are the source here. They share similarities in play style: they all tend to self-buff before kicking butt. Thus, the fix would need to make sure not to encourage self-buffing (which your current fix does). Does that make sense?

(Also, I'm going on vacation, so I may or may not reply to your response with any reasonable speed. I wish you the best of luck figuring it out, though!)

[Just to Browse]

In that case, a "tiered" BAB system like Nonsi proposed works very well. It also solves the problem of doubling the number of 1st level attacks. Though I'd actually change something from Nonsi's suggestion - as long as you're making BAB tiers, why tie it to +6/11/etc.? Smooth out the level progression a bit more; 4/9/14, for example. That particular progression specifically rewards taking at least one level in a full BAB class, since a 3/4 BAB has loses BAB progression at 4th and 9th level.A tiered system would be a good idea, but the problem is that fighters and such drop off before level 15, so the requirement needs to be below +15 BAB (more like around 9-10 BAB for tier 3, or 6-7 BAB for tiers 1/2), but that means that things with medium BAB can still get action reducers at some point, which could hurt.


What if the orc doesn't move in to fight? Anyone moving up into melee with him who doesn't kill him straight out stands a very good chance of going down, because then the orc gets two attacks to the moving character's 1. Two orcs should be a CR 1 encounter for a level 1 party; in other words, they shouldn't expend too many resources. But if those two orcs attack the same person in melee, that person will die. No exceptions, save for by the whims of the dice gods. Sure, the party can deal with the problem by being tactical, but now every fight demands clever tactics and wargaming-style play to avoid serious injury or death.Well if the orc isn't moving in to fight, he is 4v1 and all the player's can act at the same time. He will be nova'd down, not by one warrior, but by the mage's color spray, the rogue's sneak attack, the warrior's greataxe, and the [whatever]'s [attack mode]. And I missed my calculations, but here: One orc is CR 1/2, meaning two orc's is CR 2, and four orcs is CR 3. One orc will get dominated by a party if he doesn't attack immediately, at which point he'll have dealt a grevious wound. Two orcs, if they don't initiate, will be hacked down to one orc, and then that orc could very possibly deal a full attack of damage on a player bringing him low but not killing him. If the two orcs initiate, they get in two attack which could bring that player low, and then one will die, and the second will get a scary full attack in that could kill a player. So I can see the danger, but it's not quite as bad as you portray it.


Now, to be fair, some of this is due to the already swingy nature of low-level combat. But by effectively doubling the number of attacks a character can take at low levels, you're dramatically increasing lethality. There's no way around that. You might want a system that's more lethal, and you think this is an acceptable level of difficulty. If you want that, go for it! But that's a different goal than the BAB system.This is a hard increase to low-level nonmagical lethality, yes. I don't like the degree, and it really encourages running around, but I'm looking for elegant fixes to the mechanic or combinations instead of scrapping it.


How does that work? Look at it this way: A greatsword wielder gets two standard action attacks, for a total of 4d6 + 3x Strength damage. If a two-weapon fighter with short swords takes two standard action attacks, he deals 2d6 + 2x Strength damage. He could take a full attack action and a swift move, dealing 2d6 + 1.5x Strength damage. He would need to take [i]two full attack actions[i] to get 4 attacks, and then - and only then - would he finally deal 4d6 + 3x Strength damage.I think you're confused about two-weapon fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting). Your attack action will net you two attacks, one from your on-hand and one from your off-hand. Say that's 1d8 + Str (longsword) and 1d6 + .5Str (short sword) for each weapon. Damage comes out to 1d8 + 1d6 + 1.5Str per attack, and getting two attack actions gets you 2d8 + 2d6 + 3Str. Damage is proportional to attack actions, and TWF gets more damage per attack action. Of course, TWF deals 10% less damage per attack because of off-hand penalties and you're 1 feat down for it, but this is still a proportional equivalent to regular fighting.


Combat that involves a whole lot of running around like this strikes me as being highly unrealistic, and at the very least not fitting the D&D idiom. A half-orc barbarian or stalward paladin constantly running away from a foe to avoid death? I don't think so. Plus, it's really wargamey - players who don't understand the full implications of these mechanics are going to do the natural thing and move in to attack. Which will potentially make them be very dead.This is a problem. And I don't know how to deal with it other than "This is now like a fight in Bleach, or a tactical wargame." Players probably need to know that.


Not sure what you mean here - is this just a random number between 2 and 20, or is that their HD? If it's their HD, that makes some sense. I was thinking that this would then potentially make their attack bonus and/or CR no longer as accurate, which would necessitate refiguring such things.I'm mitigating a bonus by adding an equivalent penalty. Considering outsiders use a lot of SLAs, the penalty isn't too great (loss of to-hit), and the bonus to be mitigated is now just a no-provoke.


A fundamental rule of thumb I use when house ruling is: If I can't explain it well, it doesn't deserve to be explained. I've changed whole sections of my house rules because I had to make idiosyncratic exceptions to support them. My recommendation is to step back from the BAB system specifically and figure out what you're trying to encourage. If you're trying to solve fighter/caster imbalance in general with this, I think you're chasing a fool's errand; that's too complex to solve with BAB. If you're trying to solve a more specific problem - such as "BAB isn't necessary to be a good fighter" - you should tailor this fix to suit that problem.The problem is: "BAB isn't necessary to be a cool fighter", and "I want a simplistic way of adding new combos in fights". The whole reason I wrote this was because I took a step back and examined the current rules--this is a draft of the proposal I found.


For example, if the problem above is what you're trying to solve, you should look at the classes and builds that cause the problem. I think you'll find clerics, druids, and gishes are the source here. They share similarities in play style: they all tend to self-buff before kicking butt. Thus, the fix would need to make sure not to encourage self-buffing (which your current fix does). Does that make sense?But I've already done that thought experiment. Discouraging self-buffing, a) Makes players unhappy, b) requires unique fixes to buff spells or just putting a self-buff ban down, both of which suck, c) nerfs classes so they're weak like a fighter instead of buffing fighters so they're good like those classes.

A lot of efforts have already been put into attempting that, and not only does it fail to address one of my concerns, there's no actual solution entailed.

No worries, otherwise. Most of this discussion is currently moot because I think I'm going to aim for tiers at the drop-off points.

[Vadskye]

A tiered system would be a good idea, but the problem is that fighters and such drop off before level 15, so the requirement needs to be below +15 BAB (more like around 9-10 BAB for tier 3, or 6-7 BAB for tiers 1/2), but that means that things with medium BAB can still get action reducers at some point, which could hurt.
Yes, I think a different system is needed.


Well if the orc isn't moving in to fight, he is 4v1 and all the player's can act at the same time. He will be nova'd down, not by one warrior, but by the mage's color spray, the rogue's sneak attack, the warrior's greataxe, and the [whatever]'s [attack mode]. And I missed my calculations, but here: One orc is CR 1/2, meaning two orc's is CR 2, and four orcs is CR 3. One orc will get dominated by a party if he doesn't attack immediately, at which point he'll have dealt a grevious wound. Two orcs, if they don't initiate, will be hacked down to one orc, and then that orc could very possibly deal a full attack of damage on a player bringing him low but not killing him. If the two orcs initiate, they get in two attack which could bring that player low, and then one will die, and the second will get a scary full attack in that could kill a player. So I can see the danger, but it's not quite as bad as you portray it.
The party only can slaughter the orcs consistently in this situation if they synchronize initiatives. Which is wargamey, weird, and sort of defeats the point of initiative in my view. I'll grant that two orcs won't end a party by themselves - but they force the encounter to happen in a specific way to avoid terrible things. (Also, this is all totally ignoring archers. This has really weird interactions with Rapid Shot (you get two attacks no matter how you do it, so Rapid Shot's big cool thing is moot) and Manyshot (fire ALL the arrows!), and archers can solve the problem of "the guy who initiates loses" by initiating safely - and devastatingly - from a distance.


This is a hard increase to low-level nonmagical lethality, yes. I don't like the degree, and it really encourages running around, but I'm looking for elegant fixes to the mechanic or combinations instead of scrapping it.
Good plan. I hope you find something!


I think you're confused about two-weapon fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting). Your attack action will net you two attacks, one from your on-hand and one from your off-hand. Say that's 1d8 + Str (longsword) and 1d6 + .5Str (short sword) for each weapon. Damage comes out to 1d8 + 1d6 + 1.5Str per attack, and getting two attack actions gets you 2d8 + 2d6 + 3Str. Damage is proportional to attack actions, and TWF gets more damage per attack action. Of course, TWF deals 10% less damage per attack because of off-hand penalties and you're 1 feat down for it, but this is still a proportional equivalent to regular fighting.
I'm afraid that's not correct. According to the section on full attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack), you are required to take a full attack action - not an attack action - to attack with both your weapons. TWF does not get more damage per attack action. My math is correct (and it ignored the -2 penalty intentionally just because TWF is already so much worse without factoring that in). Further confirmation here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115755) and here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=9420.0), if you don't believe me. Those are from the first couple of Google results that pop up.


This is a problem. And I don't know how to deal with it other than "This is now like a fight in Bleach, or a tactical wargame." Players probably need to know that.
I don't know about your playgroup, but I'd probably lose interest from a significant majority of my players if I said that. Your mileage may vary, though. Some groups want that.


I'm mitigating a bonus by adding an equivalent penalty. Considering outsiders use a lot of SLAs, the penalty isn't too great (loss of to-hit), and the bonus to be mitigated is now just a no-provoke.
I think this works for some. But many outsiders don't rely on SLAs (the under 8ish CR combat demons and devils, for example). But then again, CR is already pretty darn weird, so this probably isn't all that noticeable.


The problem is: "BAB isn't necessary to be a cool fighter", and "I want a simplistic way of adding new combos in fights". The whole reason I wrote this was because I took a step back and examined the current rules--this is a draft of the proposal I found.
Good. Those are reasonable goals.


But I've already done that thought experiment. Discouraging self-buffing, a) Makes players unhappy,
Why? I think it makes the player who used to have fun rocking the fighter's world through self-buffs unhappy. But it also makes the fighters happier, so that's not reason enough. Self-buffing as a mechanic is tedious and complicated, and that's enough reason for me to try to discourage it. The fact that it's annoyingly powerful is just a bonus.

b) requires unique fixes to buff spells or just putting a self-buff ban down, both of which suck,
Or it requires an elegant solution (which can then be combined with spot-fixes). Here's one I use: all spells give enhancement bonuses. Period. No keeping track of morale, luck, insight, and enhancement bonuses; you just get one bonus type from all spells and magic items. It simplifies the game and nerfs self-buffing as a strategy in a way that does nothing to hinder the power or coolness of any individual buff spell. There are some tweaks that are still needed - Divine Power needs to be written differently so it doesn't stack with everything - but you're a long way towards a better game.

c) nerfs classes so they're weak like a fighter instead of buffing fighters so they're good like those classes.
Weakness and strength only exist relative to other PCs. If everyone is "weak", then no one is. (Now, flexibility and utility do exist in a non-relative sense, but no fix I'm suggesting would reduce those.)


A lot of efforts have already been put into attempting that, and not only does it fail to address one of my concerns, there's no actual solution entailed.

No worries, otherwise. Most of this discussion is currently moot because I think I'm going to aim for tiers at the drop-off points.
I hope that works.

[Amechra]

If we were to use nonsi's version, all this would be moot, due to this kinda stuff only coming into play at a given character's 3rd iterative attack.

[Yitzi]

If you do want to give benefits based on BAB, a single benefit for everyone locks everyone into certain builds, which could be seriously unbalanced. Instead, you might want to consider the following change to feats (heavily inspired by what I'm planning for a system remake):
-All feats scale; combat feats scale heavily with BAB, skill feats scale with ranks, caster feats scale minorly with caster level (because let's face it, casters don't need feats to be powerful), and miscellaneous feats scale with character level. By scaling, I mean both increasing bonuses and adding new features (so it'll end up combining entire feat chains into a single feat, and then possibly adding more features on top of that for higher levels.) That last point is important, because:
-Everyone is entitled to one feat at level 1, and that's it. (Humans and other races that get a bonus feat get some other bonus instead.) Classes that get bonus feats get every other bonus feat (starting with their first, losing their second, getting their third, and so on), but can still only have one feat active at a time (switching is a move action).

Thus, your BAB heavily influences what combat benefits you get from feats (and fighters will have a selection of 7 high-power feats to choose from by 20th level, perhaps giving them the versatility they deserve in combat.)

[Just to Browse]

EDIT: Despite being very intrigued by the idea at hand, I've been convinced by Vad that it's not a good one. This should be much further limited, or another class feature.


Yes, I think a different system is needed.I'm starting to agree with you here.


The party only can slaughter the orcs consistently in this situation if they synchronize initiatives. Which is wargamey, weird, and sort of defeats the point of initiative in my view. I'll grant that two orcs won't end a party by themselves - but they force the encounter to happen in a specific way to avoid terrible things. (Also, this is all totally ignoring archers. This has really weird interactions with Rapid Shot (you get two attacks no matter how you do it, so Rapid Shot's big cool thing is moot) and Manyshot (fire ALL the arrows!), and archers can solve the problem of "the guy who initiates loses" by initiating safely - and devastatingly - from a distance.I don't think it becomes wargamey. Instead, it kind of incentivizes the staredown.
DM: "The orc sees you"
P1: "I'll stand and wait from him to come in. And I'll use an intimidate check."
P2: "I'll pull out my acid flasks."
DM: "He makes it. He'll use one on you."
DM: "Fuuuuuu... I'm at a -2. Well, we can all charge him. [P3] and [P4], want to kick his ass?"


I'm afraid that's not correct. According to the section on full attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack), you are required to take a full attack action - not an attack action - to attack with both your weapons. TWF does not get more damage per attack action. My math is correct (and it ignored the -2 penalty intentionally just because TWF is already so much worse without factoring that in). Further confirmation here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115755) and here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=9420.0), if you don't believe me. Those are from the first couple of Google results that pop up.:smalleek: I have been doing TWF wrong my entire life.


I don't know about your playgroup, but I'd probably lose interest from a significant majority of my players if I said that. Your mileage may vary, though. Some groups want that.A lot of my players would probably be interested. YMMV is the word of the day in homebrew.


I think this works for some. But many outsiders don't rely on SLAs (the under 8ish CR combat demons and devils, for example). But then again, CR is already pretty darn weird, so this probably isn't all that noticeable.A lot of outsider CRs are set because they're assumed to prepare their SLAs. darkness, invisibility, and fart are all big ones.


Why? I think it makes the player who used to have fun rocking the fighter's world through self-buffs unhappy. But it also makes the fighters happier, so that's not reason enough. Self-buffing as a mechanic is tedious and complicated, and that's enough reason for me to try to discourage it. The fact that it's annoyingly powerful is just a bonus.You are making anyone who self-buffs unhappy, which is anybody with a castable buff item or any sort of spells. I mean, self-buffing is about all the paladin/ranger spells are good for, and taking those away isn't cool.

Even if you were malicious and wanted to hurt 'dem self-buffers for ruinin' yer game, sacrificing one player's enjoyment for another player's enjoyment is not proper, if you can instead find a solution that sacrifices neither.


Or it requires an elegant solution (which can then be combined with spot-fixes). Here's one I use: all spells give enhancement bonuses. Period. No keeping track of morale, luck, insight, and enhancement bonuses; you just get one bonus type from all spells and magic items. It simplifies the game and nerfs self-buffing as a strategy in a way that does nothing to hinder the power or coolness of any individual buff spell. There are some tweaks that are still needed - Divine Power needs to be written differently so it doesn't stack with everything - but you're a long way towards a better game.That fix nerfs the casters and anyone they might try to help. The warrior no longer gets bonus DR because lesser visage of the deity won't stack with his current DR. So that nerf, specifically, is hurting both casters and the people they want to help, which is bad.

Even back further, my ideal is to make BAB matter, which this fix doesn't do other than giving it slightly more influence with to-hit scores.


Weakness and strength only exist relative to other PCs. If everyone is "weak", then no one is. (Now, flexibility and utility do exist in a non-relative sense, but no fix I'm suggesting would reduce those.)Heh. Play a level 13 monk against a cinder swarm. Then play a wizard against a cinder swarm. There is a big difference.

Weakness is relative to challenges. The statement remains valid.


If we were to use nonsi's version, all this would be moot, due to this kinda stuff only coming into play at a given character's 3rd iterative attack. What do you mean?


snipThe former idea has been done (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Warriors_with_Style#The_Failure_of_Feats) (and is a lot of work), and the latter makes the problem worse. Combining the two would probably just end up making the problem OK.

[Vadskye]

EDIT: Despite being very intrigued by the idea at hand, I've been convinced by Vad that it's not a good one. This should be much further limited, or another class feature.
Glad I could help, though it's a shame that it mainly consisted of shooting down ideas. My pursuit of "why aren't the fighting classes the best fighters?" has led me to changing about half the content in the PHB. A simple fix may not be possible for something like this - or maybe I just haven't thought of it yet, and there's an elegant solution just waiting to be found. My advice is, first and foremost, to really look into what other people have come up with. There are a whole lot of people who have put a lot of effort into fixing 3.5, and if you take just the best aspects from each person's fix while leaving aside the clunky bits (since everyone has good ideas and bad ideas...) you can end up with a really nice system.


I don't think it becomes wargamey. Instead, it kind of incentivizes the staredown.
DM: "The orc sees you"
P1: "I'll stand and wait from him to come in. And I'll use an intimidate check."
P2: "I'll pull out my acid flasks."
DM: "He makes it. He'll use one on you."
DM: "Fuuuuuu... I'm at a -2. Well, we can all charge him. [P3] and [P4], want to kick his ass?"
Yeah, I like that situation - and I think that encouraging that sort of staredown is worth doing. But that tweak should be more narrowly targeted.


:smalleek: I have been doing TWF wrong my entire life.
Sorry! I've been there too. (For example, did you know that you apply your armor check penalty from your shield while using Weapon Finesse, even if proficient with your shield?) It doesn't help that I think your version honestly makes more sense than the default version. Just call it a house rule and pretend you were doing that intentionally. :P


A lot of my players would probably be interested. YMMV is the word of the day in homebrew.
I don't think "YMMV" counts as a single word. :smallwink: But if that's the case, then go for it. Heck, I'd enjoy playing a D&D game with a more lethal, dangerous feel, as long as I knew that that's what I was getting into. But just like with encouraging staredowns, I think that increased combat lethality deserves a more narrowly targeted rule than this one.


A lot of outsider CRs are set because they're assumed to prepare their SLAs. darkness, invisibility, and fart are all big ones.
Oh, definitely. I don't think this change would affect the Balor or Pit Fiend CR much, even if they do lose some attack bonus; in my experience, they're usually better off using SLAs anyway. I was thinking of the Bearded Devil and Chain Devil in particular, who have shown up in several of my games (I'm not sure why). But this is a minor point, so I'm not going to worry about it. It won't make or break anything.


You are making anyone who self-buffs unhappy, which is anybody with a castable buff item or any sort of spells. I mean, self-buffing is about all the paladin/ranger spells are good for, and taking those away isn't cool.

Even if you were malicious and wanted to hurt 'dem self-buffers for ruinin' yer game, sacrificing one player's enjoyment for another player's enjoyment is not proper, if you can instead find a solution that sacrifices neither.
Well, first I'd separate "self buffs" from "buffs". General buffs are cool, and they make people like you. Self buffs are somewhat less so. But I think you're overestimating the degree to which any solution to a legitimate problem in the came can be implemented without sacrificing certain build ideas and options. A lot of people love playing Tier 1 and 2 casters. A hypothetical fix or rebuild that equalized the tiers of every class (someday... looks off into the middle distance) would hurt the characters who used to be better than everyone else, while helping the characters who used to be worse than everyone else. Every house rule is a balancing act. What I'm saying is, you can't fix a system without breaking a few CoDzilla eggs. (Did that make sense? I hope that made sense.)


That fix nerfs the casters and anyone they might try to help. The warrior no longer gets bonus DR because lesser visage of the deity won't stack with his current DR. So that nerf, specifically, is hurting both casters and the people they want to help, which is bad.
Well, DR never stacks anyway (unless explicitly stated to do so, which is highly unusual), so that's kind of a bad example. Also, the Visage of the Deity spells are personal. But it's true that this change means that the casters can help the fighters less. Is that bad? That just means that casters aren't as necessary; it evens the gap between a party with a caster and a party without a caster. It means bosses don't have to be super strong just to account for the fact that the caster can nova buffs.


Even back further, my ideal is to make BAB matter, which this fix doesn't do other than giving it slightly more influence with to-hit scores.
Placing a firm limit on the degree to which it is possible to get attack bonus from not-BAB means that getting attack bonus from BAB is that much more important. I suppose I should also mention that I do the same to all constantly active feats and class features; they all grant competence bonuses instead of their normal types. With both of those non-stacking rules in place, it's hard to get an attack bonus without a BAB. I think it's rather elegant.


Heh. Play a level 13 monk against a cinder swarm. Then play a wizard against a cinder swarm. There is a big difference.

Weakness is relative to challenges. The statement remains valid.
Yes, but challenges are relative to party strength. Any competent DM (outside of certain specific play styles) will tend to weight challenges according to overall party strength. Thus, a party composed of a monk, a CW samurai, a rogue, and a dragon shaman will all feel pretty evenly balanced, with each member contributing fairly evenly. Yes, the party may need lower CR monsters, but why does that matter from the perspective of the players?

In contrast, if you throw a wizard or DMM cleric into that mix, the caster will rock that party's world. If the difficulty of the encounters doesn't change, he should be able to blow them out of the water. If they do change to match his power, then the rest of the party will struggle to be effective (and/or not dead) while the caster is the only one with a legitimately appropriate challenge. All that matters is the power of players in comparison to each other, not to the world as a whole.

[Yitzi]

The former idea has been done (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Warriors_with_Style#The_Failure_of_Feats) (and is a lot of work), and the latter makes the problem worse. Combining the two would probably just end up making the problem OK.

I don't think so...the former has been done by itself, but that makes for too much power. By combining it with the latter approach (which indeed would make the problem worse if used by itself), I think you'll end up with a definite benefit from BAB without multiplying abilities to the point where it gets ridiculous or prevents any specialization.

[Just to Browse]

Sorry! I've been there too. (For example, did you know that you apply your armor check penalty from your shield while using Weapon Finesse, even if proficient with your shield?) It doesn't help that I think your version honestly makes more sense than the default version. Just call it a house rule and pretend you were doing that intentionally. :PWow, srsly? I'm definitely going to pretend I never learned that.


Well, first I'd separate "self buffs" from "buffs". General buffs are cool, and they make people like you. Self buffs are somewhat less so. But I think you're overestimating the degree to which any solution to a legitimate problem in the came can be implemented without sacrificing certain build ideas and options. A lot of people love playing Tier 1 and 2 casters. A hypothetical fix or rebuild that equalized the tiers of every class (someday... looks off into the middle distance) would hurt the characters who used to be better than everyone else, while helping the characters who used to be worse than everyone else. Every house rule is a balancing act. What I'm saying is, you can't fix a system without breaking a few CoDzilla eggs. (Did that make sense? I hope that made sense.)But self-buffing is a supported archetype in fantasy. The crazy shapeshifter and the guy who turns himself into an angel are wizards and clerics, and you can make them good and interesting shapeshifters/angels instead of not letting them be shapeshifters/angels. That second option only makes a player unhappy if they want to be OP, which I just wasn't accounting for in the statement.


Well, DR never stacks anyway (unless explicitly stated to do so, which is highly unusual), so that's kind of a bad example. Also, the Visage of the Deity spells are personal. But it's true that this change means that the casters can help the fighters less. Is that bad? That just means that casters aren't as necessary; it evens the gap between a party with a caster and a party without a caster. It means bosses don't have to be super strong just to account for the fact that the caster can nova buffs.This doesn't just make the buffmancer less important in the party (which is OK, I suppose), but it makes the buffmancers boring. Your player is no longer saying "ah, we're about to go fight the dragon! I'd better bring along antidragon aura" or "We're going to go into baator, I should prep magic circle against evil" and is instead saying "OK, how many wraithstrikes can I rack up?" Because certain buffs have been nerfed and a bunch of others haven't, you'll see all the win spells like divine insight featured more often, and you'll see fewer of the cool and slightly cool ones like foundation of stone, hand of divinity, and vision of glory. And now if you want a buffmancer in your party, you're going to go with only those win spells and your allies can't plan for cool things...


Placing a firm limit on the degree to which it is possible to get attack bonus from not-BAB means that getting attack bonus from BAB is that much more important. I suppose I should also mention that I do the same to all constantly active feats and class features; they all grant competence bonuses instead of their normal types. With both of those non-stacking rules in place, it's hard to get an attack bonus without a BAB. I think it's rather elegant.Touch attacks still work, so BAB's second biggest enemy isn't gone. Also kill spells and attacks all force saves instead of attack rolls, so BAB's biggest enemy is still at large. Like I said, it increases the to-hit, but that hardly makes BAB any more useful because to-hit chance is kind of laughable at high levels.


Yes, but challenges are relative to party strength. Any competent DM (outside of certain specific play styles) will tend to weight challenges according to overall party strength. Thus, a party composed of a monk, a CW samurai, a rogue, and a dragon shaman will all feel pretty evenly balanced, with each member contributing fairly evenly. Yes, the party may need lower CR monsters, but why does that matter from the perspective of the players?This is the Oberoni Fallacy. The fact that a DM can lowball an encounter by tossing out creatures 2 CR lower than the party members means those party members are weak. Forcing every class down so that the DM has to lowball encounters for any adventuring party is making a problem worse because it's encouraging weak characters.