Yet another "Would this balance out the classes" idea.

[Sandwich8080]

So I've been playing 3.x since it came out now, and I just realized I've been playing it wrong. This whole time, my group and I have been adding the base attack bonus to both attack AND damage. I'm not going to change how we play, since not only has it become habit but it's also another set of numbers that we don't have to keep track of on our character sheets.

Also, using this method, I haven't seen much of a difference between the effectiveness of a wizard or a fighter. The wizard can still teleport circles around a fighter when it comes to more logistic things, but in a combat it seems that unless I (the DM) am playing a wizard as a defensive caster (lots of different wards and concealment and things like that) then the noncaster has just as much chance of doing the most damage as the caster does.

I forgot that this isn't in the book and we houseruled this, but for ranged weapons we add both Dex and BAB to attack and damage, with the exception of thrown weapons where we add Dex and BAB to attack and Strength and BAB to damage.

So, has anyone else tried this? Or how would you think it affects the game?

TL;DR: I add BAB to damage. Isn't that neat?

[Doug Lampert]

So I've been playing 3.x since it came out now, and I just realized I've been playing it wrong. This whole time, my group and I have been adding the base attack bonus to both attack AND damage. I'm not going to change how we play, since not only has it become habit but it's also another set of numbers that we don't have to keep track of on our character sheets.

Also, using this method, I haven't seen much of a difference between the effectiveness of a wizard or a fighter. The wizard can still teleport circles around a fighter when it comes to more logistic things, but in a combat it seems that unless I (the DM) am playing a wizard as a defensive caster (lots of different wards and concealment and things like that) then the noncaster has just as much chance of doing the most damage as the caster does.

I forgot that this isn't in the book and we houseruled this, but for ranged weapons we add both Dex and BAB to attack and damage, with the exception of thrown weapons where we add Dex and BAB to attack and Strength and BAB to damage.

So, has anyone else tried this? Or how would you think it affects the game?

TL;DR: I add BAB to damage. Isn't that neat?

Short answer: If your casters are doing damage then they aren't really out of ballance in the basic rules. Direct damage spells are one of the weakest things a caster can do.

Imbalance happens when your casters notice all the OTHER options they have and when they start doing things like crafting items.

[gr8artist]

Do your casters add their BAB to damage on weaponlike spells (rays and melee touches)?
Because they're supposed to add their BAB to attack rolls, and it would seem odd to allow the fighter to add his BAB to damage, but not the wizard.

[137beth]

Do your casters add their BAB to damage on weaponlike spells (rays and melee touches)?
Because they're supposed to add their BAB to attack rolls, and it would seem odd to allow the fighter to add his BAB to damage, but not the wizard.

Wouldn't really make much of a differences. If the casters are doing damage, then they aren't overpowered.

[Eldan]

No.

The Tiers are about versatility much more than about combat. And even in combat, a caster's power is not in damage.

A caster is "better" than a fighter because he has three times as many tactical options to choose from every round, some of which are just plain better than damage because they shut down enemies entirely in a binary fashion, instead of grinding away at a gradual defence , namely damage,that doesn't anything to weaken the enemy until it's at zero.

An optimized meleeist can already kill most challenge-rating appropriate things in a full attack or two. IT doesn't really matter, though, because that's still pretty much the only thing he can do.

Especially at low levels, it doesn't matter if your damage is 1d10+5 or 1d10+200, if you hit the enemy, he's probably dead. The problem is getting in a position to hit him and not getting hit yourself, which is where the wizard excels.

[Spuddles]

No.

The Tiers are about versatility much more than about combat. And even in combat, a caster's power is not in damage.

A caster is "better" than a fighter because he has three times as many tactical options to choose from every round, some of which are just plain better than damage because they shut down enemies entirely in a binary fashion, instead of grinding away at a gradual defence , namely damage,that doesn't anything to weaken the enemy until it's at zero.

An optimized meleeist can already kill most challenge-rating appropriate things in a full attack or two. IT doesn't really matter, though, because that's still pretty much the only thing he can do.

Especially at low levels, it doesn't matter if your damage is 1d10+5 or 1d10+200, if you hit the enemy, he's probably dead. The problem is getting in a position to hit him and not getting hit yourself, which is where the wizard excels.

The opportunity cost of such an endeavor is relatively high, both in feats and attributes.

BAB to damage greatly improves a bunch of T4 classes, like paladin, ranger, and rogue. It also really bumps up Czilla, thanks to divine power.

It's actually a pretty elegant solution, as it really reduces str & power attack (and related feats) reliance for melee. And it also does wonders for archers.

[Big Fau]

All it means is Power Attack is that much stronger, and TWFing is a little more viable. No real altercations are made to the Tiers of the classes, and the impact this change makes is barely even perceivable at certain levels.

Oh, and the Weapon Specialization line is even more useless than it all ready was.

[eggynack]

As has been said, no it doesn't. Melee classes deal more damage than wizards in general. Wizards can do other things, which is what makes them better. Changes in numbers doesn't really effect tier much at all.

[Namfuak]

How would this work with iteratives? Do you still get full damage to each attack, or only the benefit of your BAB at that iterative level?

[13_CBS]

So I've been playing 3.x since it came out now, and I just realized I've been playing it wrong. This whole time, my group and I have been adding the base attack bonus to both attack AND damage. I'm not going to change how we play, since not only has it become habit but it's also another set of numbers that we don't have to keep track of on our character sheets.

Also, using this method, I haven't seen much of a difference between the effectiveness of a wizard or a fighter. The wizard can still teleport circles around a fighter when it comes to more logistic things, but in a combat it seems that unless I (the DM) am playing a wizard as a defensive caster (lots of different wards and concealment and things like that) then the noncaster has just as much chance of doing the most damage as the caster does.

I forgot that this isn't in the book and we houseruled this, but for ranged weapons we add both Dex and BAB to attack and damage, with the exception of thrown weapons where we add Dex and BAB to attack and Strength and BAB to damage.

So, has anyone else tried this? Or how would you think it affects the game?

TL;DR: I add BAB to damage. Isn't that neat?

As others have already said, adding more bonuses to what mundane melee classes already do (namely Attack and Damage) does not solve fundamental problems that renders them weaker than casting classes.

Typically, a mundane melee character, such as a Fighter, can do one of the following things meaningfully well:

1) Deal lots of damage

Or

2) Continuously trip enemies to limit their movement

(And maybe 3) Grapple a single enemy and lock it down, but that has its issues.)

Compare this to a full casting class, such as a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid, piloted by a skilled player who is good with optimization and has thorough knowledge of the spells at his disposal:

1) Deal lots of damage in a variety of ways:
1a) In melee (Polymorph, Divine Power, Wild Shape, etc.)
1b) At range (blasting,)
1c) With a minion (Summon Monster, Gate, Animal companion, etc.)

2) Continuously lock down or hamper enemies with a variety of battlefield control spells and debuffs, targeting a variety of weaknesses

3) Buff themselves and/or friendlies

While also having plenty of utility abilities outside of combat, such as Identify, divination, transportation (teleportation and its ilk), etc.

It bears repeating: the greatest weakness of mundane melee classes is their relative lack of options. Unfortunately, making them hit harder and more often does not address this weakness.

[Gray Mage]

Well, it is a nice boost for archers. Still nowhere close to closing the gap, but it's nice.

[Spuddles]

All it means is Power Attack is that much stronger, and TWFing is a little more viable. No real altercations are made to the Tiers of the classes, and the impact this change makes is barely even perceivable at certain levels.

Oh, and the Weapon Specialization line is even more useless than it all ready was.

Power attack is less powerful, where as before it was really the only source of getting extra damage, now everyone basically gets PA and shocktrooper for free.

While this change won't do much for fighters who have no opportunity costs to speak of (do damage or do damage or trip), it's amazing for classes that have to pick between, say, power attack and battle blessing, or a positive str score or a few more skill points. Finesse builds, twf builds, and ranged builds (so rogue, scout, and ranger) all get a huge boost from this.

[Sandwich8080]

As far as the balancing out factor, everyone is 100% right. It doesn't put a fighter on an even playing board as a wizard. But it does make the fighter a more lucrative option (at least in our games). Also, I know for a fact nobody plays an optimized wizard (who has the time? :smalltongue:) in our groups.

And as far as helping out with damage as far as Power Attack goes, a lot of people only take Power Attack to get Cleave and Great Cleave (which work wonders with this rule.)

When I first read that you aren't supposed to add BAB to damage, I instantly thought "Well, why would anybody play a non-caster?" Just talking about in terms of damage, Fireball makes a Fighter useless in all except for big boss types. And then there's other spells that can take care of a fighter's job against them. With adding BAB to damage, I've never had a Fighter-type look or feel useless or insignificant in combat.

[eggynack]

In that case, the fact that you viewed this change as a balancing factor comes from two sources rather than one. The first, which has been mentioned repeatedly, is that damage optimization isn't what makes wizards powerful. They can actually just do everything, which is what makes them much better than the fighter. Also, it really doesn't take that much work to build a good wizard. Once you know which spells to take and which to avoid, the distance to outstripping the fighter's capability with any given build is pretty small.

The second source of your misunderstanding, which has been mentioned less, is the idea that melee characters have low damage capabilities compared to wizards. At good levels of optimization, a build dedicated to stabbing evil in the face will outstrip the damage levels of all but the most mailman-like of casters. Just putting together a reasonable chain tripper build can get some pretty crazy results. You hit for ten damage with nearly every hit, and you hit most of the time, so you get a free trip off of knock down. Then, if you succeed on the trip, you get to make a free attack off of improved trip. Combine this with a whirling frenzy spirit lion totem barbarian, and you can charge in, and get that kind of routine against all enemies in range, and then use combat reflexes to destroy/trip/destroy any enemy that tries to get past you to the casters.

That build isn't even optimized especially for damage. Replace tripping stuff with charging and power attacking stuff, like shock trooper, and you can easily one shot most enemies you can hit with your sword, and you can hit any enemy with your sword that's within charging range. The problem isn't that these things aren't dealing damage. The problem is that they're not particularly versatile. Toss the chain tripping fighter up against an enemy two sizes larger than him, or one with more than two legs, or one that's flying out of range, or something else that's generally immune to his attacks, and the fighter will be totally lost. He's completely incapable of adapting to any kind of deviation from a regular humanoid enemy standing in front of him. The charging barbarian is similarly crippled by variation of encounter. There are just so many defenses against these kinds of attacks, and the fighter is stuck with whatever plan he picked at character creation.

Meanwhile, for a sufficiently high level caster, it's more difficult to come up with things that the wizard is incapable of doing than it is to come up with things that he's capable of doing. I could just sit here and list things that any reasonable wizard is likely able to do, and we'd be here all day. If the only metric that you're judging power on is pure damage dealing, then the wizard and fighter aren't really that far apart. It's on every other metric that the fighter fails to deliver.