Why Is Base Attack Bonus Varied By Class?

[Fax Celestis]

I mean, I get it, fighters should be better at fighting, but as indicates by several different threads recently and also by many threads over the course of the years, BAB in and of itself is a very poor means of determining your actual combat ability.

"What about iterative attacks?" What about them? They're 90% of the current pounce reliance problem in extended 3.5 (aka, 3.P): because they exist, they either become required or worthless. Fighter types already miss out on an entire action type (swift actions), by virtue of the fact that most swift-action abilities (literally all of them in core, most of them in extended core) are caster-only; as such, they cannot afford to miss out on another action type here (the full attack).

So I guess my question at this point is, what's the harm, really, in making BAB a function of level and giving the fighter type classes alternative abilities that let them make up the difference?

[LibraryOgre]

Which more less describes my classless SAGA variant.

Alternatively, you get a lot of mileage out of simply getting rid of the need to full attack to iterative, and just make iteratives a natural part of the attack action. That's yet another of the things that WotC did to shift the balance even more in favor of casters.

[Gemini476]

I kind of like how the Rules Cyclopedia (and, presumably, BECMI) handled it. Although its a bit clunky.

You have one action per 10-second turn, be it moving or casting or attacking. If you move and then attack, that is considered a charge. Fighters of 12th level get an additional attack against enemies that they can hit on a 2, and can swap that attack for a variety of combat maneuvers or for moving their speed (psuedo-Pounce?). At level 24 and 36 they get another additional attack; do note that the Multiple Attacks maneuver is exclusive to the Fighter, and classes such as the Dwarf and Elf do not get it (despite getting other Fighter Combat Options).

And then along comes BAB which gives Wizards an extra attack and Clerics/Rogues two while leaving the Fighter unchanged (except by the Full Attack option limiting mobility.)

I kind of liked how Next is doing it, with the Proficiency Bonus being a universal boost to saves/to-hit/skills and the Fighter getting four attacks, the Paladin and Barbarian getting two, and everyone else getting zero. (For multiclassing eight levels in Extra Attack classes will give you one extra attack, IIRC.)
Next also has a bunch of things they are doing wrong with the Fighter, but I feel like this is one that went right.

[LibraryOgre]

You have one action per 10-second turn, be it moving or casting or attacking. If you move and then attack, that is considered a charge. Fighters of 12th level get an additional attack against enemies that they can hit on a 2, and can swap that attack for a variety of combat maneuvers or for moving their speed (psuedo-Pounce?). At level 24 and 36 they get another additional attack; do note that the Multiple Attacks maneuver is exclusive to the Fighter, and classes such as the Dwarf and Elf do not get it (despite getting other Fighter Combat Options).


I know the dwarves get it, but at higher levels.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Because without magic they can easily end up struggling to hit anyways. I would consider taking away their iteratives and give them something to make up for that (I also feel that would help differentiate them more from other melee classes).

[Ernir]

So I guess my question at this point is, what's the harm, really, in making BAB a function of level and giving the fighter type classes alternative abilities that let them make up the difference?

What's the harm? Let's check.

The way I see it, there are three things that the "BAB" statistic encapsulates:
How likely a character is to hit. Other things being equal, a character with high BAB is more accurate with their blows.
How often a character can attack in a round (with manufactured weapons, yay...).
At what point characters gain access to all sorts of feats and PrCs.

For each of these points, we can decide if this is a characteristic we would like the fighter types to have. If we decide to keep it, we can decide if we can, as you put it, give the classes alternative abilities that let them make up the difference.

I'd say it makes sense that fighter-types are more likely to hit than others.
This is something that can be replaced with abilities. Hell, WotC already did that with the Weapon Focus line - the line being crap is beside the point.

How often a character can attack... I'm not sure I like that as a BAB-consequence, but we can definitely and easily make abilities that replace it. 3.5 is littered with extra attack granting things as it is.

Don't know about qualifications. How do you want to handle those?

[hymer]

I know the dwarves get it, but at higher levels.

Elves get two attacks 850k and three at 2.6m XP. That's about level 14 and 28 for a fighter, who gets these options at 12 and 24, and another at 36. But you can't make multiple attacks unless you can hit your opponent on a roll of 2. :smallannoyed:
Dwarves get two attacks at 660k and three at 1.4m.

[stack]

In Legend almost everyone gets full BAB plus an attack action grants all iteratives. BAB also improves AC. Seems to work nicely.

[nedz]

Because BAB is balanced against spellcasting.

Why are you suggesting stealing more of melee's toys ?

I suppose it depends upon what new toys you are intending to give them instead ?

[Drachasor]

Giving everyone the same attack bonus progression was one of the good things about 4E imho. But it does mean you have to change other things to adapt.

[CombatOwl]

Because without magic they can easily end up struggling to hit anyways. I would consider taking away their iteratives and give them something to make up for that (I also feel that would help differentiate them more from other melee classes).

Give them extra things they can do as part of a standard action attack, remove iterative attacks, and make the Full Attack action simply provide a fixed bonus to BAB and "Martial Focus". Since fighter problems are often martial problems in general, create a new skill -- Martial Focus -- that only martial classes have as a class skill. Step non-casters up to 4 + Int skill points per level as a minimum. Add new class features to primarily martial classes that provide different levels of bonuses to Martial Focus checks. Fighters get a very high bonus, paladins and rangers get somewhat less of a bonus, rogues get a slight bonus, etc. Two-Weapon Fighting would still provide extra attacks, as would the haste spell and speed property.

Let the Martial Focus skill be used as a swift action to apply different sorts of effects as part of a standard attack. These effects can range from extra damage (extra dice of the weapon's base damage die) to applying conditions "until the start of your next turn." Each different effect would have a different DC.

You'd probably need to, as a DM, harshly restrict access to the sorts of skill buffs that can crank stealth skills and diplomacy through the roof.

That's how I'd do it, if I were so inclined.

[SinsI]

I'd phrase it differently: why do casters get any BAB at all?!

Most of their attacks either don't need an attack roll (i.e. Fireball), auto-hit (magic-missile), or need a Touch attack - so need a lot less bonuses to hit.

Plus they have plenty of spells that grant bonuses Fighters can only dream about (i.e. True Strike).

On the Fluff side, lvl 20 Wizard is a better melee fighter than a Fighter 10 - with Figher contribuiting 100% of his time to improving his martial arts and Wizard spending all their time over books....

Casters should get no BAB bonuses at all!

[lunar2]

Because without magic they can easily end up struggling to hit anyways. I would consider taking away their iteratives and give them something to make up for that (I also feel that would help differentiate them more from other melee classes).

i remember reading someone's campaign journal, and the DM introduced a mechanic called the focused strike. on a full attack, you give up your iteratives (but not extra attacks, such as haste, twf, or flurry of blows), to gain a +2 bonus to hit for each attack you gave up, until the start of your next turn. so a fighter 11 with haste, instead of making 5 attacks that would struggle to hit, could make 2 attacks with a +4 bonus to hit. if they were likely to hit, anyway, that bonus could be fuel for power attack or combat expertise.

[Prime32]

Alternatively, you get a lot of mileage out of simply getting rid of the need to full attack to iterative, and just make iteratives a natural part of the attack action. That's yet another of the things that WotC did to shift the balance even more in favor of casters.While you're at it, give casting times a tweak. Full casters like wizards and clerics require 1 round to cast their spells, or a standard action if Quickened. 2/3 casters like bard and duskblade use their original casting times. Half-casters like paladin and ranger can cast as a swift action, effectively getting Battle Blessing for free.

Seriously, how many media make wizards more mobile than fighters? Isn't tactical positioning something you learn in an army, not a damp laboratory? I thought the fighter was supposed to be running around fending off enemies while the wizard stands still and chants long incantations.

[Ramza00]

While you're at it, give casting times a tweak. Full casters like wizards and clerics require 1 round to cast their spells, or a standard action if Quickened. 2/3 casters like bard and duskblade use their original casting times. Half-casters like paladin and ranger can cast as a swift action, effectively getting Battle Blessing for free.

Seriously, how many media make wizards more mobile than fighters? Isn't tactical positioning something you learn in an army, not a damp laboratory? I thought the fighter was supposed to be running around fending off enemies while the wizard stands still and chants long incantations.

I would modify that a caster takes a -4 caster level penalty if they use a standard action, if it is a 1 round action they can cast as normal. If a caster does not have a high enough caster level he can not cast that spell. Thus a spellcaster needs good positioning to cast high level spells safely or he cast low level spells to make up for it.

[Drachasor]

I'd just remove the full attack altogether. That makes combat more mobile. Balance attack and damage around the idea everyone has a move action to do whatever they want and a standard action for attack. This would require a lot of work, but it would be worth it. Alternatively, you could have full BAB classes (some of them at least) able to make full attacks as a standard action. That's a little less tweaking.


I would modify that a caster takes a -4 caster level penalty if they use a standard action, if it is a 1 round action they can cast as normal. If a caster does not have a high enough caster level he can not cast that spell. Thus a spellcaster needs good positioning to cast high level spells safely or he cast low level spells to make up for it.

This just encourages players to use the most powerful spells and combos. So in a very real sense it makes the problem worse. Same with forcing casting to take longer. Worse, it penalizes players that don't use such tactics -- slapping such players in the face because they aren't making non-casters look stupid isn't a solution.

There's no quick fix to magic. You really have to modify the spells.

[ericgrau]

In high optimization damage is limitless and it only matters what tricks you pull to land the win not how hard you do it. In more normal lower optimization play, damage really does matter and even a +1 to hit makes a big difference.

[Prime32]

I would modify that a caster takes a -4 caster level penalty if they use a standard action, if it is a 1 round action they can cast as normal. If a caster does not have a high enough caster level he can not cast that spell. Thus a spellcaster needs good positioning to cast high level spells safely or he cast low level spells to make up for it.Only blasters care about high caster levels in the first place. Why would you want to nerf the weakest spellcasters and leave the rest untouched? :smallconfused: This also doesn't prevent you from using high-level buffs/summons/etc. since you'll be casting those outside of combat; it just prevents you from using high-level blasts.

[Seerow]

Only blasters care about high caster levels in the first place. Why would you want to nerf the weakest spellcasters and leave the rest untouched? :smallconfused:

When casting as a standard action:
-Caster level reduced by 4 (hurts against SR, and reduces power for various effects)
-Take a -4 penalty to-hit (hurts touch spells/rays)
-Do not add your spellcasting mod to save DC (screws save or sucks)

Spells that normally take a Full Round Action get bumped to 2 rounds, and rushing to a single full round incurs the above penalties.


Between those things the main thing left that you're able to do is buff (casting spells 2 spell levels lower than normal) or Battlefield Control (casting spells 2 spells level than lower, and having a limited selection because many of those grant saves)

[ericgrau]

So the best spells, SR no battlefield control, get left untouched.

[Drachasor]

So the best spells, SR no battlefield control, get left untouched.

Indeed. Seems once a week there's someone who thinks there's a quick fix to make magic balance. There isn't. You have to modify or ban a lot of spells and look them over one at a time. There are also a ton of spells of every level that are perfectly fine (even weak), so you can't just do a blanket change that hits everything.

Reducing attack rolls, Caster Level, DC....net effect of that is just to encourage min-maxing in people who can, and to screw over every caster that wouldn't have been a problem otherwise. So it really doesn't solve the problem, and it hurts a lot of people that wouldn't have been a problem.

And honestly, increasing casting time always seems like a "make being a caster less fun" solution. Imagine if it took one full round to do an attack. Delays like that for your main actions make the game worse.

[Dimers]

So I guess my question at this point is, what's the harm, really, in making BAB a function of level and giving the fighter type classes alternative abilities that let them make up the difference?

Because that's 4e, which is generally agreed to be heresy in any 3.X discussion. :smalltongue: In 4e your chance to hit goes up slowly, level/2 for all characters. Instead of gaining BAB as you level up, you get better powers -- better tricks and maneuvers and weapon masteries. "Alternative abilities," in short.

[Seerow]

So the best spells, SR no battlefield control, get left untouched.

Not entirely untouched, you're still stuck casting two spell levels below your max, which restricts you a lot.

But frankly there is no way to rein in a spell that has literally no defense, because there's no knobs for you to turn to power it down. If you're that worried about a 9th level wizard casting a 3rd level spell while moving because that's his best option, your best option is to simply throw out or rewrite those specific spells.

[Jeff the Green]

Because that's 4e, which is generally agreed to be heresy in any 3.X discussion. :smalltongue: In 4e your chance to hit goes up slowly, level/2 for all characters. Instead of gaining BAB as you level up, you get better powers -- better tricks and maneuvers and weapon masteries. "Alternative abilities," in short.

Actually, I think a lot of 3.Xers like or would like a lot of the changes in 4e. Doing away with BAB, unifying saves with AC, reducing dependence on +X items, giving mundanes interesting things to do, and making magic available to all with rituals are all very good ideas—the last two are why I like ToB and Incantations so much. It's the overarching design philosophy of reducing imbalance by reducing mechanical diversity that we don't like.

[Dimers]

It's the overarching design philosophy of reducing imbalance by reducing mechanical diversity that we don't like.

:smallsigh:

If that actually existed, I wouldn't like 4e either.

[Seerow]

:smallsigh:

If that actually existed, I wouldn't like 4e either.

But it does exist.

The classes each have their own roles and capabilities, but the actual mechanics behind each of them is all nearly identical. That turned a lot of people off to the system. Far more than removing BAB.


That said I would be okay with a mix between 4e and 5e's styles. That is, give everyone 1/2 level to saves, and let attributes scale upwards (iirc 4e attributes wound up in the high 20s to low 30s); and then have 'proficiency' bonuses that scale between 1 to 6 or 0 to 3, which can be added to different checks. This can be used as a standard mechanic for boosting BAB (Wizard gets no bonus, Rogue gets half bonus, Fighter gets full bonus), defenses, skills, etc.

[3WhiteFox3]

Not entirely untouched, you're still stuck casting two spell levels below your max, which restricts you a lot.

But frankly there is no way to rein in a spell that has literally no defense, because there's no knobs for you to turn to power it down. If you're that worried about a 9th level wizard casting a 3rd level spell while moving because that's his best option, your best option is to simply throw out or rewrite those specific spells.

Agreed, 9th level casters have much better things with their 5th level spells, regardless of the 1 round casting time. It also means you can never cast a 9th level spell as a standard action (without shenanigans).

[Alent]

I mean, I get it, fighters should be better at fighting, but as indicates by several different threads recently and also by many threads over the course of the years, BAB in and of itself is a very poor means of determining your actual combat ability.

"What about iterative attacks?" What about them? They're 90% of the current pounce reliance problem in extended 3.5 (aka, 3.P): because they exist, they either become required or worthless. Fighter types already miss out on an entire action type (swift actions), by virtue of the fact that most swift-action abilities (literally all of them in core, most of them in extended core) are caster-only; as such, they cannot afford to miss out on another action type here (the full attack).

So I guess my question at this point is, what's the harm, really, in making BAB a function of level and giving the fighter type classes alternative abilities that let them make up the difference?

I keep wanting to try something along these lines by using Next's bonuses and 2e weapon mechanics, but I keep coming back to the question of "If I do this, aren't I just recreating 2e melee in 3.5?" and I get lost in debating the merits and demerits and figure I'll look at Next's final form come launch.

The big perk I see is that when iteratives were on the weapons, every weapon was it's own tool and you might carry plenty of them for each situation rather than just weapon specialize on the biggest dice weapon and pounce-charge with powerattack and shocktrooper as high as they go. (although I know there were a few stupid damage builds in 2e.)

Balancing each weapon as a tool equivalent to a direct damage spell could open up more options for melee, like adding more iteratives to the lower damage weapons under the "they're more maneuverable" logic, or maybe letting the smaller point blank weapons go against touch AC. Fighters would still need to have the rest of their toolbox examined, but if weapons were actually comparable to spells, I think fewer people would be bothered by Fighters getting nice things.

The number of monster updates you'd have to do alone is boggling. So many natural attacks would need to be reviewed. (That said... 3.5's Dragons really need the love.)

[Vanitas]

So I guess my question at this point is, what's the harm, really, in making BAB a function of level and giving the fighter type classes alternative abilities that let them make up the difference?
I don't think there is a problem, which is probably why they did exactly that with 4th edition.

[TuggyNE]

Agreed, 9th level casters have much better things with their 5th level spells, regardless of the 1 round casting time. It also means you can never cast a 9th level spell as a standard action (without shenanigans).

*coughorangeprismiounstonecough* *coughbeadsofkarmacough* *cougharchmagecough* *coughALLTHEOTHERNONCORECLBOOSTERScough*

That's not "shenanigans", that's "low op".

[Psyren]

I mean, I get it, fighters should be better at fighting, but as indicates by several different threads recently and also by many threads over the course of the years, BAB in and of itself is a very poor means of determining your actual combat ability.

Indeed, but it is a starting point - a quick shorthand way of saying "this class is trained in combat," "this one did some fighting but had other areas of focus," and "this one barely knows where the pointy end of a dagger is."

And remember that BAB applies to monsters too - specifically creature types. It's a flavorful way of distinguishing, say, Fey dice from Dragon dice, which is again a shorthand way of illustrating which creature type is more likely to have experience with getting physical.

[SinsI]

The problem is that the latter two options are not different enough - the difference in BAB is minor if you consider the self buffs available to clerics (and wizards don't need BAB at all). And iterative attacks are really worthless - if you want a lot of attacks, grab yourself some natural attacks that actually hit!
The difference in BAB must be accentuated much further - automatically give the Power Attack bonus for any excessive Attack over the AC required to hit, remove all the separate feats for Improved Grappling/Trip/Sunder/etc., instead basing their availability on BAB.

[Seerow]

Indeed, but it is a starting point - a quick shorthand way of saying "this class is trained in combat," "this one did some fighting but had other areas of focus," and "this one barely knows where the pointy end of a dagger is."

And remember that BAB applies to monsters too - specifically creature types. It's a flavorful way of distinguishing, say, Fey dice from Dragon dice, which is again a shorthand way of illustrating which creature type is more likely to have experience with getting physical.

Honestly BAB/Skills/Saves being tied to creature type is one of the weaker aspects of the system. Why does an Giant Mage have better BAB than a human fighter of his CR? Why do all undead, even intelligent ones, get half BAB? There's lots of little issues with it, and it would be much nicer if there were a few generic hit dice packages separate from creature type (which instead serves to define resistances, immunities, what sorts of spells can affect them, etc), to better define what that particular monster is supposed to be.

[Drachasor]

Honestly BAB/Skills/Saves being tied to creature type is one of the weaker aspects of the system. Why does an Giant Mage have better BAB than a human fighter of his CR? Why do all undead, even intelligent ones, get half BAB? There's lots of little issues with it, and it would be much nicer if there were a few generic hit dice packages separate from creature type (which instead serves to define resistances, immunities, what sorts of spells can affect them, etc), to better define what that particular monster is supposed to be.

That's why I liked 4E's solution. Everyone has the same BAB, but your class and other abilities determine what you most effectively use it for.

Imho, it wouldn't be bad if a Rogue and Wizard both could make an attack with a dagger with the same BAB...but the Rogue can do things with a dagger the Wizard just can't. Similarly, an Elven Wizard with a Longsword might have the same BAB as an Elven Fighter, but the Fighter would have a bunch of moves the Wizard didn't.

TOB is one way to do this, though there are lots of others. A big advantage here is that it can help balance out multiclassing, different racial hit dice, and other game mechanics. It also scales better so you don't have to change the rules for EPIC and you don't have other oddities. It makes spells easier to write and adjudicate if you don't need to worry about BAB differences too.

Do not misconstrue that as me saying 4E was awesome in every way. I hated a lot of the mechanics (as an example, I thought ToB had better warrior mechanics than what 4E had). But 4E did have some good points.

[Psyren]

Honestly BAB/Skills/Saves being tied to creature type is one of the weaker aspects of the system. Why does an Giant Mage have better BAB than a human fighter of his CR?

This complaint sounds like it has more to do with the CR system than the BAB system.



Why do all undead, even intelligent ones, get half BAB?

They get half BAB from their RHD; any additional training is represented by class levels, just as it was when they were alive. For instance, Death Knights are very martial and intelligent undead; they also happen to be templates, like liches are.

[Seerow]

This complaint sounds like it has more to do with the CR system than the BAB system.

Yeah I was referring more to monster creation rules than BAB in general. I generally like BAB for classes, I hate that monsters get shoehorned based on creature type.




They get half BAB from their RHD; any additional training is represented by class levels, just as it was when they were alive. For instance, Death Knights are very martial and intelligent undead; they also happen to be templates, like liches are.

The system causes non-template undead to have absurd amounts of HD to be a relevant threat in combat, which then has other downsides such as making a typical zombie of a given CR harder to turn than a higher CR lich, despite the Lich's turn resistance.

Though I guess really I just have a problem with the idea of Racial Hit Dice. Replacing them with generic monster classes (basically just expand the idea of NPC classes), and it'd be good.

[Drachasor]

Though I guess really I just have a problem with the idea of Racial Hit Dice. Replacing them with generic monster classes (basically just expand the idea of NPC classes), and it'd be good.

Racial hit dice might make sense for actual races. But when it is stuff like ALL UNDEAD (incorporeal, corporeal, dinosaur, zombie, squid, etc) or ALL OUTSIDERS then it gets very silly. Though it is probably better to replace it with various classes combined with racial abilities.