Base Attack Bonus and E6

[LoyalPaladin]

Hey everybody. I'm going to be starting in an E6 game soon, so I'm working out some kinks with my character. Unfortunately, I must build my character in secret, as everyone in my group knows my name here on GitP and one of the specific requirements of this game is that we don't tell the GM about our character. However, I can ask a general question, while still leaving my entire build to the imagination.

How important is +6 BAB in E6? If you come up just short with +5 BAB, you have a marginally smaller chance to hit and lose out on a second attack. At a low level, I'm not sure how important that is... your second attack's "to-hit" will be a full 5 points under your first attack and then you're using a full action. For some reason I have a gut feeling that keeping mobility at low levels is superior to a second attack. But, since I can't help but second guess myself... here I am!

[Jormengand]

At level 6, the extra attack, even if it only has a 75% chance to hit (in which case your original attack only had a 50% chance to hit) is really, really nice. The actual bonuses can be replaced fairly easily. So, at level 6 itself, very, at other levels, not very but still a little.

[LoyalPaladin]

At level 6, the extra attack, even if it only has a 75% chance to hit (in which case your original attack only had a 50% chance to hit) is really, really nice. The actual bonuses can be replaced fairly easily. So, at level 6 itself, very, at other levels, not very but still a little.
Hm. I'd say "Why not just take Two-Weapon Fighting?" But then I'd start looking into Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, complain about its existence, and be unsatisfied with the lack of feats E6 gets you.

[KillianHawkeye]

At level 6, the extra attack, even if it only has a 75% chance to hit (in which case your original attack only had a 50% chance to hit) is really, really nice. The actual bonuses can be replaced fairly easily. So, at level 6 itself, very, at other levels, not very but still a little.

I think you got your math a bit backwards. A second attack should be 25% less likely to hit.

[Zaq]

One thing to keep in mind is that any feats that require 6 BAB are going to be forever out of reach if you don't stay full BAB for your entire level-based career. You might not care about that, but it is a drawback unless you have a lenient GM. The most interesting feats I can think of offhand that require 6 BAB are Snap Kick, ITWF, and Shock Trooper; they aren't the only ones, but they're some examples of what you're giving up.

It really comes down to what you're gaining versus what you're losing. I mean, that's so general as to be almost meaningless, but it's true. If dipping into Rogue or Swordsage or Incarnate or Factotum or PsyWar or whatever gives you something really cool, that very well might be worth losing the ability to easily gain a meaningful full attack option. Full attacks are going to be a rarity in E6. I wouldn't go full BAB only for the iterative, but if you're going mostly full BAB anyway and there's no compelling reason not to stay that way, you may as well go for it. That said, it's not like only full BAB characters matter in E6 combats (part of the point of E6 is to make it so that there are more interesting combat styles that aren't simply scaled out of relevance, after all), so if you feel like your character would benefit from a dip in Cleric, it's not going to be the end of the world to do that.

[CharonsHelper]

Yes, in E6 sticking with full BAB classes has major benefits. That first iterative attack is pretty huge. It adds 50% or so to your offense whenever you can use it. (not when moving obviously)

But, that doesn't mean that straying from full BAB can't be worth it, it just depends what you're going for.

[Fouredged Sword]

I find the question is do you want to use the full attack option. Without 6 bab there is no difference between a standard action attack and a full attack.

[SwordChucks]

If you're looking to get multiple attacks you'll be better off with a natural attack build. The main draw of +6 BAB in E6 is feat access.

[Jormengand]

I think you got your math a bit backwards. A second attack should be 25% less likely to hit.

Yes, sorry, I meant "Even if it has a 75% chance to miss".


Hm. I'd say "Why not just take Two-Weapon Fighting?" But then I'd start looking into Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, complain about its existence, and be unsatisfied with the lack of feats E6 gets you.

Because TWF is AWFUL. You have to take a feat, then you get -2 to all your attack rolls, then you only do d8+d6+STR*1.5 damage, which is ONE more than two-handed fighting on average, except that if you'd power attacked for two, which also costs a feat and -2 to attack rolls, you'd do 4 more damage instead.

[CharonsHelper]

Because TWF is AWFUL. You have to take a feat, then you get -2 to all your attack rolls, then you only do d8+d6+STR*1.5 damage, which is ONE more than two-handed fighting on average, except that if you'd power attacked for two, which also costs a feat and -2 to attack rolls, you'd do 4 more damage instead.

I would say that's it not terrible in general once you get enough static damage, but in E6 it's pretty terrible because you're not high enough level to get much static damage. (possible exception for rogue/ninjas due to SA static damage)

[Fouredged Sword]

I would say that's it not terrible in general once you get enough static damage, but in E6 it's pretty terrible because you're not high enough level to get much static damage. (possible exception for rogue/ninjas due to SA static damage)

Just about anything with any form of SA is capped at +5 bab in E6

[Jormengand]

I would say that's it not terrible in general once you get enough static damage, but in E6 it's pretty terrible because you're not high enough level to get much static damage. (possible exception for rogue/ninjas due to SA static damage)

The trouble is, static damage works on HIT, not on ATTACK, so it's often little-to-no better than just attacking normally two-handed. Again, it's worse than power attacking for 2 by about 3 damage (6/7 of a SA die) and you don't want to be power attacking for any number anyway, so it's even worse still. It becomes acceptable at best, at high enough numbers of SA dice.

[CharonsHelper]

The trouble is, static damage works on HIT, not on ATTACK, so it's often little-to-no better than just attacking normally two-handed. Again, it's worse than power attacking for 2 by about 3 damage (6/7 of a SA die) and you don't want to be power attacking for any number anyway, so it's even worse still. It becomes acceptable at best, at high enough numbers of SA dice.

At about level 10+, if you run the #s TWF has the highest DPR in the game. Moreso in Pathfinder than 3.5 (Pathfinder has a bit more static damage to stack, but two-handed weapons gain more from Power Attack), but still somewhat in 3.5. It has drawbacks such as a high cost in feats, it does less damage when not making a full attack, and it has more DR issues (since it applies per hit), but it still has much higher DPR in the upper levels. (about 15-30% higher)

[CharonsHelper]

Just about anything with any form of SA is capped at +5 bab in E6

If playing Pathfinder, both Slayers & Snakebite Striker Brawlers have full BAB & SA, but it was more of a general statement of SA in an E6 game rather than specific to full BAB classes.

[Jormengand]

At about level 10+, if you run the #s TWF has the highest DPR in the game. Moreso in Pathfinder than 3.5 (Pathfinder has a bit more static damage to stack, but two-handed weapons gain more from Power Attack), but still somewhat in 3.5. It has drawbacks such as a high cost in feats, it does less damage when not making a full attack, and it has more DR issues (since it applies per hit), but it still has much higher DPR in the upper levels. (about 15-30% higher)

Well, it depends on whether you're using statics or multipliers - lancing is almost always going to be better (you can usually manage to find ways to hit in the high thousands with a lance), but amusingly there's no reason why you can't TWF lances if you're using lion's/dire charge, but doing so is usually worse than two-handing one because they aren't light weapons and you barely get any more damage out of it. TWF is also a massive featsink if you want to do most of the nastier things, whereas spirited charge and optional headlong rush are a lot easier.


Just about anything with any form of SA is capped at +5 bab in E6

Variant fighter has SA.

[CharonsHelper]

Well, it depends on whether you're using statics or multipliers - lancing is almost always going to be better (you can usually manage to find ways to hit in the high thousands with a lance), but amusingly there's no reason why you can't TWF lances if you're using lion's/dire charge, but doing so is usually worse than two-handing one because they aren't light weapons and you barely get any more damage out of it. TWF is also a massive featsink if you want to do most of the nastier things, whereas spirited charge and optional headlong rush are a lot easier.

Could you TWF lances in 3.5? *ugh* I used to play 3.5, but I've been playing Pathfinder for years, and they have a FAQ preventing it, so I have a tendency to forget the old loopholes.

[Bucky]

Can't you use Two-Weapon Pounce instead to avoid the two-weapon fighting penalties with your double lances?

[dascarletm]

If this is E6 in pathfinder you can do some pretty nasty stuff with TWF. Max dex, TWF, deadly agility. Take Urban Barbarian, etc.

Assuming you are sporting a 26 to dex (20 base with lvl 4 increase, +4 from rage, and +2 from item) you are attacking at a minimum:
+12/12/7/7 for dX+8 each hit. Add on other magic items and feats to increase that as you will.

I'm seeing roughly 19 AC as the average for CR 6 monsters, with a +1 weapon, you'll hit ~50% of the time on even your off-hand attacks. Over 100 attacks you'd average (assuming 2, +1 shortswords) 31.25 dmg/round on a full attack. (not including crits)

Pardon if my math is off

[Jormengand]

Could you TWF lances in 3.5? *ugh* I used to play 3.5, but I've been playing Pathfinder for years, and they have a FAQ preventing it, so I have a tendency to forget the old loopholes.

Yes, you could, because they're one-handed weapons on a horse, so you take a -4.


Can't you use Two-Weapon Pounce instead to avoid the two-weapon fighting penalties with your double lances?

No. You lose the charge bonus but not the attack penalty, so in effect the TWF is now giving you a -6, not a -4.

Either way, it's better not to, and to two-hand a single lance, with more +damage stuff on it.

[Bucky]

No. You lose the charge bonus but not the attack penalty, so in effect the TWF is now giving you a -6, not a -4.

Why would there be an attack penalty? You aren't taking the Two-Weapon Fighting action, you're replacing your charge attack with two attacks.

[Jormengand]

Why would there be an attack penalty? You aren't taking the Two-Weapon Fighting action, you're replacing your charge attack with two attacks.

"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."

Are you wielding a second weapon with your offhand? Yes. Are you getting one extra attack per round with that weapon? Yes. Therefore you are two-weapon fighting, and suffer penalties, which can be reduced using feats.

Edit: The penalties are also stated to be (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponFighting) "For fighting with two weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/soulknife.htm)" not just for using the "Two-weapon fighting action," whatever that is.

[Bucky]

Are you wielding a second weapon with your offhand? Yes. Are you getting one extra attack per round with that weapon? Yes. Therefore you are two-weapon fighting, and suffer penalties, which can be reduced using feats.

You don't suffer the penalty, because the extra attack comes from a feat and not from fighting with two weapons.

Unless you're interpreting the two-weapon fighting penalty to apply to any attacks with a one handed weapon while holding a weapon (or spiked shield, or double weapon) in one's other hand, which seems to be a deliberate twisting of RAW for the specific purpose of screwing two-weapon (and sword-and-board) styles.

[Jormengand]

You don't suffer the penalty, because the extra attack comes from a feat and not from fighting with two weapons.

Unless you're interpreting the two-weapon fighting penalty to apply to any attacks with a one handed weapon while holding a weapon (or spiked shield, or double weapon) in one's other hand, which seems to be a deliberate twisting of RAW for the specific purpose of screwing two-weapon (and sword-and-board) styles.

Uhm... it states that the penalties are for fighting with two weapons, not wielding two weapons. Also, this implies that if you just happen to be on a horse, you don't suffer mounted combat penalties to ranged attacks when it moves, because you're not taking the mounted combat action, which is equally stupid. There is no such thing as "The two-weapon fighting action", that's just a thing you've invented. The penalties are "For fighting with two weapons", not "For wielding two weapons" or "For using this action I've just made up called the two-weapon fighting action".

[CharonsHelper]

Yes, you could, because they're one-handed weapons on a horse, so you take a -4.

I think in Pathfinder you can still technically do it, but you only get the x3 damage on the first swing.

[CharonsHelper]

You don't suffer the penalty, because the extra attack comes from a feat and not from fighting with two weapons.

Unless you're interpreting the two-weapon fighting penalty to apply to any attacks with a one handed weapon while holding a weapon (or spiked shield, or double weapon) in one's other hand, which seems to be a deliberate twisting of RAW for the specific purpose of screwing two-weapon (and sword-and-board) styles.

I'm not really sure what your logic is at all. Fighting with the TWF feat is TWF, and you take all associated penalties, albeit reduced by the feat.

[Bucky]

I'm not really sure what your logic is at all. Fighting with the TWF feat is TWF, and you take all associated penalties, albeit reduced by the feat.

I'm arguing that charging with Two-Weapon Pounce might have "Two-Weapon" in the name, but since it's a different type of action (charging instead of full attacking) and doesn't mention TWF penalties or using TWF, the TWF penalties do not apply to the two charge attacks. The feat simply trades the normal Charge bonuses for a second attack.

Jormengand is arguing that because the second attack is with a different weapon, TWF penalties must apply.

[Jormengand]

Yes, when you fight with two weapons, the penalties for fighting with two weapons, that are in two places (TWF feat and soulknife TWF mind blade description) called out as being for fighting with two weapons, and which you incur when you fight with two weapons, are indeed incurred when you fight with two weapons, no matter the mechanism by which you do so.