Results 1 to 30 of 39
Thread: Should BAB exist?
-
2013-05-02, 09:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Should BAB exist?
I'd like to open up a discussion on whether you (playgrounders) think that BAB should/could be thrown out, modified, or replaced.
Personally I hate the idea behind BAB, the thought that someone is equally gifted in all weapons. I would propose weapon group proficiencies (As in Unearthed Arcana 3.5). Each class would start with Simple Weapons. Most pseudo-combat classes (Rogue/Cleric) would get one extra. More martial classes would be able to pick two (Barbarian/Ranger) & Fighters & only Fighters would get the three. A player could gain access to more through feats.
As well as using proficiency to group weapons. the proficiency itself would grant a one time only bonus of +5 to all attacks made with a weapon in the proficiency group. No scaling, all monsters & such would be re-mathed to go with the lower numbers
-
2013-05-02, 09:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
Re: Should BAB exist?
Er...but BAB has nothing to do with what weapons you're proficient with; that's got it's own section in the chassis utterly.
-
2013-05-02, 09:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
-
2013-05-02, 10:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
-
2013-05-02, 10:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
Re: Should BAB exist?
Translation: Accuracy is bounded, no class gets a bonus to-hit just by leveling up. Also, some weapons are inherently superior to others, thus necessitating that people who want to use axes need to refluff their swords in order to not suck.
The first is a good idea, the second is stupid and needs to die in a fire.
-
2013-05-02, 10:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Re: Should BAB exist?
D&D isn't a skill-based game. BAB (or THAC0) make as much sense as hit points and experience points. It's a simplification.
Meanwhile, almost every other (non-d20) RPG has separate weapon skills. (Except, of course, the ones that don't: Dragon Warriors, etc.)D&D retroclones:
SpoilerAdventurer Conqueror King
Basic Fantasy (free)
Dark Dungeons (free)
Dungeon Crawl Classics
Labyrinth Lord (free)
Lamentations of the Flame Princess (free)
Mazes & Minotaurs (free)
Myth & Magic (free)
OSRIC (free)
Swords & Wizardry (free)
-
2013-05-02, 10:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Re: Should BAB exist?
BAB is a perfectly reasonable abstraction; and quite useful. it's not optimally simulationist, but well, there's other system if you want that; bab is more a representation of general awesomeness at fighting; and should probably be extended to more things than just attack value.
It's quite viable to make system with or without it.A neat custom class for 3.5 system
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94616
A good set of benchmarks for PF/3.5
https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2...y-the-numbers/
An alternate craft point system I made for 3.5
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...t-Point-system
-
2013-05-02, 11:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
Re: Should BAB exist?
Honestly, while I admit it's not exactly accurate, there are plenty of soldiers or warrior classes that were known to use more weapons than can be represented in 3 proficiencies, and really who wants to waste a feat on a proficiency?
Also, a flat +5 is terrible at representing weapon proficiency. For instance, I can basically fight and beat most people who don't know how to wield a weapon, while my trainer can kick my ass without breaking a sweat. There's no way that we should both be modeled with a +5 to hit.
Characters in D&D improve as they level, base attack bonus is one of the ways they improve.
-
2013-05-02, 11:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: Should BAB exist?
Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity
-
2013-05-03, 06:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Re: Should BAB exist?
Incidentally, most RPGs that use weapon skills run into one problem: a lot of weapons share a lot of basics, and almost all close-combat weapons share footwork. (For instance almost all martial arts and most styles of fencing share footwork basics.) Footwork is critical - without good footwork, you're not going to be voiding (avoiding, "dodging") attacks, and your attacks aren't going to reach their mark.
Even GURPS with its skill defaults doesn't really address this. Sure, Broadsword defaults from Shortsword... but a dude with Axe-18 and no Broadsword skill should have some kind of advantage over another person with the same base Dexterity who doesn't have any weapon skills.
I almost think a 50/50 split would be reasonable (as in "a good enough abstraction for a game"): general combat skill and specific weapon skills scale at about the same rate, so that most warriors are going to have close to the same number in their general combat skill and their best specific weapon skill(s).
It's probably perfectly possible to create a d20 game with skill-based combat ability, but you'll have to do a heck of a lot of balancing... if each weapon were one skill, it'd be completely unreasonably expensive to master more than one... or, if people got a lot more skill points, it'd give a giant advantage to someone who decides to skip weapon skills or only get one. Separate skill points for weapons and regular skills wouldn't work without some kind of conversion rate between them... after all, if you skip learning weapons, shouldn't you have more time (or, from an OOC standpoint, character resources) to put into other skills?
I'd probably also make defense skill-based, either with AC for armor and no magic armor etc., or DR for armor instead of AC for armor (although I think AC actually models how you attack armored opponents better).D&D retroclones:
SpoilerAdventurer Conqueror King
Basic Fantasy (free)
Dark Dungeons (free)
Dungeon Crawl Classics
Labyrinth Lord (free)
Lamentations of the Flame Princess (free)
Mazes & Minotaurs (free)
Myth & Magic (free)
OSRIC (free)
Swords & Wizardry (free)
-
2013-05-03, 07:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- London, England.
Re: Should BAB exist?
I've always hated having to buy specific skills for each weapon. It leads to aggravating situations where your character is competent with Sharp Metal Pointy Thing A yet can't hit anything with Sharp Metal Pointy Thing B, because some game designer decided that A and B should fall into different weapon groups. It also encourages characters to overspecialise to the point where they're useless as soon as they lose their chosen weapon.
There are two problems with this:
1. It's often not at all obvious which category a weapon should fall into, and most weapon categories are pretty arbitrary anyway. This means it basically comes down to DM/game designer fiat whether you're allowed to use a weapon or not.
2. It makes characters less competent than they should be in real life. In the real world, an expert with one type of melee weapon is going to pick up the fundamentals of how to fight with other types of melee weapons too. Most good swordsmen really can pick up any melee weapon and wield it effectively, because the basics of footwork, positioning, timing, muscle development, etc. carry over no matter what kind of pointy object you're trying to stick in the other guy.
BAB has its problems, but the fact that it's trying to model general weaponskill as a single stat isn't one of them.I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and the final book in the series, Risen, is out as of December 2021. For updates, check my blog!
-
2013-05-03, 07:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
Re: Should BAB exist?
I've played in a system where combat styles and weapon styles were separate. Your final result was Combat Style skill + Weapon skill + dice.
That system used several different combat styles with different base attributes, Agile combat style, Tactical, Aggressive etc.
IME, Shields shouldn't be in their own category. Using a shield should give you a defensive bonus, and a bonus against missiles. Using a shield shouldn't require you to sink skillpoints into Combat Style, Weapon skill AND Shield skill. Otherwise silly stuff happens, like shield bash being better option in combat than hitting the enemy with your sword, or the dedicated warrior being worse at hitting things because he has to spend his skillpoints between more skills.
-
2013-05-03, 07:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- Ohio
Re: Should BAB exist?
I'm thirding this viewpoint - Combat skill is a LOT more vehicular than the OP gives martial artists credit for. You fight with your entire body - the weapon is just an extention and focus of that. If you're not proficient with a weapon in d20, you take a VERY significant penalty. Or, if you're focused on one weapon, you have an advantage over thoe who don't.
-
2013-05-03, 08:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: Should BAB exist?
I'm curious, OP: Is your objection based on modeling "real fighting", or is it rooted elsewhere, such as trying to balance combat, or a storytelling issue? I'm also interested in what within your background makes you feel that BAB is a poor model, relative to the "Weapons Group" model you propose.
-
2013-05-03, 08:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
Re: Should BAB exist?
Honestly I'm chuckling a little at those saying that an Axe is in any reasonable fashion similar to a long spear.
So if I were building weapon groups I'd build them as such;Forced One-Handed Single Point grip, Two-Handed Single Point Grip, Hafted, Pole of length less than height (on average), Pole of length greater than height, flexible, and if anyone really cared unarmed. So at most 7.
-
2013-05-03, 08:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
Re: Should BAB exist?
I dislike levels and classes and everything that comes with it. Just pure stats and skills and specializations in skills, streamline everything into a straightforward system with no special rules or built in imbalances.
Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal
-
2013-05-03, 08:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Re: Should BAB exist?
Who said that?
What's similar is knowing how to use your body, finding the range, reacting to your opponent, etc. Give a great swordsman a weapon that requires basically no skill (like a mace; you can't really do anything with a mace except swing it), and he'll probably mess up an average axeman, for instance.
HârnMaster Gold actually has a pretty decent approach: all weapons are separate skills, but once you're a veteran (any weapon skill at 80+), you open any new weapon skills at a higher level.
Which one would a one-handed sword or a mace fall into?
Swords definitely deserve their own category from other one-handed and two-handed weapons, because they are generally the most versatile weapons, with the greatest variety of techniques (pollaxes and pollhammers, obviously, come pretty close, as do some spear styles). They might even require more granularity: I'd think a billhook and a halberd are used much more similarly than a rapier and a scimitar, for instance, or a rapier and an arming sword for that matter...
Fun side-note: at least one mod of Mount & Blade: Warband made greatswords (as in zweihander) "polearms" (two-handed) instead of "two-handed weapons"... and TROS has Greatsword defaulting from Polearm at a pretty good rate (-1 I think?)... because greatswords aren't quite used like warswords/longswords.D&D retroclones:
SpoilerAdventurer Conqueror King
Basic Fantasy (free)
Dark Dungeons (free)
Dungeon Crawl Classics
Labyrinth Lord (free)
Lamentations of the Flame Princess (free)
Mazes & Minotaurs (free)
Myth & Magic (free)
OSRIC (free)
Swords & Wizardry (free)
-
2013-05-03, 08:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
Re: Should BAB exist?
A one-handed sword as in something like a rapier? That is the forced one-handed single point. As in something like a cutlass? Two-Handed single point. Mace is hafted.
Swords definitely deserve their own category from other one-handed and two-handed weapons, because they are generally the most versatile weapons, with the greatest variety of techniques (pollaxes and pollhammers, obviously, come pretty close, as do some spear styles). They might even require more granularity: I'd think a billhook and a halberd are used much more similarly than a rapier and a scimitar, for instance, or a rapier and an arming sword for that matter...
-
2013-05-03, 09:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- Ohio
Re: Should BAB exist?
Someone seems unfamiliar with Half-swording.
d20 really does a better job at representing combat prowess than any skill-base system does, simply because of the high vehicularity of the concepts of combat - and trying to classify weapons becomes a mess.
-
2013-05-03, 09:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Re: Should BAB exist?
Right, but you wouldn't really fight the same way at all with a rapier and an arming sword. Again, footwork's going to be somewhat similar, but a rapier is an exclusively thrusting weapon, mostly paired with a dagger or buckler, while an arming sword cuts and slashes, and is paired with a shield (used quite differently from a buckler, obviously). I don't think a master of the arming sword using a rapier is going to stand a chance against an expert of the rapier, but I think a master of any weapon should have an advantage over someone with the same relative inexperience. For most games, this could be modelled more than sufficiently by having a general combat ability and a specific weapon skill ability that stack.
I didn't know what you meant by "hafted," but that makes sense. TROS calls them "Mass Weapon." (I've always liked grouping axes and maces together, because really, they're the same basic thing: a lever that ends in a heavy piece of metal that you swing.) GURPS has a single Axe/Mace skill, and Artesia: AKW has Axe/Hammer (as a specialty of Melee, the base skill for all hand-to-hand weapons).
Rapiers are actually a bit of a bad example of one-handed swords, I think; they're pretty unique in use, because they're single-tempo swords and you generally can't actively parry, needing instead to control your opponent's sword and make a thrust that diverts their sword safely... (Although, even then, the footwork and positioning is actually kind of similar to cut & thrust swords, and even to longswords.) Most other one-handed swords are used in cutting and thrusting actions. (Except, of course, the ones that only cut.)
Obviously, this is all about modeling "resolution" - do you care that bucklers are held out in front and used aggressively while other shields are held closer to the body (and do you think other shields were regularly used to deliver blows?), etc.
What weapons, other than swords, fall into "One-Handed Single Point grip" and "Two-Handed Single Point Grip" ? And do you group "true greatswords" together with warswords/longswords, or separate from them? (As polearms, maybe?)
I don't agree with that at all. I think it's very obvious that d20, or any edition of D&D, is not even trying to accurately represent or model combat. Most RPGs do a better job than d20: The Riddle of Steel, RuneQuest, HârnMaster, Burning Wheel ...
That, obviously, has no bearing on the quality of the d20 system. Realistic combat was not a design goal, so it's not there. Some d20 games still have great combat (I like Conan d20 best, myself). And older editions of D&D successfully achieve specific effects with combat rules (generally, encouraging the players not to think they should fight and defeat everything they encounter).
Heck, speaking of weapon definitions, my (so far unimplemented) homebrew for basically any edition of D&D before 3E is:
SpoilerSimple one-handed: 1d4 damage, weight 1 lb.
Simple two-handed: 1d6 damage, weight 4 lbs.
Simple thrown: 1d4 damage, weight 1 lb.
Common 1H: 1d6, 2 lbs.
Common 2H: 1d8, 4 lbs.
Common missile: 1d6, 4 lbs.
Common thrown: 1d6, 2 lbs.
Martial 1H: 1d8, 3 lbs.
Martial 2H: 1d10, 6 lbs.
Martial missile: 1d8, 6 lbs.
Warriors can use them all. Priests can use S1H, S2H, SM, C1H, C2H, and M1H. Rogues can use all S & C (and bards can use M1H). Mages can use S.
Because why would I make it more complicated than that, in D&D? Weapon speeds, lengths, etc., are extraneous nonsense that slows down my game of D&D. Many other games manage to handle them elegantly and without bogging down play, but D&D never has, in my experience, so why go more complicated than OD&D?
Meanwhile, there's only one "type" of armor for each AC 9 through 0; weight and cost is by AC. I don't see any reason for extra fiddliness, especially when AD&D 2E completely screwed up things. (AC 4 splint mail costs 80 gp, AC 5 chain costs 75 gp, but AC 4 banded mail costs 200 gp!?) In play, I will call these armors gambesons, aketons, jupons, scale corslets with greaves, coat-of-plates, mail jazerant, lamellar over mail, three-quarter harness, etc. ... but at the level that D&D operates on, those individual armor types do not need individual statistics. There is no reason to have them.
And for all this, I love The Riddle of Steel with The Flower of Battle's separate stats for all manner of weapons (a bastard sword and a longsword get their own statblocks, as do an arming sword and a viking sword, etc.), or HârnMaster's armor pieces and armor stacking, because ultimately, during play, they don't complicate things for me - it's all pre-play fiddling. The AD&D 1E weapon vs. armor tables complicate play, slowing things down, as do weapon speed rules.Last edited by Rhynn; 2013-05-03 at 09:42 AM.
D&D retroclones:
SpoilerAdventurer Conqueror King
Basic Fantasy (free)
Dark Dungeons (free)
Dungeon Crawl Classics
Labyrinth Lord (free)
Lamentations of the Flame Princess (free)
Mazes & Minotaurs (free)
Myth & Magic (free)
OSRIC (free)
Swords & Wizardry (free)
-
2013-05-04, 12:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
Re: Should BAB exist?
You could just go in the vein of 2nd edition. The details escape me, and my books aren't handy. But keep BAB, and give each class a certain number of weapon proficiencies (obviously wizards get less than fighters, and so on). If you don't have proficiency with a weapon, your BAB suffers a penalty (again, the less martial classes have a steeper penalty). You also gain weapon proficiencys as you level (and...again...warriors get more).
This maintains an overall level of efficiency, as someone who is very skilled in one weapon should be able to figure out the basics of any, but it doesn't show a blanket level of skill across the board. You could also give single class fighters the most proficiencys and the least penalties as a way to boost them up.
-
2013-05-04, 07:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Michigan, USA
Re: Should BAB exist?
The thing is, the basic principles behind fighting are the same no matter what weapon you're using. There are a lot of things that carry over, even though the exact techniques don't, and even if you're pretty specialised with one weapon, really knowing what you're doing with that will help you out with others. I find Base Attack Bonus/base THAC0 (both fulfill the same function) more believable than systems where you train one weapon exclusively and don't advance in the others at all.
I do also think that there should be a greater bonus for weapon focus skills than there is, as especially at higher levels it's not as significant as I would like it to be. Familiarity with a particular weapon style and training with it should have a fair amount of impact.
Shields, and their relative uselessness for defense and complete lack of use for offense in D&D, is something that has unfortunately been a problem across all editions so far.
Grip doesn't determine exactly how you're going to use the weapon. When you get right down to it, although the general hand position is similar, one doesn't grip a rapier the exact same way as they would be likely to grip a different kind of sword of the same rough size, either. And, even though the way one might grip an arming sword is much the same as the way one might grip a knife, you wouldn't get very far using them in the exact same fashion.
Footwork changes very little between weapons (although there is some difference between, say, a rapier and a longsword, or either one and a knife); instincts and skill with watching for openings, being able to tell what the other person is up to, and being able to tell whether you or the other person is in range don't change much (clearly have to adjust it somewhat depending on what weapon you're using, but it definitely translates). Some specific techniques translate between weapons. I would actually say that style makes almost as much difference as the weapon when you're getting down to difference between how a weapon is used; many weapons were used noticeably differently between different regions.
I almost think that going as basic as possible with weapon categories is the way to go, because otherwise you basically have to have one for every single weapon. Polearms and bows would certainly have to be their own category, as well as at least one other for missile weapons; beyond that I'm not so sure. I think that putting axes in with blunt weapons makes more sense than putting them in with swords, and putting all swordlike weapons in one category does make sense if they're broad categories (though there are outliers like the rapier, and some curved swords and such).
I prefer that method, personally. It's still abstract, but I find it to be a fairly reasonable abstraction of how things actually work. I also like the Profession Bonus + Weapon Ranks of MERP/Rolemaster, although I'd have weighted it towards more coming from the Profession Bonus than from the Weapon Ranks rather than the other way around.
-
2013-05-04, 10:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Should BAB exist?
I'd consider this an example of poor game design, but most skill based games that aren't just poorly designed messes avoid this problem fairly well.
I'd note that "melee weapon" is a critical phrase here. I focus on the spear, and a lot of skills work for a wide variety of melee weapons (most notably the extent to which I've trained away unhelpful flinch reactions, but I've also got a much better stab than I otherwise would with a whole host of weapons), said practice and expertise is worth basically nothing if I pick up a bow. That I'm also half decent with a sling is more helpful, despite slings and bows being very different weapons in meaningful ways.
BAB doesn't model this well for a few reasons. Part of it is the use of BAB for both melee and ranged, part of it is the weird weapon proficiencies, particularly as concerns monk weapons - I have trouble seeing how someone who can use an axe, a scythe, a sickle, and a shortsword (martial weapons) somehow doesn't have useful skills with the kama. Pure skill based systems where other skills don't factor in at all and the skills are detailed enough also have problems, this time in the way outlined above. Fortunately, there are solutions, which games use. Branching skills, specializations, skill substitution, all of these work. Branching skills guarantee that you will have something like "melee weapons" up to a reasonable degree before specializing in any one group, Cortex basically illustrates how this works. Specializations are similar, in that you have the base skill, then you add bonuses on top of it, again, someone particularly good with a given weapon will be able to handle those related to it, take FATE here. Then there's skill substitution, such as GURPS's defaults (that really don't go far enough), or Burning Wheel's Fields of Related Knowledge that provide bonuses if you have similar skills.
I personally favor the specializations or branching skills approach here, or a combination of the two. "Melee Weapons" seems fine as a broad skill, provided that one can apply a finer brush later, specializations cover that. On the other hand, the further one gets with a particular weapon, the less applicable the skills are to less similar weapons, and a branching skill system covers this nicely. If you have six skill ranks, and can take Melee Weapons to 3, weapon categories (e.g. spears) to 5, and then narrow weapon categories (e.g. guan dao) to 6 it's a fairly plausible system on the face of it, though precise numbers likely need calibration.
Other interesting applications I've seen is having weapon skills benefit you both when you are using the weapon and when you are fighting against people who use the weapon. This can encourage players to take multiple weapon skills, which makes a lot of sense at the character level, if only because there is variability in aptitudes even without much variability in practice. Coming back to myself as an example again: I'm a spear guy, I use a lot of non-spear weapons about equally, and yet I still manage to be a lot better at some of them than others.Last edited by Knaight; 2013-05-04 at 10:06 PM.
I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2013-05-04, 10:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: Should BAB exist?
BAB should exist most definatley
the sole issue with BAB is how wizards broke it down to 3 different one where in the end not a whole lof of difference
I created 5 difference scales of BAB, which is a throw back to the good old 1st/2nd edition days
Poor which maxes at 7 ( the 1st/2nd attack bonus for wizards)
Mediocre which maxes at 10
Average which maxes at 13 ( the 1st/2nd ed attack bonus for clerics)
Good which maxes at 15
and superior which maxes at 20 ( th 1st/2nd ed attack bonus for the melee guys)
I also have most of the feast in the game gaining power with BAB and requiring BAB instead of stats so much. that way a fighter for expame actually feels a bit better as over his 20 levels he gets +6 to reflex saves with lighting reflexes whilst a wizard will only ever get 3.
-
2013-05-04, 10:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Michigan, USA
Re: Should BAB exist?
That is certainly a good point, and I do think it would make a lot more sense if melee and ranged attack bonuses were seperate. I think that's the main issue with Base Attack Bonus as it stands right there.
I personally favor the specializations or branching skills approach here, or a combination of the two. "Melee Weapons" seems fine as a broad skill, provided that one can apply a finer brush later, specializations cover that. On the other hand, the further one gets with a particular weapon, the less applicable the skills are to less similar weapons, and a branching skill system covers this nicely. If you have six skill ranks, and can take Melee Weapons to 3, weapon categories (e.g. spears) to 5, and then narrow weapon categories (e.g. guan dao) to 6 it's a fairly plausible system on the face of it, though precise numbers likely need calibration.
Other interesting applications I've seen is having weapon skills benefit you both when you are using the weapon and when you are fighting against people who use the weapon. This can encourage players to take multiple weapon skills, which makes a lot of sense at the character level, if only because there is variability in aptitudes even without much variability in practice. Coming back to myself as an example again: I'm a spear guy, I use a lot of non-spear weapons about equally, and yet I still manage to be a lot better at some of them than others.
The second part's certainly true, in my experience; I'm a longsword type of person, I'm good as well with a sword and shield and with unarmed, middling with most other weapons, and noticeably worse with polearm and rapier, and I've spent a similar amount of time training with all of them other than the longsword.
-
2013-05-05, 03:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- London, England.
Re: Should BAB exist?
It's actually a very common problem with skill systems for weapon types, and it's not easy to avoid at all. Lots of game designers think that they've done a great job dividing the weapons of their game system into categories, but I honestly can't think of a single one that hasn't annoyed me in practice.
(A good example would be Legend of the Five Rings. Good system, lots of fun to play. Weapon categories, however – pain in the neck.)
While this is true, I'm just not sure what it adds to a game like D&D to have melee weapons and ranged weapons be separate skills. It adds complexity in exchange for . . . what? Allowing you to make a character who's good at one type of attack but not another? But feat chains and the fact that ranged attacks use Dex and melee attacks use Str basically do this already. All it would really do would make it possible to heavily specialise your character to the point where you're a brilliant swordsman yet can't hit the side of a barn if you're standing in it, which many systems encourage yet which I'm not a fan of.I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and the final book in the series, Risen, is out as of December 2021. For updates, check my blog!
-
2013-05-05, 05:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: Should BAB exist?
DnD 3.5 seems built from the ground-up to assume that your character will be using one class of weapon for his entire life, only exchanging them for better enchanted versions once in a while.
So who cares if your spear-wielding fighter got an attack bonus of X from the BAB mechanic or because he put points into a spear skill? The end result's going to be the same, right? You're going to be as accurate as WOTC wants you to be at whatever level you are.It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.
-
2013-05-05, 09:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Re: Should BAB exist?
That sounds like a lack of experience with different systems!
RuneQuest 1-3 fall hard into the separate skills thing, although it's not "one skill per weapon," but "weapon category skill" (also, for whatever reason, separate attack/parry skills). Yet they manage to not be annoying at all. Mongoose RuneQuest 1-2 first changed this into a single skill per weapon, then into "combat styles" like "sword & shield" that allow you to substitute, at varying penalties, other weapons (no penalty to drop the shield, but say -20% for using an axe instead). RuneQuest 6 goes furthest - part of its modular nature is leaving it up to you just how specific weapon skills are, but the default assumes that you'll have a skill like Urban Hoplite which will cover using spear & shield, short sword, and javelin.
Artesia: Adventures in the Known World just has simple elegance. Melee, Hand-to-Hand, and Marksmanship are separate skills. Each of them has a pile of specializations: Melee has Sword, Axe/Hammer, Shield, etc., and Marksmanship has Archery, Thrown Spear, etc. When using a skill, you add up the base skill and the applicable specialty. (Points-wise, it's most advantageous for someone specializing in one weapon to keep the base skill and the specialty at the same level, always raising one then the other.) It's probably easy to see why I'm hacking Cyberpunk 2020 (Interlock system, precursor to the Fuzion system used, heavily altered, in Artesia) to work like Artesia: AKW!
The Riddle of Steel makes heavy use of cross-defaulting. All combat styles default to other combat styles at -1 to -4, with a maximum defaulted value of 6; if you're a 10 (expert, but not a master by far) in one style, you've got a large advantage over an amateur in just about any form of combat. (Although I'm pretty sure defaulted skills don't get to use maneuvers that require skill at X.) You also learn new combat styles by starting from your best default, which means that once you've mastered one style of combat, it's much easier to master others. Weapons fall into multiple combat styles: you can use a longsword with Greatsword or with Sword & Shield, you can use a norse sword with Sword & Shield or Cut & Thrust, etc.Last edited by Rhynn; 2013-05-05 at 09:51 AM.
D&D retroclones:
SpoilerAdventurer Conqueror King
Basic Fantasy (free)
Dark Dungeons (free)
Dungeon Crawl Classics
Labyrinth Lord (free)
Lamentations of the Flame Princess (free)
Mazes & Minotaurs (free)
Myth & Magic (free)
OSRIC (free)
Swords & Wizardry (free)
-
2013-05-05, 10:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Tail of the Bellcurve
- Gender
Re: Should BAB exist?
I always liked The Dark Eye's system. You've got separate base skills in melee and ranged, and then weapon group skills. The weapon categories are fairly reasonable for the most part, and weapons can usually be used with another group skill at a penalty, so your saber-fighter can pick up a sword and do pretty well. The thing I really like is that some weapons are harder to learn than others; Axes and Maces is really cheap and is considered such a basic skill you don't even have to pay activation cost at character creation. But Swords is a lot more expensive, which in turn means that swords can be better weapons.
Blood-red were his spurs i' the golden noon; wine-red was his velvet coat,
When they shot him down on the highway,
Down like a dog on the highway,And he lay in his blood on the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.
Alfred Noyes, The Highwayman, 1906.
-
2013-05-05, 10:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2008
Re: Should BAB exist?
Others have made this point prior (and probably afterwards), but I'd like to echo it since I encountered it yet again.
I do full-contact weapons based combat with multiple different groups and varying degrees of 'realism.' It is definitely true that the most experienced and skilled fighters can beat less experienced fighters with pretty much any weapon set. Like everyone has said, various aspects of coordination, composure, and control translate very easily between most weapon sets.
For example, a knight that I do a lot of training with will effortlessly use only one sword in either of his hands to best my sword and shield in their dominant hands.
Conversely, you could give me a weapon I have no practice with (say, a quarterstaff), and I can approach most new fighters (BAB +0) and I will probably never get hit, and consistently score hits on them--especially if they're also using such a clumsy weapon for weapons-based combat.
Sure, I'm not as good with a greatsword as I am with a spear. Nor am I as good with a spear as I am with a sword and shield. But I am generally better at using any of those weapons than someone of a lower "level" than myself. Just like I'm generally worse at using any of those weapon than someone of a higher "level" than myself.
My suggestion:
For "a best of both worlds" solution would be to have everyone have a bonus to combat based on their level, then have degrees of focus in weapons systems. Everyone gets some ability to fight throughout their adventuring career, which is pretty reasonable--composure (decisiveness, especially) alone can pretty drastically affect whether or not you're a capable combatant.
For example, I can spend x points to get better at fighting in general. I can spend y points to get better with [swung/fencing/archery/etc]. I can spend z points to get better with a Greatsword. Or perhaps the amount of points are the same, but the bonuses increase as specificity does. Obviously, the more fighter-ey your archetype is, the more points you get to spend in this manner.
Edit: I always thought it would be cool for there to be 3.5's Complete Adventurer's skill tricks that were tied to weapons. It is just mechanically and flavorfully pleasing to me for fighter-types to 'invest their skill' into being better with weapons.Last edited by Zovc; 2013-05-05 at 10:44 AM.