So I was wondering what game effect allowing BAB to stack would have on game balance. Well stack differently then it does now.
Currently BAB stacks straight up, as a Fighter 5/Monk 3/ Rogue 1 you'd have a BAB of +7. What if instead different BAB tracks stacked with themselves instead? So full BAB stacks with itself, 3/4 BAB stacks with itself and 1/2 BAB stacks with itself; then you add the results together. So in the above example the above character would be at 5th level in full BAB and 4th level in 3/4 BAB thus having a +8 to BAB instead of the +7.
Would doing this screw up game balance a lot? Or would it make combat a little easier for multi-classed characters and not really have a large scale effect?
EDIT: I'm fairly certain I didn't explain this as well as I'd hoped but unfortunately it's a side effect of trying to type this before running out the door, sorry.
In Unearthed Arcana they have a variant rule for using fractions of the BAB for when you multiclass, I could not find the link to it in the hypertext srd and I don't have my book anymore but what you suggest sounds very much like it. I don't think it will break the game in anyway but to me Pathfinder seems to want to encourage single class characters so it might be against the spirit of that design goal.
So I was wondering what game effect allowing BAB to stack would have on game balance. Well stack differently then it does now.
Currently BAB stacks straight up, as a Fighter 5/Monk 3/ Rogue 1 you'd have a BAB of +7. What if instead different BAB tracks stacked with themselves instead? So full BAB stacks with itself, 3/4 BAB stacks with itself and 1/2 BAB stacks with itself; then you add the results together. So in the above example the above character would be at 5th level in full BAB and 4th level in 3/4 BAB thus having a +8 to BAB instead of the +7.
Would doing this screw up game balance a lot? Or would it make combat a little easier for multi-classed characters and not really have a large scale effect?
EDIT: I'm fairly certain I didn't explain this as well as I'd hoped but unfortunately it's a side effect of trying to type this before running out the door, sorry.
Yes, this is called "fractional bonuses", and they should be in the Core Rulebook. It isn't as hard as Unearthed Arcana presents it (particularly with regard to Saves--that chart is a nightmare).
Base attack is easy: poor = 0.5 per level, average = 0.75 per level, and good = 1.0 per level. Just add 'em up and you're good!
Now Saving throws are an area where it is much more important to use fractional BAB, after all, its pretty easy to min max your multiclassing to get a decent BAB. But a Brb2/Ftr2/Rgr2 with base Fort of +9 a Ref of +3, and a Will of +0?!?!? What the hell were they smoking in 2000?
This one's a little tougher for the math challenged.
Base save bonuses: poor = 1/3 per level, and good = 1/2 per level with a +2 at first level. Now it's a little tricky to track all your levels in poor and good saves, but the important thing is to only give the +2 for the first level in any class that grants a good save.
So, the example above would be like this...ahem:
Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger all give good Fort saves, so that's easy; 6 x 1/2 is 3, but only one +2 (for the first level in Barbarian) = +5 base Fort save.
The Ranger is the only class of the three that gives good Ref; so 2 x 1/2 +2 (for the first level in Ranger) is 3 plus 4 x 1/3 is 1 and 1/3 (I know, steady now) with the total 3 + 1 and 1/3 = +4 base Ref save.
And finally Will is also easy as all three classes have poor Will saves; 6 x 1/3 = +2 base Will save.
So our Brb2/Ftr2/Rgr2 now has base saves of Fort +5, Ref +4, and Will +2.
Good Luck.
|
Yes, this is called "fractional bonuses", and they should be in the Core Rulebook.
Just to offer a counterpoint, I don't agree.
I think part of the penalty regarding having a multiclass character is inherent in the BAB stacking rules. If a player is going to choose to go multiclass, they knew in advance how the BAB was going to stack. That's part of the "multiclass penalty" if you wish to think of it as such.
I'm perfectly happy with the way BAB works now. If you think of BAB as representing a PC's effectiveness using a certain type/style/category of combat (fighter/barbarian/monk, for example) then I see no reason why they should stack fractionally. It seems to me that the combat techniques used by each class will be different from the other classes. In fact, those differences define the classes in some ways.
Nope, I don't want fractional BAB in PF and I'm happy/fine/thrilled that they didn't include it in core.
YMMV. If it does, drive more consistently. ;)
Would doing this screw up game balance a lot? Or would it make combat a little easier for multi-classed characters and not really have a large scale effect?
what Can'tFindthePath said about the mechanics. my 3.5 games have all used fractional BAB and saves for a while now. balance-wise, the BAB is fine, but the good saves get pretty ridiculous with a lot of multiclassing. I find having PCs with really high saves really upsets the challenge ratings in weird ways and I wouldn't make the decision to do that again.
that being said, one of the big attractions of PF for me is how strongly it encourages single class builds. I find it very refreshing after 3.5.
I doubt that allowing fractional BAB alone would tip things back in favor of multiclassing/PrCs, but if is in concert with several related changes, then it is really back to 3.5 territory IMHO.
Forgot to note that Pathfinder did do something about the saving throws. In Prestige Classes the Good saves start at +1 and go to +5 by 9th level. This is basically the same as adding a class and not giving the "extra" +2 bump for first level, although its dropped down a level early. It does effectively fix it for PrC's, but alas multiclassing still sucks.
@Azh, of course "to each his own", but IMHO multiclassing already has plenty of drawbacks in what power progressions you sacrifice (usually), and sometimes you just need to multi to build that character the way it should be (or was). Now, as I said, 'back in the day' I would just min max my multiclassing with non-fractional BAB in mind. So if you take a level in Rogue, you take 4 levels in Rogue (or other 3/4 BAB classes). And that's where I always see the problem with qualifying such things as "costs" for multiclassing. Because if you take 4 levels instead of 3, you just lose the 1 point of BAB. In other words, it doesn't cost you anything.
But far more important to me was the crazy save bonuses. That is really what I think should have been addressed in 3.5....in 2003! Not so much in PRPG, but it would have been great (and was obviously on their minds--see PrC's above). Star Wars Saga Edition handled it brilliantly, by making the Good save "bump" a class bonus that does not stack but overlaps. Same could be done in d20.
/end stump
I think part of the penalty regarding having a multiclass character is inherent in the BAB stacking rules.
This is more or less absorbed by the huge gain in saves that can be gotten. While BAB stacking is a penalty to some classes, saves are usually a bonus (a monk gets +1,5 save points per level, taking a level of anything but commoner gives at least +2 save points).
This is more or less absorbed by the huge gain in saves that can be gotten. While BAB stacking is a penalty to some classes, saves are usually a bonus (a monk gets +1,5 save points per level, taking a level of anything but commoner gives at least +2 save points).
I think part of the penalty regarding having a multiclass character is inherent in the BAB stacking rules.
A BAB bonus is akin to a spellcasting level bonus. Losing BAB is easier to make up, but painful. The character should realize he is giving it up. Fractional BAB just makes BAB by class level less and less important...and full BAB classes have enough going against them.
Really, the best way to do things is to divorce ATTACKS from BAB. Make # of attacks a CLASS ABILITY, and not a function of BAB, and you can play around with BAB all you like. It doesn't matter if the cleric/20 has a BAB of 20 from buffs, if he only gets one attack. Attack exclusivity was the core of power of the Melee classes, and should NEVER have been taken away.
==Aelryinth
A BAB bonus is akin to a spellcasting level bonus. Losing BAB is easier to make up, but painful. The character should realize he is giving it up. Fractional BAB just makes BAB by class level less and less important...and full BAB classes have enough going against them.
Really, the best way to do things is to divorce ATTACKS from BAB. Make # of attacks a CLASS ABILITY, and not a function of BAB, and you can play around with BAB all you like. It doesn't matter if the cleric/20 has a BAB of 20 from buffs, if he only gets one attack. Attack exclusivity was the core of power of the Melee classes, and should NEVER have been taken away.
I don't that BAB is worth anywhere near a spellcasting level, but that might be another discussion. However, there are several 3/4 BAB classes that has their place in the combat primarily by fighting (rogue and monk primarily, but also bard and some druids). As is now, fighters ARE the number one damage machines, and paladins are great at it too (barbarians could use a little love though). Restricting rogues to a single attack would make them quite useless in a combat situation.
Fractional BAB would still mostly come into play when people use sub-par combinations. Full BAB classes are generally the easiest to multiclass, and these aren't affected by it. Fractional BAB won't make a rogue/monk or bard/druid outdamage or steal the thunder of the fighter.
Saves on the other hand, could easily be worth it since the difference is so huge. If you take a level of monk, you normally lose 1 BAB. You gain the equivalent of three feats though, just in saves! (disregarding the other features of the class). With fractional saves, you'll gain +1,5 save points instead, so it's still a great class for saves - but not a dip class.
Fractional stats make it easier to multiclass without sucking, but harder to dip for überness (yes, an exaggeration but you get the point).
what's the reason BAB is not as important as spellcaster level?
Because BAB can be subbed for with: High ability scores; enhancement items on magic; magic spells directly; magic spells indirectly; magical items; class levels in ALL classes granting some BAB.
Because Spellcaster levels can be subbed for with: Nothing.
Now, if you got 1/2 or 3/4 advancement in spellcasting with any class; if high ability scores gained you spellcasting ability regardless of whether you were a spellcaster; if casting a spell granted you the spellcasting ability of a caster of your level, etc. etc., then spellcasting and BAB would be of equal value...with little respect to either.
BAB is a vehicle to MORE ATTACKS. There's too many other things that help you hit. Thus, attacks should NOT be part of BAB, but a reward for sticking with a class. I don't care if you have a higher TH then me because you can Shapechange into a Titan...I have four attacks, you don't, and you are dead, especially when I morph into a Firbolg.
==Aelryinth
|
If we were to make Secondary Attack a class feature, who should get it and when?
Putting it at every five levels for Full BAB and such would net us no change from the current system except for prestige classes.
Should only the Fighter get multiple attacks, like before? All Full BAB classes? What about the rogue? And other combat support characters?
Further, what about monsters? Who gets to keep their multiattacks? Only the beasts with multiple natural weapons?
If we were to make Secondary Attack a class feature, who should get it and when?
Putting it at every five levels for Full BAB and such would net us no change from the current system except for prestige classes.
Should only the Fighter get multiple attacks, like before? All Full BAB classes? What about the rogue? And other combat support characters?
Further, what about monsters? Who gets to keep their multiattacks? Only the beasts with multiple natural weapons?
Just the change to class levels over BAB means a few things.
1) if you don't stick wiht your core class, you aren't ever getting increased attacks.
2) Increases in BAB are fine, because now, all they do is grant you a TH bonus. Wahoo.
3) you can make all the broken high BAB classes you like...and just not give them extra attacks. A Gish class with 20 BAB and CL/20 with only one attack is just fine by me. He'll never equal a true melee in real combat (well, at least if you don't let him become a hydra)
4) it makes more BAB/class options possible. Give the wizards 3/4 bab and only 1 attack...nobody will care. Makes em good with Rays and still sucks in a fight. Also makes them decent shapechanged fighters, as long as they get multiple attacks.
in short, it opens up options, instead of closing them. Not stacking BAB is one of the multiclass options that was done right in older editions.
==Aelryinth
I like the idea of restricting extra attacks by class. Monks have a venue for extra attacks(Flurry of Blows). Rogues could have their "extra attacks" rolled into additional sneak attack damage, or change the way sneak attack works(hinge it on successive "exploding" die rolls, with a dice cap?). Hell, you could even have a rogue with a better BAB, which makes more sense; they are supposed to be PRECISION combatants. Fighters could have lower BAB but more attacks. One could develop a heightened sense of balance in a game where additional attacks are gained independently of BAB. As for monsters, I don't think it would be terribly complicated: They would receive extra attacks by type and limbs. In fact, it would be EASIER to regulate and tweak monster difficulty; add to hit or add an attack, instead of worrying about adding both and overpowering..
However, the BAB attack system IS simpler! I enjoy the theory, but I wouldn't want to be the guy explaining this rule change.
Too bad APG is already printing...I would like to see something like this published in Core. I guess there's always house rules...
|
|
However, the BAB attack system IS simpler! I enjoy the theory, but I wouldn't want to be the guy explaining this rule change.
It's no harder explaining to a new player than the core rule. 'So why are there two numbers? What happens if I multiclass? Which number do I add? How many attacks do I get?'
With this idea, instead of +17/+12/+7/+2, you have +17. When you multiclass, you add the two together. The extra attacks are spelled out as class features, telling you 'You gain a second attack at this level.'
|
I am not really convinced. You want Rogue to have extra attacks more than the Cleric, for instance? I can see Monks, sure. But definetly not Rogue.
Aside from that, I think it would needlessly cause confussion. For one, to much is built on the idea that each character deals this much damage a round, and this and that. You would have to change the whole HP system, the whole spell system to compensate, and in the end, it just isn't that important.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that multiple attacks should be a function of character class, and part of me wants to go with it... but too much of 3.5/Pathfinder depends on the current model that I'm loathe to change it out of nostalgia. Martial prestige classes and martial multiclassing are the obvious problems; HD's point regarding monster hp inflation is another one. Everywhere in the system, there are trickle-down effects from that single change.
Overall, I'd rather "beef up" the marial classes with class features enabling them to more effectively use the attacks they have. That way, if there's a glitch down the road that's discovered during playtesting, I can fix that particular feature, instead of having to patch and/or redesign the entire system.
Changing the BAB progression to a fractional progression seems to me like a lot of work for very little change. Using the system "as is" is easier, and give a result that is very close result to what you are trying to do. The only difference will be if the PC takes only 1 level in several different classes. Your system doesn't seem broken to me, so use it if you're comfortable with it. I just don't see much point in introducing more math into the game, for a minor difference.
I don't think the following is a good idea:
4) it makes more BAB/class options possible. Give the wizards 3/4 bab and only 1 attack...nobody will care. Makes em good with Rays and still sucks in a fight. Also makes them decent shapechanged fighters, as long as they get multiple attacks.
I don't think wizards need any more help with rays. It's only a touch attack, which is just AC 10 + size mod + dex. As you gain levels, most of the size mods will HELP the wizard with ray attacks. As it stands now, a 10th level wizard can hit with a ray on a 5. If you're like me, you put the wizard's 2nd highest ability in Dex, so you're hitting on around a 3, or only a 2 if it's a large creature or bigger. I see no reason to give a wizard a higher BAB.
Now, as to Saves, there is a bigger difference here than BAB, but I'm not convinced changing it would be a good thing. Besides, I don't know anyone that chooses a class because of the saves the class offers.
Changing the BAB progression to a fractional progression seems to me like a lot of work for very little change.
That's pretty much my perspective, and I love doing calculations. You're talking about pretty much at most a +1 change, for a lot of calculation.
It won't unbalance anything, because it makes almost no difference.
The save bonuses can add up a *little*, but the brb2/ftr2/rng2 example is semi-bogus. That's a single level where the difference is +2. Fixed entirely if he takes a third level in each, fixed if it was brb3/ftr3.
Really, the best way to do things is to divorce ATTACKS from BAB. Make # of attacks a CLASS ABILITY, and not a function of BAB, and you can play around with BAB all you like. It doesn't matter if the cleric/20 has a BAB of 20 from buffs, if he only gets one attack. Attack exclusivity was the core of power of the Melee classes, and should NEVER have been taken away.
==Aelryinth
I like the metamartial method of iterative attacks (from Craig Cochrane's Immortals Handbook). Pretty much your BAB is just that first number (so, BAB for a 20 fighter is +20, instead of +20/+15/+10/+5). A fighter could apply a "quicken attack maneuver" to gain an extra iterative attack for the cost of -5 BAB. (So, they could attack at +20, +15/+15, +10/+10/+10, +5/+5/+5/+5 or 0/0/0/0/0. I don't believe his system had a limit, so it could get ridiculous at high-epic levels... though you'd probably not want to pull the BAB down too far with the absurd ACs that epic monsters would have.)
(There were also some neat maneuvers for attacking from a distance--sorta like the "laser blade wind attacks" in cheesy martial arts/anime shows, etc.)
At the risk of looking really stupid...
It's no harder explaining to a new player than the core rule.
I disagree. I've read through this thread numerous times, and I can't figure out what this alternate calculation is that you're all talking about. Having "full BAB stacks with itself, 3/4 BAB stacks with itself and 1/2 BAB stacks with itself" doesn't make any sense at all, to me, given the example the OP gave.
|
|
At the risk of looking really stupid...
When does that stop you? :)
I disagree. I've read through this thread numerous times, and I can't figure out what this alternate calculation is that you're all talking about. Having "full BAB stacks with itself, 3/4 BAB stacks with itself and 1/2 BAB stacks with itself" doesn't make any sense at all, to me, given the example the OP gave.
I don't know why you're referencing that when I was talking about separating BAB and attacks. BAB would be one number, extra attacks would be a class feature.
As to fractional BAB, I don't claim it's easier than the current addition system.
At the risk of looking really stupid...When does that stop you? :)
It's something I take pride in, really.
I disagree. I've read through this thread numerous times, and I can't figure out what this alternate calculation is that you're all talking about. Having "full BAB stacks with itself, 3/4 BAB stacks with itself and 1/2 BAB stacks with itself" doesn't make any sense at all, to me, given the example the OP gave.I don't know why you're referencing that when I was talking about separating BAB and attacks. BAB would be one number, extra attacks would be a class feature.
As to fractional BAB, I don't claim it's easier than the current addition system.
Ah, okay. I guess not understanding the original part, I never noticed understood when it stopped being relevant to your discussion.
Changing the BAB progression to a fractional progression seems to me like a lot of work for very little change.That's pretty much my perspective, and I love doing calculations. You're talking about pretty much at most a +1 change, for a lot of calculation.
It won't unbalance anything, because it makes almost no difference.
The save bonuses can add up a *little*, but the brb2/ftr2/rng2 example is semi-bogus. That's a single level where the difference is +2. Fixed entirely if he takes a third level in each, fixed if it was brb3/ftr3.
How would that "fix" the extra +4 to Fortitude save?
At the risk of looking really stupid...
It's no harder explaining to a new player than the core rule.I disagree. I've read through this thread numerous times, and I can't figure out what this alternate calculation is that you're all talking about. Having "full BAB stacks with itself, 3/4 BAB stacks with itself and 1/2 BAB stacks with itself" doesn't make any sense at all, to me, given the example the OP gave.
The OP's method is a complicated way of trying to do things simply. It makes sense to me, but it ends up being an unnecessary tangle of words and meanings.
The simple way is to add up levels individually:
Good BAB = 1.0 per level,
Average BAB = 0.75 per level, and
Poor BAB = 0.5 per level.
You just add that up for however many levels you have of each rate of BAB, round down, and that's your total BAB.
Attacks and BAB can be mixed and modded as you like.
As for Rogues, they are supposed to be in Melee combat MORE then clerics are. Their BAB should be equal or higher. Clerics are full spellcasters...a non-casting Rogue should definitely have the edge on a priest (and usually does, since he'll have higher combat stats).
Part of the problem with the iterative schema is Iterative attacks. This nonsense means "If the enemy chooses to stay in one spot for a full round, I can actually unleash all my attacks!"
VItal strike, et al, gives this a lesser fix, but it still isn't as effective as Pounce.
Also, 3E did away with Partial attacks, such as 3/2, 5/2, 7/2...which is good from a bookkeeping standpoint, but makes it harder to balance.
The math behind a full attack is fairly key. For instance, Decisve/Overpowering attack options mean you make one attack as a full attack, but do double damage with it. a Full Attack option with 95/75/50/25% chances to hit is 245% dmg. Since you know with double dmg you are going to hit, you can play with Powre Attack and possibly make up the difference...and it also means your AoO are incredible.
My recommendation is simply get rid of iteratives, and make multiple attacks a class feature. Simplifies book-keeping. All attacks apply all the time...if you want to use a Full Attack option, let it work with feats or something to be really special, like a spell that takes a full round action to cast. Limiting your movement and combat options to deal extra dmg is very fighterish, but it should not be dependent on the whims of the DM.
I'd recommend the following mix (note, as class features, these do NOT stack)
Fighter, Full BAB, Extra attacks at 7 and 13.
Barbarian, Full BAB, Attacks at 6, 11. Yes, he gets them sooner then the fighter...barbarian frenzied attack after all.
Ranger, Paladin: Attacks at 8 and 15. They are more smite/one shot kill specialists, not melee fricasee machines.
Monk: 3/4 BA with flurry option increasing TH and granting extra attacks (basically, free TWF for UA). 1 extra attack at 11.
Rogue: Full BAB, 2nd attack at 11. For two levels, he's almost as good as a Fighter!
Cleric: 3/4 BAB, 2nd attack at 11.
Bard: Full BAB, no second attack (buff spells, i.e. Haste)
Druid: 3/4 BAB, no second attack (animal forms and multi attack)
Sorc/Wizard: 3/4 BAB, no second attack. (shapechanging if melee)
Also, the TWF feat chain would consist of ONE feat, basically allowing you to use off hand one less time then primary, to a minimum of 1. It would thus top at 2 attacks, if you had 3 attacks, but you'd always get at least one. Since it represents almost a 50% dmg increase, it's a great feat. Only the -2 to hit is going to rein it in.
Fewer attacks are offset by the fact that more attacks will hit. Damage will actually go up for most classes, because they'll always get their extra attacks, and not be dependent on full attack actions.
A full attack action should be something like (Feat):
Take a full attack action. You suffer no penalty when using Power Attack.
take a full attack action. Your critical threat improves by 1 (as if stacking keen)
Take a full attack action. YOu gain stacking DR = to your number of base attacks. (1-3 pts).
Take a full attack action. You take no penalty TH when using Expertise.
etc etc etc.
i.e. you are exchanging your mobility for extra effects, and you can choose not to. You could even say you are 'always' taking a full attack action, and the default is 'move your standard speed'.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Attacks and BAB can be mixed and modded as you like.
As for Rogues, they are supposed to be in Melee combat MORE then clerics are. Their BAB should be equal or higher. Clerics are full spellcasters...a non-casting Rogue should definitely have the edge on a priest (and usually does, since he'll have higher combat stats).
According to who? The dscription of the Cleric says that they are warriors, but not so for Rogues. If I remember correctly, Clerics (Priests) have always had a better To Hit (THAC0) than Rogues (Thieves) as well.
There are 3 major things that really make melee classes (Fighters specifically), less than what it used to be.
1.) players that do not know how to play melee classes correctly, expecting the rules and mechanics of 1st and 2nd E to still apply rather than learning 3E's methods.
2.) Rogues being so breakable and combat buildable
3.) Spells/Casters
Of those three, #3 gets a huge amount of the blame, and really doesn't deserve it. #1 and also #2 deserve an equal share here, and in all honestly maybe more (individually) than spellcasting.
Personally, I think the attempt to break up the extra attacks (especially in the sense you propossed) is a terrible idea. All it does is further hurt class concepts in an arbitrary way. Your idea makes it even harder to make a Warpriest or Battle Sorcerer, or Martial Druid. Not only that, but what about concepts that do not include a method of keeping up with the attacks as you assume, like a Monk variant that loses Flurry for a single power hit attack?
Not to mention that TWFing Rogues are already broken. Rogues should not get any extra attacks, making their sneak attack extra important, but also keeping their damage output behind the real melee characters (Fighters and Barabarians in particular).
Clerics in particular though often must be front line, or at least backseat front line. Particualrly if they are main "healer" (includeing all cures, Removes, neuteralize, etc. . .), but even past that, for main Divine Spellcasters, must spells have either a range personal, touch, or close.
Personally, I think the attempt to break up the extra attacks (especially in the sense you propossed) is a terrible idea. All it does is further hurt class concepts in an arbitrary way. Your idea makes it even harder to make a Warpriest or Battle Sorcerer, or Martial Druid. Not only that, but what about concepts that do not include a method of keeping up with the attacks as you assume, like a Monk variant that loses Flurry for a single power hit attack?
Those classes being spellcasters, this can and should be handled via spells and/or domains/classkits. I'm not concerned about a particular subset of builds. You can make feats that overlap for a martial class(and thus provide no benefit) to address this, or new spells/domains/bloodlines/school powers. Btw, for TWF rogues, there are numerous threads just here on paizo(and elsewhere) that show TWF isn't all it's cracked up to be, but that's another fight(and people in those threads get CRAZY)
@Aelryinth - This is very close to my conception: Awarding BAB and extra attacks independently. It allows for a greater sense of balance. Rogues and Clerics have the same amount of attacks, but Rogues are more precise. You lost me at the full-attack section, but spellcasters should have to rely on spells/class abilities rather than the same methods a fighter uses if they want to get into melee. This would further differentiate casters and martial classes, which is important for the game.
|
|
Those classes being spellcasters, this can and should be handled via spells and/or domains/classkits. I'm not concerned about a particular subset of builds. You can make feats that overlap for a martial class(and thus provide no benefit) to address this, or new spells/domains/bloodlines/school powers. Btw, for TWF rogues, there are numerous threads just here on paizo(and elsewhere) that show TWF isn't all it's cracked up to be, but that's another fight(and people in those threads get CRAZY)
Personally, I think the attempt to break up the extra attacks (especially in the sense you propossed) is a terrible idea. All it does is further hurt class concepts in an arbitrary way. Your idea makes it even harder to make a Warpriest or Battle Sorcerer, or Martial Druid. Not only that, but what about concepts that do not include a method of keeping up with the attacks as you assume, like a Monk variant that loses Flurry for a single power hit attack?
That might work if those things existed. There really are not currently any PF Final print material out there for a true Warpriest, Battle Sorcerer (a full class), or a Martial Druid, though, nor new spells, Feats, or alternate/variant Classes. That is the problem, it is creating a lot more trouble for anyone that is not a Fighter, and a basic one at that that it fixes for anyone.
A simple suggestion though, that I made back in 3.5 PF2.0 days. When your BaB gets to +10, you can make two Attacks as a Standard Action, (Fighters with Weapon Focus and Specialization can do so at BaB +8). At BaB +15, (+14 for Fighters as above), you can make 3 attacks as a Standard Action. Plain, simple and focuses on the real problem that a lot of people had with melee. (movement = no full attack when movement is very common in combat).
|
|
I think this is a good idea.
I have pointed out before that you could make a 7th level PC with a BAB of +0.
That seems kind of silly....
Said character would still have a BaB of +0, and 1 attack, unles you mean the fractional BaB, (which isn't really the topic ha ha ha).
I like the idea of Fractional BaB, though. Makes all kinds of sense and fixes a lot of things in everyones favor, in the long run.
Personally, I think the attempt to break up the extra attacks (especially in the sense you propossed) is a terrible idea. All it does is further hurt class concepts in an arbitrary way. Your idea makes it even harder to make a Warpriest or Battle Sorcerer, or Martial Druid. Not only that, but what about concepts that do not include a method of keeping up with the attacks as you assume, like a Monk variant that loses Flurry for a single power hit attack?
Those classes being spellcasters, this can and should be handled via spells and/or domains/classkits. I'm not concerned about a particular subset of builds. You can make feats that overlap for a martial class(and thus provide no benefit) to address this, or new spells/domains/bloodlines/school powers. Btw, for TWF rogues, there are numerous threads just here on paizo(and elsewhere) that show TWF isn't all it's cracked up to be, but that's another fight(and people in those threads get CRAZY)
@Aelryinth - This is very close to my conception: Awarding BAB and extra attacks independently. It allows for a greater sense of balance. Rogues and Clerics have the same amount of attacks, but Rogues are more precise. You lost me at the full-attack section, but spellcasters should have to rely on spells/class abilities rather than the same methods a fighter uses if they want to get into melee. This would further differentiate casters and martial classes, which is important for the game.
For FULL ATTACK, it means basically the same as "Cast Spell"...you always get ALL of your attacks.
Thus, Full Attack Action now means take all of your attacks, and move your normal move.
THEN, we take a feat. This feat lets you swap out your movement for some extra benefit, leaving you with a 5' step.
So, now, you take a Full Attack, and you sit in place...BUT, you have a higher AC, or do more dmg, or take less dmg, etc. Full attack stops becoming this huge faith that the enemy is going to sit there and take it to an option to outperform in a specific area if you want to. You sack movement for another benefit, and aren't just running in place anymore, trusing to stupid monsters to stand ther and get beat on.
Theives always hit less then clerics...but clerics also used to have only 7 levels of spells, and they used to hit worse then they do today. Rogues are not theives, and are definitely going to be getting into combat more then spell-tossing priests. They should have a better BAB.
==Aelryinth