TOZ's random thought of the day.
Ditch the medium BAB progression.
You're either meant to be in melee or not. And your BAB corresponds to that.
Solves the Rogue/Monk arguments on that front.
I like this. I like this a lot.
Obviously requires a huge overhaul, such as splitting the cleric into two classes etc. etc., but this sounds very appealing to me.
Medium BAB should be the default one in design concept. It should be the one monster defenses at a particular CR are most balanced with. Thus, I wouldn't get rid of it at all. Fighter types should have a surplus of BAB to make use of trade-off feats (like power attack/combat expertise) better than non-fighters.
|
Bill: You can have medium BAB as the design point without actually using it in game.
Ellington: I don't think you need to split the cleric in two. Give him poor BAB. He's got armor and spells without failure. He doesn't need more.
Alexander: Haven't really looked at the Inquisitor, so I can't comment on that.
I'm going to play devil's advocate and suggest that Medium BAB progression represents something important in roleplay and shouldn't be thrown out. Namely, that thing is versatility.
When combat is not an option, you are able to cast or use other skills, and vice-versa. You are not maxed out on berserking through a battlefield, nor on raining down magical death from above, but you can fit either role if need be. Medium BAB is for those of us who don't always min/max. It's for the characters with personalities beyond:" I want to be the strongest fighter ever. " or "I want to be a god."
The problem that pathfinder has is that there are too many abilities that replenish too quickly. You can always max out your attacks in every fight because it doesn't cost you anything as long as you nap for a few hours.
|
|
I'm going to play devil's advocate and suggest that Medium BAB progression represents something important in roleplay and shouldn't be thrown out. Namely, that thing is versatility.
Yeah, but Medium BAB has NOTHING to do with that versatility. Everything else in the class BUT BAB is responsible for that versatility.
|
|
But beyond that, why do you think that there should only be "dedicated my life to learning how to fight" and "can't handle a weapon worth ****"?
That is a roleplaying element, and BAB does little to support it. The difference at 1st level is a single point. That doesn't represent the difference between the two extremes. Or do you say a 1st level cleric "can't handle a weapon worth ****"?
ToZ's random though fails to realize that high BAB isn't just melee...
That is a roleplaying element, and BAB does little to support it. The difference at 1st level is a single point. That doesn't represent the difference between the two extremes. Or do you say a 1st level cleric "can't handle a weapon worth ****"?
But beyond that, why do you think that there should only be "dedicated my life to learning how to fight" and "can't handle a weapon worth ****"?
The difference at level 4 is 2 points. The Difference at level 10 is five points, then difference at level 20 is 10 points.
20, 15, 10.
You want to kill 15.
I think that the medium attack bonus should stay. If you get rid of it all together than you deny players the ability to play off type characters. Example, I am about to play a LG, Half Orc, Cleric that worships Iomedea. He is so far the strongest person in our party with a 19 str. He is going to be a big bruiser that uses divine enhancement magic and flanking techniques to help the rouge. There is absolutely no way I could pull this character off past 4th level with a poor attack bonus.
If you want to say anything should be dropped, you should say that weapon finesse is dropped and applied to the weapons.
You don't strong arm someone with a rapier or whip.
And the Magus would be lost with the loss of MBAB. Either he will be exactly like a fighter with spell casting or he would just suck at fighting. Basically if the magus was to go to HBAB, the fighter would certainly much more obsolete than he is now.
But beyond that, why do you think that there should only be "dedicated my life to learning how to fight" and "can't handle a weapon worth ****"?
A 2nd level wizard is as good at using a quarterstaff as a first level fighter (who HAS dedicated his life to know how to fight).
|
|
I can believe that this is a random thought... because it shows the lack of depth behind it.
Screw you too.
If you want to say anything should be dropped, you should say that weapon finesse is dropped and applied to the weapons.
Agreed, but that isn't what this thread is about. I happen to have making Finesse a weapon quality on my list of houserules. All light and some one-handed weapons.
You don't seem to be responding to the obvious issue of medium BAB loss either crippling classes like the inquisitor and magus or making them ludicrously strong to the point where they obsolete full BAB classes.
You also haven't yet said why you want to drop medium BAB. You mention solving the 'monk/rogue' problem. How does it do that. Now they don't have a BAB. :P
More thoughts, please?
In other words, exactly what LaserX said. If you say it's a random thought, and don't provide any support for it, it's gonna seem poorly thought-out. If the idea matters to you, and you want to make something more of it, make something more of it. If it doesn't matter to you, then LaserX is probably right... and no need to insult LaserX for pointing out the obvious.
In any event, I'm interested in what the actual thinking here is and how you'd actually go about implementing this.
A 2nd level wizard is as good at using a quarterstaff as a first level fighter (who HAS dedicated his life to know how to fight).
But beyond that, why do you think that there should only be "dedicated my life to learning how to fight" and "can't handle a weapon worth ****"?
But is he really? A 1st level human fighter has 3 feats, one of which could be on W. Focus (quarterstaff), another on quarterstaff mastery, and the third on power attack or TWF, depending on how he wanted to focus on fighting with it. If the fighter power attacks or TWFs or whatever, chances are his attack roll (before STR is applied to it) is equal to or lower than the Wizard's, but if that equal attack roll is for much more damage, then isn't he better? Besides. A second level magus is about as good at spellcasting or better than a first level wizard. A 20th level magus, however, is not better at casting than a 19th level wizard, just as a 20th level wizard would get beat in a quarterstaff duel by a 19th level fighter.
So, the comparison doesn't make sense, because the level scaling widens the gaps between classes really quickly.
Ok, ok, your little personal history aside -- more thoughts from you on this proposal? I'm seriously interested bro.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TOZ's random thought of the day.
Ditch the medium BAB progression.
You're either meant to be in melee or not. And your BAB corresponds to that.
Solves the Rogue/Monk arguments on that front.
I play with a system re-write of 3.5 of the same magnitude as Kirth's.
Of the many changes, one is that there are two progressions only: Good and Poor.
Good = 2+1/2 level (as good saves) and is applicable for BAB
Poor = 1/3 level (as poor saves) and is applicable for all spellcasters' BAB. (spellcasters have a base magical bonus which uses the good progression instead).
I might post this system one day but like Kirth's, its full of re-interpretations and things that are a bit like RaW but not quite RaW...
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@TOZ: Your point here is one of the main reasons I had for scaling a lot of the feats at BAB +6, +11, +16.
@ 'findel: I wish you'd post your stuff somewhere -- I'm very curious to see what you've come up with. Having BAB and spellcasting progressions that exactly mirror save progressions is a pretty slick idea, and is something I'd never considered.
I used to dislike the medium bab progression, but then paizo came around. And I like it. I would be very unhappy to be without it. The cleric, druid, inquisitor, alchemist, bard, and magus all could not exist without it. The partial caster partial martial classes NEED medium BAB because low is too low, and high would mean they have to cut out a fair amount of their toys which would make the class less interesting to play, and that in my book is a bad way to change a class.
|
|
Other than a fighter prioritizes his attributes differently than a wizard, gains bonus combat feats, can swing a staff without penalty while wearing heavy armor, can swing weapons other than a staff without penalty etc.
Thank you for so clearly demonstrating how little BAB factors into representing the difference between who has trained all their life to fight, and who can't handle a weapon worth ****.
But is he really? A 1st level human fighter has 3 feats, one of which could be on W. Focus (quarterstaff), another on quarterstaff mastery, and the third on power attack or TWF, depending on how he wanted to focus on fighting with it.A 2nd level wizard is as good at using a quarterstaff as a first level fighter (who HAS dedicated his life to know how to fight).
But beyond that, why do you think that there should only be "dedicated my life to learning how to fight" and "can't handle a weapon worth ****"?
Yes, and if he took those feats, the wizard would still be as good at using a club, crossbow, spiked chain, dagger, falcata, kama and so on as the fighter.
At 10th level, sure, the wizard will be far behind the fighter, but the wizard will still be a master of melee compared to the common man, or even most trained fighters who are first or second level.My point is that ALL PC classes learns how to hande a weapon, really quick. A wizard won't learn how to bring down a dragon with a few slashes, but he WILL learn to fend of tens of goblins or orcs - which clearly means he can handle a weapon. And no-one's worse at fighting than the wizard.
A 2nd level wizard is as good at using a quarterstaff as a first level fighter (who HAS dedicated his life to know how to fight).
But beyond that, why do you think that there should only be "dedicated my life to learning how to fight" and "can't handle a weapon worth ****"?Other than a fighter prioritizes his attributes differently than a wizard, gains bonus combat feats, can swing a staff without penalty while wearing heavy armor, can swing weapons other than a staff without penalty etc.
So yes, If the DM is willing to allow 1/2 BAB characters to start at 2x the level of full BAB characters and level up 2x as fast that'll let the 1/2 BAB characters be gishes. Think you could sell that to my DMs for me?
Well, then you're comparing apples to oranges. What you said wasn't "fighters are better at fighting than wizards", what you said (or insinuated, maybe) was that characters with low BAB "can't handle a weapon worth ****".
I think that one thing to consider here is that for the first few levels, the wizard might have a similar BAB to the fighter, but that BAB difference changes as you level up making it harder for the wizard to keep up to the fighter in direct combat situations. BAB is meant for higher levels to keep things even. Yes if a wizard commits to melee, he'll be good at it, but never as good as the fighter once they've actually had adventures.
Level 1 means you're just leaving home for the first time to adventure. A level one fighter hasn't committed his life to combat, he's just gotten his diploma from fighter high school and is about to begin that commitment. The wizard's still a spry young person who just gotten out of Wizard high school. They're too young and inexperienced to have any major differences. They haven't discovered their paths yet, and as such they look very similar at first. Over time, they grow to understand the world in different ways and one chooses combat while the other chooses research. Thus the BAB gap. Medium progression fits the important niche in between the lunk-headed fighter and the shut-in wizard types.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that fighters get zero spellcasting progression (as opposed to 1/2), I'd be OK with wizards getting zero BAB progression (as opposed to 1/2). A 20th level wizard's BAB would still be +0. The 3/4 BAB classes could then be moved to 1/2 BAB.
I play with a system re-write of 3.5 of the same magnitude as Kirth's.
OT - but am I the only ruleswonk around here who GMs pretty much by the RAW with a bunch of plug-in rules?
OT - but am I the only ruleswonk around here who GMs pretty much by the RAW with a bunch of plug-in rules?
I don't think it's an idiotic suggestion at all, and there seems to be other people in the thread who doesn't think so either. Whether it's good enough to actually implement might be debated, it's far from idiotic.
I actually otherwise like the other suggestion - dropping most 1/2 BAB classes to 0 BAB and some 3/4 to 1/2.
The question is what to do of the bard, magus and inquisitor though.
But instead of dropping 3/4 completely, why not tye it in with spellcasting progression?
Full BAB, d12 hp, no casting
Full BAB, d10 hp, 1/2 casting
3/4 BAB, d8 hp, 3/4 casting
1/2 BAB, d6 hp, full casting
That would mean clerics and druids drop to 1/2 BAB, d6 hit point, monks and rogues are upped to full bab, d10 hit points, fighters are upped to d12 hit points, most other classes remain the same.
Why not just make the game where you have Warrior, Specialist and Caster?
Warriors have d10 hp, full bab.
Specialists have d8 hp, half bab and half spellcasting
and casters have d6 hp, no bab (Since obviously they don't need to do things like make attack rolls with TOUCH spells) and full spellcasting.
That way we solve all the problems in one fell swoop. What to do with clerics/druids/magus and them? Screw them. Toss them into the garbage heap.
Then we should also follow it with races as well, leaving us with Dwarf (Warrior race) Human (specialist race) and Elf (wizard race)
@Stringburka
"Only Barbarians may roll D12s!"
In all seriousness, though, that idea is kinda cool.
However, Aevux makes a good point (snarky though he may have been in making it). Too much homogenization isn't my cup of tea, at any rate.
"Only Barbarians may roll D12s!"
Actually, I love d12s and started a thread on d12 revival some year ago. From that I got to swap general spell damage from 1d6/level to 1d12 + 1d12/two levels (5th level caster using fireball is 3d12 instead of 5d6), as well as inflict spells going from d8 to d12 (since they suck anyways).
What to do with clerics/druids/magus and them? Screw them. Toss them into the garbage heap.
Which is where the melee guys have been residing since 10th level, so the party can be re-united at last?
Forget about the magic using guys. In this setup with no 3/4 BAB, would the rogue get a poor BAB or a good one? In the first case you would need to rewrite the class and trade senak attack for something else since now it is completely useless. In the second case you can throw the fighter and the barbarian out, because the rogue will outdamage them like... I don't even have a comparison thats how much he would outdamage them.
Now giving the monk full BAB, that I can agree with.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play with a system re-write of 3.5 of the same magnitude as Kirth's.OT - but am I the only ruleswonk around here who GMs pretty much by the RAW with a bunch of plug-in rules?
You're the only one here who actually plays the game at all. The rest of us just b+!$& about gaming on the internet.