|
Maybe this would fit in the conversion board just as easily but my gut told me this was better for house rules. I am not really looking to fully convert. I am more interested at looking at precedent as a possible solution to the ever too common complaint that the casters overshadow the martials.
What do y'all think. Maybe the way to make the full BAB classes respectable past the first few levels is to take all those 3/4 BAB classes and return them to the scale they fought on back in 2nd Ed THAC0 values. Back then, Clerics only had a progression of 2/3, Rogues only 1/2 and Wizards a mere 1/3. Maybe if only the full BAB classes could reliably hit things, they may get a little bit more respect.
By the way, it work even worse than something like
2/3 example
1 = no bonus
2= +1
3=+2
4=+2
5=+3
It was something like, you had to advance three levels(meaning you are now level 4) and then you would knock off both of your 2/3 at the same time.
I would still use the +1 at a time method of 3.5 but it would surly dent how reliable any less then full BAB class fought. Well maybe not wizards and sorcerers, they do use touch attacks for their spells.
Classes like the magus and inquisitor with their slower caster progression may still be worth the 3/4 BAB.
How about bring the rogue back down to d6 HP and the ranger back to d8, both like in 3.5? At first(3.0), Iliked how the classes got a little boosted, though a little taken aback that the rogue jumped twice on the scale compared to the cleric only once. Maybe this would really make the full BAB classes have a chance to shine.
I understand it would also slow down combat, monsters would get more chances to injure the players. That would strengthen how much more valuable those d10HD of the fighter and paladin are.
I also understand things like the much less xp the rogue/thief needed to advance in level compared to the other classes in 2nd Ed would also make this more harsh on them than other classes. Anyone got a suggestion for making it less harsh? Other than refusing to implement it at all? Maybe the rogue gets to level up on the fast track xp scale for the first 2 or 3 levels. With three xp advancement scales, that gives some options to work with. Though that might make the low level arcanists too hard to play early. It could also encourage multiclassing easy and or cheap classes early and later going for the casters.
I look forward to my fellow grognards and fat beards coming out of the woodwork to lament the old days of THAC0:) or encourage the days of making PCs earn their levels rather than serving them on silver platters:)
Full bab classes already shine in hitting things, the fighter is the hands down best at hitting things, the paladin smites like no bodies business. The problem isnt that the other classes hit things better then them. Its that they get to do other things the martials cant do. Not to mention there are martial character in the list of those who get hammered by this rule change, namely the rogue, and the monk, already at the bottom of the power scale as compared to everyone else.
Not to mentione the game is not the same as it was in 2nd ED. AC and hitpoints scale very differently. You would essentially remove 3/4 bab classes from the game as they would no longer be able to function in the role they are given (partial combatants who get a little flexibility in abilities in exchange for direct to hit (BAB) and get hit (HP) abilities.
There is a deliberate move away from the hard and fast 'roles' of the past and a push for people getting involved in more things. The paladin after all has significant magic like abilities in his layon hands, mercies, channel energy and spells. The barbarian has some rather dramatic rage powers that can do a whole host of things besides swing a big axe. Even the fighter is getting away from just being the guy with the sharp peice of metal with ideas like the lore warden. All this does is revert progress made away from highly specialized and overly limiting gameplay of the past. Personally I think its a very bad change both conceptually (i think you are trying to solve the wrong problem) and mechanically (it literally kills alot of intentionally created concepts such as the combat oracle or cleric, the melee or ranged bard, the rogue in its entirety in the current edition, weakens the already weak monk, makes wildshape a pretty pointless druid ability, removes the magus, inquisitor and to some extent the alchemist).
Mean while the wizard stands there laughing as he is mostly unaffected targeting non-scaling touch acs when he has to bother with an attack roll at all.
Ogodwhy
You don't need to nerf every other class (including the large majority of other martial classes in this game) just to make Fighters look better by comparison.
Sure, the Fighter would be the only one who could hit hings, but your Rogue, Magus, Inquisitor, etc. become pretty much useless for combat.
And someone please explain why the Cleric needs a faster BaB progression than the Rogue.
Ugh, no more THAC0, for the love of the pantheons! And yes, I find fighters far more balanced now as well. Only little tweaks are necessary to keep them more even with casters, in my experience with Pathfinder.
Also, as far as "serving levels on a silver platter", that's a personal GM issue. I sure make my PCs earn their levels with Pathfinder, even if it's built to be a little easier. ;)
And someone please explain why the Cleric needs a faster BaB progression than the Rogue.
He doesn't, but back in the day, that cleric was more of a warrior than a casting priest. That's why he was given the second best attack table behind the fighter. Thieves got a worse one but were expected to make it up by using stealth and getting a backstab rather than fighting in direct combat.
@Ray- I get it, when I 1st converted from 2nd ed to 3.5 and saw the BAB progressions I was like "fighter gets screwed again." Then I ran across the book of nine swords and I was like "finally." PAthfinder fighters do not suck they still aren't as shiny as wizards, druids and clerics (in that order) but they are a far cry from the big dumb meatshields of previous editions.
He doesn't, but back in the day, that cleric was more of a warrior than a casting priest. That's why he was given the second best attack table behind the fighter. Thieves got a worse one but were expected to make it up by using stealth and getting a backstab rather than fighting in direct combat.
Isn't the cleric still quite a bit of a warrior in 3.x/PF?
Ewww.
I strongly disagree on putting any more weight on the shoulders of the rogue and/or monk. The cleric and druid can take the hit to 1/2 BAB but that'd force them into "caster only" territory and make the cleric feel more like "priest" and less like "holy warrior". I'm not too sure about that.
I strongly disagree on putting any more weight on the shoulders of the rogue and/or monk. The cleric and druid can take the hit to 1/2 BAB but that'd force them into "caster only" territory and make the cleric feel more like "priest" and less like "holy warrior". I'm not too sure about that.I agree on what you're saying about the rogue and monk they've got some problems already and amplifying that isn't any good. But I disagree on the cleric, the game already has 2 "holy warrior" classes via inquisitor and paladin dropping the cleric into full caster in platemail would only help reduce clutter imo.
To me, those are very different in flavor. To me the paladin is the warrior of righteousness specifically - the holy Knight so to speak. The inquisitor is... well, an inquisitor, and closer to a holy rogue than a holy warrior thematically. The cleric in my opinion should be the armed branch of the church - any church - that might wage open war, and be protectors and military of the faith, while inquisitors are the police force of the faith.
Personally I'd rather drop some spellcasting versatility than their BAB. But it's a matter of taste.
Or because it's quite a bad mechanic compared to the current system, that puts more weight on the DM and requires it to keep more numbers in head. If the target's AC is unknown and attack bonus is used, the DM can say: Roll attack bonus.
The player can answer the total result, and if that >= AC it's a hit. The DM doesn't have to calculate it.
If thac0 is used, instead the player has to roll attack bonus, and tell the DM both the attack roll and the thac0, the DM has to subtract the AC from the thac0 and THEN compare the results.
Each player keeping one number in it's head and doing one addition every round is far more slim than the DM keeping all the player's numbers in it's head (or getting them told over and over) and making 4 subtractions (plus everything the monsters do) is a lot of extra work for the same mechanical result.
If thac0 is used, instead the player has to roll attack bonus, and tell the DM both the attack roll and the thac0, the DM has to subtract the AC from the thac0 and THEN compare the results.
(Firstly: I vastly prefer the 3.x attack bonus/AC mechanic to the overly complex oD&D/AD&D one.)
Yeah no.
The player already knows his own THAC0. He rolls and subtracts the result from his THAC0, to get the AC he hits. He then informs the GM, who declares hit or miss. The GM doesn't have to do anything except check if the AC of the target is lower than the declared result.
Yes, "lower is better" is counterintuitive, but there are no more mathematical steps than there are in 3.x. The maths is just different.
For me the core issue with THAC0 was the -10 AC limit. There was a point in high level games where no matter how good you were defensively you were going to get hit as consistantly as your crap AC wizard buddy. Possibly worse off because of all his boss defensive spells.
While AC remains a poor defense in higher levels, its not impossible to focus on it as a defense and gain a good result (evidenced by say the Zen Archer build on these forums.)
I loved 2nd ed for the kits, and options and at the end of the day it is the system I grew up with. That said 3.5/pathfinder is a better system in everyway. ITs not perfect but jno system will ever be.
The maths is just different.
It's not just different, it's also harder. Turning the mechanic around was a solid improvement in the usability of the rules.
The problems with this rule are:
The 1/2 BAB classes are among the strongest in the game. if you weaken most of the other classes they will pull ahead even further.
The monk and the rogue are widely agreed to be the weakest classes in the entire game. Sometime they can be very effective, but they frequently struggle or get overshadowed. This rule will make a joke of them.
The 3/4 BAB classes already struggle to hit enough to make it worth their while without using their class features to buff themselves. Full BAB classes do not, and they still get class features to increase their chances. The problem doesn't seem to be there.
There are a few things which can compete with the full BAB guys at their own job, like buffed up big cat companions and twinked out eidolons, but those don't even get hit by your fix.
I guess it wouldn't hurt to give a 2/3 progression to the cleric, oracle and druid, but I'm not sure it would achieve much really.
If you wanna drop the to hit a bit and use that as a balancing method, I'd do the following:
- Current 1/2 classes drop to 0. That's right. Training as a wizard gets you nothing at all in base attack bonus. Their HD stays d6.
- Full caster 3/4 classes as well as summoners drop to 1/2. Their HD drops to d6 to match. Master Summoner prestige class has BAB+0
- Rogues get +1 to hit bonus when sneak attacking, increasing by +1 at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17.
- Monks get to chose: Flurry: Standard flurry; or Opportunist; Gets Spring Attack/Vital Strike/GVS, and may use VS when using SA.
- Other 3/4 classes are unchanged.
If you wanna drop the to hit a bit and use that as a balancing method, I'd do the following:
- Current 1/2 classes drop to 0. That's right. Training as a wizard gets you nothing at all in base attack bonus. Their HD stays d6.
- Full caster 3/4 classes as well as summoners drop to 1/2. Their HD drops to d6 to match. Master Summoner prestige class has BAB+0
- Rogues get +1 to hit bonus when sneak attacking, increasing by +1 at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17.
- Monks get to chose: Flurry: Standard flurry; or Opportunist; Gets Spring Attack/Vital Strike/GVS, and may use VS when using SA.
- Other 3/4 classes are unchanged.
Just NO...
1) Ok guess wizards can't use ranged touch spells
2) No point in Eldritch Knight and Dragon Disple prestiege classes
I could go on...
No matter how you change the rules someone is going to get severely hit by the nerfbat and/or someone is gonna get a major boost. If you want to change the BAB to balance out the classes as the OP seemed to want, that's the way I would go about it. Losing a few fringe builds and making Enervation less powerful seems far less of an issue than having d6 rogues.
Changing the rules doesn't mean someone has to be hit with the nerfbat for someone else to get a boost.
You could probably give every class full BaB and it wouldn't affect balance all that much so long as the martial classes were given something to compensate for their loss of attack bonus superiority by leveling.
Something as simple as giving a Weapon Training analogue to every martial class might do the trick. Monks get it with Monk weapons, Rogues get it with Light and some select one-handed weapons or bows (their choice), Barbarians stay as-is, Rangers get it with their Combat Style weapon (any light/one handed for TWF, Close for Natural Attack, Bows for Archery, etc.), Magi get weapon training with one-handed weapons, and stuff like that.
That would probably be enough to put martials back ahead of the caster's new full BaB and push the 3/4 BaB classes up a notch.
Only issue is Fighter needs something else to put them back on par, but really that's the only place where your nerfbat vs boost thing comes into play, if any class gets buffed the Fighter is likely to look worse by comparison.
|
|
Thank you all for your input!
I realized this would not hurt the wiz/sor much. After reading another's comment about how they would be laughing at other classes' new misfortune. It really dawned upon me how this change would do next to nothing to bring them down closer to the fighter while the full BAB classes climbed up. As pointed out, the 1/3 progression did almost no harm to their touch attacks against mostly no scaling touch ACs. Keeping the top of the food chain firmly there, or even destroying the chance for another class to challenge does not bring all classes closer together within the tier system.
Thanks for reminding me how hard it is for the 3/4 classes to hit at all. Sometimes I have to sigh at how often so many of the players I see play 3/4 just luckily roll high much more often then they statistically should. That sometimes makes it hard to remember how hard a time I have doing it when I play 3/4 every level. Heck even when I multiclass, just taking 2 hits at 1&5 seems to really hurt. Even if taking levels of full BAB classes with them. Delay of full attack, or delay of spell/extract progression, really tough choice.
As to why I felt the cleric should have more BAB and HP than the thief/rogue. It is just a flat out bias on my part. I have several influences for this expectation:
I respect someone who puts on heavy armor( a lot of people miss that PF clerics no longer have heavy armor proficiency) and a shield and helmet to walk up to an enermy and confront them. Seems gutsy and heroic to me. I have distaste for someone who looks to run away and hide in the shadows only to sneak up from the darkness and try to stealthly stab you in the back at a later date of their choosing. The tactic of a coward who does not have the toughness to stand up to someone. I respect someone willing to sit down and talk things out much more than someone who bides their own time to sit in the grass hiding and then ambsh you, sometimes for no reason other than to have a power trip or joke at your exterme expense. My own personal history heavily influences how I feel about these things. Several times I had to stand up to bullies and make examples of them
I also developed some mind sets about the 3.5 cleric/rogue expectations that just seemed hard for me to shake. I thought of the 3.5 cleric as someone who can stand there and take it thanks to heavy armor and shield with a D8HD but was not that hard hitting himself(too many people were ignorant of the Devine meta magic errata and too focused on the 5 minute work day in my opinion). Rogues looked to me as much more offensive based with sneak attack damage but a fragility of light armor, a buckler at best(mw has no armor check penalty negating non proficiency penalties) and a smaller d6 for hit points. Having seen the thief jump twice from 1/2 past 2/3 to 3/4 while the 2/3 only only went up once to 3/4 seemed like we(big cleric enthusiast back then) did not really get boosted much or even at all now that is inferior pace was on the same progression.
Being introduced to D&D during2nd Ed also just ingrained in me that clerics are supposed to have a better THAC0/BAB then a rogue. Though the less xp of a rogue might have made them competitive in that regard with their 1/2 compared to the 2/3 of cleric. I did not have enough exp actually playing and leveling in 2nd Ed to know how close that might have been.
By they way, I strongly disdain Paizo's decision to marry BAB to Hit Dice. It almost does the same thing with spell progression. I feel it prevents options. I loved the Duskblade with full BAB and d8 HD and a unique spell progression. I preferred the light armor class rogue further symbolizing how weak that armor was but having a d6 instead of a d8. I preferred the ranger with a d8 over d10 to symbolize how searching for food and water in the wilderness leaves you with much less time for conditioning exercise. Those are not the best examples, heck they can even be argued the other way around. once again, I saw classes I have some personal distaste for getting boosted. I do not have to like or agree with every choice the professionals decide on. The options are so much more wide open when you do not insist everything has to fit into one of three greater options:d6=1/2, d8=3/4, d10=full. I flat out reject people who say Paizo should be commended for sticking to their early decision. How much room is left for experimentation under the same old model?
If d6 = 1/2, d8 = 3/4, and d10 = full, then what is d12?
And how does classes having more HP prevent options? You make no sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people in this thread talking about how this kills concepts seem to be overestimating the difference between 2/3 progression and 3/4 progression. As late as fifteenth level, the 2/3 progression has never at any point fallen two points behind the 3/4 progression - the effect is no more than a -1 to hit. And by the time it does fall two points behind, your battle clerics and oracles have eighth-level spells, so somehow I suspect your armed clergy will still be viable.
That being said, anyone who thinks rogues are too good and need to be nerfed in several ways needs to take a step back for a moment.
And how does classes having more HP prevent options? You make no sense.
I think what he's saying isn't that more HP prevents options but rather that directly tying HP to BAB cuts down on the types of classes you can design. For example, you can't make a glass cannon assassin class with d6 hit die but full BAB, nor can you make a more defensive tank class with d10 or d12 hit die but 1/2 or 3/4 BAB.
There are ways around it - you could give the tank a d6 hit die but a class feature granting +3 hit points per class level or something - but it's rather awkward to do so. The monk is a good example of what can go wrong when you try to artificially give a class a d8 hit die but full BAB in Pathfinder, instead of giving it an actual full BAB.
Oh. I see.
It cuts down on types, yes, by weeding out all of the one trick ponies that can be made with that type of arrangement.
Your glass cannon is all well and good, but in a game where anything and everything can royally mess up d6 classes on a solid hit, that glass cannon isn't a particularly great option. Nor is the "mighty glacier" who can't hit anything.
More options is not necessarily better. There are so many character concepts that can be made right now with the combination of 22 (?) classes and who knows how many archetypes, Feat combinations, spells, multiclasses, and who knows what else that having a "new character concept" entirely defined by his HP/Hit ratio is silly.
You don't need a class to be based entirely around a different HP/Hit ratio to have a class that could benefit from such a thing.
Look at monks. The intent behind monks involves being a d8 hit die class that effectively has full BAB. But instead of giving monks full BAB, they give them 3/4 BAB that counts as full BAB some of the time. Want to take advantage of your extra speed to actually move around, and maybe use Stunning Fist? Sorry, if you're not standing still, you're down to 3/4 BAB. Want to use your reflexes to make attacks of opportunity? Sorry, 3/4 BAB again. Spring Attack? 3/4. This isn't some weird cheese or anything; these sorts of moves are part of the standard image of monks, but the class's fake full-BAB doesn't support them. Qualifying for feats? You'll have to wait until later, your BAB is 3/4 for those purposes. Flurry of Blows doesn't even upgrade as quickly as a standard TWF Fighter, because it unlocks Improved TWF and Greater TWF as a 3/4 BAB class instead of a full BAB class.
I'm not saying the monk would be perfect if it were a full BAB class instead of a 3/4 BAB class that pretends to be full BAB, but it would certainly fix a lot of the monk's problems. But that's not possible in Pathfinder, because it would violate the To Hit Equals Hit Die rule. Stop treating it as an inviolable rule and you don't need to dance around giving them full BAB as the class currently does.
Something similar could be said of the Assassin prestige class, which doesn't even have the skills of the rogue and doesn't have its spellcasting from 3.5, but is still stuck with 3/4 BAB despite "kills things dead" being its only class feature, and it really can't afford to miss with its death attack. Why can't the assassin have full BAB? Because then it would need to have a d10 hit die too. Again, this is hardly the only problem with the assassin, but it makes a weak class much weaker than it needs to be.
There are classes that already exist that are hurt by the To Hit Equals Hit Die rule, and it's difficult to dismiss them with a "Bah, they're obviously just one-trick ponies who don't deserve to exist anyhow".
Huh. I actually did not realize that the type of BAB progression a class gets is related to its Hit Die.
That seems like a kinda silly design system, to be honest. Imo, being hardy shouldn't need to mean being more accurate, or vice versa. I could totally see a small hit dice class having full BAB if it makes sense, or a large hit dice class having slow BAB. Seems like there are lots of concepts for which those could fit.
Also remember that part of hit points has been stated to be abstracted in that it includes partial parries and dodges, rolling with the blow et cetera. That ties into combat training, which BAB is also part of.
I dunno. Monk is kinda goofy, but the system overall works I think. I wouldn't mind it being less rigid so you could have full BaB Monks and...something else I dunno, but I think the hit die = BaB thing works for the most part (though I didn't realize the relationship until now).
@Raymond- reason prevails, huzzah!
Funny though I remember arguing with my DM in 2nd ed to get thieves (as they once were called) should get 3/4 progression because who's scarier and more trained at ultraviolence the guy that mugs people or the dud leading a congregation in prayer once a week!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing most people don't realize is that increasing the Fighter's numbers do very little for the class. They already hit and dealt damage well enough in 3.X, and PF gave them even bigger numbers, but they are still pretty underpowered.
Remember Wizards are possibly the most powerful class and they have 1/2 BAB and d6 HD. They are not good damage dealers because blasting is rather weak.
What makes Wizards so powerful and Fighters so subpar is not their damage output. It's their numbers of (viable) options. While full casters way more option than the GM can possibly prepare for, most martials aren't good at anything that doesn't involve beating people with a stick.
We could give fighter double BAB and d20 HD... And they'd still be pretty sucky, actually. They would still have terrible saves are very few utility features. They would still lack basic options like skill points and mobility. They'd still be nearly useless in any situation that doesn't involve swinging a sword.
So if you want to make Fighters more powerful in a meaningful way... Give them more options and some way to boost their resistance against spells. Increase their mobility and out-of-combat utility. He shouldn't be as good as bard, of course, but he could be at least useful. And he shouldn't be easily mind-controlled by a wizard 4 levels below.
In fact, every martial class hould have some kind of "pounce". They could do it in different ways, but they shouldn't have to lose all that efficiency because they moved 10ft while any caster can walk 30ft and still make reality cry (twice).
tl;dr: Fighters need more options, people, not inflated numbers.
The Assassin is not one of these martial types. His whole combat strategy isn't about fighting a person face up on equal terms, it's literally about taking advantage of getting someone when they have their pants down and aren't expecting to be attacked. They don't need to be combat specialists to work in their preferred style.
I'd disagree. I can see it as the assassin knows how to land a blow. Whether their target is asleep with no gear or awake and dressed in armor, they know where to strike and how to get just the right hit to kill someone. This sounds to me like full BAB is perfectly reasonable.
On the other hand, they do usually strike from the shadows and avoid direct confrontation, relying primarily on a sure strike to get the job done. To that end, I would fully expect the lower hit dice.
I can certainly understand HD and BAB progression going together for certain classes. Ones with general martial training make sense for them to have both a high BAB and a high HD. But I also see plenty of justification for them to be used separately as well.
When playing AD&D we dont even use those rates, we use the following:
Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins get a +1 at every level starting at first, so a 20th level character in any of these classes has a +20 bonus to hit.
Clerics, Druids, Thieves, and Bards use the following progression from 1-20: +0, +1, +2, +2, +3, +4, +4, +5, +6, +6, +7, +8, +8, +9, +10, +10, +11, +12, +12, +13
Mages use: +0, +0, +1, +1, +1, +2, +2, +2, +3, +3, +3, +4, +4, +4, +5, +5, +5, +6, +6, +6
Although AD&D was "balanced" by the fact that only warrior classes ever got multiple attacks per round (barring special rules, a few kits, etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the fighter is not one of the more powerful classes. I just think weakening classes that are already worse then him is an absurd way to make him look better.
I also don't see how the cleric in the example above is more courageous than the guy who does the same thing but in less armour, knowing he's not as strong or as tough and depending on his superior skill and teamwork to see him through. One can spin these things any way one wishes too.
Raymond, my advice is not to worry about who gets a boost. Everybody gets a boost because the standard for character power is just higher. Think about what a class gets compared to what it would need to become the best.
From that perspective, the rogue gets a ton of stuff, but none of it is great. He even loses out on his trap finder role, since it's easier for other classes to find traps and the skill used is now wisdom based, meaning he now needs positive mods in every score to fit many people's expectations.
The fighter loses nothing, gets more damage, sees monsters like the druid and cleric made less capable of stealing his job by turning into superhuman monsters and benefits the most from all the extra feats available.
The fighter is great at his job and suffers only because that job is so narrow. The rogue can easily be overshadowed in his own area of expertise. He sure as hell doesn't threaten anybody's role.
The logic behind pairing HD and BAB seems to be a mix of two things: First, wizards and sorcerers were too delicate up until their magic goes crazy and dominates the game, and second, BAB is a measure of how close to the action you're meant to be able to get. Pairing HD with that makes sure you can survive when you do.