What do you guys think about a feat that grants you +1 BAB up to your character level? or even +2? Sometimes a dip can hurt your bab, and I'm wondering if one should allow a feat to compensate, or would this be too much of an advantage? giving up the advantage of the pure martials compared to those who dip?
Let me know what you think
I kinda like it myself, but it is something that should be severely put to the test.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BAB is an essential limit that controls when a character can get access to certain feats or certain prestige classes.
I would say you couldn't allow the feat to increase BAB over the HD of the creature or character. Even then, it would outshine things like weapon focus for the majority of characters.
I'm uncomfortable with it in a normal game, totally fine with it in an E6 or E12 game if you allow it only as a Level 6 or Level 12 feat respectively.
This Feat exists as a Talent in Modern Path (3rd party). I don't see it as game breaking, though you might want to limit it to classes that don't have Full BAB already.
I don't think a feat that grants you +2 or a little more for the purposes of prerequisites would hurt, so long as you limit it by HD. Would help make monk and rogue a little bit better, which is definitely not a bad thing. Also keep in mind some of the BAB requirements on feats are more arbitrary than actual balance.
well, he already stated up to character level so that's not an issue
I need to be sure I am understanding this. Does the feat grant a bonus to BAB so that it always equals a full BAB character, or is it a feat that grants a +1 to BAB but can never exceed the BAB of a full BAB character even if taken multiple times?
Would a wizard be able to take the feat with bonus wizard feats? Would a multi-class fighter be able to use fighter bonus feats?
Would the feat actually adjust BAB making the new BAB suitable for prerequisites for other feats?
I think this would need to be carefully evaluated, but I don't think it's necessarily automatically overpowered if it restricts maximum BAB to be the same as a full BAB character.
This sounds like a super version of weapon focus.
- It's a +1 to hit. (not even going into +2)
- With everything.
- That can (possibly? not quite sure if you're allowing it to be retaken) be taken up to your HD.
- Will affect your ability to take a huge number of other feats.
- Will affect feats like power attack where damage scales off of BAB
I'm sorry this sounds like SUPER FEEATTT DANANANAAAAAAA!
If I am understanding the proposal, here are my thoughts on your points:
1. It's a limited +1 to hit, limited to the BAB of a full martial character.
2. Yes, with everything, but there are no characters I know of who use "everything" so this is a theoretical benefit that I don't really see as a practical one.
3. Again, it can only advance your BAB to equal that of a full martial character. At the cost of feat slots.
4. It is not clear to me that taking this feat will actually adjust your BAB or instead merely provide a "BAB Bonus". That would be key to how powerful this feat would be. Even so all it would do is allow characters that are not full BAB access to feats at the same level a full BAB character gets them. Again, at the cost of a feat slot or slots.
5. Same as 4. Whether this actually changes BAB or just provides a BAB bonus is a key question that would affect my evaluation of how powerful it is. If it doesn't actually adjust BAB but just provides a bonus, then this is not an issue.
I play a lot of less than full BAB characters. I've been going through them and asking myself if I would have picked this feat instead of the feats they currently have. So far the answer is maybe/maybe not. My druid archer would probably have stuck with the archery feat tree and not used a feat slot on this feat until level 10+. My bard is not combat focused and would not be interested in this feat. My witch uses feats to gain additional hexes...
I think it's worth evaluating, it doesn't leap out to me as a "super feat". Not so far.
|
My group is probably going to house-rule a similar (if not identical) feat. The idea is that a +1 to "catch up" to a full BAB is worth less than a +1 above and beyond what full BAB can grant you. This lower value of the +1 to-hit is balanced out by the slight improvement in meeting pre-requisites and the effects of feats like power attack. An average character will likely be receiving little more (if any more) benefit out of the feat than they would a feat like weapon focus.
In line with Adamantine Dragon's comments: I feel that if you find yourself wondering whether the new feat is actually the right choice for your character at any given level and are unable to easily make a solid decision, then it's probably a balanced feat.
Improved BAB [Combat]
Benefits: The BAB of the character improves by +1, to a maximum equal to their character level. This BAB increase applies for all purposes just as though they had received it from their class levels and/or hit dice.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Its effects stack, but are still unable to increase your BAB to a value exceeding your character level.
There is a bit of confusion on a couple of issues, first off note that I said up to character level. This means up to HD, this means you can't trick the system into being a lvl 10 fighter with 20 bab.
Second I meant an actual increase in BAB not a "bonus" though if they functioned the same I don't see the difference, after all what is the difference between someone with 20 str, and 16 str wearing a belt +4 beyond one is weaker in an anti-magic field?
Third this may be one of those feats that may be only appropriate once so you could consider that this feat may only be balanced for one use, It is not meant to make a Magus full BAB and therefore the most powerful character in the game under the right circumstances.
Given that weapon focus is a +1 it would be appropriate that this be a +1 only not a +2 as I suggested may be appropriate before.
I am of the opinion the opinion that such a feat should only be ably to be taken once.
Thomas,
1. There are plenty of feats that are essentially a +1 to hit. Most, if not all, are limited in some way. Limits include weapon type or range. This is just another +1 feat with a different limit, in this case limiting to the BAB of a full martial character.
2. I simply don't see your argument on this one. At low levels you won't be able to benefit much from this feat, and at higher levels, unless you are in a Monte Haul campaign, you won't be able to afford enough +X weapons for this to matter.
3. That, I believe, is the entire point of the feat, and why I think it is actually potentially a decent feat to allow. I LIKE the idea of a rogue being a decent martial character. Don't you?
4 & 5. Regardless of the OP's intent, I think I would recommend that this be a "BAB bonus" not an actual modification of BAB.
The reality is that there are very few less than full BAB martial builds that are not already heavily relying on feats to be able to hold their own in battle with the full BAB classes. There is no reason to single out archers in this regard.
|
|
Third this may be one of those feats that may be only appropriate once so you could consider that this feat may only be balanced for one use, It is not meant to make a Magus full BAB and therefore the most powerful character in the game under the right circumstances.
I'm reasonably sure a 20th level Magus build that took this feat 5 times would be worse off than one that only took it once, or possibly even zero times. It's not like Magus is swimming in feats. Taking things like Improved Critical, Critical Focus (and associated), Dancing Dervish, etc are often priorities for such builds, and those feats are worth more than the extra +1 the BAB feat would provide.
I can't say for sure, though, so maybe we should get some optimizers to optimize some builds on the assumption that this "improved BAB" feat exists and see what happens. If there are multiple builds that take it more than once, then maybe it's a problem.
Giving away BAB is like giving away caster levels, and we all know how careful PF is about those. Practiced Spellcaster only has a +2 benefit in PF, vs +4 in 3.5.
Essentially, this feat is "Give me the 4th attack a true Melee gets, without having to multiclass to a full BAB class."
I liken it to "Give me a level of spellcasting ability in the class I want, even if I have no levels in that class, up to maximum caster level = HD", in terms of encroaching on other classes. Bing, one feat, fighter has his choice of cleric or wizard or whatever 1st level casting, and all there benefits thereof.
==Aelryinth
Because everyone knows martials, especially the 3/4 ones, are dreadfully overpowered?
|
|
AD
1. Yes but a limitation of HD is inherently different than a weapon type or against larger enemies. It means that once you take it, it is always on. It merely means that there are certain classes (ironically the ones that focus on to hit the most) that can't use it. Everyone else can use it freely. Other bonuses to hit are situation dependent. They can actually be turned off in game by removing the weapon or facing different creatures.
2. As I said in 1. This is different than pretty much any other +1 to hit. Once you take it, it's used for everything, all the time. There is no way for an enemy to deprive you of it.
3. Most character classes are balanced around what is inherently built into their kit. Would this be any different from a fighter taking a feat that gives spellcasting, each one giving a level of spellcasting up to 9th? Classes are built with a balance of skills, HD, BAB, and special abilities in mind. We have a feat that can be taken once that effectively raises your HD by 1 (though defense in general in pathfinder is pretty terrible)
4 & 5 Yeah he clarified his intent and that makes this even worse. Now it also works for things like power attack.
** spoiler omitted **
1) A different limitation, sure, but a harsher one since it means that taking it can never make you better than a full BAB class. At best you can match them.
2) Most (if not all) of the "+1" feats are so rarely, if ever, deprived that they may as well count as always on. When it comes to determining if a feat is balanced via the rarity of its use, there is little (if any) difference between 90% of the time and 100% of the time.
3) It would be different because spellcasting is a lot more versatile and powerful than BAB. The two things you list are definitely not equivalent, and I think you're the only one implying that they are. An equivalent feat would be closer "+1 to CL with a maximum equal to character level; treat as +1 level higher for spells per day (but not for gaining new spell levels or spells known), also limited by character level". There is a reason that spellcasters get fewer class abilities and that the ones they do get often take away actions that they could normally use on a spell, whereas martial characters get abilities that enhance their one action type of hitting it in the face. Spellcasting is awesome, after all.
As for rogues: I'm scarcely opposed to something boosting them. If you want to make a damaged focused insert-3/4-BAB-or-better-here, you can easily hit 200+ DPR at max level without this feat, and this feat is unlikely to change that much. If it helps rogues catch up, then so be it. Also, that rogue example you gave probably got that extra +1 to-hit without consideration for the cost of losing one of their feats in trade. Reconsider the build with that in mind at the very least.
So far the best argument I've heard against the feat is that it can grant the 3/4 BAB guy a fourth attack at 20th level for a single feat. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it since campaigns so rarely hit that point, and that "fourth attack" is rather pitiful anyway. To get that attack earlier would require multiple feats, at which point they can have it as far as I'm concerned.
Even with this feat, it's going to be hard to beat someone like a fighter who can stack a total of +5 to attack and +8 to damage that other classes can't get (weapon focus isn't in there because other classes can get it, but GWF is). Especially when you consider that they get auto-confirming criticals at max level. The Barbarian is in a similar boat, with a class-specific +4 to attack and damage (+6 damage if two-handing), but they get more utility abilities than fighter by far to balance that out a bit.
Like I said, the only way to settle for certain whether this feat is unbalanced is to set the optimizers on it with REAL builds and see how often it gets used.
|
|
I liken it to "Give me a level of spellcasting ability in the class I want, even if I have no levels in that class, up to maximum caster level = HD", in terms of encroaching on other classes. Bing, one feat, fighter has his choice of cleric or wizard or whatever 1st level casting, and all there benefits thereof.
A full +1 spellcasting level and a +1 increase to BAB are in no way equivalent. Attempting to say that they are puts words into the mouths of supporters of the BAB feat and does a disservice to your own argument.
A full +1 spellcasting level would be worth at least 2 feats, and even as one feat would require every single feat a character gains to reach even HALF the spellcasting power a full caster does. Similarly, a wizard would have to spend every single general feat they have to reach the BAB of a fighter, but as a result would have no power attack, no weapon focus, etc to match that BAB, which still leaves the fighter a far better combatant. (EDIT: They could probably use spells like Divine Power or Shapechange to match the benefits that fighters get, but just barely. Divine Power would be a +6 to attack and damage, which is similar to the +6/8 that fightesr would get while the extra attack is balanced by auto-confirming criticals. Shapechange would give a bit of utility and up to a +10 strength bonus, which translates to a maximum of +5/+8, which is also similar to fighter. None of this considers the attribute requirements of casting, of course, which would obviously tear away at least somewhat from the primary fighting stats.)
On the other side of things: Obviously giving BAB to casters isn't that much of an issue or the Eldritch Knight class wouldn't exist with its ability to be used to create a 20th level character that has a BAB of 16 AND the ability to cast 9th level spells (all with the core rulebook!). It even gets a couple bonus combat feats from those prestige levels! Despite that, it's considered sub-par.
|
|
Lol look 2 posts above you.3) It would be different because spellcasting is a lot more versatile and powerful than BAB. The two things you list are definitely not equivalent, and I think you're the only one implying that they are.
Yeah, I saw Aelryinth's post afterwards and have responded separately.
However, that post came AFTER your post, so up to the point of your post that statement would have still been true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree its more powerful and versatile. So why does a 3/4 melee class who has spellcasting need it?
The only one you could make a case for needing it are rogues and monks. And the primary benefit is that it gives them another attack, and/or gets them their first iterative a level sooner.
A primary caster who took the feat ten times would have a +20 BAB and FULL SPELLCASTING. I'm pretty sure they could kick all kinds of melee arse if they want to. As someone else pointed out, spells are MUCH more powerful then BAB.
So, WHY do you need to grab BAB, the only engine of the melee class?
WHY would giving away a level of spellcasting with a feat 'break' anything?
Because it would intrude on the spellcasting power of the caster classes.
It's a dual standard. Because everyone gets BAB, adding to BAB is considered a minor boost, despite how central it is to the function of the melee classes.
Because a lot of classes get no exposure to the spellcasting of certain classes, spellcasting is 'exclusive' and 'you can't intrude on this in even the most minor manner!'
Which is extremely silly.
Especially since the primary benefit of 'one' level of spellcasting (I'm assuming you limit it to a one time only feat) is simply access to wands that use the same spell list...and maybe some out of combat utility.
Indeed, Kirthfinder is built around the premise that classes have built in caster levels the same way classes have built in BAB. A fighter has +1/2 caster level. A 10th level fighter taking a level in wizard has 1st level spells, but caster level 6. That is in no way unbalanced.
However, the idea that you can get the full power of a level of spellcasting out of a feat is terrifying, since the spells from that level could duplicate the effects of many different feats! Horrors! We can't have that!
I would also like to point out that the one spell that used to change BAB, Divine Power, was scaled back and that option REMOVED.
Why? Because the iterative attacks of the melee classes, and full BAB, are their 'spells', and should remain exclusive to them. There are plenty of ways to gain a high bonus to hit, and even multiple attacks. But high BAB and the iteratives that come with it are a class feature of the full Melee classes, and taking their shtick and giving it away without allowing the same thing to be done, even on a minor level, to casters, is grossly unequal and unfair.
:P
Melees got shafted HARD going from 1/2E to 3E.
The major things that were given away were the ability to hit things, and the ability to make multiple attacks.
Let me put it another way. You've got a BAB based feat which is absolutely useless to any class with full BAB. Yet there are feats and items out there which increase caster level, and are still useful to full-level casting classes.
It's a major double standard, I tell you.
==Aelryinth
A primary caster who took the feat ten times would have a +20 BAB and FULL SPELLCASTING. I'm pretty sure they could kick all kinds of melee arse if they want to. As someone else pointed out, spells are MUCH more powerful then BAB.
Can't grab a feat more than once unless it specifically states you can. I also don't know if the OP was referring to BAB in to hit or feats. Purely for qualifying for feats really wouldn't hurt I don't think, but adding additional 2 BAB complete with to hit might be a little more powerful.
Anyways, looking at the OP it looks like what you want is Fractional BAB rather than a feat. Without spending a feat or anything just add up the fractions instead of the total +1s for the class. 5 rogue/5 inquisitor/5monk would have a total of +11 instead of 9
Or that wizard could just cast transformation instead of spending all his general feats.
|
|
A primary caster who took the feat ten times would have a +20 BAB and FULL SPELLCASTING. I'm pretty sure they could kick all kinds of melee arse if they want to. As someone else pointed out, spells are MUCH more powerful then BAB.
(Note: I'm ignoring your entire rant about a feat granting spellcasting power since that is NOT the feat at question here, and I've not suggested that even a single level in spellcasting would be acquirable with a mere feat.)
Now that that's out of the way. A caster that spent every general feat they had on +1 BAB to focus on melee combat would be sub-par in both casting and melee. I vehemently disagree that such a character would in any way unbalance the game power-wise, though they might succeed at doing so with regards to face time (on the flip side, they might succeed only at making themselves second best in all areas and thus get NO face time).
Other Notes:
* 1: Attribute focus would require that they pull at least a couple points away from their casting stat to make their melee-focused stats even remotely viable. As a corollary, martials need no investment in the mental stats and can use those to push their melee stats higher than the caster/martial build.
* 2: The +BAB feat does nothing to cure their low-HD woes, which result in average of -2HP per level compared to full BAB (or -3 compared to barbarian). It would only be -1HP per level with divine, but I don't want to have to start my "divine casters have all the fun" rant.
* 3: Even assuming they get power attack out of the aether (since they don't have the free feat to take it, except for certain sorcerer bloodlines), the amount of benefit a caster can grant themselves in melee combat via their spells is less than the benefit that an equal-level full-BAB character has WITHOUT feat investment, much less with feats.
* 4: A caster is always, and I mean ALWAYS going to be better off casting those melee buffing spells on an truly martial ally instead of themselves, and this feat does not change that. There are a handful of personal spells that are helpful, but they only real help bridge the gap for things like the lack of armor.
* 5: The caster needs to spend actions and limited use/day resources in order to get the same bonuses (or worse) than a true martial characters gets constantly.
* 6: The BAB is NOT the primary thing for those martial characters. For fighters it's their bonus feats and weapon training, for barbarians it's their rage and rage powers, for rangers it's their combat style and favored enemy, for cavaliers it's their stupidly powerful charge attacks. And each of the aforementioned characters get some other boon as well (armor training, uncanny dodge + DR, favored terrain + animal companion, AC mount + banner + tactician). The BAB helps, but it's the boost they get from those other features that truly defines them.
Unless I see builds otherwise or a VERY convincing hypothetical, I will not believe that the existence of a +1 BAB feat would allow some kind of horrifying "super-caster" build. Or at least, not any build that isn't already met/exceeded by other builds that don't require the feat.
Melees got shafted HARD going from 1/2E to 3E.
The major things that were given away were the ability to hit things, and the ability to make multiple attacks.
Let me put it another way. You've got a BAB based feat which is absolutely useless to any class with full BAB. Yet there are feats and items out there which increase caster level, and are still useful to full-level casting classes.
It's a major double standard, I tell you.
I agree that Melee gets shafted. I disagree that preventing a +BAB feat is the solution to that, or that it in any way affects that disparity. If anything, it would show just how hard it is to catch up to the melee character in their one field of expertise.
Fixing the martial/caster disparity would require a complete system rewrite to challenge the assumptions of what it means to be a caster and/or martial. To be frank, the casters would need to be rewritten to make casting most of their spells very difficult and the martial would need to be rewritten to reduce the need to stand and flail (i.e. replace the full-attack construct).
The real double-standard here is that casters can imitate and/or replace class abilities with a spell, but non-casters very rarely get to imitate spells with class abilities (and even when they do they are pitifully low level spells from a restricted set of the most useless spells they could find). A caster can use Overland Flight (one spell slot!) to give themselves a good fly speed for the rest of the day. A barbarian can use a rage power to get a good flying speed for half as long as they can rage (so, a couple of minutes). There are hundreds more examples.
TL;DR - The whole caster thing is a red herring. The BAB feat doesn't actually boost casters and might even be a trap. It's best used on the medium BAB guys, and rogue would likely get the most usage.
A wizard 9/fighter 1/eldritch knight 10 can take the feat once (say, as the EK bonus feat) and end up with 18th level wizard spellcasting and 4 iterative attacks. Not bad.
|
|
A wizard 9/fighter 1/eldritch knight 10 can take the feat once (say, as the EK bonus feat) and end up with 18th level wizard spellcasting and 4 iterative attacks. Not bad.
A Wizard 8/Fighter 2/Eldritch Knight 10 also gets 9th level spells in conjunction with 4 attacks without needing the feat. The feat would be nice, though, to patch those last few BAB or get that 18th caster level. But, ultimately, taking the feat means there is some other feat you didn't take that may have been more useful
|
|
This sounds like a super version of weapon focus.
- It's a +1 to hit. (not even going into +2)
- With everything.
- That can (possibly? not quite sure if you're allowing it to be retaken) be taken up to your HD.
- Will affect your ability to take a huge number of other feats.
- Will affect feats like power attack where damage scales off of BAB
I'm sorry this sounds like SUPER FEEATTT DANANANAAAAAAA!
If I am understanding the proposal, here are my thoughts on your points:
1. It's a limited +1 to hit, limited to the BAB of a full martial character.
2. Yes, with everything, but there are no characters I know of who use "everything" so this is a theoretical benefit that I don't really see as a practical one.
3. Again, it can only advance your BAB to equal that of a full martial character. At the cost of feat slots.
4. It is not clear to me that taking this feat will actually adjust your BAB or instead merely provide a "BAB Bonus". That would be key to how powerful this feat would be. Even so all it would do is allow characters that are not full BAB access to feats at the same level a full BAB character gets them. Again, at the cost of a feat slot or slots.
5. Same as 4. Whether this actually changes BAB or just provides a BAB bonus is a key question that would affect my evaluation of how powerful it is. If it doesn't actually adjust BAB but just provides a bonus, then this is not an issue.
I play a lot of less than full BAB characters. I've been going through them and asking myself if I would have picked this feat instead of the feats they currently have. So far the answer is maybe/maybe not. My druid archer would probably have stuck with the archery feat tree and not used a feat slot on this feat until level 10+. My bard is not combat focused and would not be interested in this feat. My witch uses feats to gain additional hexes...
I think it's worth evaluating, it doesn't leap out to me as a "super feat". Not so far.
First level human bard, inquisitor or magus. I take this feat. My BAB is +1 instead of 0. How many feats it open up for my other first level feat? How faster I can get some build?
I get iterative attacks 1 level earlier and I get my 4th iterative attack at level 20. It is a way better benefit that weapon focus and other feat that give attack bonuses.|
|
First level human bard, inquisitor or magus. I take this feat. My BAB is +1 instead of 0. How many feats it open up for my other first level feat? How faster I can get some build?
I get iterative attacks 1 level earlier and I get my 4th iterative attack at level 20. It is a way better benefit that weapon focus and other feat that give attack bonuses.
Yeah, it unlocks a different style of build, I doubt anyone would dispute that. What is in dispute is if that's actually a problem or not.
The first level human bard/inquisitor/magus takes +BAB and Power Attack and does pretty well for himself compared to the previous melee-centric options for that level and class. The first level human barbarian takes Power Attack and Cleave and does better. The first level human fighter takes Power Attack, Cleave and Weapon focus and does slightly worse than the raging barbarian, but slightly better than the non-raging barbarian. This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
It is a way better benefit that weapon focus and other feat that give attack bonuses.
Eh. It's a bit better, but honestly weapon focus has not been a "go to" feat for any of my builds besides fighter. It's okay, but not fantastic.
The +BAB feat would only be a go-to for me for the exact situation you describe: A heavily melee-centric medium-BAB class that wants to have power attack at first level and takes Human to do it. Getting the iterative attack one level earlier is nice, but not overwhelmingly so. That attack IS at a penalty, after all, and as such doesn't hit much when you first get it anyway. Mostly, it's about taking the excessively good feat "Power Attack" a couple levels earlier, so it's really being made good not on its own merits but on the merits of the feat it lets you get, and only because that feat is the single most powerful feat in the game (for melee fighters).
Outside of the above, I would be unlikely to take the +BAB feat for the same reason as I don't take Weapon Focus: That +1 to-hit is often not worth as much to me as another feat I could be taking. Admittedly, if I lack for other ideas I would take it, as is the case with Fighter.
I suppose I can summarize my opinion on the matter as follows: It, at best, allows melee-centric builds of non-full-BAB classes to (in conjunction with their other class abilities) just barely catch up to the full BAB classes at meleeing. Meanwhile, it's opening up new build options, which (as long as balance is preserved) is not a bad thing. As such, I have no problem with the idea.
If I were on some kind of committee to approve a +BAB feat I would approve it on a provisional basis and see how it turned out after X amount of time. If it didn't regularly pop up in problematic builds, I would then give it the full "all clear".
I'm not sure if I like the idea of a combat feat that cannot be taken by pure martial characters.
I might be happier if there was a strict prerequisite for the feat and I'm thinking +10 BAB is a good guideline, so it doesn't overly accelerate early character growth.
Druid probably could use it but its reliance on natural attacks mean it's just a more universal form of weapon focus, while its usefulness on any given cleric is rather alarming to me.
Magus would be quite monstrous with this feat, monks and rogues would be on par with other martial characters (which is, also alarming because they're not meant to)...
All in all, it's something I would take with a handful of salt.
|
|
I might be happier if there was a strict prerequisite for the feat and I'm thinking +10 BAB is a good guideline, so it doesn't overly accelerate early character growth.
I think its worst abuses would be curbed by having a "+1 BAB" requirement. This keeps the medium BAB guys from taking power attack at first level by being human.
Druid probably could use it but its reliance on natural attacks mean it's just a more universal form of weapon focus, while its usefulness on any given cleric is rather alarming to me.
Melee clerics and druids are alarming to me regardless. By pure RAW they can do about as well (or better) in melee as your average full BAB guy while also having (most) of their spells left to do other things. And the druid gets an animal companion on top of that. (Seriously, though: Who thought that a druid being able to cast Shapechange on their animal companion would end well? Or a cleric with the animal domain casting Divine Power and Righteous Might on theirs?)
I think I would be more worried about the *other* feats those characters could take, like Natural Spell, Quicken Spell, Powerful Shape, Quick Shape, Channel Smite (for negative channelers), Guided Hand, Quick Channel (mostly when coupled with Selective Channel), etc. Not to mention your standard battery of melee feats.
If the cleric/druid isn't buffed, that extra 2-3 to-hit isn't going to help much as they're going to suck either way. If they are buffed, that extra 2-3 to-hit doesn't matter because it's overkill. These facts devalue a +1 to-hit a lot compared to the medium-BAB classes that don't need to buff up first. (Note: I count wild shape as a buff since you have to either spend an action on it or take a couple feats to avoid ever leaving it.)
Magus would be quite monstrous with this feat, monks and rogues would be on par with other martial characters (which is, also alarming because they're not meant to)...
Magus only really needs their first attack to hit (which is their best) to make their features shine strongly, so it doesn't help them that much. Rogues need all the help they can get. Monks only get to use it half the time because they already are treated as full BAB when they flurry.
I don't see why a Monk or Rogue shouldn't be compared to the full martials. After all, they get ZERO casting and relatively few combat-oriented class features comparatively. They get a tiny bit better out-of-combat stuff, but not enough to justify being a full weight-class below the full BAB martials when combat starts. ESPECIALLY not the monk, who effectively has full BAB half the time anyway.
All in all, it's something I would take with a handful of salt.
As I said earlier, I'd give this provisional approval in a heartbeat. Say "Sure, have at." then revisit the status in, say, 6 months.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Not saying this is a bad idea (although such feats clearly aren't intended and it is just flat out better than Weapon Focus).
My concerns:
How does this balance when combined with other effects designed to "catch up" in attack bonus? inquisitor judgement, dvine power, transformation combined with this might truly make the "caster = better fighter than a fighter."
Early feat tree access. Example: with this feat an inquistor can take Outflank as a bonus teamwork feat before level 6. Their ability to change out teamwork feats freely combos well with early access.
Retraining. Can I take this feat at low levels to qualify for stuff early, then trade it out using Ultimate campiagn's retraining rules later when I want better stuff?
Sigh, for those who want to quote MY comments and then go on a tirade about the impact of increasing BAB through this feat, please at least read enough of MY comments to realize that I SPECIFICALLY addressed this potential exploit by recommending that the feat provide a BAB BONUS, not modify the actual BAB, PRECISELY to avoid exploiting a higher BAB for purposes of attaining feats, archetypes or any other BAB prerequisite items.
I have more or less decided that this feat is actually OK if you allow it to create a BAB bonus. I don't think it's overpowered at all, and I DO think it helps some of the lesser martial characters close the gap a bit against full BAB martial characters.
It sure as hell doesn't boost martial characters to be comparable to full casters.
Again casters can already simulate this feat 10 times over at 20th level, with a single casting of transformation. I see this feat helping martial prestige classes the most, like the eldritch knight.
Yeah, I totally misread the first post. The Modern Path Feat only allows an overall +1 BAB bonus, total, for the cost of a Feat. It never improves.
meepo, you didn't see the crazy rants over the ruling with Aasimar being able to cast daylight and enter PRC's a level or two early, did you? :)
==Aelryinth
meepo, you didn't see the crazy rants over the ruling with Aasimar being able to cast daylight and enter PRC's a level or two early, did you? :)
==Aelryinth
I was under the impression that the general consensus was "that's pretty cool but still subpar, so why not?" At least that's what I got out of the discussion.
I see a feat like this working like Practiced Spellcaster in 3.5.
Taking it would allow a multiclass fighter/barbarian/ranger/whatever to take some levels in a spellcasting class and not lose out on the BAB. Putting a decent requirement on it is the only balancing factor I see.
I like the idea of this feet. I think it should count to requirements for feats, extra attacks & ect. +1 BAB isn't overpowered. Even if it was +2 it may not be overpowered (especially if it was only for one weapon), the problem is that weapon focus is underpowered IMHO.
|
My 2 cp's: This is a viable feat. It won't overpower anyone. In response to the specific concept of a Wizard with a full 20 BAB and full spellcasting; what crazy Wizard is going to wade into melee when he has level 9 spells available. And he gave up all of his chance at meta-magic feats to increase his BAB? Ridiculous. A fighter would still destroy him in melee combat with all of the other feats he can take (critical focus and such).
At lower levels, this could be powerful enough to take for non-martial classes (which makes it an appealing choice). However, at higher levels, a +1 won't be that powerful, especially if you've burned a feat for it (since there aren't that many feats available). I mean, heck, Bless adds a +1 to everyone within 30 feet as a 1st level spell.
As to the confusion before about whether this should increase the BAB or (let's call it) the bonus to attacks. This only really matters where it concerns CMD, CMB and prereq's for some feats.
As to the ranged focused characters (archers), this is only a maybe. I'd much rather focus on rapid shot and many shot in place of this feat.
Lastly, I'm going to ctrl+c and ctrl+v this into my homebrew materials. Full credit will of course be given to the OP. Sadly, I will not have a chance to test this out and give feedback for a while.
anything come about from this?
Since it's a homebrew topic, I can't imagine anything could have come about other than someone choosing to use it in a home game.
wouldn't have minded hearing about how the players used said feat.