How much rebalancing if BAB was the same?

[Rerednaw]

First wasn't sure if to put this in General or House Rules. :)

If every class had the same BAB progression would it make the game untenable?

First say monks and rogues (non spell using semi-martials) went to full BAB.

Then I suppose say hybrid spellcasters.
Then full spellcasters.

Ditto for monsters.

I think fighter loses right off since their ability is to well...fight. But I don't think it would that off until you started including spellcasters.

I think spells still need a bit of tweaking but that's a topic for another thread. Granted I'm not saying they need to be morphed into something 4E-esque. Pathfinder did a decent job toning down some, but there are still a few very problematical ones. Especially with the splat books.

Has anyone tried the "one BAB" as a house rule? What happened?

[Roberta Yang]

You could do it for Monks just fine, they already have full-BAB on a flurry and have serious problems hitting at high levels. You could maybe do it for Rogues too.

Do it for the 3/4 BAB casters and they crush the actual martials. Most of them can already hold their own as martials anyhow, remove the only real drawback they have compared to non-casting martials and there's minimal reason to play the full-BAB classes ever.

For the 1/2 BAB casters it might make less difference just because they have much better things to do than hitting things, but it makes touch spells effortless and with spells like Giant Form II available they'll still be combat monsters. At any rate, letting them also be great at hitting things by default in addition to having god-casting isn't a positive change.

My question is why you would think this is a good idea.

[Ruggs]

Rerednaw wrote:

First say monks and rogues (non spell using semi-martials) went to full BAB.

Well...according to what you'll see here in the forums, these classes should be that way anyway. To take it a step further, there should be no medium BAB, there should be no bad saves, and so on and so forth.

Standardizing all these numbers does approach a 4e mindset. If that is a bad thing or not is up to the person playing.

Part of me feels that 4e was trying to answer some of these complaints, actually. I also wonder if that's the way PF will head.

For example, it's possible that this sort of push occurs (in part) because Pathfinder is moving more towards a focus on rules-as-DM. With more even stats, the outcome is more assured and players are more easily able to determine potential for success. This is partly current trend and partly, I suspect, an indirect and untended result of PFS where RAW trumps.

It's an interesting thought, and I wish you the best with it.