| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you want to nerf martial damage? Most people already think casters are overpowered.
Interesting idea.
Why would you want to do something like that?
That's like watching a father beat up his son, going over and kicking the son in the groin.
I was thinking: what would happen to the meta if Base Attack Bonus was reduced on all classes.
1 BAB --> 3/4
3/4 BAB --> 1/2
1/2 BAB --> 1/4 or 1/3I think that it would require the removal of both Rings of Protection and Amulets of Natural Armor (and is that really a bad thing?)
Only if you change it from outsiders and dragons from full to 3/4th as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even still going against Touch AC, spells requiring an attack roll would fall out of favor, but wizards wouldn't feel it on the whole. Meanwhile, the mid-range BAB classes become almost unplayable, especially Rogues and Monks. Full divine casters are still doable, but markedly worst, since their self-buffing spells work markedly less well on a 1/2 BAB chassis. d10 HD classes maintain some level of playability, but all in all, all this does is make caster/martial gaps markedly worse.
By the same token, what would happen if we improved BAB for all classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps one of the biggest changes is that you've effectively delayed access to any feat that requires BAB as a prerequisite. Losing a little BAB and delaying your iteratives hurt, but this wrecks havoc with feat chains.
Overall I wouldn't do this. It's intentional that high-level characters have an easier time hitting, because high-level characters/monsters also have more hit points!
The issue that OP is trying to tackle is that Offense quickly outpaces Defense in pathfinder, and if you want to have defense at all you have to invest heavily in magic.
OP, if you want to improve defensive usefulness, I'd recommend stealing the Defense Bonus system from D20 Modern and just applying it anything with class levels.
That is probably the simplest way of dealing with the issue.
By the same token, what would happen if we improved BAB for all classes?
Clerics/Summoners/Bards/Warpriests/Monks replace Martials entirely.
Theyre already close. They already do comparable damage. They just have lower to-hit.
By the same token, what would happen if we improved BAB for all classes?Clerics/Summoners/Bards/Warpriests/Monks replace Martials entirely.
Theyre already close. They already do comparable damage. They just have lower to-hit.
Depends where the full BAB martials end up with their BAB.
1-1/2x?2x?
By the same token, what would happen if we improved BAB for all classes?Clerics/Summoners/Bards/Warpriests/Monks replace Martials entirely.
Theyre already close. They already do comparable damage. They just have lower to-hit.
Depends where the full BAB martials end up with their BAB.
1-1/2x?
2x?
I'd say add 1/4 to everyone.
Fighter-Type: 5/4
Rogue-Cleric-Type: 1
Mage-Type: 3/4
Well this was mostly to compare martials against each other, because I've noticed people complain about how easy it is to hit at high levels.
That is not a complaint for most people, and unless it is a problem at your table, I would not adjust change the rules. If it is a problem at your table there are ways to slow "getting hit" down without nerfing them that hard.
edit:This also brings a host of other problems such as meeting prereqs for certain feats.
By the same token, what would happen if we improved BAB for all classes?Clerics/Summoners/Bards/Warpriests/Monks replace Martials entirely.
Theyre already close. They already do comparable damage. They just have lower to-hit.
A monk is a martial, and not high on the totem pole among them until you get to certain builds or zen archers.
Clerics can do ok if they are buffed. The same goes for bards and warpriest. "Comparable" is subjective depending on what you compare them too.
By the same token, what would happen if we improved BAB for all classes?Clerics/Summoners/Bards/Warpriests/Monks replace Martials entirely.
Theyre already close. They already do comparable damage. They just have lower to-hit.
Depends where the full BAB martials end up with their BAB.
1-1/2x?
2x?
Not really. To hit caps out. Damage is irrelevant past a certain point. That change makes them marginally better at the already fantastic hit ratio martials put out.
On the other hand, now you have gishes easily hitting now and maintaining their out of Combat versatility.
While it's easy to hit at high levels, that's mostly just for the first in a set of iterative attacks. Bonuses to hit are still always important because of these iteratives. Remember that your last attack in a full BAB set is at -15 to hit.
This is not a new problem or idea. There have been a few suggestions tried out in the past, from 1st ed onwards - which 'dealt with' the problem by effectively limiting play to lower levels.
The current set up/problem:
Levels 1-10 or so: the dice rolls are important, martials generally hit but not always; rogues/clerics/etc hit about 50%; wizards don't bother unless they are using rays/touch.
Levels 15+: martials hit all the time, with a chance of missing with lower iteratives; rogues usually miss all the time and feel frustrated in combat; clerics use touch attacks; & wizards don't bother.
If, at higher levels, you make enemies with ACs high enough that martials can miss with their first attacks, no-one else can hit them at all.
Additionally, enemies who can reliably hit decent ACs in the party can't miss party members with lower ACs and so tend to kill them quickly.
Overall, this makes AC less important than obtaining a miss chance (blur, displacement, blink, invisibility, etc) once you are past the first 6-10 levels.
How do you solve these problems which are fairly inherent to the system? (Yes, I've been making sweeping generalisations and some of them might be different in different peoples' experience, but the end result is true even if the precise levels of each facet happening aren't.)
Either make each attack more random (more dice rolled, higher value dice rolled, etc); or make the static bonuses smaller; or make AC lower; or...
You end up sticking with the existing problem, or inventing a whole replacement set of combat rules!
How about just reducing the difference between 3/4 and 1, then?
weak full BAB classes --> 6/5
Strong Full BAB classes --> 5/5
By "weak full BAB classes" we're probably talking about the Fighter. The thing is, this won't fix the Fighter at all. It'll make him deadlier in combat, true, but that's not where his biggest problem lies. The issue is that he's so hyper-specialized in just dealing damage. If the enemy has a way to prevent the Fighter from delivering damage in the first place (ie, wind effects vs archery) he's in serious trouble, and if combat isn't the solution of choice he might as well be a commoner.
Amplifying the power of the Fighter would just lead to Gunslinger syndrome; they'll be overpowering low-optimization games with raw numbers while still feeling underpowered in high-optimization games due to lack of options. Fix the Fighter by giving him more options, not more power.
weak Med BAB classes --> 4/5
Strong Med BAB classes --> 3/5
While nice, it doesn't really help the Rogue or Monk out much. They'll be at most 1 BAB ahead. It might let them qualify for key feats a little earlier, but for most of their career they'll have the same BAB as they always did. It is quite decent at the 20th level, since you manage to eke out an extra iterative.
This also raises the problem of what you're going to do with classes like the Inquisitor or Bard which are neither strong nor weak. Leave 'em where they are? Or force an unnecessary buff or nerf?
I'm also hesitant to move Clerics and their ilk to 3/5. Sure they could use a power-down, but all this seems to do is shoe-horn them into caster builds at higher levels while irritating melee builds at lower levels.
all casters --> 2/5
This has no real impact on typical Wizards and Sorcerers, who really don't care about their BAB at all, while penalizing those who want to pursue sub-optimal paths like Eldritch Knight.
It would make combat last even longer than it already does.
How about just reducing the difference between 3/4 and 1, then?
weak full BAB classes --> 6/5
Strong Full BAB classes --> 5/5
weak Med BAB classes --> 4/5
Strong Med BAB classes --> 3/5
all casters --> 2/5
Touching BAB is going to cause problems. You are better off maximizing hit points instead of using half hit point like the bestiary does, and/or improving monsters with the advanced template and allowing them to use their treasure to buy more equipment, among other things such as changing your tactics.
Is this a problem at your table?
If so why?
Also if it is a problem could you give an example of how encounters typically go?
They sort of did this in 5th Edition. "BAB" begins at +2 and maxes at +6 at 17th level, and is the same for every class. But AC is reduced a great deal, as well. So are max ability scores (20, +5 modifier).
But hit points are increased a LOT. One CR 5 might have 18 HD!
At 1st level, most PCs have a +4 to +6 on their attack roll, and most ACs are around 8 to 13, so you are hitting 75% to 50% of the time. Which is really fun. Some mooks die after 1 or 2 hits, max, but bosses can need 5 or 6 hits, so fights are pretty exciting, but still pretty quick.
But Pathfinder is a really different game.
Why do you want to change BAB? Is it because Medium BAB are missing too much and Full BAB are hitting too much? If so, there might be better ways to bring equity to the situation, such granting rogues a scaling bonus to attack rolls while flanking?
Why do you want to change BAB? Is it because Medium BAB are missing too much and Full BAB are hitting too much?I have a whole list of house rules that I'm developing, and I wanted to know if this was a slightly balanced one.
That's probably an impossible question to answer with the information given, since odds are pretty good that all your other house rules would also be changing game balance. I would assume you would at least be revising the BAB prerequisites on a lot of feats, how AC works, etc.
Is this a problem at your table?
If so why?
Also if it is a problem could you give an example of how encounters typically go?It's not really a problem at my table, but I think about how Pathfinder is on a whole rather than how it is just for me.
I dislike Rocket Launcher Tag. My problem with attack bonuses is summed up below:
Why do you want to change BAB? Is it because Medium BAB are missing too much and Full BAB are hitting too much?I have a whole list of house rules that I'm developing, and I wanted to know if this was a slightly balanced one.
I would not fix a problem that does not exist, and changing BAB is not the place to start. You will have a lot of work to do, and a lot of that work will depend on how your group approaches the game.
Many spells* will have to be removed/nerfed because spells are a main factor in rocket tag, as well as how you play monsters.
*Magic is more of a factor in rocket-tag than BAB is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic is more of a factor in rocket-tag than BAB is.
Agreed. Save-or-Die and Save-or-Suck spells are what really drives rocket tag, not knocking off HP. A dragon at 1 hp is still just as dangerous as one at 100. A dragon that's dazed for the next three rounds is harmless, and will probably never get a chance to do anything before it's killed off.