|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was printed in Pathfinder Unchained. While I agree that fractional base bonuses are a better system, making that change 8 years into the campaign would be a complete headache.
If it was a global change, not everyone has access to the content, and while I could see it being a choice that every character could make at level 1, that would mean we're inconsistent with the base rules we use to play the game from character to character.
In the mean time, you'll just have to be happy that your sorc 1, rogue 1, arcanist 1, wizard 1 has a +6 base will save to compensate their lack of BAB.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jack. Yeah, but they can't hit anything.
Let's assume I want a level 1 rogue, 1 alchemist, 1 (normal) monk, 1 etc etc etc of the 3/4th classes up until level 12.
That's 12 * 3 / 4 = + 9 BAB .. vs 0 BAB...
True enough, but perhaps if I spent my adventuring career jumping from one skill set to another, I may also never have never learnt how to move and draw my sword at the same time.
I think that there is an argument to be made for using fractional BAB, but some better examples than Mr. Dippy need to be presented to show that the existing system is perhaps stifling character creativity.
The most notable example I can think of is an average BAB class taking an average BAB prestige class as their 6th character level. Rogue 5/Shadowdancer 1, or Cleric 5/Evangelist 1 for example only have a BAB of +3. It's subtler, but for BAB optimisation, you would actually want to enter these PrCs at 9th level, which means you'd only get to use that class for 3-4 levels of your PFS career.
And even then, I wouldn't want to be in whoever's shoes when they have to explain that all pre-existing multiclass characters will have to recalculate their BAB and Saves.
We all have our bugbears with the system, but that is the price we pay to enjoy an organised play system as good as this one.
|
|
I don't think it's recalculating BAB that's the problem, it would be recalculating saves that causes the issue. We're combining 1/2s & 1/3s, and when levelling up a multiclass character, you'd need to know your save fraction to the 1/6th.
If you're character brew requires you to dip into multiple poor or average BAB classes, then weak attack rolls are the price for doing business. If you're after more of a hybrid character, a rogue/investigator maybe, then make sure you take class levels in chunks of 4.
Finding workarounds for a problem in a character concept that is perhaps stifled by the current system can be a worthwhile endeavour in itself.
Are you looking for a change because you have a concept in mind that otherwise cannot work, or just theorycrafting in general?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the actual problem here is that it introduces a ruleset for building characters that you would *have* to use to build a character that completely uses the Core Rulebook, Roleplaying Guild Guide, and Character Traits Web Enhancement. Now, the ruleset could be printed in the Roleplaying Guild Guide, but I think adding (additional) rules that affect basic characters that only use those 3 resources is outside the scope of what they want to put into that guide. (As a note: I can't speak officially on this. This is just my speculation.)
I think that's more the actual issue. I actually like the fraction BAB and saves rules...although I don't use them in my current home campaign because my home game players have enough trouble with BAB and saves as it is...
|
I don't think it's recalculating BAB that's the problem, it would be recalculating saves that causes the issue. We're combining 1/2s & 1/3s, and when levelling up a multiclass character, you'd need to know your save fraction to the 1/6th.
If you're character brew requires you to dip into multiple poor or average BAB classes, then weak attack rolls are the price for doing business. If you're after more of a hybrid character, a rogue/investigator maybe, then make sure you take class levels in chunks of 4.
Finding workarounds for a problem in a character concept that is perhaps stifled by the current system can be a worthwhile endeavour in itself.
Are you looking for a change because you have a concept in mind that otherwise cannot work, or just theorycrafting in general?
This. Taking the fractional bab would also mean taking the fractional saves. I don't want fractional saves. I've got builds that rely on class abilities from multiple classes. The saves are a benefit while the bab is the penalty. I'd rather keep my penalty as it is so that I can keep my benefit as it is.
Eh. I had a d20 (not PFS) character before with no less than 11 classes across 12 levels.
Did not have an actual BAB until 7th level. Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.
Character was a blast to play, though. Skillmonkey, so the lack of combat ability wasn't too critical.
So while fractional BAB would be nifty, the regular system can work too. You just have to build around it.
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Unchained has many really fun system variants that I would love to incorporate experimentally into a home game. The difficulty is that these systems tend not to work well in parallel with the "standard" ruleset, which is to say a campaign is typically best served by using, say, all fractional advancement or traditional advancement (not picking and choosing). Trying to run both in parallel leads to confusion and can even spark resentment (e.g. "Why does he get to use X just because he did it before it changed to Y for everyone else?").
Mike Brock and I met with members of the design team throughout the planning, production, and final publication of the book, and we discussed at length the impact that introducing each of these subsystems might have on the organized play campaign. One matter that quickly became apparent was that instituting any of the variant systems would almost certainly require converting all of the existing Pathfinder Society characters to be compliant with the new standard. Even though many players might appreciate having a multiclassed character with a higher attack bonus, someone else might be dismayed to learn that the system make her character no longer qualify for a key feat or other character option. What's more, conversion would affect hundreds of thousands of characters, taking untold hours of player time to bring characters into compliance. Would this also change how scenarios are written? Actually, I don't know that this even came up, but I would want any global changes to the rules to also apply to the NPCs in adventures—a development that might even require correction of older scenarios.
In the end, we decided to incorporate those elements that could operate independently between characters (such as the unchained classes) and not those that would force change on everyone. Such a change is manageable for a group of six people; it would be very difficult to institute in the middle of an organized play campaign.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was disappointed that VMC didn't make it into PFS legality. Trading feats for class abilities doesn't seem like much of a power shift, and it's something that opens up new options for characters to bring imagined roles into light in a new way.
And I was super disappointed the stamina system wasn't allowed in any way for martial characters--that would have helped a lot with the martial/caster disparity.
|
Contributor
|
I was disappointed that VMC didn't make it into PFS legality. Trading feats for class abilities doesn't seem like much of a power shift, and it's something that opens up new options for characters to bring imagined roles into light in a new way.
And I was super disappointed the stamina system wasn't allowed in any way for martial characters--that would have helped a lot with the martial/caster disparity.
Big +1 to this. I'm sure they had good reasons... but, still disappointed. ^_^
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing I still want out of Unchained is background skills. These would not be terribly unbalancing. I have them in a bunch of home games, and they add a lot of flavor to characters and enrich the game overall.
The impact on PFS would most likely be more day jobs and and more languages known, but I don't think it would be game-breaking. It also might encourage people to play something other than human for sorcerers, clerics and paladins -- characters that are notoriously skill starved.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was disappointed that VMC didn't make it into PFS legality. Trading feats for class abilities doesn't seem like much of a power shift, and it's something that opens up new options for characters to bring imagined roles into light in a new way.
And I was super disappointed the stamina system wasn't allowed in any way for martial characters--that would have helped a lot with the martial/caster disparity.
I'd love to see VMC made legal in PFS.
Stamina would also be a good addition, though I would assume that it could only come from the Combat Stamina feat, as the other option presented in Unchained would change the base fighter.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The impact on PFS would most likely be more day jobs and and more languages known, but I don't think it would be game-breaking. It also might encourage people to play something other than human for sorcerers, clerics and paladins -- characters that are notoriously skill starved.
At least in my region, almost all sorcerers are non-human and slightly over half of the clerics are non-human. Pretty much all paladins are human though, but it's the only class with that issue.
While I'd be happy to see VMC in PFS, it may be a good idea to see if any of them need errata first. From what I've seen, there's quite a large power disparity between them.