Has there been any talk about how BAB will be handled in the new 2e? I know they're moving to a 3 actions, 1 reaction system, and with that you can attack 3 times at a 0/-5/-10 iterative. I usually play full BAB characters as I tend to like them more than 3/4 or 1/2 BAB characters. So, how will 2e handle BAB? Will it be completely removed because everyone has 3 attacks they can arguably make, or will there be something to make up for it?
PF 2e will have to have something like BAB, and I think it likely it will be called by the same name.
BAB is all about getting to be a better fighter as you advance in level. Fighters will get better faster than rogues or wizards. That's what BAB is for.
BAB won't give iterative attacks. That's the only difference.
I am curious though, how they're going to handle fighting with multiple weapons and/or natural attacks, within the three action framework.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF 2e will have to have something like BAB, and I think it likely it will be called by the same name.
Honestly, I'm not so sure on that. I've read pretty much all the posts in all the threads here and I don't recall any Paizo people referring to BAB at all in the context of PF2. Considering how often the term tends to come up, that seems odd to me.
I hope BAB is not +1 to +20 this time, though. Number deflation would be wise.
But for sure should be there. It's kinda dumb when in 5e a wizard can hit just as well as the fighter until he gets some class features to boost his melee.
BAB factors into other things besides how hard one attacks though, so that's why I'm wondering if BAB will still be a thing. Will it affect combat maneuvers and things like that?
The playtest podcast describes attacks as being your level + your strength modifier.
So if I understand correctly, this means BAB is not a seperate value anymore, but all classes will effectively have full BAB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I understand, if you are proficient with the weapon you are using then you get your level to the attack. So, yeah everyone is Full BAB with the right stuff. Blah.
I suspect that this is where "class feats" will come in, and really make the difference between a dedicated martial character and a part-time or non-martial character.
I suspect it will also make multiclassing a viable thing. Often when new hybrid classes for PF1.0 came out, I thought "why not just take a few levels in X and Y class and call it a hybrid class?
They have also announced a new and more important role for class templates. Perhaps many of the cool multiclassing effects will simply be accomplished by taking a template that gives you some access to out-of-class "class feats".
We'll know more by August.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really like that if it's true.
Barbarian is proficient with Greatsword so she gets Full BAB.
A Wizard would not get Full BAB unless he spent a feat getting the weapon proficiency, which I'm okay with, since he's investing resources into getting better with a weapon, but he's not gonna outshine a pure martial like the Barbarian who has class abilities to bolster hacking stuff up.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as I can make my martial characters hit on a 2, I'm happy. My dice hate me so I assume the best number I'll ever roll is a 4 and build appropriately.
The above is not literally true, obviously. But I do want to minimize the effects of my bad die luck on my performance. That's one reason I prefer spellcasters - let the GM roll the save and my evil dice don't matter.
I am curious though, how they're going to handle fighting with multiple weapons and/or natural attacks, within the three action framework.
If I had to guess, the Two Weapon Fighting feat will probably allow you to make two attacks (one with each hand) with a single attack action at a penalty.
So a one-weapon full attack routine would get 0/-5/-10, while a two-weapon attack routine would be -2/-2/-5/-10. This would also mean that TWF would be compatible with charging. This is a very good thing.
I hope BAB is not +1 to +20 this time, though. Number deflation would be wise.
While number inflation is a bit of a problem towards the higher end of the levels, the lower levels have the opposite problem that there just isn't a big difference between medium and high BAB. 1st-4th has medium and high BAB progression only one point apart, which is only going to matter on 5% of attack rolls. Meeting prerequisites is actually the bigger deal as far as low level BAB concerns go.
If all classes have moved to full BAB... well, that would be quite the change. And not just to BAB, that would have ramifications across the entire system. That makes it hard to judge from where I'm standing. On the negative side this does remove one of the counter-balancing factors on full casters, and I'm somewhat hesitant about what limitations were put in their place (as much as we may complain about martial/caster disparity, the world-bending power of casters is one of the coolest things about Pathfinder. I wouldn't be playing the system if I didn't think the pros outweighed the cons, after all). However, on the plus side I think this might help with breaking from the full BAB trap, the tendency for full BAB to be overvalued in class design leading to underwhelming or one-dimensional classes like the Swashbuckler. With BAB no longer clouding the waters, these classes could get great things.
TL;DR: I hope this is indicative of martials getting nice things, and not casters getting beaten with the nerf stick.
My own personal wild, unfounded speculation is that untrained maps to 1/2 level progression, trained to 3/4, and expert to 1:1/full progression.
I would hope that they do not go the direction of level+STR = BAB (or what will be the item similar to BAB).
Making Wizards and Fighters advance the same in hitting is one thing which I really did NOT LIKE in 5e.
It also does LESS to assure making casters and martials equal in all, and more about a greater disparity.
We'll see in the playtest though.
I would suspect it probably comes out as something similar to how starfinder handles the BAB. It still exists but it does not give you iterative attacks. They also have weapon specialization that gives you basically 1/2 your level if using small arms bonus or full bonus if using long arms/heavy weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BAB factors into other things besides how hard one attacks though, so that's why I'm wondering if BAB will still be a thing. Will it affect combat maneuvers and things like that?
Well, from what I heard, maneuvers don't run off BAB. They instead run off skills, Athletics is confirmed atm, Acrobatics needs clarification.
To successfully grapple a target, an athletics check must be made which has beat the enemies appropriate saving throw bonus + 10.
For example, to disarm a skeleton, you are wanting to beat a DC of 12 (Reflex Save Bonus of 2 + Base 10).
Combat maneuvers also no longer provoke.
Combat Maneuvers take iterative attack penalties if they are not the first. For example if you punched a guy and then wanted to grapple them, the grapple check would take a -5 penalty because its an iterative attack.
Normal weapons take a penalty of 0/-5/-10 on attack rolls based on how many times you attacked that round. Agile weapons take a penalty of 0/-4/-8 attack penalty based on the same factor.
BAB also affects when you can pick up certain feats. Feats will be changing, I think they said to something class based. On an aside note, I hope that means just that you get some feats from your class automatically, but there will still be generalized or universal feats that you can still pick up. If they removed BAB altogether, that may mean that feats might have less restrictions on them if they're going to be universal.
With the new info of proficiency, I wonder if that will play into the new BAB system (or whatever will be taking it's place)? It's based on level, so if they use this, everyone will be full BAB characters, not that it matters with the 3 actions, 1 reaction system. Hmmmm...curiouser and curiouser.
With the new info of proficiency, I wonder if that will play into the new BAB system (or whatever will be taking it's place)? It's based on level, so if they use this, everyone will be full BAB characters, not that it matters with the 3 actions, 1 reaction system. Hmmmm...curiouser and curiouser.
Yeah, proficiency is the new system. One of the cool things is that skills can be combat-relevant; you can use them instead an extra CMB/D score for combat maneuvers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it looks from the Proficiency blog post like Fighters will be able to up their weapons proficiency before other classes.
So, while 'BAB' seems to be the same for everyone, fighters will still spend most of the game with a better to hit roll, and presumably gain access to combat related feats faster than other classes.
I assume there will be feats that require Master and Legendary weapons proficiency.
I'm curious what Legendary weapons proficiency will look like, if Legendary survival means surviving without food, water, or air, and Legendary will saves mean never being fully affected by mental spells.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that your Proficiency bonus in the relevant weapon group (Level + Ability Mod, and then currently either -2 Untrained +0 Trained +1 Expert +2 Master +3 Legendary) will take the place of BAB.
With some of the stuff they've talked about as far as special abilities for skills, I imagine there will also be some pretty powerful abilities tied to being Expert or higher in a weapon group. To use archery as an example, I could see stuff like Precise Shot and Far Shot being Trained tier, Suppressive Fire and Snapshot being Expert tier, Manyshot and Circuitous Shot being Master tier, and Pinpoint Shot and Volley (attack a cone) being Legendary tier. As well as hopefully new abilities, of course, like maybe sending a single arrow down a line of enemies (like a line spell) as a Master feat.
I imagine attack bonuses will be handled with the proficiency system, as the fuzzy one says. I wonder how proficiency ranks will affect weapons, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if Wizards (and other Poor BAB (1/2 level classes)) get no Weapon Training at all? Level-2 on all attacks. What if Average BAB (3/4 level) classes can get up to Expert training and feats like Weapon Focus are tied to having at least Expert in a weapon? And then Good BAB classes can get Master or Legendary (Perhaps leaving Legendary to Fighter-only?) with a Greater Weapon Focus Feat locked behind that. That gives a range of -2 to +5 (almost the full 10 point spread of Poor to Good BABs) from proficiency and proficiency-locked feats.
Average BAB classes can get a selection to choose from for a free training in a Weapon Proficiency or two, while Good BAB classes can get something like free Trained Rank in all Martial weapons and a free Expert Rank. Maybe the Poor BAB classes would need to use a general feat to get training in one weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was stated that, taken a competent level 20 martial and a level 20 non-martial who trained hard to be good at swinging swords, their to-hit difference will be of just a few points (a +3, if I remember well).
But the martial will have a full set of class skills to do much more than just hit the enemy.
They don't want to have a situation where the members of the group have so much to-hit difference between each other that some always hit, while others have basically no chance at that.
If a wizard and a fighter of the same level get in a sword fight the wizard should be vivisected...
|
|
Well assuming they're specced typically for their class I'm guessing the Fighter would indeed still vivisect the wizard because:
Fighter will have better armor, shield will have a higher chance to hit and crit, and do punish the wizard when he critically fumbles (which is more likely due to the fighter's higher AC). The fighter will be able to hit and crit with his iteratives because again his higher strength combined with equipment bonuses and proficiency are going to be way better than the wizard. Will likely have multiple ways to trigger his reaction attack.
The problem here is that people are looking at Level + Proficiency Modifier being universal, without taking into account the variables of equipment, magic and feat choices.
We don't have all the information until August. The sky has not yet fallen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only going by the +3 alone, assuming the wizard spent as much as the fighter in STR, DEX and CON, is wearing the same plate armor, and have the same sword, I'd go with:
The Wizard hits the fighter with 11+. So he cannot crit, and with a roll of 1, he'll open himself for a riposte. So assuming "10" damage per attack, he'll do, on average, 5 damage (hits 50%).
The fighter will then hit with 8+, and crit with 18+. That means he'll do, on average, if he starts from the same "10" base damage, a grand total of 8 damage per hit, probably a bit more with the riposte the wizard is giving to him. He also will have more HP, and will probably add stuff from his proficiencies (such as bleeding, disarm, or other things).
That means the fighter would kill the wizard and still have more than half the HP. And that's if the Wizard has spent as much in STR and CON as the fighter.
Equipment is irrelevant. It’s a bonus, but it’s not a character trait. Any character can have that equipment. It’s not a distinguishing difference between skilled and unskilled characters. Only one of your three categories you mention is relevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty much relevant, because "any character can have that equipment" is just theory. In practice, the guy who is invested in the skill is the one who has collected every little bit of +1s the game has to offer, and that includes equipment.
|
|
Equipment is irrelevant. It’s a bonus, but it’s not a character trait. Any character can have that equipment. It’s not a distinguishing difference between skilled and unskilled characters. Only one of your three categories you mention is relevant.
Yeah my assumption is that a Wizard has spent most of their money on wizard stuff (staves, wands, scrolls, extra spells for the old spell book etc) while the fighter has spent most of their money on weapons, armor, stuff that keeps them alive in melee.
I don't know why you assume wizards are spending all their money on sick armor and weapons, and if they are they're probably getting magically outclassed by other wizards who bought sensible equipment for being a wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard will be slaughtered, because of:
- the +3 is far from nothing;
- having roughly half of the fighter's HP;
- missing class feats that are useful in swordfighting, while the fighter will be full of them.
So the fighter will win the duel easily, but not because of his to-hit bonus alone. If you increase that +3 to the levels we have now, that means that a wizard built for melee won't be able to do what he has been built for, because he just can't hit anything.
Equipment is irrelevant. It’s a bonus, but it’s not a character trait. Any character can have that equipment. It’s not a distinguishing difference between skilled and unskilled characters. Only one of your three categories you mention is relevant.Yeah my assumption is that a Wizard has spent most of their money on wizard stuff (staves, wands, scrolls, extra spells for the old spell book etc) while the fighter has spent most of their money on weapons, armor, stuff that keeps them alive in melee.
I don't know why you assume wizards are spending all their money on sick armor and weapons, and if they are they're probably getting magically outclassed by other wizards who bought sensible equipment for being a wizard.
So your ‘heroic Tale” is that fighter McFightersson only wins handily because he went to the local fighter store and picked up the best gear rather than anything innate in him? Really heroic.
It should be a bloodbath if both are naked and alone on a desert island.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your ‘heroic Tale” is that fighter McFightersson only wins handily because he went to the local fighter store and picked up the best gear rather than anything innate in him? Really heroic.
It should be a bloodbath if both are naked and alone on a desert island.
It’ll be a bloodbath. There was a math comparison between a Fighter with no class features (essentially a Warrior), and a Wizard who invested exactly as much in strength, magic weapons, and relevant feats, such that the only difference was the proficiency bonus difference of +3. If the Wizard hit an enemy on a 10, the featureless Fighter did 50% more damage, just on the first attack. The new crit system is nice for martials.
Since a Fighter gets more health, martial class features, whatever perks come along with Master/Legendary weapon proficiency, and is almost certain to have higher strength, a slap fight sounds like it will be incredibly one-sided, as expected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the descriptions of Legendary skill uses (crazy god-like feats of skill) I’d take something like the following to be a plausible fighter feat:
Legendary Deflection
Prerequisite: Legendary proficiency in weapon X.
While wielding weapon X, a character with this feat can deflect as many untrained and trained skill melee or ranged attacks as their level per round.
(Think high fantasy Asian king fu masters who literally have an entire army firing arrows at them, and deflect them all without breaking a sweat.)
If a 20th lvl fighter has abilities like that, a 20th lvl wizard is going to have no chance in a duel.
So your ‘heroic Tale” is that fighter McFightersson only wins handily because he went to the local fighter store and picked up the best gear rather than anything innate in him? Really heroic.It should be a bloodbath if both are naked and alone on a desert island.
Two things here:
1) The figther kills the wizard with 50% hp left, even without using any fighter class feats, which we don't know yet. Things would be worse with the class feats.
2) Yes, Mjolnir is one of the things that makes Thor such a capable fighter. So is the Shield of Achilles, King Arthur's Excalibur, Hercules Nemean's lion skin, Ulyses' bow, Cu Chulainn's spear, Monkey's king battle staff, Jon Snow's Longclaw or Captain America shield. All those are capable fighters, and can defend themselves against most other combatants even with a butter knife, but what make them stand above peers, is their legendary equipment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Yes, Mjolnir is one of the things that makes Thor such a capable fighter. So is the Shield of Achilles, King Arthur's Excalibur, Hercules Nemean's lion skin, Ulyses' bow, Cu Chulainn's spear, Monkey's king battle staff, Jon Snow's Longclaw or Captain America shield. All those are capable fighters, and can defend themselves against most other combatants even with a butter knife, but what make them stand above peers, is their legendary equipment.
Funny, I hold that the reason these people have their legendary equipment is that they already stand above their peers. Thor is given Mjolnir because he is the strongest god in Asgard (and he has bad aim, which doesn't matter because Mjolnir always hits what you throw it at). Myth Thor, anyway.
These people are mostly given legendary gear because they are already paragons and they can make the best use of the things and/or are the most worthy.
I think people are over-alarmed by the removal of different BAB progressions.
Right now, a 20th level fighter is +20, a 20th level druid/cleric/monk(not-flurrying)/whatever is +15, and a 20th level wizard/sorcie is +10. That's the equivalent of +10, +5, and +0 (or +5 / 0 / -5).
At level 12, material and gameplay starts getting thin anyways, and um the difference is +12/+9/+6, or +6, +3, +0, or +3, 0, -3. The new system is actually a bigger gap than the old one at that point, and over most of the actually played level in PF1, and only slightly smaller than the gap at 20th.
Also... 2e used THAC0, not BAB~ /bratty
That gives a range of -2 to +5 (almost the full 10 point spread of Poor to Good BABs) from proficiency and proficiency-locked feats.
I made a post several days ago with a lil example in it in the Bounded Accuracy thread, and I think that's pritty much the range I chose (7-point difference). Maybe I should work for Paizo~
If you hate the Untrained-Legendar yproficiency system, you will hate the entire game. That system is used for EVERYTHING in PF2 and works the same. The QUANTITATIVE gaps will always be those 5 points (all else being equal) that people love to harp on. I personally think the +1 from the ranks will be the LEAST relevant part of them.
PF1 is the game where only numbers matter. The number next to your + determines all your value and hunting for +1s to the detriment of everything else was THE strategy, but it's considered a negative of the game. This is just not how PF2 is being designed anymore. PF2 is going to be more qualitative and complicated to evaluate.
|
|
Equipment is irrelevant. It’s a bonus, but it’s not a character trait. Any character can have that equipment. It’s not a distinguishing difference between skilled and unskilled characters. Only one of your three categories you mention is relevant.Yeah my assumption is that a Wizard has spent most of their money on wizard stuff (staves, wands, scrolls, extra spells for the old spell book etc) while the fighter has spent most of their money on weapons, armor, stuff that keeps them alive in melee.
I don't know why you assume wizards are spending all their money on sick armor and weapons, and if they are they're probably getting magically outclassed by other wizards who bought sensible equipment for being a wizard.
So your ‘heroic Tale” is that fighter McFightersson only wins handily because he went to the local fighter store and picked up the best gear rather than anything innate in him? Really heroic.
It should be a bloodbath if both are naked and alone on a desert island.
That’s weird, these goalposts were much closer a second ago?
How did they move all the way over there?But considering naked and on a desert island (but still somehow equipped with long swords?) as previously stated, the Fighter is dealing +50% damage. With his higher hit points and +3 to hit advantage over this dumb wizard who took the same strength score as a fighter.
Can I stop chasing this silly argument around the pitch now?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People getting so impatient. Their just simply isn't enough information yet.
People getting so impatient. Their just simply isn't enough information yet.
Very much this. Right now we do not have official confirmation that Wizards get spells in PF2, so obviously the difference between a Fighter and a Wizard (and a Bard and a Rogue and a Cleric and an Alchemist, since we don't know anything about any class features) is minimal.