| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BAB is dead. All classes will get their level added to combat rolls. The difference between classes will be expressed in other ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like bab personally, I think the change is due to the extra math (athough subtract 5 shouldn't be hard) and if ability scores become to unbalanced like strength of a 10 verse 40 then it causes issues (which is more of an issue with ability scores). Anyway I‘d like bab to stay, hopefully there be a vote on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on your definition of broken.
BAB is confusing for new players (your base attack bonus works differently than your attack bonus), and results in less interesting fights (get adjacent and do nothing but full attack, or stay at range and do nothing but full attack). Full BAB characters were trying to trade accuracy for something useful, while Rogues were desperately trying to make up for fewer attacks at lower accuracy.
It could be improved.
since they haven't disclosed anything about BAB one way or the other yet, it's really just speculation at this point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is dead for simplifying math reasons. What is my bonus to hit on this attack: level+proficiency+attribute+circumstantial modifiers. What is my bonus to any d20 roll: the same.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing it was useful for was deciding when your character got iterative attacks. Since iterative attacks are gone, then there is no need for BAB.
Pending the playtest when we see what effect its removal has, I think it's probably good bye and good ridance.
Unifying progression required something tied to character level instead of class level. Since BAB has been promoted to include saves and skills on top of combat it needs to work differently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like unified progression to go away. I know it‘s a popular idea right now, but it was never an issue for me in the past and feels like an unnecessary feature. Something else I'm going to vote against.
Im not a fan of how unified progression was implemented in 5E. Though Ive got optimism it can work in PF. In August we shall see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably my biggest issue with BaB is that it got disproportionately weighted in regards to class design. And extremely inconsistently at that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where does this idea of a "vote" come from? There will be no vote. There will be playtesting and feedback. Sure, there will be lots of theorycrafting, angst, arguments, angst, explanations, angst and spam. But that will all be irrelevant and largely ignored.
Nobody will be getting a "vote".
I, for one, welcome our new muscle wizard gish overlords!
BAB was a "fair" mechanics for distinguishing combat skill of many classes, but it started to get tricky to balance the game when the differences in it bot big.
Now I think you add your weapon profiency bonus to attacks, so Fighter still has the edge! But something like Rogue and Cleric can keep up reasonably well if they don't neglect it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, welcome our new muscle wizard gish overlords!
BAB was a "fair" mechanics for distinguishing combat skill of many classes, but it started to get tricky to balance the game when the differences in it bot big.
Now I think you add your weapon profiency bonus to attacks, so Fighter still has the edge! But something like Rogue and Cleric can keep up reasonably well if they don't neglect it.
And so can Wizards now. Everyone can swing just as good as everyone else. My money says everyone is going to play like pseudo-fighters now; dropping as much of their proficiency into being good with their chosen weapons. Oh boy, and people thought martials under before wait units 2ed drops.
Fighter: I swinng my sword at the orc with power attack. *Rolls attack and damage* 19 points of damage!
Wizard: My turn! I cast fireball at that group of minions over there. 23 altogether! For my last action I to want to swing my sword at the ocean boss too. *Rolls attack and damage* Crappie, only nineteen points of damage. I knew we shouldn't have given the Fighter that +2 Longsword. I am able to use just as good as he can.
|
We have no evidence that you can get any Proficiencies except skills in any way except via Class (and some evidence that you cannot). So...there's, at the moment, no evidence a Wizard can get Proficiency in a sword at all.
Now, personally, I suspect you can in fact get Proficiency via General Feats, but you get a whole 5 of those over 20 levels, and I'm not at all sure you can get beyond Trained or maybe Expert with them, which leaves Fighters with a solid qualitative edge (since every +1 means more now).
But really, given how little we know about how gaining Proficiency works, any speculation is seriously premature.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, welcome our new muscle wizard gish overlords!
BAB was a "fair" mechanics for distinguishing combat skill of many classes, but it started to get tricky to balance the game when the differences in it bot big.
Now I think you add your weapon profiency bonus to attacks, so Fighter still has the edge! But something like Rogue and Cleric can keep up reasonably well if they don't neglect it.
And so can Wizards now. Everyone can swing just as good as everyone else. My money says everyone is going to play like pseudo-fighters now; dropping as much of their proficiency into being good with their chosen weapons. Oh boy, and people thought martials under before wait units 2ed drops.
Fighter: I swinng my sword at the orc with power attack. *Rolls attack and damage* 19 points of damage!
Wizard: My turn! I cast fireball at that group of minions over there. 23 altogether! For my last action I to want to swing my sword at the ocean boss too. *Rolls attack and damage* Crappie, only nineteen points of damage. I knew we shouldn't have given the Fighter that +2 Longsword. I am able to use just as good as he can.
Awesosme, we can finally play Gandalf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The unified system is one of the things I am most excited for, and it will definitely help my players who continually have trouble with the math. Also as mentioned, yeah, Gandalf and some other famous magi from myth and literature are also pretty handy with a weapon.
Really, it comes down to execution. I have no problem whatsoever with a 20th level wizard having the equivalent of BAB 20 as long as the Fighter or Ranger are still much better with weapons. I expect the martial classes to get more weapon groups than a wizard, and advance in their weapon Proficiency faster than a wizard, and end up with higher attack bonuses than a wizard even with the same "BAB" between them. As long as they manage that, I'm happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks are getting caught up in unified level numbers. They dont mean that much, just simple treadmill design really. The meat will be in proficiency levels themselves.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see two reasons this might have been done:
1) Consistent Performance Across Levels
At 5th level, full BAB progression gives +5, medium gives +3, and slow gives +2. This is a three point spread, which when mapped on a d20 means might mean you're looking at (just as an example) 80%, 70%, and 65% success rate. At 20th level, this changes to +20, +15, and +10 respectively, which using a similar example would be 80%, 55%, and 30%. This means 3/4 BAB characters need progressively larger buffs just to keep up with the baseline of full BAB characters. Given that those full BAB are also trying to raise their numbers as much as possible, this becomes very hard to achieve.
BAB keeps a consistent proportion across levels (100%, 75%, 50%), but the absolute difference grows. And when you go to calculate success rate, it's this absolute difference that matters. Getting rid of BAB to adhere to the new proficiency system means that the difference remains much more consistent across the full level range. Moreover, if it means that a character who is one proficiency grade behind the fighter will keep the same relative performance to him over the course of their careers. I'll be interested in seeing the exact math, but I highly suspect BAB is simply undesirable and unnecessary with the way Paizo has set up their numbers.
2) Critical Success / Failure
We know that beating a DC by 10 or more is a critical success. Consider what this would mean at 20th level if the Bard and Fighter differed by 5 points of BAB. In PF1 this means that 25% of attack rolls (including their critical confirmation rolls) would succeed for the Fighter where they would have failed for the Bard. In PF2 this is also true, but it also means that 25% of attack rolls will be critical successes for the fighter where they would have been mere successes for the bard.
While a higher attack bonus in PF1 would allow you to confirm your critical hits more frequently, it's unlikely to be more than a 50% increase in your chance to crit. In PF2, a 5 point difference in attack bonus could easily be the difference between a 10% chance to crit and a 35% chance to crit. Again, we don't have the full numbers, but just some back of the napkin math suggests that relatively small bonuses could have a huge impact on your chance for critical success.
TL;DR
I think the discarding of BAB strikes at the heart of PF2's math, and how it is both unnecessary and even disruptive to the system. Rest assured, the math geeks in the fanbase will dissect the system down to its finest detail when we get our hands on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And so can Wizards now. Everyone can swing just as good as everyone else. My money says everyone is going to play like pseudo-fighters now; dropping as much of their proficiency into being good with their chosen weapons. Oh boy, and people thought martials under before wait units 2ed drops.
Fighter: I swinng my sword at the orc with power attack. *Rolls attack and damage* 19 points of damage!
Wizard: My turn! I cast fireball at that group of minions over there. 23 altogether! For my last action I to want to swing my sword at the ocean boss too. *Rolls attack and damage* Crappie, only nineteen points of damage. I knew we shouldn't have given the Fighter that +2 Longsword. I am able to use just as good as he can.
I think your example is being unfair. We've got some useful information that runs counter to what you've given!
First of all, the Wizard isn't using that sword just as well. Mark Seifter presented some math- if you stripped away all of a Fighter's martial class features, and the Wizard went just as hard into strength (at the expense of their casting stat) while also getting that same +X longsword, such that the only difference is their proficiency, the high-level will be doing 50% more damage for the given target.
Fighter does get class features though, like Power Attack, which would add one or more dice to his damage, so even with the same weapon, he's going to dish out more damage on a hit. He also gets a second attack after using that that you skipped- the muscle wizard's attack modifier will be closer to that than to the Fighter's primary attack. He does have multi-target attacks if he wants to go that route.
There was also a mention that spending a top level evocation spell would get you in the ballpark of Fighter's attack damage, but applied to multiple targets.
So, loosely speaking, if you expect the Fighter to do 19 damage on that Power Attack, you'd expect the dedicated muscle Wizard, wielding the same weapon, to do less than 13 damage. You'd expect the Fireball to do less than what the Fighter's Power Attack does on a hit (but to multiple enemies). Also, you'd expect the Fighter to get another attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see another reason to drop BaB: decoupling it from the hit-die of the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, welcome our new muscle wizard gish overlords!
BAB was a "fair" mechanics for distinguishing combat skill of many classes, but it started to get tricky to balance the game when the differences in it bot big.
Now I think you add your weapon profiency bonus to attacks, so Fighter still has the edge! But something like Rogue and Cleric can keep up reasonably well if they don't neglect it.
And so can Wizards now. Everyone can swing just as good as everyone else. My money says everyone is going to play like pseudo-fighters now; dropping as much of their proficiency into being good with their chosen weapons. Oh boy, and people thought martials under before wait units 2ed drops.
Fighter: I swinng my sword at the orc with power attack. *Rolls attack and damage* 19 points of damage!
Wizard: My turn! I cast fireball at that group of minions over there. 23 altogether! For my last action I to want to swing my sword at the ocean boss too. *Rolls attack and damage* Crappie, only nineteen points of damage. I knew we shouldn't have given the Fighter that +2 Longsword. I am able to use just as good as he can.
Actually, it’ll probably play more like:
Fighter: I swing my sword at the orc with power attack. *Rolls attack and damage* OK, that’s 19 points of damage, plus the extra bonus damage from these two feats AND the extra 2d6 from my +2 long sword, so 40 damage!
Wizard: My turn! I cast fireball at that group of minions over there. 23 altogether!
DM: they critically succeed at the save, and take no damage! Also, because casting fireball takes 3 components (verbal, somatic, and material), you’ve used all 3 actions to cast it, so your turn is over.
Wizard: Dammit!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really hope that using weapons is viable strategy for all classes, wizards included, but that the martial classes get cool, thematic abilities that make them better. Giving the fighter faster Proficiency is a step towards that, but I want more abilities like Power Attack, more abilities that provide glancing blows, more attacks like Cleave, etc. that make martial characters interesting to play and make them the clear choice for someone wanting to play a weapon-based combatant, but that doesn't invalidate the Transmutation/Self-Buffer character archetypes, which should need less now that proficiency is going to be relatively universally scaling.
Presumably AC will rise at the same rate?
I kinda like the more bounded accuracy of 5e where an orc remains at least a nuisance to high level PCs; it can't do much damage to them, but it at least has a chance of costing them a few HP.
In PF2 a tenth level caster will - by the sounds of it - be able to steamroller low level foes without the need for magic.
Gandalf: (Rolls a 10.) I club the orc with my +1 staff. I get a 24.
GM: That's a critical hit. You slay it in a single blow. The other orc attacks. (Rolls a 17.) That's a 21.
Gandalf: He misses. Wow, I didn't even need to bother casting Mage Armor and Shield...
I wonder how many levels behind an enemy can be and still remain any kind of a threat?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think gandalf was really a wizard (as far as the class goes) he doesn't really cast that many spells. Hes more of a magus... really I would say hes closet to a druid visually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people really so uncreative as to see attack bonuses improving at the same rates for wizards and fighters as clear evidence than martials will go under?
Do you really think this means a wizard with his stick will be as effective at fighting as a fighter with her sword?
Don't you think that weapon proficiencies and plethora of feats and class features available to fighters, paladins, barbarians in the like is going to make any significant difference?
When I hear that legendary proficiency in Survival gives a character the ability to sruvive in a void, I can only imagine what a fighter with legendary proficiency with a weapon will be able to pull off.
I don't think gandalf was really a wizard (as far as the class goes) he doesn't really cast that many spells. Hes more of a magus... really I would say hes closet to a druid visually.
Gandalf was a native outsider with various spell-like abilities and proficiency with a few martial weapons.
Wizards as a class basically don't exist in LotR
Are people really so uncreative as to see attack bonuses improving at the same rates for wizards and fighters as clear evidence than martials will go under?
Do you really think this means a wizard with his stick will be as effective at fighting as a fighter with her sword?
Don't you think that weapon proficiencies and plethora of feats and class features available to fighters, paladins, barbarians in the like is going to make any significant difference?
When I hear that legendary proficiency in Survival gives a character the ability to sruvive in a void, I can only imagine what a fighter with legendary proficiency with a weapon will be able to pull off.
They are but its OK we know better. :D
To be fair, we know very little of the math for monsters, except that it follows different guidelines than character creation. We also don't know how AC will scale. But low level challenges being trivial at higher levels is a stated design goal and PF1 was the same. Becoming a superhero is part of what makes it different from 5e.
I also think weapon types are going to matter more both for damage math and for providing more options. Larger damage dice are more important, as are weapon properties, and simple weapons available to the default wizard will have less of both. And while losing BAB erodes the martial niche a little, their new focus on magic improving versatility over math should give martials some Caster type options.
Presumably AC will rise at the same rate?
I kinda like the more bounded accuracy of 5e where an orc remains at least a nuisance to high level PCs; it can't do much damage to them, but it at least has a chance of costing them a few HP.
In PF2 a tenth level caster will - by the sounds of it - be able to steamroller low level foes without the need for magic.
Gandalf: (Rolls a 10.) I club the orc with my +1 staff. I get a 24.
GM: That's a critical hit. You slay it in a single blow. The other orc attacks. (Rolls a 17.) That's a 21.
Gandalf: He misses. Wow, I didn't even need to bother casting Mage Armor and Shield...I wonder how many levels behind an enemy can be and still remain any kind of a threat?
Yeah Mark has posted a number of times that he doesn't want BA making lower level enemies a threat. To make lower level enemies relevant you might make use of the troop template.
|
I see the unified "you add your level to the roll" as a simplified mean of saying "your rolls are modified by the difference between your level and the level of the challenge". Lvl 10 attacking a lvl 5 is the same as saying he get a +5 on his attack. It remove BAB without making the level basically irrelevant to the action.
When everyone's BAB is special, no one's BAB is special.
When everyone's BAB is special, no one's BAB is special.
This.
Removing BAB just erases one more thing that makes classes distinct from each other.
I don't think gandalf was really a wizard (as far as the class goes) he doesn't really cast that many spells. Hes more of a magus... really I would say hes closet to a druid visually.
Gandalf is a Paladin, a divine warrior who uses magic, fights with a PF longsword, and summons a celestial mount.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When everyone's BAB is special, no one's BAB is special.
This.
Removing BAB just erases one more thing that makes classes distinct from each other.
Now the weapon proficiencies of the classes are more granular, This will help. There's other way to differentiate them. I always felt the BAB was a bit artificial anyway. There's more "organic" ways to do the same job, that actually augment roleplay.
I see the unified "you add your level to the roll" as a simplified mean of saying "your rolls are modified by the difference between your level and the level of the challenge". Lvl 10 attacking a lvl 5 is the same as saying he get a +5 on his attack. It remove BAB without making the level basically irrelevant to the action.
That is a pretty good explanation of what it will probably look like.
Removing BAB just erases one more thing that makes classes distinct from each other.
I don't think that is true. First off, BAB was never huge on making classes distinct from each other; it just broke them all into 3 distinct cateogories. BAB works the same for a fighter as it does a barbarian and a ranger and a paladin. It also meant full BAB = at least a d8 hit dice and no more than 4th level casting. Removing it means classes can be more varied in these regards.
Secondly, proficiency levels is going to allow for more meaningful distinctions than raw numbers. For example, we know that being proficient in a skill allows you to do entirely new things with it that you can't even attempt without it, as opposed to PF1's class skills just giving you a +3 bonus. It isn't crazy to think weapon proficiency will open similar doors.
Finally, they are making class features more important and distinct this time around. We are going to get less general feats across all levels but more class based choices to make and ancestry based choices. Things like AoE's becoming a Fighter specific reaction is a good example. Heck, even having "Fighter Feats" in the first place is going to be a step up, especially if those feats allow entirely new types of actions instead of just raising numbers. One of the biggest problems with the PF1 fighter is Fighter specific feats don't especially stick out from the crowd and Fighters just tend to get more of what other classes already get rather than things they alone can do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Base attack bonus was primarily a way of making fighting-types stand out from other classes. Their numbers go higher. The problem with it as a balancing mechanic is that there are so many different ways to get bonuses that that numbers advantage can easily get erased. With the right combination of spells, a high-level cleric can be on the same footing as the fighter numbers-wise.
On the flip side, you've got poor guys like the monk, who have all these cool abilities without the ability to hit high-end opponents. Even though the monk should be a threat in melee, a challenge meant to make it tough for a fighter to hit will leave the monk at a huge disadvantage.
If the classes work on the same numbers but are differentiated by feats, abilities, and proficiencies, then it becomes easier to challenge the whole group while still giving everybody a distinct role. The cleric can get boosts to melee abilities to serve as a front-line warrior, but she still can't out-fighter the fighter because the fighter has special feats and powers that only somebody with his training can pull off.
Giving different scaling numbers to different classes is one way to balance them, but it's not the most effective way. The disparity in BAB and saves accounts for a large portion of the balance issues that people find in 1st edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the BAB was a bland and inconsistent way to differentiate the classes. Fighters got it in place of cool abilities, while casters got cool abilities in place of it. Now everybody can get cool abilities and still hit.
Well for me I'd like bab to stay regardless. If I'm asked for my opinion I'll give it.
|
|
I also feel that, with Master and Legendary skill proficiencies being as potent as they've been hinted at being, we may see the martial/caster disparity being answered somewhat at higher levels, which is a good thing. The proficiency scaling just means that classes need to rely on their feat choices to define their abilities rather than a scaling number to boost their abilities, which is far more engaging when it comes to character building.
I don't think BAB was broken as such. Nor as far as I know, have the devs said anything to indicate that they think it was. But just because it's not broken doesn't mean it can't be improved on. And the new system works better with several of their stated design goals. I don't really see an issue with replacing it with something that will work better for the system they're trying to make.
And that's something to keep in mind, they are basically creating a new system. They're not trying to make a bug-fixed version of PF1, they're trying to make something that's new and unique. Something that's their own creation, not a bug-fixed version of somebody else's game. And I for one am looking forward to it. I think they have a lot of good ideas, and so far the little bit of crunch they've shown looks like it should work well. There are a few things I have concerns about, but tossing BAB isn't one of them.
You know who is definetly a druid? Radagast the brown.