BAB Progression Rates

[Stubbazubba]

I'm developing a new idea I had for a progression mechanic wherein you roll Skills and Abilities into class mechanics a la BAB which scales with level, but having one for every major skillset (Base Stealth, Base Magic, Base Wilderness, etc.). I'd like to pose this question to the Den;

Are the differences between different classes' Base Attack Bonus progression rates in 3.5 about right? What I mean is, is Half BAB strong enough to stay alive in/contribute to a combat encounter while still maintaining a distinction from 3/4 BAB and Full BAB? Obviously Full BAB is going to be arbitrary, but is 3/4 and 1/2 good proportions to represent varying ability between classes while not leaving anyone completely out of the ability to contribute somehow? If they are either not distinguished enough or too far distinguished, what would better proportions be?

[K]

You could just give everyone a BAB equal to level and it wouldn't matter.

[Stubbazubba]

You could just give everyone a BAB equal to level and it wouldn't matter.

So there's no distinction between them whatsoever? Is that because 3.5e is really reliant on magic, magic equipment, and magic items to be competent, or because the proportions are not meaningfully distinct in a vacuum?

[K]

You could just give everyone a BAB equal to level and it wouldn't matter.

So there's no distinction between them whatsoever? Is that because 3.5e is really reliant on magic, magic equipment, and magic items to be competent, or because the proportions are not meaningfully distinct in a vacuum?

3.x DnD is heavily dependent on stats, magic items, magic, and feats for bonuses to hit and damage.

This means that even with a full BAB, a Wizard is still not going to hit often because he lacks all the other things a Fighter needs to hit and do reasonable damage (like appropriate feats).

I mean, do you really care if a Wizard at 20th level can totally hit much weaker monsters with a 1d4-1 dagger attack with his Str 8 or the 1d4+4 he'd get after GMW or the 1d4+6 after he then cast Bull's Strength?

The slight bonus to BAB does make shapechanging a little more viable, but still not very interesting.

[RobbyPants]

Are the differences between different classes' Base Attack Bonus progression rates in 3.5 about right?

Well, the difference between full and half BAB gets worse as you gain levels. If I were going about this, I'd either do what K suggested and keep it equal for everyone, or I'd give some flat, linear bonus to classes for various things. The problem with that second approach is how to handle multiclassing.

[souran]

Actually, if your other goal is to get the games RNG a little more under control eliminating varried BAB progressions is a good place to start.

If you want a "good at fighting class" then give them a flat +1/2/4 to hit or something.

Those varied growth rates spread your players out way to much.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Are the differences between different classes' Base Attack Bonus progression rates in 3.5 about right?

Well, the difference between full and half BAB gets worse as you gain levels. If I were going about this, I'd either do what K suggested and keep it equal for everyone, or I'd give some flat, linear bonus to classes for various things. The problem with that second approach is how to handle multiclassing.

Use whatever's best.

[Josh_Kablack]

Here's the thing about BAB in 3e - it's only one of a number of factors that matter for attack bonus - and at most levels of play, it's not even an especially large factor.

K already pointed this out, but lemme lay down some numbers:


At 1st level, BAB accounts for at most a +1 difference between attack modifiers of PCs in the party.
At 4th level BAB accounts for at most a +2 difference between attack modifiers of PCs in the party
At 8th level BAB accounts for at most a +4 difference between attack modifiers of PCs in the party.
At 12th level BAB accounts for at most a +6 difference between attack modifiers of PCs in the party.

For contrast:
At 1st level, the difference between the lowest stat modifier using point buy and standard races and the highest possible stat modifier using point buy and standard races is +7 to hit

At any level the difference between straight up attacking an enemy and charging into flank is +4 to hit

At 1st level, the difference between having Bless or Magic Weapon cast on you is +1 to hit (and those stack)

At 1st level, the difference between being in a Barbarian Rage or not is +2 to hit

At 3nd level, the difference between having Bulls Strength or Cat's Grace cast on you is +2 to hit

At 5th level, the difference between having Heroism cast on you and not is +2 to hit. The difference between having Rage cast on you and not is +1 to hit (and those stack)

On the other side of the equation:

At 1st level, the difference between regular AC and Flatfooted AC can be as large as +6

At 1st level, the difference between regular AC and Touch AC can be as large as +8

At 6th level, the difference between having cast Shield of Faith or Barkskin or not is +3; the difference between having cast


So, for most of the levels that people actually play at, having the right buff spell or combat positioning matters more than BAB does.


*****

Now if you are looking at designing a new game from the ground up and discarding the 3.x paradigms, then you need to consider whether you want classes to diverge in degrees of competence as level increases or stay the same relevant to each other.

A 3.x BAB-type progression system means that which class you are matters more for tasks on such a progression. So with a classic Zap/Sneak/Sword/Heal each on such a progression then at 1st level, eac class would only be a single point ahead of or behind any other class at any of those tasks, but at 10th level, the Sword class might be +10 ahead in Swording, but -10 behind in Zapping, meaning that tactical effectiveness would encourage characters to give up out-of-class schticks as level increased.

A 4th ed style system where each class gets a base bonus and then all classes add a level-based constant to everything means that classes stay at the same relative effectiveness. With a Zap/Sneak/Sword/Heal split here, the Sword class starts out 2 points ahead in Swording, but 2 points behind in Zapping at 1st level, and at 10th level is still 2 points ahead on Swording and 2 points behind in Zapping. The character's tactics are not required to change as level increases - which can be good if you want to stick with a theme, or bad if you think that tactics should vary with level instead of staying static.

[RobbyPants]

Are the differences between different classes' Base Attack Bonus progression rates in 3.5 about right?

Well, the difference between full and half BAB gets worse as you gain levels. If I were going about this, I'd either do what K suggested and keep it equal for everyone, or I'd give some flat, linear bonus to classes for various things. The problem with that second approach is how to handle multiclassing.

Use whatever's best.

That encourages multiclassing the shit out of your PC, then, to grab all the +4s (or whatever the good bonus is) on all of your important stats.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Permanent greater heroism less whatever your class' bonus is vs more spells per day.

[Stubbazubba]

So, ignoring all feats, tactical maneuvers, and magic, characters on a Full, 3/4, and 1/2 progression mechanic diverge to the point where any given encounter is a one-man show for the party member who is on the full track, and everyone else is best off just watching? OK, that's not really the game I want to make...maybe I'll try flat bonuses instead...

Thanks for the discussion.

[Psychic Robot]

just make everyone scale at half level but make sure you scale AC with it you wanker

[fectin]

Do iterative attacks not enter into it?

[Josh_Kablack]

In a similar fashion, the number of attacks a character is capable of is only determined in a small part by BAB.

A character who only gets a single iterative attack can get additional attacks from:

• 2 weapon fighting / flurry of blows
• Attacks of opportunity
• natural weapons (via formchanging or monster race)
• Pounce (via wildshape or other form-shifting or via feat chains)
• Haste or weapons of Speed
• Cleave attacks or Whirlwind feat

And that's just stuff available in core. If you want to dumpster-dive or pull out Tome material, I'm sure you can find more.

[wotmaniac]

to me, it's a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If you restructure this, it seems like you'd also have to restructure the entire combat paradigm.
Martial classes get full BAB because they not only have to hit full AC, but also because they have a mess of options that either impose hit penalties or absolutely need the higher BAB to pull of.
Wizards, Sorcerers, etc, only have poor BAB because everything they do that involves an attack roll is merely a touch attack. What else do they need BAB for? It's not like they're ever gonna need to use power attack or anything (other than the occasional polymorph/shapechange bit ; but that's a whole other can of worms). Martial powers are for martial classes -- just stick to your magic shtick.
Average-BAB classes are a mixed bag .... many aren't meant to be in roles that would require high BAB; and the ones that are not only have plenty of resources to make up for it, but also you don't necessarily want to have full BAB since it will cause major abuse of their shtick.

I realize that the design is far from perfect; but given the design goals, it's not bad if you try to abuse it too much.

So, I guess my question is, what is the basic combat resolution paradigm that you are going for?

[fectin]

You're right, but you're listing a lot of feats and feat chains to get there.
Feats are a resource even scarcer than levels.
Your other options are "be a druid" (BAB doesn't matter so much), Monster Race (which needs some serious rebalancing), and "stop being a wizard for a while". You get to be a combat monster in return, but that's still trading down.

Haste is a good point, but you get most of that effect out of a single point of BAB difference. Overall, if a single point of BAB can be about as good as a constant Haste, I think that tends to support BAB more than devalue it.

Did you give me the short-form answer, and there's something obvious I'm missing?

I don't want to dumpster dive, and I hadn't thought the OP mentioned Tome.

[Josh_Kablack]

You're right, but you're listing a lot of feats and feat chains to get there.
Feats are a resource even scarcer than levels.
Your other options are "be a druid" (BAB doesn't matter so much),-

Or a ranger, or a monk, or have access to 4th level wizard spells or 4th level cleric spells (which happens only 1 level after the first additional iterative attack from BAB.

[Kaelik]

You're right, but you're listing a lot of feats and feat chains to get there.
Feats are a resource even scarcer than levels.
Your other options are "be a druid" (BAB doesn't matter so much), Monster Race (which needs some serious rebalancing), and "stop being a wizard for a while". You get to be a combat monster in return, but that's still trading down.

Haste is a good point, but you get most of that effect out of a single point of BAB difference. Overall, if a single point of BAB can be about as good as a constant Haste, I think that tends to support BAB more than devalue it.

Did you give me the short-form answer, and there's something obvious I'm missing?

I don't want to dumpster dive, and I hadn't thought the OP mentioned Tome.

You have to have 3 more points of BAB than someone to have more iterative attacks at half the levels. Starting from level 1, a Fighter has had more iterative attacks than a Wizard at more than half his levels at level 10, he gets to have two attacks more at level 11, for one level, then he's back down to one more until level 16.

A Wizard with haste has just as many or more attacks per round as a fighter at levels 1-10, 12-15. Just like BAB is a small part of AB, it's a small part of number of attacks.

The point is that the list of ways you can get extra attacks are many, and they all give better ones than iterative attacks, and you only have to pick one as a half BAB character to have as many attacks as a full BAB character. One point of BAB isn't worth shit when it comes to attacks, because one point of BAB is 1/6th of an extra attack, and you get that over half BAB every two levels.

[Wulf]

The base system of D&D ,to which I mean the BAB ,saves, AC, attack and The Big 6 (bonusses from magical items) is actually fairly balanced and follows a certain logic. Iterative attacks are here an essential part for balance. It is even balanced with 1d6/level damage from wizards evocation spells. (ignoring the fact that wizards normally dont play evokers, and if they do, optimize their damage per round a lot higher).

As soon as you add specific abilities or spells, it starts getting skewed however. There are simply too many ways to boosts a character.

As for haste...casting haste on a wizard is pretty useless as he has better standard actions then he has full attack actions. Haste on a figher has more benefits, then haste on a wizard (in 3.5, in 3.0 it was the other way around). So this argument is rather weak. The only way to have benefit from multiple attacks is if the wizard uses spellbloom and uses two touch attacks..but who uses touch attacks anyway..

[Kaelik]

As for haste...casting haste on a wizard is pretty useless as he has better standard actions then he has full attack actions. Haste on a figher has more benefits, then haste on a wizard (in 3.5, in 3.0 it was the other way around). So this argument is rather weak. The only way to have benefit from multiple attacks is if the wizard uses spellbloom and uses two touch attacks..but who uses touch attacks anyway..

You are an idiot. The example is not casting Haste on the Wizard, the example is that BAB is not the most important factor in hitting, or number of attacks.

Flask rogues hit more, and have more attacks, Cleric Archers hit more, and have more attacks, Polymorphed buffed Wizards hit more and have more attacks.

The game would be largely identical if you just balanced the numbers with everyone having full progression, and then Rogues got a +2 on top of that, and Fighters a +4, or whatever. That would be way easier from the beginning, and less stupid.

[Wulf]

BAB does factor a great deal into your attack bonus, especially on higher levels. And I was talking about the base-syste, without special spells and abilities to skew things. (no freaking wish, silly tomes and racials from 22 books or breaking the class concept by using flasks). And the base system is not the base/core game.

Bringing specific builds forward (flask rogues) or overpowered spells like polymorph, is not helpful to determine the effectiveness of the basic system that is the foundation of D&D.

At the lower levels, the bab difference is small, hardly existant. This is because the basic attack chance is lower (around 50-60 percent for fighter), while at higher levels, the attack bonus slowly wins over AC, until for fighters it is 100 percent (ignoring 1=auto-miss) around level 20. The chance for attacking is no longer part of the first attack, but part of the iterative attacks.

Rogues get medium bab, cause they get extra damage added to their attacks. The bigger that bonus get (levelling up), the bigger their attack bonus difference with fighters become. In the end they end up with -5 attack and -1 attack per round, but with 10d6 sneak attack damage That is the basic system, not flask rogues or polymorphed wizards.

Adding a fixed bonus can work ofcourse, except not in D&D 3.5 as it is. You have to remove/change iterative attacks, change the bab progression to something like +1 per 2 levels like 4th edition, rather then +1 bab per level for every class. And then buff the fighter type classes in some other way else they will be even weaker then in standard 3.5.

[Wrathzog]

... is not helpful to determine the effectiveness of the basic system that is the foundation of D&D.

Sorry, dude, but you're pretty much wrong.

The Key word here is System. D&D is a System (it's actually a system of systems and subsystems but whatever). That means that you can't balance individual aspects of it in a vacuum. I mean, you can try, but that's pretty much pants on head retarded.

My suggestion is to take a step back, think about what you want, and then write out that thought in a single statement. High-level things like, "I want Fighters to be better at hitting mother fuckers in the face than other classes. I want Wizards to be so bad at face punching that they might as well not even try. Rogues should be somewhere in the middle, but rely on things like Combat Advantage surprise attacks to hit reliably."

Don't reference any actual game mechanics. This should be something that your grandmother could read and understand.

-e-
I broke my own rule like a fool.