Alternate BAB Rates - 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3

[Stalker0]

I find any standardized BAB progression wholy non-intuitive. Ok so the fighter should be good at hitting things, the rogues and adventuring clerics should have a decent chance of it, but what about the wizard who's never swung a quarterstaff in her entire adventuring career? Or even better, what about all those clerics, druids and wizards that don't adventure--NPCs that have never physically attacked anything since puberty? Now that's what I call nonintuitive!

Thing is, a 20th level wizard has seen HOARDES of monsters most likely in his time. While he might not have been studying the quarterstaff, he's certainly been paying attention to weaknesses in monster's natural armors, how they move, etc. Combat isn't just about knowing yourself, its about knowing your opponents.

And considering a 20th level wizard knows as much about melee combat as a 6th level fighter, I think the model works just fine

 

[Thaniel]

I find any standardized BAB progression wholy non-intuitive. Ok so the fighter should be good at hitting things, the rogues and adventuring clerics should have a decent chance of it, but what about the wizard who's never swung a quarterstaff in her entire adventuring career? Or even better, what about all those clerics, druids and wizards that don't adventure--NPCs that have never physically attacked anything since puberty? Now that's what I call nonintuitive!

Well, they should be getting better at aiming their (ranged) touch attack spells, and even their line- and cone-type spells (still some aiming required) so their BAB should go up some.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Thing is, a 20th level wizard has seen HOARDES of monsters most likely in his time. While he might not have been studying the quarterstaff, he's certainly been paying attention to weaknesses in monster's natural armors, how they move, etc. Combat isn't just about knowing yourself, its about knowing your opponents.

And considering a 20th level wizard knows as much about melee combat as a 6th level fighter, I think the model works just fine

Personally, I think the argument to which you replied here is in fact valid. That is, the model *can* be flawed sometimes, for reasons given (and others, IMO). However, the idea that wizards studying monsters' natural armour and movement (etc.) - from a safe distance when possible of course - is going to help them actually move around in combat and hit the darned things strikes me as rather unlikely, at best.

That's not to say the model *can't* work sometimes, mind you. Of course it can.

Just my 2cp on that.


And back (directly) on topic, I would be interested to hear how it works out, Nyaricus.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yeah, but the d20 skill system doesn't really have enough differentiation to model the good/medium/bad BAB progression. If you like skill-based combat though, you might want to check out HARP or Rolemaster.

Or just invent my own.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

nope, just I'm kinda bothered with the fact that wizards, at 20th level, have half the attacks a fighter does, and is half as likely to hit. And the system isn't intuitive.

Of course, if implimented, monsters/NPCs would be under the same rules, so balance would still be there.

EDIT: oh, and thanks for the quick reply

Under your system 20th wizards still get 1/2 as many attacks as fighters. I don't see how it is more intuitive either going by increments of 1/3rd as opposed to 1/4.

 

[gamecat]

Personally, I think it's a bad idea, as well.

The 1/2 BAB of the weaker classes is already hamstringing enough.

 

[Nyaricus]

Under your system 20th wizards still get 1/2 as many attacks as fighters. I don't see how it is more intuitive either going by increments of 1/3rd as opposed to 1/4.

Indeed, they still get half as many attacks as a fighter does, but you are misreading my statement - you have to read it in it's entirety here. They get "half the attacks a fighter does, and (are) half as likely to hit" - that is what I don't like.

I would argue it's more intuitive (as opposed to the current syustem) because it's all standardized now; it's all in thirds - one third, two thirds, or three thirds. I dunno, JMHO, but it has some validity in my mind. Anyways, this whole thing is just an idea, but I'd be more than willing to test it out with my players, provided they are cool with it