Changing first level BAB

[willpax]

I recently had a thought (or several smaller notions that mght add up to a thought in a pinch):

It strikes me as curious that your typical "I've been training with the sword for the past four years and now that I'm sixteen I will go out and rid the world of evil" fighter type hits only 5% (roughly) more often than your bookworm scholar or "I'm so bad I critically fumble my nose picking" commoner.

(As an aside, I already experiment with a rule that allows a limited form of the expertise feat to everyone: they can shift their attack bonus to defense up to +5, after which they get +1 defense for each -2 attack. I do this because I use a WP/VP system and criticals are very nasty (doing full crit damage to wounds, although some of this is absorbed by armor))

I was wondering how unbalancing it would be to scale up first level BAB as follows: all classes that get the high BAB progression would get an additional +3 BAB if that is their starting class (meaning a first level fighter with no strength bonus would be +4 to hit--+3 bonus and +1 normal BAB). The medium progression would get a +2 bonus (first level cleric gets +2 BAB). The lower progression gets a +1 BAB bonus, and classes with no progression get no bonus (I have a scholar class that is a skill and mental feat specialist, but shouldn't get any combat bonuses).

I recognize some merely mechanical problems (rejiggering prestige class requirements, modifying the sense of what makes an encounter challenging, and so on). What I was wondering was something a bit larger: is this a good idea if these minor problems can be dealt with? Is it a good idea for low magic campaigns (as mine is) where the fighters can't count on getting +5 cuisinarts of vorpal frappeing?

 

[Crothian]

Instead of giving the fightera larger bonus, I'd give the people on the other end a minus.

Increasing BAB like your doing really effects characters. Perhaps in your games you should go into the history of the character and determine what sort of actually weapon training the PC had. THen give them a minus of 0-4 depending on the level of training. This would not effect BAB, it'd just be a permantnet modifier to all their attack rolls (perhaps you could have a feat or two that would eventuallu romove this). Many people have pointed out that BAB and attack rolls get higher faster then ACs. You will only make this worse by having additional bonuses.

 

[BluWolf]

I don't have problem with 1st level PCs missing alot. THEY SHOULD!! But then again, most of my 1st level PCs only see opponents with AC ranges in the 13-16 area.

Assuming both the fighter and the wizard have the same STR with no bonuses, lets see Mr. "Do you like my nice cotton robes and 5 HPs" step up and take a swing at that little goblin in leather with the short sword.

Yeah he may have just as good a chance of hitting the goblin but he will most likely die very fast and with good reason.

I don't see ANY reason to mess with this. Of course, your results may vary.

 

[Steven McRownt]

The game mechanics work little different, in my opinion. What makes a fighter different from a wizard, apart from base characteristics (i think that an intelligent but waek fighter is hardly to be found, and vice versa), is the idea of a fighter that for "four years" had a training in using armor (light, medium, and heavy) in the best way (though my feat armor specialization has something more to say), shields, and ALL types of simple and martial weapons. That means a lot of different weapons that works in different way (they are handled and swinged in lots of variants). That's the idea back to 3e. No more proficencies in some weapons, but starts with all of them. It is not to be understimed.

Steven McRownt

 

[Tylias]

"Before they were heroes..."

I think it's fine the way it is... if you want to start out with characters that are fairly adept at what they do, start at 3rd level.

I consider 1st level characters to be Novices. They're just barely more than inept... your fighter's trained in the use of weapons but has no practical experience. The wizard's just finished his/her apprenticeship - he/she's not a force to be reckoned with and at this point has more wits than power, etc. These are the young, reckless, inexperienced, and relatively incompetent adventurers in their early years.

But they get better. Between 3rd level and 5th level, they're starting to be 'above the norm' and wielding significant amounts of power and ability. By about 10th level, they're true heroes.

At least, that's the way I think about it.

For instance - I've had players complain that their characters aren't good at two-weapon fighting at 1st level. Well - duh! Two-weapon fighting is not easy! That's something that a *skilled* swordsman has learned to do well, not a talent of a soft-skinned newbie who's never tasted real combat. A 15th-level fighter can wield a pair of longswords, suck up the -4/-4 to hit penalty, and wade through a throng of lesser swordsmen with no problems, because his ability to hit is so good, a -4 doesn't make all the difference in the world, etc.

So I think, a 1st-level fighter doesn't have to be all that much better at fighting than a +1 BAB. Besides - being a fighter-type, he/she is already going to have more hitpoints than the other characters, often literally taking twice as much damage to incapacitate as any other class and certainly more than any 1st level NPC. That's a significant difference right there.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

With the epic level handbook coming out soon, has anyone else thought about doing this?

IMC, a "journeyman" in any field is around level 10. An apprentice (be him squire, scribe, stable cleaner, or anything else) is between levels 1 and 5, and levels 5-10 are where I normally start off PC's (finished the apprenticeship, but haven't had much real experience yet).

The only problem that I've been facing is the lack of material for characters above 15th level. All in all, though, I find that starting around that level allows for both significant character advancement and an appreciable difference between the scholar and warrior.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You're missing one huge factor: proficiencies.

A first level fighter, barbarian, warrior, or paladin can pick up a longsword, warhammer, battle axe, great axe, or greatsword (the most damaging one and two handed martial weapons in the game) and (assuming no strength bonus--a very faulty assumption) can hit an ordinary warrior in scale mail on a roll of 13. (Realistically, it's likely that the fighter will have at least a 14 strength and weapon focus as well so that's more likely to be a 10).

The first level commoner, cleric, or wizard who tries to do the same thing will suck up a -4 non-proficiency penalty and will consequently need an 18, 19, or 20 to hit. (And the only one of these likely to have a strength bonus is the cleric).

Consequently, in the extreme (no strength bonus) scenario, the fighter hits 8 times out of 20 and the non-combatant class hits 3 times out of 20. So the fighter is not 5% more likely to hit with a good weapon, he is 166% more likely to hit than the non-combatant class.

Now a more realistic set of scenarios would acknowledge several things:
1. Cleric is generally not a non-combatant classes. Neither is rogue, bard, or druid. Wizard and sorceror are sometimes but not always.

2. Most members of non-combatant classes use significantly weaker weapons than fighters. Quarterstaffs and crossbows are typical for wizards. Clubs are usual for commoners. These weapons dish out less damage than their martial counterparts. (Although it does somewhat equalize the chance of hitting.

3. Most fighters will be significantly stronger than members of noncombatant classes. If you build a fighter and choose a strength of less than 14 (and 14 is a very marginal strength for a fighter), you're setting yourself up to lose (unless you take weapon finesse). Fighters are also likely to have the weapon focus feat. This brings the difference in chance to hit at first level back up to significant levels.

It also helps to remember that a 1st level fighter or warrior is a beginner. In my campaign, I use the following scale (it's lower powered than the previous campaign).

Level 1-3 Apprentice/Acolyte/Trainee
Level 2-7 Journeyman
Level 5+ Master
Level 10+ Very well respected Master
Level 15+ You're among the world's best.

(You'll notice that the levels overlap somewhat. This is to acknowledge that a 2nd level character with good stats and well chosen skills and feats (obviously a focussed and dedicated character) could actually be significantly better at his field of work than a third level character with worse stats and/or poorly chosen feats (obviously a dilletante who can't focus on one thing long enough to be good at it).

 

[willpax]

I'm convinced!

Thank you all for the thoughtful replies.

Given the other advantages that fighters have, this kind of tinkering would be out of place.

Do those of you who think of the first two to three levels as apprentice levels also refigure level distributions in towns? I assume that means most guardsmen would be at least second level, with the officers around 3–5, right?

 

[hong]

With the epic level handbook coming out soon, has anyone else thought about doing this?

IMC, a "journeyman" in any field is around level 10. An apprentice (be him squire, scribe, stable cleaner, or anything else) is between levels 1 and 5, and levels 5-10 are where I normally start off PC's (finished the apprenticeship, but haven't had much real experience yet).

Good heavens. A 10th level cleric can revive the dead, a 10th level fighter can make short work of a platoon of orcs, and a 10th level wizard can teleport across the planet. I hardly think that counts as a "journeyman", unless you mean "journeyman deity".

IMO, comparisons to realistic levels of ability should top out at about 5th character level or so. Beyond that, you're getting to heroic-level stuff -- people who can take on (young) dragons and win. Characters who are 10th level or more are essentially legendary.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: I'm convinced!

Yes, I do reconfigure the level distributions. Most soldiers end up second to third level (however, that would often be something like commoner 1/War 1 or Commoner 1/Warrior 2). Their officers are usually 3rd to 5th level.

The same is true of the experts and commoners in the town. Most middle aged characters will be between levels 3 and 5 (although many don't have a focussed distribution of skill points and feats). 1st level characters are pretty much only apprentices, children, adolescents, etc.

Thank you all for the thoughtful replies.

Given the other advantages that fighters have, this kind of tinkering would be out of place.

Do those of you who think of the first two to three levels as apprentice levels also refigure level distributions in towns? I assume that means most guardsmen would be at least second level, with the officers around 3–5, right?