Epic BAB & interative attacks of +ECL characters

[HEL Pit Fiend]

I had a disturbing thought as I read through some recent posts here. My limited understanding (I don't have the book yet) of epic levels, BAB, and iterative attacks is simply this: as you go up in levels from 1 to 20, or more precisely ECL 1 through ECL 20, your gain iterative strikes based on your BAB through those levels. BUT... when you get to level 21, (ECL 21???) "epic" level, if your BAB goes up, say by taking a level in fighter, and that extra point in BAB would normally get you an extra attack, you will not get it once your in epic level territory. Basically your BAB goes up without any more attacks per round, I have no problem with that rule and actually like it.

But here's my dilemma, I play a svirfbelin fighter/rogue, currently 6/7, and plan to get him to 8/12 by 20th. At 17th level he's considered "20th level", (17th +3 ECL) and 18th would be considered "21st level", therefore epic in level and would be bound by the epic iterative attack cap (or would he???).

Unfortunately, no matter how I slice it, at 17 levels of fighter/rogue I will have a maximum of +15 in my BAB. That's +15/+10/+5. At 18 levels, the first epic level, I will have +16/+11/+6... stop... no fourth attack at /+1... arrgh. I planned from the getgo on having a +17 BAB at 8/12 and having 4 attacks through epic levels, guess thats another hit I'm gonna have to take for playing the gnome from the underworld....

I know lots of people will say it won't matter that much losing the extra attack, "you won't hit anything with that last attack against monsters at that level, their AC will be too high." Well in our campaigns we fight alot of weaker creatures and every attack helps, especially when it's an extra 6d6 of sneak attack bonus damage. I just don't see us fighting purely Balors and Pit Fiends at that level, we don't run that kind of campaign...

Getting 4 attacks separates the fighters from the pure rogue and cleric types, maybe it's just in my head, but playing him feels all wrong now... maybe I'll get over it with time...

 

[Psion]

I see the way that they are stopping BAB as a problem, as it creates an unbalanced situation. If you create a character who has 20 levels of fighter, and then changes to wizard and advances 20 levels, would have a much higher BAB that a character who starts as a wizard for 20 levels and then switches to fighter for 20 levels.

What I would do (this is a house rule sort of thing, so if your DM isn't conciliatory, you are screwed): Calculate the characters BAB as if they took their fastest advancing BAB class first.

 

[doktorstick]

I see the way that they are stopping BAB as a problem, as it creates an unbalanced situation. If you create a character who has 20 levels of fighter, and then changes to wizard and advances 20 levels, would have a much higher BAB that a character who starts as a wizard for 20 levels and then switches to fighter for 20 levels.

Your argument is flawed. In most cases, a character whose first 20 levels are in Fighter would make a weak mage; the primary attributes are wrong for that class. Given that statement, a Ftr20/Wiz20 is going to be a better fighter and worse mage than the Wiz20/Ftr20 who is a better mage and worse fighter. BAB doesn't have really anything to do with it.

I think that since mages are arguable the most powerful class (a Wiz20 can defeat a Ftr20 in most cases), WotC granted the extra attack to fighters by not modifying attacks at epic levels.

/ds

 

[HEL Pit Fiend]

Psion, I believe you meant to say that if character who took 20 levels of fighter and then 20 levels of epic wizard would have more iterative attacks than character with 20 wizard levels and 20 levels of fighter at epic levels. Both characters would have +30 BAB, only that the fighter first would have +30/+25/+20/+15, the wizard first would have +30/+25. But I have no problem with that at all, after all a 20th level wizard should build on his strengths in epic levels, and being a fighter is not one of them.

But I had a thought, maybe theres hope for my svirfbelin after all. Maybe the number of iterative attacks is really based on your FIRST 20 HD. That would make sense to me.

For example, take a fire giant, he's got 15 HD and is CR10 and his base BAB is +11/+6/+1. Lets say he takes levels in fighter, at level 5 fighter he should look like this +16/+11/+6/+1 (plus str bonuses) or 4 iterative attacks. Here he should max out his number of iterative attacks since he has 20 hit dice, even though he is only a CR 15 monster. Therefore gaining addtional levels in fighter will only increase BAB, not gain additional attacks.

Now lets say our fire giant takes another 5 levels of fighter, making him 10th level and therefor becomming CR 20, our firegiant would have a BAB of +21/+16/+11/+6... stop... he would not gain the extra /+1 attack because he is over the 20HD limit (15 hd for fire giant + 10 hd for fighter).

Therefore, maybe my svirfbelin will still gain his 4th attack at 18th level (ECL = 21), at his first epic level because he has only 18 hit dice. Dunno, but I'm hoping...

 

[drnuncheon]

I see the way that they are stopping BAB as a problem, as it creates an unbalanced situation. If you create a character who has 20 levels of fighter, and then changes to wizard and advances 20 levels, would have a much higher BAB that a character who starts as a wizard for 20 levels and then switches to fighter for 20 levels.

What I would do (this is a house rule sort of thing, so if your DM isn't conciliatory, you are screwed): Calculate the characters BAB as if they took their fastest advancing BAB class first.

I have seen this argument a lot, but it seems to assume that the characters sprung like Athena fully formed at 40th level. I think that's definitely a non-standard assumption, and should be purely secondary compared to the 'normal' situation: that is, the characters are played from first level on up. The path is important, and that gets overlooked a lot in these discussions.

The guy who takes his 20 levels in fighter first is spending 20 epic levels basically crippling himself - his mighty first level spells aren't going to do much good against the CR21+ opponents he's facing, and in higher levels he's going to lag severely behind his single-class fighter counterparts. His hit points are going to suck, he won't get nearly as many of the epic fighting feats, etc.

On the other hand, the 20th level wizard who starts learning to use a sword can give himself a tremendous boost in effectiveness with magical weapons (and armor - he can certainly afford to use still spell). Unlike the fighter, who has *no* magical ability whatsoever, the wizard at least has a head start of having *some* combat ability, lousy though it may be. Plus, he can be spending his every-three-levels feats to continue boosting his spellcasting, so he's not going to fall behind there as quickly.

Basically, a few levels of fighter is worth a lot more to a wizard than vice versa. The wizard gets 20 levels of this benefit, so he should pay for it in some way - that way is in the decreased number of attacks.

J

 

[AGGEMAM]

Ok, to clear up a common misunderstanding,

+ECL's are not counted when determining whether a character has reached epic level or not.

It is only after you have gained 20 character levels you are considered to be a epic level character, note however that this is a double-edged sword.

 

[hong]

I have seen this argument a lot, but it seems to assume that the characters sprung like Athena fully formed at 40th level. I think that's definitely a non-standard assumption, and should be purely secondary compared to the 'normal' situation: that is, the characters are played from first level on up. The path is important, and that gets overlooked a lot in these discussions.

Actually, I suspect that the number of people with the endurance to play a two-year campaign to get to 20th level, followed by another two-year campaign to get to 40th level, will be much less than the people who just say screw it, let's make up some 40th level guys and kick epic butt.

 

[drnuncheon]

Ok, to clear up a common misunderstanding,

+ECL's are not counted when determining whether a character has reached epic level or not.

It is only after you have gained 20 character levels you are considered to be a epic level character, note however that this is a double-edged sword.

Not quite. Page 25 of the ELH is the relevant portion.

A monster with an ECL uses the BAB advancement and base save progressions of its class until it gets 20 character levels.

But, once the character's ECL is 21 or greater, they can begin taking epic feats (assuming they meet the prerequisites). The example given is a +5 ECL Ftr13/Blackguard3 - ECL 21, and able to take epic feats that they qualify for.

J

 

[AGGEMAM]

Not quite. <snip> But, once the character's ECL is 21 or greater, they can begin taking epic feats (assuming they meet the prerequisites).

Yes, that is true.

That is the kind of mistakes you make (meaning I make) when trying to reply from memory without actually checking the book first.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Not quite. Page 25 of the ELH is the relevant portion.

A monster with an ECL uses the BAB advancement and base save progressions of its class until it gets 20 character levels.

But, once the character's ECL is 21 or greater, they can begin taking epic feats (assuming they meet the prerequisites). The example given is a +5 ECL Ftr13/Blackguard3 - ECL 21, and able to take epic feats that they qualify for.

J

Fortunatley for HEL pit fiend, this regards only their eligability for feats, not even how many feats they get, let alone BAB. That is based on levels, not ECL, as AEGGMAN stated earlier. Unless the ELH states otherwise. I don't have it yet.