what do you do with high strength base attack bonuses?

[johncolossus]

Just after what you lot as a community of players and DMs feel about one particular rule block and what house rule s you have instigated to compensate for it.

On the last session of playing RttTOE (4 characters of 7th level so far.....halfing rogue/ranger/fighter.....human cleric/elemental adept[he worships a fire god and i have used class from FFGs Monstrous Handbook].......elven sorceror.....risen demon paladin/monk [again race from mythic races]), they came across the den of a dire bear (CR7 encounter) and not surprisingly they disturbed its den and it responded ferociously. Now they eventually defeated it mainly with the magic and sneak attacks. However, the monk/paladin whose only focus is unarmed combat was completely gutted with the bears claws in the first round and had to with draw. The bear hit very very easily....all the characters AC except the sorcerors range from 19-21 so fairly reasonable. The rogue would also have been gutted but the bear rolled 2 one's in a row.

Now here is the problem.......a dire bears claw attacks are +18 to hit so for these combat orientated characters the bear had a 90-95% chance to hit with each claw attack. Now the majority of the BAB comes from its huge strength (STR31) so gives +10 to hit. This then suggests that if you are very large and strong you can hit something much more easy than if you are weaker even though you may be more dextrous,etc. I know this point is a "bugbear" for Superhero D20 games that the Hulk (for eg) who has huge strength probably should be worse at hitting than say Captain America but if you went on strength alone the Hulk would have a out of proportion bonus. Therefore, D20 supers have generally split Super Strength bonuses from traditional basic Str abilities. So should an animal itelligence creature who happens to be very strong and fight with instinct have such BAB bonuses compared to skilled fighters? I appreciate strength adds to some degree such as bashing through armour etc but what is an appropiate level of bonus?

So my question is what do you people do for >20 Strength bonuses to hit to make the advantage "more real"? Do you for every even strength increment add +1/2 to hit and +1 damage?
I would be extremely interested in peoples house rules on this?

Cheers

 

[FireLance]

I don't have any house rules on this. In my view, one of the most elegantly simple mechanics of the D20 system is that the bonus from a 30 Strength is the same as the bonus from a 30 Constitution is the same as a bonus from a 30 Dexterity.

So, the attack bonus from a high Strength would exactly cancel out the defence bonus from the same Dexterity. To change the attack bonus for Strength without changing the defence bonus for Dexterity would unbalance this relationship.

In any case, the attack bonus from Strength is an abstraction. Don't think too much about it.

 

[johncolossus]

Thanks but anymore....

Thanks for your opinion Firelance.

I was wondering if anyone else has any practical ideas or suggestions? My group are the ones who are also interested and happy the to hit changes will affect them if they are changed. Also if a reduced BAB for high strength is used do you think it unbalences things? Not many things have Dex>30 and the change will be across the board...

Look forward to replies...please!

 

[Greybar]

To be honest, I agree with the "it is good as is". The brute strength opponents for the PCs need that to keep up. While my players suffer in a somewhat low-magic-item world, I believe that more mainstream folks might consider 7th level fighting front-line folks with 19-20 AC to be under average.

Yes, a strong hit is nasty. Give that strong brute Power Attack and let them lay into the PCs. It's a good way to make them appreciate every last one of those hit points, and particularly make the fighter types glad they have d10s instead of the d6s and d4s.

John

edited for not-enough sleep bad spelling

 

[Melkantur]

i don't know Firelance.

while there is some rhyme and reason to your remark I disagree on 2 levels.

First, equating strength and dexterity isn't perfect.

yes they match up in bonus number (unlike 2nd ed) but ... with the exception of dodge (a feat few take?) strength and the numerous attack bonuses will prevail.

people aren't going to match up to a strong bear.

here's why:
who has a 30 dex? no one, not even a 20th level rogue unless he started tiefling and has gloves of dex 6. Hardly the man we're talking about in a CR 7 bear encounter.

Fighters wear armor, usually with a very low max dex bonus.
Comparable fighter: Full Plate and +1 shield, ring of prot +1 ..23 AC ish. bear hit's around 75% of time and despite platemail, there's no DR (system flaw?) but the 2 handed weapon wielder is SOL at AC 20.

anyway, the pre-3.5 solution was of course that everyone has a level of Sorcerer and throws up the unnamed +7 shield bonus SHIELD spell and then the bear only hits 50%

no, all this said, you throw on a Stoneskin and just accept that the fighter is gonna take a couple hard hits and that the cleric will heal him. I don't think it merits system change but we'll see what happens in 3.5, the Barbarian for instance gets more DR and faster (@lower levels) so should be interesting.

you'll always find challenges that the party simply can't handle and one or 2 bad die rolls for PCs and a good one for the monster and it's a slaughter. I had a group have to fight 2 displacer beasts. TPK, no one could hit, and if they did, failed miss chance, beasts hit and hit and hit. nothing to do, they had reach. They aren't CR 20 sometimes it's about balance, but it's not Baldur's Gate on the PC where you can save, reload and put on your stoneskin, haste, and emotion hope and do the battle again.

good ole True Strike...
sorry so long

 

[FireLance]

There are several issues here which I will address separately to avoid confusion.

First, should the rate at which the modifier increases slow down for ability scores above 20? To me, all this will do is to shift the balance of power towards the PCs. I would not call this "fair" as the PCs are more likely to have ability scores in the 10-20 range than the monsters. For some monsters, the high ability scores they have are their only advantage, and the only reason why they are a suitable challenge for an average party of their CR.

Second, must PCs have a 30 Dexterity to match a monster with a 30 Strength? Not necessarily. PCs have other advantages to tip the balance in their favour: magic, feats, class abilities, co-operation and good tactics. High ability scores are an advantage, but not overwhelmingly so.

Third, is a dire bear a suitable challenge for a party of 7th-level characters? I would say yes, on average, but the DM needs to factor in the unique circumstances of the party. The dire bear is a stong melee combatant. A party that wants to face it head-on in melee had better be able to take and deal out a lot of damage. It may be better to use mobility and ranged attacks against a dire bear, to prevent it from getting up close and unleashing its devastating full attack. A party that insists on going toe-to-toe with everything it comes across is probably headed for a truckload of pain and grief.

 

[johncolossus]

Thanks guys.
So can I presume nobody has changed their system. I am meeting my people tonight and obviously this will come up. I have to say that I do not really want to change the system but i can see my sensible player's points and this is something they thought was somewhat flawed. I agree that DR for armour would add a different flavour and we have discussed this. The points that Firelance makes are fair aswell and this was one of the arguements i put forward about using tactics other than charging in to melee with a 20 foot tall muscled bear! Then when they get hit and gutted it is not entirely surprising. However the main melee combatant only focuses on hand to hand combat....diversify I suggested?! That is why the way they defeated it was using the combined magic of the cleric and sorceror with a very good flanked attack from the rogue. I will perhaps try out a reduced to hit from strength for those with >20 values but obviously keep the same damage bonuses !
Thanks for your opinions...and if any more suggestions thoroughly appreciated!

 

[daTim]

I also agree to keep it how it is. Combat is too much of an abstraction to pin down certain ability scores to certain exact actions in combat. For example, a Dire Bear has a Strength of 30, which means you aren't going to be able to deflect/block its big ol' paws very easily, however you *may* be able to dodge it. But if you look at a Dire Bear it is decently nimble for such a huge animal. It is just simpler and much quicker to use the current system.

Since it looks like you are looking for a system that reflects what you want tho... You could limit Attack bonus's to +5 from Str (theorhetical 20), but have damage unlimited. So for that Dire Bear it would only have a +5 str bonus to attack, but +10 to damage. So that way it wont hit as often, but when it does it sure hurts. In this way, PC's are less likely to just concnetrate on one ability score but spread them out, but still can to promote speciliazition. The problem is do you limite Dex the same way?

 

[IndyPendant]

I'm a little late, since you've apparently already talked to your PCs, but there's another thing to consider about this scenario: you listed your PCs as a Paladin/Monk, a Rogue/Ranger/Fighter, a Cleric/Elemental Adept, and a Sorceror.

None of those players are tanks, and if any of them are trying to play the part against something that deals bucketloads of damage if they had *any* chance of avoiding doing so, they deserve scorn, not compensation.

Tanks are defined as damage soakers, meat shields, whatever you'd like. The Paladin/Monk was almost certainly fighting with no weapons *or* armour, in which case he's not even dealing out that much damage--not at a MC level total of 7 anyways. The Dire Bear almost took out the MC rogue? I should think so! I would guess he was fighing Two-Weapon-Style with Light Armour (i.e. no shield). Once again, terrible tank. The Cleric/Elementalist has diluted his Cleric class so that he is now an insufficient healer, particularly since this party needs healing more than most, since there is no tank to help absorb damage. The Sorceror is a pure damage dealing battlemage (and the only 'single' class in the entire party) but he alone can't carry the day.

If no one's a tank, then they shouldn't be playing as if they were. They shouldn't be taking on the Big Nasties head-on if it's at *all* avoidable. And this party is just a mess.

I don't use any house-rules to change attacks and damage, nor do I intend to. And, at the risk of sounding harsh, from what little I have determined from your description of the scene--I have zero sympathy for your players.

Edit: Fixed some errors about your players' characters.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Tanks are defined as damage soakers, meat shields, whatever you'd like.

I prefer "bullet sponge", myself. But I'll agree on this... the only true "tanks" are Fighters, Barbarians, and to a lesser extent Paladins and Psychic Warriors (yeah, only d8 HD but they have tons of great defensive powers that really compensate nicely if you buff up: Vigor+Displacement+Inertial Barrier goes nicely, especially if you use a few of the new powers from Mind's Eye).

You don't NEED a tank; plenty of groups have managed to win fights without one. In the situation mentioned in the original post, none of the characters appeared to be capable of standing toe-to-toe with the Dire Bear, so while you'd kill the thing more quickly than a defense-oriented group, you really risk that sort of damage. There's nothing wrong with that, but you shouldn't nerf one stat solely because it made your chosen strategy risky. A Dire Bear is a dangerous opponent if the enemy is stuck on the ground, can't go invisible, has low AC/HP, and can't move quickly. But, that's ALL it can do, so it's balanced as CR 7.

Now, as to the original question: No, I wouldn't change the system. That bear was given a STR of 31 exactly because it was supposed to have a high melee attack bonus and damage. If you change the system so that STR gives less benefit, you'll need to increase the bear's STR to keep it balanced, and then you're back where you started.