Why do casters get BAB?

[Jackinthegreen]

BAB isn't just for attacking. It's also added onto Sense Motive checks against feints in combat, for example. In effect, it's a measure of combat experience. You're telling me a wizard is -worse- than a commoner on those grounds? I don't think so.

Since you mentioned full casters with no distinction to arcane or divine, let's look at divine ones too. Cleric? Divine Power. Even if you make his class 0 BAB, it's only a spell away to get the same as a Fighter.

I don't agree with changing BAB for classes, including full casters. Everyone will have some form of combat experience which grows as they level. If you want to balance things better, BAB is not a place to do it.

 

[kitcik]

That still doesn't stop most of the abuses of Arcane magic. Get extra actions and initiative because of your high BAB? Celerity means the Wizard doesn't care. Ready an action to fire against a caster? Doesn't stop Invisibility, Etherealness, Solid Fog, et cetera. The problem is not solve by giving fighters fancy moves unless those fancy moves can somehow counter the various 'I win' spells which are usually only countered by other spells.

Agreed. But I do think it's an interesting mechanic to mess with. I don't think casters would actually miss the BAB at all (assuming you agree to a fix on range touch spells). Once the casters are stripped, you can give bonuses based on it to non-casters.

Since you mentioned full casters with no distinction to arcane or divine, let's look at divine ones too. Cleric? Divine Power. Even if you make his class 0 BAB, it's only a spell away to get the same as a Fighter.

Yes, this is a problem. I would simply ban Divine Power. It is one spell. Then you have druids who can gain BAB from shapechanging. Well, I can live with that.

I don't agree with changing BAB for classes, including full casters. Everyone will have some form of combat experience which grows as they level. If you want to balance things better, BAB is not a place to do it.

OK, OK the casters want their shiny toy, even though they don't play with it. Casters need everything that melee classes have plus game-breaking spells. They simply cannot live if they can't hit stuff with their daggers.

Dang.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Spells currently don't have range increments,

So add them- use the current ranges as RIs if you want them to have long ranges; divide those ranges by 3 if you want to use their current ranges as maximums.

...so you'd have to make up scattering rules for them.

Scattering rules are easy: roll 1d4 (assuming squares) or 1d6 (for hexgrids), then decide how much you want misses to be off. You could pick a dice and roll it for wide variety, or for simplicity and elegance, you could say its 1 space away for every point on your attack roll you missed by. IOW, miss your targeting roll by 1, your spell is one space off from its original target space. Miss by 7, and your targeting is off by 7.

Also squares have an AC of 5, so even by the time the Wizard can first cast Fireball, you'll be hitting 95% of the time unless you've put almost no effort into raising your attack rolls.

Which is the same story for grenade-like weapons in the hands of other PCs.

 

[krupintupple]

I'd just boost the fighter, by making several meta-feats that play off of the ubiquitous "fighter feats" that most fighters are going to take anyhow.

Even a cursory examination of the fighter at mid- to high levels reveals core weaknesses. But, by tweaking a few feats, this might be remedied, without negatively effecting most full-casting classes. For instance, one might make a feat called "warrior's heart," which gives +2 hit points per fighter feat; another called "grim resolve," which gives an untyped +1 to base Will saves per four fighter feats; or finally, "arcane veteran," which might work like combat expertise, except it gives either a dodge bonus to AC or a bonus to saves, but only against spells. The flavour text could easily be brought in line to what you were hinting at, in order to explain away these new abilities; "...after long years on the battlefield / by observing your arcane comrades in action / the deities of battle finally reward you, etc."

Finally, if this seems a little rich, you could always flavour the feat description to give a nod to the campaign's verisimilitude - you could have a feat called "failed arcanist," wherein, your entirely fighter character is presumed to have spent a few formative months at a mage's college, but never really made a career of it. Still, he retained enough of a basic understanding of magic, runes, ley-lines, the cosmos, the weave, etc., that he can subtly defend himself against hostile magics - this could be anything from a flat bonus to magical saves, spell-resistance, or even a few minor spell-like abilities that would benefit a melee-centric fighter, like shield, enlarge, mount, magic weapon, or the like.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that the above is an entirely reasonable course of action - that I've never gotten the chance to play-test - considering the magical arms-race that is the average D&D campaign. If we are to believe that every second monster is somehow magical and most PCs are as well, then why would the average fighter be content with a sword and shield? He wouldn't. He'd get them magicked-up, stock up on potions, belts, gloves, and amulets, and then, presumably, if that wasn't enough, he'd probably take some of the feats that I'd made up.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

@RUMBLETiGER I highly value your opinion, but I strongly disagree with a lot of this. See post 18 above.

Thank you sir. I'm not against your suggestions for the fix, I just like RAW as it is.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't agree with changing BAB for classes, including full casters. Everyone will have some form of combat experience which grows as they level. If you want to balance things better, BAB is not a place to do it.

There's a world of difference between the amount of skill you'd gain occasionally swinging a dagger and shooting targets with your crossbow in between countless hours of studying tomes as compared to practicing countless hours of training with weapons and armor and using them against skilled opponents in between reading the odd book or 2 in a year.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

There's a world of difference between the amount of skill you'd gain occasionally swinging a dagger and shooting targets with your crossbow in between countless hours of studying tomes as compared to practicing countless hours of training with weapons and armor and using them against skilled opponents in between reading the odd book or 2 in a year.

Hence the different BAB progressions. There's also the thing that casters have certain spells which require attack rolls, and it's very likely a caster will be trying to make such things accurate. Spells are another weapon in one's arsenal after all. Sometimes literally in such cases as Acid Arrow or Spiritual Weapon.

Yes, this is a problem. I would simply ban Divine Power. It is one spell. Then you have druids who can gain BAB from shapechanging. Well, I can live with that.

In other words a druid might as well just shapechange and cast spells with Natural Spell? A cleric of a war god can't be blessed with, literally, Divine Power to crush his enemies in the name of his deity?

I very much disagree with the notion that bookworms should have no combat skill. Quite often books themselves will have combat techniques, and you can bet an intelligent reader will pick up on a few tricks.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

[MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION], I see where you are coming from, saying that a caster does not really use it's BAB and therefore why does it have one but just because it's not being used, does it need to be removed? Like, can't this simply be the Wizard's appendix- it doesn't serve a purpose but let's just leave it in there because it's unnecessary effort to take it out?

 

[Rampant]

One of my house rule is that wizards are proficient with books.

For an additional feat you can inflict paper-cuts.


Anyway, Spells aren't part of a the basic character frame-work. Saves, skills, bab, ability scores, and hit points define creatures in the 3e engine. Base attack bonus may have been the wrong name, but it is integral. For example the wizard-rogue, already this build has trouble keeping its attack rolls up, when not using its ray spells anyway, but without even a modicum of BaB from the wizard end it becomes far too easy for the character to not only miss, but to get faked out, grappled, tripped, or disarmed.

In addition removing the weapon like spells hurts multi-classers since that's one of the few places the gish builds truly shine.

Finally, many casters have long histories of martial exploits, bards, druids, and clerics are positively famous for their mixing of magic and weaponry.

Removing BaB is only going to further isolate the casters and increase the gulf between the caster and the non-caster.

 

[kitcik]

There's a world of difference between the amount of skill you'd gain occasionally swinging a dagger and shooting targets with your crossbow in between countless hours of studying tomes as compared to practicing countless hours of training with weapons and armor and using them against skilled opponents in between reading the odd book or 2 in a year.

Hence the different BAB progressions. T
...
I very much disagree with the notion that bookworms should have no combat skill. Quite often books themselves will have combat techniques, and you can bet an intelligent reader will pick up on a few tricks.

Caster BAB vs. melee BAB is not a world of difference. zero BAB vs. melee BAB is a world of difference. Just sayin.

[MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION], I see where you are coming from, saying that a caster does not really use it's BAB and therefore why does it have one but just because it's not being used, does it need to be removed? Like, can't this simply be the Wizard's appendix- it doesn't serve a purpose but let's just leave it in there because it's unnecessary effort to take it out?

First, let me say I am not married to the zero BAB concept, it just popped into my head the other evening. That said, the point isn't to make casters zero BAB, the point is to give melee dudes something that casters don't have and build on it.
so, for instance, every 5 BAB = +1 init, +5' step, +1 partial action, and +5 SR

Anyway, Spells aren't part of a the basic character frame-work.

That's the point - casters have something that is not part of the basic character framework. Therefore, IMHO, for balance purposes they should lose something that IS part of the basic character framework.

Saves, skills, bab, ability scores, and hit points define creatures in the 3e engine. Base attack bonus may have been the wrong name, but it is integral. For example the wizard-rogue, already this build has trouble keeping its attack rolls up, when not using its ray spells anyway, but without even a modicum of BaB from the wizard end it becomes far too easy for the character to not only miss, but to get faked out, grappled, tripped, or disarmed.

I have no problem with a melee'ing wizard, even at L20, missing and getting faked out, grappled, tripped or disarmed. If they are ill-prepared enough to end up in combat, so be it.

In addition removing the weapon like spells hurts multi-classers since that's one of the few places the gish builds truly shine.

Yes, the zero BAB prop has gissues. I admit it.

Finally, many casters have long histories of martial exploits, bards, druids, and clerics are positively famous for their mixing of magic and weaponry.

It's actually very IRONIC. I intended this concept to be a springboard for pimping melee characters, with no real loss to casters (other than the ranged touch problem), and most of the backlash has been in the form of "casters NEED BAB too!"

Removing BaB is only going to further isolate the casters and increase the gulf between the caster and the non-caster.

Seriously?? Seriously???? A minor nerf to casters and a pimp to melee will INCREASE the gulf? Did you wander out of an MA* meeting?

* Monks Anonymous