Why isn't base attack a skill?

[Rasyr]

To each their own.

To me, I like magic being a skill. Magic is supposed to be mysterious and dangerous, yet in D&D the only time a Wizard or any other spell user has the slightest chance of miscasting a spell is is they are wearing armor. (Note: I am talking about casting a spell, not about whether or not the spell affects the target)

IMHO, there should always be a chance of failure, and there should always be a chance for extraordinairy success as well.

In combat you can miss, or you can score a critical and do double damage, but in magic, every Wizard of a given level will cast every known spell with the same level of proficiency.

As to your definition of "skill", I would like to submit that it is stated that spells are "learned". If you learn something, then it is a skill. In this case, it would be a skill in manipulating/directing divine and arcance (i.e. supernatural) energies to create specific effects, but it is still a skill by any definition of the word. D&D just make success in this automatic (unless you are wearing armor) most all of the time.

 

[Greg K]

The force, spellcasting, Psychic ability have already been done very successfully in d20 using feat/skills just look at the Star Wars rpg, Green Ronin's True 20 and the Psychic's Handbook (again Green Ronin).

 

[swrushing]

In combat you can miss, or you can score a critical and do double damage, but in magic, every Wizard of a given level will cast every known spell with the same level of proficiency.

Actually, quite untrue.

the variable proficiency for wizards of the same level is implemented in the system in two ways: attributes and feats.

the save dc's are gonna vary from mage to mage by his attribute.
the potency will vary based on feats including metamagic and focus and penetration and so forth.

these traits allow quite a bit of customizations and differentiation in "proficiency" and capability between two wizards of the same level with the exact same spell list who differ on the feats and attribute choices.

Now, perhaps that level of customization is not sufficient to you, certainly thats possible, but the "every wizard every spell same proficiency" is a bit overstating the matter.

I too could see for some settings magic as a skill with every spell having a chance of failure and I have played and run such before. However, I also know from experience that there are certainly those who see magic in other fantasy settings as not something that you just happen to fail for "no particular reason" other than a bad die roll and so a system which put "always a chance of failure" onm magic to be inappropriate for such settings. i would tend to lump the magic is common DND style setting as one of those.

I mean, frankly, a fighter's attack won't fail "just because". It always hits unless someone is actively trying to prevent it from doing so. Stabbing someone is a skill (or could be as we are discussing here) but it doesn't carry with it an automatic chance of failure... you only get that when actively opposed.

Heck, most DND skills do not carry any automatic chance of failure.

So, for that setting, I don't get a notion that magic should be the exception, the one thing that has always got a chance of failure.

Now, more magic rare or even low magic settings... sure, i can see it.

 

[Rasyr]

By my remark, that you quoted, I am referring solely to the fact that different wizards will cast the spell with no chance of failure (normally). They will ALWAYS cast the spell correctly. Now perhaps I was a bit overly broad in my statement, but the factors you mentioned are not what I was talking about.

Stats and Feats affect the result of the spell casting, they do not affect the casting itself. Not to mention, aren't those static modifiers to DC for the saves of the folks that the spell is cast against?

Beside, as I was trying to state above, I do not count saving throws against a spell as a chance of failure, because regardless of the outcome of the saving throw, the spell WAS cast correctly, without error. Whether or not the target resists the spell is a completely separate issue.

And acutually, there is an automatic chance of failure built into other skills.

You try to stab someobdy, you have to get higher than their AC, if you don't you have failed in your attack. Now, that AC will vary depending upon how alert the target is, but that chance of failure is still there.

The same thing applies to skills as well. You have to make the required DCs, you failed in using the skill.

These are regular failures as opposed to fumbles. However, I do realize that as a character goes up in level, he will be reducing that small chance of failure until it is gone. But by that time, the character will be facing larger challenges as well for the most part.

Personally, I believe that there should always be a chance of a character failing their actions, at least a tiny, small chance as that makes the successes worth more, in my opinion.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Beside, as I was trying to state above, I do not count saving throws against a spell as a chance of failure, because regardless of the outcome of the saving throw, the spell WAS cast correctly, without error. Whether or not the target resists the spell is a completely separate issue.

How is "i cast the spell successfully" different from "i made an atack"? Both are actions successfully done, with uncertain results based on the opposition, right.

And acutually, there is an automatic chance of failure built into other skills.

No. There MAY be a chance of failure IF the task is difficult enough. A rogue with a +15 to locks under normal conditions can AUTOMATICALLY succeed at many locks.

You try to stab someobdy, you have to get higher than their AC, if you don't you have failed in your attack. Now, that AC will vary depending upon how alert the target is, but that chance of failure is still there.

There, you have a chance of failure BECAUSE of opposition, as i stated above. You only fail on an attack roll due to opposition. A spell caster can fail to get a spell off due to opposition too, with AoOs and ready actions and the like. he can also fail due to circumstances such as adverse conditions.

But without opposition, my fighter will hit all the time, never failing, as i don't even need make a roll.

The same thing applies to skills as well. You have to make the required DCs, you failed in using the skill.

and if the DC is within my bonus+1 I automatically succeed. if it is within my bonus +10 and its calm, i automatically succeed, etc.

the only cases for there being a chance of failure are when its so difficult you just might or might not make it and there is opposition.

Personally, I believe that there should always be a chance of a character failing their actions, at least a tiny, small chance as that makes the successes worth more, in my opinion.

So do you implement house rules to prevent auto-success at other skills, to prevent taking 10 and 20, to prevent autohits on unresisting enemies as well?

My point is simply put, the DND skill system and combat system is pretty consistent in not making everything have a chance of failure, especially when there is not opposition, so to throw such into the mix only for magic seems rather inappropriate for a magic heavy environment such as a more or less typical DND game.

Now, for other style games, as i said, where magic is far more rare and one would typically not expect to see PC mages and the like, such an exception for magic could make perfect sense and create the flavor one was after.

But for more or less typical DND style... magic, skills, and attacks really only fail when the task is well above the character aptitude or there is opposition. That seems fairly consistent. Boccob knows my players (and my midnight GM) will testify that getting spells off WHEN THERE IS OPPOSITION is not an automatic thing, in my games at least. (In think my Midnight GM is sick and tired of seeing how few spells his legates manage to get successfully cast.)

 

[JoeGKushner]

Why isn't Base Attack a skill? I'm going to approach this from an entirely different angle.

I'll venture that the best reason for not treating it as a normal skill has nothing to do with number-crunching of character stats at all. I'll venture that the best reason is that it's different. In most other games around, ability to hit in melee and ranged combat is governed by some skill-like thing that each character can choose to buy or not.

What, pray tell, is to be gained from following the pack?

Hmmm... let's see... prestige classes? following the pack... skills for characters... following the pack... unified gaming mechanic (in theory at least) following the pack.... elimination/reduction of subsystems in the game... following the pack...

Yeah, what does tend to be gained from following the pack?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Joe, a note:

The primary *attack mechanisms* of D&D are strictly level-based: Combat and Spellcasting

If you remove that dependence, then you destroy the CR/EL system.

That is something I consider extremely bad. CR/EL makes the game accessible to novice players, and new monsters accessible to experienced players.

I agree with you in theory, but I find that many novince game players who've never played before find D&D difficult to begin with. Perhaps D&D needs some "knobs" or "dial settings" like Fuzion has where you can start someone off with all skill points automatically allocated to some skills per level and more hands off for those who want to get under the hood.

I do agree that it'd be very nice to have a couple of variant "commoner" classes with no BAB progression (or possibly even no HD progression!) Obviously, these classes would be divorced from the CR system, as there is no challenge in killing them, but it does make for a system of gauging the skill levels and experience of non-combatant characters.

Cheers!

Heck, commoners are so bad compared to standard classes that usually there's little to be gained from killing them anyway unless the GM treaks them like Tucker's kobolds!

 

[amethal]

Do rules lite systems like True 20 or the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana keep a fixed BAB per level?

Don't know about all rules lite systems, but those two do.

It fits very elegantly into True 20, which only has 3 classes - warriors get 1/1 progression, experts get 3/4 and adepts get 1/2. You can still multi-class to mix this up a bit if you want.

 

[Rykion]

I thought about turning the BAB into a combat skill system, but it would necessitate too many changes in the base skill and feat system. It would be something I would like to see in a future D&D or D20 system.

 

[Thia Halmades]

Without reading everything posted here:

- A number of people pointed out that it's niche management, and in d20 that seems to me what it boils down too. However, we also know that the difference between a fighter and a rogue is more than their BAB. I'm in the process of learning HERO for this exact reason; combat is modified as much by your skills as your stats, and that's a major break from the d20 system.

- Second, feats play a part in it, and (I know, not the original discussion) but a Fighter gets better at fighting by selecting those feats. However, a Fighter has nearly no skill points, and many (somewhere between 'some' and 'most') will treat INT as a dump stat, thus not gaining any points in the BAB skill.

- Third, on the rogue argument (to avoid them becoming fighting fools) see point one; beyond BAB, there's familiarity with the weapon, maneuverability of the target, feat selection (which the Fighter has way more of) and the general point that a Rogue will get squished if it gets close enough in melee to hit.

I do agree: your ability to swing a sword, fire a bow, fire a cross bow, succeed in dagger fighter, unarmed combat & kick boxing should not all be tied to a single number determined by your level. However, this is a design decision for d20; it's built to be simple. I completely believe that they should be separate, built seprately and counted separately, but the system isn't built to carry that load.