Why do casters get BAB?

[Leif]

Melee guys get no spells (ignore the exceptions for now, those spells suck anyways), so why should casters get BAB?

Have full casters get ZERO BAB. Forever.

Um.... how about for figuring the Ranged Touch Attack of Ray spells?

Yes, two people have now raised this flaw in my evil master plan.

Let's say your base BAB for ranged touch spells is equal to the spell DC minus 10?

Good idea, and excellent addition! But I'm curious why no one has yet asked what sorts of casters we're talking about here? I mean, Clerics and Druids should still get BAB at their usual rate. And Bards? We are talking 3.5/Pathfinder here, aren't we?

And for that Ranged Touch BAB, I would argue that Intelligence/Charisma should figure into that somehow, too! Maybe: BAB = Int/Cha bonus + CL

 

[Dandu]

Maybe: BAB = Int/Cha bonus + CL

 

[Rampant]

If you wanna bump based on BaB that means every monster gets those advantages. In fact You've probably just handed demi-god-hood to every high level monster of the dragon, Monstrous humanoid, and outsider types.

Casters get abilities far outside the basic skeleton, in exchange their basic skeleton is weakened, but there is a difference between a person with brittle bones, and a person with no femurs.

Your justification is highly flawed, sure a mage who is doing well rarely if ever makes use of their BaB. The same can be said of commoners, aristocrats, experts, and some rogues. By your logic these characters should not receive BAB either.

Furthermore your idea to had out extra attacks, or longer steps to the high bab classes doesn't address the core issue holding those classes back. THe full attack action. This is your enemy, it forces the fighter to choose every round whether to make a singe attack and cover some ground, or to do something akin to real damage and go nowhere. Longer five-foot steps combat this, but do not solve it. The prevalence of charger, and even pouncer builds is oft quoted as a solution, but many players dislike using the same strategy every single turn.

If you really wanna help the melee classes, ditch the full attack action and iterative attacks, instead of getting extra attacks at bab 6, 11, and 16, make their attacks deal additional damage equal to the weapon's base damage die. So a dual wielding ranger at level 6, with twin short swords hits for 2d6 on each blade. You'd have to remake a few feats and overhaul the two-weapon fighting rules a bit, (i'd be more than happy to help), but that should start making it more attractive and fun to play a warrior type, and make them harder for the monsters to ignore.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

To build on the half CL idea... Half CL + BAB. So fighter/mages can apply their fighter BAB to it. And still use str/dex for melee/ranged touch. Definitely not casting stat and definitely not full CL. I think Dandu said it best...

A completely justified response!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoMgnJDXd3k&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Hitler NEIN! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[kitcik]

Side note: I am not overly concerned with the BAB used for Ray spells. I suggested spell DC minus 10 (+ BAB if they have melee class levels), which already includes an adjustment for their casting stat. This might be a tad favorable, but anyways that's a minor detail in my overall insane plan.

If you wanna bump based on BaB that means every monster gets those advantages. In fact You've probably just handed demi-god-hood to every high level monster of the dragon, Monstrous humanoid, and outsider types.

It would be a PC melee class, class ability. So, no, it would not change monsters.

Casters get abilities far outside the basic skeleton, in exchange their basic skeleton is weakened, but there is a difference between a person with brittle bones, and a person with no femurs.

Skills - check, saves - check, BAB - check, etc, etc - how is their skeleton weakened? d4 HP for wizards? There's a difference between "weakened consistently with the power gained from spells" and "weakened a teeny tiny hardly noticeable amount such that the overwhelming power of spells makes the so-called tradeoff a no-brainer."

Your justification is highly flawed, sure a mage who is doing well rarely if ever makes use of their BaB. The same can be said of commoners, aristocrats, experts, and some rogues. By your logic these characters should not receive BAB either.

Other than rogues, I would be ok with that.

Furthermore your idea to had out extra attacks, or longer steps to the high bab classes doesn't address the core issue holding those classes back. THe full attack action. This is your enemy, it forces the fighter to choose every round whether to make a singe attack and cover some ground, or to do something akin to real damage and go nowhere. Longer five-foot steps combat this, but do not solve it. The prevalence of charger, and even pouncer builds is oft quoted as a solution, but many players dislike using the same strategy every single turn.

Did you notice the part about extra partial actions - that means extra attacks even when they don't get a full attack. And, as you mentioned, the larger step also could put you in position. Also, I am envisioning that an extra partial action could increase your move (maybe adding to your charge range).

Obviously, there are flaws in the plan. Big ones. Bugu pointed out the biggest one first - it still is not as strong as spells.

However, it's something. The shock to me is the vehemence surrounding the casters "need" for BAB.

 

[Shin Okada]

It would be a PC melee class, class ability. So, no, it would not change monsters.

Many of the monsters can be PCs. And monsters (not only monster PCs) can have PC class levels and then combine BAB from their racial HDs and Class levels.

Thus, "PC melee class only" does not work within the framework of 3.Xe system.

 

[Buugipopuu]

However, it's something. The shock to me is the vehemence surrounding the casters "need" for BAB.

You're changing a fundamental part of the system (I think out of all of 3rd edition, only two classes (both prestige) haven't advanced BAB, one's considered overpowered to the point of brokenness, and the other underpowered to the point of uselessness) to fix a problem, yet your change doesn't actually fix that problem, and creates a bunch of other problems. Of course people are going to oppose your idea. It makes problems with the Epic rules (Epic BAB is class-independant), it makes problems with PrC qualifications (now casters can never qualify for PrCs with BAB requirements, rather than just qualify late, which goes against the whole design principle of what can and can't be a PrC prerequisite), creates problems with deciding the BAB of caster/melee PrCs and caster/melee base classes, obsoletes many Gish builds (not all of which rely on weaponlike spells), and creates an explicit PC/Monster divide in a way that 3rd ed avoids (by saying that Monster BAB is now different to PC BAB), but even with these changes, casters would still dominate, because it doesn't change the thing that they have that makes them better than everyone else. It's a lot of work for no benefit.

 

[Umbran]

For this, I look at it and think, "When it ain't broke, don't fix it."

If there were a serious game imbalance due to caster BAB, then I might bother with the extra work to remove it, but short of that, I fail to see why one would bother. If you can honestly say, "The caster won't miss it," that implies to me that having it also isn't a big deal, such that there's little point to the exercise, other than imposing an arbitrary symmetry (no spells/no BAB).

 

[kitcik]

Many of the monsters can be PCs. And monsters (not only monster PCs) can have PC class levels and then combine BAB from their racial HDs and Class levels.

Thus, "PC melee class only" does not work within the framework of 3.Xe system.

Yes it does, if you simply make it a class feature of those classes you wish to alter.