Damage Bonus Based on BAB?

[Dragonblade275]

...You know that already exists, right? It's called the Power Attack feat. :\

Well... Power attack is nice and all, but it doesn't fit the bill. It's not quite the same as the characters sacrifice some of their chance to hit for potential extra damage. So, that doesn't achieve my goal of having everything (charcaters, NPC's, and monsters) do more damage when using natural attacks, melee, or ranged weapons. Plus, not everything has power attack.

But if you really want to add another mechanic, that's up to you. But for Pete's sake, don't multiply the effect for two-handed weapons!! Everything and its cousin gets multiplied for two-handed weapons already!!

Yeah... I had second thoughts about multiplying by 1.5 for two-handed weapons, today. Not sure how to justify it with the idea that this is precision based damage. Does using two hands improve precision/control?

It's not like the sword-and-board fighter, the two-weapon fighter, and the swashbuckler don't already have a hundred nails in each of their coffins. A zweihander is already absurdly over-favored in 3.5E mechanics, and already deals ridiculously greater damage than anyone else. :\

Is the zweihander the same as a greatsword? Or, something else?

As to the nails in the coffins of the various types of fighters... Well, I want them alive and kicking. I want them to be more deadly.

 

[Dragonblade275]

Here's one possible fairly simple rule: when you attack as a standard action, you deal additional damage equal to your BAB. This cuts down on some abuse as you don't get this bonus damage on a full attack or when charging.

I like the simplicity, but I also like the idea that their can be a difference in how well certain classes translate their BAB into bonus damage. Fighters should be better at it than clerics or wizards.

 

[Dragonblade275]

I like the simplicity of this. It's easy to calculate and easy to remember. ANd by basing it on BAB, it is already adjusted for fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. Nice.

Thanks, Mosaic.

I think the basic +1 damage per point of BAB is good. I'm just leaning more heavily toward the slightly more complicated version that relies on the three-tiered model, above.

 

[Dragonblade275]

Or 'full attack'' - there are the level-dependant damage bonuses. But adding BAB to damage sounds good, but then, you should remove full attacks.

It might be a good idea to have this option at the expense of making a full attack. Either make the full attack or get the bonus precision damage.

I'll have to think about this.

 

[Dragonblade275]

Extra damage on an attack favors more attacks. Since those with high BAB already get more attacks, I don't think you need to break up the damage bonus more with different progression.

Interesting. I hadn't considered that. Some thought required, here, on my part.

By the same token, ways to get extra attacks like TWF would really dominate if it was a straight bonus, so I'd suggest something more like Str or Power attack in regards to weapons.

I'll have to take a look at that.

This does invalidate Weapon Specialization, and probably a few other things. Well, makes it nigh meaningless. The BAB 20 character with Weapon Spec only gets a small relative bonus over the straight BAB 20 character.

True... But Weapon Specialization isn't really that special by itself. +2 to damage is good, but when you factor in the idea that some creatures could have good damage reduction from natural armor, it's not enough to help.

Other bonuses to damage, like sneak attack, are also made slightly less important as a ratio of total damage done. And the few spells that increase BAB like Tenser's Transformation and Divine Power become a bit more powerful. Tenser's was a bit on the weak side, it might be okay. Just think of the ripples of this.

Thinking about the ripples is why I posted here. The folks, here, at Enworld really know the game and I trust that you will think of things that I hadn't considered.

If you're using armor as DR, are you using defense bonus or something to offset the lowered ACs, or are people just hitting more?

People are actually hitting less. We're using a variant of the variant. The armor has kept it's normal AC bonus while providing damage reduction. Hence, every blow deals less damage. And this stretches out combat in an unbelievable way. But, the group likes having damage reduction and at the same time, they want to be able to do more damage. And, their going to need to when they run into creatures with higher damage reductions from natural armor.

And, yes, we're using a defense bonus, too. But, so far, the defense bonus is near meaningless. The armor bonus is usually better. And we take whichever is better. Not both.

 

[Dragonblade275]

I've been using a system like this for a while - since before Saga edition, so that change there amused me quite a bit - but my numbers show that it actually takes the full +BAB for it to compare, on average, to having iteratives. I've got a fairly complex spreadsheet showing that (accounting for variable, dice-based damage as well as static modifiers, then comparing the set up in both core and no-iterative+BAB-style) at home, if anyone cares to take a look at it. Holler, and I'll post it when I'm off this evening.

I'd be interested in seeing that, too.

Considering my variants necessitate more damage than standard, this might help me decide whether to apply it to all the iterative attacks.

Thanks!

 

[Arkhandus]

Yeah... I had second thoughts about multiplying by 1.5 for two-handed weapons, today. Not sure how to justify it with the idea that this is precision based damage. Does using two hands improve precision/control?

I don't think so, otherwise fencers wouldn't be using one-handed fencing sabers, foils, epée, and rapiers!

Is the zweihander the same as a greatsword? Or, something else?

As to the nails in the coffins of the various types of fighters... Well, I want them alive and kicking. I want them to be more deadly.

Zweihander = two-hander, i.e. two-handed sword, i.e. greatsword; the German name/style of greatsword.

I used it to refer to two-handed weapons but primarily the greatsword, since other 2-handers usually just don't quite compare in power and usefulness. Everything in 3.5E seems to get doubled or 1.5x'd for two-handed weapons! It's ridiculous. Swinging a dead cat with two hands and Power Attack does more damage than swinging it with one hand! :\

Everything just piles on more raw power for 2-handed weapons and makes the old archetypes of the sword-and-boarder (i.e. a fighter with a longsword or bastard sword, and a shield), the two-weapon fighter, and the swashbuckling fencer just plain suck worse and worse. 3.5 says "Don't bother using a one-handed weapon anymore! You'll just suck noodles! Regdar will kick your arse so hard you'll be coughing up yer own 'nads with his greatsword if you go einhander, punk!"

 

[Terraism]

I'd be very interested in checking that out.

I'd be interested in seeing that, too.

It's attached to the post. It should be reasonably self-explanatory, and the cells wherein it may not be are commented in, so it shouldn't be any trouble to play around with. Let me know if something seems strange or you're not sure how to see a test you're trying out. And if you're using an older version of Excel, some of the colours might be unpleasantly bright; sorry about that.

Considering my variants necessitate more damage than standard, this might help me decide whether to apply it to all the iterative attacks.

I probably wouldn't use any of this in addition to allowing iterative attacks, even considering some sort of heightened DR system. If you add in DR, after all, and then increase damage dealt to make up for it... well, seems like you've made some strange choices, then.

I like the simplicity, but I also like the idea that their can be a difference in how well certain classes translate their BAB into bonus damage. Fighters should be better at it than clerics or wizards.

I can see the argument there, but I think you're ignoring the simplicity. Fighters are better at it, by virtue of having more of it to apply to their damage.

Thanks, Blue. I've actually been thinking about treating it like critical, sneak attack, or precision damage. Creatures that are immune to criticals, etc... wouldn't be affected by the extra damage.

You know, I haven't used this, and we've been running with this addition for a while. As-is, I'm confident that it's balanced without it being precision damage... but boy do I like the idea of it being precision-based. I may have to make that change in my game, just to make the crit-immune folks even more terrifying!

 

[Dragonblade275]

Does using two hands improve precision/control?

I don't think so, otherwise fencers wouldn't be using one-handed fencing sabers, foils, epée, and rapiers!

Good point! I agree.

Zweihander = two-hander, i.e. two-handed sword, i.e. greatsword; the German name/style of greatsword.

I used it to refer to two-handed weapons but primarily the greatsword, since other 2-handers usually just don't quite compare in power and usefulness. Everything in 3.5E seems to get doubled or 1.5x'd for two-handed weapons! It's ridiculous. Swinging a dead cat with two hands and Power Attack does more damage than swinging it with one hand! :\

Everything just piles on more raw power for 2-handed weapons and makes the old archetypes of the sword-and-boarder (i.e. a fighter with a longsword or bastard sword, and a shield), the two-weapon fighter, and the swashbuckling fencer just plain suck worse and worse. 3.5 says "Don't bother using a one-handed weapon anymore! You'll just suck noodles! Regdar will kick your arse so hard you'll be coughing up yer own 'nads with his greatsword if you go einhander, punk!"

Thanks! I think I've made my decision. No 1.5 multiplier since it's precision damage.

 

[Dragonblade275]

It's attached to the post. It should be reasonably self-explanatory, and the cells wherein it may not be are commented in, so it shouldn't be any trouble to play around with. Let me know if something seems strange or you're not sure how to see a test you're trying out. And if you're using an older version of Excel, some of the colours might be unpleasantly bright; sorry about that.

I looked it over and I think I see your point. Looks like single attack loses versus iterative more often than it wins as far as damage is concerned. Did I understand that correctly?

I probably wouldn't use any of this in addition to allowing iterative attacks, even considering some sort of heightened DR system. If you add in DR, after all, and then increase damage dealt to make up for it... well, seems like you've made some strange choices, then.

I agree completely. It is a strange choice, but having already started down the road... Well... ??? The damage reduction is great in concept, but even without DR, the idea that fighters can't really guarantee that a single hit is more damaging at 20th level than when they were 1st level is kinda strange (barring a couple extra points from feats and maybe a magic weapon/item). Some of that experience should translate into a regular dependable skill. One that does more than saying now you're better at hitting but you're not better at dealing damage (not considering iterative attacks/feats/manuevers).

I can see the argument there, but I think you're ignoring the simplicity. Fighters are better at it, by virtue of having more of it to apply to their damage.

I see where you're coming from on this. And, this would be simpler from a GM perspective, too. As my route will have the GM figuring up what type of BAB a creature has to determine how much extra damage it is able to bring to bear. But, my method rewards melee types even more than it does semi-melee and non-melee types. And, that works for me.


You know, I haven't used this, and we've been running with this addition for a while. As-is, I'm confident that it's balanced without it being precision damage... but boy do I like the idea of it being precision-based. I may have to make that change in my game, just to make the crit-immune folks even more terrifying! [/QUOTE]