Epic BAB advancement

[Tsillanabor]

I noticed that Monster BAB can go past +20, but never give over 4 attacks. What unforeseen consequences would there be to applying this rule to PCs and allowing continued BAB advancement by class? Seems like it would help the warrior-types with their percieved weakness at high levels.

 

[paradox42]

In the ELH chapter 1 there's a sidebar that explains why the writers didn't go that route. In essence, the gap between PC BABs becomes too high if you allow BABs to increase at their old pace, essentially; sure the warriors can hit AC 70 or 80, but what about the Rogue or Cleric? The mage probably only needs to hit a touch AC most of the time, but what about when he/she needs to hit for real? Basically, it's a balance concern. It's the same reason they have all saves start increasing at the same rate once the class goes over 20.

 

[Tsillanabor]

A cleric or wizard gets epic spells though, and the epic rogue will have massive backstabbing going on. I don't mind a dedicated warrior being able to hit the AC of something non-epics can't. It just seems to me that high BAB is the best feature of the fighting classes, and it is the only one that gets shafted.

 

[Kerrick]

The mage probably only needs to hit a touch AC most of the time, but what about when he/she needs to hit for real?

If the mage needs to hit for real, I think you've got bigger things to worry about - namely, that most of the rest of the party is dead or disabled. A straight mage should never be in direct combat like that, except in extreme circumstances. It's not their primary role for one, and they'll get chewed up for another.

A cleric or wizard gets epic spells though, and the epic rogue will have massive backstabbing going on. I don't mind a dedicated warrior being able to hit the AC of something non-epics can't. It just seems to me that high BAB is the best feature of the fighting classes, and it is the only one that gets shafted.

I agree - low-BABs have spells and hit touch ACs (which are still low at epic), mid-BABs have sneak attack or other special stuff, and high BABs can hit it straight up. If the ACs get too high, though, even a mid-BAB might not be able to hit it. We played a few sessions with 45th level PCs; I played a rogue with several PrCs, with a +42 attack bonus with her primary weapons, and her third and fourth attacks missed a good portion of the time (they were still possible, just really high).

We use the "attacks are capped at 4/round" rule and keep the straight BAB progression, and it worked just fine, even with the example I noted above.

 

[paradox42]

To be sure, I don't disagree with either of you- I was just answering the question by giving the original published reasoniong for why the official Epic rules work as they do. I haven't changed them for my own Epic game, so I don't have the experience to tell you for sure what the issues would be. But I think it's helpful to have the original (flawed?) reasoning at hand, even if only so you can refute it.

 

[Tsillanabor]

I do appreciate it-I just disagree with WoTC's reasoning

 

[Nyaricus]

A variant I've seen for spellcatsers to hit ACs with spells is d20 + Caster level + dex.

Just a thought.

 

[Sledge]

Epic fighter feats are nasty enough to counterbalance. It's not all that one sided really.