Fixing the 3e Math in a simple and easy way

[Sadrik]

This is going to draw heavily from a 4e theme. I don't have the formulas for CMB and CMD so I will ignore those for the moment. It is very simple and it gets applied universally to monsters and characters.

BAB is 1/2 level
Saves are 1/2 level

Good BAB adds +4
Average BAB adds +2
Poor BAB adds +0

Good saves add +2

Wrinkles:
1. Iterative attacks
2. Multiclassing
3. CMB/CMD
4. Good BAB does not get to +20 medium BAB does not get to +15

Goods:
1. Poor saves more competitive
2. Warrior types distinctly better at combat at level 1
3. The math does not separate too much at upper levels
4. Upper end monster BABs reigned in

So help iron out the wrinkles and post your potential fixes for 3e math.

 

[Tilenas]

I did the same thing in my set of house rules, with the exeption that good and medium BABs were only worth a +2/+1 boost.

Wrinkles:
1. Iterative attacks
2. Multiclassing
3. CMB/CMD
4. Good BAB does not get to +20 medium BAB does not get to +15

#1 can probably be solved using one of the many alternative systems floating around here (e.g. multiple attacks incur a -2 penalty on all attacks).
#2 wouldn't be a problem if the level 1 boosts weren't as high.
#3 isn't clear to me, can someone explain?
#4 is a nonissue; you'll have to cut back some monsters' natural armor (which often is ridiculously high anyway).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This is going to draw heavily from a 4e theme. I don't have the formulas for CMB and CMD so I will ignore those for the moment. It is very simple and it gets applied universally to monsters and characters.

BAB is 1/2 level
Saves are 1/2 level

Good BAB adds +4
Average BAB adds +2
Poor BAB adds +0

Good saves add +2

Wrinkles:
1. Iterative attacks
2. Multiclassing
3. CMB/CMD
4. Good BAB does not get to +20 medium BAB does not get to +15

Goods:
1. Poor saves more competitive
2. Warrior types distinctly better at combat at level 1
3. The math does not separate too much at upper levels
4. Upper end monster BABs reigned in

So help iron out the wrinkles and post your potential fixes for 3e math.

What exact problems are you trying to fix with this suggestion?

I don't think attack bonus really is much of a problem. If your character focuses on doing damage with weapons, you make sure not to dilute your BAB. If you don't focus on doing damage with weapons, then by the time you hit level 10 or so, it doesn't matter that you aren't very effective with your crossbow--you have spells for that. End result, characters who need to hit AC can hit AC. Characters who can't hit AC don't care. Of course, since 3.x and pathfinder are not 4th edition, monster ACs don't necessarily scale with level so your poor BAB wizard probably can hit the ogre barbarian with his crossbow. If he doesn't, it's because he's got two empowered scorching rays, a quickened ray of enfeeblement, five magic missiles and a wand of enervation. Why would he bust out his crossbow again?

Saves on the other hand are a bit of a problem--mostly because of multiclassing which tends to yield either unbalanced saves (the fighter/barbarian with a Fort that can't fail and Ref and Will that can't succeed) or massive saves (a monk/fighter/paladin/pious templar with +17 as her lowest save at level 10, evasion and mettle who says, "is there a save? OK, I'm effectively immune.") Divorcing saving throws from the class mechanic and pegging them at 1/2 level fixes this problem and renders it much easier to create reliably fair DCs. Just give a +2 nonstacking "good save" bonus and multiclassing works a lot better.

 

[Sadrik]

I did the same thing in my set of house rules, with the exeption that good and medium BABs were only worth a +2/+1 boost.

I think I like the better definition between the BABs, but I can see why one would like the other way too.

#1 can probably be solved using one of the many alternative systems floating around here (e.g. multiple attacks incur a -2 penalty on all attacks).

That seems like a good pay off and then say that, every 6 levels you can do it? 6th/12th/18th --> -2 for 2 attacks/-4 for 3 attacks/-6 for 4 attacks?

#2 wouldn't be a problem if the level 1 boosts weren't as high.

Perhaps the average of all of your classes, so a fighter wizard would have +2. A rogue/fighter would be +3 then and a fighter/wizard/rogue would be +2 and a fighter/cleric/rogue would be +2 too. This seems fair.

Saves are non-stacking bonus for the classes So if you are a cleric/rogue you get +2 to all three.

#3 isn't clear to me, can someone explain?

These are Pathfinder defense and offense, basically "grapple" expanded to include bulls rush and other things.

#4 is a nonissue; you'll have to cut back some monsters' natural armor (which often is ridiculously high anyway).

Or leave it as is

What exact problems are you trying to fix with this suggestion?

The main thing is the separation of BABs and saves at mid and high level. A fighter has +10 more to hit over a wizard and a poor save is +6 more over a good save. Secondarily their is a multi-class funkiness where you can get super saves or horrible saves and BABs. The BAB seperation is not that much an issue however the saves is. Spell DCs way outstrip, the power level of saves at the upper levels (and even low mid at times), when you compare those saves to "good saves" you get a decent chance of success, when you compare to a poor save they have almost no chance of success.

Example:
Wizard's 9th level spell
16INT, +5 for level increase, +5 Book, +6 headband, for a 32 (+11)
DC 30

Fighter's Will save
+6 Base save, 14WIS (+2), +5 cloak, for a total of +13
They need a 17+ to save

With this 1/2 level thing they would need a 13+ still difficult but considering the maximized nature of the Wizard.

I don't think attack bonus really is much of a problem. If your character focuses on doing damage with weapons, you make sure not to dilute your BAB. If you don't focus on doing damage with weapons, then by the time you hit level 10 or so, it doesn't matter that you aren't very effective with your crossbow--you have spells for that. End result, characters who need to hit AC can hit AC. Characters who can't hit AC don't care. Of course, since 3.x and pathfinder are not 4th edition, monster ACs don't necessarily scale with level so your poor BAB wizard probably can hit the ogre barbarian with his crossbow. If he doesn't, it's because he's got two empowered scorching rays, a quickened ray of enfeeblement, five magic missiles and a wand of enervation. Why would he bust out his crossbow again?

Agreed, BAB is not the main interest with a rule like this. However, Multi-classing can cause some wonkyness in you BAB score and this would fix that. However it screws with feats, and PrCs. It may be simpler to just adjust saves.

Saves on the other hand are a bit of a problem--mostly because of multiclassing which tends to yield either unbalanced saves (the fighter/barbarian with a Fort that can't fail and Ref and Will that can't succeed) or massive saves (a monk/fighter/paladin/pious templar with +17 as her lowest save at level 10, evasion and mettle who says, "is there a save? OK, I'm effectively immune.") Divorcing saving throws from the class mechanic and pegging them at 1/2 level fixes this problem and renders it much easier to create reliably fair DCs. Just give a +2 nonstacking "good save" bonus and multiclassing works a lot better.

You have a good understanding of the problem!

 

[ValhallaGH]

One option with Iterative Attacks is to simply have two of them (as per this thread). At 6th they're at -2, -1 at 11th, and -0 at 16th level.

This is a vastly hastened round of attacks, with nearly the same damage output as the current set up. Bonus, if you don't change monster ACs, this will mean that a full-attack might actually be worthwhile.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

One thing to keep in mind is that monsters gain HD faster than PCs gain levels, across the same span of CR.

So for example a CR20 monster is extremely likely to have more than 20 HD.

They'll still outpace the PCs. (But not by as much.)

 

[Sadrik]

One thing to keep in mind is that monsters gain HD faster than PCs gain levels, across the same span of CR.

So for example a CR20 monster is extremely likely to have more than 20 HD.

They'll still outpace the PCs. (But not by as much.)

And this is a good idea to reign in their BAB. Which I have always felt was really high, especially for strong monsters. Like Giants - relatively low CR + high HD + high STR = truly high overall BAB. That spreading of the BABs looks most impressive in these situations.

However messing with the the BABs on players is going to make a lot of feats, and PrCs easier/harder to get into. Anybody got any good BAB ideas?

 

[Cheiromancer]

For some reason I'm reminded of the threads about E6 and E8. The ones where PC levels are capped at the 'sweet spot,' usually held to be around level 6 or 8.

At level 8 the difference in BAB between poor and medium BAB is 2, and between poor and good BAB is 4. But at level 8 the difference in between good and poor saves is 4, not 2. I'd suggest making the spread between saves a little higher than Sadrik proposes.

I'm very impressed with the fix to iterative attacks. However, I'm not sure when the "break points" should be - the changes at 6th, 11th and 16th level presuppose a 1/1 BAB advancement, do they not? I'm not sure how to adapt this to Sadrik's proposal. Break points at level 4, 14 and 24?

Another question: would the AC's of high-end monsters need to be toned down? A 20th level fighter would have a BAB of only 14 in this proposal, and so a monster that would be hit 80% of the time previously would now be hit only 50% of the time. Which could make a big difference.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Another question: would the AC's of high-end monsters need to be toned down? A 20th level fighter would have a BAB of only 14 in this proposal, and so a monster that would be hit 80% of the time previously would now be hit only 50% of the time. Which could make a big difference.

In my opinion, this difference should be made up with tactical play.

50% is fine as is. Pushing it up to the psychologically optimum 70% success rate should require flanking, aid another, maybe action points.

But keep in mind that at high CRs, the game is not designed so that you miss with your first (or even second) attack. You're supposed to hit with those (usually on a 2+).

Actually that's discussed a bit in the iterative attack thread.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Wulf, the numbers for the iterative fix work best if the odds of the initial hit are 65%-75% or so. (solving 2N -2 = 3N -15 for three iterative attacks and 2N = 4N - 30 for four attacks). Assuming that tactics are held constant (why wouldn't they be?), the -6 to BAB at 20th level ought to make a significant difference.

If the odds are the first attack are closer to 95% than 70%, then things get more skewed. They'll have two attacks at 65% rather than 95%/70%/45%/20%. Again, assuming tactics are constant.