I'm betting all classes have the same attack progression

[Shade]

I've seen debate in numerous threads on how base attack progression will be handled. I'm betting that your attack bonus will simply equal your total levels, regardless of your classes.

Here's why I think this:

• Wizards should never need to fire a crossbow
• The focus on roles
• The martial characters will probably have other ways of increasing their attack modifiers via feats, talents, maneuvers, etc.
• The focus on simplifying everything

If a class's role isn't martial, it will probably be at a different disadvantage in combat, so being able to potentially hit isn't much of a threat to the martial characters.

Thoughts?

 

[Aloïsius]

I've seen debate in numerous threads on how base attack progression will be handled. I'm betting that your attack bonus will simply equal your total levels, regardless of your classes.

Here's why I think this:

• Wizards should never need to fire a crossbow
• The focus on roles
• The martial characters will probably have other ways of increasing their attack modifiers via feats, talents, maneuvers, etc.
• The focus on simplifying everything

If a class's role isn't martial, it will probably be at a different disadvantage in combat, so being able to potentially hit isn't much of a threat to the martial characters.

Thoughts?

What about multiclass characters ?

 

[Shade]

What about multiclass characters ?

I don't see a problem. A theoretical fighter/wizard would have the same base attack progression as a standard fighter, but would lag behind on all the other martial perks the straight fighter would have attained.

 

[The Souljourner]

I hope this is not the case. The martial classes are differentiated by their superior ability to land a blow... the wizard shouldn't be just as good. If you mean "everyone gets 1/2 level BAB and fighters get a feat every odd level for +1 BAB", then I think that would be fine. But I don't want a fighter and a wizard to both be able to shoot a crossbow equally well at 10th level, and just have the wizard not bother because he has better things to do.

-Nate

 

[Alnag]

Well... if Wizards will roll for attack with spells this would make some sense...

 

[Intrope]

I doubt this, but I could believe that we'll see the same BABs as in Saga: the Full and the 3/4. Even the Noble gets 3/4! No 1/2 BAB to be had.

On the other hand, Iron Heroes had a 5/4, 1/1, and 3/4 BAB system--but that was to offset the lack of magic so the bonus scale would be close to the normal d20 (so you could use at least some monsters from D&D as is). I kind of doubt they'll do this.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I've seen debate in numerous threads on how base attack progression will be handled. I'm betting that your attack bonus will simply equal your total levels, regardless of your classes.

Thoughts?

Don't think this will be the case and its actually the first simplification that I wouldn't like. I like my Fighter types being more able warriors without having to spend skills and enhancing those abilities. If its done elegantly, I probably wouldn't mind. At first glance though, me no likey.

 

[takasi]

It would certainly make more sense to me, especially when the focus is on the weapons wielded and special abilities that fighter types will receive (like Bo9S).

Even if a wizard and fighter had the same BAB, the fighter with the composite longbow is going to do better than the wizard with the crossbow.

And in my group, I have several players who have built near full base attack characters casting 9th level spells by multiclassing and taking prestige classes. It really doesn't make them better fighters, IMO.

 

[The Souljourner]

Iin my group, I have several players who have built near full base attack characters casting 9th level spells by multiclassing and taking prestige classes. It really doesn't make them better fighters, IMO.

Of course it does, why do you think they take six different classes to try to get full casting and almost full BAB? If BAB doesn't make you a better fighter, why not play your wizard like a fighter?

Ever play a fighter and multiclass into a 3/4 BAB class and lose that one BAB? It makes a big difference. You get feats later, you get multiple attacks later, and +1 to hit is actually fairly significant over the course of a campaign.

At level 10, it's a difference of 5 BAB between the fighter and the wizard. How can that not make the fighter better?

If they had the same BAB, a wizard and a fighter would be undifferentiated when wielding any random weapon, and that should not be the case, no way no how.

-Nate

 

[takasi]

Ever play a fighter and multiclass into a 3/4 BAB class and lose that one BAB?

Apples and oranges. A cleric has 3/4 BAB and can be a better fighter than a fighter.

The question is, do a few points make a difference if you're playing a Warblade? You're still going to be better than a vanilla 3.x fighter.

If they had the same BAB, a wizard and a fighter would be undifferentiated when wielding any random weapon, and that should not be the case, no way no how.

Any random weapon is not the same thing. A wizard with a greatsword (not proficient) is not going to be nearly as effective as a fighter power attacking with a greatword.

In fact, base attack is almost always traded by a fighter for things like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, IME. So trading it "down" by raising everyone else "up" to simplify the system makes no difference as long as the fighter always does more damage or has weapons that do unique, powerful things.