Tweaked save/BAB progression

[Kerrick]

This is an oddball idea I had while I was working on some revised classes. I've always wondered why D&D never had a moderate save, though it was easy enough to figure one out (half class level -1). I got to comparing the save progressions - Good saves are 1/2 level +2, Moderate are 1/2 level -1, and Poor are 1/3 level (or 60%, 45%, and 30%). That's a pretty big spread, which results in a huge disparity at higher levels. So I thought about tweaking them a bit:

Good save is 1/2 level +1 (55%);

Moderate save is 1/2 level (50%);

Poor save is 1/2 level -1 (45%).

This results in much closer saves, at all levels - the gap between high and low saves is never more than 2 points, as opposed to the ever-widening gap we have now (if you take the normal progressions past 20th, it's 16 points between good and poor at 80th level, in case anyone cares). High saves lose a point at all levels, and poor saves lose a point at low levels, but they regain it (and then some) at 8th level and beyond.


BAB was a little different - since it goes 100/75/50, I didn't want to drop the high progression (and bone the fighters), so I bumped the lower ones up slightly - 80 and 60, respectively. So, at 10th level, it goes +10/+8/+6; at 20th, it's +20/+16/+12. Unfortunately, the gap keeps widening at higher levels - the difference at 40th is 16 points - but it gives the lower ABs a slightly better chance in combat.

 

[WhatGravitas]

BAB was a little different - since it goes 100/75/50, I didn't want to drop the high progression (and bone the fighters), so I bumped the lower ones up slightly - 80 and 60, respectively. So, at 10th level, it goes +10/+8/+6; at 20th, it's +20/+16/+12. Unfortunately, the gap keeps widening at higher levels - the difference at 40th is 16 points - but it gives the lower ABs a slightly better chance in combat.

Why don't you adapt your save progression doubled:

Good BAB: Level +2
Medium BAB: Level
Poor BAB: Level -2

This gives a 4 point spread, which is enough to differentiate the classes significantly. Then get rid of iterative attacks and instead add the BAB to damage - or, if you insist on keeping iterative attacks, implement them as a class feature (similar to the flurry of blows).
If you add BAB to damage, then increase hit points a bit, as it's a power-up on the lower levels.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Arkhandus]

......not everything has to be handled like 4E or Star Wars Saga Edition. -_- Iterative attacks aren't just for hitting the same target multiple times each round, they're important for mooks or when you need to hit (or trip, or disarm...) multiple enemies in a round. And it shouldn't cost a feat. It does NOT take 6 seconds to swing a sword and pull it back, unless you're some scrawny kid trying to use a greatsword made for a muscular, full-grown man. Any experienced fighter should be able to aim and strike effectively several times in a 6-second period.

Kerrick: Seems fine in general, though it means saving throws won't often be failed (except at low levels/HD). The BAB thing isn't a problem if you use the 3e epic level rules for attack and save bonuses; BAB stops increasing after 20th level, and a +1 epic attack bonus is added to attack rolls for each odd-numbered (IIRC) level gained beyond 20th. Saves do the same past 20th level, but the epic save bonus is +1 for each even-numbered level gained beyond 20th.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Actually, I seem to recall the official medium save progression went more like 5/12 per level, with a +1 bump at 1st. Of course, poor is 4/12 per level; good, 6/12 per level, with a +2 bump at 1st. I also used fractional save progressions back then, so having it written out like that helped. Mind you, I ignored all save bumps beyond 1st character level too. No goofy save totals simply because of wacky multiclassing choices, thank you very much.

Anyway, I moved to another progression method after that, but if you need a point of reference, I believe that's the way medium saves are, in WotC d20 books.

 

[Kerrick]

Why don't you adapt your save progression doubled:

Good BAB: Level +2
Medium BAB: Level
Poor BAB: Level -2

I was going to do that for saves, actually, but the Low save would've ended up being +0 for the first 5 levels.

Kerrick: Seems fine in general, though it means saving throws won't often be failed (except at low levels/HD).

Yeah, that's one problem I noted - the saves are a bit too close. Maybe I'll try level +2, level +0, and level -1.

The BAB thing isn't a problem if you use the 3e epic level rules for attack and save bonuses; BAB stops increasing after 20th level, and a +1 epic attack bonus is added to attack rolls for each odd-numbered (IIRC) level gained beyond 20th. Saves do the same past 20th level, but the epic save bonus is +1 for each even-numbered level gained beyond 20th.

I know how that works - I'm trying to find a way to get around it, because it causes as many problems as it fixes. I think the only way to keep the progression into infinity and still have lower ABs be viable is to keep all of them within 15-20% of each other (see the saves).

Actually, I seem to recall the official medium save progression went more like 5/12 per level, with a +1 bump at 1st. Of course, poor is 4/12 per level; good, 6/12 per level, with a +2 bump at 1st.

Okay... that's slightly lower than what I have (41% vs. 45%), but I think mine fits better (like I said, 60%/45%/30%). It goes 0,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8,9.

 

[Kerrick]

I sat down and wrote up a list of the problems with both BAB and saves, mostly at high levels, and some solutions. The conclusion I came to is rather radical, and I'm not totally sure myself that it would work, so don't flame me.

Attack Bonus:

BAB, at high (epic) levels, becomes "either you hit it or you don't" - either the target's AC is low enough to hit it (almost) all the time, or high enough that you (almost) never hit it unless you're making touch attacks. With multiple attacks and a descending AB, a high AB will generally definitely (90%+) hit with the 1st, maybe (70%) the second (and third, if you have a high AB), and probably not (20%) the fourth, if you have one. A mid-AB will probably (70%) hit with the first attack, and maybe (40%) with the second. A low AB - good luck hitting anything besides touch AC.

At high level, the sheer number of attacks granted by BAB tends to bog down play. 4/round is bad; having TWF makes it even worse (I've played a L30 rogue with 8 attacks/round - it was horrid, especially since my hit percentage went something like 50%/20%/0%).

PCs' ACs don't scale nearly as high or as quickly as monsters'. It's very hard for a PC to get an AC above 30-35, while monsters go to the 50's, 60's, and even higher for some.

ABs scale so quickly that the designers felt the need to put in a different progression at 21st+ level - the EAB. Which, of course, leads to problems all on its own, like the infamous Ftr 20/Wiz 20 vs. the Wiz 20/Ftr 20.


Solutions:

Reduce monster AC at high levels. This is easy to do, and probably should be done anyway - most creatures in the ELH get crazy high natural armor (around twice as much as they should have), and many get huge insight bonuses (not undeserved, but still more than they should be, IMO).

Reduce BAB progression, in conjunction with the above. If done properly, AB could scale infinitely, eliminating the need for a different progression at epic.


Saves:

Saves at higher levels suffer the same problem as AB - either you have enough to make the save without blinking, or you have little to no chance of making it at all.

Spell DCs are seriously gimped. Even with Spell Focus, DCs for even 9th level spells are going to be in the mid-20s at best (10+9+2+6 or 7 for stat), unless you min-max the PC (and we're sticking with core rules here, so even that's difficult).

SLAs, likewise, are pretty well useless at high levels, because the PCs can usually shrug them off.


Solutions:

Boost save progressions, and make the difference between high and low a bit closer (not close enough that a low save is guaranteed to succeed against the same attack as a high save, but enough so that it will have a chance, maybe 20-30% without modifiers).

Change spell DCs to 10 + 1/2 level + ability mod. This doesn't really work with the existing saves because the DCs scale too quickly to keep up, but with boosted saves, it could do so.

 

[Kerrick]

I haven't solved the save problem yet, but I have come up with a solution to the EAB thing. See, you have to use the EAB - otherwise the attack bonus will overtake monster ACs. There's no way around that. BUT... I found that you can apply the EAB when the character's attack bonus hits 20, not his level, and it actually works better. Ftr 20/Wiz 20 vs. Wiz 20/Ftr 20? They have the same AB, then and from L41 on to infinity. This also allows for everyone to get 4 attacks - eventually - if you want.

Me, I'm going to try the idea my friend suggested - you don't get a second iterative attack till +10, but your second attack is at +5. It's kinda wonky, I know, but he argued that by the time you get that second attack, you're experienced enough to apply a follow-up to the first one, thus the bonus. You end up getting three attacks total, instead of four(+20/+15/+10), but that's plenty, IMO - that last one's going to be useless anyway.

 

[Arkhandus]

Huh? Wouldn't the third attack at +10 give a fourth at +5 though, with the way you described it?

I think sticking with the normal method for granting extra attacks would be fine (+6/+1 etc.), but change the attack progressions to be closer. Maybe the high BAB works as normal, while the medium BAB is equal to level - 3, and low BAB is equal to level -6, to a minimum of +0 BAB.

Or maybe, allow characters to forgo one of their iterative attacks each round to add its bonus to the previous attack's bonus, to a maximum bonus of their character level. So a 20th-level fighter couldn't give up his +15 attack for a boost to the main one, but he could give up his +10 attack to make the +15 attack a +20, or give up his +5 attack to make the +10 one a +15. A 20th-level wizard could give up their +5 attack to make their +10 attack a +15. A 20th-level rogue could give up their +10 attack to make their +15 a +20, or give up their +5 attack to make their +10 a +15.

This would allow them to hit tougher opponents like the fighter could, but at the expense of making fewer attacks. And allow the fighter to make one less attack in exchange for his second or third attack having a better chance against a high-AC target.

 

[Kerrick]

Huh? Wouldn't the third attack at +10 give a fourth at +5 though, with the way you described it?

No, no. What I mean is, you don't get a second iterative until +10. At that point, your BAB will be +10/+5, then +11/+6, etc. up to 20, when you get a third attack (+20/+15/+10). See, around 20th level, a fighter's first attack against a creature of the same CR has around a 45% chance of hitting (assuming normal gear, but no spell buffs). His second is 25%, and the third/fourth need a nat 20 to hit - having four attacks per round is pointless.

I think sticking with the normal method for granting extra attacks would be fine (+6/+1 etc.), but change the attack progressions to be closer. Maybe the high BAB works as normal, while the medium BAB is equal to level - 3, and low BAB is equal to level -6, to a minimum of +0 BAB.

I could try that. The immediate problem I can see is that mages wouldn't get an AB until L7, but they'd end up a good bit higher at 20th.

Or maybe, allow characters to forgo one of their iterative attacks each round to add its bonus to the previous attack's bonus, to a maximum bonus of their character level. So a 20th-level fighter couldn't give up his +15 attack for a boost to the main one, but he could give up his +10 attack to make the +15 attack a +20, or give up his +5 attack to make the +10 one a +15.

Now that's an interesting house rule. Problem is, like I outlined above, every fighter would be ditching his third (and maybe fourth) attacks to boost another, which would result in them getting two or three attacks/round anyway.

 

[Arkhandus]

Well, I specifically said allowing them to forgo ONE of their iterative attacks per round, not any number of times per round. A 20th-level rogue may attack at +20 and +5, or +15 and +15, or +15 and +10 and +5 as normal. Against mooks, or when he has a serious advantage over his opponent while sneak attacking, he may want that third attack rather than the boost on his second attack. For a fighter, it would likely only help against mooks and nothing else. But there's always a chance of success with the last iterative attack, so it does have a minor effect on the character's damage potential.

Another idea regarding one of those; maybe for the BAB=level, BAB=level-3, BAB=level-6 thing, maybe the minimum BAB for a character is equal to +0 or half his character level, rounded down? So a 2nd-level wizard (or a wizard 1/cleric 1, frex) would still have a +1 BAB; once he or she reached 4th-level, it'd be +2 as normal; at 6th-level, it would be +3 as normal. Past 6th-level, the rogue and such would come out ahead, but until then they'd be roughly on par with a wizard in attack bonus.