Upper Krust, where are you? [Immortal's Handbook]

[Upper_Krust]

Joyeux Noel mon ami!

Just a thought on your idea of putting back the fighter bab to +1/level after level 20.

Okay...

Your point was that it doesn't even do what it was meant to do, i.e. to keep the attack bonus of all character within the same range, and you pointed the exemple of the generic NPC in the ELH who have a difference of more than 20 in their attack bonus.

Thats correct, although that was simply to overturn WotCs (flawed) reasoning on the matter; my real reason was because I don't believe Fighters should have lower BAB than Beasts; Elementals; Outsiders etc.

I'd prefer that you let it as it is, because some of my player who play mage prefer to have them wielding a bastard sword and gauntlet of ogre strength, instead of a wand of fireball and a pearl of power. i.e. those character have a difference with the fighter attack bonus of only the difference between their bab.

But their BAB isn't going to change at all!?

If they've got to 50th-level as a Wizard primarily wielding a bastard sword then they must be a trans-class-ual (a fighter trapped in a wizards body in this case). Does the Wizard like to dress up in armour!?

hum....

BUMP!

Hopefully I'll have a Christmas present for you all soon in the shape of this CR/EL pdf.

 

[Blacksad]

Joyeux Noel mon ami!

Happy Xmas U_K!

Thats correct, although that was simply to overturn WotCs (flawed) reasoning on the matter;

not flawed for my players

my real reason was because I don't believe Fighters should have lower BAB than Beasts; Elementals; Outsiders etc.

I can understand this if you allow those creatures to advance (i.e. one more hit dice) when they get a new level (instead of a class level).

But an easier solution would be to rise their LA if they can be played as PC to take into account the advantage of monster advancement (i.e. calculating their LA based on the max advancement, then reducing based on their minimum hit dice).

After all, beast, elementals and outsider get a natural bab, they did not learn it, and their LA is altered accordingly if they can be played

But their BAB isn't going to change at all!?

If they've got to 50th-level as a Wizard primarily wielding a bastard sword then they must be a trans-class-ual (a fighter trapped in a wizards body in this case). Does the Wizard like to dress up in armour!?

That's it, they have at level 20 or 50 a difference of 10 between their Bab, and if the wizard dress like a fighter they have a difference of 10 between their attack bonus.

If it is a standard mage, the difference between their attack bonus is above 20.

I sometimes DM small group with not enough fighter to protect the mage, or mage who don't like summoning spell, in this case taking a level of fighter to be able to wield the +4 bastard sword that the fighter doesn't use anymore, and taking the still spell (to dress up in armour) feat are one, not completly crazy, solution.

But the problem isn't only with mage and combatants, rogue are often in melee also, so if you change fighter back, you need to change back all the other (if you want to delay the too big difference between classes), and you'll have situation where the fighter always hit and the rogue never (and the rogue tend to at least keep a ranged attack bonus on par with the fighter melee attack bonus).

Hopefully I'll have a Christmas present for you all soon in the shape of this CR/EL pdf.

Yeah!!!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Happy Xmas U_K!

Merci beaucoup mon ami!

not flawed for my players

...still, two wrongs don't make a right. I can't advocate something I believe to be incorrect.

I can understand this if you allow those creatures to advance (i.e. one more hit dice) when they get a new level (instead of a class level).

But an easier solution would be to rise their LA if they can be played as PC to take into account the advantage of monster advancement (i.e. calculating their LA based on the max advancement, then reducing based on their minimum hit dice).

After all, beast, elementals and outsider get a natural bab, they did not learn it, and their LA is altered accordingly if they can be played

Monster BAB is intrinsic, yes. But the fighter does learn his, and the fighter should be the (at least equal) best.

That's it, they have at level 20 or 50 a difference of 10 between their Bab, and if the wizard dress like a fighter they have a difference of 10 between their attack bonus.

If it is a standard mage, the difference between their attack bonus is above 20.

I sometimes DM small group with not enough fighter to protect the mage, or mage who don't like summoning spell, in this case taking a level of fighter to be able to wield the +4 bastard sword that the fighter doesn't use anymore, and taking the still spell (to dress up in armour) feat are one, not completly crazy, solution.

Your players seem to want to both have their cake and eat it!

If they are determined to play a sword swinging mages I suggest they multi-class.

But the problem isn't only with mage and combatants, rogue are often in melee also, so if you change fighter back, you need to change back all the other (if you want to delay the too big difference between classes), and you'll have situation where the fighter always hit and the rogue never (and the rogue tend to at least keep a ranged attack bonus on par with the fighter melee attack bonus).

Armour Class (at Epic Levels) does not advance at the same rate as BAB.

Yeah!!!

I have the first six (of either seven* or eight**) pages finished.

*Appendix Two: Revised Challenge Ratings

**Appendix Three: Revised Spells

I have tweaked the layout slightly to the point where I am happy with it. I have multiple styles but I don't plan on releasing them (they are simply shallow derivatives of existing designs).

One minor technical point (for Europeans that is); the layout is in US Letter format (not A4). On my printer (seemingly stuck at 5mm margins...?) I seem to lose about 1mm off the outside of the page (essentially a decorative though functional peice of vertically running text). I may make a few slight changes to compensate...I don't want to cause my European friends any distress.

 

[Blacksad]

Merci beaucoup mon ami!

de rien

...still, two wrongs don't make a right. I can't advocate something I believe to be incorrect.

Well, this problem has already been mentioned before, you do not make a book for your campaign, but a book for anyone campaign, and the normal rules allow wizards and fighter to have attack bonus close to each other if they so choose, changing that, change some part of the game, and require to alter some campaign to fit the book, or to change (large?) parts of the book to fit the campaign, either way it requires more work from some DM, while if you keep it as it is, it could be used by anyone.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Bonjour mon ami!

Well, this problem has already been mentioned before,

...and was easily rebuked by my counter argument.

In fact your argument at this juncture is unfounded (as it was whenever the previous poster made such a claim). This mechanic is an objective rather than subjective point.

you do not make a book for your campaign, but a book for anyone campaign,

I agree. But in so doing I have to state what I think is in the best interest of the majority of people.

and the normal rules allow wizards and fighter to have attack bonus close to each other if they so choose

They can still have that if they so wish.

changing that, change some part of the game, and require to alter some campaign to fit the book, or to change (large?) parts of the book to fit the campaign, either way it requires more work from some DM, while if you keep it as it is, it could be used by anyone.

I don't see it as a large change. I have already refuted WotCs reasoning for changing BAB post 20th-level. Additionally I have also given my reasoning for the reversal.

I might be swayed by a convincing argument on a subjective point, but on an objective mechanical observation someone is going to have to outline where my thinking is flawed?

 

[Blacksad]

Bonjour mon ami!

Salut!

They can still have that if they so wish.

uh? if all the magic items a fighter has grant him a +30 attack bonus, those same items will grant a +30 attack bonus to the wizard, and if their bab difference is greater than 20 (like what begins to happen at level 40), they can't have an attack bonus difference of +10

 

[Upper_Krust]

Bonjour encore mon ami!

uh? if all the magic items a fighter has grant him a +30 attack bonus, those same items will grant a +30 attack bonus to the wizard, and if their bab difference is greater than 20 (like what begins to happen at level 40), they can't have an attack bonus difference of +10

I meant if you wanted to retain WotCs flawed route you could.

I still don't think the greatest wizard in the universe should be even remotely approaching the combat prowess of the greatest fighter, and yes I do think the higher you ascend the greater the distinction should be.

Fighters don't cast spells so I don't see why Wizards should competantly wield weapons. Magic items already blur the lines between both sufficiently.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I might be swayed by a convincing argument on a subjective point, but on an objective mechanical observation someone is going to have to outline where my thinking is flawed?

Just thought I'd chime in - you may have already addressed this point.

I see more of a problem with clerics and rogues than with wizards - at 3/4 BAB, there will be a 20 point BAB difference between them and fighters at level 80. They will no longer be effective in combat.

Have you considered giving all monsters with more than 20HD/levels epic progression in their BAB (i.e. +1/2 levels), rather than reengineering class BAB?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Sepulchrave II!

Just thought I'd chime in - you may have already addressed this point.

Sure, fire away.

I see more of a problem with clerics and rogues than with wizards - at 3/4 BAB, there will be a 20 point BAB difference between them and fighters at level 80. They will no longer be effective in combat.

A popular misconception. Armour Class does not ascend at the same rate as BAB.

What is more likely is that you will encounter three types of Armour Class: Low; Medium and High; much akin to the Wizard; Cleric/Rogue and Fighter BAB progression.

Have you considered giving all monsters with more than 20HD/levels epic progression in their BAB (i.e. +1/2 levels), rather than reengineering class BAB?

Either is supposedly plausible (I don't see one ultimate solution presenting itself).

Your idea means rewriting the BAB of many monsters, whereas my own means reworking NPCs and PCs.

The reason I would advocate my own is simply that I am convinced there should be an ever increasing combat distinction between Fighters and Wizards otherwise you are making the Fighter class redundant (something Blacksad seemingly wanted to do).

 

[Blacksad]

err, the fighter will still be a balanced class.

Bab isn't the only thing measuring the fighter skill.

An ever increasing number of feat will allow the fighter to attack everyone in a 15ft radius, or to cleave an army of advanced orc.

Fighter will still be better fighter than wizard.

But IME, it isn't fun at all to give abilities that can't be used to a character and say that it is balanced (think paladin or ranger spell in 2e), to allow for the possibility of having a difference of 35 between the fighter Bab and the wizard Bab, will mean that when the lowest attack of the fighter hit, the highest attack of the wizard won't have any use, at this point, why give a Bab to the wizard? To fight goblins? They'll be toasted with one epic fireball, or killed by the fighter through epic cleaving.

The wizard "high" bab allow to have fun with the group in an anti-magic zone with an assassin who has a high AC, if he want to kill the wizard, he can still hit te assassin sometimes with his dagger.

I can think of many circumstances in which the ability of the wizard to sometimes hit a creature (because the wizard doesn't have any spell left) is more fun for the game than having a fighter who always hit and character who sometimes, or the fighter who sometimes hit, and the other who never.

Plus, by putting back the fighter Bab advancement, you'll need to alter his epic feat selection, to balance him with the other classes between level 20 and 40 (the range in which WotC focused to balance things).

Consider the paladin, with their ability to take the improved spellcasting feat once they have level 9 spell slot, they'll have good bab, and slighty reduced spellcasting abilities compared to a cleric, while if you let it as is, the paladin has slighty better BaB, and the cleric slighty better spellcasting.

and AC ascend a the rate the DM wish it to ascend on monster , after all the CR of monster is based on the challenge they represent vs a typical group of 4 adventurers, and if only the fighter can hit the thing with its highest attack, then it might have a higher CR than a monster that everyone can hit.

Or are you speaking of the AC of adventurer based on their spell and items?
If so, you can balance their AC the way you like based on the formula you use to have the value of their gear in gold pieces.