Why do casters get BAB?

[Buugipopuu]

Anything with a BAB prerequisite of more than +9 is unobtainable by a Wizard, since they get their last feat at 18th level, and lesser BAB requirements also lock out wizards of the ends of certain feat trees due to having to start them as late as 15th level. Your list of feats with explicit fighter level requirements is missing Melee Weapon Mastery, Ranged Weapon Mastery, Slashing Flurry, Driving Attack, Crushing Strike and Weapon Supremacy, and that's just looking at PHBII.

And your continued insistence that Wizards are 50% as good at fighting as Fighters ignores the fact that fighters, over their careers, get 18 feats while Wizards get 7, and will need to blow five of those on martial weapon proficiency, shield proficiency and heavy armour proficiency before they can claim to be as good at fighting as a Fighter of half their level, leaving them with 2 feats. And then there's the HD disparity, which means Wizards are 3 hp per level down against Fighters. A 10th level Fighter will have the same BAB as a 20th level Wizard, but 8 more hitpoints, and the equivalent of 8 feats over the Wizard (The Wizard gets 7, while the Fighter gets 4 from HD, 6 from class levels and 5 from proficiencies which the Wizard has to buy). In fact, an 8th level Fighter can be really suboptimal and get Improved Toughness, Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus to have the same attack bonus as a 20th level Wizard, still have 5 more hitpoints, and has 5 feats to spend to the Wizard's two. If we pretend for a second that Great Strength is a sub-Epic feat, the Fighter can spend three of his excess feats on that to compensate for the Wizard's extra ability score increases, and we get two characters who are almost the same. The Fighter will win slightly more than 50% of the time in combat due to his higher HP total. 20th level is the most favourable level for this comparison to be made. The lower the level, the more the Fighter's proficiencies count. So, at best, a Wizard optimised for combat is slightly worse than a poorly optimised Fighter of two-fifths his level (not 50%, as you claim).

And if you really want 50% casting progressions, there are core classes for that, Paladin and Ranger. Fighter gives up that in order to generally kick the arses of both of those in a straight-up fight.

 

[kitcik]

<stuff about wizards getting hosed on feats, arguments that I have not set forth, 8th level fighters being better at melee than 20th level wizards, and suggesting paladins and rangers really have 50% casting of full casters>
quote]

Look, you disagree with me. Just leave it at that and stop littering my thread with this garbage. For some reason, you feel the need to criticize my ideas day after day even after I AGREED with your primary criticism.

Plus, you are arguing against points I didn't even make - it's like you are arguing for no other reason than to argue.

Admin here. This is where this thread went wrong. Look, if people disagree with your premise but are being polite about it, you don't have the right to tell them to push off. No one has been rude up to now, they just haven't agreed with you. This extremely rude posts triggers all the later problems. In the future, if someone says something you don't like just ignore them or Ignore them. - Piratecat

If you think a 20 level fighter build is better at melee than a 20 level wizard build focused on melee, you are mistaken. Go start that thread somewhere else, though.

 

[Umbran]

Casters gain XP for fights whether or not they melee. If they never melee, why does their BAB increase.

Yep. And the fighter gets XP for an encounter if the rogue and the bard *talk* the party through it without anyone taking a single HP of damage.

Wizards MAY, pursuant to the rules, have high STR and take fighter feats (albeit less of them).

Fighters MAY NOT get spells.

So? There's that arbitrary symmetry again.

I've a friend with two kids. When those kids were very young, at the holidays the number of presents they got mattered. If you didn't want to see one of them have a crying, screaming, whining breakdown, they needed to have the same number of packages under the tree. It didn't really matter what was inside the package - the children didn't have a way to judge value except by number of packages, so to be "fair" in their eyes, that number had to be the same.

These days, the kids are more sophisticated, and they worry more about how much fun the presents are than how many of them there are.

I see this as much the same - what matters, in the end, is not exclusivity, but the final behavior of the classes in play.

.... I still think that a wizard learning to melee 1/2 as well as a fighter is absurd.

Well, as others have noted, the wizard doesn't really melee 1/2 as well as the fighter. BAB is not the only measure of how well the fighter fights. In 3e, for example, the fighter will generally have a boatload more melee-related feats than the wizard, and generally more than twice as many hit points.

If you tell the wizard to go get into melee, he will generally remain standing for less than half as many rounds, and dish out less than half the damage in the process.

 

[Buugipopuu]

Look, you disagree with me. Just leave it at that and stop littering my thread with this garbage. For some reason, you feel the need to criticize my ideas day after day even after I AGREED with your primary criticism.

You agreeing with me on one point doesn't suddenly make all the other things you're saying less wrong.

And at this point, you should have reported the thread instead of arguing back at him. - Piratecat

Plus, you are arguing against points I didn't even make - it's like you are arguing for no other reason than to argue.

So all those posts where you claimed Wizards were half as good as fighters don't exist? I was showing that they're not nearly half as good as fighters at melee (barring them just casting Shapechange or Tenser's Transformation, which is another issue entirely).

If you think a 20 level fighter build is better at melee than a 20 level wizard build focused on melee, you are mistaken. Go start that thread somewhere else, though.

Heh, you call someone out for 'arguing points [you] didn't make' and then post this. Pots and kettles. I didn't claim this anywhere.

and suggesting paladins and rangers really have 50% casting of full casters

They have 50% casting in the same way that Wizards have 50% melee i.e., 50% in theory, significantly less in practice.

 

[kitcik]

Yep. And the fighter gets XP for an encounter if the rogue and the bard *talk* the party through it without anyone taking a single HP of damage.

Yes, but as the wizard gains XP, she gains BAB. As the fighter gains XP, she does not gain cross-class (bard/rogue) skills. So, you have actually made my point.

So? There's that arbitrary symmetry again.

I've a friend with two kids. When those kids were very young, at the holidays the number of presents they got mattered. If you didn't want to see one of them have a crying, screaming, whining breakdown, they needed to have the same number of packages under the tree. It didn't really matter what was inside the package - the children didn't have a way to judge value except by number of packages, so to be "fair" in their eyes, that number had to be the same.

These days, the kids are more sophisticated, and they worry more about how much fun the presents are than how many of them there are.

I see this as much the same - what matters, in the end, is not exclusivity, but the final behavior of the classes in play.

Exactly. And, as I have said over and over, the point of the thread is to boost melee characters so they are (a teeny bit) closer to caster power. While removing BAB may be seen as "arbitrary symmetry" - casters get spells, melee gets BAB - IMHO it would be good for melee people to have something "exclusive" just as a mechanic to add meaningful bonuses such that the "final behavior of the classes in play" is more equal.

For casters, it is possible to raise and lower their power by addressing the mechanics of their exclusive ability - spells. For the most part, you can do this without interfering with the abilities of other classes. For example, banning Polymorph or increasing its casting time does not impact a monk.

For melee guys, as has been pointed out many times, whatever you give them bonuses based on, also impacts casters. This makes it difficult to tweak their mechanics without making up a bunch of new rules.

So, I am saying to give them an exclusive mechanic not for the sake of abitrary symmetry but rather because an exclusive mechanic would make them easier to tweak from a game design perspective.

Well, as others have noted, the wizard doesn't really melee 1/2 as well as the fighter. BAB is not the only measure of how well the fighter fights. In 3e, for example, the fighter will generally have a boatload more melee-related feats than the wizard, and generally more than twice as many hit points.

If you tell the wizard to go get into melee, he will generally remain standing for less than half as many rounds, and dish out less than half the damage in the process.

Think about this after maximum self-buffs.

But that's not the point, as you have quoted me out of context. The point is that wizards pick up BAB, the ability to hit in melee, at half the rate of fighters despite doing what, on average, 2% as much melee combat? Less?

 

[kitcik]

In fact, an 8th level Fighter can... have the same attack bonus as a 20th level Wizard, still have 5 more hitpoints, and has 5 feats to spend to the Wizard's two... The Fighter will win slightly more than 50% of the time in combat due to his higher HP total. 20th level is the most favourable level for this comparison to be made. The lower the level, the more the Fighter's proficiencies count. So, at best, a Wizard optimised for combat is slightly worse than a poorly optimised Fighter of two-fifths his level (not 50%, as you claim).

If you think a 20 level fighter build is better at melee than a 20 level wizard build focused on melee, you are mistaken. Go start that thread somewhere else, though.

Heh, you call someone out for 'arguing points [you] didn't make' and then post this. Pots and kettles. I didn't claim this anywhere.

OK, I guess you didn't. LMAO.

So all those posts where you claimed Wizards were half as good as fighters don't exist? I was showing that they're not nearly half as good as fighters at melee (barring them just casting Shapechange or Tenser's Transformation, which is another issue entirely).

1) See my response to Umbran - you are intentionally quoting me out of context to make a straw-man argument (now I sound like Arrowhawk, LOL).
2) Why is that another issue entirely? If the fighter gets credit for their feats, the castre should get credit for their self-buffs.

 

[Buugipopuu]

OK, I guess you didn't. LMAO.

That was without spells, which should have been obvious, since the this is a discussion about BAB, and with spells, a Wizard doesn't even need BAB, since he gets a spell which replaces is BAB.

1) See my response to Umbran - you are intentionally quoting me out of context to make a straw-man argument (now I sound like Arrowhawk, LOL).

There's no context that makes your claims any less silly. You've mentioned Wizards being "fully 1/2 as good as someone dedicated to fighting" several times, and this simply is not the case.

2) Why is that another issue entirely? If the fighter gets credit for their feats, the castre should get credit for their self-buffs.

For starters, as above, because Tenser's Transformation makes the Wizard's actual BAB irrelevant if you're allowing self-buffs, they could get negative infinite BAB at every level and it wouldn't matter, and because this argument is about whether Wizards should pick up rudimentary melee skills as they level up, not about what they should and shouldn't be able to do with spells.

But that's not the point, as you have quoted me out of context. The point is that wizards pick up BAB, the ability to hit in melee, at half the rate of fighters despite doing what, on average, 2% as much melee combat? Less?

It's almost like practice in stuff has diminishing returns, or something. In the Experience it takes a Wizard to earn his 10th point of BAB (37,000) a 1st level character can get to level 9 and have a thousand to spare. And that's not even factoring in how much easier it is to gain Exp at low level (which can make an order of magnitude difference or more). In terms of numerical benefit, Poor BAB may only be half as good as Good BAB (well, since Iterative Attacks are a thing, it's a good bit worse than that before you even factor in things like proficiencies, hit dice and bonus feats), but in terms of experience invested it's much much worse.

 

[kitcik]

There's no context that makes your claims any less silly. You've mentioned Wizards being "fully 1/2 as good as someone dedicated to fighting" several times, and this simply is not the case.

If you want to arrgue like a 2-year-old, do it somewhere else please.

For starters, as above, because Tenser's Transformation makes the Wizard's actual BAB irrelevant if you're allowing self-buffs, they could get negative infinite BAB at every level and it wouldn't matter, and because this argument is about whether Wizards should pick up rudimentary melee skills as they level up, not about what they should and shouldn't be able to do with spells.

So stop talking about fighter feats.
How many sides does your mouth have, anyways?

It's almost like practice in stuff has diminishing returns, or something. In the Experience it takes a Wizard to earn his 10th point of BAB (37,000) a 1st level character can get to level 9 and have a thousand to spare. And that's not even factoring in how much easier it is to gain Exp at low level (which can make an order of magnitude difference or more). In terms of numerical benefit, Poor BAB may only be half as good as Good BAB (well, since Iterative Attacks are a thing, it's a good bit worse than that before you even factor in things like proficiencies, hit dice and bonus feats), but in terms of experience invested it's much much worse.

Huh? With the same amount of XP, they have 1/2 full BAB. Period. Both types of classes have equally diminishing returns.

I will grant you the point on iterative attacks - giving casters zero BAB would mean one less attack per round for wizards of 12th+ level.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, but as the wizard gains XP, she gains BAB. As the fighter gains XP, she does not gain cross-class (bard/rogue) skills. So, you have actually made my point.

No, I didn't, as apparently you didn't get mine.

Anyone in game gets better at things merely by being present. They need to be ready, and take the risk, but technically they never need to take action to gain XP and levels. That fighter could, by the (3e) rules, tag along with the bard, loom impressively when the bard needs an assist on Intimidate checks, never draw a blade, and reach 10th level, with accordant BAB, HP, feats, etc. This is, of course, patently absurd if you think about that as a real-world scenario.

Was it not you who said that it is a mechanic, not a life simulator? I'm agreeing with you there. It is a mechanic - there's lots about it that is, when you look really closely, absurd. But we need it to be a mechanic, because life is too complicated to simulate, and we aren't simulating "real life" anyway!

Let's not look at it that closely. Back off for a minute, and look at it instead more in what is expected in the general context. The fighter probably isn't going to stand there doing nothing for 10 levels, so that edge case isn't really an issue.

Likewise, that wizard is not, in fact, going to resist taking a few potshots that need a to-hit roll. Some spells require it, and sometimes circumstance will just make it the best bet for the moment. BAB is general ability to hit. The wizard does a little of that, so they get a little improvement as time goes on. The fighter does a lot more, and so he gains more. Nothing patently unreasonable there.

Exactly. And, as I have said over and over, the point of the thread is to boost melee characters so they are (a teeny bit) closer to caster power.

There are ways to do that without digging so deeply into the guts of the system. I think you see resistance largely because you claim the "mechanics need fixing", when in fact this particular mechanic has done pretty well in largely the same form for a couple of decades now. Your argument of theory and esthetics is hard up against empirical evidence from practice.

Think about this after maximum self-buffs.

I am thinking about it in those terms. In general, wizards are not known for buffing up and stealing the fighter's melee thunder. If your beef was with Clerics and Druids (who have better BAB than wizards, and different spell lists) who are known for builds that steal melee thunder, then you'd have a point.

But Wizards? Nope. Sorry. "The wizard hits too often," is not a common complaint. As far as I can see, the problem you're attempting to fix doesn't actually exist in practice. The wizard's BAB is simply not the issue, and removing it won't fix the problems that high-level wizards commonly present.

The point is that wizards pick up BAB, the ability to hit in melee, at half the rate of fighters despite doing what, on average, 2% as much melee combat? Less?

It is a mechanic, not a life simulator.

 

[Buugipopuu]

If you want to arrgue like a 2-year-old, do it somewhere else please.

Either back up your claims or don't say anything at all. Continuing to post but doing nothing but name-calling isn't getting you anywhere.

So stop talking about fighter feats.
How many sides does your mouth have, anyways?

Why should I? If you want to make claims that Wizards having 1/2 BAB alone makes them 'fully as 1/2 as good' as dedicated fighters then you have to consider everything that dedicated fighters get. If you're not considering bonus feats, then why are you mentioning Fighter? The Warrior class still exists, you know. Although Wizards aren't even as good as a Warrior of half their level due to proficiencies (even if they do end up with slightly more hp).

Huh? With the same amount of XP, they have 1/2 full BAB. Period. Both types of classes have equally diminishing returns.

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point; you should probably work on your reading comprehension. Either that or you're being deliberately ignorant, which is a common tactic used by people who don't want to admit that they're wrong. The amount of effort it takes for a Wizard to get a given BAB isn't twice that required by a Fighter, it between 4 and 80 times as much, depending on the level of the monsters encountered.