Why do casters get BAB?

[kitcik]

Let me start by saying that if we started a discussion about D&D mechanics from scratch, rather than starting from my "no BAB for casters" prop. I think we would be 95% in agreement based on your posts. That said, let me make a few points.

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.

I agree 100%.

Here is the point I am making: While the fighter improves on "general abilities" while standing around as the bard negotiates, he only improves his Diplomacy (bard-like) skill if he makes an extreme sacrifice of class skills in favor of cross-class skills. On the other hand, if the wizard improves on "general abilities" while lobbing spells (or while standing around when out of spells) as the fighter melees, the wizard improves his BAB (fighter-like melee ability) at no cost.

So, to me this is an argument for a wizard getting no BAB. Maybe not the be-all, end-all convincing argument, but at least AN argument. If the wizard wanted to gain a BAB by sacrificing a spell slot... well, that's another thread.

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.

Well, I agree with every word here except "a little" --> 50% is not a little. 5% is a little. Want to give the wiz 2 BAB over 20 levels? OK by me.

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.

Here is where we disagree because you are not looking at it form my angle. I am not trying to change the mechanics of BAB in any way or to nerf casters. Please, think about it this way even for a second:
- class balance existed somewhat in 1E for a number of reasons (although clerics were the exception)
- in 3E, casters came to power for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it is much harder to interrupt a spell
- so the mechanics of class balance have been disrupted
- removing casters BAB has little impact (other than touch spells), so it is not digging into the guts of the system. Casters' melee mechanics work the same as ever. They just have zero BAB.
- now melee'ers would have their own ability, like casters have spells, not for the purpose of symmetry, but for the purpose of haing a game mechanic to build off
- then you could grant bonuses based on BAB that become available to melee'ers, but not to casters since they don't have (enough) BAB [suggestions included in prior posts]

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.

Here is where you are being obtuse. I have stated time and time again that:
1) I don't see an issue with casters having BAB.
2) My proposal is not about nerfing casters or whether or not casters should have BAB.
3) The imbalance between casters and non-casters has nothing to do with BAB.
And yet, you keep arguing with me as if I have stated the exact opposite of those points. Why is that?

It is a mechanic, not a life simulator.

Exactly. So, on that note:
- casters don't really need BAB
- non-casters do need a unique ability for mechanical reasons.

Now, you seem very opposed to giving wizards zero BAB, for reasons I cannot comprehend. You agree BAB is a mechanic and is in some ways absurd compared to reality, but your only arguments for not wanting to give wizards zero BAB, as far as I can tell, are:
- wizards poke their nose into melee every once in a while (a realism argument), and
- wizards don't have too much BAB so why take it away

OK. So, let's try a new tactic. This is also better because it does no impact monsters.

Non-full-casting classes get "flair."
They get one point of flair per level of non-full-casting class.
For every point of flair, they get SR +1.
For every 2 points of flair, they get DR/+1 adamantite.
For every 2 points of flair, they get fast healing +1.
For every 4 points of flair, they get +1 untyped to initiative.
For every 5 points of flair, their 5' step increases 5'.
For every 5 points of flair, they get an extra partial action per round (to be better defined).
Etc.

 

[kitcik]

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.

Exactly! So stop posting!

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).

Look, pick one or the other:
- include feats and spells
- exclude feats and spells.
I was comparing how much BAB is gained, but if you want to compare overall melee ability gained, you have to consider the spell side of things.

Your apples to oranges arguments are boring and repetitive.

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.

WOW. OK.

If I am a wziard and have gained 190,000 XP I get BAB 10.
If I am a fighter and have gained 190,000 XP I get BAB 20.
Same effort.
10 x what number = 20?
I get 2.
You get between 4 and 80.
'nuff said.

 

[kitcik]

OK. So, let's try a new tactic. This is also better because it does no impact monsters.

Non-full-casting classes get "flair."
They get one point of flair per level of non-full-casting class.
For every point of flair, they get SR +1.
For every 2 points of flair, they get DR/+1 adamantite.
For every 2 points of flair, they get fast healing +1.
For every 4 points of flair, they get +1 untyped to initiative.
For every 5 points of flair, their 5' step increases 5'.
For every 5 points of flair, they get an extra partial action per round (to be better defined).
Etc.

Based on the following arguments, I am giving up on zero BAB for casters:
1) It would mess up touch spells.
2) Bonuses based on BAB would go to monsters.
3) Certain spells negate a lack of BAB and would be hard to adjudicate.

Now, I am on to "flair" (name based on the movie Office Space).

Thanks to everyone for making this my first 1,000 view thread.

 

[Buugipopuu]

Exactly! So stop posting!

I'm going to take your refusal to even address that point as an admission that you have no counter argument and that you're wrong.

Look, pick one or the other:
- include feats and spells
- exclude feats and spells.
I was comparing how much BAB is gained, but if you want to compare overall melee ability gained, you have to consider the spell side of things.

Your apples to oranges arguments are boring and repetitive.

No you weren't. If you were comparing how much BAB was gained, you would have said BAB, but you keep making references to holistic qualities such as 'melee ability' and giving examples about martial arts fans who've never done any fighting. And these arguments would have to apply to every class that wouldn't reasonably practice combat, such as Expert or Commoner, even if they don't get self-buffs. This false dichotomy you're presenting is just you trying to change your stance because it's been made obvious how ridiculous the one you previously held was.

WOW. OK.

If I am a wziard and have gained 190,000 XP I get BAB 10.
If I am a fighter and have gained 190,000 XP I get BAB 20.
Same effort.
10 x what number = 20?
I get 2.
You get between 4 and 80.
'nuff said.

Are you only reading one word in two or something? You just demonstrated that the Fighter has to spend as much effort gaining 20 BAB as the Wizard spends getting 10, which is irrelevant. That's not the amount of experience required to get to a given BAB, that's the amount of BAB you get from a given amount of experience. They're not the same thing. What you should be comparing is how much effort it takes for a Fighter to gain 10 BAB as it does for a Wizard to gain 10 BAB. A Wizard with 10 BAB has 4.22 times the Exp of a Fighter with 10 BAB, and depending on the availability of high-level encounters (campaign settings aren't actually packed full of level-appropriate encounters after all, that's a result of metagame actions on the part of DMs or players, and random encounter tables don't have much that give 20th level characters good experience), will actually have to do a lot more fighting to get each point of xp.

 

[kitcik]

I'm going to take your refusal to even address that point as an admission that you have no counter argument and that you're wrong.

No you weren't. If you were comparing how much BAB was gained, you would have said BAB, but you keep making references to holistic qualities such as 'melee ability' and giving examples about martial arts fans who've never done any fighting. And these arguments would have to apply to every class that wouldn't reasonably practice combat, such as Expert or Commoner, even if they don't get self-buffs. This false dichotomy you're presenting is just you trying to change your stance because it's been made obvious how ridiculous the one you previously held was.

I am tired of your string of nonsensical, needlessly argumentative, and personally insulting posts. I may get thread-banned from my own thread, but at this point I must call it as I see it - you are a jerk.

This is all nonsense, and anyone who reads the thread will see it.

Are you only reading one word in two or something? You just demonstrated that the Fighter has to spend as much effort gaining 20 BAB as the Wizard spends getting 10, which is irrelevant. That's not the amount of experience required to get to a given BAB, that's the amount of BAB you get from a given amount of experience. They're not the same thing. What you should be comparing is how much effort it takes for a Fighter to gain 10 BAB as it does for a Wizard to gain 10 BAB. A Wizard with 10 BAB has 4.22 times the Exp of a Fighter with 10 BAB, and depending on the availability of high-level encounters (campaign settings aren't actually packed full of level-appropriate encounters after all, that's a result of metagame actions on the part of DMs or players, and random encounter tables don't have much that give 20th level characters good experience), will actually have to do a lot more fighting to get each point of xp.

OK.
190,000 / 20 BAB = 9,500 XP per BAB.
190,000 / 10 BAB = 19,000 XP per BAB.
9,500 x what number = 19,000?
I get 2.
You get between 4 and 80.
What part of algebra do you not understand?
The wizard expends twice as much XP per BAB as the fighter over 20 levels.

Comparing how much XP it takes to get 10 points of BAB is the meaningless exercise here, as you are gaining much more than BAB for your XP.

Of course, the whole argument of XP per BAB is spurious and a meaningless derailment of the thread, as are all your posts from the last 3-4 pages.

Not sure why you suddenly veered from constructive criticism to nastiness, but I guess your true colors shone through in the end.

 

[Buugipopuu]

I am tired of your string of nonsensical, needlessly argumentative, and personally insulting posts. I may get thread-banned from my own thread, but at this point I must call it as I see it - you are an ASS. SHUT UP ASS.

This is all nonsense, and anyone who reads the thread will see it.

Heh. Since Earlier you were complaining that I was 'arguing like a two-year old' and now you're reduced to "SHUT UP ASS". Not only is that not an argument, it's not even a sentence.

OK.
190,000 / 20 BAB = 9,500 XP per BAB.
190,000 / 10 BAB = 19,000 XP per BAB.
9,500 x what number = 19,000?
I get 2.
You get between 4 and 80.
What part of algebra do you not understand?
The wizard expends twice as much XP per BAB as the fighter over 20 levels.

Comparing how much XP it takes to get 10 points of BAB is the meaningless exercise here, as you are gaining much more than BAB for your XP.

Of course, the whole argument of XP per BAB is spurious and a meaningless derailment of the thread, as are all your posts from the last 3-4 pages.

Not sure why you suddenly veered from constructive criticism to nastiness, but I guess your true colors shone through in the end.

Haha. This is great. You just restated the problem of the amount of BAB gained by a given amount of XP and presented it as a new argument. I honestly hope you're not that dumb and are just trying to be obnoxiously stupid in the hopes that I'll give up and go away. And you think that "XP per BAB" is a valid concept even though the two aren't linearly dependant. And comparing different BABs gives meaningful information, even though BAB is seriously not linearly correlated with combat performance. Unfortunately, the Simple English Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for nonlinear systems, so I'll have to just link you to this.

It doesn't matter that XP gives more than just BAB, since (almost) everything scales linearly with Level (which scales with the square root of XP), so the proportion of experience each class devotes to its class features doesn't change over time.

Since actual mathematics will go right over your head, lets state this in kitcik-brand derpmaths. How much 'XP per BAB' does a Fighter with 10 BAB get? 4,500. How much 'XP per BAB' does a Wizard with 10 BAB get? 19,000. 19,000/4,500 = 4.222.... A Wizard has to have over four times the experience in order to be as good (well, significantly worse, due to HD and proficiencies) as a Warrior with weapons. Before factoring in the increase in the amount of actual combat one needs to do to earn one XP as you level up.

 

[kitcik]

<blah blah blah>
<more stuff that illustrates ignorance and poor character>

<snicker>

 

[Jackinthegreen]

You're both right, because you're citing two different statistics regarding the same system.

A fighter with BAB 10 has 45,000 XP. A wizard with 10 BAB has 190,000 XP. That is the part Buugipopuu is highlighting, and where he gets the 4.22 from. For the wizard to be equivalent in BAB to the fighter, he needs 4.22 times as much XP in this case.

A fighter with 5 BAB has 10,000 XP. A wizard with 5 BAB has 45,000. The wizard needs 4.5 times as much experience as the fighter to get to the same level here. The levels themselves make a difference because of the experience system.

However, when a fighter gets the same amount of experience as the wizard, he's rewarded with only 2x the BAB than what the wizard got. That's what Kitcik is trying to point out.

This sort of thing will always crop up when you gain linear bonuses from exponential effort.

You want to give fighters better bonuses? Make their BAB growth exponential, among other things. Casters get exponentially more powerful for each level of spells, mundanes should get exponentially more powerful with combat. Or nerf casters so they're linear and not exponential.

There's also the ToB way which gives certain maneuvers, and of course the options from those get better as one acquires more levels.

Both sides need ways to say "screw you" to the other. Casters at the moment have the upper hand in that, but mundanes get some help in the form of the Mage-Slayer from MMV. Being able to pursue the caster with a 5-foot step or more would help too. What about ranged? Ready actions come into play here, but being able to make an AoO against a target even if you don't technically "threaten" them would also help.

 

[kitcik]

Or nerf casters so they're linear and not exponential.

This is the right answer, but that bell would be too hard to unring. If they won't agree to lose BAB, they're certainly not going to agree to lose spell power.

Both sides need ways to say "screw you" to the other.

Do you mean casters and non-casters or Booger and I?
Oh wait, you clarified below.

Casters at the moment have the upper hand in that, but mundanes get some help in the form of the Mage-Slayer from MMV. Being able to pursue the caster with a 5-foot step or more would help too. What about ranged? Ready actions come into play here, but being able to make an AoO against a target even if you don't technically "threaten" them would also help.

Yes, we could really even things up a bit if melee'ers had more flair.

 

[Piratecat]

Thread temporarily closed while I sort this out.