Why do casters get BAB?

[RUMBLETiGER]

Or maybe BaB isn't just how to attack? Maybe it also represents general experience at tussling and how to aim, aim is important for mages.

Maybe's it's an abstract concept designed to provide a baseline for all creatures in the game so that they are running similar mechanics and thus part of the system rather than trying to make every single class and monster its own game.

Every class in 3e gets skills, saves, bab, and hit points so multi-classing can work out on some level, so combat maneuvers aren't instant kills at low levels, so mages have spells that work against monsters with high saving throws, and so casters buffing themselves isn't a waste of time.

[MENTION=52859]Rampant[/MENTION] I'll XP you as soon as I am able.
This is exactly so.

 

[kitcik]

But then you're creating a second set of rules for doing the exact same thing (not everyone with a touch attack is using spells). That is highly inelegant.

Spells always work on a second set of rules. If a melee'er wants to hit a square with a flask of alchemist's fire, they must roll to hit. If a caster wants to hit a square with a fireball, they say "I hit that square with my fireball."

Having a different way of doing ranged touch spells is not necessarily inelegant, it is just different. Having BAB based off the DC of the spell, or simply converting them to some kind of save, seems to be elegant enough IMHO.

 

[kitcik]

[MENTION=6674868]RUMBLETiGER[/MENTION] I highly value your opinion, but I strongly disagree with a lot of this. See post 18 above.

 

[Li Shenron]

But then you're creating a second set of rules for doing the exact same thing (not everyone with a touch attack is using spells). That is highly inelegant.

I don't feel the need to really eliminate BAB for arcane casters, but if I had to, I wouldn't add more rules to make ray spells be still spells that require an attack roll. I would make the spell auto-hit and replace the attack roll with a ST, if the spell doesn't have one. I would perhaps change the spell level, or modify the effects. Maybe I'd even ditch some spells that only do damage.

In a new edition of the game, it shouldn't be a problem, but I now noticed that we're in the Legacy forum so perhaps the context is just to house-rule an existing edition, so the work isn't much worth the effort.

But my bottom line is that I don't think there is a fundamental reason why there have to absolutely be "spells that require an attack roll" in the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Spells always work on a second set of rules. If a melee'er wants to hit a square with a flask of alchemist's fire, they must roll to hit. If a caster wants to hit a square with a fireball, they say "I hit that square with my fireball."

The solution isn't to add more duplicative subsystems- it is to make magic conform more. Make AoE spells require to hit rolls just like grenade weapons. Bonus: uncertainty gets introduced into spellcasting. Beware! That Fireball may not wind up quite where Tim the Enchanter wanted to put it.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

The simplest solution would be to have the caster's BAB be equal to half the caster level for purposes of any spell that requires an attack roll. So, effectively, nothing changes on the spell-casting side, no new subsystems are required, etc., as desired.

 

[kitcik]

The solution isn't to add more duplicative subsystems- it is to make magic conform more. Make AoE spells require to hit rolls just like grenade weapons. Bonus: uncertainty gets introduced into spellcasting. Beware! That Fireball may not wind up quite where Tim the Enchanter wanted to put it.

I like that as a house rule.

Now, combine that with zero BAB and you will have quite a mess on your hands...

 

[Artur Hawkwing]

I like that as a house rule.

Now, combine that with zero BAB and you will have quite a mess on your hands...

Something about this makes me think of one form of Wild Magic. But, that's just me.

We're looking at BAB as if it is for a physical weapon or ray type spell. Yet a wizard has to be accurate with all sorts of things. Fighting beasties for components his local reagent vendor might not have. Dealing with intruders, interlopers and adventurers...I'd just find it difficult to by into a level 20 Wizard who can't even poke something with a dagger, damage or no.

Just slow down the BAB progression. Make it every 5 levels they get a +1 to BAB.

 

[Buugipopuu]

Yes, this is correct. The true way to fix the balance is likely to make casting times and interruptions more like 1E.

But the idea here is a multi-step process. First, you give casters zero BAB. Then, you tie additional benefits to BAB (see the OP)>

For instance, if you got one additional action per round per 5 points of BAB. Or if you could increase the size of your 5' step by 5' for every 5 points of BAB. Things that break the action economy would be of great use to melee'ers.

Let's say that you could full attack, then ready your extra action(s) to fire at the opposing caster if they cast. At least it is interesting IMHO.

EDIT: more ideas - +1 untyped to initiative for every 5 BAB, SR based on BAB.

That still doesn't stop most of the abuses of Arcane magic. Get extra actions and initiative because of your high BAB? Celerity means the Wizard doesn't care. Ready an action to fire against a caster? Doesn't stop Invisibility, Etherealness, Solid Fog, et cetera. The problem is not solve by giving fighters fancy moves unless those fancy moves can somehow counter the various 'I win' spells which are usually only countered by other spells.

The solution isn't to add more duplicative subsystems- it is to make magic conform more. Make AoE spells require to hit rolls just like grenade weapons. Bonus: uncertainty gets introduced into spellcasting. Beware! That Fireball may not wind up quite where Tim the Enchanter wanted to put it.

Spells currently don't have range increments, so you'd have to make up scattering rules for them. Also squares have an AC of 5, so even by the time the Wizard can first cast Fireball, you'll be hitting 95% of the time unless you've put almost no effort into raising your attack rolls.

 

[Duke Arioch]

The main problem of BAB is - it's name. Base Attack Bonus.
It is not only combat oriented, if I understand this correctly. But the name suggests exactly that - that is is a martial/combat stat.
IMHO, BAB stat reflects one's aim, hand-eye coordination,depth perception - anything that usually helps one person to touch, pick up or point at a thing. So, it is there for that reason. Martial characters are trained in perfecting this natural ability, but that doesn't mean that normal person cannot point a finger at a thing and end up pointing at something completely different. Poor wording or name-giving or whatever, and poor (IMHO) design of iterative attacks make this confusing (how does one swing a pound heavy dagger or 30 pound maul 4 times each in given 6 seconds???)