What the hell is wrong with BAB?

[Username17]

OK, when you get extra attacks for having a high BAB, the extra attacks come in at a penalty to hit. Every new attack you get is also at a penalty to hit. You don't even get a fifth attack on the grounds that it would suck monkey butt.

Why?

When a Marilith gets extra arms, her arms grant extra attacks at no penalty. When a Geomancer gets antlers, they provide attachs which are at no greater penalty than her scorpion tail's.

So why is BAB so boned? Why is getting each piece of it worth less than each previous piece? In Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, why you got an extra attack, it was at the same damned attack bonus as any other. Why the fvck not?

-Username17

[Oberoni]

I see no reason why BAB sucks like it does. I could even deal with a one time increment drop of -5, which is what a lot of monsters and animals have; however, anything beyond that is kinda dumb. Why do you even get additional attacks if they have such a small chance of working?

[Maj]

Why do you even get additional attacks if they have such a small chance of working?

So that you waste your rounds on full attack actions, thus limiting you tactically?

I could understand a penalty for those attacks that aren't primary, but why the progressively worse... No clue.

[Lago_AM3P]

I don't even think there should be additional attacks as a default to begin with.

Extra attacks slow down combat immensely and interact really crazy with buffs. The fact that every rogue two-weapon fights and every karmic strike agent strikes with a two-handed weapon shows that this is silly.

Mutants and Masterminds eliminated extra attacks from BAB, and it was EXCELLENT. The real stupidity occurs in that game when you can get extra attacks, which shouldn't even be there (certain extras, feats, powers, soforth).

Any pros/cons to a 'one huge attack' thing?

[Maj]

It doesn't reflect the "I'm totally pro and super fast" kind of character?

It takes the same number of hits to kill the bad guy regardless of whether you have one attack a round or four so saving time isn't as much of a possibility as you think.

It hoses non-casters even more by reducing the damage that they can do in a round through fewer hits.

[Essence]

Really, weapon attacks should totally be modeled after natural weapons. Your 'main weapon' attacks as many times per round as you have ROUNDDOWN((BAB+4)/5), and has no penalties for doing so. Your 'off-hand', 'armor spikes', 'boot blade', and other attacks attack once at a -5 penalty, with feats that allow you to extend that one to up to ROUNDDOWN((BAB+4)/5), and to reduce that -5 penalty to a -2, then to a -0.

Then, turn around and allow natural attacks to be used ROUNDDOWN((BAB+4)/5) times, and presto! A unified, coherent, and functional attack system with no exceptions or retardations.

[Maj]

Actually... I don't think it's as simple as you do.

Natural weapons have a primary and secondary type, but weapon wielders all of a sudden have the same, only they're not the same... For example, a creature with claws would have a slam or a bite as a secondary attack, but there's no on-hand claw/off-hand claw garbage. And then, of course, you get into issues with monkness. If they kick you in the balls with their knee, is that a secondary attack? Or is everything done by their body their primary attack and they don't ever have a secondary attack (seems like it might be a kinda neat ability, actually)? You seem to be getting close, but aren't quite there yet. Am I wrong?

[Essence]

Hrm. Good points.

Perhaps the 'off-hand claw' problem can be solved by giving a lot of creatures the Two-Weapon Fighting/Ambi equivalents as racial bonus feats. This would mean stuff like Tigers get to make Clawx2/Clawx2 at no penalty and then Bite at a -5 penalty.

Monkness, however, is easy to handle: Monks have one attack, it's called "unarmed strike", and it works exactly like it would if they had one attack called "stick" or "knife". The precise body part they use to attack with is flavor text.

[RandomCasualty]

Well, really IMO the problem is that natural attacks are too powerful, not that BaB is too weak.

The old one arm for one attack is a crappy legacy mechanic anyway.

BaB though doesn't actually get "Weaker" as you get more of it. Getting the extra attack is just an added bonus on top of gaining a +1 to attack, the extra attack isn't really supposed to be a big deal.

I'd really just like to see extra attacks taken out of BaB and multiple arms and just made a general combat mechanic.

Something like:

You attack, if you hit you get another attack at -5, if you hit again, you get another attack at -10, and so on. When you miss, you stop getting mroe attacks.

Stuff like haste, multiple arms, TWF or whatever can just grant bonuses to hit, and add on the provision that you must use your extra attacks in some kind of sequence. So to get the bonus from TWF you'd have to attack with primary, secondary, primary for instance. The same would go for natural attacks like bites.

To simulate a flurry of blows, you reduce the penalty. Thus instead of -5, it becomes -4, or -3. But, you never hand out free attacks. Your number of attacks is always based off the combo of how many hits you get.

[Neeek]

I imagine things are the way they are because it stops a 6th level fighter from more than twice as effective as a 5th level fighter, when the difference between a 4th and 5th level fighter is comparatively nothing.

Not necessarily a great plan, but they've done things with less reasonable justification.

What I'd probably do is get extra attacks all at the same level, but give the "full attack" a minor penalty(say -2 or -3, doubling with each attack)

[The_Hanged_Man]

Good idea, but I can't believe that's why, though. There's way too many things becoming uber or suck-ass b/c of a single level gain. Druids, for example. One day they're wandering around using spears, the next they're bashing things as Dire Lions. Hmmm. Or Barbarians. Eventually, they kill that one orc and get +6 to str. and con instead of +4. Or, the Paladin at 5th level (?? IIRC). One level you get charisma bonuses to saves. The next, you get crapola in a can. Whee.

Conceptually, I don't see anything wrong w/ 6th level fighters (or other BAB classes) getting a whole attack better than 5th. It'd be easy to balance, as long as Fighters actually got something useful besides BAB.

[RandomCasualty]

1105386924[/unixtime]]
Conceptually, I don't see anything wrong w/ 6th level fighters (or other BAB classes) getting a whole attack better than 5th. It'd be easy to balance, as long as Fighters actually got something useful besides BAB.

I do, because it creates huge jumps in power.

A full BaB attack is incredibly powerful because of power attack. If for instance we did everything like 2nd editions, where the attacks weren't iterative decreasing but rather all normal full BaB attacks, then power attacking greatsword weilders would be gods. Also, it allows for more varied ACs in the sense that even if your primary AC can't block his primary attack for shit, you've still got a good shot at blocking his secondary attacks.

The main problem is the fact that monsters don't go by that paradigm, which is why I simply suggest the alternate paradigm of everyone getting iterative decreasing attacks until they miss.

[The_Hanged_Man]

Why does BAB decrease, though? If having 4 attacks that could, maybe, hit is overpowering, then fighters should just have 3 attacks that can hit. Giving people extra attacks that suck is just lame. Why make the game last longer so people can try to get a nat 20 on an attack roll?

[The_Hanged_Man]

I also don't get why varied AC's is an advantage, at least in the sense that you seem to be arguing. If your AC is bad, you should get hit a lot. If your AC is good, you shouldn't be hit a lot. Making that change based on whether you're getting hit w/ a 1st or 4th attack, though? I don't get it.

If anything, IMX iterative attacks make variation in AC less important. Even w/ variation, AC is always within a certain range compared to to hit scores. This means your 1st attack almost always hits, your last almost always misses, and the middle ones might or might not hit, regardless of the AC of your opponent - because AC can't vary that much anyway.

Look at an average campaign. If your Fighter's attacks are +23/+18/+13, and you actually ahd AC vary between 10 and, say 40, that campaign would suck ass. The Fighter would go from always hitting to always missing to hitting to missing. That's no fun. So, AC has to be between, oh, 23 and 33, with only rare jaunts above and below.

But no matter what the AC is, iterative attacks are just an annoying, complicated, and time-consuming way to add variation to how much damage melee/archer characters do in a round. Even if that was a good thing (which I doubt, people like to know what they can do), it's not needed. You can add plenty of variation just be making sure BAB and AC are going to end up in some sort of balance to begin with.

[I_mongo]

Getting a secondary attack also creates the situation in which a 5th level fighter may perform a move action at no cost, while a 6th level fighter would lose a chance at a second attack.

Maybe all follow up attacks should not be part of a full round attack. That is, a 6th level fighter could perform a move action and still attack at +6/+1. If the fighter did make a full attack, he could do so like a monk with Flurry of Blows, perhaps at +4/+4.

Mongo

[RandomCasualty]

1105397036[/unixtime]]Why does BAB decrease, though? If having 4 attacks that could, maybe, hit is overpowering, then fighters should just have 3 attacks that can hit. Giving people extra attacks that suck is just lame. Why make the game last longer so people can try to get a nat 20 on an attack roll?

That's why I propose the system only keeps giving you more attacks so long as you keep hitting. That solves everything. And guarantees that virtually all your attacks will be relevant.

[Username17]

I don't see any reason why we need multiple attacks at all when attacking a single target. It's a stupid mechanic that takes extra time to resolve.

If you want to be strong, you can hit for more damage, representing how hard you can hit. If you want to be fast, you can hit for more damage, representing how many extra times you strike. Whatever.

People who spend an entire round attacking could get an attack bonus. People who charge can get their attack bonus in exchange for a defense penalty.

There's no reason, at all, to roll dice more than twice for spending a round attacking an enemy. There's just no reason to make things more coplicated in that fashion.

-Username17

[Neeek]

1105397411[/unixtime]]I also don't get why varied AC's is an advantage, at least in the sense that you seem to be arguing. If your AC is bad, you should get hit a lot. If your AC is good, you shouldn't be hit a lot. Making that change based on whether you're getting hit w/ a 1st or 4th attack, though? I don't get it.

As is, you are in fact getting hit less often with a high AC in the current iterative attack structure, especially at high levels. Iterative attacks, as they are, make it so someone with a +30/+25/+20/+15 attack sequence attack someone will hit someone with 35 AC on average twice, someone with a 30 AC on average 3 times, somone with 45 AC an average of once every other round, and someone with a 10 AC gets hit 4 times, typically. Making all attacks the same, in this case +30 would mean the 35 AC guy gets hit 3 times, on average, the 30 guy gets hit all 4 times most days, the 45 guy about once a round, and the AC 10 guy still gets hit 4 times, which means the 30 AC and the 10 AC are exactly the same, and the extra 20 points of AC might as well not exist.

If anything, IMX iterative attacks make variation in AC less important. Even w/ variation, AC is always within a certain range compared to to hit scores. This means your 1st attack almost always hits, your last almost always misses, and the middle ones might or might not hit, regardless of the AC of your opponent - because AC can't vary that much anyway.

Are you saying AC shouldn't vary that much or doesn't vary that much? The first is certainly reasonable, but the second seems to lack basis in reality.

[Neeek]

1105412793[/unixtime]]I don't see any reason why we need multiple attacks at all when attacking a single target. It's a stupid mechanic that takes extra time to resolve.

What if you want to attack multiple targets?

[Lago_AM3P]

Something like the 'area' extra in Mutants and Masterminds works just fine. You could set it up so that it causes a decreasing amount of damage with multiple targets.

[Wrenfield]

Yeah, too much complication right now with confusing TWF/MWF rules, Flurry, constrained Haste effects, Primary/Secondary natural weapons (added with iterative weapon attacks too, say with a Druid), Boot Blades, Armor Spikes, Goring Helmets, Dervish "Thousand Cuts", Karma Strike/Double Hit feats, AoO's with Combat Reflex etc.

Add in all the combinatorial permutations of all this stuff, and you need a real genius to figure fighting using material from all the dang 3.5 books.