Base Attack Houserule [Archive] - Wizards Community

Base Attack Houserule [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Escef
10-25-04, 08:16 AM Just got to thinking recently about how high level fighters tend to always hit with their first attack, and often with the second too. Not saying this is bad, but it perhaps pushes the fantasy more towards the overly-high/superheroic end of the spectrum than I (or others) may want. So I was thinking, in a low magic campaign, about re-doing the attack bonuses of the various classes. Say, changing all the 1 for 1's into 3/4s level, the 3/4s to 2/3s (+0, +1, +2, +2, +3, etc.), and the 1/2s to 1/3. In a campaign without the frequent presence of magical armor it will keep combat more on even footing. Granted, it also means many creatures will have to have their CRs or ACs adjusted.

Just a vague idea for now. Feedback?
Thorak
10-25-04, 09:04 AM Two things; if you're going to use 3/4, 2/3, and 1/3 as your BAB divisions, ensure you go through and change all monster BABs to the 2/3 dynamic; they mostly use the 3/4 one in the current version, so you'll want them to keep using the middle BAB type.

Secondly; this change will make abilities and magical bonuses much more important to combat characters. Especially Strength. If you'd rather rely on factors outside the class to determine power, that's fine, but be aware of the effect it'll have on the importance of these factors. And that things with a high Str will be comparatively more powerful, as they lose less than those relying on purely BAB.
Henchcritter
10-25-04, 09:05 AM deleted
by
me
Escef
10-25-04, 09:18 AM Two things; if you're going to use 3/4, 2/3, and 1/3 as your BAB divisions, ensure you go through and change all monster BABs to the 2/3 dynamic; they mostly use the 3/4 one in the current version, so you'll want them to keep using the middle BAB type.

Actually, I had thought of that. 3.5 monster entries make that easier by listing the monsters' BAB. Just give them the appropriate "penalties" and remember that some might not get iterative attacks anymore.

Secondly; this change will make abilities and magical bonuses much more important to combat characters. Especially Strength. If you'd rather rely on factors outside the class to determine power, that's fine, but be aware of the effect it'll have on the importance of these factors. And that things with a high Str will be comparatively more powerful, as they lose less than those relying on purely BAB.

I'm not worried about magical bonuses, as the idea would be applied to a low magic game. The ability bonus' signifigence is not something I'd thought about. Not sure how feasable it would be to rewrite the ability charts. Not to mention it would practically require revising almost every monster from the ground up (a daunting and just plain unattractive task). I'm not worried about strength bonuses on critters who already have CRs of 5 or less, but you are correct that for many higher CR creatures the strength mod makes up a disturbingly large portion of the attack bonus. Definately something to ponder.
Seeker95
10-25-04, 10:45 AM The change you have suggested does nothing but make spellcasters (who do not rely on BAB as much) to more dominate the game. The fighter and monster both hit less often, while the spellcaster still affects the targets every time.
Thorak
10-25-04, 10:47 AM The change you have suggested does nothing but make spellcasters (who do not rely on BAB as much) to more dominate the game. The fighter and monster both hit less often, while the spellcaster still affects the targets every time.
This is a very valid point I overlooked in my focus on the more direct effects. Casters are already arguably stronger than melee types, at high levels. This would only widen the gap.
Escef
10-25-04, 11:03 AM I had already been considering reworking the spell level access of casters, because the campaign would be low magic. I hadn't even considered the fact that casters normally dominate at higher levels My basic idea was to change it so they gain access to new spell levels every third level instead of every other. So wizards would gain 2nd level spells at 4th level, 3rd at 7th, 4th at 10th, and so on up to 7th at 19th level. They'd end up getting more uses of lower level spells than the current charts allow. 'Course, as I said, this is all very vague right now. I appreciate the input.
Telperion
10-25-04, 02:05 PM How about just ending a campaign when the characters hit 10th level, and not allowing NPCs to go higher either. O' and don't use high CR monsters.

More expensive magical item creation:
Triple creation costs. Also make Item Creation feats more difficult to attain. Characters have to find tomes of power and teachers to gain those feats, you know.

Availability:
No sane person would sell a magical item for simple money. Exchange it for another magical item maybe, but that shouldn't be common either. One shot magical items would be the exception, but those wouldn't be so common/cheap either because of the raised creation costs.

Half as much magical treasure:
Make magical items less common. Halve all magical treasures, and that means if the chart is giving you 1 medium magical item then you get none.

If you still feel like limiting the close combat oriented characters then you can always take away their HD. Lower all of them by one step. Okay, that would leave Wizards and Sorcerers with a measly d3, but spellcasters shouldn't go anywhere near close combat anyway...
Ogre4Hire
10-25-04, 02:11 PM Except in the 60-80% of encounters where the party is outnumbered and the fighter's too busy trying to fight off the big guy to be able to screen the wizard, leaving the spellcasters without much of a say in the matter (especially when they're too low level to cast spells like Fly).
Escef
10-25-04, 02:16 PM I was actually toying with the idea of upping arcane casters HD to d6 to help compensate for the slower spell access and even worse attack bonuses. Some of the 3e designers (at least one anyway) kept the arcane caster HD at d4 just out of tradition more than practicality.

I think what i'm suggesting here is a just plain grittier game.
Seeker95
10-25-04, 03:08 PM I think what i'm suggesting here is a just plain grittier game.To achieve this, I suggest a few different routes that decrease your need to re-write the game:
1. No magic item creation besides potions and scrolls. Find it or do without.
2. No magic shops / commissioned items. Find or do without.
3. Cut experience points in half.
4. Require training between levels.
5. Use saving throws to permit returning from the dead. (Like the old System Shock)

These changes make magic more coveted, slow advancement to higher power levels, and make death a truly scary proposition, as it can be permenent. Grittier means they have to fight for every ounce of power they gain and can lose it all at the roll of a die if they do not play smart. Basically, 3e mechanics with 1e risks/atmosphere. These can be implemented as a package or pick and choose. Personally, I would go with 1, 2, 4, and 5. I don't use experience points at all. :D
Escef
10-25-04, 03:13 PM I don't use experience points at all. :D

Well, aren't you Mr. FancyPants? ;)
Seeker95
10-25-04, 07:57 PM The pants aren't all that fancy, but the shirt is. ;)
m00
10-25-04, 08:16 PM If you're going to lower the relative power of all classes, do so by decreasing the expected NPC level - the high priest of a major religion is now level 15 instead of 30, etc.

To go with this, decrease the amount of XP PCs get by half, or even more.

If you're concerned about maintaining inter-class balance, this is the way to go in my opinion. Beginning with the assumption that all classes are equal (for the sake of argument), then just lowering average levels across the board doesn't disrupt this balance. No messing with classes required, just a lower-powered game. I'm playing in a campaign like this that starts this weekend, and I'm looking forward to it.

Also, consider a class-based defense system if you're not using magic items. I like to use the precident of save progressions as the basis of Defense bonuses for my games (with the addition of medium saves, which can be found in other d20 products. It's the average of a good and poor save at a given level.), then assign BAB +1/2 classes poor defense, BAB +3/4 medium defense, and BAB +1 good defense.

I just realized this is pretty much what Seeker said. In any case, I agree with his suggestions.
Ma'ElKoth
10-25-04, 09:50 PM If you want to limit access to high-level spells without rewriting the entire PHB (though if you want to do so, feel free), just require all spellcasters to multiclass into a non-spellcasting class every third or so level.
shift244
10-25-04, 10:19 PM Just got to thinking recently about how high level fighters tend to always hit with their first attack, and often with the second too. Not saying this is bad, but it perhaps pushes the fantasy more towards the overly-high/superheroic end of the spectrum than I (or others) may want. So I was thinking, in a low magic campaign, about re-doing the attack bonuses of the various classes. Say, changing all the 1 for 1's into 3/4s level, the 3/4s to 2/3s (+0, +1, +2, +2, +3, etc.), and the 1/2s to 1/3. In a campaign without the frequent presence of magical armor it will keep combat more on even footing. Granted, it also means many creatures will have to have their CRs or ACs adjusted.

Just a vague idea for now. Feedback?This looks like a lot of work , and unecessarily complicated. Would it not be easier to house rule a +1 Base AC per few ECL/CR ? Something along the lines of increasing base stats, like +1 AC per 4 character levels or something. This effectively reduces the Attack Rating of all characters, but tackling the problem from another (And I believe easier) perspective.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Escef 10-25-04, 08:16 AM	Just got to thinking recently about how high level fighters tend to always hit with their first attack, and often with the second too. Not saying this is bad, but it perhaps pushes the fantasy more towards the overly-high/superheroic end of the spectrum than I (or others) may want. So I was thinking, in a low magic campaign, about re-doing the attack bonuses of the various classes. Say, changing all the 1 for 1's into 3/4s level, the 3/4s to 2/3s (+0, +1, +2, +2, +3, etc.), and the 1/2s to 1/3. In a campaign without the frequent presence of magical armor it will keep combat more on even footing. Granted, it also means many creatures will have to have their CRs or ACs adjusted. Just a vague idea for now. Feedback?
Thorak 10-25-04, 09:04 AM	Two things; if you're going to use 3/4, 2/3, and 1/3 as your BAB divisions, ensure you go through and change all monster BABs to the 2/3 dynamic; they mostly use the 3/4 one in the current version, so you'll want them to keep using the middle BAB type. Secondly; this change will make abilities and magical bonuses much more important to combat characters. Especially Strength. If you'd rather rely on factors outside the class to determine power, that's fine, but be aware of the effect it'll have on the importance of these factors. And that things with a high Str will be comparatively more powerful, as they lose less than those relying on purely BAB.
Henchcritter 10-25-04, 09:05 AM	deleted by me
Escef 10-25-04, 09:18 AM	Two things; if you're going to use 3/4, 2/3, and 1/3 as your BAB divisions, ensure you go through and change all monster BABs to the 2/3 dynamic; they mostly use the 3/4 one in the current version, so you'll want them to keep using the middle BAB type. Actually, I had thought of that. 3.5 monster entries make that easier by listing the monsters' BAB. Just give them the appropriate "penalties" and remember that some might not get iterative attacks anymore. Secondly; this change will make abilities and magical bonuses much more important to combat characters. Especially Strength. If you'd rather rely on factors outside the class to determine power, that's fine, but be aware of the effect it'll have on the importance of these factors. And that things with a high Str will be comparatively more powerful, as they lose less than those relying on purely BAB. I'm not worried about magical bonuses, as the idea would be applied to a low magic game. The ability bonus' signifigence is not something I'd thought about. Not sure how feasable it would be to rewrite the ability charts. Not to mention it would practically require revising almost every monster from the ground up (a daunting and just plain unattractive task). I'm not worried about strength bonuses on critters who already have CRs of 5 or less, but you are correct that for many higher CR creatures the strength mod makes up a disturbingly large portion of the attack bonus. Definately something to ponder.
Seeker95 10-25-04, 10:45 AM	The change you have suggested does nothing but make spellcasters (who do not rely on BAB as much) to more dominate the game. The fighter and monster both hit less often, while the spellcaster still affects the targets every time.
Thorak 10-25-04, 10:47 AM	The change you have suggested does nothing but make spellcasters (who do not rely on BAB as much) to more dominate the game. The fighter and monster both hit less often, while the spellcaster still affects the targets every time. This is a very valid point I overlooked in my focus on the more direct effects. Casters are already arguably stronger than melee types, at high levels. This would only widen the gap.
Escef 10-25-04, 11:03 AM	I had already been considering reworking the spell level access of casters, because the campaign would be low magic. I hadn't even considered the fact that casters normally dominate at higher levels My basic idea was to change it so they gain access to new spell levels every third level instead of every other. So wizards would gain 2nd level spells at 4th level, 3rd at 7th, 4th at 10th, and so on up to 7th at 19th level. They'd end up getting more uses of lower level spells than the current charts allow. 'Course, as I said, this is all very vague right now. I appreciate the input.
Telperion 10-25-04, 02:05 PM	How about just ending a campaign when the characters hit 10th level, and not allowing NPCs to go higher either. O' and don't use high CR monsters. More expensive magical item creation: Triple creation costs. Also make Item Creation feats more difficult to attain. Characters have to find tomes of power and teachers to gain those feats, you know. Availability: No sane person would sell a magical item for simple money. Exchange it for another magical item maybe, but that shouldn't be common either. One shot magical items would be the exception, but those wouldn't be so common/cheap either because of the raised creation costs. Half as much magical treasure: Make magical items less common. Halve all magical treasures, and that means if the chart is giving you 1 medium magical item then you get none. If you still feel like limiting the close combat oriented characters then you can always take away their HD. Lower all of them by one step. Okay, that would leave Wizards and Sorcerers with a measly d3, but spellcasters shouldn't go anywhere near close combat anyway...
Ogre4Hire 10-25-04, 02:11 PM	Except in the 60-80% of encounters where the party is outnumbered and the fighter's too busy trying to fight off the big guy to be able to screen the wizard, leaving the spellcasters without much of a say in the matter (especially when they're too low level to cast spells like Fly).
Escef 10-25-04, 02:16 PM	I was actually toying with the idea of upping arcane casters HD to d6 to help compensate for the slower spell access and even worse attack bonuses. Some of the 3e designers (at least one anyway) kept the arcane caster HD at d4 just out of tradition more than practicality. I think what i'm suggesting here is a just plain grittier game.
Seeker95 10-25-04, 03:08 PM	I think what i'm suggesting here is a just plain grittier game.To achieve this, I suggest a few different routes that decrease your need to re-write the game: 1. No magic item creation besides potions and scrolls. Find it or do without. 2. No magic shops / commissioned items. Find or do without. 3. Cut experience points in half. 4. Require training between levels. 5. Use saving throws to permit returning from the dead. (Like the old System Shock) These changes make magic more coveted, slow advancement to higher power levels, and make death a truly scary proposition, as it can be permenent. Grittier means they have to fight for every ounce of power they gain and can lose it all at the roll of a die if they do not play smart. Basically, 3e mechanics with 1e risks/atmosphere. These can be implemented as a package or pick and choose. Personally, I would go with 1, 2, 4, and 5. I don't use experience points at all. :D
Escef 10-25-04, 03:13 PM	I don't use experience points at all. :D Well, aren't you Mr. FancyPants? ;)
Seeker95 10-25-04, 07:57 PM	The pants aren't all that fancy, but the shirt is. ;)
m00 10-25-04, 08:16 PM	If you're going to lower the relative power of all classes, do so by decreasing the expected NPC level - the high priest of a major religion is now level 15 instead of 30, etc. To go with this, decrease the amount of XP PCs get by half, or even more. If you're concerned about maintaining inter-class balance, this is the way to go in my opinion. Beginning with the assumption that all classes are equal (for the sake of argument), then just lowering average levels across the board doesn't disrupt this balance. No messing with classes required, just a lower-powered game. I'm playing in a campaign like this that starts this weekend, and I'm looking forward to it. Also, consider a class-based defense system if you're not using magic items. I like to use the precident of save progressions as the basis of Defense bonuses for my games (with the addition of medium saves, which can be found in other d20 products. It's the average of a good and poor save at a given level.), then assign BAB +1/2 classes poor defense, BAB +3/4 medium defense, and BAB +1 good defense. I just realized this is pretty much what Seeker said. In any case, I agree with his suggestions.
Ma'ElKoth 10-25-04, 09:50 PM	If you want to limit access to high-level spells without rewriting the entire PHB (though if you want to do so, feel free), just require all spellcasters to multiclass into a non-spellcasting class every third or so level.
shift244 10-25-04, 10:19 PM	Just got to thinking recently about how high level fighters tend to always hit with their first attack, and often with the second too. Not saying this is bad, but it perhaps pushes the fantasy more towards the overly-high/superheroic end of the spectrum than I (or others) may want. So I was thinking, in a low magic campaign, about re-doing the attack bonuses of the various classes. Say, changing all the 1 for 1's into 3/4s level, the 3/4s to 2/3s (+0, +1, +2, +2, +3, etc.), and the 1/2s to 1/3. In a campaign without the frequent presence of magical armor it will keep combat more on even footing. Granted, it also means many creatures will have to have their CRs or ACs adjusted. Just a vague idea for now. Feedback?This looks like a lot of work , and unecessarily complicated. Would it not be easier to house rule a +1 Base AC per few ECL/CR ? Something along the lines of increasing base stats, like +1 AC per 4 character levels or something. This effectively reduces the Attack Rating of all characters, but tackling the problem from another (And I believe easier) perspective.