Bab +5/+0? [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Bab +5/+0? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JadeSpider9643
12-19-05, 03:05 PM Why don't we get extra attacks a +0 bab? why do we have to wait for the extra attack to rise to +1? it makes no sense!! if a +0 isn't an attack, then rogues/monks/wiz/sorc/cleric/bard/druids shouldn't be allowed to attack at level 1!! Yeah I didn't think you'd like that idea.

Line forms here to sign the petition to make "...+5/+0" a valid BAB:
fesfesfes
12-19-05, 03:07 PM i like the idea
Missing Minds
12-19-05, 03:15 PM So.. you really want wizards to have a 3rd melee attack at level 20, and clerics, bards, etc. to have a fourth attack at level 20.

I'm thinking... no. You want extra attacks, go with two weapon or more fighting.
MasterOfPsychic
12-19-05, 03:19 PM The +0 to bab is only to let those poor suckers fight at lv 1... not to let people much one extra attack..l.
JadeSpider9643
12-19-05, 07:33 PM So.. you really want wizards to have a 3rd melee attack at level 20, and clerics, bards, etc. to have a fourth attack at level 20.

I'm thinking... no. You want extra attacks, go with two weapon or more fighting.
I got no problem with wizards/clerics/bards having an extra attack a level early and 1 extra at level 20, the wizard sure ain't gonna be using them..probably not the cleric either (mabye when laying some holy smack down on evil outsiders), the bard might, and good for him.

If nothing else it should at least be a fighter class feature (be hard to make it work right with multiclassing though...)
The +0 to bab is only to let those poor suckers fight at lv 1... not to let people much one extra attack..l. and what the hell would a wizard know about fighting at level 1? why should he even be able to fight? the low levels are fighter domain...he can disintigrate later, for now he can cower and praise the name of the party fighters!

seriously though, wouldn't it make for better balance? pre-20 all it would do is give the extra attacks a level or 2 early (2 levels only for wiz/sorc who don't give a spit anyway), at level 20 everyone gets an extra attack. Rogues would probably benefit the most, followed by fighter-types and monks. I always hear everyone complaining about how melee is weak at high level, this would help just a tiny bit, don't ya think?
wonlee76
12-19-05, 08:06 PM My main problem with this idea is fighters getting a 5th attack at level 20 unless you still intend to keep the # of attacks capped at 4 ititerative attacks max? Either way, by allowing 3/4 BAB classes to get a 4th attack, I think the full BAB classes become a bit marginalized.
Dyne
12-19-05, 08:23 PM and what the hell would a wizard know about fighting at level 1?

It doesn't take extraordinary training to swing a stick at someone. Sure, you might not be able to hit them, but even a 2-year old child can throw rocks, bite, kick, punch, etc. Denying a character the ability to attack, no matter how feebly, is ridiculous.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JadeSpider9643 12-19-05, 03:05 PM	Why don't we get extra attacks a +0 bab? why do we have to wait for the extra attack to rise to +1? it makes no sense!! if a +0 isn't an attack, then rogues/monks/wiz/sorc/cleric/bard/druids shouldn't be allowed to attack at level 1!! Yeah I didn't think you'd like that idea. Line forms here to sign the petition to make "...+5/+0" a valid BAB:
fesfesfes 12-19-05, 03:07 PM	i like the idea
Missing Minds 12-19-05, 03:15 PM	So.. you really want wizards to have a 3rd melee attack at level 20, and clerics, bards, etc. to have a fourth attack at level 20. I'm thinking... no. You want extra attacks, go with two weapon or more fighting.
MasterOfPsychic 12-19-05, 03:19 PM	The +0 to bab is only to let those poor suckers fight at lv 1... not to let people much one extra attack..l.
JadeSpider9643 12-19-05, 07:33 PM	So.. you really want wizards to have a 3rd melee attack at level 20, and clerics, bards, etc. to have a fourth attack at level 20. I'm thinking... no. You want extra attacks, go with two weapon or more fighting. I got no problem with wizards/clerics/bards having an extra attack a level early and 1 extra at level 20, the wizard sure ain't gonna be using them..probably not the cleric either (mabye when laying some holy smack down on evil outsiders), the bard might, and good for him. If nothing else it should at least be a fighter class feature (be hard to make it work right with multiclassing though...) The +0 to bab is only to let those poor suckers fight at lv 1... not to let people much one extra attack..l. and what the hell would a wizard know about fighting at level 1? why should he even be able to fight? the low levels are fighter domain...he can disintigrate later, for now he can cower and praise the name of the party fighters! seriously though, wouldn't it make for better balance? pre-20 all it would do is give the extra attacks a level or 2 early (2 levels only for wiz/sorc who don't give a spit anyway), at level 20 everyone gets an extra attack. Rogues would probably benefit the most, followed by fighter-types and monks. I always hear everyone complaining about how melee is weak at high level, this would help just a tiny bit, don't ya think?
wonlee76 12-19-05, 08:06 PM	My main problem with this idea is fighters getting a 5th attack at level 20 unless you still intend to keep the # of attacks capped at 4 ititerative attacks max? Either way, by allowing 3/4 BAB classes to get a 4th attack, I think the full BAB classes become a bit marginalized.
Dyne 12-19-05, 08:23 PM	and what the hell would a wizard know about fighting at level 1? It doesn't take extraordinary training to swing a stick at someone. Sure, you might not be able to hit them, but even a 2-year old child can throw rocks, bite, kick, punch, etc. Denying a character the ability to attack, no matter how feebly, is ridiculous.