BAB and multiple attacks question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTimePost
Insane Pixie

08-19-06, 01:02 AM
So, just a quick question here about a mechanic that's puzzled me since 3.0.

From what I understand, you gain another attack once you can subtract 5 from your lowest attack bonus and come up with a positive number. Aka, a 20th level fighter having +20/+15/+10/+5.

I'm creating a character (monstrous) for an epic, ECL 36 campaign, and was wondering about my attacks. The creature is going to have 30 racial HD, and a LA of +5. The one level left is going to Fighter, or maybe Monk.

The character is going to have a BAB of +30. I know the epic rules say that epic classes don't gain extra attacks, but this guy isn't taking epic classes.

So, would his attack look like this:

+30/+25/+20/+15

or

+30/+25/+20/+15/+10/+5?

Thanks in advance.
Generic Poster

08-19-06, 01:37 AM
I don't have an answer for you, but I am curious as to what race your character actually is? I wasn't even aware that you were able to use races with over 20 hit die as player characters, epic or not, probably to prevent this very question from coming up...
runestar

08-19-06, 01:50 AM
After lv20, the number of attacks you get will not increase. This means that a lv20 wizard(bab+10) who takes a lv of fighter(bab+10+1 from epic bab) will still only get 2 attacks each round.

Even if you never get epic bab, as is the case for monsters with only racial HD such as solars, the max number of base attacks you can make is still limited to 4, regardless of high you can crank your bab to.
Edheldûr

08-19-06, 01:53 AM
From what I understand, you gain another attack once you can subtract 5 from your lowest attack bonus and come up with a positive number. Aka, a 20th level fighter having +20/+15/+10/+5.
That's just for manufactured weapon attacks, that is, NOT natural weapon attacks. What's more, you are limited to a maximum of 4 iterative attacks no matter what your BAB is (that is with your primary hand and not taking into account two weapon fighting and such things).

However, natural weapons aren't subject to the iterative attacks rule, and can have a lot of natural attacks for its attack sequence; and can be combined with manufactured weapon attacks.

So, to answer your question, the character's attack sequence depends on it's creature type and it's natural attacks.
Merestil Haye

08-19-06, 04:47 AM
The character will get four attacks per round with manufactured weapons, and no more. I'm having trouble recalling exactly where this is discussed though. :banghead:

This applies no matter what the creature is or how high its base attack rises.
silvergamgee

08-19-06, 11:14 AM
You can get more with rapid shot or flurry of blows abilities, or if hasted (but these do not stack).
Nom

08-19-06, 08:54 PM
The character will get four attacks per round with manufactured weapons, and no more. I'm having trouble recalling exactly where this is discussed though.DMG pg 207.

You can get more with rapid shot or flurry of blows abilities, or if hasted (but these do not stack)(1) Don't confuse the issue by adding non-iterative attacks to a discussion of solely about iterative attacks.

(2) All of the above operate together. A level 1 monk with flurry, rapid shot and haste could make 4 attacks per round: 1 regular, 1 haste, 1 flurry and 1 rapid shot. They would all be at -4 (-2 flurry, -2 rapid shot), and the rapid shot attack would have to be made with a shuriken (since that's the only weapon that is both ranged and a special monk weapon).
a_m0ogle

08-19-06, 09:23 PM
You can get more with rapid shot or flurry of blows abilities, or if hasted (but these do not stack).
Of course they stack..
Damionte

08-20-06, 02:10 AM
There has to be around this or we have a design paradox.

As written you have a problem of to 40 lvl characters and one bieng completely hosed compared to the other. As written if you were a Lvl 20 Fighter Lvl 20 Sorc you'd have more attacks than a Lvl 20 Sorc Lvl 20 fighter. Simply because your BAB doesn't go up anymore once you hit 21st lvl. Thier reasoning for this is that if it kept going up you'd have a rediculouse number of attacks.

A page later it tells us that a creature can not have any more than 4 base attacks. Now if they'r only talking about creatures here and not characters they've made a mistakke. Now I'm going off the 3.0 wording of this. They may have fixed this oversight in 3.5 but I don't have that book and the 3.5 update booklet is short on discriptive text.

I say let your epic attack bonus stack with your bab. Then cap the players at 4 base attacks like the creatures are. That rule contradicts itself and doesn't make any sense.
runestar

08-20-06, 02:26 AM
Thier reasoning for this is that if it kept going up you'd have a rediculouse number of attacks.
You are only partially right. Their rationale was that beyond your first few attacks, the rest would probably miss anyways barring a natural 20 given the high ACs epic monsters have. Resolving that many attacks, especially when most of them would be forgone conclusions anyways(they will miss more often than not) would just bog down the game. In the interest of ensuring that epic games remain reasonably fast paced, they cut the max number of attacks off at 4.

. As written if you were a Lvl 20 Fighter Lvl 20 Sorc you'd have more attacks than a Lvl 20 Sorc Lvl 20 fighter.
Yes, and the Lvl 20 Fighter Lvl 20 Sorc will be a better fighter, but a crappier spellcaster than the Lvl 20 Sorc Lvl 20 fighter, since the former will qualify mostly for epic fighter feats, while the latter will qualify for mostly spellcasting-oriented epic feats like epic spellcasting and auto-quicken.

There has to be around this or we have a design paradox.
I am not so sure if that is a paradox. In the very least, it was intentional, though it could just as readily been a bug disguised as a feature. :rolleyes: While it might seem contradictory, it does seem like what the game designers intended right from the very beginning.

Sometimes, game balance must come before logic. :P
Generic Poster

08-20-06, 02:44 AM
There has to be around this or we have a design paradox.

I don't see the problem here, since it follows what would happen in a real world. A basketball player whose been doing nothing but playing basketball half of life won't make as good of a computer programmer as someone who started when he was eight. Likewise, that computer programmer would never become as good of a basketball player as someone who started when they were young.

Even if the issue of physical deterioration is ignored, the brain rapidly loses connections that aren't needed for day to day life, and learning new skills unrelated to your old skill set will almost never net you the same performance proficiency that you would have gotten had you started learning the skill when you were still young.