Post/Author/DateTime	Post
barna10 07-19-07, 10:14 AM	What would you think of changing base attack, and possibly initiative, to a skill instead of automatic progression. I can see several advantages. Here's how I think this could work. The first thing you would have to do is give every class 1 more skill point per level. Then you add skills called Ranged Attack (Dex) and Melee Attack (Str) to any class that has a +1 BAB at first level, for every other class they would be cross classed skills. You could then take skill focus to enhance them. There could also be a skill called Base Attack (Dex or Str) that would be a cross classed skill for everyone. It would cover either ranged or melee. Since it's a cross classed skill, the max ranks would be lower. This would allow Wizards and the like to ignore their base attacks and get more skills while allowing fighters to get more deadly with combat quicker. There may be some sticky situations. I know that there are feats that allow you to add skills to your class skill list. There's also the Factotum that gets every skill as a class skill. Initiative could work in a similar fashion (and probably well in 4th edition). I just don't know who would get initiative as a class skill and who wouldn't. Improved Initiative would become Skill Focus (Initiative).
Dalthbar 07-19-07, 10:17 AM	Some of the high-BAB classes have the fewest skills, so you'd be kicking the fighters and barbarians in the nuts again. The BAB is one of the major things that determines class balance. Just making it flexible would mess with the semblance of balance that we have now. You'd probably need to rework most classes to balance things out - especially for low-skill + high-BAB classes.
Steely_Dan 07-19-07, 10:25 AM	Initiative is a Skill in d20 Star Wars:Saga Edition.
barna10 07-19-07, 10:26 AM	A fighter wouldn't be much different than he is now, except he could be even better. A 1st level fighter with no INT bonus would have 12 skill points (new base skill points of 3 under this system). He could use 8 of those to get his ranged and melee base attacks up to 4. By third level, he would be getting 2 attacks. I think thats more than fair and doesn't penalize the low skill/high BAB classes at all.
Dalthbar 07-19-07, 10:41 AM	A 1st level fighter with no INT bonus would have 12 skill points (new base skill points of 3 under this system). He could use 8 of those to get his ranged and melee base attacks up to 4. By third level, he would be getting 2 attacks. I think thats more than fair and doesn't penalize the low skill/high BAB classes at all. Have you stopped to consider all of the feats and PrC pre-reqs that would get totally hosed and become useless due to this? Those BAB pre-reqs are designed to keep people from taking certain things until certain levels. This would make most aspects of that pointless.
barna10 07-19-07, 11:08 AM	The skills would act as BAB for determining Prereqs and attacks per round. Therefore, nothing gets hosed. Yes someone that totally commits himself to comabt will get stuff quicker, so be it. If it doesn't work for your campaign, don't use it. On the other hand, you could always through more challenging situations at PCs that get higher level abilities quicker.
Lucas Blackstone 07-19-07, 11:12 AM	It's a pretty awful idea because too much of the system hinges around one's BAB as a balancing factor as previously mentioned.
Dalthbar 07-19-07, 11:20 AM	The skills would act as BAB for determining Prereqs and attacks per round. Therefore, nothing gets hosed. Yes someone that totally commits himself to comabt will get stuff quicker, so be it. If it doesn't work for your campaign, don't use it. On the other hand, you could always through more challenging situations at PCs that get higher level abilities quicker. You're wrong that "nothing gets hosed". If BAB is a pre-req for feats or PrCs, then the designers of the feats or PrCs have made the decision as to the earliest that full BAB classes and slower BAB classes should gain access to these abilities. By messing with BAB, you mess with every single one of those design decisions that were made that have a BAB pre-req component. And all the while, your PCs get more powerful, but all of the monsters stay the same because they have set BABs that are not contingent on skills.
tarkin 07-19-07, 11:24 AM	I'd have to say that unless you are playing an "Anything Goes" campaign, there is just NO way it could work. Too many Wizard-fighter PrC's use BAB as a fighter level determinate. Effectively you let the Gish character be taken MUCH lower than usual, and it becomes a super-character, able to beat pretty much any other character. Take the Arcane Archer. It is a fighter/caster type that gives good combat abiltiies, but you basically want to have the highest possible wizard level when you take it, to take advantage of Imbue Arrow Pre reqs are Elf, +6 BAB, 3 feats and ability to cast arcane spells. Not reasonable at all using your idea. Basically what you have done is totally screwed with the pre-req system More importantly, you did so without looking at the thing you were screwing with.
barna10 07-19-07, 12:39 PM	Like I stated earlier, if it doesn't work in your games, don't use it. That being said, I run games where combat isn't the only thing that goes on. I emphasize diplomacy over combat effectiveness. I want combats to be over quickly so that we can move on to the next bit of role-playing. The other thing you have to consider is that the defensive capabilities of characters would not improve. They would need to be challanged by tougher monsters which means that they should die quicker. If this were to unbalance a game due to Prereqs, then change the prereqs. The desgners decided on those limits based on the rules as written, and even in "out of the book" games it's possible for a character to be unbalanced.
barna10 07-19-07, 12:41 PM	More importantly, you did so without looking at the thing you were screwing with. Just for the record, I've been screwing with the rules for over twenty years. In those years I've learned that there's more to the game than combat capability.
Dalthbar 07-19-07, 12:50 PM	What would you think of changing base attack, and possibly initiative, to a skill instead of automatic progression. Like I stated earlier, if it doesn't work in your games, don't use it. Well, just remember that you asked our opinion on changing these things and we gave it to you. Then you turn around and get defensive saying "don't use it if you don't like it". Similarly, don't ask what we think if you're not willing to accept that some people think it's a bad idea for some very valid reasons. If you want to implement a change that's going to result in having to change countless other aspects of the system, then consider that maybe A) this isn't the right system for you to be playing in or B) the change probably isn't as sound as you think it is. 3.5 is the "most cohesive" system for D&D yet. While we tweaked the hell out of 2nd ed, it grossly needed it. And luckily, you could change one thing and it had little to no effect on other aspects of the system. 3.5 is much more intertwined and making even subtle changes in some areas carries the potential for a whole slew of changes that need to be made in other areas. But hey - if you want to do it, go for it. But if you don't want to risk hearing differing opinions, don't ask for them.
RobbyPants 07-19-07, 01:02 PM	This system will change many aspects of the game, as other posters have noted, in addition to combat. As Tarkin said, the whole Prereq system for PrCs will fall apart. Also, any class that advances in either full or 1/2 BAB (and focuses either on melee or ranged combat) will come out ahead in this system. Any class that has a 3/4 BAB or focuses on both melee and ranged attacks will come out behind. Also, expect to see people dipping a single level into a full BAB class to get one of these skills as a class skill, and then pumping their BAB to level + 3. If I were playing in this system, I'd probably play a rogue with a single level of fighter and specialize in TWF. With the whole slew of skill points I get, I could easily afford to pay two points per level to keep my BAB maxed with it as a class skill thanks to the level of fighter. I'd end up with beyond a full BAB (level + 3) and a full sneak attack progression of the rogue. I'd also qualify for Improved TWF at 3rd level (getting 4 attacks), and Greater TWF at 8th level (getting 6 attacks). With a single level-dip, there's a lot less reason to play a full BAB class past 1st level.
barna10 07-19-07, 01:15 PM	Also, expect to see people dipping a single level into a full BAB class to get one of these skills as a class skill, and then pumping their BAB to level + 3. If I were playing in this system, I'd probably play a rogue with a single level of fighter and specialize in TWF. With the whole slew of skill points I get, I could easily afford to pay two points per level to keep my BAB maxed with it as a class skill thanks to the level of fighter. I'd end up with beyond a full BAB (level + 3) and a full sneak attack progression of the rogue. I'd also qualify for Improved TWF at 3rd level (getting 4 attacks), and Greater TWF at 8th level (getting 6 attacks). With a single level-dip, there's a lot less reason to play a full BAB class past 1st level. This would not be a problem. Remember that a skill is only counted as a class skill for the class you just advanced in, not for any class you have. (PHB pg. 58), and if you went with the generic BAB skill, you wouldn't be much different than a Fighter/Thief except for less hit points. In my opinion, if you wanted to play this character because you liked the idea of it, then go for it. If you would make up this character just because of the combat effectivness, then you're missing the whole point of role-playing.
Dalthbar 07-19-07, 01:22 PM	Keep in mind that D&D is a multi-faceted game that has a role playing component. Many people simply like "playing the game" for the game aspect (a perfectly valid thing IMO). It's the same for people that play MMOs or MUDs and have no desire to "get into character". So saying that you "miss the whole point of it" is disingenuous since it's not a fair statement to people that have no desire to RP at all. Nothing in the rules states that you _must_ RP to enjoy or play D&D. Please don't try to export your personal feelings on the merits of role playing on others.
Bleyn 07-19-07, 01:45 PM	You haven't really enumerated the advantages to your system. It doesn't seem to make running battles any easier or quicker, or make character generation simpler. It does do some power shuffling between the classes, although it's unclear to me who benefits the most. It seems to me, the main benefit for such a change is simplicity in game design. Why have 2 mechanics (skill and BAB) when one will suffice? I'm all for this type of thing, and have even thought about doing something similar, making everything a skill. And then I decided I should just be playing GURPS.
ArchMagik 07-19-07, 02:09 PM	This would not be a problem. Remember that a skill is only counted as a class skill for the class you just advanced in, not for any class you have. (PHB pg. 58), and if you went with the generic BAB skill, you wouldn't be much different than a Fighter/Thief except for less hit points. Umm sense when Barna10. How about you read it again. Oh and its on page 59 of the PHB under Multiclass Characters. "If a skill is a class skill for any of a multiclass character's classes, then character level determines a skill's maximum rank.(The maximum rank for a class skill is 3+character level.) So yes it would be broken and allow you to use feats not meant for your level. Thus making your idea of how to make BAB a skill worthless.
RobbyPants 07-19-07, 02:24 PM	This would not be a problem. Remember that a skill is only counted as a class skill for the class you just advanced in, not for any class you have. (PHB pg. 58), and if you went with the generic BAB skill, you wouldn't be much different than a Fighter/Thief except for less hit points. You have to take two things into account when dealing with class/cross-class skills and multi-classed characters: When gaining a level, you are right in that only that current class is used for determining how much points cost. Thus, if you're a fighter, your BAB skill costs 1 point to advance 1 rank, and if you're a rogue it costs 2 points to advance 1 rank. However, when determinig your maximum ranks for a skill, this is determined if the skill is a class skill for any class you have. Thus, once you've taken a single level of fighter, your max ranks are now (Level +3) as opposed to ((Level +3) / 2). With some class combinations, this doesn't matter much. With something like rogue, you get 8 skill points, plus the extra one you give for this new system. By spending that one point, plus one extra of the 8 (leaving you with 7 for other stuff), you can advance your BAB to your level + 3. EDIT: Oops. Looks like ArchMagik beat me to it.
barna10 07-19-07, 04:25 PM	It's called a"Role-Playing Game" for a reason.
ArchMagik 07-19-07, 05:17 PM	It's called a"Role-Playing Game" for a reason.Yes its a "Role-Playing Game" but you still need balance among the aspects of the game. Changing an aspect of the game without any regard for the other aspects of the game leads to an imbalance. Sure you could make BAB a skill, but you would have to redo all of the rules to balance the new rule. As Robbypants so cleary stated before, your BAB skill is easily taken advantage of if you don't change the other aspects of the game. Just because it says "Role-Playing" doesn't mean rules and stats are any less important to the game.
rkun 07-19-07, 06:03 PM	It's called a"Role-Playing Game" for a reason. sorry barna10 but statements like this really seem as if you think your style of play is "better" than someone elses. some people like "roleplaying" a great brute whose only real skill is bashing his weapon into someone else's face. while others might enjoy a diplomatic linguist who uses his words to avoid all forms of physical conforntation. both are valid "roleplaying" characters. anyway i do like your idea of changing BAB to a skill. it does seem a bit hard to balance out though. for cases of PrC's and the like they would simply need to be ajusted to fit your new system, since, as you said they were designed around a system that was already in place. more on topic, perhaps full BAB classes would get the skill at a cost of 1:1 (skill points: skill rank) , then 1/2 BAB classes could get the skill at 2:1, and finally 3/4 BAB would take ranks at 3:1. this would eliminate the 1 level fighter dip to get a maxed BAB and would prevent most other dips to max BAB since most full BAB classes have low skill point/level.
rkun 07-19-07, 06:10 PM	sorry for double post but i meant to mention init as well im my game i use a characters relfex save as their init. im not looking for responces on how this is ballanced or not, just wanted to let you know how i altered the system for init.
Erato 07-19-07, 06:17 PM	It's called a"Role-Playing Game" for a reason. And what's that reason to do with changing the game with imbalanced rules? If the rules don't matter, then there's no need to change them in the first place, and if they matter, they should be balanced.
starfire311 07-19-07, 10:39 PM	What would you think of changing base attack, and possibly initiative, to a skill instead of automatic progression. I can see several advantages. Here's how I think this could work. The first thing you would have to do is give every class 1 more skill point per level. Then you add skills called Ranged Attack (Dex) and Melee Attack (Str) to any class that has a +1 BAB at first level, for every other class they would be cross classed skills. You could then take skill focus to enhance them. There could also be a skill called Base Attack (Dex or Str) that would be a cross classed skill for everyone. It would cover either ranged or melee. Since it's a cross classed skill, the max ranks would be lower. This would allow Wizards and the like to ignore their base attacks and get more skills while allowing fighters to get more deadly with combat quicker. There may be some sticky situations. I know that there are feats that allow you to add skills to your class skill list. There's also the Factotum that gets every skill as a class skill. Initiative could work in a similar fashion (and probably well in 4th edition). I just don't know who would get initiative as a class skill and who wouldn't. Improved Initiative would become Skill Focus (Initiative). ok let me get this straight you are adding the following skills Ranged attack(dex) Melee Attack(str) Base Attack(str or dex) 1st level human fighter puts 4 ranks in Melee attack(str), 2 ranks(4 skill points) in base attack(str or dex) and takes skill focus melee attack and skill focus base attack if he has an 18 strength his skill mods would be melee attack +11 base attack +9 he would have a +20 attack at 1st level. ---- another pit fall of this system is take for example a 10th level wizard with an intelligence of 20, and 6 ranks in an attack skill... he takes 1 level in fighter and it is now a class skill and he can spend 8 skill points to bring it upto 14 ranks. so the wizard 10/fighter 1 will have the same attack as a fighter 11
jago668 07-19-07, 11:19 PM	I'll take this yes please. Human paragon 1, rogue 19. Select either of the attack skills as your one skill to remain a class skill. Then there is able learner which make cross class skills only cost 1 per rank (still capped as a cross class) for the other skill. Now I can use my massive skill points from rogue to outfight the fighter, plus I get sneak attack. You would also probably see some problems with a human paragon and monks. Since now a monk could flurry with a figthers attack bonus. Now it is just one specific case, and pretty easy to tell a player he can't take the human paragon class. Just thought I would point out that there are going to be little loopholes that would need some ironing out before you went full on with the modification.
Daeva 07-19-07, 11:23 PM	sounds like you made a post, to give an idea, to ask others opinions, to **** in the face of anyone who doesnt like it, congratulations, youve turned your question, into a troll.
EjoThims 07-20-07, 04:43 AM	This system would be VERY easily abusable. I'd personally be sure my Rogue took Skill Mastery in whichever I would be using so that I could take 10 on all my attack rolls.
RobbyPants 07-20-07, 09:40 AM	Well, just remember that you asked our opinion on changing these things and we gave it to you. Then you turn around and get defensive saying "don't use it if you don't like it". Similarly, don't ask what we think if you're not willing to accept that some people think it's a bad idea for some very valid reasons. QFT, and to further question the next statement: It's called a"Role-Playing Game" for a reason. With a system like this, it will quickly turn into a roll-playing game. It won't take a player long to see how easily exploitable this system is. If you implement it, I have a feeling after a few weeks, you will be using Rule 0 to nerf your own system. While it's true that D&D is a role-playing game, it is a role-playing game with about 600 pages of core rule books. If this were nothing more than role-playing, then you wouldn't need rules, or rules changes to begin with. I'm not saying you can't change your game. I was merely respoding to your OP: What would you think of changing base attack, and possibly initiative, to a skill instead of automatic progression. And what I think is that your system will be very easily abused and the balance of the entire game will change. Some players will probably feel unhappy as others exploit the system, leaving them in the dust. Change it all you want. I merely posted my opinion as to what would happen with said changes.
Frugal 07-20-07, 11:19 AM	Making rules changes that unbalance combat doesn't get balanced by not focusing on combat, it just minimises how often the unbalancing happens. I'm also not clear on what purpose the "base attack" skill would serve if you already have skills for the ranged and melee attacks? Do the effects stack? If not then when, or why, would you ever use base attack rather than the individual skill? Now let's consider the melee classes, they tend to be low skill point classes, especially the fighter. Let's take a fighter, at 1st level he has 4 more skill points now, but he has to split that between 2 more class skills. So, he can focus on one of the skills and have a +4, a huge boost at low level, but if he wants to keep pace with that skill his extra skill point each level has to be put toward that skill. At 20th level he's got a +24 bonus, so slightly better off, but he has no ranks in the other skill, which forces him to specialise whereas before he automatically improved with both ranged and melee at the same time. This is assuming he's just using the extra skill point he received and put the rest into his other class skills, he could advance both skills but then he's taking away from his other skills which just further forces him into the role of only being good in combat and having no other utility, for someone that claims to focus on roleplay and non-combat situations that's not a good outcome. Well let's assume that he splits the points between both skills, now he has +2 in both. But, in order to keep advancing he now can only advance 1 skill at each level if he wants to keep his other skills advancing as well. So with 19 more levels to go he can put 10 in 1 and 9 in the other, ending up with +12 and +11, at 20th level, way behind where he'd be now. Again, in order to stay competitive with both skills he has to sacrifice his other skills. Now let's take any class with skill points, they can easily spare the skill points to continue advancing the skill. There's so many ways to get around the cross-class limitations so they can easily become combat monsters, and still have good skills in other areas. Essentially what you've done is make it so that those who specialise in combat skill are outstripped in that area by those who supposedly don't specialise in combat to the same degree. As for PrC's and feats, this is a huge shift, as mentioned before, a number of them use BAB to restrict when they can be taken. This doesn't have to just have impact in combat as well, a lot can have out of combat and RP repercussions as well.
barna10 07-20-07, 07:57 PM	Thanks for all of your help. I see that it needs work. The Factotum really breaks it at just about all levels. Sorry for getting nasty earlier.
Abayaga 07-20-07, 08:32 PM	I noticed no has brought up the fact that if BAB is a skill, you can buy items to increase it like any other skill. First magic item I'd buy for my warrior is a +15 competence bonus item. The idea isn't bad, so to speak, but it quickly gets out of hand. With the all of the abilities, prestige classes, and items, a PC could crank this skill to obscene heights.
Qube 07-21-07, 01:21 PM	What would you think of changing base attack, and possibly initiative, to a skill instead of automatic progression. might I note that wizard and sorcerer both gain 2+INT skills ... putting BAB and init as a skill would be loved by wiz's
Shmeff 07-21-07, 02:26 PM	By the same logic, why not have spellcasting as a class skill? Crosclass for anything that cant spellcast under current rules, and then have something like Skill-4=caster level. And of course give casters another skill point to make up for it.
starfire311 07-21-07, 03:40 PM	By the same logic, why not have spellcasting as a class skill? Crosclass for anything that cant spellcast under current rules, and then have something like Skill-4=caster level. And of course give casters another skill point to make up for it. I have thought of doing this, make each school a skill and force skill cehcks to cast form that school.
Frugal 07-21-07, 05:00 PM	I have thought of doing this, make each school a skill and force skill cehcks to cast form that school. Agreed, if done well it could actually be very cool. Maybe have something like the power of the spell (any scaling variables like damage or save DC) based on how well you succeeded at the check (wither higher level spells having a higher DC to cast). Could make for some interesting dynamics and mean that "low level" spells would still have some use at higher level play.
barna10 07-21-07, 06:04 PM	I like it. What do you think the DC for the skill check would be?
barna10 07-21-07, 06:06 PM	Also, How would this effect spell-like abilities (ala Factotum).
Frugal 07-21-07, 06:46 PM	I like it. What do you think the DC for the skill check would be? Good question, not really sure. I like the concept, not sure exactly how well it would work within the existing skills system. Also, How would this effect spell-like abilities (ala Factotum). Yeah, was just a quick post of some ideas, obviously it'd need a lot of tweaking to work with all the classes out there. I don't have Dungeonscape so I can't comment on the Factotum.
risner 07-22-07, 12:22 AM	1) The skills would act as BAB for determining Prereqs and attacks per round. Therefore, nothing gets hosed. 2) Like I stated earlier, if it doesn't work in your games, don't use it. First off, the BAB as a skill is the worst proposed idea I have ever seen. The Initiative as a skill idea has a lot of merit and may be easy to refine. 1) You failed your decipher script. Everything gets hosed. It demolishes the whole game system by dismantling the pre-req system entirely. 2) Then take it some place else, you posted it here, and you get comments. If the comments say the idea is stupid, then don't post it here and complain when that happens.
JLaurHughes 07-22-07, 12:46 AM	I think Stewie said it best when he said "Who the h*** do you think you are?" A cookie to anyone who gets the reference.(Probably too easy but I have to give this.)
StruckingFuggle 07-22-07, 02:35 AM	I'm still curious about the big question... "Why?"
NobodyRemembersThis 07-22-07, 12:46 PM	Agreed, if done well it could actually be very cool. Maybe have something like the power of the spell (any scaling variables like damage or save DC) based on how well you succeeded at the check (wither higher level spells having a higher DC to cast). Could make for some interesting dynamics and mean that "low level" spells would still have some use at higher level play.Actually, how about this: Caster level is equal to ranks-3 (not total modifier) DC = 15+ spell tier. Casting classes would get abilities at levels allowing new tiers. IE, wizard would look like so1. Familiar, Scribe Scroll, Cantrips, tier 1 spells 2. 3. Tier 2 spells 4. 5. Bonus feat, Tier 3 spells 6. 7. Tier 4 spells 8. 9. Tier 5 spells 10. Bonus feat 11. Tier 6 spells 12. 13. Tier 7 spells 14. 15. Bonus feat, Tier 8 spells 16. 17. Tier 9 spells 18. 19. 20. Bonus featHow's it look? That way, even if you take it as a cross class feat, only the actual casting classes would get you more powerful tiers. It effectively separates Spell Power from Class Levels and keeps the classes as a necessary ingredient for spellcasting.
RobbyPants 07-23-07, 09:25 AM	Well, both (BAB and spell skills) can be done, but you have to change a lot of the system to do it. As Abayaga noted, it's not that hard to get items to grant huge bonuses to a skill. With feats, you can further boost these. As currently written, BAB and caster level (or at least as far as spells known/spells per day) are relatively fixed. You go up a level and follow a table. You can't take a feat to increase your BAB or your caster level (in terms of spells known/spells per day). The nice thing about this is it prevents a lot of abuse. You may want to make skills like these exempt from some of the above mentioned boosts.