Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-20-05, 02:29 PM	BAB is one of the things which rubs me the wrong way. You could have several campaigns without any combat at all (say, court intrigues en masse), and you'd still automatically pick up more fighting prowress. For the same reason that you do not get more muscles by talking about politics, this is a silly mechanic. With it being a Sunday, I put my mind to work and the following spilt out. It is not tested in any way, therefor I don't yet know if it would be balanced or not in comparison to the other irritating things in the D20 system. Feedback is appreciated. The logical thing to do would be to turn BAB into a series of skills (hereafter known as Combat Skills). Being proficient with a weapon would allow you to treat the respective Combat Skill (which should be done among the lines of UA's Weapon Groups, or something similar) as class skills in addition to not having any penalities on attacking with the weapons. Of course, you should not be able to buy Combat Skills with normal skill points, this would leave the Rogue as the best fighter ever. Instead, I'd say: 1/2 BAB gets 2 Combat Skill Points 3/4 BAB gets 4 Combat Skill Points Full BAB gets 8 Combat Skill Points. Of course, we now have a couple of logistical problems with people having BAB 23 at level 20 and BAB 4 at level 1. This could be done by changing how armor and AC works. To do that without any fuss, let's assume that armor now works with DR and adds only meager bonuses to AC (as is done in UA, for example). The points you give to your skill can be split between AC and your attack score. That means, someone who is good with a weapon can either be a very, very good attacker but suck at defending with the weapon (which is mostly dodging by the way the system works), vice versa, or be somewhat goodish at both. Of course, this becomes bad as soon as someone does a wizard build with all points put into the AC. To balance that out, a rule where casting a spell in a round negates the AC bonus from your Combat Skill would be desirable. Well, this ends my little experiment. What do you think about it?
Vestigial_Thumb 11-20-05, 02:50 PM	That's dumb idea. You're removing a system that can be left there without any problems and instead putting in a new system that requires you to completely revise all other systems in the game!
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-20-05, 02:56 PM	So? Just because it's out of the ordinary as far as rules modifications go, that does not make it dumb.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-20-05, 03:25 PM	So? Just because it's out of the ordinary as far as rules modifications go, that does not make it dumb. Not only does it go out of the ordinary, it ****s up the system big time! Fighters get shafted seriously with this system.
ziii4 11-20-05, 03:53 PM	I feel that while your system may be balance and is certainly clever, if your playing a game of courtly intrigue with very little combat then you should probobly not be playing Dungeons and Dragons. While d&d certainly does a good job of allowing roleplaying and interacting with politics, nations and other such things, it is primarily a game about heroes who travel through dungeons and fight dragons. I'm not trying to limit your game, nor limit the scope of d&d campaigns. However, if your willing to rework the system to fit in a game with little or no combat, it might be smarter to try a system other than dungeons and dragons. in D&D characters are more or less balanced, for better or worse, around combat ability. Certainly there is room to roleplay, but if your running a game with almost no combat, try a system that fits better with that type of game.
Xeviat-DM 11-20-05, 04:05 PM	You may want to try out the L5R system, which is my new favorite non-level based system. In there, almost everything is ran off of your ability scores and skills; you have weapon skills for to hit, a defense skill to add AC when you're defending yourself (eventually it adds AC always), social skills, lore skills, and athletic skills. It is a d10 system, where the dice are labled like this: 4k2. That means you roll 4 dice and keep the two highest. The only way to do what you're thinking of is to have non-warriors never have weapons as class skills. And, you also can do this: rank 1, proficient, rank 5 focused, rank 10 specialized, rank 15 mastered, rank 20 grand master. But then you're going to need to organize weapons into groups (I'd recomend making separate simple and martial groups, and having each martial group tied to a simple group). This way, you can have the weapon skills use normal skill points; just remember to boost skill points accordingly (1 BAB people should get a lot more, 3/4ths BAB people should get a few more, and 1/2 BAB people should get no more). Just remember that skill focus would increase these now.
Verelor 11-20-05, 05:06 PM	I don't like this idea one bit. If you are into court intrigue, your character isn't a fighter anyway and will ahve a very low BAB progression. Sorry, but D&D high-combat, low-story? Exciting. D&D low-combat, high-story? Gripping and emotional. D&D no-combat, high-story? Boring as mud.
FlameLover 11-20-05, 06:03 PM	I actually don't mind the idea... :P I like the idea that you have to choose what weapons you can wield, it makes sense that knowing how to fire a Longbow doesn't mean squat when you're left with a Greataxe. To change it though i'd make max ranks = level which'd keep BAB and AC as they currently are. It wouldn't make a big difference though, so i'm not sure how this would acheive your goal. It makes the warriors even more usefull for the extra Combat Points and will still leave you with more Barbarians than Bards. Just get everyone to play an Aristocrat: that way they'll have to focus on courtly intrigue at some point. But D&D isn't designed for no-combat in mind, so as others have said i'd recommend checking out some other systems.
Aurotuli 11-20-05, 06:05 PM	Not sure about your campaign (some like that sort of adventure, some do not, as you have already seen above). Personally, I'm working on something similar, but for all skills, and limiting all skills to Char Lv +1 rather than Char Lv +3. That will get around the problem of uncommonly high BAB at first level and somewhat better than average BAB at 20th level. What about multiple attacks? How do you determine that with this system? Just add an additional one every 5 skill ranks? That would allow 2 attacks at level two (in a Char Lv +3 max combat skill rank system). Granted, this would empower lower level characters if the game is unlikely to reach mid - let alone high - levels, and it may make combat swifter (albeit more complex) at those lower levels, as more damage is being done sooner. Have you looked at the Swashbuckler in CAdv or the Samurai in OA? Even the Monk might better suit your needs (due to diplomacy and a few other skills). The rogue will also work well - or the bard, but the fighter tends to be less useful or utile in those situations. The Paladin may work well, however. This is also a system where you need to use Weapon Categories rather than individual weapons. A fighter with access to seven or eight weapon categories is all but indistinguishable from the one that typically has access to all simple and martial weapons - and if you allow weapon categories for WF, WS, IC, etc then the fighter becomes notably more powerful and dangerous (as such feats may suddenly apply to all swords instead of just longswords, or all heavy 2HW instead of just a greatsword). It is something to consider, anyway.
Edymnion 11-20-05, 06:07 PM	Classes can easily be said to be practicing combat drills in downtime. If you want to address something, try fixing how somebody can cleave orc heads in the middle of nowhere, and then at a level up suddenly learn how to speak Draconic, and become a master chef, when all they've done is hit things.
Jaxgaret 11-20-05, 10:00 PM	Um. I'm not really sure I understand your original post. BUT if i do interpret it correctly - why don't you just convert BAB to skill points in such a case? If your characters are just running around talking, then give anyone's character, say, an extra 2-8 skill points instead of their usual BAB increase if they would like.
Ranger REG 11-21-05, 05:45 PM	BAB is one of the things which rubs me the wrong way. You could have several campaigns without any combat at all (say, court intrigues en masse), and you'd still automatically pick up more fighting prowress. For the same reason that you do not get more muscles by talking about politics, this is a silly mechanic. With it being a Sunday, I put my mind to work and the following spilt out. It is not tested in any way, therefor I don't yet know if it would be balanced or not in comparison to the other irritating things in the D20 system. Feedback is appreciated. The logical thing to do would be to turn BAB into a series of skills (hereafter known as Combat Skills). Being proficient with a weapon would allow you to treat the respective Combat Skill (which should be done among the lines of UA's Weapon Groups, or something similar) as class skills in addition to not having any penalities on attacking with the weapons. Of course, you should not be able to buy Combat Skills with normal skill points, this would leave the Rogue as the best fighter ever. Instead, I'd say: 1/2 BAB gets 2 Combat Skill Points 3/4 BAB gets 4 Combat Skill Points Full BAB gets 8 Combat Skill Points. Of course, we now have a couple of logistical problems with people having BAB 23 at level 20 and BAB 4 at level 1. This could be done by changing how armor and AC works. To do that without any fuss, let's assume that armor now works with DR and adds only meager bonuses to AC (as is done in UA, for example). The points you give to your skill can be split between AC and your attack score. That means, someone who is good with a weapon can either be a very, very good attacker but suck at defending with the weapon (which is mostly dodging by the way the system works), vice versa, or be somewhat goodish at both. Of course, this becomes bad as soon as someone does a wizard build with all points put into the AC. To balance that out, a rule where casting a spell in a round negates the AC bonus from your Combat Skill would be desirable. Well, this ends my little experiment. What do you think about it? Well, it won't solve your problem, unless the DM have more control over character advancement (i.e., in addition to rewarding XP). As you stated, you have campaigns in which there is no actual combat encounter. The PC levels up and and yet gain combat skill points? Where did he gain improvement in that area during the course of the adventure? Logically, a DM should not reward combat skill points for a noncombat adventure. :smirk:
spectralphoenix 11-21-05, 06:36 PM	Doesn't this mean that any character can max out one weapon and his AC skill with a 1/2 attack bonus, and three or seven weapons at 3/4 and full? Considering that most characters don't use more than 3 different weapons, a character with 3/4 BAB would be just as powerful as one with full BAB, as woulda 1/2 BAB character with just one weapon. Beyond which, a character with BAB and an AC bonus equal to 3 + character level is considerably more powerful than the RAW. Lastly, this doesn't solve the problem since they gain combat skill when they level up anyway.
Millennium 11-22-05, 01:49 PM	So? Just because it's out of the ordinary as far as rules modifications go, that does not make it dumb. No, but solving a problem that you admit doesn't exist in your game just because of your own sense of aesthetics does make it dumb. Quite dumb, in fact. You're replacing a system you never even use with a system that requires modifications to systems you do use (namely, skills). That's gratuitous houseruling, and although you certainly can do it, this doesn't make it a good idea. Fighter-types are assumed to be getting in some practice even during downtime when major combats aren't happenning. A fighter with any sense is going to be doing basic morning workouts and possibly even forms practice if his combat style includes such things. This stuff gets abstracted out during the XP system, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Gratuitous houseruling is not a good thing. Houserules are good ways to solve problems in a particular system, but you've come up with a solution in search of a problem. Don't bother. Or if you insist, then it's been done better; check out the Combat Skills mechanism used in BESM d20's SRD (http://www.guardiansorder.com/games/d20/srd/).
Dragonblade275 11-22-05, 07:03 PM	BAB is one of the things which rubs me the wrong way. You could have several campaigns without any combat at all (say, court intrigues en masse), and you'd still automatically pick up more fighting prowress. For the same reason that you do not get more muscles by talking about politics, this is a silly mechanic. The logical thing to do would be to turn BAB into a series of skills (hereafter known as Combat Skills). Being proficient with a weapon would allow you to treat the respective Combat Skill (which should be done among the lines of UA's Weapon Groups, or something similar) as class skills in addition to not having any penalities on attacking with the weapons. Of course, you should not be able to buy Combat Skills with normal skill points, this would leave the Rogue as the best fighter ever. Instead, I'd say: 1/2 BAB gets 2 Combat Skill Points 3/4 BAB gets 4 Combat Skill Points Full BAB gets 8 Combat Skill Points. Well, this ends my little experiment. What do you think about it?Althouh I agree with others that have posted already that this solution doesn't resolve the problem you presented, it does somewhat help with making each character more individualistic when it comes to weapon skills. With this system, not every fighter will have the same base attack bonus with every single weapon (I'm ignoring the effect of various feats for purposes of discussion). One might be better with light blades and bows while another might be better with throwing weapons and axes. Also, I do agree that non-primary combat classes (like rogue) could be as good as primary combat classes (with fewer weapon groups) if there were no restrictions on how to spend the skill points. However, at this time, I don't see this as a problem. I would also allow characters to have max ranks in their weapon group skills of level+3 for simplicity. If you wanted to further complicate things, you could allow characters to buy bonus damage from the same pool of points. For instance, a fighter could spend half his points on weapon skill and half on weapon damage. Less BAB with the weapon group for greater damage? It might be a solution to a problem I've thought about that's related. Why doesn't a 20th level fighter have a greater certainty of doing more damage with a long sword than a first level fighter (all other things being equal- and I'm ignoring feats)? Building on the two ideas... It would be possible to have a 20th level fighter who instead of having a +23 to hit with all the maxed out weapon groups he knows to have a +13 to hit and a +10 damage (or any other variation). In theory, I like the idea... but, in practice, it probably will complicate things quite dramatically.
FlameLover 11-23-05, 12:49 AM	Well the solution to Fighter 1 vs Fighter 20 with same equipment and feats doing the same damage is making your Attack and Damage rolls the same thing. It's a MAJOR change to the system and wouldn't work in D&D but is an interesting thought. That's how my proposed Skirmish rules in UA board work anyway. But about the OPs idea - i like the idea of specialization in a category of weapons but it doesn't solve the raised issue. The "solution" is to tell the group that you'll be running a more RP/politcal/intriuge/etc. campaign and to make characters appropriatley. If you have a big, brutish Orc Barbarian say give them some moments now and then to shine but otherwise focus on what you would be doing. A good RP campaign needs a Barbarian for every Bard just to make things interesting.
Tenzhi 11-23-05, 03:35 AM	Of course, you should not be able to buy Combat Skills with normal skill points, this would leave the Rogue as the best fighter ever. Not necessarily, as combat skills might be Cross-Class for him, or might have different skill caps altogether based on class. Personally, I'd simplify it to two skills: Melee Combat (Str) and Ranged Combat (Dex). I might give each class two more skill points per level and make both of those skills cross-class for everyone. Classes with a good BAB would get a +1 bonus to one or both of these skills at level 2 and every even level beyond that; classes with an average BAB would get a +1 bonus to one or both of these skills at level 4 and every fourth level after that. But that's just me.
Ranger REG 11-23-05, 05:24 AM	But that's just me. Meh. While I agree that's the only way to go -- pretty much like Rolemaster variable point-buy skill system -- it's still doesn't solve the original poster's dilemma, mainly regarding awarding PC after completing a noncombat adventure. (I know, in D&D it is truly rare.) Still, we do rely on common sense, for instance, how can you improve Profession (Sailor) skill when you spent the last 6 months inland, in a desert, looting a mummy's tomb? (Of course, such a skill is low-priority unless you're fast-tracking toward a pirate- or mariner-based PrC.) But when it comes to combat skill points, we consider it high-priority, especially for martial classes. In fact, we'd probably cry foul if the DM decided not to award combat skill points for a noncombat adventure -- though it a logical solution to this particular situation.
Tenzhi 11-24-05, 12:18 AM	The most proper solution to that problem given the system, would probably be to have a system of diverting different kinds of XP (perhaps Social, Combat, Magic, and Skills) to various classes suited to the XP and chosen at creation. A character would level up in each class seperately depending on different XP earned. But that's just too complicated, IMO.
Steel Cobra 11-24-05, 12:34 AM	no, be quiet, dumb idea, shut up. Just saying what all others are thinkng. Yeah I hate the idea. Stop cluttering the boards with your nonsence
Schmendrick 11-24-05, 04:16 AM	The most proper solution to that problem given the system, would probably be to have a system of diverting different kinds of XP (perhaps Social, Combat, Magic, and Skills) to various classes suited to the XP and chosen at creation. A character would level up in each class seperately depending on different XP earned. But that's just too complicated, IMO. Eh; actually I like the "different kinds of xp" variant, in a game that is already skewing the abstraction of XP. Remember, you don't actually gain XP from an adventure until the adventure is over. A lot of groups reinterpret that as "you get XP at the end of the session," but RAW (IIRC) you never level up "in the field," and so are assumed to be spending all of that 'downtime' practicing everything that a new level represents (be it magic, skills, combat ability, or whatever). If PCs are leveling "in the field," then you're treating XP as something else entirely.
Tenzhi 11-24-05, 04:21 AM	I think the reason it's typically done at the end of the session is because "end of the adventure" can be fairly ambiguous if you're not running published adventures.
Schmendrick 11-24-05, 04:33 AM	I think the reason it's typically done at the end of the session is because "end of the adventure" can be fairly ambiguous if you're not running published adventures. It can be, but in my experience it's almost always pretty clear when an adventure is over. When the party can afford to take a week or so off for R&R, the adventure is over. As long as something is keeping them on their toes, compelling them to dungeon dive or explore or hunt down some fiend, the adventure isn't over. Drawn out "chained" adventures can break this rule, but even there you can get a decent feel for breakpoints; look at it this way: if this were a series of books, where would the best place be to end a book and start the next? (Assume the author has the common courtesy to not end each book with an extreme cliffhanger.)
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-24-05, 01:51 PM	The most proper solution to that problem given the system, would probably be to have a system of diverting different kinds of XP (perhaps Social, Combat, Magic, and Skills) to various classes suited to the XP and chosen at creation. A character would level up in each class seperately depending on different XP earned. But that's just too complicated, IMO. That is actually a pretty nice idea. Better than turning BAB into skills, I think, at least if we stay within the borders that D20 defines.
Xeviat-DM 11-26-05, 05:18 AM	I'm going to toss out some info of the d10 system that L5R uses, as it is my favorite skill based system. There are 8 ability scores (four physical and four mental), and quite a large number of skills. Your family (race basically) and school (class basically) determine two ability scores you gain a +1 bonus to (each start at 2) and your school determines your class skills (skills you automatically gain 1 rank in). You start off with 45 character points, all which must be spent before play. Increasing an ability score costs a number of character points equal to the next ability score times 4. For example, if you want to increase your 2 strength to 3 strength, it would cost 12 character points. Increasing a skill costs a number of points equal to the next skill rank. For example, your first rank costs 1, increasing to 2 costs 2, increasing to 3 costs 3 ... In addition, you can gain an emphasis in a skill by spending 2 times the number of emphasis you will have after gaining it; gaining your first emphasis in a skill costs 2 points, and give you advantages to using the skill in a certain way. You can also purchase character advantages, similar to feats in a certain way, and disadvantages, giving you bonus character points. After spending your points, you're a first level character (your insight rank is 1). The XP you gain are spent as character points to boost your abilities and skills, or purchase advantages or pay off disadvantages. Your ability scores and skills are added together in a certain way to determine your insight level, which determines when your insight rank increases; when your insight rank increases you can be trained in your next school level, which gives you new "class" abilities; this costs no character points. Certain skills (especially "knowledge" skills) give extra insight points to add to your insight level. My point is, if you were to do a skill based system in d20, you would need to make higher skills cost more points. That would really be cool, since it would be easier for a higher level character to learn new things, but it would keep someone from getting a 20 BAB too early in the game. More things to consider.
Ranger REG 11-29-05, 04:18 AM	That is actually a pretty nice idea. Better than turning BAB into skills, I think, at least if we stay within the borders that D20 defines. Perhaps, but you're crossing over into Rolemaster/MERP territory.
Rolof 11-29-05, 05:59 AM	Nothing personal, but I think although your reasoning for wanting to do such a thing is sound, actually doing it would be a huge mistake. For starters, it completely screws the fighter class: their biggest benefit is bonus feats that help in combat and their high BAB. If they could at least adapt to your high-intrigue plot device, ok-maybe. But they can't, with so few skill points, they will never have the ranks in diplomacy, knowledge/nobility, etc to thrive in the scenario you picture. Whether you realize it or not, what your actual gripe is (and a legitimate one), is that a level-based system doesn't do well in reflecting realistic skill developement. However, it's central to what D&D has always been, and probably always will be, and shouldn't be monkeyed with. As others said, better to switch to a different gaming system. I would like to suggest you take a look at the GURPS (generic universal roleplaying system) game: there are no levels, but you do still earn exp points, which can go to buy whatever skill you feel the need to get or improve. Much in the same way that you can do points buying versus dice rolling to generate your starting stats in D&D, GURPS uses points buying for everything, you never gain HPs, or anything else, you just continue to improve skills or learn new ones. I will warn you though, that while it is probably the most accurate gaming system I ever played, it was by far the most complicated as well. Not to mention that the increased accuracy was sometimes a drawback in itself, it can be a bit restrictive, and combats are often quite deadly. Also, progression in any skill tends to top out pretty quick, you can buy most any skill for cheap, but improving it gets more and more expensive the higher you want it to be. But again, that is more realistic-it's easy to learn the alphabet and basic math, harder to learn to read and write, algebra, etc. I think that even in that system, the players can still buy up whatever skills they want, so even if diplomacy and the like were most used, they might decide to improve their longsword skill instead. The difference is, they probably won't try to take it beyond a certain point, because the buy system doubles for each point, 1,2,4,8,16 etc, and you get on average only 3-5 exp per game session. (My apologies if I broke forum taboo by mentioning another game system, not sure if that's a no-no or not, but others were, so I joined in.)
Xandore 11-29-05, 12:09 PM	I've been giving the idea of BAB as a skill and after reading through all the posts I've come up with the following ideas. Make BAB a skill that can have a maximum skill points spent equal to character level. Full BAB = Class Skill: 1 rank per skill point 3/4 BAB = Semi-Class Skill: .75 rank per skill point 1/2 BAB = Cross-Class Skill: .5 rank per skill point You gain an addition attack at rank 6 and every 5 ranks after so rank 6, 11, 16, etc... BAB skill would be both a STR skill and a DEX skill depending on it being used for melee or ranged combat. Gain one additional skill point at each character level. This is not multiplied by 4 at character level 1. It may be spent on BAB skill or another skill. You can also add weapon group skills as a combat skills This would be like the knowledge skills, bard instrument skills, craft skills, etc. The point of would be gaining a +2 synergy bonus to BAB skill when you have 5+ ranks in the weapon group skill. So If you had 5 ranks in One-handed Swords skill you would gain a +2 synergy bonus to attack with a shortsword.
FlameLover 11-29-05, 04:08 PM	I've been toying with a point system myself for my CS Myrkwell. I wanted combat to be something you had to actually "purchase" - you didn't just get it automaticaly like EVERYONE does in D&D. I also wanted a very simple system because I'm going for a rules lite sort of thing. I hadn't thought about doing it in the ways mentioned here and I like some of the concepts so thanks for that - and don't worry Rolof I don't think it is taboo) Back on-topic the idea of seperate XP for combat, magic, social, etc. isn't the best way to do it. What I would do is just give XP for each social encounter like it was a fight of either easy, moderate or hard difficulty and assume any skills not used "in the field" were trained during downtime. Easy fix!
Tuah 11-29-05, 05:53 PM	Base Attack isn't just about strength; it's also about technique and skill.
Gilean 11-30-05, 01:18 PM	GURPS might be an option, but the skills cost too much in relation to attributes. With a bit of tweaking, though, it could work. I suggest you check out Hero Wars, as well.
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-30-05, 02:19 PM	I guess I'll end up doing my own, or rather continuing to do so. *shrugs* I'd probably use GURPS if it was free, but it isn't. (I mean the Stallmanian version of free.)
Shike 11-30-05, 08:46 PM	Another good general system option is the HERO system. IT is point buy and has a large number of skills. Like other's have said, d20 is a combat oriented system. A more general system, like gurps, HERO, Rolemaster, etc would probably be more fitting to your proposed campaign.
Tenzhi 12-01-05, 12:14 AM	I guess I'll end up doing my own, or rather continuing to do so. *shrugs* I'd probably use GURPS if it was free, but it isn't. (I mean the Stallmanian version of free.) You could try Fuzion, which is a free.
Ranger REG 12-01-05, 04:57 AM	Like other's have said, d20 is a combat oriented system. A more general system, like gurps, HERO, Rolemaster, etc would probably be more fitting to your proposed campaign. Meh. I refuse to believe that d20 is a combat-only rules system. Just because there is a level-based BAB (predecessor of THAC0), doesn't necessarily means it's not a good general system for a role-playing game.
Sigurd van Norhusen 12-01-05, 07:41 AM	You could try Fuzion, which is a free. Nope, isn't free. Gratis but not free. Meh. I refuse to believe that d20 is a combat-only rules system. Just because there is a level-based BAB (predecessor of THAC0), doesn't necessarily means it's not a good general system for a role-playing game. Actually, for that I would prefer D20 Modern (with Classically Modern).
Ranger REG 12-01-05, 03:41 PM	You could try Fuzion, which is a free. Or you could try its Open Gaming cousin, Action! System (www.action-system.com). Who says OGL has to be only d20-based rules?