Crunch Talk: Base Attack Bonuses and Saving Throws

Epic Meepo · February 23, 2007, 04:01:49 PM

I, like many d20 players, have always thought that it would be perfectly reasonable to replace the entire concept of a base attack bonus with weapon skills. Weapon skills would be very easy to implement, and ensure that high level characters without combat training aren't automatically better combatants than lower-level characters with combat training.

Theoretically, saving throws could also be replaced with skills. However, does it make sense to have a high-level character who isn't at least a little better than lower-level characters at surviving attacks that allow saving throws? I can see reasonable arguments for either answer, so I'm curious to know other CBGers' thoughts on the matter.

Stargate525 · February 23, 2007, 05:10:19 PM

Quote from: Epic MeepoI, like many d20 players, have always thought that it would be perfectly reasonable to replace the entire concept of a base attack bonus with weapon skills. Weapon skills would be very easy to implement, and ensure that high level characters without combat training aren't automatically better combatants than lower-level characters with combat training.

Theoretically, saving throws could also be replaced with skills. However, does it make sense to have a high-level character who isn't at least a little better than lower-level characters at surviving attacks that allow saving throws? I can see reasonable arguments for either answer, so I'm curious to know other CBGers' thoughts on the matter.

Natural save bonuses should probably stay. After all, most characters obtain higher levels by doing what they we're 'built' to do. Naturally, that should improve your reflexes, immune system, and willpower.

Captain Obvious · February 23, 2007, 05:36:12 PM

I would think the way to make this work would be that every one progresses at the poor level (1/2 bab and 3 poor saves), then their skill points can be used to improve specific save and their attack bonus with either types of weapons (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning), style of fighting (light one handed/two-weapon/ranged/two-handed), specific weapons, or however you decide to break it up.
I also always though that certain feats little weapon focus, specialization and imp crit (among others) could be tied in directly to how many skill ranks you tied into a partivular weapon or style. These feats could actually take the form of skill tricks from Complete Scoundrel (i really like that system).

limetom · February 23, 2007, 06:19:35 PM

I've played in a few systems that replace Base Attack Bonuses with Weapon Skills, namely BESM and my friend's custom system. I found them complicated, overly restrictive, and down right annoying.

In my friend's system, and if I recall correctly, in Tri-Stat BESM, skills and weapon skills were grouped together, meaning that I'd have to trade off a skill for a weapon skill, or vice versa. In the end, I had a highly skilled character who was only proficient in one single kind of weapon.

I have not found it the best way to go.

Matt Larkin (author) · February 24, 2007, 10:06:11 AM

Thread Ev's idea I kind of like. It would allow for a lot of customization of characters. I wouldn't group by damage type though. It would either be weapon grouns (ala UA), or fighting styles (I previously planned to use these, and did work developing groups, but never implimented them - the basic idea though, would be whatever weapons are learned in a real world fighting style would fit, even if they are radically different).

Captain Obvious · February 24, 2007, 02:44:04 PM

What if they got grouped by both weapon groups and weapon styles. So there are two different things here.

People start off with 1/2 BAB ala wizard.

There are weapon groups like axes/swords/mace/bow/throwing/etc which you can use skill points to advance. Then, based on your ranks in these skills, you could gain skill tricks like improved crit, weapon spec, or those other cool fighter things from PHBII. Using a kind of weapon you have maxed out ranks for would grant you extra BAB equivalent to and extra 1/4 BAB (so if you use a weapon group you are good with, then you have 3/4 BAB like a monk rogue or cleric)

Then there are weapon styles such as TWF, big weapons (two handed things like greatwords and halberds), small weapons (kinda duelist style), sniping, multishotting, weapon and shield, and don't know what else. These can also grant you up to another 1/4 BAB on top of the other things - so to have a full 1/1 BAB you have to use a type of weapon you know, and in a style you know. These styles all also have assorted skill tricks you can buy (basically the appropriate feats).

ex. (not gonna include tricks yet cause they need to be worked out and this is all prelim ideas that i'm throwing out there)
A warrior who has maxe out the Sword group and the TWF style will have full BAB when fighting with 2 swords, 3/4 when fighting with a sword and shield (or a two handed sword, or a rapier and nothig else), 3/4 when fighting with 2 maces or 2 axes, or some other combination, and will have 1/2 BAB when using an unfamiliar style and typ (mace nd shield for example).
Now this warrior would probably have at least some ranks in mace/axe or in sword and shield, and as such would have a bit better than just 1/2, but this is just an example.

Thius is starting to get kinda complicated, but i am going to mull this over some more. I'm liking these ideas more and more, and may try to develope a system using some of the stuff i just said.

Matt Larkin (author) · February 24, 2007, 03:16:51 PM

The inevitable question I always find myself with when going down this road is, if more realistic progress and combat is desired, why not just use a different system...There was a time when I thought house ruling D&D more likely to produce something more players would like. But if they want D&D, they'll want D&D. And if they're open to new things, they'll try a new system. Sometimes.

Xeviat · February 25, 2007, 03:20:10 PM

I've attempted to do weapon skills as well. The problem with them is that it encourages specailization and does not reward diversification. Most characters will just have one weapon skill and that's it; even with cross-class implimentation, you'll still have almost every character maximizing a weapon skill.

Similarly, there is a disparity between the power of skill points and attack bonuses. Look at Skill Focus, which grants +3 to a skill, vs. Weapon Focus, which grants +1 to attacks with a single weapon (or weapon group).

If you look at Mutants and Masterminds or True20, 1 character point gets you 1 melee attack bonus or 1 ranged attack bonus, or 1 character point gets you 4 skill points. Obviously, they think there is a difference.

Matt Larkin (author) · February 25, 2007, 04:15:36 PM

I agree with Xev that you'll always get heavy specialization that way. Of course, whether or not that is a problem is debatable. It would make sense most warriors would train especially with just a few weapons. That advantage of fighting styles over weapon groups is that, besides adding a realistic feel, it will mean that learning a style means some diversity.

Xeviat · February 26, 2007, 03:04:56 AM

A PS I meant to put earlier, but the site went down before I left for work.

Some serious combatants and recreationists have told me that weapon proficiency is an odd issue, and that 3rd Edition D&D has handled it pretty well really. When you learn how to fight (read: martial weapon proficiency), you tend to be reasonably good with all weapons you know how to use. As you get more skilled, your skill with other weapons increases to. But, you can learn to especially utilize certain types of weapons (read: weapon focus chain).

Bill Volk · February 26, 2007, 03:34:39 AM

I'm afraid that a d20 system with combat skills instead of the BAB wouldn't be as fun. Here's why:

It would force PCs to pick one or two weapons and use them exclusively. It leaves no room for them to change their minds (for example, if they find a powerful weapon as treasure, or if they want to disguise themselves as enemies who use different weapons.) Imposed weapon exclusivity doesn't make PCs much less powerful, but it can be frustrating as hell for players. This is already a concern, especially for fighters, but the system you suggest would make it even more frustrating.

It dissolves the difference between fighting-oriented classes and other classes. Assuming that simple weapons would still be class skills for classes like the rogue and cleric, their attack bonuses would become closer to those of fighters and barbarians. On a related note, classes that get a lot of skill points would become much more beastly in combat, while fighters would have no points left to spend on non-weapon skills.

It would lead to higher total attack bonuses all around (especially if they could still put four skill points into weapon skills at first level and if they could take Skill Focus in weapon skills.) Something would need to be done to increase everything's AC to preserve balance.

It doesn't really lead to more nuanced character customization. The fighters, rogues, and some of the divine spellcasters will max out their ranks in weapon skills as a matter of course, and everyone else won't bother buying any ranks at all. That doesn't sound like much fun.

Also, a few questions: what would you do about touch spells and other spells that require attack rolls? Would these get their own skills? What would Tenser's Transformation do? How would you handle natural weapons, particularly the natural weapons of mindless creatures who therefore have no skills?

Epic Meepo · February 26, 2007, 02:42:31 PM

Quote from: Bill VolkIt would force PCs to pick one or two weapons and use them exclusively. It leaves no room for them to change their minds (for example, if they find a powerful weapon as treasure, or if they want to disguise themselves as enemies who use different weapons.)

On a related note, classes that get a lot of skill points would become much more beastly in combat, while fighters would have no points left to spend on non-weapon skills.[/quote][A weapon skill system] doesn't really lead to more nuanced character customization.[/quote]Also, a few questions: what would you do about touch spells and other spells that require attack rolls? Would these get their own skills?[/quote]What would Tenser's Transformation do?[/quote]How would you handle natural weapons, particularly the natural weapons of mindless creatures who therefore have no skills?[/quote]Since a weapon skill system converts weapon proficiencies into skill points, mindless creatures would actually have a few skill points. However, being mindless, they could only spend these points on weapon skills. (The existing rules already make similar exceptions; skeletons, as mindless creatures, are not supposed to have feats, yet they are allowed to have feats specifically related to weapon attacks. Weapon skills for mindless creatures would parallel this example.)

For the most part, a weapon skill system doesn't cause much, if anything, to differ from the BAB system. Ideally, a weapon skill system just reproduces most the same results as the existing system so long as players are optimizing their characters for combat. The only real change is that non-combat characters (such as an expert mathematician) can trade "BAB" for additional non-combat skills by giving up weapon skills that most players consider to be "must-haves."

Bill Volk · February 26, 2007, 04:44:26 PM

I see. Might it be easier if you phrased it in the opposite way? If you simply said "A character can gain x skill points instead of a point of BAB whenever she levels up," that would yield the same result and wouldn't result in extra bookkeeping for all the combat-optimized characters whom the rule wouldn't affect much anyway.

Ooh, and I thought of another question! When a druid uses wild shape or when someone polymorphs himself, would they automatically gain max ranks in their new forms' natural weapons? Alternatively, would they have to buy ranks in "claw," "bite," et cetera?

Xeviat · February 26, 2007, 05:54:20 PM

If you're going to have 4 skill points, for instance, increase your BAB by 1, that amounts to the same thing as a feat, as I adressed earlier. If you want to treat feat chains as skill chains, that's something entirely different.

Epic Meepo · February 26, 2007, 08:14:37 PM

Quote from: XeviatIf you're going to have 4 skill points, for instance, increase your BAB by 1, that amounts to the same thing as a feat, as I adressed earlier.

Very true. I could replace skill ranks with any equivalent unit that is accumulated at a fixed rate, be it feats, power points, gold pieces, or units of gettin'-jiggy-with-it. :D

To side-step the issue of skills vs. feats vs. other units, here's the original question in a (mostly) unitless form:

Are good saving throws an intrinsic part of becoming more powerful, or could a character realistically forfeit one or more saving throw bonuses in order to train in another area? I can eaily imagine an experienced character having no combat ability, but I'm not sure if I could imagine an experienced character with very low saving throws (or a very low hit point total, for that matter).

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Crunch Talk: Base Attack Bonuses and Saving Throws

Epic Meepo

Stargate525

Captain Obvious

limetom

Matt Larkin (author)

Captain Obvious

Matt Larkin (author)

Xeviat

Matt Larkin (author)

Xeviat

Bill Volk

Epic Meepo

Bill Volk

Xeviat

Epic Meepo