Monster BAB is currently a problem

Right now the BAB of monsters is always at +5 to start. Which may be perfectly fine for plenty of monsters in the bestiary, but I don't see how it can apply to all monsters. Especially since players have now received a nerfed BAB. As it is, a simple level 1 goblin has the following stats:

AC 13
Hit Points: 3 (1d6)
Strength: 8

With a BAB of +5 minus 1 from a strength score of 8 for a total attack bonus of +4. A level 1-3 fighter with a strength score of 16 or 17 (double the strength core of the goblin) and with just a +1 BAB will then have an equal bonus to attack as the goblin. To me, a +5 BAB from a regular goblin makes no sense. Players don't get a +5 BAB until 19th/20th level. I really don't see the logic behind giving ALL monsters a +5 BAB to start. It certainly doesn't make sense for the weakest of creatures. Even a rat has a +4 to hit. Not a dire giant rat. Just a small cave rat.
I am in total agreement with you.  I want to see the attack bonuses scaled back at least 2-3 points, especially for those low-level monsters.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

The reason is that previous versions of the playtest had No BAB for monsters, and the result was that the goblin with 8 Str was swinging a -1 to hit with his mace.
So... when is he going to hit the fighter with 17 AC? 15% of the time. And even the rogue with 14 AC? 30% of the time. The only person that goblin will actually hit with any reliability is the armourless wizard.

There are three ways to deal with this issue.
1) Ignore it and accept that monster math and PC math don't need to be identical, as long as the system works.
2) Remove non-ability attack bonuses from players as well so that nobody is swinging with anything except ability mod. (And this still leaves the twin problems that monster AC is almost always low when compared to PC AC, and that monster ability scores aren't tuned for effectiveness the way that PC ability scores are)
3) Disconnect monster attacks from their ability score completely so that the monster swings with a number that is appropriate for its threat level rather than a number derived from another arbitrarily selected number.

None of these will actually solve this problem, insofar as it is a problem, but they are potential solutions to the cognitive disonnance you seem to be experiencing.

Nothing.

That is all.

they raised it because people were complaining the didnt hit enough.
the lowered players because people complained players hit too often.

but they still arent using the playtest to balance pVe.
they raised it because people were complaining the didnt hit enough.
the lowered players because people complained players hit too often.

but they still arent using the playtest to balance pVe.



In our first encounter before the attack raise our cleric was downed in 1 turn. We definitely didn't think they were hitting too few times. And when people complain about a 15% chance of a goblin or a rat hitting something with 17 AC I think that's completely justified. 17 AC is, so far, a pretty massive defense. Rather than boosting up the individual creatures DMs should just throw more of the creatures or play them better. We were being attacked from a range by some goblins shooting through murder holes and it took us a damn long time to finally get rid of them. And that was without their stupidly high BAB.
they raised it because people were complaining the didnt hit enough.
the lowered players because people complained players hit too often.

but they still arent using the playtest to balance pVe.



In our first encounter before the attack raise our cleric was downed in 1 turn. We definitely didn't think they were hitting too few times. And when people complain about a 15% chance of a goblin or a rat hitting something with 17 AC I think that's completely justified. 17 AC is, so far, a pretty massive defense. Rather than boosting up the individual creatures DMs should just throw more of the creatures or play them better. We were being attacked from a range by some goblins shooting through murder holes and it took us a damn long time to finally get rid of them. And that was without their stupidly high BAB.


oh i understand. im just stating why they were changed

also, i like that people were complaining "they dont hit enough and when they do hit, its too deadly. i'd rather they would hit more for less damage"

i disagree with it, i want them to hit less, i want my AC to mean something. and you know, when i get hit by a sword or an axe i expect it too hurt
they raised it because people were complaining the didnt hit enough.
the lowered players because people complained players hit too often.

but they still arent using the playtest to balance pVe.



In our first encounter before the attack raise our cleric was downed in 1 turn. We definitely didn't think they were hitting too few times. And when people complain about a 15% chance of a goblin or a rat hitting something with 17 AC I think that's completely justified. 17 AC is, so far, a pretty massive defense. Rather than boosting up the individual creatures DMs should just throw more of the creatures or play them better. We were being attacked from a range by some goblins shooting through murder holes and it took us a damn long time to finally get rid of them. And that was without their stupidly high BAB.


oh i understand. im just stating why they were changed



Yeah I know. I'm just ranting

...i want them to hit less, i want my AC to mean something...


This.

This right here.  Cool

It just doesn't feel right for a goblin (BAB+5) to be able to inflict a wound on a man in mail (AC 17) with an almost 50% success rate for every single attack it makes.  15% might be too little, but I want to see the goblin's chances cut in half.  A character in heavy armour should be able to expect to ignore the attacks of his foes of equivalent level at least 75% of the time. 

I'd prefer to see the goblin hit AC 17 only on a 16+...

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

Maybe monsters should have a BAB based on the kind of threat level they should be.  In 3.x, goblins were a CR 1/3.  So if a CR 1 has a base attack at +5, should they have a +3, then with their ability mod, it might be +1 or +2.  Gives them a roughly 25% chance of hitting that AC 17, which is better than 15%, but not so high that a single goblin should be able to take any PC alone. 

Of course, this would need something like Challenge Rating to make a return, which I don't think will.  So maybe start an Encounter Level 1 with a base of +2, which goes up by +1 every 5 levels, so an Encounter Level 6 gets a +3, 11 gets a +4, and so on.  Something like this also makes more sense for higher level threats. 

Dragons have a +6 ability mod, and a total attack bonus of +7.  Goblins have a -1 ability mod, and a total attack bonus of +4.  Something about that doesn't seem right to me.  Normally, I'd guess size modifiers were to blame, but in previous editions those were noted, and I can't find any rules for them in the books.  Does that mean they don't exist?  Don't know, but I guess it means they haven't told us.

Sign In to post comments