I think a vamp chestburster's host would raise as a vamp after being chestburst.

Are you going to ask that weather question?

@BESW As if they need it :( Also there was an AvP comic about a guy who ate a predator's heart as a kid and gained long life, and still does it every several decades when a new predator will land

So maybe a vampire who drinks a predator's blood will TURN ALIVE. (or just die)

@BESW I want to but I'm still not sure what terms to ask it in to not have it become a duplicate of that other question.

I want a weather generation system for 4e that has some mechanical impact. The other one wants weather generation for D&D in general terms, with no specified mechanical impact.

@JonathanHobbs Then the thing to ask is "What about the extant answers don't satisfy your question?"

@JonathanHobbs Hm.

Then honestly, it sounds like this is an "answer your own question" deal except that I answered it.

...awkward...

Yes I think the 3.5e->4e weather system might just be all I need

I somehow doubt it's kosher to ask a question you know your friend is going to answer.

But even if I answer, if you don't accept any answer for--maybe a week? We might get alternate solutions and rebuttals. That would be cool.

(I keep thinking about SuperPac collusion.)

@C.Ross Player confession: I'm the guy who strikes up a chat with the villain and helps talk him through his problems, defusing the situation and maybe concluding the encounter with some tea and scones.

@BESW It is entirely kosher. The site exists as a repository of knowledge for the 'net. It's Wikipedia in Q&A form. You can answer your own question, you can create a question just to answer it, and you can create bounties just because you want to award more rep to a particular already-existing answer because an upvote isn't good enough.

If I were asking it just so I could +1 you and you could +1 me, or something, that would be rotten, but that wouldn't be why I'd ask it.

Fair enough.

I won't have time to compose a decent answer for at least a day anyway, so I'll hold it to see what other ideas come through.

I'm honestly interested in other options; 3.5 weather is a good core, but needs a lot of custom expansion to make it work.

My experience with other systems is very limited.

Yeah, it would require customisation because of how differently combat and other systems work in 4e. There's new stuff weather could do, and old stuff it probably shouldn't.

Also as we discussed its climate tables are kinda silly.

@BESW i.e. three climate categories and ignore everything else?

"Screw you, Antarctica! If you're cold, you're gonna snow, damnit!"

70% chance of rain

"Temperate rain forests? Never heard of 'em. What? You say there's one two states north of us?"

Wait, no. I was thinking they're in California.

Could its rules be expanded for those other climates though?

"Temperate rain forests? Never heard of 'em. What? You say there's one in our state?"

@JonathanHobbs Sure, it just requires hand-building more tables.

The basic weather types should be pretty easy to translate into 4e, and the more complex weather like storms is just combining the basic types, and then you make a d% table for the climates you're interested.

You have to decide how granular to make your weather and your table, though.

The DMG has three or four different kind of wet storms, but only one sandstorm.

And I once personally experienced a dry typhoon.

Mm. So, new weather effects and a weather system based off that table.

I'm putting together an answer to the alignment-changing question.

Need a story idea that would lead a lawful character to choose to be chaotic while making him cool (not a fall from grace).

I've already got the Doctor from Doctor Who.

Lawful good characters follow the law where it benefits the people, and will oppose laws that do not help the people. If they are wronged, they would like vengeance just as much as anyone else, but they'll try to find their solution within the system (e.g. through the justice system) rather than subverting it (e.g. going to the person's house and killing them, or hiring an assassin).

A Lawful Good character could easily turn chaotic if, after years of trying to work within the system and use the law to benefit poeple, he realises that the system simply does not work. The establishments are corrupt, the founding principles were bad, the lawmakers do not work for the betterment of the people and the laws are abusable by evil.

Such a character would, naturally, oppose every law and find no comfort in working within the system, because the laws and system would be against himself and the common man.

Such a character would either turn chaotic good, or just be a lawful character not following the land's laws, but instead following his own principles. That may still be chaotic, I'm not sure.

Thanks!

Nice answer. :)

@JonathanHobbs +1 for experience? [grin]

I have already +1'd it. c(:

I'm pretty sure you +1'd it before you had time to read it, silly goose.

I've had a couple games where I required lawful characters to come into play with codes of conduct.

Nope, I +1'd it when I was partway through the common baseline section

At that point I knew the answer was incredibly promising and by the time I reached the end, I'd be able to undo my vote if I didn't like it!

Also thankyou for mentioning that it is probably more fun to just let him be chaotic.

@JonathanHobbs Heh. High school kid in a college campaign (little brother of a player's friend) taught me that.

@BESW The chaotic monk kid, in being chaotic, taught you the value of just letting people be? :)

@JonathanHobbs In this setting, yes.

The important part is that his actions didn't get in the way of the party's fun; they increased it.

If he's being Chaotic Dickish instead of Chaotic Funny, then we have a problem.

@BESW Then that is great. :) And that is why I loved your answer so much. You pointed out it's fine as long as it's fun.

@JonathanHobbs How is this hard for people?

...no, I actually understand why people miss that point. But it makes me flail anyway.

I agree with that maxim to a certain extent. Not that I'm anti-fun, but if the AL cards get thrown out the window then things like Hierophants, Detect, Forbiddance... All of those mean nothing

@BESW Because they are too lawful!!1

fun should be high on the list, definitely. But what about the agreed upon rules and medium?

@LitheOhm I spent years trying to rip the alignment axis out of D&D 3.5 and failing to detach it without getting half the system along with it, so I learned to deal with it constructively.

works great for a card game of Munchkin, not sure about the rest. There's more factors at play

I +1d your answer for the constructive PC approach, I like how you handled it

and I definitely agree that there is a social problem at play here

@LitheOhm I firmly believe the point of a game is to have fun. The rules should enable that, and when they're actively obstructing fun I have to look at them long and hard.

but I'm not sure about simply ejecting the rest. There's ramifications, a lot of things are entirely dependent on AL

@LitheOhm I am with you there; it can be quite bad for play. The fun factor is self-balancing. It's not fun to just begin ignoring the rules whenever you feel like it - they do need to be followed so people get what they came for and know what's going on.

@JonathanHobbs you took the words out of my mouth, thank you

@LitheOhm That's why I said nothing about letting him keep leveling in monk while chaotic or anything like that.

it's a top priority, but it's not so much that it is capable of sacrificing all the other mechanics

@BESW only half-noted that. I have a friend who writes up a code that is three or more pages of "I can do what I please when it pleases me." Rules-lawyers ruin the fun for me, but that's personal

I do think the RAW AL needs some work. It's definitely a game-by-game basis where I've run across. Some games, AL has about as much effect as dwarves in medium armor. Other games it's integral

@LitheOhm Hence my bit about making sure the code was in line with the D&D definitions of lawful. I've seen that myself.

@BESW I really like your collaborative approach.

@LitheOhm If the game is collaborative storytelling (essentially my approach to RPGs in general) then it's natural to do it that way.

@BESW it's my preferred approach to problem solving, period.

there's got to be an "I win-you win" in there somewhere for most problems

certainly the vast majority of RPG related problems, at the very least

@LitheOhm Very much so. I've actually got a lot of training and experience in collaborative techniques for teaching, working with kids, and facilitating social development training programs.

It's one reason I like being a GM.

@BESW wonderful :) crucial life skills.

@LitheOhm It should be. It is the best approach for social problem solving. Either you, as a DM, just give up and let it sit there and annoy you, you override your player and make them unhappy, or you collaborate and create a win-win.

Most problems between players should be solved collaboratively!

If a DM is just trying to completely overrule his player, or vice-versa, they are doing something horribly wrong

@JonathanHobbs accomodation = you win, I don't argue. Competition = I win and quench your arguing. Collaboration is far superior

@JonathanHobbs yep

there was a whole chapter this past term on problem solving techniques. I loved it - always been the mediator type

@LitheOhm Thanks. It speaks quite strongly about how I deal with problems that I couldn't even remember the other two terms. c(:

it's just not as easy when the gun is pointed at me lol

(I tried!)

@JonathanHobbs :) each have their uses in different situations. There's also avoidance, might be one more

hm.. compromise

Yes, avoidance would be just not bringing it up and sitting there being annoyed about it.

collaboration requires learning and growth, both sides furthered. Compromise means between the two making the equal solution

@JonathanHobbs to a point. If I am a manager and one of my subordinates picks a fight with me but is due to be fired by one of my bosses, avoidance might be fair for me

@LitheOhm Oh, yeah. But in this situation, avoidance would just be sitting there being annoyed about your player doing it wrong.

basically, when exercising effort to handle the problem is barely considered an even-pay-out. It's definitely not for everything either, and does breed problems like you mention

@JonathanHobbs yep. Lack of your growth and a lack of theirs. Acknowledging a problem is half the battle, nothing in there about the 'success' of noticing a problem lol

@JonathanHobbs and the more avoidance is exercised, the further the persona goes from the psyche and the more can slip out. While I smile, my eye twitches irritatedly lol

@LitheOhm I don't understand that bit. O:

@JonathanHobbs He's saying that suppressing conflict just makes it pop up somewhere else, often poorly.

@JonathanHobbs Jung psychology, we are all broken up into part-selves. I'm a student, a boyfriend, a son, a brother... Much of these personalities are mutually inclusive but some are not. Nice guy persona (there is no fight, avoidance) goes far from the psyche (all my experience tells me there's a fight, can't lie to myself) and so there's a split where the persona/ego disagrees with the psyche/shadow.

@BESW yes. And by poorly I add in, also, "not under our control."

repressing anger doesn't quell it, just means when it vents it's even less under your control

that's why after months of conflict and playing Nice DM, problem players get criticized for even small things

@LitheOhm "the further the persona goes from the psyche and the more can slip out." What slips out?

@LitheOhm Oh. That stuff slips out?

@JonathanHobbs The more psyche, I think.

@JonathanHobbs truth. "I have a problem with your playing style."

avoidance seems to me to be at best a temporary solution. Any longer than that and all of that un-tended-to emotion compounds itself

think - Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

@LitheOhm Okay, thanks. That is actually helping me to understand something going on for me right now in my personal life. :)

@JonathanHobbs nice :) I'm a hardcore Jung psychology lover - working on three books right now. IMO it should be standard reading in school lol. Useful stuff

and I apologize for having my big rant over this, I got well off topic lol

@LitheOhm Yes, a lot of stuff like that should definitely be standard knowledge. Fuck, there is just so much people could do if they understood a bit of this, like being able to recognise when they were stopping themselves short of obtaining success just because they were afraid of failure. :(

@JonathanHobbs I don't put much stock in any particular psychological construct, but I have learned the hard way that if I don't vent in small bursts I explode every six months or so.

@JonathanHobbs yes. We are our own worst enemies, and in a way it's a blessing and a curse.

@BESW Definitely for controlled venting.

@BESW also - I can't say I adhere to all Jung says, but definitely the essence of how he views the unconscious I can side with.

"Life's a stage and men and women are but players" or however that goes

@LitheOhm That would be Shakespeare.

a curse because we resist ourselves a lot (like Plato's chariot) but also a blessing because the further we go from our real, true selves - the harder our unconscious will push to bring us back

@BESW yep :)

I'm actually trying to throw in a lot of Jungian architecture (metaphysical) into my current campaign project. I really, really like it.. Like words cannot express lol

have always been interested in behavior (we're such interesting creatures, humans) and how/what people think, as well as what motivators exist within each. Jung shed a lot of light in the field

@LitheOhm Jungian architecture? Are we talking buildings, or architecture in a mental context?

and while it's not perfect, it definitely makes more sense to me than what I understand of Freud

mental context.

In an email subject line I just received: "The more you buy, the more you SAVE -- up to 30%!" THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. ARGH!

hehe

Amusing 4e rule implication

Combination: you can fall five feet and land on your feet.

Abuse: If a prone character teleports to a square five feet off the ground, he 'stands up' as part of the teleport.

I could see it

part A is odd, though

did they do away with jump checks to fall? Athletics or whatever they call it now

@BESW That sounds fine, I'd allow it! The guy re-orients himself as he teleports.

@JonathanHobbs If you teleport while prone and arrive on a ground-level square, you are explicitly still prone.

@LitheOhm If you're trained in Acrobatics, you can make a check and reduce your falling damage by 1/2 the check result.

k

@BESW Ah that is weird. But I'd still allow a person who can throw himself through a wormhole to reorient himself on the other end. c(:

@JonathanHobbs Balance-wise, standing up from prone is a move action. So is most teleporting.

know a 3.5 monster/spell filter? D20SRD's is still down

Teleport is already very powerful: it doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, it ignores line of effect, it can provide the effect of movement that would normally require skill checks.

@LitheOhm dndtools.eu

A thought: I love how many of the social problem questions get answered with "Don't do it that way. Just work with your player/GM."

@JonathanHobbs That is not helpful.

ah, this is what I requested but not what I meant. My bad, but I will keep it marked

@BESW Yes it is. Your response to that alignment-changing was one of them.

@JonathanHobbs thank you

curses chat

@BESW thank you

there we go

@JonathanHobbs work toward a specific goal/using a specific method, though

@JonathanHobbs My response was "Do it that way if it's what's needed, but engage in these specific social events first to determine if and why you should do it, and then use this strategy to do it."

@BESW That is true. I guess it is simulationist to say someone teleporting should easily be able to also right themselves.

@JonathanHobbs Simulation? Bad 4e GM! No cookie.

haha

Derp. I answered the masterwork weapon question, and the guy made it his "good answer," and then KRyan immediately gave a better answer.

@BESW Eh, it happens. New people accept answers very quickly.

@JonathanHobbs I know I did.

Hah, necromancer badge.

@BESW the only thing I would change about your answer is to distinguish the bonus as being to attack and not damage. Otherwise I'd say yours suffices

@LitheOhm It's a big issue though.

as it is, I don't agree with a few points on his but it's just a matter of preference

@BESW how so?

For low-level PCs who can only afford masterwork, it's important.

And for high-level PCs who get their weapons disenchanted mid-combat, it's also important.

was halfway suggesting an edit. I know the difference but they might not

I could've I guess XP scatterbrained today

I'll give it some thought. When I edit too much too quickly it all goes to hash.

Just because an answer is wordier doesn't make it better, though.

@LitheOhm I'm good at wordy!

No, he makes mechanics more explicit whereas I answered the exact question and let it drop.

edited

me too :P as was shown a few minutes ago, I suppose

@BESW sometimes more than is needed though. But here again, matter of preference. I've nothing against that user, we just seem to have different play styles

While on this note, I'm quite glad they are active on the site - I've even complimented them on their encyclopedic knowledge

@LitheOhm Yes indeed. K and I have managed to have several debates without flaming.

@BESW hehe. Even ours, there were only a few awkward moments. On my end just as much as theirs

They are quite the debater :)

d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm is there a way you've found to incorporate these without making clerics more powerful than every other caster?

namely, fatigue/exhaustion and the use of the heal spell

see: vitalizing variant

I like the idea of spellcasting taking a physical toll (ie. Raistlyn) but heal makes it mechanically broken

Never seen it in 3.5 without being easily broken.

not as powerful as magic recharge, but definitely a problem when mystic theurges (or anything else capitalizing on two pools of spell points) come into play

Best I saw was a very harsh "if you really have to" version based on the Stigmata feat.

as long as they have enough to cast heal.

@LitheOhm I broke that concept so hard.

@BESW oh?

@LitheOhm Constitution loss.

@BESW ah. There's an optional variant in there for that too. I really like how GURPS handles their spell points

and the option to "overcast," as it were

seems to me to be what Wild Mage should be.

I talked last night about magic being a separate system overlaid on the martial mechanics.

true there's the catch that their spell pools are tied through fatigue/exhaustion, but not sure if that's enough to bypass the heal trick

@BESW in 3.5?

Attempts to make the two become reciprocal, instead of just having magic impact the martial system (cure spells), are tricky.

@LitheOhm In pretty much all pre-4e D&D systems.

k

@BESW I found that when trying to design a homebrew system. Spell damage tends to cap out at so much higher than fighting damage

ultimately - spellcasters kick ass. It's everything the designers wish they could do (which tends to be a lot), and without many real precedents it doesn't have many constraints. Whereas with weapon masters at least we have a standard to compare it to, magic makes mortals godlike

best balance I can see is that low level mages tend to suck when compared to their fighting counterparts, and the tables turn at some point (depending on the system)

all that is barred in dead/antimagic, but those are usually the exception rather than the rule

Might want to read up on the discussion we had last night; I'm in no position to recap it now unfortunately, but it hits on a lot of what you're talking about now.

lol. cool. Where/when?

Started roughly here:

noted

It's a bit free-ranging.

lol. And then - anti-fighter from the friendly neighborhood optimizer

heh. Watermelon off a roof. I agree about '3.6'

Undead whores? Wow, where are they?

@JonathanHobbs I think it's the "Undead Horse" card.

Hahaha. Munchkin looks fun.

@JonathanHobbs It is!

Ursula Vernon's #dnd tweets are hilarious.

@JonathanHobbs yes, you should buy it for christmas for your group

Munchkin is a card game that mercilessly mocks the ruthless RAW min/maxing and player rivalries that often defined old-school D&D games, and simultaneously revels in it.

...and is really really funny while doing it.

Our new PC is a wizard who uses an unstrung shortbow as his implement.

We are going to have so many beholder jokes.

@BESW fun...

@BrianBallsun-Stanton It's the only way to get Magic Missile to qualify as a valid RBA for Rapid Shot.

(Rapid Shot requires "a ranged basic attack with a weapon" rather than a ranged basic attack with the weapon keyword. It's a nitpick, but one I'm more than pleased to exploit for a really underpowered build that makes a player really happy.)

@BESW bow dedicate?

@BrianBallsun-Stanton Yup!

yep, been exploring that myself

so... uh

why not make a scout.... fluffed with wizardy stuff?

oh, he wants autohit..

@BrianBallsun-Stanton Because the goal and motive purpose of this build is to create a PC that never rolls attacks.

Wizard/ranger hybrid with Archery Mastery and Reaper's Touch... between wizard and ranger every power slot can be filled with RBAs, MBAs, or non-attack powers.

The 'problem' is that Magic Missile neither hits nor rolls damage and thus nearly every feat to enhance attacks and damage or apply riders is useless to him.

The only way to get MM to roll damage I could find was against insubstantial creatures.

But otherwise, he's doing minion damage. Reliably, and often multiple times per turn, but... minion damage.

@BESW ummmm, acctually

what level?

Mind if I take a stab at this?

@BrianBallsun-Stanton 20 right now. 21 next session.

@BrianBallsun-Stanton Sure.

21, autohit is king, in this...

::cackle:: I know how to do it.

anyways... autohitting, at range?

for high numbers of targets, if possible?

Right... but it's not technically a hit.

Nearly every feat specifics hitting or rolling damage. Magic Missile does neither; it attacks and it damages.

yep

but the requirement isn't for MM

the requirement is for auto-hitting

Welp, time to start DMing. AFK.

@BESW wait!

before you leave, is doing "identical damage on a miss" the same as auto-hitting?

?

He doesn't want to roll attacks.

okay, so it's literally "not rolling" instead of "not missing"

He wants to touch dice as little as possible.

It's weird, because he has a meta: an IRL effect rather than an in-game effect.

right...

hrmmmm

@BESW I misread those tweets at first. I thought they said this:

> "I want to use Diplomacy to convince the drow to become my butler." #dnd

> ...that was an amazing Diplomacy roll. My paladin is now a drow butler. #dnd

@JonathanHobbs That would be better.

Player who doesn't want to touch dice rolls initiative: 1.

First die roll of the game!

@BESW Your player is a strange phenomenon.

@JonathanHobbs Really?

Anti-dice PC rolls a d20 on a skill challenge: 20. "That's the first 20 I've gotten in.... months?"

@BESW First of many ;) His luck is changing.

Game had less content than expected. One battle with two-hit minions, and a short skill challenge.

...finally got around to adding a proper short-form About Me to my usercard.

I have a weird idea for a 4e variant that I want to run past one or more people with experience in the system (and preferably with E6 experience too).

I can take a stab at it (while I wait for people to turn up to take some of my stuff away. Seriously, how hard is it to give stuff away???"). DOn't have any E6 experience though - and it really doesn't sound like my type of game.

I was reading an essay that suggested that solo/elite/standard/minion are the real power tiers used to gauge NPC power vs PC power, and that level is more of a conceit to separate different kinds of play.

Which makes a certain amount of sense: aside from adding level-based modifiers, the only real difference between NPCs of different level tiers is the kind of debuffs they wield.

This led me to speculating (as I often do, but with more focus this time) about removing the level-based modifiers in 4e PCs and NPCs.

I would also find some level where HP and damage are balanced fairly well and leave it there. Feat and power progression would continue, so a 'level 10' PC would have less power than a 'level 20' PC but it would be about ability and choice rather than numbers.

@BESW It's a good speculation - the default assumption is that your level distance is the important thing for numbers, not the absolute number.

@SimonGill I know! Our local used bookstore closed and none of the charities will take books anymore.

I tried doing in an indoor car boot sale in January for most of this stuff. Offered free cake. Nobody even came for the cake!

So more powerful NPCs would be solos, and more 'advanced' NPCs would be distinguished by their debuffs (and ability to handle new kinds of debuffs from the players) rather than their numbers.

@SimonGill Tragic. I would've come!

Just Friday I got Call of Cthulhu 6e because my friend was leaving island and he couldn't get rid of it.

@BESW You could have something like combat advantage too. Weakness or Strength would be rated from -3 to +3 and give bonuses or penalties to every number/roll. Applied to the players rolls of course.

That's an idea.

I was thinking of inventing at least one more NPC type after solo: Boss. It'd be kind of like the homebrew (boss) subtype or the worldbreaker powers combined.

Where would you put those in your games?

I've always been bothered by the fact that D&D PCs quickly reach a point where they literally cannot be hurt by things they once ran from.

@SimonGill Where narratively appropriate.

@BESW Heh, yeah, that is a weirdness of the wide power curve. 3.5E did work on that by encouraging the use of PC levels for monster races... but then that caused all kinds of extra work!

@MartinSojka Heh.

@SimonGill And it still left the problem that a horde of goblins was a menace for level 5s but barely difficult terrain for level 15s.

... or at least, something like BT's Battle Value would be handy.

@BESW I don't see that as a problem - but I love playing Solar Exalted who consider the heads and shoulders of an enemy army beneficial terrain ;)

4e did a little better with the damage curve and such, but by making hit and defense level-based it destroyed any chance that a hundred level 5 goblins could give a level 15 fighter a bloody nose.

@BESW But that's accurate for the genre conventions. Would you have expected Leonidas to fall to a small unit of hunchbacks with sharp sticks? Even if they did know some kung fu.

@SimonGill Yeah, I get that.

@BESW Of course, if you want different conventions, it's a different matter :)

That's why it's a variant and I'm just speculating out loud.

I think the main reason it bugs me is that it feels like it limits narrative opportunity.

One of the classic narrative concepts is "returning to defeat those who defeated you."

@BESW That's cool. It's always good to identify what you're changing and why.

@BESW I can see that.

Which is meaningless if you're just a bully beating up people who could never hurt you at all.

@BESW Yep.

If D&D adventurers are supposed to be heroes, it feels wrong to give them a horde of goblins to defend a village from and make it just feel like a tall guy putting his hand on a short kid's forehead.

A number-independent variant would make the goblins less of a threat because the PCs had more options rather than that they were nigh-invulnerable.

I think it would ultimately make the players feel more awesome because it was their actions rather than their passive buffs that defeated the foe.

Of course - you don't have to stick to a D&D clone. There may be other fantasy RPGs that give you everything you want, including that narrower power curve.

Oohhhh, they;ve arrived! See you in abit :)

@SimonGill Good luck!

@SimonGill Sure. I'm just speculating on how easy it might be to adjust a system my group already likes and knows.

It would have been harder in 3.5 because, for example, attack bonuses not only scaled with level; they were a defining part of each class and removing that would've changed balance (such as it is in 3.5) in ways I'm not going to pretend I understand.

I suspect DFRPG is closer to what I'm interested in.

@BESW At least for a fighter, that should be easy: No attack bonus at all, but at levels 6, 11 and 16 you gain an additional attack in that round, at -5, -10 and -15 respectively. Clerics table goes: Levels 1-4: -1, levels 5-8: -2, levels 9-12: -3, levels 13-16: -4, levels 17-20: -5; bonus attacks (at additional -5 and -10) at levels 8 and 15.

The more interesting problem is: How do I explain to my players that their character has a harder time to hit stuff as he levels up? :D

@MartinSojka That's a good start.

But being able to hit more accurately is important to a fighter too; it's one of the only things he gets, after all.

And I never really liked the penalty to multiple attacks, so as a personal preference if I'm making this variant I'm disinclined to include it. [so there]

The alternative would be to take the Commoner, Wizard, Sorc BAB progression as the "default"; Fighter would get a +1 bonus every second level then.

The progression for a fighter would then be: Level 2: Feat, level 3: +1 BAB, level 4: Feat, level 4: another +1 BAB and so on.

...I thought there was a 200-rep/day cap?