No Base Attack Bonuses?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I have a question regarding 5e's apparent lack of a base attack bonus. I have a friend who claims that because of this, 5e is a complete and total failure.

Here's what he says:

There is no base attack bonus. There is no class-based stat for how good you are in a fight. Sure, there are class-based things you can do besides attack, but in terms of how likely you are to hit, a wizard can be just as good as a fighter, and that's a big, steaming pile of crap.

At first level, a fighter and wizard can both have an attack bonus of +8, if they both use the standard array and put 15 into Strength and play humans for +1 to every stat. At 4th level they both get an ability score increase that takes them to 18 strength, and the attack bonus stays the same. At 6th level, the fighter tops out at 20 strength (he cannot increase it though his own ability alone any more). At 8th level, the wizard gets his second ability score increase, and then they're both tied a +13, and since their proficiency bonuses advance at the same rate they will be equal in that regard forever.

Now, I understand that fighters have combat options wizards do not. I understand that a wizard is not going to put his highest ability score into Strength nor would he advance it like that. I understand that there might be fighter archetypes and feats in the player's handbook that change this, but that does not address the core problem. It should not be possible for this to happen at all. It should be completely impossible for a wizard to be as good with a weapon as a fighter at any level at all, period.

Now, I personally don't feel is that this is that big a deal, but I haven't played the game properly yet. How do I respond to this very negative opinion? I don't know what to think?

[1of3]

You threaten to burn down his house, molest his kitten and play the trombone.

Really, it is pretty much impossible to convince people who already made up their minds. You can say that you are going to run this game and either he plays or he doesn't. But that's about it.

[Giant2005]

A Wizard will only ever have a single attack with a weapon (Unless he uses Haste for a second) and they don't get any way to use bonus attacks for physical attacks nor reactions (other than via attacks of opportunity).
Non-casters get so much more. A fighter gets 4 attacks per action and can get two actions for a total of 8 attacks even before bonus or reaction attacks. They tend to get abilities that capitalize on those actions also - a Monk for instance can get another two attacks via Bonus attacks.
They also get other combat related buffs such as the Fighter/Paladin/Ranger specialties and Fighters themselves get a whole lot more ability increases/feats than a Wizard could ever hope for.

Also it isn't really relevant but his numbers are way off - I don't know how he managed to think that a Fighter could increase his Strength to 18 and not get ny attack bonuses out of it (unless he was using a finesse weapon and already had a Dex of 18 or more of course). Also at level 1, the highest attack bonus you could hope for it +7 (2 proficiency and +5 from having a 20 in your primary attacking stat).

[Muenster Man]

Get your friend to actually read the class features of each class and then dare him to try making a wizard fight with a weapon as good as a reasonably-made fighter. Sounds like your friend read a few rules and made assumptions about the rest of the game based on previous editions.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Does your friend understand that a Wizard will never make get an extra attack? (without magic anyways)

Its a class feature not tied to Proficiency/BAB anymore. That's the simplest fly in the pudding here, because while you may have the same chance to-hit you won't get more chances to hit, thus basic attacking is clearly in the martial classes favor because they can do it twice in one turn to other classes once. And three to four times for the Fighter depending on level while others have various options around

But aside from all the other class bells and whistles there's your preserved basic superiority for martial classes in a straight up fight.

[Snails]

His definition of "to be as good with a weapon as" is simply too narrow to be important.

You can be 100% from the free throw line, and that does not make you a basketball player. Making the easy shots is not enough.

Ditto for the Wizard with sword. The point is the Wizard has the option to very effectively fight weak monsters, at the cost of a feat (or perhaps you are an elf). Or even stand toe to toe with strong monsters for a round or two. Good!

[ambartanen]

but in terms of how likely you are to hit, a wizard can be just as good as a fighter, and that's a big, steaming pile of crap.
"Why?"


At first level, a fighter and wizard can both have an attack bonus of +8
"The highest attack bonus a first level character made with point buy can have is +5. You clearly haven't read the rules very carefully."


I understand that a wizard is not going to put his highest ability score into Strength
"Why wouldn't he?"


It should not be possible for this to happen at all. It should be completely impossible for a wizard to be as good with a weapon as a fighter at any level at all, period.
"It is."

Now, these snarky responses are extremely unlikely to do any good at all and they really aren't meant to. As 1of3 said, your friend doesn't want to discuss, he just wants to rant about things he hasn't taken the effort of understanding and considering.

But, yes, a pure wizard is laughably weaker than a pure fighter in a no-spells fight at later levels. At lower levels a wizard that maxed strength won't be that much worse but would have hardly any spells so that makes sense.

[Doug Lampert]

BAB is a silly thing to get hung up on. Lacking feats that key on BAB the ONLY effect of BAB is to give a higher hit chance, and guess what, the level 8 fighter hits twice as often as the 20 strength level 8 wizard, gosh! Almost like he had a higher chance of hitting.

What exactly does your friend think the point of BAB is if not to hit more often?

What exactly makes him thing the hypothetical self-nerfing strength build wizard with one attack isn't hitting less often than a fighter with two attacks and an action surge if he needs to take that up to 4 attacks in a round.

If you absolutely HAVE to have higher accuracy to feel like a fighter, take Archery Style, POOF +2 to all your ranged attacks, and it's not really a very good style at that.

I doubt that I will bother to play 5th edition, and the weaksouce mundanes is a big part of why; but complaining about no fighter BAB boost is just silly.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

So it's less like they got rid of BAB and more like they made it "invisible" for lack of a better term? The big thing for BAB at least in my view is that you get more attacks with it, and this simply removed the numbers from it while basically doing the same thing?

[Tengu_temp]

Ask him did it bother him in 4e too.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

His opinion of 4e is pretty much the same. There's a reason he calls it "Failth Edition."

[Edge of Dreams]

Fighters are proficient with armor, shields, and martial weapons. Wizards aren't. That makes a huge difference in AC and potential damage from having better gear available to choose from.

Also point out how getting rid of BaB differences and ditching the concept of Touch AC has massively simplified how attack rolls with spells are handled. Now all attack rolls work on one simple, unified mechanic - Proficiency + Ability Mod - making the game much easier to learn and run (along with all the various other streamlined features).

Finally, show them how many features various classes get at Level 1 that make them better melee combatants than a Wizard - Fighter Action Surge and Fighting Style, Monk Martial Arts bonus attacks, Barbarian Rage, and so on.

To put a totally different spin on things, ask him this: If a weak nerd and a strong athlete in real life both swing a sword at a person who has no armor and isn't running away, do you think either of them really has a better chance of hitting the target than the other? No, you don't. But the athlete can probably swing harder, faster, more often, and for longer than the nerd can.

(Apologies for the terrible stereotyping in that example, it just seemed like an easy analogy to get across)

[Morty]

There's a lot of things to reproach 5e for - lack of a base attack bonus is not one of them. A wizard won't be as good with weapons as a fighter, it's just expressed through other means. Don't get me wrong, non-casters get the short end of the stick as usual - but getting hung up on something as ridiculously specific as BAB (which wasn't exactly stellar game design either) is just utterly nonsensical.

[BigONotation]

Your friend has a fair point in saying that a wizard should not have near the chances to hit that a fighter does. However, they did this so that the wizard could be active in combat at low level other than just casting cantrips. It quickly becomes moot because a wizard will not have the AC/HP/DR to stand toe-to-toe long in melee as the levels advance.


... A fighter gets 4 attacks per action and can get two actions for a total of 8 attacks even before bonus or reaction attacks....

As a 20th level capstone ability. Until level 4 they most likely will have the same to hit and the same amount of attacks on a short rest until level 5 (outside of a single action surge). So yes, the fighter eventually becomes better at hitting things and doing it more often. However it's bad to characterize it as 4 attacks and EVEN 8 as it is a straw man.

[Tengu_temp]

The fact that a fighter and a wizard with the same strength score have the same attack bonus doesn't mean they're equally good in melee. The fighter still has class features that make him much better in physical combat - he hits harder, has better defense, and can make several attacks per turn. Not to mention that getting your strength that high for a wizard is probably a waste.

You could tell your friends all that... But I suspect he's a stubborn grognoid and won't be persuaded no matter what you tell him.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Fighters are proficient with armor, shields, and martial weapons. Wizards aren't. That makes a huge difference in AC and potential damage from having better gear available to choose from.


Unless you play a Dwarf (can't remember which) for the armor or an Elf for the weapons. You will still have an HD disadvantage though.

Its quite interesting one can (superficially) Gish with pure caster class levels

[MeeposFire]

Your friend has a fair point in saying that a wizard should not have near the chances to hit that a fighter does. However, they did this so that the wizard could be active in combat at low level other than just casting cantrips. It quickly becomes moot because a wizard will not have the AC/HP/DR to stand toe-to-toe long in melee as the levels advance.



As a 20th level capstone ability. Until level 4 they most likely will have the same to hit and the same amount of attacks on a short rest until level 5 (outside of a single action surge). So yes, the fighter eventually becomes better at hitting things and doing it more often. However it's bad to characterize it as 4 attacks and EVEN 8 as it is a straw man.

But even what you say does not fit either.

In 3e how much better is a1st level fighter based on BAB going to be at attacking than a 1st level wizard? 1 point.

At 2nd level the difference will be one point.

at 3rd level and 4th level it will be 2 points.

Are we really letting people getting into a tizzy over two points of attack bonus at the lowest of levels (because as you say at 5th level then it does make a difference what class you are)? It just isn't that much different.

At the lowest levels in every edition of D&D a wizard has almost the same chance of hitting (or even the same chance sometimes depending if you are using things like 2e) as the fighter. What makes the fighter a melee power and the wizard not in those editions was the HP, armor, and other things that keep them alive in melee.

In 5e that is exactly the same as the bonus to hit from the class is the same (however just like in all editions the attribute bonus to hit will likely not be) but the wizard will generally have less HP, AC, and other things that keep him alive in melee.

In this regard 5e is very much like earlier editions of D&D it just does not go into quite as much detail as 3e (which is par the course).

[Morty]

What it boils down to is that numbers are only relevant in relation to other numbers. Looking at a purely numerical feature like the BAB in a vacuum is rolling a natural 1 on the roll to hit the point, and the GM is using a nasty fumble chart.

[obryn]

His opinion of 4e is pretty much the same. There's a reason he calls it "Failth Edition."
Figures, but 4e did similar. You would never, ever mistake a Fighter for a Wizard even if the Wizard for some reason decided to get proficient in big weapons, max out his strength, and swing a greataxe around.

There's more ways to express competence than dull numeric escalation. I'll go one further, actually, and say that active expressions of competence are superior in-play to increased chances of success.* Increased chances of success are largely invisible except over a large number of die rolls. If one swordy guy has a +10% chance to hit, and another swordy guy does interesting maneuvers showcasing his excellence like disarming, knocking prone, etc., you're going to notice the maneuvers a lot more than you will the bonus chance to-hit. With random die rolls, the bonus to-hit may not ever make a significant difference.

Ask him, in play, how long it would take him to figure out which of two Fighters picked Weapon Focus, and which picked Cleave, and you might get the point across.


* As I've said, I actually don't think 5e goes far enough in its active expressions of competence, but as a general philosophy it's sound.

[Sidmen]

So it's less like they got rid of BAB and more like they made it "invisible" for lack of a better term? The big thing for BAB at least in my view is that you get more attacks with it, and this simply removed the numbers from it while basically doing the same thing?

You could certainly look at it this way, yes. Fighters and fighter-lite (paladin/ranger/etc) classes get extra attacks at higher levels (with Fighter being the biggest and best at this). So while the insanely well-trained (as represented by a high Strength Ability) Wizard will be able to swing his quarterstaff with the same accuracy that an equally well-trained Fighter could swing his greatsword at first level, as they progress in their career the fighter will improve significantly while the wizard won't.

At 5th level the Fighter can begin his duel with the Wizard by making four attacks (Action Surge + Extra Attack), and the Wizard can return with one attack. From that point on the Fighter will be pumping out two attacks each round while the Wizard responds with one of his own.

That is, of course, leaving aside the Fighter's Fighting Style and Archetype bonuses which improve his ability to fight. And the pretty drastic differences in proficient equipment (Heavy Armor vs None and available weapons/shields).

Simply put, your friend's assessment is made from ignorance.

At level 1, the only difference between a fighter and wizard are: Proficiencies, the wizard's 2/day spells, the fighter's Second Wind ability (heal 1d10+Level HP) and the Fighter's Fighting Style (+2 accuracy with bows, +1 AC with armor, +2 damage with 1handed weapons, reroll 1/2 on damage with 2handed weapons, etc.). So, a Wizard will never, not even at level 1, be as good with a weapon as the fighter can be.

[Muenster Man]

Don't forget a fighter gets a larger hit die

[EvilAnagram]

His opinion of 4e is pretty much the same. There's a reason he calls it "Failth Edition."

What offends me is that he thinks that's clever. Your friend is of the opinion that his favorite edition is the best edition and that divergence from that ruleset is necessarily a bad thing. There's nothing you can say that will convince him otherwise.

[Yuki Akuma]

Where did he get the +8 from? The highest possible at first level is +7 - and that's if you randomly rolled an 18 and got +2 Strength from your race.

Well, Fighters and Rangers can get up to +9 with the Archery fighting style, but that just goes to show that Fighters (and Rangers) are in fact better at weapons than Wizards. :smallwink:

[Rhyvurg]

I would be the friend in question.

When I said the bonus remains the same, I meant they remain equal. And like I said, I know fighters can do things in combat that wizards can't do, like extra attacks and reactions, but that's not the ultimate point. The point is a wizard can be made to be just as likely to land a hit in combat as a fighter, and that's wrong. If the rules in the handbook change this then I'm all for it, I don't have it yet, but from what I've seen 5e has the same problem with fighters that 3.X did. Namely, out of combat utility.

In 3.X, everyone had options. Spells, skills, etc. that could be used in non-combat situations. Even barbarians had something extra, having more class skills and skill points than a fighter. Fighters had ONE thing that could be used out of combat, and that was Intimidate. And even that had in-combat applications. If WOTC wanted to make a class that was only useful in combat I don't have a problem with that, they did it in the last 3 editions. But if you're going that way, then let that class actually be good at it. If all the fighter can do is fight, then once the initiative dice hit the table, it should be his world, and you all just live in it. 4e partially fixed itself with Essentials (who ever heard of dailies for a melee class, honestly. "but it shows the effort and rare opportunity to make these attacks!" and it only ever happens once a day each? Right), but it was a band-aid trying to fix poor design philosophy.


"The highest attack bonus a first level character made with point buy can have is +5. You clearly haven't read the rules very carefully."


I looked at each and every use of the number 5 in the basic rules, that is never mentioned.

@Doug Lampert Getting more attacks has nothing to do with the wizard being just as likely to hit with one.

@Snails But that's exactly what it means. By your own free-throw analogy, a wizard could have the exact same chance as a fighter, and that's wrong.

Hey, I would love to be wrong about this, I'd love for 5e to be a simpler, more balanced edition that handles different classes better. I've just seen very little showing me that's the case.

[Yuki Akuma]

I looked at each and every use of the number 5 in the basic rules, that is never mentioned.

It's called 'elementary mathematics'.

The proficiency bonus at level one is +2.

The highest stat you can buy with point buy is 15 (+2). The highest ability score bonus you can get from your race is +2, for a total score of 17 (+3).

3 + 2 is 5.

[Morty]

That 5e fails to give non-magicians proper options is an entirely different argument - and one I'd agree with - from saying that the lack of an inherent base attack bonus has anything to do with it.

[Muenster Man]

What exactly is wrong about a wizard being just as accurate with an attack if they spend their resources for that build? They still don't have the class features to support that nearly as well as a fighter will. They don't get access to the best weapons and armor (except for some races), they don't get action surges, they don't get fighting styles, they don't get extra attacks. So, they're not going to be nearly as good. What's the issue?

[Tengu_temp]

Personally, I like the fact that a level 3 fighter with 16 strength will have the same attack bonus as a level 3 wizard with 16 strength. It's consistent.

What I don't like is that the fighter has very limited options, both in and out of combat, and is overshadowed by the wizard - not as bad as in 3e, but still pretty heavily.

[ambartanen]

The point is a wizard can be made to be just as likely to land a hit in combat as a fighter, and that's wrong.

I can only repeat my question- why?

What do you even think the chance to land a hit means? Hits are abstractions, hit points are abstractions, number of attacks are abstractions, so why does it matter at all? What you are saying, translated to a more modern setting is:
"An engineer should never be able to hit a professional boxer."
"But this particular engineer is in amazing physical shape, trains at a boxing gym every day after work and participated in some competitions when he was in high school. He's actually pretty good at this stuff. Besides, the most he can hope to achieve is landing a few hits before he gets knocked out."
"No, it's wrong. The engineer is useful outside the ring so he doesn't get to land a hit on the boxer ever."

[shadow_archmagi]

I have a question regarding 5e's apparent lack of a base attack bonus. I have a friend who claims that because of this, 5e is a complete and total failure.

Here's what he says:

There is no base attack bonus. There is no class-based stat for how good you are in a fight. Sure, there are class-based things you can do besides attack, but in terms of how likely you are to hit, a wizard can be just as good as a fighter, and that's a big, steaming pile of crap.

At first level, a fighter and wizard can both have an attack bonus of +8, if they both use the standard array and put 15 into Strength and play humans for +1 to every stat. At 4th level they both get an ability score increase that takes them to 18 strength, and the attack bonus stays the same. At 6th level, the fighter tops out at 20 strength (he cannot increase it though his own ability alone any more). At 8th level, the wizard gets his second ability score increase, and then they're both tied a +13, and since their proficiency bonuses advance at the same rate they will be equal in that regard forever.

Now, I understand that fighters have combat options wizards do not. I understand that a wizard is not going to put his highest ability score into Strength nor would he advance it like that. I understand that there might be fighter archetypes and feats in the player's handbook that change this, but that does not address the core problem. It should not be possible for this to happen at all. It should be completely impossible for a wizard to be as good with a weapon as a fighter at any level at all, period.

Now, I personally don't feel is that this is that big a deal, but I haven't played the game properly yet. How do I respond to this very negative opinion? I don't know what to think?

Your friend sounds incredibly unclever. I would discontinue him.

[Breltar]

I would be the friend in question.
Hey, I would love to be wrong about this, I'd love for 5e to be a simpler, more balanced edition that handles different classes better. I've just seen very little showing me that's the case.

It does, but it doesn't seem you like have enough experience with it yet to judge it properly.

You are using a very limited problem and applying it to a whole system that you haven't tried yet.

I don't like 4E, but I played a whole campaign to make sure.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I would be the friend in question.

*snip*


If you look around the net you'll find a general consensus is that in 3.5 a superior BAB was of minor to little benefit in the grand scheme of things. You could mitigate it in a host of ways or (Divine Power) outright copy it in a few. In particular because you couldn't move and full attack its "primary use" would be trading unneeeded extra chances to hit for Power Attack damage. And here I think the net does make a fair point. So if there wasn't much advantage why hold onto it?

Now thing with Proficiency bonus, well its covers so much more then just attacking and basically holds to the logic that for your level every adventurer is roughly as good at everything, except what they aren't trained for at all. This realizes some pretty massive mechanical simplifications that also does a lot to close certain gaps. So asking for any class to have a superior Prof. bonus is in far more ways asking for them to be patently better in a host of areas.

Its thus arguably good design philosophy to thus sacrifice strict numerical superiority in the name of a more streamlined system. Especially when Fighters never terribly got much out of being more likely to hit and don't need it because they have a lot of other juicy abilities now.

If you feel philosophically that Wizards need to always not be able to hit the broad side of a barn then yes 5E disagrees with you, but then in many ways so did 3.5 in the first place.

Remember in the battle for Azure City when V wimped out on using a bow to hold off the hobgoblins saying there was a difference between proficient and good? He was lying. He was a better shot from his BAB alone then all the NPC warriors there because they were all level 1. And in general analysis of the 3.5 I've seen tends to conclude further that AC never scaled such to make his claim terribly accurate even against level appropriate enemies.

[Rhyvurg]

I can only repeat my question- why?

What do you even think the chance to land a hit means? Hits are abstractions, hit points are abstractions, number of attacks are abstractions, so why does it matter at all? What you are saying, translated to a more modern setting is:
"An engineer should never be able to hit a professional boxer."
"But this particular engineer is in amazing physical shape, trains at a boxing gym every day after work and participated in some competitions when he was in high school. He's actually pretty good at this stuff. Besides, the most he can hope to achieve is landing a few hits before he gets knocked out."
"No, it's wrong. The engineer is useful outside the ring so he doesn't get to land a hit on the boxer ever."

Your analogy is a little inaccurate. What 5e is saying is,
"A rookie boxer works out every day and is in excellent shape, he's spent months learning how to defend himself and throw a punch."
"A librarian who goes to the gym 5 days a week and is in excellent physical shape is just as good at throwing a punch as the boxer, even though he has not spent months learning to fight, he's been learning how to throw fire out of his hands."
Note I said rookie. An experienced fighter is obviously going to be better in combat, he'll know how to do more things and he's been fighting more. But under 5e's rules, any wizard who happens to not be a weedy manlet can just pick up a mace or dagger and know just as much about how to use it as a combat veteran who's spent years in actual military service.

That's the difference. Being in equal physical condition should not mean you are an equal combatant. Being able to take a punch better and wearing body armor has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's part of the bigger combat picture, but a fighter should be, in all ways, superior to a wizard in combat without the aid of spells.

[Snails]

If the Wizard is proficient with that longsword, he can be assumed to spend exactly as much time making the simple swings as the Fighter. Every day.

The difference is the Fighter also practices fancy footwork, multi-swing attack routines, and flashy maneuvers. Plus, when the equipment is on hand, he does this for 10 different weapons.

[ambartanen]

Being able to take a punch better and wearing body armor has absolutely nothing to do with [being a good combatant].

Have you ever seen people fight? Being able to take a hit is the most basic thing you need to learn!

The complex body control and ingrained reflexes involved are represented by two things in the system- proficiency bonus (the rookie part of your example) and the strength attribute (the training part of your example, which both of them do in the same amount as you described yourself). The specifics of how to throw a decent punch are something anyone who exercises regularly can be taught in half an hour assuming they've somehow grown up without learning how to do it.

And, just so you don't get worried, the fighter does have a higher attack bonus than a wizard with the same strength score for every weapon in which the wizard has less training than him i.e. weapons in which a wizard isn't proficient which happens to be all the good ones.

[Snails]

That's the difference. Being in equal physical condition should not mean you are an equal combatant. Being able to take a punch better and wearing body armor has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's part of the bigger combat picture, but a fighter should be, in all ways, superior to a wizard in combat without the aid of spells.

"In all ways" is an ideological statement, not a logical argument.

If the are 4 or 5 key skills to be an excellent melee combatant, why can't a very dedicated hobbyist manage to be the fighter's equal in exactly 1?

Did you notice that in 5e and earlier editions, it was possible for the Wizard to have more HP than a Fighter, by virtue of emphasizing Con over some other stat? Doesn't that mean that 1e and 2e and 3e and 4e and 5e all fail your "in all ways" test?

[Rhyvurg]

Have you ever seen people fight? Being able to take a hit is the most basic thing you need to learn!

The complex body control and ingrained reflexes involved are represented by two things in the system- proficiency bonus (the rookie part of your example) and the strength attribute (the training part of your example, which both of them do in the same amount as you described yourself). The specifics of how to throw a decent punch are something anyone who exercises regularly can be taught in half an hour assuming they've somehow grown up without learning how to do it.

And, just so you don't get worried, the fighter does have a higher attack bonus than a wizard with the same strength score for every weapon in which the wizard has less training than him i.e. weapons in which a wizard isn't proficient which happens to be all the good ones.


But under 5e's rules, any wizard who happens to not be a weedy manlet can just pick up a mace or dagger and know just as much about how to use it as a combat veteran who's spent years in actual military service.


You missed the important part.

[obryn]

I pretty much think you are missing the point, too, Rhyvurg. Attack bonus is important but it's about the worst possible way to distinguish characters' fighting abilities because it only shows up in the aggregate.

Even before we take multiple attacks into account (which don't suffer iterative penalties, here), a wizard with identical stats and proficiencies isn't just as good with a weapon as a fighter is. They have the same attack bonus, but that's just one element in the whole picture.

So I'll pose you my question. There are two 3e fighters. One has cleave. One has weapon focus. Which of these feats will be more visible?

[Muenster Man]

Is the extra 5% to hit chance at 1st level in 3.X really that important to you?

[ambartanen]

You missed the important part.

What important part? All you quoted was a false statement.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Your analogy is a little inaccurate. What 5e is saying is,
"A rookie boxer works out every day and is in excellent shape, he's spent months learning how to defend himself and throw a punch."
"A librarian who goes to the gym 5 days a week and is in excellent physical shape is just as good at throwing a punch as the boxer, even though he has not spent months learning to fight, he's been learning how to throw fire out of his hands."
Note I said rookie. An experienced fighter is obviously going to be better in combat, he'll know how to do more things and he's been fighting more. But under 5e's rules, any wizard who happens to not be a weedy manlet can just pick up a mace or dagger and know just as much about how to use it as a combat veteran who's pent years in actual military service.

That's the difference. Being in equal physical condition should not mean you are an equal combatant. Being able to take a punch better and wearing body armor has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's part of the bigger combat picture, but a fighter should be, in all ways, superior to a wizard in combat without the aid of spells.

A rookie pro class boxer would be closest to a Monk 1 and instead of 1 bludgeoning damage (yes just 1) would be rolling 1d4 (iirc) with marital arts representing his superior knowledge of unarmed combat. Kick that wizards arse on that and HD alone.

And look its just NOT that hard to hit a man sized object, try how many times out of twenty you fail to hit a full sized punching bag, so yeah them making the same to hit roll is hardly the worst contrivance in history. Obviously the monk does more damage represent their ability to control their strikes and expertly smack you in the gut or temple, or wherever does more damage.

If its a knife fight instead then a Fighter who's taken Dueling fighting style will receive +2 on damage, the same with a Q-staff or with two hands and Great Weapon Fighting get to reroll 1s and 2s on damage. And while maybe the Wizard is as good as connecting as with his limited selection of weapons, the Fighter has so many more to choose from that he's still going to be better with. Kinda like a soldier who doesn't who might be only a bit better then a civilian librarian with rifle, but also knows how to use a rocket launcher, grenades, and a drive a tank. And said soldier would still have a disadvantage against a pro class boxer

Now yes 5E does disagree with you about how that combat skill is expressed, but remember Proficiency is more of a whole life experience for super-talented elite people. Adventuring wizards more represent say librarians who also hit the gym and went to the gun range while getting straight As in college. If not, well that's where the physical stats come in, they took the couple of hours to learn how to shoot (seriously that's all you need) but didn't hit the range enough to build up their hand-eye coordination and haven't had enough real world experience to get better.

[Rhyvurg]

I pretty much think you are missing the point, too, Rhyvurg. Attack bonus is important but it's about the worst possible way to distinguish characters' fighting abilities because it only shows up in the aggregate.

Even before we take multiple attacks into account (which don't suffer iterative penalties, here), a wizard with identical stats and proficiencies isn't just as good with a weapon as a fighter is. They have the same attack bonus, but that's just one element in the whole picture.

So I'll pose you my question. There are two 3e fighters. One has cleave. One has weapon focus. Which of these feats will be more visible?

It depends on what they're fighting. One really tough guy with good armor? Weapon Focus stands out (even though the feat sucks) because he hits more often. Against a large number of mooks? Cleave stands out. But it goes deeper than that. WF Guy can Power Attack on every hit for -1/+1 and still have the same chance to hit as Cleave Guy. So...yes, it's visible. Small differences like that stand out more at low levels. But lack of scaling 3.X feats is a whole other argument.


Is the extra 5% to hit chance at 1st level in 3.X really that important to you?

Considering it's a rookie fighter, and the gap only gets wider as time goes on, just like it would for a real life boxer and librarian, yes.

[Beneath]

I looked at each and every use of the number 5 in the basic rules, that is never mentioned.

It's not an explicit rule, it's an emergent property.

A point-buy character can have no stats higher than 15 before racial modifiers and level-based ability increases. A first-level character doesn't have any level-based increases, but can have a racial increase, bringing their best ability score to 16-17 (+3 modifier)

Add +2 for proficiency and that's +5

A character with a rolled 18 and a race that provides a +2 to it can start with 20 in a stat. +2 for proficiency is +7.

The highest possible in the basic rules is +9, for a fighter with 20 DEX and the Archery style. In my group, roll20 handed out a bunch of 18s and nobody in the group attacks at higher than +7 (at 3rd level)

Also, this idea of a wizard having the same STR as a fighter, while not impossible, is unlikely. A wizard with the same STR as a fighter is someone who has invested character resources into being a capable melee combatant (honestly, a likelier comparison would be a wizard with the same DEX as a rogue. and nobody is going to have trouble telling a wizard with 20 DEX and a longbow (elf) from a rogue with the same, speaking as a player of a rogue with 20 DEX and a longbow).

A wizard who invests character resources (even lucky rolls are a character resource) in being good in melee will be good in melee and will be able to land the attacks they get comparably to a fighter, except an archer fighter who gets +2 to hit with ranged weapons, but the fighter will hit harder (dueling style, +2 to damage; great weapon style, reroll 1s and 2s on your damage dice; two-weapon style, up to +5 damage with off-hand attacks) even at level 1.

I don't think it's a weakness that a wizard built to plink with a crossbow or bash with a staff can hit targets with it even at high levels.

----

Edited to add:
Also, for the analogy with throwing a punch: Unarmed strikes are a simple weapon. Wizards do not get proficiency with simple weapons. Arguably, this means (I only have the basic rules and the PHB might contradict) that the wizard does not get to add proficiency bonus.

That's your difference between a rookie boxer and someone who has just hit the gym a bunch. The rookie boxer is proficient, the person who has just hit the gym a bunch is not. At first level this manifests as a +2 to hit.

Ergo, if we're using the way the game models the difference between a punch thrown by a first level wizard and fighter, in terms of attack bonus differences between characters with the same ability scores as a measure of the game's quality, 5e is twice as good as 3e.

[obryn]

It depends on what they're fighting. One really tough guy with good armor? Weapon Focus stands out (even though the feat sucks) because he hits more often. Against a large number of mooks? Cleave stands out. But it goes deeper than that. WF Guy can Power Attack on every hit for -1/+1 and still have the same chance to hit as Cleave Guy. So...yes, it's visible. Small differences like that stand out more at low levels. But lack of scaling 3.X feats is a whole other argument.
As I said, though, it's only visible in aggregate. You can't tell - if you're just tracking hits and misses - who's got +1 over someone else, without a large number of die rolls. After that, a pattern emerges, but it's possible to go through dozens of combats without that +1 ever making a material difference.

Compared to something active, like a wizard's spell or a fightmaster's maneuver, a mere +1 to-hit is underwhelming.

The 3e Fighter is terrible despite its big numbers because it's not versatile. At best it specs out for one trick, and outside that trick it's awful. I am really not the biggest fan of the 5e Fighter, but the Battlemaster is way better off than the 3e Fighter in every meaningful respect, within the context of the system as a whole.

[ambartanen]

...just like it would for a real life boxer and librarian...

I think you are assuming that a class is some quintessential characteristic of a character that utterly and completely defines every aspect of their existence. Like the librarian spends four hours a day working in the library and four hours hitting the gym, participating in underground boxing matches and just generally dedicating most of his time to becoming a kickass warrior while the boxer exercises for eight hours a day and then just chills out watching TV when he doesn't have a match scheduled but despite them dedicating a very similar amount of effort and having exactly the same natural gifts for boxing, one should always and completely effortlessly outclass the other in every respect because one is labeled 'boxer' and the other 'librarian.'

To give a rules-based example, let's imagine two mountain dwarf ex-soldiers who are brothers with identical stats- 16 str, 14 dex, 16 con, 12 int, 10 wis, 8 cha (the best point buy can get you). One is a first level fighter, the other a first level wizard. The two both have the same attack bonus with weapons they have proficiency with and are wearing medium armors. Now, you say that this means the system is stupid because a "wizard" has the same to-hit chance as a "fighter." Even ignoring that the first brother has higher damage, more hit points, in-combat healing, and a higher armor class, you have already made a mistake because both of them are seasoned warriors which anyone looking past the most obvious labels can see. One just decided to excel as a warrior while the other decided to use his small talent for some extremely limited spellcasting. Assuming they stick to their classes, by the time the second sees the first serious benefits from his arcane studies, the first would have completely surpassed his fighting ability in every way... except to-hit chance. And you are complaining about the to-hit chance? Do you even realize how random and pointless that is? You are assigning some meaning to that number that neither the system nor anyone else in this thread does and then claiming, without any support, that it is the one absolutely correct way to conceptualize it.

[Muenster Man]

Considering it's a rookie fighter, and the gap only gets wider as time goes on, just like it would for a real life boxer and librarian, yes.

It's hardly much of a difference at first level. At later levels, if a wizard wishes to spend all of their time getting so strong that they have near-superhuman strength (and accuracy) in their blows that the fighter has, more power to them. The wizard has fewer ability bonuses than the fighter to build up their abilities, meaning they're devoting proportionally more resources to that ability. And they're not getting any relevant combat class abilities to support that decision.

Also, the following weapons are the ones a wizard is proficient with: Daggers, Darts, Slings, Quarter staffs, Light Crossbows. A Fighter choosing a Fighting Style at level one can apply to any of these styles if they wish to focus in that style, making them better in combat. Darts, slings, and light crossbows can receive a +2 to attack rolls with the Ranged Fighting Style (which that alone is greater than or equal to the difference between a Wizard and Fighter through levels 1-4 in 3.X). A dagger in the hands of a Fighter can receive +2 damage on every hit if they chose the Dueling Fighting Style. And a quarter staff in the hands of a fighter with Great Weapon Fighting gets to reroll the 2 lowest rolls possible, mitigating the possibility of the lowest 10% of rolls. And that's besides the fact that most fighters will be using better weapons.

The gap that really gets wider between the two classes in physical combat are class abilities, a far more interesting and useful measure of combat prowess than a static bonus. EDIT: And as Obyrn pointed out, that static bonus only reveals itself over the course of many attacks.

[Dimers]

@Rhyvurg: the problem "wizard is equally likely to hit" goes away if you assume that the fighter and wizard are both making multiple strikes in a round, but that (for gamist reasons) these are summed up by a smaller number of to-hit rolls. If the fighter's 10 opportunities-per-round equate to four attack rolls and the wizard's 10 opportunities-per-round equate to one attack roll, it's obvious that the fighter hits more often.

This conceit has been part of D&D for quite a long time. In the AD&D PHB there was a multi-page sidebar stating explicitly that the "action" you took actually represented a period of maneuvering, feinting, parrying and so forth, with only a few really good chances at landing a hit. Just as with 5e, AD&D gave fighters more rolls per round to represent their greater capacity to leap at slim opportunities. A 1st-level AD&D wizard could have the same Strength and be using the same weapon as a 1st-level AD&D fighter, granting both the same chance to make their rolls count -- but the fighter would still hit more often because his class ability is granting him more rolls in the same period.

I concede that AD&D fighters also became more accurate faster than AD&D wizards did, and I think that's not a horrible thing to have in a game. But I'd say it's not a necessary thing for 5e to include, either. Consider that AD&D and 3.X wizards had spells that ignored armor when rolling attacks -- even in the mid-level range for AD&D or very high levels for 3.X, wizards could end up more accurate based on that alone. If the 'touch' spells exist, the wizard necessarily has to have an overall accuracy penalty to maintain the illusion of fairness.

[akaddk]

How do I respond to this very negative opinion?
Easy. Start a group and don't invite him to it. Regale him with tales of how fun it is until he finally breaks down and says, "Fine, I'll give 5e a go." Then tell him he's not welcome because he's a dumbass.

[Stubbazubba]

BAB has never mattered that much. Literally, not even at 1st level in 3.5 did it make any difference.

The difference in 3.5 at level 1 was a measly +1. It didn't ever matter. By the time you had gained a few levels the Wizard didn't make attacks, and the Fighter had augmented his BAB with feats that obviate it. That setup never changed. By the time the difference in BAB could have maybe mattered a little bit, every character, without exception, was off the BAB train.

BAB math was wonky and bad in 3.5, but it didn't matter because BAB just didn't matter at all. Ever. This fiction that BAB was somehow a class differentiator only reveals a naivete about the system that we all go through at some point, but then we arrive on the other side and realize all the other parts of the game far, far outweigh it in determining how effective your character is in a fight.

5e has tons of issues, but the idea that BAB is somehow a key differentiator that 5e overlooks is absolutely not one.

[ImperiousLeader]

BAB mattered in that it meant rogues had to wait until third level to get Weapon Finesse. Still, you're right.

Heck, 3.5 was all about stacking bonuses. BAB could get lost in the crowd, after all, the LN Incarnate had poor BAB, and could still turn out a decent melee attack.

[Mr.Moron]

If the metric for the game being good is largely differing attack bonuses with equal stats, then of course the game can't be good. The task set out in the OP is impossible. It's like saying "My friend says Kermit the Frog isn't funny because things that are green aren't funny. Can we convince him Kermit the Frog isn't green?"

[UHF]

You best not mention that low level guys can hit high level guys. He'll have a fit.

5e is more about the extra abilities of your class. Basic attacks are nice, and work just fine, but they won't win you the game in the long run.

Even with identical physical prowess, a wizard can't keep up with a fighter. At low levels he might get lucky, but at high levels, he better switch to spells if he wants to avoid being violently disemboweled.

Using weapons is more about flare. You wanna be Gandolf slashing away from the front lines, have fun! One other thing about 5e, almost everything is concentration, so your front line spell guy probably isn't going to maintain any useful combat spells like Haste.

The better way to look at all this is to take a Dwarven Wizard. Big Hammer, Medium Armor? Your opponents will come at you all wrong. That Thunderwave will be so sweet when it goes off. Follow it up with an angry fireball so they know you mean business.

[HammeredWharf]

The entire comparison is silly. Your "chance to hit" isn't the chance to hit with a single attack, unless you assume a 1st level fighter can only swing his sword once every six seconds. Factually, it's the chance to lower your enemy's HP during that round. Other than that, it's an abstract concept that can mean whatever you want it to mean. So, the only metric that matters is damage per round, and a strong fighter has higher DPR than a strong wizard.

[Morty]

5e's approach to non-magical character advancement is mostly to give them small numbers and pretend they matter... but it's not different, in the end, than 3e's giving them bigger numbers and pretending they matter. The 3e fighter had a big BAB, but it didn't make the class less inept at its job, or less dependent on magic items to keep up with the game's math. And it had its own problem in that attack rolls outpaced armor class quickly.

[golentan]

5e's approach to non-magical character advancement is mostly to give them small numbers and pretend they matter... but it's not different, in the end, than 3e's giving them bigger numbers and pretending they matter. The 3e fighter had a big BAB, but it didn't make the class less inept at its job, or less dependent on magic items to keep up with the game's math. And it had its own problem in that attack rolls outpaced armor class quickly.

I don't think that's accurate. With the number of hits a fighter can throw out, they're pretty good at melee, and a fighter can add +14 to their abilities compared to anyone else's +8. That'll help them with saves and skills, with damage, gives them wider feat selection if they go that route, some of which grant access to some nasty tricks. Then the archetypes add some notable abilities. Even the humble champion has the only expanded crit range I've seen in the game so far, and at high levels gets fast healing of up to 10. The battle master has numerous ways to inflict save or suck debuffs on targets, and engage in battlefield control with assorted maneuvers. And, again, lots of extra attacks and action surge gets things done.

Also, your mention of magic items brings up an interesting tangent in my mind. Have people considered how huge an advantage magic items will be in the hands of a class designed to use them? What in 3rd edition would have been a sup-par +5 sword at 20th level in the hands of a 5th edition fighter is 8 almost guaranteed hits with up to 40 bonus damage (5 ability + 6 proficiency + 5 magic enhancement for a total of +11 to hit, in a system where getting an AC over 24 requires a fair amount of minmaxing if not outright cheese and my wizard looks like he's going to have a permanent 11) .

[Morty]

They certainly aren't as bad at their sole occupation as 3e fighters are, which is the whole point. Whether or not they match up to someone's standards is a different story.

[Falka]

I would be the friend in question.

When I said the bonus remains the same, I meant they remain equal. And like I said, I know fighters can do things in combat that wizards can't do, like extra attacks and reactions, but that's not the ultimate point. The point is a wizard can be made to be just as likely to land a hit in combat as a fighter, and that's wrong. If the rules in the handbook change this then I'm all for it, I don't have it yet, but from what I've seen 5e has the same problem with fighters that 3.X did. Namely, out of combat utility.

If WOTC wanted to make a class that was only useful in combat I don't have a problem with that, they did it in the last 3 editions. But if you're going that way, then let that class actually be good at it. If all the fighter can do is fight, then once the initiative dice hit the table, it should be his world, and you all just live in it. 4e partially fixed itself with Essentials (who ever heard of dailies for a melee class, honestly. "but it shows the effort and rare opportunity to make these attacks!" and it only ever happens once a day each? Right), but it was a band-aid trying to fix poor design philosophy.

What's wrong if a Wizard that puts 18 Str hits his single attack often? Anyone that was that strong would do it. But that's a strawman, since which are the odds of a Wizard being so optimised for that situation?

I do not see that as bad design philosophy. Anyone with minimum training should be able to hit things - the thing it, can they do it fast over the course of 6 seconds? The Fighters certainly can. Can they hit and inflict a lot of damage? The Fighter can. That's when classes set themselves apart.

Going to quote something that is kind of funny, imo.

In 3.X, everyone had options. Spells, skills, etc. that could be used in non-combat situations. Even barbarians had something extra, having more class skills and skill points than a fighter. Fighters had ONE thing that could be used out of combat, and that was Intimidate. And even that had in-combat applications.

Okay, this is a huge pile of rubbish. Something that scared me out of 3.X was the illusion of choice. Yes, you can have Intimidate. Yes, you can crossrank skills. But having a lot of choices that are worthless unless you pick the very optimal is not a real choice. Because if it's useless, why would you ever pick it?

3.X is filled with trap options, trap feats and design flaws (such as BAB, etc) that only inflated stats to give a sense of progression. But since CA values of enemy monsters also scale exponentially, there is no real progress. Again, illusion of choice-progress.

In 5e I'm finding that choices are actually meaningful. It's okay if some classes feel similar at first level because everybody is pretty much a glorified peasant. It's when you take several levels (3+) where your class features start to set you apart.

[Theodoxus]

Why can't we just say. Correct, there are no Base Attack Bonuses. Correct, given everything else being equal, a fighter and an wizard will hit just as often upon the same opponent. If this is really a problem, don't play 5E - stick with 3rd or PF or 1st. I don't care - but this is the way the system was built - this is the way the system will stay, and there's literally nothing that ranting about it being different (and in your opinion, illogical) will do about it.

Sorry.

Have a nice day.

[obryn]

Why can't we just say. Correct, there are no Base Attack Bonuses. Correct, given everything else being equal, a fighter and an wizard will hit just as often upon the same opponent. If this is really a problem, don't play 5E - stick with 3rd or PF or 1st. I don't care - but this is the way the system was built - this is the way the system will stay, and there's literally nothing that ranting about it being different (and in your opinion, illogical) will do about it.

Sorry.

Have a nice day.
Because it's only part of the picture, and it's actually misleading to leave it at that.

[BRC]

I would be the friend in question.

When I said the bonus remains the same, I meant they remain equal. And like I said, I know fighters can do things in combat that wizards can't do, like extra attacks and reactions, but that's not the ultimate point. The point is a wizard can be made to be just as likely to land a hit in combat as a fighter, and that's wrong. If the rules in the handbook change this then I'm all for it, I don't have it yet, but from what I've seen 5e has the same problem with fighters that 3.X did. Namely, out of combat utility.

In 3.X, everyone had options. Spells, skills, etc. that could be used in non-combat situations. Even barbarians had something extra, having more class skills and skill points than a fighter. Fighters had ONE thing that could be used out of combat, and that was Intimidate. And even that had in-combat applications. If WOTC wanted to make a class that was only useful in combat I don't have a problem with that, they did it in the last 3 editions. But if you're going that way, then let that class actually be good at it. If all the fighter can do is fight, then once the initiative dice hit the table, it should be his world, and you all just live in it. 4e partially fixed itself with Essentials (who ever heard of dailies for a melee class, honestly. "but it shows the effort and rare opportunity to make these attacks!" and it only ever happens once a day each? Right), but it was a band-aid trying to fix poor design philosophy.



I looked at each and every use of the number 5 in the basic rules, that is never mentioned.

@Doug Lampert Getting more attacks has nothing to do with the wizard being just as likely to hit with one.

@Snails But that's exactly what it means. By your own free-throw analogy, a wizard could have the exact same chance as a fighter, and that's wrong.

Hey, I would love to be wrong about this, I'd love for 5e to be a simpler, more balanced edition that handles different classes better. I've just seen very little showing me that's the case.

A wizard can be just as likely to land a hit as a Fighter, this is true.

However, there is a LONG way to go from "Just as likely to land a hit" to "Just as useful in melee combat", which is what really matters.

In 3.5 the main scaling mechanic was attack bonus vs AC. Both Attack bonuses and ACs climbed as the game went on, and the fighter's higher attack bonus made them more effective in combat. Increases to attack bonus were easy to come buy, increases to damage were rarer.

However, this had some major flaws. For example, swarms of enemies (Not swarm enemies) were non-threatening because they couldn't hit higher level characters.

In 5e, Damage vs Health is the bigger Scaling Mechanic. While you could theoretically build a wizard that hit just as often as a fighter, the Fighter is always going to hit Harder, which in the new Scaling mechanic is more relevant.

A wizard with 16 strength may be hitting with a 1d4 club for 1d4+3, meanwhile the Fighter will be hitting just as often with a 2d6 Greatsword for 2d6+3.

And of course, that's assuming the wizard has 16 strength to begin with.

here's a good analogy for you. Bob the librarian has excellent hand-eye coordination for some reason (high Dex). He goes down to the shooting range, and can consistently hit a bullseye at 50 feet with a pistol. Good for Bob.
Jim is a soldier. His hand-eye coordination is just as good as Bobs. He goes down to the shooting range, and can consistently hit that bullseye at 50 feet with the same gun. He can also consistently hit the bullseye from 50 feet with an assault rifle. His intense regimen of physical training also means that, as he goes on, he's a lot likely to get better (Fighters get more stat boosts/feats).

I agree that from a fluff perspective, it dosn't make that much sense that a wizard with a club could be just as effective as a fighter with that same club. But from a practical perspective it makes sense, and clears up a lot of the problems with the old system that was focused on AC and attack bonus.

[Sartharina]

Remember in the battle for Azure City when V wimped out on using a bow to hold off the hobgoblins saying there was a difference between proficient and good? He was lying. He was a better shot from his BAB alone then all the NPC warriors there because they were all level 1. And in general analysis of the 3.5 I've seen tends to conclude further that AC never scaled such to make his claim terribly accurate even against level appropriate enemies.Furthermore - V was wrong. The very definition of Proficiency is "Good with this tool/skill". I'm glad that this is not true.


Your analogy is a little inaccurate. What 5e is saying is,
"A rookie boxer works out every day and is in excellent shape, he's spent months learning how to defend himself and throw a punch."
"A librarian who goes to the gym 5 days a week and is in excellent physical shape is just as good at throwing a punch as the boxer, even though he has not spent months learning to fight, he's been learning how to throw fire out of his hands."
Note I said rookie. An experienced fighter is obviously going to be better in combat, he'll know how to do more things and he's been fighting more. But under 5e's rules, any wizard who happens to not be a weedy manlet can just pick up a mace or dagger and know just as much about how to use it as a combat veteran who's spent years in actual military service.

That's the difference. Being in equal physical condition should not mean you are an equal combatant. Being able to take a punch better and wearing body armor has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's part of the bigger combat picture, but a fighter should be, in all ways, superior to a wizard in combat without the aid of spells. The Wizard is assumed to have trained with the dagger and mace, and if he's an Elf or Dwarf, swords and axes as well. He has almost as much weapon training as a fighter - That's what Proficiency means.

A wizard that has never picked up a mace or dagger in his life will not be Proficient with those weapons. the 5e ruleset assumes characters are competent, though. If you have a problem with Wizards being proficient, then remove that proficiency.

I like the universal proficiency. Now my elf wizard actually feels like an Elf, someone who has dedicated a lifetime longer than any human to both martial and arcane arts. Furthermore, thanks to Cantrips, the only Wizards that will actually be using weapons are those that do train with and use weapons, such as Arcane Archers, Daggerspell Mages, Dwarven Runesmiths, Crossbow Wizards, and Elves.

[Demonic Spoon]

The Wizard is assumed to have trained with the dagger and mace, and if he's an Elf or Dwarf, swords and axes as well. He has almost as much weapon training as a fighter - That's what Proficiency means.


I mostly agree, but I'd change it slightly.
The reason that fighters get martial weapon proficiency and wizards only get simple weapon proficiency isn't because the wizard arbitrarily decided that he didn't care about longbows and ignored training in lieu of crossbow training. Simple weapons are supposed to be easier to use, so the limited weapons training a wizard would have is enough for that wizard to be proficient in its use.

Fighters do have more weapon training presumably, but that manifests itself in them using more sophisticated weapons.

[MadBear]

I think you are assuming that a class is some quintessential characteristic of a character that utterly and completely defines every aspect of their existence. Like the librarian spends four hours a day working in the library and four hours hitting the gym, participating in underground boxing matches and just generally dedicating most of his time to becoming a kickass warrior while the boxer exercises for eight hours a day and then just chills out watching TV when he doesn't have a match scheduled but despite them dedicating a very similar amount of effort and having exactly the same natural gifts for boxing, one should always and completely effortlessly outclass the other in every respect because one is labeled 'boxer' and the other 'librarian.'

To give a rules-based example, let's imagine two mountain dwarf ex-soldiers who are brothers with identical stats- 16 str, 14 dex, 16 con, 12 int, 10 wis, 8 cha (the best point buy can get you). One is a first level fighter, the other a first level wizard. The two both have the same attack bonus with weapons they have proficiency with and are wearing medium armors. Now, you say that this means the system is stupid because a "wizard" has the same to-hit chance as a "fighter." Even ignoring that the first brother has higher damage, more hit points, in-combat healing, and a higher armor class, you have already made a mistake because both of them are seasoned warriors which anyone looking past the most obvious labels can see. One just decided to excel as a warrior while the other decided to use his small talent for some extremely limited spellcasting. Assuming they stick to their classes, by the time the second sees the first serious benefits from his arcane studies, the first would have completely surpassed his fighting ability in every way... except to-hit chance. And you are complaining about the to-hit chance? Do you even realize how random and pointless that is? You are assigning some meaning to that number that neither the system nor anyone else in this thread does and then claiming, without any support, that it is the one absolutely correct way to conceptualize it.

You sum it up nicely, and pretty say what I was thinking this whole time.

In order for a wizard to have proficiency in the weapon to be able to add his proficiency bonus, he'll have to obtained it from somewhere. Be it race/feat/etc. it means that his backstory is such that him being good at hitting things fits.

In addition, while both may be equally likely to hit, the wizard is more likely to get knocked out playing fisticuffs with an equal level fighter. Also when you add in the fighting style, the fighter is more likely to have higher damage, or better AC, or (better to-hit if it's archery).

So in the end, all things are not equal between them, with the sole exception of to-hit when both people have equal stats, and a person has a backstory that meshes with that concept (unless you think a dwarf who served in the millitia and learned to use armor and weapons doesn't deserve to be good at hitting).

[Edge of Dreams]

A wizard that has never picked up a mace or dagger in his life will not be Proficient with those weapons. the 5e ruleset assumes characters are competent, though. If you have a problem with Wizards being proficient, then remove that proficiency.


I'd really like to hear people's thoughts about this, especially the original poster and his friend. Would a houserule that changes Wizards and Sorcerer so they are not proficient with ANY weapons, including Unarmed Strike, be a good enough fix? Then a level 1 Fighter would always have a better attack bonus than a level 1 Wizard with the same Strength score, unless the Wizard specifically took a feat to gain Proficiency.

[Theodoxus]

Because it's only part of the picture, and it's actually misleading to leave it at that.

Perhaps, but it answers his specific question, and it's the truth. The thread has devolved into trying to prove that fighters are still cool - which has nothing to do with the original question.

This should have been a two line thread, not a three page one.

[Theodoxus]

I'd really like to hear people's thoughts about this, especially the original poster and his friend. Would a houserule that changes Wizards and Sorcerer so they are not proficient with ANY weapons, including Unarmed Strike, be a good enough fix? Then a level 1 Fighter would always have a better attack bonus than a level 1 Wizard with the same Strength score, unless the Wizard specifically took a feat to gain Proficiency.

I'd be fine with it. Especially in this day where cantrips are decent damage dealers and unlimited. How often will a spellcaster be in an antimagic zone, or facing something completely immune to magic, where the best response is to grab a spear or crossbow and start poking the beastie?

I don't think its needed or warranted, but I'm not going to denigrate those who do.

[Sartharina]

Also - by depriving the WIzard of full accuracy, you make the guy who wants to play Gandalf, or Firepants McFlare (Who runs around hitting people with a flaming sword, because flaming swords are cool) cry.

If a character puts a high stat in STR, it means they want to be good at hitting things in melee. Class doesn't matter.

[obryn]

Perhaps, but it answers his specific question, and it's the truth. The thread has devolved into trying to prove that fighters are still cool - which has nothing to do with the original question.
Sure it does. Because context matters.

[Demonic Spoon]

Also - by depriving the WIzard of full accuracy, you make the guy who wants to play Gandalf, or Firepants McFlare (Who runs around hitting people with a flaming sword, because flaming swords are cool) cry.

If a character puts a high stat in STR, it means they want to be good at hitting things in melee. Class doesn't matter.


I suppose technically what they could've done is not give the Wizard simple weapon proficiency by default, and let them sacrifice a cantrip known for it, which would accomodate both playstyles.

that would be weird and confusing for a new player, though, and they want as little of that as possible in character creation. Also, in practice, it doesn't actually matter that much - either you plan on using weapons regularly in which case you're probably proficient in simple ones, or you aren't and you use cantrips all the time.


I'd be fine with it. Especially in this day where cantrips are decent damage dealers and unlimited. How often will a spellcaster be in an antimagic zone, or facing something completely immune to magic, where the best response is to grab a spear or crossbow and start poking the beastie?


You forgot one more qualifier for the wizard to be as good at hitting a target as a fighter. How often will a spellcaster have the same STR/DEX as a fighter? The answer to that by itself is "pretty much never"

[Fwiffo86]

Is there a good reason for an entire thread devoted arguing against a guy who prefers 3.5 BAB? We understand its meaningless, but that doesn't mean he is/will be receptive to the evidence.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Annnnnnnd now that he actually has the book he likes 5e now. :smallconfused:

[Muenster Man]

"I do not like them, Sam-I-Am. I do not like green eggs and ham."

"You do not like them, so you say. Try them! Try them! And you may. Try them and you may I say."

"Say! I like green eggs and ham! I do! I like them, Sam-I-am! And I would eat them in a boat! And I would eat them with a goat, and I will eat them in the rain. And in the dark. And on a train. And in a car. And in a tree. They are so good so good you see! So I will eat them in a box. And I will eat them with a fox. And I will eat them in a house. And I will eat them with a mouse. And I will eat them here and there. Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE! I do so like green eggs and ham! Thank you! Thank you, Sam-I-am "

[Knaight]

The point is a wizard can be made to be just as likely to land a hit in combat as a fighter, and that's wrong. If the rules in the handbook change this then I'm all for it, I don't have it yet, but from what I've seen 5e has the same problem with fighters that 3.X did. Namely, out of combat utility.

The chances of any individual hit landing is just as likely. The chances of landing a hit is different. Taking a very simple example (to keep the math easy), say the Fighter gets 3 attacks, the Wizard gets 1, and both have a 50% chance to hit with each attack. The fighter has an 82.5% chance to hit someone during a round, while the Wizard has only a 50% chance. That's substantially better. The fighter's better ability (in comparison to a Wizard that is just as strong, has just as many feats that help, and is generally a Wizard built to fight) is just reflected in speed rather than precision.

[Falka]

Annnnnnnd now that he actually has the book he likes 5e now. :smallconfused:

Really? Someone stopped making false assumptions of a subject after reading it for 2 minutes since they took some time to go through the basics of a system? What are the odds? :smallbiggrin:

[Seppo87]

Annnnnnnd now that he actually has the book he likes 5e now. :smallconfused:So, your friend might be quick to judge, but he's open minded enough to check things twice.
It's a good trait

[Bounty Hunter]

Hopefully he gives the edition an honest try after all.

[thepsyker]

... Even the humble champion has the only expanded crit range I've seen in the game so far...
They are also, unless I have missed a spell, the only ones able to add a portion of their proficiency bonus to Initiative rolls, which are repeatedly called out as Dexterity checks and thus benefit from the Champions Expert Athlete feature.


I suppose technically what they could've done is not give the Wizard simple weapon proficiency by default...
They didn't give Wizards simple weapon proficiency, they gave them individual proficiencies with select simple weapons.

[BRC]

They are also, unless I have missed a spell, the only ones able to add a portion of their proficiency bonus to Initiative rolls, which are repeatedly called out as Dexterity checks and thus benefit from the Champions Expert Athlete feature.


Bards too. They add 1/2 Proficiency Bonus to Ability Checks, which includes Initiative.

[thepsyker]

Bards too. They add 1/2 Proficiency Bonus to Ability Checks, which includes Initiative.
I don't have my PHB on hand, but if memory serves Jack of All Trades only adds 1/2 proficiency bonus to Skill checks in particular, not Ability checks in general like Expert Athlete.

[VeliciaL]

I don't have my PHB on hand, but if memory serves Jack of All Trades only adds 1/2 proficiency bonus to Skill checks in particular, not Ability checks in general like Expert Athlete.

That would be incorrect, the feature just says ability checks that don't already have a proficiency bonus.

I don't see a problem with houseruling it that way though, since Bards are stupidly good already.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

So, your friend might be quick to judge, but he's open minded enough to check things twice.
It's a good trait
Except when it comes to one particular argument. :smallannoyed:

[thepsyker]

That would be incorrect, the feature just says ability checks that don't already have a proficiency bonus.

I don't see a problem with houseruling it that way though, since Bards are stupidly good already.
You are right I must have been thinking of the language to the Bards Expertise ability, which specifies Skills.

Although Jack of All Trades isn't quite the same as the Fighters Expert Athlete in that it covers a wider array of checks (Mental and Physical as opposed to just Physical) and they get it earlier (2nd as opposed to 7th level) they follow the normal rules for rounding, while the Fighters ability calls for the Fighter to round up when halving the bonus thus they receive the +3 bonus roughly four levels sooner and the start at +2 two levels before the Bard. Still that makes Jack of Al Trades much better then I was thinking it was.

Have to say given one of my more memorable past characters was a 1st edition Bard create for the Against the Giants series, I am kind of digging that Bards are returning to their 1st edition badassery.

[Snails]

I'd really like to hear people's thoughts about this, especially the original poster and his friend. Would a houserule that changes Wizards and Sorcerer so they are not proficient with ANY weapons, including Unarmed Strike, be a good enough fix? Then a level 1 Fighter would always have a better attack bonus than a level 1 Wizard with the same Strength score, unless the Wizard specifically took a feat to gain Proficiency.

If this is so important to you, then you should remove Elf weapon proficiencies as well.

[vasharanpaladin]

If this is so important to you, then you should remove Elf weapon proficiencies as well.

And probably dwarf armor proficiencies... hm, may as well just get rid of racial features in general, at that point. :smallyuk:

[Rhyvurg]

Personally, I think the entire issue would be fixed by a single, minor class feature for Fighters.


Combatant
At 1st level, you gain +1 to the first attack roll you make during your turn.


Quick, easy, doesn't apply to your extra attacks so it's not overpowering, and firmly sets fighters at the top of the pure combat tree. No other class would ever be quite as good at landing a hit, but it's not so large a gap that it removes any incentive to play a barbarian or paladin.

[Muenster Man]

Personally, I think the entire issue would be fixed by a single, minor class feature for Fighters.



Quick, easy, doesn't apply to your extra attacks so it's not overpowering, and firmly sets fighters at the top of the pure combat tree. No other class would ever be quite as good at landing a hit, but it's not so large a gap that it removes any incentive to play a barbarian or paladin.
Doesn't apply to extra attacks? Having inherently different modifiers to each attack is exactly what 5E is trying to move away from

[Rhyvurg]

Doesn't apply to extra attacks? Having inherently different modifiers to each attack is exactly what 5E is trying to move away from

That's interesting, considering they already exist in the game. A character can wield a sword and a dagger at the same time. He attacks with the sword, then with his extra attack throws the dagger. But since the dagger is a Finesse weapon, it can have a different attack bonus than the sword since you can use Dexterity instead of Strength. So, the system does allow different attack bonuses in the same turn.

[golentan]

That's interesting, considering they already exist in the game. A character can wield a sword and a dagger at the same time. He attacks with the sword, then with his extra attack throws the dagger. But since the dagger is a Finesse weapon, it can have a different attack bonus than the sword since you can use Dexterity instead of Strength. So, the system does allow different attack bonuses in the same turn.

With different weapons. That's a completely different thing from multiple variations of an attack with the same weapon.

[Warskull]

Your friend is being a grognard. There should be no debate. It is different so he hates it. I think your best option is to drag him kicking and screaming into 5E and making him experience it. "Too bad, we are playing 5th." If you try to explain to him that fighters gain more attacks or that barbarians have their rage and reckless attack mechanics to pump melee DPR he won't bother listening.

The whole proficiency system is flat out brilliant because it introduces massive flexibility into the game.

[Rhyvurg]

So what? I find it highly implausible that anyone capable of playing this game can't handle a slightly different opening attack. Why is this "all rolls the same" some kind of 5e Holy Grail?

[golentan]

So what? I find it highly implausible that anyone capable of playing this game can't handle a slightly different opening attack. Why is this "all rolls the same" some kind of 5e Holy Grail?

Because it prevents a numbers escalation war.

[Mr.Moron]

That's interesting, considering they already exist in the game. A character can wield a sword and a dagger at the same time. He attacks with the sword, then with his extra attack throws the dagger. But since the dagger is a Finesse weapon, it can have a different attack bonus than the sword since you can use Dexterity instead of Strength. So, the system does allow different attack bonuses in the same turn.

This is an edge case and mostly an academic one at that. Typically a DWing character is going to be using two finesse weapons or two non-finesse weapons to best leverage whatever their highest bonus is. So not only is DWing 1 STR weapon + 1 DEX weapon not only a very, very, very narrow subset of the possible loadouts it's one almost nobody would want to use. Unless of course their STR and DEX mods are the same, rendering the point moot.

I'm not sure pointing out a specific case that'll almost never come up is a good counterpoint to the fact that in general tracking different bonuses and modifiers is something this edition is designed to avoid as much as possible.


So what? I find it highly implausible that anyone capable of playing this game can't handle a slightly different opening attack. Why is this "all rolls the same" some kind of 5e Holy Grail?

Because it looks cleaner, plays faster, and ensures cohesion that makes designing new content easier.

[Rhyvurg]

Because it prevents a numbers escalation war.

It's a single +1, all other limits would still apply. It's not like it's a flat bonus to all proficiency rolls.


This is an edge case and mostly an academic one at that. Typically a DWing character is going to be using two finesse weapons or two non-finesse weapons to best leverage whatever their highest bonus is. So not only is DWing 1 STR weapon + 1 DEX weapon not only a very, very, very narrow subset of the possible loadouts it's one almost nobody would want to use. Unless of course their STR and DEX mods are the same, rendering the point moot.

I'm not sure pointing out a specific case that'll almost never come up is a good counterpoint to the fact that in general tracking different bonuses and modifiers is something this edition is designed to avoid as much as possible.



Because it looks cleaner, plays faster, and ensures cohesion that makes designing new content easier.

I didn't say it would come up often, I'm pointing out that it is a thing that can happen. The system would not inherently disallow what I suggested.

[Muenster Man]

It's not an issue of whether or not differing bonuses is always a good or bad thing. It's an issue of trying to limit it as much as possible to keep the system smooth and clean from a bunch of small numbers a player has to keep track of every attack.

[Soras Teva Gee]

It's a single +1, all other limits would still apply. It's not like it's a flat bonus to all proficiency rolls.

You're advocating a bonus you seem to consider nearly mechanically irrelevant thus essentially only for the honorary preservation of a particular point of philosophical aesthetics.

Your not "right" you merely have a preference you wish to see enforced out of the principle of the thing.

5E disagrees and believes that to-hit rolls should be unified. Sure its not the most major difference but then by the same token its absence is not, so why should they dilute their message? They shouldn't, indeed doing so my stirr further complaints from someone else. So they didn't and superior combat skill is manifested in different ways, not previous problematic to-hit mechanics. ("Waaah why's it so small" or "why do it when +1 hardly matters!")

There's nothing to be done about that accept for you to decide whether you can live with that disagreement or not.

[Rhyvurg]

I missed this, tucked away at the bottom of the weapon list. Hand crossbows. A fighter with the archery combat style, with a hand crossbow and a sword, would have different attack bonuses in the same turn, especially if his Dex is higher than his strength. Heck, even if he's using a finesse weapon (because his Dex would be his best score if he picked that style), the hand crossbow's bonus is still 2 higher. The "same roll as a melee weapon" rule only applies to thrown weapons. A hand crossbow is even a light weapon, meaning it's ideal for two-weapon fighting. They designed it to work this way, they knew you'd have different attack bonuses in one turn. And it's not about philosophical aesthetics, it's about logic. What do the main combat classes spend all day doing?

Barbarians: Fighting, surviving, traveling, hunting
Paladins: Fighting, praying, studying, learning magic
Rangers: Fighting, hunting, surviving, learning magic
Fighters: Fighting.

Now, it seems to me that if you have a guy who practices doing 4 things a day, and a guy who practices doing 1 thing, that the second guy would be really good at that one thing. And yes, they do eventually become better at that thing, but I'm talking about rookie characters. What does a level 1 Fighter have that reflects his superior skill at fighting? How does it make any sense for a glorified librarian to be just as able to get past an orc's guard and land a hit as someone who's actually trained and experienced with weapons?

[VeliciaL]

Now, it seems to me that if you have a guy who practices doing 4 things a day, and a guy who practices doing 1 thing, that the second guy would be really good at that one thing. And yes, they do eventually become better at that thing, but I'm talking about rookie characters. What does a level 1 Fighter have that reflects his superior skill at fighting? How does it make any sense for a glorified librarian to be just as able to get past an orc's guard and land a hit as someone who's actually trained and experienced with weapons?

Except the fighter IS better at getting past an orc's defenses, simply because they get more chances to per turn.

[Rhyvurg]

Except the fighter IS better at getting past an orc's defenses, simply because they get more chances to per turn.

Eventually they do. I'm talking about level 1. A level 1 fighter has spend years in military service, a wizard has not, yet they have the same chance of landing a hit.

[Mr.Moron]

I missed this, tucked away at the bottom of the weapon list. Hand crossbows. A fighter with the archery combat style, with a hand crossbow and a sword, would have different attack bonuses in the same turn, especially if his Dex is higher than his strength. Heck, even if he's using a finesse weapon (because his Dex would be his best score if he picked that style), the hand crossbow's bonus is still 2 higher. The "same roll as a melee weapon" rule only applies to thrown weapons. A hand crossbow is even a light weapon, meaning it's ideal for two-weapon fighting. They designed it to work this way, they knew you'd have different attack bonuses in one turn. And it's not about philosophical aesthetics, it's about logic. What do the main combat classes spend all day doing?

Barbarians: Fighting, surviving, traveling, hunting
Paladins: Fighting, praying, studying, learning magic
Rangers: Fighting, hunting, surviving, learning magic
Fighters: Fighting.

Now, it seems to me that if you have a guy who practices doing 4 things a day, and a guy who practices doing 1 thing, that the second guy would be really good at that one thing. And yes, they do eventually become better at that thing, but I'm talking about rookie characters. What does a level 1 Fighter have that reflects his superior skill at fighting? How does it make any sense for a glorified librarian to be just as able to get past an orc's guard and land a hit as someone who's actually trained and experienced with weapons?

You're not forming a cohesive line of argument. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers all had the same attack bonus under the BAB system at first level. You're not drawing any meaningful contrast with 5e in terms of "Ability to hit at first level, vs BAB" - not that it's a meaningful metric in the first place.

You're also once again focusing on an edge case (albeit one that is slightly more than an academic exercise this time), where dislike bonuses exist. This still doesn't mean that adding variable bonuses to like attacks in the same circumstances is in line with the general design phiosphy in 5e. It reduces cohesion and can reduce the speed of play.

[Rhyvurg]

But in 3.5, a fighter had at least 2 feats to work with, if he wanted to be better with his chosen weapon than the other classes he could have been. But 3.X crapped all over fighters anyway, they didn't do it right then either.

[Mr.Moron]

But in 3.5, a fighter had at least 2 feats to work with, if he wanted to be better with his chosen weapon than the other classes he could have been. But 3.X crapped all over fighters anyway, they didn't do it right then either.

That has nothing to do with BAB. Now you're getting into the availbity of feats that provide micro-tweaks to attack math. This is an entirely different line of reasoning not at all related to your initial position. In addition it's the sort of thing that's even more out of line with the 5e design philsophy.

In general you're asking for increased booking keeping for marginal benefit in a narrow band of overall gameplay.

[Rhyvurg]

Except I'm not. Fighters also get to pick a second combat style, which means tracking if you're using a one-handed weapon and nothing else, dual-wielding a hand crossbow like I talked about, extra abilities if you use a shield, rerolling 2-handed damage, higher AC when wearing armor, the class feature I proposed is simpler than all of them. And yes, the BAB system was flawed in 3.X, but there was still something that reflected certain classes being better in a fight.

[ambartanen]

A level 1 fighter has spend years in military service, a wizard has not, yet they have the same chance of landing a hit.

This stuff again. You don't know that a fighter has spent any time in military service and you don't know that a wizard hasn't spent many years in military service. I already wrote you up an example of a dwarf wizard that spent most of his life in the military. Being a fighter might make you more likely than a wizard to have the soldier background but both characters can take it and neither has to.

Edit: Just to give some examples of the opposite, a first level fighter might just as easily be a butcher with a particular affinity for swinging a cleaver and the strength to stumble around in heavy armo or a noble that went through the required weapons training but always preferred parties to fighting.

[Mr.Moron]

Except I'm not. Fighters also get to pick a second combat style, which means tracking if you're using a one-handed weapon and nothing else, dual-wielding a hand crossbow like I talked about, extra abilities if you use a shield, rerolling 2-handed damage, higher AC when wearing armor, the class feature I proposed is simpler than all of them. And yes, the BAB system was flawed in 3.X, but there was still something that reflected certain classes being better in a fight.

We do get that. The Fighter, Paladin and Ranger all get Fighting Style at the first level. The Barbarian gets rage, Monks get Martial Arts. These all grant an ability that signifies a greater mount of combat training the classes that do not get these abilities. You're talking in circles.

[Snails]

Eventually they do. I'm talking about level 1. A level 1 fighter has spend years in military service, a wizard has not, yet they have the same chance of landing a hit.

You do not know that. The most likely scenario for seeing the swordsman wizard at the gaming table is an elf. Are you sure that elf has not been practicing with Uncle Glorfindel after school every day for the last hundred years?

If two characters both have proficiency with a weapon, it is perfectly natural and reasonable to assume they both practice the basic attack routines for that weapon the same amount every single day, regardless of their class. That is what proficiency really means. The Fighter practices fancy footwork and multiple strike routines, in addition; but that does not mean his basic attacks are any different.

[cobaltstarfire]

. A level 1 fighter has spend years in military service, a wizard has not, yet they have the same chance of landing a hit.

I know this has been said at least once but it's worth repeating.

If they are both using weapons they have mastery in (ex a staff) and they both have identical strength, why shouldn't they have the same chance to hit at lv 1?


Most weapons a wizard will not have the same chance of landing a hit, because they don't have proficiency with most weapons. Which means even if they have an identical str mod (lets say a +1 for simplicity), if they're both trying to use a Pike the wizard gets only a +1, but the fighter gets a +3.

edit: and...I type too slow, well it's still worth repeating. :p

[Soras Teva Gee]

I missed this, tucked away at the bottom of the weapon list. Hand crossbows. A fighter with the archery combat style, with a hand crossbow and a sword, would have different attack bonuses in the same turn, especially if his Dex is higher than his strength. Heck, even if he's using a finesse weapon (because his Dex would be his best score if he picked that style), the hand crossbow's bonus is still 2 higher. The "same roll as a melee weapon" rule only applies to thrown weapons. A hand crossbow is even a light weapon, meaning it's ideal for two-weapon fighting. They designed it to work this way, they knew you'd have different attack bonuses in one turn. And it's not about philosophical aesthetics, it's about logic. What do the main combat classes spend all day doing?

So let's add your little +1 to hit... so it doesn't stack with Archery and becomes worthless with that style right?
Or are you giving out a +3 over everyone else at Level 1?
The latter seems like a counter-argument to me showing how even a simple change can have spiraling consequences.

Ever heard the phrase the "exception that proves the rule" because it would seem in play for Archery, its unique to ranged weapons who have a good chance of needing it since they are much easier to put into disadvantage and it helps neutralize cover, something else they are also more likely to have to deal with. Thus an appropriate exception and it makes it something special for archery.

And no its still about philsophical aesthetics. There is no "logical" way to design a game, suggestions by anyone otherwise are just generally trying to give a veneer of mythical objectivity to their preferences. Sometime the results can be undesirable because the mechanics are too hard/easy, but that's still subjective too. Breeze through something like White Wolf products with handfuls of d10s and only d10s versus D&D's menagerie of dice. Very different way of handling many of the same tasks. I suppose you could do a statistical analysis of each and argue the comparative results, but its hard to describe one as better or not.

And if you say something about more/less realism I might instead point you to fencing (especially Epee) or researching HEMA with blunted weapons. Dice are never going to be a realistic simulation of that. Oh also magic and stuff, plus freaking supernatural results of any higher level character.


Barbarians: Fighting, surviving, traveling, hunting
Paladins: Fighting, praying, studying, learning magic
Rangers: Fighting, hunting, surviving, learning magic
Fighters: Fighting.

I suggest the next time you have the PHB look at the Outlander background and its benefit.

Backgrounds now let you directly avert stereotyping by rounding off with two skills of basically anything you like, the book even encourages tweaking them. Very possible to be a huntsman fighter, or one who grew up a scholar if that's what floats your boat. Not to mention Survival is on the Fighter skill list anyways so you might as well add "surviving, traveling, hunting" right off anyways because its there if you want it.

Anyways this is a completely false dichotomy. Heck unless something in the Barbarian class is totally slipping my mind they're not any better at roughing it then anyone else with Survival and all their abilities are geared toward fighting. Or rather "tanking" since more of them seem to be defensive. Ranger still has that favored terrain going on but hey that IS their thing.


Now, it seems to me that if you have a guy who practices doing 4 things a day, and a guy who practices doing 1 thing, that the second guy would be really good at that one thing. And yes, they do eventually become better at that thing, but I'm talking about rookie characters. What does a level 1 Fighter have that reflects his superior skill at fighting? How does it make any sense for a glorified librarian to be just as able to get past an orc's guard and land a hit as someone who's actually trained and experienced with weapons?

Give a Wizard the Soldier background, reasonable stats, and make them an Elf. How can they NOT know how to get past an orc's guard and land a hit?

You're only working with very stereotypical/archetypal versions of the classes for you preferences.

[Pinnacle]

If all the fighter can do is fight, then once the initiative dice hit the table, it should be his world, and you all just live in it. 4e partially fixed itself with Essentials (who ever heard of dailies for a melee class, honestly. "but it shows the effort and rare opportunity to make these attacks!" and it only ever happens once a day each? Right), but it was a band-aid trying to fix poor design philosophy.

In the 3.5 PHB, literally every class but the fighter has per-day abilities. Barbarian has rage, bard has bardic music (and spells), cleric has turn undead (and spells), druid has wildshape (and spells), monk has abundant step (among others), paladin has smite evil (among others including spells--also per week abilities), ranger has spells, rogue has uncanny dodge, and sorcerer and wizard have spells.

Admittedly, the only per-day ability I believe the ranger has is spells, and uncanny dodge is only one of a rogue's several options, but they're all there. Even the melee/martial classes. I've never been sure why people acted like it was a new thing in 4E.
The only core class without per-day class abilities is the fighter, who doesn't have any class abilities beyond bonus feats... and if he wants, the fighter can spend a bonus feat on, say, Stunning Fist, which grants him per-day abilities.



BAB is just a single game mechanic. It's one this game doesn't have. Many games don't have it, only a few of them do.

[Sartharina]

Admittedly, the only per-day ability I believe the ranger has is spells, and uncanny dodge is only one of a rogue's several options, but they're all there. Even the melee/martial classes. I've never been sure why people acted like it was a new thing in 4E.
The only core class without per-day class abilities is the fighter, who doesn't have any class abilities beyond bonus feats... and if he wants, the fighter can spend a bonus feat on, say, Stunning Fist, which grants him per-day abilities.Actually, the fighter does have a (Terrible) per-day ability - Indomitable. And spellcasting if it's an Eldritch Knight. But they make up for a lack of per-day abilities with several Short-rest abilities - Second Wind and Action Surge come to mind.

[Beige]

Eventually they do. I'm talking about level 1. A level 1 fighter has spend years in military service, a wizard has not, yet they have the same chance of landing a hit.

maybe, but your missing something: even if they have the same chance to hit, the result of that hit (even throwing aside stats) will be wildly different.

First and foremost, the fighter has access to stronger weaponry and better armour, gained from his skill, which means he can hit for more damage with a melee attack, and is harder to hit

Secondly, he has something you already mentioned: fighting style, which gives him an advantage. and yes, maybe he has the same accuracy in some cases, but he will ALWAYS* outperform the wizard assuming their using the same equipment.

plus, the fighter, due to his years of training, is much tougher and more resiliant. also, if your a wizard who has learnt to shoot fireballs from your fingers, are you telling me you wouldn't practice aiming?

*unless you where being a jackass and picked a fighting style other than your weapon to try and prove a point, in which case your argument becomes invalid...

[Stubbazubba]

Except I'm not. Fighters also get to pick a second combat style, which means tracking if you're using a one-handed weapon and nothing else, dual-wielding a hand crossbow like I talked about, extra abilities if you use a shield, rerolling 2-handed damage, higher AC when wearing armor, the class feature I proposed is simpler than all of them. And yes, the BAB system was flawed in 3.X, but there was still something that reflected certain classes being better in a fight.

Except BAB did not make them better in a fight. Even at level 1. A 5% increase is negligible, it only makes a difference in one out of 20 attacks. That's 20 rounds of combat where you attack until you know it's made a 5% difference over the Wizard in the first place. By the time you've been through 20 rounds of combat, that 5% difference doesn't matter. It's been altered somehow anyway. Meanwhile, the Wizard is casting Sleep and doing your job better than you.

Moreover, as has been mentioned, 5e also has things that reflect certain classes being better in a fight, which do so much better than freaking BAB. Look, I don't even agree that 5e is better than 3.5, but BAB is in no way the problem with 5e or the advantage of 3.5. Feats, Class Abilities, and Magic Items are what matter in 3.5, period. BAB doesn't. In 5e, Proficiency, Class Abilities, and maybe-sort-of Feats and Magic Items matter. They are what separate you from others in a fight. They're right there, just as evident and obvious as BAB, and while their implementation might be hit-and-miss, BAB's implementation sucked, all the time, in every instance. You need to give up this dead horse. BAB is not worth getting upset over. I don't know what you believe about your 3.5 experience, but your BAB never made you awesome, it never saved you. Stacking bonuses from Feats and Magic Items did, and at low level that was all you had (and if you were a Fighter that was all you ever had), but BAB didn't. Ever. Please, stop.

[rlc]

But in 3.5

this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5.


Eventually they do. I'm talking about level 1. A level 1 fighter has spend years in military service, a wizard has not, yet they have the same chance of landing a hit.
because there are no wizards in the military, right?

I missed this, tucked away at the bottom of the weapon list. Hand crossbows. A fighter with the archery combat style, with a hand crossbow and a sword, would have different attack bonuses in the same turn, especially if his Dex is higher than his strength. Heck, even if he's using a finesse weapon (because his Dex would be his best score if he picked that style), the hand crossbow's bonus is still 2 higher. The "same roll as a melee weapon" rule only applies to thrown weapons. A hand crossbow is even a light weapon, meaning it's ideal for two-weapon fighting. They designed it to work this way, they knew you'd have different attack bonuses in one turn. And it's not about philosophical aesthetics, it's about logic. What do the main combat classes spend all day doing?

Barbarians: Fighting, surviving, traveling, hunting
Paladins: Fighting, praying, studying, learning magic
Rangers: Fighting, hunting, surviving, learning magic
Fighters: Fighting.

Now, it seems to me that if you have a guy who practices doing 4 things a day, and a guy who practices doing 1 thing, that the second guy would be really good at that one thing. And yes, they do eventually become better at that thing, but I'm talking about rookie characters. What does a level 1 Fighter have that reflects his superior skill at fighting? How does it make any sense for a glorified librarian to be just as able to get past an orc's guard and land a hit as someone who's actually trained and experienced with weapons?

so...his two weapons have different to-hits. one is more likely to hit than the other one. what's the problem?
and as for the rest of the stuff quoted, you're obviously not understanding anything, since your questions have all been answered millions of times.

[pwykersotz]

this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5. this isn't 3.5.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Come again?

[Gnomes2169]

*Blue*Hey guys, I ghink this is 3.5*/blue* :P

But anyway, throwing my chip in with everyone else... BAB can die in a fire for all it is worth. It did nothing but let the fighter boop things easier 1% of the time, and impose arbitrary limits on feats/ prc's. I am happy to see it removed.

[Sartharina]

*Blue*Hey guys, I ghink this is 3.5*/blue* :P

But anyway, throwing my chip in with everyone else... BAB can die in a fire for all it is worth. It did nothing but let the fighter boop things easier 1% of the time, and impose arbitrary limits on feats/ prc's. I am happy to see it removed.

Actually, I found BAB let monsters trivialize AC more often than not, because a lot of monsters got Full BAB (For some reason) and ludicrous HD, and PCs were balanced around "First hit auto-striking for mediocre damage, followed by less-reliable hits for mediocre damage" - while monsters, thanks to natural weapons and Pounce, got "Auto-Hit on Five Attacks for Massive Damage"

[Ecchicon]

This thread is based on only one main concept. OP's friend, Rhyvurg, has a has a singular, imagined (but semi-based on reality)idea for what it means to be X and what it means to be y.

It all boils down to one question. If a wizard and a fighter each use the same weapon (mind you, it MUST be a weapon the wizard AND fighter can use: here the fighter is already handicapping himself), is if feasible that they could his a dummy with one blow in the exact same manner.

The fighter and wizard are said to have the exact same physical traits, and have gone through the same training when it comes to that physical attribute (strength). Both also have the exact same training with the weapon they will both use (proficiency: X). Neither of the participants are using tricks: just one standard hit.

If these are the conditions, then the answer should be yes, it is absolutely feasible.

[VeliciaL]

This thread is based on only one main concept. OP's friend, Rhyvurg, has a has a singular, imagined (but semi-based on reality)idea for what it means to be X and what it means to be y.

It all boils down to one question. If a wizard and a fighter each use the same weapon (mind you, it MUST be a weapon the wizard AND fighter can use: here the fighter is already handicapping himself), is if feasible that they could his a dummy with one blow in the exact same manner.

The fighter and wizard are said to have the exact same physical traits, and have gone through the same training when it comes to that physical attribute (strength). Both also have the exact same training with the weapon they will both use (proficiency: X). Neither of the participants are using tricks: just one standard hit.

If these are the conditions, then the answer should be yes, it is absolutely feasible.

This. If a wizard wants to spend resources (i.e. stat boosts) to be able to hit things as often as a fighter does with a weapon, then they should be allowed to.

In short, it's a feature, not a bug.

[Gnomes2169]

Actually, I found BAB let monsters trivialize AC more often than not, because a lot of monsters got Full BAB (For some reason) and ludicrous HD, and PCs were balanced around "First hit auto-striking for mediocre damage, followed by less-reliable hits for mediocre damage" - while monsters, thanks to natural weapons and Pounce, got "Auto-Hit on Five Attacks for Massive Damage"

Well, I was talking more from a "PC usability" standpoint, since Ryv is soap boxing about how much better it made martial classes, so I wasn't thinking so much about monsters... But yeah, that's another reason why I'm happy they murdered BAB. Even if it means that dragons don't get +1 attack/ HD.

Then again, dragons are awesome without that. So no loss here. :P

[rlc]

they're focusing more on making things awesome just because they're awesome, not because of fiddly bonuses. it's a nice change of pace.