New to 5e, not new at all to 3e. What changed?

[Extra Anchovies]

If I'm quite used to and knowledgeable about the 3.5 and Pathfinder systems, what are the main things I should know before playing some 5e? I plan to still give the PHB a look, but want to hear from you guys first.

Things I already know:
1. Most conditions, instead of giving pluses or minuses, give advantage or disadvantage, which means you roll two dice and take the better or worse result respectively.
2. Cantrips are stronger and at-will; spells have greater effects if you cast them using higher slots than the minimum.
3. Instead of allocating skill points, you instead choose a certain number of skills and gain scaling bonuses in them. Similar to the Maximum Ranks, Limited Choice variant from 3.5 Unearthed Arcana page 79-80.
4. There's something called subclasses, and from what I've heard they're a bit like Pathfinder archetypes.

If there's recently been a thread like this, feel free to direct me there.
Thanks!

[Madfellow]

If I'm quite used to and knowledgeable about the 3.5 and Pathfinder systems, what are the main things I should know before playing some 5e? I plan to still give the PHB a look, but want to hear from you guys first.

Things I already know:
1. Most conditions, instead of giving pluses or minuses, give advantage or disadvantage, which means you roll two dice and take the better or worse result respectively.
2. Cantrips are stronger and at-will; spells have greater effects if you cast them using higher slots than the minimum.

If there's recently been a thread like this, feel free to direct me there.
Thanks!

There have been many such threads already. One of them needs to get stickied one of these days. :smalltongue:

Main changes from 3e to 5e:
1) Fewer rules, less specificity in the rules, and less focus on simulationism.
2) Fewer numbers to keep track of, and the numbers you do track are generally smaller. Basically, there's been a little bit of power seep (opposite of power creep).
3) It's much easier and faster to play than 3e, much easier to learn, and there's a big focus on the storytelling aspect of play.
4) It's much MUCH more balanced.

[OldTrees1]

Full Attacks are a standard action at full bonus but iterative attacks are only gained as class features.

Movement is not an action. You can move up to your speed each turn divided up as you choose (even between iterative attacks).

You only get 1 reaction(AoO or other out of turn action) per round.

AoOs are triggerd when someone leaves your Reach not when they leave a threatened square.


Subclasses are like Pathfinder Archetypes but all subclasses for a class replace the exact same slots. No prestige classes have been seen in the Core books.

Multiclassed casters gain one set of spell slots based on total caster level but spells known(called prepared) for each class are determined class level(including highest level of spell known).

Spells can be cast from higher level slots. Many spells get stronger when this is done.

[pwykersotz]

Here's a few older threads that discussed some of the differences:

Worth It (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367762-Worth-it)
Looking for opinions before I dive in (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?368332-Looking-for-opinions-before-I-dive-in)
Would a 5e game be a better way to go back to basics than core only 3.5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?366720-Would-a-5e-game-be-a-better-way-to-go-quot-back-to-basics-quot-than-core-only-3-5)

There are lots more.

[Extra Anchovies]

Full Attacks are a standard action at full bonus but iterative attacks are only gained as class features.

Movement is not an action. You can move up to your speed each turn divided up as you choose (even between iterative attacks).

You only get 1 reaction(AoO or other out of turn action) per round.

AoOs are triggerd when someone leaves your Reach not when they leave a threatened square.


Subclasses are like Pathfinder Archetypes but all subclasses for a class replace the exact same slots. No prestige classes have been seen in the Core books.

Multiclassed casters gain one set of spell slots based on total caster level but spells known(called prepared) for each class are determined class level(including highest level of spell known).

Spells can be cast from higher level slots. Many spells get stronger when this is done.

Hm. I like what I'm hearing. So a wizard 10/cleric 10 would have the spell slots of a 20th-level caster, half of which would be divine and half of which would be arcane?

Also, the movement and iterative attack rules seem like a huge boost for martials. What else changed on the combat front? Are some of the various fighting styles (sword+board, two-handed, dual-wielding, one-hand-free, unarmed) still more effective than others?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Hm. I like what I'm hearing. So a wizard 10/cleric 10 would have the spell slots of a 20th-level caster, half of which would be divine and half of which would be arcane?

Also, the movement and iterative attack rules seem like a huge boost for martials. What else changed on the combat front? Are some of the various fighting styles (sword+board, two-handed, dual-wielding, one-hand-free, unarmed) still more effective than others?

Depends on how much of an optimizer you are, and what ratio of damage-to-effort you would consider effective. From my own experience, it all balances out for the most part. But from what I've read on these boards:


Two-handed is still King. More damage per hit, and really only one (optional) feat needed.
Dual is still the weakest if only because you need a feat or two to equal the other styles after early levels. It's still FAR and away closer to the others than in 3.X
Sword and Board works fine.
One-handed works fine.
Unarmed only works for Monks as the damage is capped at 1 point without the Tavern Brawler feat.


In general, they all work well depending on what you want, and there's little reason to pick one over the other except for character stuff.

[Iolo Morganwg]

Hm. I like what I'm hearing. So a wizard 10/cleric 10 would have the spell slots of a 20th-level caster, half of which would be divine and half of which would e arcane?...

You can use your slots as you wish, but could only prepare each classes spells as if you were single classed in each, so you'd top out at fifth level spells.

[MaxWilson]

Hm. I like what I'm hearing. So a wizard 10/cleric 10 would have the spell slots of a 20th-level caster, half of which would be divine and half of which would be arcane?

They would have the slots of a 20th level caster (but no ability to cast higher than 5th level spells--so they'd have to spend their 9th level slots on Hold Monster or something else that is 5th level or less), and could choose at casting time whether to cast a wizard or cleric spell out of any given slot.

Watch out for that "arcane" vs. "divine" terminology, in 5th edition there is no such dichotomy. E.g. Paladins have access to some spells that clerics don't, and vice-versa, even though you probably consider both of them "divine". Sorcerers get at least one spell (Enhance Ability) that wizards don't, and wizards get a ton of spells that sorcerers don't. Etc., etc.

[Daishain]

One of the less concrete but nevertheless important differences is the concept of bounded accuracy. Essentially, while characters improve over time, they no longer do so to the point that they're effectively untouchable gods at L20. A large enough squad of goblins can still cut them down with a bit of luck and careful planning. Also, a lot of the ridiculous RAW actions that are impossible by common sense are just gone (I once heard of a 3.5E rogue making a DC 80 check to sneak inside another person's anus without them noticing in order to infiltrate a guarded location...).

Likewise, powerful monsters are still a nightmare to take on too early, but (at least in most cases) are not completely untouchable.

A few other things that haven't been mentioned yet:
-Spellcasters get fewer in the way of high level spell slots, they mostly make up for this via the at wills which improve over time.
-Feats are much more powerful, but also harder to get
-They've smoothed out some of the wrinkles in multiclassing, but it is no longer necessary for a strong character nor even the best choice in most cases.
-Very little in the way of dead levels, regardless of class. You're almost always either getting class/subclass features, an ability increase, or a feat.
-Alignment doesn't have much in the way of practical impact, and is mostly back to being a quick categorization for character disposition
-A lot of the game breaking spells are gone or weakened in some fashion. Wish for example has a 33% chance of burning itself out if used to do anything other than duplicate another spell.
-Flight is harder to get and actually a bit of a liability in combat. One hit on the spellcaster and everyone he was holding up in the air have a good chance of falling to their deaths.
-Most duration spells are concentration. Only one concentration spell can be active at a time. This largely prevents buff and debuff stacking. But it also has the unfortunate side affect of often severely limiting a caster's options.

[Safety Sword]

All in all, and I think most people would agree, it is best if you approach 5E as a completely new game.

3E (and derivatives) almost forced you into a stat stacking mentality to make an effective high level character, it was almost unplayable just using the core rule books because of the power of spell casting compared to mundane combatants. You have to know all of this before you made a character, or else you would end up frustrated and ineffective.

Whilst the spells in 5E are still powerful the reigns have been pulled back in relation to the number of spells you can use and the concentration mechanic, which limits how many powerful spells are in effect at any time.

Overall through the lower and middle levels the game is very well balanced I find.

My opinion is that if you don't approach 5E with a 3.5E min/maxing perspective you'll enjoy the system much more.

[ProphetSword]

A few things off the top of my head that others may not have covered:


There are two kinds of resting now. Short rests and long rests. Players can only have one long rest in a 24 hour period.

They have done away with the three saving throws that existed in the previous editions (Fort, Reflex, Will) and now your attributes are used for saving throws. So, instead of a Reflex save, you would make a Dexterity save.

You get a proficiency bonus for things that you are proficient with. If you're not proficient, you just don't use the bonus.

Anyone can dual-wield without penalty. It requires a bonus action. A player can only have one bonus action per round. I believe they also have to use two light weapons.

Finesse weapons can use either Strength or Dexterity to hit. In addition, weapons that use Dexterity to hit can also apply the Dexterity bonus to the damage instead of Strength.

[Celcey]

All in all, and I think most people would agree, it is best if you approach 5E as a completely new game.


This. 5e is it's own game, and trying to play based on your knowledge of an earlier edition just won't work. You'll really have to read the PHB thoroughly and carefully, because things you think you know from 3.X are different in 5e. The most frequent example is the charmed condition: in 3.X, the person sort of becomes your ally (at least from what I gather). In 5e, you just get advantage on social interaction rolls and the person can't attack you.

[MaxWilson]

I wouldn't say you have to approach 5E as a completely new game. It's still recognizably in the D&D family.

1.) You have classes and logarithmically-increasing levels instead of point-buy abilities and discrete features;
2.) You gain experience by killing things instead of through practice (for the most part);
3.) Each character acts once per round;
4.) The magic system is still oriented around powerful, limited-use spells that you can cast in combat for damage spikes or disabling;
5.) Spells are resisted by saving throws which (mostly) happen automatically, separate from the reaction mechanic.

D&D 5E is still more like AD&D or D&D 3rd edition than it is like, say, GURPS or FATE.

[Kyutaru]

I don't find 5e to be all that different if you've played the older forms of D&D. It's basically just 2nd edition modernized with the 3+ improvements like attack bonuses, simple saves, and free-form multiclassing.

But if you've only played 3rd edition, here's probably the most important point:

Stat stacking is gone.

The fundamental core of 3rd edition was maximizing a few stats to be exceptionally good at them. Yet in 5th edition, a level 20 fighter has a +6 attack bonus. Armor grants you a fixed AC with few bonuses that stick on top of it. Stat enhancing items also grant you fixed bonuses rather than permitting you to run around with +6 enhancement + 6 inherent + 6 natural + 6 profane whatever bonuses making you stronger than a god. Heck, even buff stacking is gone because casters have a single concentration slot that they can use to hold on to a SINGLE spell that requires it. Which now means just about everything. You won't be hitting yourself with fourteen different buffs before the battle even begins.

On the DM side of things, I'm extremely happy that the bounded accuracy allows players of all kinds of level ranges to participate. To make an effective encounter, I just need to take the expected challenge for each player, convert to XP, then add up the totals. So I can make an effective encounter for a party of 3 level 3s, a level 5, and 2 level 1s just by totaling numbers and spending my XP allotment on buying monster choices. 30 XP for an Orc? Okay, I'll take 4 of them for 120 XP. Or I'll take a single dragon for 120 XP. Or mix Orcs and Zombies totalling the same XP total. All of them considered viable encounters that can sufficiently threaten the party.

[Safety Sword]

I wouldn't say you have to approach 5E as a completely new game. It's still recognizably in the D&D family.

1.) You have classes and logarithmically-increasing levels instead of point-buy abilities and discrete features;
2.) You gain experience by killing things instead of through practice (for the most part);
3.) Each character acts once per round;
4.) The magic system is still oriented around powerful, limited-use spells that you can cast in combat for damage spikes or disabling;
5.) Spells are resisted by saving throws which (mostly) happen automatically, separate from the reaction mechanic.

D&D 5E is still more like AD&D or D&D 3rd edition than it is like, say, GURPS or FATE.

I'm not saying you have to approach it as a new game. You should have the same expectations with regards to heroic combat, magic, swords etc. I'm just saying that if you ditch your preconceptions of it being D&D 3.5.5 you will sleep better at night. Don't try to reconcile the 5E rules with the 3.5E rules. They are a completely different system and philosophy on game design.

I liked AD&D, so 5E just cleans up the messiness that was inherent in that system but it retains the feel. Overall, I like everything that has been done with it so far.

[Urpriest]

Monsters are in general deadlier, and more likely to be very powerful in some ways but very weak in others, even at the low CRs. Players generally gain access to all monsters of a given CR (barring DM rulings) rather than specific lists (with summoning spells and similar).

[Madfellow]

Yet in 5th edition, a level 20 fighter has a +6 attack bonus.

To be clear, he means Base Attack Bonus (called Proficiency in 5th), not total attack bonus. Including a maxed out Strength or Dexterity score, it adds up to a +11 by level 17. A magic weapon can bring that up to +14, potentially.

[Extra Anchovies]

Thanks for all the tips! Another question: are the races balanced against one another or are Humans still king?

[GiantOctopodes]

Thanks for all the tips! Another question: are the races balanced against one another or are Humans still king?

Humans are still king, *if* you are playing with feats. Otherwise humans, while powerful, are in line with everyone else. Every other race is more or less well balanced against each other. Note that I personally haven't heard of anyone not playing with feats. Not saying it doesn't happen, it could be more common than those who do play with feats, I just haven't heard of it.

[Triclinium]

Thanks for all the tips! Another question: are the races balanced against one another or are Humans still king?

Humans are still king only if you allow variant humans. I, personally, am tired of the human master race and will not be allowing it in my games. Without that variant everything is pretty well balanced against each other as far as I can tell.

[Extra Anchovies]

Which of the variant human abilities breaks them? Is it the "proficiency in any one skill" bit? I can see how that could get out of hand, and gives me an idea for a variant Human skillmonkey Fighter...

[Triclinium]

Which of the variant human abilities breaks them? Is it the "proficiency in any one skill" bit? I can see how that could get out of hand, and gives me an idea for a variant Human skillmonkey Fighter...

Its the, "choose a feat at level 1" bit that really concerns me. Skill proficiency I have no problems with.

[Extra Anchovies]

Its the, "choose a feat at level 1" bit that really concerns me. Skill proficiency I have no problems with.

Oh! I understand how the Variant Humans rule works now! I originally read it to mean that you could choose one of the three whenever you got a class-derived ability increase, but it actually replaces their "boost all stats by 1"! That makes sense.

[danweasel]

Its the, "choose a feat at level 1" bit that really concerns me. Skill proficiency I have no problems with.

Probably most "dangerous" if you're rolling stats, since a player could conceivably roll high enough that taking the variant human feat instead of a race that gives +2 to his preferred stat isn't much of a sacrifice.

I'm not sure how many 1st level feats are truly balance-endangering. At best variant humans probably have a leg up until level 4, when everyone can take a feat (and except in the aforementioned scenario, they'll want an ability increase), but due to the rapid early leveling you aren't spending much time there anyway.

To the OP: subclasses are perhaps closer to cleric domains than PF archetypes, since you have to choose one and you can't mix and match. The difference from 3.x style domains is that subclasses are more distinct from each other and spread out their features over the whole level curve.

[Shining Wrath]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned: my opinion is that in 5e we're going to optimize parties, not characters. Because, as mentioned, the classes are closer in both power and flexibility to one another than 3.5, finding ways to combine their features effectively is going to be the key.

Oh, and a half-elf Bard is now possibly the most powerful thing you can run.

[Gwendol]

Yeah, all parties now need a (lore) bard (also true for adventuring parties) ;-)

They can mess with initiative like no one else.

Classes feel more balanced, and fighters are actually quite good at fighting.

The rules allow for a much faster game.

I still play 3.5 (and BECMI, etc), but would switch to 5e exclusively if I had the chance.

[Baron]

I'm in a similar position to Extra Anchovies but have played 5e a little.

I find it a much more streamlined and straightforward system, that should be almost immediately familiar to you if you've played 3.5.

The power levels over all seem lower, with a more steady progression. I've yet to get beyond the superficial "it's all shiny and new phase" but from what my group have played and the reading I have done it seems to do things well allowing for a fluid game. Certainly from my perspective as the DM.

I have some concerns that the simplification of some bits may reduce the variety of options available for development, but that might be down to my lack of complete knowledge of the system, a lack of material published yet or a hangover from playing 3.5e for so many years with all the variety (complex as it could be) available.

Looking forward to getting the DMG and also getting a bit more indepth with the system. Looks good so far though. :smile:

Baron

[JAL_1138]

Oh, and a half-elf Bard is now possibly the most powerful thing you can run.

That's not a joke, by the way; it's a serious argument. Bards got awesome in 5e. Initiative-altering skillmonkey fullcasters who can hand out extra dice like candy and poach a few spells from ANY class list. Including 9th-level spells. Half-Elf is arguably better than Variant Human for a Bard because of the CHA boost and extra skills.

[Extra Anchovies]

Yeah, making the bards 9th-casters seemed a little odd to me. Now there's three arcane full casters, one divine full caster (???).

Regarding subclasses, are the Barbarian's Primal Paths, the Bard's Colleges, and the Druid's Circles all subclasses? The word "subclass" isn't in the index of my PHB, or in any other part of the book (ah, how I love searchable PDFs).

[Shadow]

Yeah, making the bards 9th-casters seemed a little odd to me. Now there's three arcane full casters, one divine full caster (???).

Regarding subclasses, are the Barbarian's Primal Paths, the Bard's Colleges, and the Druid's Circles all subclasses? The word "subclass" isn't in the index of my PHB, or in any other part of the book (ah, how I love searchable PDFs).

We should reiterate once again that the divine/arcane dichotomy no longer exists. That's terminology from earlier editions. While parallels remain, the distinction is gone.
So there are (6) full casters: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock and wizard. The warlock uses different mechanics than the rest of the full casters, but is still a full caster in the sense that they get a 9th level spell.
To put that in terms which no longer exist, but which you will recognize, there are (4) full casters which were arcane in previous editions, and (2) full casters which were divine in previous editions.
There are (2) half casters, ranger and paladin, which are both what was called divine casters previously. There are no [arcane] half casters.
There are (2) one-third casters, eldritch knight fighter and arcane trickster rogue, both of which would have been classified as arcane previously.
There is also one pseudo-caster in the way of the four elements monk.

Subclasses, or archetypes, or specialties, or what have you, are 5th edition's form of prestige classes. Instead of taking a new class with new abilities after certain criteria is met, you essentially get your PrC at level 1/2/3 (depending on the class) and it works in conjunction with the base class, altering things for a more personalized class build.
This is an extremely elegant way to handle the situation. Because of its simplicity, homebrewing things to get exactly what you're looking for in a character is extremely easy.
Take any base class > toss a few levels in here and there where the abilities vary based on concept/need > decide which abilities fit your concept/need > add those abilities at the specified levels > PROFIT!
For example, one of my players wanted to play a beguiler. Using a bard chassis and poaching the wizard enchantment and illusion school's abilities and arcane trickster abilities, I dropped the abilities I wanted into the levels where bards get their college features, and voila! I had a workable beguiler as a subclass of bard rather than a class in itself.
I've done 5 similar conversions, and they were all extremely easy to do.

[Extra Anchovies]

Subclasses, or archetypes, or specialties, or what have you, are 5th edition's form of prestige classes. Instead of taking a new class with new abilities after certain criteria is met, you essentially get your PrC at level 1/2/3 (depending on the class) and it works in conjunction with the base class, altering things for a more personalized class build.
This is an extremely elegant way to handle the situation. Because of its simplicity, homebrewing things to get exactly what you're looking for in a character is extremely easy.
Take any base class > toss a few levels in here and there where the abilities vary based on concept/need > PROFIT!
For example, one of my players wanted to play a beguiler. Using a bard chassis and poaching the wizard enchantment and illusion school's abilities, I dropped those abilities into the levels where bards get their college features, and voila! I had a workable beguiler.
I've done 5 similar conversions, and they were all extremely easy to do.

Thanks for reiterating the removal of the arcane/divine separation. Also, somehow I completely forgot about the druid :smallconfused:

So. Where are the rules for making subclasses? Are there any premade ones listed? Were my above guesses as to what they are correct? I still don't quite understand them. EDIT: After a reread, I noticed that you mention the bard's college abilities. I assume that means my guess as to what subclasses are was correct?

[Shadow]

EDIT: After a reread, I noticed that you mention the bard's college abilities. I assume that means my guess as to what subclasses are was correct?

Yes. Each class has at least two choices in the PHB. Most have three. Wizard has eight.
And they're SUPER EASY to craft on your own to fit any theme needed, because they aren't entire classes, they're just a few abilities tacked onto another class' chassis.

[Extra Anchovies]

Yes. Each class has at least two choices in the PHB. Most have three. Wizard has eight.
And they're SUPER EASY to craft on your own to fit any theme needed, because they aren't entire classes, they're just a few abilities tacked onto another class' chassis.

Indeed. They're shaping up to be probably my favorite part of the system; it's an easy way for there to still be a lot of character options despite how slimmed-down the system is next to 3e.

[Extra Anchovies]

Two-handed is still King. More damage per hit, and really only one (optional) feat needed.
Dual is still the weakest if only because you need a feat or two to equal the other styles after early levels. It's still FAR and away closer to the others than in 3.X
Sword and Board works fine.
One-handed works fine.
Unarmed only works for Monks as the damage is capped at 1 point without the Tavern Brawler feat.


Revisiting the fighting styles again:
What advantage does two-handed fighting give, other than larger damage dice? I can't find any reason to use one other than the extra 1 or 2 damage per hit (which can be offset by taking the Dueling fighting style as a fighter, ranger, or paladin). A fighter with a Greatsword and Great Weapon Fighting style could still outpace a Dueling character, but I don't see any other reasons why THF might be better.

[Z3ro]

Revisiting the fighting styles again:
What advantage does two-handed fighting give, other than larger damage dice? I can't find any reason to use one other than the extra 1 or 2 damage per hit (which can be offset by taking the Dueling fighting style as a fighter, ranger, or paladin). A fighter with a Greatsword and Great Weapon Fighting style could still outpace a Dueling character, but I don't see any other reasons why THF might be better.

The Great Weapon Mastery feat, mostly.

[Extra Anchovies]

The Great Weapon Mastery feat, mostly.

Ah, thanks. I had missed the clause specifying that only [heavy] weapons can do the power-attack thingy.

[Daishain]

Revisiting the fighting styles again:
What advantage does two-handed fighting give, other than larger damage dice? I can't find any reason to use one other than the extra 1 or 2 damage per hit (which can be offset by taking the Dueling fighting style as a fighter, ranger, or paladin). A fighter with a Greatsword and Great Weapon Fighting style could still outpace a Dueling character, but I don't see any other reasons why THF might be better.
For one thing, THF fighting style doesn't limit which damage dice are rerolled. How useful this is to you and any other advantages depend on your class and a couple of other factors.

For instance, the paladin I'm currently playing with wields a bardiche (statted as a halberd since bardiches apparently no longer exist) and has the polearm master feat and Two Handed fighting style. At level 2 (when spells and fighting style came online for him), after casting divine favor on himself, his normal attack pattern (assuming both attacks hit of course) did 1d10 + 3d4 + 2 times strength modifier in damage. All in all, thanks to THF style, he could expect a little less than 23 damage on average doing this. (23 would be expected average if THF let you reroll 1's and 2's indefinitely, I'm not sure how to calculate a single reroll and not really willing to check up on that right now.)

This would be compared to the same L2 paladin using the same spell with the dueling style, a longsword and shield. Expected average damage: 12, 13 if he ditched the shield and its cozy +2 AC. Just a bit of a difference there.

Now, to be fair in comparing the two setups, there should be another feat in place of polearm master, but none of them will help the DPR situation, but that is kind of part of the point. (Note: S+B do have a specific feat that gives them a nice advantage, letting them use their bonus to shove a creature back or to the ground, but that's a separate consideration)

[Beleriphon]

Now, to be fair in comparing the two setups, there should be another feat in place of polearm master, but none of them will help the DPR situation, but that is kind of part of the point. (Note: S+B do have a specific feat that gives them a nice advantage, letting them use their bonus to shove a creature back or to the ground, but that's a separate consideration)

Which provides advantage on attacks including for the rogue who will ultimately sneak attack the opponent into oblivion.

[Daishain]

Which provides advantage on attacks including for the rogue who will ultimately sneak attack the opponent into oblivion.
I know, but he was asking what appeal/advantage THF had, and mostly rating it in terms of raw personal damage. In addition, If we start considering party tactics, this is going to get complicated quite fast, because there are a lot of such tricks/combos for both fighting styles

[Oscredwin]

As this shows, THF is the best in damage but not so big that doing a bit less damage and having a better chance to hit (and helping your melee partymates have a better chance to hit as well) is obviously worse.