A Question of base attack

[HeavenShallBurn]

The Fighter *would* be a lot better:

+1 Special FTR bonus to attacks with weapon
+2 Proficiency Bonus for a longsword (Assuming Wizzies aren't proficient w/ longswords, which seems pretty safe, they don't get this bonus)

That's only a 15% difference on a d20 roll. I think 20-25% would be a better disparity. Large enough to really make a showing but not enough to totally break the math.

 

[Vaeron]

Anyone also know why gained HP are fixed? Did they ever say why they went that route in one of those preview books? Kind of curious of that too.

Because it's just flat out stupid to have an 8th level fighter with 8 hitpoints, where an 8th level wizard could have 32.

 

[Cevalic]

Because it's just flat out stupid to have an 8th level fighter with 8 hitpoints, where an 8th level wizard could have 32.

Well Im stupid then. People seem to get heated quick about this which is a little ridiculous, since I was just asking about the design philosiphy behind it. I wasnt even critizizing. Just curious.

No offense, but Ive never had 8th level fighter with 8 hps while a 8th level wizard walks around with 32. It could happen, but its doubtful. That character would be long dead before 8th level, and the player would have a new one.

 

[malraux]

Well Im stupid then. People seem to get heated quick about this which is a little ridiculous, since I was just asking about the design philosiphy behind it. I wasnt even critizizing. Just curious.

No offense, but Ive never had 8th level fighter with 8 hps while a 8th level wizard walks around with 32. It could happen, but its doubtful. That character would be long dead before 8th level, and the player would have a new one.

That's kinda the point though. To the extent possible, there shouldn't be randomness in character creation. In addition, its hard to balance attacks and damage that could threaten a high rolling fighter with the low rolling mage.

 

[Blackeagle]

Anyone also know why gained HP are fixed? Did they ever say why they went that route in one of those preview books? Kind of curious of that too.

I don't know for sure, but my guess is it had to do with the fact that few people seem to play with the hit dice system as written. Rolling a 1 for your barbarian's hit points is just too painful. In the campaigns I've played, we've:

Taken the average value (rounded up) from the hit dice (so a Fighter would get 6)
Taken the maximum value from the hit dice (so a Fighter would get 10)
Taken half the hit dice and rolled the other half (so a Fighter would get 1d5+5)
Rolled 1d4 and added the maximum hit dice value - 6 (so a Fighter would get 1d4+6)
Rolled the normal hit die but given you the average if you rolled less than that (so a Fighter would get 1d10 or 6, whichever was higher)

I've never actually played in a campaign that used the hit dice rules as written.

 

[D.Shaffer]

What I'm talking about is that if a fighter and a wizard of equal levels with equal strength pick up a sword, the fighter should be much more deadly with it than the wizard. The only reason I say strength is equal, is because Im trying to say that the fighter should be twice as good as a wizard with a weapon. Thats what fighters do.

The fighter IS much deadlier with it.

Fighter gets a +1 bonus built in
Sword weapon proficiency gives another +3
Fighter powers are based around Str, Wizard powers are based around Int.
Fighter has features that are based around melee.
Fighter has heavy armor, most probably outmatching the wizards of a similar level, nevermind the possibility of shields.
The fighter likely has feats based around his favorite weapons, increasing the disparity.

A fighter with equal strength will completely spank a wizard who tries to match him with a sword.

 

[hong]

No offense, but Ive never had 8th level fighter with 8 hps while a 8th level wizard walks around with 32. It could happen, but its doubtful. That character would be long dead before 8th level, and the player would have a new one.

This method of maintaining balance is rather out of fashion these days.

 

[Byronic]

Fighter has heavy armor, most probably outmatching the wizards of a similar level, nevermind the possibility of shields.

Don't forget the AC bonus from INT.

 

[mmu1]

Im not saying anything about a wizard using spells to attack. Obviously they should have a decent attack with their spells. What I'm talking about is that if a fighter and a wizard of equal levels with equal strength pick up a sword, the fighter should be much more deadly with it than the wizard. The only reason I say strength is equal, is because Im trying to say that the fighter should be twice as good as a wizard with a weapon. Thats what fighters do.

Here's another fun thing to think about... Since you basically add 1/2 character level to everything, a 10th level Wizard is going to have a higher bonus on Strength checks and Strength-based skills used untrained than most 1st level Fighters. 10(+5) Strength vs. 18(+4) Strength.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's only a 15% difference on a d20 roll. I think 20-25% would be a better disparity. Large enough to really make a showing but not enough to totally break the math.

The difference of 15 % is enough already. You reach 20-25 % once you assume "realistic" strengths. Why does a strong wizard has to be that ineffective compared to a strong fighter? Obviously, he is well-trained.

Don't forget the AC bonus from INT.

Doesn't replace the fighters Dex bonus, does it?

But the most important factor are actually the powers the Fighter has.
He has at least one encounter power available to him to deal double damage. The Wizard in melee does not.
Then he has his At-Will Attacks. IIRC, one of the possible ones allow him to deal his Strength damage on a miss.
This means every round he is guaranteed to damage the Wizard, and in one round, he deals significantly more.