A Question of base attack

[Scipio202]

Well, there is also a difference in which defenses you are attacking. The fighter gets +1, but is mostly attacking AC. Wizards often attack reflex, will and fort - which are typically 3-4 point lower than AC.

 

[small pumpkin man]

A fighter will beat the crap out of a Wizard in a sword-fight due to higher appropriate stats and a buttload of powers. The fact that their BAB is the same doesn't mean anything.

However classes do get bonuses to different defenses, they're just flat like Saga.

 

[malraux]

Its important to realize that the attack and defense progressions are the same, but the relative difference is still pretty high.

 

[JetstreamGW]

But doesn't he use his same "BAB" with crossbows? (In case he runs into something magic immune?) Well, I guess it's not such a big deal, seeing how wizards will probably have low Dex now (and use Int for spell "attack rolls").

The base figures are the same. Fighters get a +1 bonus to their attack rolls. This means a fighter will hardly ever fight better than a rogue. Then again, with the fighter's great hit points, that's probably not such a bad deal.

Why would he ever use a crossbow? Magic immune creatures go entirely counter to what the developers were saying about 4e. Blanket immunities, while not eliminated altogether, are much less common.


Frankly I can't imagine a creature immune to an entire Power Source

 

[Cevalic]

I don't get it... why should the wizard's attack rolls with his spells be inferior to the Fighter's attack rolls with his weapon?

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.

It seems like everything was made for the sake of balance, even if reason doesnt back it up. That said, I guess Ill have to wait for the core books to come out. I had read something not to long ago in someones blog (cant remember who) about every class being a spell caster and now I think its starting to sink in.

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.

Oh, and one other concern I forgot to throw in, even if I dont go with 4e: I hope that if each individual plane gets covered like the Feywild, ect. that the books arent just the 160 page splatbooks. There is so much they could put in one of those, that anything less than 224 seems like a cop out. The extra 10 would be well worth it.

My 2 cents. Thanks for the quick responses.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

but not much better, they're using a difference range of 2 from what I've seen. Which is essentially a base difference of 10% when you consider d20 rolling mechanics. And They're doing something odd with weapons affecting attack bonus that probably will take the full book to fully clarify.

If your talking about what I think you are, I don't see what is so weird. Certain weapons have a higher Attack Bonus because it is easier to be more accurate with them, but do weaker damage. What is so odd about that?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

If your talking about what I think you are, I don't see what is so weird. Certain weapons have a higher Attack Bonus because it is easier to be more accurate with them, but do weaker damage. What is so odd about that?

What's odd is the way they're splitting the factors to Attack Bonus between the character and his weapons and that may create unexpected interactions or synergies. But without the core book to get a solid look at the final mechanics affecting attack bonus in total you don't have a full grasp of the math involved.

 

[Parlan]

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.

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)

 

[Blackeagle]

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 gets a +1 bonus from his class, plus another +2 or +3 from proficiency, plus he's probably got weapon focus, so a fighter's probably going to hit at least 25% more than the Wizard. That doesn't even get into the fact that the fighters probably got lots of powers that let him do cool stuff with the sword while a wizard with a sword is probably just using a basic attack. The fighter's probably also going to take a lot of feats that enhance his swordsmanship beyond what the powers and class abilities.

Even with the same BAB progression, a fighter with a sword is going to beat the hell out of an average wizard with a sword.

 

[malraux]

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.

Well, equal STR is a loaded assumption, as in practice it won't happen that way; the wizard won't load STR and the fighter will likely stat bump it. But even then, the fighter will have a +4 on the wizard, assuming there are no feats the fighter can take to get a better attack bonus with swords. The only difference is that it'll stay +4 rather than zooming off to +24 at higher levels. But the wizard will have spent his levels learning where the weak points to target are, what combat is like, etc. Think about it this way, it'll be to level 10 to 14 before a wizard has the same attack bonus with a sword as a fighter does at first level.