D&D 5E Color me baffled - attack bonus in Next

[GreyLord]

And yet one more reason why it's not like BECMI, AD&D, or even 3e.

Part of why I think they've missed the boat on many of the older players who will get Next core...but may not get more than that.

This portion bears much more similarity to how 4e did it, than the other versions. 4e also had similar to hit abilities going up, but with other bonuses normally also tied to either the weapon bonus, or power bonuses.

I don't know if that's going to be how they have it in the basic rules or not, but probably in the advanced rules.

I'm not to fond of how they decided to go with the to hit bonus/proficiency bonuses myself in regards to the chart in the last playtest, but we'll see how well it actually pans out when they start releasing the final rules.

 

[sidonunspa]

Also, the fighter type classes have plenty of class abilities that make melee and ranged attacks more effective.

So yes, a fighter with a 16 dex and a mage with a 16 dex score both are fighting with daggers they both have the same chance to hit.

And the fighter gets more attacks per round and will have more tricks

 

[am181d]

I think it works fine for to hit. My issue is using the same number for skills. A +1 skill bonus at 1st level is essentially useless, and a +6 at 20th isn't a whole lot better.

 

[Mistwell]

I think it works fine for to hit. My issue is using the same number for skills. A +1 skill bonus at 1st level is essentially useless, and a +6 at 20th isn't a whole lot better.

5%-30% increase, concerning a target difficulty class that does not increase based on level? How's that essentially useless?

 

[1of3]

I wonder how things work in the basic game when all the extras that make the difference are inactive?

Basic Game is a game where you do not choose subclasses (like Fighters are always Warriors) and do not choose Feats. It's not about taking something away.

 

[Sunseeker]

5%-30% increase, concerning a target difficulty class that does not increase based on level? How's that essentially useless?

A 5% increase is meaningless because you'll notice it exactly as much as you crit(which only occurs on one number).

 

[Blackbrrd]

If you let a level 10 fighter and a level 10 wizard fight each other with weapons only, the fighter will win something like 99.999999% of the time.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you let a level 10 fighter and a level 10 wizard fight each other with weapons only, the fighter will win something like 99.999999% of the time.

Heh, but that doesn't tell much however, because if you OTOH let them fight each other with spells only...

If there is an issue (but this remains to be seen, and I'm leaning to not worrying) is with spellcasters that might grab an additional weapon proficiency somewhere, pick one powerful weapon, and use it all the time as well as a Fighter, plus still having all the spells.

The Fighter of course is going to have lots more HP, better AC, doing 2-3 attacks, and get additional damage from some class feature. What remains to be seen, is if a Cleric or Wizard with a few appropriate buffs can get the same or even better HP, AC and damage.

But as I said, I tend not to worry about this. And I think the proficiency rules have very good benefits in terms of simplification: no BAB charts to checks, no numbers to add when multiclassing, and I do think that it improves the situation for those classes who aren't good at weapons since the start.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Heh, but that doesn't tell much however, because if you OTOH let them fight each other with spells only...

If there is an issue (but this remains to be seen, and I'm leaning to not worrying) is with spellcasters that might grab an additional weapon proficiency somewhere, pick one powerful weapon, and use it all the time as well as a Fighter, plus still having all the spells.

The Fighter of course is going to have lots more HP, better AC, doing 2-3 attacks, and get additional damage from some class feature. What remains to be seen, is if a Cleric or Wizard with a few appropriate buffs can get the same or even better HP, AC and damage.

But as I said, I tend not to worry about this. And I think the proficiency rules have very good benefits in terms of simplification: no BAB charts to checks, no numbers to add when multiclassing, and I do think that it improves the situation for those classes who aren't good at weapons since the start.

I was hinting that the fighter class features are what makes him best at fighting with weapons (which I think is what the OP is "missing").

If a Wizard or Cleric uses his class features to buff his damage output with weapons to reach some sort of parity, I am ok with that. I like Gish characters and played them quite a lot in 2e/3e. A typical trade-off would be short bursts of being better than a fighter, then some time where they are worse due to a limited number of buff spells.

 

[Mistwell]

A 5% increase is meaningless because you'll notice it exactly as much as you crit(which only occurs on one number).

I notice when I crit, and it's quite meaningful. So all you did with your analogy is stress how meaningful it would be! It's only 20 numbers on that die, I notice them all, particularly the one that's the difference between success and failure, or between failure with no penalties or failure with serious penalties (like with a balance or climb check).