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

[Tortoise]

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").

Actually what I was baffled by was all classes using the same attack bonus chart. I thought there was some class based bonus or a different chart I had overlooked that would define the difference between a trained fighter's attack bonus vs an untrained mage's attack bonus.

As it turns out at 1st level, aside from hit points, if their ability scores are identical, and they are both using daggers, and wearing no armor, they are the same in melee combat. That is what struck me as odd.

 

[TwoSix]

I suppose it makes some sense for bounded accuracy. I still find it odd that someone trained for fighting and someone not trained for fighting are equal until other skills, feats, etc kick in, other than the difference in hit points which is obvious at the start.

Looking at any one mechanic in isolation of the other mechanics tends to cause problems in any RPG. The only thing that matters is how it appears in play.

 

[TwoSix]

As it turns out at 1st level, aside from hit points, if their ability scores are identical, and they are both using daggers, and wearing no armor, they are the same in melee combat. That is what struck me as odd.

Yes, but that difference in hit points alone means that the fighter will beat the mage unless the mage gets in some lucky hits. For two people of the same physique, with the same weapon, with the only difference being some training on the side of the fighter, that seems pretty realistic to me.

 

[fjw70]

Actually what I was baffled by was all classes using the same attack bonus chart. I thought there was some class based bonus or a different chart I had overlooked that would define the difference between a trained fighter's attack bonus vs an untrained mage's attack bonus.

As it turns out at 1st level, aside from hit points, if their ability scores are identical, and they are both using daggers, and wearing no armor, they are the same in melee combat. That is what struck me as odd.

If I remember correctly the pre-3e editions had all the classes using the same to-hit numbers at 1st level. The fighters would get better to-hits over time. 5e models the getting better at fighting thing through things other than to-hit numbers.

 

[sidonunspa]

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.

I see it as a chance to play a Gandof like spell caster who carries a long-sword and knows how to use it!!!

<< just watched Return of the King last night

 

[Blackbrrd]

I see it as a chance to play a Gandof like spell caster who carries a long-sword and knows how to use it!!!

<< just watched Return of the King last night

Gandalf - the original Gish!

 

[sidonunspa]

Gandalf - the original Gish!

Not quite, he was the original wizard... but someone how, along the way, wizards became only spell casters without a lick of martial training.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Actually what I was baffled by was all classes using the same attack bonus chart. I thought there was some class based bonus or a different chart I had overlooked that would define the difference between a trained fighter's attack bonus vs an untrained mage's attack bonus.

As it turns out at 1st level, aside from hit points, if their ability scores are identical, and they are both using daggers, and wearing no armor, they are the same in melee combat. That is what struck me as odd.

Proficiency means that the character is actively training with that weapon. So, it's not that the fighter is trained in combat and that the wizard is not. Both have combat training, and both are proficient in some weapons. The Fighter is proficient in more weapons, has higher hit points, and has combat based special features.

 

[Blackwarder]

Not quite, he was the original wizard... but someone how, along the way, wizards became only spell casters without a lick of martial training.

That's where you are wrong my friend, gamdalf was the original Druid, only without he shape shifting.

Warder

 

[Tortoise]

Proficiency means that the character is actively training with that weapon. So, it's not that the fighter is trained in combat and that the wizard is not. Both have combat training, and both are proficient in some weapons. The Fighter is proficient in more weapons, has higher hit points, and has combat based special features.

Thank you Jeff. I can wrap my headaround that model.