Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hassassin" data-source="post: 5783901" data-attributes="member: 6675228">I would be fine with this, but what's the advantage compared to 3e base attack progression (fighter and cleric +1/+0 at first to +20/+15 at 20th) and multiclassing?Sure, you could make poor base attack stay constant at +0, average to increase to +5 by 20th and good to increase to +10 by 20th. That way you'd get lower numbers. However, I don't really see the advantage of moving it to feats, since that just makes those feats must-have for the fighter.But you get the same effect from attack/defense scaling. If a 20th level dragon was AC 30, but didn't have a lot of hp, a first level guard would be hard pressed to hit the weak spot, but still had a chance (natural 20). Take fifty of those guards and a couple of them will hit the first round, the same the next, and after a few more the dragon is dead. Meanwhile a 20th level fighter would have hit almost every round.If only dmg/hp scales, a lot of first level characters will still be needed to match a 20th level one. If only attack/defense scales, the same is true. I don't see any good reasons to prefer the former. In the latter case damage differences between weapons actually mean something, hp correlates with ability to withstand literal damage, etc. which all seem like good ideas to me.</blockquote>