Doug Justice
First Post
I was listening to some of the older D&D podcasts yesterday and Mike Mearls said that for the most part they no longer used to hit bonuses (like BAB) to denote skill. Damage was the indicator of skill.
So, wizards fight like fighters?
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Rechan said:
he uses staff and sword, so he seems to be a ranger!
Vorpal Sword
First Post
Aaron said:
The fighter still has an attack bonus that's better by +3 or 15%, plus all the cool stuff he can do all day long. Sure Strike makes the difference in attack bonus +5, Cleave lets the fighter do 3 points of damage to an innocent bystander (still hitting 15% more often than the wizard), Reaping Strike lets him do damage even when he misses (which is still 15% less often than the wizard does)... Meanwhile, the wizard is tossing off shards of ice that slow the target, assaulting his enemies with bolts of arcane fire, and calling fire from the skies. And all of that is using only at-will powers available at 1st level. The two are pretty well differentiated from each other, I think.
You're positing a corner case that was dealt with during design, and feel it represents a problem. A wizard optimized so that his basic melee attack is almost as good as the fighter has
a) incurred a sizeable opportunity cost by not optimizing the things he's naturally good at, and
b) still not got all the things (i.e., the selection of martial powers) that make swinging a sword a good idea for the fighter.
Aaron said:
Real-world example time. Suppose I'm holding a knife and taking a swing at some random schmuck. I have a pretty good chance of nicking him, maybe even making it hurt. I probably won't hit anything lethal, though.
Now suppose an experienced knife-fighter is attacking the same random schmuck. He is much more likely to stick that knife somewhere that really counts. We both have a solid chance of hitting, but he will deal much more damage than I do.
A wizard player-designed to fight like a fighter should fight like a fighter
The main point of similarity between the two hypothetical characters in question if the fact that both are built to perform the same function. A standard fighter is built to be able to attack well. The hypothetical wizard with 18 STR and weapon proficiency feats is also built to be able to attack well. If two characters are specifically crafted such that they are both able to attack well, then one can draw a logical conclusion about what the end result per attacking well will be.
The standard wizard, however, even one with a (generally useless to wizards) 18 STR, is still unable to effectively attack with a sword as the proficiency isn't there without having weapon proficiency from a source outside the class (feat, race, etc.). Given that a weapon proficiency feat for a particular weapon represents having undergone some training with it, wouldn't it make sense for that proficiency training to actually result in proficiency with the given weapon?
Knowing how to stick the pointy end of a weapon in the soft bits of an enemy is basic usability. The advantage in this category for a fighter over a wizardly organism designed only for fighting (W.O.D.O.F.) is in having this proficiency by default and having other abilities that justify a high strength score.
The main point of similarity between the two hypothetical characters in question if the fact that both are built to perform the same function. A standard fighter is built to be able to attack well. The hypothetical wizard with 18 STR and weapon proficiency feats is also built to be able to attack well. If two characters are specifically crafted such that they are both able to attack well, then one can draw a logical conclusion about what the end result per attacking well will be.
The standard wizard, however, even one with a (generally useless to wizards) 18 STR, is still unable to effectively attack with a sword as the proficiency isn't there without having weapon proficiency from a source outside the class (feat, race, etc.). Given that a weapon proficiency feat for a particular weapon represents having undergone some training with it, wouldn't it make sense for that proficiency training to actually result in proficiency with the given weapon?
Knowing how to stick the pointy end of a weapon in the soft bits of an enemy is basic usability. The advantage in this category for a fighter over a wizardly organism designed only for fighting (W.O.D.O.F.) is in having this proficiency by default and having other abilities that justify a high strength score.
Powers don't enter into it. The fighter is better than the mage at swinging a sword, period.Aaron said:
The fighter has a higher Str score, which is a bonus to hit and damage with melee weapons.
The fighter is proficient with swords, which is a bonus to hit.
The fighter gets a +1 to hit with either 1H or 2H weapons (player's choice), which is... a bonus to hit.
The fighter (probably) has sword-related feats, which gives various bonuses when using swords in combat.
The fighter also has various powers which make him even more effective with a weapon in hand, but the fighter does not need them to be better than the wizard, when it comes to swinging a sword.
All classes have the same "BAB" now because all classes roll to hit with their attacks. The BAB isn't the important part - it's 1/2 your level, which as you might realize, is equal to the worst progression in 3e - that of the wizard! And yet, fighters are still able to hit stuff with their attacks, so it should be apparent that it's not the whole picture.
And if we're going to play the "wizard has a high Str and weapon proficiency" game, even though it's something that would never happen in-game, then I will point out that in 1e & 2e, a 1st level fighter had the same THAC0 as everyone else (20). In 3e, the 1st level fighter was only 5% more likely to hit than the wizard (+1 BAB vs +0 BAB). In 4e the fighter will also have a 5% leg-up on the wizard, due to the fighter weapon talent (+1 vs +0). So what has effectively changed? Not a whole lot.
ryryguy
First Post
Getting back to the original question for a moment...
There's a very definite thing behind getting rid of different BAB progressions, and that is that the wizard (along with every other character) pretty much has to roll to hit for everything now. Magic Missile requires a to-hit roll. If the wizard has crippled BAB all his wizard spells are crippled, too.
That's a pretty fundamental change, and you might not like it or agree with the reasons behind it. But it pretty much requires that everyone have the same BAB.
Aaron said:
There's a very definite thing behind getting rid of different BAB progressions, and that is that the wizard (along with every other character) pretty much has to roll to hit for everything now. Magic Missile requires a to-hit roll. If the wizard has crippled BAB all his wizard spells are crippled, too.
That's a pretty fundamental change, and you might not like it or agree with the reasons behind it. But it pretty much requires that everyone have the same BAB.
