The Pros and Cons of flat attack progression

[Gundark]

So it is looking like there is no attack bonus progression like there was in past editions. Assuming this from the "leak" plus comments from the last rule of three. No defense progression either. No BAB like 3rd, no half level progression like 4th. At first I wasn't sure what to think about this . There are pros and cons for sure, but the more I think about it the more I like it.

The Pros
1. It keeps monsters in the game longer , the orc is still a threat at later levels ( granted you'll need more of them)
2. It removes magic item dependency.
3. Rather than a steep power curve you add more stuff they can do. The superhero effect looks different (more believable?)

The Cons
1. Not much different between a 1st and 10th level character . Boring?


Pros? Cons?

 

[DEFCON 1]

The advantage to the progression indeed was that it gave more "things" to a PC when he leveled up, making the leveling process more interesting and exciting. If you got at least one thing every level (whether it be a raise in numbers, a feat, skill points etc. etc.), you didn't have any 'dead levels' as they say.

Quite frankly though... having your BAB go up or adding 1/2 your level to your numbers isn't not necessarily needed if there are still enough other things you get on level-up to keep the process of leveling exciting. If you can keep a player interested by having enough other carrots to reach for upon level-up... flattening the attack numbers does add a lot in terms of keeping things active for longer and more manageable.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I see only pros, one thing that I never liked is that is hard to hit with no-optimal attacks in d&d, without level scalling improvisational attacks are easier. And we cna now have monster with low AC high damage, high AC and low hit, this kind og thing.

 

[Noir le Lotus]

Well I would really love to be sure that your point n°2 is right.


But in fact, flat attack progression could also mean that attack & defense enhancements will be in magic items.



And I keep on hearing D&D little voice whispering over my shoulder:

"PCs are expected to be equipped with +2 weapons and armors for this module."

 

[Minigiant]

Flat attack and AC also might hurt characterization and indirectly encourage powergaming. If the progression is flatter then a few tweaks can shift the balance. A Str 18 cleric could have a better attack than a STR 14 fighter thoroughout the lives of both characters. Then the designers would have to put a balancing factor in somewhere. And it would have to be a good one since 5E would use niche protecting roles.

I thought of another Con that comes in if flat progression also applies to skills as well. If skills are flat too, then higher level characters never get better and never increase their chances at harder DCs

 

[billd91]

I think loss of differentiation between levels of ability is a pretty big con. And not just because of raw ability to hit a target at full bonus. I'm also talking about the ability to trade attack bonuses for other benefits like defense or damage.

One of the nice things about a fighter type's high BAB in 3e was that he could trade it for AC with Combat Expertise or for damage with Power Attack. As the character with the highest attack bonus, he could make use of this more than any PC with a lesser BAB progression. That was a nice benefit. Sure, you can still have abilities like that in a flat system, but with no differentiation between fighters and non-fighters, fighters lose a relative benefit. And you lose the ability for higher level characters to have that tool be more effective for them than their neophyte counterparts.

I'm not oppose to a flattening of the power curve. But I'm not in favor of getting rid of it completely.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I think loss of differentiation between levels of ability is a pretty big con. And not just because of raw ability to hit a target at full bonus. I'm also talking about the ability to trade attack bonuses for other benefits like defense or damage.

One of the nice things about a fighter type's high BAB in 3e was that he could trade it for AC with Combat Expertise or for damage with Power Attack. As the character with the highest attack bonus, he could make use of this more than any PC with a lesser BAB progression. That was a nice benefit. Sure, you can still have abilities like that in a flat system, but with no differentiation between fighters and non-fighters, fighters lose a relative benefit. And you lose the ability for higher level characters to have that tool be more effective for them than their neophyte counterparts.

I'm not oppose to a flattening of the power curve. But I'm not in favor of getting rid of it completely.

A "combat pool" that can be used for increase attack, damage, saves or AC would be a good fighter ability in a system like this.

 

[nightwalker450]

Flat attack and AC also might hurt characterization and indirectly encourage powergaming. If the progression is flatter then a few tweaks can shift the balance. A Str 18 cleric could have a better attack than a STR 14 fighter thoroughout the lives of both characters. Then the designers would have to put a balancing factor in somewhere. And it would have to be a good one since 5E would use niche protecting roles.

This just either highlights the problem with rolling stats, or it's obvious that the fighter doesn't see his attack/damage as his character's defining abilities. Nothing needs to be balanced.

I thought of another Con that comes in if flat progression also applies to skills as well. If skills are flat too, then higher level characters never get better and never increase their chances at harder DCs

Flat skills make more sense than needing to come up how the DC is 45 just because I'm compensating for a level 25 character. Getting at most a point or two in skills through all levels, and a couple stat boosts, is enough. You should be getting better at your "untrained skills" not making your primary skills pointlessly ridiculous. Getting tricks/utilities out of your skills would be better than just numbers anyways.

 

[billd91]

A "combat pool" that can be used for increase attack, damage, saves or AC would be a good fighter ability in a system like this.

It would have potential. But if I were playing the grizzled veteran, I wouldn't want to have to spend it just to be better than the greenhorn.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I think loss of differentiation between levels of ability is a pretty big con. And not just because of raw ability to hit a target at full bonus. I'm also talking about the ability to trade attack bonuses for other benefits like defense or damage.

Based on the 'maneuvers' talk from the latest Rule of Three, it seems fighters will get the ability to get those 'other benefits' without having to sacrifice attack bonus. Rather, all fighters are sacrificing attack bonus increases to get a suite of maneuvers.

They'll be impressive on the battlefield because they'll have (roughly) the same to hit as, say, a cleric, but they'll do more damage and be able to trip, disarm, or otherwise hinder their opponents. At least, that's how I read it.

Thaumaturge.