Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5783439" data-attributes="member: 42582">The question is, what does good/bad mean?In AD&D, a wizard's base attack at first level is one less than a fighter's. A fighter is likely also to have better stats for fighting, but won't have a bonus to hit in melee with a STR of less than 17, and STR needs to be 18/51 to give a bonus to hit of +2.As levels are gained, the wizard's bse attack increases at 2 or 3 every 5 levels, while the fighter increases by 2 every 2 levels (with an option for 1 every level). The "worseness" of the wizard therefore increases over time, but (i) the absolute difference that opens up is not going to be bigger than the contribution of the d20 roll, and (ii) except for demons, devils and some dragons, high level monsters don't have noticeably higher ACs than do low level monsters - most of their defence is in hit points.3E's base attack bonuses superficially look similar to AD&D's, or even more generous to the wizard (+1 to hit per 2 levels), but the difference made by stats is a lot greater - most fighter's will have a stat bonus +3 or more ahead of the wizard's at first level, and only growing from their as levels and items are gained. And monster ACs grow at a much faster rate than they do in AD&D, so the wizard's failure to keep up with the fighter dooms him/her to an inability to hit in melee.In 4e, at first level the difference between the wizard and the fighter in melee is similar to 3E: the fighter gets a +1 bonus, and has the stat advantage. As levels are gained, the level bonus of the two is the same, but the stat advantage runs the fighter's way, and monster defences still scale very steeply compared to AD&D.My thoughts: if defences are expected to scale in a linear fashion with level, than every class needs to have attacks that scale similarly, unless you want certain tactics to be completely unviable at higher levels, in which case some alternative needs to be provided.Even at paragon tier in 4e (my game is currently 15th level), mundane attacks are completely unviable for a wizard PC, whose STR started with a +0 bonus and has not shifted from that baseline for 14 levels. The fighter, who was +4 better at first level (16 STR plus class bonus), is now +6 better (20 STR plus class bonus) and has the powers (especially encounter and daily powers) to make melee a viable strategy at that level. If the wizard were to try to engage in melee (or use mundane missiles, for that matter) the contribution would be almost literally irrelevant - even if he hit, his damage, without stat bonuses on mere basic attacks, would be negligible, and he would have no capacity to impose effects.4e more or less copes with this because (i) it gives the wizard a lot of viable non-melee strategies, and (ii) for those who want to play melee-viable wizards it has a range of other options like Swordmages, Battledancers, melee Warlocks and Bards, etc.But for a simple game, as D&Dnext is meant to be (at least at its core), then these other options are less likely to be available. In which case, I think that the melee/magic gap for wizards probably should be kept closer, at all levels, to what it is at first level, and at first level should probably be brought closer to AD&D than to 3E/4e. The fact that a fighter is a skilled combatant who only improves with levels can be reflected in other ways - like manoeuvres, for example, or doing close bursts with weapons - rather than in sheer bonuses to hit.</blockquote>

Verification