5E Why different HD types for classes? (Another HP thread...)

dnd4vr

Hero
Wizard isn't proficient in short sword, so no proficency bonus. Advantage, fighter.

If you're a bladesinger, then the training argument is out the window as bladesingers get their 1 weapon proficiency as part if extensive martial training in it.

Your example high elf wizard vs lizardman ranger actually only exceeds the martial character with a dagger, the bow selected for elven training, or light c-bow -- it falls behind on all other weapons, including other finesse or ranged weapons. Your argument is very narrow but you're trying to limit the discussion to your narrow point to hide the deficiencies. This is called special pleading. And that's only looking at attack bonuses. Expand to a broader look at combat and it's worse.
This all began with me discussing my character, an elf wizard. Regardless, dagger, staff, or any weapon wizards are proficient with, take your pick. A wizard SHOULD NOT have the ability to hit as often in melee or ranged combat as a FIGHTER, even at level 1. Period.

No one is going to convince me otherwise. The universal proficiency bonus applying equally to all things is at fault and should be reversed to prior editions. I'm done and not watching this further. Have fun with it and I'll work on my house-rules, like I've had to do with much of 5E... :rolleyes:
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Sure, of couse I would lose the longsword and go with shortsword. As a finesse weapon, the wizard becomes +6 attack (same as your fighter) and d6+3 damage, which is a better average than d8+1 and means I don't have to invest in STR at all really.

Also, if this character goes Bladesinger as you mention, then while in Bladesong the AC would probably be 19 assuming INT 16. If you boost INT with the level 4 ASI then the AC would be 20 (same as the fighter). On the other hand, the fighter if a Battle Master can boost damage output and has other options as well.

So, yes, Fighter as a "whole package" is fine (well, sort of), but that is why I am just talking about attack bonus, which with the swordsword is the same +6 as the fighter.
True, one might go with shortsword for a couple of points less damage per hit than the fighter. Narrowing the argument to that one dimension - attack bonus - results in a trivial claim without much force to it. Far more telling is that a wizard won't get Second Wind, Action Surge or Extra Attack. It's like saying an EK is as good as a wizard at casting, because both have spell slots.

As an aside, bladesinger is frankly BS as an archetype. To my taste, fighters, not wizards, should be best at tanking. I will gladly admit that if you use bladesinger, wizards can melee as well as fighters (while still also being full casters).
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
No one is going to convince me otherwise. The universal proficiency bonus applying equally to all things is at fault and should be reversed to prior editions. I'm done and not watching this further. Have fun with it and I'll work on my house-rules, like I've had to do with much of 5E... :rolleyes:
The culprit is far more finesse based on what you have argued.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
This all began with me discussing my character, an elf wizard. Regardless, dagger, staff, or any weapon wizards are proficient with, take your pick. A wizard SHOULD NOT have the ability to hit as often in melee or ranged combat as a FIGHTER, even at level 1. Period.

No one is going to convince me otherwise. The universal proficiency bonus applying equally to all things is at fault and should be reversed to prior editions. I'm done and not watching this further. Have fun with it and I'll work on my house-rules, like I've had to do with much of 5E... :rolleyes:
Perfectly valid. The issue, though, isn't with 5e -- it doesn't owe you anything. It's not a flaw in 5e that it fails to match your requirements. That's you. And, again, perfectly valid. I recommend looking for a system that meets your requirements, or asking for suggestions for house rules that may do so. Trying to convince others that there's something wrong with 5e seems like a less than worthwhile use of time.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
This all began with me discussing my character, an elf wizard. Regardless, dagger, staff, or any weapon wizards are proficient with, take your pick. A wizard SHOULD NOT have the ability to hit as often in melee or ranged combat as a FIGHTER, even at level 1. Period.

No one is going to convince me otherwise. The universal proficiency bonus applying equally to all things is at fault and should be reversed to prior editions. I'm done and not watching this further. Have fun with it and I'll work on my house-rules, like I've had to do with much of 5E... :rolleyes:
The staff isn't a finesse weapon so if you really want me to take my pick your DEX wiz sucks with it as a weapon. ;)

"No one is going to convince me otherwise" looks close-minded to me and like the opposite is true where you came into the discussion with the intent to convince everyone else your opinion was the only way things should be.

I know you said you were done with this (which sounds like your mad people are disagreeing with you, tbh) but I bolded a part of your post because that get back to something I was touching on earlier. You are trying to play a different game from how 5e is intended to play. It's not that you had to change the game, it's that the game you were playing had different design goals than you. It's the equivalent of calling boardwalk OP and complaining you had to redesign monopoly.

The game is what it was meant to be. Unfortunately, that cannot encompass everything to everyone. Some changes are easy, but redesigning the core mechanics is less so. ;)
 
Perfectly valid. The issue, though, isn't with 5e -- it doesn't owe you anything. It's not a flaw in 5e that it fails to match your requirements.
5e was supposed to be the big tent edition, for fans of all prior versions of the game. And, yes, it quite literally owes everything to the mass of fans like dnd4vr.

And, FWIW, in all prior versions of the game, the 1st level fighter was going to hit better with a weapon than the first level wizard, even if, through some fluke, they had the same relevant stat bonus adding to the attack.

It was only by +1, so little more than symbolic, but it was there.

In 5e, it holds true for Archery style, I suppose.
 
Last edited:

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
5e was supposed to be the big tent edition, for fans of all prior versions of the game. And, yes, it quite literally owes everything to the mass of fans like dnd4vr.
Ah, so I, as a fan not like dnd4vr, am owed nothing? Or, is it the unsupported claim that dnd4vr is reoresentarive of the "masses"?

These are silly statements, Tony. 5e is extremely popular; implying that it's flawed because of a hidden mass of malcontents dusturbed over a minutia of the combat engine is downright ridiculous.
And, FWIW, in all prior versions of the game, the 1st level fighter was going to hit better with a weapon than the first level wizard, even if, through some fluke, they had the same relevant stat bonus adding to the attack.

It was only by +1, so little more than symbolic, but it was there.

In 5e, it holds true for Archery style, I suppose.
5e altered the combat engine such that highly differentiated attack bonuses between classes isn't the primary means of differentiation in combat /effectiveness/. Making this argument is soecial pleading that, somehow, this makes wizards as effect in martial combat as fighters. The reality is that fighters are even better at the job in 5e than in previous editions.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
5e was supposed to be the big tent edition, for fans of all prior versions of the game. And, yes, it quite literally owes everything to the mass of fans like dnd4vr.

And, FWIW, in all prior versions of the game, the 1st level fighter was going to hit better with a weapon than the first level wizard, even if, through some fluke, they had the same relevant stat bonus adding to the attack.

It was only by +1, so little more than symbolic, but it was there.

In 5e, it holds true for Archery style, I suppose.
One edition fits all is an unrealistic goal, however; the best a person can hope for is to cover as many bases for as many people as possible. No matter what the results someone will always see some other way as better for him or her.

Endorsing dnd4vr's opinion that fighters should have a better attack bonus with weapons contradicts someone else's opinion that these are two low level characters in the infancy of their experience who are both trained in using weapons. The warrior mage trope existed before the specific creation of gish styles. It was really the only reason for magic-users to advance in THAC0 at all at one point. That's only one example. Everyone has their own ideas on where many classes fall into the combat ability hierarchy.

It certainly doesn't makes sense that wizards cannot attack with spells as well as fighter.

Building separate spell and weapon attacks for 4 tiers of ability is more than awkward and goes very much against simple design goals. Adding modifiers based on class is extra bookkeeping and goes against the design goal of limiting bonuses and penalties on top of going against a simple design goal.

It's easier for a fan to accept that proficiency isn't actually an indicator of superior ability between classes in a system that focuses on ability scores as much as 5e does than it is to meet any unrealistic expectation of a system that does everything for everyone. The tentpole concept was more about how the character feels in play than specific mechanics.
 
One edition fits all is an unrealistic goal, however
Doesn't let it off the hook.
Endorsing dnd4vr's opinion that fighters should have a better attack bonus with weapons contradicts someone else's opinion that these are two low level characters in the infancy of their experience who are both trained in using weapons. …
Seriously, of anyone remotely familiar with the idea that wizards spend their training reading books and practicing spells, and fighter training with weapons, who's really going to think they should have equal skill with weapons?
It certainly doesn't makes sense that wizards cannot attack with spells as well as fighter.
You'd expect a wizard to attack better with spells than a fighter would, with spells. And, at first level, he does, quite unequivocally. So no worries on that point.
Building separate spell and weapon attacks for 4 tiers of ability is more than awkward and goes very much against simple design goals.
You don't need 4 tiers. A class feature for the fighter would be just fine.
Adding modifiers based on class is extra bookkeeping and goes against the design goal of limiting bonuses and penalties on top of going against a simple design goal.
Yet there's plenty of modifiers and features and abilities and such based on class.
It's easier for a fan to accept that proficiency isn't actually an indicator of superior ability between classes in a system that focuses on ability scores as much as 5e does than it is to meet any unrealistic expectation of a system that does everything for everyone.
It'd've been easier for a fan to accept that exploits and spells were different, then roll a new rev, but we went with rolling a new rev, because it had to be D&D for EVERYONE.
The tentpole concept was more about how the character feels in play than specific mechanics.
A fighter who's no better at hitting his target than the wizard feels different from one who is better.

Ah, so I, as a fan not like dnd4vr, am owed nothing?
Quite possibly! If you're the kind of fan who started with 5e, for instance.
5e was shaped by the community that played D&D - and who very pointedly didn't pay D&D anymore - at the time of the Next playtest.

It was touted as being 'for' all of them, and for everyone else who'd ever loved any past edition of D&D. So saying "it owes you nothing" to such a fan is repudiating the very foundation of 5e.

These are silly statements, Tony. 5e is extremely popular; implying that it's flawed because of a hidden mass of malcontents dusturbed over a minutia of the combat engine is downright ridiculous.
No more ridiculous than asserting that it's flawless because it's "extremely popular." I mean, I'm going to wear the letters in ad populum right off my keyboard at this rate!

5e altered the combat engine such that highly differentiated attack bonuses between classes
To be fair, we're talking 1st-level fighter, here. And it's a 1 on a d20 difference. That's not highly-differentiated. That's downright nominal. It wouldn't've killed BA if each combat style or a weapon specialization feature or somesuch gave the fighter a +1.
isn't the primary means of differentiation in combat /effectiveness/. Making this argument is soecial pleading that, somehow, this makes wizards as effect in martial combat as fighters.
Well, most classes in 5e are perfectly effective in combat, anyway. So there's nothing special about it. It's just a specific example of how there isn't even a razor-edge, nominal, or marginal advantage given the fighter in that most basic mechanic of the attack roll. In contrast, for instance, Expertise outruns the proficiency treadmill much more dramatically than a mere +1.
The reality is that fighters are even better at the job in 5e than in previous editions.
That can be very hard to judge because of some of the differences among the systems. But there's some quite dramatic things fighters can't do in 5e that they could in past editions. Nothing remotely like Great Cleave or WWA, for instance (let alone C&GI). You'd have to get up the capstone number of extra attacks, and blow an Action Surge to even be comparable to one of those, at a reach 1. They were available as early as 3rd or 6th, depending on edition (and which one).

Then there's the muting effect of BA. A 5e fighter can make a number of attacks without penalty that'd make a 3e fighter without WWA envious, but it can't stand up to a large number of opponents, even much lower level, the way it could in earlier editions. That's touted as a feature, but it does bring the fighter down a number of pegs in conceptual power.
 
Last edited:

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Quite possibly! If you're the kind of fan who started with 5e, for instance.
5e was shaped by the community that played D&D - and who very pointedly didn't pay D&D anymore - at the time of the Next playtest.
I did not. I also playtested. Red Box Basic Set initiate, myself. Then every edition after.

It was touted as being 'for' all of them, and for everyone else who'd ever loved any past edition of D&D. So saying "it owes you nothing" to such a fan is repudiating the very foundation of 5e.
No, it isn't. Music is for everyone, but it doesn't owe you anything. You're mistaking the claim as a guarantee of happiness when it decidedly is not.

No more ridiculous than asserting that it's flawless because it's "extremely popular." I mean, I'm going to wear the letters in ad populum right off my keyboard at this rate!
Sure, right after you brush the straw off -- no one made this argument. You claimed 5e was failing as a big tent game because people, like dnd4vr were discontented. I pointed out that the size of the tent is, indeed, very big. You now claim that addressing your claim of lack of popularity with evidence of popularity is an appeal to popularity? Protip -- when popularity is brought up, it isn't an appeal to popularity to point out how popular something is. That's, like, on topic. And, no one has claimed it's flawless due to popularity -- I was addressing your big tent claim.

To be fair, we're talking 1st-level fighter, here. And it's a 1 on a d20 difference. That's not highly-differentiated. That's downright nominal. It wouldn't've killed BA if each combat style or a weapon specialization feature or somesuch gave the fighter a +1.
If it's not a big difference, why the big complaint it's missing? If it adds little, why is it a problem? It doesn't conceptually address anything aside from the legacy that fighters get a higher number in this column that non-fighters. That's not a sufficient argument, while it may be a valid feeling.

Well, most classes in 5e are perfectly effective in combat, anyway. So there's nothing special about it. It's just a specific example of how there isn't even a razor-edge, nominal, or marginal advantage given the fighter in that most basic mechanic of the attack roll. In contrast, for instance, Expertise outruns the proficiency treadmill much more dramatically than a mere +1.
No, the fighter is given edges in many other areas of the combat engine -- damage output, number of attacks, ability to surge, higher AC, higher hitpoints, subclass abilities, etc. This is, effectively, a spreadsheet argument that since the fighter doesn't have a legacy plus 1 in this column, there's a problem. It's flawed, because the biggest change in 5e is to the probability engine. Noticing this also affects the 'to hit' column, which is in the probability engine, is like noticing that you still roll a d20 -- trivially uninteresting.

That can be very hard to judge because of some of the differences among the systems. But there's some quite dramatic things fighters can't do in 5e that they could in past editions. Nothing remotely like Great Cleave or WWA, for instance (let alone C&GI). You'd have to get up the capstone number of extra attacks, and blow an Action Surge to even be comparable to one of those, at a reach 1. They were available as early as 3rd or 6th, depending on edition (and which one).
Oh, I guess wizards are ruined because spell descriptions changed, then? Rogues don't roll percentiles, so they suck now, too?

This is splitting hairs. Fighters are more effective in 5e because they're not overshadowed by magic as easily or as quickly and they strongly hold their own even in the optimization races. Hard to argue fighters are worse off when they still are tier 1 for optimizers.

Then there's the muting effect of BA. A 5e fighter can make a number of attacks without penalty that'd make a 3e fighter without WWA envious, but it can't stand up to a large number of opponents, even much lower level, the way it could in earlier editions. That's touted as a feature, but it does bring the fighter down a number of pegs in conceptual power.
No one can in 5e, so that's not a fighter specific complaint. Pick a goalpost, Tony.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
If it's not a big difference, why the big complaint it's missing? If it adds little, why is it a problem? It doesn't conceptually address anything aside from the legacy that fighters get a higher number in this column that non-fighters. That's not a sufficient argument, while it may be a valid feeling.

No, the fighter is given edges in many other areas of the combat engine -- damage output, number of attacks, ability to surge, higher AC, higher hitpoints, subclass abilities, etc.
I mean, the only reason this issue exists is that Dex became a combat attribute for everyone in 5e with no costs.

Otherwise, proficiency bonus or not, if a Wizard didn't add Dex to their attack rolls they wouldn't be as good as a fighter. There might be a small # of wizards who still equaled out, but as we discovered in the grant "what is a 1st level fighter thread", 1st level PC's can have any range of starting backstories to support the mechanics of their class.

Maybe the default 5e presumption is that for those few weapons with which a wizard is proficient, they have trained at them (in however way you get there FLUFF wise) to the point of becoming combat proficient.

If there are people out there who support a farmboy turned fighter who can be proficient in ANY weapon mechanically and people don't have an issue with it from a fluff perspective, surely there is room for a wizard who is up to snuff in his few weapons in combat.
 
Last edited:
One edition fits all is an unrealistic goal, however
Doesn't let it off the hook.

Endorsing dnd4vr's opinion that fighters should have a better attack bonus with weapons contradicts someone else's opinion that these are two low level characters in the infancy of their experience who are both trained in using weapons. …
Seriously, of anyone remotely familiar with the idea that wizards spend their training reading books and practicing spells, and fighter training with weapons, who's really going to think they should have equal skill with weapons?

It certainly doesn't makes sense that wizards cannot attack with spells as well as fighter.
You'd expect a wizard to attack better with spells than a fighter would, with spells. And, at first level, he does, quite unequivocally. So no worries on that point.

I did not. I also playtested. Red Box Basic Set initiate, myself. Then every edition after.
Then you're totally in the same club with dnd4vr & the rest of us! D&D is, like, your game, you get to feel proprietary about it and demand it conform to what you want!

is for everyone, but it doesn't owe you anything. You're mistaking the claim as a guarantee of happiness when it decidedly is not.
Oh, that D&D 5e owes it's very existence to the long-time fans who made it not only possible, but necessary is absolutely no guarantee that debt will be in any way honored.

Sure, right after you brush the straw off -- no one made this argument. You claimed 5e was failing as a big tent game because people, like dnd4vr were discontented. I pointed out that the size of the tent is, indeed, very big. You now claim that addressing your claim of lack of popularity with evidence of popularity is an appeal to popularity?
I never said a thing about it needing to be popular to meet the 'Big Tent' goal, rather, it needed to be inclusive (inclusivity can be very unpopular, indeed, with a majority or plurality).
You dismissed dnd4vr's complaint because the game wasn't for him. But it was. It's for all of us - and each of us.
One voice matters.

If it's not a big difference, why the big complaint it's missing?
It seems like a small complaint, to me.

No, the fighter is given edges in many other areas of the combat engine
Oh, I'm aware of how it all shakes out. The fighter gets some high sustained DPR, a 1/short rest spike, it all approximately balances out in theory once you get to that 6-8 encounter day, and it keeps BA intact.

But, it is kinda funny that it shaved off that one little difference in favor of the fighter that had otherwise endured through all editions. It's interesting how these things happen. I didn't particularly notice it until it was pointed out.

But, yeah, it's a small complaint, if it's a complaint at all. The fighter, best at fighting, is prettymuch exactly as good as everyone else at hitting his target.

No one can in 5e, so that's not a fighter specific complaint. Pick a goalpost, Tony.
Stand up to a large number of much-lower level opponents? No, not if you stand there for a few rounds. But an AE can erase them before their plinking starts to add up.

I mean, it is a major change in 5e, related to BA, that numbers tell so heavily that even the least of foes, in large enough numbers are not just a threat, but a rapidly overwhelming one. The key to beating those odds is taking out large numbers of them quickly, and unlike full casters, the fighter doesn't have the tools to do that in 5e, but, ironically did, in 4e, 3.x/PF, and even 1e. That he was also nigh-invulnerable to those same least foes in 1e (assuming a bit of magic armor, anyway), 3.x/PF (unless they were re-cast as swarms), or 4e (unless re-cast as minions or swarms), notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Seriously, of anyone remotely familiar with the idea that wizards spend their training reading books and practicing spells, and fighter training with weapons, who's really going to think they should have equal skill with weapons?
For me where this argument fails is that it conflates "attack bonus" with "skill with weapons". In 5e, skill with weapons is more than simply attack bonus. A fighter could even in instances have a lower attack bonus than a wizard, and still in play have better skill with weapons due to their class features and options that make them more effect in using weapons.
 

Bedrockgames

Adventurer
Before you say anything, "Yes, yes, another hit point thread... ARG!"

(Deep breath...)

Okay, so I posted about this in my other thread, but not wanting to derail that I decided to start fresh.

Why do different classes have different HD types?

Now, for the purposes of my question, I am making an assumption that you prescribe to the "abstract" HP camp where HP are a combination of several factors: physical endurance, mental endurance, skill, luck, favor, sixth-sense, etc. If you are in the "HP = meat only (or meat mostly)" camp then larger HD size makes sense for warriors and lower ones for weaker wizardy-types.

You could argue a fighter is "tougher" and can take a beating better, sure, but in the same light I can argue a rogue could have better luck or a wizard a better sixth-sense. Are those weighted less compared to physical endurance? Do you think a battler's skill is superior in combat so they get more HP? Well, wouldn't a caster be better at resisting the damage caused by other spells? HP don't differentiate between the source of the damage, so to say a barbarian gets more HP, even to resist the damage from spells, doesn't make much sense if those HP are earned during a career where the character mostly resisted weapon and natural attack damage.

Also, since front-liners tend to have better Constitution scores anyway because they want more HP, what impact would a flat universal d8 have? Would it hurt them that much, really?

FWIW, I don't really have an issue with HD, this is more about understanding a consistent and logical rationale for different HD sizes if you subscribe to the abstract HP concept.
I wouldn't kill yuourself trying to understand the logic of it. Abstract mechanics tend to fall apart no matter what when you start thinking of specific elements. What I will say is this is one part of the game that has always felt right to me. It is true, if you are equally dividing HP into luck, physical endurance, etc, then you could make an argument that a rogue should be as HP durable as the fighter. But I don't think that feels right. There are these other aspects to HP, but the physical part intuitively seems most significant (again, even if the logic of it breaks down). Plus just having fighters be more durable in combat makes sense to me. And having wizards be kind of feeble makes sense too.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
You don't need 4 tiers. A class feature for the fighter would be just fine.
Until someone on the internet complains clerics train more for combat than wizards. It's a double standard to support 1 opinion and ignore the other. 5e simply doesn't use proficiency to indicate better training. It indicates basic training.

You'd expect a wizard to attack better with spells than a fighter would, with spells. And, at first level, he does, quite unequivocally. So no worries on that point.
Except that's not true. A 1st level elf fighter or variant human or any other race choice to add ability to use spells at 1st level can have that 16 ability score and +3 attack bonus and 13 DC saves. It's completely irrelevant of the class and completely dependent on the race choices made just like the weapon use examples.

It's another double standard to look only at the bonus instead of the package. In both cases it's everything else that makes one better than the other.
 
Until someone on the internet complains clerics train more for combat than wizards.
I could see it - as any nice thing one may try to give the fighter - spreading out like Extra Attack to some cleric domains, that way.

5e simply doesn't use proficiency to indicate better training. It indicates basic training.
Then why does it scale with level?
And, why would that be an impediment to a class feature?

Except that's not true. A 1st level elf fighter or variant human or any other race choice to add ability to use spells at 1st level can have that 16 ability score and +3 attack bonus and 13 DC saves. It's completely irrelevant of the class and completely dependent on the race choices made just like the weapon use examples.
So wizards can't be proficient in weapons, at all, unless they choose a race that gives them a weapon proficiency?
So not just like, at all.

Now, admittedly, as soon as your EK starts casting spells, you have a rather serious comparison between him and the wizard... who might be a Bladesinger with Extra Attack.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
So wizards can't be proficient in weapons, at all, unless they choose a race that gives them a weapon proficiency?
So not just like, at all.
For me, the meagre weapons list a wizard gets without the Elven racial very much counts as less skilled with weapons. To count the Dex bonus, the wizard will wield dagger, dart or light crossbow. If we're comparing ranged weapons, then fighter has a +2 edge on attack; or if we're comparing melee weapons, fighter has a +2 edge on damage. And that is on top of other features contributing to their skill with weapons.

So just like, yup.
 
For me, the meagre weapons list a wizard gets without the Elven racial very much counts as less skilled with weapons. To count the Dex bonus, the wizard will wield dagger, dart or light crossbow. If we're comparing ranged weapons, then fighter has a +2 edge on attack; or if we're comparing melee weapons, fighter has a +2 edge on damage. And that is on top of other features contributing to their skill with weapons.

So just like, yup.
To be clear, you are asserting that, having taken racial perks out of it, at 1st level, attacking with a weapon, with the same bonus to hit (maybe not damage, maybe not the same weapon, maybe a crappy weapon with a lower damage die) as the class that's "best at fighting with weapons" is just like having the same INT as the wizard, but not being able to cast spells, at all.
 
Last edited:

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
To be clear, you are asserting that, having taken racial perks out of it, at 1st level, attacking with a weapon, with the same bonus to hit (maybe not damage, maybe not the same weapon, maybe a crappy weapon with a lower damage die) as the class that's "best at fighting with weapons" is just like having the same INT as the wizard, but not being able to cast spells, at all.
Ashrym said -

Ashrym said:
A 1st level elf fighter or variant human or any other race choice to add ability to use spells at 1st level can have that 16 ability score and +3 attack bonus and 13 DC saves. It's completely irrelevant of the class and completely dependent on the race choices made just like the weapon use examples.
To my reading, @Ashrym was referencing weapon use examples that expressly relied on taking Elven Weapon Training. @Ashrym's comment drew my attention to the fact that once race choices are included, a character can have spells at 1st level just as much as they can have access to more skillful weapons.

Even if I thought skill with weapons was only about the attack bonus, I would still feel that @dnd4vr's hope can't reasonably be addressed (i.e. that a wizard should never have a better attack bonus than a fighter). The ability modifier swing in D&D is 5 points (points-buy) or 9 points (4d6k3), so at first level the proficiency modifier difference would need to be more than that to guarantee wizards were always worse than fighters. And if they are that much worse than fighters, we run into the kinds of problem that bounded accuracy is designed to address.

Say we did impose a crushing disability with weapons on wizards - for the sake of argument, let's go with −10 at level one! (Or we give fighters +10, which will force up ACs so much as to amount to the same thing.) Why in any case would a wizard prefer their dagger over any one of their much better damage-dealing cantrips such as d10 at 120' with fire bolt that uses their best ability modifier for its attack bonus? We can whip up edge cases, like a fire immune creature and a wizard with only one damage-dealing cantrip and spell slots exhausted... I think I'd like fighter to shine in more than just such edge cases.

It is better to have a game system where skill with weapons is multi-dimensional... which is really what 5e offers.
 

Coroc

Adventurer
As someone who plays almost exclusively full casters, I agree wholeheartedly. Except that last sentence, there are definitely more punishing situations involving d4's than rolling them.
You mean stepping on one of them? On some hard underground? Being barfoot?

:p
 

Advertisement

Top