BtH and the Classes

[KaiserKris]

This is all speculative material.

In a recent thread, I remembered thinking about why, say, wizards even get attack bonuses at all. While there's probably a certain game balance and traditional reason, for me, it seems of questionable necessity and logic. After all, the average wizard is not intently practicing their skill at arms (those that are are probably fighter/wizards, whether multiclassed or class 1/2).

I started thinking about BtH in general. One thing about a scaling attribute like that is that it tends to force scaling in a variety of attributes. In order to keep a powerful enemy 'hard to hit', you'd have to start giving them ACs of 30 and such. There's some other ways to do it, but there's a bit of an arms race that tends to come out.

It seems to me that, if attack bonuses were made ... much more precious in general, it might make some things simpler. Imagine, theoretically, that attack bonuses were not given out at all by standard level progression. Increasing ability to fight could be modelled by increasing damage, which could perhaps be either directed against a certain target or split up against multiple opponents. Suddenly that +1 bonus to attack that 1st level fighters get is a really big deal. That +1/+1 they get with their favored weapon, which increases, could potentially be a much bigger deal than it is in the current game. The bonus that rangers get to favored enemies? Smite evil? The knight's inspiration ability? (I might also give knights some manner of bonus with traditional knightly weapons)

Even that magical sword which grants +1 to attack becomes a bigger deal, relatively speaking.

Armour bonuses become a big deal. Using a shield might start to look even more attractive, vis a vis regular attacks. I don't know if one could entirely do away with monster attack bonuses, or reduce them to 1/2 hit dice. One could make them unique attributes as well.

Less Radically

I would suggest that it makes sense that the wizard and illusionist do not gain attack bonuses at all. I don't think they'd actually lose much in the long run from it, and it makes little sense that they'd get better at fighting unless they were multiclassed in some fashion.

[jdizzy001]

This is the approach that 5e is taking. A concept called bounded accuracy. Basically the best melee classes at their highest level will only have a bth of +5. I love the idea and have never been a fan of scaling bth. However, cnc handles it nicely. Then again, in cnc I never go beyond level 10 and I rarely use magic weapons.

[KaiserKris]

I've sort of oscillated between using a fair amount of magical equipment and not very much. My most recent campaign has tons of it, both actual magic and technological relics that the badguys are bringing through from their home dimension.

I think the next one I run may be far less magical. To the extent that I might not even allow wizards at all (the magician class would be the cleric and their spells would vary entirely depending on their deity), but that's neither here nor there. Magical weapons in this world would universally be named and be rare assets with their own histories.

[jdizzy001]

I really enjoy low magic, lethal games. 1/2 hd for everyone!

[Fiffergrund]

Interesting thoughts in the OP. Of course, it would require a restructuring of almost every AC in the various monster books.

After chewing this over for a few minutes, there are some considerations to take into account.

1) Scaling damage output by level instead of hit bonus is still scaling, just on another axis. ACs would be nerfed, HD/HP would have to go up.

2) Scaling damage output means that you're effectively saying that the character who can kill goblins with one hit at 2nd level can basically kill them with one hit at 10th, but can never get better at hitting them without magical aid.

3) I tend to agree with the wizard/illusionist prohibition, but there are two things to consider here as well:
- Some abilities/spells may require a hit roll.
- If you spend enough time around experts, stuff will rub off on you. You may never be great, but you could pick up a few pointers with the quarterstaff or throwing a dagger.

[Captain_K]

I think Gandalf has swung a sword here and there..... I'm not an accountant, but I'm better at balancing my check book and paying my taxes with less errors every year... you learn as you go, you pick up stuff...

The big changes seems, cool, but within the current game, I LIKE letting everyone give things a try... if the wizard's only way to save the day is throw a spear into the eye of the beholder (cause he's out of spells and all the fighters are down for the count... let him try, OK, might need a 20 or if high enough level a 16 or 17... but that's the fun right...

[Arduin]

I have no problem with Wizard types not gaining anything in BtH. Fighters never gain spells. Unless you are playing something like a Gandalf (an extra planar demi-god like creature) it makes sense that they don't really learn fighting.

[KaiserKris]

Interesting thoughts in the OP. Of course, it would require a restructuring of almost every AC in the various monster books.

After chewing this over for a few minutes, there are some considerations to take into account.

1) Scaling damage output by level instead of hit bonus is still scaling, just on another axis. ACs would be nerfed, HD/HP would have to go up.

2) Scaling damage output means that you're effectively saying that the character who can kill goblins with one hit at 2nd level can basically kill them with one hit at 10th, but can never get better at hitting them without magical aid.

3) I tend to agree with the wizard/illusionist prohibition, but there are two things to consider here as well:
- Some abilities/spells may require a hit roll.
- If you spend enough time around experts, stuff will rub off on you. You may never be great, but you could pick up a few pointers with the quarterstaff or throwing a dagger.

1.) You're right, it is.

2.) What I would think is that damage output would be scaled in such a way that fighters and fighter-types could divide damage against multiple attacks, so they'd have the opportunity to kill multiple enemies of a given type. I might not scale damage output of a lot of non-warrior classes at all. Most of the true warrior classes have abilities that do or could potentially increase odds of hitting an opponent outside the BtH. Fighters have weapon specialization. Paladins have smite evil. Rangers have favored enemy (I would rejig it a bit and maybe make it a 1st level ability). Monks should have some circumstantial bonus too. The idea is to make a bonus to hit a big deal.

3.) Wizards/illusionists should have some means of increasing their hit roll for spells, even if it's circumstantial. If we're going with a system in which everything else is normal BtH, I'd nix their attack progression entirely and just have them use their level for + to do attack spells.

If you use advantages/feats or whatever, this would be a good thing to use them for. Or the CK could just rule that since you've been a good boy or girl with your quarterstaff, you get a bonus to attack.

~

I feel like getting rid of all BtH is probably too radical. I still wonder about reducing it across the board, though, and giving fighter-types some amped-up damage abilities to compensate. Say if fighters were 1/2 and other classes were 1/4*, with the wizard and illusionist getting nada.

*= I know the cleric in RAW has better attack stats than the rogue/assassin, but I'm not sure if this is really necessary. The cleric has a defensive advantage (better armour) and shouldn't be a primary attacker anyhow. That's what paladins are for.

Again, this is all speculative. Glad to see some imput, though.

[Captain_K]

Rangers and Paladins used to ... and I think I've seen many a thread suggesting ways to get that back. So some fighters can (could) cast spells. .. class and a half.. is away to allow this door to swing both ways, anyway, if its all about fun, fighting is fun and when the mage runs out of spells, the chance for them to do something, even if its throw a darn dart from behind the fighter, is better than nothing. They are given weapons they can us, thus they would/could use them, thus they would/could improve as they progress in levels. If they can never get better with their dagger or quarter staff, why have it at all.

Variety is the spice of life....

[Litzen Tallister]

There is something that doesn't 100% jibe with such parity of bonus to hit across classes. Yes, it makes calculation easier, but spell casters vs. hand to hand or ranged weapon users seems like it should come out in the weapon users' favor. But, on the other hand, casters do have touch range spells that require a to hit roll, in which case one would think a regular practitioner of those spells would improve with practice (leveling). Also, in terms of balancing fighting types with casting types, the CKG suggests that this boils down to spell component management, given that a fighter's sword never runs of out of swings, but a caster can run out of materials for a fireball.

[Arduin]

But, on the other hand, casters do have touch range spells that require a to hit roll, in which case one would think a regular practitioner of those spells would improve with practice (leveling).

That's simple enough. Keep the Wizard BtH progression for use with spells only. Done.

[muneshige]

You know-- what I liked about 4E and 13th Age is that at each level all characters get a +1 both to hit and to AC. The difference between Fighters and Wizards then is that fighters tend to be several levels ahead on these stats-- but a Wizard does eventually have the attack bonus and AC of a low-level fighter just as they eventually have the hit points of one...

It really helps the levels have more meaning without them merely being about hit points and characters requiring more hits to take down. In fact, first level characters and monsters all start with more hit points than in games based on 1st-3rd D&D. This means first level characters no longer instantly die as soon as they trip and fall or get bitten by a dog-- in fact, the enemies will definitely have to take a few swings at them and likely visa-versa before anyone drops in combat. This makes combat considerable less wild and unpredictable.

I suppose it is all a matter of taste though. I think what is important to understand is that both approaches are a rebellion against the original system where AC was functionally capped at a number that seemed fairly high at low levels an then as attack bonuses inflated quickly, particularly with certain classes, became so small and insignificant at high levels that any attack was pretty much a guaranteed hit.

[Arduin]

It really helps the levels have more meaning without them merely being about hit points and characters requiring more hits to take down. In fact, first level characters and monsters all start with more hit points than in games based on 1st-3rd D&D.

Yes, that's different. But, no other fantasy RPG is as popular or successful as D&D 1st-3rd. So, that's part of the successful formula.