That’s more or less right. All characters of the same level have the same proficiency bonus. Typically, wizards have a low str and fighters have a low int, so wizards aren’t as good at weapons and fighters aren’t as good at spells.
All classes are given the same proficiency bonus on attack rolls because it's easier to learn and frankly better than having all of 3rd edition's nonsense regarding AC vs Touch AC vs Flat Footed AC and means that characters that depend on heavy armor aren't shafted against spells anymore. Instead of having a better chance of hitting than everyone else, fighters get more attacks, plus a few additional abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes, on the surface that is how it works now, but ...
However, a Wizard that decides to put 16 into his strength so he will have the same To-Hit modifiers as a fighter at level 1 will not be a well formulated wizard. He will not have access to medium or heavy armors, and will also have a very short list of proficient weapons. The classes start pretty close to one another, but they diverge quickly. If a caster class tries to keep up with a martial class, they will find that is not likely to be fun.
In addition to martial classes having proficiency with medium and heavy armors, they also get proficiency with simple and martial weapons. Martial classes get to choose fighting styles, and will typically also choose feats that improve their martial abilities because that is where their build is focused.
I went through a similar adjustment when I got back into D&D with 5e. It is a better overall system than the one I started with, AD&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Returning player (Blue book thru 3rd) and it seems, all else being equal, a fighter has the same to hit (THAC0 if you will) as a wizard.
To be clear: proficient with the weapon, same stats, no feats etc, its the same target to hit a given target.
Or am I missing something?
Sort of?
Like strictly speaking the base Hit modifier for everyone is 0, then you add proficiency and the associated ability modifier.
So in theory, a wizard, a fighter and a rogue could all pick up a knife and use it with equal skill if they were all at STR 20.
The big difference is that different classes are going to favor different stats for different effects. The wizard is probably going to favor intellect to make it easier to hit and harder to resist, the fighter may very well go all in on strength so he can swing that halberd real good and the rogue is going to love Dex for that sweet, sweet finesse.
That’s more or less right. All characters of the same level have the same proficiency bonus. Typically, wizards have a low str and fighters have a low int, so wizards aren’t as good at weapons and fighters aren’t as good at spells.
Thaco and base attack bonus don’t exist anymore.
Thanks. Figured I'd read it right, but always a chance I missed something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Returning player (Blue book thru 3rd) and it seems, all else being equal, a fighter has the same to hit (THAC0 if you will) as a wizard.
To be clear: proficient with the weapon, same stats, no feats etc, its the same target to hit a given target.
Or am I missing something?
That’s more or less right. All characters of the same level have the same proficiency bonus. Typically, wizards have a low str and fighters have a low int, so wizards aren’t as good at weapons and fighters aren’t as good at spells.
Thaco and base attack bonus don’t exist anymore.
All classes are given the same proficiency bonus on attack rolls because it's easier to learn and frankly better than having all of 3rd edition's nonsense regarding AC vs Touch AC vs Flat Footed AC and means that characters that depend on heavy armor aren't shafted against spells anymore. Instead of having a better chance of hitting than everyone else, fighters get more attacks, plus a few additional abilities.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes, on the surface that is how it works now, but ...
However, a Wizard that decides to put 16 into his strength so he will have the same To-Hit modifiers as a fighter at level 1 will not be a well formulated wizard. He will not have access to medium or heavy armors, and will also have a very short list of proficient weapons. The classes start pretty close to one another, but they diverge quickly. If a caster class tries to keep up with a martial class, they will find that is not likely to be fun.
In addition to martial classes having proficiency with medium and heavy armors, they also get proficiency with simple and martial weapons. Martial classes get to choose fighting styles, and will typically also choose feats that improve their martial abilities because that is where their build is focused.
I went through a similar adjustment when I got back into D&D with 5e. It is a better overall system than the one I started with, AD&D.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Sort of?
Like strictly speaking the base Hit modifier for everyone is 0, then you add proficiency and the associated ability modifier.
So in theory, a wizard, a fighter and a rogue could all pick up a knife and use it with equal skill if they were all at STR 20.
The big difference is that different classes are going to favor different stats for different effects. The wizard is probably going to favor intellect to make it easier to hit and harder to resist, the fighter may very well go all in on strength so he can swing that halberd real good and the rogue is going to love Dex for that sweet, sweet finesse.
Thanks. Figured I'd read it right, but always a chance I missed something.