Figuring out the attack bonus

Hey, been reading through the playtest pregens and I am trying to figure out where these character's attack bonuses come from. The Cleric of Moradin has a +2 str mod and yet has a +4 to attack, and the fighter has a +3 mod and a +6 to attack!

I see no BAB stat, nor anything in the rules about "doubling modifiers" or anything, and nothing about their weapons makes them special, like masterworked or anything.

Is this a mistake?
I guess its a bonus that depends on class, like the wizard and cleric gain bonus to magical attack rolls.
So sort of a BAB. 
I bet it's a hidden weapon prof. like from 4e.
Well, it looks like the cleric and wizard each use casting stat +2 for attack rolls (funny how the wizard has +3 Int but +6 attack and the cleric of Pelor has +4 Wis and +4 attack on the spell section but +6 in the attacks section); with weapons I can't tell, but I get the feeling it's a +2 to hit.
Well, it looks like the cleric and wizard each use casting stat +2 for attack rolls (funny how the wizard has +3 Int but +6 attack and the cleric of Pelor has +4 Wis and +4 attack on the spell section but +6 in the attacks section); with weapons I can't tell, but I get the feeling it's a +2 to hit.



I, too, attempted to deconstruct the attack bonuses and here's my observations
I obviously might be wrong but it sounds good.

The fighter seems to have +3 to attack rolls plus stat with weapon attacks
The two clerics have a +2 to attack either with magic or weapon attacks
The rogue seems also to have a +2 base bonus
The Wizard seems to have a +3 to attacks with magic only

My theory is that most character have a +2 to their main type of attack
  and some of the more oeffensive themes give a +1 bonus to another

Fighter : +2 BAB, +3 Str, +1 Slayer (to weapons only (hypotesis))
Mage : +2 BAB (with magic only), +3 int, +1 Magic-User (to spells only) 

 I also remarked that the Guardian theme might give the character a +1 to AC that tends to demonstrate that my theory might be correct.
Only time will tell for sure I'm afraid.

 

yeah, there is deffininlty a +2 floating out there some where. Keep in mind that some weapons use dex for attack bonus, such as the quarter staff, which gives him his +1 to hit. this makes me think it is not a prof bonus, because he should have +3 to hit with the staff, since he gets to use dex and he is proficent with it. It seems like they just calculated wrong his spell attack, as the rules state that spells are ability, and the character sheet grants a +2. So I have no idea why it is +6. I wonder if at one point the sheet had an 18 int, or who ever wrote it up was assuming he had an 18 int, but then, the save DC would have also been one point to high. So I don't know whats going on there.


It looks like they got it right on the dwarven cleric, +3 from wisdom, +2 from class, for +5. warhammer is +2 with that mysterious +2 coming back into it.

With the fighter, he seems to have weapon focus for +2 damage, maybe it used to also have +1 attack. This would give him his +6 attack (+3 str, +2 mystery, +1 feat). I have no idea why his crossbow is +4 (dex is +1, mystery +2 would make it plus three only) and am espicially confused about the crosbow's +5 damage. Shouldnt it be +1 damage from +1 dex?

The rouge seems spot on: +3 from dex with dex based melee weapon, with mystery +2. and +3 dex based damage. So, I don't know, maybe they changed some class features or feats, and ability scores, but didnt change all the numbers. I would like them to clarify so that we can fix these numbers if we need too. 
 
FWIW For the purposes of the play-test  I'm going with the Character sheet numbers. For example the damage dice for the fighters greataxe says 2d6 and the rules say 1d12. I will use 2d6 for now.
It's entirely possible that the fighter's weapon focus ability grants +1 to hit and +2 to damage and the +1 to hit was omitted to avoid confusion (since they pregenned the attack bonuses anyway). It seems likely given this is a throwback to 2E's weapon specialization likely which was +1/+2 as well.
In another thread I proposed a static BAB system.  Each class would get a static modifier to illustrate their combat skill.  The static BAB allows you to differentiate combat skill levels while not inflating the numbers the way 3e did.  I can't say for certain that they've done this, but it looks that way to me.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I think the discrepencies are typos, or are carried over from earlier playtests. The reason I say this is that, for example, they specifically tell you what Weapon Focus gives (+2 to damage). Why would they not list other such bonuses?

The Fighter seems to have an extra +2 to the damage of both of their weapons, so I'm guessing somebody just accidentally added Weapon Focus twice.

Slayer doesn't add to attack; it's already been mentioned that Themes are nothing more than pre-picked sets of feats, they don't give extra bonuses.

The quarterstaff wielders are likely an older version, before quarterstaffs were changed to be finesse weapons. You'll note that if you assume a +2 bonus to attacks for being proficient with a weapon, both quarterstaff wielders are using Strength for attack and damage, instead of Dexterity like they're supposed to.

I'm willing to bet that all this is simply a side-effect of changes to the playtest material. Instead of rewriting all-new pregens, they just tried to convert the ones they had, and mussed it up a bit.
The weapons and armor could also be Masterwork but that would not explain the Wizard