+ to hit when leveling

I suppose because clerics are supposed to be more of a support class.
Clerics were way too good in Playtest 1 as they have often been over the history of D&D, they should not be nearly as good at fighting as a Fighter while casting spells in Heavy Armour.
Clerics were way too good in Playtest 1 as they have often been over the history of D&D, they should not be nearly as good at fighting as a Fighter while casting spells in Heavy Armour.



This should really be reinforced by putting the specialty priest of 2e front and center, over the cleric.

True but in a bounded accuracy system he should likeley advance at the same rate as the rogue
Not necessarily. Really it would be fine if only the Fighter advanced. There are 3 pillars after all. The fighter needs to get better at fighting, the Priest can do perfectly well with only getting better at exploration and interaction (to a significant degree).
Well we've only seen 5 levels so far, I'd like to see the full path to 15, 20 or 30 or whatever the max level is.
Maybe the Cleric gets a +1 at Level 6....

I agree if there's a specialist melee "War Cleric" he would be expected to have a greater Attack Bonus but that's easily fixed with a Feat/Specialisation or whatever.
Not necessarily. Really it would be fine if only the Fighter advanced. There are 3 pillars after all. The fighter needs to get better at fighting, the Priest can do perfectly well with only getting better at exploration and interaction (to a significant degree).



It may be ok for the fighter to be 'better at combat', but achieving that through different accuracy rates is a very poor solution. Make the cleric hit for less, have less manouvers or spells variety, fine. But don't make him be useless more often than other classes in combat. 
The cleric's advancement should be at least as good as the rogue's, IMO. It certainly shouldn't be worse than the wizard's.

I think the wizard should be the only one whose physical attacks never advance (but magic attacks do) - even more so with the new cantrips.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
I'm not clear on why there's any automatic progression for any class.  Isn't that against the point of bounded accuracy?

Sure, give fighters +1 to hit over clerics - fine.  But why have that increase?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I'm not clear on why there's any automatic progression for any class.  Isn't that against the point of bounded accuracy?



Well, yes.
It feels a bit like ordering a red car and then finding out when you get to collect it that it is actually pink. The dealer assures that pink is almost red, so it will be fine anyway. So you drive out in your new shiny pink car, feeling stupid.

Not necessarily. Really it would be fine if only the Fighter advanced. There are 3 pillars after all. The fighter needs to get better at fighting, the Priest can do perfectly well with only getting better at exploration and interaction (to a significant degree).


I agree somewhat with this. My main point is so far (thorugh 5 level) the Cleric is the only class that doesn't have any advancement. This concerns me which is why I bring it up. I would be fine with there being no bonuses to hit by leveling only through feats or something similar.

What if I want to be a battle mage and use buffing spells and attacks with a sword? Why does only my magic attack bonus going up? I would much rather choose what I am going to increase than being forced into well you could play that character, but you are gimping yourself because THAT class gets bonuses a certain way so you should play it that way.
The cleric should really advance to +3 in both at level 5. One worse in spells than the wizard and 2 behind the fighter together with the rogue would be fine.
The cleric should really advance to +3 in both at level 5. One worse in spells than the wizard and 2 behind the fighter together with the rogue would be fine.


That is what I was thinking, but since it wasn't there....
I'm not clear on why there's any automatic progression for any class.  Isn't that against the point of bounded accuracy?

Sure, give fighters +1 to hit over clerics - fine.  But why have that increase?



The increase is supposed to reflect you getting better. Bounded Accuracy just means, as I understand it, that the challenge dc's and ac's are more static. However, if a lv 15 fighter is still just as accurate as he was at lv 1 people feel cheated that he didn't get any better. No matter what he specializes in you'd expect he'd get better after doing something for 14 levels
I'm not clear on why there's any automatic progression for any class.  Isn't that against the point of bounded accuracy?

Sure, give fighters +1 to hit over clerics - fine.  But why have that increase?



The increase is supposed to reflect you getting better. Bounded Accuracy just means, as I understand it, that the challenge dc's and ac's are more static. However, if a lv 15 fighter is still just as accurate as he was at lv 1 people feel cheated that he didn't get any better. No matter what he specializes in you'd expect he'd get better after doing something for 14 levels



No! Didn't you know that practicing for 20 years doesn't make you better at something? It just means people can punch you more times without it hurting! All of those Grade 9 violin players are actually no better at playing the violin than they were 20 years ago. 

Apparently the only way fighters get better now is by taking advancements that let them do more damage. I don't like that system either, especially as you don't always get the advance...so without the increase in attack, levelling up from, say, 3 to 4 would get you absolutely nothing...lolwhut?
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
The problem if you have no progression at all is that there will be certain monsters with high ACs, e.g. will o' the wisps or quicklings who will always be really hard to hit.  We don't yet know what the maximum AC will be under this system but using 1e as an example, it would be AC30.  I'm not suggesting that they will go that far (and almost no 1e monsters, including most gods, had such a high AC - Lolth is the only one who springs to mind and that was balanced by her low hp).  If the maximum PC AC is currently standing at 25,  AC30 might not be beyond the realm of possibility as the cap.  I don't want a quickling being as easy to hit as an orc.  There has to be some difference.

So at level 1, fighting 1e Lolth, all our characters need a natural 20 to hit her.  At level 20, with an extra +5 to hit and a magic weapon, the best fighter might then need 17.  Makes me think AC30 might be pushing the bounds a bit but higher levels might include spell buffs, feat buffs, more ways to obtain advantage, and more ways to do damage on a miss.  Plus the fighter's job could be staying alive and defending allies with spell attacks using superiority while inflicting small damage on a miss.

By comparison, Tiamat had AC20, a red dragon AC21.  Most monsters will not be that hard to hit at level 20.  It feels about right I think if there are limited stacking issues.
I don't want a quickling being as easy to hit as an orc.  There has to be some difference.



Good point! There needs to be that difference between "hard to hit" and "hard to kill", and if attack bonuses never increase, you cannot get that.

I would much rather things are, overall, harder to hit, but when you do hit it's more significant. It's far too easy to hit things in this version - from my experience in GMing this, characters practically have to fumble to not hit a goblin!
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
Not necessarily. Really it would be fine if only the Fighter advanced. There are 3 pillars after all. The fighter needs to get better at fighting, the Priest can do perfectly well with only getting better at exploration and interaction (to a significant degree).



It may be ok for the fighter to be 'better at combat', but achieving that through different accuracy rates is a very poor solution. Make the cleric hit for less, have less manouvers or spells variety, fine. But don't make him be useless more often than other classes in combat. 

I'm glad somebody said it right.  If you can't hit with magic or or a weapon, then why have either?   You might as well be a pacifist that only heals.  A cleric is a fighting healer.  There are archtypes that are slightly different, but that's beyond the scope of my two cents.  The basic cleric is a heavily armored, healing and undead master.  Beyond that, he still needs to cast some offensive and spells and fight melee.  He obviously wouldn't deal damage equivelant to a fighter or spells the same as a wizard, that needs to be balanced.  But, leveling up 5 levels with no increase to hit in either magic or weapon attacks basically says you are the company healer and nothing else.    Undead attacks don't increase, and that's the one of the two things that clerics are supposed to shine at. 

To balance it out clerics should have just as much a chance to hit as everyone else.  Give them ultimate healing spells, which they have done with the healer spec, really good turning undead - if only they could hit with it,  and orisons and weapon attacks that deal decent damage - if only you could hit with them.  (I still don't know what the domain spells do.  Haven't seen spell descriptions for those...)  The balance needs to come from the effectiveness of the attack, not on your accuracy.  Every class should be the best at what they do, and they all have a role in attacking something.  If WotC is going to make clerics hit worse than everybody else, then they need to seperate radiant attacks from other attacks.  I think they should take it a step further, and do away with attack bonuses competely and merely use feats, ability modifiers, and racial bonuses.  Then, everyone is on the same playing field.  And in the same spirit, why are wizard spells tougher to resist than cleric spells?  Make a cleric spell less damaging or a lower level, but not easier to resist.  Right now the only thing the cleric is good at is healing.     
The base cleric takes into account all types.  Different domains might come with different buffs that grant clerics bonuses to hit with spells of weapons.  I'm assuming that their attack rolls go up +1 at level 6 so they will only be just behind the other classes.  If wizards' attack rolls go up at all, I was expecting them to go up at level 7.
The base cleric takes into account all types.  Different domains might come with different buffs that grant clerics bonuses to hit with spells of weapons.  I'm assuming that their attack rolls go up +1 at level 6 so they will only be just behind the other classes.  If wizards' attack rolls go up at all, I was expecting them to go up at level 7.


A wizard attack roll goes up a level 4 +1 Magic Attack which is their main attack type a cleric doesn't go up in anything. Hopefully they get +1 to both at 6th and we are just not seeing that.
I'm not clear on why there's any automatic progression for any class.  Isn't that against the point of bounded accuracy?

Sure, give fighters +1 to hit over clerics - fine.  But why have that increase?



The increase is supposed to reflect you getting better. Bounded Accuracy just means, as I understand it, that the challenge dc's and ac's are more static. However, if a lv 15 fighter is still just as accurate as he was at lv 1 people feel cheated that he didn't get any better. No matter what he specializes in you'd expect he'd get better after doing something for 14 levels



No! Didn't you know that practicing for 20 years doesn't make you better at something? It just means people can punch you more times without it hurting! All of those Grade 9 violin players are actually no better at playing the violin than they were 20 years ago. 

Apparently the only way fighters get better now is by taking advancements that let them do more damage. I don't like that system either, especially as you don't always get the advance...so without the increase in attack, levelling up from, say, 3 to 4 would get you absolutely nothing...lolwhut?



Or maybe, instead of just giving them boring number increases, they could, get this, give them new, interesting choices and abilities. But I guess that "wouldn't be D&D".
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)

Or maybe, instead of just giving them boring number increases, they could, get this, give them new, interesting choices and abilities. But I guess that "wouldn't be D&D".



They tried that. It resulted in 4th edition, which a lot of the older fans didn't like. That's why they're trying to create a game that can be made to appeal to everyone.

You know, I really don't understand why people say number increases are "boring". Do people have so little imagination that they can't remain interested in the story and their characters unless there's some silly mechanical fluff associated with their attacks? I play a fighter in a Pathfinder game, and I have never been bored in a fight. I guess I'm just easily entertained.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!