Arrack Progresion and Multiclassing

Fighter: 3.2 + 0.2/level
Rogue:2.0 + o.2level
Cleric: 1.8 + 0.2/level or 2.4  + 0.1/level
 Wizard 1.9 + 0.1/level or 2 flat

I think these progrssions could be feworked to be better. Anyy suggestions?
How should we handle multiclas characters?
 
I'm not clear on why classes have attack bonuses at all, let alone attack bonus progression.

Sure, if you want to have a class feature that gives the odd +1, then that's fine.  Maybe.  But the baseline +2/+3 attack bonus should go away.  It doesn't serve any actual function other than to severely penalize non-traditional builds.  It'd be sweet to be able to pick up Shocking Grasp from a feat or something and use that instead of a weapon on a Fighter, but the class bonus prohibits that.

Remove the attack bonus, drop monster ACs by 2.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Basically, taking the better of the two would be the way I'd handle it. It wasn't a problem with 4E because everything was based on +1/2 level. In 3E, I think the Gestalt rules would play along nicely with any sort of D&D:Next Hybrid system. By taking the better part of the base mechanics of the class, but limiting what functions you gain at 1st level might be a way of mitigating the disparity of a Fighter|Wizard 1 and a Fighter 1 or Wizard 1. 

What I don't want to see is wonky addition that changes all the time based on what you gain as per your class. 3E was a nightmare in terms of keeping up your BAB when multiclassing and was almost always a worse choice than just going straight class level X. There were some feat "Fixes" in later supplements, but they really should've just hammerd out a better progression from the start.

They could also make it easier if the Progression actually made some sense + a little lower in numbers. For example, The Fighter should be the best Weapon Attack and get a +2, the Rogue/Cleric are second with a +1, and the Wizard would get a +0 (reverse it for Spell Attacks). Basically it comes down to what % is right for hitting monsters. If a full Fighter is  supposed to hit level-appropriate monsters 65% of the time and a Cleric is supposed to hit the same monster at 55% of the time, then one might conclude that a Fighter/Cleric should hit about 60% and the numbers should help reflect that.    
I'd actually  drop the attack bonus and leave the ACs alone. Assumng they plan on keeping them, how dowe handle these issues?
I'm not clear on why classes have attack bonuses at all, let alone attack bonus progression.

Sure, if you want to have a class feature that gives the odd +1, then that's fine.  Maybe.  But the baseline +2/+3 attack bonus should go away.  It doesn't serve any actual function other than to severely penalize non-traditional builds.  It'd be sweet to be able to pick up Shocking Grasp from a feat or something and use that instead of a weapon on a Fighter, but the class bonus prohibits that.

Remove the attack bonus, drop monster ACs by 2.



+1 and seconded. If it's one thing that I have disliked since AD&D (up until 4E) was the different progression of Attacks. There are better way of reflecting a Fighter's combat prowess besides giving him a better scalable Attack Bonus. It also further pushes characters into automatic "roles" (and we can't have that!!!!). Think about it, the wizard with his pathetic Weapon Attack bonus would NEVER EVER EVER go into melee combat. At least in 4E, a Wizard with a decent Strength modifier could still contribute well enough because attack modifiers didn't matter.
As many have repeatedly assumed, the +3/+2 base was for the purpose of differentiating untrained skill. That a wizard swinging a longsword lost out on their +2 base. That made at least some measure of sense.

But in the last L&L (I believe) Mearls stated that non-proficiency was intended to saddle you with disadvantage.

If that's the case, I absolutely agree. Get rid of the starting +3/+2. It serves no purpose shy of bonus bloat. Plus it helps levels out bounded accuracy that much more.
“The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.” - Louis C.K.
I'm not clear on why classes have attack bonuses at all, let alone attack bonus progression.

Sure, if you want to have a class feature that gives the odd +1, then that's fine.  Maybe.  But the baseline +2/+3 attack bonus should go away.  It doesn't serve any actual function other than to severely penalize non-traditional builds.  It'd be sweet to be able to pick up Shocking Grasp from a feat or something and use that instead of a weapon on a Fighter, but the class bonus prohibits that.

Remove the attack bonus, drop monster ACs by 2.



+1 and seconded. If it's one thing that I have disliked since AD&D (up until 4E) was the different progression of Attacks. There are better way of reflecting a Fighter's combat prowess besides giving him a better scalable Attack Bonus. It also further pushes characters into automatic "roles" (and we can't have that!!!!). Think about it, the wizard with his pathetic Weapon Attack bonus would NEVER EVER EVER go into melee combat. At least in 4E, a Wizard with a decent Strength modifier could still contribute well enough because attack modifiers didn't matter.


Or, if he multiclassed Swordmage and started using Int for basic attacks. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I came to this thread because I wanted to find out what "arrack" (a distilled alcoholic drink) has to do with D&D.

Aside from that, I don't think a PC's attack bonus should change with level.  HP is abstract, so increasing one's attack bonus or their damage is roughly equivalent.  The classes already get damage increases, so leave the attack bonus alone.  Doing this also works better with the whole Bounded Accuracy design goal.
At least in 4E, a Wizard with a decent Strength modifier could still contribute well enough because attack modifiers didn't matter.


Or, if he multiclassed Swordmage and started using Int for basic attacks. 


Very true. Man, I'm gonna miss the Swordmage.  

How about having monsters and PCs have similar attack progressions and leave monsters with less HD, no feats, and fewer proficiencies. Then multiclassers get the other classes progression with a -2 penalty to counteract the high starting attack bonus.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

How about having monsters and PCs have similar attack progressions

Goes against the core principles of Bounded Accuracy.

Simple question:  why do we need attack bonus progressions, and why can't we use other progression mechanics other than attack bonuses?  And don't say "because that's the way we've done it before."

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
No, Bounded Accuracy is about keeping DCs near the bonuses of most PCs and NPCs. Its why most ACs and ability check DCs are between 10-20. As long as the bonus progression is slow, bounded accuracy is maintained.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Mand12:

Agreed. Damage is the new BAB. We don't need a substantial or steady increase in to-hit bonuses. Keep it very flat. Let damage be the indicator of "skill". That's the direction the devs have clearly indicated they want to go in. So why this anachronistic attack bonus thing still lingering?
“The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.” - Louis C.K.
Simple question:  why do we need attack bonus progressions, and why can't we use other progression mechanics other than attack bonuses?  And don't say "because that's the way we've done it before."

I think there needs to be at least a little, so that characters can hit targets with high dex and/or lots of armor at high level. I don't think there needs to be a big or steady attack progression though, a few +1 bumps here and there would be enough if there was something else. What did you have in mind? I don't like the obvious alternatives of running up expertise dice to huge numbers or giving the fighter a big stack of manuvers. Swapping out manuvers for upgraded manuvers with bonuses wired into the manuvers might work.

I think there needs to be at least a little

Sure. All the PC attack bonuses need to be shaved back by +2. So fighters start with +1 to attack. Everyone else +0.

Same competency difference, just lover starting values.

“The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.” - Louis C.K.
Simple question:  why do we need attack bonus progressions, and why can't we use other progression mechanics other than attack bonuses?  And don't say "because that's the way we've done it before."

I think there needs to be at least a little, so that characters can hit targets with high dex and/or lots of armor at high level. I don't think there needs to be a big or steady attack progression though, a few +1 bumps here and there would be enough if there was something else. What did you have in mind? I don't like the obvious alternatives of running up expertise dice to huge numbers or giving the fighter a big stack of manuvers. Swapping out manuvers for upgraded manuvers with bonuses wired into the manuvers might work.


If the only answer is "So they can hit higher ACs" then the solution is to reduce the ACs.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
No, Bounded Accuracy is about keeping DCs near the bonuses of most PCs and NPCs


No, no it isn't.  Fundamental, core misconception of the point behind Bounded Accuracy.  Go read  this.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I'm not clear on why classes have attack bonuses at all, let alone attack bonus progression.

Sure, if you want to have a class feature that gives the odd +1, then that's fine.  Maybe.  But the baseline +2/+3 attack bonus should go away.  It doesn't serve any actual function other than to severely penalize non-traditional builds.  It'd be sweet to be able to pick up Shocking Grasp from a feat or something and use that instead of a weapon on a Fighter, but the class bonus prohibits that.

Remove the attack bonus, drop monster ACs by 2.


I agree completely.
If they wanna give fighters +2, paladins and other "warriors" +1, I can understand that. I can understand giving Fighters +1 and everyone else nothing... but the current numbers are bloated and silly to me... and the entire method feels lazy and needlessly fiddly. when teaching noobs how to play, this was the #1 question I got afterward, "Where did these bonuses come from?"
I can understand trying to make certain classes better at one thing over another, but I don't know why a Wizard would have anything other than a +0 as a baseline bonus from level 1. Why not make fighters get +1 and everyone else nothing? Is it just so that ability scores don't really matter negatively?

This is part of why I feel like level 1 characters in next feel a little like level 2 to me. It seems like every step away from level 20 you could make power-wise, you'd take, because that noise is going to be hard to balance either way.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
If the only answer is "So they can hit higher ACs" then the solution is to reduce the ACs.

I'm not talking about steadily progressing ACs like 4e had or the large AC bonuses 3e had that made ACs go up a lot at higher level. What I'm saying here is that a high level fighter needs to have a better chance of hitting something in Plate Mail then a low level one. The difference doesn't have to be huge, even a +4/+5 shift over 20 levels would probably be enough if the melee classes got enough other increases.


I agree on lowering the Fighter Weapon Attack bonus to +1 at 1st level, and very slowly climbing; this able to start with +8 to hit at 1st level is bit bloated for me.

Oh, and removing the 1/2 level bonus from 4th Ed does wonders. 
What I'm saying here is that a high level fighter needs to have a better chance of hitting something in Plate Mail then a low level one.


Why?  And why must this be assumed, and always the case for all fighters ever just by virtue of being higher level, instead of taking the form of increases to ability scores or magic enhancements?

What does higher level actually mean in regards to the fighter's chance to hit something in plate?  What about being higher level changes that chance?

Edit:  lulz.  13337.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Without any type of progression, a Fighter could peak on accuracy at 1st level (as magic items are completely optional).

Do people think that's good or bad, and why? 
Without any type of progression, a Fighter could peak on accuracy at 1st level (as magic items are completely optional).

Do people think that's good or bad, and why? 


It's good, because it assumes a level 20 fighter who peaked at level 1 never boosted his strength ONCE. I wanna meet that guy. Probably an interesting character who would be nearly unplayable in some other versions of the game.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
Without any type of progression, a Fighter could peak on accuracy at 1st level (as magic items are completely optional).

Do people think that's good or bad, and why? 


It's good, because it assumes a level 20 fighter who peaked at level 1 never boosted his strength ONCE. I wanna meet that guy. Probably an interesting character who would be nearly unplayable in some other versions of the game.




He can't boost his strength if it started at 20.

So the largest attack bonus you could ever get in 5th Ed would be +5.
Still good.  Accuracy improvement is one of the most system-disruptive ways you can improve a character, as well as one of the least interesting.  If your argument is really just against the ability cap, then argue that, don't use accuracy progression as a proxy.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I don't see any arguing, I myself just posed a question (and a statistic).

I have no problem with no attack progression and the removal of ability modifiers to damage; but I can see how some would.

I absolutely love the ability score cap and bounded accuracy. 
Without any type of progression, a Fighter could peak on accuracy at 1st level (as magic items are completely optional).

Do people think that's good or bad, and why? 


It's good, because it assumes a level 20 fighter who peaked at level 1 never boosted his strength ONCE. I wanna meet that guy. Probably an interesting character who would be nearly unplayable in some other versions of the game.




He can't boost his strength if it started at 20.

So the largest attack bonus you could ever get in 5th Ed would be +5.


Fair point. I'm still okay with it, as I think a dude with a STR of 20 @ 1st level is plenty strong. I would imagine he'd just grow as a character in other ways.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
Yes, bounded accuracy is about removing the assumption of increasing bonuses and DCs.

Bounded Accuracy is achieved by choosing the range for total bonuses and final DCs and working backward to keep everything in that range.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

No, it's achieved by not superfluously adding bonuses without regard for the consequences.  You don't work backward, you work forward.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Why not weapons have diferent "proficency bonuses" instead of the class bonus or BAB

Hell, we can go as far to say, weapon gains "proficency bonus" based on the weapon type (blunt,piercing,slashing) against diferent type of target...like attacks against scaled enemies (natural or armor) get +5 if it's piercing, +3 if it's blunt and +1 if it's slashing, hell it would also make diferent type of armor important and desirable as well as weapon.  Also weapons that have diferent "damage type" would have diferent weapon die depending on the "damage type of it", like longsword having 1d8 if decide to do slashing and 1d6 if you decide to go piercing...we could also move the deadly strike from fighter to be based on the weapon type you are trying to do...hell, even have manuevers that based on those type of "attacks" or manuevers that change significant based on the attack type.

This would also means that if a wizard with good STR get prof with a weapon it will be competent with it at a considerable rate as a fighter does with that weapon (thought wizard will lack the manuevers for it)

Hell, i will go as far to say...drop ability score bonuses to attack rolls 
Why?  And why must this be assumed, and always the case for all fighters ever just by virtue of being higher level, instead of taking the form of increases to ability scores or magic enhancements?

What does higher level actually mean in regards to the fighter's chance to hit something in plate?  What about being higher level changes that chance?

I prefer increasing attack bonus because being higher level means being more skilled, statistic increases and magic items are actually unrelated to level of skill. Stat increases are tied to level because it makes good game sense, not beacuse it makes much logical sense. I expect a high level fighter should be able to hit a target more often then a low level character, all other things being equal. In fact, if the game could be easily balanced that way, I would much rather damage was fairly constant and attack bonus was the primary scaling system because that is the primary function of skill. However, Next is scaling much more on damage then previous versions, so I'm thinking about how to make that work while still keeping a reasonable feel that the character is getting better as they go up in level.

Why?  And why must this be assumed, and always the case for all fighters ever just by virtue of being higher level, instead of taking the form of increases to ability scores or magic enhancements?

What does higher level actually mean in regards to the fighter's chance to hit something in plate?  What about being higher level changes that chance?

I prefer increasing attack bonus because being higher level means being more skilled, statistic increases and magic items are actually unrelated to level of skill. Stat increases are tied to level because it makes good game sense, not beacuse it makes much logical sense. I expect a high level fighter should be able to hit a target more often then a low level character, all other things being equal. In fact, if the game could be easily balanced that way, I would much rather damage was fairly constant and attack bonus was the primary scaling system because that is the primary function of skill. However, Next is scaling much more on damage then previous versions, so I'm thinking about how to make that work while still keeping a reasonable feel that the character is getting better as they go up in level.



Except HP already does this. A "hit" isn't a "hit" afterall, but rather a chance to lower HP, which doesn't represent real wounds, but rather the lowered stamina, shaken resolve and diminishing luck of the foe. It's all very abstract from that POV.
The waters are muddy either way from a storytelliong standpoint if we're accounting for HP, AC how DEX and STR factor in and what it means to "hit" someone, but I favor a narrative that makes DMing and playing easier... which I personally think bounded accuracy does, even if I understand where others are coming from.

I mean, if a 1st level fighter and a 10th level fighter both attack the same guy, they don't have an equal chance of "hitting" it in the game, but rather of lowering it's HP which we call a "hit" in the abstraction OF the game. If the 10th level fighter kils in in one hit and the first level guy took 10 hits, I'm not convined the f1st level fighter hit it more than once, but rather took LONGER to hit it.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
I'd be ok with the Attack numbers staying static or increasing VERY slowly over a longer period, but if that were the case I think Fighters (and other weapon-based classes) should start off at +2 at 1st level, moderate weapon-based classes would be +1, and full spellcasting classes would be +0. So by 20th level, a Fighter would be a whopping +5 (assuming a start at +2 then a +1 every 5 levels), +4 for Rogues and Clerics, +3 for Wizards. 

I also like toying with the idea to Weapon proficiency bonuses we saw in 4E. A longsword is just more a more accurate weapon than a Giant club or a bludgeon weapon.  
I prefer increasing attack bonus because being higher level means being more skilled


What does being skilled have to do with attack bonus?  Why is attack bonus the best or only way of representing increasing skill?

I predict your answer will be "because increasing level gave an attack bonus" which is a circular argument.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I prefer increasing attack bonus because being higher level means being more skilled


What does being skilled have to do with attack bonus?  Why is attack bonus the best or only way of representing increasing skill?

I predict your answer will be "because increasing level gave an attack bonus" which is a circular argument.



Well increasing attack rolls helps solve the "Robin Hood Conundrum".  A level 1 and a level 10 archer square off trying to hit a bullseye (AC 15).  The level 1 archer has a +8 to hit while the level 10 archer only a +10.  It feels somewhat odd that the level 10 archer is only slightly better at hitting the bullseye than the level 1 archer.
The base +2/+3 that all classes get actually serves a mathematical purpose: so that monster attack bonuses/AC line up with expected PC attack bonuses/AC, instead of making monsters have low AC and high attack compared to PCs. This is mostly helpful when a PC needs to attack a PC for whatever reason (party in-fighting, or a domination effect). They could have dropped ACs to match a lower attack bonus, or boost the attack bonus to match ACs, and they happened to choose the latter.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

Well increasing attack rolls helps solve the "Robin Hood Conundrum".  A level 1 and a level 10 archer square off trying to hit a bullseye (AC 15).  The level 1 archer has a +8 to hit while the level 10 archer only a +10.  It feels somewhat odd that the level 10 archer is only slightly better at hitting the bullseye than the level 1 archer.


Your analogy is self-defeating, in a way. How much more accurate SHOULD a level 10 character be than a level 1 character? Isn't the effect of a level entirely arbitrary, considering it's strictly a metagame concept? A 10% increase in acurracy is a pretty big deal, overall.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

Well increasing attack rolls helps solve the "Robin Hood Conundrum".  A level 1 and a level 10 archer square off trying to hit a bullseye (AC 15).  The level 1 archer has a +8 to hit while the level 10 archer only a +10.  It feels somewhat odd that the level 10 archer is only slightly better at hitting the bullseye than the level 1 archer.



Simple to solve, the TARGET has an AC15, the damage roll indicates how well you hit the target (i.e. bullseye or outer edge).

Attack roll is "did you hit well enough to do damage".
Damage roll is how well did you hit.

Given this, why in the world would the attack roll indicate where you hit the target rather than the damage roll.

Now, the fact that with bounded accuracy and this model Robin Hood is equally likely to entirely MISS the target as the level 1, and Robin Hood really can't hit anything BUT a bullseye when he does hit are both problems, but the "doesn't do any better" doesn't apply if you have damage or a damage like mechanism indicating quality of success.
I prefer increasing attack bonus because being higher level means being more skilled


What does being skilled have to do with attack bonus?  Why is attack bonus the best or only way of representing increasing skill?

I predict your answer will be "because increasing level gave an attack bonus" which is a circular argument.



Well increasing attack rolls helps solve the "Robin Hood Conundrum".  A level 1 and a level 10 archer square off trying to hit a bullseye (AC 15).  The level 1 archer has a +8 to hit while the level 10 archer only a +10.  It feels somewhat odd that the level 10 archer is only slightly better at hitting the bullseye than the level 1 archer.


Why is the difference between those two archers 9 levels?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Working backwards isn't a bad thing. It let's you realize the ranges of the bonuses you wish to have.

For example. If you want the best AC to be plate+shield or chain shirt+Max Dex+Shield which gives AC 19, you know that you have 19 points to work with.

Subtract +5 for Max. Ability bonus.

That gives you 14 points to work with depending on your desired accuracy.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Yes, it is bad.  You're taking the final specifications, and backtracking to general design choices.  That's the complete wrong way to do it, and will lead to inferior designs, no matter what you're designing.  You start with what you want the thing to do, and go to the specific from there.

In this example, why are you deciding that you want 19 as a target?  Why not 9?  Why not 29?  It's completely arbitrary, and you're then using that arbitrary decision to force lots of other cascaded choices.  Do it with enough different components, and you will inevitably run into conflicts.  Two things demand one parameter have two different values, and then you have a design problem.

No, you should not design like that.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Sign In to post comments