• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Flat Progression, +1 Per Level, or Something Else Poll

What's your preference for attack bonus progression?

  • +1 per level by tables (e.g. D&D 1-3rd Eds)

    Votes: 7 10.4%
  • +1 per level by mechanics (e.g. D&D 4th Ed)

    Votes: 11 16.4%
  • +1 per 2 levels (e.g. +1 to primary ability every level)

    Votes: 7 10.4%
  • +1 per 4 levels (e.g. +1 to primary ability every second level)

    Votes: 15 22.4%
  • +1 per 8 levels (e.g. +1 to primary ability every fourth level)

    Votes: 8 11.9%
  • No progression ever

    Votes: 19 28.4%

  • Total voters
    67

Justin Halliday

Registered User
Validated User
With D&D 5th Edition switching to 'flatter' maths (compared to +1 per level for all other versions of D&D), what is your ideal attack bonus progression rate?

Of course at this stage it's not clear exactly how flat the attack bonuses are in D&D Next, so there are some options.
 

ru

temporary avatar
RPGnet Member
Validated User
The flat progression was the best thing in the playtest, IMO. Slow "indirect" progression via stats is fine, but i quite like the idea of absolute, not relative, values for AC and attack bonuses. caveat: this pre-supposes no scaling magic plusses to items

4e level scaling was fine, if unevenly implemented (ie, you needed to add math feats, stats, 1/2 level + magic plusses to actually get to the magic 1/level figure). given that the monsters were by and large scaled to your level, it was almost irellevant, and just added a lot of maths.

the one place a flat progression will differ is versus over- or under-levelled foes. But i think the difference in hp and damage probably handles that ok. I'm fine with a first level fighter being able to hit an adult dragon, because he's not going to be able to kill it any time soon.
 

Sidney

Registered User
Validated User
Why is 4E listed as +1/level?

The whole table is sort of confusing; it seems to suggest 3.X and 4E's progressions were the same (really "+1/level like 1-3ed" sounds horribly weird).
Then we got several entries of "ability increase to attack bonus increase" which sort of overlap with the rest (in most other systems you get that on top of bab progressions).
 
Last edited:

Justin Halliday

Registered User
Validated User
Why is 4E listed as +1/level?
Because 4th Edition does follow a +1 per level progression, once you take into account the 1/2 Level bonus, the ability score increases, magic items, and feat taxes.

The whole table is sort of confusing; it seems to suggest 3.X and 4E's progressions were the same (really "+1/level like 1-3ed" sounds horribly weird).
True, 3rd Edition probably has a progression of more than +1 per level, once BAB and ability score increases are taken into account.

Then we got several entries of "ability increase to attack bonus increase" which sort of overlap with the rest (in most other systems you get that on top of bab progressions).
These options assume that BAB doesn't exist, as it hasn't since 3.X Edition. The three poll options for slower progression (+1 per 2 levels, +1 per 4 levels, and +1 per 8 levels) provide examples of how that could be achieved, such as through increases to ability scores at different frequencies.
 

Eurhetemec

New member
Banned
I think +1/4 levels sounds about right, personally (though I would do it without stat bumps, myself). I say that as someone who runs and enjoys 4E. I think the +1/2 level combined with the stat bumps means that things scale a little too fast and too far, invalidating lower-level monsters/threats in a rather boring fashion. It's one of 4E's relatively small collection of flaws, for my money.
 

Sage Genesis

Two
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Attack bonus for who, exactly? A rogue's attack bonus in 3e certainly wasn't the same as a fighter's, but the poll seems to assume they're the same thing?

This is not an irrelevant question either. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 5e's fighters are going to receive more accuracy than other classes as they level.
 

Eurhetemec

New member
Banned
Attack bonus for who, exactly? A rogue's attack bonus in 3e certainly wasn't the same as a fighter's, but the poll seems to assume they're the same thing?

This is not an irrelevant question either. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 5e's fighters are going to receive more accuracy than other classes as they level.
I, on the other hand, would be surprised if they receiving significantly more accuracy. They are not, by any means, the class that needs it most, due to having multiple attacks and so on. Missing is un-fun for all classes. It's particularly un-fun when you lose a resource, or miss after rounds of setup. If anything, Fighters with multiple attacks should probably be equally or less accurate than other classes.
 

Justin Halliday

Registered User
Validated User
Attack bonus for who, exactly? A rogue's attack bonus in 3e certainly wasn't the same as a fighter's, but the poll seems to assume they're the same thing?

This is not an irrelevant question either. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 5e's fighters are going to receive more accuracy than other classes as they level.
The assumption is that every class is the best at what it does, with roughly equivalent attack bonuses in their own specialty.

Looking at D&D Next, Fighters get +6 to their melee attacks, Clerics and Wizards get +6 to magic attacks, Rogues get +5 to melee and ranged attacks. It's hard to tell how the Rogue's attack bonuses are calculated, but it might be a trade-off off in their ability scores (balancing Dexterity and Strength, for example).
 

Sage Genesis

Two
RPGnet Member
Validated User
I, on the other hand, would be surprised if they receiving significantly more accuracy. They are not, by any means, the class that needs it most, due to having multiple attacks and so on. Missing is un-fun for all classes. It's particularly un-fun when you lose a resource, or miss after rounds of setup. If anything, Fighters with multiple attacks should probably be equally or less accurate than other classes.
I agree entirely with this analysis and come to the same conclusion: Fighters won't need any additional accuracy over other classes. And because of that, I think Fighters in Next are going to get additional accuracy over other classes.


The assumption is that every class is the best at what it does, with roughly equivalent attack bonuses in their own specialty.
But the rogue is (theoretically) best at skills, not combat. Look at any pre-4e edition and you'll see that fighters are more accurate than rogues. So why do you assume a similar progression for all classes?


Looking at D&D Next, Fighters get +6 to their melee attacks, Clerics and Wizards get +6 to magic attacks, Rogues get +5 to melee and ranged attacks. It's hard to tell how the Rogue's attack bonuses are calculated, but it might be a trade-off off in their ability scores (balancing Dexterity and Strength, for example).
The bonuses classes have at level 1 are irrelevant to how they will scale. Take a look at AD&D2e: they both start with a thac0 of 20, but the fighter ends up 10 points ahead of the rogue. To many old school fans, this is only right and proper. So again, I don't understand why your poll assumes uniform progression for 5e when there's only been one prior edition where this was the case.
 

Justin Halliday

Registered User
Validated User
I agree entirely with this analysis and come to the same conclusion: Fighters won't need any additional accuracy over other classes. And because of that, I think Fighters in Next are going to get additional accuracy over other classes.

But the rogue is (theoretically) best at skills, not combat. Look at any pre-4e edition and you'll see that fighters are more accurate than rogues. So why do you assume a similar progression for all classes?

The bonuses classes have at level 1 are irrelevant to how they will scale. Take a look at AD&D2e: they both start with a thac0 of 20, but the fighter ends up 10 points ahead of the rogue. To many old school fans, this is only right and proper. So again, I don't understand why your poll assumes uniform progression for 5e when there's only been one prior edition where this was the case.
The question is what you'd prefer. If your preference isn't accurately represented within the options presented, just write it in a post.

BTW, it looks like the Rogue's attacks don't make a distinction between melee and ranged attacks (weirdly), and the +5 attack bonus is derived from +2 for proficiency, +3 for dexterity mod (using a finesse weapon), which is the equivalent of the Fighter's bonus.
 
Top Bottom