BAB progression in different Versions of DnD

[Jorunkun]

Sorry, I am lazy.

Has anybody got a link to a side by side comparison of how BAB scales with level in the different versions of DnD?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sorry, I am lazy.

Has anybody got a link to a side by side comparison of how BAB scales with level in the different versions of DnD?

BAB is only a thing, per se, in 3e. So no.

I won't comment about pre-3e editions, but for 4e and 5e, attack bonuses scale as:

4e: stat modifier + 1/2 level (+ magic items, feats, etc)
5e: stat modifier (max +5[1]) + proficiency[2] + other modifiers

[1] except for level 20 barbarians or the effects of a few items. +10 at an absolute max.
[2] starts at +2, increases by 1 every 4 levels (5, 9, 13, 17) to a max of +6

So a top-level 4e character would have at least a +20 modifier (probably much much more)--15 from level, 5 from bonus. But likely a +30 or so total. Edit: Orcus (a level 33 boss monster) has an AC of 48. So to face him you're looking at needing a +38-40 total bonus.

A top-level 5e character has (without magic items) a +11 bonus (+6 proficiency, +5 modifier), and basically a cap of +14 with top-level magic items (+3 is cap).

Note: in neither of these editions is this class-specific. Everybody scales the same way. No more "high/medium/low BAB" classes.

[Jorunkun]

Thanks, Phoenix. That's essentially what I was looking for, appreciate it.

[nonsi]

A top-level 5e character has (without magic items) a +11 bonus (+6 proficiency, +5 modifier), and basically a cap of +14 with top-level magic items (+3 is cap).

Note: in neither of these editions is this class-specific. Everybody scales the same way. No more "high/medium/low BAB" classes.

I think that only combat classes get their proficiency bonus to attack rolls.

[georgie_leech]

I think that only combat classes get their proficiency bonus to attack rolls.

Everyone gets their proficiency bonus to attacks rolls... assuming they're proficient in the weapon they're using. Otherwise no proficiency for you.

[nonsi]

Everyone gets their proficiency bonus to attacks rolls... assuming they're proficient in the weapon they're using. Otherwise no proficiency for you.

Thanks for the clarification.
Offtopic....... Funny, every time I wonder how things work in 5e and then find out the answer, I like 5e less and less.

[JNAProductions]

Thanks for the clarification.
Offtopic....... Funny, every time I wonder how things work in 5e and then find out the answer, I like 5e less and less.

Why is that in this case?

[nonsi]

Why is that in this case?

A level 17 wiz having better attack rolls than a level 16 fighter. At least on paper.

[Nifft]

A level 17 wiz having better attack rolls than a level 16 fighter. At least on paper.

If the Wizard has 20 Str like the Fighter, then sure.

But the Wizard probably does not have 20 Str.

[JNAProductions]

A level 17 wiz having better attack rolls than a level 16 fighter. At least on paper.

So, a more experienced and combat-savvy character has better attack rolls (in their chosen specialty) than a less experienced character?

And, as Nifft points out, they only have better attack rolls with weapons if they have the same score in the relevant stat, and what they forgot to mention was that they ALSO need proficiency in the right weapon. So a greatsword-toting Wizard will be one hell of a lot less accurate than a lower level Fighter toting a greatsword.

[Jorunkun]

A level 17 wiz having better attack rolls than a level 16 fighter. At least on paper.

I have the same reaction, but I think this is a holdover from evaluating things in the context of older editions. Yes, the wizard has a +1 advantage, but only with simple weapons that don't do much damage. But the fighter's to hit also benefits from class abilities. Also, the wizard is unlikely to have a STR bonus, while the fighter is likely to have +4 or more by that level. In a paradigm where characters were rolled, this might be different, but since most tables now play builds with point buy or array choice, you (sadly) hardly ever see strong wizards (or intelligent fighters) anymore.

Newer games like PF2 and Shadow of the Demon Lord go so far as to make attribute increases part of the class choice or progression. Not sure I like this either, but I guess this is the way the wind is blowing.

[MoleMage]

A level 17 wiz having better attack rolls than a level 16 fighter. At least on paper.

This isn't strictly speaking true. The fighter will have better Str than the Wizard's Str/Dex, is more likely to have a magic weapon, has access to better weapons, and most importantly gets to make 3 attacks per round compared to the wizard's 1.

Fighters also get a bunch of weapon-related features (like damage bonuses or increased crit chance) that the wizard doesn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also, "attack modifier" includes spell attacks, which a 17th level wizard darn well better be better at than a level 16 fighter. Because he's using his mind, not his muscles for that.

In 4e at least, everything was an attack vs an appropriate defense. There were no saving throw DCs. So having unified attack scaling made total sense. In 5e it also makes sense, but for a different reason. The mechanics are unified enough that an Attack roll is always the same thing: 1d20 + MOD + Proficiency (if available). That's actually the same for any success/failure roll made:

* Attacks
* Saving throws
* Ability checks

all use the same pattern. No more remembering what's what or how it scales. This makes it much easier to play, IMO.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I have the same reaction, but I think this is a holdover from evaluating things in the context of older editions. Yes, the wizard has a +1 advantage, but only with simple weapons that don't do much damage. But the fighter's to hit also benefits from class abilities. Also, the wizard is unlikely to have a STR bonus, while the fighter is likely to have +4 or more by that level. In a paradigm where characters were rolled, this might be different, but since most tables now play builds with point buy or array choice, you (sadly) hardly ever see strong wizards (or intelligent fighters) anymore.

Pretty much this, yeah. 5e's combat doesn't do much scaling by attack bonus; it's all about the damage. Martial types like the Fighter get to make more attacks with more significant extra effects; caster types like the Wizard get more powerful spells.

[Knaight]

A level 17 wiz having better attack rolls than a level 16 fighter. At least on paper.

Even on paper not really - there's a decent chance the fighter has another +2 from a class feature, and they're vastly more likely to land a hit than the wizard even if their attack roll is lower - that wizard gets a whole one attack, the fighter gets 3. Even assuming equal ability scores the fighter is more likely to hit against every AC.

In general the combat system works well and largely as one would expect, minus occasional points of weirdness - the scaling is pretty backwards from my own preferences (where HP/damage increase is nonexistent to negligible but skill variance is high). It's a very refined combat engine - and when the simplification process tied non combat skills to that combat engine that's where problems started cropping up in a big way.

[nonsi]

So, a more experienced and combat-savvy character has better attack rolls (in their chosen specialty) than a less experienced character?

And, as Nifft points out, they only have better attack rolls with weapons if they have the same score in the relevant stat, and what they forgot to mention was that they ALSO need proficiency in the right weapon. So a greatsword-toting Wizard will be one hell of a lot less accurate than a lower level Fighter toting a greatsword.

I get what you're saying, but with enough buffs, debuffs and gear, a wizard could potentially erase a fighter's advantage entirely.

[nonsi]

Yes, the wizard has a +1 advantage, but only with simple weapons that don't do much damage.

Ok, but what if that high level wizard had a kickass magical dagger that made every hit result in dire consequences? (assuming such weapon in possible in 5e)

In a paradigm where characters were rolled, this might be different, but since most tables now play builds with point buy or array choice, you (sadly) hardly ever see strong wizards (or intelligent fighters) anymore.

That's actually a problem in all game systems I've seen. The only exception I can think of ATM is the ToB Warblade - where you have to be a potential nuclear physicist to put its class features to decent use. There was no reason not to allow a Wis-based (combat intuition) or Cha-based (gracefulness) Warblade.
The problem with all game systems I've examined is that there's no ability score redundancy, so you don't have alternatives of utilizing you character-build resources in unorthodox ways w/o shooting yourself in the leg.

Newer games like PF2 and Shadow of the Demon Lord go so far as to make attribute increases part of the class choice or progression. Not sure I like this either, but I guess this is the way the wind is blowing.

I actually like it a lot. It means that characters improve more by practice and dedication, and need to rely less on gear to make them awesome.
Also, PF2 did one thing right: critical success and critical failure that's worked out into the system. It makes a lot of sense and it makes the game a lot more dynamic.

[nonsi]

In general the combat system works well and largely as one would expect, minus occasional points of weirdness - the scaling is pretty backwards from my own preferences (where HP/damage increase is nonexistent to negligible but skill variance is high). It's a very refined combat engine - and when the simplification process tied non combat skills to that combat engine that's where problems started cropping up in a big way.

Yes. When things don't scale autonomously, any new factor can break the system.
Also, I'm all for unification and simplification - subject to common sense. I see no reason to put attack rolls, saving throws and skill checks into the same bag. That separation makes it easy (for me at least) to glance at a class' table and make a decent assessment of its out-of-the-box combat efficiency. As for skills and some other stuff....... this article explains why 3e did such a great job with them.

[Knaight]

Ok, but what if that high level wizard had a kickass magical dagger that made every hit result in dire consequences? (assuming such weapon in possible in 5e).

They'll still be worse than the Fighter, because the fighter gets to make three times as many attacks. The absolute best case scenario for relative utility for the Wizard is that they hit on a 19-20 and the Fighter only hits on a 20, at which point the Wizard still only gets a 10% chance to hit instead of a 12.5% chance to hit, with expected hits of 0.1 to 0.15.

Yes. When things don't scale autonomously, any new factor can break the system.

Games have been using common scales very effectively for a good long time, and systems break all the time under the weight of offset scaling features coming together poorly. What happened with 5e was more D&D's focus as a combat engine getting in the way of things less focused on - which also routinely happened in prior editions.

It's also a case where closer link would actually have helped here. An analog to extra attacks for skill checks quickly produces heightened efficacy even across the same small bonus scale.

As for skills and some other stuff....... this article explains why 3e did such a great job with them.

Ugh, that article again. It's a mix of blatant cherry picking and the ability to claim a wide enough range of things seem reasonable that you can basically stick that on anything not completely warped, then look at how often that's been done and claim that it makes the system some paragon of design.

Meanwhile hilariously glaring flaws (e.g. the penalty systems attached to spot and listen that make the perception system collapse if used outside of a tiny window) are largely ignored. On top of that some of the background calculations never shown are also hilarious - most people having straight 10-11 for six stats works exceptionally poorly as an assumption when the few stats that actually have real units attached (e.g. strength, via carrying capacity) map to fairly high population variation.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I get what you're saying, but with enough buffs, debuffs and gear, a wizard could potentially erase a fighter's advantage entirely.

I mean... yes, a Wizard who invests the majority of their resources into being a martial combatant will be fairly competent. You can dedicate your Archetype (Bladesinger), ASIs (Higher investment in Dex, Tough, War Caster, etc), and most of your spell slots (Shield, Shadow Blade, Haste, etc) to hitting things with a sword, and lo! You'll be pretty good at hitting things with a sword. Somewhere around equal to the Fighter, maybe even, albeit with different specialties (the Bladesinger will likely be harder to hit; the Fighter will probably do more damage). That's a flexible level-based system working as designed.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think that only combat classes get their proficiency bonus to attack rolls.

I'll note that there are systems that do this, including one BD&D retroclone, but they generally work under a different set of assumptions to D&D (either combat is less important, or an AC better than a 1st level character with straight 10s can hit is discouraged). They work fairly well as long as they aren't being used as endless combat simulators (yes, even LotFP).

As for skills and some other stuff....... this article explains why 3e did such a great job with them.

Oh good, cherry picking. I like the casual brushing off of critiques about hit points despite 3.5 carrying over the hilarious implementation of earlier editions (hp aren't meat while you're losing them, but are when you're regaining them). Also, in my experience your average door is sturdy enough to not break 40% of the time it's hit, although I'll admit I've never kicked one at full capacity so maybe I've not seen how flimsy they are. Still fairly certain most doors are bypassed with tools rather than kicks.

This breakdown of encumbrence is surprisingly good, although going by a breakdown I'd say that a modern set of clothing is about three pounds (9), a laptop would be about five pounds these days for a heavy one, so seven isn't that bad an estimate (9+7=14), and a novel would probably weigh about a pound for a heavy novel, so another two (14+2=16lbs). Add in two pounds for the bag (16+2=18), a pound for toiletries (18+1=19), maybe two pounds for a warm coat or similar measures (19+2=21), a pound for wallet+cash+cards+ticket(s) (21+1=22), and say a pound for writing materials and other stationary (22+1=23). We throw on some 'effective' pounds for inefficient carry and some more as a margin of error and it could be either a light or medium load.

Note that the end result is roughly the same as LotFP and it's simple tally (most items are +1 encumbrence, every seven points of encumbrence is a level of encumbrence, penalties start at level 2 [level 3 for dwarfs], especially light items don't count unless in bundles of 50 or more, especially heavy or awkward items count as two, mail or plate adds whole levels of encumbrence), just with a lot more maths. Which is essentially the reason people have homebrewed slot-based inventories into D&D since forever.

The breakdown of potential bonuses by level is good, although everything will be subjective here. I personally find this bit pretty good at modelling reality, but it ignores the other 90% of skills (the ones you'll be rolling 95% of the time you're making a skill roll). The discussion of jumping feels very much like this skill was cherry picked because it fits the story being told.

Ah, the age old Aragorn bit. He does actually make a good point here, although I should point out that in any piece of literature you can cherry pick examples to set a character's power level. I'd say most orcs in LotR are probably 1st level Fighters or 2nd level Warriors, but it's an age since I've read the books so they might not actually be better than your standard human soldier, which means that we could concievably bump Aragorn to 7th or 8th level, possibly higher in 5e. Note that these days I don't see the exact discussions he's mentioning any more, it's somewhat agreed that a 20th level character is closer to Thor than Aragorn, and discussions seem to be more if we should put a work of fiction's 'best warrior ever' in the ~5 range or the ~11 range.

Still, at least it isn't Ivory Tower Design (which does have a few good points, but is a bad thing overall). Although a lot of that would have been solved if certain choices were explicitly marked as situational, which would have solved a good deal of traps from luring players in (although not all of them).

[Roderick_BR]

A level 17 wiz having better attack rolls than a level 16 fighter. At least on paper.

I don't really see the problem. Sure, said wizard, if he has better stats, will have a better to-hit roll... but none of the fighter's other abilities, like high AC, better hit points, and several SLI/feats, and several combat-oriented abilities that helps him staying alive.

Why would a 17th level want to attack with a weapon anyway? Even only his cantrips and level 1~2 level spells are way better for his day-to-day routine.

Like, a wizard at 17th level, facing a 17th level threat, is gonna pull out his quarterstaff and run towards a monster?

Plus it's fun to imagine an experienced wizard slaping a younger fighter in the head with his staff.

Now, back on topic:
In AD&D, we had THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class Zero), that was the predecessor of the BAB mechanic, and is literally just the opposite. Like, an unarmored character starts at AC 10, and with full plate+shield he'd be at AC 0 (the smaller, the better). To attack him, someone would have to roll the d20 plus modifiers (strength/dexterity, magic, etc). Then add the result to the target's AC (the higher, the better for the attacker, remember), and finally check if the result was equal or higher than the character's THAC0, given in a table based on their class/level (starting at 20, and going down as you level up).

Yeah, good thing someone figured it was pretty much doing double negatives and created BAB.

edit: I may have it off, so I'll have to re-check it.

[HouseRules]

OD&D - Before AD&D and Holmes' D&D

Level Group	Equivalent	Tier of Play
Fighter 1-3, Cleric 1-4, Thief 1-4, Magic-User 1-5	+0	Mundane
Fighter 4-6, Cleric 5-8, Thief 5-8, Magic-User 6-10	+3	Heroic
Fighter 7-9, Cleric 9-12, Thief 9-12, Magic-User 11-15	+6	Superheroic
Fighter 10-12, Cleric 13-16, Thief 13-16, Magic-User 16+	+9	Epic
Fighter 13-15, Cleric 17+, Thief 17+	+12
Fighter 16+	+15

At first, each group is supposed to be 3 HD, but for some reason, the Magic-User is only 2.5 HD when Gygax sees that Level 5 Magic User have 3 Hit Dice.

[raygun goth]

A level 17 wiz having better attack rolls than a level 16 fighter. At least on paper.

Having played several straight years of 5e with two campaigns going from 1 - 20, I can tell you that it only looks that way on paper.

In practice, my mages had so little use for melee weaponry that I honestly just skipped them entirely. The fighters and the barbarian, on the other hand, well. The barbarian was nearly impossible to hurt, the fighter had a boatload of attacks and ways to get advantage on most of them, and carrier effects on almost all of them. Even if I had picked up the fighter's magic sword, I'd have been far worse off than if I just cast a spell instead.

[nonsi]

.

See, this seems to me like an odd opinion considering you feel 3.5 did this better (I disagree). In 3.5 with all classes having a BAB progression means a high level wizard who has never touched a sword and is unproficient is better or as good with it than a low level fighter who trained with sword fighting.

With a 10 Strength, a level 20 Wizard has a +6 to attack with a longsword they're not proficient with...

While a level 1 fighter with 18 strength and Weapon Focus (longsword) would also have a +6.

The wizard has an iterative attack btw.

5e does this better because a wizard won't get any better with a longsword unless they actually train with it (ie, get proficiency) and certainly won't get extra attacks.

Well, even the most equipped mage finds himself ever so often using actual martial combat weapons.
A level 20 Wizard is someone who's gone through a hell of a lot of fights.
So, a level 20 Wizard with an improvised weapon standing on equal grounds with an optimized 1^st level fighters that had just stepped off the conveyor belt seems exactly right to me. The former had decades of actual combat practice while the latter had none.
The wizard's more inferior weapon puts them both on even grounds.

OTOH, in a non-munchkin game, there's no way in the nine hells that a level 20 wizard can equalize a level 20 fighter.
It can't happen even on paper.


About iteratives – I'll share my perspective.
I view iterative attack rolls to be something that represents deep combat experience, which leads to understanding of how to make more opportunities to squeeze more attacks out of your combat turn.
The first attack, made at your highest attack bonus, is the regular attack that everybody knows how to take.
Each iterative attack stands for a diminished opportunity of positioning yourself on the battlefield to even make a swing – hence the diminished attack roll.

On the flip side, a wizard with high strength and proficiency with a sword deserves to be able to use that sword well since they have trained for its use.

And indeed, a level 20 wizard w/ proficiency is superior to a level 1 fighter. No need to check, trust me on this one.

Even factoring in buff spells, 5e does this better since the Wizard can only have one Concentration spell up at a time while the 3.5 wizard can have every buff they can cast on.

That house rule is actually part of my overhaul project.

Oh, do you have a link for that? I'm in the camp of "crit fails are actually the worst thing ever" (seriously, I've left games before when I realized the DM's "hilarious and super fun I promise" crit fail houserules were in use) but I wouldn't mind finding an implementation that actually works, if possible.

Hare you go.

[JNAProductions]

Tautologies are great!

I mean, if you consider a Wizard who’s a better fighter than a fighter to be a munchkin, and exclude munchkins, of COURSE fighters are better fighters than wizards.

But it’s not hard to make a Wizard out fight a fighter.

[Knaight]

Oh, do you have a link for that? I'm in the camp of "crit fails are actually the worst thing ever" (seriously, I've left games before when I realized the DM's "hilarious and super fun I promise" crit fail houserules were in use) but I wouldn't mind finding an implementation that actually works, if possible.

They're not really critical fails, for all they use the terminology - it's more a standard minor/major success/failure system that you see a lot in non-D&D systems, with more D&D nomenclature. These systems routinely work well, while critical failure systems routinely are terrible.

[nonsi]

I'm not disputing any of that. My point is that if you dislike that sort of thing, it's odd that you find 3.5 superior in this respect since it is a far worse offender than 5e.

For the record, your opinions are valid and your own. I have no problem if you don't like 5e. I'm just trying to understand your perspective, since it seems at odds with the reasons you've given.

Thank you

3.5e says that a level 20 wizard outperforms a level 1 fighter at fighting. That makes perfect sense due to the huge gap in combat experience.

5e says that a level 20 wizard has the same inherent attack bonuses as a level 20 fighter, given that both of them are proficient with their weapon of choice. That doesn't add up because there's nothing that a wizard hones less than martial combat while there's nothing that a fighter hones more than martial combat.
And it doesn't matter to me that the 5e Fighter class has plenty of supporting features to give it an overall higher total damage output. Both of them having the same chances of nailing a hit on a single attack roll at their highest level is too much of a stretch for me.

But that's definitely not the only reason why I choose 3.5e over 5e.

Which makes it even more baffling why you don't like 5e.

Preferring system A over system B doesn't mean that system B doesn't have good qualities. It just means that in the big picture system A is more appealing to you.

Ever since the days that I played BECMI D&D, I had an intuition of how I felt the perfect RPG should look like. I've found 3.5e to be the infrastructure for defining that perfect RPG (for me at least), advancing to an asymptote.
From what I've seen, it is impossible for me to reach a similar result with 5e.

[raygun goth]

3.5e says that a level 20 wizard outperforms a level 1 fighter at fighting. That makes perfect sense due to the huge gap in combat experience.

Well, a wizard is always better than the fighter at fighting in 3.5, especially since the wizard can be as good as, if not better than, the fighter with a single spell (note: the wizard won't be using one spell, they just could).

However, this is not the same argument as

5e says that a level 20 wizard has the same inherent attack bonuses as a level 20 fighter, given that both of them are proficient with their weapon of choice. That doesn't add up because there's nothing that a wizard hones less than martial combat while there's nothing that a fighter hones more than martial combat.

This.

You're ignoring the fact that the fighter is better at fighting here in favor of looking solely at the numb...

And it doesn't matter to me that the 5e Fighter class has plenty of supporting features to give it an overall higher total damage output. Both of them having the same chances of nailing a hit on a single attack roll at their highest level is too much of a stretch for me.

Ah, I see. If you ignore the parts that actually make your argument wrong, then that makes sense.

But is it really?

Let's take a look.

Wizard won't go in for Strength, might go in for Dexterity. Lucky for our wizard, four out of the five (five!) weapons it's proficient with use Dexterity. Though, there's very few ways to push that during play. Assuming no magic items, the wizard could potentially come up with some ability score increases for Dexterity. So a wizard might respectably get +11 to hit with a weapon at level 20. But they're only making one attack. And they won't really be attaching many carriers or have supporting features.

Fighter, depending on if they're going Dexterity and finesse or heavy armor and Strength, the fighter can come up with a +13 (for a ranged weapon), but yeah, for the most part, the fighter can also expect, without magic, to have a +11 attack roll. But hold on! Our 20th level fighter gets to do that four times. So it's more like +11/+11/+11/+11. Assuming boring old Champion, the fighter also automatically critically hits on an 18-20 (Samurai, instead, could make five attacks, or get advantage - and therefore essentially ~+4, on all of them). So the superior numbers are there, you're just not looking for them.

You can't not factor in class features. Those are the things that define what a fighter is. That's like trying to figure out which is better at being ice cream - a pound of cheese, or pound of ice cream. They're both food and they both weigh the same and they both use about the same amount of milk, so what's the difference?

Ever since the days that I played BECMI D&D, I had an intuition of how I felt the perfect RPG should look like. I've found 3.5e to be the infrastructure for defining that perfect RPG (for me at least), advancing to an asymptote.

From what I've seen, it is impossible for me to reach a similar result with 5e.

Well, as someone who's been playing and running 5e for four straight years now, I can tell you that a wizard and a fighter play very differently and use very different tools from each other at almost every level of play.

As for "perfect RPGs?" There isn't one, and it's very likely that nobody has a magical sense of what one is - just the one that works for them. For me, Cortex+/Prime comes pretty close. I know some people who swear by FATE and my roommate loves Chronicles of Darkness for some reason.

If 3.5 works for you, by all means, go for it.

[georgie_leech]

5e says that a level 20 wizard has the same inherent attack bonuses as a level 20 fighter, given that both of them are proficient with their weapon of choice. That doesn't add up because there's nothing that a wizard hones less than martial combat while there's nothing that a fighter hones more than martial combat.
And it doesn't matter to me that the 5e Fighter class has plenty of supporting features to give it an overall higher total damage output. Both of them having the same chances of nailing a hit on a single attack roll at their highest level is too much of a stretch for me.

And yet, in 3.5, a Level 11 Wizard has something a Level 4 Fighter lacks: Extra Attacks.They're on the same scale, wherein more BaB = more attacks. in 5e, it doesn't matter what level the Wizard is, they will never have the 5th level Fighter Feature of a second attack on their Attack action. Rather than a clear victor, it seems more like a trade off.