To-Hit Bonus Comparison, Multiple d20 Systems

[Necron 99]

While reading through some PDFs, I got curious as to the differences between some of the more common d20 systems and decided to do a comparison of the base To-Hit bonuses for the four basic classes.

AD&D definitely has the slower/lower combat progression than the others. 5E has the same progression regardless of class. DCC and 3.5 mirror each other up until reaching 8th level except where the Fighter is concerned and DCC is using a die, instead of a static modifier. C&C has a similar progression as 3.5 and DCC until 3rd level and then slows progression, except Fighter. It's also interesting to see that in 3.5 and DCC, Cleric and Thief both have the same progression modifiers, where as C&C gives Thieves a slower progression than the Cleric. The Trolls need to give the Thief a face lift, it's lagging behind even compared to the AD&D thief.

Personally, I like the steadier progression in 3.5, but the combative power of the Magic-User and Thief compared to AD&D is a pretty big upscale. I also think the Cleric and Thief should have similar progressions, allowing the Fighters to have the highest/fastest and Magic-User the slowest, it just makes sense to me. 5E is just flat out boring and doesn't make any sense. Why all of the classes have the same progression, idk, but it seems like a terrible way to design the game.

[Ancalagon]

An extra nugget for the discussion: In the Lamentations of the Flame Princess (LotFP) game, only fighters increase in combat ability (BtH number or whatever the term is). Fighters fight. Clerics spread the faith and grow in power (spells, turning undead), Wizards focus on magic and grow in power (spells) and "Specialists" have a wide variety of skills they develop. I like the concept but have not used it or know anyone who has.

[Captain_Blood]

I have no problem with the C&C progression. The thief is only slightly weaker than the Cleric. Clerics have always been more akin to Knights Templar to me than straight priests. Hence they are slightly worse at combat than a fighter, but have great support magics. Thieves are supposed to focus on not getting in close unless it's a sneak attack. They know what they're doing, but it's not their focus. As for magic users, well they get fireball and lightning bolt which is enough to down an adult dragon on its own at level 10+. Imaginative use of spells, even level one spells, can make a magic user truly terrifying if the DM has any appreciation for the dramatic and creativity.

[grodog]

While reading through some PDFs, I got curious as to the differences between some of the more common d20 systems and decided to do a comparison of the base To-Hit bonuses for the four basic classes.

Nice, thanks Jay!

Personally, I like the steadier progression in 3.5,

I’ve played with the “5% principle” at times over the years, inspired by the 1e DMG note and Lenard Lakofka’s “New Charts, Using the '5%' Principle" from Dragon #80. And while I like the idea in theory and in practice, I think that’s
it’s also the beginning of a slippery slope that leads to more stat inflation and rules bloat, since the To Hit ability doesn’t go up for every class at every new level, which leads to thinking like, “well, what can we do to make leveling fun at every level” (again, not a bad idea…), and the introduction of feats and skills to fill some of that gap (again, not necessarily a poor choice…), but then when you go back to the fighter you’re like, “well, now everyone eventually get multiple attacks, so what can we do to get fighters back to par?” and then all of this necessitates boosting the power of monsters, spells, and magic items too. A vicious cycle.

In my mind, eventually that design cycle leads to a lot more bloat, particularly in the combat system, as new skills/fears require a more-granular and tactical combat system to support the added complexities. The road to one combat per game session is paved with good intentions….

And that’s not to say that don’t like some of the rules additions from later editions, either: I am very fond of metamagic feats and specialist MUs and clerics in concept, and prestige classes are the obvious and natural evolution of the bard and thief-acrobat. Trying to bring some of those concepts into 1e’s simpler, less-tightly balanced system can definitely be worthwhile.

but the combative power of the Magic-User and Thief compared to AD&D is a pretty big upscale.

I also think the Cleric and Thief should have similar progressions, allowing the Fighters to have the highest/fastest and Magic-User the slowest, it just makes sense to me. 5E is just flat out boring and doesn't make any sense. Why all of the classes have the same progression, idk, but it seems like a terrible way to design the game.

That’s just a different design set of goals and priorities, and aligns in part with the cultural agenda, I think: all of the PC classes, races, and other options should be equal so that all players can have the same equal chance of fun, success, and to contribute to the game successes. Again, not a bad ideal, but by requiring higher-level fighters and MUs to be able to deal out the same damage in a single round, the entire suite of system mechanics and game focus pivots to combat, and boosting all of the other classes to make them comparable to MUs further exacerbated combat as the central activity of game play. (Aside: I think that the low-magic nature of many OSR settings and systems is grounded in part in that design desire to simplify—it’s easier to scale downward by reducing the MU class capabilities than to scale up the rest of the others).

Allan.

[Necron 99]

<snip> it’s also the beginning of a slippery slope that leads to more stat inflation and rules bloat

In my mind, eventually that design cycle leads to a lot more bloat, particularly in the combat system, as new skills/fears require a more-granular and tactical combat system to support the added complexities. The road to one combat per game session is paved with good intentions…. <snip>

Allan.

Agreed on all points Allan, the very nature of adjusting the system, removing mechanics, or adding house rules, can in many cases, cause more hindrance than help.

I can't recall if I posted about this in a thread already, I may or may not have, but I remember reading an article or post some time back from who I think was an old-guard TSR (Jim Ward maybe?). Anyhow, in the article/post it mentioned that the reason characters in old-school D&D didn't have inflated stats or stat bonuses, was because the game wasn't focused on the characters (unlike modern D&D), it was focused on the adventures and the characters becoming more powerful by succeeding in those adventures to gain useful items, magic, and artifacts that in turn, make them more powerful. The explanation went on to say that if the PCs already have +10 to hit and damage based solely on stats, then what good is finding a +1, +2, or +3 magic weapon?

Those magic weapons should be the reason why the PCs are extraordinary, not because they themselves are. It should be amazing and exciting for a player to find/earn a magic items that boosts their character.

It was good argument for maintaining lower stats and bonuses, in my opinion, and one that I think holds true.