D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[Zardnaar]

The problem woth iterative attacls was not the design intend. The problem was the execition and lack of advice. I bet a lot of money (10ct or so) that the intend was that AC of enemies does not go up by level and your last attach should have about 40 to 60 percent chamce to hit. And at level 20 your first attack should nearly always hit. At least with a moderate amoount of magic items and maybe a buff spell.

3.0 balors (CR 18) only had 30AC.

At level 18, with 20 natural strength, a +3 sword, a +4 str item and weapon expertise, you are looking at a total attacl bonus of +14. Not quite 50% to hit, but 30%. All without a single buff. And really only mediocre items. Add in flanking and you are looking at 40%. Your primary attack is an auto hit.

The problem was that DMs were not used to have that hight chances of hitting. (Although fighters in AD&D should also hotnquite reliably at that level... but who played a charaxter that far?
So the solution was buffing up AC... and 3.5 floowed the trend in general.

3.0 the monsters were glass cans. I think they took the 2E ones and added ability scores.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

3.0 the monsters were glass cans. I think they took the 2E ones and added ability scores.

But that was a way better state than the 3.5 ones.
In 3.5 damage became rather useless compared to disables. Which hit martials way harder than spellcasters.