In D&D versions Original to 3.5, the ability to hit your opponent varies from class to class (i.e. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard). The classes in 5th edition all seem to have the same basic attack adjustments from proficiency at every level (not counting ability score adjustment, skill expertise or racial adjustments).
This seems to be a major departure from previous editions, so I'm not sure if I'm reading it right or missing something major.
Do all character classes really get the same attack adjustments? Is there something in the rules that I am missing? Unless a wizard specifically focuses on using a specific weapon, I would have assumed fighting classes would be inherently better at hitting their target. As far as spell targeting, that makes sense, but not for physical combat.
Just to be clear, I am in no way criticizing the rules. I am just trying to understand how it all fits together.
All classes have proficiency in several simple weapons (Dagger, Dart, Sling, Quarterstaff, and light crossbows). With these weapons, all classes have the same proficiency bonus. I am purposely not considering ability scores to compare against previous edition. In previous editions, even with proficiency, there was a difference in ability to hit between classes.
Is this understanding correct? Is there something else that accounts for the differences, like combat tables or class combat adjustments?
It just seems that there is no basic combat difference between classes, other than ability scores and specialty skills, and I find that surprising enough to think I'm missing something.
Best Answer
Dale M's answer is pretty much the one I would have given, but I'll try to add clarification based on the comments from his answer.
On a single attack, a wizard and a fighter of equal stats and features have similar chances to hit. But it doesn't matter because a fighter will still be a better fighter than a wizard will be. It also raises the point that the wizard shouldn't have the same stats and features after level 1.
This is related to the change in philosophy of 5E: the number in the attack doesn't grow that much, but more interesting tools and tricks make the difference between a good fighter and wannabe-fighter. Example include sneak attack, battlemaster's maneuver, bonus action extra attack, conditional extra damage (ex. the ranger's colossus slayer).
How is a fighter's training shown in the mechanics?
A fighter's training doesn't appear as bigger to-hit number. It appears as extra attack, more HP, fighting style (the fighter goes beyond blindly hitting things), more reliable crits, combat related feats, more efficient offhand attacks...
Bonus attacks, fighting style, feats, stat boosts are not new to 5E, but they still make a difference when it comes to actually hitting. They actually make more of a difference because the base numbers are closer. And then add more damage once an attack does hit.
I will ask the reverse question
If a wizard and fighter have equal experience in fighting (aka they are level 1 and have never seen a real fight), why should the fighter have more chance to hit? They only ever had basic training experience. Or at least even the fighter may have never seen a real combat. While the wizard may at least know enough his staff to hit a target.