D&D 4E D&D 4E and psychology: Hit chance too low?

[Bond James Bond]

Hi.

One feature of D&D 4E, which is drastically different from previous editions (and other rpgs I´ve played so far) is the average chance of the player being able to "hit" monsters, which IMO is too low and therefore may lead to frustration:

Previous editions allowed a player to easily max out their chance hit enemies and misses were rather an exception (execept for some iterative attacks or super hard enemies). This included most spells, which usually didnt call for an attack roll - if they allowed for a save that on average didnt have a very high chance of success, at least if the caster attacked one of the weak saves.

D&D 4E on the other hand is built around a basic to hit chance of about 50% (give or take 10%) against equal level monsters on all levels and factors "maxing" out in. I.e., a player which focuses on his main attack stat, improves his primary weapon/implement etc. whenever possible won`t get significantly beyond that chance (with the rogue being somewhat of an exception here). If the player decides not to max out his character (god forbid there be a fighter for example without near maximum strength), his chance to accomplish something in a combat will drop considerably below 50%.

The question is: Is this good design?

That chance of roughly 50% will give you regulary chains of misses, and most of the time a miss will mean that you`ve accomplished nothing at all with your attack. Just a few powers are reliable or have a decent effect on a miss (and not everyone can/wants to take Hammer Rhythm or Scimitar Dance).

This easily can get frustrating - especially if you fight the BBEG which is a few levels above you and therefore your average hit chance could easily drop to 40% and below (even assuming a maxed out character).

Don`t get me wrong: This is not about Balance or the game being to hard.

It`s about psycholgy: Wouldn`t it be better if the rules would assume a basic hit chance of, say around 70%?

This wouldn`t even seriously affect the balance of the game if the rules would adjust the HP or the damage accordingly to reflect the higher to hit chance. It might, however, IMO lead to a game with less frustrating incidents (e.g. like if you blew all your encounter powers in 3 rounds in a row without hitting once).

So what do you think? Do you feel that the D&D to hit chance is too low from then point of fun with the game and psychology?

 

[FireLance]

Yes, it's probably too low. I think I read somewhere that the probability of success that keeps the average person's interest longest is somewhere around 66%. Apparently, that's the point where you don't succeed so often that it gets boring, and you don't fail so often that it gets frustrating. The fact that you succeed about twice as often as you fail is probably also significant. Maybe it helps keep your interest because you feel you're doing well or something.

It probably isn't difficult to re-work the math in 4e around a 65% chance of hitting (for the PCs, anyway) instead of a 50% chance. Just lower all monster defences by 3 points, but increase hit points by about 30% to compensate.

 

[DracoSuave]

In previous editions you'd, at level 1 for example, have a basic +6 bonus to hit creatures which started with an average AC of 17 or so. Don't see what's so different these days.

 

[James McMurray]

If 4e hit chances are too low, you want to avoid Warhammer FRP like the plague.

 

[Nail]

Hi.

Hi!

D&D 4E on the other hand is built around a basic to hit chance of about 50% (give or take 10%) against equal level monsters on all levels and factors "maxing" out in.

Kinda.

For my human Fighter (Str 18) - assuming all the usual things - here's his "hit chance" against an average monster of his level:

Level	B.sword
1	70%
2	75%
3	70%
4	70%
5	65%
6	70%
7	65%
8	70%
9	65%
10	65%
11	70%
12	70%
13	65%
14	70%
15	65%
16	70%
17	65%
18	65%
19	60%
20	60%
21	70%
22	70%
23	65%
24	65%
25	60%
26	65%
27	60%
28	65%
29	60%
30	60%

FWIW.

 

[Nail]

Slap Combat Advantage on that (or some attack bonus provided by your friendly neighborhood Taclord) and the above hit chance doesn't look bad at all.

 

[gtoasnt3]

Team work and combat advantage FTW. Our PC's have had fun trying to help everyone get that advantage and what a difference. Throw in a warlord and have a few spells/powers that daze between your wizard or paladin. Our guys are seasoned players, and they noted that without teamwork, 4th ed encounters are MUCH more challenging than in previous editions. With teamwork, these guys are hitting the mark with a very good percentage.

 

[Blackbrrd]

This is my thoughts as well gtoastnt3.

You need to cooperate in a 4e game, something that wasn't as important in a 3.x game.

In 3.5 i still use abilities that i KNOW will hit and do something instead of using abilities that do A LOT but need to HIT. Bigby's Grasping hand has a near 100% hit rate against medium sized humanoids, no SR, no Save. Way better than a lot of other spells at the same level.

In 3.5 fights last for 2.5 rounds in average (for my level 16 party) and it has been so for several levels. The 4e fights lasts for 5-7 rounds, so missing twice in a row isn't that fatal, but very annoying. In 4e I am therefore playing with a Tiefling warlock with hellfire blood and fire powers. (+6 to hit at level 1 vs Reflex, or +7 to hit against bloodied foes). I also went for Flaming Sphere (auto hit opponents that start adjacent).

 

[MrMyth]

D&D 4E on the other hand is built around a basic to hit chance of about 50% (give or take 10%) against equal level monsters on all levels and factors "maxing" out in. I.e., a player which focuses on his main attack stat, improves his primary weapon/implement etc. whenever possible won`t get significantly beyond that chance (with the rogue being somewhat of an exception here). If the player decides not to max out his character (god forbid there be a fighter for example without near maximum strength), his chance to accomplish something in a combat will drop considerably below 50%.

I'd say that is an exaggeration, and that is where your problem seems to come in.

From what I've seen, the system is built around a theoretical default of 50% for an average character. A poorly designed character will end up worse, an optimized character will do significantly better.

I mean, let's look at a Fighter that has about as low a hit as you are likely to see. Say, a 16 Str dwarven fighter with a hammer. +3 to hit from Strength, +2 from Proficiency, +1 from fighter weapon talent, is +6 to hit at level 1... against an average AC of 16. That's a 55% chance to hit.

Problems creep in with certain exceptions - in theory, most level 1 monsters will have Non-AC Defenses of around 13. In practice, many low-level monsters tend to have very good Reflex, which can be frustrated for wizards or warlocks without other options.

Aside from that, however, I think the 50% default is a good plan. If the numbers are instead designed so that a completely unoptimized character has a 50% chance to hit, and an average character has a 75% chance to hit... then that means a well-designed character will only miss on a natural 1.

I rather am a fan of the balance in the current system.

 

[jasin]

It probably isn't difficult to re-work the math in 4e around a 65% chance of hitting (for the PCs, anyway) instead of a 50% chance. Just lower all monster defences by 3 points, but increase hit points by about 30% to compensate.

I don't think it's that simple. Taking 30% more hits doesn't just mean 30% more hit point damage, it also means 30% more chance to be slowed, stunned, pushed, see your enemies healed, see your enemies get bonuses against you...