50% chance for everythin. Where does it says so?
- Thread starter sfedi
- Start date
There is no 50% chance of being hit or hitting. It depends on comparing your attack stats with the AC of your opponent. So if you have +10 against AC and your opponent has 30 AC that means you have only 1 chance in 20 of hitting.
Greetings,
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Pickles JG
First Post
50% is a rule of thumb used by people calculating average damage or comparing powers etc. Equivalent level monsters are hit about 60% of the time at low levels & as your typical encounter is level +1 to level +3 you will hit those monsters about 50% of the time. (Or alternatively people use 50% as its easier than 60%)
The maths is derived from the monster recommended defences & attack values in the DMG together with PC likely stats. A monster has non AC defences equal to level +12, so 13 at first level. A typical PC has 18 in their attack stat (+/-2) so +4 to hit. This hits on 9 = 60%. Monster AC is two points higher which you get with a +2 proficiency weapon.
(The designers' intent is inferred from this basic calculation & the fact that everything scales with level (almost..))
This applies to PC defences - a monster attacks non AC defence with level +3 ie +4 at first, the same as the PC, so the average non AC defence we would expect to be 13 to give 60%. NADs are all over the place but not a million miles away on average (eg non human with 18 16 14 in his defence stats & +2 to one of them is likely to be 14 15 12 defences or similar - a little better than a monster. I have seen 17 12 10 though)
The skilll check thing came from p42 of the DMG & has been errataed in the DMG update pdf & is now more like 75% - but you have to get several successes before 3 failures. There is comment in one of the podcasts about it. (I think it was originally targeted at 50% for "experts" & then was redone to make it 50% for average characters - so experts have a very easy time.
Thanks Pickles.
After reading several threads about defenses, to-hit bonuses, etc, I wondered where all this "must hit/be-hitted/etc" 50% chance came from.
So, now I see a problem with our (hive) way of thinking these problems:
We are looking at the system, we inferr that it has the rule of 50%, and when we look further into the numbers we see that that´s not the case, se we "conclude" that the system is wrong.
Irda Ranger
First Post
I think it would be more accurate to say that "Where we find there's a 50% to-hit probability 98% of the time, we can assume that "50% to-hit" is the intended probability and that the last 2% are errors in design or printing."
I've been wondering about this myself.
It sortof begs the argument, "Why have a d20 at all? Why not just flip a coin?" Hell, why even have levels if everything is going to remain balanced at roughly 50%?
For me, this screams for the need to have not only critical fumbles but also gauges of success and failure within the granularity of a d20. Otherwise, give me a d02 and all my balance problems are solved.
It sortof begs the argument, "Why have a d20 at all? Why not just flip a coin?" Hell, why even have levels if everything is going to remain balanced at roughly 50%?
For me, this screams for the need to have not only critical fumbles but also gauges of success and failure within the granularity of a d20. Otherwise, give me a d02 and all my balance problems are solved.
These balance guidelines are only 'guidelines'. I don't think it is the idea to make everything 50% chance. That would make for a dull game. I think that a monster that is tougher or stronger (i.e. a solo monster) should have a lower chance to be hit for example.
Greetings,
frankthedm
First Post
Because, it allows for the players to face foes of greater and lesser caliber than their own and allows for some minor granualairty in foes that are of equal level. IMHO the players should be facing foes of varied caliber. As the party becomes greater heroes, the bulk of their foes should be thier lessers not thier equals.
Skywalker
Adventurer
The baseline of 50% (or actually 55%) became a dominant factor in D&D3e. At 1st level, with equal bonuses, you generally need to get a 10 or greater on a d20 to succeed at an attack. However, this baseline is easily stretched with specific examples, especially as you increase in levels (especially as AC didn't increase balanced by HP increases).
4e made the concept more transparent and tries to maintain the baseline more closely as the levels increase. So, if the baseline shifts significantly, then this will indicate in broad terms a shift in balance away from the baseline.
What people get wrong is that such a shift in balance is somehow inherently wrong, which is not the case. In many cases, such as the hotly contested Defences at High Levels topic, there are mitigating factors such as the increase in HP that allow the baseline to shift to maintain overall balance and not just one specific instance of balance.
4e made the concept more transparent and tries to maintain the baseline more closely as the levels increase. So, if the baseline shifts significantly, then this will indicate in broad terms a shift in balance away from the baseline.
What people get wrong is that such a shift in balance is somehow inherently wrong, which is not the case. In many cases, such as the hotly contested Defences at High Levels topic, there are mitigating factors such as the increase in HP that allow the baseline to shift to maintain overall balance and not just one specific instance of balance.
Last edited:
