55% to hit always

[Sadrik]

Circumvent the whole system and roll 10 or better period. I wrote a post about this about a year ago and I cannot find it.

Basically the system is striving to get everyone as close to or thereabouts to roll 10+ for a success on attacks. So why not do that...

If anyone can find and link that old discussion I would be greatly impressed with your skillz.

 

[the Jester]

Circumvent the whole system and roll 10 or better period. I wrote a post about this about a year ago and I cannot find it.

Basically the system is striving to get everyone as close to or thereabouts to roll 10+ for a success on attacks. So why not do that...

Because it's boring? Because then there's no reason to worry about your stats, many feats become useless, etc.?

I don't know, I can see where you're coming from, but personally I think making things less all the same is a virtue.

 

[Obryn]

Basically the system is striving to get everyone as close to or thereabouts to roll 10+ for a success on attacks. So why not do that...

I disagree with your premise.

The Baseline probability is set somewhere around 50%, to make it so that both bonuses and penalties are always useful. Variability beyond that baseline is intentionally built into the system.

-O

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with The_Jester and Obryn. I think your premise is flawed. I'll even go slightly further and state that to-hit probability is intended to vary some between tiers. Its also definitely intended to differ between various opponents.

How would attacks vs NAD's work? If you always hit anything on an 11 there would be no point in using different powers against different types of opponents, removing a whole element of strategy and an advantage enjoyed by casters in general. It would also spoil the damage vs accuracy trade-offs of weapons. I'll probably think of a dozen more objections in the next hour, if I bother.

I just don't see what problem this kind of simplification would be intended to address. It would make a radically different game simply because higher level monsters would have no better defenses than lower level ones. I'm sure you could base a system LIKE 4e around a fixed success rate but it wouldn't be the game we're playing now, not by a long shot.

 

[Jack99]

Circumvent the whole system and roll 10 or better period. I wrote a post about this about a year ago and I cannot find it.

Basically the system is striving to get everyone as close to or thereabouts to roll 10+ for a success on attacks. So why not do that...

If anyone can find and link that old discussion I would be greatly impressed with your skillz.

Because its simply not true? for example, the difference between a greataxe wielding paladin's to hit (vs AC) and the rogue's wielding a dagger's to hit (vs reflex) is nothing short of huge.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

It's also intended to vary between characters. Do you really want to penalize the dagger-wielding Rogue using Piercing Strike like that?

 

[ggroy]

A simple hack to such a system to add some variability, would be to impose penalties on abilities which do not use a player character's primary stat. This would be similar to weapon non-proficiency penalties back in the 1E AD&D days. (For example, a to-hit penalty of -5 for a wizard trying to use a sword).

 

[Cor_Malek]

Circumvent the whole system and roll 10 or better period. I wrote a post about this about a year ago and I cannot find it.

Basically the system is striving to get everyone as close to or thereabouts to roll 10+ for a success on attacks. So why not do that...

If anyone can find and link that old discussion I would be greatly impressed with your skillz.

Um, and why would you need to roll anything, and a d20 at that? It's basically heads or tails, just dig out a quarter.

 

[babinro]

Circumvent the whole system and roll 10 or better period. I wrote a post about this about a year ago and I cannot find it.

Basically the system is striving to get everyone as close to or thereabouts to roll 10+ for a success on attacks. So why not do that...

I don't think this is a bad idea for a the game given enough modifications. A one handed melee Fighter always hits on a 10+ for example. A two handed user hits on a 11+ but deals bonus damage to compensate. A dagger Rogue would hit on a 8+ with a damage subtraction to compensate. Feats could further add static damage bonuses and the like accordingly.

Almost seems like it would fit in the essentials line as a simplified version of the game for new players.

 

[DracoSuave]

Circumvent the whole system and roll 10 or better period. I wrote a post about this about a year ago and I cannot find it.

Basically the system is striving to get everyone as close to or thereabouts to roll 10+ for a success on attacks. So why not do that...

If anyone can find and link that old discussion I would be greatly impressed with your skillz.

Because the 'ten or better' is an assumption and at best, a design guideline, and one that through various reasons didn't bear out nor survive till press.

Also, 10+ doesn't account for all the variations in the game, the player's abilities, does not allow design space for different accuracies on attacks, and doesn't account for level or skill increase of the characters.

Less design space = less options = bad for a game that wants to add more options in.