55% to hit always

[ggroy]

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.

In practice, a probability of succeeding between 25% to 50% is the range to design for (ie. combat, skills, etc ...). Probabilities of less than 25%, typically are due to to player characters doing stuff which they are not proficient at, and/or there's significant penalties (ie. debuffs, etc ...), and/or the target is too high of a level. For success probabilities greater than 50%, it can become too easy.

As everybody has experienced before, requiring a raw d20 roll greater than 16 can be very frustrating.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In practice, a probability of succeeding between 25% to 50% is the range to design for (ie. combat, skills, etc ...). Probabilities of less than 25%, typically are due to to player characters doing stuff which they are not proficient at, and/or there's significant penalties (ie. debuffs, etc ...), and/or the target is too high of a level. For success probabilities greater than 50%, it can become too easy.

I think that you'll find that you are incorrect on the 25-50% range. In the current game, 50% is the low end. If you're below that often, then you're either not really trying to hit or your DM is throwing overlevelled soldiers at you all the time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd say the range is a bit wider. Its pretty rare to end up needing more than say a 14 to-hit. Its not too common to need less than a 7 or so either. At least that's my experience. In epic tier you'll find it can go a bit higher or lower though, depending. So somewhere between 30 and 70% depending.

 

[Crazy_Dragon]

Characters are different, one size doesn't fit all. Some don't get affected like my Time Crisis Seeker (I'm referring to blood bond and shifting with minor and move action

 

[Sadrik]

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

I don't know, I was thinking about it toady, so I went looking for a word file that I may have made on hand and I realized I never wrote it down outside of the message boards. There were some nuances to it, it was pretty cut and dry... but there were a couple of differences. Can anybody find that post for me? Happy to discuss it further once I remember the whole idea...

 

[Gort]

Didn't WotC make a module for six-year-olds that had the rules boiled down to something like this? It'd be a fine way to make a simple RPG for kids - everyone flips a coin for attack rolls, everyone has five hitpoints except for defenders who have ten, everyone does one damage a hit except for strikers who do two, the leader can heal one guy back to full once per fight, and the controller can hit a 3x3 area with his attacks.

Hell, it's a fair approximation of the game - we could call it "Travel D&D" and it could cater to all the grognards who hate using minis or maps.

 

[Samir]

Characters are much more varied than monsters, since their accuracy and defenses depend greatly on their choice of class, race, feats, and equipment. That said, the game expects character accuracy and defenses to average slightly above that of monsters, as shown in the table here. An average character facing an average monster can expect to hit on roughly 60 to 65 percent of his or her attacks, but that monster should hit only about half the time.

...

Attack vs. AC: 6 + level

From the PSG, page 112. An attack vs. AC of 6 + level against a monster AC of 14 + level (also listed on this page) yields a 65% chance to hit. From this blurb it seems your premise is flawed.

So, why not give everybody a 65% chance to hit, 8+ hits, 7 or lower misses? Because it kills a large portion of character versatility, minimizes the use of tactics such as combat advantage, and generally just dumbs down the game with no apparent benefit besides slightly easier math.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

So, why not give everybody a 65% chance to hit, 8+ hits, 7 or lower misses? Because it kills a large portion of character versatility, minimizes the use of tactics such as combat advantage, and generally just dumbs down the game with no apparent benefit besides slightly easier math.

Another way of looking at it: the general guideline of 50-65% chance to hit (choose the number you like) is a design guideline -- intended to help the WotC designers and individual DMs create monsters, powers, feats, classes, items and fruit toppings that will not unbalance the game unduly.

 

[Sadrik]

Well, no one seems to be able to find the post so I'll post what I remember:
Roll 10+ to successfully attack
+2 to attack non-AC Defense
All weapon bonuses to attack do not apply.
Attack bonuses from things like combat advantage still apply.

I can't remember what armor did.

 

[Jack99]

Well, no one seems to be able to find the post so I'll post what I remember:
Roll 10+ to successfully attack
+2 to attack non-AC Defense
All weapon bonuses to attack do not apply.
Attack bonuses from things like combat advantage still apply.

I can't remember what armor did.

So magical weapons do what? With that setup, it seems that it mattera little how good your magical weapon is..