70% is the Sweet, ain't it?

[Paraxis]

An idea, what if the base defense for everyone used the same chart as a BAB of a Cleric (ie 0-15 in 3.5), assuming BAB stays the same. That puts Wizards behind the curve, Clerics and Rogues dead on, and Fighters ahead of it. Add dex to it like str adds to hit, add magic bonuses from armor ect to it, like weapons. Use Armor as DR.
Apply the ACP as a penalty to the defense score, and the max dex still applies.
Think this or something like it would work out very well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe the goal is something like 30/70.
Opponents have a 30 % chance to hit the characters, characters have a 70% chance to hit them. (Assuming fair use of special abilities and tactical options, at least)

This way, it might also make sense to send an equal or higher numbers of NPCs against the PCs without increasing the chance for defeat (including possible TPK) to 50 %...

But I just picked the numbers for their "mathematical beauty" (they add to 100 ), not due to a deep analysis on PC/NPC balance.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I don't think you'll see armor as DR.

And if a class-based defense bonus exists, it will be to supplement armor, not supplant it.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Generally speaking 70% seems way too high for my tastes-- at least, as the baseline.

From a design standpoint I'd prefer 50% to be the baseline, meaning BAB should track about even with AC, with the additional +4 to hit (if necessary) made up from good play: flanking, aid another, spending an action point, etc.

But out and out hitting on a 7+? Not in my game.

Yes, I agree with you entirely. I like to see the additional +4 to hit come from buffs, maneuvering, and enhanced weapons.

The designers already stated that they want the success rate to be about 50% at all levels.

However, I suspect that this means that when a Fighter adds all of his offensive Feats and Talents and Magic Items, etc., he will often be in the 70% range for melee whereas the Wizard will be in the 30% range for melee attacks.

For same level opponents.

The Ranger/Rogue might be in the 50% range for melee, but the Ranger might be in the 70% range for missile weapons. Hence, given a choice between melee and missile, the Ranger PC will often opt for missile attacks.

I think it's safe to say warriors will be in the sweet spot for melee attacks whereas wizards will be in the sweet spot for spells. WoTC wants you to feel good about your role.

 

[JRR_Talking]

I dont wanna hit with a 7 rolled on a d20 at 1st level, unless the party has used immensely clever tactics.

At least make me be wishing for a 13

I dont mind my spell having a 70% chance to work at 1st level and sleep, fear, charm et al my opponent, afterall i can probably only do that once or twice, or maybe three times per day, if i limit my other options.

I aslo dont want my poorly injured fighter to get all his hits back at 1st level from a cleric spenddng 5 minutes doing his 'freebie' thing at will/per round.

John

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Of course, it isn't the Fighters who really suffer at first level. If you're a Wizard, you've got a couple decent spells, then you have to try to hit enemies with a crossbow, with maybe a +2 bonus.

+2 to hit for 1d8 damage is pretty good at 1st level. If the fighter is at +5 and the wizard is at +2, then the wizard will still hit AC 14 opponents (which MM suggests is appropriate for CR 1) about 45% of the time to the fighter's 60%. So, he hits 75% as often as the fighter, and does maybe 60% as much damage (1d8 vs. 1d8+3). Add in Inspire Courage for +1 and the wizard now hits 77% as often as the fighter for 65% as much damage.

Firing into melee will apply penalties, but this is so often the wizard's role (even with spells) that Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot make a very good pair of starting feats for a human wizard.

 

[The Little Raven]

I don't think you'll see armor as DR.

And if a class-based defense bonus exists, it will be to supplement armor, not supplant it.

I wish we would. It'd be nice to have the armor-based Defender role take damage mitigation through damage reduction into account as a necessary factor for those classes. I wasn't a huge fan of AU's armor-as-DR methodology, which still retained it as a partial boost to AC.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I wish we would. It'd be nice to have the armor-based Defender role take damage mitigation through damage reduction into account as a necessary factor for those classes. I wasn't a huge fan of AU's armor-as-DR methodology, which still retained it as a partial boost to AC.

If armor is squeezed out of the running they might say armor adds to hp. Ablative hit points that works against external attacks. Or they might say armor adds to Ref, Fort and even Will in different configurations depending on armor type. Say a helmet adds +1 to Ref and +2 to Will (it's hard to charm a dude in crash helmet.) Or they might go for damage reduction (although I don't think they will because it's been tried and found wanting.)

 

[green slime]

But... If this mythical "sweet spot" is merely mathematically driven (such as 50% or 70%), and constant with level-appropriate challenges, what is really the point of levelling?

 

[Imaro]

Sooo, wait a minute. Scientifically we have the most fun when we have to roll a 7 or higher to hit a monster or NPC. What? Where is this from?