Chance to hit decreases as you level

[Nifft]

Yep yep yep. Like pretty much everyone else has said, your base chance to hit decreases, but on the flip side, the power bonuses you give each other increase in both magnitude, variety, and uses per day.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Lakoda]

You can't argue with getting a lot more options as you level and that you can increase your changes to hit with side effects of powers and/or utilities, but I do not find this an acceptable solution. Why should my players have to take utilities that increase chances to hit just to be viable? They may want to take different ones and should not be penalized or that. Besides, shouldn't those utilities be something special that brings the targets above and beyond what is average instead of being a requirement of sticking to the bell curve? This does not make a player feel as though their character is special.

I'm too lazy to find who said CA should help, but I wanted to comment on that. CA is something you have available at level 1. Yes it is easier to control the battlefield at higher levels but that usually requires hitting the monster. All in all, CA (in my mind) is a static bonus across all levels.

However, you should have more opportunities to gain some bonus to that attack and when you do you will deal much more damage. Remember that at level one you have 1 Encounter power and 1 Daily, at 30 you will have 4 of each plus 7 Utility powers as will your allies. When you are dealing 3W or 4W with each of those powers it makes a difference.

I especially have issue with any argument that uses increased damage as a justification for a decreasing chance to hit ... a monster's HP are also increases so without the increase to damage you'd not only hit less but also hit for a smaller % of their total.

Then she made her choice. She gets extra damage while using Sly Flourish, as apposed to the extra damage added onto her Sneak Attack. And instead of getting to make Opportunity Attacks (and other basic melee attacks) that are worthwhile, she gets insane AC versus Opportunity Attacks. She also get all those nice bonuses to CHA skills

Yes my rogue friend made her choice but I'm not looking to make her as good at melee basic attacks as a STR rogue, but not completely remove that option from her as the CHA rogue does. I like my players to be able to attempt anything they want, they may be poor at it but at least they have a realistic shot (something slightly better then a snows throw in hell). A CHA rogue does NOT have a chance at any level to realistically land a melee basic attack (nat 20 aside). To me, that is not acceptable. Plus, my warlord didn't get to choose the classes of his party, he is stuck trying to work within a system that make him dependant on other players, so not only does the rogues choice affect her it also affects the warlord.

it is not the system's fault that the group's teamwork sucks ass.

This is just wrong, at level two, their tactics are great. They use CA a lot but that does not offset the fact that the warlord is granting attacks to someone who just can't make them as it stands. It is not the systems fault, but the system is broken in this regard.

I suspect a lot of the "character miss too much" sentiment is arising from those who are just looking at the character's stats on paper and those upset about 4E core's well balanced feat prerequisites that discourage characters from playing Eighteens & Eights with ability scores

I never said they don't hit enough, I was using the numbers to try and explain my beef with BMA. I don't know how paragon or epic characters will pan out, I have yet to play one or run a group that high. The disparity between low and high heroic is still small enough that it masked by the random nature of a d20 (at least I haven't found a problem yet - other then with BMA that is).

You basically jump around between 1 and 3 behind

If you are trying to show that your to hit increases by almost 1 per level and it does not. Not even close. Assuming you increase your main stat at every chance and normal magic weapon improvements you only get 6 magic item increases and 4 stat increases. That's 1/3 of the increases needed to keep up with the monster defenses.

 

[Milambus]

You can't argue with getting a lot more options as you level and that you can increase your changes to hit with side effects of powers and/or utilities, but I do not find this an acceptable solution. Why should my players have to take utilities that increase chances to hit just to be viable?

Because chance to hit is the single most important stat in this game. And pretty much has been in many games.

If you don't like that, then there are very simple solutions.
1. Use lower level monsters. They can look just as big and bad and scary, they just happen to be lower level than the players. (I would just increase the amount of them that I used so that the point buy still remains correct.)
2. Decrease the monsters defense, and increase their hit points.

Its your game, tweak it the way you want.

They may want to take different ones and should not be penalized or that.[/QUOTE

I just don't understand this thought. If they want to take other powers/feats/whatever, great. I'm going to assume that they will derive some benefit from sure a power/feat, even if its just greater satisfaction with their character. Shouldn't the player that choses powers/feats that do increase their chance to hit be rewarded also?

Besides, shouldn't those utilities be something special that brings the targets above and beyond what is average instead of being a requirement of sticking to the bell curve? This does not make a player feel as though their character is special.

I don't know about your players, but anytime I hit with a "Lead the Attack", level 1 Warlord Daily power that grants myself and all allies 1+Int modifier attack bonus versus that target until the end of the encounter I feel pretty special. Whether thats at level 1 or level 30. For comparison I grant +4 attack at level 1, and at level 30 it will be +9.

I'm too lazy to find who said CA should help, but I wanted to comment on that. CA is something you have available at level 1. Yes it is easier to control the battlefield at higher levels but that usually requires hitting the monster. All in all, CA (in my mind) is a static bonus across all levels.

Available? Yes. But I would say that you are much more likely to have it at higher levels.

For an example, lets look at your rogue friend. I'm going to assume that they are using a race that gives +Dex and +Cha, so that at level 1 she had 18 in both.

18 Cha gives a Artful Dodger built Rogue +4 vs Opportunity Attacks. At level 30, she would have gained 8 more Cha. For +8 vs OA. Lets say her epic destiny is DemiGod for +2 in two stats, for +9 vs OA. As a rogue she likely would pick up Definsive Mobility at some point for another +1, so thats +11 vs OA. And if she happened to be a Halfling, its +13 vs OA.

Now, who do you think is more likely to be able to get into a flanking position, someone with +4 vs OA or someone with +13?

I especially have issue with any argument that uses increased damage as a justification for a decreasing chance to hit ... a monster's HP are also increases so without the increase to damage you'd not only hit less but also hit for a smaller % of their total.

Yes my rogue friend made her choice but I'm not looking to make her as good at melee basic attacks as a STR rogue, but not completely remove that option from her as the CHA rogue does. I like my players to be able to attempt anything they want, they may be poor at it but at least they have a realistic shot (something slightly better then a snows throw in hell). A CHA rogue does NOT have a chance at any level to realistically land a melee basic attack (nat 20 aside). To me, that is not acceptable.

At level 1, a rogue with base 10 strength should have +4 to hit with a dagger. The average AC for creatures at level 1 is 15. Thats a 45% to hit, without flanking, without ANY str bumps, and a normal dagger.

Now as the rogue levels up, their chance to hit with such attacks will decrease dramatically unless they decide to forgo some CHA bumps for some STR as they level. It, like many things in DnD, is a choice. You can't be good at everything, but you can be good at somethings. Just chose the things you actually want to be good at. If getting Opportunity Attacks and working with the Warlord is important to her, then she should have chosen a STR based rogue.

And honestly, is the group really missing out on the rogues 1d4 damage on a missed Opportunity Attack? (And yes, I know other weapons than a dagger can be used by a rogue, but most of those are better for a STR rogue IMO.)

Plus, my warlord didn't get to choose the classes of his party, he is stuck trying to work within a system that make him dependant on other players, so not only does the rogues choice affect her it also affects the warlord.

Did your players pick their classes without consulting each other at all? That would seem like a lack in teamwork to me.

That aside, as a player of a Tactical Warlord, they shouldn't be trying to work with the Rogue anyway. Find the melee player with the higher STR and thats who the TacLord teams up with. Fighters are great. Swordmages (with Intelligent Blademaster) are good also. Barbarians and TacLords are going to be a nightmare.

Unless your rogue is missing with their normal attack (and they get the highest hit rate already), then your Warlord is much better off attacking himself then having the rogue attack for them. Sneak Attack is only once per turn. (With the one exception that allows it to be used again on an Action Point.)

And if your players really wanted this Rogue/Warlord combo to work well, they should have created their characters so that they complemented each other correctly.

This is just wrong, at level two, their tactics are great. They use CA a lot but that does not offset the fact that the warlord is granting attacks to someone who just can't make them as it stands. It is not the systems fault, but the system is broken in this regard.

No, the system is not broken. Your players are simply attempting a tactic that is not supported by the system.

And really if its so important for you and your players to be able to do this, just make a "Charismatic Blademaster" feat thats based off of the Swordmages feat.

I never said they don't hit enough, I was using the numbers to try and explain my beef with BMA.

I don't know what BMA is.

I don't know how paragon or epic characters will pan out, I have yet to play one or run a group that high. The disparity between low and high heroic is still small enough that it masked by the random nature of a d20 (at least I haven't found a problem yet - other then with BMA that is).

If you are trying to show that your to hit increases by almost 1 per level and it does not. Not even close. Assuming you increase your main stat at every chance and normal magic weapon improvements you only get 6 magic item increases and 4 stat increases. That's 1/3 of the increases needed to keep up with the monster defenses.

Remember that players also gain +1 attack every other level. So by level 30 they gain +4 from stats, +6 from magic items, +15 from level up increases, for a total of +25. NPCes defenses increases 1 per level for +29 (remember to not include level 1 when you count of the increases). This is a difference of 4, which I think has been shown to balance out fine. (It can also be reduced down pretty easily by 1 or 2 depending upon Paragon Path and Epic Destiny.)

 

[Lakoda]

I have (see earlier posts)

To me, having to have a bonus to meet the standard level of performance implies a penalty if you do not have that bonus. Since a goodly portion of those bonuses are from powers then you could make a choice that hurts you on a core/fundamental system level. This creates a situation where classes have to take to-hit buffing powers.

Some did, others did not. Some players left and new ones joined and some players have a concept and run with it dispite what the group wants/needs.

As before, I did (though not exactly like that but the effect is what I wanted).

Sorry, BMA is Basic Melee Attack.

That's pretty much my solution. I added two feats. A paragon and an epic that grant +2 to MBAs if you have a high dex. The paragon requires 15 DEX and the epic requires the paragon feat plus 17 DEX. Now, the rogue won't feel like she is doing worse as she levels but she won't be on the same level as a STR rogue would be. My goal was to keep the rogue from getting more frustrated over something she already gets down about. I really wasn't expecting it to become such a big concern here.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I don't think one shoudl ignore the fact that as characters increase in level, they get additional options as to what defence to attack. As the levels increase, the differences between the high and low defences of monsters increase. So, the "penalty" as you refer to it is somewhat offset by the ability to target a monster's low defences.

Now, how apparent the weak defences will be to a player really depends on the DM and the players.

Dr. Ruminahui - shrink with a spear

 

[Danceofmasks]

That's pretty much my solution. I added two feats. A paragon and an epic that grant +2 to MBAs if you have a high dex. The paragon requires 15 DEX and the epic requires the paragon feat plus 17 DEX. Now, the rogue won't feel like she is doing worse as she levels but she won't be on the same level as a STR rogue would be. My goal was to keep the rogue from getting more frustrated over something she already gets down about. I really wasn't expecting it to become such a big concern here.

Well, rogues are already the best at hitting.
Really.
Weapon talent, nimble blade, piercing strike as an at-will, they already outclass everyone else.

If they've been granted a basic attack, they can always use a basic ranged attack with a dagger.

Just saying they don't need any help in the hitting department.
Seriously, I've seen charisma paladins, warlocks, and even a tactical warlord (who only had 14 str to begin with) get frustrated with their MBAs.
Can't be good at everything .. the game is all about playing your strengths.
Consistently attempting stuff your character is bad at is what makes bad D&D.

 

[Lakoda]

I've seen charisma paladins, warlocks, and even a tactical warlord (who only had 14 str to begin with) get frustrated with their MBAs.

And that never made you think maybe there is a problem with MBA?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

And that never made you think maybe there is a problem with MBA?

No I don't think there is a general problem with MBA.
There is a problem with people that think they can do everything equally well with every build they come up with.

Or do you suggest that there should be a STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS and CHA MBA and you choose what ever you like - same for RBA.

A Chaladin can get HBO@LVL11 -- no more problems with MBAs except for when you charge.

Or you just wait for DP and maybe they make your wish come true. I wouldn't mind if they did.

 

[Lakoda]

Did you read this thread? From the first post I was looking for a way for my Warlord's decision to take (and use) commander's strike not be completely wasted on a low STR rogue. A +2 at 11 and 21 to prevent her from only hitting with an MBA on a nat 20 is very far from wanting all characters to be able to do everything equally well.

 

[Nail]

No I don't think there is a general problem with MBA.
There is a problem with people that think they can do everything equally well with every build they come up with.

FWIW, I agree that it's all about "choices", and that some builds will be better at some things and worse than others...and that's how it should be.

However: It's kind of sucky to have a melee class PC that can't do BMAs. Not only are such PCs not good companions for a Warlord, but OAs are worth less to them.

Surely a homebrew feat would solve this (tiny!) design gaff. Something like:

Improvised Basic Melee Attack
Prerequisites: Str 13
Benefit: You may use an ability score other than Strength for your basic melee attacks.


The idea is that you have to have some strength, so if a PC has totally tanked Str, they can't weasel their way out of it.