D&D 3.x - Is It Too Easy To Hit Things?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Hello Everyone,

I was thinking about core D&D mechanics the other day and in particular the Attack versus Armor Class system. The advancement in the attack modifier seems to outstrip advancement in AC quite handily, particularly when a certain level is reached. If not for the buffer of the hit point system, this would almost "break" the game.

I have noticed that some DMs houserule AC advancement so that when wielding a weapon, a character will gain a small AC bonus. In other words, they buff AC to keep up with attack modifiers. However, I was wondering if this is pulling the wrong rein. Perhaps if the BAB progression was more in line with saves (thus reaching a maximum of +12 at 20th level rather than +20), then the attack modifier/AC system might be a little more balanced.

However, does this aspect of the game need to be balanced? Is it too easy to hit things? And if attack modifier/AC was balanced out how would the game as a whole change?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

IMO it is too easy to hit things, and that's part of the problem with Power Attack 3.5. Things are so easy to hit you can Power Attack for 5 and not whiff. Worse if you charge. It's also a big problem for light-armored characters, even mages (who don't abuse Polymorph, that is).

Monsters often have natural rather than iterative attacks; it is even easier for them to hit things. Even with big penalties to hit due to size, their high Strength means they don't miss much at all. Players just assume they're going to be hit, and clerics spend more time healing than they'd like.

The only easy way to boost AC in the rules are magic items, which has a bunch of problems, including NPCs getting "nerfed" in that area.

One of the things I like about d20 Modern - a class bonus to Defense plus MDT means lots of dodging and parrying like in a movie. Still too many hit points, but less than in DnD.

I'd like to see that change in 4E.

 

[Umbran]

However, does this aspect of the game need to be balanced? Is it too easy to hit things? And if attack modifier/AC was balanced out how would the game as a whole change?

There are several things you eed to keep track of to tell how things would change: AC, Attack Bonus, Damage dealt, and creature hit points.

If all else stays the same, and everything becomes harder to hit, you'll see two basic effects: 1) Fight will take longer, as effective hits become more rare. 2)Parties (and NPCs) will turn to spells that avoid AC altogether to deal their damage.

Personally, I think spellcasters are important enough at high level, and fights already take quite a while to resolve. I'm good the way things are...

 

[MerricB]

Also: as a fighter, missing is boring. If you miss a lot, then you feel cheated.

There's an interesting thread on RPG.net that suggests that combat (in RPGs in general) should be more like some video games: you hit almost all the time, but the HP are so high that the effectiveness is shown by how much damage you do, rather than how often you are hitting.

Cheers!

 

[DragonLancer]

I have to agree that after about 9th/10th it becomes far too easy to hit opponents. AC's just don't enough at higher levels, and neither do the HP. PC's can do serious damage with their buff's, magic weapons/items and the like, and the monsters HP drop a tad too easily.

To compensate I have started giving monsters maximum HP after those levels. The fights are still too easy but the monsters have a fighting chance.

 

[Himoura]

help PCs

if your worried about your pcs having low ACs, maybe try adapting some rules from another game to add to their ACs.

Star wars rpg give characters extra AC depending on their level, and somebody mentioned D20 moden also having something along the same lines.

I'd just try and keep in mind that a fighters AC from something like this should be higher then say a Wizards. So maybe a fighter gets 1 point of AC per 3 level for a total of 6-7 and a wizard gets 1 per 5 levels, for a total of 4.

Not sure if it helps, but then i play in a game where our lvl 10ish soul knife has something upwards of 32ish AC so hes a bit of a wall, whom we all stand behind as much as possible

 

[MerricB]

Not sure if it helps, but then i play in a game where our lvl 10ish soul knife has something upwards of 32ish AC so hes a bit of a wall, whom we all stand behind as much as possible

There's a reason why I've been using more fireball-like effects.

Cheers!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

In terms of a "game", I think D&D 3.x is spot on in terms of "fun" and keeping up the level of interest (hey, it is NO fun to miss).

As I mentioned before (and it was highlighted by MerricB) the hit point system acts as the supreme buffer. By the way this use of the term "buffer" is the chemistry based one, not the game-based one as in "buffing stats". The hit point system rounds out a lot of the pointy edges in terms of the system as a whole - most particularly, the attack bonus/AC system.

What I was referring to above in the original post was more the system as a simulation, rather than as a game. As a game, it is not worth tinkering with - I think it works fine. As a simulation though, it does fall a little short. The main impediment I think is the HP system; but to take away the HP system and replace it with something more realistic would introduce way too many complexities, causing ripples throughout the whole system.

What would be interesting is to look at the ACs of some "typical" in-game events and match them up with a cast of various PCs/NPCs/Monsters. I'll save this for a future post though.

As an aside, I think the greatest current disparity is the AC of a 1st level fighter wearing standard armor but not wielding a weapon at all and that same fighter as a 12th level fighter with exactly the same kit and wielding their chosen weapon. As is, their ACs would be identical (assuming no dex increases). In terms of a ranged attack trying to hit them, I'd say this would most likely be a fair case. In terms of a melee attack trying to hit them, it makes little sense. The more skilled and armed fighter should be significantly harder to hit due to having their weapon deflecting incoming blows. What are your thoughts?

As a second aside, huge monsters hitting PCs too easily makes perfect sense to me. This is also a perfect case of where the hp system buffers things just right. It is not supremely realistic but it does keep things fun at higher levels.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Celebrim]

The more skilled and armed fighter should be significantly harder to hit due to having their weapon deflecting incoming blows. What are your thoughts?

Arguably, that's what hit points reflect. They aren't wound points. In many ways, they are something closer to skill or luck points.

There are undoubtably more realistic ways to game combat, but the 'hit point' system has stood the test of time. Games use it for a reason. If you want to get away from it, that's fine, but beware that getting away from hit points carries a price.

It may seem counterintuitive, but in my experience the biggest critics of hit points aren't gamers who've played alot of systems, but those that haven't.

 

[MerricB]

What I was referring to above in the original post was more the system as a simulation, rather than as a game. As a game, it is not worth tinkering with - I think it works fine. As a simulation though, it does fall a little short. The main impediment I think is the HP system; but to take away the HP system and replace it with something more realistic would introduce way too many complexities, causing ripples throughout the whole system.

"Realistic" in this sense tends to mean "More Deadly". When people get hit by swords, they tend to fall down.

HP, apart from being a buffer, serve a very important factor in letting the players know how the combat is going. When someone gets low on hit points, then they know they are at risk. Interestingly, "hero points", that you can use to preserve yourself, serve a similar purpose.

There is a conceptual gap from "hit points are how tough you are" to "hit points are how much luck you have left" which causes problems, but I think the mechanic is great.

Consider Rolemaster (and indeed, Star Wars d20), which had Hit Points, but criticals would render that system irrelevant in many, if not most, combats.

If we change "The more skilled and armed fighter should be significantly harder to hit due to having their weapon deflecting incoming blows" to "The more skilled and armed fighter should be significantly harder to kill due to having their weapon deflecting incoming blows", we have the D&D system.

Cheers!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The more skilled and armed fighter should be significantly harder to hit due to having their weapon deflecting incoming blows. What are your thoughts?

Arguably, that's what hit points reflect...

But should they carry the burden alone?

There are undoubtably more realistic ways to game combat, but the 'hit point' system has stood the test of time. Games use it for a reason. If you want to get away from it, that's fine, but beware that getting away from hit points carries a price.

It may seem counterintuitive, but in my experience the biggest critics of hit points aren't gamers who've played alot of systems, but those that haven't.

I'm not too sure what your point is here (aside from to re-iterate what I said about complexities and ripples).
Just to clarify, I am not saying that the HP system is "bad". I am just pondering whether things can be cleaned up in some way so that the system as a simulation works better but does not introduce a whole stack of complexities? Is it even possible to increase the simulation and decrease the complexity or has 3.x already reached the best possible compromise?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise