D&D 4E D&D 4E and psychology: Hit chance too low?

[Bond James Bond]

I think I read somewhere that the probability of success that keeps the average person's interest longest is somewhere around 66%. Apparently, that's the point where you don't succeed so often that it gets boring, and you don't fail so often that it gets frustrating. The fact that you succeed about twice as often as you fail is probably also significant.

Interesting point, and I´d go along with that.

2/3 chance of success seems like a good over the thumb rule to keep people satisfied.

@Nail: Why the long chart? A Weapon Talent fighter with a +3 Prof Weapon (aka Sword) will get more than 60% to hit on average, I´ll give you that. But thats not average. Is playing a Hammer or Axe wielding Paladin supposed to be frustrating with an +hit chance of 45-55 % percent? What if the chosen race doesnt boost your primary stat - Do you have to invest 18 out of 22 points in your primary stst just to keep your hit chance barely at 50%?

And this is all for equal lvl opponents - the average hard solo "boss" will be 1-3 lvls above the party lvl, according to the DMG. Bye, bye, hit chance.

@gtoasnt3: Sure you can get a situational bonus to hit, CA being the most obvious... but even they wont drastically improve your average chance to hit, since not all classes have access to such powers (and even if, they are usually encounter or dailies, not at wills).

But please, I intended this thread not to end in calculations, which boni could be stacked to increase your +hit chance, and that you shouldn`t leave house without a taclord and so on.

The underlying Question is rather simple:

What in your opinion should be an average chance of hitting with any given power of any given class in order to stop people from regulary getting frustrating chains of misses?

And, on a second note: What is your Experience with 4E in that respect?

 

[Hawkeye]

In previous editions you'd, at level 1 for example, have a basic +6 bonus to hit creatures which started with an average AC of 17 or so. Don't see what's so different these days.

In the majority of previous editions, AC 17 didn't exist. That didn't happen until 3.X

Hawkeye

 

[Stalker0]

As Nail shows, the math is already in that range, you are hitting in the expected 66% bracket.

I think the reason the perception is there is for 3 reasons:

1) The numbers assume a fairly optimized build. People don't want to lower their attack bonuses for any reason because they will fall from this "perfect" range. The difference between 70-80% hitting doesn't feel as much as from 60-70%, etc. In other words, the math assumes people will focus on attack bonuses.

2) Players didn't see the 66% pan out in 3e. Mainly because fights are shorter, you mainly saw your guy hit a monster a few times and kill him, and then those occasional fights when you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. In 4e, with more rounds, you will likely in every fight see that 66% in action.

Further, in 3e because your damage was so high compared to monster's hitpoints, there was the perception that you just need a couple of hits in there to do the job. If you miss, you know that next attack will finish them off. In 4e, even if you hit 4 rounds in a row, you might not have killed your enemies, meaning if you miss that's even more rounds you have to fight.

3) The psychology doesn't apply to the limited use scale of 4e attacks. In 3e, a fighters attack were limitless. A wizard's attacks were few but often game changing. If the fighter missed, there always a full and powerful attack next round. If a wizard missed, well...it only takes 1 hit to seal the deal.

In 4e, all characters grow weaker as the fight goes on. Healing runs out, encounter and daily powers get used up. The players are on a time crunch to maintain their power. If you miss, you have likely to missed with a power that isn't coming back, and in those cases, a 66% hit chance may not feel like enough.

 

[James McMurray]

What in your opinion should be an average chance of hitting with any given power of any given class in order to stop people from regulary getting frustrating chains of misses?

50 - 55% is good. It forces you to think. Any lower than that and the rare nature of bonuses in 4e makes it too hard to reliably hit your enemy. Any higher and you get back to a situation where standing toe-to-toe with an enemy and trading blows is a good idea and the standard tactic.

And, on a second note: What is your Experience with 4E in that respect?

In our epic game there's a strata of players.

• We have one guy who tends to eke out every last bit of juice he can, and he hits almost every time for tons of damage (currently playing a dragonborn barbarian / iron vanguard).
• Another tends to squeeze as much as he can, then pull back a little. He also hits a lot and does a lot of damage (human warlock / radiant one).
• We have one guy who grabs what he thinks will be fun and mostly ignores the math. His eladrin artificer misses a lot, and doesn't do major damage when he hits (unless it's with a high end daily).
• The other two are fairly average. They pick fun and powerful effects, but don't pour through the books maximizing their to-hit and damage. They hit fairly often, especially when working as a team to get combat advantage or other plusses.

The only thing I don't like in that list is the eladrin's chances of success. He's doubly hampered by not focusing on a single aspect of his class (ranged weapons and implement), but that's somewhat forced on him by the nature of the playtest artificer. Apart from giving him the lion's share of gear, I'm not sure what could fix that though. Any change to the underlying math will give him a minor boost but pump two other PCs almost all the way into Can't Miss City.

The cleric's player recently changed to resourceful and tactical warlord / infernal strategist, and the to-hit chances have rocketed. We've only had one session with the new build, and the artificer wasn't there, so it remains to be seen if it'll help enough.

On the plus side, the Artificer is always last on the "Who should I dominate" list.

 

[Dausuul]

Here's a question. What if you take the ability score out of the attack bonus, and instead add a flat +4 (+5 at 8th level, +6 at 14th, +7 at 21st, +8 at 28th)? That way you aren't gimped if you don't have an 18 in your key stat.

(You'd still use the ability score to calculate damage, just not attack rolls.)

 

[Jack99]

The underlying Question is rather simple:

What in your opinion should be an average chance of hitting with any given power of any given class in order to stop people from regulary getting frustrating chains of misses?

And, on a second note: What is your Experience with 4E in that respect?

I think 4e hit whatever bracket feels good. My players almost think they hit too often. Of course, to be fair, they are fairly optimized for hitting, with 20 base in their main stat.

Also, stacking +'s makes it extremely easy to hit at times. Last week, when I got to play my level 14 rogue, he had +39 to hit on one attack. Kinda hard to miss with that. And he didn't start out with a maxed main stat

 

[Blizzardb]

Also, stacking +'s makes it extremely easy to hit at times. Last week, when I got to play my level 14 rogue, he had +39 to hit on one attack. Kinda hard to miss with that. And he didn't start out with a maxed main stat

I know what you mean A character in my game hit with a 2 on the die roll at level 5. Granted, he was a rogue attacking Will of a very will-less monster, but 5% chance to miss, even with a single attack, is pretty impressive.

 

[bganon]

I think because d20 rolls are flat, that if you make "average" vanilla hit chance 70% you'll start to run out of headroom to reward smart playing or whatever. 70% is only +6 away from "can't miss", and getting +2 CA, +2 for attacking a weak defense, and +2 power/misc bonus happens reasonably often even at low levels. And if the "optimal" build is more like 80%, then that player loses the incentive to even try stacking advantages... why bother squeezing into flanking position when you've already got 95% hit chance with the power bonus from the warlord? And you also lose the headroom for "specialty" classes, like the rogue, which can specialize in high-probability low-base-damage attacks.

Also, you want -more- grind? Because higher hit chance with added hp to compensate is pretty much the definition of grind. And really, a hard BBEG encounter -should- be a bit frustrating. I'd rather have the players panic a little as they repeatedly miss than turn it into a grindfest where the only hard part is chewing through hit points fast enough. Solos can already be bad enough that way as it is.

 

[Jhaelen]

If you miss, you have likely to missed with a power that isn't coming back, and in those cases, a 66% hit chance may not feel like enough.

I think that's the most important point: combats can quickly turn ugly (or boring!) if a couple of attack rolls for encounter or daily powers miss. While daily powers are either reliable or have a reduced effect on a miss it still causes a significant reduction in effectiveness.

If action points still worked the way they did in 3E, I'd say they are the solution to this problem: Using an action point you can turn a near-miss into a hit.

In my 3E campaign the majority of action points are used to improve bad saving throws (which is why I introduced them in the first place). But if a fight seems to become too nasty they'll start using them for caster level checks or attack rolls, as well.

To get back on topic (and 4E):
I'm not sure, though, if it's as problematic at paragon level or higher. Between paragon abilities, high level items and feats you get more chances to hit with your important powers via rerolls or recharing expended powers - talking about expended powers:

It might also help if there was a (small) chance to recharge encounter powers (or maybe only encounter powers that missed?!).

 

[frankthedm]

4E makes teamwork vital. That is a good thing. Now it is not only the rogue who needs to get flanking. As long as the players are smart enough to make use of "ready" so both PCs get to swing with the flanking bonus, melee misses should be less of a problem than is perceived.

If someone has Prime shot, the rest of the party should be very familiar with the "Delay" option to ensure the player claims that bonus as often as possible. If the Warlock or Ranger have to beat their allies in initiative, it is not the system's fault that the group's teamwork sucks ass.

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.