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

[FireLance]

I don't think it's that simple. Taking 30% more hits doesn't just mean 30% more hit point damage, it also means 30% more chance to be slowed, stunned, pushed, see your enemies healed, see your enemies get bonuses against you...

Good point. It might be possible to re-balance that by giving a small chance that the rider effect fails (roll a 6 on 1d6, for example), but I think that would slow down gameplay.

 

[nittanytbone]

One thing I don't like is that you have the CHOICE to suck.

I'd have preferred the PHB to rule that (A) you must have at least a 16 in your prime attack stat and (B) At level 4, 8, and so on, you may boost your prime attack stat and one additional stat of your choice.

With the return to strong archetypes in 4E, I'm sorry -- Fighters are Strong, Wizards are Smart, and Rogues are Nimble. If you want to play a character with 10 STR, don't play a fighter. The only potential snag comes with the dual-attribute stats like clerics who can choose between WIS and STR (both or either!), but that is easily worked through if you just say that ONE of the stats must be considered a "prime requisite."

Instead, you have the option to start with a 14 in your prime attack stat and never pump it, except for the two mandatory increases as you tier up. And some people may not realize that there is something wrong with that, and consequently be frustrated when they suck.

 

[Solodan]

I think 4e is right at the sweet spot. Players hit and get hit often enough that they have fun (though streaks do occur) but at the same time need to be strategic enough that they are rewarded for flanking and teamwork.

 

[Truename]

So what do you think? Do you feel that the D&D to hit chance is too low from then point of fun with the game and psychology?

Yeah, I think it is, at least for my group. My players get really frustrated when they blow a bunch of attacks in a row, particularly the cleric, who just wants to help the other characters but has to hit something in order to do so. The mood at the table changed completely when they fought zombies because they went "splat" so nicely.

Part of the problem might have been that we were playing through KoTS using the pre-gens. Also, the group hasn't really optimized their tactics at all and doesn't really work as a team to maximize things like dailies and encounter powers.

We're starting Siege of Bordrin's Watch soon and most of the players have revised their characters. Also, they're one level higher than recommended, so they'll be facing lower-level monsters. I'll increase the number of monsters, but they'll still be squishier. Hopefully these things together will fix the problem.

 

[rowport]

...Problems creep in with certain exceptions - in theory, most level 1 monsters will have Non-AC Defenses of around 13. In practice, many low-level monsters tend to have very good Reflex, which can be frustrated for wizards or warlocks without other options...

I have not checked the stats on this assertion, but my gut-check experience backs it up. Both our Wizard and my Warlock seem to miss with annoying frequency. At first I thought it was because our Attacks were both too low relative to our melee specialists, until my DM pointed out that other Defenses should lag roughly 2 points behind AC, making up the difference of weapon proficiency. I dunno, though. It really does seem like Reflex is *equal* to AC for a lot of low-level creatures (we are currently at level 4).

Shrug.

Part of the problem is that my Warlock only started with a 16 in CON as his primary stat-- I have gradually come to realize that an extra +1 Attack is really important...

 

[Nail]

@Nail: Why the long chart?

..Because it proves the point: The "hit" range isn't in the "50%" range. It's higher than that. Even the poor hammer battlerager fighter usually has greater than 50% chance to hit.

(The same is true for other classes; the fighter data is most handy to me.)

Do you have to invest 18 out of 22 points in your primary stst just to keep your hit chance barely at 50%?

Poppycock! A 16 stat costs 9 points out of a total of 22. Put a 16 in your primary attack stat, take a low proficiency weapon, and you're at 50%. That sounds like an even chance to me, and neglects racial stat bonuses, using party tactics, or gaining buffs to increase your attack roll.

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).

Every one has access to Combat Advantage, not to mention simple tactics.

...and gaining a +2 to hit your opponent is HUGE.

@But please, I intended this thread not to end in calculations,

Leaving facts out of the discussion will allow for a wider array of views, I'll give you that.

@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?

IMO, the range should be at least 50%, if not 60%. (Again: neglecting CA and tactics.)

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

My characters hit rather often. I wonder why?

 

[nittanytbone]

Part of the problem might have been that we were playing through KoTS using the pre-gens. Also, the group hasn't really optimized their tactics at all and doesn't really work as a team to maximize things like dailies and encounter powers.

This is why I think including Brutes is important. If there's a brute in every other fight, those players that need to tear through a lot of HP to feel like they are contributing will get their fix. If the DM senses this desire among the group, it should be easy enough to either (A) swap out a monster or two in the module's given encounters or (B) modify the stats on a monster to make it a brute per the DM's toolbox (penalize defenses and to hit, boost damage and HP).

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'd have preferred the PHB to rule that (A) you must have at least a 16 in your prime attack stat and (B) At level 4, 8, and so on, you may boost your prime attack stat and one additional stat of your choice.

That greatly increases the power of any two-stat classes, which would otherwise be designed to be balanced with slightly lower stats in mind. Also, by having any such non-gimp rules, you might as well eliminate stat selection and say that all (e.g.) fighters start with one of the following specific arrays (not an array and arrange as you like, but literally Str=16, etc.), and adding racial modifiers. I can't imagine that ever being a Good Thing for the game. It might not have been out of place as a suggestion somewhere, however (maybe it is written down though).

Leaving facts out of the discussion will allow for a wider array of views, I'll give you that.

How dare you cloud the issue with facts? Don't mention any bonuses that make the attack roll non-average and defeat the self-fulfilling prophecy that average attacks are average!

Seriously, though, that's what JB is seemingly asking for and complaining about. Average stats with no non-averaging bonuses equals an average chance to hit. Don't use statistics to prove otherwise or show relevant information. I, for one, can't see how a discussion on this would be productive.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

So what do you think? Do you feel that the D&D to hit chance is too low from then point of fun with the game and psychology?

You're wrong. Or rather, you're right that an average of 50% would be frustrating but you are wrong that this the actual average chances of hitting. It's subtsantially higher.

As Nail showed, 50% is the average if you are not even trying.

My current level 2 fighter has +10 to hit. Take a Kobold Dragonshield. A high AC soldier at 18 AC for level 2. To hit only 50% of the time I'd need to have STR 14 and use an axe (-3 to my current bonus). As is, I hit 65% of the time without bonuses. Except of course I routinely scrouge a bonuse (CA, Action surge, bonuses from the cleric...). The odds of hitting are already a tad high for my taste.

Now just for fun, drop that AC to 15, as per some suggestions in this thread. Just give me CA and I miss only on 1 or a 2. Weee. And this is a soldier monster! Most level 2 monsters have lower AC. I'll be blunt; I wouldn't play in that campaign.

 

[Noumenon]

That chance of roughly 50% will give you regulary chains of misses

Google is telling me you'll typically get at least one run of 7 in a row with 100 coin flips. Could be 7 hits, could be 7 misses.