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

[Bond James Bond]

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.

Exactly. But here lies the problem wit human psychology:

7 hits in a row are considered just being nice.

7 misses in a row are endlessly frustrating. (and 7 rounds can last quite long)

It´s like Murphys law. If something good (e.g. you stand in the fastest moving lane in a traffic jam) happens to you, your brain thinks that is how its supposed to be - if you consciously notice the event at all.

If something bad happens (e.g. you stand in the slowest moving line in a traffic jam) you will notice it and ask yourself why these things always happen to you (especially now that you are in a hurry).

Anyway it is interesting to see that most people feel their chance to hit is ok and on average considerably higher than 50%. I had the same feeling when plaing a rogue or a fighter (who doesn`t even need to hit to unleash hell). Playing a Paladin, however, made me think more than once about Murphys Law.

However, I just may point out that I find it questionable to assume that you always or even most of the time have access to things like CA - at least, when there is more than one enemy to fight.

 

[Lizard]

If 4e hit chances are too low, you want to avoid Warhammer FRP like the plague.

Or Rolemaster Classic.

 

[Nail]

It´s like Murphys law. If something good (e.g. you stand in the fastest moving lane in a traffic jam) happens to you, your brain thinks that is how its supposed to be - if you consciously notice the event at all.

If something bad happens (e.g. you stand in the slowest moving line in a traffic jam) you will notice it and ask yourself why these things always happen to you (especially now that you are in a hurry).

Very true.

What's most interesting is to see how fellow gamers justify it. How many times have we all heard the phrase "I'm just unlucky with dice"? I once sat down with such a gamer, had him roll the dice a bunch of times, and calculated the mean and std dev for him. ...and what do you know, it was right on the "average" mark!

His response: "..That's 'cause these rolls don't mean anything. If I was rolling in combat, I'd be missing all the time!"

<chuckle>

Yeah...sure, bud.

However, I just may point out that I find it questionable to assume that you always or even most of the time have access to things like CA - at least, when there is more than one enemy to fight.

FWIW: In the two groups I game in, we find CA about half the time, I think -- even in mass battles. Do you find it less?

 

[Hella_Tellah]

If 4e hit chances are too low, you want to avoid Warhammer FRP like the plague.

Outnumber them and all out attack for +30-40%. If you cannot achieve this, run away.

 

[Noumenon]

I once sat down with such a gamer, had him roll the dice a bunch of times, and calculated the mean and std dev for him. ...and what do you know, it was right on the "average" mark!

His response: "..That's 'cause these rolls don't mean anything. If I was rolling in combat, I'd be missing all the time!"

I always assume people are kind of joking about that, and they aren't really postulating some kind of supernatural force changing the laws of probability against them. It helps me keep my sanity, anyway.

I know most people in the lab bet they are going to win about 40% of coin flips, when they know they ought to win half.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The basic 50/50 chance to hit and the careful way it's maintained through all levels (the 4e 'treadmill') is a reasonable design decision. It means that attacks (OAs for instance) are always a risk, never a triviality or certainty, which adds a certain sort of 'drama' (uncertainty) to the game.

It's ameliorated somewhat by leader powers (or other limitted bonuses, like action surge, wand of accuracy, or even aid another) that can give large (and/or stacking) attack bonuses, making important attacks more likely to hit at a 'dramatic' moment.


But, yes, statistically with with a 50/50 hit chance you /will/ get runs of 3 or 4 (or more) frustrating misses in a row often enough to notice. This is no big deal when your the leader who's also healing and passing out bonuses, or the defender who's still marking and standing up to the enemy, or the wizard or ranger who's making more than one attack roll per turn. But, if your main claim to glory is hitting the other guy (striker), and you miss the other guy 4 rounds in a row in a six round battle, your pride is going to be smarting a bit.

 

[frankthedm]

Originally Posted by James McMurray
If 4e hit chances are too low, you want to avoid Warhammer FRP like the plague.

Outnumber them and all out attack for +30-40%. If you cannot achieve this, run away.

Indeed!

 

[the Jester]

I feel that the balance is about right in 4e, if the pcs fight opponents with a wide range of ACs (and other defenses too, I suppose).

There are two interesting things I thought of while reading this thread. The first is the idea of reducing grind by lowering all monster defenses by 1 or 2. I'm not going to do it- the level of grind hasn't been too bad ime so far- but it's an option (much like reducing hps is a much-talked about option).

The second thing that I thought of was an old house rule a dude I knew used in his 2e game back in the day. I didn't play much in his campaign, but most of his players played in mine, so I heard about it (and played a session or two in there). Anyway, his rule was: natural 1-3 always misses. I like that- it gives a certain maximum chance of success. When I put together my dnd "Jazz Edition" (mixing the best of all editions together into a jazzy dnd stew) I may well use that.

 

[Infiniti2000]

What's most interesting is to see how fellow gamers justify it. How many times have we all heard the phrase "I'm just unlucky with dice"?

We started playing 4e about two weeks ago and one of the players had a miserable night with the dice for some reason. Lots of misses. His comment? "4E sucks!"

 

[WalterKovacs]

But, yes, statistically with with a 50/50 hit chance you /will/ get runs of 3 or 4 (or more) frustrating misses in a row often enough to notice. This is no big deal when your the leader who's also healing and passing out bonuses, or the defender who's still marking and standing up to the enemy, or the wizard or ranger who's making more than one attack roll per turn. But, if your main claim to glory is hitting the other guy (striker), and you miss the other guy 4 rounds in a row in a six round battle, your pride is going to be smarting a bit.

At the same time, strikers have a better chance of hitting.

The ranger has multiple attacks, giving a better chance of at least landing one (and getting the resulting quarry damage). The rogue can go with a dagger to increase accuracy, not to mention he wants combat advantage anyway, and has some weapon attacks against non-AC defences. Then there is the warlock with tons of attacks against Will, one of the lowest defenses on average for monsters. Finally you have the barbarian who can constantly charge to get that extra +1.

Prime shot for the ranged attacks, the mobility to help with flanking, and that's not even counting the beastmaster ranger's "pet to flank with" class feature.

In the game I DM, the Rogue rarely misses when she has combat advantage (which she rarely doesn't have, unless it's a situation such as a large monster, in tight quarters which make it difficult to flank). The warlock will still miss on occaision, but Sacrifice of Caiphon from Dungeon Magazine gives him a bit of reprieve from that idea.

Ultimately, it's up to the DM to figure out what is right for their players. The ability to go with lower level monsters, and just including more of them, is an option to increase hit rates. With a tactical group able to constantly supply each other with bonuses to their accuracy, like combat advantage, leader-based bonuses and such, can be challenged by having them go against higher level creatures, soldiers and the like to be able to make things more challenging.

While lowering monster defences would make it less frustrating for players of an "average" class (one without a built in bonus) AND a +2 weapon AND a non-maxed out attack stat (maybe without a racial bonus), it would make it way too easy for people that take every bonus they have, and then getting assists from the rest of the party become moot.

There has to be a balancing act between making it possible for players to make the kind of character they want to play, and rewarding smart choices (especially teamwork options). Optimization is one thing, but when a party has good tactics, even less than optimal characters can get a boost to their hit percentage, making the group greater than the sum of it's parts.