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

[James McMurray]

I don't understand your "Thus...".

If you mean "positive effect" = "I feel better", then I agree (as I've been saying all along). If you mean "positive effect" = "I roll better numbers", then you'll have to prove it.

My misunderstanding. Looks like we were on the same page all along. Ah well, at least it killed some time.

 

[Nail]

Ah well, at least it killed some time.

I'm with you there.

 

[Dalzig]

I don't know if the hit chance is too low, but it still severely sucks to miss daily powers.

Little Anecdotal 'evidence':
Rogue fighting some solo thing (been a while). I brought out my dagger, was flanking with the fighter, had maximum dexterity, used an Action Point for the Warlord thing, and fired up my big daily exploit. And I missed.

Then I missed with my other daily.

Then I missed with one encounter.

Then the other encounter.

I know that probability was doing its thing... but come on! When the fighter does more damage than the rogue, something seems wrong.

Not that it is wrong...

 

[Nail]

Little Anecdotal 'evidence': ...

In yesterday's game, my PC consistantly missed with his At-Wills. He got to hit with his (reliable) daily, though.

Thank goodness for the "reliable" keyword on Comeback Strike (Ftr 1 Daily).

 

[darkwing]

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.

I love this idea. Assignable attributes are a design flaw. They make it too easy to get the group unbalanced with respect to each other. Also it would be nice if once you trained a skill you became good at it, regardless of attribute scores (another area where attribute scores create an imbalance). A character should be defined by the powers and skills she gains as she levels, not by attribute scores she picked at 1st level. Also, character creation is the point where you're least likely to have the experience needed to make an informed decision about attribute scores. The most difficult decision at character creation should be what class to play.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I love this idea. Assignable attributes are a design flaw. They make it too easy to get the group unbalanced with respect to each other. Also it would be nice if once you trained a skill you became good at it, regardless of attribute scores (another area where attribute scores create an imbalance). A character should be defined by the powers and skills she gains as she levels, not by attribute scores she picked at 1st level. Also, character creation is the point where you're least likely to have the experience needed to make an informed decision about attribute scores. The most difficult decision at character creation should be what class to play.

That sounds like an argument for chucking attribute scores entirely.

4e did not roast enough sacred cows, eh?

 

[Jhaelen]

4e did not roast enough sacred cows, eh?

You can say that! E.g. I was a bit surprised about the number of dice you have to roll in certain circumstances. I was really expecting to never roll more than, say, three of for dice to determine damage with the static portion of the damage increasing instead.

Or maybe they should have done it the DDM way and let all damage be fixed...

 

[Baumi]

I love this idea. Assignable attributes are a design flaw. They make it too easy to get the group unbalanced with respect to each other. Also it would be nice if once you trained a skill you became good at it, regardless of attribute scores (another area where attribute scores create an imbalance). A character should be defined by the powers and skills she gains as she levels, not by attribute scores she picked at 1st level. Also, character creation is the point where you're least likely to have the experience needed to make an informed decision about attribute scores. The most difficult decision at character creation should be what class to play.

Funny, I had the same thoughts about attributes lately. Everybody seems to be obsessed with Attributes, especially when talking about Race/Class Combos, where a races are only considered if one of the attribute bonuses fit.

The Attributes are also more or less the only thing where you can still gimp yourself, since you have to pick your powers and skills from a defined set where every choice is more or less ok and feats are small bonuses that are nice but not needed for a class.

Without Attributes it would be easier to create characters (Attributes seems to be the most complicated thing for a new player and it takes often more time to optimize Attributes than choosing skills and feats) and you wouldn't loose much without them (nearly all checks are attacks or skills).

But I have to admit that it wouldn't feel like D&D without the classical six Attributes and the range of 3-18...

 

[HarbingerX]

When a die rolls badly 3 or more times in a row, it is with great ceremony that I toss it back in the bag and pluck another dice. Given time to rest, it may eventually be able to generate good numbers again. It's like sending in a relief pitcher.

I have a player who's been complaining about his warlock missing all the time because his d20 rolls low. One of the other players couldn't find his d20 for a moment and asked he could use his.

Warlock Player: "You can try, but it rolls badly all the time."
Other Player: rolls.... 20!

... man did we laugh. He retired the die for the night.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I love this idea. Assignable attributes are a design flaw. They make it too easy to get the group unbalanced with respect to each other.

I think that's mainly an artifact of 3rd Edition. If you look at 1st Edition AD&D, attributes are both much lower and much less important. A Magic-User with a 12 Int isn't doing all that badly, for instance. He's certainly better equipped than his 3e and 4e counterparts, proportionally. As far as AC is concerned, a 7 in Dex is as good as a 14 Dex in 1e!

The over-emphasis on attributes led to the attribute roll being much more important, which led to the popularity of point buy (IMO). I still like the way 1e does it better--roll 'em, but they aren't the end-all-be-all of character strength.