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

[Stalker0]

I think that's mainly an artifact of 3rd Edition.

I keep wondering if its also an artifact of the point buy number. For example, in 3rd edition the technical point buy was 25 points for a normal game. I don't know about the rest of you, but my group never played with that. It was 28 at the minimum, often with 30 or 32.

I wonder if 4e will see a creep in point buy. With that, people may not care as much, because its easier to get your 18's and still get a few other stats, etc.

 

[Jhaelen]

I keep wondering if its also an artifact of the point buy number. For example, in 3rd edition the technical point buy was 25 points for a normal game. I don't know about the rest of you, but my group never played with that. It was 28 at the minimum, often with 30 or 32.

Yep, we'd been starting with 28 point buy for the first generation of characters, so the players could get used to the rules.

I had planned to lower it to 25 for the next generation of characters but my players rebelled, so at 28 point buy it stayed.

 

[James McMurray]

In theepic game I'm running the PCs have between 45 and 55 point buy dependong on the PC, though they did have to earn a lot of those points through play.

 

[Spatula]

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.

You must have played a different 1e than me. The fact that ability score values don't matter until you hit 15 or 16 meant that everyone wanted at least 15s or 16s. The difference between a 12 and an 18 is pretty big for most stats, with Strength being the worst offender if you're a fighter-type (or can get your hands on the 18(00) gloves or the 19-25 giant-strength belts). 3e made lower scores worthwhile (and tried to push having 15 as your highest starting stat!), but it seemed to me that players were already trained by previous editions to require at least one 17-18.

 

[Nail]

Spatula, that's my recollection of it too....but it's been quite a while since I played with the Basic Set. I also remember the open "skepticism" the rest of us had of the guy that rolled an 18/00 strength.

18/00 Str was later, wasn't it? AD&D? Hmmmmm.....where's that wiki.....

 

[Hella_Tellah]

You must have played a different 1e than me. The fact that ability score values don't matter until you hit 15 or 16 meant that everyone wanted at least 15s or 16s. The difference between a 12 and an 18 is pretty big for most stats, with Strength being the worst offender if you're a fighter-type (or can get your hands on the 18(00) gloves or the 19-25 giant-strength belts). 3e made lower scores worthwhile (and tried to push having 15 as your highest starting stat!), but it seemed to me that players were already trained by previous editions to require at least one 17-18.

Yeah, a 15+ is nice, but nearly impossible to get. I prefer stats rolled 3d6 straight down the line, no re-assignment. Most characters will have average stats, and there's very little variance in power at that range. Sure, really high stats are good in 1e, but you'd have to be really dang lucky to get them. And even with Strength, which you rightly call the worst offender, you still only get a +2 to hit, and only at 18(51) or better. It's still a lot less significant than in 3rd Edition.

Edit: To be clear, I'm referencing AD&D 1st Edition by way of the OSRIC, as it's conveniently PDF-ish.

 

[Spatula]

Yeah, a 15+ is nice, but nearly impossible to get. I prefer stats rolled 3d6 straight down the line, no re-assignment. Most characters will have average stats, and there's very little variance in power at that range. Sure, really high stats are good in 1e, but you'd have to be really dang lucky to get them. And even with Strength, which you rightly call the worst offender, you still only get a +2 to hit, and only at 18(51) or better. It's still a lot less significant than in 3rd Edition.

Ah, that's really old school. I pretty much started with AD&D and always used some variation on 4d6, where the average is 13-14 I think, rather than 10-11 as it is with 3d6. The big impact of Strength was in the damage bonus - typically around twice the to-hit bonus - as hitting usually isn't a big problem once you're past the early levels and there weren't a lot of ways to boost weapon damage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One funny thing about 1e, though, was, prized as high stat were, you could often get them in back-handed ways. Wishes could give you a +1 to any stat under 16, but only 1/10th of a point thereafter. Gauntlets of Ogre Power for an 18/00 were not exactly rare, and girdles of giant strength were out there, too. The 'Strength' Spell gave a fighter quite a STR boost, too, if you could ever find a magic-user willing to cast it instead of Web or Invisibility or all those other good 2nd-level spells.

There were other things, too. There were magic items that just flat-out gave you an 18 DEX, for instance. A character with unimpressive rolled stats could have just as high bonuses from some of them after finding the right items as someone who 'rolled really lucky, honest.'

3e, in contrast, by making all items add to your stats made having high stats critically important, because starting as high as possible meant maximizing that stat for the rest of your career.

4e prettymuch carves that in stone. If you don't start with a 16-20 primary stat and maxx it relentlessly, you will start to suck eventually - there's just no compensating for a substandard attack stat on the 4e treadmill.

FWIW

 

[kermel]

I actually discussed ability scores in rpg.net some time ago:

[House Rule] Decoupling Ability Scores and Modifiers - RPGnet Forums

I would even go further. Why do we need ability bonuses at all? Imagine the wimpy wizard had the same chances to hit than the strong fighter. So what? Classes already enforce the roles on their own. The fighter is going to wield a weapon better than the wizard because of powers and class traits, and also can risk getting in hand to hand combat much more often than the somewhat squishy wizard, who can stay in the back and cast spells all the time anyway.

So, I think there shouldn't be ability modifiers, just ability scores which are used as prerequisites for classes, races, feats, skills... Ability modifiers are both redundant and balance-breaking, I'm afraid.

 

[TheOmega720]

I agree for especially the wizard class. My friend plays as a wizard and we make fun of him because his chance is normally 50/50

as a rogue though my hit chance is pretty solid: always around 75%

Combat Advantage though is defiantly the strategy for winning
the games combat is focused more on teamwork than landing hits like crazy