Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bond James Bond" data-source="post: 4613165" data-attributes="member: 77600">Hi. One feature of D&D 4E, which is drastically different from previous editions (and other rpgs I´ve played so far) is the average chance of the player being able to "hit" monsters, which IMO is too low and therefore may lead to frustration: Previous editions allowed a player to easily max out their chance hit enemies and misses were rather an exception (execept for some iterative attacks or super hard enemies). This included most spells, which usually didnt call for an attack roll - if they allowed for a save that on average didnt have a very high chance of success, at least if the caster attacked one of the weak saves. D&D 4E on the other hand is built around a basic to hit chance of about 50% (give or take 10%) against equal level monsters on all levels and factors "maxing" out in. I.e., a player which focuses on his main attack stat, improves his primary weapon/implement etc. whenever possible won`t get significantly beyond that chance (with the rogue being somewhat of an exception here). If the player decides not to max out his character (god forbid there be a fighter for example without near maximum strength), his chance to accomplish something in a combat will drop considerably below 50%. The question is: Is this good design?  That chance of roughly 50% will give you regulary chains of misses, and most of the time a miss will mean that you`ve accomplished nothing at all with your attack. Just a few powers are reliable or have a decent effect on a miss (and not everyone can/wants to take Hammer Rhythm or Scimitar Dance). This easily can get frustrating - especially if you fight the BBEG which is a few levels above you and therefore your average hit chance could easily drop to 40% and below (even assuming a maxed out character).  Don`t get me wrong: This is not about Balance or the game being to hard. It`s about psycholgy: Wouldn`t it be better if the rules would assume a basic hit chance of, say around 70%?  This wouldn`t even seriously affect the balance of the game if the rules would adjust the HP or the damage accordingly to reflect the higher to hit chance. It might, however, IMO lead to a game with less frustrating incidents (e.g. like if you blew all your encounter powers in 3 rounds in a row without hitting once). 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?</blockquote>

Verification