Hit Probability is a Slippery Slope

[Ridley's Cohort]

So assuming (1) reasonable maximizing in the most obvious ways, and (2) completely ignoring tactical synergies and powerful dailies, we fall behind 3 little notches in total shared between our primary and secondary modes of attack.

At a rough glance, that looks very well balanced.

I certainly hope that players do not expect to get away with playing their 30th level PCs with the exact same tactics and skill as would be sufficient for a 1st level PC with absolutely zero negative repercussions. What you are revealing is that there is, in fact, a minor penalty for being so perfectly monotonous.

Good.

 

[eamon]

Again, monsters' powers tend not to directly boost their attacks and defenses... doesn't the explanation of the monster stat table in the DMG say that these values are supposed to incorporate feats, equipment, etc.? We are considering the PC's equipment in our base comparison here, but not so much "feats" and "etc.".

All that being said, it's quite possible that the gap could make things a bit swingier for higher level PCs, as whether or not they bring their fancy power and feat bonuses to bear makes a larger difference. If so, I'm not sure that's necessarily a bug, as it could make things more interesting tactically. As long as it doesn't make things too swingy - and if the gap is at worse a +4 in the monsters' favor, it seems like the degree of swinginess is limited.

Once again the PC's are going to have more "wildcard" powers (rerolls, interrupts, more uses of magic items per day, magic item always-on properties...). It gets increasingly difficult to make direct comparisons, but all in all I strongly suspect the PC's would become too dominant if there wasn't a bit of a gap in the base number progression.

Feats aren't going to come close to compensating. Feats that boost attack rolls are rare, and those that exist are generally situational. I'm thinking that combats will both be somewhat more swingy (but then, PC's will have more hit points and more defensive abilities and rerolls to handle that) and also powers more powerful. Most powers don't cause a long-term boost to attacks and defenses, however, so you'll still be depending on at-wills a lot, which won't be able to boost many people. The Leader classes have at wills that can boost attack rolls, but that does mean they need to hit in the first place (righteous brand, furious smash) or that the bonus is inflexible (commander's strike, bonus is applied to a basic attack).

So combat will involve a little more set-up and cooperation and be a little swingy at higher levels - which is probably not a problem.

 

[NeoNick]

I think Amnuxoll points to a very important game mechanichs fact.

Me being an opter and wanting a /in my eyes/ beautiful charachter I early saw that I only liked the classes/builds that needs just two stats. In my opinion 90%+ of your attacs comes from your primary attack stat. And this game just got more combat intense for us /for some reason/, compared to D&D 3.5.

For you who don't realize just how important a single +1 to attack can be, let me give an example. Assume that two chars are compared how well they perform in a single identical situiation. One of them took 18 in his primary attack stat, the other took 20. Now they find themselves fighting a really bad monster that have a very high AC. As it is, the 18-stat-char only hits on a rolled 20 and he never crits, and the 20-stat-char hits on a 19-20.

In this example the 20-stat-charachter would have more than DOUBLE the damage-per-round (dpr) compared to the 18-stat-char. (The "more than" comes from the fact that the 20-stat-char can crit, whereas the 18-stat-char cannot.)

So depending on your own campaign (how often your DM throws high AC mobs at you) the RELATIVE difference in dpr between 18 and 20 in the primary stat can be quite big.

 

[keterys]

If the character with the 18 stat can only hit on a 20, then frankly there's a problem. The DM shouldn't be throwing that creature at them for a few levels yet or the creature is just designed poorly (Solo soldiers, I'm looking at you expectantly)

 

[Anthony Jackson]

For you who don't realize just how important a single +1 to attack can be, let me give an example. Assume that two chars are compared how well they perform in a single identical situiation. One of them took 18 in his primary attack stat, the other took 20. Now they find themselves fighting a really bad monster that have a very high AC. As it is, the 18-stat-char only hits on a rolled 20 and he never crits, and the 20-stat-char hits on a 19-20.

Okay, let's assume first level characters using swords. Attack bonus will be +7 or +8, so our monster must have an AC of 27. The highest AC for a standard monster is typically level+16 for a soldier, so apparently we're fighting a level 11 soldier, who we apparently cannot flank; either that, or we're fighting a level 13. A level 11 monster vs a level 1 party isn't a guaranteed TPK, but it's close, and it will be an excruciatingly dull fight. We could also be fighting a somewhat lower level Elite or Solo, but that's even more likely to be a TPK.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One of them took 18 in his primary attack stat, the other took 20. Now they find themselves fighting a really bad monster that have a very high AC. As it is, the 18-stat-char only hits on a rolled 20 and he never crits, and the 20-stat-char hits on a 19-20.

In this example the 20-stat-charachter would have more than DOUBLE the damage-per-round (dpr) compared to the 18-stat-char. (The "more than" comes from the fact that the 20-stat-char can crit, whereas the 18-stat-char cannot.)

All that means is that, on average, the 20 stat character inflicts twice the damage as the 18 stat charater - /before the monster kills him and his entire party/. Because, seriously, you're talking a monster a good 10 levels above the party level, and 5 levels above the party is about as high as you can go without an unacceptable risk of a TPK.

 

[Malicea]

Okay, let's assume first level characters using swords. Attack bonus will be +7 or +8, so our monster must have an AC of 27. The highest AC for a standard monster is typically level+16 for a soldier, so apparently we're fighting a level 11 soldier, who we apparently cannot flank; either that, or we're fighting a level 13. A level 11 monster vs a level 1 party isn't a guaranteed TPK, but it's close, and it will be an excruciatingly dull fight. We could also be fighting a somewhat lower level Elite or Solo, but that's even more likely to be a TPK.

NeoNick's example was an extreme one, but it's relevant still when applied to actually balanced encounters. Against an AC of 18, which is not uncommon among level 3 creatures, +7 hits on an 11 (50%) while +8 hits on a 10 (55%.) The difference in hit rate, and hence damage output, and hence approximate rate of killing, is 5/50, which is a 10% increase - for a simple +1 advantage.

If you're using a non-optimal race (with no bonus in the primary stat) and place only a 16 in that stat, you can be up to 2 behind in attack bonus, which can translate into a 20%+ advantage to the guy with a 20, in terms of hit rate/damage output. Comparing a party of 5 with 16s, and one with 5 with 20s, the 2nd party is effectively doing the damage of a party of 6 with 16s - all approximations of course. This does not take into account the presence of attacks that do damage on misses, or that hit automatically.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

NeoNick's example was an extreme one, but it's relevant still when applied to actually balanced encounters. Against an AC of 18, which is not uncommon among level 3 creatures, +7 hits on an 11 (50%) while +8 hits on a 10 (55%.) The difference in hit rate, and hence damage output, and hence approximate rate of killing, is 5/50, which is a 10% increase - for a simple +1 advantage.

The actual advantage is usually higher than that, because strength also adds to damage, though the magnitude of the difference varies with level (it's +1 damage forever. If you're normally doing 10 damage per hit, that's +10%. If you're normally doing 25 damage, that's +4%).

With very few exceptions (the only one I can think of offhand is a dwarf fighter or paladin) playing a race without a bonus to the primary stat used by the class is foolish. However, secondary stats and feat qualifications play enough of a role in power balance that spending the points for an 18 stat is not always optimal.

 

[TK Lafours]

Also, non-martial characters often get more than one attack roll per round due to AoE attacks which makes missing more forgivable.

 

[ryryguy]

Feats aren't going to come close to compensating. Feats that boost attack rolls are rare, and those that exist are generally situational.

A quick pass with the rules compendium turns up the following feats which can increase attack bonus:

Action Surge, Back to the Wall, Combat Reflexes, Blade Opportunist, Elven Precision, Hellfire Blood, Nimble Blade, Precise Hunter, Sweeping Flail.

Granted, they are situational (as you say) and not available to all characters. But we're not looking for feats to make up the gap entirely. Amortized over a whole encounter they might add a +0.5, which is not insignicant if you're talking about a 4 point gap.

That doesn't account for feats which increase damage, either. I'm sure you realize that attack bonus and damage bonus are two sides of the same coin. Either one impacts your average damage per attack. Sure, there are some situations where you'd prefer a bonus to one over a bonus to the other, but overall they work out to help you in very similar ways. So, humble Weapon Focus is a decent equalizer here - it even gets better in the higher tiers!