How often should a Ftr 7 hit a CR 7 opponent?

[moritheil]

Classed NPCs will often look weak in comparison. Especially if the DM fails to have them use a good portion of their gear GP in potions and expendable items. A classed character must basically chug potions like they were liquid crack to approach "monster" damage output

Yeah, it doesn't really seem to matter how many warrior NPC levels I put on kobolds; as long as that number is within reason, they get put down like dogs by PCs before doing any real damage.

 

[frankthedm]

Yeah, it doesn't really seem to matter how many warrior NPC levels I put on kobolds; as long as that number is within reason, they get put down like dogs by PCs before doing any real damage.

Actaully having a classed NPC with a fair amount of his gear GP in alchemist fire and acid flasks can really change that

 

[pallandrome]

Wow...because my warrior classed Kobolds generally laugh maniacally as they attack the party from behind and maul the crap outta the squishy wizard. Either that, or they do the shield-wall bit and guard the kobold sorcerer, who blows everyone up.

 

[Darklone]

How did the kobold warriors I mentioned in General crawl into this thread???

Let's see. PC Fighter vs kobold warrior. Let's say the kobold is CR wise two lower than the PC, e.g. has one warrior level more. I did beat a bbn5 PC with a level 6 warrior already... Guess you did something wrong. And as pallandrome said: These kobold warriors last usually too long for the PCs if there are some sorcerers behind them.

 

[moritheil]

Actaully having a classed NPC with a fair amount of his gear GP in alchemist fire and acid flasks can really change that

Well, IMC the PCs are outsiders and resist elemental damage quite well. They were laughing as they chewed up the warriors . . . then they got to the kobold worm that walks.

 

[javcs]

Was that the one you had up for assistance with? ... that was an amusing exercise.



Replace warrior with warblade, swordsage, or crusader. Use the maneuvers that give turns to people on the casters.

Then who's laughing.

 

[Nail]

I'd say that it should usually higher than 50% for a *fighter's* primary attack (or that of a raging barbarian or smiting paladin). Maybe more like 75% for the fighter's main attack, which would leave the iterative attacks, rogues, clerics, and fighter/mages hitting about 50% of the time. The fighter will normally be quite a bit above everyone else on hit rolls.

The MM "monster design" guideline is that AC should be about 13+CR, so an equal-level fighter needs only +3 in non-BAB bonuses to have a 50% chance of hitting. This is easily done at 1st level with just a 15 Str and Weapon Focus.

I've done the calc for the AC of MM creatures. It starts at (AC=CR+13), then creeps up to (AC=CR+16) at high levels. Still, your point is a good one.

I guess my question is: If the front line fighter-type (Warblade, or tricked-out smiting Paladin, or raging Bbn, or...) is hitting 50% of the time, is that good enough? With his iterative attacks, he'll hit more often....should the "total probability" be in the range of 75%?

Assume the PCs know what they're doing, and they have typical wealth levels. Also assume these questions are all focused on how often the PCs hit over a few encounters per day.

How often should the PC "front-liners" hit creatures who have CR = APL (average party level)?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I've done the calc for the AC of MM creatures. It starts at (AC=CR+13), then creeps up to (AC=CR+16) at high levels. Still, your point is a good one.

Right, I was quoting the guidelines for making a new monster (p. 298), not the actual ACs.

If the front-line fighter is hitting only 50% of the time, he's not going to be using Power Attack or Combat Expertise, and so these feats would be reserved for dealing with mooks. I kind of like the image of the heroic fighter and the evil warlord testing out each others' defenses, trying to decide to go all-out or to play it conservatively.

How often should the PC "front-liners" hit creatures who have CR = APL (average party level)?

I'm going to stick with 75% as a general rule. That lets the secondary fighters (cleric, rogue, multiclass) be moderately effective, and it lets the fighter play around with Power Attack and Combat Expertise.

But there should be exceptions; there should be some equal-CR opponents that are nearly impossible to hit... because NPCs know the spell list and want to live. NPCs built for defense can have MUCH better AC than most monsters. Magic Vestment, Shield of Faith on both armor and shield, Barkskin, Cat's Grace, and Combat Expertise.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Generally speaking, I would say that the Fighter's best attack should hit 75-80% of the time against a level appropriate opponent for the party.

As we do not hamstring the spellcasters with the need to cast a Full Action spell to be reasonably effective, I do not see the need to factor iterative attacks in there. Iterative attacks are both a reward and a punishment -- if you are dishing out iterative attacks, you are likely to be receiving as well.

Philosophically speaking a specialist should be successful at typical tasks "most" of the time. A Fighter is a specialist. Hitting things is his specialty. 75-80% is roughly how successful I would expect the specialist to be against normal tasks that are appropriate challenges. That is good enough that strings of failures are rare, but a few isolated failures would not be -- enough variance to keep the next 6 seconds unpredictable.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Quartz]

Let's not forget that PCs will often be putting a point or two of BAB into Power Attack and / or a point or two into AC via Combat Expertise.