Math behind PC defenses and to hit VS monsters ?

[DracoSuave]

The big two auras in the MM are Fire and Necrotic (Cold and Psychic secondary).

The big two ongoing in the MM are Poison and Fire (Acid and Necrotic secondary).

So, get yourself some good Fire and Poison gear, and possibly Necrotic and Acid gear in that order and you can pretty much ignore the rest.

Or be a tiefling in Necrotic/Poison gear.

That's right. A tiefling. They are so broken no one even knows.

 

[KarinsDad]

Or be a tiefling in Necrotic/Poison gear.

That's right. A tiefling. They are so broken no one even knows.

Our player of a Tiefling Rogue with a starting Dex of 16 doesn't think so, but...

 

[Silverwave]

I've been doing some math.

Here's the score needed to hit a monster of the same lvl

PC SCORE TO HIT (same lvl)
1:  9
2:  9
3:  9
4:  8
5:  9
6:  9
7:  10
8:  9
9:  10
10: 10
11: 10
12: 10
13: 10
14: 10
15: 11
16: 10
17: 11
18: 10
19: 11
20: 11
21: 12
22: 11
23: 11

The maths seem not bad if you presume that most of the time, players will get +2 either from a synergy bonus (from a power) or from Combat Advantage. Without any exterior bonus, it average between 55% to 45% chance to hit, and 65% to 55% with a +2 from synergy/CA bonus (wich can get higher if you get both and/or gives the monster a -2 to hit).

If your party takes on higher lvl monsters (wich, in my experience, happens all the time; someone already mentioned the average monster lvl +3, wich seems correct), the chance to hit drops by 3 (15%), going down 40% to 30% and 55% to 45% with +2 synergy bonus, 65% to 55% with a +4 (rare), 85% to 75% with +6 (extremly rare).

30-40% chance to hit seems very low to me since those maths are calculated from optimized characters (but not including feats).

I see then two solutions.

1: Either adopt one of the solutions in one of the [enter a two digit number] posts already in the forums.

2: DM use only monsters of the party's lvl.

The #2 have the advantage of not having to change the system at all, and fix the attack and defense problem at the same time.
One question remains though : will same lvl monsters be challenging enough (HP and damage dealing wise) ?
I'll try to use same lvl of the party monsters, but using more monsters (using the xp pool of 1 lvl higher and as if the party was made of 6 players instead of 5).

 

[Nail]

FWIW, "more challenging" does not have to be "harder to hit".

One of the problems I see (as a player) is that monsters that are above our level are hard to hit...and that's frustrating. IMO, it's far better to let the players hit ~50% of the time, and make the monster tougher with higher hp and damage/attack. The math to get there ain't tricky.

 

[Silverwave]

I agree. Even 50% chance to hit is too low in my opinion. Who think missing an attack feels fun for the player? Missing should be rare! 80% hit chance is more like it.

 

[Seeker]

A lot of the posts I've seen have talked about the range from level 1 to level 30. At level 1, however, you can't fight monsters of under your level, which is supposed to happen a fair amount of the time. (One encounter of under your level, three of your level, and three of your level + 1, according to the DMG, for all of which it'd reasonable to have a number of monsters below the party's level.) Should we be doing comparisons from level 3, instead? (The first time you can actually use the full range of monster levels.) Does that make it better or worse?

 

[Danceofmasks]

I agree. Even 50% chance to hit is too low in my opinion. Who think missing an attack feels fun for the player? Missing should be rare! 80% hit chance is more like it.

Well, the difference between 50% and 80% is +6.
With a bit of tactics and a buff, you can get that +6 no probs.

Couple of examples:
Human battlemage spends an AP gets +7 to one power and +4 to the other ... which stacks with combat advantage and power bonuses.
Cleric lands a righteous brand and grants +9 power bonus all by himself (ok, that one is broken)

Guess the point is, though ... if you start at 80%, those bonuses wouldn't do anything.
Who needs tactics and combos when you can just stand and swing?

 

[Silverwave]

You're mentioning exceptions. You can spend only 1 AP per encounter, and the bonus apply only for 1 attack.

CA, at-will that gives a monster -2 to hit, powers that gives +2 to attack, etc is more the kind of "synergy" bonus I was talking about. Overall, you cannot expect having more than +2 per turn. In the game, you'll maybe see it more like : 1st round +2 from CA, 2nd round -2 to ennemy defenses from a power, 3rd round no bonus, 4th round +4 from AP, etc

But you're right, having 80% to hit without those bonus is too much. This is why I'm aiming to something in between that will let you have 80% including the synergy bonuses.

 

[Danceofmasks]

This is why I'm aiming to something in between that will let you have 80% including the synergy bonuses.

That's what I aim to do, too .. only I do it through character optimisation.

 

[Elric]

I've been doing some math.

Here's the score needed to hit a monster of the same lvl

PC SCORE TO HIT (same lvl)
1:  9
2:  9
3:  9
4:  8
5:  9
6:  9
7:  10
8:  9
9:  10
10: 10
11: 10
12: 10
13: 10
14: 10
15: 11
16: 10
17: 11
18: 10
19: 11
20: 11
21: 12
22: 11
23: 11

You've assumed that the character starts with an odd ability score in making this chart. This means that he gets bonuses to hit faster- with an even starting score a lot of these numbers would be 1 higher required to hit. From what I can tell, your assumptions are something like "character starts with 17 primary stat, +3 proficiency weapon, monster AC is 14+level."