Rolling to Hit: A Sacred Cow that should have been slain?

[legoman07]

D&D has always involved a roll to hit - and tradition has always placed the success of such a roll at somewhere close to 50% percent - perhaps approaching the 75% mark for characters who were especially focused on combat.

With the newer rules and focus on special abilities and state-effects during combat, getting those blows to land has become of paramount importance. Yet, the balance point of the to-hit roll has stayed stagnant. Players still have roughly a 50% chance to hit every level, for every attack.

Forgive the comparison, but consider World of Warcraft. At any level in the game - missing is rare, and you can basically assume that when you use an ability, you hit. You hope for a critical and when it happens its a thrill, but rarely if ever do you miss. Because of that, even when you're in a glut of bad luck, you're not likely to be totally ineffective.

With 4e moving in a similar direction of power-based, high energy, high tempo combat - I have to wonder: why not convert to a similar model?

Why have players hoping for a hit and fearing a miss? In dice/gambling games, the hope is for a big win (critical), and the chance of failure is apparently diminished. Players salivate over the effects of the critical, but can 'settle' for the hit. A miss is a crushing blow, but happens so infrequently as not to discourage the player from continuing.

What would happen if the following changes occurred? :

* You no longer add a flat 10 to defenses. You instead add 3. An untrained character attacking an unarmored object has a 15% chance of missing - which sounds about right.
* For every 10 by which you beat the Defense, you add an extra 1d6 damage.
* Hit points increase accordingly. Probably by a factor of 2, give or take.
* Some powers need changed. Reaping strike suddenly becomes useless, for instance.

The result might very well be much more consistent game-play, with much less disappointed players.

 

[James McMurray]

Too much consistency is the bane of excitement.

 

[Eric Tolle]

Palladium did that years ago- you basically have something like an 80% chance to hit. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.

I don't like that such a system turns the game from a tactical exercise, to an attrition game; I prefer the idea that doing something like getting a combat advantage or taking cover is a worthwhile thing to go for.

 

[SuperGnome]

Too much consistency is the bane of excitement.

2x

Might as well be reading a book.

 

[Yaezakura]

The truth is, the chance of missing makes every hit exciting.

I mean, do you feel good every time you hit in WoW? It's just "yeah, I hit again". You feel good if you get a critical, but that's about it. Unless a critical happens, you're paying more attention to the monster's health bar than if you're hitting or not (which 99% of the time you are).

The roll is what makes D&D exciting. It's a shared experience for everyone involved. When the Fighter's Brute Strike hits and takes someone down, everyone cheers. When the Wizard whiffs his Sleep spell, everyone shares his pain. But if hitting was all but guaranteed... where would the joy come from?

 

[Roxlimn]

That would work in an MMO because the thrill of combat in an MMO is all about resource management and graphic displays. You manage your recovery resources and get gratified to see numbers appearing whenever you click.

It's not the same for TTRPGs. We wouldn't get pleasure simply from announcing an attack and getting to see it in our mind's eye or even in minis. It just doesn't work that way. You need a risk mechanic at the point of action in order to simulate the excitement that a "click-to-action" does in an MMO.

 

[Byronic]

I don't know if I'd want to play that version. The dice provides both probability from everything that could perceivable happen in game and it also provides a measure of uncertainty that provides an element of fun.

A sure thing is boring.

 

[Mengu]

That would require a different armor model, or even more healing powers, because monsters would also be constantly hitting you. Or everything would have to go off a higher HP model because otherwise combat would only last 3-4 rounds.

Bonuses and penalties to attack rolls are part of what makes combat strategy exciting, and if there wasn't a miss chance, those bonuses would become meaningless, taking away half the fun. When the rogue gets a flank and a bonus from Lance of Faith, for a total +4, to his already respectable attack bonus, and uses the option of attacking an enemy's Reflex defense, he will typically have an over 80% hit chance. It's part of the fun building up to that kind of reliability on your attack.

 

[keterys]

You'd have to nerf almost everything that had a special effect, too... it's already too easy to stun-lock some solos.

 

[Belphanior]

1. D&D characters don't have a 50-50 chance to hit. Every character can obtain attacks that target weaker defenses, and some classes virtually always target them (casters especially).

2. WoW characters miss a lot more than you make it sound. Apart from missing there's also dodging, blocking, parrying, resisting spells, and so on. Entire combat stats were created (hit rating, spell hit rating, spell penetration, tons of talents) to mitigate missing.

3. Auto-hitting in D&D means auto-inflicting a lot of nasty conditions. Even with more hit points this turns certain attacks a lot more deadly.

4. Auto-hitting renders many effects useless, such as the racials of the halfling and elf, the displacement spell, black dragon's tail slash, and so on.

5. As said, auto-hitting is just plain boring.