D&D 5E Stupid math stuff that vaguely pertains to 5e.

[Transformer]

I'm definitely in the >50% chance camp. Missing and accomplishing nothing fully half of the time is just plain miserable. We've even had a suggestion in this thread of a 40% hit rate for first level fighters, and another for a 50% hit rate against unarmored targets! Geez, if I sat down to play a fantasy adventure as a burly, sword-wielding hero (or at least a hearty farmboy recently turned adventurer, if you don't like 1st level characters being heroes), and my guy whiffed 60% of the time, I'm pretty sure I'd just go home!

70% would definitely be my favored baseline hit rate (perhaps 75% for fighters). It leaves a decent amount of wiggle room in the upwards direction for particularly accurate people, lower level enemies, easy to hit targets, and the like; while also keeping combats fast and frustrating chains of misses to a minimum.

I guess I just don't see the allure of a 50% hit rate. I suppose it leaves more room if your goal is increasing accuracy as a character levels. But mostly it just makes combats longer than they have to be and leads to frustration, Perhaps I'm missing something. Why a 50% hit rate?

 

[Andor]

In an active defense system I'd expect extremely high to-hit odds without an interposing defense.

D&D however assumes an active defender and folds in into passive defense target numbers.

If an attack was a single sword thrust, then that 50% would actually sound a bit high. But it's not, a single attack roll represents seconds worth of active fighting, dodging and exchanging blows. (Except possibly in the first attack of an ambush, hence the flat-footed bonus.)

Given the abstract nature of D&D combat, worrying too much about the details of dodging, parrying or soaking with armour is pointless.

So on the whole I'd say the 70-75% figure for a combatant type attacking a foe in level appropriate armour sounds about right to me.

I'm really very curious to see how they'll approach both the level 1 build-out and the leveling curve in 5e.

 

[Andor]

Interesting range of responses so far, a lot of it simulationist. I'm going to look at it from a gamist perspective instead. In brief: succeed 65-70% of the time; have something interesting to do 100% of the time.

And this should be true for all three pillars, for every class. Always something interesting to do in combat, exploration, and interaction; and always something to succeed at 65-70% of the time in combat, exploration, and interaction.

Uhhhh.......... yeah.......... that sounds completely well asinine.. In what system do skill DCs scale!? I have always just made my own DCs (e.g DC 10 an easy task, DC 15 a task with some difficulty, DC 20 a task where someone has to have some skill, or be luck etc.) I have never ever considered scaling it by level! Let me guess, 4e did this? Something to do with balance?

And this, my friends, is the trouble with trying to make a single system please both gamists and simulationists.

The gamist says "16th level thief? Your climb DC is 42." The simulationist says "Why does a dragon who lives in a natural rock cavern apparently have walls of ice covered glass as indicated by that DC?"

I'm a simulationist. If the high level thief maxed out climb let him have his occasional cake-walk, he earned it. And if the party doesn't have a guy who could shame spiderman while exploring the ice palace of the frist giant king, then they will pay the price for their lack of vision.

 

[am181d]

I'm a bit of a heretic, but I believe in a PC-centric game. That means that PCs hit most of the time and also parry/dodge most of the time, but when they do get hit, the hits are serious and put the PCs at serious risk.

Of course, I'd also prefer that PCs roll to hit and roll to parry/dodge, and the DM only rolls opposed rolls for Big Bad types.

 

[Mokona]

Actually, ~ 70% may be the magic number according to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (author of "Flow") and other psychologists. Something about that success to failure ratio increases pleasure of success and appreciation/patience with the lessons of failure.

If player's attacks should succeed 70% of the time then the corollary would be that their defenses succeed 70% of the time.

Thus Dungeon Masters only "hit" 30% of the time.

Monsters use different math than PCs. Each player rolls one attack per round and has a 70% chance of a hit. DMs roll 5 attacks per round (at 30% chance each) and thus have a 83% chance to hit AT LEAST once. (FYI, 76% chance for the DM to hit at least once if they only have four monsters. This works better with minions as well because missing takes "less time" for the DM to resolve.)

 

[Quickleaf]

If player's attacks should succeed 70% of the time then the corollary would be that their defenses succeed 70% of the time.

Thus Dungeon Masters only "hit" 30% of the time.

Monsters use different math than PCs. Each player rolls one attack per round and has a 70% chance of a hit. DMs roll 5 attacks per round (at 30% chance each) and thus have a 83% chance to hit AT LEAST once. (FYI, 76% chance for the DM to hit at least once if they only have four monsters. This works better with minions as well because missing takes "less time" for the DM to resolve.)

I think you misunderstood the 70% theory. A character getting hit isn't invoking a sense of failure on the part of the player because (unless we're entertaining some new rules ideas) theres no action involved in defense.

The percentage change for a monster to hit a PC is another matter. I think with monsters you can mess around with Chance to hit vs. Magnitude of hit more than you can with PCs. So 30% could work for mooks with strong damage/effect, but that % could be tweaked depending on how hard they hit.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I think you misunderstood the 70% theory. A character getting hit isn't invoking a sense of failure on the part of the player because (unless we're entertaining some new rules ideas) theres no action involved in defense.

The percentage change for a monster to hit a PC is another matter. I think with monsters you can mess around with Chance to hit vs. Magnitude of hit more than you can with PCs. So 30% could work for mooks with strong damage/effect, but that % could be tweaked depending on how hard they hit.

That does depend on your players, though. I have one player who, no matter how many HP he has, thinks his character is somehow "losing" if he takes damage at all.

Clearly a player like that would want to be able to get his AC sufficiently high that he is missed "most of the time" - i.e. 70% or so.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

And this, my friends, is the trouble with trying to make a single system please both gamists and simulationists.

I think you misunderstood the 70% theory. A character getting hit isn't invoking a sense of failure on the part of the player because (unless we're entertaining some new rules ideas) theres no action involved in defense.

Then there is the narrative focus where, when the dice roll, something generally happens.

As luck would have it, if you know anything about those active defenses in reality, this happens to map really well with other preferences in the presence of active defense options--such as "Total Defense". Normally, anyone can hit most of the time if they are willing to risk a reasonable chance of a return strike. If you start getting much more defensive, the numbers go down for both sides. The D&D default, historically, has been to get on with it.

Edit: Note that to satisfy a wider ranger of play, Total Defense options should still allow a single (simple) attack, with a hefty penalty--perhaps around -8. There is no defense so total that it doesn't leave open the possibility of a riposte on someone that has over extended themselves.