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

[kitsune9]

It's a simple question with a pretty intricate answer, so it'll be interesting to see the responses!

The most basic of chances that allows for character variation would give you a three-point system (25%, 50%, and 75%)

I like the first one with a standard deviation of 5% to each set and max at 3 deviations. However, I acknowledge that to build a system with this many permutations may too daunting to do so locking the numbers into a 3 point to 5 point system is probably a more worthwhile endeavor.

 

[kitsune9]

Trailblazer has come to the conclusion that the PC's should succeed around 70% of the time for the game experience to seem neither too easy nor too hard.

It was an excellent read. It's really good for players who want to create a more balance system (or create imbalance!) and use their mathematical modeling.

 

[Yora]

As a very lose base, I'd say 50% for the average person to overcome the average obstacle and 75% for a specialist to overcome an average obstacle.

The big problem with D&D is that character level can make a very significant difference so 50% at 1st level very soon becomes 95% at 10th level for the same task.
Thankfully this is something that the designers want to adress.

 

[nightwalker450]

For combat, I'd rather they raise accuracy, and lower damage (or raise HP). If combat has a chance to take a while, it'd be better if the players usually hit on their turn, instead of waiting each round, just to miss.

 

[howandwhy99]

as a baseline measure that ignores all situational modifiers and presupposes an "average" adventurer, what should the chance of success with an action?

how often should the average fighter hit with an attack?

What about the average rogue?

How often should a saving throw succeed?

How often should characters succeed on skill checks that they are good at?

What about skill checks that they're not good at?

should characters be differentiated more by their chance of success or what they can do upon succeeding?

should a fighter and rogue have similar hit chances but the fighter can do some sort kind of special maneuver that adds rider effects?

Or should the game be simplified so that the fighter hits more often?

Combat was 50% base chance, 2 of 6 for most other rolls.
"Average" Fighter "to hit" odds differ by level at the baseline. +1 (5%) from above 0-level character.
"Average" Thief "to hit" odds differed too.
Saving Throws were about 25% early on, 75% later, but these had wide variance and lots of modifiers late in the game (higher levels).
Skills were kind of a screw up. But 2 of 6 on a d6 starting. "Good at" could just be called more.
Not good at skill checks could just be the default 1/3rd odds.
What is possible after succeeding is singular originally. Differentiation was by ability odds. Lots of stuff was largely auto-success or fail though.
Rider effects would have been optional auto-successes by ability. For instance, monk stunning was optional, but required higher odds to perform.
Fighters hitting more often kind of makes sense. They are more capable at fighting. All the other elements are extra stuff.

 

[Sunseeker]

Before feats that improve hitting are taken, this is my opinion:
Fighter: 75%
Hitting is what the fighter DOES. If the fighter isn't hitting, then they are doing nothing, they have little else they can do, so they need to be able to do their main thing very, very reliably.
Paladin: 65%
Hitting is what a paladin is good at, but they're capable of doing other things when they can't hit. A paladin who can't hit can give buffs and sometimes heals to their allies.
Rogue: 60%
Like Paladin's, rogues have a lot of things they can do in a fight besides hitting, traps, devices, they've got that laundry-list of skills for a reason.
Cleric: 50%(variable), given there are so many ways to build a cleric, I think 50% is the only real way to represent them. Melee-hit shouldn't be their primary feature unless they're a specific build focusing on it.
Sorcerer: 40% Like most casters, sorcerers don't hit things, but given that their training is in the School of Hard Knocks as opposed to The Arcane University, they should be hitting more than your average Wizard. Spell "hit" depends really on the reflex saves of their opponents.
Wizard: 30%, Wizards pretty much don't hit, they can, but even if they do they're not really going to accomplish much. Like Sorcerers and other casters, spells are defended against, not attacked with.

The chart is basically reversed when looking at reflex saves. Wizards at the top, Paladin's at the bottom.

And that's how I break down the base classes, beyond that, specific builds will go a long way to improve the actual hit, feats and so on.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

An average first level fighter should hit an average unarmored person about 55-60% of the time.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In D&D, given the (linear) nature of the d20 and the generally expected ranges, I don't think my preference is possible--at least not without a lot of jumping through hoops that would probably be unplayable.

I like 65% as the default base for average character tries average activity. Then increasing specialization should get them as much as +15% on that--with each +5% being harder to get than the previous one. Likewise, being somewhat capable but lagging behind could drop as much as -15%. Then situational modifiers could bump another +15% up (being very stingy with the +10% and +5% options, and little or no stacking), and as much as -25% down. Not coincidently, a base 25% would be the starting floor for any ability that was possible but just barely for that character.

Or possibly more useful, I wouldn't mind a system where 1 was auto fail, 20 was auto succeed, 2 was "auto fail unless there is a darn good reason why not," and 16-19 was increasingly auto succeed unless there is a darn good reason why not." Once you get to either boundary, you are fighting for "reason why not" rather than another +1.

 

[Kannik]

After playing games such as those using the Silhouette system my inclinations shifted to this rather verbose feel:

A Competently Trained individual should succeed on a Moderateskill task/challenge about 75% of the time.

By Competently Trained I mean trained to a level to which you would expect someone would have if that was their profession and they had been doing it for a year.

By Moderate I mean something that would be slightly out of the norm for that profession.

So, for example, a relatively new auto mechanic who has to rebuild a transmission should be able to do it with a 75% chance of success (and failure here of course means it takes them longer than anticipated). NOTE: I am not an auto mechanic and maybe rebuilding transmissions is really easy.

Nicely, in combat against a similarly skilled opponent, to keep the players from being frustrated I have found that a 70%ish hit ratio is a good balance, which lines up with the competent ratios above. Note that this is in a system where one hit != one kill -- if you're playing in that game a 70% hit ratio would end up with many dead PCs! Better alter that to something else...

peace,

Kannik

 

[TerraDave]

One principle I would like to see, regardless of the specific numbers: as you level, the % chance of doing something goes up.

There are some caveats:

Attacking: this might hit a plateau at some point, or maybe you sacrifice a certain chance to hit for something else.

Skills: Should not plateau, but maybe you tradeoff or also get additional abilities (faster, more, better...)

Saves: (or defenses against deadly and debilitating things): This is potentially tricky, but I know how I want it to work: higher level characters and monsters should save most of the time.

Not good: untrained, non-core stuff might not get better.