Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kynn" data-source="post: 5834979" data-attributes="member: 36754">It's hard to get the right balance between "the guy who goes first, hits first" and "combat is a whiff-fest".In a typical AD&D fight at first level, you've got a THAC0 of like 20 and a +1 or +2 bonus, and you're fighting something with an AC of 5 or so. That means you hit about 1 attack in 3 (and the orc likewise has the same chance to hit or miss). That seems a little too whiffy for me.In 4e D&D, you've probably got a +8 or +9 bonus to hit (+4 ability score, +3 proficiency bonus, +1 feat bonus) vs. an AC of 15 (14 + level, assuming a skirmisher opponent) which means you end up hitting 2/3 of the time.My ideal would be somewhere between these two extremes, meaning that you'd hit like 50% of the time.BUT!I am okay with starting out at a low chance to hit against level-appropriate AC and then having BAB scale faster than AC does. I am okay with the formula looking something like this (assuming level-appropriate AC):level 1 ... hit 40% of the timelevel 4 ... hit 45% of the timelevel 7 ... hit 50% of the timelevel 10 ... hit 55% of the timelevel 13 ... hit 60% of the timelevel 16 ... hit 65% of the timelevel 19 ... hit 70% of the timeetcI want higher level characters to hit more often than low level against appropriate foes, and I want this math to be baked into the system and balanced appropriately.4e assumed a constant hit chance (such that your chance to hit an appropriate foe at any level was roughly the same) and I think that was a mistake. Earlier editions like AD&D didn't assume this, but didn't have very tight math. I want tight math WITH this assumption, and monsters built accordingly.</blockquote>

Verification