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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 5835946" data-attributes="member: 2804">This exactly. Against an equal level opponent, all classes should always be able to hit with their primary attack method (which may differ from class to class) about 60-70% of the time.Then you use damage and HP to average out combat duration and fine tune balance. Keeping damage static and relying on hit percentage as a method of balance will result in very swingy combats, where you walk over your opponent in one encounter, or are unhittable in another. Unless you roll very very poorly, the odds of missing an enemy of equal level two rounds in a row should be less than 10% to make a game that I would find fun to play and not frustrating.Against weaker or stronger opponents, the percentage to hit should change about by about 2% per level difference to expand the sweet spot to where I want it to be. If a level 1 orc footsoldier can hit a level 1 fighter 60% of the time, they should be able to hit a level 10 fighter only about 40% of the time.I don't like how in 3e and 4e, 5 to 10 levels of difference makes you a veritable demigod against lower level foes.To denote a feeling of power progression across levels I would again use HP and damage output to handle that. A level 10 fighter should be able to kill a level 1 orc in a single hit with their damage output. Whereas that level 1 orc needed say 4-5 hits to kill a level 1 fighter, but should need about 14-15 to kill a level 10 fighter (about 1 hit per level difference). In other words the level 10 fighter should be able to take on and defeat approx. 5-10 level 1 orcs.</blockquote>

Verification