D&D 5E The math of D&D Next; a moderating proposal

[enigma5915]

Yes, the default hit percentage when all things are equal (equally good offense vs. equally good defense) should be around 65-75%. Not 50%.

A player should on average only miss an opponent of their level 1 out of every 3 or 4 rounds.

I disagree with this concept. I believe 50% is right on for comparable opponents. And each hit should be a very unwanted event that should be avoided. The concept of taking just another hit seems ludicrous. Every hit should matter significantly and therefore combat is not about taking hits...this is what extends combat. A couple good hits should ruin anyones day. Not be a discomfort or a resource drain. Its combat not a trek through the desert where you worry about running out of supplies...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t want AC to be a strict function of level. I don´t want the fighter attack bonus as the "standard" progression.

The fighter needs to get an edge in combat. Attack and defense. Not a gap of 20 points, but a gap.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

AC range 10 - 30

• AC 10: an unarmored, unskilled, and untrained normal humanoid
• AC 15: a lightly armored humanoid with basic combat training
• AC 20: a moderately trained warrior wearing very good non-magical armor
• AC 30: a supremely trained warrior wearing the very best of magical armor and other magical protections

I'd prefer:
AC 10
AC 12
AC 17
AC 28 (assuming plate and shield)
AC 30 is the maximum possible ac, though things like invisibility could give you a higher effective ac by giving the opponent a penalty to hit.

Of course dex can raise any of these.

Attack bonus indicates a creatures capability (training, specialization, magic weapon, etc.) in landing effective blows.

Attack Bonus range 0 - 20

• Attack bonus 0: an untrained normal humanoid wielding any non-magical weapon
• Attack bonus 5: a normal humanoid with basic combat ability wielding a decent weapon in which s/he has training
• Attack bonus 10: a moderately trained warrior wielding a very good (masterwork?) non-magical weapon
• Attack bonus 20: a supremely trained warrior wielding the very best of magical weapons with a specialized focus on using that weapon

Attack Bonus:

0
1
6
25 (assuming 20th level with a +5 weapon, specialization is for insects.)

The above assumes no stat bonus to hit. Ability bonus maxes at +3 normally, +6 with extreme magic such as girdle of giant strength, etc. Otherwise, you have the right idea.

 

[Libramarian]

QUte the opposite, it makes no sense.
If 2 inexeprienced fighters fight, the fight will be over quickly because neither of them knows how to parry effectively and very soon one of them will land a lucky blow on another.
High level fighters, on the other hands, if evenly matched, can battle for ten of minutes (or hours in fiction), sometimes even deciding to just walk off, since neither can defeat the other one's defenses.

I'm thinking in terms of hand to hand fighting. Maybe you're right about fighting with deadly weapons, I'm not sure. But with regard to boxing or MMA, it's experienced fighters that occasionally get a 3 second knockout, not people who don't know how to fight. People who don't know how to fight just kinda flail around, not seriously injuring each other. Skilled fighters don't just wildly miss, or hit a part of the body in a way that does no damage, their blows have to be parried. So the question is whether a parry is more of a miss in D&D terms, or a hit with a smallish amount of HP loss--I think the latter. So I like attack bonus rising faster than AC, and HP rising faster than damage.

But I recognize that talking about which is more realistic at the level of resolution of D&D combat is pretty subjective. It's my secondary reason that I like moderate hit chance scaling.

The primary reason I like it scaling is simply because it's more interesting and satisfying to start below the putative "sweet spot" of hit chance, and then work up to it, and a little beyond it.

I disagree that taking the "sweet spot" and applying it to all levels is objectively intelligent fun optimization. The funness (tm) of something is not static, it is enhanced by working up to it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I disagree that taking the "sweet spot" and applying it to all levels is objectively intelligent fun optimization. The funness (tm) of something is not static, it is enhanced by working up to it.

I disagree with that. You'll find a lot of people (myself one of them) who will attest to the fact that (at least prior to 4e) there was a limited range of levels where D&D was the "most fun". While that range does vary, it tends to center around the sweet spot.

The game should be fun for all levels of play. You should not have to work up to the fun.

 

[Mokona]

In 2e the fighter gets -1 to THAC0 at every level after 1st which would translate to +0 BAB through +19 BAB (1/1). The priest gets +2 BAB per 3 levels above 1st (2/3). The gets +1 BAB per 2 levels (1/2). The wizard gets +1 BAB per 3 levels (1/3).

In 3e you get +1 per level, +3 per 4 levels, and +1 per 2 levels.

In 4e you get +1 per 2 levels for all character classes. So 4th edition already (tried) to slay the sacred cow that fighters get +1 BAB per level.

If the sweet spot is hitting 70% of the time (or even 50%) and BAB scales with level then AC has an option. AC can scale with level and the ability to hit remains in the same position relative to the sweet spot or AC doesn't scale at the same speed as BAB and the PCs change their hit average relative to the sweet spot.

If PCs are moving relative to the sweet spot they're either:

1. Going from hitting "worse" than the sweet spot percentage to hitting at the sweet spot,
2. Going from hitting worse than the sweet spot to hitting better than the sweet spot,
3. Or going from hitting at the sweet spot to hitting better than the sweet spot.

I don't believe they'll build a version of D&D where I'll play above level 11. Therefore if PCs don't hit the sweet spot of "fun" to hit percentages until late in the game I'll miss out completely. If you start at the sweet spot and get "better" then it might become so ridiculously easy to auto-hit that it's boring.

You also have to make a distinction between the expected AC of the enemy and the "absolute best" AC of the enemies. It might be fine to have a 50% chance to hit the anti-paladin in full plate with a shield but have a 65% chance to hit the melee rogue (leather + Dex) or cleric (chainmail) and a 75% chance to hit the artillery wizard. Wherever the sweet spot is - I've been convinced by the "flow" arguments that 50% should be the minimum fun to-hit percentage.

I can't seem to find a way to make the numbers work if BAB and AC don't basically grow at the same rate (at least if monster AC may be DM-created, evil PC-like creatures with PC classes).

Therefore I recommend: Both Base Attack Bonus (BAB) and AC increase by +1 per 3 levels. Thus a 1st-level character is -3 to hit a 10th-level monster and -6 to hit a 20th-level monster. Big penalties but not impossible. This would achieve my goal of flatter math (before magic items are taken into account).

Other ideas: 1) Never increase stats (STR-CHA) just because you leveled. 2) Lower the flanking bonus from +2 to +1.

 

[Hassassin]

Leave out the +7 AC training bonus from the OP and it's quite close to what I'd like to see.

After that it's something like +5 against AC 18 at first level (40% hit chance), +12 against AC 21 at half point (60% hit chance) and +20 against AC 23 at max level (90% hit chance).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If effects are not usually delivered with a hit. If a hit does enough damage. If encounters and dailies are used after a hit, not before, there is no problem with hitting only on a 17 or so on occassion.

The problem of 4e is that you can miss all your dailies and your encounters which makes going through the hp of monsters really a pain.

If your group consits of a slayer and a wizard, a scout and a skald, it does not really matter a lot if you hit a certain attack or the next. You will do the expected amount of damage as your encounters will always have an impact.

So I´d like the game to be balanced around 50-55%. If you are attacked with poison or some paralysing bite. Make a saving throw.

This way, a wizard without armor will be hit in melee and take damage, but he will not be out of combat due to an unavoidable poison. Or an even more immersion breaking dominate effect that is delivered by a hit against AC.

If you balance around a different point, you do yourself no favour as you reach one end of the d20 range fast and PCs will complain about beeing hit too (balanced around 70%) often or not hitting often enough (balanced around 30%) or you need to have different expectations for PCs and monsters, which i consider annoying.

So please. Make the to hit number 10 with a standard deviation of 4 (so that 2/3 of the monsters are hit by numbers between 6 and 14. And only 1% of the monsters have AC´s that are only missed at 1 and 2 or that you can only hit with a 19 or 20.

If you can make the math work around those values, you are golden.

 

[JonWake]

Don't forget how important HP escalation is. For example, a 50% hit rate at first level might mean that over 6 rounds a fighter is likely to drop to 0hp. At 10th level, that might increase to 19-20 rounds. This is how grind happens. Having AC remain relatively static for the duration of a character's career means that the chance to hit will increase, but the length of combat will only marginally increase.

HPs always increase in excess of damage output (with the notable exception of the 3e Sneak Attack bonus).

 

[Zireael]

This is what I have been considering. Combat shouldnt be about how many hits i can take, but how many I can avoid. Any hit should be unwanted and have side effects....

That's what I think too. There should be a, Idk, AC dodge bonus or some other AC bonus based on my level. But it's best if it's optional (player-decided) like the Expertise bonus in 3e, not automatic.