What number should a player have to roll to score a "hit"?

[Kel]

So I started a thread about whether the game assumes that characters constantly have access to level-appropriate magic items, and the resounding response appears to be "yes" based on the manner in which monster-defenses increase.

The discussion prompts another question, though:

What is the range of numbers that most people feel a player should have to roll on a d20 to be able to hit (w/o considering bonuses)?

The reason I ask is that, in response to the magic item question, people would say things like, "Well, without the magic items you're only hitting on a 16+ roll, or 25% of the time, and that's bad..."

So is there an accepted range that is considered the "fun" range of when players should be hitting? For instance, all things being equal, should players be hitting on a roll of 12 or 13? 14 or 15 for harder-to-hit enemies? What do you think?

 

[RangerWickett]

Studies have shown that people tend to have the most 'fun' when they succeed about 70% of the time. More than that and it's too easy to be engaging. Less than that and it's frustrating.

I'd peg it at:

With mediocre tactics, you should hit on a 9+ (60% of the time). This is, like, if you never flank, and you target the wrong defense, or you forget to use some powers to help improve your attacks.

With average tactics, 7+ (70% of the time). In this case, you might be doing everything right with yourself, but you're not paying enough attention to helping allies or taking advantage of their aid.

With good tactics, 5+ (80% of the time). This is when you work as a well-oiled machine with your party members, everyone helping everyone else out.


Edit to Add:

With more challenging enemies, there are several ways to increase challenge without increasing frustration. Give the enemy some shield the party can take down, so he's hard to hit until you figure out his trick. Or give him a strong attack that hits everyone around him, so the group needs to change tactics or else die. Or just make him a brute so it's an endurance match to see if you can keep out of his way long enough to wear down all his hit points.

Simply increasing defenses is a boring, and often frustrating way to increase challenge.

 

[keterys]

What RangerWickett said. There'll be some in group variance too... but generally 7-9 is where you want things landing.

Then your hard to hit thing is more like an 11, and the chance of someone missing the entire combat is only in the 1/8 to 1/16th range.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

if you look at monster stats in MM 2 its fairly easy to make assumptions:

nearly all monsters (even artillery on melee attacks) usually hit themselves with a 9 as their attack bonus is 9 points lower than their AC. this equals a 60% chance to hit normally and 70% with combat advantage.

IMHO however, it is sad that this rule is followed so strictly. I would have rather seen chances varying a bit depending on which weapons are used.

So you should usually have axe and hammer wielders hitting at 50-55% of the time and sword wielders 60-65% of the time

 

[DracoSuave]

if you look at monster stats in MM 2 its fairly easy to make assumptions:

nearly all monsters (even artillery on melee attacks) usually hit themselves with a 9 as their attack bonus is 9 points lower than their AC. this equals a 60% chance to hit normally and 70% with combat advantage.

If this game were called 'Stop Hitting Yourself Monster' this might be apt.

IMHO however, it is sad that this rule is followed so strictly. I would have rather seen chances varying a bit depending on which weapons are used.

It varies by monster role, which is more important for DMing and balancing encounters.

So you should usually have axe and hammer wielders hitting at 50-55% of the time and sword wielders 60-65% of the time

Not really relevant to the purpose of the number balancing. If you want this, then have your Axe-wielders as Brutes and your Sword-wielders as Soldiers. But monsters aren't organized by weapon type because that's the -least- important metric of their functions in an encounter.

 

[Turtlejay]

Not really relevant to the purpose of the number balancing. If you want this, then have your Axe-wielders as Brutes and your Sword-wielders as Soldiers. But monsters aren't organized by weapon type because that's the -least- important metric of their functions in an encounter.

Not to pick a fight with you Draco, but I'd say hair color is less important. I am backed up by PHB pg 447 and DMG chapter 6, including the DDI article in Dungeon 36b. Just saying

In this not sarcastic paragraph, I'll suggest looking at the DMG suggested defenses for a monster of the level you are looking at. Look at expected offense (1/2 level bonus, probable magic bonus, and stat bonus starting at a reasonable level). That should show you a good range. While you were on that page, I'd have you notice that different monster roles had different defense values for different defense stats. This means that any one character might hit on a low number, or a high one, depending on the makeup of the opposition. Smart players use this to ensure they hit more often.

Morons like me build an Illusionst that attacks *only* will, and then silently pray every Friday night that their DM is not at home making a party of illithid solos to eat his brain.

Jay

ps - this variance is part of why I think human wizards are the bee's knees. They can have three at wills that target the three NAD's, and this is a very good thing.

 

[Flipguarder]

personally I as the DM set my roll dc on my non-optimized party members at near 11. Because if I did set it at 7 then my optimized party members would hit on average at a 4 and thats just silly imo.

 

[Lord Byron]

Studies have shown that people tend to have the most 'fun' when they succeed about 70% of the time.

Do you have a source for that? I'm not questioning what you're saying at all, I'm just curious. I'd like to read more about it.

 

[burntgerbil]

I don't know the exact source, but I have heard this before on here and from Interactive Design students at my work.

 

[keterys]

personally I as the DM set my roll dc on my non-optimized party members at near 11. Because if I did set it at 7 then my optimized party members would hit on average at a 4 and thats just silly imo.

It's actually pretty normal for a rogue to hit on a 4 when a caster needs an 11 (+4 dagger proficiency, +3 CA w/ Nimble Blade, attacking a NAD). So at a certain point a concession to 'rogues hit' should be made, much like the concession 'avengers hit' and 'one of the ranger's attacks hit'.

So how much missing is reasonable for someone else. It's most bad when someone misses every attack in a combat or all their attacks with a particular encounter power in a day, etc. With a 50% hit chance, it's entirely possible to hit either of those metrics 1/8 or 1/16th of the time.

Course, that's why we have damage on miss and Effect type things. I do wish there could be a cleaner gap between 'having an effect at all' and 'hit, which also stuns or whatever'. That 'have to hit by 5 to trigger special' or 'have to hit with a secondary' type theory would work there, but I suspect is not popular at the table (resolution time, math, complexity, whatever)