Success, Failure and the D20

[Vael]

Between the recent playtest article with new Expertise feats for weapon and implement users, and my own experiences running DnD 4e, I was wondering about success and failure and the d20 ... or, ignoring editions, ignoring level of optimization (and how much you can optimize) ... what should you need to roll on a d20 to succeed in an attack or check in DnD?

When 4e came out, it quickly became apparent that the number was off ... between monster hitpoints and defenses, combat at higher levels, or vs. solos, could be a little grindy. So we have these expertise feats, some call math fix feats to compensate.

But I can't help but feel that PCs might be too accurate these days. I just ran a little 14th level one-shot for my Encounters crew that only gets to play levels 1 to 3. So I threw Calastryx, the three headed 14th level solo Dragon from the new monster vault at them. I learned two major things: first, solo design has improved vastly. Calastryx had the damage and condition mitigation to successfully challenge the PCs (though applying to-hit penalties until end of PCs next turn were very devastating effects). Second, Calastryx's defenses may be too low, or PC accuracy was too high. The Drow hunter managed to, between Regal Lion stance and other bonuses, have a +24 to hit Calastryx's AC of 26, so only missing on a natural 1. The other PCs weren't nearly as egregious, but I came out of the encounter wondering if anyone was ever going to miss my dragon.

Now, the flip side to that was that my dragon had a similar situation. The Battle Cleric's Reflex defense made it so that Calastryx's breath weapon was practically an auto-hit as well, I'm pretty sure I hit him with a 4 on dice. But I didn't feel nearly as bad about that, given the Cleric's high fire resist made him immune to the zone aftereffect of the breath weapon. And when you have a warden that's dropping insane penalties to Calastryx's melee attacks, I rather enjoyed giving a little back in fire damage. Especially since it still took a lot of firepower to actually drop these PCs.

Even now, at low levels, PCs can rack up insane accuracy. I run Encounters, and there's a level 1 Human Scout with a +10 melee basic, enough to hit the level 2 bandits he was facing this week on a 6.

So, just in general, I have to ask ... what number on a D20 roll should indicate success?

 

[Dice4Hire]

I have always thought the math fixes were not needed at all and from the beginning to hit numbers and defenses were leveled the way they were assuming the party would be giving bonuses to hitting, damaging and defenses to each other.

I really think PC to-hit bonuses are out of hand now. Even non-tweaked classes can hit on 5s or lower, and tweaked ones miss only on natural 1s.

To answer the question, characters should hit on about a 8-10 or so, against most opponents, an the opponents should do the same. If a character is regularly hitting on 5 or lower, something is wrong.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think every group is a little different, but I go with abet should be 9-12 easy should be 5+ and hard could be all the way up to 17.

So I would want equal level to be 10/11

 

[On Puget Sound]

I don't mind some characters hitting on a 6, if accuracy is their schtick and they have compensating drawbacks such as low defenses. I'm also OK with some characters having insane AC such that it takes a 16 on the die to hit them, if they have drawbacks. The problem would be a character that embodied both virtues. I agree, 8-10 should be the normal range and achieving better odds should require neglecting something else important.

Dellyn Goblinslayer: You have Improved Unarmed Strike?
Minmax: I got it by trading in my ability to rhyme on purpose.

http://www.goblinscomic.com/03232010/

 

[Mengu]

60-65% hit rate is the system agnostic magic number for me. On a d20 this happens to be 8+ or 9+. On a d6, the magic number is 3+ (67%). In board games you will frequently see dice with 4 symbols of success and 2 of failure. Even in a game system where the odds aren't quite clear cut, and there are levels of success, like say Savage Worlds, the basic roll dX and d6, take highest, try to get a 4+, comes out to 62.5% at the starting point of d4.

I think in D&D if you have an attack bonus of level+5 vs AC it's good enough. Some will be better by virtue of their class (like hunters and rogues). Some will be worse. But it's a good baseline. For the average character, if you just pay your tax, and don't really sink any more resources into accuracy, you'll be straddling that level+5 line within +/-1 your entire career.

If you see that a character is hitting on a 2, it probably means they've optimized accuracy (and probably gain combat advantage), and the system has the tools, such that some characters can accomplish this. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a gap between average and optimized.

It's probably best for any home game, to check and see the optimization level of your players, and plan your encounters accordingly. Unfortunately, you might have a drow crossbow hunter hitting on a 2, and a dwarf tome wizard frequently needing a 9, in which case, I don't really know what to do.

 

[S'mon]

IMO PCs should typically hit on a 6-8, monsters should typically hit on a 12-14.

 

[delericho]

PCs should succeed 78% of the time.

That is, approximately 78% of all attacks should hit. They should win roughly 78% of all battles *. They should succeed on roughly 78% of all Skill Challenges (and, when faced with a single skill check, they should succeed... 78% of the time). And so on.

* Note: the choices here aren't "win" or "TPK". There are the stalemates, the tactical withdrawals, those encounters where they're clearly overmatched but..., and of course encounters where they're just unlucky!

 

[wedgeski]

I would like a very tough opponent to be hit about a quarter or third of the time, and an easy opponent to be missed a quarter or a third of the time, all else being equal. This means that the PC's will have to seriously gang the hit bonuses on the tough opponent to bring him to a manageable level, but they will have to have effects (like Marks) that can improve their chances without necessarily having to hit him first.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Even now, at low levels, PCs can rack up insane accuracy. I run Encounters, and there's a level 1 Human Scout with a +10 melee basic, enough to hit the level 2 bandits he was facing this week on a 6.

I play an Elf Scout in Encounters, so that I know that in order for that human to get a +10 he must've optimized for a 20 DEX (which, since he only gets one stat boost, means he's gonna have crappy FORT and WILL), took the option for wielding a light blade in the off-hand to get a +1 to attacks, be using a Longsword or Rapier in the main hand to get +3 proficiency bonus, and took Expertise of some kind. That means he's investing A LOT of resources to get that +10.

My Scout, on the other hand, only has a +7 to hit, because I went with an 18 DEX, Axes and Axe Expertise. Basically, I wanted to do more damage. It also means that I need to hit on 9, unless I have CA or I'm charging.

Point is, players have to invest a lot of resources to get these levels of accuracy. It's not like it's coming for free... That usually means that they're lacking in other areas, such as the Cleric with the auto-hit REF that you mentioned. In those cases, start presenting them with challenges that highlight their weaknesses. Instead of the 14th level monster you used (Which, BTW, means that it was the same level of the party, and therefore not really supposed to be really challenging. A 16th level Solo would probably be a better choice if you're looking for something to scare them), go with something that has a dominate effect. Turn that PC accuracy back around on the party!

Or go with a group of monsters that can attack multiple NAD's, and make sure that they're always going after the lowest ones on particular characters (ie- REF on the Cleric, FORT on the Wizard, WILL on the Fighter, etc...). Get them to invest some of those feat slots in things like Superior Fortitude, rather than +1 to accuracy feats.

 

[OnlineDM]

I'll admit that extreme accuracy bugs me, too. Yes, it's SOMEWHAT balanced out by weaknesses in other areas (certain defenses), but those seem to be far less important than attack accuracy in most cases. And if we're talking about a class that gets all of that accuracy from Dexterity (thief, hunter) then their AC is still going to be just fine no matter what.

In these cases, the PCs' only weaknesses tend to be Fortitude and Will defense. If you want the encounters to remain interesting, you have to make sure that you use some monsters that attack these defenses; otherwise your high-Dex mega-accuracy PCs will never feel threatened. Maybe that's what they want, I suppose, but I think that just winning with no risk all the time would get boring for them.

If you're hitting on a 5 or 6 without combat advantage, something is off. I say you should need at least a 7 on the die, and generally more like an 8 or 9, in order to hit, unless you've got some special effect going (like CA). Of course, since the thief almost always has combat advantage and can often drop Backstab on top of that, the Thief tends to hit on 2 or 3. It gets a little boring, but the solution is to have monsters try to eat that thief!