Hit frequency in 5e. Satisfied?

[LVOD]

Hey all,

I was just wondering how people feel about the hit frequency in this edition. In other words, how often a character hits or misses with spells and attacks.

Obviously there are lots of factors at play, but I think they struck a sweet spot of not hitting all the time (so combat isn’t stale) and hitting often enough to not be frustrating. Advantage provides a nice little situational boost to keep things interesting, and there are several options to trade damage for accuracy.

Anyone else have input? In games I design I typically aim for about a 75% success rate in things like this.

[Armored Walrus]

In my campaign through level 5 so far, there's only been one notable instance of hit rate being a problem. Our dark elf rogue went one entire session without a hit. This was over three combat encounters. Obviously a tremendous run of bad luck, that hasn't been repeated.

In the campaign in which I'm a player, I'm playing a war cleric, and if anything, I hit too often. I've been outperforming our paladin in combat. (we're only level 3 so far, though)

So at lower levels at least, seems to be working as intended.

((Just don't try an encounter of a level 1 plate mail-wearing, shield-bearing fighter against another one. You'll have to shave again before the fight is over))

[Sigreid]

It's pretty good. Only been a problem on one poor cursed character of mine who had such rotten luck on rolls it wasn't uncommon to get a 7 on the d20 when he had advantage.

[Mith]

It's pretty good. Only been a problem on one poor cursed character of mine who had such rotten luck on rolls it wasn't uncommon to get a 7 on the d20 when he had advantage.

In my first campaign that I played, I got a magic great axe with a crit range of 19-20 at level 9 or so simply because as a Barbarian reckless attacking every combat, I had never rolled a critical hit after level 1.

[strangebloke]

Perfectly fine.

Some enemies are really hard to hit without advantage, particularly at the extreme low levels and the extreme high levels. Other foes are trivial even at low levels.

In other words, it isn't a treadmill, it's very balanced and interactive. Not hitting enough for your liking? Work to find a source of advantage. Getting hit too much? Find a way to impose disadvantage.

[Mikal]

Compared to 3e? Yes. It's nice to have multiple attacks for martials actually be useful, without 10 types of AC and thus 10 types of attack roll modifiers you may have depending on you mode of attack.

[2D8HP]

"Hits" don't matter to me as much as "drops".

If the start of the initiative order has been reached a fourth time, and no PC or NPC has dropped yet, than AC's, and/or HP's are too high, or "to hit mod's" or damage is too low.

5e at first level seems about right, but my instinct is that HP's for both higher level PC's and the monsters should be lower.

[Mith]

"Hits" don't matter to me as much as "drops".

If the start of the initiative order has been reached a fourth time, and no PC or NPC has dropped yet, than AC's, and/or HP's are too high, or "to hit mod's" or damage is too low.

5e at first level seems about right, but my instinct is that HP's for both higher level PC's and the monsters should be lower.

The only change on the player side that I can tell from the B/X games I played is that Magic Users was d4 HD, and the fact that you add your Con Modifier.

So you would advise roll for hit points instead of taking average, and then not adding Con modifier?

[2D8HP]

.......So you would advise roll for hit points instead of taking average, and then not adding Con modifier?


Probably too much trouble to change the HP for PC's (you may get push back from the players), easier to have the foes do more damage, and have less AC and HP.

[strangebloke]

Probably too much trouble to change the HP for PC's (you may get push back from the players), easier to have the foes do more damage, and have less AC and HP.

This is my solution. I populate my encounters with threats and minions. Minions are just incredibly weak on every front, but they get in the way and are a pain to deal with for most martials. Threats are usually NPCs or homebrewed monsters with massively high offensive CR, good saves, and decent mobility, but average health and AC.

This makes for enemies dropping frequently. (which is fun) and players dropping pretty frequently. (which is also fun... for me.)

[Pex]

Could be bias on my part, but I think the bad guys are hitting the PCs a bit too often, except for our AC 20 eldritch knight with Shield Spell. The cleric has AC 18, my paladin is at AC 17, everyone else is lower. The bad guys can roll a 7 and hit a PC, except the fighter. Now that I've become a Sorcadin and have Shield myself I'm not hit so often. Party level averages 8. On the bright side, except for the BBEG of the fight average damage of the bad guys isn't high, so combat isn't overall a problem. It's more the nuisance of getting hit for the sake of getting hit. Considering the party tanks aren't getting hit so often now, I suppose I do agree after all the frequency of us getting hit is fair. Hitting the bad guys has never been a problem.

I do notice it's the PCs who do not pay the adventure's tax of 14 CO who drop first all the time. It has to be a dedicated assault for us 14+ CO characters to drop. Class/HD varies. Those with 12 or less CO drop. Pay your tax!

[Anonymouswizard]

"Hits" don't matter to me as much as "drops".

Yeah, if the hp lost wasn't your last, then it's meaningless.

This doesn't mean that having more hit points is meaningless, as each hit point is another point of damage that needs to be dealt for you to drop. Resistance is so good because it roughly doubles the number of attacks needed to drop you, which is why the Bear Totem for Barbarians is probably a little overvalued (not much though, especially as a Barbarian's collection of high hp, resistance when raging, and ability to grant advantage on attacks against them is meant to make them take a lot of attacks).

With regards to combat, the ability to have less attacks miss you and the ability to absorb hits both do the same thing, so a character's or enemy's hp and AC should not scale linearly. Characters completely break this rule, the highest hp classes also tend to give the best ACs. I'm not sure how enemies follow it, but my gut is that high AC enemies tend to have smaller hp pools than low AC enemies of the same CR.

No in my view, hit frequency for characters should be about 60%. Enough that anybody with Extra Attack is probably getting at least one hit a turn in, but low enough that misses aren't rare. HP then should be assigned based on how many 'hits' a creature is supposed to be able to soak, remembering that the number of hits a round a party can dish out increases as they level in addition to the value of hits.

Note: my Barbarian character in my 'starting soon, honest' game prioritised CON over everything else, having a 16 in Strength and 14 in Dexterity means he has a reasonable damage output and AC, and so pumping up CON for the defensive boost to survive spamming Reckless Attack and increase my damage that way.

[Tanarii]

I found it's a bit too easy for PCs to survive compared to the threat level I was aiming for, which I initially wanted to be closer to BECMI. Otoh my players seem happy with not dropping like flies provided they don't totally overextend themselves or go up against something that far out matches them. And that latter still happens enough the campaign is considered dangerous. So it's probably about right.

As far as PC hit rate goes, 60% for a baseline / unoptimized character is pretty solid. It means Pcs can take a chance on off-ability scores, most commonly OAs by non-physical-attack classes. But players don't have to heavily optimize just to enjoy themself.

[Sigreid]

The hit rates and HP are find for what D&D is. No point expecting a game to not be what it is. I will admit that for damage resolution I tend to prefer games like Rune Quest where your actual ability to take more damage goes up very rarely and only with great effort but your ability to avoid the damage increases as you develop the skills to protect yourself. I know that's the idea behind HP, but it's always bothered me a little that eventually the commoner with the dagger and even the entire town guard has no chance at all of actually threatening a PC's existence. PCs should develop into forces to be reconned with and feared by lesser mortals but a deadly weapon should always be deadly.

[mephnick]

Could be bias on my part, but I think the bad guys are hitting the PCs a bit too often

I sort of agree, but also don't. My current character has 20 AC and I get hit enough that..I don't feel like AC matters? It used to be something I liked to build towards and it's rated very highly on internet builds but I'm starting to think I should just roll a Barb with 14 AC and expect to get hit and not think about it.

That being said, missing a lot sucks for everyone. I'd rather hit and get hit more often than the opposite.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm fine with the hit rate for weapons as martial classes either make multiple attacks or have an easier means of gaining advantage (rogue).

I'm less happy with hit rate for casters. Casters, warlocks being the exception, typically have a harder time gaining advantage and many of their attack spells make a single attack roll. Some saves have a partial effect when the enemy passes their save, particularly damaging spells, but most don't. When combined with low caster DCs that don't go over 19 even at maximum level, it's common for a caster to cast a debilitating effect, have an enemy resist that effect, and then the caster loses his whole turn. That's not fun.

It's for this reason that when I play casters, I favor spells that don't require rolls, don't allow saves, or target more than one creature. Support and AoE control are consistent.

[GooeyChewie]

It's for this reason that when I play casters, I favor spells that don't require rolls, don't allow saves, or target more than one creature. Support and AoE control are consistent.

I agree completely.

Suppose you have a spellcaster, first level, with a relevant attribute score of 17 (point buy, got a 15, +2 racial - pretty typical). Your friend has a martial character, also with a 17 in the relevant attribute. You face off against an unarmored foe who, because I like easy math, also has a 17 Dex (13 AC, +3 Dex save). Your friend hits the target on an 8 or higher (+5 total attack bonus, +2 from proficiency and +3 from the attribute bonus). That’s a 65% Hit rate. The target makes his Dex save against your spells on a 10 or higher (spell save DC 13, 8 + 2 proficiency + 3 from the attribute bonus). That means the target only fails the save 45% of the time. And if your spell does nothing on a save, you likely wasted an action and potentially a spell slot.

Granted, the spellcaster can make up the difference by targeting low attributes (if you know them), and the math changes if the target has armor. But still, save-for-nothing spells start at a big enough disadvantage that I avoid them unless they have a major impact AND I can reliably alter the chances that the target fails.

[Armored Walrus]

I'm fine with the hit rate for weapons as martial classes either make multiple attacks or have an easier means of gaining advantage (rogue).

I'm less happy with hit rate for casters. Casters, warlocks being the exception, typically have a harder time gaining advantage and many of their attack spells make a single attack roll. Some saves have a partial effect when the enemy passes their save, particularly damaging spells, but most don't. When combined with low caster DCs that don't go over 19 even at maximum level, it's common for a caster to cast a debilitating effect, have an enemy resist that effect, and then the caster loses his whole turn. That's not fun.

It's for this reason that when I play casters, I favor spells that don't require rolls, don't allow saves, or target more than one creature. Support and AoE control are consistent.

I think this is exacerbated, in part, by the idea (at least on these forums) that giving players items that let them raise their Spell DCs is verboten. I just handed a Wand of the War Mage +1 to the first level party in my pbp game. It's what was rolled, so it's what they got. It didn't help them much when they decided to try fighting a level 3 encounter, so I'm not too worried about it :P

[strangebloke]

It's for this reason that when I play casters, I favor spells that don't require rolls, don't allow saves, or target more than one creature. Support and AoE control are consistent.

Disagree slightly.

If you target a save that the creature is bad at, you can get very good results. DC 14 seems easy, until you realize you're an Orc Champion with -2 to your CHA save.

[Easy_Lee]

Disagree slightly.

If you target a save that the creature is bad at, you can get very good results. DC 14 seems easy, until you realize you're an Orc Champion with -2 to your CHA save.

That works if you can guess the creature's low saves. It's generally useless against homebrew monsters and, depending on who you talk to, verges on metagaming. That said, I do like the spell Enemies Abound simply because most creatures don't have a good intelligence save and you can reasonably spot stupidity.

[MeeposFire]

The only change on the player side that I can tell from the B/X games I played is that Magic Users was d4 HD, and the fact that you add your Con Modifier.

So you would advise roll for hit points instead of taking average, and then not adding Con modifier?

Another change in D&D and AD&D back then and 3e on up is that starting at level 10 or 11 (depending on which version) PCs generally (with a few exceptions in 1e) get only 1-3 static HP gains every level with no con mods so that wizard at level 11 gets 1HP period. This makes high level PCs in those games have much lower HP totals than a similar character in 3e, 4e, and 5e. In addition for enemies they all had a set of hit dice but no con mods with no averages taken in general so their totals tend to be lower than they are today (though back then PCs mostly did less damage so it kind of works out).

As I recall basic type D&D has really low hit rates but HP was also low so dropping still occurs quickly.

[Throne12]

I only have this problem when I roll as a DM. I would roll less the 8 or a Nat 20. And 80% of the time it's lower then 8.

[Throne12]

This is why I don't give out +x weapons or save DC.

[strangebloke]

That works if you can guess the creature's low saves. It's generally useless against homebrew monsters and, depending on who you talk to, verges on metagaming. That said, I do like the spell Enemies Abound simply because most creatures don't have a good intelligence save and you can reasonably spot stupidity.

I let my players use insight or knowledge rolls to get more information on a creature's weaknesses and strengths, so I guess that ruling has just creeped into my set of default assumptions. :smalltongue:

But overall, I think most of the checks are pretty easy to guess. A low-int character is obvious, a low-str character usually is pretty blatant as well, and a low dex character isn't too hard to spot. Wis and Cha are harder to spot, particularly if your DM isn't consistent.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is why I don't give out +x weapons or save DC.

I wouldn't either, but generally because I tend to find those items boring. I'd hate it if my GM gave my barbarian a +2 halberd (chosen because the party is low op, sadly you can no longer make OAs when the enemy moves from 10ft to 5ft). You're giving me a powerful object that just gives me a +2? Do I'll make some notes on my sheet and never think about fact I have it again?

[Throne12]

I wouldn't either, but generally because I tend to find those items boring. I'd hate it if my GM gave my barbarian a +2 halberd (chosen because the party is low op, sadly you can no longer make OAs when the enemy moves from 10ft to 5ft). You're giving me a powerful object that just gives me a +2? Do I'll make some notes on my sheet and never think about fact I have it again?

I find them boring too

[JBPuffin]

Our group has a) mostly gotten utility/new ability magic items rather than stat boosters (the last game we played [and my last before going to Basic] I got a Necklace of Fireballs, while the tempest cleric has a shield which allows him to quicken Thunderwave or Shatter by expending charges); b) found our individual luck as players balances to average incredibly well; and c) never suffered from a lack of hits landing. If something can dodge better than other things, we throw spells at it (or our pugilist grapples it) to even the playing field, which is usually enough.

Oh, and as an Arcane Trickster who's been playing with the Cleric since level one: we've had similar chances of hitting things with attacks vs targets failing saves. The roll-boosting items aren't requirements so much as a way to let players play a more rocket-taggy version of the game or remind them of the magic-item-mandatory days of 4e. They're definitely not statistical necessities.

[Anonymouswizard]

I've also noticed that most groups either go spell heavy or marital heavy, there's rarely a balance. My current group prefers martial characters, our last party was barbarian, bard/rogue/monk, sorcerer, and fighter. Our new one is going to be, in the same player order, arcane trickster, same character as last time (same world, starting at the level the old game fizzled out at), druid, and barbarian. I once played a game with three utility casters and a brute.

Martials and casters have different problems. Casters problems are the need to hit weak saves, which can be hard to judge without a friendly GM or metagaming, but if they do so they're competitive. Martials only have one defence to worry about (AC), but an enemy with physical resistance can be impossible to overcome unless your caster has the right buff or your GM gave out magic weapons. But a high AC isn't as much of a problem as it appears, as even a successful shove (probably by the barbarian, especially if he hits 18th level) will give everybody Advantage.


Utility items are also my favourite, especially weird ones. The Bag of Tricks would be a great item to find, as would a rope that comes undone at a word, a horn that turns clay into graphite, tokens that can summon ethereal goats, or a billion other things. If you're going to give PCs weapons make them interesting, even an axe that can set itself on fire once per day is more interesting than a +3 axe (and will likely turn up in stories about your character).

[Tanarii]

I agree completely.

Suppose you have a spellcaster, first level, with a relevant attribute score of 17 (point buy, got a 15, +2 racial - pretty typical). Your friend has a martial character, also with a 17 in the relevant attribute. You face off against an unarmored foe who, because I like easy math, also has a 17 Dex (13 AC, +3 Dex save). Your friend hits the target on an 8 or higher (+5 total attack bonus, +2 from proficiency and +3 from the attribute bonus). That’s a 65% Hit rate. The target makes his Dex save against your spells on a 10 or higher (spell save DC 13, 8 + 2 proficiency + 3 from the attribute bonus). That means the target only fails the save 45% of the time. And if your spell does nothing on a save, you likely wasted an action and potentially a spell slot.
If youre fighting an enemy with dex +3 and proficiency, thats not the equivilent of AC 13. Thats equivalent of AC 16 or so.

[Astofel]

I find in my games that both sides are hitting more often than not, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. After all, it's frustrating and boring if both sides spend their time whiffing at each other and just drags out the combat. The exception here is the paladin in the group I DM for who built for AC and whom my dice seem to either love or loathe, with no in-between. Either I miss 90% of attacks against him in the combat, or he gets crit 3 times in a row.

[GooeyChewie]

If youre fighting an enemy with dex +3 and proficiency, thats not the equivilent of AC 13. Thats equivalent of AC 16 or so.

Only if they are also wearing armor (which I did mention would change the calculation).

But I can make the math more general, since your spell attack and spell save DC are based on the same numbers. Suppose you have the chance to either make a spell attack, or force the target to make a save. Your target’s save bonus needs to be four less than the target’s AC bonus (compared to base 10) in order to have the same chance of a failed save as a hit on the attack. So if the target has 16 AC, and a relevant save bonus of +2, then your chances of hitting on the attack and the chances of the creature failing the saving throw are equal.

Of course, all of this is just abstract mathematics. Your mileage on save-for-nothing spells will vary greatly depending on your table. If your DM likes to throw heavily-armored slow-witted enemies at you, then save-based spells can shine.

[Squiddish]

I'd say it's pretty fair, but can fluctuate a fair bit between classes. With weapon attacks it tends to be fairly satisfying, since you tend to make more attacks and you don't spend limited resources on attacks. With spell attacks on the other hand it is either incredibly satisfying or incredibly irritating.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd say it's pretty fair, but can fluctuate a fair bit between classes. With weapon attacks it tends to be fairly satisfying, since you tend to make more attacks and you don't spend limited resources on attacks. With spell attacks on the other hand it is either incredibly satisfying or incredibly irritating.

On the other hand, barring crits, even can trips start to have a bigger impact than attacks. The turnover is at 10th level I believe, as a 5th level barbarian is doing about 1d12+6 damage when raiging while Cantrips are doing 2d8 or 2d10 damage, meanwhile at level 10 strong cantrips are ahead on damage per hit but you get less hits. Spells tend to spike caster damage higher, but are reliant on hitting the right save (which I'm terrible at doing, and so have switched to weapon users). Spells also have more varied affects than attacks, which are mainly damage, grapple, or shove (although I believe sunder, disarm, and all that jazz appears in the DMG). So marital characters ate those who want a constant steam of hits, while casters are for those who want big hits.

The paladin messes this up, with their smites allowing them spell level damage with attack level accuracy, but their slots are limited enough that 'buff or another smite' is a valid tactical decision.

Each class is also really well designed to play a particular style. The barbarian risks taking hits in exchange for the potential of massive crits, the fighter unleashes a flurry of attacks, the cleric supports with spells, the rogue strikes disadvantaged enemies, the wizard controls the battlefield and lays down area affects, the warlock supports at will blasts with three occasional spell, the paladin unleashes large smites on command, the ranger gets annoyed WotC hasn't released an official fix for the class yet, the monk runs around unleashing flurries, the bard does a bit of everything but mainly support, the sorcerer does whatever single role his limited spells are built towards, and the druid is just unbearable.

[Tanarii]

Only if they are also wearing armor (which I did mention would change the calculation).

My point was dex +3 and proficiency is very high for a save bonus. So comparing it to a very low AC is comparing apples and oranges.

Edit: in other words, having the necessary 4 less to make a save is often par for the course. Some low level enemies with a particularly high attribute may be an exception to that. But AC 13 compared to +5 to save is a outlier.

[GooeyChewie]

My point was dex +3 and proficiency is very high for a save bonus. So comparing it to a very low AC is comparing apples and oranges.

Edit: in other words, having the necessary 4 less to make a save is often par for the course. Some low level enemies with a particularly high attribute may be an exception to that. But AC 13 compared to +5 to save is a outlier.
Please note I was not calculating proficiency in my original calculations. I was comparing 13 AC to +3 Save. Had I added the target's proficiency bonus, the chances of having the target fail would have dropped to 35% rather than 45%.