[4e] Really stupid question

[Swordguy]

Okay, so we're about 6 sessions into KotSF, and I've noticed that the non-weapon users in the party are really unable to hit very accurately, as compared to the fighter and rogue. The way I see it, the to-hit equations break down like so

Non-weapon user
Weapon User
1d20+
1/2-level+
Ability Score+
Feat Bonus+
Implement/Magic Item Bonus=
TOTAL TO-HIT BONUS

Weapon User
1d20+
1/2-level+
Ability Score+
Feat Bonus+
Implement/Magic Item Bonus+
Weapon Proficiency Bonus=
TOTAL TO-HIT BONUS

Now, at low levels (the PCs just hit level 3), the extra +2/+3 to hit from the Proficiency Bonus is huge. The cleric and wizard just don't land their spells very often, as compared to the weapon users hitti9ng with their powers. Now, I'm aware that later on, they'll get magic implements (orbs, etc) that increase the to-hit bonus...but the weapon users get magic weapons at roughly the same rate. It looks like that +2/+3 disparity the weapon users have over non-weapon users will be there forever.

Is there something that makes up for this deficiency that I've missed somewhere, or do I need to start writing my first set of 4e house rules?

[The New Bruceski]

Well casters tend to attack defenses other than AC, which are lower. That's the reason.

[Dentarthur]

Weapon attacks usually target AC, while blasting powers tend to attack the other defenses, which are going to be lower for armored characters. My cleric in my current game always picks the most heavily armored targets first for her radiant attacks, which gets me a pretty good hit rate as they're likely to have a lower Reflex defense than the guys in leather and cloth.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Most monsters should have ACs 2-4 higher than their other defenses (which should average 12+level), looking at page 184 in the DMG. If you're dealing with low-AC monsters like brutes or artillery, weapon-users should have an advantage. Against soldiers, non-weapon-users should have an advantage.

Looking at, say, the Goblin Cutter, it has AC 16, and other defenses at 11, 12, and 14. Advantage - non-weapon-user, especially if targeting Fortitude or Will.

Picking another at random, the Ghoul has AC 21, and defenses 20, 18, and 17. An elder green dragon has AC 35, defenses 31, 31, 33.

And so on.

The advantage of +2 or +3 only generally makes up for the fact that you're targeting AC.

I'm suggesting selective thinking. Are they actually hitting less? Is this because of chance (poor rolls)?

[Jokes]

Bear in mind that Weapon Fighters mostly attack AC, which is usually a good 2-3 points higher than the other defences.

edit: woah, shouldn't have gone to make that sandwich. Epic ninjas.

[Swordguy]

Yeah, the player having the biggest issue is the wizard whose only non-reflex targeting spell is thunderweave, and we just got through a bunch of encounters with skeletons (AC 14, Ref 14), so it figures that he'd have more issues hitting than the weapon-users.

Okay - so otherwise the issue is solved from the other end, with lower defenses obliviating the need for a higher attack bonus. Dunno why I didn't see that. Guess it was just a localized thing. Thanks!

[ghost_warlock]

Another issue that contributes to fighters and rogues hitting more often than other characters (which I've also noticed in the game I've been playing in) are the number of other bonuses these classes get on their to hit rolls.

Both fighters and rogues get a situational +1 to hit; one/two-handed weapons for fighters and daggers for rogues. Rangers and warlocks also get prime shot, but it's a much tougher situational bonus to get than simply using a particular weapon (and melee rangers aren't likely to get much of any benefit from prime shot).

Likewise, both fighters and rogues are much more likely to gain/benefit from the +2 to hit from combat advantage than caster-types due to the nature of melee combat and flanking. In short, it's much tougher for a non-melee character to gain combat advantage.

Even against foes with ACs 2-4 points higher than their other defenses, rogues and fighters are going to hit more often if played smart.

[Kurald Galain]

Essentially it's a bunch of confusing mechanics to hide the fact that players are supposed to have roughly two-out-of-three chance of hitting a level-appropriate enemy.

Non-casters have +3 to hit, but monsters have +3 to defense against non-casters (since their AC is usually their highest defense). Similarly, higher-level characters have +X to hit while monsters of the same level have the same +X to defense. None of it really matters; that is the definition of balance.

[Crow]

None of it really matters; that is the definition of balance.

Yup. Break out the percentile dice.

[The New Bruceski]

Essentially it's a bunch of confusing mechanics to hide the fact that players are supposed to have roughly two-out-of-three chance of hitting a level-appropriate enemy.

Non-casters have +3 to hit, but monsters have +3 to defense against non-casters (since their AC is usually their highest defense). Similarly, higher-level characters have +X to hit while monsters of the same level have the same +X to defense. None of it really matters; that is the definition of balance.

Ignore the fact that individual monsters vary from that formula. Undead tend to have lower ACs, particularly zombies. Orcs have a very high Fortitude. It's exactly like save values in 3.x, it just puts the roll into the hands of the players.

[Dausuul]

Another issue that contributes to fighters and rogues hitting more often than other characters (which I've also noticed in the game I've been playing in) are the number of other bonuses these classes get on their to hit rolls.

Both fighters and rogues get a situational +1 to hit; one/two-handed weapons for fighters and daggers for rogues. Rangers and warlocks also get prime shot, but it's a much tougher situational bonus to get than simply using a particular weapon (and melee rangers aren't likely to get much of any benefit from prime shot).

Likewise, both fighters and rogues are much more likely to gain/benefit from the +2 to hit from combat advantage than caster-types due to the nature of melee combat and flanking. In short, it's much tougher for a non-melee character to gain combat advantage.

Even against foes with ACs 2-4 points higher than their other defenses, rogues and fighters are going to hit more often if played smart.

On the other hand, rogues and fighters have to deal with the complications of being tangled up in melee; they're at greater risk and don't always get to pick the ideal target to engage.

[Yakk]

Flanking is, quite honestly, a larger impact.