|6 people marked this as a favorite.|
Why 65% feels bad.
Most players have went to school for 12 plus years and you are told somethings about what is good, what is average, and what is bad. We know these marks as grades. What the percentage range of each letter changes from school to school, so I am going to with the simplest and the nice I
have come across.
A 90% plus this is great.
B 80% to 89% this is good.
C 70% to 79% this is alright.
D 60% to 69% this is poor.
F 59% and below this is bad.
For my bachelors program you were required to have at the least a B average in your main field of study. And you had to have at least C in all courses for your main field of study. You are considered an expert
in your field when you get your degree.
So when you say the Fighter is the best when it comes to weapons and thus at landing hits with them 65% feels like a ripe off. That first attack is a D, a barley passing grade and if this is your area of expertise not acceptable. I feel the same for fully invested skills. I have had it drilled into my head for years that 65% is a D and a poor showing, it is passing but not acceptable.
If the fighter is the best class when it comes to using a weapon they should at the very least be able hit 80% of time with their best attack. For other martial classes being average 70% a C is fine.
I would be alright if not happy if the max would be 80% on the first attack for the fighter. That would place a non-optimized fighter at 70%-75%. Which is where I think the ranger, monk, and barbarian should be. This would put your first attack at 80%, second attack at 55% and third attack at 30%.
If you need to increase creature HP and/or increase a critical to be 15 over the AC instead of 10 over. Or you could add a class feat like sure strike that could add a +2 circumstance bonus to the attack.
There is a reason that I rarely used power attack in PF1 and it was the minus to attack.
I hope this explanation explains why I and most likely others feel that 65% success is too low for...
I agree, and 65% hit chance for a fighter is something achievable only with bonuses, normally it would be around 55%. And don't even begin when you factor that other classes maight have <50% hit chance (sometimes as low as 30-35% chance for a Cleric).
Then again, you can't increase too much the fighter's hit rate, because that would automatically increase crit chance, upping the damage considerably. That's why I'm certain that the current crit mechanic (+10/-10) is the CORE of the problem. It's broken by principle. Criticals (as in 3.5, PF1, 5e) are a fun mechanic that adds a layer of swingness and unpredictability, though sometimes can be problematic. That's why increases in critical range are relatively hard to come by in those games.
On the other hand, if you add a mechanic that dinamically shifts the range of criticals (+10/-10 crit mechanic) look what you get: you now completely lost control over the mechanic. Add in conditional bonuses to that equation. What you get is e level of uncertainty that is virtually impossible to balance.
Think about it. Right now, almost every single decidion on the system must be tuned to acomodate the current state of criticals. To hit bonuses and monster statistics must be extremely tight in order to prevent damage escalation. Conditional bonuses must be tightly controlled in order to prevent damage escalation. AC must increase linearly to prevent damage escalation. Tables with sugested DCs must be used, otherwise is critical success after critical success in skills. Spells must be balanced considering that crit failures are a thing, leading to several spells being extremely underwhelming even after a failed save. The list goes on and on.
There is a mantra in game design that states that if a mechanic only works if you acomodate the entire of your game around it, it probably isn't a good mechanic and needs to be changed or scrapped altogether.