Hit / Success Chance Vs 5e

[dirtypool]

Verdyn wrote:

With a die, especially one with as large a range as a D20, you are far more apt to leap around from one extreme to the other with no mechanical reason for this to be the case

The D20 isn't simulating a mechanical reason for you to succeed or fail, it is simulating the randomness of chance. You don't need a reason to "play it off" when you don't succeed, luck just wasn't on your side.

[Guntermench]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

Zapp wrote:

At low levels, the official encounter guidelines leads to a hellish slog where nearly every monster is so much better than you (in attack bonus and AC) it's not funny.

No they don't.

If you'd said "the relative lack of level -1 and level 0 creatures leads to" you might have had a point, but the encounter guidelines work just fine and are not themselves the cause of the "hellish slog" you describe.

There's also the thing where creatures below level 1 have a better AC than they "should". Normally, a 2-level difference leads to a 3-point AC difference. But level -1 creatures have an AC just 1 point below a level 1 creature, and level 0 creatures have the same AC. There's probably a good mathematical reason for it (along the lines of hit points getting weird when a single hit is likely to take you down anyway), but it does mean that level 1 characters fighting level -1 opponents don't get to feel as badass as, say, a level 10 character fighting level 8 foes.

I think that's intentional. The GMG describes the core rulebook's proficiency as:

Quote:

The proficiency rank progression in the Core Rulebook is designed for heroic fantasy games where heroes rise from humble origins to world-shattering strength.

So I think it makes sense that you'd struggle a little at the start.

[S. J. Digriz]

Cylar Nann wrote:

I am very curious if anyone has run numbers. I tried to search for info online but couldn't find anything. We are playing Extinction Curse btw.

Our group switched over from 5e but most players are feeling like hit chances are worse in 2e which makes turns feel wasted and I honestly have no idea if it is true.

I guess when I am playing I dont even think about these kinds of things. I just use my 3 actions with all the options I chose and have fun.

I really enjoy the ability to mess with numbers with demoralize/bon mot/flanking and all the other effects.

Do you think 1st attack is nearly the same without buffs/debuffs? I have a feeling they arent too far off. I would guess flat footed would make it quite even since it is super easy to cause.

Do you think saves for spells are close to the same? I actually have no idea about this either. IMO the 4 degrees of success really make spells more interesting to me. All I can say I have noticed a lot of crit saves, especially if you target the strong save on accident.

On the other hand I love landing a crit failure on an enemy with a spell. Even something as simple as fear is great. Also for most spells I feel like a success is a minor hit which feels nice.

There is one huge difference in PF2 and 5e, that is damaging spells in 5e always do damage unless they have built in evasion. On the otherhand they can crit fail too.

Overall I completely understand people hate missing. I am very curious if it is just a feeling or numbers are really that much lower in 2e.

Has anyone else ran into issues of players feeling hit chances are bad in 2e from 5e.

5e has a different design with regards to math than PF2e. In 5e, your level does not affect your chances of hitting nearly as much. A 1st level character has about a +5 to hit without spell boosts, and a 20th level character has around a +14 to hit or so (+14 assumes a 20 in the relevant attribute and a +3 weapon). AC for a 1st level monster will be in the mid teens, and AC for a 20th level monster will be in the low 20s. In PF2e a first level character is around +7 to hit (fighters are around +9), and a 20th level character is around around +35 or so.

Because level matters more in PF2e, if the monsters are a little high level for the players, the players will miss more (or the monsters will save/crit save more). In 5e, you can face a CR 8 monster and hit it a lot, but it will be harder for a 5th level 2e party to hit a 8th level monster. (especially true when the level difference is one where the characters would advance to the next level of proficiency). If the DM throws lower level encounters against the players, then it works the other way around, and you will kick their butts (both with increased hits, and with increased crits) Of course, that would also let your spell casters use incapacitation effects, so such encounters should be over quickly.

Also note that each +1 is more significant in 2e in that it has a 15% chance to matter with each roll (to turn a crit fail into a fail, a fail into a success, and a success into a crit success). In 5e, a +1 only has a 5% chance of mattering per roll (to turn a fail into a success). That being said, each +1 5e is pushing your dice roll across a greater percentage of the space between what you rolled, and what you need to hit a higher level creature, since creature AC doesn't improve across levels as much. So, in 5e, spells and abilities that boost your attack rolls, like bless, or bardic inspiration, will result in a larger increase in the number of player hits during a combat, and gaining advantage in 5e, which is fairly common, results in what amounts to about +5 to hit. Taken together, all of that means that players do probably hit more often in 5e, especially against higher CR monsters.

[Omega Metroid]

To add to the above, 5e expects a higher base accuracy rate than PF2 against same-level targets; 60%, specifically, IIRC. 5e's math is tuned so that for a character starts with 16 in their attack stat, increases it to 18 at Lv.4, and increases it to 20 at Lv.8, that character's proficiency increases and the aforementioned two ASIs will consistently keep them even with same-level enemy AC, for a 60% hit rate at all levels. Average enemy AC thus tends to increase at CR 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 17, to match the two ASIs and the 5/9/13/17 proficiency increases. (I believe there were one or two exceptions where average AC increases slightly earlier or slightly later than it should, but I may be misremembering.)

PF2, on the other hand, expects... I believe it was 55% hit rate against same-level enemies? This base expectation, however, is compounded by the game's heavy reliance on relative level as a primary balancing factor, leaving for rates that tend to significantly fluctuate based on encounter design and honed teamwork, compared to 5e expecting your rate to be more static and fluctuate based on tactics (and/or advantage/disadvantage manipulation).

[Staffan Johansson]

S. J. Digriz wrote:

Also note that each +1 is more significant in 2e in that it has a 15% chance to matter with each roll (to turn a crit fail into a fail, a fail into a success, and a success into a crit success).

As a point of order, no more than two of those will be possibilities for any given roll, and a significant number of rolls will only have one of those three be possible.

If you need to roll an 11 to succeed, getting a +1 only increases the chance of actual success. You still need a 20 for a critical success, and you still need a 1 for a critical failure.That's only on one target number, but it's a fairly common one.

If your target number is 12 or more, getting a +1 increases your chance of success and reduces your chance to critically fail. If your target number is 10 or lower, getting a +1 increases your chance of success and critical success.

[Lycar]

Verdyn wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

That's the description of a fight between 2 boxers. Now, put a boxer against a dragon, and I'm pretty sure it'll be way more messy and far more random.

Where is this randomness coming from? Please describe the mechanism by which it is obtained at the macro scale the fight is taking place at.

Abstraction.

[Temperans]

+1s are more significant in PF2 mostly because of the crit system. Which also acts to limit how much bonuses can be given without the entire thing breaking apart.

[Raychael Allor]

Removed a bunch of posts and replies to said posts; be sure to stay on topic here and either start a new thread or take it to PMs.

Friendly reminder that we do have younger people on the forums, so don't bypass the swear filter. I'll have to remove it no matter how humorous the post itself might be.

[Verdyn]

I was really on one last night, wasn't I...

I think I can sum up my thoughts as I'd prefer a game where player skill either in tactics or character-building hold primacy over the random elements that are, my mind, at their best when they add only a small element of risk and obfuscation. I'd rather most rolls by the player and the DM succeed than to have things trend the other way. I'd favor chip damage and armor as DR versus a system with the same balance that is instead balanced around far lower hit rates. For spells, I'd make save effects an end of player turn roll for ongoing effects and have any instant effects target a static save value like any other attack roll.

I'd go further and add even more simulationism to my ideal game and lessen the burden on the players by explicitly designing the game to be played with smart devices and augmented reality to blend a tabletop full of snacks and painted minis with the best elements of a VTT. We live in an age Gygax couldn't have dreamed of when he made D&D, so I want to take that next step and see what we can do if we design around having a computer in almost every pocket.

[AnimatedPaper]

At the end of the day, they were not interested in making that kind of system where most dice rolls are successful. There are systems out there for that, most notably 5e. Moreover, you can create that effect in PF2 by the simple virtue of adding +3 to all player statistics if they are trained or higher. As I mention upthread, that's my normal method of play.

Or, just go ahead and allow PF1 feats into PF2. If the balance doesn't matter, why worry overmuch about the feats not being designed for pf2? The systems and terminology should interface well enough to make the PF1 feats work in PF2, as long as balance isn't what you're shooting for.

The first draft of the 2 action economy is here if you need to convert a specific action that isn't already covered by a PF2 rule and you're worried about interactions with the new action economy. Spells are possible to convert, but they'd be quite a bit harder.

Edit: to be perfectly clear, this is not a knock on your taste. Just recognition that it does not align with the game they want to write.

[Exocist]

Omega Metroid wrote:

To add to the above, 5e expects a higher base accuracy rate than PF2 against same-level targets; 60%, specifically, IIRC. 5e's math is tuned so that for a character starts with 16 in their attack stat, increases it to 18 at Lv.4, and increases it to 20 at Lv.8, that character's proficiency increases and the aforementioned two ASIs will consistently keep them even with same-level enemy AC, for a 60% hit rate at all levels. Average enemy AC thus tends to increase at CR 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 17, to match the two ASIs and the 5/9/13/17 proficiency increases. (I believe there were one or two exceptions where average AC increases slightly earlier or slightly later than it should, but I may be misremembering.)

PF2, on the other hand, expects... I believe it was 55% hit rate against same-level enemies? This base expectation, however, is compounded by the game's heavy reliance on relative level as a primary balancing factor, leaving for rates that tend to significantly fluctuate based on encounter design and honed teamwork, compared to 5e expecting your rate to be more static and fluctuate based on tactics (and/or advantage/disadvantage manipulation).

65% at all levels for 5e assuming no magic weapons, magic weapons make that number go up.

PF2 is also 65% (assuming all magic math items are gotten at the level of the item) vs moderate AC for martial characters at most levels (13/20), instead 60% at levels 4,8,9 and 12 (coinciding with striking and property runes) and 70% at levels 5,13 and 17.

Difference being that in 5e you get more attacks at that accuracy but barely any more damage while enemy HP balloons, and in PF2e you have MAP, so you only get 1 attack at that accuracy, but your damage goes up.

[Lucas Yew]

Wasn't 65% the assumed probability for 4E? Anyway, it would have been good for player conceptions if the assumed hit chance per gameplay tier slowly rose through your progress, say like +5% at levels 5/11/17 or something similar...

[Exocist]

Lucas Yew wrote:

Wasn't 65% the assumed probability for 4E? Anyway, it would have been good for player conceptions if the assumed hit chance per gameplay tier slowly rose through your progress, say like +5% at levels 5/11/17 or something similar...

4e is a bit special because there’s some variability.

Do you start with 20 stat (requires correct race choice and is expensive) or 18? Does your epic destiny give you +2 stat or not (some don’t give any stat at all). Are you using a +3 proficiency weapon or +2?

Also are you targetting NADs or AC?

But in general 4e hit chance is going to start between 55-60% for NAD (+4-5 vs 14 NAD) targetters (depending on 18 or 20 stat), have some fluctuation depending on when you get your bonuses, but generally remain around that number - monsters get +29 over the course of 1-30, 1 per level, and you get +28-29 (+15 level, +4-5 stat depending on ED, +6 item, +3 feat)

Non NAD targetters should be identical (the +2 to AC matched by the +2 prof bonus on weapons) unless you use a +3 prof bonus weapon.

So realistically your starting hit chance in 4e is between 55 and 65% and should remain about that for your entire career. If you don’t pick an ED that has +2 stat it will drop by 5%.

[Staffan Johansson]

dirtypool wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

That's certainly a possibility. It's not much comfort when your dice are cold, though.

Why should the encounter math provide comfort for those with cold dice? If the encounter design must allow for the comfort of people who are having bad dice luck - how challenging can an encounter ever really be?

Being more forgiving of bad luck and having more consistency of results leads to a lower chance of dissatisfied players. This applies particularly at low levels when your ability to mitigate bad luck is lower, and which coincidentally are the levels where you would most often give a new game a try.