I actually like inaccurate monsters

Yep.  I'll just put it out there, since nobody else seems to be saying it.  Low hit chances aren't necessarily a bad thing.  They make things a bit swingier, yes, but a little swing is exciting.  If I'm not hitting 4/5 times, a hit is more of a rush.  If high vs. low damage rolls makes the difference between having to hit this monster 1 or 2 times, or 2 or 3 times before he dies, that roll is more exciting too.  I'm not a big fan of the "chipping away" model of combat, where you usually hit but need to do so 5 or 6 times before the thing actually dies.  Not only is a hit presumed unsatisfying when it materializes, but you're forced to make up for the lack of AC with HP (or substantial chance of monsters and PCs dying before they get a chance to act).  If it takes 5 hits to kill a monster, the damage rolls average out to the point of being near irrelevant and the excitement of those rolls are spoiled as well.  Sure it might take only 4 hits if all four are above average or 6 if all are below, but a good or bad first hit just doesn't bear any noticeable consequences.

I wouldn't mind some improvement in the lower bounds, granted.  Somebody needs to explain why kobolds aren't using their DEX with their daggers and why goblins use maces instead of a dagger that would cost less, do more damage, and hit more often (their lives depend on the decision, after all, why hasn't a creature that's supposed to be clever and tactical put more thought into it?  That and it would help to even out the combat effectiveness of equivalently leveled monsters).  Nor would I mind giving monsters enough HP that they could survive a natural 1 damage roll from a character with a measly +2 damage.  A wizard with a quarterstaff and an 8 strength should not be able to one shot a goblin 50% of the time.  I'm not saying they've got the balance right.  I'm just saying 35-50% is a pretty good range IMHO.  

It's also worth noting that, while Next PCs are about as durable as 4e PCs, monsters are not.  Run the numbers, both editions' average PCs can survive just under 6 rounds against a 1st level monster on average (Assumptions: 4e PC has 25 HP and AC 16, as a leader/striker with 13 con, 18 DEX/INT and leather or chain; Next PC has 14 con, d6 HD, and leather + 16 DEX or studded +12 DEX or ringmail; 4e monster has MM3 guideline stats; Next monster has average attack and damage for the better attack option of each 1st level monster in the playtest bestiary).  There are some differences in that the Next PCis much more likely to be one shotted while also much more likely to last 8 or more rounds, but the mean is the same (it holds for higher levels as well, to the extent we can tell from the playtest monsters, of which there are few above level 2 from which to generalize).  But a 4e monster could survive just under 5 rounds on average toe to toe (less vs a striker), it's less than 1 round vs a Next PC.  That needs to change.

Personally, I'd like them to substantially reduce PC accuracy.  Take away the +2 everyone gets, for instance (reducing fighters to +1).  This would have the added bonus of evening out the "accuracy" of spells with attack rolls and spells with saves.  And it would reduce the PC/monster effectiveness gap a bit, which I see as one of the drivers of the cry for more accurate monsters (along with the truly ridiculous lower bounds).  If PCs were in the +3-5 range, it wouldn't look so silly for monsters to be in the +1-2 range, and monster survivability would improve a bit.
Low to hit chances and a boom your down when you do get hit also helps those who like to see a hit as being real damage... 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

we played the end playtest with our group and id did not feal exiting.
It might be due to our party composision as we had 2 fighters, and the enemies had so few Hp the fighters only used their dice to reduce damage.

In the whole sesison we played about 8 combat encounter only 7 points of damage managed to make it trough.
with the monster hit chance so low hitting did not happen very often only 1 maybe 2 attacks would hit in a round and be reduced to insignificant damage by the fighters.

we took more then 7 damage from things like traps though. 
we played the end playtest with our group and id did not feal exiting.
It might be due to our party composision as we had 2 fighters, and the enemies had so few Hp the fighters only used their dice to reduce damage.

In the whole sesison we played about 8 combat encounter only 7 points of damage managed to make it trough.
with the monster hit chance so low hitting did not happen very often only 1 maybe 2 attacks would hit in a round and be reduced to insignificant damage by the fighters.

we took more then 7 damage from things like traps though. 



Our fighter went all out defensive. +4 to AC, he's still able to parry, he's still able to grant disadvantage to one attack per round and there's pretty well always a spot where one or two guys can hold off the enemies. The rest of the party shoots.

Oh look, the monster didn't roll two 20's, it missed yet again. In the unlikely event it hits, the cleric is RIGHT THERE.

Speaking as someone who never paid the monster stats too much heed after the first campaign, I like the idea that a hit is significant and dangerous. I don't like the current monster design because they're not nearly tough enough.



If they have a small chance to hit but hit hard, you need to be fighting them for a few rounds to really get that danger sense tingling. The chances of rolling that 20 only get higher the longer you're fighting that beast. He'll hit you eventually and when it does you're gonna feel it.


If they can get that in the design, that'll be interesting.

OP: i disagree and think you are in the minority.

That said, modules can let us both play the way we want.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

There's a need for all types of monsters: those that hit seldom and lightly, often but lightly, seldom but hard, and often and hard. Throw in high, average, and low HPs and you have a nice Monster Manual

Steve

If your only tool is a warhammer, every problem looks like a gnoll.

OP: i disagree and think you are in the minority. That said, modules can let us both play the way we want.



I agree with him, and think a lot of people like die rolls mattering more, which is what hard hitting, inaccurate monsters lead to.
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
If the monsters are inaccurate, then the PCs should be toned down as well.   Some people have argued that the PCs should not have +2 (non fighter) and +3 (fighter) bonus to hit.  Instead make it 0/+1.   Not getting hit by monsters isn't as bad if the monsters have a chance to stick around for at least 2 rounds.

As long as it isn't a cake walk for PCs, I think it will work, but right now I believe that the PC vs. Monster to hit disparity is too large.  


A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

There's probably a sweet spot for how often players hit and how often DMs hit.   Watching the celebrity game, it felt like the only damage came from the Acid, though I'm probably wrong in my recollection.   Chris Perkin's did seem to think the monsters were inaccurate, based on his (was it: "These guys suck") comment.

I did like the dramatics of 4e with monsters having great re-charge damage and high chances of hitting.  My party felt like the monsters were too accurate ("Yes, a 30 hits ALL of my defences!"), and that they did too much damage (with recharge powers often doing 1/3-1/2 of a players health).  Admittedly, there were infrequently Player deaths, but the system was balanced so that monsters frequently did damage and frequently hit.      

The new system seems balanced that one or two hits will drop a wizard, and that the wizard has a low low AC.  But, that means that fighters have a higher AC, and more HP, which means they don't get challenged as much by first level monsters.   Binwin is going to get a complex.
There's probably a sweet spot for how often players hit and how often DMs hit.   Watching the celebrity game, it felt like the only damage came from the Acid, though I'm probably wrong in my recollection.   Chris Perkin's did seem to think the monsters were inaccurate, based on his (was it: "These guys suck") comment.

I did like the dramatics of 4e with monsters having great re-charge damage and high chances of hitting.  My party felt like the monsters were too accurate ("Yes, a 30 hits ALL of my defences!"), and that they did too much damage (with recharge powers often doing 1/3-1/2 of a players health).  Admittedly, there were infrequently Player deaths, but the system was balanced so that monsters frequently did damage and frequently hit.      

The new system seems balanced that one or two hits will drop a wizard, and that the wizard has a low low AC.  But, that means that fighters have a higher AC, and more HP, which means they don't get challenged as much by first level monsters.   Binwin is going to get a complex.



I agree with you MeCorva.   While I watched the Celebrity game I also felt as if it was great story telling, but the mechanics in combat were really underwhelming for the PCs.   I did like how Chris used ability checks..that was exciting.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

OP: i disagree and think you are in the minority. That said, modules can let us both play the way we want.



I agree with him, and think a lot of people like die rolls mattering more, which is what hard hitting, inaccurate monsters lead to.



And a lot of people like choices mattering more... kind of opposite of dicey dicey swing 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'm sure there is a good chunk of people who like to play yatzee (random) over chess (choice). But overall, chess is a more popular game.

But again, no reason to NOT have it both ways. It would take a small paragraph to add the modularity. (If you want swingier combat double all damage, and add 5 AC).

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

One of my biggest problems with all of D&D is how swingy the system is. Why plan for tactics, strategy, etc when a single die roll can end a fight?
@Edwin:

I could be wrong, since all I have to go on is your post, but I think your concerns arise less from the fact that monsters are inaccurate than from the fact that they are so much less accurate (and have less HP, and do less damage) than PCs.  If the monsters had stuck around for more than a round before getting slaughtered (and if they weren't kobolds/goblins with ridiculously and inexplicably low accuracy that I do not advocate in favor of), a lot more damage would have gotten through.  The problem was the overall challenge level being low, and there are lots of ways of changing that besides making monsters more accurate.

@ Mellored/Lawolf

Luck and choice are not a zero sum game.  You can have a system with no dice at all that nevertheless leaves zero room for tactics and strategy.  For example, suppose we took the current D&D chassis, and just said whatever your average DPR is, that's what you do every round.  Then we fight in an open field, one on one, without rules for improvised action.  Zero luck, zero strategy, the outcome is a mathematical result of the two sides' relative bonuses.  Now add in team synergy, improvised skill use, resource management, and terrain, and strategy is back.  Now add in dice rolls where you hit about 65% of the time.  Are we playing yahtzee now?  Is the game insufficiently intellectual for you, oh great lord of war?  Oh wait, that's pretty much what we've always had (except when we had less accuracy and more swing in older editions).  Now reduce the hit chances to 45%.  How much have you really taken away from the importance of tactics and strategy?  Especially when you broaden your horizon beyond the encounter at hand to the campaign as a whole: maybe good luck will overcome your bad strategy this time, or bad luck will overcome your good strategy, but next time it will make the difference between victory and defeat.  I think important dice can actually ADD to strategy, because it adds a layer of judgment on top of what is otherwise a glorified math problem.  Do you take the 100% chance of 6 damage, or the 50% chance of 10 damage?  Math can't answer that question for you, it depends on your risk premium under the circumstances.  I'm not advocating reducing combat encounters to a single roll. I'm advocating a marginal shift that has very little impact on the importance of strategy, but a pretty significant one on the feel of the game.  

That said, you're absolutely right that we should both be able to play our way.  I never implied otherwise.  I'm just letting the people upstairs know that the fan base is not united on this question.  Maybe I even hope against hope that someone who thinks they want more accurate monsters because he's only heard one side of the argument will change his mind.  But then again, this is the internet.  

@ Doug Lambert

To my mind, there are a lot of problems with that situation, none of which are necessarily insufficient accuracy for monsters.  First, true bottleneck points should be rare.  Second, when the encounter does have a bottleneck point, and all but one member of the party takes out a ranged weapon, so should the monsters.  Third, optimized Fighter AC should not be so far ahead of the curve.  Fourth, full defense should not provide that big a bonus if hit chances are already that small (-20 percentage points is not -20 percent, it's over -50% when the hit chances are less than 40% to begin with).  Fix any one of those problems and most of the trouble disappears.  Most of the rest is a reward for smart tactics and optimized character building.  Fix all of those things, and everything works out quite well without changing monster accuracy at all.  
Luck and choice are not a zero sum game.

True.  However, they do tend to step on eachother's toes alot.  Very often the more you depend on dice, the less you depend on tactics, and vice versa.

Also, having a 90% chance to hit has the exact same "luck factor" as a 90% chance to miss.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Let us say your PC has 15 HP. Would you rather play a game where enemies have a 10% chance to hit but when they do they deal 25 damage or one where they have a 50% chance to hit and only do 5 damage. The averages are the same but in one a single unlucky hit kills you outright. In the other it takes 3 hits in a row to kill you.

The higher accuracy less damage scenario gives more room for player tactics and options. After taking 2 hits the player an choose to continue fighting even though the next hit will drop him, or he can retreat. There is no option with the monster with 10% chance to hit 100% chance to kill you monster though.
To my mind, there are a lot of problems with that situation, none of which are necessarily insufficient accuracy for monsters.  First, true bottleneck points should be rare.  Second, when the encounter does have a bottleneck point, and all but one member of the party takes out a ranged weapon, so should the monsters.  Third, optimized Fighter AC should not be so far ahead of the curve.  Fourth, full defense should not provide that big a bonus if hit chances are already that small (-20 percentage points is not -20 percent, it's over -50% when the hit chances are less than 40% to begin with).  Fix any one of those problems and most of the trouble disappears.  Most of the rest is a reward for smart tactics and optimized character building.  Fix all of those things, and everything works out quite well without changing monster accuracy at all.  



1) Bottlenecks that last LONG ENOUGH are extrememly common in dungeon based play. They exist in both playtest adventures. If there are no bottlenecks then a "tank" is a non-existent role. Since they built a "tank" fighter as one of 5 default characters they obviously think bottlenecks should exist.
2) The monsters did pull out their ranged weapons, with which they are both less acurate and less damaging. With partial cover from the fighter the guys in back are then WORSE targets than just melee attacking the fighter.
3) Optimized fighter AC is BEHIND optimized sorcerer AC. If AC shouldn't be that high they are doing a really bad job of implementing it.
4) So then we go with a sorcerer or slightly better armor and whatever smaller bonus you give will still have the orcs only hitting on a 20, then what will you claim the problem is? The full defense +4 is too high ONLY because the accuracy is so low that monsters miss most of the time without it. The cause is low accuracy, the symptom is full defense being too good.

DougL
4e has defending classes that do fine without a chokepoint.

And tanks shouldn't require a chokepoint to do their job properly, otherwise the tank in question is poorly designed.
There's probably a sweet spot for how often players hit and how often DMs hit.   Watching the celebrity game, it felt like the only damage came from the Acid, though I'm probably wrong in my recollection.   Chris Perkin's did seem to think the monsters were inaccurate, based on his (was it: "These guys suck") comment.



You are actually correct. The damage pretty much all came from the acid. In fact I don't recall any damage from the monsters ever during that game. If the monsters got in any damage it was so rare and insignificant it did not stick out. If it wasn't for the acid they could have fought all day wihtout worrying about dying.


Edit: It's possible one of monsters did hit for four damage. It has been a while since I've watched the game.  
I find a sweet spot of 60-70% worked best for me.

A normal monster hits a normally defended PCs 60% of the time.
An accurate monster hits a heavily armored PCS 60% of the time.
A inaccurate monster hits a soft PC 60% of the time

Basically the monster's attack bonus should be around the AC value of Medium armor- 12.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Monsters absolutely need a better chance to hit, lower damage (on average) and more hit points. Some people might find it cool to need 60 Goblins for an average encounter against four PCs. I'm not one of them. Give the goblins +2 to hit, give them 1d6 damage (or even keep the -1), and give them their max hit points of 6. Overall this should make for a more fun goblin for everyone. He will still likely go down with one hit from the fighter, but will survive a horrible roll. Your avarage Fighter/cleric doesn't even need to roll damage on these goblins.


I get it that the goblins are a poor attempt to revive the idea of minions. Not to mention any monster trait that requires disadvantage should never be used. The monsters are already horrible enough they don't need help. With the corrent monster stats a monster with disadvantage is likely never going to hit, and so over time DMs will find they aren't using those traits at all. So I think all the traits with disadvantage should be tossed out or rewritten to not include disadvantage. Yes it makes since that when you Rage you get disadvantage, but the problem is in practice the trait is no longer usuable. (Just wait till a PC Barbarian gets disadvantage when he rages and see how fun it is, I'd almost assume that wizards won't even try that idea).

By the way, I'm perfectly okay with the orc doing 1d12 damage + ability modifier. I'd still like the orc to have a better chance to hit, and more hit points even if that does increase his level to 3 or 4. 

Too many monsters have multiattack in my opinion. Also did I miss a rule or does monsters do full damage with multiattack while PCs only do half?  Some of the monsters really need better AC. The AC seems consistently low.

I personally think there shouldn't be a gap of more than 6 points between the lowest AC and highest AC party member. That way monster accuracy can be set to the mid point of +3 or +4 so that around 70% to 80% hits.

Its ridiculous that monsters can't hit anyone except the Wizard on a roll of 15.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I personally think there shouldn't be a gap of more than 6 points between the lowest AC and highest AC party member. That way monster accuracy can be set to the mid point of +3 or +4 so that around 70% to 80% hits.

Its ridiculous that monsters can't hit anyone except the Wizard on a roll of 15.



I would agree. This gets really hard since a typical wizard has a DC of 12 starting out and few ways to improve it. A Hill Dwarf fighter with a shield could have at most a DC 18 startign out. (which is actually what you said). So I think on average right now the AC is within 6 points and will typcially be a lot less. But 6 points is stil huge. A goblin will hit the fighter only if he rolls a 19 or 20 but will hit the wizard on a 13 or higher. At +2 the goblin will at least need a 16 to hit the dwarf but now hits the Wizard on a 10. I think the way to solve this would be to allow the wizard to wear some basic type of armor. Maybe a special wizards robes that are magically enchanted to grant +2 to AC.


I think the real desparity here is going to end up being in hit points.  
@mellored

I happen to disagree with you there, at least for moderate values of luck factor.  Sure at the far extremes luck becomes important enough to trump tactics and render them meaningless, but I think that value is far far away from the 35-45% hit ratios I'd like to see.  

Actually, the luck factor is not the same between 90% hit chance and 90% miss chance (assuming damage and HP are modified to result in the same average durability).  Because the 90% hit chance will pretty much always kill you on the "expected" round, while the 90% miss chance could kill you pretty much any time.  That said, if you were right, than why would you complain about me wanting to swap 65% for 35%, since apparently, they're the same luck factor and by extension tactics factor?

@lawolf

I would rather play the game where you have a 40% chance of hitting and do 6.25 points of damage, personally.  Reductio ad absurdum only actually works as an argumentative tactic if your opponent recognizes no limiting principle at which to halt.  I fully recognize the dangers of swing, but I think the sweet spot at which the marginal cost and benefit equalize is a little bit higher than you do.  I don't want the corner case, and my argument does not require me to want it, so quit trying to defeat an argument nobody is making.

@ Doug

I agree with english language that it's a poorly designed tank that requires a bottleneck to function, and a poorly designed dungeon that results in frequent encounter-length bottlenecks.  That 5e tanks and playtest dungeons are poorly designed does not defeat my position, nor that a more careful reading of the playtest packet than I've bothered with can break the AC curve.  I'm not advocating for monsters that can only hit on a 20.  I'm advocating for monsters that hit on a 10-16 depending on how AC optimized the target is (ie +2 average, not far off from where it is now, at least once kobolds and goblins stop being idiots).  If I'm wrong about where the curve is, then by all means make them more accurate.  I'm not advocating for particular bonuses, I'm advocating for hit ratios.  While you're right that, given more accurate monsters, a +4 from total defense would not be as overpowered, it does not follow that one is the cause and the other is the effect.  Each affects the other simultaneously, and correcting either imbalance would solve the problem.  I would prefer to solve the problem by reducing the +4 than by making monsters substantially more accurate, not only because I prefer the systemic rhythm of lower values but because inevitably the ability will be used by the high end of the AC curve more than the low end and I would prefer to limit that range as much as possible.  I will grant that this is a preference.  I grant you yours, please grant me mine.  
No sure why they dropped the +2 bonus from the first packet (the minotaur now needs to roll a 16 to hit a mountain dwarf in plate with a shield).
4e has defending classes that do fine without a chokepoint.

That's in large part because most 4E defenders *create* chokepoints. Wherever they are, that's a chokepoint.


"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
4e has defending classes that do fine without a chokepoint.

That's in large part because most 4E defenders *create* chokepoints. Wherever they are, that's a chokepoint.





Are you implying that's a bad thing?Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Sign In to post comments