# Thread: Grazes and ranged combat - stop lying to us about the to-hit formula

1. Originally Posted by Forzah
Knowing more about the topic you troll about makes you the more effective troll. First you scare people with your knowledge and then you troll 'em hard.
That's like trolling zen, a thing of beauty.

2. Originally Posted by Nibor
This has nothing to do with ranged combat (although when the combat changes first rolled out with MOTU, ranged combat WAS broken in that you didn't get your +25% for being proficient).

You didn't have an 88 to hit, you rolled a 10% when attempting to hit a monster with whatever AC it has and an attack bonus of +86.
The formula is:
Chance to hit = (player attack bonus +10.5) / (monster AC *2) + .25 (if proficient)

This chance to hit is then rounded to the nearest 5% and converted to a target "to hit" number for your roll; if you roll under the target, you miss (graze).
The way the math works out on this is that when you roll a 2, you are quite likely to miss regardless of what you do. 10% is quite low, after all.

You can reverse engineer monster ACs this way, however. In your case, we can find a minimum AC the monster must have for you to miss on a 2 there. This means your chance to hit was less than 90% (actually it might mean less than 87.5% depending on if they actually round or just drop fractions when converting to the nearest 5% but close enough for now - I haven't bothered to figure that out. I *think* it was stated by a dev, but a) you can't search it up and b) you can't be sure that it works the way the dev thinks it works anyway).

So:
.9 > ( 86 + 10.5 ) / (AC * 2) +.25
.65 > 96.5 / (2*AC)
AC > 74.2

Any mob with 74 AC or less, you'll hit on a 2. More than that, and a 2 will miss.
an 86 + 2 will graze.

a 76 + 10 will hit.

Do I need to post a big picture of Chewbacca?

3. Originally Posted by Teh_Troll
an 86 + 2 will graze.

a 76 + 10 will hit.

Do I need to post a big picture of Chewbacca?

Better?

4. Originally Posted by Archangel_666

Better?
Chewbacca makes everything better, especially things that don't make sense.

5. Originally Posted by oweieie
That is exactly what he had.

The problem is, it's massively buggy. Like most of the game anymore.
Try reading the rest of the post, because adding your die roll to your "to hit bonus" is no longer a meaningful number. The number "88" has absolutely nothing to do with his combat attack.

The relevant numbers are:
86 - to hit bonus
"monster AC" - the monster AC, unknown
2, aka 10% - the to hit roll

He needed more than a 10% to hit, so he missed.

To compare, let's say the monster AC was 75.
If I swing at the monster with a to hit bonus of 50, and I roll a 10 - do I hit?

Chance to hit = (50 + 10.5) / (2* 75) + .25
= 60.5 / 150 +.25
~= .65

So I have a 65% chance to hit, that means I need a 7 or higher on a d20 to hit. I rolled a 10, which is higher, so I hit!

Yeah, his "to hit bonus" plus his "to hit roll" was 88 and my "to hit bonus" plus my "to hit roll" was 60, but the sum of your to hit bonus and your to hit roll have nothing to do with combat since MotU.

6. Originally Posted by Teh_Troll
an 86 + 2 will graze.

a 76 + 10 will hit.

Do I need to post a big picture of Chewbacca?
It doesn't make sense to you because you keep putting a + sign in there.

Rolling a 10% with an 86 attack bonus will miss.
Rolling a 50% with a 76 attack bonus will hit.

A 50% is a significantly better attack roll than a 10%, but an 86 isn't that much better than a 76. The die roll is a big part of if you hit. Makes sense. It isn't PnP D&D, and it's complicated and very hard to do in your head, but it can still make sense.

PnP systems need to be simple enough to handle doing the math in your head or you get bogged down with calculators and looking at tables instead of playing the game. DDO has the advantage of the GM being a computer, and it can do the math just as fast either way, so that's not really a limitation anymore. It was decided that making a wider range of to-hit and AC relevant was more important than keeping the math simple enough to do in your head.

7. Originally Posted by Archangel_666
It's going to be amusing watching the Forums explode when Turbine adds a Raid or something with a boss with Alignment DR, Metal DR and high Dodge. Trying to bypass all that to actually damage the mob should be interesting.
We get feats/enhancements to mitigate dodge percent, as well as bypass fortification. Weapon metal + align is something we are well schooled in with this game, due to needing silver or cold iron + good for the demons and devils that were endgame bosses for 5+ years. Then we had adamantine + good for LOB. Peoples gripes will be that having to take those feats/enhancements gimps their toon, which will be completely false, as the way the game works now, those feats add more DPS than the previous set of cookie cutter feats everyone used to take.

Part of the issue here is people dont like the fact that they cant build to always hit on a 2 roll or better on a d20 nowdays, which used to be possible pre-AC pass, due to the simplicity of an absolute system (versus the percentage based system we have today).

The whole dodge mechanic smacks of Palladium games, not D&D.

Yes, it will be amusing indeed.

8. Originally Posted by Chai
The whole dodge mechanic smacks of Palladium games, not D&D.
The dodge mechanic is stupid. This was already a part of AC and in some sense remains a part of it with the Dex bonus still adding to AC.

PRR is nice and makes, it make sense that armor should absorb some of the damage. What's dumb is that your actual armor isn't that import with all the sheltering and other bonuses, and monk earth-stance is over-powered giving more protection than heavy armor.

AC? NO end-game players build for it. It's the least important part of the layered defense.

I hate to say this as Turbing will probably make things worse but we need a second defensive pass.

9. Originally Posted by Nibor
Try reading the rest of the post, because adding your die roll to your "to hit bonus" is no longer a meaningful number. The number "88" has absolutely nothing to do with his combat attack.

The relevant numbers are:
86 - to hit bonus
"monster AC" - the monster AC, unknown
2, aka 10% - the to hit roll

He needed more than a 10% to hit, so he missed.

To compare, let's say the monster AC was 75.
If I swing at the monster with a to hit bonus of 50, and I roll a 10 - do I hit?

Chance to hit = (50 + 10.5) / (2* 75) + .25
= 60.5 / 150 +.25
~= .65

So I have a 65% chance to hit, that means I need a 7 or higher on a d20 to hit. I rolled a 10, which is higher, so I hit!
That explains a lot

Originally Posted by Nibor
Yeah, his "to hit bonus" plus his "to hit roll" was 88 and my "to hit bonus" plus my "to hit roll" was 60, but the sum of your to hit bonus and your to hit roll have nothing to do with combat since MotU.
Was this explained in Eladrin's original post, or did you come to it on your own?

10. Originally Posted by Grailhawk
That explains a lot

Was this explained in Eladrin's original post, or did you come to it on your own?
The math was shown by devs - whomever it was that put the detailed formula thread up. I don't know if it was spelled out so plainly that "don't sum your to hit bonus and to hit roll" but they did very clearly give us the new formula, which replaced the old formula of adding your to hit bonus and your to hit roll.

11. Originally Posted by Nibor
Try reading the rest of the post, because adding your die roll to your "to hit bonus" is no longer a meaningful number. The number "88" has absolutely nothing to do with his combat attack.
It is in fact his combat attack roll.

Originally Posted by Nibor
It doesn't make sense to you because you keep putting a + sign in there.
Turbine put the + sign there. Are you getting that this is a giant bug yet?

12. Originally Posted by oweieie
It is in fact his combat attack roll.

Turbine put the + sign there. Are you getting that this is a giant bug yet?
The + has always been there. they just havent removed it yet.

13. Originally Posted by bartharok
The + has always been there. they just havent removed it yet.
Nor the tool tip telling you what your base attack bonus does.

Nor gotten rid of the die roll where the numbers don't make any sense.

14. Originally Posted by oweieie
Nor the tool tip telling you what your base attack bonus does.

Nor gotten rid of the die roll where the numbers don't make any sense.
I think most people dont bother looking at the to hit rolls anyway, so why would they bother removing it when it might break something else.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.