No more damage rolls

[tedcahill2]

Someone in another thread shared a system they've been playing that does away with damage rolls. Instead, the amount by which your attack exceeds the defense of the defender determines the amount of damage dealt. I thought it was an interesting idea and thought it might be fun to explore it a bit more.

From what little he mentioned in the other post it works like so.

All damage dice are converted to average values that represent a glancing blow, a hit, and a solid hit. All the usual bonuses from strength or feats are added to each value. This includes spells damage, extra dice like sneak attack, and weapon damage (see below):



Dice
Glance
Hit
Solid


1d4
0
2
4


1d6
1
3
6


1d8
2
5
8


2d4
3
5
7


1d10
4
7
10


1d12
4
8
12


2d6
5
8
11



Now the original poster of this system said that he removed the +10 normal added to saves and AC, and instead had the attacker and defender make opposed rolls, one adding their attack modifiers the other adding their defense modifiers. If the attacker beats the defender by 10 or more, he's landed a solid hit, by 5 to 9 it's a hit, and by less than 5 it's a glancing blow. Damage is resolved without rolling damage dice.

Now as the DM I don't want to roll more dice than I have to, so I might just keep the static 10+ for AC instead of using opposed rolls.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The biggest problem you will see is this system heavily favors monsters. In most cases if a player wants to have a high AC they have to shell out the nose to try and monsters, gaining massive AC in the form of natural armor, do not. Monsters also typically have a higher to hit than players due to large hit dice pools and, often, massive strength scores which means the damage equation will favor them coming and going.

[tedcahill2]

The biggest problem you will see is this system heavily favors monsters. In most cases if a player wants to have a high AC they have to shell out the nose to try and monsters, gaining massive AC in the form of natural armor, do not. Monsters also typically have a higher to hit than players due to large hit dice pools and, often, massive strength scores which means the damage equation will favor them coming and going.

If I'm understanding you right, with the current binary system (hit or miss), monsters with high attack are designed to hit frequently, but under the OP system they would be more likely to score solid hits and thus out damage the party. Is that the gist of it?

[Gildedragon]

Note that there's dice smaller than 1d4 and bigger than 2d6
how is damage done for them

[ZamielVanWeber]

If I'm understanding you right, with the current binary system (hit or miss), monsters with high attack are designed to hit frequently, but under the OP system they would be more likely to score solid hits and thus out damage the party. Is that the gist of it?

Yes. At the same time the party will struggle get in more solid hits and will see the same problem. You would need to, at the very least, lower the insane cost of things that boost AC and to hit.

[KillianHawkeye]

What about critical hits? They don't exist anymore?

[Karl Aegis]

Miniatures came with a card that replaced the dice roll for damage with a flat amount of damage if you didn't want to spend time rolling dice.

[Florian]

Uh, that´s pretty terrible. Rolling for AC makes combat really swingy and if you don´t also use this on touch attack spells and let casters roll for their DC, it´s only a nerf for weapon-based characters.

What you actually do, is roll more dice during combat, as each iterative and triggered attack needs a new AC roll, too. In addition, what you don´t do is remove the need to roll damage dice and you have the added work to compare the quality of a hit with each and every single attack.

[Zanos]

That table seems quite strange. Why is 1d6 damage a 1/3/6 and 2d6 a 5/8/11? The scaling doesn't seem logical or consistent, so I also don't understand how this works for damaging spells.

[Remuko]

That table seems quite strange. Why is 1d6 damage a 1/3/6 and 2d6 a 5/8/11? The scaling doesn't seem logical or consistent, so I also don't understand how this works for damaging spells.

My guess was that damage rolls with +1 min damage (due to 2 dice being rolled) had their max reduced by 1 for "balance reasons" thus 2d6 is as you said but 1d12 is 4/8/12.

I have no idea how it would work for spells.

[ZamielVanWeber]

That table seems quite strange. Why is 1d6 damage a 1/3/6 and 2d6 a 5/8/11? The scaling doesn't seem logical or consistent, so I also don't understand how this works for damaging spells.

My best guess is that this is meant to emulate the fact that on a bell curve getting extremes is difficult.

[Zanos]

My best guess is that this is meant to emulate the fact that on a bell curve getting extremes is difficult.
1->5 for a glancing hit is a pretty huge jump, though. Most of your hits are probably going to beat by less than 5.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The "system" is barely a sketch, and what does exist doesn't look like much thought was put into it. Leaving aside the fact that I'm pretty sure calculating the margin of success will take longer than just rolling your damage dice... most 3.5 damage comes from external bonuses (Str, magic weapons, Power Attack, Sneak Attack, etc) rather than weapon die, which this doesn't address at all. Not to mention all the magic-type attacks that don't involve weapon dice at all.

[Ken Murikumo]

That was my post, and yes it is a sketch up more than polished system. But i did think up the system, so its natural i will try to defend it. I am open to constructive criticism beyond, "it's a bad idea, so please stop"

anyways, to clarify, i pit my guys against more npcs than monsters, so most of my math uses humanoid or monster characters with class levels.

dice damage was calculated as follows: d6 is 1, 4, and 6 (lowest roll, average round up, & max) and that trend follows for all other dice. i might change it to lowest, half, and highest instead to change the bell curve effect. multi die weapons, like a greatsword, would simply add the converted die together, 2d6 is 2, 8 (or 6 if we take half), & 12.

Crits exist just like normal, get within your crit range and you threaten. I make just the attacker roll again to confirm, vs the AC the defender already rolled.

spell dcs are also opposed (the save vs the spell dc without the normal 10), no-damage spells will work the same

i made a list of about 30 modern guns to supplement the meh pathfinder list, & made a weapon mod system (similar to fallout 4) to compliment said guns, and even melee weapons too. With this the players can add an extra up to 2 extra die of damage.

So a player with a 4 die weapon, flaming, and some sneak attack that has to roll a d20, then 10+ damage dice, THEN has to add all that junk up is gonna take some time to get his numbers before the game moves on. This system is build with the intent to speed up this process, which it has (and my guys are only lvl 4 so they dont have much to process yet).

The system is far from perfect & i make minor tweaks almost every session i use it, specifically if the players are being royally shreked. The new weapons and mods are also a work in progress. So far what ive described has worked, but we havent gotten too technical and as such havent found any major bugs. Also, having both attackers and defenders roll, it make the players feel like there competing with opponent, rather than shooting for a number. Keeping the +10 to ac would also make it way more difficult to do max or even average damage.

[Blu]

Just feels like you are trading 6 for half a dozen... You remove weapon damage dice but put defence rolls, sooooo. With the need to reroll two dice every single attack, instead of the usual one die. Also the system just seems to increase the RNG aspect of stuff, since your AC will lose the usual +10 bonus.

[tedcahill2]

Just feels like you are trading 6 for half a dozen... You remove weapon damage dice but put defence rolls, sooooo. With the need to reroll two dice every single attack, instead of the usual one die. Also the system just seems to increase the RNG aspect of stuff, since your AC will lose the usual +10 bonus.

I mentioned the person that originally thought of this idea used opposed rolls.

I would most likely still just have a static AC and the player rolls as normal.

[tedcahill2]

dice damage was calculated as follows: d6 is 1, 4, and 6 (lowest roll, average round up, & max) and that trend follows for all other dice. i might change it to lowest, half, and highest instead to change the bell curve effect. multi die weapons, like a greatsword, would simply add the converted die together, 2d6 is 2, 8 (or 6 if we take half), & 12.

I took some liberties with a damage scaling, using a (roughly) 25%, 50%, 100% method. However for weapons like a scythe and a greatsword I took a different route and kept the average damage the same, but increased the minimum and decreased the maximum. I thought it gave it a different feel that way. So comparing a greatsword and a greataxe they both have the same average, but maximum axe damage is a little higher than the sword, but minimum damage is a little lower than the sword.

Now Ken, as DM I want to roll as few dice as possible. Have you tested this in any way where you aren't rolling AC for the enemies every time they're attacked?

To me the merits of this system is you always know how much damage you'll do by just rolling an attack.

[Calthropstu]

but...

I LIKE rolling dice. Dice are fun.

[Alabenson]

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what this system is even supposed to accomplish. It represents a substantial increase in complexity since you're not only doubling the number of dice rolls for combat but also requiring that the results of each opposed role be scrutinized to determine the scope of the effect. Moreover, any issues created by this are borne almost entirely by the mundane classes, as the rule changes only effect damage rolls. The only reason that this state of affairs isn't more objectionable than it is stems from the fact that the actual mechanical effects of the system are negligible as most weapon damage comes from additions to the die roll rather than the roll itself.

So, in summation this system would greatly slow down the game to impart a minor nerf to classes that didn't need to be nerfed.

[Ken Murikumo]

I took some liberties with a damage scaling, using a (roughly) 25%, 50%, 100% method. However for weapons like a scythe and a greatsword I took a different route and kept the average damage the same, but increased the minimum and decreased the maximum. I thought it gave it a different feel that way. So comparing a greatsword and a greataxe they both have the same average, but maximum axe damage is a little higher than the sword, but minimum damage is a little lower than the sword.

Now Ken, as DM I want to roll as few dice as possible. Have you tested this in any way where you aren't rolling AC for the enemies every time they're attacked?

To me the merits of this system is you always know how much damage you'll do by just rolling an attack.


I have not, because the idea was to be able to clear the enemy AC by at least 5 for a decent hit. We do opposed rolls to get a much higher and lower AC variation. Keeping the +10 isnt a bad idea, i just foresee very many "glancing" blows and a few normal hits, with the rare "solid" hit.

So, if i can find the time after work tomorrow, i'll post a detailed explanation of how the system is supposed to work. You guys are making it out to be way more complicated that i've imagined. I dont get how 2 people rolling 1 die each, at the same time, is slower than 1 person rolling anywhere from 2 to, like, 20 dice.

[SirNibbles]

Somewhat off topic:

I've played in a game where Power Attack automatically adds your bonus if you beat the AC.

AC 16, 18 rolled = +2 from power attack
AC 12, 10 rolled = Miss

I really like this system as it really buffs melees by simply giving them the maximum Power Attack bonus without reducing their to-hit.

[rel]

how about this:

roll to hit as normal
miss = graze
hit = hit
crit = solid hit

weapons that crit for X3 or X4 get increased crit range instead.

[Tohsaka Rin]

So, if i can find the time after work tomorrow, i'll post a detailed explanation of how the system is supposed to work. You guys are making it out to be way more complicated that i've imagined. I dont get how 2 people rolling 1 die each, at the same time, is slower than 1 person rolling anywhere from 2 to, like, 20 dice.

Bolding to draw the eye. You don't understand how one person always having to wait or remind the other person they have to roll defense can (and probably will) slow the game down?

There is a reason that defense is a static number, and saving throws oppose a (usually) static caster level.

[Mordaedil]

Bolding to draw the eye. You don't understand how one person always having to wait or remind the other person they have to roll defense can (and probably will) slow the game down?

There is a reason that defense is a static number, and saving throws oppose a (usually) static caster level.

It was, in fact, given valid context in Unearthed Arcana and an alternative was even given to allow the DM to basically never roll a single time in a session. Far better solution than this one, that one was.