Results 1 to 30 of 61
-
2015-02-07, 04:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
What's the advantage to having characters roll twice on every attack -- once to see if they hit and once to see how much damage they deal?
One obvious advantage is that rolling twice lets you vary how much damage gets dealt from one hit to the next -- it'd be boring if every sword attack either missed or dealt exactly 5 damage. But it seems to me you could get the same effect by rolling once, subtracting armor class from the roll, and then assigning whatever's left as damage. For example, if your attack dice total is 18 and your opponent's AC is 15, you deal 3 damage.
In other words, Attack Roll + Offensive Bonuses - Armor Class - Defensive Bonuses = Damage.
If you want swingy damage (e.g. for a flail) you can use 2d12 for the attack roll, and if you want predictable damage (e.g. for a club) you can use 6d4 for the attack roll. Bonuses that improve your accuracy could be modeled as a flat bonus (e.g. +2) and bonuses that improve your damage could be modeled as a swingy bonus (e.g. +1d4). Bonuses that improve your damage at the cost of your accuracy, ala Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master, could be modeled as a swingy bonus plus a flat penalty (e.g. +2d6 - 5).
Wouldn't rolling only once save a lot of time compared to the rules as written? Would anything be lost if you only rolled once for attack and damage?
For extra credit, if you do like the two-roll system, can you explain why Armor Class reduces accuracy instead of reducing damage?
-
2015-02-07, 04:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
If you get rid of rolling a separate die for damage you remove the effects of having different weapons. An attack total of 19 vs defense 15 does 4 damage, regardless of them using a small knife or a greatsword. It gives an additional way to give variety.
-
2015-02-07, 04:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Location
- NW USA
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Sounds like a great basis for a system that doesn't feel like DnD
-
2015-02-07, 04:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
The biggest reason for separate rolls in systems that function that way is for abilities that modify the attack roll. The power of such riders can be skewed when you know the damage of the attack before choosing to use them (in relation to abilities such as rerolls or bonus to-hit).
Personally, when playing d20 systems, I always prefer to roll both attack and damage at once. If the attack misses, no harm. If it hits, then I don't need to make another roll.
In regards to armor reducing accuracy, that's primarily a D&D thing. Most other systems I've played have armor function as a modifier to toughness, or, to put it in D&D terms, damage reduction. If anything, wearing heavy armor would penalize your ability to dodge.Last edited by Broken Twin; 2015-02-07 at 04:26 PM.
-
2015-02-07, 04:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Quick question-Strength increases damage. Dexterity increases accuracy. How is that handled?
I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2015-02-07, 05:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
This is the basic idea of what Shadowrun does, albeit with diepools instead of d20.
You make your attack roll, then the defender makes a defense roll (if applicable). If your attack exceeds the defense roll, you deal damage equal to the difference plus your weapon's base damage. Then the defender rolls to "soak" the damage with his armor or natural toughness, which can potentially reduce the damage to zero. Each weapon has an armor-penetration value which reduces (or increases, if negative) the number of dice the defender uses to soak damage. As you can imagine, this is slower than d20's way of doing things, but a little more simulationist. Also, everything comes out in bell-curve distributions, which is pretty neat.
And I agree with armor as damage-reduction. I don't like the way D&D handles it (i.e. An unlcad baby and a fully-armored knight take the same damage from my dagger).Last edited by Slipperychicken; 2015-02-07 at 05:16 PM.
-
2015-02-07, 05:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
The difference is that it's pretty easy to find and hit a vulnerable spot to stick a dagger into an unclad baby, but quite a bit more difficult to find and hit that vulnerable spot on a fully-armored knight.
Furthermore, while they take the "same" damage numerically, relatively the baby's going to take far more damage (less hp), reflecting the fact that baby's are so much easier to kill.
Why did you choose a baby for your example, damn it.
-
2015-02-07, 06:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Another way I could imagine damage working is to just replace weapon damage rolls with the average number for the die rounded up or down. So d8s become 4, d10s 5, etc. Then if you want damage variability, make it based off of the attack roll. For every 2 points your exceed the ac with your attack roll, damage goes up by 1(if you wield a weapon 2 handed, damage goes up by 2 instead). Fewer rolls that way but some people like rolling damage die. Which I think might be the main reason. Just imagine if you turned fireball into a attack with no damage dice. I know most sorcerer players live for when they get to roll 10d6 on 10 enemies.
-
2015-02-07, 07:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Yeah, baby's probably not the best example. D&D's equivalent of Toughness is technically the variable hit die. So a paladin is "tougher" and takes relatively less damage from a sword than a wizard does, in terms of total hit points remaining. The frequently suggested armor as DR would actually function a lot better in 5E than it did in 3E, given the significant reduction in number bloat that made it unusable in that edition.
Spoiler: Systems to Play List
Burning Wheel
Call of CthulhuPC
D&D 3.5GM/PC
D&D 4EGM/PC
D&D 5EGM/PC
Dark HeresyPC
Dungeons the Dragoning: 40K 7E
Exalted 3E
Fantasy Craft
FATE
GodboundGM
GURPS 4E
Monsterhearts
Monsters and other Childish Things
Mythender
New World of Darkness
- Changeling: The Lost
- Werewolf: The ForsakenPC
- Mage: The AwakeningPC
Savage WorldsGM/PC
Shadowrun 5E
Star Wars: EOTEGM/PC
-
2015-02-07, 08:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
- Rockford, IL
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
How would you represent a character type that could reliably hit for relatively little damage? If you boost their attack so that they hit the majority of the time that would necessarily cause them to do ever larger amounts of damage.
Every fightery type character would almost feel the same. You would just use whatever means to increase your chance to hit since it would equally increase damage, until you always hit for more and more massive damage.
Sounds awefuly boring to me.
-
2015-02-07, 08:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
-
2015-02-07, 08:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
In real life a big weapon that hits you deals more damage then a small weapon that hits you (all other things being equal, like accuracy and force). Some players want their roleplaying games to simulate this aspect of real life, even if it is a magical fantasy land. D&D in particular grew out of historical tabletop miniature games, which went to great lengths to simulate the various differences between particular weapons, armor, the effect of weather, morale, etc.
-
2015-02-07, 08:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
You can roll the attack and damage dice at the same time if you want to save time.
-
2015-02-07, 09:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2015-02-07, 09:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
So, if you have four attacks across several turns and roll (with modifiers) 18, 10, 16, and 22 a creature with AC 18 would take 2 points on two hits across four attacks from a guy with a greatsword and a creature with an AC of 13 would take 17 damage across three hits on four attacks to a guy with a stick he picked up off the ground.
Sure.
-
2015-02-08, 03:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
-
2015-02-08, 04:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
In real life, a hit you just barely land is going to do a lot less than a really solid one you were able to line up. Simulating that would involve something akin to the attack-defense paradigm, with some modification. Having just attack-defense is a problem, because it removes an avenue of mechanical differentiation. It's no longer possible to mechanically distinguish between someone who is skilled and strikes frequently, and someone who is just really big and hits hard when they do hit.
Basically, the simulation aspect is a bit of a wash. The mechanical differentiation is where the real difference lies, and it's a fairly important differentiation. It's far from the only way to do it: Attack-Defense+Variable 1-Variable 2, where the variables reflect weaponry, character size, character strength, armor, etc. works pretty well. Something like Burning Wheel's IMS system with three tiers of damage based on how far you beat defense by works pretty well too.I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2015-02-08, 07:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
- Rockford, IL
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Last edited by ISitOnGnomes; 2015-02-08 at 07:49 AM.
-
2015-02-08, 08:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Failed teleport,not sure
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Yeah DnD has many things that could be changed..
1)Why you take a natural 10+Armor(+dex) when soneome attacks you and you dont do a defensive roll?Why you HAVE to be passive at 9 out of 10 turns on a 5v5 fight?A defensive D20 roll+armor mods would be much better.Even IF we use the rulles the exact opposite way and your attack is a static 10+str/dex+prof, and the defence be d20+armor modifiers would be BETTER. Because of the "im bored until its my turn" mechanism.With the "reverse roll system" at your turn if you hit you would still roll the damage rolls.And you have a beautiful feeling that you DO something even if its not your turn.
I tried this at one session.It was very fun and enjoyable.
Exactly why spell fights are better.The enemy does a spell?You do the defensive roll.
2)Why someone with 12 str performs exactly the same with someone with 13?
3)Why armors give AC?All armors should give damage reduction not AC.
AC should be only by DEX.
So AC(Named evasion) should be 10+DEX(if any)+shield(if equiped)
Damage reduction:Depending on armor.Plate: 8DR, scale mail 4DR, leather 1DR etc etc.STILL using the maximum DEX depending on armor.
It far more realistic, because the plate guy CHOOSES less agility for damage reduction and agile guy CHOOSES cause he can to let his body try to evade the hits, and bases his luck less on the armor.
Also make it that critical hits ignore Damage reduction.
So a full plate fighter with a shield would have 12AC and damage reduction 8 for "My armor will keep me alive NOT my reflexes" fighting style
and a 18 DEX ranger with studded leather and a shield would have 16AC and damage reduction 2 for"My reactions will make me evade the hits not taking damage and my armor is second layer of insurance in case i wont manage to evade the hit"
Name what we use today as AC to Evasion
And make ArmorClass(AC) the Damage reduction you have from the armor.Sounds better and makes more sense doesnt it?
This system makes easier and BETTER system for the DM describing the hits players suffer.As a DM how would you describe the same 10 hp damage hit to a rogue with 18 AC and to a heavy armor guy?
The way we use the AC today, all the full plate guys allways take serious blows here and there but the armor reduces the damage and the Dex guys allways take scartch damage.The same ogre dealing 20 damage to the plate fighter and to the leather rogue:The ogre allways looses his strength when attacks the rogue, but its allmighty again when he hits the fighter...
Calculating mosters Evasion and AC(damage reduction)
Look at the monster AC in the monster manual.Substract the DEX modifier for the AC as writen in the book.The result -10 is the damage reduction.For evasion its 10+DEX modifier.
Its very easy.
An enemy with 18 AC and 14(+2) DEX has 18(ac) -2(dex modif) -10 = 6damage reduction and it has evasion of 10+2(dex modif)=12
For total 12 Evasion and 6 AC(damage reduction, natural or armor weared)
Flexible attacking:
With this system you can let the PC choose how to attack every opponent.Players will be able to add the proficiensy bonus either to the Attack or the damage roll.
So if the are fighting a dragon with high natural armor(high damage reduction) they choose to add their proficiency to the damage rolls to bypass that hard scales in the cost of accurasy,
and if they are fighting that very evasive rogue they would add the prof modfier to the attack roll because in this case manage to hit him is crusial and enough(light armor) and they should focus on the attack.
Using this method of flexible attacking will add great strategy and flavour to the game depending on type of enemies and during the fight itself(A fighter knows his time is close to die fighting that big stone giant
and for his maybe last attack tries to hit the throat of the giant(adds the prof bonus to damage))
Ill make a big thread on the homebrew section about this Armor class system.Ive done the calculations almost but i need another week to finish.
Ill be in touch.Last edited by Balor777; 2015-02-08 at 10:21 AM.
-
2015-02-09, 01:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Long Island NY
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Rolemaster solved the hit/damage split back in the '80s. They solved it the same way they solved every problem: with charts. Every weapon type had a chart matching the possible attack roll outcomes ((d100 + attack modifiers) - defense modifiers) for each of 20 types of armor. Better rolls = more damage dealt and a better column on the appropriate critical damage chart.
D20 is fine as is. Not perfect, not realistic, but fine for my games.
EDIT: misremembered mechanicLast edited by Alefiend; 2015-02-09 at 01:17 AM.
Alefiend, connoisseur of fine fermented beverages
-
2015-02-09, 08:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
I agree. Also, I don't support the fiddly simulationist aspects of the game. I was just pointing out where they came from. If you go back and read through the historical tabletop miniature games of the 1960's-1970's, virtually all of them involved rolling to-hit and rolling separately for damage, with some kind of modifier to one or both for the type of weapon being used and/or the type of armor it is being used against. D&D grew out of that paradigm.
-
2015-02-09, 09:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
I don't think it would save any time. Instead of one person being told they hit then just rolling damage you have to communicate how much you hit and subtract that from the AC. I could see a system based on this but it would have to be designed from the ground up, as the classes damage are balanced around when they hit dealing a certain amount of damage.
A lot of system with dice pools do the hitting for more deals more damage. Shadowrun was mentioned. Star Wars Edge of The Empire does something similar.
-
2015-02-09, 10:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Meridianville AL
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Subtraction slows things down far more than people seem to believe. Yes, it's easy to do, so is grabbing two sets of dice and rolling them together and that also slows things down more than most people seem to believe.
If you want variable damage and a single roll then you should try for something simple.
"Roll under" and the value on the die is also the damage works fine for example (you can even give bonuses to damage for some weapons so you don't lose any of the ability to have separate modifiers to hit and damage). This loses the idea that a natural 20 is good, but in fact older versions of the game had any number of "roll low is good" rules (ability rolls and thief abilities for instance), and changing that didn't make 3.0 "not D&D" to very many people, you could probably go with roll under, but you'd need to rebuild the system.
A "more D&D" approach would be to have flat damage for normal hits, declare that a roll of exactly AC is a "marginal hit" and a 20 a "critical hit" and give a bonus or penalty for a marginal or critical. If you hit about 60% of the time then roughly 1/6th of all hits will not do the "constant" damage which means that most fighter types will do varied damage on most battles rather than having it always be the same. This could be done with hardly any modifications to the current systems.Last edited by Doug Lampert; 2015-02-09 at 10:19 AM.
-
2015-02-09, 10:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Location
- Dallas
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
I can see benefits in large scale battles of using this method. It allows you to figure out exactly how many rounds before Army A defeats Army B.
A downside I see is that (and I could be wrong, I haven't actually done the math here) victory is always guaranteed no matter what you throw at your party. If you know that the party will do say 57 damage every round, day in and day out, you're encounters are going to have to deal more than that to be any sort of threat to the party.
There also really isn't any need for combat. You already know that the party will take X rounds to defeat their target. You also know they will take X damage during that time.
Might look something like this:
Ok, your group engages the dragon. You slay it in 4 rounds. The mage takes 25 damage, the rogue 12, the fighter 50, and the cleric 25. What do you do next?Shhh, shhhh, It's Magic hunny. Space magic.
http://imgur.com/gallery/lsOa0Lr
Originally Posted by EasyLee
-
2015-02-09, 10:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
The ORE is particularly good about this. What you're looking for there is matching sets, and matching sets of more dice hurt more. Getting hit by a set of 2 is generally not too bad (though if the set is 10, 10 you get hit in the head, which generally sucks). Getting hit by a set of four? Sucks to be you.
I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2015-02-10, 04:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Bring back THAC0!
It's the only way!
This post is 100% sarcasm."If I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint threw a scimitar at me, they'd put me away..." - Dennis, aged 37 - Executive Officer of the Week, Anarcho-syndicalist commune, somewhere in Britain.
-
2015-02-10, 08:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- Somewhere south of Hell
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Aye. Then weapons exist solely for their riders – damage type, range, speed, proficiency, feats.
Hehehehe.
You do know original D&D had every weapon do d6 damage, period? The hit roll was strictly to see if your skill was greater than the target's classification of armor and proficiency with it. The "damage roll" was how accurate your attack was at getting by those skills and striking true.
It's not that much "not like DnD" after all, really.
Yes, you take the same damage from six inches of steel through the neck regardless of your age, sex, ethnicity, fashion, manner of comportment, etc., that's intentional. HP is not and has never been relative health; HP is not relative to the person. It's a measure of how many hits you can take before dying.
Really, the idea that a vital stab should hurt less through armor misses the entire point of hitting despite the armor.
Just so, and literally; a "hit die" was the exact same as a damage die, and every level have you additional "hits" you could survive, relatively speaking. A fighter with three hit dice could take three hits on average. From that perspective it's quote an elegant system, although it starts to fall apart when you tweak weapon outputs.
Simple. "This monster always takes only X damage from a hit unless struck with [appropriate damage type/weapon type]". Reverse minions, really.
Every fightery type character would almost feel the same. You would just use whatever means to increase your chance to hit since it would equally increase damage, until you always hit for more and more massive damage.
Sounds awefuly boring to me.
It's a sad and ironic thing that the game now is so focused on getting goodies that a lot of the feel seems to be gone. Once, you picked fighter because it have you proficiency, health and that was it. You didn't do it for the feat chain combos or anything. Now? Now everyone plans out a build until max level and never seem to a top and enjoy where they're at.
Quite a sad sight if you ask me.
-
2015-02-10, 08:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Location
- Dallas
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Shhh, shhhh, It's Magic hunny. Space magic.
http://imgur.com/gallery/lsOa0Lr
Originally Posted by EasyLee
-
2015-02-10, 08:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Location
- NW USA
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
Chainmail dueling rules had a big chart of weapon vs armor type for a to-hit system that was largely carried into DnD. Damage was 2d6 and hit points didn't exist; just a roll on a chart to see if you killed them outright or not.
Besides, the feel of DnD has built through many editions; it isn't just a reflection of the original source. To hit and damage rolls are part of the flow of DnD combat (along with AC and Savingthrows; which I would make more similar if I redesigned the system from the ground up) that are not necessary for a good system but are necessary for DnD to feel like itself for 90+% of players.Last edited by Naanomi; 2015-02-10 at 08:47 PM.
-
2015-02-10, 08:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Gender
Re: What's the point of separating attack rolls from damage rolls?
"If I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint threw a scimitar at me, they'd put me away..." - Dennis, aged 37 - Executive Officer of the Week, Anarcho-syndicalist commune, somewhere in Britain.