Always in D&D the attack and damage rolls were two completely separate things, no matter if just rolled the minimum necessary or 12 numbers higher, your damage rolls were the same.
With 3.x (and pathfinder) we officialy had critical damage, when you rolled a 20 you did double damage (and all the x3, x4, etc..., or maximum damage now in 4th); but if you hit the minimum it is still the same as getting one closer to the critical.
Another point to address is the whole "armor makes you harder to hit" eternal problem D&D has always faced. I know if you rolled one below the minimum it doesn't mean you didnt hit the target, you may have hit but not strong enough do deal damage; but it's strange when you think that one number higher you'd get to roll damage and could deal a lot of damage... strange isn't it? One below the minimum wasn't strong enough to deal damage, roll one higher and you can deal maximum damage... if you roll a 20 you deal double damage....
One way to address this would be the classical house rule to have armor give DR and not AC, but i do not believe Pathfinder would consider this.
So, what I had in mind, as a way to make the attack rolls more significative, to actually have some meaning as to how your blow went; is to have the attack roll directly affect the damage roll. So, while rolling 20 is a critical (whether it's maximum or double damage), rolling the minimum necessary results in minimum damage (all 1's); rolling 1 above the minimum you would get a -3 penalty to the damage roll (but never below minimum); 1 below 20 would give you +3 bonus to damage (but never above maximum).
Wel.. it's not finished yet, but it's a start.
What you think?
We tried something similar; all weapons had damage listings based on how much you succeeded by. Slashing weapon damage increased evenly; piercing damage was very low at first but increased dramatically as you started succeeding by like 15+; and bludeoning damage was initially high, but thereafter didn't increase much. You'd mark the progression in the "damage" space on your character sheet, then compare your hit margin and see. This accounted for criticals, armor as DR, and all of that. Unfortunately, it was an absolute pain in the neck, because calculating the margins of success (I have a +17 attack modifier, roll 12, and am attacking AC 26) was more annoying in play than just rolling 2 dice.
Yeah, I always think about in-game slow downs, your rule was quite complex though, maybe something simpler.
In case you rolled
The minimum to hit = Minimum damage
One above minimum = well.. one above minimum, all 2's
19 = 2 below the maximum (or maximum in case criticals are multiplied)
20 = maximum (or multiples as in the core rules)
all the rest you would roll normally... maybe just give a +1/-1 bonus for higher/lower rolls.
In case the minimum is a 19 or a 20... then just roll the damage normally... that would be the whole "emotion" of the hit...
|
With 3.x (and pathfinder) we officialy had critical damage, when you rolled a 20 you did double damage (and all the x3, x4, etc..., or maximum damage now in 4th); but if you hit the minimum it is still the same as getting one closer to the critical.
Another point to address is the whole "armor makes you harder to hit" eternal problem D&D has always faced.[...]
Not strange, as far as I am concerned. Armour doesn't make you harder to hit. It doesn't protect against touch attacks. Armour makes you harder to hit effectively (and injure).
If you want to make things more random, don't use the base AC 10 and have the defender roll for defence instead.Applying minimal/reduced damage on an attack that matches the AC (minimum to hit) on a high natural roll means that not only the high AC critters are hard to hit, but that they have some sort of damage reduction going on. Challenging fights become epic very quickly. :-)
Hmm. I think the best (aka middleway) solution would be to make Armor a DR and add either REF or BAB to the AC.
That's how I will do try it in my next game.
It just feels better for me. Don't know how you think about it.
|
|
Here's what I'm toying with for my campaign.
Characters gain a damage bonus to attacks = 1/2 BAB. It's straightforward, balanced between combat-oriented, and non-combat oriented classes, and easy to plug and play.
-------------------------------------------------
I'm also toying with BDB (base defense bonus). I'm torn between:
1. BDB = 1/2 BAB, capped by Armor Class (or Encumbrance) Max. Dex.
or
2. BDB = Ref Base, capped by Armor Class (or Encumbrance) Max. Dex.
I think the latter is more reflective of people trained to avoid hits, than the prior. The prior is obviously easier to plug and play, given that BABs are commonly stated outright, whereas Ref Base will likely need to be extrapolated.
Though this is an interesting idea, I feel that it would be too big a departure to be used in the PRPG, especially since there are already people who are saying that the PRPG is too different from 3.5.
I started a post about defense bonus too. I think it makes sense... if character get better at hitting why don't they get better at avoiding blows?
I had thought of as having 3 BDB (Base Defense Bonus), High, Medium and Low, not the same bonuses as the BAB though; and would be something like this:
High: Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Medium: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Druid, Monk
Low: Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard
I made the list based more or less on the Class BAB and Reflex saves. So Rangers that have High BAB and High Reflex should have High Defense Bonus, Rogues have Med BAB but High Reflex, still High Defense. Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin all have high BAB but Low Reflex and tend to rely more on armor (or physical brutishness in case of the Barbarian) so Medium Defense. Although numerically the Druid is the same as the Rogue, the concept of the Druid is not as an agile dodging character as the Rogue, so Medium Defense. Monks got Med Defense because they already have a natural class bonus to AC, so it could get insanely high otherwise.
And yes, armor should restrict the amount of Defense Bonus you can get (since its concept is of dodging and mobility).
I'd like to play with Armor as DR and some sort of Defense bonus (with armor as DR there is no need of attacking rolls afection damage rolls like I mentioned, since if you didn't hit you didn't touch.. there's no such thing as "you hit but not strong enough"). I know PRPG will not have something of the sort as a standard rule, it would be a big change and they are not willing to go that far; I´m sure they will keep the common AC rules we all know; but it'd be very nice if they included something of the sort as an optinal rule at least... even if a small sidebar.
So if something requires a 20 to hit, and you roll a 20 (and don't confirm critical, most likely) then you still do nearly no damage to it?
I'm not sure I like this.
It hurts PA, and it makes some classes even less likely to do any sort of attack-roll combat.
(mages using a dagger or xbow bolt or whatnot in lieu of wasting a spell, etc..) witbout actually adding anything to the game.
Finally we played a session with this,
Critical = Maximum Damage (in case of x3 weapons it's 1.5 max damage)
one below critical = +2 dmg bonus
minimum to hit = minimum damage
one above minimum = -2 dmg.
Seemed allright, it had the "ugh, barely touched him"... or "just a scratch" feeling. The players considered a bit more using power attack.. it was simple enough and finally it took away the "ok, with a 11 you hit him but not strong enough do deal damage (need a 12 to hit).. roll a 12 and you can deal max damage"...
In case any of the intervals overlaps, (like if you need 19 to hit someone) then just roll the dice normally.
Well.. in case they don't give an optional rule for armor as DR and it proves to cumbersome to house rule it; I´ll definitely play with this rule or something of the kind.
Any ideas?