|
I ahve come up with a way that might reduce the time spent rolling dice. It has some flaws but tell me what you think. Each weapon has a base damage according to the table below. When a "hit" is scored, compare the adjusted number rolled to the AC of the target. Add the difference in the attack roll and AC to the base damage of the weapon. Criticals are resolved the same as before. Example: Total Attack bonus +6 strikes againts an AC 18 with weapon of base damage 5. Attacker rolls 16 + 6 = 22. Damage is 9 (base 5 plus 4 from the earlier 22 - 18).
1d4 = 2
1d6 = 3
1d8 = 4
1d10 = 5
1d12 = 6
(Essentially I am taking the median damage fo each type of attack)
First the "negatives" of this system:
1. Less min. and less max. damage. Extremes are lost. This is most notable in high damage weapons.
2. Some attacks with very similar damage (1d12 and 2d6 for example) have the same damage in this system.
3. Very low end damage weapons (1d4) do more damage on average than with dice rolling damage.
Now the "positives":
1. Less rolling. No damage dice to roll. After a hit, you will only have to roll again if you need to check for a critical.
2. How well an attacker "hits" affects damage. No cases of an attacker barely hitting for max. damage or rolling 10 over what is needed but only inflicting min. damage.
3. The attacker's skill with the weapon indirectly affects damage which makes sense. A very skilled attacker attacking a low AC will do more damage on average with the same weapon then a lowly skilled attacker attacking a high AC.
Thoughts?
Hi Kevida,
I can see how sometimes dice rolling can slow down the game (15d6 damage... empowered... grumble grumble)
My first thought when I read this is that this makes DR a lot more powerful, since you can't count on the spiky rolls to help you punch through.
I'd say divide the max damage by two and add the number of dice...
Like 1d6 would become 4 (6/2=3+1=4)
6d6 would become 24 (36/2=18+6=24)
4d12 would be 28 (48/2=24+4=28)
It would give diceless damage a little kick...
:)
Ultradan
Do you still add str to damage?
For years I set damage = how much you made your To Hit roll up to your maximum. Note: this was in G.U.R.P.S. and Hero. It worked perfectly well in my insular group. When I started playing outside of my usual group, it was pointed out that this was unfair to Tanks and largely favored the more agile characters.
I think DR will be problematic.
You're adding more math to reduce the number of die rolls. I don't really see the benefit overall. It won't speed up play unless you already have a ton of die rolls to make with single attacks (like spells).
You also will see problems with DR and Hardness. In addition, this makes the bigger weapons seem weaker. So a large greataxe will do 9 points of damage instead of 3-18. While a medium greataxe will do 6 points instead of 1-12. It feels like the larger weapons are getting the shaft.
Also, what about the 1d2 damage weapons or attacks? Sure there aren't many but there are some.
I don't see this improving play. I see it discouraging players from making heavy weapon fighters.
For years I set damage = how much you made your To Hit roll. Note: this was in G.U.R.P.S. and Hero.
Me, too, in similar circumstances. Crits were rolled into that as well; axes were "front-loaded" with a lot of damage on an even mediocre hit but slower crit progression, whereas rapiers were "back-loaded" with minimal damage up front but more damage on exceptionally good hits.
The results were as Bob said -- play ground to a halt while certain players would do "Um, let's see, I made it by 3, which means that..."
Rolling dice for damage, while less elegant, was a LOT faster.
I like the concept. Your hit is more solid so you do more damage but I'm not sure it's any faster than rolling 1d10 and adding modifiers. I think it would take just as long (maybe a little longer) to go:
"ok, so my attack roll was 22 and that hit. How much did I hit by? 6? So 6+5+modifiers = X damage"
as it is to:
"ok so my attack hit and I do 1d10+mods = damage."
I don't follow why this would make DR more powerful though. You still get the damage spikes whenever you roll higher on your d20.
As others said it does make finesse fighters more powerful. They get their dex to hit and sometimes get dex to damage since it bumps their attack roll up. Plus they get their str bonus as normal. Str is less important with this method.
Two thoughts on static damage: Design Balancing and Combat Streamlining
Design Balancing:
I think one of the perks of a static damage system is it gives weapons another balancing effect that is easier to quantify. For a home-brew designer; this would be great.
Combat Streamlining:
In new white-wolf; they combine attack and damage rolls into one single roll using static variables, for example stabbing someone with a sword would be STR rating + Melee rating, + damage rating of the sword. Then you subtract the opponents defense, and roll the remaining dice. Each die that comes up 8+ (on a d10) is a point of damage. Your average human has 7 health. This EXTREMELY streamlines combat times (and also makes them deadly). Making damage static in PF would achieve a slight streamlining effect; but to combo to hit/damage into a single roll I don't think is plausable in the way PF works.
-Idle
Has anyone expanded on this? I was considering this option, but a little more in depth, where a straight on hit (attack=armor class), does median damage. For example, I roll an 18 and hit AC 18 with a 1d8+2 weapon, so I do 6 points. If I had rolled a 15, I would do 3 points, the minimum damage with this weapon. A 14 or lower would miss completely. If I rolled 28 or more, I would do 10 points, the maximum. I realize that makes combat a bit more dangerous because it is easier to hit, but I feel it makes doing things to maximize your armor more important, especially making fighting defensively an attractive option.
On that note, criticals would not need to be confirmed, only the minimum and maximum would change. On weapons with a wider crit range, I'm still trying to determine how that would change things. I figure things like Sneak Attack and Vital Strike simply change the min and max as usual.
As far as DR, I still think of it as a viable defense, but one option could be to add the DR to AC v. those specific attacks.
Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Rolling damage dice is one of the most fun things in a dice game. Why take that away?
2) Weapon damage die result deals less on average. The average of a 1d4 is 2.5. The average of a d6 is 3.5 and so on. This might seem negligible, but considering that real-world dice aren't totally random and players tend to use ones that lean towards the high spectrum, this will cause a power disparity.
3) This strikes me as very lethal. If an enemy rolls high, this could be rather devastating. Most first level characters have an AC between 15 to 18. If a goblin rolls an 18 with a +4 using a short bow against AC 15, that's 7 damage as opposed to 1-4 damage. Three goblins (CR 1 encounter) could easily focus fire a single PC and kill them in one round.
4) This is a major buff to ranged builds because this would essentially allow their Dex bonus to apply to damage.
5) Honestly, I feel like using a system for reducing dice rolls would suit best for the GM. In Numenera, the GM never actually rolls. Instead, each monster's stat block gives the average of their given roll. This might not work for saves, but for enemy attack rolls, this would help speed things along.
That's actually the original reason I was considering it. I use the Players Roll All Dice variant and using the average damage is getting tedious for them. since they rolled their defenses, I was considering using how well they roll to lessen the damage, or something like that.
|
Less rolling. No damage dice to roll.
While I understand the desire to streamline combat, rolling dice has always been one of the fun parts of the game. Also, a system like this increases the math required, which I think is another step in the wrong direction.
In practice, you're going to end up with less dice rolling and more math calculations per roll. If your group is excited about that, go for it, but in my experience, players tend to enjoy rolling more than math.
That makes total sense from a player standpoint, but what I am looking for is streamlining the damage as a GM. As I said above, my players use the Players Roll All Dice variant. That gives them, as they've said, more of a feel of accomplishing something when they roll an amazing defense against that hit that would kill them, or make that rookie mistake and a lowly goblin hits them anyway.
Beyond that though, they know almost every time how much damage they are going to take when I use averages for damage, so I'm wanting to work in a system that uses how well they roll their defense to determine just how much damage they take, rather than me just rolling it myself. On that note, I don't mind the math because I will be the only one doing it.