Should attack rolls influence damage?

Borrowing an idea from another RPG, I thought it might be interesting to explore the notion of your attack roll adding to your damage.  The basic concept is that rolling well against a target's AC results in a bonus to your damage roll.  I see a few potential ways to handle this:

1) Your attack roll in excess of the target's AC gets added to your damage roll.

2) If you beat the target's AC by 5 or more, you do additional damage.  Perhaps a d8.

3) If you beat the target's AC by 5 or more, you get advantage on your damage roll.

I plan to try out these ideas a little later, but I was hoping to hear from the rest of you.  Have any of you tried these ideas before?  If so, what effects did it have on the game?  Whether you have tried one of these ideas or not, what do your think of them?  Do any of them seem interesting enough to want to try them?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Yes.
but then it wouldn't be D&D

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Yes. but then it wouldn't be D&D


How so?  I know it's not traditional, but neither was THAC0 until it was implemented.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

In some ways I like the idea. There are a couple of games that don't even have a seperate damage roll, the amount you beat the target number by determines how much damage you do. The problem with thsoe systems that I have seen is they take too much math on the fly, it slows the game down too much trying to determine how much you hit by.

A system that grants a bonus if you beat AC by 5 is a bit simpler, but would still slow things down. I'm not sure any small benefit would be worth the small hassle.
It would be a nice Unearthed Arcana style rule, but ATM I think the hit/miss binary works better for a basic game.

Ideally, for such a system to work, you'd want to convert to "one roll" -- take away the damage roll completley and have stronger hits be worth more damage.

For instance, a Greatswort has a damage rating of 12 instead of d12.  You still add all your bonuses to get your total damage rating.  Exactly hitting ar target (AC+0) would deal 50% of the damage rating -- any lower is a miss and gets you nothing.  Hitting AC+4 gets you 100% of your damage rating hitting AC+8 is 150%, and so on upwards.  Always round up.

So, you've got a Greatsword and a +3 strength and are attacking an AC 12 rogue.  If your roll+bonus is 11 or less, you do no damage.  12-15  is 8 damage, 16-19  represents 15 damage, 20-23 would get you 23 damage, and so on.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

I posted some blog entries on this site a few months back on converting excess dice scores to damage and maneuver output.  I began this exploration when Expertise Dice were in the game.

From the blog:
...Strike Dice are class specific and usually start out at 1d6. The formula for a Strike Dice attack is: d20+Stat Mod + Strike Dice>= AC. The results generated by Strike Dice are carried past AC and are converted into Accuracy Points (AP). AP can be applied as additional damage, or they are used to activate lore feats, or they can be used in a combination of both. The benefits of lore feats are then applied during the Action, Movement, and/or Reaction part of a players turn, or unless the lore feat specifies otherwise...

Like Tevish Szat pointed out, it removes the damage roll assigned to weapons.  I just gave each weapon a base damage number and added that to the results of the d20 and Strike Dice rolls (plus Ability Mod).  Essentially the player rolls two dice each attack. 

The concern for slowing down the game is there, however, the important part is that there are only two dice to read...ever.

The system ultimately deviates from D&D enough that I can see mellored's concern, however, I am crafting this system to be used as a module to fit on top of the 5E Basic Set...whenever that comes out.

All in all, I am happy with the results of some playtesting but I found myself redesigning all the classes to make room for all the different possibilities that come from converting those points from the vapor.

In case you want to see my tinkerings: (its G-rated)
community.wizards.com/miladoon/blog/2013...

 

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

It would be a nice Unearthed Arcana style rule, but ATM I think the hit/miss binary works better for a basic game.

Ideally, for such a system to work, you'd want to convert to "one roll" -- take away the damage roll completley and have stronger hits be worth more damage.

For instance, a Greatswort has a damage rating of 12 instead of d12.  You still add all your bonuses to get your total damage rating.  Exactly hitting ar target (AC+0) would deal 50% of the damage rating -- any lower is a miss and gets you nothing.  Hitting AC+4 gets you 100% of your damage rating hitting AC+8 is 150%, and so on upwards.  Always round up.

So, you've got a Greatsword and a +3 strength and are attacking an AC 12 rogue.  If your roll+bonus is 11 or less, you do no damage.  12-15  is 8 damage, 16-19  represents 15 damage, 20-23 would get you 23 damage, and so on.


That's an interesting take on it.  However, it feels a little too complicated.  If I were going to go with a system that removes the die roll from the weapon and uses the attack roll to influence damage, I think I'd just have all weapons do their static average damages and add to it with a good attack roll.  It accomplishes the same thing you mentioned but is less complex.

Also, I think a fair number of people enjoy rolling for damage separately.  If everything was combined into the attack roll, you'd lose appeal for those players.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

As a module, this would work.

But every D&D has been fail/miss/hit/crit. That needs to be core.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Yes. but then it wouldn't be D&D


In the BECMI edition of D&D, the "Hit Roll Charts" included support of an optional rule... this rule was that if you were able to hit on anything other than a "1", which always missed, that you would deal additional damage equal to the number listed on the chart.

For illustrative purposes, below is the damage added to any hit a 35 Hit Die monster makes against a variety of AC numbers:

AC     Damage
2       +1
3       +2
4       +3
5       +4
6       +5
7       +6
8       +7
9       +8

Note: there aren't a lot of monsters with that many hit dice in the game... but to get a monster that has bonus damage against a normal PC AC range you have to go pretty high up on the chart. Monsters with 19+ Hit dice deal bonus damage to unarmed AC (9).

Point: The idea is close enough to D&D to have actually been a mentioned optional rule.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

There are two reasons why I dislike this sort of idea (not necessarily for Next, but for all games like this):

1) It makes the math require greater precision, because you need to know the exact margin by which you succeed. In a game like 3E or 4E - which Next may begin to approach, under certain modular combinations - you can usually tell that a 17 is a hit and a 3 is a miss, which means you don't need to do the math or figure out which situational modifiers currently apply. If the margin of success is going to impact the outcome, then you need to be certain of the exact modifier in every situation.

2) It favors over-specialized characters instead of well-rounded ones. Currently with the d20 system, there is a hard cap on bonuses - once you succeed on a die roll of 2 (or 1, in situations that don't involve automatic failure), then everything beyond that is wasted. If your attack bonus is +30, and the AC to hit is 25, then you've pumped your attack bonus by 7 points beyonds where it matters, probably at the expense of damage or non-combat benefits (you could have taken Skill Focus, or something; obviously, if success margin translates into extra damage, then choosing damage over accuracy is kind of a trap option). Meanwhile, the moderate character who only has +23 to hit is going to have greater versatility and equal performance in a number of situations. And again, this is less of a problem with Next, but there's a good chance that it may matter once more material comes out.

The metagame is not the game.

I've played systems like this, but I like D&Ds system better. The problem you get is ACs get too high in order to prevent a roll of 20 from dealing tons of damage. This means enemies are harder to hit and ultimately slows the game down. I could see it as a module, but I wouldn't want it to be in the core rules.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
There are two reasons why I dislike this sort of idea (not necessarily for Next, but for all games like this):

1) It makes the math require greater precision, because you need to know the exact margin by which you succeed. In a game like 3E or 4E - which Next may begin to approach, under certain modular combinations - you can usually tell that a 17 is a hit and a 3 is a miss, which means you don't need to do the math or figure out which situational modifiers currently apply. If the margin of success is going to impact the outcome, then you need to be certain of the exact modifier in every situation.

2) It favors over-specialized characters instead of well-rounded ones. Currently with the d20 system, there is a hard cap on bonuses - once you succeed on a die roll of 2 (or 1, in situations that don't involve automatic failure), then everything beyond that is wasted. If your attack bonus is +30, and the AC to hit is 25, then you've pumped your attack bonus by 7 points beyonds where it matters, probably at the expense of damage or non-combat benefits (you could have taken Skill Focus, or something; obviously, if success margin translates into extra damage, then choosing damage over accuracy is kind of a trap option). Meanwhile, the moderate character who only has +23 to hit is going to have greater versatility and equal performance in a number of situations. And again, this is less of a problem with Next, but there's a good chance that it may matter once more material comes out.



Once I have my maximum damage calculation I could set the monster's AC and HP.  Plus I could get an indication how many rounds a monster can last.  That actually makes it easier.

Over spec'd and rounded characters can sit at the same table.  IMHO.  A design goal, at least. 

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Yes. but then it wouldn't be D&D


How so?  I know it's not traditional, but neither was THAC0 until it was implemented.



To-hit charts, THAC0, and BAB are all mathematically identical.


You roll a d20; each +1 bonus to your attack roll makes you 5% more likely to hit.  If you don't roll high enough, you miss, and nothing happens.  If you roll high enough, you hit, and then you roll for damage.

This has always been D&D's combat system, regardless of the coat of paint it was wearing at the time.  (Yes, there have been exceptions, that's still the core system.)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Yes. but then it wouldn't be D&D


How so?  I know it's not traditional, but neither was THAC0 until it was implemented.



To-hit charts, THAC0, and BAB are all mathematically identical.


You roll a d20; each +1 bonus to your attack roll makes you 5% more likely to hit.  If you don't roll high enough, you miss, and nothing happens.  If you roll high enough, you hit, and then you roll for damage.

This has always been D&D's combat system, regardless of the coat of paint it was wearing at the time.  (Yes, there have been exceptions, that's still the core system.)


The bolded part would still occur under the options I mentioned.  The only difference is additional damage (or advantage on your damage die) for rolling well.  That's why it struck me as odd to hear that "it wouldn't be D&D."

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I think the concept is worthy of module fodder.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Once I have my maximum damage calculation I could set the monster's AC and HP.  Plus I could get an indication how many rounds a monster can last.  That actually makes it easier.

The problem is that there's a lot of variation across the d20, which can make it difficult to estimate the outcome of any action. A binary resolution (hit/miss) reduces the outcome to two possibilities, which makes it easier to estimate the outcome. Although, of course, how much easier it is depends on the details of the system, such as the specific degree to which margin of success alters the basic outcome.
Over spec'd and rounded characters can sit at the same table.  IMHO.  A design goal, at least.

It's a nice design goal, but I've honestly never seen it work out that way. In nearly every game I've played, it was the specialist who dominated; and while different specialists would dominate in different areas, the generalists was left with the morbid task of waiting to fill in for the first person to die.

The metagame is not the game.

I would just allow for crits based on beating the enemies AC by a certain number.  Instead of on a 20, a fighter might crit by exceeding AC by 4.  The cleric has to exceed by 5 maybe.  Of course this sort of system does depend on it not being bounded accuracy.  With bounded accuracy your probably better off just doing it normally.

 
The notion that a hit is just a hit or a miss is very important to D&D.  These suggestions change that far too much in my opinion, even though critical hits are obvious examples.  They're about as far as the game can go in this respect.  Otherwise the attack roll takes on too much weight.  You want to attack, hit, then roll your damage, as somehing truly separate.
Once I have my maximum damage calculation I could set the monster's AC and HP.  Plus I could get an indication how many rounds a monster can last.  That actually makes it easier.

The problem is that there's a lot of variation across the d20, which can make it difficult to estimate the outcome of any action. A binary resolution (hit/miss) reduces the outcome to two possibilities, which makes it easier to estimate the outcome. Although, of course, how much easier it is depends on the details of the system, such as the specific degree to which margin of success alters the basic outcome.
Over spec'd and rounded characters can sit at the same table.  IMHO.  A design goal, at least.

It's a nice design goal, but I've honestly never seen it work out that way. In nearly every game I've played, it was the specialist who dominated; and while different specialists would dominate in different areas, the generalists was left with the morbid task of waiting to fill in for the first person to die.




You are right.  Since February I worked on the Strike Dice to not only have a random factor but also a set modifier.  This allows for a slight form of scaling.  Which turns out to work better in a bounded system with an average AC of 15.  I am getting more hits than misses so I can then slide the HP slider for my monsters as I determine my players capabilities.  Players like hitting and using the excess to create an interesting narrative.

The way that I have been working on getting the marginal striker to stay up with the optimum striker is by adding options horizontally so the marginal striker is more technical and the optimum striker has less to work with but hits harder.  The key is to make the 'Feat Packages' beefy enough.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

The notion that a hit is just a hit or a miss is very important to D&D.  These suggestions change that far too much in my opinion, even though critical hits are obvious examples.  They're about as far as the game can go in this respect.  Otherwise the attack roll takes on too much weight.  You want to attack, hit, then roll your damage, as somehing truly separate.


How is that any different?  You attack, hit, then roll your damage separate from your attack.  Then, rolling well grants you additional damage.  That's almost by definition the same principle as a critical hit.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

The notion that a hit is just a hit or a miss is very important to D&D.  These suggestions change that far too much in my opinion, even though critical hits are obvious examples.  They're about as far as the game can go in this respect.  Otherwise the attack roll takes on too much weight.  You want to attack, hit, then roll your damage, as somehing truly separate.


How is that any different?  You attack, hit, then roll your damage separate from your attack.  Then, rolling well grants you additional damage.  That's almost by definition the same principle as a critical hit.



It's different just as I said.  It draws attention.
It's different just as I said.


It's slightly different but follows the same pattern and principle as existing rules.  In that way, it's no more different from a critical hit than BAB is from THAC0.

It draws attention.





From who?  Cthulu?  The gaming police?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

The notion that a hit is just a hit or a miss is very important to D&D.  These suggestions change that far too much in my opinion, even though critical hits are obvious examples.  They're about as far as the game can go in this respect.  Otherwise the attack roll takes on too much weight.  You want to attack, hit, then roll your damage, as somehing truly separate.


How is that any different?  You attack, hit, then roll your damage separate from your attack.  Then, rolling well grants you additional damage.  That's almost by definition the same principle as a critical hit.



It's different just as I said.  It draws attention.




So does a monster truck.  Some people like to drive standard trucks. These ideas are not far out for D&D when you consider it a game with four tires and a stearing wheel.  We can all get where we want to go. using 5E.

/crosses fingers 

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

It's different just as I said.


It's slightly different but follows the same pattern and principle as existing rules.  In that way, it's no more different from a critical hit than BAB is from THAC0.

It draws attention.





From who?  Cthulu?  The gaming police?



You don't want to get me started on BAB vs. THAC0, but that said, I have some experience with such rules and it's just a headache.  Just roll and roll cleanly, without having to gauge the attack roll any more than necessary.
The notion that a hit is just a hit or a miss is very important to D&D.  These suggestions change that far too much in my opinion, even though critical hits are obvious examples.  They're about as far as the game can go in this respect.  Otherwise the attack roll takes on too much weight.  You want to attack, hit, then roll your damage, as somehing truly separate.


How is that any different?  You attack, hit, then roll your damage separate from your attack.  Then, rolling well grants you additional damage.  That's almost by definition the same principle as a critical hit.



It's different just as I said.  It draws attention.




So does a monster truck.  Some people like to drive standard trucks. These ideas are not far out for D&D when you consider it a game with four tires and a stearing wheel.  We can all get where we want to go. using 5E.

/crosses fingers 



Well, implement them at your home table sometime and try them out.
good idea. I should of thought of that earler.

 

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

good idea. I should of thought of that earler.

 



Not the wisest system, though.
Thinking?

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Thinking?



What's your problem?
Borrowing an idea from another RPG, I thought it might be interesting to explore the notion of your attack roll adding to your damage.  The basic concept is that rolling well against a target's AC results in a bonus to your damage roll.  I see a few potential ways to handle this:

1) Your attack roll in excess of the target's AC gets added to your damage roll.



  Favors TWF and multiple attacks.  The range of the excess number will be devastatingly large at low levels and trivial at high with the deadly strike system, a little more reasonable with the multiple attack system.  Has the advantage of automatically dealing the expected extra damage disadvantaged/helpless targets whose AC have been lowered.

2) If you beat the target's AC by 5 or more, you do additional damage.  Perhaps a d8.



  Like the current packet's crit and has the same problem as 1, but not the advantage.

3) If you beat the target's AC by 5 or more, you get advantage on your damage roll.



  Favors large die weapons.  Easier mechanic would be allowed to reroll any [W] dice once and taking 2nd result.  This gives some bonus damage with deadly strike, but as that seems to be getting dropped in favor of multiple attacks the resulting damage on a single weapon die would be trivial.

I plan to try out these ideas a little later, but I was hoping to hear from the rest of you.  Have any of you tried these ideas before?  If so, what effects did it have on the game?  Whether you have tried one of these ideas or not, what do your think of them?  Do any of them seem interesting enough to want to try them?



  Tried in 1E, never really seemed to achieve what we wanted.

  Currently I like the crit system in Star Wars Edge of the Empire.  Additional successes (similiar to rolling high) result in additional damage, roughly 10-15%.  A high accuracy characters might be getting 3 additional successes on a low defense target.  Crits are a system on top of that which are triggered by the number of advantages, based on the weapon being used, you get on your dice.  As you can guess they use special dice.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

Thinking?



What's your problem?





dunno

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Thinking?



What's your problem?





dunno




That's what I thought you'd say.  Here is some advice:  just go with your own experience and write truthfully here.  And try not to dis others.
Thinking?



What's your problem?





dunno




That's what I thought you'd say.  Here is some advice:  just go with your own experience and write truthfully here.  And try not to dis others.



no worries.

I will quote my entry into this thread in case you missed it:

I posted some blog entries on this site a few months back on converting excess dice scores to damage and maneuver output.  I began this exploration when Expertise Dice were in the game.

From the blog:
...Strike Dice are class specific and usually start out at 1d6. The formula for a Strike Dice attack is: d20+Stat Mod + Strike Dice>= AC. The results generated by Strike Dice are carried past AC and are converted into Accuracy Points (AP). AP can be applied as additional damage, or they are used to activate lore feats, or they can be used in a combination of both. The benefits of lore feats are then applied during the Action, Movement, and/or Reaction part of a players turn, or unless the lore feat specifies otherwise...

Like Tevish Szat pointed out, it removes the damage roll assigned to weapons.  I just gave each weapon a base damage number and added that to the results of the d20 and Strike Dice rolls (plus Ability Mod).  Essentially the player rolls two dice each attack. 

The concern for slowing down the game is there, however, the important part is that there are only two dice to read...ever.

The system ultimately deviates from D&D enough that I can see mellored's concern, however, I am crafting this system to be used as a module to fit on top of the 5E Basic Set...whenever that comes out.

All in all, I am happy with the results of some playtesting but I found myself redesigning all the classes to make room for all the different possibilities that come from converting those points from the vapor.

In case you want to see my tinkerings: (its G-rated)
community.wizards.com/miladoon/blog/2013...

 



"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

As a module, this would work. But every D&D has been fail/miss/hit/crit. That needs to be core.



miss/hit... and no crit was the origin.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Yes. but then it wouldn't be D&D


How so?  I know it's not traditional, but neither was THAC0 until it was implemented.



To-hit charts, THAC0, and BAB are all mathematically identical.

That's not very precise.

The Hit Roll Charts in BECM had the numbers 2, 20, 30 (and any multiple of 10 after that which you desired to expand the chart to) repeat 5 times before proceeding on.

This means that a 1st level fighter would be looking at the following for base roll needed to hit (AC numbers converted to an ascending system for more direct comparison):

BECM: roll of 10 hits AC 10, roll of 20 hits AC 20-24 and that is it, cannot hit AC 25+ without modifiers
AD&D: roll of 10 hits AC 10, roll of 20 hits any AC because a natural 20 was made into an auto-hit, otherwise would only hit AC 20.
D&D 3.x and forward: roll of 10 hits AC 10, roll of 20 hits any AC because a natural 20 remained an auto-hit, otherwise would only hit AC 20.

There is a significant difference in the math between the BECM to-hit charts and the mathematically identical BAB & Thac0

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

That's not very precise.

The Hit Roll Charts in BECM had the numbers 2, 20, 30 (and any multiple of 10 after that which you desired to expand the chart to) repeat 5 times before proceeding on.

This means that a 1st level fighter would be looking at the following for base roll needed to hit (AC numbers converted to an ascending system for more direct comparison):

BECM: roll of 10 hits AC 10, roll of 20 hits AC 20-24 and that is it, cannot hit AC 25+ without modifiers
AD&D: roll of 10 hits AC 10, roll of 20 hits any AC because a natural 20 was made into an auto-hit, otherwise would only hit AC 20.
D&D 3.x and forward: roll of 10 hits AC 10, roll of 20 hits any AC because a natural 20 remained an auto-hit, otherwise would only hit AC 20.

There is a significant difference in the math between the BECM to-hit charts and the mathematically identical BAB & Thac0




Fair enough; I never played BECMI and was only talking about AD&D 1E and later.

The BECMI chart seems like it's still basically the same thing though, with the exception of extremely good ACs.

The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
It's a nice design goal, but I've honestly never seen it work out that way. In nearly every game I've played, it was the specialist who dominated; and while different specialists would dominate in different areas, the generalists was left with the morbid task of waiting to fill in for the first person to die.




I don't understand the problem.  A specialist will always dominate in their field. That's why they are a specialist. That's why today, in the real world, most people need to become specialists to advance in their career.

Why would one ever expect a generalist to do just as well as a specialist?  You trade effciency for variety. 
Why would one ever expect a generalist to do just as well as a specialist?  You trade efficiency for variety. 

The problem is that, in practice, the variety never makes up for the efficiency. If you have a character with 80% of the magical progression of a wizard, and 80% of the martial progression of the fighter, and 80% of the skill bonus of the rogue, then there's never a situation where you matter because it can always be handled better by someone else. The Bard had this problem in third edition, in part because of the Universal Ability Modifier that further widened the gap between haves and have-nots - even if the class gives 80% progression, the reliance on multiple stats meant your ability bonus was also closer to 80% and your overall competence was reduced to ~64% of a wizard/fighter/rogue.

Not having a notable weakness is supposed to be a strength in itself, but it's often too easy to ignore your weaknesses anyway - the Barbarian is never going to need to Diplomacize the town guard, and the Paladin isn't going to even try to Disable Device. If the Bard wants to tag along with the Rogue in sneaking around, then the Bard is the weakest link and the obvious point of failure. (There are some situations where the lack of weakness does matter; if the entire party must sneak past something, then the Bard isn't going to fail nearly as badly as the Paladin, but in that case it's still a failure for the group.)

I suppose it's worth asking whether a generalist or Jack-of-All-Trades is a concept worth supporting, but I really want it to be. I'm sure there are other players out there, wanting to play a Link or Kratos or Red Mage (or any main protagonist from any JRPG ever). You shouldn't be forced into a single party role in order to remain relevant!

The metagame is not the game.