Semi-radical idea for handling damage

[GMSarli]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and I'd like to see what others think of it:

How would you feel about not rolling for damage?

The idea is to further streamline the process of combat by removing the need for one more roll. Here's how I'm thinking it would work:

• A weapon would have a base damage value, e.g. 2 for a dagger, 4 for a longsword, etc. (These aren't necessarily the values we'd use, though.)
• Modify the weapon's damage by all the usual suspects (relevant ability modifier, 1/2 level, training bonus, enhancement bonus).
• If your attack hits, you deal this damage plus 1 per point by which your attack roll exceeds the target's relevant defense.

When I floated this idea to my players, one of them had a really good observation about it: It makes it where rolling a 19 actually means something -- normally, a high roll is actually a little disappointing because you feel like you almost rolled a critical hit but have nothing to show for it.

Obviously, change like this would require a lot of other things to be carefully balanced to make everything work. Critical hits, for example, might be replaced entirely by this rule, but I can still see a role for them depending on how everything is implemented. Similarly, talents, feats, etc. would have to be designed with the knowledge that a bonus to hit is also a bonus to damage.

So, what to do you think?

[j0lt]

We'd have to playtest the crap out of it, but on the surface it seems like it might just be crazy enough to work!

If the baddie's AC is, say 15 and I roll a 19, I'm still only doing an extra 4 points of damage over base + modifiers, so I don't think it will get TOO out of control...

Would we even need to change the base damage for each weapon? Sure, it'd be faster to just give each weapon a base amount of damage, but a lot of people enjoy rolling for damage (at least, those with whom I've played).

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

That's hot. That could really work. Definately a departure from the previous versions. And, if you want, you can still put in a optional sidebar, like in an Appendix, dice for variable damage for people that will like it.

Combining it with the variable success ratio would work... like Ordinary/Good/Amazing success.

An Ordinary success does base damage, Good does base damage * 1.5, and Amazing success does 2x damage. We don't need a critical hit rule anymore and therefore no need for that whole natural 20 roll...and if we want to, make a natural 20 that becomes an Amazing success a Superb Success, which does 3x damage.

You can have your character sheet set up per weapon or attack. Different talents can play off this also... Let's say you have a combat Talent that allows you to Stun with your Staff attack if you make a Good or higher success, or Disable to the point of giving Combat Advantage if you get an Amazing success for a turn.

This can also be used for like a Fumble ration at the low end... maybe you have a attack with no skill ranks, your character picked up the sword because its the only weapon there and your reacting to the monster coming at you. If you have no skill with a weapon, your natural fumble range is 1-4, and if your naturally roll in the fumble range, then something bad happens. If you are skilled in a weapon, your fumble range can then be 1-3, or 1-2, or something.

Maybe if you roll a tie on the Attack roll with the target's defense, you do minimal damage as he just got his defense partially up as your attack hit him. Minimal damage would be the attacks base damage without any bonuses put into it.

Then, you can come up with Action Points usages for this... in the middle of combat you've been battered and bruised, and the monster just has to go down, you have to kill it now. You announce your gambling an Action Point, or two, and you make the roll. You hit, but you got a Ordinary success. But, because you gambled an Action Point, that Ordinary success becomes a Good success. Gamble two AP, it jumps from Ordinary to Amazing. Gamble three AP, it becomes Superb.

Gary, your idea is awesome.

[JuggernAlz]

It is a very good idea! I am definitely pro this non-random damage rule.

[Shawn Burke]

Combining it with the variable success ratio would work... like Ordinary/Good/Amazing success.

I was thinking the same thing!

[Ferro]

Copying from Rolemaster. ¿What about open-ended rolls?
On a natural 20 roll D20 again and add it. If roll result >= DEFx1 then Damage x1, if RR >= DEFx2 then Damage x2 and so on.
You can even count great menace weapons reroll on 19-20 and standar weapons reroll on 20.
Fumbles can use the same rules, on a natural 1(1-2 great menace weapons), roll D20 and substract.
The lower your roll resul is the worst your fumble is.

[Jimmy Plamondon]

I like the idea of having base damage - without rolling. Saves time.

My only concern is that doing the math to determine the amount by which you exceed the AC might be a bit time consuming. Less math, more play I say.

Maybe having a system where you check the natural dice roll for extra damage could be all right.

(Just throwing numbers...)
1-10: Base damage
11-15: Damage x 1.5
16-19: Damage x 2
20: Damage x 3

Knowing already how much damage you are supposed to do with each increment, it would already show under your character sheet.

Of course, this creates a situation where if - for example - you absolutely need a 17 to hit the creature, you will at least do damage x2 every time... But that could be explained by saying that a good hit was required to hit thru the armor... and that a good hit is always more painful... Also, it would be less time consuming and math involved than counting by how much you went over the AC with your roll.

***

How would a system like that mix with armor as damage resistance (which I would like to see implemented in e20)?

[j0lt]

I like the idea of having base damage - without rolling. Saves time.

My only concern is that doing the math to determine the amount by which you exceed the AC might be a bit time consuming. Less math, more play I say.

I don't think this mechanic requires any more math than the current d20 damage mechanic. Both involve checking a number and adding it to the base, the only difference is the source. In d20 you roll a damage die and add that to your bonuses, with this you add your base damage to the number by which your attack roll exceeds the target's AC. The more I think about this idea, the more I like it!

How would a system like that mix with armor as damage resistance (which I would like to see implemented in e20)?

It wouldn't need to. This damage system inadvertently treats armor as both Defense AND Damage Reduction at the same time (higher armor = both harder to hit + less damage).

[valetutto]

It certainly gives a reason to make improvements to AC where you otherwise might not care. An 1 point increase in AC means less damage every attack where before it *might* possibly at some point make the difference in a hit or miss for a single attack.
I like it but I can see some folks that really like putting up the high numbers pushing back on this issue. The mountain of dice is occasionally fun but as a DM i certainly like the less dice approach.

[valetutto]

Copying from Rolemaster. ¿What about open-ended rolls?
On a natural 20 roll D20 again and add it. If roll result >= DEFx1 then Damage x1, if RR >= DEFx2 then Damage x2 and so on.
You can even count great menace weapons reroll on 19-20 and standar weapons reroll on 20.
Fumbles can use the same rules, on a natural 1(1-2 great menace weapons), roll D20 and substract.
The lower your roll resul is the worst your fumble is.

I've been trying to get "open-ended" or as other systems call them "exploding" forcepoints/action dice for a while, just because its cool to go on a lucky streak. However, while fun, it can often just break the game and its a nightmare to balance. I'd prefer to reward good roleplaying not good rollplaying, but it IS fun as a player.

[DTemplar5]

Actually, what I'm seeing is moving the damage roll into the attack roll; where damage goes up based on how much you hit the target. You can have it based on ranges or based on a simple formula.

The former is easier to impliment, while the later gives a wider value based on your accuracy; potentially making accurate weapons lethal. But the problem there is what formula would you use, and how can you make it work at all levels? At a 1:1, at low levels, a single hit could do you in (a problem that would resolve itself at around 2-3 level, though). But if you decide to do a 2:1, at higher levels, you may not get that much of a damage increase.

[j0lt]

Actually, what I'm seeing is moving the damage roll into the attack roll; where damage goes up based on how much you hit the target. You can have it based on ranges or based on a simple formula.

The former is easier to impliment, while the later gives a wider value based on your accuracy; potentially making accurate weapons lethal. But the problem there is what formula would you use, and how can you make it work at all levels? At a 1:1, at low levels, a single hit could do you in (a problem that would resolve itself at around 2-3 level, though). But if you decide to do a 2:1, at higher levels, you may not get that much of a damage increase.

I don't think this system will really put out much more damage than the extant damage rolls. It only adds damage based on how well you exceeded the opponent's defense. It's highly unlikely that you'll be able to exceed a similar level opponent's defense by more than 10, and if you're fighting a significantly lower-level opponent, taking them out in a single hit makes sense.

[motovoxbox]

I like the idea of static dice damage with bonus damage from accuracy a lot!

For instance a blaster should only release the same amount of force every time (likely... I'm not saying always). The "damage" it inflicts on an object is complicated, but could boil down in game terms to things like material being struck and accuracy of attack. In the case of a human or mortal thing, the material is likely constant (flesh) with the occasional Stormy or Boba having some armor. This would say to me that where you strike determines effectiveness, i.e. the harm dealt in hitpoint damage. Armor would then more clearly represent your ability to take less damage, without needing defense and damage reduction as two separate concepts.

Some questions:

- What about "magic"? Should spells (or any other mechanic contained in the idea of "magic") be static damage with a spellcaster check (psi check, UTF check) or something along those lines?
- How should this affect Massive Damage Threshold? Will this mechanic make exceeding this more likely?
- Should armor only add to Primary Defense? It would seem unnecessary to include damage reduction in it now since its providing that function.
- Critical hits?

[MasterVega]

I saw a poorly written idea similar to this one awhile back. I liked the concept, but the guy ended up creating more math/making more problems than he removed. Fortunately this rendition looks a lot smoother so far. I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out.

Awhile back I was working on a tactical game that used exploding d10's for just about everything. I liked the idea of exploding dice, but at the same time it could get a bit out of hand, so I decided to put a limit on how many times a set of dice could explode.
Each weapon had a standard number of d10 it rolled for damage; I simply used this number as the total number of explosions possible on a single attack (so in theory you could roll up to double damage). I never got the chance to playtest this, but I thought I'd share the idea.

And just a small note: since accuracy+X = damage, let's keep in mind how much more powerful that will make accuracy increasing spells and abilities. Concepts like power attacking will also need to be reworked if they're going to make their way into this system. This isn't a bad thing, but worth pointing out.

[j0lt]

I saw a poorly written idea similar to this one awhile back. I liked the concept, but the guy ended up creating more math/making more problems than he removed. Fortunately this rendition looks a lot smoother so far. I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out.

I remember that!

And just a small note: since accuracy+X = damage, let's keep in mind how much more powerful that will make accuracy increasing spells and abilities. Concepts like power attacking will also need to be reworked if they're going to make their way into this system. This isn't a bad thing, but worth pointing out.

Definitely! I think that once we get the base mechanic down, every related mechanic will have to be similarly revised to fit the particulars of the e20 system.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

i kind of had this idea late last night before sleep then again when my roommate woke me up to go pick her up at her work... god I'm tired. Anyways...

I was thinking of this table, which would work for any and all combat attack rolls:

Success / Ratio of Success / Damage (Damage can be scaled according to Heroic Level)
Fumble / 1-4 / maybe leaves you open for an attack, giving combat advantage to your target
Failure / 5-9
Ordinary / 10-14 / base * 1
Good / 15-18 / base * 1.5
Amazing / 19-22 / base * 2
Superb / 23+ / base * 3

Now, each time you roll, you roll your attack skill and compare it to this chart. Your attack roll modifier is your target's Defense. So, let's say you have a sword, and your sword skill is 8. Your Ability score for swords is +2, so you have a total of 10. Your target is going to parry with his axe, his Axe skill is 7, plus Ability score modifier of +1, for total of 8. Difference is 2. Make d20 +2 roll, compare to chart. In this example, the defense being used is the weapon skill of the weapon being used to defend with. You Disarm him from his axe, then he can Dodge or whatever.

Different talents and combat maneuvers can allow people to do things like Step Inside Defense, making it easier to bypass his defense the next time you attack him. Or, for a Defense, maybe a stance like Defensive Stance, where you stand your ground against an incoming attack, getting a +4 to your Defense for the turn at the cost of attacking (obviously you can't have attacked this turn yet).

This kind of attack roll would run across the spectrum for everything. Magic, psionics, normal attacks, grappling, you name it.

Armor could act like a Defense modifier in this case, both simulating hard to hit and damage reduction in one roll.

I also think that, to make it easier, any and all conditional modifiers should target the attackers roll, since everything could be based on this chart. So, if its late at night, the moon is covered, and its raining, those could impose a -3 penalty to the attack roll. Just examples.

This will extremely cut down on overall math, as everything would already be on your character sheet, so no looking up charts in books or anything.

This would also be very cool in settings where your hit points don't inflate at extreme rates, or maybe in Gritty games, your hit points don't inccrease at all.

[jazzencat]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and I'd like to see what others think of it:

How would you feel about not rolling for damage?

The idea is to further streamline the process of combat by removing the need for one more roll. Here's how I'm thinking it would work:

• A weapon would have a base damage value, e.g. 2 for a dagger, 4 for a longsword, etc. (These aren't necessarily the values we'd use, though.)
• Modify the weapon's damage by all the usual suspects (relevant ability modifier, 1/2 level, training bonus, enhancement bonus).
• If your attack hits, you deal this damage plus 1 per point by which your attack roll exceeds the target's relevant defense.

When I floated this idea to my players, one of them had a really good observation about it: It makes it where rolling a 19 actually means something -- normally, a high roll is actually a little disappointing because you feel like you almost rolled a critical hit but have nothing to show for it.

Obviously, change like this would require a lot of other things to be carefully balanced to make everything work. Critical hits, for example, might be replaced entirely by this rule, but I can still see a role for them depending on how everything is implemented. Similarly, talents, feats, etc. would have to be designed with the knowledge that a bonus to hit is also a bonus to damage.

So, what to do you think?

Yeah, I had been thinking about posting something like this as well. You beat me to it! ^,^ Mêlée weapons have their base damage modified by strength, where applicable. I would like to see a damage silhouette/overlay system as well. This could streamline the called shot system. As an example: Aces & Eights uses a "shot clock". The bullseye is placed where the character aims. If the attack roll (base+modifier) equals or exceeds the bulls-eye value, then the shot lands where it was aimed, if it's under the value the shot is off-target depending on how much the roll differs. So if you aim at center-mass with an attack and you don't quite make the bulls-eye value you can still score a hit, though not quite where you were aiming for. If it's a small target like the head or hand or foot then it takes very little for the shot to miss completely. This way we don't need to have whole tables of called-shot penalties (-x for the head, -y for the hand and so on).

Something I would also like to see is damage-threshold for hands, arms, torso etc., if the damage exceeds the threshold for a part, then the hand is severed or whatever, and the rest is blow-through, or at least have this as an option. For ranged weapons, the damage is based on ammunition used and modified by draw-strength for bows and cross-bows or caliber for guns, for example. I am going to work on more clearly writing up what I have in mind for this and I'll post it later.

[Renchard]

Using this concept, there's really no need for a separation between attack and damage at all. The defense can simply become a negative modifier to the overall attack roll/skill check (assuming skill is being used as the new attack modifier).

The system proposed in Gary's opening system models out to a piecewise linear function, with a discontinuity between Attack Roll = Defense Value and Attack Roll = Defense Value - 1.

If Attack Roll < Defense, Damage = 0
If Attack Roll >= Defense, Damage = Attack Roll - Defense + 1/2 level + stat bonus + enhance bonus + training bonus + misc bonus (weapon, spell, etc)

Additionally, Attack Roll is equal to d20 + 1/2 level + stat bonus + enhance bonus + training bonus. This means the function actually looks like this:

If Attack Roll < Defense, Damage = 0
If Attack Roll >= Defense, Damage = 1x level + 2xstat bonus + 2xenhance bonus + 2xtraining bonus + misc bonus (weapon, spell, etc) - Defense

My concern, primarily, is the escalating damage from all of those doubled bonuses. It can certainly be accounted for in the HPs of encountered enemies, but I worry it might promote to much of a "super-powered" feel to mid-high levels.

My proposed change is as stated above, where there becomes no distinction between attack and damage. Any time you make an attack, you're simply making a damage roll where:

Damage = d20 + 1/2 level + stat bonus + enhance bonus + training bonus + misc bonus (weapon, spell, etc) - Defense.

Then, it simply becomes a matter of scaling Enemy defense to balance out with the desired amount of average damage per level, with a much easier to model mathematical progression.

It also allows for the possibility of effects that are "rated" by damage, but don't actually do damage. Say, for example, a charm person talent. It might attack Will, and makes the target friendly to you if you do "damage". If you do 10 points of "damage", the target becomes an permanent ally. If you do 20 points of damage, the target becomes your willing thrall. Other balance considerations abound, of course, but it's a scalable system that could apply to more than just attacks, which makes sense since attacks are now skills.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

It also allows for the possibility of effects that are "rated" by damage, but don't actually do damage. Say, for example, a charm person talent. It might attack Will, and makes the target friendly to you if you do "damage". If you do 10 points of "damage", the target becomes an permanent ally. If you do 20 points of damage, the target becomes your willing thrall. Other balance considerations abound, of course, but it's a scalable system that could apply to more than just attacks, which makes sense since attacks are now skills.

Using the chart, you make the Charm attack, if you get a ordinary success, you get a basic effect, like, he does you a single small favor. You get an Amazing success, he's your willinng, obedient pawn for a scene. Same thing, without keeping track of damage points.

Of course, we'd have to change it from Ordinary/Good/Amazing because those are Alternity terms, but having a built in system for multiple levels of success is the best strength of Alternity, and so far no other game has really done that. Having something like this in a d20 game would be a huge step in seperating us from the rest. The Omni system is kind of similar to this also.

[JaredGaume]

To the original post, I think the damage scales well when using 1dX type weapons, but is underwhelming when using 2dX or greater weapons. The upper end may be much smaller as compared to being able to roll for damage and especially when a critical hit can do 2x damage.

I wonder if you could still roll for damage, but also add as a damage bonus the amount that you beat defense by on your roll.

For example:

At first level you do 4 + 4 (Str) + 2 (skill) + 1 (focus) with a longsword = 11 damage
If you "just" hit your target (roll 17 against a defense of 17) you do 0 bonus damage. You do 11 damage
If you "average" hit your target (roll 22 against a defense of 17) you do +5 bonus damage. You do 16 damage
If you "max" hit your target (roll 27 against a defense of 17) you do +10 bonus damage. You do 21 damage

At first level you do 9 + 4 (Dex?) + 2 (skill) + 1 (focus) with a heavy handgun = 16 damage
If you "just" hit your target (roll 17 against a defense of 17) you do 0 bonus damage. You do 16 damage
If you "average" hit your target (roll 22 against a defense of 17) you do +5 bonus damage. You do 21 damage
If you "max" hit your target (roll 27 against a defense of 17) you do +10 bonus damage. You do 26 damage

...or...

At first level you do 1d8 + 4 (Str) + 2 (skill) + 1 (focus) with a longsword = 1d8 + 7 damage (8-15)
If you "just" hit your target (roll 17 against a defense of 17) you do 0 bonus damage. You do 1d8 + 7 damage (8-15)
If you "average" hit your target (roll 22 against a defense of 17) you do +5 bonus damage. You do 1d8 + 12 damage (13-20)
If you "max" hit your target (roll 27 against a defense of 17) you do +10 bonus damage. You do 1d8 + 17 damage (18-25)

At first level you do 2d8 + 4 (Dex?) + 2 (skill) + 1 (focus) with a heavy handgun = 2d8 + 7 damage (9-23)
If you "just" hit your target (roll 17 against a defense of 17) you do 0 bonus damage. You do 2d8 + 7 damage (9-23)
If you "average" hit your target (roll 22 against a defense of 17) you do +5 bonus damage. You do 2d8 + 12 damage (14-28)
If you "max" hit your target (roll 27 against a defense of 17) you do +10 bonus damage. You do 2d8 + 17 damage (19-33)

Using the traditional system:
If you hit, but roll a 19 or less, you do 1d8 + 7 damage (8-15), or 2d8 + 7 damage (9-23).
But if you Crit on a roll of 20, you do 2d8 + 14 damage (16-30), or 4d8 + 14 damage (18-46).

Using the above model you graduate your damage output based on how well you can beat target defense.
With a static damage model you curve your upper damage output lower than you can get with damage dice, but it does tend to fall into the average range.
Assuming you don't have a critical hit rule, your upper damage range is less than what you could do on a Crit, but you can average a higher rate of damage output.

[Renchard]

Of course, we'd have to change it from Ordinary/Good/Amazing because those are Alternity terms, but having a built in system for multiple levels of success is the best strength of Alternity, and so far no other game has really done that. Having something like this in a d20 game would be a huge step in seperating us from the rest. The Omni system is kind of similar to this also.

I like the idea of such as a system (I was a big Alternity fan), but I feel it's important to consider the implications on a d20 game. The whole d20 system is built on a system of binary checks, where your success is determined by d20 + modifier >= Target Number (TN), or DC in 3.5 terms. There are many exceptions in other d20 systems where the outcome of the roll changes based on your level of success (frex, anything that includes "if you succeed on the roll by 5 or more"), but the core of the d20 system is assumed to be pass/fail. That's why most difficulties are tables of DCs, rather than modifiers to the roll.

Using Gary's concept in the original post changes one of the baseline assumptions of d20 for the single most commonly rolled check in the game, the attack roll. If that much of a baseline change is going to be made, to introduce a concept of "magnitude of success", why not introduce this concept as one of the core design conceits of the system? The whole e20 paradigm can be that everything (attacks, magic, non-combat specialties) is a skill, and every skill has varying results based on the magnitude of the roll. Just some examples:

1) d20 + modifiers >= table of DCs, like the 3.5 system. The major change would be to introduce DCs for adjusting damage rolls based on an Attack vs Defense comparison.

2) d20 + modifers - difficulty(defense) >= static TNs. The TNs would be for Ordinary/Good/Amazing success, and the table would adjust damage based on the success achieved. Obviously, we could introduce more or less degrees of success, rules for crits, etc. That's the basis of your proposed system, I believe, Stacie?

3) d20 + modifiers - difficulty(defense) >= 0. Getting a non-negative number is a success. Getting a positive number is the determiner of damage, and also determines the effect of non-damage based checks. This is what I was proposing in my previous post. I'm not emotionally attached to it, but I kind of like it.

I'm not making an argument as to how such a system should be laid out. But I think the "semi-radical idea" Gary proposed could be expanded into a really radical idea, and why not push the envelope at this early phase?

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

yea, Alternity was way ahead of the curve IMO... it presented ideas that were fairly radical for its day, and would be radical now.

For me, what's easier for people - to have different skills have their own DC tables for different possibilities, or a single Success Table that works for everything in the entire game and have modifiers affect the die roll.

Typical d20: Has a chart for every skill. Has a chart for Different attack and defense and cover and concealment modifers, but some work on the AC, some work off attack roll, some work on a percentile. That's to many different subsystems that work in different ways.

My idea: Every modifier, be it defense, offense, situational, applies to the person making the roll, and then compared to a single Success Table. This would work for things like poisons and diseases as well...

Example - Let's say somebody has a Fortitude of +6 right. Now we know that fortitude would be used for poisons. In the course of slaying some mean looking Giant Scorpions, he gets hit with its stinger. It does base damage 6 plus poison of Lethality 8. In my idea, lethality is the threat of the poison, and works as the Defense to resist. Fortitude roll would be -2 (+6 - Threat(8 in this case) = -2. Make roll.
This scorpion's Poison as the followiing effects, based on how well he rolled on the Success Table to resist:

Fumble - Target is paralyzed (considered helpless) or takes triple damage
Failure - Target is Disabled for 1d4 rounds or takes double damage
Ordinary - Target is Disabled for one round.
Good - No ill effect.
Amazing - no ill effect.
Superb - target is immune to this type of poison for a day.

Different poisons can work off this... let's say there's a poison so deadly that the Success Table results for this poison would be like this: Fumble - Death. Failure - Paralyzed. Ordinary - Sickened for 1 day. Good - Sickened for 1d6 hours. Amazing or Superb - No ill effect. Or a poison so weak that the only side effect would be on a Fumble.

or take different magical effects and spells.

Charm Humanoid Spell - Make Magic test, using their Will as defense modifier. Let's say you have a Spellcasting of +13 and he has a Will of 9, that's a +4 modifier to your roll. Make roll.
Fumble - he's immune to you.
Failure - nothing.
Ordinary - he's considered friendly for a turn or you've improved the targets disposition to you by one grade.
Good - Target is friendly for the encounter or you've improved the targets disposition to you by two grades.
Amazing - target is your pawn for a day.
Superb - target is your pawn for a month, or until you do something to him to change his ways.

Now, if your spellcasting is only +5, then your total to your roll is -4. So, depending on how good of a spellcaster you are at manipulating the fabric of magic, you can pull off greater effects than others.

No need to look up random charts all over the book really. No need to come up with DC's for the various skills.

An example of a skill check would be Climbing.
Fumble - you fall, go splat.
Failure - you slip, make another check and you need a Good result or fall or Lose your Defense to attacks but stay in place. Ordinary - you move at half your speed but lose Defense bonus to attacks.
Good - Move at half speed and keep your defense to incoming attacks.
Amazing - Move at full speed and keep your full Defense.
Superb - Same as Amazing or move at half speed and get double your Defense to incoming attacks.

All these are examples, but by keeping it all based to a single Success Chart, and having it built into the system, you just simplified just about everything in the game.

Using a simplified damage mechanic where all damage isn't rolled makes this even easier, then you can list on your sheet something like:

Longsword - base damage 4. Ordinary dmg 4/Good dmg 6/Amazing dmg 8/Superb dmg 12
or, for more lethal games, just increase the multipliers...something more Gritty would be like...
Longsword - base dmg 4. Ordinary dmg 4/Good dmg 8/Amazing dmg 12/Superb dmg 16

Now, if you roll and you do Amazing result, you do 8 damage.

You can also do different weapons with different effects based on your Success roll. Let's say you want to trip somebody. If that person is prepared to defend himself than you need a Good roll to try to trip. Maybe you have a Talent that improves your chances to Trip though, and then all you'd need is an Ordinary success to trip. You are using a Staff to trip, so make a Staff/fighting roll, you have a skill of +7. The target's Reflex is the Defense, and he has a reflex of 9. You make a roll at -2. You roll, compare to Success Chart.

let's say Tripping has the following Chart effects:
Fumble - you drop weapon.
Failure - nothing, you missed.
Ordinary - you tripped target prone, doing half damage.
Good - you tripped target prone, doing full damage.
Amazing - you tripped target prone, doing half damage, target also Dazed.
Superb - same as Amazing, but full damage.

Combine this with Action Points... Let's say one use of Action Points is that you can roll a 1d6 to any action roll of a d20. Easy, normal. You roll, get an 8, which is normally a failure. Spend AP, roll a 3, its now an 11. Ordinary success. Let's say that you can also use an AP before you roll, sort of like a gamble. By gambling you will increase your Success threshold by one level, so a Failure would be an Ordinary success (+1 Success level).

Let's say for a Defensive use of AP you can spend a point to reduce an attack by one Success Level. Gamble the point before the roll. It's gone. Now if you get hit, it gets reduced one level. That Ordinary attack becomes a Failure. That Superb attack becomes an Amazing attack. Etc. Maybe another use is that you can spend a point after the die roll to reduce the die roll by 1d6 (these die numbers can be different, or a flat number, like, reduce it by 3).

I'm pretty sure there are other uses of AP that can be tied to something like this. And other uses for AP that have no bearing on the Success Chart at all. That'd be for a different thread.

[bone_naga]

I really like the idea of static damage with extra damage from the attack roll. I don't like the idea of tables where you reference your attack roll on the table and apply a listed modifier. One, if you don't have the table memorized then you have to look at it all the time, two the math for multiplying the damage will take the same amount of work as figuring the difference between attack and defense, and three I think damage multipliers are easier to abuse (which is part of why 4e changed how crits work) and when you bring in multipliers even small differences in damage become much much larger.

I'm curious as to how crits would be handled. Maybe if you roll a natural 20, you just roll it again and add the result. In this manner, it is possible to one-shot anything if you're lucky enough, but the chances are pretty small. It would also remove the need for a natural 20 to be an automatic hit.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

I really like the idea of static damage with extra damage from the attack roll. I don't like the idea of tables where you reference your attack roll on the table and apply a listed modifier. One, if you don't have the table memorized then you have to look at it all the time, two the math for multiplying the damage will take the same amount of work as figuring the difference between attack and defense, and three I think damage multipliers are easier to abuse (which is part of why 4e changed how crits work) and when you bring in multipliers even small differences in damage become much much larger.

I'm curious as to how crits would be handled. Maybe if you roll a natural 20, you just roll it again and add the result. In this manner, it is possible to one-shot anything if you're lucky enough, but the chances are pretty small. It would also remove the need for a natural 20 to be an automatic hit.

a Table like mine would be on every character sheet, as well as the listed damages for attacks already pre determined and listed on the sheet.

You roll, you get a Good result, look at weapon, apply Good result damage. Simple. You won't have to memorize a thing.

Different multipliers can be applied for different styles of campaigns...if you want a really gritty game, a Good Result can be triple damage instead of double damage, for example. But, everything like that would already be on the character sheet, so you wouldn't have to look up anything like that in the book. Saves time.

[j0lt]

a Table like mine would be on every character sheet, as well as the listed damages for attacks already pre determined and listed on the sheet.

You roll, you get a Good result, look at weapon, apply Good result damage. Simple. You won't have to memorize a thing.

Looking up a table every time you make an attack, then doing additional calculations after checking the numbers? Sounds like it would slow down the gameplay tremendously.

[Kaldaen]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and I'd like to see what others think of it:

How would you feel about not rolling for damage?

Looks like I'm going to be the first to say this, but no, I don't think this is a good idea at all.

The idea is to further streamline the process of combat by removing the need for one more roll. Here's how I'm thinking it would work:

• A weapon would have a base damage value, e.g. 2 for a dagger, 4 for a longsword, etc. (These aren't necessarily the values we'd use, though.)
• Modify the weapon's damage by all the usual suspects (relevant ability modifier, 1/2 level, training bonus, enhancement bonus).
• If your attack hits, you deal this damage plus 1 per point by which your attack roll exceeds the target's relevant defense.

If the players are facing enemies of an appropriate challenge level, they'll be able to just barely hit the NPCs with a d20 roll of about 10 -- weaker enemies may take hits on lower rolls, stronger enemies may require slightly higher rolls, but the average minimum roll will be 10.

If a roll of 10 allows the player to equal an NPC's Defense score, then a roll of 19, using this proposed damage system, will deal 9 extra damage to the target. That's more damage than most weapons are likely to deal using a separate roll. With that much bonus damage possible on any given hit, what would have been a balanced encounter in any other d20 system could easily turn into a bloodbath. As a result, a number of other changes will have to be made to the game to compensate. Among the possibilities:

• Base weapon damage will have to be set incredibly low -- lower than the average roll of the die that used to represent the weapon's damage
• GMs will become very stingy when giving Enhancements to their players -- providing fewer of them and less often
• Enemies will have to be given more HP to survive the massive damage dealt by d20 rolls over 10
• Enemies' defenses will have to be boosted so that player characters need much more than a 10 to score a hit, resulting in much lower chances to hit and dragging out combat

At least one of these options will have to be adopted if we use this damage model, and all of them have significant drawbacks.

When I floated this idea to my players, one of them had a really good observation about it: It makes it where rolling a 19 actually means something -- normally, a high roll is actually a little disappointing because you feel like you almost rolled a critical hit but have nothing to show for it.

On the flip side, when an NPC is attacking your character, and the DM rolls a 19, you're likely thinking, "Whew! Thank goodness that didn't crit." A change like this is a double-edged sword. Now, that same NPC will be dealing a whole lot of extra damage to you with that 19. Any mechanic that allows you to deal more damage to NPC's will also allow them to deal more damage to your characters.

Obviously, change like this would require a lot of other things to be carefully balanced to make everything work. Critical hits, for example, might be replaced entirely by this rule, but I can still see a role for them depending on how everything is implemented. Similarly, talents, feats, etc. would have to be designed with the knowledge that a bonus to hit is also a bonus to damage.

So, what to do you think?

The rippling effects of this change would cause far too many disruptions in the normal operation of the game for this to be worthwhile. If this were put to a vote, I would absolutely vote no.

[Jimmy Plamondon]

I like the idea of having base damage - without rolling. Saves time.

My only concern is that doing the math to determine the amount by which you exceed the AC might be a bit time consuming. Less math, more play I say.

I don't think this mechanic requires any more math than the current d20 damage mechanic. Both involve checking a number and adding it to the base, the only difference is the source. In d20 you roll a damage die and add that to your bonuses, with this you add your base damage to the number by which your attack roll exceeds the target's AC. The more I think about this idea, the more I like it!

How would a system like that mix with armor as damage resistance (which I would like to see implemented in e20)?

It wouldn't need to. This damage system inadvertently treats armor as both Defense AND Damage Reduction at the same time (higher armor = both harder to hit + less damage).

Well you are right saying that there is not more math involved than what we currently do. The basic damage thing allows to reduce the maths though.

Also, I would say it is easier to add 3d6+bonus than subtract roll-AC... but maybe that's just me. Also, it gives away the actual AC of the enemy (which I like being hidden from PCs).

Example 1:

Roll your D20+whatever bonus; compare to AC. Roll 3d6+3 for damages.... 14 points of damages.
(2 math operations)

Example 2:

Roll your D20+whatever bonus;compare to AC. 10 points of damages (basic unrolled amount).
(1 math operation)

Example 3:

Roll your D20+whatever bonus. Subtract the result from the AC. Add the difference to the basic damage.
(2 math operations)

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

If anything getting away from depending, or using, Armor Class as a method of defense would be a good thing and an improvement.

[jazzencat]

Agreed, no AC. Armour reduces damage from a successful hit. Avoiding getting hit is either because you dodged, parried or took cover from it. "Incoming fire has the right of way!" as they say. Preferably no damage roll either. Weapons do static damage modified by the relevant attribute and hit location. Base damage is relative to a torso hit on a normal human, (or could base it on the kinetic energy calculations, if you really want to get technical).

[j0lt]

Agreed, no AC. Armour reduces damage from a successful hit. Avoiding getting hit is either because you dodged, parried or took cover from it. "Incoming fire has the right of way!" as they say.

With Gary's merging of attack/damage rolls, AC does both. The higher your AC, the harder you are to hit, as well as the harder it is to get a high number above AC for the extra damage.

[Kaldaen]

a Table like mine would be on every character sheet, as well as the listed damages for attacks already pre determined and listed on the sheet.

You roll, you get a Good result, look at weapon, apply Good result damage. Simple. You won't have to memorize a thing.

Looking up a table every time you make an attack, then doing additional calculations after checking the numbers? Sounds like it would slow down the gameplay tremendously.

This is absolutely right, j0lt. D&D 3.x and Star Wars OCR/RCR were just overflowing with tables telling you what your die roll actually meant, and all they did was slow down the game. Turn Undead was an especially grievous example of this. We do not want to reintroduce this phenomenon, especially not for every single weapon.

If you want a high, non-20 die roll to be significant, there is a much simpler way to go about it. For certain attacks, if you beat the target's defense by 5 or more it suffers an additional effect, whether that's more damage, a debuff, or something else. This should not apply to every ability, but it could work well for some of the advanced or specialized talents without slowing down the pace of the game.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Agreed, no AC. Armour reduces damage from a successful hit. Avoiding getting hit is either because you dodged, parried or took cover from it. "Incoming fire has the right of way!" as they say.

With Gary's merging of attack/damage rolls, AC does both. The higher your AC, the harder you are to hit, as well as the harder it is to get a high number above AC for the extra damage.

Armor Class is a very archaic game structure, dating back some thirty years. Sure it works, but overall its time that this is one Sacred Cow to die.

And if you really look at it, Armor Class is an illogical use of terminology.

[JaredGaume]

Not using AC anymore, at least in the traditional sense.

Using Primary Defense. This is the difficulty in hitting your target. Part of Primary Defense is Damage Reduction.
Roll to hit target, reduce damage by DR, then apply damage and effects.

The question then becomes:
Should this be resolved with a single roll (Gary's semi-radical idea for handling damage)?
Or should we continue to use the traditional method (roll damage dice)?

Reposting Gary's idea for how to handle defense(s) (from the "House Rules" thread):

Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:05 am
(...)
Personally, I'm included toward something like this for Defense scores:

• Primary: This is equivalent to 4E's Armor Class. Primary Defense is the default target of most weapon-based attacks that are directed at a single target (as opposed to area attacks). Armor also applies here. I'm currently leaning toward a hybrid armor system wherein armor provides three distinct benefits:
  
  1. a small bonus to Primary Defense
  2. a small amount of Damage Reduction
  3. an increase to your massive damage threshold
  (I'm thinking that these will have a fairly simple relationship wherein #1 + #2 = #3, e.g. +4 bonus to Primary Defense, Damage Reduction 5, and +9 bonus to massive damage threshold for a really heavy suit of armor.)
• Reflex: Reflex Defense is the target of area attacks and environmental hazards (e.g. landslide, pit trap, etc.), and it also fills the "touch attack" niche from 3.0/3.5. (For unarmored characters, Primary and Reflex will be very closely related.)
• Fortitude: Fortitude Defense is the target of attacks that directly affect bodily health (e.g. disease, poison, etc.) and anything wherein sheer toughness and bulk comes into play (e.g. resisting a bull rush, etc.). Note that, unlike Saga Edition, armor does not usually boost your Fortitude Defense.
• Will: Will Defense is the target of attacks that are resisted by mental or emotional stamina and awareness. (I really like the idea of using Will for some of the same things that 4E uses passive Perception or Insight checks for ... personally, I'm inclined to keep the familiar name, but I'd be happy to put that up for a vote once we get to that stage.)

(...)

[Kaldaen]

Armor Class is a very archaic game structure, dating back some thirty years. Sure it works, but overall its time that this is one Sacred Cow to die.

And if you really look at it, Armor Class is an illogical use of terminology.

That's why GMSarli has said he'll be calling it Primary Defense. It may sound like AC by another name, but if you read his descriptions, it works differently when enhancements and equipment are applied. And as for the "age" of AC, bear in mind that thirty years ago a character's AC went down as it improved. The advent of AC going up only dates back to 2000.

We are not required to change everything about d20 just because it has been used before. Much of the system works quite well, and that is evidenced by the many games that were based on the OGL and the SRD. And even though GMSarli wants us to rethink some of the mechanics, they will still be based on those foundations. The e20 system is meant to be an "evolution," not a demolition.

[JaredGaume]

I'm happy to entertain all ideas.

Some will stick, some won't. But it's nice to see them all the same.

Though sometimes radically divergent ideas need a little more explaination.
At least to the extent of considering them.

[j0lt]

I'm with Jared. We need to figure out which mechanic serves the game best, regardless of personal preference. I'm sure everybody has a different opinion of the "ideal damage mechanic", and they most likely all work to one degree or another, but the name of the game is streamlining. SWSE was a big step in the right direction, but there are a few other ideas that may work. Not only with each mechanic, but making sure each one meshes perfectly with the others.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Armor Class is a very archaic game structure, dating back some thirty years. Sure it works, but overall its time that this is one Sacred Cow to die.

And if you really look at it, Armor Class is an illogical use of terminology.

That's why GMSarli has said he'll be calling it Primary Defense. It may sound like AC by another name, but if you read his descriptions, it works differently when enhancements and equipment are applied. And as for the "age" of AC, bear in mind that thirty years ago a character's AC went down as it improved. The advent of AC going up only dates back to 2000.

We are not required to change everything about d20 just because it has been used before. Much of the system works quite well, and that is evidenced by the many games that were based on the OGL and the SRD. And even though GMSarli wants us to rethink some of the mechanics, they will still be based on those foundations. The e20 system is meant to be an "evolution," not a demolition.

That's true about AC going down instead of up, way before my time though. I'm only used to 3.0 and 3.5, and d20M and Saga, and while Saga was a real step ahead, sometimes you have to demolish something to evolve it. A rename to Primary Defense is still the same overall structure with a new name, but I'll go read what he said again, I might have missed something.

My idea, while radical, streamlines the system across the board, not just for combat, but for every facet of the game.

You make a combat roll, get a Good result, do Good damage.
You make a Diplomacy check against somebody, let's say their Will is 9, you have a -9 penalty to your Diplomacy. Make roll, look on Success Table. Get a 10 or higher, you succeed.
You make a Power roll, compare to Table, if you rolled an Amazing, you do the Amazing effect of the Power.

It's all Consolidated into one cohesive structure. No more variable DC tables for various things. If you want, all those DC tablels can be changed to Conditions instead, if you want. Or, just come up with a simple table for conditions...

You do something with Aid, you get a +2 to your roll.
You are trying to push a giant boulder out of the way, make a Strength check with a -8 penalty (that's a decent sized boulder). Get a Ordinary result, you push it out of the way.
You are trying to pick a lock that's somewhat Difficult (maybe all Difficult checks impose a -10 penalty)
You are climbing a wall that's of Average difficulty (maybe all Average checks impose a -5 penalty)
or... the climb check is on a wall thats slick with oil, or its nearly flat (Almost Impossible actions could impose a -20 penalty)

Instead of coming up with variable DCs for so many variable skills, talents, feats, and powers, here's a simple, single Success Result Table that works for everything. This will save time, energy, and space in the book that could go to all those DC tables.

But, if people like those cumbersome tables, well, those games already exist. This will give the GM the versatility for on the fly decisions....player does something unexpected, the action looks like it could be a fairly hard thing for a normal person to try, and Hard things impose a penalty from 6 to 10 (hypothetical), so this time its a -8 penalty. This is easy.

For Aiding others, the amount in which you aid the person can depend on how good of a Success you roll. Fumble -2, Ordinary +1, Good +2, Amazing +4, Superb +6.

Take a force power from Star Wars -- Move Object. Make a roll, with a penalty of -6 for the size of the object.
Fumble - You strain yourself, take 3 damage.
Failure - nothing.
Ordinary - move object up to 30ft.
Good - move object up to 60 ft.
Amazing - move object to 90 ft or use object as an attack the next round.
Superb - move object to 120 ft or use object as an attack with +3 to attack roll.

I'm pulling numbers out of my butt here but the gist is that everything is simplified to a degree that the rules will fall into the background. That's what I'm wanting from this.

Your Grappling somebody (Grappling in d20 for the most part is a chore). You make your Grapple roll, you have a total modifier of +2.
Fumble - You trip at your opponents feat (maybe a natural 1 could always be a Fumble)
Failure - you miss
Ordinary - you grabbed his arm but he has one arm free.
Good - you pinned your target
Amazing - you pinned and knocked your target prone onto the ground, doing base damage.
Superb - you pinned, knocked prone your target, doing base damage x2. (in this case, base damage would be your unarmed dmg)

No matter what, though, this system i propose is a whole lot better than other d20 games "pass/fail" systems where the difference of success are irrelevant unless you happen to roll a natural 20. In this one, every single rank of modifier would really count and mean something.

[GMSarli]

a Table like mine would be on every character sheet, as well as the listed damages for attacks already pre determined and listed on the sheet.

You roll, you get a Good result, look at weapon, apply Good result damage. Simple. You won't have to memorize a thing.

Looking up a table every time you make an attack, then doing additional calculations after checking the numbers? Sounds like it would slow down the gameplay tremendously.

I agree with j0lt on this one. The idea of having individual tables to look up for every weapon is probably a bit much, and it would partially or wholly offset the gains we might make in gameplay speed by using flat damage.

That said, having this sort of tiered effect for talents -- which you would presumably use all the time -- would probably be okay. Even then, it would be best if we did something similar to D&D power cards or Saga's Force power cards: Keep the descriptions short enough to fit on a card so it's easy to print out and keep handy during the game.

This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and I'd like to see what others think of it:

How would you feel about not rolling for damage?

Looks like I'm going to be the first to say this, but no, I don't think this is a good idea at all.

This probably sounds funny, but I'm very happy to encounter some solid opposition on this. At the very least, I want to flesh things out as much as possible, and thinking about objections helps us do that.

The idea is to further streamline the process of combat by removing the need for one more roll. Here's how I'm thinking it would work:

• A weapon would have a base damage value, e.g. 2 for a dagger, 4 for a longsword, etc. (These aren't necessarily the values we'd use, though.)
• Modify the weapon's damage by all the usual suspects (relevant ability modifier, 1/2 level, training bonus, enhancement bonus).
• If your attack hits, you deal this damage plus 1 per point by which your attack roll exceeds the target's relevant defense.

If the players are facing enemies of an appropriate challenge level, they'll be able to just barely hit the NPCs with a d20 roll of about 10 -- weaker enemies may take hits on lower rolls, stronger enemies may require slightly higher rolls, but the average minimum roll will be 10.

If a roll of 10 allows the player to equal an NPC's Defense score, then a roll of 19, using this proposed damage system, will deal 9 extra damage to the target. That's more damage than most weapons are likely to deal using a separate roll. With that much bonus damage possible on any given hit, what would have been a balanced encounter in any other d20 system could easily turn into a bloodbath.

True, but look at the chart I cooked up the other day:


I'm already assuming a much higher level of damage than in earlier d20-based games. When you're starting from scratch rather than worrying about compatibility with other games, you can set the hit point and damage standards at whatever levels work best for your design.

As a result, a number of other changes will have to be made to the game to compensate. Among the possibilities:

• Base weapon damage will have to be set incredibly low -- lower than the average roll of the die that used to represent the weapon's damage
• GMs will become very stingy when giving Enhancements to their players -- providing fewer of them and less often
• Enemies will have to be given more HP to survive the massive damage dealt by d20 rolls over 10
• Enemies' defenses will have to be boosted so that player characters need much more than a 10 to score a hit, resulting in much lower chances to hit and dragging out combat

At least one of these options will have to be adopted if we use this damage model, and all of them have significant drawbacks.

We're doing #3 already, actually. Note that I'm giving a standard 1st-level opponent (an appropriate challenge for a single 1st-level hero) 25 hp in the benchmarks shown above.

Also, don't forget that something like this would either replace or substantially modify the idea of critical hits. That's a lot of damage we're subtracting from our total that we can instead spread out over the rest of the attack spectrum; my calculations show that these two changes largely offset.

When I floated this idea to my players, one of them had a really good observation about it: It makes it where rolling a 19 actually means something -- normally, a high roll is actually a little disappointing because you feel like you almost rolled a critical hit but have nothing to show for it.

On the flip side, when an NPC is attacking your character, and the DM rolls a 19, you're likely thinking, "Whew! Thank goodness that didn't crit." A change like this is a double-edged sword. Now, that same NPC will be dealing a whole lot of extra damage to you with that 19. Any mechanic that allows you to deal more damage to NPC's will also allow them to deal more damage to your characters.

True, but it decreases randomness overall, and on balance that helps the PCs. Currently, a couple of lucky critical hits can devastate the PCs because they double damage; with the proposed change, those natural 20s would be higher-than-average damage, but you were expecting higher damage and the extra isn't as big a change from the mean.

Obviously, change like this would require a lot of other things to be carefully balanced to make everything work. Critical hits, for example, might be replaced entirely by this rule, but I can still see a role for them depending on how everything is implemented. Similarly, talents, feats, etc. would have to be designed with the knowledge that a bonus to hit is also a bonus to damage.

So, what to do you think?

The rippling effects of this change would cause far too many disruptions in the normal operation of the game for this to be worthwhile. If this were put to a vote, I would absolutely vote no.

You could be right, but at the very least this is worth exploring to see what it does. (Among other things I've noticed, it makes cross-genre changes easier to absorb because you're not doubling damage on a critical hit -- the difference between a blaster doing 3d8 and a longsword doing 1d8 + Str becomes a lot bigger with the old crit system, but this one helps to bring them comparatively closer.)

I like the idea of having base damage - without rolling. Saves time.

My only concern is that doing the math to determine the amount by which you exceed the AC might be a bit time consuming. Less math, more play I say.

True, subtracting is a little slower for most people than is adding, so this might be a bit slower.

One possibility would be to have the extra damage kick in at different tiers:

• Attack >= Defense by 0 to 4: Base damage
• Attack >= Defense by 5 to 9: Base damage +5
• Attack >= Defense by 10 to 14: Base damage +10
• Attack >= Defense by 15 to 19: Base damage +15
• Attack >= Defense by 20 to 24: Base damage + 20
• ad infinitum

This would change the average damage per hit by exactly 2 points, so that's any easy adjustment to make (i.e. we could put either version in the main rules and present the alternate version as a simple plug-and-play optional rule in a sidebar). The slightly lower damage overall would also help to satisfy some of Kaldaen's objections, above.

I think I like this one a little better than the original concept because (1) almost anyone can easily subtract in multiples of 5 and 10 and (2) it would dovetail nicely with having tiered effects of non-damage-dealing talents and such (e.g. charm effects, etc.).

[Kaldaen]

This probably sounds funny, but I'm very happy to encounter some solid opposition on this. At the very least, I want to flesh things out as much as possible, and thinking about objections helps us do that.

If the players are facing enemies of an appropriate challenge level, they'll be able to just barely hit the NPCs with a d20 roll of about 10 -- weaker enemies may take hits on lower rolls, stronger enemies may require slightly higher rolls, but the average minimum roll will be 10.

If a roll of 10 allows the player to equal an NPC's Defense score, then a roll of 19, using this proposed damage system, will deal 9 extra damage to the target. That's more damage than most weapons are likely to deal using a separate roll. With that much bonus damage possible on any given hit, what would have been a balanced encounter in any other d20 system could easily turn into a bloodbath.

True, but look at the chart I cooked up the other day:


I'm already assuming a much higher level of damage than in earlier d20-based games. When you're starting from scratch rather than worrying about compatibility with other games, you can set the hit point and damage standards at whatever levels work best for your design.

So on the chart, I see the Hit % column -- does that represent the player character's average chance to score a hit on a "normal" NPC? If that's what this is, then the PCs will score a hit on a roll of 6 or better, allowing for a possible 14 extra points of damage. Even when normal enemies have 25+ HP, they're not going to stick around very long, making things more challenging for the DM.

Speaking of challenges for the DM, if a 6 is all it takes to hit an NPC, then encounters are going to devolve into wave after wave of NPCs running headlong into the meat grinder that is the party. This removes any sense of challenge involving attack rolls, as the players eventually come to expect a hit, rather than treating enemies as potential threats. This may be fine for a Superhero-style game, but it won't work for grittier genres.

I can attest to this personally, because that's how encounters go when my group plays Star Wars Saga Edition. Every player character is so specialized in their chosen attack methods that they hit on very low rolls against "appropriate level" NPCs -- and by appropriate level, I mean enemies designed almost entirely with Heroic Levels. Non-Heroic enemies aren't even worth my time, or the players' time, and I suspect the same will happen with the "Ordinary" enemies mentioned on the chart. The weapon damage is so high that even heroic enemies are taken out in only a couple of hits, but damage is also highly variable, so some hits are extremely weak.

I would say this is a perfect example of a system that is not compatible with D&D, and starts from scratch in terms of HP allocation and damage calculation. It already suffers from the same damage variability problems that I mentioned, and that's without taking critical hits into account.

When I floated this idea to my players, one of them had a really good observation about it: It makes it where rolling a 19 actually means something -- normally, a high roll is actually a little disappointing because you feel like you almost rolled a critical hit but have nothing to show for it.

On the flip side, when an NPC is attacking your character, and the DM rolls a 19, you're likely thinking, "Whew! Thank goodness that didn't crit." A change like this is a double-edged sword. Now, that same NPC will be dealing a whole lot of extra damage to you with that 19. Any mechanic that allows you to deal more damage to NPC's will also allow them to deal more damage to your characters.

True, but it decreases randomness overall, and on balance that helps the PCs. Currently, a couple of lucky critical hits can devastate the PCs because they double damage; with the proposed change, those natural 20s would be higher-than-average damage, but you were expecting higher damage and the extra isn't as big a change from the mean.

If doubling damage on a critical hit is a problem, then why not just change that? D&D 4E grants you maximum weapon or ability damage. This removes the problem of NPCs built for average damage suddenly getting hit with double damage 5% of the time.

On the other hand, if the NPCs are designed with the expectation of higher damage, and the player characters have a streak of rolls where they "just hit" the enemy, combat will drag on and become less fun.

One question you haven't addressed is, if a 6 is all it takes for a player character to hit, how easy will it be for enemies to hit the player? If they, too, have a 75% chance to hit, then the players will be battered from all sides, digging into their Reserves early and often, and they will find that their characters are not able to handle as many encounters per day as they are hoping. This is the reverse of the problem I mentioned above -- this situation works for a grittier genre, but superheroes and heroic fantasy characters should be more resilient than this.

Both problems will occur at the same time, simultaneously removing any sense of challenge or accomplishment when attacking enemies, and creating a sense of futility when defending against them. There is a reason that the d20 norm of "hit on a 10" -- or a 50-55% chance to hit -- has been in use for so long, and why both HP and weapon damage are kept somewhat low.

One possibility would be to have the extra damage kick in at different tiers:

• Attack >= Defense by 0 to 4: Base damage
• Attack >= Defense by 5 to 9: Base damage +5
• Attack >= Defense by 10 to 14: Base damage +10
• Attack >= Defense by 15 to 19: Base damage +15
• Attack >= Defense by 20 to 24: Base damage + 20
• ad infinitum

This would change the average damage per hit by exactly 2 points, so that's any easy adjustment to make (i.e. we could put either version in the main rules and present the alternate version as a simple plug-and-play optional rule in a sidebar). The slightly lower damage overall would also help to satisfy some of Kaldaen's objections, above.

I think I like this one a little better than the original concept because (1) almost anyone can easily subtract in multiples of 5 and 10 and (2) it would dovetail nicely with having tiered effects of non-damage-dealing talents and such (e.g. charm effects, etc.).

Something tells me that this will still feel like consulting a table for every attack. And if my character is really capable of exceeding the enemy's Primary Defense by "20 to 24" then why am I even bothering to roll? That means that my bonus to attack rolls is already equal to or higher than the enemy's Defense, and I shouldn't even be facing it in an encounter.

I still don't think this is going to work out the way the supporters want. Higher chances to hit can be fun, higher damage per hit can be fun, but if you do both at once, mathematics causes things become a lot less fun.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Then my point of my table idea isn't getting through how I'm seeing it in my head.

My Table idea is identical to how your putting it, only my table doesn't change based on the targets defense...but my Table would only work if we were to work with the idea that Defenses offset Attack and subtract from the Attack roll. Basically, Defenses are Conditions that hamper the Attackers Action Roll from succeeding. The higher the Defense, the higher the penalty to hit with.

My Table idea is not a seperate table for each and every individual weapon or action. Thats just ludicrous. This is Not Rolemaster.

No, its a SINGLE Success Result Table for ALL actions in the game, based on the idea that person takes in the following forumla: Action Roll +/- Modifiers = Result, look on Table for Result Effect.

Modifiers = Skill Ranks, Ability Score Modifiers, Conditions, Target's Appropriate Defense (in this case, the Defense would be whatever the value is without the starting 10).

So, Let's say you have a character with a Sword skill of 5. Strength modifier of +3, for a total Sword skill of +8. Let's say we use Reflex as the target Defense for reflexive actions, now under current system this Reflex could be 17. In mine, its a 7.
.... Your +8 - targets Reflex of 7 = net +1. Make Roll, look on your Table ON your Character Sheet so its right there in front of you... Apply Result.

And of course everything for Attack and Damages is already figured (based on whatever formula is developed), so you don't have to constantly do on the spot math. It's already done for you.

It's virtually the same as Gary's idea where you have like a Defense of 17:
Attack Roll >= Defense (17), Base Damage
Attack Roll >= Defense +5 (22), Base Damage x2 (or +5) or whatever
Attack Roll >= Defense +10 (27), Base Damage x3 (or +10) or whatever
etc...

While good, relies on additional computations which are always on the spot, especially for DMs who might have like 4 different monsters with variable Defenses... I can go with it, but for me and I guess the way my mind works and thinks, this is taking the same system that we've had for years and just adding something on top of it that, while it adds an additional success element, compounds it in a way. Well, for me it does. I'd have to look at the stat block for the first few attacks of each seperate monster to compare their Defense to the Attack Roll to see by how much they succeeded by.

Idk, I guess in my mind the next step in the evolution of this system is to come up with a single, unifying structure that will work for all Actions and use the same table for Success Results. No different systems or tables for skills, or combat, or psionics or magic, everything works off the same Table. Pre-established so the ratios of the success possibilities don't change, you just use modifiers to your Action Roll. Your Critical hits are already built into the Table, its called a Superb Result, and you get that, you crush things into bloody, insignificant smears of former living things.

My idea is a bit more revolutionary, I know, but its easier and more streamlined.

The one thing it would need is a Conditional Modifier Chart for GM's something like this: (How in the world do you put charts and tables into these boards because typing them like this doesn't really look all that good?)
Action Difficulty / Modifier
Easy / +5
Average/ +0
Challenging / -5 (-2 to -7)
Hard / -10 (-8 to -12)
Difficult / -15 (-13 to -19)
Almost Impossible / -20 (-20+)

And go from there.... These condition modifiers is all a GM needs to way in the actions of the person doing the actions. If the character is trying to do something and the GM thinks its Hard for the average person, then its a -10 to the Action Roll (or pick in the range). Apply -10 to the Roll, look on Chart for Success Result. If you final roll is 9 or less, you fail. Get a final result of 2 or less, you Fumble. If you roll 10 or higher, you succeed. The different Results have different benefits of success. If you barely got it (Ordinary), then you barely passed with minimal effect... This is basically d20 as it has been for the last decade. If you get a Good result, then you do better than minimal effect, and so on up the chart. Get a Superb Result (your Critical Effect) then you did it so well that you get some serious kind of bonus.

This would provide an In game mechanic that allows people to gauge just how awesome or how badly they sucked with each action they perform. It provides every Skill, Power Effect, Combat Maneuvers... everything, with a Fumble result, and a Critical result...to me, this is awesome.

To me, unifying the game's action rolls to use a single success result chart for all actions in the game, would make running games a whole lot easier.

[JuggernAlz]

I think that GMSarli's chart is maxed out. I can read in a column "Best Att/Dam Bonus". So +7 at 1st level gives you a 75% of attack... but it is the best bonus you can get!

[GMSarli]

The 75% hit on that table is meant the represent the extreme upper end to player efficiency, and it's one of the different benchmarks I'm playing with, not necessarily the final version (i.e. I call it a "draft" for a reason ).

I've experimented with everything from 50% to 75% hit for someone who is extremely specialized in a given attack, and you get different trade-offs with each end of that range. On the one hand, you definitely don't want the "meat grinder" feel that you described; on the other, you don't want the non-specialist to lag too far behind the specialist.

Personally, I think setting the "specialist" just a bit above 50% is best, and I'm currently leaning toward 60-65%.

As for standard opponents vs. player characters, they hit a little less often; PCs are more the equivalent of "elite" opponents, having higher defenses than standard or ordinary opponents.

[JuggernAlz]

I am a ninja!

[JaredGaume]

I am with Gary on one aspect of not rolling damage.
Just thinking about whether I want to be shot by a gun or slashed by a sword, I think either option is horribly unappealing.
Under the current d20 paradigm I deffinately want to face a guy with a sword over a guy with a gun.
With the above expressed (no damage dice) system, a gun or a sword are equally unappealing to get hit by.


That said, using damage dice and Critical hits does provide a few interesting "toggles":

1. Differentiate ordinary, standard, and elite enemies.
* Ordinary enemies do flat damage and can't Crit out. (Faceless masses are a threat, will wear you down, but aren't going to insta-drop you).
* Standard enemies do normal damage and may or may not Crit out. (Normal people are not quite the same threat as a hero, but you do need to watch out for them).
* Elite enemies do normal damage and can Crit out. (Heroic and villainous characters are a unique threat, chance they can insta-drop you).

2. You have a higher peak damage output on Crits.
* Either because you do 2x damage;
* Or you do max damage + any bonus Crit damage.
* And normal damage reflects how well you connect.

3. Special training incentives or talents.
* Expanded Crit ranges (19-20 as opposed to 20).
* Masterful damage output (double melee weapon damage, for example).

[jazzencat]

What about static damage modified either by an attribute or by ammunition type/technology. If you hit person rolls to "soak" the damage. If they succeed it was minor and they are not impaired, if they fail, it wasn't minor and it has an effect on them. In a Gritty setting make the "soak" target harder to make, for heroic settings, easier. You can opt not to go down and take a semi-permanent or permanent feature (mangled nose, punctured lung)

Example: a punch in the face, they succeed on the "soak" roll and the result is a shiner. They fail it and they get KO. If they choose to ignore the KO they suffer a broken nose or something.

Another example: someone takes a mace to the ribs, they fail the soak roll they go down. If they don't want to go down (ignore the incapacitating effect) they suffer a punctured lung from a rib and take penalties for any combat action that take place after the first turn, until the damage is fixed and suffer penalties on subsequent soak rolls.

If you want to play a game where the fights are like in Batman or Spiderman or Dragonball then the soak targets are easy initially and have a shallow increment to becoming more difficult.

[Elsidar]

This probably sounds funny, but I'm very happy to encounter some solid opposition on this. At the very least, I want to flesh things out as much as possible, and thinking about objections helps us do that.

If the players are facing enemies of an appropriate challenge level, they'll be able to just barely hit the NPCs with a d20 roll of about 10 -- weaker enemies may take hits on lower rolls, stronger enemies may require slightly higher rolls, but the average minimum roll will be 10.

If a roll of 10 allows the player to equal an NPC's Defense score, then a roll of 19, using this proposed damage system, will deal 9 extra damage to the target. That's more damage than most weapons are likely to deal using a separate roll. With that much bonus damage possible on any given hit, what would have been a balanced encounter in any other d20 system could easily turn into a bloodbath.

True, but look at the chart I cooked up the other day:


I'm already assuming a much higher level of damage than in earlier d20-based games. When you're starting from scratch rather than worrying about compatibility with other games, you can set the hit point and damage standards at whatever levels work best for your design.

So on the chart, I see the Hit % column -- does that represent the player character's average chance to score a hit on a "normal" NPC? If that's what this is, then the PCs will score a hit on a roll of 6 or better, allowing for a possible 14 extra points of damage. Even when normal enemies have 25+ HP, they're not going to stick around very long, making things more challenging for the DM.

Speaking of challenges for the DM, if a 6 is all it takes to hit an NPC, then encounters are going to devolve into wave after wave of NPCs running headlong into the meat grinder that is the party. This removes any sense of challenge involving attack rolls, as the players eventually come to expect a hit, rather than treating enemies as potential threats. This may be fine for a Superhero-style game, but it won't work for grittier genres.

Kaldaen brings up some good points that I think are going largely ignored. Another problem of super-specialization resulting in hitting on a 6, especially with the attack roll yielding extra damage, is that whenever a GM decides he needs to boost the survivability of threats his players face, he's got one of two options:

• Boost Enemy Defenses: This will ensure that the enemies don't get hit as often, thus taking less damage over a certain period of time, and the combats become longer. However, this will also have the side effect of reducing the amount of damage characters can deal to these enemies, since their attack rolls are directly tied to how much damage they can dish out. This will make players, used to hitting level-appropriate threats quite easily, feel like they're being punished for building their characters effectively, and any combat which features threats that are harder to hit than normal will not only drag on, but will be points of contention within the group.
• Boost Enemy Hitpoints: Alternatively, the DM could just give the enemies an arbitrary amount of extra HP, thus necessitating more successful attacks to bring them down. The proper amount of extra HP is excessively hard to pin down, unfortunately; a rash of bad luck with the dice, even if the characters are still hitting the enemies, increases enemy survivability too much; without any extra high-attack-roll damage, and the combat will drag on and on.

Regardless of what the DM decides to do, the longer the enemies stay out on the field, the more often they'll have chances to hit the player characters. The more attacks they're allowed to make, the more likely it is that they'll get high rolls on players, and then player survivability becomes an issue. The players will then have to make character building choices similar to what the DM has had to do, only for the player, it's far less entertaining; any ability that increases HP and/or Defenses will become absolutely essential, leaving no room for abilities that do anything else.

When I floated this idea to my players, one of them had a really good observation about it: It makes it where rolling a 19 actually means something -- normally, a high roll is actually a little disappointing because you feel like you almost rolled a critical hit but have nothing to show for it.

On the flip side, when an NPC is attacking your character, and the DM rolls a 19, you're likely thinking, "Whew! Thank goodness that didn't crit." A change like this is a double-edged sword. Now, that same NPC will be dealing a whole lot of extra damage to you with that 19. Any mechanic that allows you to deal more damage to NPC's will also allow them to deal more damage to your characters.

True, but it decreases randomness overall, and on balance that helps the PCs. Currently, a couple of lucky critical hits can devastate the PCs because they double damage; with the proposed change, those natural 20s would be higher-than-average damage, but you were expecting higher damage and the extra isn't as big a change from the mean.

This kinda reminds me of Mutants & Masterminds and True20's combat system, and not in a good way.

In True20/MM, damage was something a defender had to save against if his attacker managed to make a successful attack. Weapons were listed as having different static "Damage Save" modifiers. Unfortunately, the weapons became extremely same-y; the +3 to Damage Save you got from your longsword was the same +3 you got from a whole bunch of other weapons, with little else to distinguish them from one another. It was especially troubling in MM, since all the attacks you could make were crafted yourself. If you didn't have the highest possible Damage Save modifier, it was a weak attack that would rarely see use and would feel like a waste of character points before too long.

Because of this, combats devolved into rolling to hit, and hoping the enemy failed his Damage save against your attack. With this proposed damage system, it just removes the uncertainty of the damage save; I roll to hit, and hope that my static damage has finally dropped the enemy. This mindset will probably get worse if the characters know exactly how many hitpoints a particular threat posesses; the party will pile on as many to-hit bonuses onto the guy with the highest attack bonus and the hardest-hitting attack and then have him whomp on the bad guys until they're dead.

Every. Single. Combat.

With such a formulaic approach to fighting, combat itself becomes kind of a moot point, and the conflict that makes playing the game fun is lost.

One possibility would be to have the extra damage kick in at different tiers:

• Attack >= Defense by 0 to 4: Base damage
• Attack >= Defense by 5 to 9: Base damage +5
• Attack >= Defense by 10 to 14: Base damage +10
• Attack >= Defense by 15 to 19: Base damage +15
• Attack >= Defense by 20 to 24: Base damage + 20
• ad infinitum

This would change the average damage per hit by exactly 2 points, so that's any easy adjustment to make (i.e. we could put either version in the main rules and present the alternate version as a simple plug-and-play optional rule in a sidebar). The slightly lower damage overall would also help to satisfy some of Kaldaen's objections, above.

I think I like this one a little better than the original concept because (1) almost anyone can easily subtract in multiples of 5 and 10 and (2) it would dovetail nicely with having tiered effects of non-damage-dealing talents and such (e.g. charm effects, etc.).

Something tells me that this will still feel like consulting a table for every attack. And if my character is really capable of exceeding the enemy's Primary Defense by "20 to 24" then why am I even bothering to roll? That means that my bonus to attack rolls is already equal to or higher than the enemy's Defense, and I shouldn't even be facing it in an encounter.

I still don't think this is going to work out the way the supporters want. Higher chances to hit can be fun, higher damage per hit can be fun, but if you do both at once, mathematics causes things become a lot less fun.

I see a solution to these problems, however. Taking 4E's weapon table as a base, each weapon has a bunch of properties; proficiency bonus, damage, weapon category, and weapon properties. We can ignore proficiency bonuses; the way Gary's skill system works, they're redundant. The key to making high d20 rolls that aren't quite criticals could lie in the weapon categories and/or their properties.

If an attack roll beats your target's defense by 5 or more, you gain an extra advantage against that target. For some exmples:

• Heavy Blade: Target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
• Light Blade: You deal extra damage equal to your <Chosen Ability> modifier.
• Hammer/Mace: Target is slowed until the end of your next turn.
• Spear/Polearm: Target is pushed one square.

Some of these might be really powerful, but they're just illustrating a point; basic magical/psionic/supernatural attacks could also have similar benefits. This way, a high attack roll gets you something other than "almost-a-crit" without having to look up a chart. Removing attack charts was one of the single best innovations of d20, and they should stay dead and gone. With attacks being such basic actions, a chart should never be necessary to determine their results.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

I see a solution to these problems, however. Taking 4E's weapon table as a base, each weapon has a bunch of properties; proficiency bonus, damage, weapon category, and weapon properties. We can ignore proficiency bonuses; the way Gary's skill system works, they're redundant. The key to making high d20 rolls that aren't quite criticals could lie in the weapon categories and/or their properties.

If an attack roll beats your target's defense by 5 or more, you gain an extra advantage against that target. For some exmples:

• Heavy Blade: Target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
• Light Blade: You deal extra damage equal to your <Chosen Ability> modifier.
• Hammer/Mace: Target is slowed until the end of your next turn.
• Spear/Polearm: Target is pushed one square.

Some of these might be really powerful, but they're just illustrating a point; basic magical/psionic/supernatural attacks could also have similar benefits. This way, a high attack roll gets you something other than "almost-a-crit" without having to look up a chart. Removing attack charts was one of the single best innovations of d20, and they should stay dead and gone. With attacks being such basic actions, a chart should never be necessary to determine their results.

My idea resolves all those issues into a single mechanic.

Your using a Heavy Blade, lets say its base damage is 7. You make your roll. Depending on how well you succeed, you can maybe have the following Success Results -
Fumble - drop weapon
Fail - miss
Average Result - basic hit: do basic damage
Good Result - good hit: do basic damage and target takes -1 penalty to action rolls till end of next turn.
Excellent Result - excellent hit: do basic damage x2 and target takes -2 penalty to action rolls till end of next turn.
Superb Result - superior hit: do basic damage x3 and target takes -4 penalty to action rolls till end of next turn.

Having a built in system of Success Results is something this game needs. This is way better than how its been for the last decade.

[Prom]

It's a clever idea and would speed up the game, but many of my players like rolling damage.

The problem I find is when they have to roll more than one dice to do damage.

I would prefer rolling 1d8 x 3 for a Blaster rifle than 3d8 for damage. The only problem is that if you roll baddly it affects your total damage score. A roll of 1 gets you a total of 3 damage, pretty sucky. The problem gets worse with starship weapons and damage for these weapons needs to be more stream lined.

Another option could be to have as an example, a Blaster rifle do 1d8+8 damage as a standard roll.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

It's a clever idea and would speed up the game, but many of my players like rolling damage.

The problem I find is when they have to roll more than one dice to do damage.

I would prefer rolling 1d8 x 3 for a Blaster rifle than 3d8 for damage. The only problem is that if you roll baddly it affects your total damage score. A roll of 1 gets you a total of 3 damage, pretty sucky. The problem gets worse with starship weapons and damage for these weapons needs to be more stream lined.

Another option could be to have as an example, a Blaster rifle do 1d8+8 damage as a standard roll.

Have a simle conversion chart sort of, like:

Base Damage / Die Code
3 / 1d4
4 / 1d6
5 / 1d8
6 / 1d10
7 / 1d12
8 / 2d6
9 / 2d8
10 / 3d6
11 / 2d10
12 / 3d8
13 / 4d6

I mean, it can be tweaked, but its something that can be put in a sidebar. I was trying to maintain the averages of the Basee Damage with the Die Code.

[Kaldaen]

My idea resolves all those issues into a single mechanic.

Your using a Heavy Blade, lets say its base damage is 7. You make your roll. Depending on how well you succeed, you can maybe have the following Success Results -
Fumble - drop weapon
Fail - miss
Average Result - basic hit: do basic damage
Good Result - good hit: do basic damage and target takes -1 penalty to action rolls till end of next turn.
Excellent Result - excellent hit: do basic damage x2 and target takes -2 penalty to action rolls till end of next turn.
Superb Result - superior hit: do basic damage x3 and target takes -4 penalty to action rolls till end of next turn.

Having a built in system of Success Results is something this game needs. This is way better than how its been for the last decade.

The reason you're getting so much resistance to this "degrees of success" idea is simple -- charts are not fun. The overwhelming trend of d20-based games is to eliminate as much cross-referencing as possible, and let the number on the die and the sum of your bonuses speak for themselves. It was bad enough when problem was found mainly in limited-situation abilities like Turn Undead in 3.5 -- forcing players to consult a chart on every action will be intolerable.

There have already been multiple suggestions for allowing for extra effects if the attack beats the relevant Defense by 5 or more. I would prefer that this be a benefit of higher-level talents, rewarding a character for specialization in a particular ability. This would still make high, non-20 rolls meaningful, but it is free of the most critical drawback of your proposal -- it won't slow down the game. This should be the most important factor to consider when evaluating new ideas: Will this facilitate the resolution of actions, or hinder it? If a mechanic hinders resolution unnecessarily, then it needs to be left on the cutting room floor.

Simply put, this proposal to apply a "result table" to all actions does not streamline anything, and in fact makes every aspect of the game more cumbersome. It is not better than previous editions of the game, and is most certainly not needed.