[Points of Light] Static Damage an Improvement?

[C4]

Both it is, then.

 

[MarkB]

One compromise option that might work would be to extend static damage to all 'standard' enemies (soldiers, controllers etc.), and reserve rolled damage for elites and solos.

 

[the Jester]

One compromise option that might work would be to extend static damage to all 'standard' enemies (soldiers, controllers etc.), and reserve rolled damage for elites and solos.

Nah- that's a compromise that is unlikely to make anyone happy.

Having both values solves the issue; those of us who want quick resolution have the average available, while those of us who love rolling dice get to roll our dice.

 

[Jhaelen]

I would approve!

 

[Sunseeker]

Not really. I like the variability. Getting rid of dice-based NPC damage gets rid of the ability for an NPC to hit you with a good hit, or a bad hit. Every hit is the same.

Likewise, this can also be taken advantage of by the players.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Likewise, this can also be taken advantage of by the players.

Unless players can control attack rolls and number of monsters, that's not really true. Really good hits are still represented by critical hits (there, rolling would be appropriate, though, I find).

What it does, however, is making damage a bit less interesting, but it means other effects are becoming more interesting.

 

[Sunseeker]

Unless players can control attack rolls and number of monsters, that's not really true. Really good hits are still represented by critical hits (there, rolling would be appropriate, though, I find).

What it does, however, is making damage a bit less interesting, but it means other effects are becoming more interesting.

I disagree on both counts.

Knowing exactly what damage will be makes it easier to account for. If the skeleton hits for 5 damager always, there's never a question of if we need to use weak defensive spell or strong defensive spell, its always the same one. There's never a concern that the next hit might drop you unless your health is less than its attack. In removing variance, it literally removes variables, imo, it takes the "edge" off of combat.

Crits are, IMO, too rare to be significant, unless we add some skill or stat that regularly improves critical chance, which I find unlikely.

To your second point, it does not make secondary effects more interesting. It puts more demand on them to be interesting, yes, but that is no guarantee that they will be. It becomes even more drab when they are not. As well, I feel that simplicity in secondary effects is superior to "cool". I do a great deal of work in my 4e games to draw down the complexity secondary effects often bring.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Knowing exactly what damage will be makes it easier to account for. If the skeleton hits for 5 damager always, there's never a question of if we need to use weak defensive spell or strong defensive spell, its always the same one. There's never a concern that the next hit might drop you unless your health is less than its attack. In removing variance, it literally removes variables, imo, it takes the "edge" off of combat.

That logic holds, too, if you use the maximum damage to estimate your resilience: "There's never a concern that the next hit might drop you unless your health is less than its maximum damage."

 

[pemerton]

That logic holds, too, if you use the maximum damage to estimate your resilience: "There's never a concern that the next hit might drop you unless your health is less than its maximum damage."

That's true, but maybe the thought is that more of the game is spent in states in which gambling on variable damage is viable, whereas less would be spent in states in which these fixed thresholds matter.

That said, I'm not sure I personally have a preference. Once upon a time I was a religious roll-for-hp guy, and now I'm not. I'd probably cope with a move to static damage (a la minions, 13th Age etc) with the attack roll plus effects (which can themselves include variable damage via OG damage) contributing the variance.

 

[Jhaelen]

I mostly think it's a good idea because you can get rid of a die roll. Ideally, I'd like the attack roll and the damage roll to be combined, i.e. the degree of success determines the amount of damage dealt. In its minimal form you'd have: rolling the pc's defense value deals minimum damage, a 20 deals critical (maximum) damage, everything inbetween deals average damage. In its optimal form damage would increase linearly over the entire range of successful hits. It's just hard to do without much calculation.