Alternate Accuracy Mechanics

[I'm A Banana]

So the idea of a to-hit roll is firmly embedded in D&D, but I've been futzing around a lot with a system where the roll to hit isn't in play: if you want to do damage on your turn, you do it.

This works very well most of the time, and I do enjoy it overall.

But there are a few things I want to keep from a d20-roll-to-hit system: the ability for some attacks to "miss" or "crit" is pretty neat, and can distinguish types of characters (evasive or accurate characters, for instance).

How might you keep these kinds of elements, in a system where (almost) every hit is automatic?

Brainstorm!

 

[FunkBGR]

First idea I had -

Allows players to declare an attack against them 'misses'. However, every time they do this, it gives the opposition a token. The opposition can spend two tokens to declare an attack as a 'crit'. Adjust the token expenditure up and down for lethality of crits in the system.

In order to prevent complete gamism by the players, you could also award everyone, including the opposition, a token at 'breakpoints' in the story.

 

[kitsune9]

Interesting.

If you have one system where if player A wants to automatically do damage while player B has to roll for missing or critting, what situations call for this?

Secondly, part of the drama of any game is that you will miss when you desperately need to hit (or be missed by the BBG), or that you will crit when you desperately need it as well (or be critted). What mechanics will replace that experience or create similar tension?

 

[howandwhy99]

I take it you mean removing die rolls?

Gut reaction says: pay to play. Pay a cost to make a hit, pay more to crit. The opponent might pay to make you miss ore even fumble. You can do a simultaneous reveal or turn taking or however you want.

 

[Minigiant]

Pick your numbers.

Basically you have the array of "dice" prerolled 1 to 20 or critical hit to critical miss. So if you want a a crit, just pick it. But you can't pick it again until you pick every other number/option. So that critical miss/natural 1 is sitting there and you have to choose it sooner or later.

 

[steenan]

Everybody starts combat with a number of tokens and get a number of tokens every round (these numbers may be dependent on characters' stats).

Each round, everybody declares an action and secretly bids a number of tokens. When two actions oppose, the one with more tokens succeeds and the other fails; equal number of tokens means that both succeed partially. Which actions oppose must be detailed in the rules, of course.
When one successfully attacks, the damage is based on the margin of success (eg. sword deals 5 damage + 2 for every token over the opposition).

This way, there are no dice and players have total control over their "luck", but there is still an element of uncertainty because of the hidden bids.

One may introduce some additional options to make the conflict more tactical.
Maybe you can declare a complex action, but it is treated as if it had less tokens bid (eg. if I want to detect the hidden enemy, charge him and attack, I need to use 3 tokens more than my opponent to be successful).
Or maybe you always use tokens in two different colors, to represent attack (trying to change the situation somehow, in general) and defense (interfering with opponent's actions).

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

You might be interested in Greg Stolze's In Spaaace! It uses tokens and a bidding system. Might be worth mining for ideas. And it's both totally hilarious and free.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Part of the feel that I want to preserve is the idea of it happening unexpectedly, by chance, rather than being planned and placed. So the bidding/points/selection systems are interesting, but I need something that preserves randomness a bit better -- if they can predict it, it's a lot less fun!

The system I have now has a damage roll, where, depending on your power, you roll d4 to d12. Part of the issue with this one is that any system that relies on a "random chance" of happening, that can happen on the d4, is LESS likely to happen on the d12. If I say "Okay, if you roll maximum, it's a crit!" the d4 will crit 25% of the time, but the d12 only about 8% of the time. And I still want to involve the d4 in it. Also, any number that's going to come up on a d4 is going to be a LOT more common than any current crit is.

Still mulling this over...hmm....

 

[ggroy]

If one is willing to modify how AC and other defenses function, one can have a system where armor/shields "soak up" damage.

For example, an +X armor "soaks" up the first X points of damage from melee attacks where armor is relevant. So if an attacker does less than or equal to X points of damage, the target doesn't lose any hit points.

If armor is not relevant in an attack (such as some spells against Fortitude, Reflix, or Will in 4E D&D), then there would be nothing to "soak up" such damage by default. Something which could "soak up" damage against "fortitude", "reflex", or "will" type attacks, could be provided by spells and/or magic items/armor.

For such a system, the question is how exactly would it scale up with level.

 

[1Mac]

The system I have now has a damage roll, where, depending on your power, you roll d4 to d12. Part of the issue with this one is that any system that relies on a "random chance" of happening, that can happen on the d4, is LESS likely to happen on the d12.

Then you don't want a relative scale, which changes depending on what die you roll. Assume that d6 is the smallest die. Instead of "max damage" or "minimum damage", just say that, for example, a miss occurs on a 1-3, a hit on a 4-9, a critical on a 10-12.

Allow circumstantial or power-based modifiers to the damage roll to increase the likelihood (or allow the possibility, in the case of d6 or d8 attacks) of a critical. Sneak attacks could work this way, for example.

If you were inclined, you could get really fiddly and have a different outcome for each result 1-12 (or higher, if you consider modifiers).