MacDhomnuill
Explorer
I was responding to the quoted text not the video.
ATTACK! MCDM's new rpg and removing the to-hit roll
rmcoen
Adventurer
Y'all have diverged a lot from the discussion idea of "removing the to-hit roll".
I feel like basing melee off the combatants' comparative skill level makes sense, while ranged combat is based almost entirely on the shooter's skill level (with maybe a little modifier for the target's dodging activity). But even there I look at "compare the skills involved" as "make a to hit roll", just dressed up differently. And if the "roll" involved is based on skill, then you minimize the potential importance of the weapon. If "difference between my attack and your defense is base damage, plus X" (on d20s), then either the X has to be huge to be meaningful, or the difference between a dagger and a greataxe is easily overwhelmed by a wide spread on the dice.
The other ideas I've seen mentioned on here - like rolling multiple kinds of dice, based on skill and weapon and (insert other factor here) might make that a little different, though. If your skill gives you two to four d6s, and then you add the weapon's damage die as well (or a "damage die" based on the defender's shield), then I could see weapons having a larger impact... and daggers never being used.
I like the idea that a dagger can be as deadly as a greataxe in the skilled combatant's hands, but I also like there being a good reason to use different weapons (which 5e doesn't have, admittedly, but 3.5e did). Finding/building a combat system that makes both skill and weapon choice impactful without bogging things down though - especially for that one player at each table that takes 30 seconds to add up his modifiers FOR EACH ROLL (despite being written on the character sheet) - seems like an unachievable Holy Grail. It seems like you need to focus on just one aspect ("Skill" or "Weapon") to keep the streamline. the Greataxe outperforms the dagger in a "you only hit if you do more damage than the armor" system; the dagger is just as useful as the greataxe in a "I have more skill" (or "I am luckier with dice!") system.
Every time I think I have a system that does both, my players inform me "this is better run by a computer, to do all the math and fiddliness." (Pillars of Eternity comes to mind, with weapons modifying attack speed, bonus/penalty against certain armors, different skills modifying different weapon and armor effects... and in the end, I took the weapon and armor that looked cooler in my head, and ignored the modifers.)
I love the distinction in the mecha game Heavy Gear between "talent" (a plus on the d6 roll) and "experience" (rolling multiple d6s, hoping one meets the Targe Number). The young gun prodigy with d6+2 makes that TN 4 shot most of the time, but sometimes misses; the veteran with 3d6 almost never misses - one of those d6s is always 4 or higher - but that TN 7 shot requires 3 "6s" to pull off while the prodigy hits it 1in3. (yeah, sorry, that's a tangent again, because it's a hit roll, then damage, system.)
I feel like basing melee off the combatants' comparative skill level makes sense, while ranged combat is based almost entirely on the shooter's skill level (with maybe a little modifier for the target's dodging activity). But even there I look at "compare the skills involved" as "make a to hit roll", just dressed up differently. And if the "roll" involved is based on skill, then you minimize the potential importance of the weapon. If "difference between my attack and your defense is base damage, plus X" (on d20s), then either the X has to be huge to be meaningful, or the difference between a dagger and a greataxe is easily overwhelmed by a wide spread on the dice.
The other ideas I've seen mentioned on here - like rolling multiple kinds of dice, based on skill and weapon and (insert other factor here) might make that a little different, though. If your skill gives you two to four d6s, and then you add the weapon's damage die as well (or a "damage die" based on the defender's shield), then I could see weapons having a larger impact... and daggers never being used.
I like the idea that a dagger can be as deadly as a greataxe in the skilled combatant's hands, but I also like there being a good reason to use different weapons (which 5e doesn't have, admittedly, but 3.5e did). Finding/building a combat system that makes both skill and weapon choice impactful without bogging things down though - especially for that one player at each table that takes 30 seconds to add up his modifiers FOR EACH ROLL (despite being written on the character sheet) - seems like an unachievable Holy Grail. It seems like you need to focus on just one aspect ("Skill" or "Weapon") to keep the streamline. the Greataxe outperforms the dagger in a "you only hit if you do more damage than the armor" system; the dagger is just as useful as the greataxe in a "I have more skill" (or "I am luckier with dice!") system.
Every time I think I have a system that does both, my players inform me "this is better run by a computer, to do all the math and fiddliness." (Pillars of Eternity comes to mind, with weapons modifying attack speed, bonus/penalty against certain armors, different skills modifying different weapon and armor effects... and in the end, I took the weapon and armor that looked cooler in my head, and ignored the modifers.)
I love the distinction in the mecha game Heavy Gear between "talent" (a plus on the d6 roll) and "experience" (rolling multiple d6s, hoping one meets the Targe Number). The young gun prodigy with d6+2 makes that TN 4 shot most of the time, but sometimes misses; the veteran with 3d6 almost never misses - one of those d6s is always 4 or higher - but that TN 7 shot requires 3 "6s" to pull off while the prodigy hits it 1in3. (yeah, sorry, that's a tangent again, because it's a hit roll, then damage, system.)
On the tangential topic, here are chances to miss:
| TN | d6+2 | 3d6, choose best |
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 in 216 |
| 3 | 0 | 1 in 27 |
| 4 | 1 in 6 | 1 in 8 |
| 5 | 1 in 3 | 8 in 27 (almost 1 in 3) |
| 6 | 1 in 2 | 125 in 216 (more than 1 in 2) |
| 7 | 2 in 3 | 100% |
| 8 | 5 in 6 | 100% |
| 9 | 100% | 100% |
The veteran has a marginally greater chance than the prodigy against TN 4 and 5. Otherwise the prodigy is better, except for TNs 1 or 9+ where they are equally likely to hit/miss.
I don't think this models anything particularly well. It seems like two arbitrarily different probability spreads.
rmcoen
Adventurer
See, I have a player at my table that does this for me, too. Any time I need a statistical analysis, I hand it to Jon, and he quickly explains the math and actual consequences/impacts of the numbers/rules. So, pemerton, thank you for the analysis. My gut said the prodigy was generally the best choice - but I still liked the idea that "talent" and "experience" had different impacts. In 5e, that comes down to "Attribute Bonus" vs. "Proficiency Bonus"... but "talent" (+4 from an 18 score) is overwhelming, since "PB" comes from levels only [i.e. Heavy Gear is a point-buy system... the prodigy is pretty much never going to get another d6 to roll, whereas in 5e, everyone is going to get to increase attributes and levels both.]
Anyway, thanks again.
Tun Kai Poh
Hero
There are a few newer ones more recently too. It's been a while since I checked the latest update of Gubat Banwa, but I remember in one update when to-hit rolls were removed and it became straight-up damage rolls. And In the Time of Monsters does it too...
darjr
I crit!
I have to admit I’ve never heard of those but now I gotta go check.
Tun Kai Poh
Hero
I hope you enjoy going down the Gubat Banwa rabbit hole. It's a heck of a huge thing, mythic Southeast Asian island raiders and martial artists with D&D4e/Final Fantasy Tactics-inspired grid combat...
I like having an excuse to talk about my game so Ill take it here.
I mentioned in my initial reply here about "Momentum"; an exploding dice based mechanic that gives you "Boons" you can leverage for a number of benefits, and also handily runs the Durability system in probably the most painless way possible.
I think the value in the system is that Im able to exploit the nature of smaller die sizes in this system to give a counterbalance for "Light Weapons", like Daggers, against "Heavy Weapons", like a Maul.
Because smaller dice are more likely to Explode under the Exploding dice mechanic, having less raw damage is a trade off for being able to do more, ie, gain more momentum in a fight. That alone flips things heavily back towards the smaller die sizes and dice pools; if you're wanting Momentum, you want as many of the smallest dice you can get.
But then, this also gets combined with my take on the physical Damage types (blunt, piercing, slashing), which expands the 3 into 7 by using combinations of the 3 types as unique damage types unto themselves:
Blunt
Piercing
Slashing
Blunt/Piercing
Piercing/Slashing
Slashing/Blunt
Blunt/Slashing/Piercing
The 3 Pair damage types actually just split the total damage between the two types, and the Triple pairing is a unique one that applies only to swords (great, long, short), which all have the property Versatile, which lets the user deal out the 3 types at will in any amount.
While the 3 types are ultimately still simple, by making these pairings I am able to derive a number of unique status effects corresponding to these pairings. For instance, Axes are typically Slashing/Blunt weapons, and they can inflict the Laceration status effect, which combines the Bleed of Slashing (dealing the weapons damage die per round until healed), with the armor penetration of Blunt, resulting in a status effect that not only deals out the Bleed, but also applies that Bleed damage to any attack that connects with the victim.
Through this, Im able to counterbalance back towards heavy weapons, as status effects will be at their best the bigger the dice are.
And thats just the base level design that doesn't incorporate all the interesting things weapons and armor are going to be doing as a result of a robust and highly customizable Crafting system, which will not only drive even individual weapons to be hyper unique in their capabilities, but should also help diversify playstyles so that, as long as I keep everything in check, nothing is left as a "dead" option other than old, low level content, as it should be.
The key to all this is is that the actual math involved is quite low, especially during play, with the most effort you have to do being to simply add up your damage rolls. Everything else either keys off sight (you see a 6 on a d6) or is just 1 unit +/- (you invoke Momentum to deal more damage, add a tick to your Durability)
Overall it will be relatively involved to immerse into, but even now in the systems overall anemic state, once you're there it flows pretty wonderfully.
mamba
Legend
Does it? It always boils down to roughly 0.6 points more, doesn't it? So 3d6 will be better than 3d4, exploding or not.
I can see wanting say 6d4 over 4d6 (or whatever gets the same average without exploding), but unless you make it up in numbers...
aramis erak
Legend
those don't... 2.5×6=15, 4×3.5=14... the ranges are 6-24 vs 4-24... but 4d6+1 gives 5-25, average 15...
Similar Threads
