D&D 5E Attacks always "Hit"

[ElPsyCongroo]

Removing the roll to Hit is something thats been covered before but what would you add to make it interesting on a per character basis, Ability Checks? Like a Dex save to reduce damage dealt to HP? And how would you handle Conditions that normally would grant adavntage/disadvantage?

 

[Horwath]

Having max HP per HD would counter nice the removal of miss chance on attack rolls.

Armor/cover could be damage reduction

Advantage is max damage

disadvantage is min damage

Bless could add bonus to damage. +1d8 damage instead of +1d4 on attack.

 

[ElPsyCongroo]

Having max HP per HD would counter nice the removal of miss chance on attack rolls.

Armor/cover could be damage reduction

Advantage is max damage

disadvantage is min damage

Bless could add bonus to damage. +1d8 damage instead of +1d4 on attack.

I was thinking of keeping Adavantage and Disadvantage of being mechanically the same but making it binary will streamline things.

Bless being a 1d4 damage increase would still be very effective, 1d8 would make it equivalent to a Smite.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Working with @Horwath's idea, the use of a shield (equipment and spell) could allow one a reaction to parry one attack (either negate 1 attack altogether or reduce damage).

 

[Oofta]

Nothing? It wouldn't make any sense to me. Why bother investing anything in defense at all? Why would anyone wear armor?

There are only so many options. Either you can counter damage somehow, but then the design of several monsters is broken because some monsters to a lot of damage with a single hit or two while others do similar damage spread across multiple hits.

I could see reducing damage from one hit, but not negating which runs into the big hit vs multiple hit issue. How effectively you do this could vary, with shield wearers deflecting more than people that use other means. But then you'll just see more dex based PCs picking up shield proficiency somehow and guys running around in plate (which should deflect most damage) at a relative disadvantage. It also runs into the issue of complexity and drawing out combat.

I don't think there's a great way to model combat realistically that works all that much better than what we have.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Mork Borg's you-always-hit approach works well for it, because that's a very rules-lite game. I don't think that would work for something like 5e. Too many moving pieces, including potential feat/gear interactions that might exploit the mechanic too hard.

 

[James Gasik]

The issue isn't really that we roll to determine if we can damage an enemy, but that it's defined as a "to hit" roll in the first place. If I have a Dex of 8 and am wearing plate armor, when you attack, almost assuredly you hit something.

What you're actually rolling for is to see if you meaningfully bypassed my defenses. That's why Strength adds to hit, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to make any sense on it's face.

It's a pretty arbitrary system, overall, Armor Class and Hit Points, neither of which precisely mean what you might think they mean, but are an aggregate of a lot of factors. This ambiguity allows you to describe the resolution of attacks and the subsequent hit point loss in a wide variety of ways.

Maybe your attack penetrated my armor and now I have a vicious wound. Or maybe you slammed into me and knocked the wind out of me momentarily, and I can fight on. Maybe you struck my armor, but I turned at the right moment and the attack veered off. Or maybe you really did miss (but this isn't the default result, despite the terminology used)!

 

[Grendel_Khan]

The issue isn't really that we roll to determine if we can damage an enemy, but that it's defined as a "to hit" roll in the first place. If I have a Dex of 8 and am wearing plate armor, when you attack, almost assuredly you hit something.

This is spot on, and leads to some of my least favorite RPG interactions: You only rolled a 14 against that enemy's insanely high AC? Oopsie, you whiffed! In theory a DM is supposed to be contextualizing every attack roll, but in practice that's a slog, so the default is just hit or miss.

 

[James Gasik]

Personally, I would probably leave it up to the players to describe what's happening when they attack or miss. Especially for weapon users for whom that's basically all that they do.

If I find the roleplay impressive, I can toss them a goodie like Inspiration or something. This makes the concept of a "wasted turn" when you roll a 1 more of an opportunity.

 

[Oofta]

If I describe a miss, the description depends on numerous factors. Miss by a significant amount? You whiffed. Missed by a small amount? If it's a creature depending on armor the blow bounces off. If the creature depends on dex, the target twists at the last moment and you only make a minor cut on their clothing but draw no blood.

I don't think there's a particularly good way to model attacks and misses. There are simply too many variables when you have to account for attacking everything from someone who's dodging out of your way to blows that miss the gap in the armor to fighting something twice the size of an elephant that doesn't care that you just stabbed it's toenail.