D&D 5E Attacks always "Hit"

[Blue]

I support degrees of success and failure, but I don't really want anything that straight increases PC power.

It has an advantage (melee weapon PCs doa bit more damage) and an offsetting detriment (melee attack foes - which is a very common category - do more damage to PCs). It's likely a net penalty to the PCs because of how common foes with melee attacks are, and at best is even.

EDIT: Please also remember the context of the thread - it's about always hitting. If there are issues with that in general, air them in a more inclusive way then targetting at one proposal.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

would you also include this for monsters and NPCs?

 

[DND_Reborn]

The system I was going for more or less had the players contributing to the fight and not feeling like dead weight because their character keeps missing.

It would be about degrees of success rather than you succeeded or failed. Everyone still contributes. After all missing your target's AC and doing nothing is equivalent to skipping your turn, at least mechanically.

Sorry I didn't read this before.

So, I hope you found my thread here? It deals with the concept of attacking a bit differently than what you want.

D&D 5E - Removing Attack Rolls -- and maybe more? (Game Design / Theory Discussion)

Reviewing articles on Bounded Accuracy made me question how well it was working given its purpose in the design of 5E but also made me think about pushing it further in some respects. I find it interesting that this was considered a solution to the treadmill effect of attack bonuses and AC...

www.enworld.org

Anyway, it also depends on if you still want a chance to miss at all? Like natural 1's? I like the idea that hitting AC 10 means you hit something and should deal some damage. Maybe minimum damage (no roll)? But if you aren't even hitting AC 10, well then you missed completely.

 

[ElPsyCongroo]

would you also include this for monsters and NPCs?

I believe in equal treatment by the system for monsters, NPCs and PCs

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

In my system, which isn't that similar to DND so some translation required, the start point of an effect that hurts you is that you gain Xd6 fatigue, which is analogous to taking damage. You can then make an active defense check to reduce that fatigue by Yd6. If you roll well enough, you might eliminate all the fatigue, though some effects might give too much fatigue compared to your skills for that to be possible.

 

[ElPsyCongroo]

I think you need to make certain anything you add will have enough impact to balance with the time factor you'll be adding with extra dice rolls.

Also, what are you currently envisioning? Knowing that would help give us an idea of what you might want to add.

Sorry I didn't read this before.

So, I hope you found my thread here? It deals with the concept of attacking a bit differently than what you want.

D&D 5E - Removing Attack Rolls -- and maybe more? (Game Design / Theory Discussion)

Reviewing articles on Bounded Accuracy made me question how well it was working given its purpose in the design of 5E but also made me think about pushing it further in some respects. I find it interesting that this was considered a solution to the treadmill effect of attack bonuses and AC...

www.enworld.org

Thanks I'll take a read of that thread soon. Well if I were to say how I'd make it work.

A miss in this instance would instead be a poor hit dealing minimal damage to a target's HP.

I'd also take on the idea of Armour as Damage Reduction, because without the To Hit Roll and AC in general, its now feasible as an abstract system but no matter how much you reduce damage via DR, minimal damage will still be done, for example you could say it reduces effort spent to avoid a blow.

Exploding Dice would be integral to add an element of swinginess to the system without reducing contribution.

Removing the "To Hit" roll makes it more abstract if anything. After all as people continue to say whenever you mention the idea of changing anything to do with it, HP is an abstract element of the game.

 

[ElPsyCongroo]

In my system, which isn't that similar to DND so some translation required, the start point of an effect that hurts you is that you gain Xd6 fatigue, which is analogous to taking damage. You can then make an active defense check to reduce that fatigue by Yd6. If you roll well enough, you might eliminate all the fatigue, though some effects might give too much fatigue compared to your skills for that to be possible.

I like that, Fatigue gives a sense of effort being afforded to avoid danger without a need to be too abstract about it. Active defence checks would definitely be an ideal method of placing the ball in the Player's court.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I like that, Fatigue gives a sense of effort being afforded to avoid danger without a need to be too abstract about it. Active defence checks would definitely be an ideal method of placing the ball in the Player's court.

Yeah, we are working out the details still, because we have iterated afew times, but it's a good system so far.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

Removing a roll then having to add another roll "to make it interesting" doesn't sound like a great plan to me.

If you want to remove randomness in attacks, I'd use averages i.e. as if a result of 10 was rolled, which is the same as what you do with passive checks. Advantage and disadvantage would be the usual +5/-5 as in passive checks. Then you can either keep the damage randomness, or remove that one as well, like per the option already given for monsters in the MM.

If you want to retain randomness, but still prefer not to roll to hit, you can roll "defense" instead of using static AC, which in fact is calculated from a base value of 10. Replace that 10 with a d20 roll: a regular character would roll a defense of d20 + Dex modifier + armor bonus + shield bonus. The armor bonus is derived from the armor's AC in the PHB minus 10. So instead of rolling an attack against static AC, you roll defense against a static attack DC which is 10 plus all the usual attack bonuses.

I can imagine a group also using both options at the same time if the players like rolling dice as much as possible: PCs roll attacks vs static AC (as usual), and roll defense vs static attacks done against them.

 

[The Old Crow]

I played with the idea that melee attacks always did some some damage. But remember that HPs include fatigue, using up "luck", etc.

I basically had that that at range and with spells, it was as normal for 5e. For melee weapon attacks (or whatever the appropriate words are to include natural attacks and such but not spells) it was "graze" (below AC), "solid hit" (AC and up) and "critical hit" (natural 20). Graze did half damage and didn't trigger anything else that required a hit, like a condition or a divine smite.

It made melee both more dangerous and more rewarding.

(Oh, this was also in conjuction with giving CON score bonus HPs at 1st level.)

This would be an excellent version of "Reckless Attack". It could be a stance that trained melee fighters could go into.