Damage Expressions

[77IM]

Since there's no "Page 42" in 5e, I did a little back-of-the-envelope math to figure out what sort of damage is fair and reasonable for "Improvisation" moves. This is what I'm using in my game, and I find it helpful, so I thought I'd share.

Typical Maneuver: 2d6: Most of the character's basic attacks have an expected damage that is close to the expected damage of 2d6. So to make a typical improvised maneuver worthwhile, it needs to do at least as much damage.

I'd allow any sort of reasonable trick to deal 2d6 damage with a simple contest of ability checks (I'd even let it crit on a 20, sure).

Good Maneuver: 4d6: The fighter's expected damage is very close to the expected damage of 4d6, so this should be possible with a maneuver too. Damage is the fighter's schtick, though, so we don't want other PCs trampling all over that by Improvising equivalent damage. So I'd reserve this for really clever and creative actions by the PCs, taking good advantage of the terrain, situation, lore, etc.

Excellent Maneuver: 6d6+: This is basically better than any attack the PCs can launch using the spells and weapons on their character sheets. So I'd only allow this much damage or more in rare situations, or when the PCs have really gone to extra effort to set up the maneuver (possibly requiring multiple rounds of Improvisation or a team effort). 6d6 damage is the equivalent of falling off a 60-foot cliff; most dungeon rooms don't have anything nearly that dangerous laying around in them.

Area Attack: Half as many damage dice: Sometimes the PCs think up some move to hurt multiple people, like causing an avalanche. I'd just cut the damage dice in half (so a "Good" move goes from 4d6 down to 2d6 as an area attack).

I'd use a saving throw DC of 10 + the PC's ability modifier, and if the maneuver was good enough I'd allow "miss half."

Push/Shove/Trip/Disarm/Grapple/Restrained: 1-3 fewer damage dice: Most of these fun little status-causing moves seem like they are "worth" about 2 dice to me. So a typical Improvisation maneuver (contest) could result in a foe being pushed or grappled or something; a "Good" maneuver could result in a push + 2d6 damage, or knock prone + 3d6 damage, or maybe a shove + restrained, or something. This is very situational based on what action the PC is describing.
​

This system lacks the precision of Page 42 but in my mind that's a good thing -- I'm aiming for guidelines quick enough to memorize but concrete enough to be a starting point so that when I'm DMing my brain doesn't lock up trying to figure out "what is appropriate damage for dropping a full cask of wine on top of a kobold's head?"

Let me know what you guys think or if you have your own guidelines for this kind of stuff!

-- 77IM

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I don't know.. I'd like to see improvisation offer benefits other than just dealing damage to be honest. A number of playtests have mentioned characters flipping tables for cover against archers, for instance. I also think there's legitimate reasons to want to knock an opponent over without necessarily doing damage - to help the Rogue for instance.

I dislike this sort of codification because it doesn't take into account the characters in any way - why should a Wizard do as much damage from a cool melee manoeuvre as a Fighter? Shouldn't the damage be based off of the action itself rather than who does it, or how clever it is? For instance, a move involving pots of oil and fire should just do damage based on burning/explosions. A fight in a dwarven forge might do more damage because of molten hot metal.

I understand the perception that players won't waste an action to do something cool because then they won't get to do their usual damage, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should assign damage outputs to clever actions.

 

[DogBackward]

A number of playtests have mentioned characters flipping tables for cover against archers, for instance.

But this is already covered in the rules, you don't need to specify a method to do it.
You flip a table, and it provides cover, as per the cover rules.

But when it comes to applying damage and conditions to enemies, it definitely helps to have a set of guidelines to use. DM's who are used to improvising will ignore them as needed, while DM's who don't want to let players do anything that the rules don't cover won't ruin a game, because now the rules cover improvised actions.

I dislike this sort of codification because it doesn't take into account the characters in any way - why should a Wizard do as much damage from a cool melee manoeuvre as a Fighter?

Shouldn't the damage be based off of the action itself rather than who does it, or how clever it is? For instance, a move involving pots of oil and fire should just do damage based on burning/explosions.

These two statements are contradictory. You can't say "The fighter should deal more damage with improvised attacks than the wizard." and then follow it up with "The same improvised attacks should do the same damage no matter who's using them."

I understand the perception that players won't waste an action to do something cool because then they won't get to do their usual damage, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should assign damage outputs to clever actions.

You're looking at it from the wrong direction. Obviously, you won't use a damage value if the player is attempting a stunt that wouldn't do damage.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

These two statements are contradictory. You can't say "The fighter should deal more damage with improvised attacks than the wizard." and then follow it up with "The same improvised attacks should do the same damage no matter who's using them."

No - I said that the Wizard shouldn't do as much damage as the Fighter in melee, so if the improvisation is pushing a minecart along rails to pin someone against a wall, the Fighter is stronger and should do more damage.

The second statement was for, shall we call it, third-party damage. From fire, explosions, things falling on people, in which case the nature of the event determines damage, not how clever the player is. I just really didn't like the idea that because a special move was something you could only do once in an encounter (say, dropping a chandelier on someone's head) it would *have* to do more damage than something you could do repeatedly.

But when it comes to applying damage and conditions to enemies, it definitely helps to have a set of guidelines to use. DM's who are used to improvising will ignore them as needed, while DM's who don't want to let players do anything that the rules don't cover won't ruin a game, because now the rules cover improvised actions.

You're looking at it from the wrong direction. Obviously, you won't use a damage value if the player is attempting a stunt that wouldn't do damage.

What I'd like to see is, as I said above, the nature of the event determine the damage done. What I saw in the OP was, if anything, the cleverness of the event would determine what damage was done.

Standard manoeuvres like tripping, pushing, disarming and so on, I hope they are covered by a system that rewards the correct classes and abilities (ie: Fighters, Strength or Dexterity, etc).

Special moves you might be able to pull off due to the location of the combat should do damage as to the nature of the event. If you knock down a huge stone pillar and trap goblins beneath it, why should it do less damage if you target several goblins rather than if you target only one? That's far too gamist. A chandelier on several goblins, maybe, because the absorption of momentum by one goblin there is potentially significant.

 

[Pickles JG]

The second statement was for, shall we call it, third-party damage. From fire, explosions, things falling on people, in which case the nature of the event determines damage, not how clever the player is. I just really didn't like the idea that because a special move was something you could only do once in an encounter (say, dropping a chandelier on someone's head) it would *have* to do more damage than something you could do repeatedly.

You have this backwards. If a stunt is so powerful that it is better than an attack then the players will use it repeatedly. Allowing powerful stunts but having them be limited is a way to balance this. This was an old 1e issue where oil was more dangerous than weapons. (IIRC)

That's far too gamist. A chandelier on several goblins, maybe, because the absorption of momentum by one goblin there is potentially significant.

Can something be too gamist in D&D? It has classes & levels & HP afterall.

I agree the point though but again I would put it the other way. To be worth trying out a stunt has to do less damage to several monsters than it would have to do to one. So if you tip over a huge cauldron of boiling soup it will do say 1d4 damage whether it hits 1 goblin or 25. If it was a small caudron of molten metal that could hit 2-3 only it might do 3d6, again regardless of how many it actually hits.

 

[Steely_Dan]

For instance, a move involving pots of oil and fire should just do damage based on burning/explosions.

Yeah, that was a problem with 4th Ed/page 42, that same move would do less damage at a lower level than at a higher one, like the oil matches your experience level or something (and DCs for tasks/stunts shouldn't scale with the characters).

 

[KesselZero]

Question to the OP: how would this scale? Would it scale? The expressions seem based on the 1st-level pregens, so if the argument is that improv attacks need to be as good as/better than normal ones (which I think is a strong argument for supporting creativity in combat) wouldn't improv damage need to scale? And isn't that back to the 4e issue of fire that knows your PC's level? I'm genuinely curious how you'd address this issue.

 

[77IM]

I don't know.. I'd like to see improvisation offer benefits other than just dealing damage to be honest.

Yeah. I tried gauge that too, though, rating "other benefits" as being worth 1-3 d6's or so, but it's a very rough guess.

I dislike this sort of codification

It's not a codification! Dear Gygax, that's the last thing I want! I'm trying to make a guideline which is a starting point to help the GM figure it out based on the specific circumstances.

Pop quiz: When a PC pushes a heavy weapons rack so it falls down onto some goblins, how much damage should that do? 1d4-1? 2d6? 6d2? 10d37+9.5? 1d12+1d8/3? For me, having a simple guideline as a reference point makes it a lot easier to come up with an answer.

But I wouldn't want anything "codified," because that implies a sort of strictness that is very unhelpful.

it doesn't take into account the characters in any way - why should a Wizard do as much damage from a cool melee manoeuvre as a Fighter?

If you use a contest of ability checks to resolve the maneuver, than it does: the fighter will be much more likely to succeed on a Strength-based maneuver than a wizard would. Furthermore, the fighter has a higher load limit than the wizard so for tricks based on heavy objects the fighter can move heavier objects and possibly do more damage. Similarly, when the battle is in an alchemist's lab, and a PC wants to grab some chemicals to splash in a duergar's face, the high-Int wizard will have a better chance of finding the right stuff.

Question to the OP: how would this scale? Would it scale?

Well we won't know how damage scales until we see higher level characters (and Mearls has said that they might rework all the damage numbers anyway).

But, I don't think the maneuvers should scale up "for free" for reasons you mention. Pushing a boulder onto a goblin for 2d6 damage might be a good move. Pushing that same boulder onto a red dragon... should STILL do 2d6 damage and probably won't bother the dragon at all.

At higher levels, though, the PCs might be fighting in more dangerous environs or have more lethal resources at their disposal. For example, when a 12th-level party is fighting demons at the top of a wizard's tower and they manage to maneuver the balor in between the two lightning orbs? He should get zapped for way more than 2d6 damage. Maybe 12d6.

It occurs to me that traps should probably have a damage-by-level guideline at some point and that using the same numbers for PC maneuvers would be a great idea.

-- 77IM