D&D 5E Input Needed on Attack Roll Concept

[DND_Reborn]

Although my time in 5E is nearing (relatively) a close, I am thinking about attack rolls and HP for D&D but also game systems in general.

I like the idea of advantage/disadvantage in 5E. I also like the idea of HP as abstract but having a "meat" number as well (in my houserules, I follow SW calling it Wounds when I use it).

I've been thinking of applying a 2d20 attack mechanic, where one "success" damages HP, both "successes" damages "meat", and if both are successes and the same number, the result is critical. FWIW, if HP are gone, all hits go to "meat".

For a system like 5E, this would drain HP faster as hits would be more common (increasing risk, which is a design goal) and allowing a better chance to still hit higher ACs. The flip side is with the "meat" number, a good AC makes it much harder to affect this. But to my thinking that also makes sense as getting in an actual damaging hit (a la "meat") is harder for those who are better protected. It also makes crits more valuable when they occur because now they would only be "meat".

If I ever tried to implement such a system in 5E, "meat" would be CON (maybe CON + level or CR for more forgiving tables?). I would have to consider the implications of actual advantage (simple enough to take the better results of two of 3d20) and disadvantage would make hitting "meat" and scoring a crit impossible since you would be reduced to a single d20.

Features such as Improved Critical would be a bit more complex. Spit-balling I am thinking you would score a crit if both hit and are the same, OR if either rolls a 20. Superior critical would be if both hit and are the same OR if either rolls a 19 or 20 maybe. I'd have to work the math a bit to see if that would be too much.

Anyone have any interesting thoughts on the idea?

(Again this isn't just for D&D, but I am thinking about it in that framework since I play it most.)

 

[NotAYakk]

Disadvantage is 3d20 take worst 2, not 1d20.

Crits end combat under this system. Nobidy has enough meat.

I have played around with "2 die pool" systems a few times. You can do 2d10 as percentage "both ways" or 2d20 "count successes". 2d20 also generalizes into dice pool systems in general; fighters can always get another d20, and situation can add one, and a magic sword, ending up with 4d20 pick best 2 (or count successes).

The basic 2d20 has a nice thing where each 1 point DC-ATK swing earns you a mix of 1 and 2 success chances that is constant.

Doubles in miss: botch (-1)
Both miss: fail (0)
One hits: success (1)
Two hits: great (2)
Doubles on hit: crit (3)

If you want less instagibb combats:

With 2 points you can harry. Damage countered by enemy HD.
With 3 points you can hit. Damage on enemy meat.
If you attack someone with points on you, you can burn HD to boost your d20s.
If you attack someone who has points on another, you can take theirs instead of gaining on them.

This leads to engaging someone, a battle to get position points, then a telling blow. Protecting allies by stripping enemy points is possible.

Large creatures with multiattack can handle multiple attackers, stripping points off many of them.

 

[delphonso]

This also makes attack spells way better than save spells. A lucky flaming bolt could drop somewhen when a fireball wouldn't.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This also makes attack spells way better than save spells. A lucky flaming bolt could drop somewhen when a fireball wouldn't.

I would probably do something similar for saves as I don't want one type of offense superior to another. A lot of tables play with critical saves (success or failed).

And for spells like fireball, the 2d20 mechanic still works well: one success, full damage to HP, both successes. half damage to "meat", both fails, full damage to meat.

Again, this is just an initial concept so I have to really examine it when I have more time, but thanks for bringing up the saves issue.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Disadvantage is 3d20 take worst 2, not 1d20.

Crits end combat under this system. Nobidy has enough meat.

I have played around with "2 die pool" systems a few times. You can do 2d10 as percentage "both ways" or 2d20 "count successes". 2d20 also generalizes into dice pool systems in general; fighters can always get another d20, and situation can add one, and a magic sword, ending up with 4d20 pick best 2 (or count successes).

The basic 2d20 has a nice thing where each 1 point DC-ATK swing earns you a mix of 1 and 2 success chances that is constant.

Doubles in miss: botch (-1)
Both miss: fail (0)
One hits: success (1)
Two hits: great (2)
Doubles on hit: crit (3)

If you want less instagibb combats:

With 2 points you can harry. Damage countered by enemy HD.
With 3 points you can hit. Damage on enemy meat.
If you attack someone with points on you, you can burn HD to boost your d20s.
If you attack someone who has points on another, you can take theirs instead of gaining on them.

This leads to engaging someone, a battle to get position points, then a telling blow. Protecting allies by stripping enemy points is possible.

Large creatures with multiattack can handle multiple attackers, stripping points off many of them.

Thanks for the input!

While I could do 3d20, take worst two, I like the idea more of just 1d20 right now, but as I explore more and more of it I might go to 3d20 as you suggest.

In the 5E framework, 4d20 would be possible with advantage and Elven Accuracy maybe, I don't know any magic sword that adds another d20 though... shrug

When you are writing "HD" do you mean "HD" or actually HP? Or are talking about actually removing HD instead rolling damage or something? I've explored "hits to kill" systems so I wanted to be clear.

I am thinking crits, instead of doubling dice, would simply apply damage to both HP and meat?

 

[NotAYakk]

So, imagine a system where you first try to set up a killing blow, then you strike.

You accumulate threat points against someone to do this. They can erode your points by attacking back.

Only after passing a threshold can you land a blow.

To oreserve D&D HP attrition, permit people threatened to burn HD to roll when they are removing threat from an attacker. Having thrm add to your d20s directly just seems natural.

Alice attscks Bob, rolls 2d20 and gets 1 threat (hit).

Bob attacks back, rolls 2d20 and scores a crit - 3 threat. The first eats Alice's threat, leaving 2.

Alice rolls 2d20 and neither hits. Crap. She burns 2 HD and boosts both to a hit, and clear's Bob's threat.

Bob attacks back, scores 2 threat.

Alice scores just 1; she burns a HD but it isn't enough to boost her miss into a hit.

Bob goes. He has a threat, and chooses to try to connect. He scores 1 hit; 1 threat + 1 it is 2 total, so HP damage not meat. He rolls: 15 damage. Alice soaks by rolling HD; 4(+2), 6(+2) 2(+2). Ouch, 3 HD burned.

Alice is in rough shape. Down 6 HD. At least Bob is out of threat!

 

[Var]

Hm how about splitting HP flat in the middle for this?
50% Vitals (Meat), damage here causes some sort of injury and reducing it to 0 downs you, 50% Armor/Durabilty/Resilience/Fatigue HP that can take a beating without negative effects (basically "normal" HP).
Leads to the occasional oneshot or nasty wound and generally more lethal combat.
Rolling 2D20 with a "confirmation system" like you suggested makes crits more rare (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since they go straight to the Vitals). If Crits happen on a hit with both dice showing the same result they're gonna happen 5% of the time multiplied by chance to hit.
Taking your system - against 50% chance to hit target AC, Hit chance would increase by 50% to 75% total, including 25% flat Vital hit chance, but crit chance would be reduced down to 2.5%.
If you dislike crit fishing or just think crits happen too often it's a useable system. For expanded Crit range I'd simply add [higher die -1] to the crit confirmation. Both hits still need to hit, but a 17 and 18 crit the same way as 2x 18 for a Champion.

The one thing to keep in mind is the extremes here. Party members might go dead dead against hard hitters pretty easily with Crits being less likely, but potentially targeting just half the HP early on in a fight (which was already possible before if they started the fight at something like half HP).
This definitely devalues AC and increases the value of HP. Which favors i.e. Bearbarians for 5E.
For both DC Attacks and Crits I'd also require at least beating the AC/DC by 5 or more for the hit to confirm as going straight to the Vitals. That has the added advantage of rewarding high chances to hit rather than hitting harder with Sharpshooter/GWM.

I'd say the mental math is easily manageable on a table and it's less swingy yet more gritty than the existing system. More AC lets you avoid some hits and makes it much easier to use your full HP pool, AC20 with 30 HP is going to be a lot more reliable at taking hits than AC16 with 20 HP, both will still go down in time either way, just not taking damage at all by combining AC and Disadvantage is just not going to be a thing.
Really liking this system as "more realistic" you're going to collapse sooner or later if you can't end the fight, even if you're Dodging around with Haste up.

One concern is CR levels for encounters. This will noticeably increase difficulty at higher levels and increase the value of control (since it prevents more expected damage). Hard hitting opponents are going to be nasty if they're allowed to take swings unimpeded.

 

[Nagol]

First, it would suck to roll 20, 15, 15 on 3d20 if the 15s will hit.
Second, if "meat" is restricted to Con or Con + something small like level, then your are into a situation where a single hit on "meat" can drop an opponent regardless if a critical was scored. You'd need to redo damage rolls such that the typical damage is 4-7 so a PC can potentially take 1-2 "meat" hits before being dropped or criticals become somewhat meaningless.
Third, hitting at all becomes really common since everyone has one level of advantage as a base and adjusting AC to compensate is non-linear.

 

[GMMichael]

I've been thinking of applying a 2d20 attack mechanic, where one "success" damages HP, both "successes" damages "meat", and if both are successes and the same number, the result is critical. FWIW, if HP are gone, all hits go to "meat".

For a system like 5E, this would drain HP faster as hits would be more common (increasing risk, which is a design goal) and allowing a better chance to still hit higher ACs. The flip side is with the "meat" number, a good AC makes it much harder to affect this. But to my thinking that also makes sense as getting in an actual damaging hit (a la "meat") is harder for those who are better protected. It also makes crits more valuable when they occur because now they would only be "meat".

Congrats on making hit points more interesting, and clarifying the meat-problem.

Condolences for slowing down combat. You now have (at least) twice as many attack rolls to resolve per attack. As a player, I would definitely want my meat-AC calculated in a different way than my fortune-AC. I would also want to know what meat took damage, because well, who needs a kidney?

Maybe use either-or. One attack roll decides which HP diminish. Fewer attack rolls, same HP divide.

 

[Blue]

Random ideas slaying some sacred cows to push further outside the box.

Are you keeping that both armor and DEX both make you harder to hit? How about converting armor to defense?

If HPs aren't a measure of wounds at all and are just an abstraction, do you want to abstract them even more? Like take them away, and on a single success ("glancing hit"?) there's a save or pick up a random penalty like "breath knocked out: disadvantage next round" or "winded: -10' move", with unconsciousness on the list) that lasts for the rest of the scene instead? That fits into the more risk you mentioned. Because you're swapping out HPs, you can bring in a slight bit of complexity without increasing the overall complexity.

Will you rework spell in the same way? Maybe move to saves as defenses like 4e?