D&D 5E Making a 5E Variant I *Want* To Play (+thread)

[DND_Reborn]

Ok, another idea (this one may even WORK, can you imagine that?)

Health
HP at level 1: CON + Half HD
HP at higher level: Half-HD per level

Defense
Here's the twist: No attack rolls, all attacks are hit. The only variance is for how much? The attacker rolls its damage roll, the defender roll its HIT DIE + Dex (or Con for Barb, Wis for monks etc) (+prof, maybe?) and reduce the damage from the attack by the same amount. If the attacker has more than 1 attack, they can divide them as they wish or focus on a single target. AC buff from spells or features are added to the damage reduction. Armor's give increased DR. The attack action no longer represent the act of attacking, but the landing of a blow through an opening in the target's defenses. Character are considered attacking continuously during the round.

This way, all attacks are only partial hit and are taxing to the defender, unless they evaded the attack completely by reducing the damage roll to 0.

Skills & Saves
Proficient skills and saves are increased by Proficiency bonus (with your progression scale instead of the PHB's). Expertise gives advantage.

I don't know... that is pretty hard to imagine!

I think I am pretty locked on the CON at level 1 and half HD (or rolling if they prefer) per level after. I don't know if I'd want to grant an extra half HD to starting HP at level 1. Probably won't hurt anything if you did, though.

Defense is an interesting idea. In the thread on healing surges I thought something like spending HD to stop damage might work, but removing the attack roll entirely is really new! But it brings up a lot of questions:

Would it be fun for the players to not roll attacks anymore since their damage is determined and the DM rolls to resist it?
How could you handle the chance of a critical hit?
Would the PC spend more than one HD if they wanted or limit it to one HD per "attack" (i.e. damage source against them)?
Wouldn't it create more rolling (i.e. take longer) since now the attacker is rolling damage and the defender is rolling HD to soak every time?
How much hassle for DM to track monster HP and spent HD for soaking?

I'm sure there are others, those just pop to mind. It might have some merit, but I don't know how well it would play out. What are your thoughts on those questions?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Would it be fun for the players to not roll attacks anymore since their damage is determined and the DM rolls to resist it?
How could you handle the chance of a critical hit?
Would the PC spend more than one HD if they wanted or limit it to one HD per "attack" (i.e. damage source against them)?
Wouldn't it create more rolling (i.e. take longer) since now the attacker is rolling damage and the defender is rolling HD to soak every time?
How much hassle for DM to track monster HP and spent HD for soaking?

Well, you would not ''spend HD'' you would just roll the same dice as your HD + X +Y +Z when attacked. But your idea of spending HD to add more dice to the damage reduction would be nice, since sometime HD feels under-used.

Ex:
A lvl 3 wizard with 14 (+2) dex and mage armor (DR +2) is attacked by a Scout (2 attacks). The scout rolls the damage for two shortbow attacks, rolling 3 + (2 dex) and 4 + (2 dex) for a total of 9. The Wizard rolls its defense die (1d6, rolls 2) add its Dex (+2) and its mage armor (2). The wizard Defend for 6 points, thus taking 3 damage (9 - 6 = 3). Before rolling to defend, the wizard could have spend 1 HD to add another 1d6 to the defense roll.

Critical hit:
When you roll the maximum number of a damage die, you can reroll one more time the die and add it to the total. 1/round
Champion and hexblade can also reroll another damage die on a maximum number -1 (-2 for high level champion). ie: 1d6 = reroll on 5-6.
Barbarian and Half-orc increases their number of times per round by +1 with their feature.

Resistance:
Resistance halves the damage taken from a source after the Defense roll is applied.

Monsters:
Monsters cannot spend HD to further reduce incoming damages, but instead add their highest stat to their damage reduction instead of Dex (unless higher, that is).

Numbers of roll:
In the end, its the same number of roll, but split between the attacker and the defender, instead of having 2 rolls by the same person (1 attack, 1 damage). Since they would roll at the same time when an attacked is called and the results can be quickly checked, I think it would even be a little faster.

Starting Health CON + 1/2 HD or Not
I tend to add 1/2 HD to the Con score for starting HP for the rare (but possible) case of a barbarian or fighter with 10 or less CON, since this rule, intended to be a low level buff to HP, would be a penalty for them is CON score = lvl 1 HP. (10 starting HP when a lvl 1 barb with basic rules would have at least 12).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, you would not ''spend HD'' you would just roll the same dice as your HD + X +Y +Z when attacked. But your idea of spending HD to add more dice to the damage reduction would be nice, since sometime HD feels under-used.

Ex:
A lvl 3 wizard with 14 (+2) dex and mage armor (DR +2) is attacked by a Scout (2 attacks). The scout rolls the damage for two shortbow attacks, rolling 3 + (2 dex) and 4 + (2 dex) for a total of 9. The Wizard rolls its defense die (1d6, rolls 2) add its Dex (+2) and its mage armor (2). The wizard Defend for 6 points, thus taking 3 damage (9 - 6 = 3). Before rolling to defend, the wizard could have spend 1 HD to add another 1d6 to the defense roll.

Critical hit:
When you roll the maximum number of a damage die, you can reroll one more time the die and add it to the total. 1/round
Champion and hexblade can also reroll another damage die on a maximum number -1 (-2 for high level champion). ie: 1d6 = reroll on 5-6.
Barbarian and Half-orc increases their number of times per round by +1 with their feature.

Resistance:
Resistance halves the damage taken from a source after the Defense roll is applied.

Monsters:
Monsters cannot spend HD to further reduce incoming damages, but instead add their highest stat to their damage reduction instead of Dex (unless higher, that is).

Numbers of roll:
In the end, its the same number of roll, but split between the attacker and the defender, instead of having 2 rolls by the same person (1 attack, 1 damage). Since they would roll at the same time when an attacked is called and the results can be quickly checked, I think it would even be a little faster.

Starting Health CON + 1/2 HD or Not
I tend to add 1/2 HD to the Con score for starting HP for the rare (but possible) case of a barbarian or fighter with 10 or less CON, since this rule, intended to be a low level buff to HP, would be a penalty for them is CON score = lvl 1 HP. (10 starting HP when a lvl 1 barb with basic rules would have at least 12).

Ok, thanks for an example. That clears it up some.

First, I think getting your HD for each roll as a default is fine, but allowing PCs to "spend" extra HD, maybe gaining a static half HD per die instead of rolling? This is basically like spending HD for healing, but you are doing it before resting (sort of).

One problem is with sufficient protection, it seems like it would be feasible to have a "soak" or defense greater than the attack could do. If this happened, you would not take damage at all.

Now, on to the rest:

Critical hit. This makes the extra damage much more likely and more likely the smaller the die. For instance, a d4 will roll max 4 25%, allowing you to get an extra d4, but a d10 would only happen 10% of the time.

Resistance. I'd try applying this first, and compare it to after, and see how it works with the numbers.

Number of rolls. First, you will likely be rolling more dice and you have to add them all the time. That's why I went with "disadvantage" on attack rolls in order to decrease the amount of regular math that being done. I could be wrong, and I think some more samples would have to be done.

Starting HP. Well, the only class what might suffer on HP is the barbarian. A fighter with CON 10 would start with 10 hp based on CON but also 10 hp based on max via RAW. Let's see:

CON score: CON at level 1 vs RAW
CON 10: HP 10 vs 12
CON 11: HP 11 vs 12
CON 12: HP 12 vs 13
CON 13: HP 13 vs 13
CON 14: HP 14 vs 14
CON 15: HP 15 vs 14
CON 16: HP 16 vs 15
CON 17: HP 17 vs 15
CON 18: HP 18 vs 16

So, really the only time a PC would have fewer HP would be a Barbarian with CON 12 or lower. Every other PC will have the same HP or more.

Maybe a level 6 fighter (champion) against a bandit captain?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

First, I think getting your HD for each roll as a default is fine, but allowing PCs to "spend" extra HD, maybe gaining a static half HD per die instead of rolling? This is basically like spending HD for healing, but you are doing it before resting (sort of).

yep, that would be an option. I personally prefer randomness and the idea of gambling an HD, but maybe just having gaining a static amount would be more fair.

One problem is with sufficient protection, it seems like it would be feasible to have a "soak" or defense greater than the attack could do. If this happened, you would not take damage at all.

Yep, the barbarian reducing attack damage by 1d12 + Con + resistance while raging could be problematic at low level. At higher I dont think that would be a problem since monsters hit harder and have more attacks.

Heavy armor would probably add more DR, but you do not add your DEX to the defense roll, medium would have a max of +2 DEX and light armor would only have 1 DR, but allow for full dex.

let see: A fighter with 14 dex (+2), Chain shirt (say DR 2), Shield (DR 1), Defense FS (1 DR) + 1d10 would reduce in average 12 when attacked. That's kinda a lot! But its probably ok since at least a little damage is guaranteed unless you soak the full damage and there's no ''miss''.

But, with exploding die replacing crits, I think it would be easier to generate more damage, thus overcoming DR more easily. Maybe a solution would be to add Proficiency to the Damage roll of proficient weapons or to have a minimum 1 damage taken, even when it would be reduced to 0.

Critical hit. This makes the extra damage much more likely and more likely the smaller the die. For instance, a d4 will roll max 4 25%, allowing you to get an extra d4, but a d10 would only happen 10% of the time.

You are right, but even if you add another d4 to your roll, you approach the base damage of the d10 weapon. That's more of a gamble: crit more often for less or less often for more. And its only once per turn, there probably a nasty build of Half-orc champion/bard dual wielding daggers that could be dangerous, but probably not more than other power build.

Starting HP. Well, the only class what might suffer on HP is the barbarian. A fighter with CON 10 would start with 10 hp based on CON but also 10 hp based on max via RAW.

You are right. Its enough of a niche case to be unconsidered in the rule. Go with CON score at lvl 1.

EDIT:

Also, note that this is just for weapon/spell attacks. Damage per way of saves features/spells are still another way to threaten the players, even if they stack their Defense up to an insane amount.

Maybe the shield, instead of giving a fixed passive +1 DR, could add +2 passive bonus to DEX saves and +2 DR per extra HD spent to Defend?

If we take the same fighter:
Fighter with 14 dex (+2), Chain shirt (say DR 2), Shield, Defense FS (1 DR) + 1d10 would Defend on average for 11 point. Then he could spend HD to Defend more. Normally he would add 5 to the Defense roll (or 6 if you prefer average than half of d10), but since he has a Shield, he would instead add 7 (5+2) to the Defense roll.

 

[DND_Reborn]

let see: A fighter with 14 dex (+2), Chain shirt (say DR 2), Shield (DR 1), Defense FS (1 DR) + 1d10 would reduce in average 12 when attacked. That's kinda a lot! But its probably ok since at least a little damage is guaranteed unless you soak the full damage and there's no ''miss''.

So, against a bandit captain (BC):

Assuming average for all the rolls and discarding the critical concept for now:

it would deal (just using the average damage) 6 + 6 + 5 = 17 damage using multiattack with scimitar and dagger. The fighter above would reduce damage an average of 12 points, making the net damage dealt 5 points per round.

So, the fighter with CON 14 and half HD at level 6 would have 14 + 5 * 6 = 44 hp.

Thus, the BC will take 9 rounds to kill the fighter if it lives that long. Now, if the fighter can also spend HD for an extra 6 soak, he would completely absorb the damage for that round 12 + 6 = 18 vs. 17 damage, it could be up to 6 rounds longer given 6 HD.

Let's say the fighter is 1d8+3 damage and has two attacks. His average damage is 15. The BC's soak would be +3 (DEX 16), Studded leather (1 DR) for d8 + 4, average of 8 or 9. Thus the BC will take about 6 points per round in damage because his defense is much lower. Using half HP, the BC would have about 32 hp, and the fighter would kill him in 6 rounds. Now, the BC has 10 HD to add, at 4 each, would reduce the damage to only 2 on those rounds. That could make the battle drag out to 12 rounds if he used all of them.

Since the fighter could use all of his HD for soaking, he could survive up to 15 rounds, outlasting the BC by 3 rounds and likely winning.

Now in RAW (with critical hits):

the same fighter would have AC 18 (chain shirt, shield, DEX +2, DFS +1). At +5 attack rolls, the BC hits on 13 or higher (40%), and would have an expected damage of 7.875. The fighter would have 52 hp, and thus it would take about 6.6 or 7 rounds to kill the fighter if the BC lives.

The fighter would have +6 attack bonus, needing a 9 or higher to hit (60%), and with two attacks would have expected damage (given d8+3) of 9.45. With 65 hp, it would take the fighter 7 rounds to kill the BC.

Using RAW, the two are fairly evenly matched, and one could typically expect to defeat the other in about 7 rounds.

That is only half the number of rounds your suggestion would take. So, unless I am calculating things wrong, this definitely seems like some battles this would drag out. Granted, in real time, you are making one "mass damage roll" against one "soak" on each side, compared to a total of 5 attacks between both parties each round with corresponding damage rolls when they hit (expect 1.2 damage rolls by the BC, and 1.2 damage rolls by the fighter). Thus we have 4 total rolls vs 7.4 rolls for the rounds. Given the estimated number of rounds, that is 48 rolls (12 rounds) vs. 52 rolls (7 rounds).

Not a huge difference in the number of over all expected rolls, but despite the greater number of overall rounds of the combat, it would likely be the same or no worse for the number of times you have to roll.

All that given, the only real downside I see to a system like this is you have to rework most of the numbers in the game, which for all the monsters that PCs encounter is a lot. There's certainly some interesting ideas here, but I don't know if the implementation would be easy at all.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

All that given, the only real downside I see to a system like this is you have to rework most of the numbers in the game, which for all the monsters that PCs encounter is a lot. There's certainly some interesting ideas here, but I don't know if the implementation would be easy at all.

Yeah, we are in deeply in the ''rewrite the system'' zone; we are waaaay past the homebrew zone

What are your thoughts?

I cant do maths, but what if we add +prof to the damage rolls? Does it reduce the number of rounds by an interesting amount?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, we are in deeply in the ''rewrite the system'' zone; we are waaaay past the homebrew zone

I cant do maths, but what if we add +prof to the damage rolls? Does it reduce the number of rounds by an interesting amount?

Definitely way down the rabbit hole.

Well, it would increase the BC damage by 6, to 23. Given the 44 hp and the 12 soak (bumped to 18 for 6 rounds), would decrease the rounds to 7 rounds for the BC to defeat the fighter.

The fighter's damage would increase from 15 to 21. With the half HP for the BC at 32 and it can soak, say 9 (bumped to 13 with HD for 10 rounds), would result in the fighter defeating the BC in about 4 rounds.

This drastically reduces the number of rolls with this system to just 16, less than 1/3 of the 50+ RAW would require!

So, with adding prof to damage (assuming you meant for each attack??? or did you just mean once to the total damage???) makes it much faster.

It was a fun little exercise, but definitely too invasive.