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

[DND_Reborn]

Ahhhhhh I see what you mean now. Thank you for explaining it so well. You're saying if the 'to hit' roll always hits, do we even need it? And if good design is removing all rolls that either have no chance of success or no chance of failure then there is definitely an argument to either removing it, or somehow combining the 'to hit' and damage rolls.

Sure, no problem. I am glad it is clearer now.

I do feel like removing the attack roll generates a big chunk of cognitive dissonance tho. It's harder to get your head around. How about removing the damage roll? Make it so that each weapon/spell has a set damage value that is modified by the attack roll, like;

Miss by more than 5 = Miss (no damage)
Miss by less than 5 = glancing hit (half damage value +ability mod damage)
Hit = normal damage (damage value + ability mod)
Hit by more than 10 = critical damage ( 2 x damage value + ability mod)

So, for example, a longsword could have a damage value of 3/6/12 (glance/hit/crit)

You could also have some fun playing around with different weapons like, giving a scythe a 0 for glancing damage, but 3 x for crit etc..

I reality you are suggesting the same thing: combining the attack roll with the damage roll.

With your suggestion, "misses" would be extremely rare IME, maybe 10% of the time on average, and damage would become more static since the values are set, as shown in your example of the longsword.

If you can wrap your head around the idea of the attack yields the damage, you are already there, just looking at it through the glass so it is mirrored in a manner of speaking.

I am saying if your damage is minimal (or negated entirely by the target's defense), your attack was not very effective; as where if you roll critical damage and the defenses can't over come it, your attack was very effective. Since rolling damage yields more results, I think it is a better way to go (no shock there, huh? ).

BUT, if you wanted to explore your version, I would make it this:

Attack modifier = half listed weapon damage die + double ability modifier + proficiency

Damage = d20 roll + Attack modifier - target's AC

Let's say you are 5th level. have STR 16, and using a longsword. Your attack modifier would be 4 (half d8) + 6 (double STR modifier) + 3 (proficiency) = +13.

You roll a total 18 (roll 5 + 13) vs. AC 15. 18 - 15 = 3 damage.
You roll a total 26 (roll 13 + 13) vs. AC 15. 26 - 15 = 11 damage.
You roll a total of 15 (roll 2 + 13) vs. AC 15, no damage.

This might sound confusing at first, but for us old dogs used to working with THAC0, it is no big deal.

This is kind of a fun idea but I know my players enjoy rolling dice* so I think even though this could be faster, it could also be less fun for them.

*Except for d4s. No one enjoys rolling d4s.

Yeah, that is an issue with your idea (and my suggested version). Another reason just rolling the damage is useful, since the d20 would still be used for other things, and all the weapons keep their different damage dice (even the dreaded d4... ).

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Perhaps:

Light armor provides resistance vs. B/P/S of 10 damage or less.
Medium armor provides resistance vs. B/P/S of 25 damage or less.
Heavy armor provides resistance vs. B/P/S.

(Picking numbers out of the air.)

DR as damage resistance, not a flat reduction... I like that a lot! How about instead of 'X damage or less' just say 'up to a maximum of X damage reduced' (and add that clause to heavy too).

 

[LordEntrails]

These ideas always ... amuse? me. At my table, the idea of reducing randomness is... damn near a non-starter.

Why?
Simple because half of my table can run the calculations in their head on round one of exactly how many rounds, on average, it will take if things are static. to defeat or lose to the other side. They know more than just DPR, but have an innate feel for how many rounds an encounter will take, how much of their resources will be used up, and what risk level they are at. 40 years of gaming with people with advanced math & engineering degrees will do that.

Its why we use re-roll initiative each round. Why the DM almost never shows all the adversaries on round 1, why the players almost never optimize their characters, why we all do wild and weird stuff. So the outcome is always in question, so the game remains fun.

But that's our table. Do what you need to keep or grow the fun at yours.

 

[DND_Reborn]

At my table, the idea of reducing randomness is... damn near a non-starter.

Sadly, that is the issue... it really isn't all that random when you are hitting nearly all the time anyway...

Otherwise, as a DM I do pretty much everything you mention: re-roll initiative, cascading encounters, must roll hp at each level, etc. I love randomness, but again, attacking just doesn't fit as much as I'd like...

So, at any rate, this isn't sometime I am doing, just a design exercise, etc.

 

[LordEntrails]

Sadly, that is the issue... it really isn't all that random when you are hitting nearly all the time anyway...

Otherwise, as a DM I do pretty much everything you mention: re-roll initiative, cascading encounters, must roll hp at each level, etc. I love randomness, but again, attacking just doesn't fit as much as I'd like...

So, at any rate, this isn't sometime I am doing, just a design exercise, etc.

Earlier you (?) state the hit rate is typically %60-70. (Though sometimes higher.) That, to me, is not "nearly all the time". Removing attacks and just having damage only decreases randomness, by whatever that miss chance is or so. And from what I understand, your method doesn't introduce any increased randomness in having damage only.

In my experience, having two random events in a chain, increases the over entropy feel of the system. So even if you add randomness to the damage roll, you still only have a single instance of randomness, not two instances.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Earlier you (?) state the hit rate is typically %60-70. (Though sometimes higher.) That, to me, is not "nearly all the time".

Yes, it was me. At often (due to buffs, advantage, etc.) it is effectively much higher-- high enough to me that it is "nearly all the time." YMMV, of couse.

Removing attacks and just having damage only decreases randomness, by whatever that miss chance is or so. And from what I understand, your method doesn't introduce any increased randomness in having damage only.

First, it isn't really removing attacks so much as incorporating attacks into damage as other game systems do.

Instead of thinking of it as a "damage" roll, think of it as "attack effectiveness" roll--damage is only part of that. In 5E terms, since damage is already "there" I am just spit-balling with that mechanic.

But, no, it doesn't increase randomness.

In my experience, having two random events in a chain, increases the over entropy feel of the system. So even if you add randomness to the damage roll, you still only have a single instance of randomness, not two instances.

You might feel that way, but in the end it really doesn't work. If anything, it does create a more non-linear feel, but your results still range from miss (0 damage) to critical (double damage).

My idea has the same results: 0 damage (your "miss") to critical damage.

 

[p_johnston]

So I do like the concept of not having an attack roll just damage but I'm not sure 5e is the system for it.

So the big problem is that 5e is really not built to deal with Damage Reduction (DR) very well. (Note: I've tried introducing DR to my games before so I do have some actual play experience). To boil it down 5e treats the amount of damage a Character (PC or NPC) can do as a lump sum when calculating it's effect in battle whether or not that damage comes from a single attack or multiple. When you have DR this assumption breaks down pretty heavily, especially when the DR number starts to get high.

Let's look at some examples from both PC's and NPC's (Note I will be using average damage for pretty much all calculations)
PC: Let's look at the rogue vs the monk at say 5th level. The rogue is a consummate striker. All their damage comes from a single well placed strike. at level five they are probably doing 1d8+3d6+4 (19) damage. A monk at the same level through multi attack is doing 3d6+12 damage (24) without flurry of blows, each hit dealing 1d6+4 (8) damage. Now just for simplicity let's use page 274 of the DMG and say the average AC of a cr 5 monster is 15. That translates to 5 DR. Now the rogue get's to do 14 damage vs the monks 9. Ok now let's up it to level 11. The rogue is dealing 1d8+6d6+5 damage (31). The monk is dealing 3d8+15 (30) damage without flurry at 10 damage a pop. Now the average CR for a level 11 monster is 17, which would translate to a DR of 7. The rogue now deals 24 damage to the monks 9.

NPC: Let's look at a level one heavy armor fighter with a shield. His AC is 19 which translates to a whopping 9 DR. This means at level one pretty much any monster below CR 2 will end up dealing about 1 damage an attack. Now let's bring them up to level 5 and pit them against a couple of monsters that should be roughly the same challenge. Let's say AC 21/DR 11 now due to plate. They are fighting a Bullette and then a Troll. The Bullette deals 30 damage an attack or 19 through DR. A pretty solid hit. The troll deals 11 with one attack and 7 with it's other to for 3 damage a round.

To make DR work in 5e you need to not only rebalance every class to bring them back in line but you also end up needing to redo the entire way you calculate CR and encounter balance, and change a bunch of spells to make them fit. Exploding damage die do help this somewhat but, I would guess, not nearly enough.

TLDR: Replacing AC with DR breaks the fundamental combat math of 5e in such a way that will require you to change almost every aspect of the game to make it work.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So I do like the concept of not having an attack roll just damage but I'm not sure 5e is the system for it.

It isn't ideal, I am sure, but I think some of your numbers are off a bit. We've actually used AC as DR for a while now, and I really haven't had any issues with it. But I'll review your examples:

PC: Let's look at the rogue vs the monk at say 5th level. The rogue is a consummate striker. All their damage comes from a single well placed strike. at level five they are probably doing 1d8+3d6+4 (19) damage. A monk at the same level through multi attack is doing 3d6+12 damage (24) without flurry of blows, each hit dealing 1d6+4 (8) damage. Now just for simplicity let's use page 274 of the DMG and say the average AC of a cr 5 monster is 15. That translates to 5 DR. Now the rogue get's to do 14 damage vs the monks 9. Ok now let's up it to level 11. The rogue is dealing 1d8+6d6+5 damage (31). The monk is dealing 3d8+15 (30) damage without flurry at 10 damage a pop. Now the average CR for a level 11 monster is 17, which would translate to a DR of 7. The rogue now deals 24 damage to the monks 9.

The "average" AC is as follows (from my monster database of over 700 creatures):
tier 1: AC 13
tier 2: AC 15
tier 3: AC 17
tier 4: AC 19

So, I agree at level 5 using an estimated DR 5 (AC 15-10) is correct and DR 7 for level 11.

Rogue 5: 19 - 5 = 14
Monk 5: 23 - 5 = 18. I assume you are applying the DR to each monk attack to arrive at 9?

Rogue 11: 31 - 7 = 24
Monk 11: 29 - 7 = 22. I assume your 9 is the same thing?

Anyway, in the OP I specify that damage should be based on level, and attacks is one way to go but really you shouldn't apply DR to each attack with that model, but treat the attack action as grouped damage.

Then, if you look at the damages above, you'll see they are both adequate and close to each other.

NPC: Let's look at a level one heavy armor fighter with a shield. His AC is 19 which translates to a whopping 9 DR. This means at level one pretty much any monster below CR 2 will end up dealing about 1 damage an attack. Now let's bring them up to level 5 and pit them against a couple of monsters that should be roughly the same challenge. Let's say AC 21/DR 11 now due to plate. They are fighting a Bullette and then a Troll. The Bullette deals 30 damage an attack or 19 through DR. A pretty solid hit. The troll deals 11 with one attack and 7 with it's other to for 3 damage a round.

This would be a feature. Armor was very effective, so DR being higher due to it makes sense. But many creatures deal more damage than you seem to think. For example, an orc averages 9, but can deal up to 15! And with exploding damage dice, damage will be a bit more.

Again, if you group the troll's damage together, it is 29 damage, which would be 18 even against a PC with AC 21 when apply the DR once against the sum of damage for the "attack".

So, I think that solves any issue you have? If not, we can discuss it further.

 

[p_johnston]

So, I think that solves any issue you have? If not, we can discuss it further.

So if your just pooling all attacks together before all attack damage together before applying DR it does help with balance. With that I think that it would make trying the system out playable, however I would still be hesitant to use it.

There are still a few issues
1) Pooling all attacks as one before applying DR introduces a few problems of it's own. The one that comes to mind immediately is that it means you have effectively eliminated multi attack from the game. Now everyone just gets to roll more dice when they would get more attacks. There are two problems I can see with this
1a) You can't split your attack anymore. Before If someone with three attacks started to attack an enemy and brought them down with the first one they could move on and finish off the remaining two attacks on another enemy. Now your just going to be pooling every attack together to make sure you bypass the DR.
1b) It will (I suspect) make a lot of classes and playstyles feel a lot more samey. Playing a great weapon barbarian, a duel wielding fighter and a rogue currently feel a lot different mostly based on the number of attacks you end up getting. Now all three just get a handful of dice to throw each time.
2) You still have problems with DR when it comes to attacks where you don't get to do multi attack. The biggest example is opportunity attacks would kinda suck in this system for anyone except rogues. But the cleave feature of great weapon master is another example of something that gets really nerfed.
3) Exploding damage die are a cool idea but on average won't add all that much damage (average of about 1 extra point of damage)
4) This ends up cutting out advantage which will end up effecting a lot of abilities and spells.
4b) no advantage combined with no splitting attacks will likely end up making combat less dynamic then it already is. Why bother tripping, using the help action, or anything else if you can't get advantage? 5e already heavily incentivizes martials to just run up and mindlessly attack a single target. This just makes that worse.
5) There are a lot of minor rules, abilities, and spells that become much better, much worse, or just don't work if your never rolling to attack.
For example
Stunning strike becomes a whole lot better when you no longer have to roll to hit. Same with paladin smites, arcane archer arrows, all blade cantrips, etc.
How does bardic inspiration work now without attack rolls?
To flesh out point 4 a bit, how does advantage work? Am I just as effective hitting people while blind and prone as I am regular?
Connected does blindness/deafness now just not do anything?
How about the half-orc/barbarian extra dice on a crit feature?
How does magic missile work now that everything is doing what use to be it's niche?
And these are just the abilties that I can come up with off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more that are similarly broken.

To reiterate I do think that the idea of a system where rolling to hit isn't a thing is interesting. I do not think that trying to hack 5e into being that system is a good way to go.