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

[Blue]

One of the awkward bits of D&D is that we have tied that die roll to a narrative - If we make the "To Hit" roll, we HIT the target with the weapon. Meanwhile we have Hit Points that are specifically decoupled from narrative - they aren't "just meat".

If we decouple the d20 roll from that narrative, then we decouple "hit or miss" from "succeed or fail". If you succeed on the d20 roll, you do damage to the target - whether we narrate that as running them through with a sword, or them twisting their ankle trying to dodge, becomes a separate element - we can either use that as design space, or just leave it to convenience..

I'm completely with you. As mention, I am a proponent of miss damage - for the reasons you mention.

But what was proposed had no d20 roll at all, no success or failure - only draining of HPs, which is an effect.

But it is possible at range to not interact with the target at all, and I can't see a way to have the mechanics support that narrative. Every shot, even if you are not aware of it, will drain HPs.

 

[Umbran]

But it is possible at range to not interact with the target at all, and I can't see a way to have the mechanics support that narrative. Every shot, even if you are not aware of it, will drain HPs.

Once we have decoupled hit points from meat, I'm okay with that. Being unaware of the arrow is not really different from being unaware of the rogue's short sword as they sneak attack when hidden.

We are talking about heroic fantasy - imho, the results don't need to be "realistic". They just need some basic plausibility as a narrative. So, that unseen archer keeps you dancing away from arrows that just barely miss and tht you notice just before they hit - you get tired dancing away from them, using hit points.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Delightfully terrifying!

Yes, it is!

Kobolds, Giant Rats, and any other of the 1d4 damage low CR monsters suddenly become real KO machines for low level characters.

LOL, it isn't that great. Exploding d4 averages less than a regular d6...

How about for something that has multiple damage dice (e.g. Ogre 2d8+4)? I'm guessing any and all dice that are max damage "explode", yes (i.e. you don't need two "8s" to explode)?

Correct. Any die that rolls maximum explodes, so if you are rolling multiple dice any to all of them could explode. So, fireballs average 32 instead of 28, 3 magic missiles average 13 instead of 10.5, etc.

 

[Blue]

Once we have decoupled hit points from meat, I'm okay with that. Being unaware of the arrow is not really different from being unaware of the rogue's short sword as they sneak attack when hidden.

We are talking about heroic fantasy - imho, the results don't need to be "realistic". They just need some basic plausibility as a narrative. So, that unseen archer keeps you dancing away from arrows that just barely miss and tht you notice just before they hit - you get tired dancing away from them, using hit points.

Remember, this is every shot by every single creature, not just heroes. There are times when kobolds with slings at extreme range just aren't a threat to the PCs, and that's a narrative this can't support. No "cutsey" explanation like "the archer makes your dance" can cover every shot by every creature, it needs to be solid.

 

[Umbran]

Remember, this is every shot by every single creature, not just heroes.

I have not forgotten that.

There are times when kobolds with slings at extreme range just aren't a threat to the PCs, and that's a narrative this can't support.

What? By the book there is no extreme range. There's short range (30 feet for a sling), long range (30-120 feet for a sling) at which you are at disadvantage, and they are not effective beyond 120 feet.

So, since we are not using a d20 to hit here, we will need to figure out what "disadvantage" translates into, and we are good. We need to do that, and figure out what advantage means in this scheme, anyway.

 

[Lojaan]

I'm not sure what problem is being solved here?

In my experience, players like making attack rolls, and enjoy it when bad guys miss them.

Why remove something people enjoy? Or do your players not enjoy this?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not sure what problem is being solved here?

This isn't a problem I am trying to solve, as I thought this should have made clear:

So, I guess that's it for now. This isn't really something I am considering adopting seriously, just the results from some observations about the purpose of bounded accuracy, how likely attacks succeed in 5E, and other factors.

Also, I am not saying this is a good idea or a bad idea, just an idea.

Bounded Accuracy replaced escalating attack modifiers and AC (the "arms race / treadmill effect") with escalating damage and hit points.

In my experience, players like making attack rolls, and enjoy it when bad guys miss them.

As so mine (sort of), but this discussion is about are they necessary?

Why remove something people enjoy? Or do your players not enjoy this?

Frankly, my players enjoy rolling damage more because now the excitement/ tension is will you do a lot of damage or a little? By moving the critical to the damage roll, this is still present to adding more excitement (rolling maximum) and because damage dice are smaller than the d20 happens more often. They also cringe more often when I roll maximum against them.

5E has roughly a 60-70% hit rate, often slightly higher due to buffs IME. It became so common that it started to lose the excitement since PCs hit way more than they missed. I had one former AD&D player who was playing 5E with me and surprised to learn he hit with a roll of 6 at low levels (he was in tier 1, but I don't recall his level at that time). I told him, "Yeah, you hit a lot in 5E, it was designed that way."

So, the question I am postulating really is why bother having a roll if you are most likely going to succeed? It becomes unnecessary and slows down the game, adding little enjoyment.

Also, it adds disappointment when you DO miss. Which is why some people like or want a system where you cause less damage (but still some) or some other effect can happen on a miss. This way you still feel like you are contributing.

The sort of changes (again, as a design experiment) would be more about an "attack effectiveness" roll. When you attack, you are nearly always effective in making your target respond (dodge, soak, injuring them, etc.). The "damage" roll, modifier by your offensive abilities and your target's defensive abilities, would then determine how "effective" your attack was. If the target has sufficient defenses to handle everything you dish out (i.e. damage), they can negate your effectiveness entirely.

Finally, I seriously doubt I would implement this for D&D, but after reading more about Bounded Accuracy I realized it became (IMO) the next logical step. There are systems out there that do this sort of thing, but more by making it a contested roll. I am further removing the hassle of the defensive roll by making it passive--as it is in D&D.

Hopefully that explains everything in a clearer light.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Some OSR systems such as Knaves and Maze Rats (IIRC) do not use ''to-hit'' rolls and they work quite well. Combat is more dangerous because HP WILL be lost when you enter combat, no escaping it. The sheer load of characters hit points in 5e will be challenged.

 

[HammerMan]

Once we have decoupled hit points from meat, I'm okay with that. Being unaware of the arrow is not really different from being unaware of the rogue's short sword as they sneak attack when hidden.

We are talking about heroic fantasy - imho, the results don't need to be "realistic". They just need some basic plausibility as a narrative. So, that unseen archer keeps you dancing away from arrows that just barely miss and tht you notice just before they hit - you get tired dancing away from them, using hit points.

in more modern terms your HP is your plot armor.

batman has 500hp, so yeah, 1 hit from darksaid would kill him (he is only mortal) but the first 499hp are him dodging and avoiding the deadly blow

 

[Lojaan]

This isn't a problem I am trying to solve, as I thought this should have made clear:


Bounded Accuracy replaced escalating attack modifiers and AC (the "arms race / treadmill effect") with escalating damage and hit points.


As so mine (sort of), but this discussion is about are they necessary?


Frankly, my players enjoy rolling damage more because now the excitement/ tension is will you do a lot of damage or a little? By moving the critical to the damage roll, this is still present to adding more excitement (rolling maximum) and because damage dice are smaller than the d20 happens more often. They also cringe more often when I roll maximum against them.

5E has roughly a 60-70% hit rate, often slightly higher due to buffs IME. It became so common that it started to lose the excitement since PCs hit way more than they missed. I had one former AD&D player who was playing 5E with me and surprised to learn he hit with a roll of 6 at low levels (he was in tier 1, but I don't recall his level at that time). I told him, "Yeah, you hit a lot in 5E, it was designed that way."

So, the question I am postulating really is why bother having a roll if you are most likely going to succeed? It becomes unnecessary and slows down the game, adding little enjoyment.

Also, it adds disappointment when you DO miss. Which is why some people like or want a system where you cause less damage (but still some) or some other effect can happen on a miss. This way you still feel like you are contributing.

The sort of changes (again, as a design experiment) would be more about an "attack effectiveness" roll. When you attack, you are nearly always effective in making your target respond (dodge, soak, injuring them, etc.). The "damage" roll, modifier by your offensive abilities and your target's defensive abilities, would then determine how "effective" your attack was. If the target has sufficient defenses to handle everything you dish out (i.e. damage), they can negate your effectiveness entirely.

Finally, I seriously doubt I would implement this for D&D, but after reading more about Bounded Accuracy I realized it became (IMO) the next logical step. There are systems out there that do this sort of thing, but more by making it a contested roll. I am further removing the hassle of the defensive roll by making it passive--as it is in D&D.

Hopefully that explains everything in a clearer light.

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.

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..

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.