Removing damage dice for attack bonuses

[Quasqueton]

I was just toying with this idea, and figured I'd post here and see what more in-depth thought would show.

Change to combat:

Don't roll dice for weapon damage. Instead, roll the attack like normal. If a hit is scored, damage is 1 point, plus 1 point per point over the AC.

Defender's AC is 14. Attack result is 16 = damage 3 points.

Instead of damage dice, weapons get a bonus on their attack rolls depending on their size:
Fist/unarmed: +0
Dagger, knife, or other "tiny" weapon: +1
Shortsword, handaxe, or other "light" weapon: +2
Longsword, battlexe, ect.: +4
Great sword, great axe, ect.: +6

Critical still double (or triple, etc.) the resulting damage. Magic bonus apply normally (just to the attack roll). Energy enhancements to damage add +2 [energy] to the attack roll, with the first 2 points of damage being from the energy.

A 5th-level fighter, with 16 strength, a +2 long sword would have a total of +10 on his attack. An attack result of 21 vs. AC 16 would yield 6 damage. The same fighter and roll with a +2 flaming sword would get an attack result of 23, for 8 damage (the first 2 points of which are fire damage).

What would be the ripple effect of this system through all D&D?

Quasqueton

 

[Pyrex]

Power Attack: Still works. Check.

Wpn Focus & Wpn Spec: Still works. Check.

AC becomes way more important for everyone: Could be a problem.

I think you've simplified base weapon damage a little to much. Lower damage is usually used to compensate for better crit ranges. Instead of basing damage on size, using half the die value is more consistent. (i.e. Longsword still does 4, but the Scimitar only does 3)
->This also has the advantage of working just fine for spells that require an attack roll.

Your proposed change makes energy enhancements way better than another +1. Energy should add +3 to the weapons base damage, not add +2 to hit.

True Strike: Mission control, we have a problem here. Watch for True Strike plus Ray of Frost to suddenly become really popular among your casters.

Also, archers are suddenly going to become vastly more effective as their large Dex ToHit bonus becomes a large Dex ToDamage bonus.

In general, average combat damage is going to go way up. Critical hits go from threatening to deadly. Given the nature of D&D combat this is a huge disadvantage for PC's.

 

[Vrecknidj]

What does this do to critters that currently do, for example, 1d4-4 damage? I mean, if a hawk gets a 20 on a commoner with an AC of 12, does the hawk really cause damage of 5? That could kill the commoner.

Dave

 

[Ferret]

The hawk swoops down and goes for the eyes, lots of blood the commoner is falls unconsious.

There are some problems, like above (the above post). It seems like a good idea though I'd stick with it. Make sure the distance of the archer takes away from the to hit as usual.

 

[Darklone]

That system reminds me of another RPG game... don't know which one though. They used maximum damage according to weapons. That fixes the problem.

 

[Kodam]

Hi!

Scimitars, Rapiers, Picks and other Weapons would have to count as one category lighter or else no Longswords would be used. Power Attack would only be useful for two-handed weapons, all others won't get nothing out of it. Combat Expertise is nerfed: it doesn't only reduce your chance to hit but also the damage you deal. Weapon Finesse becomes extremly powerful since it increases Attack and Damage - don't expect to see any strong guys any more; swashbucklers rule!

Just my thoughts...

Kodam

 

[Hawken]

This seems like an interesting idea. I have a few thoughts on it:

Instead of damage dice, weapons get a bonus on their attack rolls depending on their size:

A person is not easier to hit just because you are using a weapon, the weapon just lets you inflict more damage to them. The bonus for the weapon should only apply to damage if you hit the target.

The difference in damage seems a little too much between small and medium weapons (+2 and +4). A longsword or battleaxe would inflict twice as much damage as a shortsword or handaxe, but their damage dice is only D8 vs. D6. Maybe reduce longsword (etc.) damage to +3.

To mitigate weapon damage vs. crit ranges, just make all crits inflict double damage. A longsword (+3 damage) would inflict +6 to damage (3X2), and a shortsword (+2 damage) would inflict +4 to damage (2X2), then modify or factor in for other adjustments (Strength, magic, etc.).

Same as applying the weapon bonus to damage only, do the same thing with the energy enhancement; +2 to damage total if the weapon hits. A Frost longsword isn't any easier to hit the target with, but will do more damage.

One important thing this affects is a target's Damage Reduction. That would have to be scaled down as well, maybe divide by 2, round down or something like that. Energy protection spells and items too would have to be adjusted as well along similar lines.

AC would definitely be more important, but that issue could be solved by providing a bonus to AC depending on your class and level like they use in Star Wars D20. That should solve any issue of balance, and then use the armor as damage reduction rule.

True Strike: Mission control, we have a problem here.

Not necessarily. Damage from high attack rolls could be limited to maybe 5 points per bonus point of damage from the weapon. Tiny weapons or unarmed could be limited to 5 points from the high attack roll. Light weapons (+2 damage) could be limited to 10 points, etc. That way, spells like True Strike still allow you to hit a target easily, but do not add so much to damage to obliterate opponents. Maybe change True Strike to a 2nd level spell with these changes.

What does this do to critters that currently do, for example, 1d4-4 damage? I mean, if a hawk gets a 20 on a commoner with an AC of 12, does the hawk really cause damage of 5? That could kill the commoner.

In the case of natural weapons, damage could be reduced by maybe 2 points or so per difference in size between attacker and target, thus, that hawk could maybe inflict one or two points damage on a medium target.

Scimitars, Rapiers, Picks and other Weapons would have to count as one category lighter or else no Longswords would be used.

These are light weapons already (I think), so they would only do +2 damage, not the +4 Quasqueton listed or the +3 I'd suggest.

Power Attack would only be useful for two-handed weapons, all others won't get nothing out of it.

True, but a small tweak could take care of this. For every two points that you reduce your attack, increase damage by three if you are using one handed weapons. This makes it still useful and does not make using PA with two handed weapons any less useful or less dangerous.

Weapon Finesse becomes extremly powerful since it increases Attack and Damage - don't expect to see any strong guys any more; swashbucklers rule!

The simple fix to this is the armor as damage reduction rule from UA. It doesn't negate the usefulness of the feat in helping the person strike a target, but more heavily armored targets are not going to be hurt as badly.

 

[Darren]

Instead of damage dice, weapons get a bonus on their attack rolls depending on their size:
Fist/unarmed: +0
Dagger, knife, or other "tiny" weapon: +1
Shortsword, handaxe, or other "light" weapon: +2
Longsword, battlexe, ect.: +4
Great sword, great axe, ect.: +6

What about unarmed monks?

 

[Hawken]

I'd say they start off with a +1 damage for unarmed attacks, then +2, +4, +6, +8, +10 and give them the increase at the normal levels Monks unarmed damage would normally increase.

 

[drexes]

I see a problem...

If I missed it in your post, I'm sorry...

What about creatures with damage reduction, add that to a high ac and you have a potential game breaker... Adamantine Fullplate +3, Hvy Shield +3, Dex +1, ring of protection +2, amulet of natural armor +2 = AC 31 with three points of DR.

ACK!!!!

Just my two cents which might not be worth to pesos...

Drexes