I'm considering trying a diceless approach to damage for my next 4E campaign.
The reason for it are:
- Speeding up combat and make it flow smoother
- Maintain the integrity of 4E combat system mechanics and balance
- Make the ht roll outcome be more relevant
Let's suppose a character uses a 2W+Str power with a longsword. Assuming his static bonus total is 10 he could have the following outcomes:
- minimum: 12 -> 2+10
- average: 19 -> (2+16)/2 + 10
- full: 26 -> 16+10
- critical: 26 + avg bonus dice per item '+'
- half (on a miss when power grants it): 9 -> average / 2
The damage value is adjudicated just by looking at the natural roll (not the difference with the target defense, for the sake of keeping things quick and simple).
For instance (numbers are just examples):
- miss: 0 or half (for powers granting this)
- hit with <10: min dmg
- hit with 10-15: average
- hit with 16-19: full
- hit with 20: crit
What are your thoughts?
It might be more profitable to miss than to get min damage.
Good point. In that case I would probably allow the player to volutarily go for a miss after checking the roll.
Player wise I am up in the air for spead of combat and simplicity it is nice to just use a average damage I mean after a while the dm and players will know the damage a power does the second it hits, but rolling for damage is still kinda fun
I still suspect that this will not, ultimately, solve the root cause of combat taking too long.
Also, what about striker bonus damage (Quarry, Curse, Sneak Attack)? Will they be calculated based on the hit, or will they be auto-averaged?
I genuinely believe you'd be better served putting this work into what makes combat take so long to begin with.
That being said, having the monster damage be averaged out as others are suggesting, may not be a bad idea, and may help speed things up slightly.
What are your thoughts?
Interesting idea
To speed things up, average damage is probably just as easy to calculate. Your system of a 'damage spread' based on d20 roll result asks some follow up questions0) Do rogues do full Sneak Attack damage too if they roll 16,17, 18, or 19 (and 20)?
1) Is monster damage done the same way? If so, monsters will really hurt if they get "full"! Also, are healing powers still random or will all powers heal the same amount, for example, a healing word heals surge + 1d6 + WIS. Now it's always surge +3+WIS?
2) How do Area burst powers work now? A rolled 19 to hit one guy deals more damage than that 8 that just hit ... weird (and not how the game usually works with Area attacks)
3) A 17 against a monster barely hit its AC, but does full damage. A 17 against another monster hits it by 8, but the damage is the same. What is the die roll really representing (if not skill, then luck?)
To speed things up, average damage is probably just as easy to calculate. Your system of a 'damage spread' based on d20 roll result asks some follow up questions html_removed
I've considered using averages only, but I'm afraid that would make things too flat and predictable. I think it would be more exciting for players to do more damage with higher rolls.
0) Do rogues do full Sneak Attack damage too if they roll 16,17, 18, or 19 (and 20)?
Yes, I would give them full damage for sneak, quarry, curse, etc with rolls of 16+. These can also be written up front by players on the cards, so they the numbers are ready at hand for adding.
1) Is monster damage done the same way? If so, monsters will really hurt if they get "full"! html_removed
Yes. I'm keen for the system to remain balanced and consistent with 4E mechanics.
Monsters will hurt more, true, but characters will hurt more as well - @Cohen95: This will also contribute to speeding up combat; my gut feeling is that all things considering we may save about 20% of time, but I don't have data to back this up yet.
Also, are healing powers still random or will all powers heal the same amount, for example, a healing word heals surge + 1d6 + WIS. Now it's always surge +3+WIS? html_removed
I would use averages for those dice.
2) How do Area burst powers work now? A rolled 19 to hit one guy deals more damage than that 8 that just hit ... weird (and not how the game usually works with Area attacks) html_removed
I don't see a problem with doing different damage to targets in an area of attack. After all individual hit dice are rolled for each one. This is not inconsistent with the current rule either, for if you score a 20 for one of the targets the damage for it is considered a critical.
3) A 17 against a monster barely hit its AC, but does full damage. A 17 against another monster hits it by 8, but the damage is the same. What is the die roll really representing (if not skill, then luck?) html_removed
I know. For the sake of accuracy it would be better to use the difference between hit result and target defense, but that would make things more clunky. Anyway in 4E it is pointless to have ecounters where PCs and monsters have more than few levels of difference. I'm aware this is an approximation, but in reality (at least according to my experience) it doesn't happen that such a good roll as 16+ is needed just to barely hit a target, so I guess we may live with this.
It adds a lot of complication to a simple system,
surently you roll a attack you figure out if you hit you roll a quick damage dice that you probably already have memorised should run very smooth specialy if you don't bother to hide the monsters defences, now your system isn't realy better or worse I guess you roll to hit you determain that you hit next you check the resaults of the attack roll then check the card and give damage. cource this does underright the effectivness of +1 to hit and junk making + to damage notably better also makes powers like the elf reroll stronger and powers such as the humans + to hit weaker by a touch. Avengers who get to roll 2 D 20 and take the better resoult now gain a large damage and large to hit bonus on the average. halflings power can also be used a little more effectivly to try and reduce damage as aposed to simply tring to dodge the strike basing damage on the to hit roll will have a lot of smaller effects that are not as readily sean
That being said, and put aside for the sake of the idea of discussing average damage...
I would say assuming you're still making attack rolls as normal, the natural roll you get should probably break into 8-17 as average damage, 18-19 as full damage, and 20 as a critical hit, with less than 8 being lower damage (maybe minimum).
The only difficulty with this, is that if you're rolling a 6 and smacking a monster, they're obviously really easy to hit, so why are you doing your lowest damage on them? It's almost an argument for more damage on a lower roll (that hits) instead of a higher one.
Whats wrong with the simple "All die do a static number".
You roll 2 [W] and your W is 1d10. You deal 11 damage. (Average for 1d10 is 5.5. Multiply it by the number of die you were supposed to roll)
You can write your damage down, and be good to go right away. I feel like if you have to consult a chart after your to hit roll, it will be just as fast to simply roll your damage. It doesn't take that long.
- 1d4-2.5
- 1d6- 3.5
- 1d8-4.5
- 1d10- 5.5
- 1d12- 6.5
Multiply as needed.
Note Brutal and various "When you roll a 1 on damage rolls" powers are un-useable.
> un-useable.
Not really. Brutal 1 has the effect of increasing the result by .5 per die, while Brutal 2 increases it by 1 per die.
1d12 with Brutal 1 gives a 7-damage average, for example.
*edit nm
Not really. Brutal 1 has the effect of increasing the result by .5 per die, while Brutal 2 increases it by 1 per die. 1d12 with Brutal 1 gives a 7-damage average, for example.
I follow that logic and agree that is how it should work.
What do you do with powers that say "Reroll 1's" or "When you get max damage"?
"Max Damage" would probably best be converted to "when you score a critical hit".
"Max Damage" would probably best be converted to "when you score a critical hit".
Going from 1 in 4, or even 1 in 12 to 1 in 20 chance is a pretty big nerf.
Although, offering a nerfed version could potentially be better than no offering.
Someone could/has already figured out the average damage boost from this effect for DPR calculations. It is probably easy to grab out of that for this.
if it stunned till end of round make it stun till end of next round
if it did D6 extra damage make it do D12 extra damage or 2D6
this would make it not so much fo a nerf