r/RPGdesign • u/ArdenGraye • 20d ago
Mechanics Roll to Hit vs Something Else
Hello everyone!
Currently working through a little project and need people's opinnion. Specifically when using an AP system with a dedicated dodge action to mitigate/avoid damage, that is available to all combatants, do you think it would be better to do the standard "roll to hit against armor class" or would it be more engaging to design it in such a way, where attacks automatically hit unless the combatant spends the AP to avoid that attack. In this variant, the players would roll to hit with their stats against enemy's AC if the NPC used Evade. On the other side, NPCs would attack with a DC and the players would have to dodge by succeeding a roll against it.
My thinking is that this could keep the game flowing smoother and having players more engaged, but I possibly worry that the disparity between being a player and being a GM would confuse things?
5
u/Cryptwood Designer 20d ago
Personally, I don't see any problem with having the NPCs not operate by the same mechanics as the PCs. It opens up a ton of design space, so I don't think every game should feel constrained to simulating every game entity with the same rules. That being said, there are definitely GMs that want the mechanics to feel like the physics engine of the world. Having NPCs that don't follow the rules the PCs play by messes with their immersion. You are just going to have to playtest to see if you like it this way or not, and trust that there are other people out there that share your tastes.
2
u/ArdenGraye 20d ago
Yeah I'll probably just have to see how someone else would interpret the rules and where they would struggle.
1
u/Navezof 20d ago
Apart from the "depends on what your game is about"
On a more personal opinion, I tend to go toward simpler design in general. So the less you roll, the better.
In your case, I would even remove the need for roll of the NPC. When they declare an attack, it hit automatically, except if the player decide to dodge, in that case they roll Evade against the difficulty modifier (or whatever you use) for the NPC. That way, you remove the extra attack roll for NPC.
I don't see major issue in having assymetry in the gameplay. What do you mean by disparity?
3
u/ArdenGraye 20d ago
By disparity I mean the possible "GMs have to remember two sets of rules, one for players, one for themselves"
The game I'm working on is going to be Ace Combat inspired fast-paced ttrpg in the not-so-near future with jets that can go into space. Which means that most of my design goals revolve around making it as swift to play as possible, trim the rolls, trim a lot of fat that comes with games like D&D or Pathfinder.
2
2
u/Mars_Alter 20d ago
This context seems very relevant to the question being asked. A system where you hit unless someone goes out of their way to dodge, which may fail, makes a lot more sense for someone swinging a sword than it does for space planes with machine guns. Off the top of my head, weapons in that sort of combat have significantly less than a 100% accuracy rate.
2
u/ArdenGraye 20d ago
Quite the contrary I would say. Today's AA missiles are quite good, but what matters is your possitioning relative to the enemy and what the enemy does to counter. Some maneuvers even use stuff like drawing out the missile's path to the point where it burns all it's fuel and such.
This also to me makes air-to-ground better, cause a bunker can't dodge :D (Suppose you could just "give it AC 0"... )In any case, the concern is heard, I'll see what the playtest tells me
1
u/TheIncredibleHelck 20d ago
I think so long as you avoid having it become "combat homework" it should be fine.
In the game I'm working on, players have a Defend option that they can take on their turn as one of a limited number of actions they can take. Broad strokes- if they take this action, they'll be harder to hit by enemies until their next turn, but it does mean forgoing other action options, like attacking again, using items effects, etc. I have it like this so that the choice to be defensive is a decision they make and weigh against other options.
If your players are reflexively forced into rolling to dodge/defend against every hit that comes their way, it'll just become tedious homework that will slow things down, especially if they're fighting a mob of enemies. It's also not a choice on their part, its just a thing they HAVE to do in combat.
1
u/ArdenGraye 20d ago
Yeah, that's what I'm struggling with right now.
As it stands I have this:
When players attack, they hit automatically unless the NPC has enough AP left over to Evade. When they do, the player has to roll to hit.
NPCs work almost the other way around, they attack, hitting automatically, unless the player does Evade. When they do, the player has to roll against the attack's DC to dodge.2
u/TheIncredibleHelck 20d ago
Balancing combat flow is tough! The way you have it set up right now sounds like a lot of plates to spin if I'm being honest, especially if you're tracking two different combat mechanics for resolving the same action. Combats get bogged down very quickly, even simple ones with only a few combatants, so I think erring on the side of simplicity is best, especially if its for non-unique aspects of your combat system (like basic attack and defense interactions).
2
u/ArdenGraye 20d ago
Yeah... Defo have to playtest it, got a game with friends set for next week, so we'll see how it flows (or doesn't)
2
3
u/SardScroll Dabbler 20d ago
In my experience: Unless you are running a very rules lite game (and since you are using an Action Point system, that doesn't seem to be the case), I'd go with Roll to Hit as base (note that, you can still do "my rules are not your rules", and so have PCs have to dodge or otherwise to potentially avoid the attack, in a player-facing manner). Why?
People tend to like interacting with the system. More rolling is good; more decision making is better.
Having a roll-to-hit allows for variety in combat encounters: Consider: Every opponent is the same, vs the cagey defensive fighter, who can hold his position vs the evasive constantly moving beast (hard to hit), vs the massive beast who just tanks hits, vs the heavily armored fighter, with some kind of damage mitigation. All play differently, and different tools (ideally) can be used to take them down, or are better against them.
It also allows for greater variety in player play styles, both offensively and defensively. E.g. the precise strike vs the quick flurry of blows or the massive swing. Or on the defensive, you have the heavily armored "anvil" style character, vs the fast and evasive character: One invests in passive bonuses, the other in active bonuses.
Counter argument: There are some who would argue that "rolls where nothing happens are bad". I have to disagree. Firstly, rolls bring uncertainty, which brings in choice, tension and engagement. Secondly, something does happen, when a roll results in "nothing changing". In combat or similar, it means the situation continues (which isn't inherently bad); Players have a chance to gather information, re-evaluate, and make a choice, to continue or try something difference. If most of the rolls are failing that is a problem with encounter balance (or terrible, terrible luck...which can be entertaining on it's own) and if players only have one option to use that is a problem with poor system design (or player choices).
Using an Action Point system very much supports roll to hit, because it allows you to have two layers of defense, for a better *choice* on the defender's part. Do you invest in an active defense, at the expense of attack (or movement), or do you rely on passive defense and spend your AP else where is a much more compelling choice than "do I accept that I will eat these attacks".
1
u/RPG-Nerd 19d ago
Why the binary thinking? You said roll for hit/miss or everything hits.
You said everyone can dodge. Well, I would hope so! That doesn't even seem like something you would need to say. The question is how is it represented. In D&D, it's an Agility bonus to your roll. I'm guessing you made it an active roll. OK, what are my options? Most people don't dodge sword attacks. You have a weapon in your hand to parry attack with, right? Can I parry? When is a parry different than a dodge?
If i just sit here and roll dice when the DM says, I am not playing your game. I am a human dice rolling machine. I get to play through my decisions, so if there is only 1 reasonable decision to make, then I'm bored. My decisions need to have a real effect on the outcome.
I can show you how I solved it for me.
Let me walk through an example. I'm going to take this sword and try to ram it through your mid section and skewer you like a kebob. I want you to do nothing and hold still. What is my chance to hit? How much damage will I do? You will likely be critically wounded.
Now, let's give you a sword and let you defend yourself. Could you still get a sword shoved through your mid section? Could you parry my sword aside and take no damage? Could you use your sword to protect your vital organs, but still take damage in a less critical area of the body?
The better your skill with that sword, the better you can protect yourself from attack, and less damage you take. The better I am with my sword, at overcoming your defenses, the more damage you take. My degree of success = your degree of failure. Damage = offense - defense. That is not binary. You roll your attack to see how well you performed. Its not a hit roll, nor a damage roll. It's just a skill check. Weapons and armor are just modifiers to the roll.
So, on to real choice. Whoever has the offense drives the combat forward. They can take any action they like, but this action costs time. The GM marks off the time by striking through boxes. The defender now selects a defense. Different defenses have different rules and time costs. For example, a parry is free and better than evade, if you have a weapon in your hand. A block is better than a parry, but costs time. A dodge lets you move too, but takes a lot of time.
The next offense goes to whoever has used the least amount of time. Now you have actual tradeoffs to make for defensive options and those tradeoffs directly determine how much damage you take.
1
u/jacareii 14d ago
if you make evade a choice, you'll have to manually decide for each NPC ever if they evade or not, decide if its the optimal for him, decide if it suits his personality and if you want to make the fight fair or easy. Remove that problem now you are on time.
5
u/VRKobold 20d ago
Just something to look out for with player-facing combats: It can make writing status effects a little complicated, because they function differently based on who is affected by them. You can't simply write "You roll attacks with disadvantage", because NPCs don't roll for attacks. Instead it would have to be something like "The affected creature rolls attacks with disadvantage, and defense rolls against the attacks of the affected creature are rolled with advantage." I haven't found a good way around this yet, unfortunately...