Static Weapon Damage: A Problem, and a Solution

If you've read my posts on D&D Without Damage Dice and Ascending Damage, you'll know I use a sort of "wound counting" or "hit counting" system, which by definition has static damage - every hit with a weapon is just "one hit". The design goal is to make combat simpler and faster, but ideally, it should still be interesting and have some variety.

What is static and variable damage?

In the olden days of Chainmail, monsters and men took a certain number of hits to kill, regardless of weapon. The effectiveness of different weapons was modeled by their ability to score a hit against each type of armor, as presented in the dreaded MAN-TO-MAN MELEE TABLE. Then came Original Dungeons & Dragons, which introduced hit dice - instead of 1 hit-to-kill, men could take d6 points before death. LIkewise, all weapons dealt d6 damage. The damage roll introduced some variety to the outcomes of attacks. However, this system is still typically called "static weapon damage" in the sense that weapons were not differentiated.

The Greyhawk supplement introduced the "alternative combat system" with its "damage done by weapon type", or what we would call variable weapon damage. Daggers dealt d4 damage, spears d6, and swords d8, as they do to this day. This was wildly popular and was carried over to Moldvay's Basic - though it should be pointed out that it was presented as an optional rule. The default in Moldvay was still the fixed d6 damage rule.

So, the main ways of differentiating weapons are:

• variable damage (die size, flat bonus, roll and keep...)
• damage adjustments against different foes (e.g. bonus against large creatures)
• adjustments to hit (e.g. against different armor or weapon types)
• critical hit range (20, 19-20...) and damage (2x, 3x...)
• secondary special features (spears can attack from 2nd rank, crossbows must be reloaded...)
• number of attacks
• tertiary properties such as weight, price, initiative adjustments, durability, social status...

What's the problem with static damage?

I'm not really a simulationist. I'm not aiming to represent historical combat faithfully. But I still want a little mechanical differentiation to support the difference in fiction, obvious to anyone, between stabbing with a dagger vs. swinging a greataxe. And, honestly, combat without damage rolls might end up feeling a bit sterile, so making weapon choice and tactics a meaningful decision will help spice it up.

In my B/X-hack-via-OD&D-and-Blackmoor (name pending), I obviously cannot vary weapon damage, since I'm not using dice for it. Certain weapons doing 2 or 3 hits (or "Wounds" as I'm calling them) instead of 1 would be far too large a difference, when most low-level monsters like skeletons and orcs can only take a single Wound.

I don't usually like double-damage critical hits in D&D, and prefer a natural 20s as simply automatic hits. But when playing with Wounds, I would consider including criticals just to add some variety to the proceedings. However, when facing monsters that always die in a single hit (HD 1 types like orcs), doing "double hits" on criticals does not matter at all.

Is there some solution, some system of differentiating weapons while keeping fixed damage? Ideally, any solution would include a minimum of three "tiers" of weapons in terms of weight/effectiveness: simple weapons like daggers, martial weapons like swords, and two-handed weapons, at least. (If spears don't have their own tier between daggers and swords, then they will have to be combined with either, becoming strictly superior in that damage tier, due to their additional property of reach.)

One possibility is to do something like what Chainmail does: give the weapons different to-hit adjustments against different armors. But that sort of thing is part of the reason I wanted to get away from LotFP in the first place. I don't want to remember what bonus which weapon gets over what AC threshold, and doubtfully do my players either. (Maybe if the LotFP adjustments were stated in terms of "against targets in metal armor" and so on, rather than AC numbers, I would've hated them less.) I don't want "weapon vs. AC" lookup tables. If my goal is to make combat fast, having to consult a table is not going to help.

The solution: Variable Critical Hit Range by Weapon + Overkill

Yes, there is a solution to all this!

First, the solution to critical hits not mattering against mobs of orcs is the Overkill rule: Whenever your attack kills an enemy with Wounds left over, you can carry over the excess Wounds to another target (as long as its AC is equal or worse than the killed target's.) Thus, when you score a critical against an HD 1 orc, you now kill two of them in one blow.

Secondly, and far more importantly: Critical hit range now depends on weapon type. Variable crit range, in other words. For example, daggers never score critical hits. Spears score them on a natural 20. Greatswords score critical hits on a natural 18-20.

Weapons	Critical Range	Other
Dagger	-	Riposte
Club	-	-
Staff	-	Two-handed
Rapier	20	Riposte
Spear	20	Reach
Axe/mace/shortsword	20	-
Sword	19+	-
Polearm	19+	Reach, two-handed
Greatsword/greataxe	18+	Two-handed
Sling	-	-
Shortbow	20	-
Longbow	19+	-
Crossbow	18+	Reload

Thirdly: Fighters score 3 Wounds on critical hits. Everyone else scores 2 Wounds.

Fourthly, a minor point: Specialists/Thieves, when landing a Sneak Attack, automatically deal a critical hit (even if the weapon is not normally capable of critting).

Rationale

Note, firstly, that weapons fit neatly into four tiers. Moving one step down in critical range will usually give you one positive feature, and vice versa: rapiers and spears aren't quite as damaging as standard swords, but they have interesting secondary features. Axes and maces, likewise, have their own situational benefits over swords. Shortswords are strictly worse than standard swords - but hobbits can wield shortswords in one hand, while they require two hands for an axe, mace or sword.

A polearm has reach, and that's why it's not quite as devastating as the undisputed king of damage, the greatsword. If polearms and greatswords were equally damaging, polearms would be the strictly superior option - which may be a historically accurate rendition, but not one I want to adhere to in my swords-and-sorcery inspired campaign.

 

In every case, players will have to choose - do they take axes to chop down doors or spears for reach? Or do they forgo these benefits, focusing on damage? In this aspect, the system works very similarly to one with variable damage dice.

However, critical hits are automatic hits, which means they have interesting interactions with AC that must be analyzed. The number of attacks that critically does not depend on target AC. But the number of regular hits does. Thus, the higher the target's AC, the larger the contribution of criticals to average damage.

The table below shows the relative damage increase from using a critically-hitting weapon, compared to a common baseline. The assumed baseline is a weapon that cannot critically hit for double damage - a dagger, in our case.

Relative improvement over non-crit damage vs. Required d20 roll to hit.

Crit range/damage	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
20 / 2x	8%	8%	9%	10%	11%	13%	14%	17%	20%	25%	33%	50%	100%
20 / 3x	15%	17%	18%	20%	22%	25%	29%	33%	40%	50%	67%	100%	200%
19+ / 2x	15%	17%	18%	20%	22%	25%	29%	33%	40%	50%	67%	100%	200%
19+ / 3x	31%	33%	36%	40%	44%	50%	57%	67%	80%	100%	133%	200%	400%
18+ / 2x	23%	25%	27%	30%	33%	38%	43%	50%	60%	75%	100%	150%	300%
18+ / 3x	46%	50%	55%	60%	67%	75%	86%	100%	120%	150%	200%	300%	600%

Note a couple things.

Firstly, a critical range/damage of 19-20/3x is better than 18-20/2x. In my system, this translates to: a Fighter deals greater (average) damage with a sword than a Thief does with a greatsword. The Thief still gains a benefit from using a greatsword, but the gain is smaller than for a Fighter. This is perfect for me, since I'm not using any class-based weapon restrictions. I want even Magic-Users to use swords if they want to - they just won't be as effective with swords as Fighters or Thieves.

Secondly, the benefit of using a heavier weapon is relatively more important when the required to-hit roll is higher - that is, when target AC is higher. In practical terms: it turns out greatswords and polearms "penetrate" armor better in this system. This may not be entirely realistic, but it's good enough for me. When you're fighting fleshy unarmored peasants, an axe or dagger will do; for dragons or armored paladins, consider bringing something heavier.

I think this system could be incredibly powerful - effectively, it is a "weapon vs. armor type" system without requiring any table lookups, nor any secondary rolls. You simply note the crit range on your sheet when you pick up a new weapon, and it stays the same no matter what foe you're fighting - though it results in different outcomes. The baked-in math does all the magic. I think this counts as following the philosophy which the GLOG states as: "Consolidate ruthlessly. Turn two rolls into one, turn one roll into none. Turn tables into formulas, turn formulas into static numbers."

How does it stack up?

So within the new system, the weapons seem to work great relative to each other. But what about the damage increases overall? Aren't those percentages a bit high, you ask? To compare this to the original games, let's look at how much of a boost variable weapon damage in B/X gives you. Let's choose the d4 as the baseline for comparison, since our earlier copmarison used a non-critting dagger/staff as the baseline.

B/X weapon equivalent	Die	Average	Improvement over d4
Unarmed	d2	1.5	-40%
-	d3	2	-20%
Dagger	d4	2.5	0%
-	d5	3	20%
Spear	d6	3.5	40%
-	d7	4	60%
Sword	d8	4.5	80%
Greatsword	d10	5.5	120%
-	d12	6.5	160%

In our new system, let's say a 1st level PC (+1 to hit) is attacking an enemy in plate (AC 17, roll needed to hit = 16). In the variable crit range system, how does your choice of weapon affect your damage, and what damage die does it correspond to in the variable damage system?

Crit range/damage	Damage improvement	Example attacker	Example weapon	Equivalent variable damage	Equivalent bonus to-hit
20 / 2x	20%	Thief	spear	d5	+1
20 / 3x	40%	Fighter	spear	d6	+2
19+ / 2x	40%	Thief	polearm/sword	d6	+3
19+ / 3x	80%	Fighter	polearm/sword	d8	+4
18+ / 2x	60%	Thief	greatsword	d7	+5
18+ / 3x	120%	Fighter	greatsword	d10	+6

So, against a plate-armored opponent, a Fighter's benefit (in terms of average damage) for grabbing a spear, sword or greatsword is exactly the same as in B/X variable damage! Thieves and Magic-Users are free to use swords and greatswords, but they'll effectively be using a smaller damage die - d6 or d7 - in a system without any damage rolls!

That's for 1st level PCs against a plate armor. Of course, if the enemy's armor is worse, or the attacker's to-hit is better, then weapon choice becomes de-emphasized compared to B/X. That is, greatswords give smaller improvements over daggers than they would under variable damage. Vice versa, if the target is better armored than a human in plate, then bringing a big weapon becomes even more important under this variable crit range system.

Pros and cons of Variable Crit Range

In summary, the pros of using critical hit range to differentiate weapons and critical hit damage multiplier to differentiate classes:

• The player-facing mechanics work exactly the same regardless of the foe being fought 
• It a sort of "armor penetration" effect without any need to consult charts
• There is no need for weapon restrictions by class, yet Fighters still gain more of a boost

 Cons:

• As a caveat, one should be extremely careful about implementing "advantage" rolls into this system. Effectively doubling the chances of a crit can have quite massive effects when coupled with triple-damage crits.

Minor caveats

(Just to pre-empt a minor point: Daggers not being able to critically hit may go counter to expectations. However, the special-case rule that "any sneak attack that a Specialist/Thief lands is a critical hit regardless of weapon" means that sneak attacks with daggers are just as effective as those with greatswords. If you used variable weapon damage, and doubled damage on sneak attacks, then Thieves would be incentivized to use greatswords. Unless of course you implemented class-based weapon restrictions, which I don't want to do.)

As a side bonus: in addition to, or instead of, +to hit magical weapons, you could have "keen weapons" that have a greater-than-normal critical range - keen rapiers that crit on 19-20, and so on. If you really wanted to get into the weeds incentivizing genre faithfulness, you could even give dwarves an increased critical range with axes and hammers (bringing them up to par with the sword), etc. etc.

By the way, in case you're wondering how a +1 to crit range compares with a +1 to hit, see the last column in the previous table. 20/2x is equivalent (in average damage improvement) to a +1 to hit, 20/3x and 19+/2x to a +2 to hit, and so on. So, if you're not a Fighter, each point of critical range is worth +1 to hit (+1/+2/+3). If you are a Fighter, then each point of critical range is worth +2 to hit (+2/+4/+6). Generally, +2 to hit is equivalent to +1 damage.

Differentiating Spellcasters: Spell Orbs, Elven Mind-Palaces, and more

These are some of the kookier ideas I’m kicking about. The Elven one, I think, is a really flavourful and small change that makes them more Moorcockian/ Melnibonéan, which I dig. The Cleric change is something that makes sense to me fluff-wise, but I’m not sure if it might break the game too much - please let me know what you think. The Magic-User one is the most kooky, and has the biggest impact on how the game plays, so I've saved it for last. Any of these can be implemented separate of each other. As always, nothing is playtested until stated otherwise.

Clerical Miracle-Working

Spontaneous Casting: Clerics no longer prepare spells. They can spontaneously cast any spell they know, which “spends” the corresponding spell slot. As usual, sleep and meditation is required to recover spent spell slots.

Elven Sorcery

Casting: Elves are innately sorcerous. Instead of using Spell-Orbs (see Magic-User), spells simply emanate out of an Elf's hand, though they share the Magic-User's spell list.

Mind-Palaces: Instead of a spellbook, Elves carve their spells into their personal Mind-Palace, which exists in the plane of dreams.

Transcribing a new spell into their Mind-Palace requires a long and deep trance and the use of special incense and potions. In terms of time and gold cost, this is the same as for Magic-Users. However, unlike a spellbook, the Mind-Palace cannot be physically stolen or destroyed (although astral travel into the plane of dreams may enable one to vandalize an Elf’s mind palace, or steal spell formulae). An Elf’s Mind-Palace starts with only the Read Magic spell.

Preparing & Learning: Elves still prepare spells into slots, which is done during their nightly sleep/trance. Each time they gain a level, an Elf learns a new spell of a level of their choice and adds it to their Mind-Palace at no gold cost (though the time requirement still applies).

Magic-Users’ Spell-Orbs

Preparing: When Magic-Users prepare spells (which requires access to their spellbook), they create a one-use physical object for each prepared spell called a Spell-Orb.

Appearance: Assume a Spell-Orb takes up roughly one "slot" of inventory, or about the same space as a flask of oil. Most Spell-Orbs appear as glass balls with energies swirling inside them. However, they may also be any other sufficiently sized fragile and obviously mystical object: a charm made of sticks and bones, an unstable alchemical concoction in a bottle, or a latticework of herbs and crustacean legs joined with the mixed saliva of birds and the Magic-User. A Spell-Orb may be set into the tip of a staff for convenience.

(The reason Magic-Users often wear long robes is to conceal their Spell-Orbs within the myriad folds and secret pockets, in order to prevent assailants from snatching or destroying them.)

Casting: Using the Spell-Orb requires gesturing with it, which then triggers the spell and destroys the orb. Ranged spells require the orb to be thrown, though they cannot miss; they orbs transform mid-air into magic missiles, fireballs and so on, functioning just the same as any other spellcasting method.

Other characters may also use Spell-Orbs created by a Magic-User. Characters who are not Magic-Users, or Magic-Users of an insufficient level to cast the spell, can attempt to use them with a risk of failure. When you make such an attempt, roll your Arcana skill (1+INT in 6, Magic-Users have +1) with a penalty equal to the spell’s level. Example: if your Arcana skill is 4 and you use a 2nd level spell, you have a 2-in-6 chance of succeeding.

If the Arcana attempt fails with a roll of 6 on the die, the spell is a misfire: it is triggered but with its target or effect reversed (as deemed appropriate by the Referee). If it fails on any other number, the spell is not triggered and the Spell-Orb remains unused. A character who has failed to trigger a specific orb may not attempt to use that orb again, though it is still usable by others. Thrown Spell-Orbs (i.e. ranged spells) that fail to trigger merely fall onto the ground, but when hitting a hard surface have a 1-in-6 chance to shatter. When a fallen orb shatters, it triggers the spell, targeting the space it landed in. Fallen spell orbs can also be shattered by missile attacks (AC 17 to hit). 

Unused Spell-Orbs harmlessly disappear out of existence when the Magic-User recovers their spell slots. When the Magic-User dies, each of their active spell orbs has a 4-in-6 chance of dissipating harmlessly, and a 1-in-6 chance of exploding and triggering the spell, otherwise persisting and remaining usable by others.

Gaining new spells: Spellbooks work as before: each time they gain a level, a Magic-User learns a new spell of a level of their choice and adds it to their spellbook at no gold cost (though the time requirement still applies).

(Note that only Magic-Users use spellbooks and spell orbs, though all casters still use the system of spell slots.)

Rationale

The physicality of orbs will help players unfamiliar with Vancian casting grasp the meaning of spell slots. In Vance’s stories, spells are living things that inhabit a wizard’s head through his concentration and discomfort. Now, they will be concrete things the character can hold. Also, this will make inventory management a factor for Magic-Users (particularly suited to slot-based inventory systems, and those with rules for item breakage). Allowing other characters to use orbs opens up new possibilities, but at a risk. As for shattering orbs, I’ve always liked how in Nethack et al. burned scrolls can explode, broken potions still apply their effects, and so on. It really ties magic into the environment, a real part of the world. (And, honestly, I kind of want to see someone try to jam a fireball orb down a white dragon's gullet.) Also, spell orbs once again harken back to certain concepts in Dave Arneson's early games, though I do not know how the mechanics there exactly worked. If you have good information on Arnesonian spell balls, please let me know.

Many systems try to take out the spellcasting system from D&D and replace it with something else, like spell points. None so far have produced better results in play than the original system.
I currently have no interest in redoing the entire spell system, or writing new spell lists, or most importantly, breaking compatibility with existing TSR & OSR materials. However “slots vs. spell points” is not the only parameter that can be modified in the spell system. There are at least the following parameters, off the top of my head:

1. Casting spells - the actions required to activate a spell, and any restrictions to doing so such as “no armour”, and any side effects of these actions (magical mishaps, etc.)
2. Preparing spells - when and how a character chooses the spells available for the adventure, or if they have all the spells they know available (spontaneous casting)
3. Learning spells - whether a character knows all spells on their list, or knows a subset of it, and whether there is a maximum on the size of the known subset
4. Spell resources - what is spent to use spells: spell slots and spell levels, spell points, HP drain, increasing risks, etc.

Of these, #4 seems to be the most often complained about, and most often modified. It’s also the one that needs the most work, and often breaks compatibility with existing spell lists, because translating spell levels to a shared resource doesn’t work too well. (It’s not really even the part that’s the most “Vancian” - preparation is.)

It appears to me that the other parameters - how to cast spells, how to prepare spells, and how to learn spells - are a much more fruitful area for modification. Changes to them have a much smaller interface with the rest of the rulebook - although they may still have far-reaching balance consequences during play (such as allowing Magic-Users to cast spontaneously).

With small changes like these to how your spellcasters learn, copy, prepare and cast spells, you can give them unique flavour without invalidating existing spell lists and compatibility with modules. The possibilities are endless. Imagine, for example, a druid’s spell slots each taking the form of an animal spirit when not prepared, or an elf who can only channel spells through weapon attacks, or...

Ascending Damage & Dicing With Death

The rule

You no longer have hit points. You have a Wounds tally - the higher it goes, the more badly you've been hurt. You start at 0 Wounds. Whenever you are hit by an attack, you suffer 1 Wound. (This replaces HP damage. Damage sources that would deal multiple dice of damage deal one Wound per die of damage.)

You have a Maximum Wounds number from your class table (modified by CON - note that there are no negative ability modifiers, as per this previous post, so Max Wounds is always at least 1). If your Wounds exceeds your Maximum Wounds, you must Dice With Death: roll a d20. If the result is below your current Wounds, you die. However, if the result is above your Constitution score, you fall unconscious for 1 hour.

While above your Maximum Wounds, you must Dice With Death again each time you take further Wounds. Additionally, you have -2 to attack rolls and AC.

The rationale

Dying and initiative seem to be the two topics that I re-tread over and over, no matter the system I’m playing. I recently realized that “Health” as the number of hits to kill a PC from my earlier post (which replaces rolled damage) would pair perfectly with an ascending damage system. That is, one where you tally up the damage you’ve taken on your character sheet, instead of subtracting from your hit points tally.

In the regular D&D system of HP and damage rolls, there is uncertainty at first, followed by certainty: first, you take variable amounts of damage, but once you’re at 0 HP, you’re dead (or unconscious or whatever it may be). The mechanics move from dynamic to static as play progresses. On the other hand, this proposed system of static damage (1 Wound per die) makes things… well, static and predictable at first. But Dicing With Death makes the next phase dynamic and uncertain. It flips the script of the adventure around, as it were: the uncertainty of rolling is moved to the later, higher stakes part of the game. As the adventure progresses and resources dwindle, uncertainty goes up. And, thematically, that makes sense, right?

(By the way, there exists a third system that differs from both the “dynamic to static” and “static to dynamic” systems. It’s the “static to static” system where a hit is a hit and death is death. Such a system was used in the very early days of the proto-D&D game which was based on Chainmail. Characters simply had “hits to kill” - so instead of having two hit dice, you could take precisely two hits, and then you were dead. For example: "Ogres are killed when they have taken an accumulation of six missile or melee hits in normal combat". As mentioned in the previous post, these “hits” were only later expanded into the more incremental system of hit point rolls and damage rolls, when players complained about dying too quickly. And that’s where hit dice get their name.)

I have always been fascinated by mechanics that add uncertainty at the point of (near-)death. Uncertainty means tension. However, damage rolls are not tense, because they’re routine and average out in the long run. They’re only tense when you’re very low - if you have 6 HP, then the trap’s 2d6 damage roll is the difference between life and death. But up until you get to that threat range, the damage rolls don’t matter, and you might as well just take the average result every time.

"Death spiral" systems, i.e. ones where your fighting capability falls linearly as you take damage, are bad for a different reason. They remove uncertainty up front: whoever gets hit first has probably lost, and the result of a fight is decided and obvious from the beginning..

Essentially, what I have done is extended the relative space of play where a single roll decides the fate of a player character. However, I haven’t made things more lethal overall. In fact, I’ve given players slightly more resources - first they lose their health, and then they get complications, while still having a chance to survive. You could perhaps call it a safety cushion, but the important thing is that the risk is real (unlike, say, 5th edition’s death saves which make it virtually impossible to die). At the same time, I’ve given players more rope to hang themselves with (which is always more fun). In an HP damage system, getting knocked out can be sudden (and double damage critical hits exacerbate the problem), but after it happens there’s nothing players can do about it that. But here, if they’re badly wounded and dicing with death, they always have the option to keep fighting and exploring. If they don’t want to retreat, it’s their own choice.

Compatibility & benefits

D&D with static and ascending damage might look very different to the D&D you know. However, it should be reiterated that this is all entirely compatible with existing materials and modules. When you play a module and it says you take 3d6 damage, you instead take three Wounds. The majority of the time there’s no maths involved in conversion - in fact there’s less maths than when playing normally.

Apart from cutting down on maths and redundant rolling, the Wounds tally system also has a logistical benefit. Character sheets get worn down more from erasing than they do from writing on them. When you play with descending HP, you have to erase a number and write a new one every time you take a hit. When you check a box each time you take a Wound (unlike HP, the maximum number of Wounds is small enough to reasonably be represented as checkboxes on the sheet), you only need to use an eraser when you get healed. And healing is a less frequent occurrence than taking damage. Therefore, you're saving trees by playing this way!

Optional rules

Though these reduce the elegance of the system, I may add them later to tweak the lethality once I see how it works out in playtesting. As always, everything is just theorycrafting so far, unless otherwise stated.

Critical Failures: When you Dice With Death, if you roll exactly your current number of Wounds, you suffer an additional Wound from internal bleeding (and must, therefore, Dice With Death again).

Adrenaline Spike: One exploration turn after any combat or chase in which you have Diced With Death, your adrenaline runs out; you must Dice With Death one more time, unless you have been healed down to your Max Wounds or below.

Static damage & different weapons

• Daggers have a -2 penalty to hit against defenders armed with long weapons. (That means things like swords, spears and polearms.) This does not apply to unaware targets or those who are otherwise unable to defend themselves. 
• Two-handed weapons and crossbows are Devastating. On a natural 20, they deal an additional Wound. Other weapons don't get to do that. 
• Unarmed strikes and improvised weapons (torches, thrown rocks, etc.) only deal damage on a successful Open Doors roll (2+STR in 6).
• Fighters get some other neat bonuses to make up for losing the bigger damage dice - more details on that in a later post.
• Leader monsters and monsters in modules listed with maximum HP may be counted as one HD higher (take 1 Wound more to kill than normal). For example, if a den of goblins (HD 1 = 1 Wound) is lead by a chieftain with 8 HP, then count the chieftain as HD 2 when determining Wounds to kill it.

Bonus: Other potential uses for “roll-between” mechanics

 Notice how when you Dice With Death(tm), you're trying to roll above one target number but below another? Just spitballing, but:

• When you hit with a two-handed axe, if the attack roll is below or equal to your Strength score, you sever a limb.
• When you hit while dual-wielding light weapons, if the attack roll is below or equal to your Dexterity score on your attack roll, you deal double damage.
• When you are parrying with a lighter weapon, if the opponent’s attack roll misses but is above your Strength score, your weapon is flung from your grasp. Otherwise, if the attack roll is below or equal to your Dexterity score, you get a free counterattack.

D&D Without Damage Dice

A contest on G+ to come up with a new way to speed up combat in D&D caught my interest, two responses in particular.

The first was Cavegirl’s one roll fights. It reminds me of the War Machine mechanic from Rules Cyclopedia, and really drives home the idea that battle is a risky proposition that you should not undertake without heavily stacking the odds first. Personally, if I were to hack it, I might turn it into two rolls instead. Players could see the result of the first roll, and then get a chance to affect their fates with spells and such, or simply run away. Then, winning two rolls would mean an overwhelming victory, winning only one roll a victory at a cost, and losing both rolls an escape-or-die situation.

The second interesting idea in the thread was replacing HP with HD, that is, you can take a number of hits equal to your number of hit dice. One hit from any weapon is... one hit. There would be no damage rolls, which certainly should speed up the game and reduce calculations and bookkeeping... I couldn’t stop thinking about this idea. So I grabbed my trusty spreadsheets and tried to hash it out in detail.

Note that this is not playtested yet, just theorycrafting so far. I would quite like to playtest this at some point if I can iron out some of the issues, but that may require additional hacking of ability scores.

Working out the number of hits

First, let’s look at how many hits a PC can take under current rules (using the gold standard of B/X). On average, a 1st level Fighter, having d8 HP can take 1.29 hits from a d6 weapon before going down. Magic-Users can take 0.71 hits, and clerics 1 hit. These averages increase linearly by level.

Here’s how many d6 hits a B/X character can take on average under the default rules, rounded up.

Level	MU d6s	CLE d6s	FTR d6s
1	1	1	2
2	2	2	3
3	3	3	4
4	3	4	6
5	4	5	7
6	5	6	8
7	5	7	9
8	6	8	11
9	7	9	12
10	8	10	13
11	8	11	15
12	9	12	16
13	10	13	17
14	10	14	18

So that is the rough guide we should look at when designing this new damage-roll-less system, in order to approximate the same level of PC survivability. Throughout this article, I will refer to these new survivability points as Health, to avoid confusion with the normal Hit Points. Instead of damage, attacks will deal Wounds. Taking one Wound is the same as losing one Health. A d6 of old HP damage translates to one Wound in the new system.

So why are we looking at d6 damage? d8 damage, after all, is quite common for a one-handed weapon of war - there’s not much reason for a Fighter to use a handaxe instead of a battleaxe. But remember that variable weapon damage is an optional rule in B/X. We are looking at the d6 because that’s how much damage all weapons originally did. As for monster damage, looking quickly through the list, the d6 seems to be most common die, although there are a lot of d8s (and “as weapon”) too.

We are faced with a choice of two options for this new system. Either we base player Health off the d6, which is in line with non-variable weapon damage. This makes monsters die more easily (29% more), since we’re pretending they used a d6 hit die before when in actuality it was a d8 (well, at least after variable weapon damage was introduced - before that it was a d6). The other option is to base everything off the d8, which makes everyone about equal in relation to B/X, but greatly boosts d4 weapons and smaller. Perhaps we should err in favour of the players here.

So, we have all weapons dealing 1 Wound on a hit, and monsters having Health equal to number of HD. The straightforward way to work out player health would be to use that d6 table above straight. Essentially, players would have 1 Health per d6 (3.5) hit points, rounded up. Fighters would start with 2 Health, while Clerics and Magic-Users would start with 1 Health.

However, looking at only averages results in a very poor fit for low levels. While it works out to the same results on a high number of repetitions, at low levels repetitions are low and you’re cheating players out of a lot of chances to survive. For example, when taking a hit from a d6 weapon, a 1st level cleric (d6 HP) has a 42% chance of surviving. Even a Magic-User has a 25% chance of surviving, while the Fighter has 56%. Generally, you have slightly worse than even odds to survive a weapon with a damage die equal to your hit die at 1st level (because a tied roll still brings you to zero). See the chart below.



Apparently, the original reason for the creation of the granular hit point system in Arneson's games in lieu of the "one hit = one kill" system from Chainmail is that players didn't like it when their characters died too suddenly:

"It meant that players had a chance to live longer and do more. ... They didn't care if they could kill a monster in one blow, but they didn't want the monster to kill them in one blow."

(So, it might be that we're moving backwards with this experiment and there are very good reasons damage rolls are standard... but let's ignore all that for now.)

The simplest solution to the “level 1 problem” would be to have all classes start at their Health values of level 2. They would then not gain an additional Health at 2nd level, but follow the progression according to the above table thereon.

However, since we will have to make a whole new Health table anyway, this is a good opportunity to tweak the progression. We can use an entirely new equation, unshackled from the idea of one die size and one die per level. This way, we know where our numbers are coming from, and we’re not just blindly reimplementing artifacts that arose from the restrictions of the original system (i.e. the shapes of dice that were available to the original designers) while compounding them with new restrictions. And gaining 2nd level is the first time players get to experience leveling up, so it should feel like something! So, here’s an alternate progression you can use, based on a linear factor multiplied by level.

Alternate progression

Health = 1+YxLvl, rounded up. Y factor: M-Us 0.55, Clerics 0.82, Fighters 1.12. These progressions follow the original progressions the closest at mid-levels. They start out better at low levels, and fall off at high levels.

Level	M-U Health 1+0.55xLvl	CLE Health 1+0.82xLvl	FTR Health 1+1.12xLvl
1	2	2	3
2	3	3	4
3	3	4	5
4	4	5	6
5	4	6	7
6	5	6	8
7	5	7	9
8	6	8	10
9	6	9	11
10	7	10	13
11	8	11	14
12	8	11	15
13	9	12	16
14	9	13	17

Comparing survivability with the old HP system

Fighter:

Cleric:
 
Magic-User:


I think it looks quite good. A bit more survivability at low levels is not a terrible thing, in my opinion. Some interesting artifacts: Magic-Users do not gain any Health on levels 3, 5, 7 and 9, when they gain powerful new spell levels. Between levels 5 and 6, which is when Clerics suddenly gain two new spell levels in B/X (though not in Labyrinth Lord), they do not gain any Health. There is also a remarkable resemblance to the hit dice progression from the OD&D (before the Greyhawk supplement), where every class (and monstes) had a d6 hit die but gained them at different rates - Fighting-Men gained a die per level, Clerics gained one on almost every level, and Magic-Users gained one every other level.

Constitution modifiers

Now that we have our Health progression, we simply need to modify by Constitution. We can say that each +4 HP from Constitution (round up) is about equivalent to one additional hit die (and, consequently, Health). Thus, a +1 modifier should grant an additional Health every 4 levels, a +2 grants an additional Health every two levels, and so on. A +2 modifier should grant an additional Health every two out of three levels. This means that for a max level Cleric the gain from Constitution is actually slightly lower than the original HP system (1.77x vs. 1.86x). Once again, this formula improves things for players at low levels but makes it slightly tougher at high levels.

	Constitution Modifier / Health Adjustment
Lvl	-3	-2	-1	+0	+1	+2	+3
1	-1	-1	-1	+0	+1	+1	+1
2	-2	-1	-1	+0	+1	+1	+2
3	-3	-2	-1	+0	+1	+2	+3
4	-3	-2	-1	+0	+1	+2	+3
5	-4	-3	-2	+0	+2	+3	+4
6	-5	-3	-2	+0	+2	+3	+5
7	-6	-4	-2	+0	+2	+4	+6
8	-6	-4	-2	+0	+2	+4	+6
9	-7	-5	-3	+0	+3	+5	+7
10	-8	-5	-3	+0	+3	+5	+8
11	-9	-6	-3	+0	+3	+6	+9
12	-9	-6	-3	+0	+3	+6	+9
13	-10	-7	-4	+0	+4	+7	+10
14	-11	-7	-4	+0	+4	+7	+11

The downside is that on each level up, players will have to reference both their class’s Health chart and the Constitution Health adjustment chart and sum the values. Then, because they progress at different rates, it is actually possible for them to lose Health on level up with a -1 or -2 modifier. That's obviously a huge flaw in these steps. So there needs to be some stipulation that your maximum Health can never decrease on level up. It gets rather messy and inelegant.

Constitution is the biggest obstacle I currently see to the new system. All this gives me half a mind to just get rid of the -3/+3 modifier range and have them go from -2/+2. Abilities shouldn’t matter overmuch, after all. Alternatively, one could have reduced Health gains from Constitution (and penalties which never overtake Health progression) and make Constitution important for other things, like dying/bleeding out.

Monsters and spells

Monsters will have one Health per HD. Thus a PC hitting a goblin or skeleton always kills it, no damage roll required. Functionally, this makes them similar to the famous Minions from 4th edition. Monsters with a plus on their HD will be treated as one HD higher for purposes of Health.

All sources of damage do one Wound for each damage die (d4 to d12). Each +4 counts as one additional die. For example, a trap that does 4+2d4 damage will deal three Wounds, and an attack that does 1d10+1 damage will deal one Wound. Spells which do half damage on a successful save will only do half Wounds. For example, a fireball spell has 8 damage dice so it will do 8 Wounds on a failed save, or 4 Wounds on a successful save.

The one exception is when halving the damage dice (e.g. due to resistances) would leave half a damage die, or when an attack would deal damage in an odd number of d3s. These are called “half-dice”. A half-die will have a 50% chance of doing no Wounds and a 50% of doing one Wound. For example, an attack that dealt 3d3 damage will now deal one Wound, and have a 50% chance of dealing a second Wound. Or, you hit a creature with a torch for 1d4 fire damage, which would usually be 1 Wound, but if the creature is resistant to fire, you only have 50% odds of dealing a Wound on a successful hit. On-hit effects are still applied regardless of damage. For example, a ghoul’s claw is d3+paralysis, so the paralysis is applied on every hit, even though damage is only applied 50% of the time.

(Also, to prevent everyone just using torches as weapons instead of swords, you may want to give them a reduced damage chance too, or say they’re only an effective weapon vs. specific enemies such as trolls and mummies).

Weapons

What about two-handed weapons? Differentiating them will be dealt entirely with Fighter abilities. When using shields, Fighters can sunder them to negate damage. When using two-handed melee weapons, Fighters can attack again each time they score a kill. Greatweapons might also be allowed to overcome the slashing/piercing resistance of skeletons due to their large mass. Additionally, Fighters will deal an additional Wound on a natural 20.

All this leaves crossbows in a somewhat strange position - they shoot more slowly but deal the same damage as everything else. I may reinstate the armor piercing from LotFP there. Crossbows will fire every other round and pierce 2 AC for light crossbows or 4 AC heavy crossbows.

Unarmed fighting: If an attack roll with an unarmed strike succeeds, players need to roll to see if it deals a Wound. Since unarmed strikes had a d2 damage die before, their odds of dealing a Wound are now 2 in 6, plus 1 in 6 for each point of Strength modifier. Perceptive players will notice that this is the same chance as Open Doors rolls in B/X - perhaps we can rename Open Doors to “Smash” and use it for both. We could even use this chance for improvised weapons (e.g. torches) and treat them the same as unarmed strikes.

To Recap

• Health will replace HP. Player characters gain Health according to new class tables. Monsters will have one Health per HD, plus one Health if they have any pluses on their HD.
• Damage is not rolled, instead damage sources will deal one Wound per die of damage, plus one Wound for every 4 fixed damage. 
• d3 damage sources and odd dice halved due to resistance will have a 3-in-6 chance of dealing one Wound. 
• Open Doors chance equals the chance to deal damage on a hit using an unarmed strike or improvised weapon.
• Effects that refer to the target’s Hit Dice (such as Sleep) will use levels instead when the target is a PC.

Advantages:

• No rolling monster HP.
• Less tracking/HP maths on the fly - Health values are in the single digits for most of the game. 
• No rolling damage. 
• Fewer dice required (players only need d20 and d6). 
• Increased survivability at level 1. (YMMV whether this is a good thing.) 
• Doesn’t break compatibility with existing material.

Disadvantages:

• Less granular damage modifications: STR, magic weapons…
• Smaller design space for abilities. 
• Some players may find less rolling less fun. 
• Things become more static and predictable. It’s easier for players to tell when they should retreat. Players usually want to retreat when they have 1 HP, but feel like they have a decent chance at 4 HP.
• Applying Constitution modifiers becomes more complex.