I've played about for a while with house ruled D&D (Basic) with the idea that 'the more accurate you are, the more damage you do'.

Weapon damage dice aren't rolled, instead a weapon gives a bonus to damage, up to how accurate your strike was.

Example:

Fighter attacks an Orc (AC6) with a sword.

Let's say Fighter needs to roll more than 13 to hit on 1d20. For every point that she exceeds 13, regard it as 1 point of accuracy. Roll 16, that's 3 points of accuracy. Roll 19, that's 6 points of accuracy.

Match accuracy point for point with a damage bonus of 1 point from the weapon, up to the weapons maximum, as listed here:



The weapons that give the biggest damage bonuses require the character to be more accurate (because they are large weapons, and unwieldy). Another option will be to make the two handed weapon types slower (lose initiative) and reduce accuracy by 1 point, but inflict 2 points of damage per point of accuracy up to the maximum bonus. I've played around with a few options, including a critical hit style system.

If the accuracy exceeds the damage bonus, you 'max out' the weapon and could probably do with a bigger weapon if you're doing it regularly. For instance, a skilled warrior would easily 'max out' a dagger, and find they would be far better served by an Axe or Two handed sword.

In the example above, the Fighter attacks an Orc. She uses a sword and adds Strength (+2) to the Hit roll, getting a total of 17. She exceeds the target number by 4 points and adds 4 points from her Sword for a total of 8 damage.

One roll to hit and damage. Armour reduces damage, but you could inflict a minimum amount of damage equal to your strength bonus (if you have one) if the armour blocks it all, from bruising. I would base Armour (or Defence Class) on speed, intelligence, perception, skill, experience, size of foe and surprise (if any) so its easier to hit slower opponents.

A 20 'explodes' allowing you to roll and add another D20 to your hit roll. Let's say she rolled a 20, then rolled 8 on the next roll. She exceeds the target (roll 28+2 from Strength=30) by 17 points. She adds the maximum (+8) from the sword for 25 damage, chopping the Orcs head clean off in one stroke! She only wishes she could do that to the Dragon waiting at the end of the dungeon!

Having 20s explode could be the critical system (I'd planned a MERP style critical table with a roll bonus of the number of points you exceeded the weapons max by, and a table for each weapon).

With this, even a Thief with a dagger can inflict huge damage by plunging it into an eye, whilst a very skilled/high level Fighter could make a Dagger as deadly as a battle axe in the hands of a barely trained Orc.

Like everything else I do, still in the planning stages, buried somewhere in a pile of unfinished projects on my hard drive

Missile weapons are harder to hit with (range penalties) but multiply accuracy with very high maximum damage bonuses (though you'd have to be Robin Hood to max a bow out, or Bard the Bowman aiming at Smaug)

Any thoughts/opinions, ways to break this/improve it?

One question - does Strength modifier still apply to the base to-hit roll in your clone, as that would then be applying that modifier to the damage roll twice?
 
Its an OK way of avoiding the old problem of ginormous hit roll, crappy damage roll. I like the 'bigger weapons are more unwieldy' bit of logic there.
One downside I think is that the PC probably has to be told the target's AC in order to calculate the damage bonus.

I've tried similar systems in the past. The main problem I saw is that they slow down combat and the additional math causes problems for a few players (which slows combat more when those players have a turn).

That would be a neo-clone not a retro-clone.  Pedantic I know but the distinction matters.

As others have said, it's a little extra math and that terrifies people.  Other than that it's not a bad idea.

It would work well with Dark Passages, but I won't be stealing it as I've just finished an update and have no desire at all to mess with it.

Strength modifier applies to hit only, but a positive (+1 or more) bonus means that you'll inflict a minimum amount of damage with every blow (the bruising part) even if the Dragon you face has 15 points or armour or whatever.

With regards the extra math, it may be how I've explained (or not explained it).

Here I was thinking a simple roll (roll over target number, difference is accuracy, add bonus from weapon up to weapons maximum, apply as damage to target after armour reduces it) would speed things up!

I'll stick with it and expand upon it, perhaps making the wording seem less... intimidating It's meant for an old school homebrew type game (simple to play, fast, full of rubbish home grown art), dozen or so pages rules set with a few basic spells (also requiring a 'roll over' with every point going towards effect, duration or range as the player decides) and about 20 monsters, with a basic dungeon to get the game started. Will see what I can come up with, thanks for the comments (and clarification - neo clone is one I've not heard before...)

Thinking about some more, it seems like a weapon attack will often do "max damage" under the system, possibly too often using 1:1 scaling. 2:1 maybe messy, but I sort of like the idea of using it with a d10 system for attack rolls
 
 
Another idea I thought of was that instead of the exact amount over the roll adding to damage, have a number of points over the target number give an extra dice, then roll and take the best. Perhaps +1 dice per +3 over or +4 over.
 
e.g. Going with an extra dice per +3, then say if a character had a longsword, needed to roll a 13 and got a 16, they would roll 2d8 and take the higher roll.
 
Less precise but you get the cap on damage logically arising from the system, and max. damage results remain a bit rarer.
 
Potentially this could lead to mechanics that feed off manipulating the 'dice pool' if you wanted, for instance, armour could act to reduce the 'dice pool' or remove the single highest rolled number...

Well, I went with 'What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?' when going off accuracy > weapon damage. Anyone can 'max out' a hand held weapon by putting the pointy end into the squishy thing up to the hilt, but that might not always (thankfully so) kill someone. An accurate strike can/should do more damage, from a stab in the eye to cutting someones limb off, or crushing their skull I figured.

I did play about with 'grades of success' instead of every point counting, so:



But it meant putting in a table, and I'd like it to be as table-free as possible

The extra dice of damage is a good idea, but I just wanted the one roll to hit/damage for speed. That might work as a nice house rule for BECMI.

Have also played around with T&T style adds. My thinking was that whilst strength is important, so is being smart, sharp eyed, fit, agile, strong willed and lucky, so every stat would add to Combat skill. Reasoning:

Strength - not just lifting power, but the skill to use it
Intelligence - knowing where to strike, and how to best avoid blows
Agility - flexibility, dexterity, balance
Endurance - fitness, drive, health point bonus
Speed - speed of reactions as well as increased movement rate
Perception - seeing where the next blow is coming from, and where to place your own
Will - is the other guy better than you? A strong will means it doesn't matter - you'll win anyway, you know you will.
Luck - everyone needs luck, and getting a stroke of luck at the right time might tip the battle in your favour

Stats determined by rolling 1D6 three times for each. A roll of 1 gives -1 modifier, roll of 5-6 gives +1, so stats range from -3 to +3 with zero being average. Add them all up to get the characters Combat Skill. Considering a stats roll for every monster faced, as the combat skill will vary from creature to creature (with +1 being above average for that monster, -1 below average, and so on). Basically roll 24D6. 1s give -1. 5-6 give +1 and ignore the rest. Still working on it. And an online dice roller would probably help!

Also considered 'reputation' because that would have a major bearing on the weak willed. Monsters have an extra stat called 'ferocity'.

Been playing around with an alternate combat system as opposed to the original 'you go, my go' D&D style combat...

Combat Process

1. If attacking a foe that is not facing you in melee, you attack a target number + combat skill + modifiers (so a normal human melee target number is 10. An ogres, bigger, slower, is 8. A goblins, smaller, faster, is 11). You must exceed target number to be successful.

2. Initiative is 1d6 + whatever you decide to sacrifice from combat skill that round. If both opponents are attacking each other, it's not required.

3. Attack. Roll 3D6 each, with triples exploding (save triple 1, a critical failure). If you have a weapon skill, you may roll an additional 1d6 per skill level, then replace one of the previous rolled 3D6 if you wish (so long as you didn't roll triple 1!)

4. Add combat skill. Highest total wins. The difference between scores is accuracy.

5. For each point of accuracy, add 1 damage from weapon up to its max value.

6. Reduce damage by armour worn, the remainder is taken from health points. If accuracy is equal to or greater than the characters strength modifier, they always get to inflict their strength in damage as bruising, regardless of armour.

=========

COMBAT EXAMPLE

So here we have:

Fighter (combat skill 4, using and with skill in normal sword: 1 doing up to 8 damage, armour 5, health 14) vs orc (combat skill 2, normal sword doing up to 8 damage, armour 3, health 11)

1. Initiative is not required - both foes are attacking one another.

2. First round

Fighter rolls 3,4,1 (8 total). Skill die give 4. She replaces the 1 with a 4 giving a total of 11, plus combat skill of 4, total 15.

Orc rolls 2,2,3 plus combat skill 2, total 9.

6 points of difference give 6 accuracy, matched point for point by the sword for 12 damage total. Reduce that by armour of orc (3) and the orc takes 9 health points of damage, leaving it on 2.

3. Second round

Fighter attacks 5,6,3 rolled plus 3 from skill. Her roll (14) + combat Skill (4) gives a total of 18. The orcs' chances are slim!!

Orc rolls 4,6,5 plus combat skill 2 for a total of 17.

The difference is only 1 point, matched by the Fighters sword for a point. This does not exceed the orcs armour of 3, but the Fighters strength is +1, so she inflicts a point of damage anyway from bruising. Orc is down to 1 health point.

3. Third Round

The orcs best chance is to surrender or run, but it was part of a raiding party on a village and the Fighter doesn't look too merciful!

Fighter rolls 5,5,5 (triple! dice explode!) plus 4,3,2. The skill die comes up 5, which is used to replace the 2. Total roll is 15+12 (27) plus Combat Skill 4 for a total of 31!

Orc rolls 4,6,4 (14) + Combat Skill 2 for a total of 16.

Damage is 31-16=15 accuracy, plus 8 from the sword for a total of 23! This easily bypasses the Orcs armour of 3 points, and drops the Orc to -19 Health!

With a savage thrust and twist, the Fighter leans back and kicks the orc from her blade, seeing it crash to the floor, dead before it hits. Taking a moment to catch her breath, she kneels down to rifle through its pockets and take all its stuff ™ before moving on deeper into the dungeon.

=========

Besides skills I figured special maneuvers, talents and powers might affect things as well, mostly by giving certain damage or attack bonuses if the opponent has or hasn't got the counteracting move. Monsters of different size and inherent speed give a modifier to the one with the higher value target number. So for an example a Human (target number 10) vs an Elf (target number 11) would give +1 to the Elf when facing off against a human. Likewise a human (TN10) vs a Green Slime (TN5) would give +5 to the Human. Of course, the Green slime has special properties that mean it's not really bothered about being struck (one being it's 'splash' attack...)

Defensive moves like parrying and dodging would come into play as well. Parrying would reduce your combat skill, but increase your armour (and if you 'won' the round you inflict no damage). Likewise dodging gives an extra die to your roll (pick three, discard one die) but if you win the round, you inflict no damage.

I wanted a cross between D&D (simple, fast, class as race) and Tunnels and Trolls (simple, fast, without the silly names and quirky feel, plus the buckets o dice thing never quite did it for me.)

Working title:



No-prize for guessing what that means

I ran through the above combat example a couple more times, and the Fighter won almost every time. Aside from the higher combat skill, the Normal Sword Skill level 1 helped a lot, so barring lucky/unlucky rolls, a better combatant should win most of the time. That said, the dice can be very fickle...

For monsters, thinking their stats might be -1 for a roll of 1, +1 for a roll of 6 (as opposed to 5-6).

Example Monster

Kobold
Target number 12 (size small, speed fast)
Ferocity -2 (increase by +1 for every band of 5 or part of, so 15 kobolds give +1 total ferocity)
Reputation -3 (increase by +1 for every band of 5 or part of, so 15 kobolds give +1 total reputation)
Health points 1D6 + Endurance modifier (minimum 1)
Weapon - usually dagger (4) or a stick (2) or fangs/claws (1)
Skill - none
Armour - scaly hide 1 point

example:



That's a lot of numbers, but the things you need to know are health points and combat skill at the bottom. The others come into play when spells are cast, a character chases a kobold, tries to outsmart it, intimidate it etc.

For a pack of 3 average kobolds, chances are they'll have 0 combat skill, but this hapless trio would prove little or no trouble for the fighter in our last example to beat.

For skilled or 'champion' creatures, 5-6 would give the +1 I think.

I'll keep working at it. Goals are - speed of character creation and combat, a magic system that relies on a roll and applying player choice into how much power from 5 circles goes into the spell, some piss poor homebrew 'art' and a low page count so as not to discourage people. Plus a decent size of font, because my eyes aren't what they used to be.

Too complicated while the original works fine, for me. There's nothing to "fix" in my mind.

Quote from: Benoist;560049Too complicated while the original works fine, for me. There's nothing to "fix" in my mind.

Thanks for that valuable input.

You're welcome. I have another point of valuable input, or rather, a question: how is that system a "retroclone"? What does your game clone?

Well, I'd intended to combine certain parts of the OGL (spells, classes, monsters)  to 'clone' D&D Basic (Moldvay version) and borrow a couple of mechanics from Tunnels and Trolls (the combat adds and one roll hit/damage) so what started out as a possible retro clone for Basic D&D turned into a mish mash of a couple of systems. What's the point in turning out another straight clone of Basic D&D when there are several knocking about, so I figured to try something different.

I'd alter the title on the thread but it doesn't really matter. I'll play about/develop this elsewhere (off this board) if I think I can clean it up/reduce the crunch.

Ok. Because when you label your game a clone that creates expectations on my part, which then explains my reaction to the rules change, here.

Now, explain to me why you are changing the damage system. What is the game play benefit you are seeing here?

Well, the game play benefit (as I see it) is that the more accurate, skillful or downright lucky you are, the more damage you should cause with your weapon. Unlike say, D&D where striking an opponent is a simple yes/no style resolution, then you roll another die to see how well you struck, the system I outlined in the previous posts rewards skill. A more skillful opponent will *usually* (remember dice are involved here) strike not only more often, but more accurately, than a sword wielding thug who hacks like they are cutting a hedge.

To this end you have Combat Skill (an accumulation of all your statistics) which gives you an edge over lesser skilled opponents, and skills in weapons, which give you the chance to drop poor rolls to hit in favour of better ones.

A high level Fighter in D&D (without weapon mastery) might hit more often than a lower level character, but won't have any higher chance of causing more damage with a non-magical normal sword if they both have the same strength.

Another benefit to the way I propose (and I got this from T&T) was that there is, most of the time, a winner in a round. Face to face play is less of a problem, but round by round play by post can drag on forever with poor rolls for low level characters. Instead, with:

3D6+Combat skill vs 3d6+Combat Skill

The chances are that the dice rolls won't be tied, someone will 'win' the round and cause some damage, especially if a skill level in a weapon is involved. The 'speed/size' factor will also come into play, so hitting a dragon might be easy (because of its size) but you have to get past its armour to hurt it.

The other stuff - Ferocity, Reputation, Team Attack modifier mean that mobs of Kobolds stand a chance of hurting someone, even if they don't do much damage. A single kobold will be easy meat though. Strength in numbers and all that.

APN, good work--glad it's progressing for you. I love the fact you're trying to emulate two classic systems. If you can get it figured out there is a ton of potential with it. While I couldn't call it a true retro-clone, it is definitely in the old school spirit. Keep it going!