Ok last one for today; what about dropping rolling for damage?

Ok last one for today; what about dropping rolling for damage?

Ok last one for today; what about dropping rolling for damage?

We’ve already got a range of dice outcomes; 6-, 7-9, 10-11 and 12+

Would out be worth just using those results for damage outcomes?

6- 7-9 10-11 12+

E.g. a sword does 0 / 4 / 6 / 12

But a Great Axe is 0 / 8 / 10 / 18

20 thoughts on “Ok last one for today; what about dropping rolling for damage?”

  1. We have been discussing exactly that. Basically, removing swinginess, as well as a harm and hp replacement.

    But that’s for consideration in .04.

  2. I love this, because I hate rolling 10 for defy danger.. then rolling 10 for hack and slash.. and then rolling 1 for damage! That completely ruins everything imho 🙁

    I would change something to simplify, like the 12+ damage is the other two damages summed.

    E.g. a sword does 0 / 4 / 6 / 10

    But a Great Axe is 0 / 8 / 10 / 18

    So you have to make up / remember one less number 🙂

  3. WiLLyRS when I first suggested exactly that (when we were pitching WoA as DW Revised) I got a ton of pushback! People just love their swinginess. I find it to be counter to the fiction at best, anticlimactic at worst.

  4. On roll20 I use a different approach (but it’s not good for the woa principles because it adds complexity): I made up a custom dice with 0-1-1-1-2-2 on the face and throw half of them minus one based on the damage plus the modifier. For example, if a warrior class damage is d8, I throw 3 special dices + STR. With this method you have a base damage (STR) and a little of randomness where you have a very very high probability of a 2-4 result, a low probability of a 5-6 result and a pretty non-existent probability of doing 0-1.

  5. I’ve seen a damage system like this in two different places: Savage Worlds and the rules-lite Blood of Pangea. Instead of having a table of damage by weapon type and success (which harkens back to OD&D), a here’s a procedural simplification:

    * on a 7-9, weapons do 1pt on damage. Tis merely a scratch.

    * On a 10+, damage is the base damage of the weapon plus one for every point over 10.

    For example, the Great Axe above:

    * 7-9 is a piddly one point of damage

    * 10 is now 10pts dmg

    * 11 is 11pts

    * etc.

    The point being to make this procedural not tabular.

    Also, this preserves some swinginess but reduces die rolls.

  6. As Yochai said, we’re looking into other methods for health and damage, but we haven’t hit on anything concrete yet. It’s hard to find something closer to what we’d like (less variable, and with clear fictional impact) that can still be built upon with moves. At least the current systems work fine, right?

    But it’s pretty much the next thing on my list to change. Increasingly, I’ve found that the swinginess inherent to damage dice really messes with my ability to maintain the flow of combat, and that’s a big problem for me. I want something unpredictable (which mechanics like a Damage roll or a “Suffer Harm” move), but concretely engaging, y’know?

  7. Here’s another thought:

    Sword: highest of the two dice rolled

    Great Axe: highest die value +3

    Dagger: lowest die value

    Dagger when flanking/backstabbing: lowest +3.

    And so on.

  8. I’m actuall not a fan of weapon specific damage, except as a minor modifier, as one thing I love about Dungeon World is tying damage to the individual rather than the method.

    BUT. I would love to see more static damage. Maybe you only roll a die for the extra damage you do when you hack and slash and get a 10+???

  9. Another reason I’m not a fan of weapons tied to damage is it INEVITABLY leads to a situation where some people feel certain weapons are superior from a stat perspective. Not a fan of that thinking. Style of stats, any day.

  10. I’ve been playing recently with a house rule that 10+ does full damage and 7-9 does half damage, no roll. It works okay, it does speed things up, but it might be too predictable in a way.

    I wonder if you could do something like, take the lower die of your 2d6 roll, then add a class-based damage modifier. w[2d6] averages to 2.5 as does 1d4, w[2d6]+3 averages to 5.5 as does 1d10, so it would map fairly well to DW damage. Also it retains the higher minimum damages that the fighter has in WoA 0.2, and the average damage would be inherently higher on 10+ rolls.

    Anyway I’m interested to see what the team comes up with.

  11. Richard: That’s how DW is designed. Each class has a different damage die! So no extra design work needed.

    Example of what I’m thinking for a Fighter, say:

    GM: OK, roll hack and slash!

    FIGHTER: I got a 10! I do my full damage and nothing bad happens!

    GM: OK, but that doesn’t kill him. Do you want to do an extra d10 and try to finish him off? That’ll open you up to one of his attacks, though.

    FIGHTER: rolls a d10 Shoot, I only did 2 extra damage.

    GM: And he has a d10 damage himself, so take 10 in return!

    Of course, one of the ideas in Worlds of Adventure is to only roll d6. But I think there’s an elegant solution somewhere.

  12. The issue here is by tying damage to the H&S roll you’re doubly rewarding 10+ rolls. You get both higher damage and avoid the counterattack. A move in this direction would require an entire rewriting of the move.

  13. Jools Thomas Justin Ford I like the idea of the static damage based on Playbook, adjusted by your move result.

    It would double reward a 10+ and so need a rewrite, and while Hack n Slash is a big part of DW, it’s not as fundamental as Defy Danger.

    What about: when you attack in melee roll plus STR. On a hit do your playbook harm but your target makes a move too. On a 10+ choose one: do double damage or avoid the counter-attack.

  14. I like the idea of static damage and am quite intrigued by what a rewritten H&S would look like. Removing damage rolls does slightly beg the question of why we even have the fine gradation of hit points at all though.

  15. One point in favor of rolling = excitement

    Admit it, it’s fun to roll dice.

    The cost being : it’s slower

    That and what Jools Thomas said. If you do static damage, better of with just tick boxes of how many hits you can sustain. Or straight AW’s Harm.

  16. To follow on the previous suggestions, what about this:


    When you attack an enemy in melee, roll +STR.

    On a 10+, choose 1:

    ■ Pick the biggest number rolled for this check, deal that damage and avoid their attack.

    ■ Add up both numbers rolled for this check, but expose yourself to their attack.

    On a 7-9, pick the biggest number rolled for this check, deal that damage, but the enemy makes an attack against you.

    Playbooks would have fixed bonus damage you would add to any damage you do.

  17. Personally, I think going the AW harm route would change things drastically. It would be more realistic/gritty, but it would (maybe) make it less heroic. It would be interesting to playtest this. The nice thing about the harm route (if you like), is that you don’t have a character at full capacity when they have only one hit point (nice for the simulationist, but since this game is all about the story…)

    That being said, I tend to favor less dice rolling. A static damage, adjusted to the playbook, with minor variation relative to the dice roll (as mentioned before) would be nice. For this, my suggestion is : 10+, do damage of playbook + stat modifier. 7-9, do damage of playbook and open yourself for harm (half damage). 6-, receive full damage.


Comments are closed.