Determining To Hit

While pondering my raging D6 vs D12 debate, I recognized that changing the die type would affect the modifiers to the to hit number. Before I explain that issue, though, I thought I should explain how my to hit system works.

Getting Hit

Dungeons & Dragons, the first and most popular role playing game, bases the to hit number on the defender's armor. It's harder to hit someone with heavy armor and easier to hit someone without armor. I have a problem with that approach.

Let's demonstrate my reservations with a video.

In D&D, the heavily-armored guards should have had no trouble hitting the unarmored fencing master with his [old school] AC of 9. Yet they can't touch him until his wooden sword is broken. Clearly, armor is not the main determinant on whether he got hit; it is skill and experience.

Now, I know that D&D uses hit points as an abstract measure of defensive acumen. Syrio would have a lot of hit points so it would take a while for the guards to whittle him down. But that turns combat into a very attritional game, with more record-keeping. I wanted to get away from tracking a lot of hit points.

This led me to a different take on determining hits. The To Hit number would depend on the relative experience of the combatants. A master would have an easier time hitting a novice but the novice would be lucky to hit back.

In game terms, this means I compare the combatant's levels, which range from 1 (novice) to 6 (legend). If the combatants are equal in levels, then there is no modifier to the base to hit number (4+ on a D6). A difference of 1-2 levels results in an advantage or disadvantage (effectively + or -1 on the roll). More than 2 level difference is a significant advantage or disadvantage (+/-2). In practice, the system is simple and quick.

What About Armor?

You'll notice that armor has no impact on getting hit in my system. Instead, I assume that armor reduces damage if you get hit.

Right now, I divide armor into 2 broad categories - light and heavy. No armor gives a disadvantage to the save roll while heavy armor adds an advantage. Failing the save results in a wound.

And Shields?

Initially, I treated shields as armor, which reduces damage. But I am experimenting with shields affecting the to hit roll. Realistically it makes sense. I use a shield to prevent you from hitting me. But in practical game terms I think it is easier if shields add to the armor bonus for saving. I haven't decided which way to go.

But How Does the Dice Type Affect All This?

My system assumes a 50% chance to hit if there are no modifiers. With a D6, this means that I can only after 2 levels of advantage or disadvantage. For example, a novice attacking a master would need 4+2 = 6 to hit. If there were another level, then there would be no chance for the novice to hit, which may be realistic but is no fun.

Note: This example shows one of the advantages of a D12. A 1 in 6 (16%) chance seems too high for a novice to hit a master. A 1 in 12 (8%) chance is better. For more realism, I probably should use percentile dice and give the novice 1-2%! But I don't want to go that route.

If I switch to D12, I can add more levels of advantage. If the base to hit is 7+, I can have 5 levels of difference - more granularity but in practical terms this seems to require more detailed record keeping and calculations. I'm trying to keep it simple, and D12 seems to negate that.

I have a similar issue with armor. Using D12 allows more categories (padded armor, leather armor, maille, plate + other variations), but introduces more complexity.

Ultimately, my D6 vs D12 dilemma seems to boil down to the level of complexity I want. Part of more wants more granularity, but I am really enjoying the simplicity of a rules light system.