Combat: rolling to-hit versus rolling damage

[robject]

One thing I want streamlined in combat is multiple targets and multiple damage rolls.

Players like:

(1) Rolling to-hit only once against a target.
(2) Rolling as much damage as they can.


Rolling to-hit against one target many times per attack feels like work.

Rolling to-hit against several targets per attack, however, is okay.

Also, rolling a bucket of damage dice is similarly okay, as long as it doesn't take brainwork to think about it.

* * *

Some weapons automatically attack adjacent targets -- shotguns for example. That's okay: the player will remember what his gun attacks.

Some weapons have dial-able power levels. That could mean they cause multiple damage rolls, i.e. if power setting 1 does 2D damage, power setting 2 does 4D damage... and that's okay, because players like rolling damage. Or it could mean a multiplier: if P1 does 2D damage, P2 does 2 x 2D damage. I prefer the former definition because it's easier to think about, and again, players generally don't mind rolling more damage dice.

 

[aramis]

I'm rather fond of the D&D and Star Wars approach to area damages - one roll, everyone's damage is affected by it.

Players groan every time Sean grabs 2d8+14d6 in D&D - the handling time is WAY too long once you get to "buckets-o-dice"...

 

[Licheking]

I'm not a fan of this option, but if you don't like loads of rolls and dice go to a roll 1d6 resolution system or just decide it and forget the rolls altogether.