Old saves or 4th. Or new or option

The thing about saves. Old style
Based on lvl and class. Next just on lvl. Next based on ability stars plus lvl.
Bottom line all are ok as long as the caster lvl plus lvl of spell minus lvl of target = penalty or bonus to save.
AD&D had the most complex saving throw system, but some of it was useless excess. I didn't like Psionic powers or martial abilities being "save vs. spell", for instance.

I did like the idea that Psionicists had the best saves vs. petrification/polymorph, and it made sense they would get bonuses vs. mental assaults, but kind of ridiculous that their +2 Willpower would be somehow equal to the 90% immunity of Cavaliers. That's like a +18 save. I don't think a Cavalier's mind should be 9 times more defended than a Mental powered character.

I think some saves were specializations, like +2 vs. death magic, +1 vs. illusion, or +2 vs. Fire. These looked neat but on the specialists it sometimes seemed too weak. There should be a point where a Fire Elementalist automatically makes their saves vs. Fire, and the same with Necromancers vs. Death Magic. You could even go so far as to say 'a saving throw penalty' implies a difference/20 save for those who aren't normally required to make saves.

For instance, a Necromancer at 9th level might gain 'No save required vs. Death magic' but a powerful necromantic spell with a -4 save penalty might require the Necromancer to save, but on a roll of 4+ he succeeds.

These Negative Save effects could also stack with the High level caster penalties, so a 30th level penalty of -6 would stack with the above death spell requiring a roll of 10+. Then you could apply normal "saving throw bonuses".
Options are Liberating
Save DC or attack roll (depending on which version we use) should never depend on a spells level. It sucked hard when your wizard got higher and higher level and you lower level spells that allowed for a save slowly became junk because the DCs didn't scale with level.
Save DC or attack roll (depending on which version we use) should never depend on a spells level. It sucked hard when your wizard got higher and higher level and you lower level spells that allowed for a save slowly became junk because the DCs didn't scale with level.



sometimes you need something better than a .22 to put down the farm animal. Doesn't mean a .22 isn't good for other stuff.
Options are Liberating
Old saves were terribe.  Just as your magic-user got to be able to turn someone to stone, everyone stopped failing their saves.  4e saves might as well be a coin toss, but a coin toss is at least fair.
- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Save DC or attack roll (depending on which version we use) should never depend on a spells level. It sucked hard when your wizard got higher and higher level and you lower level spells that allowed for a save slowly became junk because the DCs didn't scale with level.



sometimes you need something better than a .22 to put down the farm animal. Doesn't mean a .22 isn't good for other stuff.



It isn't good for much if you can't hit anything with it...
Save DC or attack roll (depending on which version we use) should never depend on a spells level. It sucked hard when your wizard got higher and higher level and you lower level spells that allowed for a save slowly became junk because the DCs didn't scale with level.



sometimes you need something better than a .22 to put down the farm animal. Doesn't mean a .22 isn't good for other stuff.



If, eventually, the .22 isn't able to be used on anything you are coming in contact with, you start to wonder why you're carrying it around in the first place.  Now, allowing modification of that .22, giving it different ammunition types or a sight or hell, whatever, that can at least give the .22 some reason to exist. ;)
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I just replied in another post how I hated how unbalanced 3.X saves, a 2nd level rogue easily passed any reflex save (and thanks to evasion took no damage) while the rest of the group couldnt pass that same save at level 20. And monks that failed any save since they were all main saves was in so much shock he probley killed over. A wizard of 18th level would be a nice lawn gnome for a wimpy medusa where a 1st level fight can stare loveily in her eyes all day.

In second they were rather complex and didnt make sense at times but I do enjoy the five types saves over three (Me and my one friend feel they should make some type of save system for each stat or some such).

Between all the editions there is alot of hits and misses but saving throws sucked in all of them, I hope 5th somehow makes a complete 180 in regards to saves.
i don't know what mechanism you guys are talking about, but in AD&D, a saving throw from a 1st level spell screws over low level monsters, no matter what level you are. Color Spray and Sleep don't stop being useful just because the main boss is practically immune - because the minions might not be.

It's a design flaw if you feel you have to keep fighting higher level monsters at all times. In AD&D you could blast 20 orcs with a fireball on monday, and then fight a dragon with high level summoned monsters on Tuesday. Fireball doesn't become meaningless just because dragons are high level, it's just useless vs. the dragons.
Options are Liberating
I just replied in another post how I hated how unbalanced 3.X saves, a 2nd level rogue easily passed any reflex save (and thanks to evasion took no damage) while the rest of the group couldnt pass that same save at level 20. And monks that failed any save since they were all main saves was in so much shock he probley killed over. A wizard of 18th level would be a nice lawn gnome for a wimpy medusa where a 1st level fight can stare loveily in her eyes all day.
.



This is either blatant hyperbole or you never played 3.X.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Translating the 4E non-AC defenses (NADs) into the old save system is as follows:

Give the wizard +10 to hit, but cannot roll his attacks.
Give the targets -10 to their NADs, and they roll for their defenses.

So at level 1, a 20 INT Wizard would have a spell DC of 15 (as high as 17 with Expertise and Accurate implement), while level 1 monsters would have an average of only +3 to their saves (requiring a roll of 12-14 to "save" against the attacks).  A 16 INT Wizard (non-optimal, but sufficiently adept) would have a spell DC of 13, so a roll of 10 or better would suffice.

Personally I prefer the new save/NADs system for two reasons:

1. System unification
The entire D&D 4E system greatly emphasized just six steps
-> determine action
-> determine target number
-> roll d20
-> add modifiers
-> compare to target number
-> determine effects

Thus, regardless if it's a spell or a creative/innovative action, the player follows just these six steps, and they'll be fine.  In fact, this is probably the main reason why 4E is so easy to learn -- although the intricacies of the system, like feats, themes, party synergies, etc. gives leeway for those who want their high system mastery too -- and why 4E in general is so appealing: so many things you can do, in just six easy steps! ;)

2. Tension building
The old saves were pretty much "Caster lobs spell at target, target saves against spell."  You get only one chance to avoid the effects of the spell or spell-like ability, and then not much else.

Compare:
3.5E Energy Drain

Energy Drain
Necromancy
Level: Clr 9, Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V, S
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray of negative energy
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial; see text for enervation
Spell Resistance: Yes
You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If the attack succeeds, the subject gains 2d4 negative levels.

If the subject has at least as many negative levels as HD, it dies. Each negative level gives a creature a –1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks, and effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities). Additionally, a spellcaster loses one spell or spell slot from his or her highest available level. Negative levels stack.

There is no saving throw to avoid gaining the negative levels, but 24 hours after gaining them, the subject must make a Fortitude saving throw (DC=energy drain spell’s save DC) for each negative level. If the save succeeds, that negative level is removed. If it fails, the negative level also goes away, but one of the subject’s character levels is permanently drained.

An undead creature struck by the ray gains 2d4x5 temporary hit points for 1 hour.


4E Energy Drain







































Energy DrainWizard Attack 29
An unwholesome beam of darkness impales your enemy and drains vital life from its spirit.
Daily Arcane, Implement, Necrotic, Nethermancy, Shadow
Standard Action - Ranged 20
Target:One creature
Attack:Intelligence vs. Fortitude. If the target is bloodied, it grants combat advantage to you for this attack.
Hit: The target is stunned (save ends)
Aftereffect: The target is slowed and weakened and takes a -1 penalty to attack rolls, all defenses, skill checks and ability checks (save ends all).
Each Failed Saving Throw: The penalty worsens by 1 (maximum -4 penalty).
Miss: 3d10+Intelligence modifier necrotic damage.
Effect: You gain temporary hit points equal to your healing surge value.





The former only forces a ranged touch attack then grants its save after 24 hours, so the only relevant tensions are when the ranged touch attack misses and when target's saving throw fails outright (and unless someone has a copy of the target's character sheet 2-8 levels earlier, you're going to see a lot of micromanagement issues outright).

Dare I say that although the 4E version isn't as annoying at the micromanagement and party synergy level, it is even more powerful than the original spell, given how it stuns [completely disables] then slows + weakens [half damage] + a penalty to just about everything, then on a miss it deals damage -- something the original spell couldn't do -- and it even revitalizes the caster somewhat [tempHP]?  And note also how the target is granted multiple attempts to shrug off the spell's effects, rather than just "one save and that's it" (well, in this case, three saves: one for the touch attack, one for the temporary level loss, and the other to see if the level loss is permanent...but since it's a player resource, why bother noting the second save when the target is dead at this point?).

As for the old system, there's only one thing I liked about it: The targets did the rolls, giving the caster a greater feeling of omnipotence (since it was basically all auto-hit, unless negated).

Hmm... it seems the prototype ideas on spells as mentioned by Monte Cook in one of the L&Ls are a direct lift off 3.5E saves... see www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Saving_Throw
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
I liked having attacks running ont he same system like in 4e, it meant less paperwork.
I liked having attacks running ont he same system like in 4e, it meant less paperwork.



Definitely.  Whoever makes the attack makes the roll.  Attack rolls vs defenses.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I agree. The way fourth Wrote up the powers is excellent and your example spell proves it.

On top of this if they get back to simplified hit points ( not 200 or 1,000) and use the same damage output or reduce it a little bit it might work better.
Yiu see, alot of people miss throwing alot of dice part for theatrics the rest to hurt that 200+ creature.
Now if monsters went back to 1st edition monster manual hit points it might work in a variety of ways.
Fights will not last as long
Damage from 4th like spells will be better. Fireball 3d6. Will sound better
I agree. The way fourth Wrote up the powers is excellent and your example spell proves it. On top of this if they get back to simplified hit points ( not 200 or 1,000) and use the same damage output or reduce it a little bit it might work better. Yiu see, alot of people miss throwing alot of dice part for theatrics the rest to hurt that 200+ creature. Now if monsters went back to 1st edition monster manual hit points it might work in a variety of ways. Fights will not last as long Damage from 4th like spells will be better. Fireball 3d6. Will sound better



The problem with this is that if damage stays relatively the same, but HP is reduced, then the players seem a bit too powerful. For example, say they want to fight a dragon, and they can take it down in fewer hits, and it seems much less threatening.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

I liked having attacks running ont he same system like in 4e, it meant less paperwork.



Definitely.  Whoever makes the attack makes the roll.  Attack rolls vs defenses.



Definitly. I agree!

But I wonder about effects such as Ongoing damages...Do you save or the attacker makes another attack to sustain it?

If you save, what kind of save would be good? A set number like 2nd edition, a DC like third or a Coin toss like 4th edition?

I really liked 2nd edition Saving Throw tables.
I'm playing: Abin Gadon, Halfling Bard Winston "Slurphnose", Gnome Sorcerer Pasiphaé, Minotaur Shaman Eglerion, Elf Ellyrian Reaver (Ranger) DMing: Le Trésor du Fluide (Treasure from the Fluid) Un Royaume d'une Grande Valeur (A Kingdom of Great Value) La Légende de Persitaa (Persitaa's Legend) Une Série de Petites Quêtes... (A serie of short quests) Playtesting: Caves of Chaos We're building the greatest adventure ever known to DnD players! Also playing Legend of the Five Rings and Warhammer Fantasy. Sébastien, Beloeil, Qc. I am Neutral Good and 32 years old.
I prefer the NAD system of 4e, but I do think that the 4e saving throw system needs to be looked at it and perhaps overhauled slightly. It turned out to be a lot of paperwork after all, despite trying to limit that, and did not always function as intended.

I would prefer shifting all rolling to the attacker, and for all rolling to be completed at the time of the attack. If you hit somebody with a stun effect, just roll a d4+1 to determine how long it will last. Bonuses to saving throws and extra saves could be converted into reducing that duration by 1 round (minimum 1 round duration for all spells).

If the predictability of that system is a problem, the next best option would be to shift the burden to roll to "maintain" his spells to the attacker rather than the target. So at the end of his next turn the wizard would roll to maintain the stun. Eleven or better, the stun continues for another round. This shifts some of the paper work burden from the DM to the players, which I think is fair, and as a player it's kind of cool to have a running list of all of my status effects to document my contribution to the fight.

Maintaining rolls would also introduce new possible mechanics to the game, such as spells that require an action to maintain, or multitarget spells that can only be maintained on one target at a time.

You could even use some combination of the two: Players roll to maintain their spells, but DMs roll a d4 for duration. Again, shifting more of the paperwork burden to players, but players only have the one character to track. With the proper tools, say a condition tracking area that is part of the character sheet, it should not be too difficult and it will keep players active during the DM's turn, if only to make sure he doesn't forget one of their precious status effects.
4e saves might as well be a coin toss, but a coin toss is at least fair.


4e "saves" are misnamed.  They don't repesent the same thing as prior edition saving throws.  4e saves are a durational mechanic and they replace the old 1d4 rounds used in prior spells for duration.

The equivalent to saving throws in 4e are the non-AC defenses, Will, Fortitude, and Reflex, which, not surprisingly, match the three saving throws in 3e: Will, Fortitude, and Reflex.

I don't want to see a return to saving throw tables that differentiate between wands, dragon breath, death saves, etc.  I wouldn't mind if spells targeted specific abilities.  So spells that inhibit movement (i.e., Web) might target Strength.  Spells that weaken you (i.e., Cloudkill) target Constitution.  Spells that trick you (i.e., Phantasmal Killer) target Wisdom.  Spells you can dodge (i.e., Ray of Enfeeblement) target Dex.  Spells that damage your mind (i.e., Feeblemind) target Intelligence.  Spells that control your mind (i.e., Charm Person) target Charisma.  That gives more variety and more strategy in choosing spells.

I like lofgren's idea of the attacker rolling to maintain his own spell.  I wouldn't mind if that simply required a successful attack each round.  Or make the duration the difference between the caster's primary Ability mod and the target's applicable defense mod (min. 1).  So an animal  with Int 2 (-4), affected by a spell that targets Intelligence cast by an Int 18 (+4) wizard, would last 8 rounds, but if cast on a rival wizard with Int 18 (+4), the spell would last one round. 

I like lofgren's idea of the attacker rolling to maintain his own spell.  I wouldn't mind if that simply required a successful attack each round.



If I recall, there were spells in 3e that worked this way. The only question I have is: do you record what the attacker's attack score and the target's defenses were when the initial attack was made, or do you make the attack based on what they currently are? Both seem abusable unless buffs/debuffs are tightly controlled. Otherwise a carefully built party would have a lot of potential to make encounter lockdown inevitable, which would turn the game into "rocket tag" just the same way that save or die spells do.
The only question I have is: do you record what the attacker's attack score and the target's defenses were when the initial attack was made, or do you make the attack based on what they currently are?


For bookkeeping ease, I'd base it on the initial attack.  And I do think that buffs and debuffs should be tightly controlled.
The only question I have is: do you record what the attacker's attack score and the target's defenses were when the initial attack was made, or do you make the attack based on what they currently are?


For bookkeeping ease, I'd base it on the initial attack.  And I do think that buffs and debuffs should be tightly controlled.



It's funny, I was thinking that for bookkeeping ease you should base it on the current attack and defense, since you have to track that anyway. Tracking the initial attack and defense are just two more numbers to write down – and to add and to keep in your head. I like in 4e that I can just get in the habit of rolling a d20 and adding one number to it consistently, since almost all of my attacks have the same bonus.

Here's where I see the opportunity for abuse: I've had situations where my players are basically rolling to get above a 2, thanks to multiple players stacking defense penalties on a single target. But they can't maintain that level of debuff consistently. It wears off after a round, or a couple of rounds. But if that debuffed defense score is what the spellcaster continues to roll against in order to maintain spells, then any spell cast on that round will likely never end.

On the flipside, if the roll is made based on current stats, then the players just need to get one maintained spell to stick and then keep buffing the caster and debuffing the target to prevent that spell from ending. They can't keep that up forever, but they can keep it up long enough. (Although I will say that this approach feels more "right" to me.)

Anyway, every system has potential for abuse pending other factors. I just mention this because I had a the same thought but decided not to include it in my initial post due to exactly these concerns. 
I agree that's why perhaps damage should be modified a bit. Also maybe a few monsters should have alot of hit points line dragons and other high tier. Just not to high.
IMO, attacks vs NACD are a far superior system.
Pros
1) unity of mechanics = ease of learning
2) casters actually get to roll their own dice.  Dice are fun.
3) reduced load on the DM, since the caster's gain is his loss and he has enough dice to roll.
4) you can have differential vulnerabilities between classes (the rogue has high reflex, the cleric high will) without completely and unavoidably knocking characters out of a fight when they come up against the kind of save they're not good at on a save ends duration (hold person a rogue, and it's time for him to take a bathroom break because he ain't never gettin out this fight).  WIth NACDs, the rogue is easier to hit, but once hit the effect lasts no longer than it would for anyone else.
5) powerful magical implements actually make your spells better.  This is a weak one, although I was originally quite fond of it, for two reasons: you could add the enhancement bonus to the save DC, and having played 4e long enough I've decided that enhancement bonuses are a bad idea (flavorless, and they force magic items to be exercises in player entitlement rather than exciting and mysterious).

The only con I've seen on this thread is "auto hit makes wizards feel omnipotent."  I don't think the system should be in the business of making players of one class feel omnipotent relative to players of other classes, and I don't see the "omnipotence" difference between a miss that does 0 or no damage and a successful save that negates or halves the effect.

The question then becomes, how to handle "save ends" durations, once the initial effect has taken hold.  I'd like to start by pointing out that I much prefer save ends to rounds/level, way too much bookkeeping and way too easy to forget to tick off the countdown.  I get that some people don't like the 4e style "coin toss," but I will reiterate pro 4 on the alternative being unsaveable effects (not to mention a bit of extra bookkeeping in determining your bonus and the DL, although that's at least out of game bookeeping).  But if total equality doesn't seem right for you guys, how about this?

All saves are d20 + a relevant ability mod, determined by the effect, and you need a total of 13 regardless of the effect.  So poison would typically target CON (or Fort if you stick with "choice of" system), mentals would target WIS, fire would target DEX, etc.  No levels, no class bonuses, no increasing disparities.  That way there's a floor so even the worst character isn't stuck, but a high score means something.
4e saves are not a coin toss in practice. There are enough ways of granting bonuses to your allies or penalties to your enemies. The base mechanic is a coin toss, but so is rolling 1d20+4 vs a reflex defense of 14. There are plenty of ways of influencing the base chance to save, just as there are ways of influencing your attack and defenses to make those better or your enemies' worse.
Aiming the fireball, fourcing enough magic into a death beam to hurt someone, that's why I like mages rolling their attacks, they feel more involved. As for the people on the other end of those attacks, who cares? I'm trying to kill them.
I hate to agree with @wrecan Wink

I want to get rid of debuffs/buffs completely.  Situational modifiers like terrain would be ok.

I also liked the attacker always rolls approach of 4e.  It won't kill me though to have saves be rolled.  It's six one way or half a dozen the other.  I just thought the symmetry of one side always rolling was good. 

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


The active player should make the roll, since rolling implies taking action.  It's just more natural.



I actually agree with you, but the advantages of having implement attacks and weapon attacks operating on the same system are too great to give up.

I wonder if you could get away with rules that just say "Either the defender or attacker adds ten to their modifier. The other rolls a d20," and then have each table do what makes sense to them.

For me, I think it makes intuitive sense to make melee and ranged attacks rolled by the attacker (who is aiming) and have burst or blast attacks rolled by the defender (because they are typically unaimed attacks that everybody in the area just tries to avoid).

That could get pretty messy right quick though. 
The active player should make the roll, since rolling implies taking action.  It's just more natural.

Big ball of fire coming at me, I'm trying to dodge it.  Poison coursing through my veins, I'm trying to resist it.  Ray of death coming at me, assuming you  succeeded in hitting me, I'm trying to resist the effects of the terrifying death magic.


I don't like the idea that rolling means taking action. Rolling means resolving. Almost every combat action has an active attacker and defender, and, despite the way we run combat rounds, no one is sitting around passively letting enemy combatants take a turn. Following your idea to its logical conclusion means that every combat action needs two rolls. The fighter is swinging an axe and the orc is trying to avoid decapitation, just like the wizard is aiming a fireball and the other orcs are trying to get out of the way, no matter whose "turn" it is.

If you want to say the player should always roll to keep the DM's life simpler, OK, that makes some sense. And it would give players that feeling of using "their luck" instead of the DM's, for whatever that's worth. It wouldn't be too hard mechanically - in 4E you could just say monsters always take 10 on their attack rolls, and then PCs' defense rolls are just d20 + AC, Fort, Ref, or Will - 10. PCs could roll their own saves and then make checks to sustain an attack on monsters. I'm sure it would work about the same in 3E too, but I have a bad attitude and don't want to think about the details.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.



Big ball of fire coming at me, I'm trying to dodge it.  Poison coursing through my veins, I'm trying to resist it.  Ray of death coming at me, assuming you  succeeded in hitting me, I'm trying to resist the effects of the terrifying death magic.




And my attack roll determines whether or not I can overcome your dodging ability or resistance.  My attack roll misses?  You dodged, or you resisted.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Emwasick is absolutely right, both participants are active in every attack.  So an "active/passive" distinction doesn't make sense.  No one is seriously suggesting we drop the attack/defend distinctions for melee attacks, so in the interests of unity why should we have a different one for magical attacks?  Mechanically they're identical, whether you add 10 to the attack and roll the defense or add 10 to the defense and roll the attack the numbers work out the same (ok, technically 11, but that's not the point).  So what's the rationale for having 2 mechanics when 1 does exactly the same thing exactly as well?  Even a "player always rolls" system has 2 mechanics, but at least the players always use one and the DM always uses the other so each side only needs to know one.  
I think where the distinction arises with a fireball. It's just an undirected explosion of fire. The wizard decides where it drops, but then everybody in the area just dives for cover.

I see a difference between the normal actions taken in the course of defending yourself against predictable attack from a target you are engaging – sidestepping a sword thrust, ducking under an arrow, deflecting a mace with your shield, etc. – versus a dramatic action taken to dodge an explosive force like a fireball, or throwing yourself on the ground to avoid a barbarian whipping an axe around his head at everything in reach. The former is adequately described by the +10 to your defenses against weapon attacks. The latter isn't something you do as part of the back and forth of a 

That's why I made a distinction between bursts and melee attacks rather than between spells and weapon attacks. Carefully aimed attacks should be rolled by the attacker. Area attacks that are just dropped in place without carefully targeting an individual should be rolled by the defender.

But again it just starts to get really messy. As much as it satisfies me aesthetically because it reinforces the different feel of these two very different action types by having the players at the table perform different actions, unless it can be made very, very clear when and why the die changes hands, it's just not worth it compared to the benefits from a consistent attack mechanic.
It could get complicated in 3e because for martial attacks, you needed a bunch of defenses.  You had AC.  You had touch AC.  You had flatfooted AC.  This was, essentially, AC, Reflex, and Fortitude.

Then you had spells that targeted Reflex, and spells that targeted Fortitude.  So you had a touch AC and a Reflex save.  You had a flat-footed AC and you had a Fortitude save.  It was redundant and complicated.  I hated having to recalculate touch AC and flat-footed AC for every creature, in addition to a Reflex Save and a Fortitude Save.

In AD&D, weapon-users could never target anything but AC, so keeping saves separate was no problem.  In 4e, everything targeted a defenses, so you could have weapon-users target things other than AC.  In 3e, we have an intermediate clumsy system.

I think either, weapon-users should be restricted to targeting only AC, or spells and weapons should target defenses.  I don't want these overlapping defenses of touch AC and flafooted AC to return.


But again it just starts to get really messy. As much as it satisfies me aesthetically because it reinforces the different feel of these two very different action types by having the players at the table perform different actions, unless it can be made very, very clear when and why the die changes hands, it's just not worth it compared to the benefits from a consistent attack mechanic.



I don't see where it gets messy.  This is how it has been done in every version of D&D prior to 4e, and I don't ever recall it being a problem.



Not really. In 3e every damn spell almost had a different defense mechanic, which was a complete pain in the burro. And if you look at what I was describing, you would need to know when an attacker added 10 and when the defender did, and when the attacker rolled and when the defender did, because the distinction was based almost entirely on the flavor of the attack rather than a distinction between weapon vs implement or anything so clear as that. It's all a little pointless unless you share my own preconceptions, which is why I said earlier that it might be simplest to make it up to each table.

Maybe the best thing would be to make the default that the attacker always rolls, but put a little sidebar in the book explaining that you can add 10 and make the defender roll if that makes more sense to you personally.

I miss my AD&D saving throw tables.

Saving throws as ability checks do sound fun though.


I like lofgren's idea of the attacker rolling to maintain his own spell.  I wouldn't mind if that simply required a successful attack each round.  



The idea is good but I think this system would have two huge flaws.

1. It could considerably lengthen spellcaster turns.

2. Op-cheesing accuracy would be essentially openly encouraged.

I liked having attacks running ont he same system like in 4e, it meant less paperwork.



I've run it like that, but use the NAD-10 as your "save" in some cases.

I'm not a fan of 4E's "roll a 10+" chance to resist. A high will defense character should shrug off a will based effect easier than a low will defense creature. So rather than having both roll an 10+ on a d20, I'd prefer it to be "save ends, 22 Will", and have them use their Will bonus to resist.

Sort of a hybrid of 3E and 4E.

The alternative would be to simply have the effect attack the defense again each round to see if it persists or is overcome. But 10+ is a little to easy to achieve, particularly with bonuses, and that devalues both save ending effects, and doesnt reward targeting a monster/character's weak spot well enough.
I wouldn't mind if spells targeted specific abilities.  So spells that inhibit movement (i.e., Web) might target Strength.  Spells that weaken you (i.e., Cloudkill) target Constitution.  Spells that trick you (i.e., Phantasmal Killer) target Wisdom.  Spells you can dodge (i.e., Ray of Enfeeblement) target Dex.  Spells that damage your mind (i.e., Feeblemind) target Intelligence.  Spells that control your mind (i.e., Charm Person) target Charisma.  That gives more variety and more strategy in choosing spells.

Yes, please.


I would prefer shifting all rolling to the attacker, and for all rolling to be completed at the time of the attack. If you hit somebody with a stun effect, just roll a d4+1 to determine how long it will last. Bonuses to saving throws and extra saves could be converted into reducing that duration by 1 round (minimum 1 round duration for all spells).



The drawbacks are you need to track it (I hate tracking durations on a bunch of different effects for a bunch of different monsters.. waste of my time and energy), and just as important, it removes the element of uncertainty and surprise over how long you have until the effect wears off.


The drawbacks are you need to track it (I hate tracking durations on a bunch of different effects for a bunch of different monsters.. waste of my time and energy),



I hate tracking saves and the keywords of their powers so I can calculate the right bonus or penalty. I don't see how saves are easier to track, honestly.

Set duration: You write on your character sheet "Dazed ooo" Then each round you fill in one of the little bubbles until you are done. If somebody helps you out, you fill in an extra bubble.

Saves: You write on your character sheet "Dazed (save), fear" or "Stunned (save), -5 (1st) -2 (each after that)" or "Ongoing 5 fire, +2 to save, resist 3 EONT" or however you track your bonuses and penalties to saves. Oh, and don't forget to note if the party cleric used the right encounter power or the paladin saved against an effect this round.

There is bookkeeping no matter how you do it. I prefer to frontload as much of it as possible at the time of attack.


and just as important, it removes the element of uncertainty and surprise over how long you have until the effect wears off.



I discussed this idea in another thread and this was the general consensus. I see that decreased uncertainty as a huge plus, personally, but a lot of people apparently really like having no idea how long they are going to be dazed. I'd much rather know, OK, I'm going to take 15 points of damage over the next three rounds and I only get one action for the next two. It's a matter of preference, and apparently I am in the minority. That's why I came up with the idea that the caster maintains an effect rather than the target saving against it.
The one big plus of 4E's simple save mechanic (aside from simplicity) is that it doesn't doubly reward or penalize good defenses. If you have a low Will, you'll already get hit more often by Will attacks. If they apply nasty conditions, those will at least be no harder to shake off than normal in the 4E system. Repeating the attack roll or basing the save DC on a defense means that low defenses will hurt that much more.

That means a caster could target a low defense and be more confident of locking a monster down for a while. PCs would really be pushed to even out their saves/NADs, since a weakness could be exploited very effectively.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

Personally I would rather have 2 durations. Encounter long or end of next turn. Less to keep track of especially if they simplify buffs, debuffs, and other conditions.
Sign In to post comments