Saving Throws and Mages STILL being able to roll attack rolls.

This is taken and expanded upon from my post here (that covers other "fix" areas): community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...




Saves... nostalgia.

Maybe have saves work like this. The snake attacks against the PC's AC or DEX score (with "flater math" DEX would be the DC) does normal bite damage and then the PC makes a CON save to see how virulent it is. The Mage rolls to hit the Goblins WIS, beats the Score/DC and the Goblin is Charmed. Then, said goblin makes a WIS save to see how long, hours, days, weeks, etc. This serves two purposes: 1) Mage still has fun rolling to hit, 2) The Nostalgia of Saves is still kept AND it fits mechanically as well as story wise.


To expand upon this idea if a fighter bull rushes u off a cliff or a spellcaster moves earth for the same effect (game terms = hitting u with attack or spell) u could make a DEX Save to grap on to something while falling, arrest your fall etc, or maybe a CON Save to take less damage from the fall. 


You could make an INT Save to avoid the more detrimental effcts of a MAZE or GEAS/QUEST Spell. 


A STR check to be pushed less feet from your original position.


The possibilities are quite endless         




The major flaw is that it's two rolls, which means slowing down gameplay.  Of course, one of the great praises thus far has been how quickly combat progresses, so perhaps there is speed to spare and even under this system it will still be fast enough.


Personally, I've been using something like this for months: attack roll to hit, and a save to determine the magnitude.  Not just for spells, but also for maneuvers.  Time will only tell if it's too slow to be fun, of whether speed is more important than balancing the die rolls.  
The metagame is not the game.
4 years is -not- 'nostalgia', and repeating it over and over isn't going to change that.  Honestly.

Look I -know- nostalgia.  I know -exactly- what it feels like.  There are some things I'm nostalgic about, and I'll tell ya something -- saving throws aren't it.  Nostalgia is something you can tangibly -sense-.  A preference for a different way can be tinged with nostalgia (and in some things it is), but again...switching to something new and not liking it isn't nostalgia.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Maybe have saves work like this. The snake attacks against the PC's AC or DEX score (with "flater math" DEX would be the DC) does normal bite damage and then the PC makes a CON save to see how virulent it is. The Mage rolls to hit the Goblins WIS, beats the Score/DC and the Goblin is Charmed. Then, said goblin makes a WIS save to see how long, hours, days, weeks, etc. This serves two purposes: 1) Mage still has fun rolling to hit, 2) The Nostalgia of Saves is still kept AND it fits mechanically as well as story wise. 



Well, I love saving throws-- and not for nostalgia's sake. I love them because I think that they should mechanically represent what you just described. So I like your idea and would love to try it. I know that the designers tried opposed rolls but discarded them, but the way they were trying them sounds like they were simply setting DC with the first roll. Your way would allow the attacker to benefit from rolling high on their to hit, and the defender a benefit from rolling high on their save --at the same time.
I just don't see how having 2 resolution mechanics (Attack rolls and Saving throws) help build a simple minimal core system.  I don't really have a preferrence, but if you want to use saving thows then replace attacks with parrys and dodges.

At least that way all combat works on the same system
I like saves. And just because, when I'm a spellcaster, I don't have to roll. I do not want to roll when I cast my spell, it's the opponent that must panic and try to escape my powers!
A friend of mine plays the wizard in our playtest sessions, and has complained that he doesn't get to roll enough for spells. I houseruled that he could choose to aim his Magic Missile for a called shot, roll for hit and deal maximum damage. Last session he cast Burning Hands, which gives enemies the ability to make a saving throw for half damage. I just let him roll for the Hobgoblins and hope for a low result, and it made him quite happy.
Maybe it's an issue with wizards worth noting.

Ashtoret
I personally think all casters should have to make a spellcasting roll which functions every bit as much like an attack roll, but would be opposed by the targets saving throw. This would allow casters to crit, fumble, and be affected by advantage/disadvantage. Maybe the arcanist feat could allow casters to take 10 on their attack roll for those who don't want to roll.
I cant get multiquote to work so oh well


 


Well, I love saving throws-- and not for nostalgia's sake. I love them because I think that they should mechanically represent what you just described. So I like your idea and would love to try it. I know that the designers tried opposed rolls but discarded them, but the way they were trying them sounds like they were simply setting DC with the first roll. Your way would allow the attacker to benefit from rolling high on their to hit, and the defender a benefit from rolling high on their save --at the same time.



i'm glad you like the idea!  It's also cool that it doesnt negate a hit.  The casters STILL hit, the potency just varies based on your save. 

I just don't see how having 2 resolution mechanics (Attack rolls and Saving throws) help build a simple minimal core system.  I don't really have a preferrence, but if you want to use saving thows then replace attacks with parrys and dodges.

At least that way all combat works on the same system




I'm just trying to work within the system.  The system CORE thus far has vancian as CORE (even though I and many people while liking it think it should be include in a module as a part of the 1st book), as well as saves and to hit as core.  This is my attempt at a compromise.  It would only require 2 roles if the first one hits.  And a save does NOT negate said hit if it does connect.  saves just reflect the POTENCY. 
A friend of mine plays the wizard in our playtest sessions, and has complained that he doesn't get to roll enough for spells. I houseruled that he could choose to aim his Magic Missile for a called shot, roll for hit and deal maximum damage. Last session he cast Burning Hands, which gives enemies the ability to make a saving throw for half damage. I just let him roll for the Hobgoblins and hope for a low result, and it made him quite happy.
Maybe it's an issue with wizards worth noting.

Ashtoret



My friend that played the wizard also had the same complaint.  It's one of the reasons, prolly the major reason i came up with this idea.  He likes to roll crits just like the rest of them.  The saves ONLY mechanic took that fun out of his hands.  It also made the DM's job harder, adding more complexity to the DM's side of the screen.
I like saves. And just because, when I'm a spellcaster, I don't have to roll. I do not want to roll when I cast my spell, it's the opponent that must panic and try to escape my powers!



Lol :D
I personally think all casters should have to make a spellcasting roll which functions every bit as much like an attack roll, but would be opposed by the targets saving throw. This would allow casters to crit, fumble, and be affected by advantage/disadvantage. Maybe the arcanist feat could allow casters to take 10 on their attack roll for those who don't want to roll.



Is what you propose kind of like 4E, but adding in the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanics?
Maybe this is heresy, but does a saving throw need to be a d20 roll? What if certain spells had their effects listed on a chart numbered 1-6, where 1 is the nastiest possible effect and 6 is the mildest. When you roll a save you toss a d6 to determine which effect you get, but your save bonus could be a minimum number. So if my will save is 2, then I reroll any 2 or less on my d6 roll.

This to me is a way to make saving throws actually a cool mechanic, while not being redundant to the "everyone attacks" principle. You could also potentially include martial maneuvers with codified save effects on a hit.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
I think the idea of non-attribute defenses is much much better.  That way it's always the active player rolling and the DM recording results, nothing more.  That's much quicker and it streamlines the system.

I would also rather not see something like this.  Party drops into a darkened tomb, they hear ghouls shuffling towards them... The fighter charges (DM: Ok fighter, roll to hit.  Remember disadvantage from the darkness)  the mage fires off a fireball (DM: Ok, the ghouls have to make saves... but they can't see the attack coming so they get disadvantage).  

Having one player roll with disadvantage while the other simply has to say he's doing something isn't even remotely close to balanced.

 
This is taken and expanded upon from my post here (that covers other "fix" areas): community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...




Saves... nostalgia.

Maybe have saves work like this. The snake attacks against the PC's AC or DEX score (with "flater math" DEX would be the DC) does normal bite damage and then the PC makes a CON save to see how virulent it is. The Mage rolls to hit the Goblins WIS, beats the Score/DC and the Goblin is Charmed. Then, said goblin makes a WIS save to see how long, hours, days, weeks, etc. This serves two purposes: 1) Mage still has fun rolling to hit, 2) The Nostalgia of Saves is still kept AND it fits mechanically as well as story wise.


To expand upon this idea if a fighter bull rushes u off a cliff or a spellcaster moves earth for the same effect (game terms = hitting u with attack or spell) u could make a DEX Save to grap on to something while falling, arrest your fall etc, or maybe a CON Save to take less damage from the fall. 


You could make an INT Save to avoid the more detrimental effcts of a MAZE or GEAS/QUEST Spell. 


A STR check to be pushed less feet from your original position.


The possibilities are quite endless         









Im old school I like my saves "May you always save reflex for prismatic spray" or something like that. However, I CAN get behind something like this. The only issue I see would be that spells would have to be buffed slightly to compensate.

I Roll to Hit with my 3d6 fireball, I HIT! YEs
He passes his save..its 1d6.......boo

As the spells are written now must of them are watered down, higher then 4e, less then older editions in attempt to bring balance. And Im ok with that AS WRITTEN. But with having to get through two mechanics to get that fireball off it better be worth it, ESPECIALLY in a Vancian once a day style
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
I think the idea of non-attribute defenses is much much better.  That way it's always the active player rolling and the DM recording results, nothing more.  That's much quicker and it streamlines the system.

I would also rather not see something like this.  Party drops into a darkened tomb, they hear ghouls shuffling towards them... The fighter charges (DM: Ok fighter, roll to hit.  Remember disadvantage from the darkness)  the mage fires off a fireball (DM: Ok, the ghouls have to make saves... but they can't see the attack coming so they get disadvantage).  

Having one player roll with disadvantage while the other simply has to say he's doing something isn't even remotely close to balanced.

 



So what kind of party drops into a darkened tomb with no light source and sending the fighter in before the fireball?

I think that balance is not the word you are looking for. 

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I personally think all casters should have to make a spellcasting roll which functions every bit as much like an attack roll, but would be opposed by the targets saving throw. This would allow casters to crit, fumble, and be affected by advantage/disadvantage. Maybe the arcanist feat could allow casters to take 10 on their attack roll for those who don't want to roll.


Is what you propose kind of like 4E, but adding in the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanics?


 


  I know that is what I would like to see. 4E's "Non- AC- Defenses" took the place of what we would consider 3E saving throws, and worked a lot better. 

    Instead of the enemy rolling d20+6 vs the caster's static DC15, it was the attacker rolling d20+6 vs the target's static Reflex/Will/Fortitude defense of 15. This significantly speeds up play, especially with attacks involving multiple targets since you only need to make one roll instead of one for every target.


   I personally also liked how some armors could give bonuses to particular non-AC defenses.  If heavy armor not only raises your AC, but increases your Fortitude defense, thereby making you tougher, then it has more utility to offset drawbacks.

   Of course there were some issues with these defenses falling behind AC, but that was a case of balancing the numbers, not an inherent flaw in the system.  After all, it did progress much better than in 3E.

  I don't know about the "taking 10" option though.  I don't believe magic should be a case of "automatic" anything any more than non-magic is.