New Packet Warlord-y Fighter discussion thread

My immediate reaction is that Warning Shout and Block Missiles are fine but Strike Command is pretty much strictly inferior to Deep Wound (SC consumes an action, DW does not).  Strike Command needs some minor buff.

edit: Strike Command could be changed to not use your reaction, just like Attack Orders

Obviously these options are completely insufficient as a replacement for an actual Warlord class, but they are a nice addition to the Fighter
Awful to the point of being insulting
...whatever
Obviously these options are completely insufficient as a replacement for an actual Warlord class, but they are a nice addition to the Fighter

Pretty much sums it up for my opinion.

Oh, and tco, this wasn't supposed to replace the Warlord.  They specifically said so.

Putting aside the whole "Warlords should have their own class" thing, do people like these options as fighter options?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Well it seems that Game Designers are good at writing, but their statistics skills and their idea of human psychology seem to be very... uh... lacking.

Basically all the defensive options are nothing but utter crap and totally superfluous...

Spending a resource that you have two times in a battle of five turns, that does nothing 82.5% of the time is rediculous (yes, if you spend your Expertise die to improve AC it makes a difference 17.5% of the time, otherwise it is wasted)

Guys, please, do your math.

PLEASE!

Ceterum censeo capsum rubeum esse delendam

So what we have is:

Strike Command: Bolster someone's damage roll
Warning Shout: Bolster someone's defense 
Attack Orders: Bolster someone's attack roll
Bolster Allies:  Bolster someone's saving throw

Given that this is only a tiny fraction of my mininum expected options for the Warlord:

1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks). 
2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage.
3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks.
4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks).
5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks).
6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to an ally.
7: Restore lost HP to an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).
8: Improve out-of-combat healing.
9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn.
10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks).
11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks).

AND it fails to offer ANYTHING for most of the warlord archetypes:

Practitioner


The warlord who is most concerned with maintaining and boosting his allies and keeping them in the fight. This warlord specializes in martial healing, granting temporary hit points, resistance to damage, and ending conditions. He does this through a combination of first aid, improvement to morale, and an intimate knowledge of how a body can adjust to and react to combat situations.  Signature Power: Martial Healing

Vanguard


A warlord who leads by example.  He attacks enemies in ways that show allies how to fight them more effectively.  This manifests as the warlord hitting a foe, thus granting allies a bonus to either hitting that same foe or hitting a similar foe (as in "Here's how you take down a giant!").  Signature Power: Impose a condition that encourages allies to attack that target.

Grandmaster


A warlord who spots tactical weaknesses in position and directs allies on how to get the most advantageous position. This usually manifests as free movement, extra benefits from positioning, or off-turn parries.  Signature Power: Grant allies off-turn movement.

Captain


This is the warlord who oversees a battle and directs the allies to give them benefits to their attacks. Unlike the vanguard, who exploits  an enemy's weakness, the captain deals primarily with his ally's own strengths, granting off-turn actions, added damage, or bonuses to attempts to trip, grapple, etc.  Signature Power: Grant allies off-turn attacks.

Hector


Rather than use his strategy to boost allies, he uses it to demoralize and disarray his enemies. With choreographed attacks that are designed to be as demoralizing as they are damaging, he causes enemies to miss opportunity (attacks), take penalties to hit or damage, or to incur fear-based conditions. Like the vanguard, his powers trigger off attacks, but unlike the vanguard, his attacks are meant to affect other enemies, rather than his allies.  Signature Power: Hit an enemy and impose a condition on nearby allies of that enemy.
Now, I personally think all of these would make fine styles for the Warlord.  Heck, I could even see each of them as a separate "fighting style" as distinctive as the fighter's current styles -- two-weapon, two-handed, ranged, and sworn-n-board.  But I don't think it's realistic to expect the designers to make half of the fighter's fighting styles be warlord-themed.



This is a clear failure to deliver a "Warlord as Fighter".

Now, there is nothing wrong with have these as part of the Fighter (as long as they are improved to be on par with the other options) AND have a Warlord class as well (to give full expression to the archetypes for non-magical combat leaders) so if that is the new intent then this is all good.      
    
    
 
I agree the new fighter options are not enought to fill in for a Warlord. It lacks enabling and healing capabilities 
Honestly, specifics aside, I'm just really not feeling the new Fighter.  Like, at all.

I was expecting something more like an evolution of the last few packets' Fighters in a more Warblade-ey direction.  But this looks (looks mind you) more like... I don't know.  A mess?  Some weird hybrid 3e/4e Fighter thing?
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Honestly, specifics aside, I'm just really not feeling the new Fighter.  Like, at all.

I was expecting something more like an evolution of the last few packets' Fighters in a more Warblade-ey direction.  But this looks (looks mind you) more like... I don't know.  A mess?  Some weird hybrid 3e/4e Fighter thing?



You mean like the worst of both worlds?

Seriously a lot of the new options presented weren't even particularly good as at will on every attack feats in 3.5, let alone as at-will but costs damage in the last few packets... but now as 1/encounter abilities? I see maybe two or three that are passable. The rest? It pretty much hits my worst case scenario across the board. 
The ally-boosting abilities are actually the most interesting of the ones this Fighter has.  The rest of them (except the shield ones) are all incredibly bland.  I guess the martial feats are supposed to contain the flavorful abilities?
I guess the martial feats are supposed to contain the flavorful abilities?


I believe so.  Same for most of the Rogue "class" now.  Look to feats for most of the interesting bits from either of those two classes in this packet.

Which just isn't how I'd prefer for things to go, but...

... Nah, I can't really think of a "but" yet.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I guess the martial feats are supposed to contain the flavorful abilities?


I believe so.  Same for most of the Rogue "class" now.  Look to feats for most of the interesting bits from either of those two classes in this packet.

Which just isn't how I'd prefer for things to go, but...

... Nah, I can't really think of a "but" yet.


...but...


DOOOOOOOOM!
...whatever
If I'm right (and I think I am) then they really need to figure out a better way to present this stuff.  At least some of the feats need to be presented in the actual class write-up.
Just as a heads up - on the latest podcast they did say that the warlordy options that made it into this packet were just the tip of the iceberg, so judging them on raw quantity may not be practical.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
The ally-boosting abilities are actually the most interesting of the ones this Fighter has.  The rest of them (except the shield ones) are all incredibly bland.  I guess the martial feats are supposed to contain the flavorful abilities?




Yeah the shield bash thing that gives the target disadvantage on their next attack is great. Nimble Dodge seems interesting, if a bit rogue-ish, except for the part mentioned above where most of the defensive abilities have a very large chance of doing nothing. 

At least Volley/Whirlwind don't take up dice to use.


edit: Anyway on to reading the rest of the stuff. 
The bigger problem is the fighter is still meh regardless. The only glimmer of hope is level 7 abilities for saves. Otherwise they still focus exscusively on attack AC, defense, or damage migitation. With the exception of two martial feats using strength (trip, disarm attack). There are no abilities to bolster the armor the fighter prefers, i.e. plate, but I think BA is holding it back. I laughed with the ability to ping arrows off one target to the next. That was hard for me to accept even for a ranger speciality. It would have been better if they pulled a 4E feature from the ranger class and make it lower a defense for the next attack against a creature.

The warlord features present are basic without much thought behind them. 
Dispite being a huge Warlord as a class fan, I have to say, I'm actually liking what they've done with the fighter's warlord option.

The warlord fits far better in the new style of fighter, and while it has a long way to go, this is definite progress.

I'm not sure how 3e fans are going to take it, but the new fighter has a definite Book of Nine Swords feel to him.

It's not a warlord yet, but I'm no longer as skeptical about the contraints of the fighter, now that they've focused the fighter's development. 
Reading through the feats, combined with what I saw of the Fighter... I think we've found the real Fighter resource. It's not expertise dice, it's the reaction.

Seriously, they've loaded so many different abilities onto the reaction, that the goal is going to be finding one or two that are generally useful, then trying to find something, anything, that doesn't use it. It's particularly harsh for a defender-type character. Is there a combat reflexes style feat I haven't run into yet? Because it's sorely needed. 
Reading through the feats, combined with what I saw of the Fighter... I think we've found the real Fighter resource. It's not expertise dice, it's the reaction.

Seriously, they've loaded so many different abilities onto the reaction, that the goal is going to be finding one or two that are generally useful, then trying to find something, anything, that doesn't use it. It's particularly harsh for a defender-type character. Is there a combat reflexes style feat I haven't run into yet? Because it's sorely needed. 



That's a major problem. A lot of feats and abilities get stuck in that bottleneck.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Reading through the feats, combined with what I saw of the Fighter... I think we've found the real Fighter resource. It's not expertise dice, it's the reaction.

Seriously, they've loaded so many different abilities onto the reaction, that the goal is going to be finding one or two that are generally useful, then trying to find something, anything, that doesn't use it. It's particularly harsh for a defender-type character. Is there a combat reflexes style feat I haven't run into yet? Because it's sorely needed. 



Yes.  It's called "Combat Reflexes".
So did anyone listen to the podcast last night? They mentioned VERY SPECIFICALLY that these were a sampling of the Warlord type abilites and that more are to come.
My two copper.
Reading through the feats, combined with what I saw of the Fighter... I think we've found the real Fighter resource. It's not expertise dice, it's the reaction.

Seriously, they've loaded so many different abilities onto the reaction, that the goal is going to be finding one or two that are generally useful, then trying to find something, anything, that doesn't use it. It's particularly harsh for a defender-type character. Is there a combat reflexes style feat I haven't run into yet? Because it's sorely needed. 



Yes.  It's called "Combat Reflexes".



Yeah I found it shortly after posting.

Looks like it allows a single extra reaction that can only be used on an AoO, so doesn't really do anything to help with the issue of too many abilities tied to reaction. 
I think it's not going to work well to have the same dice pool added to attack rolls/AC and to damage.

I mean, even aside from the fact that Strike Command (needlessly) costs your reaction, what high-level character would ever choose to add +1d6 to an ally's damage roll over adding +1d6 to his attack roll? If my level 20 rogue buddy is Sneak Attacking for 3d6+10d8+5 damage (53.5 average), would I rather give him like a +20% chance to hit or less than +10% damage? (And conversely, of course, at low levels Strike Command is more powerful.) To allow Death Dealer damage to keep up, they could allow Deadly Strike to multiply it.

Overall, I was really looking forward to these changes and I'm disappointed in them. Not only are the "death dealer" abilities underwhelming due to lack of damage scaling, the way they have the different abilities siloed (one "bonus damage" ability, one "bonus defense" ability, and one "bonus accuracy" ability per fighter) makes it harder to customize for what you really want. What if my fighter is all offense, and would rather give up the defensive stuff to get Wide Arc AND Deep Wound?
I kind of like the new warlordy fighter tricks.

There's clearly not enough warlordy options though.
You can be a warlord for two rounds at first level ! So nice ! lol

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

Observation: because of the pointless distinction between weapon attacks and spell saving throws, none of the Fighter stuff can be used to boost offensive spellcasting.  They should amend the maneuvers to work equivalently on spell DCs.

I think it's not going to work well to have the same dice pool added to attack rolls/AC and to damage.

I mean, even aside from the fact that Strike Command (needlessly) costs your reaction, what high-level character would ever choose to add +1d6 to an ally's damage roll over adding +1d6 to his attack roll? If my level 20 rogue buddy is Sneak Attacking for 3d6+10d8+5 damage (53.5 average), would I rather give him like a +20% chance to hit or less than +10% damage?



Strike Command is used after an ally hits; Attack Orders is used before.  Nothing prevents you from using both.  Depending on combat length, at higher levels it could at least theoretically be preferable to use all of your expertise dice early on than save them for better uses later (IOW a high discount rate).

That isn't to say the exact numbers right now are balanced.
I like this new fighter with a dash of warlord a lot. I think this fighter is a lot better than last packet. He has lots of cool options and still does excellent damage.

I am also very glad the devs are keeping to a "mundane" fighter archetype and not going for warblades/magic fighter types. For me the fighter is supposed to be clearly mundane - awesome, highly skilled, borderline superhuman mundane - but non magical nonetheless.

Magic fighter is supposed to be the ranger/paladin/monk or multiclass fighter/mage or cleric, imo.

If fighter-warlord gets healing, i hope it is inspiration/herbalism based, to keep with the theme of mundane.   

I am also very glad the devs are keeping to a "mundane" fighter archetype and not going for warblades/magic fighter types.


Warblade was the "mundane" fighter archetype, just using the Tome of Battle mechanics.  (I guess some Diamond Mind may have pushed it...)
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Honestly, specifics aside, I'm just really not feeling the new Fighter.  Like, at all.

I was expecting something more like an evolution of the last few packets' Fighters in a more Warblade-ey direction.  But this looks (looks mind you) more like... I don't know.  A mess?  Some weird hybrid 3e/4e Fighter thing?



I feel the same. It's a real kludge.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Observation: because of the pointless distinction between weapon attacks and spell saving throws, none of the Fighter stuff can be used to boost offensive spellcasting.  They should amend the maneuvers to work equivalently on spell DCs.



Maybe they could do something intuitive and revolutionary and turn the saving throws into defenses and turn DCs into attack rolls so that every attack actually worked on the same rules and buffing powers worked in an elegant fashion..........oh, right, this is 5e: sacred-cows-laying-cow-pies-all-over-common-sense edition
Observation: because of the pointless distinction between weapon attacks and spell saving throws, none of the Fighter stuff can be used to boost offensive spellcasting.  They should amend the maneuvers to work equivalently on spell DCs.



Maybe they could do something intuitive and revolutionary and turn the saving throws into defenses and turn DCs into attack rolls so that every attack actually worked on the same rules and buffing powers worked in an elegant fashion..........oh, right, this is 5e: sacred-cows-laying-cow-pies-all-over-common-sense edition




first of all if you listened to the podcast they said there are going to be more fighter abilities added later on as this if the first attemt at the fighter/warlord hybrid. if you dont like sacred cows then i guess the could drop warlord its a sacred cow of 4th
first of all if you listened to the podcast they said there are going to be more fighter abilities added later on as this if the first attemt at the fighter/warlord hybrid. if you dont like sacred cows then i guess the could drop warlord its a sacred cow of 4th



since we're talking about the fighter using fighter abilities, talking about dropping the warlord as a sacred cow doesn't really apply in first place. The main issue is that you have 2 different systems, passive AC and rolling saves, that cover the same ground for no reason. If you make them work the same way, as was first introduced in SWSE, then suddenly you can make all buffs and debuffs (whether the warlord exists or not) work in a straightforward, elegant manner. As it is now, you either artificially limit what buffs and debuffs effect (half the party gets a bonus! other half, SoL) instead of having a neat and orderly system where everything plays together.
So did anyone listen to the podcast last night? They mentioned VERY SPECIFICALLY that these were a sampling of the Warlord type abilites and that more are to come.

Unless they very carefully selected the worst of the lot, that is not at all encouraging.



 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I vastly prefer saving throws to NADs.

I prefer the differentiation and for me its more fun/immersive too.
I vastly prefer saving throws to NADs.

I prefer the differentiation and for me its more fun/immersive too.

It's litterally just who rolls the die.

n-ACD's, the attacker always rolls.  Saves, the attacker rolls vs AC, the defender rolls for everything else - slightly less consistent but not devestating by any means.

I don't know how your wizard trying to hit someone with a ray waiting for the DM to determine if the ray hit via a save is more fun/immersive for you than rolling to see if the ray hit yourself (and then ask the DM if it hit, since you don't know the monster's touch AC).  

But, then, once the word 'immersive' comes out, all sense generally leaves the discussion.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

So did anyone listen to the podcast last night? They mentioned VERY SPECIFICALLY that these were a sampling of the Warlord type abilites and that more are to come.

Unless they very carefully selected the worst of the lot, that is not at all encouraging.






Yeah.

This doesn't make things better.

When you are offering a sampling you put up the best of what you have got.

If THIS is the best of what they have to offer for "Warlord as Fighter" then I have one thing to say:



I want a separate Warlord class.
I vastly prefer saving throws to NADs.

I prefer the differentiation and for me its more fun/immersive too.

It's litterally just who rolls the die.

n-ACD's, the attacker always rolls.  Saves, the attacker rolls vs AC, the defender rolls for everything else - slightly less consistent but not devestating by any means.

I don't know how your wizard trying to hit someone with a ray waiting for the DM to determine if the ray hit via a save is more fun/immersive for you than rolling to see if the ray hit yourself (and then ask the DM if it hit, since you don't know the monster's touch AC).  

But, then, once the word 'immersive' comes out, all sense generally leaves the discussion.



Its more immersive basically I imagine it as your character has already hit the target, but the target is trying to leap out of the way at the last moment to "save" themselves.

That has quite different feel to it than just rolling to hit, like a melee attack.
The podcast did not say this would replace a warlord class.  Warlord is clearly going to be the last class they work on, if it makes it into the game.  This is merely a build for fighters who want to support allies more than themselves.

That said, I find the build fairly lacking. 
I vastly prefer saving throws to NADs.

I prefer the differentiation and for me its more fun/immersive too.

It's litterally just who rolls the die.

n-ACD's, the attacker always rolls.  Saves, the attacker rolls vs AC, the defender rolls for everything else - slightly less consistent but not devestating by any means.

I don't know how your wizard trying to hit someone with a ray waiting for the DM to determine if the ray hit via a save is more fun/immersive for you than rolling to see if the ray hit yourself (and then ask the DM if it hit, since you don't know the monster's touch AC).  

But, then, once the word 'immersive' comes out, all sense generally leaves the discussion.



Its more immersive basically I imagine it as your character has already hit the target, but the target is trying to leap out of the way at the last moment to "save" themselves.

That has quite different feel to it than just rolling to hit, like a melee attack.



As a player, i'd much more immursed in my turn when im rolling critical hits with my fireball instead of waiting for the DM to tell me its just a plain old hit or miss. That, and letting spells crit lets you design special effects that key off of critting with spells.

Not to mention it allows buffs to work on every PC of every class at the table without having to make a superfluous amount of extra buffs or special acceptions to make buffs and debuffs play together across 2 different attacking schemes. 
I think the point of it is more to just test stuff.

Mainly, Is "attack order"...
too "plot coupon"?
"narrative" enough?
too "magical"?
make fans of the previous editions throw a fit?  (like taunt originally did, though that's still in).


If they get high positive survey feedback (80%+) on these maneuvers,  they can readily proceed to make a full out warlord without further hesitation.

If it's more negative, well... then we have issues.


That said, for me, it get's a solid  Except for the attack order's reaction and non-scaling issue.

5e houserules and tweaks.

Celestial Link Evoking Radiance into Creation

A Party Without Music is Lame: A Bard

Level Dip Guide

 

4e stuff

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.


It's litterally just who rolls the die.

n-ACD's, the attacker always rolls.  Saves, the attacker rolls vs AC, the defender rolls for everything else - slightly less consistent but not devestating by any means.

I don't know how your wizard trying to hit someone with a ray waiting for the DM to determine if the ray hit via a save is more fun/immersive for you than rolling to see if the ray hit yourself (and then ask the DM if it hit, since you don't know the monster's touch AC).  



Who rolls the die has a big impact on the feel for me. Even if the odds of success are identical, an action I roll feels more like something I'm doing, whereas if the DM rolls it feels more like he's the one acting.

For something like "I create an explosion, do you jump out of the way", I find having the target roll a Reflex or Dex save feels more like I simply created a powerful exploision in a given area, and its up to the target to try to dodge. Whereas rolling myself to hit an enemy's defense makes me feel more like I'm aiming the ability. The math can be literally identical, the feel at the table is quite different, and for me personally the "target rolls saves" approach feels more satisfying for many magical effects. Rolling to disbelieve an illusion, for example, feels very different from an Illusionist who simply makes an attack targetting a will defense, even if the odds of success are the same.


It's litterally just who rolls the die.

n-ACD's, the attacker always rolls.  Saves, the attacker rolls vs AC, the defender rolls for everything else - slightly less consistent but not devestating by any means.

I don't know how your wizard trying to hit someone with a ray waiting for the DM to determine if the ray hit via a save is more fun/immersive for you than rolling to see if the ray hit yourself (and then ask the DM if it hit, since you don't know the monster's touch AC).  



Who rolls the die has a big impact on the feel for me. Even if the odds of success are identical, an action I roll feels more like something I'm doing, whereas if the DM rolls it feels more like he's the one acting.

For something like "I create an explosion, do you jump out of the way", I find having the target roll a Reflex or Dex save feels more like I simply created a powerful exploision in a given area, and its up to the target to try to dodge. Whereas rolling myself to hit an enemy's defense makes me feel more like I'm aiming the ability. The math can be literally identical, the feel at the table is quite different, and for me personally the "target rolls saves" approach feels more satisfying for many magical effects. Rolling to disbelieve an illusion, for example, feels very different from an Illusionist who simply makes an attack targetting a will defense, even if the odds of success are the same.





I gotta agree with this
Sign In to post comments