Community

Oct 8, 2012 -- 7:08AM, Haldrik wrote:

If 5e allows the choice of defense or save or player always rolls, the mechanics seem simple enough.
For example, instead of saying “AC 15”, the description would just say “AC +5”. The decision to add bese 10 as a defense (resistance) or add d20 as an effort (energy), would depend on playstyle.

 

This. except you have to shift 11's around instead of the 10's you proposed, for math reasons. Read my first post on this thread, it explains why.

Basically, the "equal-or-greater" as opposed to "just greater" shifts things around one full point towards whoever rolls the d20 instead of taking 10. So you should take 11 instead to compensate. Yes 10 is more intuitive, but to keep both math and the 10 you'd need to drop the "equal-or-greater".


Also, you don't need to list things on a "+5 AC" format at all. You can just say "AC 16", then tell the DMs they can subtract 11 and roll, then add 11 to the other side.


     

Oct 8, 2012 -- 9:24AM, Chaosmancer wrote:

Oct 7, 2012 -- 6:41PM, XtheHunter wrote:

Oct 4, 2012 -- 10:00PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

Oct 4, 2012 -- 4:29PM, XtheHunter wrote:

As I said before, they just have to open up the math, whatever it is. Put it on the DMG or whatever. This way you can use it in any way you want.

Now imagine a DM that decides who rolls what on a case-by-case fashion, based on the atmosphere he/she wants to create. Really, just Imagine the possibilities for a second.

I'm imagining lots of frustration and confusion

"But last time I cast X I rolled"
"Well, this time is different because XYZ" DM rolls X fails
"Sorry, it doesn't work"
" I should be the one rolling" player rolls X succeeds

We end up with bad blood. Not every time, and certain people could probably make it work great, but it could easily lead to rule checking and debates simply over who gets to roll the dice. 

3.5E actually opened the math up in the DMG, and what you mention never happened. What I advocate is that they acually tell people to shift 11's around, as that keeps the same odds, instead of 10's (read my previous post).

I also believe that they should support all styles.
4E' "offense always rolls"? Allow us.
3E's saving throw approach? Allow us.

I was just mentioning another entirely new playstyle that would become possible if they open up the math. Open the math, then tell us what playstyles are possible, giving us a default one and options with guidance, and we're good. Isn't that what "modular" is supposed to be?


Giving everyone what they want might be hard on some cases,  but it is INSANELY easy in this one.

I'm sorry, I might have misread your post. I thought you were saying that a GM would decide who got to roll, either the defender or the attacker, on a case by case basis. Meaning sometimes the Wizard would roll for his fireball's attack and other times the goblins got to roll to defend against the fireball. This, to me, just leads to problems. I don't really understand the whole "shift 11's" arguement, that is more math than I'm willing to do.Target #'s will be Target #'s, I really don't see a big difference between what the numbers actually are in this discussion. Personally I think we should pick something, then be consistent. Charm person is it an attack roll or a saving throw, pick one and be consistent in the rules. Otherwise, you end up with having to rewrite all the rules for every spell multiple times. I'm not sure if you want to have DnD Next 1, DnD Next 2, and DnD Next 3 all with different rules that are mutually exclusive. I don't think that is Modular, I think that is creating 3 different games.

With the system above, no amount of rewriting -zero, nada- is required, even balance stays the same.  

Oct 8, 2012 -- 8:38PM, Ahglock wrote:

 When someone fights off professor xs mind control it isn't because he missed it is because they had a strong will and fought off his attempts of contro 

When I hit you with a sword the only reason I would ever miss is because you dodged or parried unless I am incompetant or rather impaired ...  one is more likely to actually miss a launched ranged attack
 

Oct 9, 2012 -- 9:03AM, Ahglock wrote:

Oct 9, 2012 -- 5:28AM, Garthanos wrote:

Oct 8, 2012 -- 8:38PM, Ahglock wrote:

 When someone fights off professor xs mind control it isn't because he missed it is because they had a strong will and fought off his attempts of contro 

When I hit you with a sword the only reason I would ever miss is because you dodged or parried unless I am incompetant or rather impaired ...  one is more likely to actually miss a launched ranged attack
 

Sure, but that was not my point.  You can rephrase things however you want to make your preferred style work for you.   

I am asserting that without active defense a sword blow really should not miss.. the defensive action is no less important than a resistance roll implies. I have always felt as a player cheated when the enemy rolls an attack and I just sit and passively suck it up.  This was one of the reasons back in the day I liked RuneQuest 

And yes every attack form makes use of gambits to get past defenses. A D&D spell might be a particularly monotone gambit because it is a rote memorized effect.... this kind of makes the all or nothing nature of some magical attacks make some sense as well as making the emphasis on the defense make sense too.  

But honestly that doesnt change the fact that the fighters parry ability has now a much better dynamic feel to the defenses it provides.  

Sep 30, 2012 -- 3:27AM, Rydex wrote:

Dear ladies and gentlemen of the comunity!
Would you please explain me why would someone prefer throwing saving rolls over attack rolls?

I mean, when a fighter attacks a magician, he throws the dice.
Now here is the surprise: when a magician attacks the fighter (with spell), the fighter still throws the dice! (don't take damage to account, that's where it's equal).

I've played D&D since 2nd ed. I know the drill. I just can't understand the thrill...

What say you?

I have been playing D&D for 30 years and I now really dont understand the love for saving throws to determine attacks. 4th ed changed my views of gaming by making spell casters roll all of there attacks and play a more active role in the game. I also like the 4th ed element of having both magical and physical attacks attack different defenses. I think this should be foundation of DDN.