Problem with AoE Reflex saves

59 posts / 0 new
Last post
Under the 4.0 rules, when making an area effect attack, such as a fireball, the caster makes a single "attack" roll against the Reflex score of all available targets. The problem that I see is that instead of several saving throws, there is one attack roll. Less die rolling is good, but I believe that this will skew the odds in favor of the attacker.

For example, lets say that a wizard casts a fireball. They get lucky and roll a 20 on their attack roll. Everybody in the area of effect gets roasted. In 3.x terms, that would be equivalent to every single target rolling a 1 on their saving throw. It is alot more probable to roll a single success under 4.0 rules than it is to roll several failures under 3.5 rules. The results get more skewed the more targets that are affected.

One solution that I have thought of is for the attacker's roll to count at full value for half of the targets in the area (round up), starting with those closest to origin point. After that, for each subsequent target, the attacker's roll is reduced by one before comparing it to the defender's Reflex score. In this way the attacker is likely to affect some targets, but unlikely to affect all targets.

Thoughts?
problem that I see is that instead of several saving throws, there is one attack roll. Less die rolling is good, but I believe that this will skew the odds in favor of the attacker.

I don't see this as a problem at all. Saves are easy-peasy to mkae currently, assuming they progress at the same rate, maybe blasters will be more useful against the improved evasion nightmare that is a high-level rogue-monk party.
Just make the wizard roll 1 roll against each person in the area. It's not a huge deal if you want to make the change.

Do you roll 10d6 damage 20 times in a row when you hit 20 guys, or roll once and then just give everyone that much? It's the same kind of thing.
We don't know how damage is scaling. They've already said that fireballs no longer do 1d6/level. It may be that area effects just don't do the kind of damage they used to, so twice that is still not that big a deal. It'll probably roast a fair amount of mooks though.
Just make the wizard roll 1 roll against each person in the area. It's not a huge deal if you want to make the change.

I've got a better idea! Why not just let the players roll their own die and they can record the result themselves, takes the load of the DM then...wait a miniute...that sounds familiar :P
No, players having values you can target makes it easier as a DM because then you can roll yourself and just tell the player the results without making a hubub about it. For example, with a spell from a caster they aren't aware of. It's easier to say "you feel something" and let them wonder what it is like their character does. The thing they feel might not even be a resistible effect for all they know.

It lets the DM be sneaky when they need.

Sure, the DM could have rolled the save for the player, but then the players might feel like "your luck" messed them up, or something (because DnD players are by default superstitious).
Remember that the rules are not being built to just facilitate the player.

The rules are being built to facilitate the DM too.

At the average game table there are 4 to 6 players and one DM.

With the 4e emphasis on 1 monster per player if it is regular and more monsters if they are of a lower level then the DM has four to sixteen times as much rolling and work to do then any player sitting at the table.

The one roll at a target and then half damage to the rest of the people in the AoE is designed to simplify the DMs work. The DM is the person in the need of help.
Help the DM? By changing something that mathematically/statistically (as the OP correctly put it) changes the balance of all the game? And the cascades into changing basic rules and making all saves an attack roll?

So if I am reading things right the play testing/brainstorming went like this:

"Ok; we need to help the DM who is having great troubles monitoring combat; today we look at area effects and saving throws..."
"Yes too many rolls if the DM has to save vs a player thrown fireball..."
"I know : let's have him make only one roll - for all monsters."
"No that makes it too average"
"Well lets have the player make one attack roll then against the monsters"
"Great Idea lets work the rules around all other aspects of saving throws to match this change...let us make all rolls attacks vs AC-like"

so what's next? "When the DM has to roll attack rolls for twenty monsters he can't be rolling twenty dice..." "Yeah and we can't have him rolling only one attack because it makes it too average..." "I know..."

I dread to continue...

Anyway, perhaps I was to nay-saying and speculative above. The concept of attacking the character's saving throw does not sound that appealing to me - in fact it has some "unifying the rules" sense that...well does make certain sense. But a single attack roll for an area damage is just over the line for me...Heck there were times I would roll different damage rolls for area damage to make things more interesting...
The concept of attacking the character's saving throw does not sound that appealing to me - in fact it has some "unifying the rules" sense that...well does make certain sense.

This is easy to agree with. Consistency is good.

Of course there is an equally consistent alternative - players roll all the dice - but that could still be an optional rule.

But a single attack roll for an area damage is just over the line for me...Heck there were times I would roll different damage rolls for area damage to make things more interesting...

The extreme results of a single attack roll could be tempered in many ways - let's hope the designers have some good ideas on this.
Help the DM? By changing something that mathematically/statistically (as the OP correctly put it) changes the balance of all the game? And the cascades into changing basic rules and making all saves an attack roll?

How is that any different than attack rolls? Whirlwind attack is an area effect that gets one roll in SAGA/4e. You also forget that everything will now be on the same page, it makes sense. It never made sense that some attacks the attacker rolls and some the defender rolls.

So if I am reading things right the play testing/brainstorming went like this:

"Ok; we need to help the DM who is having great troubles monitoring combat; today we look at area effects and saving throws..."
"Yes too many rolls if the DM has to save vs a player thrown fireball..."
"I know : let's have him make only one roll - for all monsters."
"No that makes it too average"
"Well lets have the player make one attack roll then against the monsters"
"Great Idea lets work the rules around all other aspects of saving throws to match this change...let us make all rolls attacks vs AC-like"

Somewhat, but more like why do we do some attacks rolled by the attacker and some by the defender. And let's look at it in another way, which speeds up play, one roll or many rolls for one single action?

so what's next? "When the DM has to roll attack rolls for twenty monsters he can't be rolling twenty dice..." "Yeah and we can't have him rolling only one attack because it makes it too average..." "I know..."

For massed combat, maybe, other than that, no. They aren't destroying D&D, and frankly if you don't like it you still have an entire 3.x collection that will be complete (not that anyone needs more than the Core).

I dread to continue...

Anyway, perhaps I was to nay-saying and speculative above. The concept of attacking the character's saving throw does not sound that appealing to me - in fact it has some "unifying the rules" sense that...well does make certain sense. But a single attack roll for an area damage is just over the line for me...Heck there were times I would roll different damage rolls for area damage to make things more interesting...

That's fine for your game, and guess what? You can still do just that. Defenses are simply taking 10 instead of the attack so swap them if that's what you want.
I've got a better idea! Why not just let the players roll their own die and they can record the result themselves, takes the load of the DM then...wait a miniute...that sounds familiar :P

Why not let them roll their AC as well?

There are plenty of options out there, but don't really add depth to the game. Saves are one of those, it's the part that drove me out of D&D. I hate playing a caster and having all the effects lie in the DM's hands. Why should the spell I cast depend solely on the DM's saves?
Why not let them roll their AC as well?

There are plenty of options out there, but don't really add depth to the game. Saves are one of those, it's the part that drove me out of D&D. I hate playing a caster and having all the effects lie in the DM's hands. Why should the spell I cast depend solely on the DM's saves?

It's more about the other way around really. While it kinda sucks to have the DM just roll to see if your color spray KOs the enemy, it really sucks to have the DM roll for the enemy's color spray and arbitrarily take you out of combat before you've even touched a die.

Especially this will be pretty terrible if there's one roll for area attacks against PCs. I can see a lucky natural 20 causing a lot of TPKs.
You're only looking at one side of the equation. Remember that they also have a much greater chance of missing everyone in the party. Also each individual still has the same probability of getting hit, and since both sides are allowed to use area effects, I'd say that things balance out okay.
It's more about the other way around really. While it kinda sucks to have the DM just roll to see if your color spray KOs the enemy, it really sucks to have the DM roll for the enemy's color spray and arbitrarily take you out of combat before you've even touched a die.

Especially this will be pretty terrible if there's one roll for area attacks against PCs. I can see a lucky natural 20 causing a lot of TPKs.

How is that any different than being oneshoted by a high damage attack, you don't get to roll away that and you are out of the game. Also you need to keep in mind that saves are much better with Defense as they the bonus is your level + ability + class. They will scale at the very least evenly with attack rolls.

I don't think we'll get a lot of Hit and Die or hit and KO effects in the game. It's been said there won't be any spells that kill someone on a die roll, I have a feeling that this will be the same for KO as well (at least on a mass scale).
Why not let them roll their AC as well?

There are plenty of options out there, but don't really add depth to the game. Saves are one of those, it's the part that drove me out of D&D. I hate playing a caster and having all the effects lie in the DM's hands. Why should the spell I cast depend solely on the DM's saves?

I agree that sucks too. But the new way is like Greater Suckage. Previously 1 or 2 out of 4 in the party (depending on the party) felt like they had no control over the character's input, now all 4 members of the party have no control over their own destiny; they just get to sit back and enjoy as the DM tells them what happens.

The new rules should put control in the players hands. If that means that a player caster gets to roll vs NPC fixed save, while players get to roll a save vs a NPC rolled target number, let it happen. It doesn't have to be fixed to suck one way or the other (in fact I will houserule this immediately if thats what they end up with).

Some players want to roll the AC defense too, if that's what they want they should be able to do that as long as they are prepared to do the work. I don't mind not rolling AC because a single weapon strike is not likely to kill the entire party unlike a Fiery Breath or Mass Destruction spell. If you one-shot a character with a high damage attack, the other players still have options (they can flee, keep fighting, stall, heal etc). Bit hard to recover from one-shotting the entire party.
Well there's a couple of easy things to make this better:

First is just reintroduce confirmation rolls if they're actually taken out of the game. Bam, now a single d20 roll isn't so bad. I'm honestly still hoping this isn't something I have to personally reintroduce, as that feels like a terrible step backwards. And it's a lot easier to roll a confirmation once every 20 times than roll an extra attack for everyone in an AoE every time one is used.


The other thing to help it out some is to simply make a rule that allows a player to choose to roll their defense, so long as they choose to roll before they know the effect of what's coming at them. So the DM describes a fireball coming at them, before the player knows what the attack value of it is (and thus whether he'd fail the save or not) he can choose to actively avoid it. Note that this can also apply to attacks against AC, so everyone's problems in that regard are gone.

It -could- potentially slow down the game, depending on how pedantic the PCs are about wanting to roll dice. I think most however would save it for things where they really fear for their lives, and accepting to 'take 10' on most other rolls.

Also, if you have action points in your game, you could even use spending one of them to allow for a chance to roll -after- knowing you're ****ed. Just another option to throw out there.
While it kinda sucks to have the DM just roll to see if your color spray KOs the enemy, it really sucks to have the DM roll for the enemy's color spray and arbitrarily take you out of combat before you've even touched a die.

"arbitrarily"? I don't think that word means what you think it means...
By having the single attack roll versus the multiple save rolls one is actually accomplishing two different things.

(1) Less dice rolls
(2) Easier, cleaner, and hopefully better statistics

Everyone is focusing on how one good roll will hit everyone and thus will increase the chance of TPK and also be unfun for all the players who have their saves taken away from them. But the one roll introduces several things statistically that are beneficial.

(1) [Tempered by 3.X speak] In 4th Ed, the rogue will always dodge the AoE if the Fighter or Wizard does. By constrast, in 3.x, individual saves means that the rogue can tank his roll while the other classes maxed their rolls. This broke an aspect of game balance between the classes. Some people may like this dynamic but I much prefer the rogue dodging when the other classes do and then being the only one to dodge when everyone else fails.

(2) AoE spells have three set of stats that affect the ability for it to TPK a party (or a group of monsters). Individual Saves for 1/2, SR, and Random Damage. Thus to perform any sort of statistical analysis to see if a spell is balanced with respect to other spells and balanced to be used by X Level good or bad guys gets quite complex.

Plus when you look at the resulting math from say a 10d6 fireball hitting a party of 5 with all different saves, it's a MESS. 4th Ed. removing the Individual Saves for 1/2 and replacing it with one attack roll allows a much cleaner analysis and thus I'm certain the damage from said spell is much more likely to be level appropriate.

Shifting gears slightly... I personally hope that the level of variation in damage spells is cleaned up in 4th Ed. How come nobody complains about pre-4th Ed. 10d6 damage for a fireball?

Before saves or special abilities are considered, it can do anywhere from 10 points to 60 points of damage with an average of 35. That range can knock out a fully healed 1st level character on the low end or a fully healed 10th level character (with no CON) on the high end.
How is that any different than being oneshoted by a high damage attack, you don't get to roll away that and you are out of the game. Also you need to keep in mind that saves are much better with Defense as they the bonus is your level + ability + class. They will scale at the very least evenly with attack rolls.

Well it's not much different from a high damage nuke attack. Sure getting hit by a massive uber charge or something will take you out just the same, but if you look at monsters, you can see that high damage attacks are very rare in 3.5. Even dragons don't do truly huge amounts of damage compared to the PCs they're attacking.

Also the fact that you can color spray or sleep multiple people will get crazy with one die roll.

"arbitrarily"? I don't think that word means what you think it means...

While it's true that it's not really arbitrary. It certainly will feel that way. A great many DMs roll behind DM screens. So you may not even see the die roll. You may just hear "The wizard points his finger at you, intones a word of power and you die."

Now, whether that's by the rules or DM fiat, it's still going to feel very arbitrary. You haven't even acted or touched a dice yet and poof, you're dead.
I don't think that fireballs will be doing d6/level anymore. Also, if SW Saga is any indication, there will be some resources in the hands of players to avoid death no matter what. There's still some suckage if that comes into play, but not roll-up-a-new-character level suckage.
While it's true that it's not really arbitrary. It certainly will feel that way. A great many DMs roll behind DM screens. So you may not even see the die roll. You may just hear "The wizard points his finger at you, intones a word of power and you die."

Now, whether that's by the rules or DM fiat, it's still going to feel very arbitrary. You haven't even acted or touched a dice yet and poof, you're dead.

As you say, it's no difference from a High Damage nuke attack. PCs don't roll AC.

I don't think the fact that it covers an area trumps the simple concept that "The attacker rolls the d20 as part of his attack, always".

You and 3 other friends could always die in a high damage nuke from someone using Manyshot.
As you say, it's no difference from a High Damage nuke attack. PCs don't roll AC.

Well it's different in the fact of frequency. PCs regularly run into save or die (or save and get neutralized) effects. Ghoul paralysis, basilisk/medusa gazes, Hold Spells, Carrion crawler paralysis tentacles, Illithid mind blast, Vampiric/succubi charm and Aboleth mind control. I just came up with that list in 10 seconds off the top of my head.

There are way more of these that PCs are encountering all the time.

That's the difference. The average monster doesn't have super nuke attacks (barring a lucky critical), but save based neutralization effects are very common.
*Ghoul paralysis - one target per claw/bite attack
*basilisk/medusa gazes - one target per standard action "gaze", and then a free "attack" against each person in range 1/round (but each attack would probably use a separate roll).
*Hold Spells - single target, but problematic with the "mass" versions
*Carrion crawler paralysis tentacles - one target per attack
*Illithid mind blast - damn. Illithids rock your socks. Well, they're supposed to.
*Vampiric/succubi charm - one target per standard action use.
*Aboleth mind control - one target per standard action use.

So, 2 of the things listed can bring down a group, and the rest are all effectively the exact same as before. Any save based neutralization that isn't multi-target is the same as before, just a new person rolling the d20.

I'm sure that the game designers are perfectly aware of such pitfalls and aren't going to just write the the 3.5 monsters directly into the 4E books. I'm sure they'll make changes as necessary to keep things a challenge without making them all a TPK waiting to happen.
Under the 4.0 rules, when making an area effect attack, such as a fireball, the caster makes a single "attack" roll against the Reflex score of all available targets. The problem that I see is that instead of several saving throws, there is one attack roll. Less die rolling is good, but I believe that this will skew the odds in favor of the attacker.

For example, lets say that a wizard casts a fireball. They get lucky and roll a 20 on their attack roll. Everybody in the area of effect gets roasted. In 3.x terms, that would be equivalent to every single target rolling a 1 on their saving throw. It is alot more probable to roll a single success under 4.0 rules than it is to roll several failures under 3.5 rules. The results get more skewed the more targets that are affected.

It is equally probable (assuming they keep the rules for nat 20s and nat 1s) for the spellcaster to roll a natural 1, which is the equivalent of everybody in the AoE rolling a natural 20 on their saving throw. So yes, it does balance out, although the total variance in terms of effect is greater -- sometimes a really powerful spellcaster will shoot a fireball and do *nothing*, sometimes a weak one will blast everyone with a lucky shot.

Easiest way to do this is to make saving throws for AoEs less crucial -- make each AoE do less total damage, and take away Evasion, so that it's always a choice between "some damage" and "more damage" rather than "lots and lots of damage" or "no damage".

You can also take away the rule that nat 20s are auto-successes and nat 1s are auto-failures.
By the by, one of the Design & Development articles specifically said they were toning down the way magic becomes super-powerful super-quickly as you gain in level -- one thing we know for sure is that fireball does *not* do an extra d6 of damage for a higher caster level anymore.
For example, lets say that a wizard casts a fireball. They get lucky and roll a 20 on their attack roll.

It's already been said, but...well, say they get unlucky, and roll a 1? Everybody takes half damage, or none with evasion (unless that's different, too...never know). It skews nothing in favor of anybody. It just streamlines it. One roll, variable results for those with better or worse saves.
Well it's not much different from a high damage nuke attack. Sure getting hit by a massive uber charge or something will take you out just the same, but if you look at monsters, you can see that high damage attacks are very rare in 3.5. Even dragons don't do truly huge amounts of damage compared to the PCs they're attacking.

You are still thinking 3e. In 4e Warriors are getting a boost and Casters brought into balance. In SAGA there are many ways to ramp up damage on attacks, with feats and talents you can add damage bonuses and extra damage dice to the attack.

In addition, a well played Rogue can SA about every round or two with continuous flanking and feinting. You are really just hung up on the old way of doing things.

Also the fact that you can color spray or sleep multiple people will get crazy with one die roll.

They will not function the same way as before. The spell system is a brand new animal, something that really should have been done in 3e but were too afraid to do. The magic system has hardly changed from Basic, just a cut and paste with adjustments for new features. The mold has been broken in 4e, so you can't use 3e as a guide...

While it's true that it's not really arbitrary. It certainly will feel that way. A great many DMs roll behind DM screens. So you may not even see the die roll. You may just hear "The wizard points his finger at you, intones a word of power and you die."

How is that any different than because you failed your surprise check, you die at the hands of the Rogue??? None.

How is that different than the DM fiat on the saves of the BBEG? None.

No matter how you look at it, there's a blind area. 4e will assumably have ways to deal with it whether from Action Points, or talents, or just the way they design spells.

Now, whether that's by the rules or DM fiat, it's still going to feel very arbitrary. You haven't even acted or touched a dice yet and poof, you're dead.

They've already stated no one will die at the hands of a single roll when it comes to magic. It's been in the blogs and some of the Podcasts.
Wow.

I've been out of active D&D gaming since the late 80's, although I bought the 3rd ED core books just to keep up on things, and will probably do the same with 4th Ed.

I will say it's fascinating to read the discussion on the boards about the game dynamics that might be changed with the rule changes. Some of the insights here as to how things will go if this is a rule or that is a rule are pretty durn good.

But I think the key thing to remember for everyone is that, in the end, it's just a game, and it's there to be enjoyed. If the new rules come out and you absolutely hate them, stick with 3.5 or even an earlier addition. If you like the new rules with the exception of one or two things, you can always house rule them. The important thing is that you don't let the 'rules minutiae' destroy the enjoyment of your gaming group. Players and DM's need to sit down before starting a new campaign and hash these issues out before play starts, and there should be no problem.
How is that any different than because you failed your surprise check, you die at the hands of the Rogue???

Because you rolled low on your spot skill, or rolled poor initiative. You at least got to touch a die.

How is that different than the DM fiat on the saves of the BBEG?

Not sure what you even mean here.

They've already stated no one will die at the hands of a single roll when it comes to magic. It's been in the blogs and some of the Podcasts.

Well, even if a spell doesn't strike you dead, there are plenty of ways to neutralize a PC. As it is now, there are few true save or die effects, but save or be paralyzed for the duration of combat is almost as bad.
Because you rolled low on your spot skill, or rolled poor initiative. You at least got to touch a die.

It is easy to have a rogue that can't be seen even with a nat 20 on your Spot check (invisibility anyone?), at least for PCs without Spot as a class skill. So you got a check, it just didn't necessarily make any difference.

Well, even if a spell doesn't strike you dead, there are plenty of ways to neutralize a PC. As it is now, there are few true save or die effects, but save or be paralyzed for the duration of combat is almost as bad.

And these are going the way of the dodo too. The designers realized that frightened, paralyzed, sleep, and stun (for multiple rounds) were not fun effects. In 4e, you will probably be able to take an enemy completely out of combat for 1 round tops, more only if you build up to it with multiple successes or weaken the enemy first.

A nat 20 on AoE effect is just not going to net you a win. If it would then it is a poorly balanced effect, and I doubt we will be seeing it in 4e.
While it's true that it's not really arbitrary. It certainly will feel that way. A great many DMs roll behind DM screens. So you may not even see the die roll. You may just hear "The wizard points his finger at you, intones a word of power and you die."

Now, whether that's by the rules or DM fiat, it's still going to feel very arbitrary. You haven't even acted or touched a dice yet and poof, you're dead.

If you're worried that a rule will allow your DM to arbitrarily kill you, you're playing the wrong game. I don't want to spoil the illusion for you, but DMs have a million ways to kill you if they wanted to. If you all rolled 19s on your saves, he could rule the DC was 20 and poof, you're dead. They don't even have to "cheat" at all. They could kill you just by giving you an overwhelmingly difficult encounter. In fact, DMs spend a great deal of effort making sure they don't accidentally kill you.

You do make a good argument, however, for DMs rolling out in the open as much as possible. That definitely helped last Tuesday when I rolled two critical hits in a row against the same PC, knocking him unconscious. He still had a hard time accepting it, but at least he knew it wasn't my decision.
OK, just read the design and development archive, I take it back
Copied from another thread:

You guys are assuming there won't be a Saving Throw.

There won't be a *routine* saving throw, as in past editions, but the Action Point/Fate/Whatever mechanism may allow characters to make a roll to avoid an especially brutal hit or spell effect. (at the cost of a fate point or whatnot.)

This would allow characters to in effect roll their "saving throw" when it's *literally* (or almost literally) a true saving throw, really saving your ass from a dire effect.

This would be a dramatic roll (obviously) and "fate would be in your own hands." (Or at least the illusion thereof.)

But eliminating a lot of the penny-ante saves would speed the game up.

A true saving throw (say cha bonus (to simulate luck, favor of the gods) + 1/2 level + d20 vs. either a DC of 15 or some formula taking into account the power of the guy whose attack you're trying to avoid) would be, to me, a great compromise for those who want to roll their own saves (and defenses!); you would be rolling, but only when there was something *serious* on the line.
Presumably the Save defense stat will be 10+your save modifiers. If people want to roll for every save go for it, take away the 10 roll a d20 just accept your game will be slower.
This should be in a SAGA forum. They still haven't announced how they are going handle defenses in 4e.

They have shown a sample monster using 4E format in the monster forum. That gives us a pretty good idea how things are oging to look.

Thus far there's AC, reflex, fortitude and will as defenses. No mention of grapple anywhere, but it seems they're going wtih a saga/D&D hybrid.

I didn't see any save bonuses anywhere, so we can assume saving throws are out entirely, unless it's an ability check (since ability checks are still in).
I have not been reading the scattered 4e hints as diligently as many people here have, but this change in particular seems like a poor idea. While it does decrease the amount of rolling done by both DM's and players, in all of the games I have played, rolling was never really considered a chore. It was, in fact, one of the most exciting parts of combat (along with, of course, gruesome DM descriptions). The change also significantly increases the randomness of encounters, especially when we consider that there are now just as many enemies as PC's available to roll a devastating critical. Reducing the number of rolls required for any event (and therefore decreasing the chance the result is close to a statistical average) is almost always poor for the PC's, because a series of average results in an encounter should (almost) always result in a PC victory. In other words, it is significantly more common to "roll well" with 3d8 than (300d8)/100.

The saving grace may come with the increase in the number of monsters on the battlefield. This decreases the randomness of an encounter (spreading the total power of the enemy across more dice), but it is obviously still unknown to us how well these two factors will balance each other.
Reducing the number of rolls required for any event (and therefore decreasing the chance the result is close to a statistical average) is almost always poor for the PC's, because a series of average results in an encounter should (almost) always result in a PC victory. In other words, it is significantly more common to "roll well" with 3d8 than (300d8)/100.

It's also significantly more common to roll poorly. The only thing it changes is how likely it is that something unexpected will happen: that increases. The quality of that unexpected thing (good or bad) varies equally in both directions. Not to be rude, but...if you're going to say that more rolls (by way of producing more consistent results) benefits the PCs, you may as well forgo dice (and randomization) altogether and use raw numbers, replacing rolls with rounded statistical averages, producing completely consistent results. And that just wouldn't be as fun. Randomness creates excitement.
Reducing the number of rolls required for any event (and therefore decreasing the chance the result is close to a statistical average) is almost always poor for the PC's, because a series of average results in an encounter should (almost) always result in a PC victory.

Wow...I personally think that's pretty dull. I don't run encounters with higher than a 55% chance of victory.
I don't see this as a problem at all. Saves are easy-peasy to mkae currently

Yeah, my +4 Reflex save at 8th level succeeds so often.
Wow...I personally think that's pretty dull. I don't run encounters with higher than a 55% chance of victory.

So in just under half of all battles the PCs either run away or you get a TPK? You must have very short campaigns.
So in just under half of all battles the PCs either run away or you get a TPK? You must have very short campaigns.

Actually, we have pretty long campaigns, you just have to play every single encounter like it's your last. Oh, and don't get attached to your character - we generally have at least one death per session when I DM. And, the PCs hardly ever run, unless over half the group is dead.