Community

"What is unbalanced should be removed from D&D" was the mantra of 3ed.
"What is unfun should be removed from D&D" is the mantra of 4ed.

So why are we changing from saving throws to static defenses?

I can see the only benefit when you have a mass-target spell/effect and everyone needs to roll a saving throw. With static defense you roll only once (the caster does), and save some time.

But every other situation? A character stepping onto a trap? Someone getting poisoned? A single-target spell?

Do we realize that a PC's static defense is totally UNFUN?

What is more fun between the following:

a) DM: "You see a sphere of fire coming towards you at lightning speed... QUICK! Make a Reflex save!!"

b) DM: "You see a sphere of fire coming towards you at lightning speed... and miss"

Static defenses = every time you're going to stand and stare while the DM tells you if whatever hits you succeeds or not. No more thrill of making your own roll. No more watching you pal cursing himself for using an unlucky die. No more chanting and candles before the roll against the big evil spell...

A static number works very well for AC instead, because most of the time AC protects just against the usual damage. Nothing thrilling, and rolling AC defensively against every single arrow or axe swing is overkill.

But spells, traps, poisons, gaze attacks, magic items effects, crushing walls... these are usually important effects, it's a pity not to be able to get at least the feeling that it's YOUR OWN luck saving you, and not the DM's unluck!!!

Static defenses are ok for monsters, in which case maybe it's more fun for the player to roll a "spell attack roll", but certainly not for PC.

LiShenron wrote:

A static number works very well for AC instead, because most of the time AC protects just against the usual damage. Nothing thrilling, and rolling AC defensively against every single arrow or axe swing is overkill.

Somehow I bet that if someone were shooting arrows at you or trying to behead you with an axe in real life, you wouldn't find it quite so boring. I'd say the only reason spells seem more exciting than weapons are because you're used to rolling the saves against the spells.

Rolling dice was never that fun for me personally; in my opinion, anything that speeds up the resolution of actions in combat is a good thing. I suppose there might be some games where you say "The fireball races towards the three of you aaannnnd.... *everyone rolls* YOU ALL MADE IT!", but most of my games seem to go "The fireball races towards the three of you aaannnd.... *everyone rolls* ok, so... carry the one... and, then yeah, the plus from bless, and haste gives you a plus one as well i think, ok, and did everyone remember the minus one from the prayer? ok, and you've got cat's grace on as well... so..."

LiShenron wrote:

I forgot one thing.

When the fireball arrives, the rogue already knows that if it doesn't hurt the fighter, it can never hurt him as well. The fighter already knows that if it hurts the rogue, it will hurt him too.

Because with static saves, you can just put the characters in a list with descending saves; those above the caster's roll are all saved, those below are all affected. There is not much variety of results. No chance that once in a while the worse guy will succeed and the better guy will fail.

Which is a standard argument for multiple attack rolls with area effect spells and abilities, I believe.

The caster does already have a active roll Kheros. He rolls the damage dices and he checks if he gets pass the spell resistance. Granted its not always the case for both, but the caster is active.