Community

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?

There isn't.

I've been playing since... all editions.  4e finally got it right with:

Offense/taking action = die rolling

Defense/re-action  = DC

I've offered this in my feedback to WotC at every opportunity.

The only reason we're back to rolling for selective defenses based on the whim of the designers, is old fuddy-duddies who can't accept change.



Seriously though... it's just a throwback that I think we can do without.  It's like going back to THAC0. Sure the math's the same, but it's just plain backwards.  

Technically attacking an AC and Reflex, Fort, or Will, is the same as attacking AC, and then making a save against spells. The benefit of making it an attack for all things is the dice roll is taken care on on the players or monsters turns. Saving throws bog down the DM, and goes against making the game easier for the DM. So I can only assume saves are there for nostalgia.

Because it puts the roll to resist mind control and other huge things like that in the hands of the player. It sucks to just have the DM say "does a 37 hit your will? Ohhhhh, too bad."

As for, "Then do you not like attack rolls that take down a player either?" If they drop you in one hit, then yea it feels a bit harsh. Although, I still think that's a better position to be in then continuously having a dragon be invisible to you and just twiddling your thumbs. Someone probably has some heals on them, not always as true for some status effects.

I'd rather have player always rolls than always an attack roll. I don't really like the idea that an action from a player is resolved differently then the same action from a monster because it gives the impression that the world revolves around the player. But I'd take that over the, "sucks to be you" feel I get from 4e a lot. I always play a character that has a couple ways to grant saving throws because it feels like the only way I can have a hand in my own fate.


Although, I DEFINITELY think it should be easy to switch to all attack rolls. I know the merits to it, even though I don't like it, and people should have that option.

I can see your points, and the most frustrating thing at the moment is only the casters have effects that require saves, and the martial character attacks AC all day long. I could accept either system, if that simple change was put into place.

For immersion purposes, when a wizard summons fire that is in someone’s space, that someone needs to get out and it is in fact their action (die roll) that determines if they get burned or not.

Oh, you said ‘prefer’? Then no, please, let’s use a system that works, is simple and everyone can enjoy. However, I don’t like class based defenses of any kind. I also don’t like making players remember a huge number of defensive stats. If we go back to AC, Ref, Fort, Will then we have players trying to figure out what their attacks work against, or worse, we have each ‘attack’ work against specific defenses and a return to the 4e powers system all together.

I wouldn’t be opposed to a system where attacks worked against your Attribute Scores (roll your Charm Person against their Wisdom Score). However, then you have an issue with equipment, increasing and decreasing Scores and figuring when to use AC.

Short answer: All attacks should be rolled. But how do we do it well?

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:23PM, Phawksin wrote:

For immersion purposes, when a wizard summons fire that is in someone’s space, that someone needs to get out and it is in fact their action (die roll) that determines if they get burned or not.

This is a reaction.  It's something you'd do before you even fully process how or why there's fire, or that there's even fire for that matter.  Just sudden pain/discomfort.

I get that some people like to roll for these sort of things too.  And that's OK.  It's a quick change to subtract 10 from a DC and toss in a d20 in its place, or vice versa.  The problem is, you start making die rolls for offense AND defense, and the system bogs down real quick.  

It doesn't really matter who rolls at the table if you think about it. Its just a d20 vs a target number, be it AC, Ability Score Save or DC. 

There is as many people that prefer to roll their spell attacks than their is that prefer to roll their saves i am sure. :P

Rolling saves has a longer history in D&D though and is a deeply ingrained core mechanic for many people. So i am not surprised to see it return. 

Thanks everybody for all the replies.

plague, I don't think that any person should be asked that question "which would you prefer to roll" but only the caster players, for they are the poeple who pay the price. I know that some of my magic casters palyers feel a little out for not throwing any dice through an entire encounter, (illusionists, evocators, enchanters and the like).
I, though, never felt that when I played a Wizard.
For my players, it does matter who is in "charge" of the attack role resault. it feels the fate is in thier hands, and not mine (as the DM).
A friend told me a few times that whoever has one foot in the history and the other in the future will eventualy urinate on the present. What poeple loved once is important, but you can't live today or plan the future trough only the history of things, so that doesn't answer the question. It only points out the roots of teh issue.

Shado, I think that you are right. for every way to think of something happening you can see the other side. mabe it's a reaction to the attack. mabe not.

Vacant, I think there is the other side too: if the roll to resist mind control is in the player's hands, then the roll to resist's the enchanter player's magic is in the DM's hand, and mabe he would feel a little out of controll over his own powers.

Any one else has more oppinions? 

there are two major problems with having saving throws as writen. the first is that things like advantage/disadvantage dont work with them. a caster can just not care about being disadvantaged at all, nor would he care about working to get advantage. this applies to other mechanics that dont work with both systems. it is clubsy and not well thought out.

the second reason is that it is counter-intuitive and can be confusing to new players. keep in mind new players are the bigest group they have make happy. no new players no growing fanbase.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Rydex wrote:

Any one else has more oppinions? 

Just a follow up.

3.x had the Unearthed Arcana suppliment that (to my knowledge) first introduced the idea of static defenses to the masses.  It offered options for the 4e method, players rolling all the dice (both attacks and defenses, with monster attacks and defenses being static), and for always rolling on both sides of the table.  (FYI, d20 for offense and defense for both the DM and players will slow the game down a LOT and make combat very swingy.)

For Next, while I have my preference for the "default" that the system references, keep in mind that reversing the Saving Throw mechanic isn't the same as just making every spell a magic attack.

Magic Attacks in Next target AC.  Spells with saving throws target stats.  So currently, that means having two different bonuses for the d20.

Current Magic Attacks = No change (d20 + Casting stat + Magic Attack)

Current Spells with saves = d20 + Casting stat + (current base save DC - 10)

I haven't parsed the current pdfs, but the math here seems a little weird to me.

Magic Attacks target AC.  Potentially armor bonus + DEX, or just armor bonus (if DEX is too low).  "Saving Throw" spells target stats... which are all over the map, and have no means of compensating for a low stat like AC does.

So my thought is... should magic ever even target AC?  It's one thing when you animate a physcial weapon for swing as if weilded by a Fighter... but Shock Grasp?  Ray of Frost?  Seem like DEX attacks to me.  Armor shouldn't be a factor here... if anything, armor would make you more vulnerable to spells like Shocking Grasp (Heavy Armor and/or metal armor at least).  I know it leads to bogging down the game when you have to check type of gear for spell effects... and I don't mind the option/rule to skip over it... but it starts to break suspension of disbelief when it's protecting you from such spells.

I'm getting off track, so I'll stop here. 

I think Captpike has got two major reasons in the new mechanic to prefer magic attacks over saving throw.
What Shado is saying is that turning them to magic attacks makes them attacks against AC. I disagree.
You can replace in each spell "the taget makes a -ability- saving throw" with "make an attack against a -ability- of each target."

example:

Each creature in a 15-foot cone
originating from you makes a Dexterity saving
throw. A creature takes 4d4 fire damage on a
failed save, and half as much damage on a
successful one.

Replaced with:

Make ability attack on each creature in a 15-foot cone
originating from you against its Dexterity.
A creature takes 4d4 fire damage on a
successful attack, and half as much damage on a
failed one.

I didn't find the place where it explains how to determin Save DCs, but if it's 10+ability then it would be even. replace the 10 with the defence.
Now: 10+ability = Save DC VS. Saving Throw= d20+ability
New: d20+ability = Spell Attack VS. Defensive Ability = 10+ability.
 

 

I prefer Saving Throws as they stand. Yes, as of right now there is no advantage/disadvantage mechanic built into the spell system but I'm betting there will be a way to gain advantage or disadvantage on saving throws in the future.
I will admit, way back when they first started releasing information on 3rd edition, with the Tools program, I thought that the number that came up was the number that you had to roll to cast your spell. Actually, roll under as that was the way things were done in 2nd. Now, I'm not against rolling to hit different defenses. Actually, a perfectly good system that cleaned up the various Bull Rushes, Disarms, Grapples and Trips in Pathfinder. It works just fine, but I prefer Saving Throws when it comes to spells and similar effects. I want the feeling of shrugging of the Hold Person, resisting the Disintegration, dodging the Fireball. I know most of my players feel the same way.

I love saving throws. It's fun for a PC to tentatively open that mystery box/door and hear the DM shout "Make a XXX Saving Throw!" Then you hold your breath and roll, hoping the dice fall in your favor. That's what makes the game fun.

I'm fine with "attack" spells targeting AC. Not only does it speed up the game, but it also gives the image that the Mage wields Magic like the Warrior wields Weapons.

HOWEVER....I would also love to see more Spells that target ALL SIX ability scores. I want more than just Dexterity and Wisdom saving throws.
Examples:
* Spells that require you to dodge out of harms way, roll a DEX save.
* Thunderwave should be a Constitution save (instead of DEX). I see it as trying to resist the spell's force, not trying avoid it.
* Make a STR save for a spell that weakens you (like spells similar to Ray of Enfeeblement).
* Illusion spells should frequently require Intelligence saves.
* Many Enchantment spells should target Charisma instead of Wisdom (i.e. Charm Person. CHA save to determine if your sense of self is stronger than their magical compulsion). It's true that the line between WIS and CHA saves is thin, but I think the distinction is important.

I know this has the potential to slow the game down while players pick which ability to use vs which "defense" (like in 4e). However, since we no longer have the plethora of at-will vs. AC/F/R/W abilities now, this shouldn't be a problem.

My favorite aspect of D&D is magic, especially creative USE of magic. I love the idea that the wizard chooses an illusion spell over a fireball because he knows the Ogre is dumb and likely fooled by it. Brains over (magical) Brawn...that's what the wizard is supposed to be.
(Note: I don't mean to intentionally neglect Clerics, but their selection of spells requiring saving throws is much smaller.)

Also, I hated the idea of the 4e saving throw.

I hated 4ed saving throws too.
4ed felt like everything has a 50/50 chances. saving throws was one of the tpics that this was clear.

I guess I love magic in D&D but not the spells. (at least since 2e through 3e and pathfinder) That's the part with the most preperations needed as a DM, and of which you need to copy and remember a lot.

As conclusion, I think there is about 50% in favor of throwing saves and 50% in favor of attacking defenses with spells.

I always prefer letting my players throw the dice of thier attack, and I did love the 4e change, though I admit that as a 4e DM I found myself sometimes asking the players to throw the dice to escape a hazard, instead of attacking them with the hazard myself.
The real problem I see with saving throws is what I can call "The Sleep spell drawback" Although the magician of the party cast it, his enemies, which I controll as a DM throw all the dice that determine the resault of the attack, making the magician quite passive at His Own Attack/Turn. that's why I did enjoy 4e attack mechanic.

Mabe they realy should keep the saving throws, but make it in a way that it's really simple replacing it to attacking with spells, as others adviced above.

There's also the dis/advantage issue.  As it stands, a half-blinded prone etc spellcaster can throw a fireball just fine, and it's on the half-blinded prone fighter to try and roll with it (which kind of makes sense, really, but might be a game balance issue).

A lot of this seems far too complicated. Remember one of the prime goals of the edition is to slim down combat and make it streamlined. A lot of these suggestions are good, but are far too mechanically complicated to add anything real useful to the game. 

I liked the 4E approach--IE, the assailant always rolled, while the defender used a set value. Not only did it make a lot more sense than an arbitrary division of SOMETIMES the assailiant rolls and SOMETIMES the defender rolls, but it also made "buffs" more universally useful. Someone could get something out of an "attack bonus," no matter what class they were. There was no silly dividing line between "attack bonus" and "saving throw penalty" (well, as they existed prior, this discussion really isn't about the 4E saving throw).

It's just one of those things that is being stuck in because of nostalgia, not because it makes sense from a design standpoint or is actually beneficial mechanically.

Just open up the math for the players/DM to decide who rolls what on their own. It's that simple.

It becomes more intuitive if you remove the whole "equal or bigger" thing and turn it into "just bigger". With equal or bigger, if you use the "subtract/add 10 instead of rolling" scheme, whoever doesn't roll gets a 5% disadvantage on whoever rolls, forcing you to shift 11's around instead of 10's. I'll demonstrate:

Two armorless dex 20 guys are fighting.
both have +5 to hit and +5 to AC.

So the default, d20+5 vs 10+5 with d20 guy winning on a draw, gives you these odds:
the +5 is on both sides, so it doesn't matter and it's a d20 vs DC 10 thing.

On that scenario, d20 guy needs to roll a 10 to win, not a 11. Thus he misses on a 9. Wich means that, with equal stats, whoever rolls has a 55% chance to win, not a 50% one. And that's not a problem, as long as the game balance takes this into account.

Until our friend Houseruler McFiddly misses this, and decides to subtract 10 from a DC or AC, to let that side roll instead, and adds 10 to the side that would roll. When he does this, he just made the DC or AC 5% harder, or gave +1 to one side without knowing. With bounded accuracy, the impact is very real.


With "just bigger", d20 guy has to roll a 11 to pass on equal-bonus situation, fixing the problem.

So, here's my full idea:

You guys base yourself fully around bunuses. No 14 AC, but +4 AC just like attack bonus. Same goes to spell and skill DC's and whatever. A 10 DC is now +0, a 15 DC is now +5.

So when it's time to roll, one sides adds a flat 10 to the bonus, and the other adds a d20. Who? DM decides. Fits every style:
Players always roll? Check.
"Active" side always rolls? Check.
Oldschool style? Check.

You can even roll the same type of check differently depending on the situation: Want to empower the player? Let him/her roll. Want to hide results or give it a mood of helplessness? DM takes the die.

Honestly, I don't think the old guard will miss this. "Equal or bigger" is too small of a mathematical construct to be made a "sacred cow".

But if you wanna keep it, at least put on the DM Guide that they can add/subtract ELEVENS around if they want, NOT tens.

I think there is a happy middle.

I like Saving Throws, and I like what D&D Next has done with saving throws.

I hated 2E saves (they made no sense), 4E took the fun right out of it and made them defences, 3E was alright but I didn't like that only three stats were used for saves.

Honestly what I would like to see is the caster roll the DC and the defender roll save. I don't understand why we can't have opposed rolls in combat.

Oct 4, 2012 -- 6:08AM, Gwathir wrote:

I think there is a happy middle.

I like Saving Throws, and I like what D&D Next has done with saving throws.

I hated 2E saves (they made no sense), 4E took the fun right out of it and made them defences, 3E was alright but I didn't like that only three stats were used for saves.

Honestly what I would like to see is the caster roll the DC and the defender roll save. I don't understand why we can't have opposed rolls in combat.

Opposed rolls can slow down a game. Not will slow down a game, can.
Though, I like the idea of opposed rolls for certain spells. Charms, illusions, baleful polymorph, and the like this could be a great system. I don't think it works so great with fireball, lightning bolt, and those because that is where you get into the "can slow down a game" problems.

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.

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. 

Without doubt: magic attack vs defenses.

Outgrowing saving throws is no different from outgrowing THAC0.  

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:05PM, VacantPsalm wrote:

Because it puts the roll to resist mind control and other huge things like that in the hands of the player.

No it doesnt put mind control in the hands of the player. If you are the Psion casting a mind control spell at a monster, the outcome of *your* action isnt in your hands at all. It sucks.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:05PM, VacantPsalm wrote:

It sucks to just have the DM say "does a 37 hit your will? Ohhhhh, too bad."

Indeed, it sucks to have the DM say, too bad, you dont get to do anything on your turn.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Rydex wrote:

I don't think that any person should be asked that question "which would you prefer to roll" but only the caster players, for they are the poeple who pay the price.

Yeah, the only people who get to answer this question are the players who are playing Wizards and other mages.

The positive about the caster rolling an "attack" is that, from the DM's point of view, the players don't need to know if you passed their defense or not. In case of the obvious "getting out of the blaze area from a fireball" it's not really relevant, but in case of a suggestion/charm spell, well, it's getting interesting.

I've alway rolled my saves since DnD Basic and enjoyed the thrill, if not the result of rolling this die. However, I cannot remember how many death occured because of this *#@¬ die. Thinking back about it, I do not miss it.

We could ask ourselves the question the other way round, Why wouldn't we roll a dice for defense ? You know, dodging, parrying or getting saved by our armor...

 

It's half dozen of one and 6 of the other. On one hand it's fun to  blast through getting a high roll and beating someone's defenses, on the other hand it sucks when they do it  to you and you just take it.  But it also builds tension and excitement when you  have to beat a saving through aftger getting beat up a little and that moment of releif if you actually make it.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

Mechanically it does not make a difference, there isn't a better option.  there is the option you prefer, but it isn't objectively better.   Haldrik's idea of putting it in the hands of the GM at the games get go it a good one.  

Me personally I think what would have been fort/will spells in 3e are better reflected by saves when relating it to fiction.  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 control, when someone over comes poison it isn't the poison being a dud it is someones insane constitution fighting it off.  Basically I think saves better reflect the thematic elements of fort/will attacks as portrayed in the source material that RPGS come from.  Reflex saves though are usually better described through attack rolls, though generic explosions are somewhere in the middle.  So like lightning bolt is more clearly on the side of an attack roll than fireball.  

That is a bit complicated so I am fine with spells have saves and physical attacks have attack rolls.   

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 -- 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.  But IMO as described in fiction attack rolls fit better for physical attacks and reflex save style spells and saves fit better for will/fort style effects.  

What I mean is when someone stabs someone it is usually described as penetrating the persons defenses somehow.  When someone is mind controlled it is usually described as their will failing.  Despite the fact that there is a mind controller who is doing the mind controlling the primary action/decider in the flavor text is the defender and his or her will failing or overcoming the attack.  Even when the protagonist is the mind controller is is described as an incredible will breaking free of the hold and not the mind controller not holding on hard enough.

 This is especially true for D&D style magic where the spell is almost a separate construct from the spell caster, for psions it might be a battle of wills but in most cases it is not connected to the casters will in the slightest.  

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.  

Oct 9, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Garthanos wrote:

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.  

I don't really disagree with this point, and you can easily have a player rolls or defender always rolls system.  One of my favorite games is shadowrun and it has a defense roll vs all attacks, in the latest edition it is reaction+mods vs ranged and reaction+melee skill+mods vs melee and IMO stupidly the direct combat spells only really have a soak damage roll not a dodge+soak like all other damage forms.  I am just not sure it is a accurate reflection of the feel of the fiction D&D fantasy games draw from.  Whether someone wants to reflect that feel or agrees with my perception on the matter is a different story.

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.

Oct 9, 2012 -- 10:03PM, SJS70 wrote:

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.

Absolutely agree. And in DDN, the attacks versus different abilities.

This whole thread has underscored the real problem D&D has.

Armour Class.

Because it's effectively a dodge bonus, people have to cludge together all sorts of excuses as to why you have to roll for or against it.  And Magic, with it's auto-success mechanics (resisting, or dodging, doesn't mean it misses, in fact, half damage is still damage) borks it up even further. 

Sorry, but I like 5e's saving throws. I don't care for the 3.5 UA/4e static defense method at all, sure have it as an option, but not for me.

EDIT: Thanks Ifbanz, I corrected the mistakes. Now the impact is even bigger, as shifting 10's around changes the balance by 10%, as opposed to just 5% as I affirmed previously.



  See? Different people want different stuff. But in this case it's so incredibly easy to please everyone, they even kinda did it before in 3.5e.

I'll give a simpler example of why 11's should be shifted around instead of 10's.

Wizard casts a Fireball at Barbarian.

The final spell DC is, say, 15. Barbarian makes a DEX saving throw at +2.

1d20 + 2 VS 15: Barbarian has to roll at least 13 to make the save (13+2 = 15). 12 or bellow and the spell hits. (let's pretend there's no half damage here).

That means the spell hits 12 times out of 20, missing the remaining 8 times, wich is a 60% chance to hit.


But Houseruler the DM likes it 4E style, and wants to change the rules so the Wizard rolls on all of his/her spells.

By following the DM guidelines on the matter at the 3.5E DMG, the subtracts 10 from the DC (15-10 = 5) and assumes the result as being the Wizard's to-hit bonus. Then he proceeds to add 10 to the Barbarian's +2 DEX save, resulting in a 12 DC.

So it's 12 vs 1d20 + 5. The Wizard must roll at least 7 to hit (7+5 = 12), meaning the spell misses 6 times out of 20, hitting on the remaining 14. Wait.

That's a 70% to hit here, and it was 60% to hit originally. So shifting 10's around changes the balance of the game, and with bounded accuracy, a +2 (10%) is definitely significant.


Now, Houseruler the DM decided to shift 11's instead of 10's. Let's see how it goes:

An 11 is cut from the spell DC (15-11 = 4) and added to the Barbarian's DEX DC (2+11 = 13).

so it's 13 vs 1d20 + 4 now. Minimum roll to hit is a 9 (9+4 = 13) wich means it hits 12 times out of 20, missing the remaining 8 times, wich is the exact 60% to hit that was intended by the designers.

It also works the same when converting 4E style to 3E. Hope I have clarified this.

Generally, as a fan of 4e, I prefer the attackers always rolls vs an appropriate defense. It made sense to me, and as a game designer I appreciated the sheer elegance of it.

However, 4e had something else that was even cooler: the monsters and NPCs played by different rules than PCs. There are a number of reasons for this that I won't get into here, but ultimately I think it was a good development that is more or less continuing in DDN as far as I can tell.

So what does this have to do with attack rolls vs saving throws?  Well, what if we continue with the idea of players and monsters playing by different rules, and have the player always roll, and the monster never rolling?  Monsters have static attacks and defenses, and players have rolled attacks and rolled defenses (or saving throws).  When a monster attacks a player with a spell, the player rolls a saving throw.  When the player casts the same spell against the monster, the player rolls an attack. Players are always "in control" of their fate.

A side benefit is simplifying the monster stat block to a series of numbers, and it eases the burden on the DM by shifting numerical/math responsibilities to the players. It also keeps players engaged when it is not their turn, given that they will always be the one to roll.

Oct 10, 2012 -- 9:16PM, Foxface wrote:

Well, what if we continue with the idea of players and monsters playing by different rules, and have the player always roll, and the monster never rolling? Monsters have static attacks and defenses, and players have rolled attacks and rolled defenses (or saving throws).

I know that it gets thrown around a lot, but this is one of those symbolic lines in the sand where, if they cross it then I will not buy it.

Treating players and NPCs as fundamentally different is hugely controversial, so building the game up from that assumption seems unnecessarily alienating when they can just include that as one option (alongside the "all attack rolls" and "all saves" options) within the general AC vs. saves module.

@Foxface: Problem is that such a system would leave no room for DM fudging and, I think, slow down combat considerably. (The GM would have to communicate which monster was attacking whom and with what attacks, an additional step. Who rolls the damage? Attacks the characters are unaware of?)

@XtheHunter: Your first example, the Barbarian`s save, is calculated incorrectly. On a d20 success on a 13+ translates into 40%. Fortunately you made the same error in your calculation when shifting 11s: d20+4 vs DC 13 is successful 60% of the time. 60% success for the Wizard is the complement of the Barbarian's 40% success chance. Your assertion is correct, this system would result in accurate translation of the odds when moving the onus to roll from the attacker to defender. It would be very easy to adopt or translate into the core rules.


I think the crux of the issue is whose hands saves ought to be rolled from in the basic ruleset of DnDN.

DnD for everyone is the goal.

The 4e magical attack system was simpler, and simply more elegant. 1 player, 1 turn: simple (readied actions aside, at least they serve a purpose as a game mechanic). Simpler, more elegant rules move the game closer to the goal of being for everyone.

The argument that the player's fate ought not be in the DM's hand fails. 1: The player's fate is always in the DM's hands, everyone at the table knows it. 2: Players of spellcasters would get to participate in rolling combats, having more of roll to play in their and their parties' fates.  

The assertion that saves better suit the fictional portrayal of magical powers overlooks the fact that the majority of fictional portrayals of people battling off spell effects are portrayals of protagonists battling off spell effects. In cases where the protagonist is the caster the portrayal of the struggle tends to be focused on them. All of the instances that are relevant to our discussion portray a contest. As having the attacker and defender roll off complicates things in the same way as saves do, and the stated preference is for simpler mechanics, the superior design choice is clear.

All that said, I think it would be very cool to hear the designers' reasons for bringing back saves. 

 

@Ifbanz: that is certainly something to consider, the ability (or lack thereof) for the DM to fudge results.  Fair point.

@saelorn: I'm not getting into a debate about PCs and NPCs being presented differently rules-wise, or being subject to different rules.  I am aware of the appeal of your preference, and the general reasoning for it.  I would only point out that 3e is the only edition that had total uniformity with regards to how characters, PC and NPCS alike, were treated.

That said, I'm not in love with the idea I put forth; it was really more of a thought experiment. I'm a game designer by trade, so I have a tendency to question how things are done and put forward alternatives, no matter how radical, just to see the potential interactions.

Oct 10, 2012 -- 11:29PM, Foxface wrote:

 That said, I'm not in love with the idea I put forth; it was really more of a thought experiment.  

I am (in love with it) and have done quite a bit of it... works great. Makes players feel more actively involved in the defense phase of what they are doing less passive. As the DM I still making adversary damage rolls so I could fudge those if I liked but all or nothings..

Oct 10, 2012 -- 10:28PM, Ifbanz wrote:

@Foxface: Problem is that such a system would leave no room for DM fudging and, I think, slow down combat considerably. (The GM would have to communicate which monster was attacking whom and with what attacks, an additional step. Who rolls the damage? Attacks the characters are unaware of?)

I don't see how this is any more or less true than in any other RPG that I've been in.

The GM *always* has to communicate who is being attacked by a monster, and (depending on system) either make an attack roll and ask if it hits, or ask the player to make a saving throw.

There is often no need to communicate which monster is attacking in order specifically to resolve that question, but there frequently is such a need for some other reason, so communicating which monster is attacking is standard unless there's a specific reason not to.

Attacks the character is unaware of, the character doesn't remain unaware of. It's necessary to inform the player that the character is being attacked. If the attacking monster remains in hiding, that's a specific reason not to say which monster is attacking - but the arrow whining by does not remain hidden!

(Yes, I know that some GMs like to keep all stats and track all bonuses and do all dice-rolling themselves, so the players don't even know how many HP they have. I don't understand the pressing need to do so much extra work, other than for players under age 7, but I acknowledge that some people do it. For those GMs, it absolutely does not matter whether the attacker or defender rolls, because either way it's always the GM that rolls and does the comparison.)
 

Oct 10, 2012 -- 9:16PM, Foxface wrote:

Generally, as a fan of 4e, I prefer the attackers always rolls vs an appropriate defense. It made sense to me, and as a game designer I appreciated the sheer elegance of it. However, 4e had something else that was even cooler: the monsters and NPCs played by different rules than PCs. There are a number of reasons for this that I won't get into here, but ultimately I think it was a good development that is more or less continuing in DDN as far as I can tell. So what does this have to do with attack rolls vs saving throws? Well, what if we continue with the idea of players and monsters playing by different rules, and have the player always roll, and the monster never rolling? Monsters have static attacks and defenses, and players have rolled attacks and rolled defenses (or saving throws). When a monster attacks a player with a spell, the player rolls a saving throw. When the player casts the same spell against the monster, the player rolls an attack. Players are always "in control" of their fate. A side benefit is simplifying the monster stat block to a series of numbers, and it eases the burden on the DM by shifting numerical/math responsibilities to the players. It also keeps players engaged when it is not their turn, given that they will always be the one to roll.

I really like this idea too. The DM has enough to do in running the game. If the players are rolling all the dice, it keeps them involved, even when it's not their turn. As the rolls are "open" there is also a greater degree of fear as the DM isn't "fudging" thos criticals behind the screen to keep the party alive. Anything that increases the stakes for any roll is a good thing.

As to saving throws vs to hit rolls: I don't think you can get rid of savings throws entirely. Dodging out of the way of a rockslide for example, seems more like a reactionary "save" than it does to give the rockslide  a "to hit AC" attack roll. If the floor gave way beneath your character, should the pit trap get an attack roll or should the character get a DEX save? I think the save makes more sense.

I do agree it however feels arbitrarily different between magical attacks and physical attacks and I'd prefer a singular system that had some internal logic. If a mage casts fireball and a fighter throws a vial of greek fire, both are arguably "area of effect" attacks, both deal with fire, both should rely on the skill of the attacker: yet they are treated differently. 

But let's say the inn is on fire and the character needs to dive over the alcohol soaked bar counter to rescue the bartender. Does the flaming bar counter get an attack roll or should the character roll a DEX save to roll across it unharmed and a CON save to not choak on all the fumes and smoke?

Oct 12, 2012 -- 3:55AM, thorbardin wrote:

I do agree it however feels arbitrarily different between magical attacks and physical attacks and I'd prefer a singular system that had some internal logic. If a mage casts fireball and a fighter throws a vial of greek fire, both are arguably "area of effect" attacks, both deal with fire, both should rely on the skill of the attacker: yet they are treated differently. 

But let's say the inn is on fire and the character needs to dive over the alcohol soaked bar counter to rescue the bartender. Does the flaming bar counter get an attack roll or should the character roll a DEX save to roll across it unharmed and a CON save to not choak on all the fumes and smoke?

Well put.  Sometimes, there is no real attacker; the threat is just something that is happening, without direction, and it's the ability of those affected to overcome it which matters.

Fireball and a vial of greek fire are so similar that they really, really should use the same mechanics.  Personally, I like to make that an attack roll against your actual target (the one against whom the explosive detonates), with everyone else within range getting a save for half.  After all, the wizard (or even the fighter) has zero control over the explosion itself - it's effectively an ambient environmental obstacle, which the wizard/fighter merely places - but does have control over its placement.  (I could also see a simpler model, with no attack roll against the main target, and everyone just gets a save.)

The "silly" thing that I want to avoid is when the attacker makes a single attack roll against the appropriate defense of each target, with a low roll causing it to miss all of them and a natural 20 somehow hitting very precisely against every target; once we're faced with the caster needing to make eight different attack rolls, it's just easier to keep things straight if the targets each make one save instead (IMHO).

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Saelorn wrote:

The "silly" thing that I want to avoid is when the attacker makes a single attack roll against the appropriate defense of each target, with a low roll causing it to miss all of them and a natural 20 somehow hitting very precisely against every target; once we're faced with the caster needing to make eight different attack rolls, it's just easier to keep things straight if the targets each make one save instead (IMHO).

Ok, this is the first cogent argument, I have seen for saves.

But then, the mechanic has nothing to do with spellcasters per se, but specifically with attacking muliple targets. In the same way, an archer with multiple attacks at different targets might use the same “saving throw” mecahnic. A Fighter throwing a net around several targets. And so on.

In fact, a couple of other forumers suggest every conflict really requires a saving throw. A person who wields a sword against a tree simply hits the tree. The only time there is difficulty involved is if the target is actively dodging or parrying to stop getting hit. In other words, attacks are autosuccesses unless the target makes a successful saving throw.

If so, all defenders always roll. It is the attackers who set a fixed DC.        

@Rydex (OP):  Thank you for starting a thread on this!  I also mentioned this issue in my feedback and was flabbergasted to see this setup return.  Whoever mentioned old school saves going the way of THAC0...that's kind of where I saw them.  Not in any vehement, passionate way, but just sort of as a matter of practicality: Saving throws developed into defenses.  (If you instead look at them as having developed into what was still called "saving throws" in 4e (i.e., the 50/50 rolls), then things get a little funkier. IMO they should probably rename those...or maybe rework them for PCs only.)

Oct 10, 2012 -- 9:16PM, Foxface wrote:

Generally, as a fan of 4e, I prefer the attackers always rolls vs an appropriate defense. It made sense to me, and as a game designer I appreciated the sheer elegance of it. However, 4e had something else that was even cooler: the monsters and NPCs played by different rules than PCs. There are a number of reasons for this that I won't get into here, but ultimately I think it was a good development that is more or less continuing in DDN as far as I can tell. So what does this have to do with attack rolls vs saving throws? Well, what if we continue with the idea of players and monsters playing by different rules, and have the player always roll, and the monster never rolling? Monsters have static attacks and defenses, and players have rolled attacks and rolled defenses (or saving throws). When a monster attacks a player with a spell, the player rolls a saving throw. When the player casts the same spell against the monster, the player rolls an attack. Players are always "in control" of their fate. A side benefit is simplifying the monster stat block to a series of numbers, and it eases the burden on the DM by shifting numerical/math responsibilities to the players. It also keeps players engaged when it is not their turn, given that they will always be the one to roll.

I like your idea and in my feedback I expressed that I thought it was much more important for PCs to be doing the rolling.  I think I was asking for something like you suggest, though I couldn't articulate that at the time.

@Haldrik, rolling against abilities (as if they were defenses, yes?) sounds pretty interesting!

Somebody's going to have to help me understand what the distinction is?    When I fireball 8 orcs in Next, there are 8 saving throws.  When I fireball 8 orcs in 4e, there are 8 attack rolls.   Is the difference people see the additional overhead of communicating with the DM ("No, the crit is on Orc #3?")

The only speedup I see is if the evil mage casts fireball and the DM says "all party members, roll a saving throw".  In that case, since every player does their own dice, the system _is_ faster.   But, in that logic, as you say, having any multi-attack (against the players) would be a speedup, not just spells.

Saelorn, I know you don't like PCs and NPCs having different rules.  BUt, if you had 2 systems which were functionally equivalent ( Attacks and Saving Throws modified to have the same outcome), then would you be okay if the DM controlled vs Non-DM controlled used different systems?  So, the DM pc would use saving throws, but the mind controlled (by players) orc would use attack rolls?  In that case, it would entirely be a "Reduce the workload of the DM", and have nothing to do with NPC reality.   Admittedly, if you weren't, you'd just have to have the DM agree to use the Non-DM system, solving your problem, but I'd rather a clever solution that you could live with.

As long as the math is functionally identical in every way, then I think it would come down to the presentation.  If they make it clear that the underlying actions are all the same, and that this is merely for the sake of expediting the gameplay, then I wouldn't fundamentally oppose it.

For what it's worth, in my own game I model all opposed actions like this.  Even though the full rule-set would have both contestants roll and compare against each other, I say that it is expedient to just assume that one side rolled an 11, and that this assumption is already baked into the equivalent of AC.

Of course, thus far in DDN there are huge differences between the attacker and defender, as a result of the dis/advantage mechanic.  I would enthusiastically back this effort if implementing it meant getting rid of dis/advantage dice.

Oct 5, 2012 -- 5:26AM, Haldrik wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:05PM, VacantPsalm wrote:

Because it puts the roll to resist mind control and other huge things like that in the hands of the player.

No it doesnt put mind control in the hands of the player. If you are the Psion casting a mind control spell at a monster, the outcome of *your* action isnt in your hands at all. It sucks.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:05PM, VacantPsalm wrote:

It sucks to just have the DM say "does a 37 hit your will? Ohhhhh, too bad."

Indeed, it sucks to have the DM say, too bad, you dont get to do anything on your turn.

Was it really necessary to twist what I said in a snarky manner to make your point? Eh, whatevz.

I know some people feel like D&D is a game about killing monsters, but to some of us it's more about surviving combat. I care WAY more about the roll for resisting stuff being in my hand than the roll for my enemies demise being in my hand. I've played Lazy Warlord in 4e and casters in 3.5. I know what it's like to never get to make an attack roll. I have no problem with that. 4e's use of all attack rolls I do have a problem with.

As I said in my previous post, I understand the merits to both sides. I can see why some people like making attack rolls and don't care about saving against things like mind control. The two make for a very different "feel" to the game. I personally prefer the feel of making saves more then I like the feel of always making attacks. This is why I want both options to be open.


Although it was a little heavy, and very swingy, I actually think my real favorite method was the "both sides make a roll for everything" my group tried once. I wonder how both sides rolling d10s would work. (Crit on either 1 vs 10 or roll to confirm?)

Oct 3, 2012 -- 6:15PM, XtheHunter wrote:

Just open up the math for the players/DM to decide who rolls what on their own. It's that simple.

So, here's my full idea:

You guys base yourself fully around bunuses. No 14 AC, but +4 AC just like attack bonus. Same goes to spell and skill DC's and whatever. A 10 DC is now +0, a 15 DC is now +5.

So when it's time to roll, one sides adds a flat 10 to the bonus, and the other adds a d20. Who? DM decides. Fits every style:
Players always roll? Check.
"Active" side always rolls? Check.
Oldschool style? Check.

You can even roll the same type of check differently depending on the situation: Want to empower the player? Let him/her roll. Want to hide results or give it a mood of helplessness? DM takes the die.

I love this idea. It makes the game modular, as the designers have said was their intent and provides for both preferences. You could even have the option of always having opposed rolls (even though that slows things down). It would be easy for a DM or group to decide for themselves if they want to roll against defenses to hit for everything or want to roll saving throws against static DCs (even attacks), or combine the two as it is now. Or, as you point out the group can decide to have the DM make the choice of who rolls against a DC on a case by case basis (though this might be cumbersome and some guidelines should be used). It is super easy to add 10 to a bonus to come up with a DC. 

And on my personal preference, one thing I didn't like about 4th Ed was that magic did not feel unique. All attacks worked primarily on the same mechanics and playing a damage dealing wizard was too similar to playing any other class with slightly more fantastical themes to their powers. Having the mechanical differences between making an attack roll against defenses and having the target make a saving throw helps separate magic from an attack with a bow. That being said, I would love to have the option that XtheHunter has suggested in the official rules.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 6:02PM, VacantPsalm wrote:

Oct 5, 2012 -- 5:26AM, Haldrik wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:05PM, VacantPsalm wrote:

Because it puts the roll to resist mind control and other huge things like that in the hands of the player.

No it doesnt put mind control in the hands of the player. If you are the Psion casting a mind control spell at a monster, the outcome of *your* action isnt in your hands at all. It sucks.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:05PM, VacantPsalm wrote:

It sucks to just have the DM say "does a 37 hit your will? Ohhhhh, too bad."

Indeed, it sucks to have the DM say, too bad, you dont get to do anything on your turn.

Was it really necessary to twist what I said in a snarky manner to make your point? Eh, whatevz.

I know some people feel like D&D is a game about killing monsters, but to some of us it's more about surviving combat. I care WAY more about the roll for resisting stuff being in my hand than the roll for my enemies demise being in my hand. I've played Lazy Warlord in 4e and casters in 3.5. I know what it's like to never get to make an attack roll. I have no problem with that. 4e's use of all attack rolls I do have a problem with.

As I said in my previous post, I understand the merits to both sides. I can see why some people like making attack rolls and don't care about saving against things like mind control. The two make for a very different "feel" to the game. I personally prefer the feel of making saves more then I like the feel of always making attacks. This is why I want both options to be open.


Although it was a little heavy, and very swingy, I actually think my real favorite method was the "both sides make a roll for everything" my group tried once. I wonder how both sides rolling d10s would work. (Crit on either 1 vs 10 or roll to confirm?)

I apologize if the post came across as snarky. It just meant communicate frustration when players who play Wizards or other mages seem left out of the game.

I feel strongly, for the sake of reallife players who play mages, magical attacks need to use the same attack mechanics that the other players are using. But I am flexible about what the attack mechanic should look like. Attacker always rolls, player always rolls, and maybe even defender always rolls, all seem workable.

I vote for spellcasters rollign attacks. Mostly because I really, really like 4E's idea of using saving throws as duration trackers.

If it were up to me, the action economy per character, and per round would consist of one big action and one small action.

All detrimental effects/conditions end on a save.
All beneficial effects/conditons cost a small action to maintain.