|
9 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 10:05PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2005
|
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.
Stay Frosty!
- Shado
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 1:03AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 6:52PM
#13
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 6:21AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 9:22AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 1:29PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
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).
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 2:10PM
#17
|
|
|
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.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 7:59PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2010
|
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.
And why the heck does Magic Missile have a "special" line? Since nothing is standardized, everything is "special."
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:15PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2011
|
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.
My character is called Ryotto Tyrannicide, wich comes from "tyrannicidal riot".
He wields two magic swords: King Beheader (as in "Beheader of Kings", not "King the Beheader") and Chain Splitter. He's also a bit of a skirt-chaser.
So yeah, I REALLY hope you have some Lawful Evil bad guys prepared for me. Government/trade/church conspiracies are optional, but highly recommended.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 6:08AM
#20
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
