|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 4:29PM
#51
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 5:05AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
@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.) 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!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 7:02AM
#53
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 5:02PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
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.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 14, 2012 - 6:02PM
#55
|
|
|
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.
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?)
What I think the Wilder Design Goals should be. Psionic Homebrew Mk2! Changed core, Focus Points, Psionic Potentials, stuff! Very basic core stuff. :P Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:
Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas.
Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old.
Nov/02/2012:
I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process.
Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link.
Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link.
Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.:3
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 12:33PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 1:18PM
#57
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 9:56PM
#58
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
