Community

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.

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. 

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.

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.