Players roll a defense against NPC/Monster attacks.

[darjr]

I read about a system that has the players do most of the rolling so as to lighten the load on the DM.

This seems like an easy thing to do in D&D4e attacks.

Take the Monsters + to hit and add it to 10. That is the number the player must beat. Have the player roll a d20 and add AC - 10, and if they roll higher they defend. Do the same with will, fort, and reflex attacks. A player that rolls a 1 has been crited by the monster.

It should work out the same, right? And it should lessen the number of rolls the DM needs to make, and maybe add more fun things for the player to do.

Comments?

 

[Sporemine]

Yes, less rolls for the Dm but more unnessicary ones for the players who will get bored quickly. There was an old concept introduced on Gleemax which was:

Defender rolls d20 plus armor bonuses (as opposed to 10 plus armor bonuses)

Attacker goes normally

This is quick, similar to your Idea and less complicated.

-Sporemine

 

[darjr]

Yes, less rolls for the Dm but more unnessicary ones for the players who will get bored quickly. There was an old concept introduced on Gleemax which was:

Defender rolls d20 plus armor bonuses (as opposed to 10 plus armor bonuses)

Attacker goes normally

This is quick, similar to your Idea and less complicated.

-Sporemine

Except there is an extra roll. Other than that and a crit on a 1 it is identical, I think.

PC AC of 15 so roll d20 + 5. Monster is +7 vs AC so PC must roll better than a 17. A roll of 1 means the PC was critted.

Thats it.

But thanks, I'll have to look for that idea on gleemax. It was in the forums?

 

[Harr]

I read about a system that has the players do most of the rolling so as to lighten the load on the DM.

This seems like an easy thing to do in D&D4e attacks.

Take the Monsters + to hit and add it to 10. That is the number the player must beat. Have the player roll a d20 and add AC - 10, and if they roll higher they defend. Do the same with will, fort, and reflex attacks. A player that rolls a 1 has been crited by the monster.

It should work out the same, right? And it should lessen the number of rolls the DM needs to make, and maybe add more fun things for the player to do.

Comments?

I used to do this. It's a great mechanic that can improve the game a lot. You actually have to add the monster's to-hit to 12 to get it to work, not 10:

Say the monsters to-hit is +5, and the character's AC is 14. The monster needs a 9 to hit the PC, which is to say he has 60% chance to hit, 40% to miss.

If you add the monster's to-hit to 10 you get 15 DC for the PC to beat and a +4 'AC bonus' to their roll. That means they need 11 to dodge the monster, which is to say the monster now has 50% to hit, 50% to miss. You lost 10% in the switch-around.

But add the monster's to-hit to 12, and you get 17 for the PC to beat with his +4 AC bonus. Now the player needs a 13 to block the monster's attack, which is to say the monster has 60% chance to hit and 40% to miss once again.

I'm not sure exactly why this 10% loss exists in the switch-around, but it does. The technique itself (using 12) is sound, I used it for months of games and dozens of combats before we started playing 4e, it works exactly the same as normal attacks.

Also, since when do players get bored rolling the dice?? Quite the opposite actually, players get bored watching you roll four times as many dice as they ever get to roll and being involved in the game four times and much. To get to be involved in the defense of their characters was, at least for my party, a welcome and refreshing change that they loved, and we only stopped doing it because we wanted to learn 4e straight and simple before we started messing around with it.

 

[darjr]

12? Thats... kinda cool.

I'll have to try that, and thanks for sharing your actual use of it.

Yes, I, as a player, like to roll dice.

 

[Alex319]

I'm not sure exactly why this 10% loss exists in the switch-around, but it does.

There are actually two reasons:

First, the average of 1d20 is 10.5, not 10, so your change makes the average player "AC value" increase by 0.5 and the average monster "attack value" decrease by 0.5.

Second, ties go to the player rolling, which adds another one point difference, because now the player is rolling instead of the opponent.

 

[TheNovaLord]

if u use tiny adventures on facebook the mechanic is:

assume monster always rolls a 20....so if a beastie as +5 to hit i need to make an AC roll of 25

i roll d20 and add my AC (say 17 or wotever) to try and beat 25

takes away a number of dice rolls from GM and players only have themselves to blame when they roll a 1.

 

[darjr]

20?

I never noticed that. I think if I tried to use 20 as the base I'd have a riot on my hands. Or no players.

 

[keterys]

Well, the way they do it, it's actually to the player's advantage.

Because you change:
Monster Attack + 5 = Avg 15.5 to 25 (diff 9.5)
PC AC = 17 to 17 + 1d20 = Avg 27.5 (diff 10.5)

_and_ PC wins ties instead of loses them, again, so 2 points in its favor. Same mistake

 

[buddhafrog]

I think I'll use a version of this -- not normally, but on occasion when defense is the key. For example, when they are being attacked with rain of arrows, or perhaps they are surrounded by a horde of minions, or they trigger a trap room of arrows, or a huge tentacle monster attacks, etc. On the occasion, to spice it up and put emphasis that they need these defensive skills, I'll use it. I think it'll be an exciting way to change the pace.

In fact tonight, my PC's will be ambushed from the rooftops by a group of crossbow assassins. Until the PC's gain their bearings and know who/how/where to attack, I'll use defensive rolls.

Thanks for the ideas.