Opposed Rolls?

Savage Wombat

Hero

• Feb 16, 2012

• #1

Here's combat at my table now.

- - The three goblins attack Lee. Roll 3d20, add +5 - two of them hit.

Here's how I picture it with opposed combat rolls.

- - Three goblins attack Lee. I roll a d20 and add +5. He rolls his d20 and takes about 5 seconds to figure out what his total is. We compare rolls. I roll another d20 as does he; another 5 seconds passes while we calculate. Repeat once more.

If the idea is to speed up combat, this is precisely the WRONG way to go.


Please feel free to supply the necessary counter-argument.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

enigma5915

Explorer

• Feb 16, 2012

• #2

No argument here...every die roll increases time spent in combat...

 

T

trancejeremy

Adventurer

• Feb 16, 2012

• #3

I used to play a lot of Star Wars/d6. That used opposing rolls in combat, but basically only once a round.

Basically you'd roll for dodging, and that would be the number the opponent would have to beat to hit you when he attacked.

 

Szatany

First Post

• Feb 16, 2012

• #4

I would like opposed rolls but only if all characters can take 10 on attacks and saves. So when I attack I can choose if I roll or not and same with defender.
If I fight weak enemy I probably do not roll for either attack or save/defense which speeds the easy combat up and also translates mechanically the feeling that the weaker combatant must try really hard to win (make rolls) while the better one can afford to be more arrogant and "passive". (takes 10s)

 

I

Ichneumon

First Post

• Feb 16, 2012

• #5

Obviously, two rolls take longer than one. But they don't take twice as long as one roll. The first comes after the player or DM has decided what to do, and the second is rolled right away once the DC is learnt. Given that opposed rolls appear to be the province of (arcane?) spellcasting, their presence will add about ten seconds per round, unless several wizards are in the party. Player indecision chews up a lot more time than opposed rolling ever will.

So, for me, time is far less of a factor than whether opposed rolling will benefit the game experience. It has the potential to, as it will make spellcasting feel different from melee attacks. If it will be present, I'd like to see it restricted to spells cast against single enemies. An opposed roll against every foe caught in a fireball isn't going to be popular!

 

H

Hautamaki

First Post

• Feb 16, 2012

• #6

I like opposed rolls, but it has to be counter-acted by reducing HP of PCs and monsters alike in order to not have combat take up too much time per session. The combat in 4th edition where it could take a dozen attacks or more to kill anything besides minions is obviously not in the least bit feasible if every attack is involving opposed rolls.

 

M

mkill

Adventurer

• Feb 16, 2012

• #7

Savage Wombat said:

Here's combat at my table now.

- - The three goblins attack Lee. Roll 3d20, add +5 - two of them hit.

Here's how I picture it with opposed combat rolls.

- - Three goblins attack Lee. I roll a d20 and add +5. He rolls his d20 and takes about 5 seconds to figure out what his total is. We compare rolls. I roll another d20 as does he; another 5 seconds passes while we calculate. Repeat once more.

If the idea is to speed up combat, this is precisely the WRONG way to go.


Please feel free to supply the necessary counter-argument.

Click to expand...

3 Goblins attack Lee. All take 10. Lee rolls for defense DC 15 three times.

Opposed rolls have the advantage that the DM can forego the roll on his side any time, speeding up the game but leaving the dice rolling fun for the player.

It also makes it easier to implement parry, riposte, shield other and similar maneuvers.

 

erf_beto

First Post

• Feb 16, 2012

• #8

It does take time, but only if used ALL THE TIME.
I can some situations where it would come in handy, obvious ones like arcane duels and stealth, but also something that occurred frequently when I DM for new players:

"the goblin shoots a dagger in your direction"
As DM roll the dice, the player screams: "I dodge!" or "I raise my shield!".
Then comes the part where I have to explain you don't choose to defend, which makes sense, but takes away some magic of roleplaying combat...

Not saying this should be the norm in combat encounters, just that it would be nice to have as an alternative...

 

Mercurius

Legend

• Feb 16, 2012

• #9

I voted "Maybe" because I like it as an optional rule, but not the default. The default should be static AC and defenses/saves, but there should be an option for opposed roles for more dynamic play. For instance, imagine a duel between a player and an enemy swordsman or spell-caster - opposed rolls makes it more interesting, more dynamic, and a more "duelly" feel.

 

Chris_Nightwing

First Post

• Feb 16, 2012

• #10

When considering opposed rolls, it is worth noting that:

(1d20+X) - (1d20+Y) (or does roll A beat roll B)

is the same as:

(2d20+X)-(Y+21) (or do you roll more than zero)

Would you accept a system where an attack roll was 2d20+X and the static defence was 21+Y?

 

Last edited: Feb 16, 2012