-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Opposed Rolls?
- Thread starter Savage Wombat
- Start date
am181d
Adventurer
My apologies if someone has already pointed this out and I missed it, but:
If you're rolling opposed rolls, the two dice should be rolled simultaneously. Both people then shout out their numbers, and which ever's higher "wins."
This does NOT seem slower to me, and allows the DM to conceal the exact modifiers for the NPCs.
Given the amount of time in combat that's spent *deciding* what to do, *deciding* where to move, etc. any incremental change to the time spent rolling dice has a negligible impact on the total length of combat.
I favor opposed rolls all around, with the DM having the option of taking 10, with the convention that the DM usually takes 10 for mooks and rolls for "name" baddies and end boss types.
Of course, I also favor ditching the 3-18 scores if favor of straight bonuses and letting Fighters learn individual spells that they can cast at their character level, so I'm really not to be trusted...
If you're rolling opposed rolls, the two dice should be rolled simultaneously. Both people then shout out their numbers, and which ever's higher "wins."
This does NOT seem slower to me, and allows the DM to conceal the exact modifiers for the NPCs.
Given the amount of time in combat that's spent *deciding* what to do, *deciding* where to move, etc. any incremental change to the time spent rolling dice has a negligible impact on the total length of combat.
I favor opposed rolls all around, with the DM having the option of taking 10, with the convention that the DM usually takes 10 for mooks and rolls for "name" baddies and end boss types.
Of course, I also favor ditching the 3-18 scores if favor of straight bonuses and letting Fighters learn individual spells that they can cast at their character level, so I'm really not to be trusted...
I prefer opposed rolls. If you roll at the same time its not any slower and it gives combats a more dynamic feel because everyone is involved all the time.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
If D&D were a PvP game, I could see the value of opposed rolls, and the fun. With a GM-based system, though, the DM is then making fully half of the game rolls, which I feel is unnecessary.
I also feel like opposed rolls add too much additional randomness that undermines the growth in both player and character skills.
I think you can get the feel for opposed rolls without the hangups just by executing the old "players make all the rolls" option. DM monsters and NPCs have fixed attack and defense scores; the PCs roll for both attack and defense. So:
I also feel like opposed rolls add too much additional randomness that undermines the growth in both player and character skills.
Example 1 said:
I think you can get the feel for opposed rolls without the hangups just by executing the old "players make all the rolls" option. DM monsters and NPCs have fixed attack and defense scores; the PCs roll for both attack and defense. So:
Example 2 said:
Mercule
Adventurer
I would probably not play 5e if it used opposed rolls as a standard mechanic. You can say "just roll them together and it won't take any more time" but it will -- you have two people with an opportunity to do math or not be on the ball, etc. I also do not like the way that would change the d20 mechanical feel. I see absolutely no benefit -- concrete or conceptual -- in turning everything into an opposed roll, but plenty of opportunity for screwing the game up.
I have some serious concerns about the game plan for 5e if this idea is under consideration for any reason beyond "we have a professional responsibility to at least give it a fair shake before tossing it out". I don't have any issue with the latter because I'm all for having an open mind.
I have some serious concerns about the game plan for 5e if this idea is under consideration for any reason beyond "we have a professional responsibility to at least give it a fair shake before tossing it out". I don't have any issue with the latter because I'm all for having an open mind.
Kannik
Hero
The big question I have in my mind about opposed rolls (ignoring the time, etc, issues) is the double randomness it can create, and the tendency of negative effects to pile up on PCs. What I mean by this latter statement is that a PC, unlike an NPC or a monster, generally has much higher longevity in a game (indeed, often years) and thus negative effects can disproportionately affect them. I’ve often heard it explained mostly around critical fumbles: if you have a 5% chance of a fumble (and doing some damage to you in return, or some other nasty effect) then for the average monster who will be around for 5-8 rounds it’s not a big deal, but for a PC who’s around for years then those negative impacts will add up over time to reduce their effectiveness.
As a player, while I may cheer the time where I roll poorly to hit, and the defender rolls even more poorly, I’m not sure that would not be overshadowed more often by feeling I rolled great and keep missing because the monster rolled better or, even worse, I pull of an incredibly competent balance check, smiling as I walk across the tightrope, and the DM rolls high on the opposed check and I go plummeting to my doom.
If opposed rolls erode the feeling of being competent adventurers rather than bumbling young fighters who destroy trade federation ships through sheer luck (of doubly lucky dice rolls) then I do not want opposed rolls in the game. And I’m willing to see what it looks like in the playtest to see if that is how it feels or not.
peace,
Kannik
As a player, while I may cheer the time where I roll poorly to hit, and the defender rolls even more poorly, I’m not sure that would not be overshadowed more often by feeling I rolled great and keep missing because the monster rolled better or, even worse, I pull of an incredibly competent balance check, smiling as I walk across the tightrope, and the DM rolls high on the opposed check and I go plummeting to my doom.
If opposed rolls erode the feeling of being competent adventurers rather than bumbling young fighters who destroy trade federation ships through sheer luck (of doubly lucky dice rolls) then I do not want opposed rolls in the game. And I’m willing to see what it looks like in the playtest to see if that is how it feels or not.
peace,
Kannik
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I agree. However I do use opposed rolls in my game. I've eliminated the extra time by having a series of pre-rolls for each NPC/Monster (etc.).
I get randomness, opposed roles, and speedy resolution all at the same time.
I'm having my cake and eating it too.
As others have mentioned, it's the later edition minutia that cause lengthy combat as players fumble to figure out their bazillion stacked bonuses and exceptions. The game has become too rules heavy and when new blood is introduced to RPG via a later edition, they are being trained to be rules lawyers. Opposed checks take no extra time.
That aside, the goblin example a few posts back is good illustration of the negative effect of too much randomness. Without a random element the game combat lends to munchkinism, particularly when players study the monster manual. Therefore randomness is necessary for the element of risk and reward. But too much, which can be caused by opposed checks, make the combat too unpredictable and therefore potentially unjustifiably dangerous for players. No one wants bad luck on the dice to kill the party when the encounter is of low challenge. When the party under estimates dangers, that's another story.
Opposed checks work when the goal is to appreciate the skills of both opponents and add flavor to important battles. Perhaps opposed checks would work better on a d10 than a d20 or d100, thus reducing the extremes and effectively 2d10 roughly equal the random range of a single d20.
I still use the traditional players roll for players and DMs roll for opponents which is a static defender values system.
That aside, the goblin example a few posts back is good illustration of the negative effect of too much randomness. Without a random element the game combat lends to munchkinism, particularly when players study the monster manual. Therefore randomness is necessary for the element of risk and reward. But too much, which can be caused by opposed checks, make the combat too unpredictable and therefore potentially unjustifiably dangerous for players. No one wants bad luck on the dice to kill the party when the encounter is of low challenge. When the party under estimates dangers, that's another story.
Opposed checks work when the goal is to appreciate the skills of both opponents and add flavor to important battles. Perhaps opposed checks would work better on a d10 than a d20 or d100, thus reducing the extremes and effectively 2d10 roughly equal the random range of a single d20.
I still use the traditional players roll for players and DMs roll for opponents which is a static defender values system.
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
I hope this is one idea that gets kicked to the curb almost immediately. The more die rolls, the slower the going. This is especially a problem where any sort of modifiers are involved.
I think that since this is a completely new idea, without any precedent in earlier editions, it won't have traction on that account alone.
I really don't see what this gives you, aside from more variability.
One of the games I play a lot, FATE, has its conflict system where each party makes an opposed roll, and you determine the results based on the differences. FATE is a pretty simple game, and even here players have told me they'd prefer to only have one side make the roll.
I could see this sort of thing being an option along the basis of "players make all the rolls," but not as the default.
I think that since this is a completely new idea, without any precedent in earlier editions, it won't have traction on that account alone.
I really don't see what this gives you, aside from more variability.
One of the games I play a lot, FATE, has its conflict system where each party makes an opposed roll, and you determine the results based on the differences. FATE is a pretty simple game, and even here players have told me they'd prefer to only have one side make the roll.
I could see this sort of thing being an option along the basis of "players make all the rolls," but not as the default.
Similar Threads
- Poll
