D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - Wizards Like to Roll Dice Too

[Zaukrie]

As someone that used to write surveys for a living, that might be the worst poll ever. I have no idea what I'm agreeing to or not. There are multiple options in one question. Horrible poll design. They better do a better job of game design!

That out of the way.....

The attack mechanic in 4E is great, you are always rolling dice. I have no idea why you'd go away from that. You can add saving throws back in more if you want, but a: they already do exist in 4E, and b: sounds complicated to me to have a saving throw on everything.

I like the 4E mechanic of attack rolls. I agree that there are times we would want opposed or saving throws also. I don't agree that they aren't in 4E. I don't agree that the old way was better.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Overall I prefer 4e's static defenses to too many saving throws, but I must admit I sometimes feel like there should be a saving throw in there somewhere. And it does occasionally create odd playability issues, like with attack rolls on area effects. Rolling again and again for the same action feels off.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I suppose they can always make the "Players Roll All The Dice" option from 3E's Unearthed Arcana core for 5E. Enemies have static attack and defense stats. Players roll attacks when they are attacking, and roll saving throws when they are being attacked. That way the player always gets to roll a die when their fate is being affected. Seems to be fair if that is the main goal, and it would be more consistent than the default 3E approach.

 

[Dragonblade]

I suppose they can always make the "Players Roll All The Dice" option from 3E's Unearthed Arcana core for 5E. Enemies have static attack and defense stats. Players roll attacks when they are attacking, and roll saving throws when they are being attacked. That way the player always gets to roll a die when their fate is being affected. Seems to be fair if that is the main goal, and it would be more consistent than the default 3E approach.

I'm cool with that, but when DMing I like to roll too.

I like the idea of opposed rolls. Having played an opposed roll d20 based system quite extensively before, I can attest that opposed roll d20 actually plays very fast, particularly because the attacker and the defender can roll at the same time.

 

[RoboCheney]

I suppose they can always make the "Players Roll All The Dice" option from 3E's Unearthed Arcana core for 5E. Enemies have static attack and defense stats. Players roll attacks when they are attacking, and roll saving throws when they are being attacked. That way the player always gets to roll a die when their fate is being affected. Seems to be fair if that is the main goal, and it would be more consistent than the default 3E approach.

That's a rule I could get behind. When a PC dies they have only the dice to blame! Although it would remove the ability to fudge dice for us DMs

You could even give players a choice how to avoid certain attacks. In response to a fireball, you could get "I dodge out of the way", "I take cover behind my shield", or "I try to counterspell."

This could also engage players more between turns.

As far as opposed rolls go . . . I don't know what that would even be considered. They add too much swingyness and are a serious drag on the game, much more so than you might expect. As others have said, 4e basically solved this, players still get to make a roll called a "saving throw" to resist bad stuff, and the attack mechanics are consistent across the board.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I suppose they can always make the "Players Roll All The Dice" option from 3E's Unearthed Arcana core for 5E. Enemies have static attack and defense stats. Players roll attacks when they are attacking, and roll saving throws when they are being attacked. That way the player always gets to roll a die when their fate is being affected. Seems to be fair if that is the main goal, and it would be more consistent than the default 3E approach.

I've run other systems doing that, and I love it. One thing that is nice about is that it scales with number of players a lot better than if the DM has more rolls every time he adds a creature.

I find that when I run this way, I still get to roll plenty between monster initiative, hidden perception/insight type of checks, etc.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I didn't see in those polls the option to say that single target stuff (whether weapon or spell) should require a mechancially consistent target roll. However area effects are different enough, and have separate enough needs, that a different mechanical option for them woudn't hurt. Traditional saving throws could be used for the latter.

Of course, I don't guess they would go with the Hero System solution of requiring an attack roll to target the origin point of an area effect, and then allow the poor saps caught in it to make a decision by trying to block, shrug off the effect, or "dive for cover". If you really want to see wizard and fighters sweat the rolls and feel like they matter, let the wizard misplace his fireball slightly and then let the fighter decide what to do about it.

I want to draw further attention to this, because I think it does a good job of covering it. I just want to add one element.

The mechanics for who rolls what should be based on the type of caster.

For a Vancian caster, spells are consistent, form-factor structures. The wizard doesn't have any control over a spells effects when he casts it, as they've been predetermined when the spell was prepared. All the wizard does is aim and shoot. If there is to be a roll, it should be to aim the spell (and I support this. I love the idea that your fireball might deviate). Targets roll to save if necessary.

A sorcerer builds spells on the fly with available mana, so might have a spellcasting check that creates the intended effect and sets the DC.

A psion traditionally has psionic attack modes, and powers based on those would require an attack roll against the target's intelligence.

So, the ultimate answer is, use the method that makes the most sense for the fluff.

 

[sheadunne]

Opposed roles are horrible. I'll not play another game like that if I can help it, especially in a game with multiple attacks. There's such a thing as too many dice being rolled.

I say bring back saving throws, they make more sense to me. I'd even be more favorable to AC as a save than opposed rolls or everything's an attack roll.

Ask yourself this: if you swing a sword at a brick wall you're going to hit it. Why? Not because of your excellent skill but because the damn thing can't move. If you swing a sword at another person, you're only going to miss if they get out of the way, your skill only matters if they try to get out of the way. It makes more sense for the defender to roll than the attacker.

 

[Tallifer]

I very much like the system of magic in the Fourth Edition. Roll to attack against a set defense. Save versus ongoing effects and conditions. I currently play Pathfinder and I can see nothing bad with the old system, but nothing particularly advantageous about the old stuff either. And I do love to roll as a wizard or cleric!

 

[Raith5]

Those poll questions are horribly worded. I can't tell what exactly I'm voting for or against. What kind of feedback are they possibly getting from those?

To answer the question, I want opposed rolls with a take 10 option if it makes sense. Caster rolls a magic attack roll and opponent rolls the appropriate defense against it. Best of both worlds.

Agree. The question about fighters the other day was also pretty silly.
What are they trying to find out with these questions? They are just finding out how divided their audience is in terms of preferences - which is something they already know.

The take 10 option is the only thing that is going to work here.