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

[dkyle]

What was the concensus on the following concept?
Both attacker and defender simply have a bonus.
Attacker chooses to either roll 1d20 or take 11, the defender chooses the other.

The reason it's 11 and not 10, is for the math to work out. Do the math yourself if you don't believe me.

I'd rather they just standardize on "Players always roll". That way, they can just print those 11+score numbers in the monster stat blocks, and it removes a step of decision making that serves little purpose.

The appeal of saving throws is the feeling of having the power, in your own hands, to say "no" to the DM when he says a spell is cast on you. It's illusory, of course, since it's just as random as the DM rolling an attack. Having the Players-always-roll preserves that Saving Throw feeling. On the other hand, I don't think most people are that fond of having the monsters make saves against something. Outside of nostalgia, I think making attacks is more satisfying. Player-always-rolls provides both.

 

[Greg K]

I have to say, all the Monte hate is something I can't understand. Disagreeing with him, i get. Not wanting him to helm 5e, I get. But hatred and disdain? Don't get it at all.

I find it interesting that many of the haters seem to forget that 3e was not a one man show. The design team was Skip, Tweet, and Monte, but additional design direction came from Peter Adkison. On top of that, additional design came from Richard Baker and there were contributions from the R&D department with Bill Slavicsek directing R&D.

 

[beholdsa]

It makes so much more sense that if I'm attacking--whether with a sword or with a spell--I make a simple attack roll against the target.

I really hope they do away with saving throws. I always hated them.

 

[MooMan68]

I'd rather they just standardize on "Players always roll". That way, they can just print those 11+score numbers in the monster stat blocks, and it removes a step of decision making that serves little purpose.

I agree with this, and I've tried it in my campaigns, and it seems to work well in practice. The only downside is that it can slow down combat a little, as it's faster for the DM to roll six attacks than for the players (the same or six different ones) to roll six defenses. But on the whole the tradeoff seemed worth it. Players love rolling a 20 on defense and causing a critical fumble in their opponent!

 

[Kingreaper]

Opposed rolls are less swingy.

If you mean (A+ d20) vs (B + d20).

This comes down to +d20-d20 vs B-A (rather than d20 vs (B+10)-A ??)

If A and B are of the same size in both cases, opposed rolls are FAR more swingy.

Adding additional randomness cannot decrease swinginess, only increase it.

Otherwise (A+5d20) vs. (B+5d20) would be even less swingy...

 

[comrade raoul]

There's room for variation.

It would be fun, and thematic, but maybe not D&D-ish enough, if spellcasters had to make spellcasting checks to successfully cast spells. Higher-level spells could have higher DC's, so spellcasters would have interesting tactical choices. ("Do I cast magic missile, which only miscasts on a 1, or "fireball, for which I'll need an 8 or higher?") On top of this, some spells would require saving throws, others wouldn't.

There's room for all sorts of variation, of course. Casting checks could "critically hit," making a spell harder to save against or have some other special effect, or even letting you cast the spell without expending a spell slot. Maybe some or all spells would be "reliable," so you'd only actually expend the slot if you successfully cast the spell. More radically, you could even use a mechanic like this to replace spell levels completely, but I'm sure the designers wouldn't go in that direction.

 

[fba827]

My preference is actually in between those stated extremes.

I know this is not a realistic expectation, but it is still a "hope" for me none the less.
I would like to see an option for 'players make all the rolls' sort of thing.
So if it's a PC doing the spell (or making the weapon attack, or whatever) they roll the attack roll.
Conversely, if it is a spell cast against the PC (or a weapon attack against the PC) then the Player rolls a saving throw or defense roll of some sort.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I agree with Monte. An important goal of 5th Edition should be to safeguard nongamers' ability to make apropos roleplaying references.

 

[MojoGM]

My preference is actually in between those stated extremes.

I know this is not a realistic expectation, but it is still a "hope" for me none the less.
I would like to see an option for 'players make all the rolls' sort of thing.
So if it's a PC doing the spell (or making the weapon attack, or whatever) they roll the attack roll.
Conversely, if it is a spell cast against the PC (or a weapon attack against the PC) then the Player rolls a saving throw or defense roll of some sort.

I agree 100%, this is how we do it on my group. I don't think it is an unrealistic expectation at all.

I guess the one conflict could come if it is player casting on player, but maybe there could be a special option for that.

I hope this is the way they do it. And if they don't, it will still be the way I do it.

 

[JohnSnow]

There's room for variation.

It would be fun, and thematic, but maybe not D&D-ish enough, if spellcasters had to make spellcasting checks to successfully cast spells. Higher-level spells could have higher DC's, so spellcasters would have interesting tactical choices. ("Do I cast magic missile, which only miscasts on a 1, or "fireball, for which I'll need an 8 or higher?") On top of this, some spells would require saving throws, others wouldn't.

There's room for all sorts of variation, of course. Casting checks could "critically hit," making a spell harder to save against or have some other special effect, or even letting you cast the spell without expending a spell slot. Maybe some or all spells would be "reliable," so you'd only actually expend the slot if you successfully cast the spell. More radically, you could even use a mechanic like this to replace spell levels completely, but I'm sure the designers wouldn't go in that direction.

The Green Ronin guys instituted a mechanic like this in the Thieves' World Player's Manual to better capture the feel of casting magic in that setting. If memory serves, there are also casting rolls in the magic system for the Black Company Campaign Setting (also from Green Ronin) and Elements of Magic.

I like the concept, even where the systems involved were a bit too open-ended and complicated. But I think a casting roll to use magic that allowed for spell failure, but also opened up the option of greater success (magical "critical hits"), could be VERY interesting.