D&D 5E Dynamic Defenses

[Blue]

It should be straightforward to move all rolls to the players and it doesn't change the math. A monster with +8 to attack and advantage vs. AC 17 (need a 8 or higher to hit) would be a target number of 31 and tell the player "roll AC with disadvantage" (need a 14 or higher to avoid).

(Hmm, might be easier math to reduce all ACs by 10.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hi everyone. I've been thinking of ways to make D&D more dynamic, and one thing I've always been frustrated with is players' inaction when it's not their turn. Reaction-based abilities help here, but not everyone has them. Add this to "rolling dice is fun", and maybe we can come up with something a little more active.

The first part of my idea is have everyone roll dice for attacks and defenses. When you make an attack roll or cast a spell, you roll to attack/cast. When you're defending against an attack, you roll to defend or save. AC becomes a defense bonus.

Nod. When I first saw 4e's switch from saving throws to defenses, that idea occurred to me. You could have a 'players always roll' system. When the player attacks, they roll an attack vs AC or a defense. When the player is attacked, they roll an appropriate defense bonus against the DC of the attack. DM hardly has to roll at all.

Functionally, the math could be the same, you just need to decide who breaks ties. Since base AC is 10+mods, and you hit if you hit, then I think attacker should have the tie advantage.

You can just shrug and figure heroes get an advantage.

The other half is to have most attacks allow a choice of defenses. Against a weapon attack, you can dodge (actively avoiding or allowing your armor to deflect the hit) or parry (blocking with your weapon or shield), potentially with different consequences for success and failure. Against a spell, you choose which ability score to defend with (maybe against a fireball, you can make a dexterity save to move in some fashion, or a constitution save to hold your breath and brace yourself).

That adds some wrinkles.

You'd have to have different consequences (or costs) or you'd always just choose to defend with your highest bonus.

These changes would be pretty big. Possibly too big to implement in 5th Edition, but I think such a system would make a game far more dynamic.

What do you think?

I think it could be pretty manageable, as long as you don't take the choice/consequences bit too far.

For saves, for instance, you could have a standard consequence for using an off-brand save. If you make a DEX save when you'd normally use a different stat, you fall prone, stuff like that. For attacks AC could be the standard and block/parry could take your Reaction (ick).

 

[mellored]

I did "players always roll" when I played 4e, it worked well. It kept players invested and off-loaded a bit of work from the DM. There shouldn't be any issue implementing that in 5e.


Critical failure is also an option. "fail by 5 or more" is another common variant.
Though that's going to take an on-the-toes DM to pull off, or a bunch of charts which can slow down the action.
One thing to be careful about is how much complexity you add. If you have too much happening off turn, you can take away from the person turn. Or even forget who's turn it was to begin with.

 

[Rhenny]

Another problem with allowing active defenses is that it will make combats last forever if the existing hit point system is used.

If you add the ability to block, dodge, etc (like GURPS), you should limit hit points or invoke some kind of wounds system like the older Star Wars games.

A wound system with active defenses might work, but it would change the feeling of the game. I like the way the old Star Wars games felt. If you got hit, you felt it so most of the combat game was trying to avoid getting hit, or avoid combat altogether. This is not a heroic fantasy feeling. Not that that's bad of course, it is just different.

 

[Xeviat]

Another problem with allowing active defenses is that it will make combats last forever if the existing hit point system is used.

If you add the ability to block, dodge, etc (like GURPS), you should limit hit points or invoke some kind of wounds system like the older Star Wars games.

A wound system with active defenses might work, but it would change the feeling of the game. I like the way the old Star Wars games felt. If you got hit, you felt it so most of the combat game was trying to avoid getting hit, or avoid combat altogether. This is not a heroic fantasy feeling. Not that that's bad of course, it is just different.

The dodge/block/party thing is entirely instead of standard AC. So the chance to avoid damage is the same in both core and my idea, just that there's some choice involved to make things more interesting and encourage players to pay attention.

And yeah, such a system would really need a way to make the choices matter, lest someone just always use their higher save.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Duan'duliir]

I've been using AC as a roll for a while, and my players enjoy it.

- Zynx, from the EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Hi everyone. I've been thinking of ways to make D&D more dynamic, and one thing I've always been frustrated with is players' inaction when it's not their turn. Reaction-based abilities help here, but not everyone has them. Add this to "rolling dice is fun", and maybe we can come up with something a little more active.

The first part of my idea is have everyone roll dice for attacks and defenses. When you make an attack roll or cast a spell, you roll to attack/cast. When you're defending against an attack, you roll to defend or save. AC becomes a defense bonus.

The other half is to have most attacks allow a choice of defenses. Against a weapon attack, you can dodge (actively avoiding or allowing your armor to deflect the hit) or parry (blocking with your weapon or shield), potentially with different consequences for success and failure. Against a spell, you choose which ability score to defend with (maybe against a fireball, you can make a dexterity save to move in some fashion, or a constitution save to hold your breath and brace yourself).

Functionally, the math could be the same, you just need to decide who breaks ties. Since base AC is 10+mods, and you hit if you hit, then I think attacker should have the tie advantage.

Such a system could also allow for complications. Maybe if you fail by a certain amount (proficiency bonus maybe?) you can suffer a complication in order to avoid the brunt of the attack. If you fail a parry roll, you can be disarmed instead of taking the hit. If you fail to dodge a fireball, you end up prone and lose your reaction.

These changes would be pretty big. Possibly too big to implement in 5th Edition, but I think such a system would make a game far more dynamic.

What do you think?

Two things to keep in mind.

More rolling - slower game. Lots other frpgs have active defense, which works in grittier settings with fewer foes. (If your D&D is like that, go for it)

Higher variability hurts the PCs. Even if the average stays the same, active defense makes the game harder for the PCs. (If you like a greater risk, go for it)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I prefer it as is. Too much rolling gets fatiguing and induces more error in my experience. But to each their own.