D&D 5E Attacking with spells instead of saves

[Zaukrie]

One thing I liked about 4e was that spellcasters rolled to attack with spells, instead of targets rolling to save.

Has anyone experimented with changing this, so the players roll to attack, instead of the monsters roll to save (or vice versa)?

thanks!

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are some groups with use the players make all rolls idea, which includes spellcasters trying to overcome target resistance, aka the target's save ability. The save becomes a DC or target for the spellcasting roll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One thing I liked about 4e was that spellcasters rolled to attack with spells, instead of targets rolling to save.

Has anyone experimented with changing this, so the players roll to attack, instead of the monsters roll to save (or vice versa)?

thanks!

Experimented? It worked well for years in 4e. (One tip: when resolving AEs for full/half damage, roll damage first, then the attacks.)

The only trick in 5e is getting the numbers right when you convert save bonuses to defenses (you might also want to consolidate them). Aside from that its a flat simplification, consolidating the unnecessary complexity of two different attack-resolution mechanics.

An interesting related variation I considered for 4e was Players Always Roll.

In 5e, I'd actually consider the reverse.

 

[aco175]

I just have the player roll the save instead of trying to convert it. It makes him roll low instead of high, but it works and it is easy.

 

[DWChancellor]

Doing this removes a purposeful design choice in 5E, namely that you need to select spells based on hints about the target's likely stats to optimize. A brute is likely proof against STR and CON saves for example...

You're removing something that is supposed to make casters feel "smart" about spell selection and replacing it with... to hit maximization. If you've got a player who prefers this, maybe they shouldn't be a wizard =) ?

But yeah, it is a little unsatisfying. I like "attack rolls vs. stats" better.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Doing this removes a purposeful design choice in 5E, namely that you need to select spells based on hints about the target's likely stats to optimize.

Only if you consolidate defenses, if you're OK with a total of seven defenses, it's identical in that sense - just more consistent.

 

[ikos]

A couple years ago they released an option to do just that in UA, but the math (many derided) was a bit off. Each defense set to 14 + target’s saving throw modifier was the most frequently proposed fix. This still does not address how AoE spells interacted with the mechanic, however. Getting the dice to all roll in the same direction makes a lot of since, as an idea, especially if you want to affix a fumble crit. mechanic based on the caster rolls.

 

[Zaukrie]

As DM, I just don't want to roll if I can help it. Letting the players roll the saves might work out.....thanks so far everyone, for the suggestions!

 

[aco175]

It is not the best making the player roll for a low number instead of a high one, but the player is getting to roll something which is the point.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One thing to note: having differing mechanics for how weapon attacks and spells are resolved helps magic feel different from just attacking - if you make everything an attack roll (even if it's mathematically the same) you can make different classes not feel nearly as different from each other.

In other words, saving throws instead of attacks is a part of why magic feels magical.

Edit: on the other hand, having the player always roll, or even just the attacker always roll, has it's own set of benefits, so I'm not saying it's a bad idea either way.