D&D 5E Players roll all the dice and Active defenses

[Xeviat]

I'm strongly considering bringing back the "Players roll all the dice" variant at my table. We did this a lot back in 3E, and I liked how it felt like the players were more engaged when it wasn't their turn. The main effect would be the removal of Passive Perception, turning AC into a "Defense Save", and switching all monster/npc bonuses to DCs.

At the same time, I wanted to explore making defenses more dynamic. What if when subjected to an attack, or something else that requires a save, the player said how they were intending on defending against the effect. Perhaps this would be something that requires awareness of the effect, and it could come with added bonuses for succeeding on the save, but larger penalties for failing.

For example, a sword and shield wielding fighter is battling a hobgoblin. When attacked, the player describes how they're going to defend. Simple options are block with shield, parry with sword, dodge, or grin and bear it. This could change which save is used, and have added advantages and disadvantages based on success.

Another example could be a fireball. Targets could shield their face with their cloak, duck and cover, dive behind objects ... And again these could change things up.

It could be like how grabs allow athletics or acrobatics to escape. By giving players options, with different affects for those options, defending against attacks and effects could be more dynamic and interesting.

I wouldn't want to entirely go through all the spells, but maybe we could sum up basics, such as weapon damage types, attack types (melee vs ranged), spell damage types, and spell schools.

This could also be paired with a greater attempt to offer more saving throw types. As it stands, Int and Cha saves are very uncommon, and Str saves are usually only used to resist movement, prone, and grabs.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I once had the idea to make all attacks Dex saves (with some enemies forcing Con or Str saves if their were large brutes or such) and having Armor as a damage reduction instead.

I also had to Shield format:
Shield: 1d4 bludgeoning, grant 1/2 Cover
Tower Shield: 1d6 blugeoning, grant 1/2 cover, 3/4 against ranged attacks.

Never implemented it tho.

 

[Xeviat]

While I'd love armor as DR, I feel like it is hard to balance and implement fairly across the board. Having three variables (attack vs AC, damage vs HP, and DR) makes it harder to balance.

I do love the idea, though.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

While I'd love armor as DR, I feel like it is hard to balance and implement fairly across the board. Having three variables (attack vs AC, damage vs HP, and DR) makes it harder to balance.

I do love the idea, though.

Yeah, its one of those good idea you have on a forum, them when its time to implement it a the table and explain it to your players who still confuse d12s and d20s, I just go ''meh''.

 

[NotAYakk]

The idea that large foes "force str/con saves" seems backwards to me.

A giant swinging a fist can only be protected against by dodging. An orc with an axe you can block with a shield (strength), or take it on your armor (con).

A more robust reaction system would help. Repeating the same defense might give you a penalty on it, as you are busy using it another way.

In one system I tossed around, all of your defences are dice (so a d8, d12, etc) of differenet sizes. And when attacked you rolled them until you defeated the attack; if none did, you where taken out of the fight (all hits are presumed to attempt to take someone out).

Attrition was provided by having your dice be burned as you used them to defend (maybe always, maybe on odd rolls that fail, maybe on low rolls).

So you'd get a game with D&D-esque combat attrition, but also the possibility that any attack could be lethal. Never could get it polished enough to make it easy to play tho.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The idea that large foes "force str/con saves" seems backwards to me.

A giant swinging a fist can only be protected against by dodging. An orc with an axe you can block with a shield (strength), or take it on your armor (con).

ah, you're right. Anyway, it was just an idea I messed with a few years ago.

 

[Oofta]

I think the devil would be in the details. If my PC has a shield, why would they not try to block a blow with the shield? I guess I'd need a more concrete example of implementation to provide any real feedback. Lots of things sound interesting on their face but can't always be implemented effectively.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think the devil would be in the details. If my PC has a shield, why would they not try to block a blow with the shield? I guess I'd need a more concrete example of implementation to provide any real feedback. Lots of things sound interesting on their face but can't always be implemented effectively.

I think this is were a game system such as Dungeon World could be a nice inspiration. In a 5e version of the Defy Danger move, you got no AC: when an enemy attacks you, you DESCRIBE how you try to fend of the attack. depending on your description, the DM as you make a Save with the more relevent ability against 11+attack bonus. On a save, you avoid/endure/block whatever the attack, if not its a hit. Then your armor reduce the damage taken.

If you wanted more rolls, you could make the have the monster roll its attack to set the DC to beat with the Save, more or less a contested roll.

 

[Oofta]

I think this is were a game system such as Dungeon World could be a nice inspiration. In a 5e version of it, you got no AC: when an enemy attacks you, you DESCRIBE how you try to fend of the attack. depending on your description, the DM as you make a Save with the more relevent ability against 11+attack bonus. On a save, you avoid/endure/block whatever the attack, if not its a hit. Then your armor reduce the damage taken.

If you wanted more rolls, you could make the have the monster roll its attack to set the DC to beat with the Save, more or less a contested roll.

I've never played Dungeon World but if I have a shield wouldn't I always use a shield? In which case your just shifting the roll? Same with, say, the reflex save. I'm always going to describe my PC covering themselves with a shield, so it just becomes an extra step that adds no value.

I can see some cases where a PC may dive out of the way of a spell vs just duck and cover, but if one method is superior why would you do anything else?

I could see that you could make every attack/defense a contested roll. Take your AC - 10 and roll that as a contested roll. But then that would just double die rolls which seems like it would just slow down the game. Despite the current system being (possibly over) simplified it has the advantage of being faster.

 

[prabe]

Something that seems to get left out of these discussions is that rolling dice is fun, and maybe the DM should get to have some of that fun, too.