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

[GMMichael]

Shields increase avoidance. Armor reduces damage.

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.

Active players, dynamic defenses? You're on your way to a better game.

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.

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.

It sounds like you're losing the concept of saving throws a bit. A saving throw isn't a defense. It's "um, this just happened and I wasn't ready for it and by virtue of luck and my inherent qualities, I might be able to avoid it." This doesn't mean that you can't use non-Dex and non-Con saving throws to make things interesting - it just means that you're about to step on a Sacred Cow Pie, which can be perilous.

Try asking players to describe defenses without the extra advantages and disadvantages. The result is that the story changes a bit - not that the PC takes zero damage and ends up in the exact same situation next round. What happens next becomes more interesting, regardless of the "active" defense result. For example:

A sword and shield wielding fighter is battling a hobgoblin. When attacked, the player decides to parry with her sword. She rolls a defense and succeeds. You tell her that her sword deflected the hobgoblin's axe into the ground, but its weight pushed her weapon down with it. The next time an action involves either the PC or the hobgoblin, the story resumes where those two left off - with their weapons churning up dirt, and wondering if the opponent will try to raise the weapon or make a closer, quicker attack.

This works better if you can toy with Initiative a bit - using reactions and fudging the turn order a little to prevent the stop-motion-photography effect that turn-based combat tends to portray.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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.

Ideally you dont just say: I block with my shield. As with the normal playloop for other actions (intent-mean-resolution), you describe your intent after hearing the description of the incoming attack by the DM, then you specify the mean. Ex:
DM: ''the duelist barely move in front of you. You can see his eyes quickly shifting as if waiting for the perfect opening to deliver is graceful but fatal attack''.
You:
a) I raise my shield, trying to find the exact moment of its attack before I deviate its blow. (Dm ask for an Int save)
b) I raise my shield from my left side to my right, moving quickly to avoid letting one side exposed for too long. (DM ask for a Dex save)
c) I raise my shield, rushing toward the duelist to push its frail weapon aside before he gets to move. (DM ask for an Str check)
d) I raise my shield, knowing that his next attack is going to be nasty. I brace myself. (Dm calls for a Con save)

etc.

Its more of a communication between Dm and playes about the co-created narrative. With this system, you dont need to be afraid to have a players playing to its strength by trying to use its best stats; after a hit, the Dm my introduce a narrative complication with the damage that prevent the players from using its favored stat for a turn or two.

Ex. The duelist make a low blow with his daggers, the players falls on one knee, he cant use his dex to move gracefully out of the way for the next attack.

 

[Oofta]

Ideally you dont just say: I block with my shield. As with the normal playloop for other actions (intent-mean-resolution), you describe your intent after hearing the description of the incoming attack by the DM, then you specify the mean. Ex:
DM: ''the duelist barely move in front of you. You can see his eyes quickly shifting as if waiting for the perfect opening to deliver is graceful but fatal attack''.
You:
a) I raise my shield, trying to find the exact moment of its attack before I deviate its blow. (Dm ask for an Int save)
b) I raise my shield from my left side to my right, moving quickly to avoid letting one side exposed for too long. (DM ask for a Dex save)
c) I raise my shield, rushing toward the duelist to push its frail weapon aside before he gets to move. (DM ask for an Str check)
d) I raise my shield, knowing that his next attack is going to be nasty. I brace myself. (Dm calls for a Con save)

etc.

Its more of a communication between Dm and playes about the co-created narrative. With this system, you dont need to be afraid to have a players playing to its strength by trying to use its best stats; after a hit, the Dm my introduce a narrative complication with the damage that prevent the players from using its favored stat for a turn or two.

Ex. The duelist make a low blow with his daggers, the players falls on one knee, he cant use his dex to move gracefully out of the way for the next attack.

I'd have to see it in action, but it sounds like a lot of extra overhead.

Also, I'm not sure how you would define bonuses. D&D is kind of a hot mess when it comes to AC, but there is a logic behind it. Realistically someone wearing plate mail has little to worry about from that guy with a dagger unless he's been knocked down and the dagger wielder can pull off his helmet. High quality heavy armor was really expensive, but it was also really effective.

But this all sounds like this idea simply wouldn't fit my style of play. There's nothing wrong with it, just not something I think I would be interested in.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd have to see it in action, but it sounds like a lot of extra overhead.

Also, I'm not sure how you would define bonuses. D&D is kind of a hot mess when it comes to AC, but there is a logic behind it. Realistically someone wearing plate mail has little to worry about from that guy with a dagger unless he's been knocked down and the dagger wielder can pull off his helmet. High quality heavy armor was really expensive, but it was also really effective.

But this all sounds like this idea simply wouldn't fit my style of play. There's nothing wrong with it, just not something I think I would be interested in.

yeah, its really closer to a rule-lite/storytelling game. Its does get some time to get used to. There's also the fact that you dont always want to play to your strengths in DW, because you gain XP from failing.

Anyway, I thin the Attack vs AC from D&D is clearly better in many ways.

There was the UA Rules Variant from some years ago with mechanics to make players do all the rolls, but I think some people said the maths were off (I would not know, I dont do maths). It may be worth a look.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Players Make All Rolls
This variant has the players roll dice for all parts of combat, including such things as monster attack rolls and saving throws. By moving die rolls to the players' side of the table, this option keeps things simpler for you as the DM. In addition, the more active you can keep the players in your game, the more engaged they'll be.

This is a good option if your players like rolling the dice, and if you don't mind doing a little work up front to make that happen.

Attacking and Defending
The players roll their characters' attacks as normal, but you don't roll for their opponents. Instead, when a character is targeted by an attack, the player makes a defense roll.

A defense roll has a bonus equal to the character's AC - 10. The DC for the roll equals the attacker's attack bonus + 11.

On a successful defense roll, the attack misses because it was dodged, absorbed by the character's armor, and so on. If a character fails a defense roll, the attack hits.
If the attacker would normally have advantage on the attack roll, you instead apply disadvantage to the defense roll, and vice versa if the attacker would have disadvantage.
If the defense roll comes up as a 1 on the d20, then the attack is a critical hit. If the attacker would normally score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20, then the attack is a critical hit on a 1 or 2, and so forth for broader critical ranges.

(aka. remove the ''10+'' part of the AC equation. AC is now a bonus to a d20 ''Defence Roll''.)

Saving Throws
When a character forces an opponent to make a saving throw, that player instead makes a saving throw check. The bonus to the d20 roll for a saving throw check equals the effect's save DC -8.
The DC for this check equals 11 + the target's saving throw modifier. On a successful check, the character overcomes the target's resistance and treats the target as if it failed its saving throw. On a failed check, the target is treated as if it succeeded on its save.
As with attacks, the saving throw check has advantage if the target would have disadvantage on its saving throw, and vice versa.

(aka. make an spell attack roll against a DC 11+Stat mod + prof( if applicable).

Contests and Checks
Whenever an NPC or monster would normally make an ability check, roll initiative, or take part in a contest, neither you nor the players roll the d20. Instead, use the rules for passive checks to determine the result. See chapter 7, "Using Ability Scores," of the Player's Handbook for more information on passive checks.

 

[NotAYakk]

Saving Throws
When a character forces an opponent to make a saving throw, that player instead makes a saving throw check. The bonus to the d20 roll for a saving throw check equals the effect's save DC -8.
The DC for this check equals 11 + the target's saving throw modifier. On a successful check, the character overcomes the target's resistance and treats the target as if it failed its saving throw. On a failed check, the target is treated as if it succeeded on its save.
As with attacks, the saving throw check has advantage if the target would have disadvantage on its saving throw, and vice versa.

No, the DC is 14+saving throw modifier.

+4 save
+4 int, +2 proficiency.

DC is 14. Chance of saving? 10+ on a d20, or 55%.

+4 int +2 proficiency is +6 accuracy (or, 14-8 is +6).

To have a 45% chance of hitting, you need a 12+. Which means the DC has to be 18.

14+4 = 18.

 

[jasper]

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.

And the Group "W" Bench looked at prabe. And they all moved away from prabe.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

No, the DC is 14+saving throw modifier.

+4 save
+4 int, +2 proficiency.

DC is 14. Chance of saving? 10+ on a d20, or 55%.

+4 int +2 proficiency is +6 accuracy (or, 14-8 is +6).

To have a 45% chance of hitting, you need a 12+. Which means the DC has to be 18.

14+4 = 18.

Is it the same thing for the DC to the attack roll in the case of attack against AC?

 

[prabe]

And the Group "W" Bench looked at prabe. And they all moved away from prabe.

Because they know my dice, I presume.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Because they know my dice, I presume.

This is where you say "And creating a nuisance."