D&D General Who should roll the dice... in combat.

[Cadence]

I've been pondering a home brew system in the D&Dish family for a while (decades?). One of the things I've been particularly mulling over recently is combat, and last night a thought hit me and I wanted to bounce it off of y'all.

What if:

• On offense: Players rolled to-hit rolls against a static target when attacking monsters/npcs (like they do now).
• On defense: Players rolled a defense roll against a static to-hit number from the monsters/npcs (opposite of now).

Why?

• Mathematically I don't think this changes anything in the probabilities - there is still a 10 (or whatever) + mods on one side and a d20+mods on the other side.
• It lets the players roll more (be active more) without increasing the total number of rolls in the game.
• It might remove the temptation of the DM to fudge (if that's a problem).
• It might open it up more naturally for players to declare different kinds of defenses (parry, dodge, nothing) more naturally since they're thinking about making a roll.
• It might open up ideas for more buffs types on defense (since adding in randomness to defense would seem more natural).

It does leave open the question of monster vs. monster or pc vs. pc combat, but I'm guessing in most cases that isn't that common, and might make some of the buffs work differently on the monster vs. pc side.

Any thoughts? Are there any games that do this already? If so, how do they feel compared to the usual D&D way?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There was an UA for a ''players always roll'' rule a few years back. I seem to remember the maths were a little off, but I'm sure someone here would be able to give you the right calculation to implement such rule.

 

[aco175]

It might remove the temptation of the DM to fudge (if that's a problem).

But whom does it open up fudging to?

I sometimes have players roll attacks against themselves or other PCs. I may have a mob of skeletons and each Pc is surrounded by 3-4 of them and I just say that they have a +4 to hit. I already have the player roll damage from monster attacks.

I want a better spellcasting system like 4e where you rolled against something to hit, like spell attacks, but will fireballs and such. I can back out the math and set it up but right now I just tell the player that this monster has +2 on Dex saves and let him roll low.

 

[ninjayeti]

The Cypher System is probably the most popular RPG that uses the "player always rolls" mechanic, but there are other smaller games like the Black Hack that do so as well. I think there is a lot of merit to it, and it works well with fixed (vs. rolled) damage since having to deal with the damage roll can be tricky (does the player roll damage on themselves?).

In general I think it speeds up play a bit, and player feel more in control when they are making all the rolls themselves (that is not rational of course - random numbers are random - but gamers are a superstitious lot.) If I were creating a game from scratch that is the system I would go with, but I also think it can feel like "not D&D" so I would not necessarily incorporate it into a 5E game.

 

[DeviousQuail]

Monte Cook's Cypher does this. NPCs have a difficulty rating between 1 and 10. When players are attacking they have to roll over the enemy's difficulty × 3 (essentially everything is on a 3-30 scale). When the NPC attacks the players have to make an appropriate defensive roll that uses the same formula as attacking.

It was weird being the DM and not rolling ever but it worked. As for PvP I just had both roll the attack and defense rolls and the winner was whoever had the highest roll. It wasn't any more complicated than an opposed skill check from 5e.

The biggest difference between this and a dnd style of rolling is that Cypher has more levers for increasing your rolls on a turn by turn basis. If you want to increase an important roll you can spend a limited resource to add anywhere from 3 to 18 (high level play) to the roll. And that doesn't include your static bonuses.

 

[Cadence]

There was an UA for a ''players always roll'' rule a few years back. I seem to remember the maths were a little off, but I'm sure someone here would be able to give you the right calculation to implement such rule.

Thanks! Wouldn't have thought to google "players always roll" as a name or check out the UA!

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA5_VariantRules.pdf

 

[Cadence]

But whom does it open up fudging to?

I always have the temptation if I roll behind the screen to put my fingers on the lever. Some groups don't seem to care... others probably really would. If the players are always rolling on the table it wouldn't

The Cypher System is probably the most popular RPG that uses the "player always rolls" mechanic, but there are other smaller games like the Black Hack that do so as well. I think there is a lot of merit to it, and it works well with fixed (vs. rolled) damage since having to deal with the damage roll can be tricky (does the player roll damage on themselves?).

I hadn't gotten as far as thinking about damage yet much... (and thought of making it depend on how much the hit was by, or dodge was by, skittered through my brain and sound like it could get messy).

In general I think it speeds up play a bit, and player feel more in control when they are making all the rolls themselves (that is not rational of course - random numbers are random - but gamers are a superstitious lot.) If I were creating a game from scratch that is the system I would go with, but I also think it can feel like "not D&D" so I would not necessarily incorporate it into a 5E game.

It was weird being the DM and not rolling ever but it worked. As for PvP I just had both roll the attack and defense rolls and the winner was whoever had the highest roll. It wasn't any more complicated than an opposed skill check from 5e.

Does it feel "not D&D" to the players? Or does it feel that way to the DM because they aren't rolling? Or both?

 

[rgoodbb]

Only those truly Worthy of.......the Roll

 

[overgeeked]

Here’s an accurate math version from another thread.

Showing my work:
AC is 10+ whatever. Switching that to an active roll is simple enough. Instead of taking 10 (the 10+) you roll your d20 and add the same modifiers (armor, DEX mod, etc). So an attacker with a +5 to hit vs your AC17. They need a 12+/d20 to hit (45% hit; 55% miss). Switching that to a defense roll makes it +7 to dodge vs the attacker's DC15 attack. You need 8+/d20 to dodge (65% avoid; 35% hit). That math doesn't match up. To keep the math the same you should have a 55% chance to dodge, or 10+/d20. So just add +2 to attack DCs, i.e. make them 12+ whatever bonuses the attacker normally has.

Spell save DCs are 8+ whatever. Switching that to an active roll is a bit harder, but not much. So a caster with a save DC17 vs a defender with a +5 relevant save bonus. The defender needs to roll 12+/d20 to save (45% avoid; 55% hit). Switching that to an active roll by the caster would seem to be add the same bonus for casting (+9 for a save DC17). Which would give us +9 vs the defender's DC15 save. The caster would need 6+/d20 to effect the target (75% hit; 25% miss). That math doesn't match up. To keep the math the same you should have a 55% chance to effect the target, or 10+/d20. So just add +4 to the target's save DCs, i.e. make them 14+ whatever bonuses the defender normally has.

Conclusions:
Attacks. Active defense DCs should be 12+ the attacker's modifiers to keep the math the same.

Spell saves. Active non-AC save attack DCs should be 14+ the defender's modifiers to keep the math the same.

 

[univoxs]

For some games I take away all rolling for players. It is a method to make combat more story driven. No one ever complained and I would not do this for all games but I recommend trying it out. As a GM you may find it drives you to doing more descriptive rather than just saying. "Hit. Roll Damage."