D&D 5E 28/1/13 L&L D&DNext goals part Four

[Klaus]

I think rolling attack vs rolling AC could be an interesting way of representing martial arts, or advanced fencing/duelling skills. I don't know why but it feels more like that maybe exactly because of the "swinginess".

I think this system (everyone rolls) works best when opponents are more evenly matched, which is usually the case in the examples you cited.

Back to "who rolls?": I've had players with spellcasting characters who often felt miffed when they would cast a spell (say, fireball or burning hands) and when they asked "what do I roll?", I'd answer with "nothing, I roll the creatures' saving throws". They positively *deflated*. It was very anti-climatic, specially in regards to a Vancian spellcaster (when letting off a single spell is a major action) to not get to roll the d20 everyone else was rolling.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Back to "who rolls?": I've had players with spellcasting characters who often felt miffed when they would cast a spell (say, fireball or burning hands) and when they asked "what do I roll?", I'd answer with "nothing, I roll the creatures' saving throws". They positively *deflated*. It was very anti-climatic, specially in regards to a Vancian spellcaster (when letting off a single spell is a major action) to not get to roll the d20 everyone else was rolling.

So because this kind of stuff is right up my alley, I wrote an article about it just last night.

Rules themselves can be fun to engage with! But there's also the consideration of what the roll represents in-character, and how having someone else dictate if your character dodges or not feels really weird for a chunk of players.

Essentially, I think that rolling the dice gives you at least the illusion of agency. If I roll, it's because my character is doing something, and if someone else rolls, my character isn't going to be doing anything unless they're forced to somehow. It kind of gets to similar territory as 5e's Taunt trick: someone else is playing the game for me, if I don't get to roll when my character does a thing.

 

[Klaus]

So because this kind of stuff is right up my alley, I wrote an article about it just last night.

Rules themselves can be fun to engage with! But there's also the consideration of what the roll represents in-character, and how having someone else dictate if your character dodges or not feels really weird for a chunk of players.

Essentially, I think that rolling the dice gives you at least the illusion of agency. If I roll, it's because my character is doing something, and if someone else rolls, my character isn't going to be doing anything unless they're forced to somehow. It kind of gets to similar territory as 5e's Taunt trick: someone else is playing the game for me, if I don't get to roll when my character does a thing.

Your comments on the fireball focus on the target's point of view, but there's also the caster's point of view: if *I* roll the attack, I have a say on how effective *my* spell is. And that is what my players complain about, that they want to play, not to watch others (the DM and his critters) play.

 

[D'karr]

Essentially, I think that rolling the dice gives you at least the illusion of agency. If I roll, it's because my character is doing something, and if someone else rolls, my character isn't going to be doing anything unless they're forced to somehow.

It's an interesting view, as I described before. D&D used to present a weird dichotomy because in the past the only "rolled" defense was saves. AC has always been a "passive" defense. Parrying an attack was an assumed abstraction as part of Armor Class. What this presented was the "weird" situation where "dodging" a sword blow or an arrow shot, was somehow different than "dodging" an "Acid Arrow".

I can sympathize with the "illusion" of agency, and in effect that is all there is, an illusion. As I stated before I think that "passive" defenses work better for time management, but I can see the attractiveness of the "feel" of "I'm in control of the bad things that happen to my character." I prefer the situation where I'm in control of my attacks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Your comments on the fireball focus on the target's point of view, but there's also the caster's point of view: if *I* roll the attack, I have a say on how effective *my* spell is. And that is what my players complain about, that they want to play, not to watch others (the DM and his critters) play.

Sure. By preferring the tactile pleasure of dice-rolling over the in-world effects, your player is demonstrating effectively that this level of dissociation is comfortable for them: the trade-off is worth it for them. I'd imagine they'd be a good candidate for a "player rolls everything" kind of system.

I prefer the situation where I'm in control of my attacks.

That's reasonable. It's not exactly the most in-character in some situations, but being in-character ain't the only reason to pretend to be a magical gumdrop elf on the weekends.

 

[Ratskinner]

Your comments on the fireball focus on the target's point of view, but there's also the caster's point of view: if *I* roll the attack, I have a say on how effective *my* spell is. And that is what my players complain about, that they want to play, not to watch others (the DM and his critters) play.

That's why I tend to like "Players make all the rolls" variants.

 

[D'karr]

That's reasonable. It's not exactly the most in-character in some situations, but being in-character ain't the only reason to pretend to be a magical gumdrop elf on the weekends.

Darn skippy, in the basement nonetheless!

 

[YRUSirius]

Letting the players roll ALL the dice is pretty easy with spells etc. IIRC the first playtest had the spellcaster roll not only their magic attack for their spells against the opponents' AC (using their magic ability) - the playtest also had them roll their magic attack for spells where the opponents could make a saving throw. Their magic attack effectively replaced the static spell DC for saving throws.

It's pretty easy to pull off for DMs: You just add +10 to all bonuses on the monsters (attributes, attacks, etc.) and you have a statblock full of static DCs the players have to overcome. Attacks, AC (defense), attributes (and saving throws), spell attacks.

If you get attacked by a goblin you have to roll defense (with an armorclass bonus of AC - 10) against the goblins static 9 attack score/DC.

I'd like to see this "players roll all the dice" house rule as an official house rule/module in the advanced part of D&D because it's pretty easy to pull off.

-YRUSirius

 

[jadrax]

Back to "who rolls?": I've had players with spellcasting characters who often felt miffed when they would cast a spell (say, fireball or burning hands) and when they asked "what do I roll?", I'd answer with "nothing, I roll the creatures' saving throws".

Your answer should have been "Damage". ;o)

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, to be frank, the facing thing is just one of the weird things the designers seem to assume are important to 4e players.

I'd wager that facing rules are actually aimed at the 2e-and-earlier crowd.