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

[Klaus]

Rolling attacks for poison and the like is kind of unusual and a bit awkward. I find that the consistency gained from having a single system more than makes up for that awkwardness, though, and toyed with hacking it into 3e well before 4e was being written. The Poison is "attacking" your Fortitude, and the trap is "attacking" your Reflex.

Mathematically, a saving throw and an attack vs. a defense are identical, and if it's not "actor rolls" like in 4e, I'd prefer something like Unisystem where the players roll all the dice - rolling to attack and rolling to dodge vs. static monster attacks or defenses. (Damage would still need rolled, however.)

Basically, I don't think "who rolls the dice" should necessarily model anything that's occurring in game. Rolling is itself a gameplay convention, so I'm more interested in ease of use at the table.

-O

There is also the third alternative: everyone rolls. Much more swingy, though.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

[...]

I kind of wonder how an all-"defender rolls" system would look....hmmmmmmmm....

You know, this has merit, and not just for the examples you gave. In the padded swordplay I've done, you spend at least as much of your attention on avoiding getting hit as you do trying to attack. I could see having a static attack number, and having people roll to defend themselves. It almost makes more sense.

Of course, it's entirely not D&D. Attack roll versus AC is one of the most sacred of cows. But I'd be willing to give it a shot.

 

[YRUSirius]

It's not as if the players lose an attack roll versus the ACs of the monsters - no, they gain a defense roll versus the "attackclass" of the monsters!

They keep attack rolls - and gain defense rolls/armor rolls.

The DM loses attack rolls and defense rolls. But hey, it's easier for him.

-YRUSirius

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think, for D&D, I'd probably be all like:

1. When you make a normal attack with a weapon, you roll to attack (for great nostalgia!).
2. When you make a melee or ranged attack, you roll to attack.
3. When you make an area attack or some other kind of attack that "can't miss," the defender rolls to save.

This lets you do things like grab 4e's solid concealment rules: melee and ranged attacks take a penalty (ie: attack rolls take a penalty against an invisible zed), but burst and blast attacks don't (ie: there's no effect on saving throws if you are the invisible zed). It matches fiction pretty well (you can't see in the darkness to shoot a guy with a bow, but if you fill the area with arrows, whatever's there is going to get hit). It also lets you handle corner cases, like a psionic effect that targets your mind: it's not something that can "miss," so the Defender gets a Wisdom save (or something), rather than having the attacker roll an attack roll. Swarms work good under this style, too: attack rolls? The bees ignore your waving sticks and pew pew lasers. Saving throws? It's super effective! I fill your zone with my whirling mace of dooooom and squish you all at once.

 

[D'karr]

I think, for D&D, I'd probably be all like:

1. When you make a normal attack with a weapon, you roll to attack (for great nostalgia!).
2. When you make a melee or ranged attack, you roll to attack.
3. When you make an area attack or some other kind of attack that "can't miss," the defender rolls to save.

This lets you do things like grab 4e's solid concealment rules: melee and ranged attacks take a penalty (ie: attack rolls take a penalty against an invisible zed), but burst and blast attacks don't (ie: there's no effect on saving throws if you are the invisible zed). It matches fiction pretty well (you can't see in the darkness to shoot a guy with a bow, but if you fill the area with arrows, whatever's there is going to get hit). It also lets you handle corner cases, like a psionic effect that targets your mind: it's not something that can "miss," so the Defender gets a Wisdom save (or something), rather than having the attacker roll an attack roll. Swarms work good under this style, too: attack rolls? The bees ignore your waving sticks and pew pew lasers. Saving throws? It's super effective! I fill your zone with my whirling mace of dooooom and squish you all at once.

Isn't this the exact same thing as the 4e system, but the defender makes a defense save instead of the attacker making an attack roll?

At DDXP January of last year I was running the DDN playtest. After that, I was having a conversation with a player and he made an astute observation. Something that up to that point, I had not heard anyone articulate.

His statement was that the reason he didn't like 4e attacks vs. defenses, even though they are technically the same as 3e saves, was that with 3e he "felt" that he had power over the outcome of the save. His character had "a say." He "felt" that it was "defensive" to roll your defense.

The math was exactly the same, but that change of focus to attacker rolls he did not like. It was a very interesting conversation, and I learned something new that day.

The only reason I don't particularly like Attacker rolls attacks, Defender rolls defense is time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Isn't this the exact same thing as the 4e system, but the defender makes a defense save instead of the attacker making an attack roll?

It's pretty surprising how big of a difference that little switch can make. Who rolls (and why) is a huge component of play satisfaction for many players. Do I roll to try and do something, or do you roll to try and stop me from doing something to you?

We keep the good elements (like 4e's useful division of "area" effects and "single-target" effects), but ditch the unfortunate (like 4e's rather insistent specific targeting), and we're gold!

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think, for D&D, I'd probably be all like:

1. When you make a normal attack with a weapon, you roll to attack (for great nostalgia!).
2. When you make a melee or ranged attack, you roll to attack.
3. When you make an area attack or some other kind of attack that "can't miss," the defender rolls to save.

This lets you do things like grab 4e's solid concealment rules: melee and ranged attacks take a penalty (ie: attack rolls take a penalty against an invisible zed), but burst and blast attacks don't (ie: there's no effect on saving throws if you are the invisible zed). It matches fiction pretty well (you can't see in the darkness to shoot a guy with a bow, but if you fill the area with arrows, whatever's there is going to get hit). It also lets you handle corner cases, like a psionic effect that targets your mind: it's not something that can "miss," so the Defender gets a Wisdom save (or something), rather than having the attacker roll an attack roll. Swarms work good under this style, too: attack rolls? The bees ignore your waving sticks and pew pew lasers. Saving throws? It's super effective! I fill your zone with my whirling mace of dooooom and squish you all at once.

How is this different from what D&D has always done (excepting 4th)?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hahaha, two consecutive posts, one accusing me of being exactly like 4e, the other accusing me of doing nothing different (unlike 4e). I'm pretty sure I'm doing something right if everyone sees what they want to see in it.

It's not remarkably different. It's not supposed to be. Mostly, it's just a little more consistent (that attack shoot a ray? It's an attack roll. That attack fill an area? It's a saving throw).That's why it's for D&D: it's made to slot fairly seamlessly into a D&D game of nearly any edition with subtle improvements. If it's both really similar to other e's, and really similar to 4e, I think we may be on to something.

 

[Dragoslav]

His statement was that the reason he didn't like 4e attacks vs. defenses, even though they are technically the same as 3e saves, was that with 3e he "felt" that he had power over the outcome of the save. His character had "a say." He "felt" that it was "defensive" to roll your defense.

The math was exactly the same, but that change of focus to attacker rolls he did not like. It was a very interesting conversation, and I learned something new that day.

Reading the previous posts in this thread on the subject left it on my mind during my group's game tonight. We happened to be fighting creatures that only targeted Reflex (on attacks, OAs, and when exploding upon death). It DID strike me as odd that every time I killed a creature next to me, its explosion "attacked" me. Even though I, naturally, roleplayed it as jumping out of the way, it "felt" more like I was just standing there and that the explosion "missed" me.

That said, I think I still prefer 4e's static defenses for how streamlined it is, but I'm not opposed to saving throws, either.

 

[Li Shenron]

There is also the third alternative: everyone rolls. Much more swingy, though.

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".