D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - Wizards Like to Roll Dice Too

[Mercule]

Either way works for me. One thing I'd like to see, though, is that many spells have an assumed effect and the die roll is just there to see if the target got lucky.

Take fireball, for example. Most players assume fireball does 10d6 damage, at 10th level. In practice, it doesn't. It does 5d6 damage to about half the targets, depending on circumstances. You can do some math to get an average of 7d6, or so. I like that the PCs get a chance to dodge the evil warlock's strike, but it shouldn't be as reliable as it is in 3e/4e. It's been a long time since I played 1/2e, but I recall the acrobat's "bite me" dodge as a pretty amazing and uncommon thing.

I don't want to take away the chance of avoiding damage (especially for save or die/suck effects) or even turn it into a long shot. I just don't want it to be the coin flip I've seen in my current 3e game. For that reason, I think I come down more on the side of having saves -- they're easier to stack in the wizard's favor.

Also, I find the wizard attacking a defense to be more aesthetically pleasing for single target attacks, but a bit of a misfit for area affect spells. Since things like charm, hold, and finger of death (SoD/S) are more likely to be targeted, maybe that's a good way to split it.

How does this sound? Keep the 4e defenses and use them against most targeted effects. Targeted effects would generally fall into one of two categories: 1) heavy-duty effects that tend to take an opponent out, but are expendable (Vancian); 2) level appropriate damaging effects that are not expendable (4E at-will/encounter and 3E reserve feats) and don't tick off the wizard player if they miss.

For area effect spells, like fireball, the spell and/or caster level sets a skill level, as per the musings in Legends and Lore (master, novice, et al.). Have skills analogous to classic saving throws. So, if the standard fireball creates a journeyman effect/hazard, the cleric who has neglected her reflex skill takes it in the face. The rogue has been maxing it and his mastery allows him to automatically halve the damage and roll to completely evade. Finally, the fighter has put a couple spare points into Reflex and, being a journeyman himself, has to roll a 15 or better to halve the damage.

If the skill system is appropriately balanced, it should be a real choice on whether to advance a save or another skill. I would also assume there will still be in-class and out-of-class skills.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Noooo. A wizard points, says the words and it happens. Then we go straight to damage.
I like playing wizard, I like rolling dice, but when I play wizard I like to dictate.

 

[KidSnide]

I think spellcasters should roll to hit for most spells -- particularly those spells where the spellcaster is trying to, well, physically hit the target with a magical effect.

Saving throws should be reserved as a mechanic where the target breaks free of the effect. Charms that wear off over time should allow saving throws at specified moments (e.g. every round if the target's allies are under attack by the charing character; every day if there is no immediate conflict). Similarly, death and petrification style magic could allow a saving throw to avoid the nasty side effect, but that should be limited to a small number of spells that are intrinsically a "big deal."

Set the DC with one roll and have the target make another? That's a terrible standard mechanic. What? Are we actively trying to slow down combat?

-KS

 

[Oldtimer]

Opposed rolls are less swingy.

If you mean (A+ d20) vs (B + d20).

This is incorrect. The standard deviation of 1d20 is 5.916 and the standard deviation of 2d20 (or 1d20 - 1d20) is 8.165. Opposed rolls have a higher standard deviation, so I would call them more swingy. They also eat up more time at the table.

 

[Kynn]

It started when he said some things about 4e in L&L that were obviously false. One of them certainly could have been a joke, IMHO...

Didn't Monte invent Passive Perception in an L&L column?

 

[The Shadow]

This is incorrect. The standard deviation of 1d20 is 5.916 and the standard deviation of 2d20 (or 1d20 - 1d20) is 8.165. Opposed rolls have a higher standard deviation, so I would call them more swingy. They also eat up more time at the table.

Yes. I think what Anselyn was saying is that the middle results become more probable, which is of course true. But the spread is bigger overall.

I also don't think opposed rolls slow things down much if at all. Two people add their roll to their modifier and you see which one's bigger - what's so slow about it?

 

[GM Dave]

My view on Wizard spells is based on play value at the table.

1> A player that gets Fireball as a spell is 'stoked' to use it. They may only get one opportunity to shine that night and they intend Fireball to be that shining moment.

2> Okay, so now they roll the damage and it is say, 5d6 (first level in 3e and earlier for fireball). The damage could be 5 or it could be 30; either roll is like a critical fumble or hit. Let us look at what happens if we then impose an additional 'saving throw' on top of that damage roll.

2 i> If the player has rolled 5 for damage then if someone then makes or fails a saving throw it is no real difference. The saving throw really is just a 'kick in the teeth' as it take the miserable 5 damage and cuts it to 2. The roll of 5 damage is already a 'fumble' and the saving throw adds nothing to the play of the game but suck up time (especially when you have a large number of targets under the effect).

2 ii> If the player has rolled 30 for damage then a saving throw is like rolling to confirm a critical. You got a lucky roll of five 6s and now you are going to have it taken away because most saving throws or defenses are built for 'maximized' characters having a 50% chance of success. The lucky roll of dice turning up five 6s will now be reduced on a flip of a coin. This again becomes another 'kick in the teeth'.

3> If Fireball is going to be the big moment to shine for the wizard then let them shine. The rolling of the damage is enough of a hoop to leap through without having to leap a second hoop that only is going to take away from the main event which is the rolling of the damage dice.

 

[The Shadow]

3> If Fireball is going to be the big moment to shine for the wizard then let them shine. The rolling of the damage is enough of a hoop to leap through without having to leap a second hoop that only is going to take away from the main event which is the rolling of the damage dice.

What you say is both true and proper. However, I have one powerful misgiving:

Does the same apply when the NPC wizard casts Fireball at the PC's?

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

This is incorrect. The standard deviation of 1d20 is 5.916 and the standard deviation of 2d20 (or 1d20 - 1d20) is 8.165. Opposed rolls have a higher standard deviation, so I would call them more swingy. They also eat up more time at the table.

Except we're not actually dealing with the size of the difference.

If we were talking about damage, sure.

But we're not. We're only talking about the sign of the difference (ie is my roll minus your roll positive or not?)

In that case, the distribution is symmetrical and the variability doesn't matter.

That's even if you can really talk about the standard deviation of a 1d20. That's only supposed to be used when the distribution in question approximates a normal curve, which 1d20 defnitely doesn't, and 2d20, while better, doesn't really fit that curve either.

 

[Mercule]

What you say is both true and proper. However, I have one powerful misgiving:

Does the same apply when the NPC wizard casts Fireball at the PC's?

It does, for me. There are many time the big, bad necromancer/pyromancer/othermancer has gotten the drop on the PCs, wins initiative, and has time to cast one meaningful spell before the fighters close and attempt to have their way with him. IME, more often than not, the wizard botches his attack role or the PCs all make their saves. It's probably somewhat selective memory, but, over nearly 30 years of gaming, I can only think of one time the caster pulled off what he needed to. I can recall a half-dozen times where the caster spent round two trying to regain the advantage and round three bleeding out. Round one should bloody well count.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

This is incorrect. The standard deviation of 1d20 is 5.916 and the standard deviation of 2d20 (or 1d20 - 1d20) is 8.165. Opposed rolls have a higher standard deviation, so I would call them more swingy. They also eat up more time at the table.

Also, you're not comparing apples to oranges here.

Sure, the 'standard deviation' that you calculate for 1d20-1d20 is higher...but the range of values is also higher. 1d20 only goes from 1 to 20. 1d20-1d20 can go from -19 to +21.

 

[The Shadow]

Hey - sudden thought I just had. (Partly inspired by ArcaneSpringboard pointing out we don't care about the size of the difference in the opposed rolls.)

What if we did care? What if this is the way out of the Save-or-Die and Save-or-Suck dilemma?

"In order to turn someone to stone, you have to beat their roll by X. If you don't, they are only slowed. If already slowed, you only have to beat their roll by Y."

This is sort of how M&M 2e does things (only there it's just a save, not an opposed roll) and it works pretty darn well. Typically a Save-or-Suck power has three tiers of effect; one when they fail by 0-4, one when they fail by 5-9, and true suckage when they fail by 10 or more. If they've got the first tier of effect already, the other two get bumped down by 5, and so on.

M&M 3e combined (almost) all such powers into a new Afflict framework that let you pick the three tiers to taste, and that also works well.

Use the 5e opposed roll the same way, and things could perhaps get quite interesting...

 

[the Jester]

How about all rolls (including attack rolls) are player-facing?

Meaning the players roll all the dice, always, and the DM never does. The DM always takes 10 on the roll.

Player A casts fireball. The monsters' defenses are 16 -- player A rolls 1d20 + something vs. the 16 DC.

Player B gets attacked by a lightning bolt. The monster's spell power is +7, taking 10 is a 17. Player B has to make a Dexterity check that beats 17.

Hell no! I'm the dm and I want to roll dice too!

 

[Libramarian]

Mechanical resolution is ultimately abstract and gamist, not something that matters 'within the story.' You'd never talk IC about any mechanical difference between saving throws and attack rolls, for instance, so having differences for the sake of difference is pointless.

No way.

The story doesn't matter on its own. It's the meaning of the story that matters, and that's constantly in a dialogue with the psychologies of the players.

The symbols and procedures involved in mechanical resolution have meaning that can be consonant or dissonant with the gameworld fiction. It's something that should be considered.

 

[GM Dave]

It does, for me. There are many time the big, bad necromancer/pyromancer/othermancer has gotten the drop on the PCs, wins initiative, and has time to cast one meaningful spell before the fighters close and attempt to have their way with him. IME, more often than not, the wizard botches his attack role or the PCs all make their saves. It's probably somewhat selective memory, but, over nearly 30 years of gaming, I can only think of one time the caster pulled off what he needed to. I can recall a half-dozen times where the caster spent round two trying to regain the advantage and round three bleeding out. Round one should bloody well count.

I agree, let the attack do what it is going to do.

This goes for fireballs by NPC wizards and dragon breath by dragons.

Let the damage roll determine if the attack was 'on target' or the players caught a lucky break or were in the center of the flames.

Thieves and monks might get a class feature to reduce the damage like the opponent has to roll the damage dice twice and they get hit by the lower of the two totals.

It is fast and simple for players and GM to use and apply.

 

[GM Dave]

Hey - sudden thought I just had. (Partly inspired by ArcaneSpringboard pointing out we don't care about the size of the difference in the opposed rolls.)

What if we did care? What if this is the way out of the Save-or-Die and Save-or-Suck dilemma?

"In order to turn someone to stone, you have to beat their roll by X. If you don't, they are only slowed. If already slowed, you only have to beat their roll by Y."

This is sort of how M&M 2e does things (only there it's just a save, not an opposed roll) and it works pretty darn well. Typically a Save-or-Suck power has three tiers of effect; one when they fail by 0-4, one when they fail by 5-9, and true suckage when they fail by 10 or more. If they've got the first tier of effect already, the other two get bumped down by 5, and so on.

M&M 3e combined (almost) all such powers into a new Afflict framework that let you pick the three tiers to taste, and that also works well.

Use the 5e opposed roll the same way, and things could perhaps get quite interesting...

I'm a fan of tier systems for these types of spells but I'd rather they apply their tiers over multiple rounds rather than one save/fail and result.

The one roll is faster but the multiple turns to final effect allows the intervention of healing, using magic, or simply killing the person inflicting the curse before it gets to the next step.

 

[Oldtimer]

Except we're not actually dealing with the size of the difference.

If we were talking about damage, sure.

But we're not. We're only talking about the sign of the difference (ie is my roll minus your roll positive or not?)

In that case, the distribution is symmetrical and the variability doesn't matter.

Well, I said that I would call them more swingy. Maybe you won't.

But it's incorrect that we only care about the sign of the difference of the rolls. We care about the sign of the difference of the results (roll + modifier). If the modifiers are different, this makes the standard deviation important.

Also, if the partioning of the rolls is entirely balanced (i.e. the fail/success divide is exactly on the statistical average), it doesn't really matter if you roll 1d20 or 100d20.

That's even if you can really talk about the standard deviation of a 1d20. That's only supposed to be used when the distribution in question approximates a normal curve, which 1d20 defnitely doesn't, and 2d20, while better, doesn't really fit that curve either.

Maybe we took different courses in statistics, but I've used standard deviation on values nowhere near a normal distribution.

 

[Falling Icicle]

One of the biggest advantages of 4e's roll vs static defense mechanic is that it allows all spells to not only miss, but to crit also. I like being able to crit with a fireball. In a system where the enemy rolls the reflex save, that doesn't happen. I'd also like to see a "crit" mechanic for non-damaging spells. This is an area of design space that static defenses makes possible and that I would like to see explored. For example, maybe a charm spell charms a monster on a hit, or dominates it on a crit. A sleep spell might slow on the first round, and put to sleep on the second, but a crit would put the target to sleep immediately. There are many possibilities.

Another thing I think is nice is that it gvies a certain degree of uniformity to the rules. Spells can still do fantastic things, but they still work in the same basic way that melee attacks do when it comes down to rolling to "hit." As for the player desire to roll saving throws, I get that. But is it really that big of a deal? Players don't roll their AC, even though that is just as important as saving throws. And as 4e demonstrated, you can use static defenses and still have rolled saving throws be a big part of the game.

So my vote is to do it the 4e way. Against save-or-suck effects, let the player roll to save on following rounds. That save doesn't need to be coin toss either, it can have a DC that is set by the caster. I think that gives the best of both worlds. Players still get to roll saves to break out of lasting effects, but the initial attack roll would be against static defenses.

 

[KidSnide]

So my vote is to do it the 4e way. Against save-or-suck effects, let the player roll to save on following rounds. That save doesn't need to be coin toss either, it can have a DC that is set by the caster. I think that gives the best of both worlds. Players still get to roll saves to break out of lasting effects, but the initial attack roll would be against static defenses.

I think the right solution is a modified version of the 3e approach. I would have wizards roll attacks when they are physically trying to hit the target with a magical blast or ray. This is similar to the melee and ranged touch attacks of 3e, except against better designed defenses. However, instead of making a minority of spells "attack" spells, make rolling to hit the standard procedure for damaging magic and Harry Potter style aimed curses.

Attacks that are resisted are appropriate for saving throws. This would mostly include unaimed AoE attacks plus traps (that really shouldn't have been rolling to hit in the first place). It would also include almost any lasting effects, whether or not the initial spell involved an attack roll. Lastly, particularly nasty-but-resistable attacks could involve a combination attack followed by a saving throw (much like the 3.5 Phantasmal Killer).

-KS

 

[Primal]

So my vote is to do it the 4e way. Against save-or-suck effects, let the player roll to save on following rounds. That save doesn't need to be coin toss either, it can have a DC that is set by the caster. I think that gives the best of both worlds. Players still get to roll saves to break out of lasting effects, but the initial attack roll would be against static defenses.

This; I think the ideal way would be an attack vs. 4E style defenses. For example, a paralyzing/petrifying attack might be vs. Fortitude; if it hits, you become dazed or slowed, but you still get to save at the end of your next round (Fort DC 18). It'd also be nice if not all saves were of the "save ends" type; just as with 4E diseases, I think it'd be cool if you could improve your condition (e.g. from paralyzed to slowed), if the effect has several "steps" (dazed/slowed/petrified, for example).