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

[Astrosicebear]

New blog Article Wizards Like to Roll Dice examining the relationship between combat fighters and spellcasters when it comes to actually rolling dice on the table. Some polls show some very strong feelings about the issues.

 

[Halivar]

In 4th Edition, this problem was fixed by making everything an attack against a particular defense. But in doing so, it took away the idea of saving throws as something you roll, which is something pretty integral to the game.

IMHO, changing magic to be attacks vs. static defenses was one of the best changes they made for 4E, and I am extremely disappointed that they chose to back to a boring, no-roll magic system. There is nothing more anticlimactic than having a spell fail, and not even because of your dice.

 

[Sunseeker]

IMHO, changing magic to be attacks vs. static defenses was one of the best changes they made for 4E, and I am extremely disappointed that they chose to back to a boring, no-roll magic system. There is nothing more anticlimactic than having a spell fail, and not even because of your dice.

The thing I never liked about saving throws was how darn confusing they often were.
EX: NPC casts X against me.
"Well what's my DC against his attack?" I ask.
"Well roll and see."
*I roll* "Did I make it?"
"*answer*"

Attacks against specific defenses was clear and clean cut, either you hit, or you didn't. Spell DCs were confusing, sometimes they were higher, sometimes they were lower, casting "charm person" as an attack against my will made sense. I didn't have to attempt to save against it, I just knew if I was or was not charmed.

Not to mention, spell saves and rolling saves in general, makes for a lot of work, especially on the DMs side, as he's running half a dozen critters that all may have different saves against all kinds of spells with different saves.

EDIT: also, that last poll question, how do you give a straight answer to that?

 

[howandwhy99]

Saving Throws were a rejection of Attack roll "Be hit and die, you just take it either way".

Instead of an all or nothing result from an attack Saving Throws allowed degrees of success (without a second roll like for damage).

The biggest reason for Saving Throws was they could cover a mass amount of creatures without a single effect (like a spell) wiping the entirety out with one roll. Die rolls added in variability and chance, but averages could still be balanced. Fireballs are "about this damaging" to every person in the area of effect strongly defined.

Saving Throws also put the dice back in the player's hands when it comes to the more nasty stuff, which typically are condition effects (again, often from spells). Damage could be soaked, conditions couldn't be. So having the roll in your hands felt a lot better than not having it.

EDIT: And yes, with Saving Throw target numbers on your sheet you knew what you needed to succeed. Unless of course the caster was using some magic to make it even harder. :evil:

 

[TwinBahamut]

Making every offensive action an attack against a defense was one of the good ideas of 4E. Having weapon attack be attack rolls and magic attacks be saving throws was just a weird idea in the first place. Preserving that inconsistency out of nostalgia is pointless.

Keeping the saving throw around in various forms is fine, but there is no need to keep the artificial weapon/magic split in how combat works.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I didn't see in those polls the option to say that single target stuff (whether weapon or spell) should require a mechancially consistent target roll. However area effects are different enough, and have separate enough needs, that a different mechanical option for them woudn't hurt. Traditional saving throws could be used for the latter.

Of course, I don't guess they would go with the Hero System solution of requiring an attack roll to target the origin point of an area effect, and then allow the poor saps caught in it to make a decision by trying to block, shrug off the effect, or "dive for cover". If you really want to see wizard and fighters sweat the rolls and feel like they matter, let the wizard misplace his fireball slightly and then let the fighter decide what to do about it.

 

[Sammael]

Opposed rolls is great. People love rolling dice, they feel like they're in control more that way (even if that's really not the case).

I'd also abolish AC in favor of a Defense roll, but that sacred cow is not going to the slaughterhouse any time soon, I'm sure.

 

[GSHamster]

Opposed rolls is great. People love rolling dice, they feel like they're in control more that way (even if that's really not the case).

I'd also abolish AC in favor of a Defense roll, but that sacred cow is not going to the slaughterhouse any time soon, I'm sure.

We could compromise. Everything is an opposed roll, but the DM can take 10 to speed everything up.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

This blog just goes to show Monte Cook knows absolutely nothing about 4E if he thinks it did not have have saving throws that you roll. I am pretty sure he shouldn't be allowed to mention 4E in any of his blogs anymore.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Making every offensive action an attack against a defense was one of the good ideas of 4E. Having weapon attack be attack rolls and magic attacks be saving throws was just a weird idea in the first place. Preserving that inconsistency out of nostalgia is pointless.

Keeping the saving throw around in various forms is fine, but there is no need to keep the artificial weapon/magic split in how combat works.

I think it's another psychological element. Some players don't like being told "you get hit with fear and run away" without being at least able to try to resist. Even if the resistance was their Will Defense. The roll is more powerful for them.

Back in 2e I had a character who got turned by a high-level cleric, and I remember being vaguely upset that I couldn't roll something to resist the effect.