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

[KarinsDad]

Those poll questions are horribly worded. I can't tell what exactly I'm voting for or against. What kind of feedback are they possibly getting from those?

I voted "not sure" for most of them because they were too vague this time around. Just too many variables to vote one way or the other.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ask yourself this: if you swing a sword at a brick wall you're going to hit it. Why? Not because of your excellent skill but because the damn thing can't move. If you swing a sword at another person, you're only going to miss if they get out of the way, your skill only matters if they try to get out of the way. It makes more sense for the defender to roll than the attacker.

If you don't care where you hit the person or at what angle (or the brick wall either, for that matter), then you are correct. In practice, you do care. I'm assuming that even if you hit a brick wall, you'll probably need to hit it a few more times. After that first hit, you will definitely care. Ever split wood? The firewood doesn't move. It takes considerable practice to determine the best place to hit it, and then do that.

Not that this really matters for or against opposed rolls, as whether the defenses are static or rolled is irrelevant to the above.

 

[Andor]

I don't actually see a point to making it consistant. It's magic, it's supposed to be weird.

However from a game design standpoint I think 3 things.

1) It really sucks to play a class whose shtick is one moment of glory a day and then to lose that to a bad die roll. Your fireball should not be fumbleable, although a placement roll could be cool. A roll to set the fireballs save target number would also be fine. It should not really be both. The mage only gets one or two big spells a day. I hope. They should be cool.

2) If a wizards at will power is approaching parity with a fighters attack, then it should be no more reliable than the fighters attack. IE: A 1d8ish firebolt feat should require a to-hit roll and have the same 'fireing into melee' penalty as a bow would.

3) Magic missile. Frankly if the fighter is swinging 1d10+3 or so, then I don't see why the poor wizard can't have a never miss 1d4 per round.

 

[The Human Target]

Opposed roles are horrible. I'll not play another game like that if I can help it, especially in a game with multiple attacks. There's such a thing as too many dice being rolled.

I say bring back saving throws, they make more sense to me. I'd even be more favorable to AC as a save than opposed rolls or everything's an attack roll.

Ask yourself this: if you swing a sword at a brick wall you're going to hit it. Why? Not because of your excellent skill but because the damn thing can't move. If you swing a sword at another person, you're only going to miss if they get out of the way, your skill only matters if they try to get out of the way. It makes more sense for the defender to roll than the attacker.

But if you're a trained fighter, you'd know that the person was going to move and change your attack accordingly. So it would make more sense for the attacker to roll.

Its 6 of one, half dozen of the other type argument.

Both ways can be explained to make sense.

Its all about preference.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Static defenses? No. The author rather insultingly suggests that this is a traditionalist thing, but saving throws are important. Among other things, it's that little extra advantage for the non-caster.

Opposed rolls aren't bad. I wouldn't really object to them for nonmagical situations either.

 

[mkill]

One more vote for opposed rolls as default for magic and weapon attacks. Mooks (=minions) and other monsters can take 10 on attacks and defenses to speed things up. Opposed rolls are for solos, big bad NPCs, and other big fights where the players are at the edge of their seats and every move counts.

It's already in the d20 SRD, just make it standard.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

One more vote for opposed rolls as default for magic and weapon attacks. Mooks (=minions) and other monsters can take 10 on attacks and defenses to speed things up. Opposed rolls are for solos, big bad NPCs, and other big fights where the players are at the edge of their seats and every move counts.

It's already in the d20 SRD, just make it standard.

I agree, same mechanics to all.

 

[The Human Target]

One more vote for opposed rolls as default for magic and weapon attacks. Mooks (=minions) and other monsters can take 10 on attacks and defenses to speed things up. Opposed rolls are for solos, big bad NPCs, and other big fights where the players are at the edge of their seats and every move counts.

It's already in the d20 SRD, just make it standard.

I thought I would like doing that more than I ended up. Just because it can get a bit much.

One thing I did do in 3e that I liked a lot- the players roll all the dice variant. In which players roll attacks versus a static monster defense, and then the players also roll defense against a monster's static attack.

So the DM really doesn't have to roll much, which considering the poor streaks I get on sometimes worked out good for me.

 

[Kynn]

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.

 

[Kynn]

As someone that used to write surveys for a living, that might be the worst poll ever. I have no idea what I'm agreeing to or not. There are multiple options in one question. Horrible poll design. They better do a better job of game design!

Yeah, I really wish the polls were better written. I suspect they're just meant to be used internally to bolster whatever point Monte or someone else is trying to make, and thus waving around numbers like "47% of the players neither disagree with nor agree with this idea!" is just rhetorical cover for whatever they want it to say.