Spellcasting.
Well, speaking about dice and probability, would you want to use some manner of spell system where the spellcaster rolls to see how well her spells work, instead of having the target roll to see how well he can avoid being affected?
Statistically, what's the difference between
- A--Target Oriented: Mialee casts a Lightning Bolt, Ref DC 16 (+3 level, +3 Int bonus) at two foes standing in a line. Yrinthraxis the dark Elf makes a Reflex save, adding his +6 bonus, and Wulf Ratbane makes a Reflex save, adding his +2 bonus.
- B--Caster Oriented: Mialee casts a Lightning Bolt, and must succeed a check in order to affect Yrinthraxis. The DC is the base of 10. She adds +6 to her roll (+3 level, +3 Int). Then, Wulf and Yrinthraxis both subtract their Ref save bonuses from her roll. If after this modification, the roll is under 10, the spell only does half damage to that villain.
I know it might be bad to have only one roll to affect a large group of people with different Reflex save bonuses, but at least then it's only one die roll and a little checking instead of a lot of dice rolling.
In version B above, say that Mialee rolls a 9, then adds her +6 modifier to get a 15. Then, against Yrinthraxis, this becomes +9 (a failure), whereas against Wulf it becomes +13 (a success). Wulf takes full damage, and the dark Elf does bullet-time style movement to avoid most of the electricity.
I know that subtracting modifiers runs a little against grain for 3e, but at least this version is more active for the spellcaster. Fighters get to roll to hit and damage. Rogues get to roll to hit and damage. But spellcasters only roll for damage usually. It's not as active.
I think....)
