Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 4846765" data-attributes="member: 11821">Well before 4e, I was considering changing 3e to an &quot;Actor Rolls&quot; system.&nbsp; So, your saves would become static defense scores, just like your AC.&nbsp; I like the simplicity of this system, in that it's always the character/monster doing things who's rolling dice.&nbsp; About the only awkwardness here was that I didn't want to roll attacks for poisons and traps - but I've gotten over that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Now, I also kind of dig Unisystem's &quot;Players Roll&quot; system.&nbsp; I'm not 100% sold on it, but that might just be because I haven't used it enough yet.So yeah, mathematically it's all identical so long as you give some thought to how ties are resolved, and so long as you reverse the criticals when necessary.&nbsp; If, that is, you want to keep the probabilities the same.For example, let's say a character's AC is 15.&nbsp; A monster has an attack bonus of +5.&nbsp; They therefore need to roll a 10 or better to hit - which gives them a 55% chance of striking.If you want to change this around to a player-rolls model, the monster's attack score becomes 15.&nbsp; The character needs to roll a d20 + their &quot;AC Bonus&quot; to dodge.&nbsp; If you just subtract 10, this gives them an AC bonus of +5, meaning they'd need to roll a 10 or better to dodge - or a 55% chance the monster will miss.&nbsp; This swings the probability by 10% from the other way around.For this to work, and to keep the math the same, you'd need to subtract 11 from all the static scores instead of 10; or else add 11 to a monster's attack score instead of 10.&nbsp; The alternative is to declare that ties fail on a dodge, but I think that would get overly complicated.Also, imporantly, a 20 on a dodge roll does nothing, while a 1 on a dodge roll means the monster crits.&nbsp; It's another difference to remember, but certainly possible.-O</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Obryn, post: 4846765, member: 11821"] Well before 4e, I was considering changing 3e to an "Actor Rolls" system. So, your saves would become static defense scores, just like your AC. I like the simplicity of this system, in that it's always the character/monster doing things who's rolling dice. About the only awkwardness here was that I didn't want to roll attacks for poisons and traps - but I've gotten over that. :) Now, I also kind of dig Unisystem's "Players Roll" system. I'm not 100% sold on it, but that might just be because I haven't used it enough yet. So yeah, mathematically it's all identical so long as you give some thought to how ties are resolved, and so long as you reverse the criticals when necessary. If, that is, you want to keep the probabilities the same. For example, let's say a character's AC is 15. A monster has an attack bonus of +5. They therefore need to roll a 10 or better to hit - which gives them a 55% chance of striking. If you want to change this around to a player-rolls model, the monster's attack score becomes 15. The character needs to roll a d20 + their "AC Bonus" to dodge. If you just subtract 10, this gives them an AC bonus of +5, meaning they'd need to roll a 10 or better to dodge - or a 55% chance the monster will miss. This swings the probability by 10% from the other way around. For this to work, and to keep the math the same, you'd need to subtract 11 from all the static scores instead of 10; or else add 11 to a monster's attack score instead of 10. The alternative is to declare that ties [I]fail[/I] on a dodge, but I think that would get overly complicated. Also, imporantly, a 20 on a dodge roll does nothing, while a 1 on a dodge roll means the monster crits. It's another difference to remember, but certainly possible. -O [/QUOTE]

Verification