"Flipping" saves to attacks

[blargney the second]

I'll probably end up switching it to players roll all the dice (a la UA) anyways. Easy peasy.
-blarg

 

[Scribble]

By the rules as written, 5 percent of all hits are critical hits. If a natural 20 is always a critical hit, then 5 percent of all attacks are critical hits -- which (a) leads to a larger number of critical hits, and (b) means that cannon fodder score a higher proportion of critical hits than skilled warriors.

You still have confirms for anything that isn't a natural 20. So anything with an increased threat range, or a feat that increases threat range, accounts for the "skilled warriors."

 

[DonTadow]

Umm, I confirmed crits along with everyone I know. I liked confirming them as they fixed the problem with crits in 2nd edition: Everyone was deathly afraid of 20 1st level fighters because on average one of them would hit each round and it would be for double damage.

Most people in my second edition group couldn't figure out why people who could barely hit them at all were doing double damage every time they DID hit them. And that was back when you only doubled the dice themselves and not all the bonuses. Of course most DMs I played with in 2nd edition were using critical hit tables and chopping on limbs and heads when they critted. In 3E, a 1st level half orc barbarian with a great axe would have a 1 in 20 chance of doing nearly 50 damage each round to someone with an AC of 28+ if crits automatically confirm vs the 16 or so they'd do without the confirmation.

It kind of sucks to be the 12th level wizard with 40 hit points when your DM decides that a number of 1st level barbarians would be easy for your party and drops you dead in one hit even though you have shield, greater mage armor, and an amulet of natural armor +3 and an 18 dex.

I admit that not confirming crits IS a lot faster and I DO miss some of the speed of 2nd edition, but the fix WAS put into place to fix a problem. If they come up with a different fix for this problem, then I don't mind.

So add this house rule, crits auto hit only if they naturally hit the ac. If the 20 does not hit my pcs get a crit card (paizo's crit deck) they can use when they crit in another encounter.

 

[DonTadow]

You still have confirms for anything that isn't a natural 20. So anything with an increased threat range, or a feat that increases threat range, accounts for the "skilled warriors."

The advanced GM handbook is a great book. In it Skip does a nice little math comparsion where he lowers all weapon's crit damage by one multiplier and eleminates a confirmation roll. Math is nearly identical as far as per damage per average encounter.

 

[Grog]

Honestly, this is the first 4E change I've heard that I'm not wild about. I don't like the idea of my spell having zero effect on any of the six monsters I blasted with it just because I rolled a 1. It really seems too all-or-nothing to me.

 

[mmadsen]

I admit that not confirming crits IS a lot faster and I DO miss some of the speed of 2nd edition, but the fix WAS put into place to fix a problem. If they come up with a different fix for this problem, then I don't mind.

I think we need to look at the design goals for critical hits. I think there are two. First, we want to model something important in both real and fictional fights -- the well-placed blow. Look at how many important and powerful enemies are taken down by one or two well-placed shots in Tolkien, etc. Second, we want to provide a bit of a slot-machine reward for the players, who enjoy delivering a critical once in a while far more than they'd enjoy delivering slightly higher average damage with less variability.

I think we could probably hit those goals in number of ways, often without a specific "critical hit" mechanic -- for instance, converting characters' damage bonuses to larger damage dice, using "exploding" dice, etc.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The biggest advatages to 'flipping' saves are...
1. It makes resolving area and other multi-target attacks (in SWSE, you're basically thinking grenades, autofire, and some Force powers) somewhat faster, because you only have to roll one attack roll and then compare it to everyone's defenses.

That's more than a little specious, since it's functionally equivalent to giving all the targets one saving throw as a group.

At least one player in my game HATES it when I roll "batch" saves, and I'm sure he'll hate it when he has to start rolling "batch" attacks.

All or nothing is fine for All Power Attack, All The Time, but not so great for spellcasters.

Of course, if spellcasters are as free to cast spells as half-orcs are to swing for the fences, it should work itself out just fine.

To put it another way, the closer that 4e brings spellcasting to an analog of a martial attack, the less impactful this change will feel.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Will this make some combats anti-climactic?

The wizards wins initiative, casts a fireball (assuming there are analogs to current fireball in the game) and his spell attack roll exceeds the horde of attackers' defense. All of them crisp and die. Fighter, cleric, and rogue look on in boredom.

With individual saves, there's at least a chance of some leakers to challenge the group. Or do you just throw more bad guys at the party so they can't get over with one spell?

 

[mmadsen]

Will this make some combats anti-climactic?

Yes, I think using one roll for an entire group's save -- or inverse-save -- would lead to anti-climactic and odd combats. Of course, it's easy to fix; just roll one attack per victim.

 

[F4NBOY]

And it means that when you fireball a horde of identical mooks, they'll either all succeed or all fail.

Ah, that's something I hadn't considered. Not as "real" as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, rolling a dozen reflex saves ... not quick/easy.

I thought the same when I first heard about the Saga "saving throws", but then I changed my mind.
I think that it is "unreal" not because of the flipped mechanics, but because "identical mooks" is something "unreal". We use it for sakes of simplicty, so if there are 10 orcs, it easier to roll 10 saving throws with the same Reflex modifier.
But if we go "realistic" not all orcs should have the same Dexterity score.
It doesn't solve the problem, but it's just an insight.

As a personal taste, I don't think it to be anti-climatic that all orcs saves or all orcs fail. I just consider that the caster can efficiently cast his spell or not.