Having PCs roll "Defenses" rather than the DM rolling "Attacks"

[DragoonLance]

This looks like a great idea for my group, as I was burnt out on running GURPS and pulled them to 4e (some minor kicking and screaming involved.)
One of the few complaints about 4e so far is that they don't get to roll for defense like they are used to. This mod would allow the players to still feel like they are being active (a few of them can't wrap their heads around static defense numbers) and the concept of critical failures are something GURPS players are used to anyway.

 

[Garthanos]

What people are used to can have some impact.

Always rolling to see how their defense went and always rolling to see how well their offense went is a consistancy. Everybody then gives lead in style descriptions on there attacks.... and finishing descriptions on the defense. DM and Player alike. For players the dice lend to the illusion of control and draw there attention to the action low rolls and high rolls are memorable etc.

I think the DM giving up that touch of narrative control to allow the players to show awesomeness in how their character is able to avoid being trashed when attacked (that is what hit point loss normally describes) is appropriate.

I suspect that if they release an Unearthed Arcana for 4e it will see the light of day....
(right alongside additional rules for power reuse and wounds) because yes it can be fun.

 

[Mengu]

There is no more need to tell them the target numbers with this approach than any other.

"The Ogre turns to face you, swinging the head of his gruesome axe up and over and down upon you with a horrendous shout. You may be able to get out of the way... but odds are, he's going to leave a bruise. Defend with AC."

My concern is, that they see the number they rolled. When they roll a 5 for defense, and I say they manage to dodge, this immediately tells them they are not fighting a significant foe. Similarly, on a first attack, if they roll a 15 for defense, and I tell them they are still hit, they suddenly would start looking through their daily powers. Keeping the rolls behind the screen keeps this knowledge hidden from them, at least for a little while to keep the players guessing.

 

[Mort_Q]

I actually like that a player can figure it out. A PC is trained in combat, and should have some ability to judge the threat level of an opponent.

I don't want to make it skill challenge mind you, but I have toyed with the idea of having insight checks with bonuses based on relevant experience with power sources... but that got too complicated too quickly to be interesting.

The player being able to figure out the number gives the player the sense of threat better than the description gives the player the same sense of threat.

It's too easy for the player to be fearless, even when the PC should be afraid.

This comes down to taste I guess, just like whether or not you tell the players who the minions are.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, hiding how easily something hits them isn't what I'd consider optimal play anyways. It does seem like this would work far better with reactive powers - you're told to make the attack check, you can decide then and there whether to use your reaction or interrupt, rather than 'oh, and I do this' later on.

I think I'd be very interested in seeing how this runs along with a standardized damage.

 

[Mort_Q]

I think I'd be very interested in seeing how this runs along with a standardized damage.

What did you have in mind for standardized damage? Just like minions?

The tiny evil simulationist in me wants to do damage based on how much they missed their defense roll by... but that's more work still...

I'm not opposed in general to standardized damage, but I'd like some range. Low, Med, or High?

 

[Garthanos]

What did you have in mind for standardized damage? Just like minions?

The tiny evil simulationist in me wants to do damage based on how much they missed their defense roll by... but that's more work still...

I'm not opposed in general to standardized damage, but I'd like some range. Low, Med, or High?

My simulationist screamed to the surface... and whispered something about +1 damage per two they missed by before I ran.

 

[keterys]

For example... an adult green dragon (level 12 solo)

might turn into:
Bite: DC 29 AC, 12 damage and ongoing 15 poison (save ends)
Claw: DC 29 AC, 10 damage
Tail Sweep: DC 27 Reflex, 10 damage and prone
Luring Glare: DC 27 Will, slide 2 squares
Breath Weapon: DC 27 Fort, 10 poison and ongoing 5 poison (etc)
I rounded to nearest even number (so up on bite, down on rest) but I'd probably consider doing more '+X damage at bloodied' type things in this circumstance. Anyhow, seems simple enough and would potentially be as speedy as me rolling.

Edit: And crits would be double that damage, in case I didn't say it earlier. If I were doing a difference in damage by amount they missed by, I'd be more tempted to make it only a single trigger for being hit by 5 or more, of say 50% more.

 

[Nellisir]

My concern is, that they see the number they rolled. When they roll a 5 for defense, and I say they manage to dodge, this immediately tells them they are not fighting a significant foe. Similarly, on a first attack, if they roll a 15 for defense, and I tell them they are still hit, they suddenly would start looking through their daily powers. Keeping the rolls behind the screen keeps this knowledge hidden from them, at least for a little while to keep the players guessing.

Emphasis on "a little while". I had one player in several campaigns who was brilliant with numbers, would pretty much always figure out the AC after one round of combat. It just wasn't worth trying to hide it.

Anyways, you can always change the AC, just like you can now. Or mess with the damage. Or change any number of other factors. You are still the DM. You are still in control of the game.

My experience, in play, was that the players paid much greater attention to the game, were less likely to disengage and go on a fridge run, and were significantly more involved in general. Well worth giving up the "mystery" of a number that was revealed after a single round anyways.

 

[Garthanos]

My experience, in play, was that the players paid much greater attention to the game, were less likely to disengage and go on a fridge run, and were significantly more involved in general. Well worth giving up the "mystery" of a number that was revealed after a single round anyways.

Aye and back in the day a big attraction for some "other" games was weirdly parry and/or dodge rolls that made one feel active in ones characters defense..