Opposed Rolls?

[tlantl]

It does take time, but only if used ALL THE TIME.
I can some situations where it would come in handy, obvious ones like arcane duels and stealth, but also something that occurred frequently when I DM for new players:

"the goblin shoots a dagger in your direction"
As DM roll the dice, the player screams: "I dodge!" or "I raise my shield!".
Then comes the part where I have to explain you don't choose to defend, which makes sense, but takes away some magic of roleplaying combat...

Not saying this should be the norm in combat encounters, just that it would be nice to have as an alternative...

In a situation where a player doesn't understand the mechanics and they try something like dodging you don't tell them no. You go with it. If the roll indicates a miss then you tell them that they dodge the attack, or that although they tried to block with the shield but you were too slow and the attack drew blood.

Eventually they come to understand how things really work but if you take away their fun in the beginning they feel disappointed or useless and their opinion of the game is lessened.

Opposed rolls are all fine and dandy if you feel that they add to the experience. I'd have to see how they work in practice before making a decision.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't mind opposed rolls. Both people should be able to roll and add at the same time, and it shouldn't take any longer than rolling one die at a time while everyone else sits around and watches.

That said, the idea was suggested at least in part to placate people who want the 4e approach of having the attacker roll and (essentially) eliminating the saving throw. Saving throws are important and should not be lost, which means that you either need to go back to the (perfectly fine) 3e approach where attackers roll attacks and saves are rolled by the defender, or roll both sides for everything.

 

[Hassassin]

Basically "no", but I answered "maybe" because I don't mind if some powerful and rare abilities use them. As long as 90% of stuff doesn't need more than 1-2 rolls (attack/save and damage), it's fine.

 

[Minigiant]

Outside of:
mage vs mage counterspell duels
rogue vs rogue assassination fights
or
face vs face debates;

I dont want to see opposed rolls.

 

[Stoat]

No.

1. As noted above, they take a little longer in play.

2. The probabilities for opposed rolls are different than the probabilities for 1d20 v. static modifier, in ways that I don't find intuitive.

 

[malkav666]

They sound odd to me but I am willing to give them a more serious look when the playtest is released. It seems more simulationist as both the attacker and the defender get a chance to show their skill.

I wonder if defenders can get a critical success. That would be kind of neat to defend very well and get some kind of situation bonus. But like I said I don't like or dislike the idea as of yet, would like to see the fine print.

love,

malkav

 

[Mishihari Lord]

No to opposed rolls. Mathwise it's just a 2d20 triangular probability distribution. Nothing special. Workwise it's twice as much work.

I'd be more in favor of a system where the player always rolls. DM static attack vs player randomized defense, and player randomized attack vs DM static defense. It's the same as the system now mathwise, and it reduces the DM's workload. The DM has enough to do already.

 

[billd91]

I wouldn't rule out all potential options for making opposed rolls in combat, but I would certainly discourage them for frequently rolled stuff. Pathfinder saw opposed rolls as taking too long in combat maneuvers like bull rush and grapple so they came up with the Combat Maneuver Bonus and Defense. And I think they streamlined the game nicely in those situations.

I even get rid of most opposed rolls in with skill checks for my players. I simply assume that the NPC they're opposing takes a 10 on all of his relevant checks. Then I can have his end results on his stat block as difficulties for the PCs to beat. I haven't told them about this yet. Maybe I should because they might find it less advantageous to heavily invest in some of those skills when more modest investment may be enough.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't like opposed rolls in general because they aren't as interesting:

A wins or B wins.

When you are both rolling against a DC you can get more results:

A wins, B fails
A fails, B wins
A wins, B wins
A fails, B fails

Sometimes you need to use opposed rolls but I find those instances are rare.

 

[Rhenny]

One of the positives for giving PCs opposed rolls is that it involve the PCs actively when they are being attacked. A lot of times, players zone out right after they make their attacks, and then wait for minutes before they can act again. This makes it feel as if the game is moving more slowly. If attacks kind of jolt players into action it will make it seem like action is moving faster.

I agree with many other posters that the active defense should be one roll, not multiple rolls and AC/Hit points need to be lower if a number of potential blows are turned by active defenses.

I believe in the old Star Wars d6 RPG that was mentioned earlier, a dodge (or defense roll) actually cost a move or standard action. If the PC didn't have one available, he or she could not use the defense. This is something that should be examined. Is it necessary to make the active defense or dodge roll be an action, or is it automatic? Can it be used vs. only 1 attack, or can it be used vs. more attacks per round? This begins to open up a can of worms.