Opposed Rolls?

[YRUSirius]

Just let the players roll ALL their defenses (even AC -10) against static NPC attacks on the DM's side. Enough work for the DM already - and the players will feel more involved in the combat.

-YRUSirius

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

My RPG uses opposed rolls for attacks/ACvM (armor class versus melee). When someone attacks an NPC, I roll simultaneously with the player. It gets done just as quickly as one person rolling, so I've never understood the outcry against slowing things down.

Here's combat at my table now.

- - The three goblins attack Lee. Roll 3d20, add +5 - two of them hit.

Please feel free to supply the necessary counter-argument.

Then again, I wouldn't roll 3d30 if three goblins attacked without specifying which d20 was which goblin, as it's important to the players which goblin hit the PCs. So, if I'm specifying that for goblins, why not roll it that way for the player? 3d20 rolled, blue is goblin 1, green is goblin 2, red is goblin 3.

Anyways, I never really got the "it'll slow combat down" thing, but it is play style. I know my group cares about things that others don't, and vice versa. So, yeah. I don't get it, but it's mainly ignorance. As always, play what you like

 

[MortalPlague]

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.

Don't take away the DM's dice!

 

[Paraxis]

I ran the players roll all the dice option past my group a few years back because it sounded like a great idea to me, they hated it. The fact they would roll and fail to avoid being hit made them feel like it was their fault, things were worse if the bad gut got a critical on them.

I like the option of a parry/block/dodge mechanic like the duelist prestige class got in 3.5 that uses up your next swift/minor action so that you get one between your turns but not to turn every strike into opposed rolls.

 

[Baumi]

Just let the players roll ALL their defenses (even AC -10) against static NPC attacks on the DM's side. Enough work for the DM already - and the players will feel more involved in the combat.

-YRUSirius

This would be perfect. As a GM I have already much more to handle than the Players (multible Monsters, Rule Questions, Special Encounter Stuff,...) Everything the Players can do for me (like rolling Dice) would be great! But I don't think that they will change that in D&D..

Anyway I am against opposed Rolls, even when you can take 10 (players will never do that, also you would have to announce it before anyone rolls which might lead to arguments). Opposed Rolls not only make the game slower (two parties who have to roll and calculate) and it makes everything more random and might easily frustrate (I rolled a 19! Damn he still blocked it... ).

But in the end it is extremly easy to houserule anyway, you can easily to that in any D&D 3/4 game already, so it's not a big Deal.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I agree with the original poster -- opposed rolls don't speed things up. Stick with one roll.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'll tell you why I don't like opposed rolls: It's because I have terrible luck.

If I roll a 17, my players will roll a 19 and beat me. If they roll a 4, I'll roll a 3.

At least I can sometimes manage to hit a static defence.

 

[Dragonblade]

Opposed rolls all the way. You can always just take 10 if you don't want to roll, but I like rolling a lot. I always want to feel like I'm in control of what happens to my PC.

Since the defender and the attacker roll at the same time its no slower than a single roll system.

I played Palladium games for years. Everything from Palladium Fantasy to RIFTS. Its an opposed roll d20 system. It always played extremely fast. Our RIFTS combats were faster than even our 2e AD&D combats.

I use opposed rolls for all attacks, defenses, effects, and saves in my M&M 3e game, including a house rule for damage rolls vs. toughness rolls, and its still lightning quick. Much faster than our Pathfinder combats.

 

[Rhenny]

Maybe opposed roll could be linked to a special maneuver that a player has to choose to use. It would have to be an interrupt maneuver. Instead of having the total defense rule where player gets -2 AC for the round, he or she can roll a parry or dodge roll. This way the maneuver could be limited so that players don't use it every attack. But it could come in handy if a PC is hit or swarmed by a number of attackers.

The question is if this maneuver could be used once per encounter would hit points for PCs have to be adjusted so that combats do not turn into slog fests?

 

[SageMinerve]

IMO opposed rolls wouldn't add THAT MUCH to time spent in combat: instead of looking up a number, you look up a number, add a dice throw and voilà.

What turns combat into loooong booooring things are, again IMO:

1) The number of different options the PCs have when it's their attack; this tends to be way worse:

• in later editions of the game;
• as players go up in levels;

2) The level of tactical details that comes with using a battle map.

I'm willing to bet anything that a 1st or 2nd edition combat with opposed rolls added will still be WAY faster thatn any 3rd or 4th edition combat.

All of this to say that I personnaly wouldn't turn down the "opposed rolls" mechanic based only on combat length.