am181d
Adventurer
To clarify: You don't have any problem with the folks at WotC considering this as an option, as long as they plan to throw it out when they're done considering it, because you have an open mind?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Opposed Rolls?
- Thread starter Savage Wombat
- Start date
To clarify: You don't have any problem with the folks at WotC considering this as an option, as long as they plan to throw it out when they're done considering it, because you have an open mind?
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I feel opposed rolls help highlight that the other side is also playing to win...
jbear
First Post
I voted maybe because I'd like to actually test it and see what I thought about it after I have actually something to base my opinion on apart from what I can imagine it would be like in my head.
I find that opinions/gut feelings about things don't always match up with experieces. And when they do, many times I think we experience what we expect to experience. Self fulfilling prophecy.
Mind stay open!
I find that opinions/gut feelings about things don't always match up with experieces. And when they do, many times I think we experience what we expect to experience. Self fulfilling prophecy.
Mind stay open!
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Hmmh,
an opposed roll gives the idea to a player, that he can actually react to something happening to him. Maybe take ten on AC is the standard. And one per turn, you may make an opposed roll against an attack. So in mass combat, it does not slow down the game too much.
an opposed roll gives the idea to a player, that he can actually react to something happening to him. Maybe take ten on AC is the standard. And one per turn, you may make an opposed roll against an attack. So in mass combat, it does not slow down the game too much.
Mercule
Adventurer
No. I have serious concerns if they said, "Wow! This would be awesome," as opposed to, "Hmm... I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but let's see how it shakes out it a few tests."
It sounds like a horribly bad idea, to me. If opposed rolls is their assumed resolution and they're just testing it to be sure, I have my doubts. If this came out of a brainstorming session (and I'm a big fan of non-critical brainstorming, but that's not what this thread was about) and they're just playing with it to be sure, then they're doing their job.
Basically, my opposition to the idea is inversely related to the size of WotC's R&D budget.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I happen to prefer the effects of curves to linear probability in results, but for that in particular, I'd rather go to 2d10 replacing the d20. I'm sure that would go over like a lead brick, though. 
Opposed rolls (or anything else that makes the DM a potential bottleneck in handling time) do not scale well as you add players. I've heard plenty of people that think that 6+ players is Something Man Was Not Meant To Do, but we like it, and when we really like it in a game, our large groups buy twice as many books as your smaller groups. So at least throw us a bone every now and then.
However, in general, if we are to have opposed rolls with d20s, then the opposition roll needs to mean considerably more than, "sorry, you failed after all." Lost Soul layed it out exactly. You've got four possible outcomes. All of those four should be different, at least most of the time, or opposed rolls are then merely a sop to players to make them feel better about ability they don't actually have--AKA "illusionism"--which should be put into a rocket and sent into the center of a sun.
One way that opposed rolls would be worthwhile is to shed a bunch of the other things that simulate more intricate action (e.g. some or all of multiple attacks, more complicated spell attacks, 4E secondary effects, opportunity attacks, etc.) Then build such things in the opposed rolls, so that if you succeed in an opposed defense roll, you get to adversely affect the attacker, not merely stop them. A real "riposte" from warrior types would be fine in this environment. Now, you are trading slower resolution of a given exchange for faster combat resolution overall (because win or lose, something is likely to happen that will move the action towards the finish line).
This makes trying risky things against superior opponents often counter-productive, but a certain amount of that can be seen as a good thing, and the rest can be regulated by limits on how much a character can so react. (That is, the wizard out of spells rushed in to try and smack the orc with a quarterstaff, even though it probably will earn him a riposte, because this sets up the fighter and cleric to finish off said orc.) Perhaps each defense roll after the first gets a cumulative -2 penalty per round.
However, if we have such opposed mechanics with meaning, then there should also be some limited ability to do something similar in magic versus magic effects. An enemy cleric tries to "hold person" on a fighter from across the room, the best the fighter can do is try to toss a dagger or javelin at him. But try the same thing on a wizard, and he's got counter abilities to make you wish you had not. Of course, the opposite would be true for trying to cast a spell on a warrior in melee.
Opposed rolls (or anything else that makes the DM a potential bottleneck in handling time) do not scale well as you add players. I've heard plenty of people that think that 6+ players is Something Man Was Not Meant To Do, but we like it, and when we really like it in a game, our large groups buy twice as many books as your smaller groups. So at least throw us a bone every now and then.
However, in general, if we are to have opposed rolls with d20s, then the opposition roll needs to mean considerably more than, "sorry, you failed after all." Lost Soul layed it out exactly. You've got four possible outcomes. All of those four should be different, at least most of the time, or opposed rolls are then merely a sop to players to make them feel better about ability they don't actually have--AKA "illusionism"--which should be put into a rocket and sent into the center of a sun.
One way that opposed rolls would be worthwhile is to shed a bunch of the other things that simulate more intricate action (e.g. some or all of multiple attacks, more complicated spell attacks, 4E secondary effects, opportunity attacks, etc.) Then build such things in the opposed rolls, so that if you succeed in an opposed defense roll, you get to adversely affect the attacker, not merely stop them. A real "riposte" from warrior types would be fine in this environment. Now, you are trading slower resolution of a given exchange for faster combat resolution overall (because win or lose, something is likely to happen that will move the action towards the finish line).
This makes trying risky things against superior opponents often counter-productive, but a certain amount of that can be seen as a good thing, and the rest can be regulated by limits on how much a character can so react. (That is, the wizard out of spells rushed in to try and smack the orc with a quarterstaff, even though it probably will earn him a riposte, because this sets up the fighter and cleric to finish off said orc.) Perhaps each defense roll after the first gets a cumulative -2 penalty per round.
However, if we have such opposed mechanics with meaning, then there should also be some limited ability to do something similar in magic versus magic effects. An enemy cleric tries to "hold person" on a fighter from across the room, the best the fighter can do is try to toss a dagger or javelin at him. But try the same thing on a wizard, and he's got counter abilities to make you wish you had not. Of course, the opposite would be true for trying to cast a spell on a warrior in melee.
If you do opposed rolls ala Tunnels&Trolls you will have faster combat resolves, not longer.
You throw all the dices for the 3 goblins and add it to one sum and then the player/players rolls his combat dices. The one who wins does the difference of the rolls in damage - minus armor.
IMO adding players combat skills together in one pot gives the feeling that players are actually workning together not just doing single blows on the same enemy.
You throw all the dices for the 3 goblins and add it to one sum and then the player/players rolls his combat dices. The one who wins does the difference of the rolls in damage - minus armor.
IMO adding players combat skills together in one pot gives the feeling that players are actually workning together not just doing single blows on the same enemy.
I want opposed rolls for saves but not for attacks.
Saving throws generally have a more drastic effect, such as being dominated or falling a sleep and having some sort of say in whether that happens feels better than relying on a static defense while your opponent rolls the die.
Saving throws generally have a more drastic effect, such as being dominated or falling a sleep and having some sort of say in whether that happens feels better than relying on a static defense while your opponent rolls the die.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Your goblins are scary!
But being serious, opposed rolls work superbly in Dogs in the Vineyard, but I've never seen them do much outside narrative games of direct confrontation. And they definitely slow things down.
Edit: Tunnels and Trolls works because it reduces the number of dice rolls by pitching the round rather than the action into the roll.
Last edited:
