D&D 5E Please understand your spells

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Your character wants to do something? You should be responsible for its full execution.

Why not just implement a process by which the player rolls the d20 for the target's saving throw and announces to the DM what the highest save-bonus that is affected is?

I.e. a characters casts thunderwave against an orc, rolls 2d8 +1d20 scoring 11 damage and a save roll of 4, then looking at their spell save DC of 13 to see that it would take a +9 save modifier for the orc to pass the save and says "I hit a +8 constitution save, 11 thunder damage, or half if I missed."

 

[Sunseeker]

Why not just implement a process by which the player rolls the d20 for the target's saving throw and announces to the DM what the highest save-bonus that is affected is?

Isn't that what we call an attack roll? I've thought about it before. It would be easier to implement if we still had non-AC defenses, and I would implement it in a heartbeat.

I.e. a characters casts thunderwave against an orc, rolls 2d8 +1d20 scoring 11 damage and a save roll of 4, then looking at their spell save DC of 13 to see that it would take a +9 save modifier for the orc to pass the save and says "I hit a +8 constitution save, 11 thunder damage, or half if I missed."

Sure, telling them the save modifiers is no bigger deal then telling them the target number they have to hit. I just like, conceptually the ideas that the attackers make the attacks.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Isn't that what we call an attack roll? I've thought about it before. It would be easier to implement if we still had non-AC defenses, and I would implement it in a heartbeat.

I'm just saying that if you like the play-aspect of the player making the rolls for their character's ability execution, you don't actually need to change the presentation of the game rules (a saving throw or an attack to the NADs), just how you apply them at the table.

There is no increase or decrease in the difficulty of implementation, at least no increase that is actually measurable - the player rolls and does simple math, telling the DM the result, the DM checks that results against a printed value.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really do wish D&D has kept the "defenses" system of 4E and particularly the "better of..." way of calculating it. It felt like it significantly reduced the MAD of certain classes from prior editions, but also increased the MAD of SAD classes. I also liked the idea of putting the burden of rolling on the person using an ability. I really dislike, particularly now with a caster-heavy party, the amount of saves I'm having to make DM side. Your character wants to do something? You should be responsible for its full execution.

It really did simplify things, you had one consistent mechanic for all attacks, PC's of every class and monsters alike. Made the system easier for new players to pick up. Yet, it nicely modeled a range of very different attacks.

At the time, I even toyed with the idea of having players make most rolls in combat. Attack rolls when they attacked, saving throws or 'dodge'/parry checks (inverted rolls based on their defense mods with DCs based on monster attack bonuses) when they were defending from attacks...

...in the name of 'player engagement,' not DM laziness, of course.

Isn't that what we call an attack roll? I've thought about it before. It would be easier to implement if we still had non-AC defenses, and I would implement it in a heartbeat.

It is, and calling it an attack roll could make assigning adv/dis more consistent, further simplifying 5e. But, it's not convenient to calculate, because saves DCs are already a little goofy, with the whole starting at 8 thing. Plus it'd highlight just how bad non-proficient saves are - or, perhaps, how awesome proficient saves are, since AC never gets proficiency... Depends on which side of the wand you're on.