Preferences regarding "save to resist" vs. "roll to hit" mechanics?

[Umbran]

In 5e, there's a reason to have a mix of things.

While there's lesser versions of the same idea - Advantage/Disadvantage is important in this consideration. If everything is "player roll vs NPC/monster defense" then the players always have a chance to apply Advantage, from Inspiration, or from whatever other sources they can cook up. And generally, the PC's proficiency modifier is involved.

When it is "NPC roll vs spell save" or the like, the PC's proficiency modifier isn't involved, and they are less likely to otherwise impact the roll in the moment.

So, the math is different in the two cases, leading to the players having to think a bit more about what their best strategies are.

 

[Obryn]

Ideally, I prefer consistency as much as possible.

I love players-always-roll.

Second place is "active do-er of a thing rolls."

My least favorite is the D&D way of doing it, but I've internalized it so much it works anyway.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I tend to lean in favor of "the active player does the rolling". So, if you're trying to affect someone with magic, it's up to you to overcome their defenses. If you're trying to overcome magic affecting you, it's up to you to throw off the effect. If a bad-guy wants to hit you, it's up to the bad-guy to hit you.

Area-of-effect spells however I think feel better when others are attempting to avoid them.

 

[Eltab]

I prefer "attacker rolls". I also prefer "defender wins ties".
After a persistent effect is upon you, you can roll to shake it off; that will happen at different times for different victims.

 

[Tonguez]

It comes down to player agency does it not? Thus Players do all the rolls

 

[MechaPilot]

It comes down to player agency does it not? Thus Players do all the rolls

That does raise the question of how that theory of doing things handles things that are player against player.

 

[Immortal Sun]

That does raise the question of how that theory of doing things handles things that are player against player.

Active player acts. Bob wants to hit you with a sword? Bob rolls. Joe wants to question your motives, Joe rolls Sense Motive/Insight/other.

 

[MechaPilot]

Active player acts. Bob wants to hit you with a sword? Bob rolls. Joe wants to question your motives, Joe rolls Sense Motive/Insight/other.

If the do-er rolls, then yes. That fits.

However, [MENTION=1125]Tonguez[/MENTION] said "It comes down to player agency does it not? Thus Players do all the rolls." If I'm reading that right, that means a "player always rolls" model. Therefore, if a player does something against another player, the "player always rolls" model would seem to dictate that both players individually and exclusively get to be the one to roll to determine success.

That's part of why I like the more consistent "the one who acts rolls" method of having the do-er roll for success or failure; no fiddly exceptions or layering of subsystems.

 

[Immortal Sun]

If the do-er rolls, then yes. That fits.

However, [MENTION=1125]Tonguez[/MENTION] said "It comes down to player agency does it not? Thus Players do all the rolls." If I'm reading that right, that means a "player always rolls" model. Therefore, if a player does something against another player, the "player always rolls" model would seem to dictate that both players individually and exclusively get to be the one to roll to determine success.

That's part of why I like the more consistent "the one who acts rolls" method of having the do-er roll for success or failure; no fiddly exceptions or layering of subsystems.

I mean really we could raise the question of "Is the DM a player?" (not even addressing DM PCs for the moment). I mean the NPCs aren't computer-generated automatons run by a CPU. There's a real person making the puppets move behind the screen. I understand that some people do look at the DM like a PC who is there simply to run the program, but that seems awfully cold.

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to say that when someone says "the players roll" it's referring to "the active players roll". I mean, you wouldn't have the inactive players make rolls for Joe's attacks when it's not their turn!

 

[MechaPilot]

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to say that when someone says "the players roll" it's referring to "the active players roll". I mean, you wouldn't have the inactive players make rolls for Joe's attacks when it's not their turn!

If that's the case then if a PC uses fireball on another PC, the PC who cast the spell (i.e. who is actively doing a thing) should be the one to do the rolling.