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

[Tonguez]

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

Thats why I like active defense rules that let the PC parry, but only for player v player

 

[Umbran]

Active player acts. Bob wants to hit you with a sword? Bob rolls.

The problem with the theory of doing things is that everyone is always doing things. Bob wants to hit you with a sword. Joe wants to dodge the sword.

Within the fiction, both Joe and Bob are doing things. The people in the fiction aren't taking turns letting each other try things. "Active player" is a metagame concept we require to build a resolution process we can use, but doesn't actually denote "active character". This gets worse when there's an inanimate intermediary - Bob makes rocks fall on Joe. Who gets to roll - Bob for making rocks fall, of Joe for dodging rocks? In this model, Joe never gets to roll to dodge rocks.

The difference is relevant because it determines who gets to modify the die roll. The person making the roll typically has a boost from that.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Re advantage and disadvantage - in my PAR if you could apply feature ABC to "make me less likely to get hit" you can do so under PAR. If not, not. So, in your use case, if inspiration could not be used against enemy to hit rolls, it cannot be used for your AC rolls.

In other words, it's about what is being done, not whose hand the dice are in, that determines what modifiers can be applied to maintain consistency in the math.

For your enemy save vs dpell DC and your PC proficiency not applying, sorry but last time I checked the casters proficiency was factored into the DC of the save the NPC is rolling against.

There is ZERO reason the odds of success or fail or factors that impact them have to change by dint of the dice being in different hands.

ZERO.

 

[dragoner]

A better mechanic would be for the GM to roll randomly, in order to determine whether the boulder falls on the character in the first place; but that leads to the unfortunate situation where they roll behind a screen and inform you that you have died.

Just no.

It's nothing to tell the player to roll to avoid getting hit, as well as rolling a "to hit" in another situation. This argument of the TH vs ... is a false dichotomy. One doesn't have to prefer one over the other, people can handle some granularity in the game. Life is like that too, it is why simulation is often good as it is intuitive.

Roll To Hit - natural.

Roll to Dodge - natural.

Both natural actions, no need to overthink the mechanics.

 

[Immortal Sun]

The problem with the theory of doing things is that everyone is always doing things. Bob wants to hit you with a sword. Joe wants to dodge the sword.

Within the fiction, both Joe and Bob are doing things. The people in the fiction aren't taking turns letting each other try things. "Active player" is a metagame concept we require to build a resolution process we can use, but doesn't actually denote "active character". This gets worse when there's an inanimate intermediary - Bob makes rocks fall on Joe. Who gets to roll - Bob for making rocks fall, of Joe for dodging rocks? In this model, Joe never gets to roll to dodge rocks.

The difference is relevant because it determines who gets to modify the die roll. The person making the roll typically has a boost from that.

The active player is whoever's turn it is.

Joe is not talking his turn while Bob is talking his turn while Sue is taking her turn while Jill is taking her turn while th DM is running NPCs.

It's a turn-based-game. The player whose turn it is is always the "active" player.

I don't care how the fiction makes it look. We're talking about how the rules function. Don't muddy the waters.

 

[Umbran]

I don't care how the fiction makes it look. We're talking about how the rules function. Don't muddy the waters.

Um...

*I* don't care... *We're* talking... Bit of a royal we, there? Because *you* define what *everyone else* gets to talk about? I don't think so.

That aside, though....

First off, this is the General RPG forum. There's no one "The rules" here. If we are talking about D&D or Pathfinder, then how the rules function is already well-defined: sometimes the attackers roll, sometimes the defenders roll. No discussion needed, it is pretty clearly written.

But, the OP asks about preferences. Not how the rules do function, but how we prefer them to function.

I do not think the rules and the fiction are so easily separable. For example, when a player says he wants to drop rocks on his enemy, this is not an action that is clearly detailed in the rules already. You have to take the fiction the player is suggesting, and turn it into rules! If there is some distance involved, you have the awkwardness that the rocks may take time to fall to the target, and therefore should not hit on the active player's turn. Some things take time to resolve, so going strictly by "active character" sometimes the attacker rolls, sometimes the defender rolls, depending on the distance between them.

So, we see that while folks speak about desiring consistency, we have to ask *what* will be consistent? Many may be thinking "do-er rolls", "action initiator rolls" and "active character rolls" are equivalent, but they aren't always.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Um...

*I* don't care... *We're* talking... Bit of a royal we, there? Because *you* define what *everyone else* gets to talk about? I don't think so.

That aside, though....

First off, this is the General RPG forum. There's no one "The rules" here. If we are talking about D&D or Pathfinder, then how the rules function is already well-defined: sometimes the attackers roll, sometimes the defenders roll. No discussion needed, it is pretty clearly written.

But, the OP asks about preferences. Not how the rules do function, but how we prefer them to function.

I do not think the rules and the fiction are so easily separable. For example, when a player says he wants to drop rocks on his enemy, this is not an action that is clearly detailed in the rules already. You have to take the fiction the player is suggesting, and turn it into rules! If there is some distance involved, you have the awkwardness that the rocks may take time to fall to the target, and therefore should not hit on the active player's turn. Some things take time to resolve, so going strictly by "active character" sometimes the attacker rolls, sometimes the defender rolls, depending on the distance between them.

So, we see that while folks speak about desiring consistency, we have to ask *what* will be consistent? Many may be thinking "do-er rolls", "action initiator rolls" and "active character rolls" are equivalent, but they aren't always.

D&D could once again take a page from a more "rules heavy" system called MTG and solve all these problems, and leave both you and I happy.

It's a neat little system called "priority". The player whose turn starts with it. The player they take actions against gains it to "respond" to the active player's action (if multiple persons, then you just go clockwise around the table, in D&D you can use Initiative). Priority then moves to the next player in line until everyone has either responded, or not. The acting player then regains priority.

EX: Player 1 attacks Player 2.
Player 2 may now immediately respond to Player 1. For this exercise, lets say they don't.
Player 3 may now choose to respond to Player 1. For this exercise, lets say they don't.
Player 4 may now choose to respond to Player 1. For this exercise, lets say they don't.
Player 1's action 'resolves' and affects Player 2.

The system gets more complex, but fundamentally the same when we consider:
EX: Player 1 attacks Player 2.
Player 2 responds by attempting to Parry Player 1's attack. Priority then immediately returns to Player 1, who may respond to Player 2's response. Lets say he doesn't.
Priority then passes to Player 3, giving him a chance to Respond to Player 2.
so-on and so-forth around the table until there are no responses to Player 2.
Player 2's action then resolves, attempting to parry Player 1's attack. lets say it fails.
Priority now returns to Player 1, whose attack has yet to resolve because Player 2's response took priority.
Player 3 and subsequently Player 4 may now respond to Player 1's attack.
--if either of them do anything, repeat as above just with the new response.
---Player 1's attack does not "resolve" until all the responses have been dealt with.

While it seems complex, there is fundamentally only one variable: priority and who has it. Priority always passes from the Active Player to the Player (or even NPC) who is being acted upon. And back and forth until the "stack" or in D&D terms the "scene" is resolved.

It's surprisingly fast in play and would retain the sort of cinematic framing of players responding to each other's actions in a more real-time manner.

But fundamentally, there are still turns and something must address the fact that even though Joe and Bob are both players, it's Joe's turn.

 

[CubicsRube]

As a practical application of smooth game dynamics and of player psychology, if I'm running the game i prefer the players to roll for all of those.

It delegstes some of the math burden of running a combat in d&d and also gives the player a perception of more interactivity. I haven't rolled something and told them if they've been hit or not, they either succeeded to dodge or they havent.

But I also get players to roll damage against themselves, so perhaps I'm a monster!

 

[dragoner]

It sounds like people are talking about M-Space's(Mythras) Attack-Parry action point dominated terms, it works, I don't know if I find it a huge improvement over any other system.

 

[DM Howard]

I actually prefer how Hackmaster 5E does it, where you compare your attack roll versus the target's defence roll. This can slow down combat slightly, but I like the way it jives and can make you feel like less of a passive particpant when it isn't your turn* in combat.

*Hackmaster uses a count-up combat system system so it doesn't really have turns, but you get the idea.