Rolling a d20 for Defense

[ogre]

Thanks for the link to Core Elements.

I still wonder though.... has anyone actually played it this way? Does it really bog the game down? Or is it even better because the players have an active part in their defense?

 

[Aussiegamer]

with topic beaten into submission...

yer I have a couple of dollars to give some lawyer...nurf said :\


arghhhhh topic gets out and takes control

Its a bit of a trade off I suppose speed for interaction. I like the interaction idea.

 

[jdrakeh]

Thanks for the link to Core Elements.

I still wonder though.... has anyone actually played it this way?

I've played it that way (in D&D initially, which is where the Core Elements rule came from). It didn't bog anything down considerably, while giving the PCs some actual sense of control over their defense. IME, it ended up being a efficient mechanic in terms of mechanical gain versus time lost.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Does it screw anything up? I personaly think players would find the fact that they can nullify an attack with a roll way more exciting than just waiting to see if they're hit. Am I overloooking anything?

The problem with rolling both attacks and defenses is that it becomes an opposed check, like grappling, meaning that the guy with the bigger bonus will usually win. The contestant with a +4 higher bonus has about an 80% success rate; no longer is it a 40% chance of hitting the foe, now it's only a 20% chance because he's opposing. Alternatively, it's no longer a 60% chance of hitting, it's now an 80% chance of hitting because your attack bonus is better than his defense bonus.

The slowdown isn't much of an issue, as it's not really noticeable on the small scale. If you time it over an entire session then it could become noticeable but most people won't do that.

The real issue is the dramatic skewing of combat results. The better someone is at either attack or defense, the more it will show as they almost always succeed at their specialty. Mooks will be no threat at all, since their bonuses are low enough that they'll only hit about 10% of the time and will be hit 90% of the time; higher-level high-combat foes will be almost untouchable and unstoppable due to much higher success rates.
Combats become much more one-sided.

Incidentally, you have to declare who determines critical success/failure. If both sides roll a natural 20, what happens? If both sides roll a natural 1?

Good luck, and I hope that was helpful.

 

[Bagpuss]

Am I overloooking anything?

- Additional rolls required.

- And increase in randomness generally favours NPCs over PCs.

 

[GlassJaw]

I've used it in a low-magic game and I like it. I certainly wouldn't use it in a "standard" D&D game though. As others have said, more die rolls = slower gameplay and an increase in randomness favors the enemies over time.

I think it fits better in a low-magic game where the range of modifiers is much less and combat tends to move faster overall because of the limited magic. Removing magic from a game does wonders to combat and gameplay speed (just play Conan!).

I've also used this alongside Armor as DR and action points, which I think are rules that all complement each other.

You can check out the ruleset I used in the link in my sig.

 

[igavskoga]

The real issue is the dramatic skewing of combat results. The better someone is at either attack or defense, the more it will show as they almost always succeed at their specialty. Mooks will be no threat at all, since their bonuses are low enough that they'll only hit about 10% of the time and will be hit 90% of the time; higher-level high-combat foes will be almost untouchable and unstoppable due to much higher success rates.

Hey Val (This isn't directed at you, I'm just using your point to hop off from)


I've played a pretty decent amount of Roll for Defense in the Game of Thrones campaign I was in a few months back so I thought I'd chime in here. In the time I played with rolling for defense I actually found the opposite was true. I found that combat was less one-sided due to the fact that your high bonus and his low bonus take on a much different role if you roll low and he rolls high. I've found the mechanic to be interesting, and makes combat more fun and dynamic, all good things in my book. The slowdown time is minimal, as was noted if you track it over the course of an entire session or multiple sessions it may add up, but it will be hardly noticible at the table. Two good ways to do it, we found, were to roll both attack and defense at the same time (in the case of monsters attacking PCs), and to have a pre-generated list of d20 rolls for the DM to cross off and use as each monster is attacked - this seemed to effectively streamline the process.

If you are using Roll for Defense in a system not already designed for it the mechanic MAY need some tweaking over the course of the first few sessions so be aware of that. If you just replace the "take 10 + armor AC" that standard D&D uses with a roll, you may get some wonky results. Don't lose heart, just start adjusting base defense bonus and armor values until your group comes up with a better range.

Either way, good luck with it!


/slight threadjack on
Yes, statistically, more randomness affects PC's more, and yes statistically this system looks like it will just make fights more static - maybe it does over the course of a year or more of weekly play (you can't judge statistics by the miniscule window that a single gaming session affords), the average player isn't going to notice the statistics, or really care about them if they find the mechanic fun and playable. If there's one thing I've noticed in my many years of playing and DMing its that while statistics are a good yardstick, they go right out the window when the dice hit the table during a session of play. I've seen statistics defied far too many times in a night of play, often while they are being quoted to me in surprise while the dice are rolling, to give them very much credence at all in regards to how fun a mechanic is or how well it works.
/slight threadjack off

 

[iwatt]

I've played a pretty decent amount of Roll for Defense in the Game of Thrones campaign I was in a few months back so I thought I'd chime in here. In the time I played with rolling for defense I actually found the opposite was true.

I don't have AGoT, but maybe that is due to the fact that attack and defense are more balanced than in D&D, and their isn't as many extraneous modifiers that can skew things (plethora of magic items in D&D).

Fact of the matter, a large enough edge is brutal in the opposed check mechanic (look at grapple), and it isn't something that should be dismissed. It might work better in True20 o

In any case, the point I'm more interested is the one of determining critical success and failures when using an opposed mechanic.

Al the attacker and Dan the defender have a showdown:

Al rolls a 20 and Dan a 1-----> Auto confirm
Al rolls a 20 and Dan a 20---->No threat
Al rolls a 1 and Dan a 1------>Nothing
Al rolls a 1 and Dan 20 ------> Dan get's an AoO

OPinions?

 

[igavskoga]

I don't have AGoT, but maybe that is due to the fact that attack and defense are more balanced than in D&D, and their isn't as many extraneous modifiers that can skew things (plethora of magic items in D&D).

Fact of the matter, a large enough edge is brutal in the opposed check mechanic (look at grapple), and it isn't something that should be dismissed. It might work better in True20 o

Hey look, its iwatt too. You guys are making me miss the great old debates on the IH forums.

That's a fair point, and one to take well into mind. As I said, I think if you're inserting it into standard d20 it will take a fair bit of tinkering around to get to a good range. However, I have an inkling (and only an inkling mind you) it will only start to really fall apart once there's a 15 point disparity. Even given a +10 vs a +0, you roll a 2, he rolls a 13, he wins. The chances are much greater that you will win but that's what something like a 10+ point disparity is supposed to represent, no? Also, honestly, you have a +15 to-hit vs a 14 (the +4 from above) AC, isn't that really more of an unofficial auto-hit than +15 vs +4?

Also, the ability for the tide of battle to turn a lousy roll of an 8 on a d20 into a hit cuz the target dodged even worse is awesome.

In the end, after mulling it s'more, it may not be worth it in standard d20 - but giving it a whirl can't hurt if one really enjoys the mechanic. I really like it, but when I started playing 3.x when it hit the shelves after an extended hiatus from gaming in general, I kept instinctively wanting to make dodge rolls for some reason. Maybe it was all those summers playing Rifts at camp resurfacing, who knows.

In any case, the point I'm more interested is the one of determining critical success and failures when using an opposed mechanic.

Al the attacker and Dan the defender have a showdown:

Al rolls a 20 and Dan a 1-----> Auto confirm
Al rolls a 20 and Dan a 20---->No threat
Al rolls a 1 and Dan a 1------>Nothing
Al rolls a 1 and Dan 20 ------> Dan get's an AoO

OPinions?

I think that's a fast and simple way to handle those eventualities. I like it. Would Dan's AoO count against his normal total?

Given any thought to what happens if Al rolls a 17 and Dan rolls a 17 (or Al rolls a 15+2 and Dan rolls a 14+3)? Given my inherent nature to trample all over KISS when a cool idea pops into my head I had the following idea a few months ago: In the constant tinkering and mulling I do on the homebrew I'm going to eventually run again (No really, I will, I swear! Check's in the mail!) I stumbled over the idea of weapon lock. Essentially both combatants become momentarily entangled in eachother's movements to the point where just pulling away would leave them open... there's then a brief struggle (opposed something, BAB? Reflex? I have it written down somewhere) with a sudden victor who is given an AoO. This, of course, spiralled off into a potential series of feats (maybe PrC) that would allow someone to expand the range at which they could trigger a weapon lock (turning misses into locks = easy, turning hits into locks = difficult and higher level pre-reqs).

 

[iwatt]

Given any thought to what happens if Al rolls a 17 and Dan rolls a 17 (or Al rolls a 15+2 and Dan rolls a 14+3)? Given my inherent nature to trample all over KISS when a cool idea pops into my head I had the following idea a few months ago: In the constant tinkering and mulling I do on the homebrew I'm going to eventually run again (No really, I will, I swear! Check's in the mail!) I stumbled over the idea of weapon lock. Essentially both combatants become momentarily entangled in eachother's movements to the point where just pulling away would leave them open... there's then a brief struggle (opposed something, BAB? Reflex? I have it written down somewhere) with a sudden victor who is given an AoO. This, of course, spiralled off into a potential series of feats (maybe PrC) that would allow someone to expand the range at which they could trigger a weapon lock (turning misses into locks = easy, turning hits into locks = difficult and higher level pre-reqs).

In opposed roll ties, I always give the benefit to the guy with the higher modifier, since all things been equal, the more skilled combatant should win. I'm not sure what the official ruling is in D&D though, but I've been using this rule of thumb for so long it's already lodged deeply in my brain