Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blackbrrd" data-source="post: 6125998" data-attributes="member: 63962">For the outcome of the attack, it doesn't matter if the attacker or defender rolls. If you have a contest (both roll) it slows down the game.I prefer the attacker to always roll the dice, since it's the same mechanic you have for all other attacks and you can easily incorporate crit's on a 20 and such. In addition, when it's my turn, I want to roll the dice and see how it goes instead of having the DM roll saving throws and say: &quot;nah, they all saved&quot;. I want to be able to curse my own dice, instead of the DM if my attack goes badly. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I do see some argue that it makes no sense to have attack rolls for fireballs or charm spells. I would argue that no spell attack comes out the same and that the attack roll simulates that. If the magic-user is having a bad day the fireball might be all whimpy, off-target or maybe the he got distracted by the looks of that Succubus.In conclusion:I want attack rolls for all offensive spells, but I do see that logically saving throws or opposed rolls makes as much sense in a simulationist view, but I prefer giving the roll to the active character, not the passive one.Slightly off topic:I do prefer one attack roll even vs many targets (for fireballs for instance), the 4e way of doing it is just slow. It makes spells more binary/luck based, so it's not to the advantage of the players (since one unlucky battle kills character). I am not so sure this is a good idea though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blackbrrd, post: 6125998, member: 63962"] For the outcome of the attack, it doesn't matter if the attacker or defender rolls. If you have a contest (both roll) it slows down the game. I prefer the attacker to always roll the dice, since it's the same mechanic you have for all other attacks and you can easily incorporate crit's on a 20 and such. In addition, when it's my turn, I want to roll the dice and see how it goes instead of having the DM roll saving throws and say: "nah, they all saved". I want to be able to curse my own dice, instead of the DM if my attack goes badly. ;) I do see some argue that it makes no sense to have attack rolls for fireballs or charm spells. I would argue that no spell attack comes out the same and that the attack roll simulates that. If the magic-user is having a bad day the fireball might be all whimpy, off-target or maybe the he got distracted by the looks of that Succubus. [B]In conclusion:[/B] I want attack rolls for all offensive spells, but I do see that logically saving throws or opposed rolls makes as much sense in a simulationist view, but I prefer giving the roll to the active character, not the passive one. Slightly off topic: I do prefer one attack roll even vs many targets (for fireballs for instance), the 4e way of doing it is just slow. It makes spells more binary/luck based, so it's not to the advantage of the players (since one unlucky battle kills character). I am not so sure this is a good idea though. [/QUOTE]

Verification