Saving Throws and Armour Class

[delericho]

Since the first editions of the game, characters have had an Armour Class, used to defend themselves against attacks, and a set of saving throws for other defences. However, for some reason, attacks have been rolled to beat the Armour Class, while characters roll their own Saving Throws to beat the difficulty of the attack.

With the general cleaning up of the rules for 3rd Edition, many things were made more consistent. However, this discrepancy was not altered.

So, my question is this: would it not make sense to change the Fortitude, Reflex and Will save modifiers to target values (simply by adding 10 to the existing modifier), and then requiring the effect in question to roll to beat these defensive values, rather than having some rolls reflecting attacks, and some defences?

I see a few advantages to this change:

1) It adds consistency, which should make the rules marginally easier to learn.

2) Spell Resistance and the save can be dealt with in a single roll: the spell-caster makes a single "spell effectiveness" roll. If this fails to beat the SR, the spell has no effect. If it beats the SR but not the save, the spell's "save made" effect takes place. If it beats both the SR and the Save, the spell has full effectiveness.

3) You could, conceivably, rule that a natural 1 always causes the "save made", while a natural 20 always have the "save failed" effect (this is the reverse of the current paradigm, but otherwise no different). However, you could also allow a natural 20 to act as a "critical spell threat" or whatever, allowing an additional roll for some sort of heightened effect. Again, this brings consistency with the way melee combat works.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the reason they left it the way it is, is that players get excited when they get to roll. Most saving throws are made by players not NPCS, so it adds excitement to the game.

I would not recommened lumping rolls together, as that dramatically changes the probability of passing and failing.

A simple example. Let's us say that a caster has a 75% chance of beating SR, and then another 75% chance of beating a fort save.

If you roll them seperatly, that's a .75 x .75 = .5625 or 56%

However, if you did it your way, that would mean that beating the SR check automatically beats the fort save, so now that's a 75% chance of winning.

 

[delericho]

I would not recommened lumping rolls together, as that dramatically changes the probability of passing and failing.

That's obviously true, although worth pointing out.

I was thinking more in terms of a potential new edition anyway, and would have posted this in General, but couldn't see a suitable category.

 

[JimAde]

I think Stalker's first point is the crux of the issue. A Saving Throw is (ideally) used when the target of the effect is acting. You make a save to dive out of the way, heroically resist mind control, or whatever. The character making the save is in some way acting to save himself.

Of course in combat you are acting to defend yourself as well, and this can be modelled with the optional rule of rolling your AC each round. Instead of 10 + AC Modifier you roll 1d20 + AC Modifier. Most people don't do this because they don't want the extra roll.

So one way to "unify" the system is to make everything an opposed roll. In combat you roll 1d20 + Attack Mod vs. d20 + AC Mod. For a trap, the trap rolls d20 plus DC mod (regular DC - 10) and the victim rolls d20 + Reflex Save Mod, etc. This would work fine but would double the number of rolls in the game.

 

[Crimson_Manticore]

This approach works even better if the PCs keep the saving throws and make defense rolls against static attack values. This is per the “Players make all the rolls” variant in Unearthed Arcana. It works something like this.

PC attacks NPC: Player rolls attack vs. NPC static AC.
NPC attacks PC: Player rolls defense vs. NPC static attack value.
PC attacks PC (hopefully rare): Attacking PC rolls attack vs. defending PC’s defense roll.

PC forces NPC to save: PC rolls a power check vs. NPC static save value.
NPC forces PC to save: PC rolls a save vs. NPC static DC.
PC forces PC to save: Attacking PC rolls a power check vs. defending PC’s save roll.

Yes, this approach does have the drawback that NPCs use a different mechanic than PCs, but the difference is purely superficial. Effectively, the NPC still rolls, but he always gets a 10. The DM can choose to switch an important NPC to dynamic rolls if he wishes, to add more drama, but by in large the die rolling and simple math load on the DM is greatly reduced, allowing him to concentrate more on other things. Plus, the players get more involved when they are rolling defense rolls every round in addition to their attacks.

I started using this approach in my group recently, and I have been amazed at how much more smooth and exciting D20 combat has become.

 

[JimAde]

If an NPC is attacking an NPC (which happens way too often in my game) do you just use static numbers for both, or treat one of the NPCs as a PC? I use a combination of normal rolling and occasional hand-waving in these situations.

 

[Crimson_Manticore]

Good point. I guess I never really considered the NPC vs. NPC angle. On the rare occasion that it comes up in my game, I have always had some type of predetermined outcome (the one-eyed dwarf is taken down by the orcs in the second round of combat, etc). If I had to, I would choose one NPC to be treated as a PC. In cases where the outcome has not been predetermined, you want some sort of randomness, and static vs. static won’t give you that.

 

[delericho]

The use of the "players always roll" variant can certainly help the DM, but has the problem that it's probably harder for new groups to learn (it's conceptually easier if the PCs and NPCs use the same mechanics, as was pointed out earlier). Of course, for advanced players, this doesn't really matter, but then advanced players won't really feel any great difficulty with the AC/Saves discrepancy.

The point that players find it exciting the roll dice is certainly a valid one.

However, it is my suspicion (and I have no actual evidence to back this) that the game is probably quicker if all the dice involved in a character's actions are rolled by the player of that character. The point here is that if I, as DM, know that Red Wizard is going to cast a spell on Blue Warrior, I can have the dice ready and rolled immediately, while the player of Blue Warrior needs to reach for a dice, and roll it. And that assumes that the player is paying attention. (Also, if I have set up a whiteboard with all the save values on hand, I can roll and get the results very quickly.)

(It is also true that if we're trying to speed up combat, it is certainly the case that fewer rolls is better. This argues against going to an opposed-rolls paradigm. It also suggests that some sort of means of combining the SR and Saving Throw rolls into one. Of course, it is not necessarily true that speeding combat should always be our overriding aim.)

One more thought: if we're using static defence values (as now with AC, as suggested with saves) it is almost certainly faster if we minimise the use of conditional modifiers to the defence. So, it is faster if Dodge just gives a +1 bonus to AC. It is faster if Dwarves have a bonus to Fort or Will saves, rather than against poisons and spell-like abilities. But, again, one can question how much you want to speed combat, especially since each change is likely to change the feel of the system, which might not be desirable.

 

[Inigo Carmine]

Everyone's made some good points so far. Additional reasons might be:

Its better to make the person performing said action to roll. Now with both attack/AC, effect/saving throw there's usually effort going on on both sides. The fighter is attacking the goblin, and the goblin is trying to avoid it. The Wizard is casting the fireball, and the rogue is trying to make a reflex save. Ideally, both would be rolling, but for the sake of simplicity, its faster and easier to have just one side roll. Both sides actively doing something isn't always the case though. Oftentimes things are rolled in response to or against something immobile/non-sentient.

Ie: I prefer to roll a con check to be able to sustain a forced march than having the forced march roll a check to beat my con mod+10, even though it amounts to pretty much the same thing. That's not a saving throw, but the principal is the same against a rockslide, or grabbing onto a ledge when you fail your jump check by 5 or less.

In the case of attack rolls vs AC, sometimes you're attacking an immobile object. The Archer is trying to shoot the rope, or you're using a grenade weapon and you're aiming to hit the floor. Having the floor dodge my flask of alchemist's oil is disheartening even though it's the same reslt as if I'd just missed.

So the bottom line is, you're attacking things slightly more often than things are actively defending against you, and you're making saving throws more often than people are sending effects at you. So, if you're going to keep things consistant (and only have one person roll when there's effort going on both sides) keeping the system as is works best in my opinion.