Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 2392130" data-attributes="member: 22424">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.</blockquote>

Verification