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="Inigo Carmine" data-source="post: 2392693" data-attributes="member: 34044">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.</blockquote>

Verification