Saving Throws or Defenses?

[yesnomu]

Yeah - like Crothian says, all four are pretty much targetted by everything and everyone. For me, I've found this reduces flavour, as people simply have four scores they need to get as high as possible. They can't situationally concentrate on one (e.g. a fighter used to be able to not worry too much about his Will save and fixate on his AC - now he has to have all four equally high).

This reduces the difference between characters, in the same way that everyone attacking the same way, doing the same rough amount of damage with the same rough chance of hitting, with similar secondary effects that could apply does.

The only yhing that seems to differentiate things is the name. And the flavour text, if you can be bothered to read it out every time.

Well sure, the fighter didn't have to think about his Will save-- it was so low already that it wouldn't do any good to improve it! Ever heard the joke where, for a fighter, it's the Won't Save?

Now, there still is a difference in the defenses between classes. Rogues still have crazy Reflex, Barbs tank everything but Fort (though the Str and Cha ones will have a bit of Will), and targeting a wizard's Fort is still a pretty sure thing. But in general, you won't ever have defenses so low that a roll isn't necessary. And that applies to your attacks vs. monsters too.

And I dunno, if you look at what a power does you can usually guess pretty well what defense it would attack. Fire is almost exclusively vs. Ref, cold and thunder are likely to be fort, weapons are nearly always attacking AC (though Rogues get by that more often than most), and anything that involves psychic damage is going to be against Will.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'm enjoying giving my players clues about what defence to target through description.

For example, making sure that kobolds are described as small, quick, scuttling types compared to the lumbering unstoppableness of the stone statues they fought later. My players are, I think, picking up on this and targetting accordingly.

I also really enjoy the fact that the person taking the action is the person rolling the dice - it means that players are a little more engaged in what they're doing.

 

[mmadsen]

I'm surprised that they didn't give every save both variants, a save and defense, so that the players could make all rolls. If a PC gets attacked, he rolls d20 + Save bonus vs. the attack's DC. If a PC attacks, he rolls vs. the defender's defense, which would equal 11 + Save bonus. The two options are mathematically identical, but the player gets to feel in charge either way.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I'm surprised that they didn't give every save both variants, a save and defense, so that the players could make all rolls. If a PC gets attacked, he rolls d20 + Save bonus vs. the attack's DC. If a PC attacks, he rolls vs. the defender's defense, which would equal 11 + Save bonus. The two options are mathematically identical, but the player gets to feel in charge either way.

Actually, I used the Players Roll All the Dice variant in 3E, but I stopped in 4E because of the handful of Immediate Interrupt powers that allow PCs to modify an enemy's attack roll (or the PC's defense score). These powers seemed too weak if the player doesn't know how close the attack roll is to hitting them, but with Players Roll All the Dice I would have to give the player information equivalent to the monster's exact attack bonus. With the standard approach, I only give the players the final attack rolls, allowing them to know perfectly whether to use their defensive powers but forcing them to observe an enemy over time to converge on its attack bonus.

 

[billd91]

I preferred the saving throws of 3e, in part, because I like using an action points system. I suppose I could have them toss off an action point to gain 1d6 to their static defense, but I think the action and game play is better if the players roll their defense and use action points or re-roll powers to save themselves.

 

[MerricB]

I like the new system a lot.

If not least because the maths of the system actually makes them relevant, rather than irrelevant (either too high or too low) as in 3e.

Cheers!

 

[Fifth Element]

I the inconsistancy between touch AC and reflex save never sat well with me. Differences in "who rolls" aside, I like the idea of making them the same thing.

I agree. Two of the four defences existed in 3.5 already, at least conceptually: AC and touch AC, which is now Reflex defence.

 

[Shroomy]

If that's a significant change I'm a pink elephant. The only difference is that the DM rolls instead of the player. The roll is the same. There was no other change.

I actually think that there were significant changes to this part of the system between 3.5e and 4e. For example, 4e consolidated the attack roll and the saving throw into a single roll in all cases, AC was simplified and tied into the weapon profiency system, touch and Reflex were consolidated, flat-footed was converted to a status effect, etc.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

What I like about the 4E defenses was the fact that it made implements possible, which I think are a good idea. A fighter can have his magic sword that makes him hit harder and more often, why couldn't the mage have something similar?

Alternatively, why weren't there any items (I might have missed them) that boosted spell DCs for casters in 3E? (I'm not counting stat-boosting items because the fighters had those too)

As it's been pointed out, I like, in 4E, that the person rolling is the active, attacking person. I also like that all classes have attacks that can target different defenses, as opposed to the traditional 3E way of fighters target AC, casters target saves.

AR