Set Defense vs Saving Throws should be a modular option

[Ellington]

People vary greatly in opinion when it comes to saves. Some people think saving throws add even more time to already lengthy battles and prefer to have them be set in advance as defenses, while others prefer the excitement of leaving your saving throw up to the d20 and have it be an opposed roll.

Wouldn't it be possible to please both groups by just having it a modular option?

For me, I'd personally like my players to have saving throws but their enemies to have set defenses, since I like to have my players in 'control' when it comes to both overcoming enemy defenses and protecting themselves against harmful attacks, even if it ultimately comes down to choice. Another guy who DMs for us likes to have everyone in his worlds follow the same rules, both players and monsters.

I think both of these opinions are valid and would like to see them as equally valid options in the core rulebook.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I agree both are valid, but looking at the differences between 3E and 4E spell write ups and approaches I do not think it will fit easily in a module.

I suppose it would be possible to do as you suggest and have enemies one route and characters a different route.

 

[Ellington]

I agree both are valid, but looking at the differences between 3E and 4E spell write ups and approaches I do not think it will fit easily in a module.

Well, it could be as simple as having the defense option be 10 or 11 + your saving throw. That assumes the average roll and makes it static.

They did the reverse option for AC in Unearthed Arcana where you'd roll your AC each time you were attacked instead of having it as a base of 10. I admit I've never played it, but I'd like to hear how it worked out for people and if it was a viable option despite being so simple.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, it could be as simple as having the defense option be 10 or 11 + your saving throw. That assumes the average roll and makes it static.

They did the reverse option for AC in Unearthed Arcana where you'd roll your AC each time you were attacked instead of having it as a base of 10. I admit I've never played it, but I'd like to hear how it worked out for people and if it was a viable option despite being so simple.

Well minimal rolling is the way to go. I think one reason the UA rolling for defense never caught on, at least with my group is the extra rolling for little gain.

 

[Ellington]

Well minimal rolling is the way to go. I think one reason the UA rolling for defense never caught on, at least with my group is the extra rolling for little gain.

Yeah, there are definitely some major upsides to minimal rolling, mainly the reduced time.

There are arguments for opposed rolls as well. If you're being dominated by an enemy caster, it can be nice to make an opposed roll so you feel as you have a say in what happens to your character, even if on average the chances are exactly the same as with a static defense. I'd much rather be able to roll an opposed saving throw against a medusa's gaze attack instead of praying that she doesn't roll past my defense.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The same might be true of other things. The 3e DMG presented an option to roll AC, which has classically been static. In general, I prefer rolling as many things as possible because rolling is fun, but if someone wants static defenses instead of saves that's okay if done right (does require the mechanics be written so both make sense).

 

[Minigiant]

Seems workable

1. Players roll all the Dice
2. DM rolls all the Dice
3. Offense rolls all the dice (4E)
4. Defense rolls all the rice
5. Offense weapons and Magic defense rolls all the Dice (Pre-4E)
6. Defense weapons and Magic offense rolls all the Dice
7. Case by Case

 

[am181d]

The same might be true of other things. The 3e DMG presented an option to roll AC, which has classically been static. In general, I prefer rolling as many things as possible because rolling is fun, but if someone wants static defenses instead of saves that's okay if done right (does require the mechanics be written so both make sense).

This. I've never found that *die rolling* was the part of combat that slowed things down. It's the digging through spell lists or powers lists, looking up obscure combat maneuvers, the grind of combat, etc.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This. I've never found that *die rolling* was the part of combat that slowed things down. It's the digging through spell lists or powers lists, looking up obscure combat maneuvers, the grind of combat, etc.

Its not the rolling that slows things down, its the mathematics that occurs after when you are adding the results of the die or dice to whatever modifiers.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't see how this could possibly work. Do you propose to give every monster "Reflex as saving throw" and "Reflex as defense" stats? If so, monster statblocks will be insanely confusing. Folks get confused about Perception versus passive Perception already. If we have a separate statblock for each form, the Monster Manual will become a horrible mess.

This is one of those areas where I think Wizards has to just pick one and go with it. I find myself leaning towards the 3E version, simply because things that require saving throws tend to be area effects. So when the dragon blasts the entire party with fire, if we're using 3E, each player rolls a single die and calculates the result. If we're using 4E, the DM has to roll all the dice and do the calculation for each, and keep track of which die applies to which PC, and it takes ages. Parallel processing FTW.