Should spell saving throws be in the hands of the caster?

[Quasqueton]

When fighters are in combat, the Player gets to roll the dice for attacks and damage.

But when mages are in combat, the Player does not get to roll the dice for the "attack" portion of his spells (unless there is spell resistance to overcome).

I've seen situations where the DM was rolling hot that night, the monsters keep making their saving throws against the party mage's spells. I've been on the Player side and on the DM side of this situation. It kind of isn't fun to say "I cast hold monster on the monster," and then watch the DM roll the die for the monster's save. It especially isn't fun to see the DM roll well and make the save.

So I've been considering a way to allow the mage Player to roll against the monster. How about letting the Player roll to get his spell past the monster's defenses? Like a fighter rolling his attack.

What is the most accurate way to convert a monster's save to a mage's "attack" roll?

Say a monster has a +4 will save, and the wizard with 18 intelligence casts a hold monster spell. The spell save DC is 10 +4 [intel bonus] +3 [spell level] = 17.

Would it be accurate to tell the Player to roll d20, add +7 and compare the result to a will of 14? Basically reversing the concept to d20 + ability bonus + spell level vs. 10 + relevant save bonus? Or should the base save be 11 + bonus? Or is this reversal concept even possible? Is this an undesirable concept?

I'm not looking to actually change the odds or rules or anything -- just letting the PC mages roll some dice.

Quasqueton

 

[Magic Slim]

Ok Save at +4

Mage at +4 for int and +3 for spell level

The DC the target would have to beat is 17.

So the target needs a 13 to save.

So the mage would need a 7 to succeed.

With a save DC of 10 + bonus (14), the mage would indeed need a 7 to break through (d20 + 4 + 3)

(Sorry if I laid out the details. It's still early in the morning, ie not the best time for me)

The math seems to balance out.

It could be an interesting way of dealing with it. Of course, forget about fudging rolls to make your BBEG last a little longer (I know, I know, who does that?)

Slim

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I play a spellcaster in one of my games and one of my spells is Blindness/Deafness. This requires a saving roll to see if it works. I've never had a problem with the GM rolling for the monsters. After all, when PCs have to make a saving roll, we do it ourselves. (At least in my games we do). I personally like it that way. But your way sounds like it wouldn't be the PC rolling FOR the monster, but instead rolling for the effectiveness of their spell. Either way sounds fair to me.

I think that your idea is workable, and if your group is cool with it then you should implement it. I'm not great at math but the numbers seem fair enough. But remember a PC can have a bad roll just as easily as a GM can have a good roll.

 

[Quasqueton]

I've recently played a wizard who never used damage spells. All my spells were hold, sleep, daze, blindness, etc. Any given combat, I never rolled a die. I just said, "I cast [whatever]," and then marked the spell off my list. I like rolling dice in the game.

In that campaign, the DM always rolled well for saves. He rolled out in front of us, so I am not suggesting any kind of fudging. This combined with my never getting to roll anything brought this concept to my mind.

Now in a new campaign that I'm DMing, the table is reversed. I find myself apologizing for rolling well for my monsters' saves. At one time the sorcerer had to cast color spray three times to get incapacitate *any* enemy. I was rolling hot, and the sorcerer's Player never rolled any dice. This situation reinforced the concept in my mind.

After all, the fighter and rogue Players get to roll dice all night long. How well or poor they do is directly in their (lucky or unlucky) hands. A mage Player doesn't get that thrill of rolling their "attacks".

Quasqueton

 

[buzzard]

Would it be accurate to tell the Player to roll d20, add +7 and compare the result to a will of 14? Basically reversing the concept to d20 + ability bonus + spell level vs. 10 + relevant save bonus? Or should the base save be 11 + bonus? Or is this reversal concept even possible? Is this an undesirable concept?

I'm not looking to actually change the odds or rules or anything -- just letting the PC mages roll some dice.

Quasqueton

I don't see anything really wrong with it in concept, however I do hope you remember that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and villain spells should be done likewise.

Though on the technical aspect the DC should be 11+bonus since saves go as tie goes to the saver.

buzzard

 

[Quasqueton]

I don't see anything really wrong with it in concept, however I do hope you remember that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and villain spells should be done likewise.

I don't think my villians will be complaing that they don't get to roll dice As DM, I get plenty of opportunities to roll for stuff. I won't get bored by not rolling saves. I'd still let the Players roll for their saves vs. the bad guy mages. That's why I want the mechanic to have the exact same odds either way.

Though on the technical aspect the DC should be 11+bonus since saves go as tie goes to the saver.

This is a good point. This is why I came here looking for advice on the concept.

Quasqueton

 

[ST]

I've seen situations where the DM was rolling hot that night, the monsters keep making their saving throws against the party mage's spells.

Just curious, why the need to invert the rolls? Why not have the rolls be the same as if the DM were making them, and let the player handle the dice? Do you think that the magic pixies that people invoke for good dice rolls will get confused if high=bad instead of good?

Seriously, though, just let them roll if you want. All this "rolling hot" stuff is imaginary. If you _really_ insist that a player should be able to chant "come one, twenty", then just take their die roll and subtract it from 21.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I hadn't realy though about this until now. I'm not sure yet where I stand. It would bring consistency to the matter and give spellcasters a bump in excitement if they got to roll. The big drawback is that at higher levels where spells become save or die would the player realy want his life determined by the DMs roll or his.

 

[Quasqueton]

Just curious, why the need to invert the rolls? Why not have the rolls be the same as if the DM were making them, and let the player handle the dice? Do you think that the magic pixies that people invoke for good dice rolls will get confused if high=bad instead of good?

Seriously, though, just let them roll if you want. All this "rolling hot" stuff is imaginary. If you _really_ insist that a player should be able to chant "come one, twenty", then just take their die roll and subtract it from 21.

This would be too much like backsliding into the older, inconsistant and unintuitive form of the rules. In the spirit of D&D3, I like high=good, low=bad for the person rolling the die.

[You chose this as your introductory post to ENWorld?]

Quasqueton

 

[Rel]

I hadn't realy though about this until now. I'm not sure yet where I stand. It would bring consistency to the matter and give spellcasters a bump in excitement if they got to roll. The big drawback is that at higher levels where spells become save or die would the player realy want his life determined by the DMs roll or his.

But at low levels (or any level where the big bad guy is a nasty combatant), whether a character lives or dies is already determined by die rolls by the DM. A critical hit by a powerful monster can spell instant death to almost any character in the party. I don't see that as being a major drawback to what Quasqueton proposes.

The only circumstance under which I'd advise against this would be if the additional math required would slow down the game to the detriment of everyone's enjoyment. But it really wouldn't be that hard. The caster already knows what his "magical attack bonus" is because he has to calculate DC's for his spells all the time. And it would be easy for you to just add 11+ the save to get the monster's "Magical AC".

The only other potential drawback would be that the caster in question would be able to more accurately calculate if the monster in question has a good save. But since you were already rolling in the open for the bad guy's saves, this really isn't an issue either.

I say go for it if it makes the game more fun for the player and saves you some dice rolls.