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

[evildmguy]

Greetings!

A very interesting question.

Let me ask this: Is this about rolling the dice? Having a more active role in combat? Or having an attack roll for spells?

If it is the former, do you think your DM would just let you roll the monster's saves? If it was me, I would have *gladly* let the players roll the saves. I wouldn't have had any problem with it.

If it is the latter, well, there might be some issues there.

First of all, this is a fundamental change to the system, if I read this right. Instead of a creature (PC, NPC, Monster, whatever) being able to resist magic, now if they are "hit" by the magic, they are affected. I thought that a Fortitude save represented being hit by magic and trying to resist it. So, isn't this a subtle change to the system?

Second, the numbers look strange to me. In the case of rolling a save, let's use your example. A monster needs to hit a DC of 17 with a +4 will save. Needing a 13 or higher, that's a 40% chance of success. In the case of a mage hitting a DC of 14 with a +7 bonus, they need a 7 or higher. That's a 70% chance of success. Unless my numbers are wrong, I wouldn't want to be hit by this! I could have my numbers wrong, though. The percentages, which are from your numbers, seem to give the advantage to a caster. And I would hate to use this on a PC.

I can't think of a good way to make this work and keep the percentages the same. It won't scale easily either.

So, I am not helping much but I did think the numbers looked wrond and so decided I should comment.

I hope you find something that works!

edg

 

[Quasqueton]

This is about rolling the dice - letting a mage *Player* have a more active role in the combat mechanics. I do not want to change the system at all. I would want this concept to come out to the exact same odds regardless of who rolls the dice. You know, the old "six of one, half-a-dozen of the other."

The way I'm looking for would allow the Player to get that feeling of being in the game and rolling the dice like his fighter or rogue gamemate is doing.

I would not want the "new way" to be more or less advantageous than the standard way. The Players could still roll their own saves vs. the evil mage. It shouldn't make any difference in the odds -- just in who rolls the dice.

If my numbers above are wonky . . . that's why I'm asking here for thoughts and advice. I am not in any way looking for a houserule or change to the system.

Fighter Player: I use whirlwind attack against the 6 orc surrounding me.

DM: OK, roll your attacks.

Wizard Player: I cast fireball at the 6 orcs over there.

DM: OK, roll your [magical attack or whatever you might want to call it].

Quasqueton

 

[Keith]

Well, the DC of a spellcaster’s spell is provided by them, in the same way that the BAB is by the fighter. There is just no additional random element (which I have always found odd and disappointing, personally, so I see where you are coming from). I think having the attacking mage roll the saving throw is a little like having the fighter roll for the AC of their opponents, if you see what I mean. Allowing players on the attack to learn any of the defensive parameters of an opponent other than by trial and error would give them an edge, I think, that might then need reflecting in CRs and XP.
What I mean is that letting a player roll the save for an opponent could result in: “I rolled a 5...and they saved...we are in trouble.”, which would be an unfair advantage.

 

[JoeBlank]

Well, the DC of a spellcaster’s spell is provided by them, in the same way that the BAB is by the fighter. There is just no additional random element (which I have always found odd and disappointing, personally, so I see where you are coming from).

There was an optional rule in the 3.0 DMG (may be in 3.5, I have not checked yet) whereby the caster could roll for the DC of the spell, rather than take the set DC of 10+. Basically, in the core rules, it is like the caster is always taking 10 on spell "attacks" that require saving throws.

If you don't mind the extra dice rolling around, let the casters roll d20 and add spell level + the relevant ability mod to the roll. Can be fun, as you have a chance of getting a high DC against opponents with good saves, just like a fighter can swing away against a high AC opponent and hope for a good roll.

I used this for a bard, reasoning that sometimes his songs were a little better than other times, and enjoyed the randomness. We did not change it for all casters in the campaign, my character was the only one using the optional rule.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If you think of spell DC's (and Armor Class, for that manner) as an individual just taking 10 on a spellcasting/spellcraft check (defense roll for AC), then the variant that substitutes a d20 roll for the "10" part of the equation will add randomness.

If that's what you're looking for, I think it will work fine. There won't be any guaranteed success, but then there can be the possibility of extraordinary success or failure.

Something I'd like to see in this system would be incorporating Spellcraft into the roll somehow -- there should be a way to account for "skill" with spells. But that would require a retooling of the skill and save system to balance (plus, to maintain symmetry, we'd need to institute a "weapon skill" mechanic to add into attack and defense rolls).

So as is, d20+Spell level+Spellcasting stat vs. d20+Base Save+Save stat is a nicely balanced system for spellcasting "attacks".

 

[Rel]

What I mean is that letting a player roll the save for an opponent could result in: “I rolled a 5...and they saved...we are in trouble.”, which would be an unfair advantage.

I see your point, but again, I'd mention that Quasqueton was already rolling in the open for enemy saving throws. So the players could already see that he rolled a 5 and still saved and draw the appropriate conclusions.

 

[Aaron2]

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.

I was tempted a while back to make it so that the players rolled every die. I played a Fantasy Hero game this way and it worked great. The players would roll a Dodge roll (d20 + AC bonus) versus the monsters fixed attack roll. This way, the players would always roll whether they were being attacked or attacking. ('cept for damage). It sped up the game and the players liked having more control over there characters (even if it was illusory control). I haven't done it yet in D&D since I have so many players now that I need to slow things down just to keep track of what's going on.

My point is that just because you let the players essentially roll saves for the monsters, doesn't mean the DM has to roll the saves of the characters.


Aaron

 

[Ruined]

I like it. It's getting posted to my group's message board to see if they want to embrace it.

 

[Aaron2]

Second, the numbers look strange to me. In the case of rolling a save, let's use your example. A monster needs to hit a DC of 17 with a +4 will save. Needing a 13 or higher, that's a 40% chance of success. In the case of a mage hitting a DC of 14 with a +7 bonus, they need a 7 or higher. That's a 70% chance of success. Unless my numbers are wrong, I wouldn't want to be hit by this! I could have my numbers wrong, though. The percentages, which are from your numbers, seem to give the advantage to a caster. And I would hate to use this on a PC.

I can't think of a good way to make this work and keep the percentages the same. It won't scale easily either.

You need to add 12+save bonus. In your example, a save with a DC 17 vs a +4 will fail 60% of the time (a 1-12) so when you switch numbers, the Wizard needs to beat the fixed save 60% of the time. Since he has a +7 (DC-10), he must win 60% of the time (a 9-20). A fixed save of 12+4=16 so a roll of 9+7 beats it. This is the same for my attack example above. Since I cut and paste from the SRD to make monster sheets, its easy to list the saves as Fort +3 (15), Ref +2 (14) etc. That way I can play it either way with no fuss.

Plus, don't "use this on a PC". PC roll saves as normal.


Aaron

 

[woodelf]

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.

Strictly speaking, the average for a d20 roll is 10.5. However, D&D3E likes to pretend that the average is 10. Given that, any total that is 10 + [some stuff] can be converted to d20 + [some stuff] with essentially no change of the probabilities. Like the optional "rolling your defense" rule in the DMG, all of those totals that are calculated with a 10 could become a d20 roll, and vice versa. So, really, combat is:

[randomizer] + [offensive modifiers] vs. [randomizer] + [defensive modifiers]

with the first "randomizer" being a d20 and the 2nd "randomizer" being a fixed 10. Similarly, saves are almost all based on

[randomizer] + [skill/class modifiers] vs. [randomizer] + [difficulty modifiers]

where, again, the former is a d20 and eth latter is a 10. But you can change either of these, with no appreciable change in anything except (1) how quickly the game plays, (2) who gets to roll dice and (3) overall randomness. And the latter only changes if you go to two 10s or two d20s--as long as you stick to one d20 and one 10, nothing changes. [and, on average, nothing changes even if both are a d20 or both are a 10--since D20 doesn't generally take into consideration degree of success/failure, the change to how much you can make a roll by is unimportant, mechanically.]

Nonetheless, since degree of success isn't an issue, nothing is gained by both sides of the equation being random, either, and it will slow things down a tad. So stick to one side or the other being a d20, and the other a 10.

Personally, i don't think the GM should be rolling dice--that's for the players to do. As much as possible, the players should roll the dice in all conflicts involving NPCs. It speeds things up immensely. When a PC tries to hit an NPC, she rolls her attack vs. the NPC's static defense (AC) score. And when an NPC tries to hit a PC, the player should roll her defense against the NPC's static attack score (10 + BAB + Str Mod + other modifiers). Likewise, i'd definitely advocate switching it around so that the PC spellcasters roll "to overcome their foe's resistance", while PCs still roll saves when an NPC attacks them.

You'll see no difference in the math (though it might feel a bit weird at first), and thus the results; it'll be quicker ('cause, generally speaking, a player only has to resolve one action at a time, while the GM is often dealing with multiple actions at once--you're switching from one guy making 6 rolls to 6 guys each making one roll); and, as you've observed, it'll probably be more fun--it gives more of a sense of involvement and a stronger illusion of control.