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

[woodelf]

Greetings!
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.

Here's where your missing 10% went:
1st, to keep the "tie goes to the defender" feel, you have to alter one of the basic tenets of D20, and require the die roll to exceed, not merely match, the DC. On the one hand, this makes *rolls* inconsistent. OTOH, it makes *situations* *consistent*--right now, sometimes the tie goes to the defender (saves) and sometimes it goes to the attacker (attack rolls).

The other 5% comes from the fact that the average of a d20 roll is 10.5, not 10. So by changing the 10 to a d20, and the d20 to a 10 (and because of how the totals are compared), you lose half a point twice, so the end result is one whole point different, for another 5%. Both effects happen to work in synergy, instead of opposition, so you end up with the probabilities off by 10%.

That said, you could also just go with it. As i pointed out above, D&D3E already gives the characters a slight edge, by letting both saves and attacks round in their favor--that is, the game is set up to favor the person rolling the die, and set up for the PCs to be doing slightly more of the rolling. Personally, i say just go with it--accept that the PCs have a slight edge 'cause they're the PCs, and plan accordingly. Yes, the new probabilities won't be identical to the old--but they'll be altered in a consistent way (slightly in the PCs' favor), and it's a fairly minor difference, given the large, flat distribution of the d20. It would only make a difference if you frequently have PCs attacknig each other magically.

 

[Norfleet]

I don't see what difference it makes. In a computer game, the spell saving throws are in the hands of nobody. That doesn't make them any less interesting: The interesting part of a spell is not rolling a die for saving throws or damage, but the part where you cut loose with a dramatic shout of "FIRE IN THE HOLE!".

And if your spellcasters insist on using boring spells that lack satisfying potential for mayhem and destruction, they deserve to be bored. Own damn fault for picking really boring (and probably really lame) spells. Shame on them.

 

[silburnl]

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

Indeed. You could go for a house rule (or house principle) that all attacks, saves, defends etc are PC's d20 + mods vs NPC's 10 + mods.

So a combat becomes:

player attack roll vs Defence Class 15
player defence roll vs Attack Class 14
player spell roll vs Reflex Class 13
player spell roll vs Fort Class 14
player spell roll vs Will Class 12
player will save vs Spell Class 14
etc...

This'd throw the stats off somewhat, but would smooth the workload for the DM considerably and put the entire 'fortune' element of the game into the player's hands.

Regards
Luke

 

[tesuji]

Well, i can give you something of a voice from experience.

My game has been running for 3 years and from levels 2-14 so far. From day one, I used player rolling.

When a PC throws a spell, he rolls D20+His spell save DC against the targets Save bonus+22 as a DC. (Note that i use the spell save DC of 10+bonus etc because this if often shown on the sheets generated by chargen programs. If i said just add your bonus the player would have to think about it a tad more.)

I also extended this to Attack rolls. When an NPC attacks a PC, i say "the ogre swings at you, roll to evade" and the PC rolls d20+AC against a DC of the attacker's to-hit bonus+22.

This puts the "i am attacked" or "i throw a spell" actions into the player's hands and this has worked wonderfully. The impression is that they are the one's "controlling" the result and the "nothing i could do" feelings are not there.

in general, my players have loved it.

The one downside of course is that there is much less control in the GMs hands. I cannot fudge the hits and misses and saves as well. There has been at least one case where a lucky spell really took the big bad out right off the bat and the scenario took very unexpected turns just like there have been times where overly bad things happened to PCs to.

So, as a GM, you have to be a little more on your toes and adept with your scenario design to handle these well. I do still roll damage myselfbecause those are numbers the players do not have handy.

All in all though, the players have loved the result and the feeling of their fate being in their hands. It also seems to have sped things up just a tad, but that may just be the group i have.

 

[Cor Azer]

Strictly speaking, the average for a d20 roll is 10.5. 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.

The only problem with such an attack system is that the bad guys never get a chance to score a critical hit on the PCs (since by "taking 10" they cannot roll a 20 (or whatever is required for their threat range)). TO re-introduce such a capability would require more rules, which I'm having trouble thinking of at this early point in the morning.

 

[Storminator]

The only problem with such an attack system is that the bad guys never get a chance to score a critical hit on the PCs (since by "taking 10" they cannot roll a 20 (or whatever is required for their threat range)). TO re-introduce such a capability would require more rules, which I'm having trouble thinking of at this early point in the morning.

No, you just have the PCs getting the analogous "critical failure." Rolled a 1 on that AC roll? Crit threat! Roll again. A longsword gives a crit threat on a 1 or 2, etc.

PS

 

[Cor Azer]

No, you just have the PCs getting the analogous "critical failure." Rolled a 1 on that AC roll? Crit threat! Roll again. A longsword gives a crit threat on a 1 or 2, etc.

PS

Would such a thing work? My mind is a little wonky with the statistics right now, but I'm wondering if enlarged threat ranges wouldn't be affected strangely by such changes.

Note, I'm willing to be convinced, I'm just too lazy to hash out the numbers right now.

 

[Humanophile]

Would such a thing work? My mind is a little wonky with the statistics right now, but I'm wondering if enlarged threat ranges wouldn't be affected strangely by such changes.

Note, I'm willing to be convinced, I'm just too lazy to hash out the numbers right now.

I don't see why not. "Critical fumble" on a dodge roll plus missing another one would amount to the same thing as the normal mechanics, similar to how taking 21 minus d20 as your roll would be the same as flat-out rolling. d20 is a flat probability line, so reversing things won't make a difference.

I like the idea myself, and was considering putting it into play. (And hoping my PC's don't notice my giving them an under the table +1 bonus to everything.) I only have one minor worry; mass damage spells. It would feel wrong for a sorcerer to have to roll six times if he fireballed six orcs, but at the same time, rolling only once and having them all succeed or fail according to that (since face it, multiple monsters of the same type probably have identical stats), would make things a little too all-or-nothing. Not an insurmountable problem, or even one to stay up all night over, but one little wonk to work out. Otherwise, I like the idea too.

 

[Aaron2]

I like the idea myself, and was considering putting it into play. (And hoping my PC's don't notice my giving them an under the table +1 bonus to everything.) I only have one minor worry; mass damage spells. It would feel wrong for a sorcerer to have to roll six times if he fireballed six orcs, but at the same time, rolling only once and having them all succeed or fail according to that (since face it, multiple monsters of the same type probably have identical stats), would make things a little too all-or-nothing. Not an insurmountable problem, or even one to stay up all night over, but one little wonk to work out. Otherwise, I like the idea too.

What's the difference between the player rolling six times (one for each orc) and the DM rolling six time (as it is under the rules)?

Aaron

 

[Al]

I think that the primary reason why the victim, rather than the caster, rolls the save is because spells have a far greater effect than mere hits, a lot of time (especially at high levels).

It is less fun for the player to be on the receiving end of a Finger of Death spell and be told that he is dead than for him to be able to roll the save- and it seems bizarre to use one set of rules for the PCs and other for NPCs and monsters.

As for increasing 'player activity', I'm not sure whether it does. In a typical game, the players should be rolling at least as many saving throws as the opposition- however, what it does do is *concentrate* the rolling into the hands of the primary caster players. The casters may feel more in control by rolling the dice, but this will necessarily detract from non-casters. When was the last time that the fighter forced a saving throw? He certainly had to make a few.

All in all, therefore, it's probably a bad idea. Consult your players though, since they might disagree with my opinion, but I certainly wouldn't introduce it into my game.