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

[woodelf]

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.

You mean like NPC classes, NPC standard equipment, ECL vs. CR, and monster type vs. class (just to name a few)?

D&D3E is already full of distinctions between NPCs and PCs. Some of them are just simplifications (standard equipment), but some are actual differences that affect balance. If you compensate for the 10% from flipping the equation around, this falls into the category of simplification--it's not changing the rules, it's just making things easier on the GM. Even if you don't do this, and simply accept that the odds are slightly better, in favor of PCs, it still fits right in with D&D. It, like most modern RPGs, acknowledges that of course there's a difference between PCs and NPCs--the former are the players' investment in the game, the latter are just game elements.

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.

In the games i've been in/seen, there are, generally speaking, a lot more attack rolls and skill rolls than saving throws. The problem is that, during combat specifically, the guy who attacks gets to roll for her effectiveness, while the one who casts a spell lets the opposition roll. With saves, it doesn't matter who you are--you get to roll your own. So, while it's true that the spellcaster's players get to roll to save their butts just as much, they don't have the visceral feel of having any input on affecting the opponents--it's all defense, no offense. The issue isn't # of player saves vs. # of NPC saves, it's # of player saves vs. # of player attack rolls.

Furthermore, most of the games i play make some significant mechanical distinctions between PC and NPC behavior (such as "mook" rules), and some explicitly adopt the player-roll technique (Lost Souls, Whispering Vault). In all cases, it either positively impacts player enjoyment, or has no effect, and pretty much always positively impacts GM enjoyment. If you've only played D&D3E, you don't know joy until you've run a battle with a 100 orcs with mook rules, instead of full stats.

 

[Breakstone]

Yes, I could definitely see this.

So Bob the Mage is a 5th level Wizard with 16 Intelligence. If he casts a 3rd level spell on a Cloaker that requires a Will Save, the DC is 16 (10 + Int Mod + Spell Level).

The Cloaker has a +7 to Will saves, so usually it would need a 9 or higher to make the spell fail. That means the first 8 numbers on the 1-20 number line would make the spell succeed.

On the other hand, Bob the Mage could make a d20 roll, needing a 13 or higher to make the spell succeed (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20... the last 8 numbers on the 1-20 number line).

I like the idea... rules-wise, it's the same, but flavor-wise, it almost puts more power in the hands of the spell-casters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So what I'm seeing here is that a Will save of +5 would change into a Will Class of 17, and a DC of 16 would turn into a Spell Attack of +6?

Does that sound right (those other two points to the Will save compensating for the 10% difference?)? Does that have the same effect?

 

[Breakstone]

Yeah, yeah it does.

Hey, this is pretty cool.

 

[I'm A Banana]

YOINK! I love this.