D&D 5E Spell DC vs Magic User Attack Roll

[Unwise]

It was a while ago that I was DMing Next, but at the time I just took at 10/11 for every saving throw roll and let the player roll the d20 instead of getting their base bonus of 8 or 10. That seemed to be a more natural flow of the game for our group. It did lead to questions about what a critical failure or success means on the spell roll, considering that there is not normally meant to make a roll there. I made a 1 have an unintended consequence like affecting the wrong person etc. I made a 20 mean that the spell was free and did not cost a spell slot. May not be balanced by that is what testing is for.

 

[Raith5]

But the active party in an AoE is the people diving out of the way, be it a pit trap, a fireball, or an alchemist fire. You're not aiming the molotov cocktail or grenade at every goblin in the burst, you're just lobbing it in the middle.

Isnt it more accurate to say they are the reactive rather than active party? I mean they are not making a decision in these cases. It seems equally sensible for the the agent making the decision to roll to see how well the spell or effect is targeted.

Ultimately I think it is makes more sense that the agent making the decision always rolls - it just seems more simple and elegant to me. I remember Mearls a couple of months ago stressing the importance of elegance in game design and I think it is pretty apparent that there is a significant chasm between RPG elegance and D&D tradition.

 

[Obryn]

I want the roller to be consistent. Since I don't like the idea of the DM making all the rolls for both gameplay and overhead reasons, I prefer one of...

(1) Players make all the rolls - attacking and defending and saving for themselves.
(2) Acting party makes the rolls - that is, the character or monster whose turn it currently is, not a narrative-based "acting" party.

I really, really prefer (1); I think it's more engaging overall and lets the players feel in control of their own destinies better. But failing that, (2) is superior to D&D's traditional mishmash.

 

[Jester David]

Isnt it more accurate to say they are the reactive rather than active party? I mean they are not making a decision in these cases. It seems equally sensible for the the agent making the decision to roll to see how well the spell or effect is targeted.

Ultimately I think it is makes more sense that the agent making the decision always rolls - it just seems more simple and elegant to me. I remember Mearls a couple of months ago stressing the importance of elegance in game design and I think it is pretty apparent that there is a significant chasm between RPG elegance and D&D tradition.

There are more than a few games where the players roll all the dice, rolling to avoid rather than attack, which would also be more "elegant" and "modern". Heck, there's even some where there's only one roll per round, and a really bad miss on the player's part equates with a hit from the monsters. This would certainly speed up play.

To some extent, this comes down to taste and legacy.
Saving throws are a pretty iconic part of D&D. They're one of the most iconic bits, and even non-D&D players are familiar with terms like "save or die". And there really does need to be an avoidance mechanic in the game, if only to avoid attacking pit traps and checks to avoid things like forced movement off cliffs.

 

[ren1999]

I'm not opposed to DC and saves as much as I am opposed to casters not rolling anything. The answer may be in asking casters to roll a 1d20 to see if there is a crit or fumble in addition to all the saves.

 

[Jester David]

I was thinking about this and it occurred to me D&D is consistent: the person with the chance of failure rolls.
You have a chance of missing so you roll, and you have a chance of dodging so you roll. The wizard or grenade thrower cannot "miss" so they do not need to roll.

Although, it's pretty easy to house rule the spellcaster making an attack and/or the PCs rolling all the dice.

 

[Kinak]

I'm strongly considering "players always roll" for my next Pathfinder game, for two reasons.

First, not getting a save against combat maneuvers feels a little weird. When a terrible thing happens because of a spell, you get a save, but if it happens because of a combat maneuver, you don't. It just doesn't feel right.

Second, the worst part of introducing a new player to D&D for me is consistently the first time they try to narrate getting out of the way of an attack and reach for their dice. Just that crestfallen look when static AC is explained...

So, I'm generally in favor of any step towards players rolling all the time. Failing that, I'd at least like to to be consistent (like 4e, where you always roll to hit and never to evade).

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[machineelf]

I was thinking about this and it occurred to me D&D is consistent: the person with the chance of failure rolls.

This is essentially the answer, or close to it. I think that what a lot of people seem to be missing is that spells that use a set DC aren't attacks that have a chance to miss. They are spells that succeed every time. Therefore, no need to roll for it. The saving roll is to determine if the target can resist some of the damage or effects.

 

[Warbringer]

But I don't think that would fly in D&D. Maybe as an optional module.

Its been a D&D option for quite a while ...Unearthed Arcana

 

[TarionzCousin]

My gut hunch is that 35% success is not a very good success rate. It will feel like low level characters attacking a monster with a high AC. When you have a spell that is a daily power you would want that success rate to equate to doing something. Even if it is a 18 INT vs a 10 CHA say that means 55% success. That seems low to me. should be in the 75% range. Perhaps I am missing something?

I seem to recall Mearls saying something in the past couple years (?) that they were shooting for PC success between 2/3 and 3/4 of the time. 75% sounds right to me. (No, I have no idea where I heard or read this.)

I'm strongly considering "players always roll" for my next Pathfinder game, for two reasons.

First, not getting a save against combat maneuvers feels a little weird. When a terrible thing happens because of a spell, you get a save, but if it happens because of a combat maneuver, you don't. It just doesn't feel right.

You could easily make PC's CMD equal a d20 roll--instead of a static 10--plus or minus all the modifiers.

The latest Hackmaster game has d20 rolls for every defense. It's nice when you roll high and avoid a high-damage attack. But it really sucks when your critical hit natural "20" misses, as has happened to me the past two game sessions.