D&D 4E Star Wars Saga Edition as preview of 4e?

[Stalker0]

One thing I don't like is that saves are static numbers, and the attacker always rolls. I understand why mechanically, its cleaner and more streamlined. But as a player and a dm I know that players do NOT like their characters messed without some ability to save them. Mechanically its doesn't matter that the dm rolls a "reflex attack" instead of a player rolling a "reflex save" but to the player's perception it does....a lot.

 

[nerfherder]

One thing I don't like is that saves are static numbers, and the attacker always rolls. I understand why mechanically, its cleaner and more streamlined. But as a player and a dm I know that players do NOT like their characters messed without some ability to save them. Mechanically its doesn't matter that the dm rolls a "reflex attack" instead of a player rolling a "reflex save" but to the player's perception it does....a lot.

I kinda feel the same about AC. I used to like rolling Parry or Dodge in RQ, but in D&D you just get told you've been hit, and there's nothing for you to roll to avoid it.

 

[Alnag]

One thing I don't like is that saves are static numbers, and the attacker always rolls. I understand why mechanically, its cleaner and more streamlined. But as a player and a dm I know that players do NOT like their characters messed without some ability to save them. Mechanically its doesn't matter that the dm rolls a "reflex attack" instead of a player rolling a "reflex save" but to the player's perception it does....a lot.

Well, it seems to me, that it is simply application of "Take 10 instead of roll" as it was in with AC in DnD. In that case, you can simply substract 10, roll and count it as a bonus. Not so smooth play, but it might be more player-oriented.

 

[Klaus]

I kinda feel the same about AC. I used to like rolling Parry or Dodge in RQ, but in D&D you just get told you've been hit, and there's nothing for you to roll to avoid it.

Which is why I turned AC into a modifier (d20 + AC bonuses, instead of 10 + bonuses), and now the player rolls opposed to the attacker.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Yeah. It seems easy enough to switch this around to "defender always rolls" instead of "attacker always rolls." I think SW was just trying to make the rolling consistent.

 

[GreatLemur]

One thing I don't like is that saves are static numbers, and the attacker always rolls. I understand why mechanically, its cleaner and more streamlined. But as a player and a dm I know that players do NOT like their characters messed without some ability to save them. Mechanically its doesn't matter that the dm rolls a "reflex attack" instead of a player rolling a "reflex save" but to the player's perception it does....a lot.

That's interesting. In my opinion, the idea of the active party doing the rolling and the passive party relying on a static number just kind of makes sense. And opposed rolls are kind of cool, in theory, but I figure the fewer rolls you've got people making, the faster everything goes.

Still, if static saves don't feel as good in play, that's a real strike against them. Maybe the solution would be to give the PCs more abilities that go up against their enemies' saves? The fun of rolling to beat an NPC's Fortitude might be worth losing the ability to roll your own Fort save.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

One thing I don't like is that saves are static numbers, and the attacker always rolls. I understand why mechanically, its cleaner and more streamlined. But as a player and a dm I know that players do NOT like their characters messed without some ability to save them. Mechanically its doesn't matter that the dm rolls a "reflex attack" instead of a player rolling a "reflex save" but to the player's perception it does....a lot.

For consistency, I really like the idea of "the attacker always rolls".

However, it's easy to switch this system around to "the player always rolls". (NPCs have static attack bonuses and ACs, spell DCs and saves; PCs roll to attack, block, cast a spell or save against one.)

Indeed, I think I might try that at some point--it's an easy solution to the "Okay, the GM is going to play the 7 bandits attacking you, while everyone sits back and watches" problem.

 

[Sir Elton]

For consistency, I really like the idea of "the attacker always rolls".

However, it's easy to switch this system around to "the player always rolls". (NPCs have static attack bonuses and ACs, spell DCs and saves; PCs roll to attack, block, cast a spell or save against one.)

Indeed, I think I might try that at some point--it's an easy solution to the "Okay, the GM is going to play the 7 bandits attacking you, while everyone sits back and watches" problem.

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[blargney the second]

Sounds like a good idea.

More than you'd think! The time you'd have spent rolling is freed up for describing things and dialoguing your NPCs. It keeps your players active & happy, as well as increasing their immersion. In a fight against multiple enemies you can also call for each of your players to make 4-5 defense checks rather than rolling 20 times by yourself. Multi-tasking at its best.

 

[Desdichado]

Is that a problem? Who else would play the bandits anyway? Of course the GM will roll for them and the players roll for their own characters.

:shrug: I guess I'm not seeing the supposed "problem" here. I've never really played any other way more than a few isolated instances, and frankly, that's how I like it anyway.