Static Save Defense instead of dynamic saving throws.

[Jer]

Your standard meele attack vs my Static armor class doesnt DISINTERGRATE me....

I suspect that this is a major incentive for them to eliminate the "save or die" spells from the wizard's repertoire. And, since there have been multiple places where they've said they're eliminating save or die spells from the game, I suspect that this will be taken care of.

 

[Imaro]

The problem I see is that it's one roll for all targets, so it's likely that everyone "fails the save" or everyone "makes the save" with only a small change for some targets to save and some to fail.
Either the spell "wins the battle" or has very little effect.

This isn't that much of a problem for damaging spells (except on a critical) but for "save or lose" spells it's a big problem (IMO).

Geoff.

Yep, this is my experience in Star Wars saga ed. The funny thing was reading it, I thought it was cool but during actual play, it does basically go like this. I see this as even more likely with what we've heard about monsters having categories and roles, as well as the whole simplified monster and NPC creation.

Hopefully the designer's will consider damage and the potency of special "effects" if it does end up this way. A specific example in SW is Force Slam(a maxed out jedi needs to roll something like a 3 to succeed against most CL1 or CL2 opponents saves), it affects multiple targets, does 4d6 dmg and knocks them prone. Even if it doesn't kill them outright(which it usually does) the opponents can't use a move action to spread out afterwards because they have to get up, so you just use it again or another jedi does.

It would be a shame if this turned out to be the case, but I don't see any reason to predict it as such.

See above, they did say SW was a preview of 4e.

 

[Stalker0]

Are you also complaining about the lack of thrill involved with static AC?

As stated before, the difference is the importance of the save. Characters can generally take a few swings before they go down. All a swing does is take away hitpoints. Notice how in 3e, any attack that does something other than this (tripping, disarming, grappling etc) has an opposed mechanic.

No attack roll makes you die, or become horribly crippled, or become dominated and attack your friends, etc. A single spell can have a bigger impact on your character than a single attack roll. And players like to feel like they are in control of their characters, EVEN IF its a complete illusion and the math works out exactly the same. When the big moment comes to prevent me from getting hit with that dominate person, I want to roll the die.

I think this mechanic works great in SAGA because its very low magic. Dnd is not low magic, players have to make saves all the time against spells. This is the only 4e change I've heard that I really don't like so far.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No attack roll makes you die, or become horribly crippled, or become dominated and attack your friends, etc. A single spell can have a bigger impact on your character than a single attack roll. And players like to feel like they are in control of their characters, EVEN IF its a complete illusion and the math works out exactly the same. When the big moment comes to prevent me from getting hit with that dominate person, I want to roll the die.

Agreed, but the same thing can still be said in reverse. I got extremely frustrated that my slow spells in a recent game were next to useless. The DM kept making amazing save after amazing save so that no monster failed a save against it in 10 sessions. I would have LOVED to have been able to make those rolls myself, even though there isn't any difference.

It rather works both ways. And if they reduce the "Save or Lose" spells in effectiveness to maybe "Save or get penalties" then it won't be a big deal. Especially if classes get some ability to affect their defenses against attacks now and then.

 

[WayneLigon]

Do you really want a mage whose spells always hit and have thier full effect? Good god, were talking the difference between a single sword blow and an AOE attack spell.

There's plenty of ways now that they can make that happen almost all the time, depending on spell selection and certain feats. At least if there is a 'spell attack roll', then there is a chance for them to fumble it before the spell ever takes effect. Now, all spells instantly succeed and the each individual has to mitigate it's effect (if the spell even allows this).

 

[Delta]

And for a system thats being playtested NOW and intends to be released next MAY (meaning at the printers 3 months ahead of time if printed outside the country), it doesn't give them alot of time to iron out the kinks.

Especially since the final manuscript for the PHB is supposed to be turned over October 5. (See news page for Sep-20.)

 

[Stalker0]

The DM kept making amazing save after amazing save so that no monster failed a save against it in 10 sessions. I would have LOVED to have been able to make those rolls myself, even though there isn't any difference.

If your dming is passing your slow save continuous for 10 sessions without one success on your part, either you are facing amazing will save characters (and shouldn't be using slow), your save DCs are too low for your level, or your just having some stastically unlikely bad luck. None of these should be a basis for the argument at hand.

The truth is, players will deal with spells that do bad things to them. Now, we may lose save or die, but we will still likely have spells that take you out of combat at least for a few rounds, make you change alliegances, and greatly debilitate you. I think players will want to roll for these. And on the other side, the dm deserves the right to enjoy some of that dice action to, and try to save his BBEG from being taken out on turn 1.

 

[Remathilis]

We are also assuming that a single die roll (the spell attack) is now the only check on a spellcaster's power.

We may still have some form of magic resistance. We may still have energy resist/immunity. We may have more "power word" like hp/check spell (or using the bloodied condition). We may have more disintergrate style "do X damage, if over your hp, than bad thing happens to you".

Also, I don't mind if spell attacks are per each creature. Its no worse than rolling each creatures save, and its actually easier for the DM to point to monster, the pc to roll, call a number, and the DM say "pass" or "fail". In fact, it might be quicker, since the DM doesn't have to roll, add the bonuses, THEN check against some number the PC tossed out minutes ago...

 

[Skornn2k7]

I think there will be Action Points , So if you had AP to augment your saves after the Wizard connects with his spell it would give you another round to deal with the Wizard.

I think I will have to try out 4E before I make any judgements on the hit and defense saves thingymajigs

 

[Li Shenron]

You know, I never hear the same complains about dynamic attack rolls vs. static AC, or dynamic damage rolls vs. Static Hp...

Two different things entirely. AC is better than rolling a defense save against 100 attacks almost all of which do the same thing: a little bit of damage. Nothing thrilling, and rolling every time would be overkill. Furthermore, there is a fundamental image of someone attacking with a weapon having to "aim", particularly if the weapon is ranged.

Such image is not so fundamental with all spells, you can often say that "magic does the aiming for you", although very often you do get to roll something even when casting a spell (touch attack, ray, caster check vs SR, spell damage or variable effect: plenty of rolls for the casters already).

A spell, a trap, poison and similar things are much more dramatic than normal damage from an arrow or an axe (with the possible exception of criticals and special effects*). They are different from each other, and the consequence of a spell is usually much more interesting than just damage.

*but note that most special attacks indeed let the defender roll an opposite check or ST