Static Save Defense instead of dynamic saving throws.

[Gundark]

I shall make up some numbers, and demonstrate why they don't work?

Which is the problem with the OP's arguement. The math is made up.

 

[Aloïsius]

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.

In 3.5, I disagree.

Wizard : "fireball ! make a save or take, errr...." *roll 7D6* "... or take 24 hit points !".
Barbarian : "Rage. Power attack +4. flaming Greatsword...." *roll 2d6, plus another one for fire* "... only 31 hit points. Too bad I did not crit... Now, let's cleave."

 

[Felon]

ALrighty, There's been many posts on how in 4th edition saves are going out the window and new "ala Saga Edition" static defense scores will be implemented. Also we see from Dave noonan's playtest article (and other sources) that wizard type characters will be making a magic based attack roll.

On the surface this seems pretty simple. The Wizard makes his attack roll, and its checked against everyones appropriate defense score.

Advantages:
1) Its fast. One die rolled instead of one per player.
2) You can "crit" with your spell. Face it, people like to make things go boom
3) It makes the DM's life much easier when a player tosses a spell at NPC's

4) Transfers the power to cheat from the player to the DM--where it should be! No more throwing out an extra-nasty spell that nobody wants to be affected by, and lo and behold, nobody is.

Now, one can argue that players will just cheat in reverse, aggressively rather than passively. That's where an amusing bit of psychology with cheating. People seem to be a lot less hesitatant to cheat on defense rolls than they do on the offense. I wonder if that's because they think they're a lot more likely to be called on the latter than the former. The DM doesn't want to look like he's out to get them, so he can't question successful survival.

Disadvantages:
1) The "thrill" is gone from the defender's hands. IE. No longer is there the exultation of rolling a 20 or the dread of possibly rolling a 1.

Yeah, there's a nice bit of self-empowerment in rolling that 20. It lets you control your own fat.

 

[Someone]

Bullsh*t rampant speculation example:
Bob the 5th level wizard casts fireball at the gnolls. His magic attack score is his level + his Int modifier(3) + spell focus(1) + fire staff(2) + headband of Intellect (+2) for a total of +12. So Bob rolls 1D20 +12 (+5+3+1+2+1) and rolls an average roll of 10, for a total of 22. SO for a dead nuts average roll, those gnolls better have a reflex defense between 21-23 for a 50/50 success rate of avoiding that fireball.

In which way is that different from Bob the 3.X wizard having a Save DC of 10+Int bonus+Spell focus+Spell level+Various magic items+Various PrC bonuses so high that those gnolls better have a +12 Reflex save so they have a 50% chance to avoid his Fireball? I can understand the feeling that you being attacked without possibility of making a roll (as it happens with SC now - if anything the change will unify criteria making the attacker the one always rolling) but it won't make any mechanical difference, even supposing everything remains equal, which I suppose they won't.

 

[KarinsDad]

4) Transfers the power to cheat from the player to the DM--where it should be! No more throwing out an extra-nasty spell that nobody wants to be affected by, and lo and behold, nobody is.

Now, one can argue that players will just cheat in reverse, aggressively rather than passively. That's where an amusing bit of psychology with cheating. People seem to be a lot less hesitatant to cheat on defense rolls than they do on the offense. I wonder if that's because they think they're a lot more likely to be called on the latter than the former. The DM doesn't want to look like he's out to get them, so he can't question successful survival.

Where did this come from?

It really has nothing to do with the discussion. Neither DMs nor players should "cheat" and player adjustment of dice will probably be handled by Action Points, so your #4 here is not really an advantage of this system.

 

[JVisgaitis]

So in conclusion, I dislike static defense scores. At least with the current system, when hit with a fireball, I feel like MY fate is in MY hands when I roll my reflex save.

I really don't understand why people are so hung up on this. I suppose it's the whole resistance to change thing. If you like feeling that your fate is in your hands, what do you feel about spells like magic missile and attack rolls? There you have no control over what happens at all and in those instances (combat at least) its much more abundant.

Secondly, people are surmising that the wizard makes one magic attack roll per spell that he's casting. I don't think this is the case. Otherwise, how could one crit on a fireball against two targets? I think its multiple attack rolls against each target in some circumstances like with fireball. This makes play go quicker and I like that.

Here's something else to chew on. Who says saving throws are dead? Wouldn't it be cool for a Rogue to have as a class feature a Reflex saving throw? So that if a Wizard does hit him with a fireball a Rogue would have the opportunity to halve the damage? I can see the same thing for a raging Barbarian with Will saves.

I like the idea of static defenses. There still is some wriggle room for a lot of issues that people are concerned with. I think its too early to get hung up and pass judgment on anything yet...

 

[Szatany]

I think its multiple attack rolls against each target in some circumstances like with fireball. This makes play go quicker and I like that.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Ok. This is from the peanut gallery, but it's a necessary post (at least from my point of view). I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else.

When people say Static Save Defense, what they are saying is that the target has a number assigned to it such as Reflex 19 or Fortitude 23 and when the mage throws a spell, he'll have to roll a die to see if he overcomes that Static Save Defense before his spell will have an effect (or full effect).

Instead of the way it is now: Mage throws spell, target rolls to overcome number generated by mage's abilities.

Am I getting it right?

I know it may seem like a silly question, but I'm making sure I've got it right so I can follow the conversation. Because, if I am right, the only major difference is who does the roll and not necessarily how the target number is arrived at (defender's abilities generated vs. attacker's abilities). Either way, you have to take multiple variables (defender/attacker level + defender/attacker class features + defender/attacker feats + defender/attacker whatever...) to arrive at the target number.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I think its multiple attack rolls against each target in some circumstances like with fireball. This makes play go quicker and I like that.

I'm hoping he just messed up what he was trying to say, 'cause I think he was trying to say the opposite...

 

[KarinsDad]

Am I getting it right?

Yes, you have it correct.

I know it may seem like a silly question, but I'm making sure I've got it right so I can follow the conversation. Because, if I am right, the only major difference is who does the roll and not necessarily how the target number is arrived at (defender's abilities generated vs. attacker's abilities). Either way, you have to take multiple variables (defender/attacker level + defender/attacker class features + defender/attacker feats + defender/attacker whatever...) to arrive at the target number.

No, the major difference is that with a single attack roll in area effect situations, most of the time either the attack affects every opponent or does not affect (or partially affects) every opponent. The opponents with the best defenses never have a full effect on them while opponents with lesser defenses do not.

The BBEG caught in the middle of the blast never takes more damage than the Mook at the edge of the blast (which can happen in 3.5). He always take the same damage or less.

The game will change dramatically when the PC Wizard doing an area effect Fireball nearly wipes out every opponent round one, or does little to every opponent round one. Ditto to other effects like Fear. Everyone is feared, or nobody is feared (most of the time, there could be a few rolls where low defense opponents are feared and high defense opponents are not feared).

This totally changes tactics and how quickly (or slowly) a combat round will last.