Static Save Defense instead of dynamic saving throws.

[Li Shenron]

Players like to be more proactive.

Yeah exactly. Which is why I want to roll my saving throws, so that I have something to do also when it's not my turn

 

[Baby Samurai]

Yeah exactly. Which is why I want to roll my saving throws, so that I have something to do also when it's not my turn

Easy, let the players roll their Saving Throws, and let the players roll checks to beat Defences.

Nice for the DM – you guys do it.

 

[Phoenix8008]

From everything I've read so far, I'm mostly in favor of having the static defenses and players rolling to attack for melee or magic. I understand that no single system is going to please every single gamer though. I'm sure WOTC understands this as well, but when you can't please 'em all sometimes you just gotta do what you think is right and what is going to please the most people.

I personally would rather have the BBEG be left standing alone after all the mooks fall to the area of effect magic. It makes more sense to me than having him drop while the mooks live. Although like some have said, the BBEG fighter could still have a poorer static Will save than his mook Clerics that are around him, so anything is possible. The other thing to consider is this: its completely the DM's fault if he sets up the encounter so that the PC can target every single mook and the BBEG with one spell! You want to have a few mooks survive to run for reinforcemants? Don't have all of them bunched up in a line or in a 20' x 20' area on the map! Problem solved.

Also, from what I've read of the 4E playtesting and encounter design it sounds like its going to be alot easier to throw together a group of different types of monsters since the system is going to be designed to challenge the party with equal numbers of foes instead of one BBEG and maybe some mooks. So you might not have a BBEG with one save and all the mooks with another- you could have a couple gnolls with one save, a couple bugbears with another, a few goblin archers with a 3rd save, and their boss the Ogre with a 4th save. So you would have more variety of who would fall based on their different saves.

Last but not least, as others have said, this is all pretty wild speculation on everyones part by taking this one mechanic and trying to plug it in and apply it to how everything else works now. For all we know, the fireball spell (and many others- I'm looking at you, 'save or die' spells!) could be much different than what we now know. Not to mention player abilities that could help those that should be able to dodge more evade some or all of the damage still if they do get hit by the spell. So, like others, I'll keep watching the discussion and keep waiting for May to see what we see. But so far, it sounds pretty good to me.

 

[JDJblatherings]

]Advantages:
4) the cheaters in a group can't roll a string of saves from 18-20 most of the time to save their butts anymore.

 

[Stalker0]

You won't be impartial to it as a player when the entire group of players are rolilng up new PCs because of two back to back Fireballs where the enemy not only rolled great both times, but he criticaled on both Fireballs (which can occur in 4E) and TPKed the entire party because nobody could save.

Even though I'm still against static save defenses, we do have to consider that we don't know all the facts about 4e yet. For example, we do know their are action points. Perhaps they will negate crits and things like that, so this effect is only really deadly for npcs.

In fact action points may be the saving grace for me against the problem I'm having with static saves...that players don't get any say so in if they are effecting by spells. If they can spend action points to negate spells, then that's something...and I may be okay with that.

 

[Celebrim]

In fact action points may be the saving grace for me against the problem I'm having with static saves...that players don't get any say so in if they are effecting by spells. If they can spend action points to negate spells, then that's something...and I may be okay with that.

Someone made a very good observation about 3rd edition along the lines of 'if your justification of the rule involves stating that you can ready an action, then its probably not a very good rule.'

I propose that the 4th edition variant on this guideline is, 'if your justification of the rule involves stating that you can spend action points, then its probably not a very good rule.'

 

[Cadfan]

I still think we can't make assumptions yet.

We know its been stated that spells can critical.
We know that all criticals (for weapons, presumably for spells) are 2x damage with no roll to confirm.
We know that its also been stated that removing some of the random "Oops! Critical and you're dead!" type game play is a design goal of 4e.
We know the math on hit points is being changed.
We know the math on spells (specifically including fireball) has been changed.

I'll agree this is a bad thing if it turns out that a player character is at risk of being one shot killed by a fireball critical hit. And I will agree that the old system where damage ranged from half to full based on the success of a saving throw is less likely to one shot kill a player than a new system where damage ranges from half to full to twice full based on saves and critical hits.

But we don't know so much, and its been stated that a design goal is to avoid the sort of problems the naysayers are pointing out. So I'm willing to trust that a way can (has) been found in which people can both have their critical hits on spells and avoid player death every 20th spell.

 

[AllisterH]

Not if the mooks are standing to either side of the BBEG. There is no cover there.

The plausibility just does not work with this type of math. Sure, some people can ignore that. As has been stated by some people who have played SWSE, it does become a problem for others..

You keep mentioning plausibility but I honestly don't understand what you mean. Are you stating that it is more plausible that the BBEG will fail a save than the minions?

Oh, you mean like real life where RANDOM unexpected things can happen?

Sure, one would expect the BBEG to survive most of the time even when his mooks fall. But for it to happen every single time is video gamey and leads to metamagic decisions by players.

PC Fighter: "Wizard, cast your Fireball and I'll then go attack the BBEG" instead of "Wizard, cast your Fireball and then I'll go attack whomever is standing".
..

But that's one of the places where as a DM/player you don't WANT as a resolution for an encounter. IME, No one remembers fondly the scenario where the BBEG fails and you mop up the small fry. In fact, as a DM/player I tended to feel more gipped than pleased when that happens.

Actually, that is a strength of the current system. The Wizard is looking right at the enemy caster (being the cautious type he is), sees that he is casting Fireball and hides behind a pillar. The Rogue is busy sneak attacking the Bugbear, doesn't see it coming, and gets caught in the blast.

The current system allows for random events. There are no guarantees in life and in gaming. That's what makes the current system a good model that people can relate to.
..

You can explain it like that, but more often, it is "Wizard standing next to rogue, both dodge, yet somehow the wizard dodges better than the rogue". For many people, this makes no sense even with the randomness of life.

 

[KarinsDad]

Someone made a very good observation about 3rd edition along the lines of 'if your justification of the rule involves stating that you can ready an action, then its probably not a very good rule.'

I propose that the 4th edition variant on this guideline is, 'if your justification of the rule involves stating that you can spend action points, then its probably not a very good rule.'

Yes, that is part of my .sig.

I am adverse to Action Points in the first place (Fate Points, whatever you want to call them), so if the entire 4E mechanics revolve around them for dice or results adjustments, I'll be really disappointed in 4E.

The number one RPing game ever DND did not need them for over 30 years and still managed to stay as the #1 RPG, it'd be a shame if they are required for 4E as opposed to optional.

 

[KarinsDad]

You keep mentioning plausibility but I honestly don't understand what you mean. Are you stating that it is more plausible that the BBEG will fail a save than the minions?

It's more plausible that the BBEG sometimes takes the brunt of an attack while his minions watch on and are only singed. Not often, but sometimes. It's plausible that anyone on the opposing side could get lucky, not just the BBEG.

Ditto for PCs. Not just the Rogue gets lucky, but sometimes the Wizard does.

Btw, I never ever noticed in a single thread someone arguing your POV during the 3E days. The reason is that you are attempting to rationalize the rules based on the results of their (in this case new) mechanics. Mechanics do not always model reality well (which is where we as humans gain our perspective of plausibility, even when we are suspending our disbelief).

But that's one of the places where as a DM/player you don't WANT as a resolution for an encounter. IME, No one remembers fondly the scenario where the BBEG fails and you mop up the small fry. In fact, as a DM/player I tended to feel more gipped than pleased when that happens.

Nonsense. The "game is not as memorable" arguments do not fly for either side of the discussion. The game can be just as memorable and fun (and sometimes even more so) when the BBEG gets fried on round one and the minions are standing around going "opps".

I know my group would LTAO if that happened and would make fun of the Minions as they ran away.

PC: "Hey Mr. Vampire, not so tough without that Lich backing you up, are you? Whose your daddy now?"

You can explain it like that, but more often, it is "Wizard standing next to rogue, both dodge, yet somehow the wizard dodges better than the rogue". For many people, this makes no sense even with the randomness of life.

It makes no sense that once in a blue moon, the Rogue jumps into the path of extra heat by accident? Or that he jumps to safety, but bumps into the Wizard and the Wizard ends up in the safe spot?

And in 3E, once a Rogue gets Improved Evasion, your point here becomes moot. If the enemy does 50 points of damage and the Rogue fails the save and the Wizard makes the save, they both take 25 points of damage. So, the game system itself prevents the very thing you are arguing against.


The bottom line in the new system is that the Rogue cannot react to the Fireball at all. The entire model is changed to how well the attacker attacks, not how well the defender reacts. So, your arguments here are moot because the defender no longer reacts.

The defender does not react randomly, he reacts the same way every single time with this type of game mechanic.

Just like in 3E, the area effect spell attacker attacks the same way every single time with the 3E game mechanic.