Static Save Defense instead of dynamic saving throws.

[jasin]

2) STACKING EFFECTS: This is the big one. In any system its easier to modify a single source than multiple ones. Now that Wizards get an attack roll, it seems to me that it would be much easier for that single mage to find ways to stack up a really high magic attack roll, compared to how the defenders can increase thier STATIC defense score.

How is this different than the current system?

Currently, the wizard also has just one offensive value (DC) while the defenders have three different values to increase (Fort, Ref, Will).

 

[Veril]

Personally I think this is an excellent change. one roll is what I have been using for ages for all minions and one roll of bosses. Unless the players ask for different dice for each monster.

The unification of mechanics for magic-ToHit vs Save AC and weapon-toHit vs Physical AC make a lot of sense and is elegant.

One thing everyone is overlooking at this stage: A roll to hit on a 20 can critical with a melee weapon (or ranged attack such as scorching ray). I'm willing to bet that a roll of 20 can do the same with magical attacks. Thus you can crit your fireball, just as you can crit scorching ray or a greatsword swing.

 

[BryonD]

So far I'm positive on this change (as understood so far).
It isn't a real big deal to me, but it is a net plus.

It kinda makes sense that the toughness of an orc simply is what it is. So the idea that the orc would make a fort save against a spell one time or just as easily fail it is a bit odd. Not in the OMG this makes no sense realm, but just a little counter-intuitive. OTOH, if the toughness is static then it becomes a question of: did the mage get enough mojo into his spell to overcome that orc? To me that is actually more cool.

It also gets away from the Dex20 Rogue failing a REF save with a 1 when the Cleric standing right next to him in plate rolls an 18 and saves. Is that a game stopping problem? No. But it does flow better, for me, that if anyone is going to fail it will be the cleric.

As far as losing control... First and foremost, the die doesn't care who actually rolls it.
But beyond that, I've never had anyone complain that they were not in control when the DM rolls to see if the stone giant hits them with a club. This is no different. Only now the spellcasters gain "control" of the success of their spells.

I think this type change could add a bit of dramatic excitement and also reduce the impact of luck in regard to characters playing into their specific strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Baby Samurai]

It's more fun for the player to declare he is casting sleep, and then roll a 20 on his magic check and know he has affected the enemy, instead of declaring he’s casting a sleep spell, and the DM quietly rolls behind his screen, looks up and says "None were affected".

 

[BryonD]

Changing the entire dynamic of area effect spells means differences. Sure, everyone will get used to those differences, but it does feel "video gamey" this way. Area Effects never taking out the BBEG and letting a few minions survive is just not plausible. It's like being in a movie and something unusual happens that shouldn't. It does break suspension of disbelief for some players, not for others.

But there is a lot we still don't know.
The recent blog post about fireball crits suggests that your scenario may not be right for 4E.
Perhaps a fireball is aimed at the BBEG and the mooks are just in the blast radius. And that could have a very big implication.

 

[KarinsDad]

Wouldn't this be classified as COVER? A.k.a, the mooks standing right behind the BBEG get a massive bonus to their AC? Thus, it still works out logically?

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.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you stating that it is more *believeable* that the BBEG is taken out yet the minions aren't versus if the BBEG is taken out by a spell, the minions automatically are taken out as well?

Isn't the definition of the BBEG is that he's well, the BIG BAD, implying that he's much tougher than the rest of the minions?

Personally, I've always considered the current method more suited to a videogame since the computer can easily handle multiple rolls amond its mooks compared to a DM having to roll multiple times.

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".

re: Speed of play
It is a wash from the player's prospective. Given that in the classic 4 (clr, ftr, rog, wiz), each one will have a different static defense thus the only difference is that you won't have any "funny moments" like when the monk misses a reflex save, yet the wizard makes it.

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.

When it becomes a game of automatics. The Wizard automatically fails the save if the Rogue fails it, one might as well be playing checkers.

Note: I agree with you that it will speed up play, but some things should not be sacrificed to speed up play.

Personally, I'm impartial to the change as a player and slightly in favour of it as a DM.

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.

Or, even when the enemy NPC criticals a single Fireball in some circumstances.

WotC is trying to make the rules nearly identical. Roll a D20 for all attacks, even spells. If you roll a 20, you critical.

 

[KarinsDad]

But there is a lot we still don't know.
The recent blog post about fireball crits suggests that your scenario may not be right for 4E.
Perhaps a fireball is aimed at the BBEG and the mooks are just in the blast radius. And that could have a very big implication.

Could be.

We'll have to wait and see. The scenario I suggested was based off SWSE rules which WotC did put in print. It's possible that WotC will come up with ways to avoid this.

Note: I hope they do. This will speed up game a lot, but it will also feel totally artificial if they do not handle this issue.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's more fun for the player to declare he is casting sleep, and then roll a 20 on his magic check and know he has affected the enemy, instead of declaring he’s casting a sleep spell, and the DM quietly rolls behind his screen, looks up and says "None were affected".

That's the reason to never roll saves, attacks, and damage behind a screen. Roll them in front of the players and they will not mind if you roll high.

It's annoying for some players to have a secretive DM roll extremely unlikely results behind a screen.

 

[Baby Samurai]

That's the reason to never roll saves, attacks, and damage behind a screen. Roll them in front of the players and they will not mind if you roll high.

It's annoying for some players to have a secretive DM roll extremely unlikely results behind a screen.

That has nothing to do with my point.

It still wouldn't matter if you roll in front of them or not, as the DM is still the one rolling to see if their sleep spell succeeds or what have you.

Players like to be more proactive.

 

[BryonD]

Could be.

We'll have to wait and see. The scenario I suggested was based off SWSE rules which WotC did put in print. It's possible that WotC will come up with ways to avoid this.

Note: I hope they do. This will speed up game a lot, but it will also feel totally artificial if they do not handle this issue.

Yeah. I'd just be real careful going too much on SWSE. Yes, they have said there are connections. But they have also said that a lot of the SWSE stuff was developed with the specific intent of modeling the SW movies. For some reason the second statement doesn't get nearly the attention of the first. If you are going for Star Wars then area effects are less common than D&D, and when they do happen the stormtroopers all go down and Vader walks away. I think that is an intentional feature for the SWSE game. And the WotC guys have talked enough about the differences to assume they get that a feature in SWSE can still be a bug in D&D. Granted, this could be an exception and the ball could get dropped. But since right now we have nothing more than assumptions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

If I'm wrong I'll jump and shout later.