Static Saves

[Stalker0]

Mechanically, the change is sound. It reduces time spent calculating rolls for large groups of monsters and it creates uniformity between large groups of creatures.

But from a playing the game standpoint I don't like it for the reasons mentioned. Spells are a different kettle of fish from an attack. An attack usually takes away hitpoints, further if you notice all of the attack options that can do more than that (trip, grapple, disarm) all allow an opposed roll. Spells can kill you, take you out of the fight in an instant, even turn you to the other side. Players want to be in control of their character's destiny, even if its a complete illusion, even if the math works out exactly the same if the dm is rolling, that doesn't matter to people. They want to roll the dice for their characters in the big moments, its as simple as that.

I personally don't think this change will come over either as this is an area where star wars and dnd differ greatly. In Star Wars, other than the occasional force bad guy, the party doesn't get hit with lots of "magic". They get shot at, and shoot back.

Magic is prevalent in dnd, players get hit with saving throw stuff all the time. The same mechanic that works in star wars wouldn't work in dnd imo.

 

[KingCrab]

You can take away my d6/level fireballs, just please leave me with my saves.

 

[IceFractal]

I like it actually. It always seemed like the AC/saves divide was based on the concept that the PCs were doing the attacking, but the monsters were the ones doing stuff that required saving throws.

But that broke down when it was the PC Wizard casting spells at the mooks - the warrior gets to roll their own attacks, why shouldn't the caster do the same? And for that matter, in 4E I bet the warrior-types will be acting against those saves/defenses as well via manuevers/talents.

And it makes things symmetrical - the one who made the attack is the one who gets to roll the dice, in all cases.

 

[hexgrid]

You could comprise, and have both sides roll, so that casting a spell on someone is an opposed check.

 

[Victim]

You could comprise, and have both sides roll, so that casting a spell on someone is an opposed check.

That makes the results far more random.

 

[Mouseferatu]

That makes the results far more random.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. As I think I mentioned earlier, the last campaign I ran included both the standard attack roll and a defensive roll. Yes, it was more random, and it took a bit longer, but we enjoyed it.

I wouldn't want to see it as the default assumption in 4E (because, again, it takes longer), but I'd love to see it included as an optional rule for both standard attacks and saves/defenses.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

I wouldn't want to see it as the default assumption in 4E (because, again, it takes longer), but I'd love to see it included as an optional rule for both standard attacks and saves/defenses.

I agree.

 

[hong]

That makes the results far more random.

Actually, it makes the results _less_ random. It's equivalent to a 2d20 roll vs a target number, which is a triangular distribution; hence results close to the center will be more probable than those closer to the extremes. Don't know if this is a Good Thing, but it will certainly be different than a single d20 roll.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

It might make the game much faster but also somewhat (more) illogical.

Lets say there are about 30halfling rogues in my fireball radius.
Either they all manage to get away or the all will get their hair singed.
No in between.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It might make the game much faster but also somewhat (more) illogical.

Lets say there are about 30halfling rogues in my fireball radius.

The fact that you have 30 identical halflings is illogical.

It's a conceit to speeding up gameplay.

... which makes it no different from the "attacker makes a single roll" rather than "defenders all make individual rolls" mechanical change.