The Core Mechanic: New Design and Development

Wolfspider said:
I'm not sure I like this idea of several different passive defenses. Sure it MIGHT make the DM's life easier (although it will probably just lead to him or her making more rolls), it takes a bit of ... something ... away from the players. I have found that players like rolling dice. If a spell is flung in their direction, they want to roll to avoid its effect.

Though I'm sure the spellcasters will enjoy rolling their enemies' "saves". "Dominate monster!" "Nope, he saved".

At least the mages can now control their own destiny.

I'm a big fan of this - it streamlines the system and makes it more internally consistent. If you are attacking, you roll. There's nothing special and new about this: we've gone from

10 + modifiers vs. 1d20 + modifiers

to

1d20 + modifiers vs. 10 + modifiers

But anything that makes it easier for beginners to pick up and go makes my life better. Moving to addition rather than subtraction was a step in this direction - sure, they're mathematically equivalent, but adding is easier. It's easier to see that a high AC is better.

I just got done chatting about this with my wife - who has been playing for years, but still doesn't quite "get" flatfooted AC vs normal AC vs touch AC vs (and here's the kicker) incorporeal touch AC. She's a smart gal, and could easily sit down and figure this out - but she's in gaming for the fun, and doesn't want to have to sit down and figure it out. It's called barrier to entry, and if 4e can lower that - good.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The idea of dice roll by the Active participant in all cases vs. the Passive participant is hardly new. I remember hearing about folks doing this quite often back in 87-88' when I started playing D&D.

It isn't a bad idea and actually makes a great deal of intuitive sense. The "attacker" is always the one choosing to attack. AC certainly works this way. I think that's why many groups used the house rule.

But why were Saving Throws originally created to be player rolled even though they were not the initiator, the actor? There is a definite rationale and one that I prefer.

First though, it's important to point out players rolling the dice actually has nothing to do with design choice at all. (In truth, having the players roll the dice really doesn't, or rarely ever, alters the rules) The essential element is Player choice.

The players choose to roll their saving throws or not. That is the only thing that is really going on here. Do you resist the effects of magic? Do you attempt to dodge the fall? etc.

By removing that choice from the characters it presupposes perfect knowledge by the players (or by the DM of their players choices). "If you drink a vial, do you resist?" If I, as DM, roll a saving throw attack every time you drink one, like healing potions, then the beneficial effects are not nearly as useful. Neither are the players learning when to trust their instincts, examining their goods, or agreeing to their own fates. The choice is the important thing.

But perhaps DMs no longer require rolls for unidentified magic (or even non-magic). Perhaps everything is too easily identifiable? I don't know.

However, is this choice really removed by these new rules? No. The DM could always ask if the player chooses to resist before rolling against Saving Throw ACs/DCs. Myself, I find it's easier to remember to ask by requiring the players to roll.


The other reason Players rolled STs instead of attackers is because of Area Effects. This has been brought up on the WotC boards. It's a pretty obvious design decision in most miniature mass combat games. If the entire PC group effectively rolls a single saving throw, then the whole group could fail or succeed based on that single roll. Most mass combat games prefer attrition rather than a whole unit rolling a save or die, but it's optional.

It's optional for DMs too for minions and other large groups attacking the PCs, but it isn't exactly fun for PCs to be subject to the same. Save or Die mechanics are okay, but Save or TPK are just too much IMO.

Of course, I doubt Wizards will go this way. The game is almost certainly going to be increasing spells per day (like every new edition) and weakening spell power (like every new edition).

My own house rules for the game will almost certainly change this back for both above reasons. I can understand the need for speedy play, but there are and have been other means to attain such.
 
Last edited:

If a dragon roles a d20 for its fire breath against Character A's "Reflex AC", what does the dragon add to the role as modifier? It's Reflex Attack Bonus? Normal BAB? Nothing?

And I thought we were trying to get rid of magic item dependence. Cloak of Resistance just became the new #1 magic item on the market!

(I know... a cloak of resistance probably doesn't work the same way anymore).
 

Have you played a spellcaster and been a little envious of the excitement of other players when they roll critical hits? Have you wished that you could do that for your spells?

No, I can't say that I have, actually crit with a fireball sound pretty stupid to me (beside you can already crit with spells in 3.x as long as they have an attack roll)

Have you ever had some confusion or miscalculation about your normal AC versus your touch and flat-footed AC?

no, because I have basic math skills, beside I do this little trick where I write normal, touch and flat-footed AC on my character sheet, genial, isn't it?


I don't know, this flipped save could even work whe you talk about simple hp reducing attack/spell but what about things that inflict conditions, a cloud of sleep gas, a net thrown at the party or a symbol of Something Unpleasant? Roll high enough to overcame the PC with the higher appropriate defense and all the party is helpless (or dead), so either there are not attacks that can put out of combat with a single roll (quite improbable IMHO) or evetryone had to roll separately (not really streamlined) I'm not sure I like the idea.
 

Wolfspider said:
This is why in my D&D game I use the Defense roll option presented in the DMG (which is similar to the way combat is done in my beloved Cinematic Unisystem).

Glad to hear I'm no the only Unisystem fanboy around!

Currently, I'm running two games: Buffy and 3.5. Both games are a blast, but I have to admit that Buffy has completely spoiled me in one respect. . .

I simply had no idea how much I *hated* rolling dice as a DM. Honestly, when I get behind my D&D screen I find myself almost resentful every time I have to pick up a polyhedral.
 

Just Another User said:
no, because I have basic math skills, beside I do this little trick where I write normal, touch and flat-footed AC on my character sheet, genial, isn't it?

My players from a recent session had the following spells active

Haste
Bull's Strength (on all of them)
Cat's Grace (on all of them)
Enlarge (on two of them)
Prayer
Barkskin (on two of them)

Some players had items which did not stack with the spells cast on them. Each spell had a different duration count, and several ran out in the middle of battle. Some enemies had ways to render the players flat footed. There were two enemy spellcasters with ray spells.

It... wasn't easy on some of my players.

Part of the problem was the proliferation of buff spells. Another part was the mechanics for calculating armor class. A third was one of my player's poor math skills, and a fourth was one of my player's low attention span for numbers that take him away from hitting things.
 

howandwhy99 said:
The other reason Players rolled STs instead of attackers is because of Area Effects. This has been brought up on the WotC boards. It's a pretty obvious design decision in most miniature mass combat games. If the entire PC group effectively rolls a single saving throw, then the whole group could fail or succeed based on that single roll. Most mass combat games prefer attrition rather than a whole unit rolling a save or die, but it's optional.

It's optional for DMs too for minions and other large groups attacking the PCs too, but it isn't exactly fun for PCs to be subject to the same. Save or Die mechanics are okay, but Save or TPK are just too much IMO.

Of course, I doubt Wizards will go this way. The game is almost certainly going to be increasing spells per day (like every new edition) and weakening spell power (like every new edition).

This is one of my biggest problems with static defenses, area effect spells are given a greater chance to end an encounter. This might be good when the PC's use it against NPC's but it's a whole different story when they get caught by a spell effect that exceeds the highest Will save or whatever, because this means everyone was affected.

The difference with individual ST's is that there's a chance even with a low modifier you can roll high enough for a spell not to affect you or for 1/2 damage. With static saving throws it boils down to one roll. In other words 2 PC's one with a +3 Will mod. and one with a +4 mod. face a DC 16 to resist a spell. Now PC A can save with a roll of 13 or higher while PC B saves with a roll of 12 or higher.

With static saves if the Big Bad liche rolls that 15 it automatically affects every PC. This seems to be setting up a situation where a whole battle(if the PC's are low on hp's)could be decided upon one roll. Not sure I like it that much. I guess it all depends on how everything is intergrated though.
 

Just Another User said:
I don't know, this flipped save could even work whe you talk about simple hp reducing attack/spell but what about things that inflict conditions, a cloud of sleep gas, a net thrown at the party or a symbol of Something Unpleasant? Roll high enough to overcame the PC with the higher appropriate defense and all the party is helpless (or dead), so either there are not attacks that can put out of combat with a single roll (quite improbable IMHO) or evetryone had to roll separately (not really streamlined) I'm not sure I like the idea.

As other's have stated before this solves a gripe I've always had. Mainly that if something comes along that can beat my guy at his shtick whatever it happens to be, then everybody else is #$&#ed too. I like this. It means that other people can't out shine my character in his "area of expertise" just by getting lucky with the dice. If the other player wants to survive/do better than me then they have to actually invest in that area.

I mean come on how many times have we seen somebody over come the mental fortitude of the super high wisdom cleric (who probably invested a lot to get there) only to be unable to over come the wisdom 8 clown (who then proceeds to laugh his ass off)?

If I invest my time and options to be the best at something then dang-nambit I should be the best.
 

Wormwood said:
Glad to hear I'm no the only Unisystem fanboy around!

Currently, I'm running two games: Buffy and 3.5. Both games are a blast, but I have to admit that Buffy has completely spoiled me in one respect. . .

I simply had no idea how much I *hated* rolling dice as a DM. Honestly, when I get behind my D&D screen I find myself almost resentful every time I have to pick up a polyhedral.

Although we may be on different sides of the 4e issue at the moment, I think we have found some common ground. I love Buffy and the other Unisystem games. They are easy to set up mechanically and a breeze to run so I can focus on story-related elements. Interestingly, this is one strength that people have hoped that 4e has. I hope so, too.

So give me a hug, big boy. :o
 

HatWearingFool said:
As other's have stated before this solves a gripe I've always had. Mainly that if something comes along that can beat my guy at his shtick whatever it happens to be, then everybody else is #$&#ed too. I like this. It means that other people can't out shine my character in his "area of expertise" just by getting lucky with the dice. If the other player wants to survive/do better than me then they have to actually invest in that area.

I mean come on how many times have we seen somebody over come the mental fortitude of the super high wisdom cleric (who probably invested a lot to get there) only to be unable to over come the wisdom 8 clown (who then proceeds to laugh his ass off)?

If I invest my time and options to be the best at something then dang-nambit I should be the best.

See I think this models, both past and modern fantasy, badly. How often do we see a character by luck, divine grace, etc. overcome something and save his buddies...even when they're better at it than him? This is almost a staple of "the budding hero". The modifiers are there to give you a nice average, but the roll is there to simulate the highs and lows of fantasy.
 

Remove ads

Top