The Core Mechanic: New Design and Development

[Wolfspider]

I see that this new system (4 defenses) is going to streamline things further but it does change a fundamentally fun part of the game. Rolling a die to see if you survived the save.

Changing the aspect of "rolling the die to determine your own fate" is a big change in the game and it disturbs some of the "feel" of the game. The effect happens to a character. The saving throw roll puts the fate of the character in the owner's hands.

To reverse this, whether the mechanic is adding up the same way or not, takes the aspect of luck of what is about to happen to your character out of your hands. This change, regardless of how much easier, or faster, is taking away the self-determined feeling of putting the result into the die-roller's hands.

I'm not saying it won't work. I'm not saying it is horrible. It's just not the way it has been for 30+ years. There is something elementally fun about rolling your own die to determine your own results for success or failure. The luck, the fate of your character is in the die roll that you make.

Aluvial

I feel the same way about this change. Mechanically, there is no doubt that it makes the game more consistent and sound. I think, however, that it does take away a bit of the fun and self-determination (I like your use of this term).

 

[Aluvial]

I feel the same way about this change. Mechanically, there is no doubt that it makes the game more consistent and sound. I think, however, that it does take away a bit of the fun and self-determination (I like your use of this term).

I rephrased this on the Wizard's boards and it seems to make a little more sense to me than my original post here. Here is what I wrote:



I'm really concerned with (is this in the wrong place?) the idea of taking the saving throw away from the player. There is something fundamental in the idea that a player is taking fate into their own hands and making the roll to determine whether or not something happens to their character.

With the advent of the 3.x system, they did a wonderful thing and incorporated BAB with class and reversed the AC direction to rid us of annoying lookups for "hits" and "misses." THAC0 was a miserable game design. The fix was streamlined but left the fate of the attack in the player's/creature's hands. The fun was "I'm rolling to see if luck will help determine my fate."

When they streamlined saving throws in 3.x (from 5 nebulous saves to 3 universal ones), I think they did a good thing too. The thing that did not change however is that the player still rolled a die to make a save. The fate of the save was in the player's/creature's hands. The fun was "I'm rolling to see if luck will help determine my fate."

I see that this new system (4 defenses) is going to streamline things further... BUT, it does fundamentally change a fun part of the game. Rolling a die to see if you survived the save.

Changing this aspect of "rolling the die to determine your own fate" is a big difference and it disturbs some of the "feel" of the game. The affect happens to a character. The saving throw roll puts the fate of the character in the owner's hands.

To reverse this, whether the mechanic is adding up the same way or not, takes the aspect of luck of what is about to happen to your character out of the character's/creature's hands. This change, regardless of how much easier, or faster (or more universal) is taking away the self-determined feeling of putting the luck/fate into the die-roller's hands.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying it won't work. I'm not saying it is horrible. It's just not the way it has been for 30+ years. Again, there is something elementally fun about rolling your own die to determine your own results for success or failure. The luck, the fate of your character is in the die roll that you make. This is the fun aspect of the game. This should not change.

Aluvial

 

[Aloïsius]

I feel the same way about this change. Mechanically, there is no doubt that it makes the game more consistent and sound. I think, however, that it does take away a bit of the fun and self-determination (I like your use of this term).

On the other hand, you won't have to blame the DM for his lucky rolls when his NPC save systematicaly against your spells...




A question : how will poison work ? If defense are passive, what happens when you are poisoned or diseased ? The poison roll against your fortitude ?

 

[Cadfan]

Changing the aspect of "rolling the die to determine your own fate" is a big change in the game and it disturbs some of the "feel" of the game. The effect happens to a character. The saving throw roll puts the fate of the character in the owner's hands.

To reverse this, whether the mechanic is adding up the same way or not, takes the aspect of luck of what is about to happen to your character out of your hands. This change, regardless of how much easier, or faster, is taking away the self-determined feeling of putting the result into the die-roller's hands.

(emphasis added)

If you're going to say this, you HAVE to address the fact that now spellcasters will be rolling the dice to determine the success or failure of their own actions. You basically have to. Failure to do so undermines your entire argument by making it look like you're picking and choosing evidence to justify complaining about change.

 

[Aluvial]

On the other hand, you won't have to blame the DM for his lucky rolls when his NPC save systematicaly against your spells...

This puts the argument on a different level (which is fine). Sure, the player will now determine whether or not the effect of their actions affect the NPC/creature. In a way, this "puts the fate of their actions in their hands."

My issue is, "Will determining the fate of your initiated actions (like attack rolls) be more or less fun then determining the fate of something that is about to affect you?"

I worry about this. If everything luck/fate/determined becomes an attack, will the game "feel" the same?

I just want to describe it like this.

DM: You are walking along the corridor and a pit opens up beneath you because you are carrying way to much treasure...

Now you the reader has a decision.

Would you rather the pit (the DM) make an attack roll against your Reflex defense #
OR
Would you rather roll the die to see if you avoid falling in?

Which is more fun?

DM: Hmm, let's see what happens. *die rolls behind screen* Oops, you fell in.
OR
DM: Ok, roll and see if you escape the clutches of gravity!

I don't know. The first choice (having the DM roll) seems wrong... it's not fun.

Again, I'm not saying the mechanic won't work. I'm just thinking that fate is best left in the player's/creature's hands/die rolls.

Aluvial

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

As it turns out, I hate doing this sort of calculation. I'm also very good at it. I have no trouble keeping track of it all, but it drives me up the wall. For the sake of my sanity, if not actually for the sake of avoiding mistakes, I look forward to a simplification of the system.

 

[A'koss]

A question : how will poison work ? If defense are passive, what happens when you are poisoned or diseased ? The poison roll against your fortitude ?

I was pondering a similar question this morning with touch-delivered spells that currently require a Fort Save. Does the attacker make a single roll, checked first against the target's Reflex Def. to see if it hits, then his Fort Def. to see if it takes effect or will the attacker make two rolls, one against each with possibly different bonuses?

Poison is another matter, especially if it's not delivered by an attack. I imagine the poison makes an "attack" with a bonus depending on how virulent it is.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Again, I'm not saying the mechanic won't work. I'm just thinking that fate is best left in the player's/creature's hands/die rolls.

Aluvial

When a pit suddenly opens up beneath your feet, you make a check to jump out of danger]/b], but if a crossbow trap fires an arrow at you, it the bolt attacks your AC.

Bolded for emphasis. When the pit trap opens, the player still rolls, because it's strange to think of a pit trap as "actively attacking the character". They only use the paradigm, if something actively tries to hurt a character/creature. If something passively harms the character, the character gets to evade!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Aluvial]

(emphasis added)

If you're going to say this, you HAVE to address the fact that now spellcasters will be rolling the dice to determine the success or failure of their own actions. You basically have to. Failure to do so undermines your entire argument by making it look like you're picking and choosing evidence to justify complaining about change.

You are absolutely right. The new system does allow a player to "put the fate of their attacks/spell attacks into their own hands."

What it does change from the game now, IMO, is the fun factor of determining your own fate when something is happening to you.

I know that you can't have it both ways. But the fun should be in the hands of the players of the game, not the creatures affecting the players.

I am saying that the "fun" is in the "fate," in other words, in the rolling of the die. Again, yes, if the change is made (and by all accounts this change is already decided) then the attacker gets to determine the "fate/outcome" of their attacks. By my own definition "this is fun" because the attacker gets to roll.

But when the player is affected, they do not get to determine the effect on them. This limits the "fun/fate/die rolling."

Look above for my pit example. Which would you choose? The DM rolling to see if the pit is effective, or you rolling to see if you escape the clutches of the pit?

Ideally they could develop a system where the player gets to determine how their attacks affects their target, but how effects that are targeted against them fail or succeed.

Aluvial

 

[Aluvial]

Bolded for emphasis. When the pit trap opens, the player still rolls, because it's strange to think of a pit trap as "actively attacking the character". They only use the paradigm, if something actively tries to hurt a character/creature. If something passively harms the character, the character gets to evade!

Cheers, LT.

OK, I missed that.

So, will there still be saving throws or will this be a type of ability check against a DC (using current game terms).

EDIT: So wait a second. If passive checks become ability checks, how will a character actually improve on these (other than the seldom ability bonuses that creatures recieve)?

I would imagine that as I gained experience/class levels, I would also improve in avoiding pit traps. This type of improvement (class levels) should excede the rate at which ability scores increase.

Of course, I'm now way off the reservation in speculation terms....

Aluvial