The Core Mechanic: New Design and Development

[Aloïsius]

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 don't think this will use ability check. rather skill check (eg acrobatic).

But for things like poison, that can't have skills tied to them ? Maybe ability check. I would like this, a poison is a poison, and your experience should not greatly affect the way it works inside your body (except if you have a con increase).
Somewhat, I doubt they will go through this "realistic" route, however.

 

[Aluvial]

I don't think this will use ability check. rather skill check (eg acrobatic).

But for things like poison, that can't have skills tied to them ? Maybe ability check. I would like this, a poison is a poison, and your experience should not greatly affect the way it works inside your body (except if you have a con increase).
Somewhat, I doubt they will go through this "realistic" route, however.

I would like the system you suggest.

Perhaps I jumped the gun... Wow! I LOVE 4E now!

Aluvial

 

[Sammael]

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 don't think they will necessarily become ability checks.

Avoid a pit trap that just opened up under you? Acrobatics (formerly Jump) check.

Shrug off the effects of poison? Endurance check.

Avert your gaze away from the medusa? Perception check (to figure out where not to look).

And so on, and so forth.

 

[A'koss]

Shrug off the effects of poison? Endurance check.
.

In SW Saga, Fort Def. is listed as the ability to resist poison & disease, not endurance. However, I can't seem to find any examples of poison in the book to see how it works...

 

[Cadfan]

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

Thank you for the kind reply, and acknowledging the problem.

You're right that its a difficult one.

There's basically 4 ways to do things.

1) Attacker rolls.
2) Defender rolls.
3) Attacker and defender make opposed rolls.
4) Player rolls no matter whether she's attacking or defending. Monsters never roll.

The third option compounds the number of rolls the system needs. I don't think it will be used, and I'm kind of glad. Opposed rolls make things take longer, and while its fun to always get to do something (roll a die) I don't think that the amount being added is worth doubling the time needed to accomplish things.

The fourth option would be tough to design. Monster attacks would need their own game mechanic separate from player attack, as would monster defenses. I don't think that making the system more complex in this way is a good idea.

That leaves options 1 and 2. Option 2 is the 3e option. Option 1 is what we seem to be getting for 4e.

Imagine a typical fight. Assume the monster being fought has an attack that makes someone save. In this fight in 3e, each player might roll a saving throw once, maybe even twice. The party spellcaster casts a spell each round, and barring use of a ray spell, makes zero attack rolls. In 4e, each player has lost their chance to make a defensive roll, but the spellcaster has gained the ability to make an offensive roll in (probably) every single round of combat.

The losses to the defensive players are small, though each player is affected by it. The spellcaster is the only one who gains, but he gains a great deal.

I think its the better choice.

 

[A'koss]

Ah, I finally found how poison works in Saga - it does indeed make it's own separate attack roll against the target's Fort Def., based on how potent it is.

 

[Victim]

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 don't really think so. If the player has control over the outcome of the save, then he's cheating. Rolling a die does not constitute control. It's a random number.

 

[Henry]

Probably a Jump skill check. =) Every other applicable defense (Reflex or AC) seem static.

*cough*ACROBATICS*cough*

...leastways, if they follow the Star Wars Saga Edition example.

Ah, I finally found how poison works in Saga - it does indeed make it's own separate attack roll against the target's Fort Def., based on how potent it is.

Yep, page 255, for those looking for the reference.


My take is pretty neutral - in our Star Wars games, it has sped things up, but I also find the players are a little lackluster about it, compared to the inherent drama of saving throws. For our SW games, I've been thinking about in certain cases making the players roll the d20, and telling them what that result means to them, just to put the die roll back in their hands for the drama of it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't see how saying "His AC/Reflex/Fortitude/Will Defense is higher than that, you fail." makes cheating more difficult than saying "His spell DC is higher than that, you fail."

It makes it more difficult because the players know what they roll. If they rolled 15 last time and hit, and roll 16 next time and miss, they are likely to suspect that something is a bit wonky. They can quickly narrow down an AC value in 3e; in 4e it sounds as if they could quickly narrow down any of the other defence values too.

In 3e, the DM can roll behind the screen and they don't know what the die roll is - giving the DM much more room to change things if he wants to.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The new system seems to imply a dramatic change in the utility of touch spells.

It used to be that touch spells with no save were great against dragons or other large creatures - although they had great saves, they had rubbish touch AC.

If the new system means that 'touch attacks' are made against Reflex defence, the ability to land touch attacks on very large creatures becomes greatly reduced.

- unless they've done something about the 'apatasaurus more agile than a cat' syndrome from 3e, of course