Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3815956" data-attributes="member: 3192">The idea of dice roll by the Active participant in all cases vs. the Passive participant is hardly new.&nbsp; I remember hearing about folks doing this quite often back in 87-88' when I started playing D&amp;D.It isn't a bad idea and actually makes a great deal of intuitive sense.&nbsp; The &quot;attacker&quot; is always the one choosing to attack. AC certainly works this way. I think that's why many groups used the house rule.&nbsp; But why were Saving Throws originally created to be player rolled even though they were not the initiator, the actor?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; (In truth, having the players roll the dice really doesn't, or rarely ever, alters the rules)&nbsp; The essential element is Player choice. The players choose to roll their saving throws or not.&nbsp; That is the only thing that is really going on here.&nbsp; Do you resist the effects of magic?&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; &quot;If you drink a vial, do you resist?&quot;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Neither are the players learning when to trust their instincts, examining their goods, or agreeing to their own fates.&nbsp; The choice is the important thing.&nbsp; But perhaps DMs no longer require rolls for unidentified magic (or even non-magic).&nbsp; Perhaps everything is too easily identifiable?&nbsp; I don't know.However, is this choice really removed by these new rules?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; The DM could always ask if the player chooses to resist before rolling against Saving Throw ACs/DCs.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This has been brought up on the WotC boards.&nbsp; It's a pretty obvious design decision in most miniature mass combat games.&nbsp; If the entire PC group effectively rolls a single saving throw, then the whole group could fail or succeed based on that single roll.&nbsp; Most mass combat games prefer attrition rather than a whole unit rolling a save or die, but it's optional.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Save or Die mechanics are okay, but Save or TPK are just too much IMO.Of course, I doubt Wizards will go this way.&nbsp; The game is almost certainly going to be increasing spells per day (like every new edition) and weakening spell power (like every new edition).&nbsp; My own house rules for the game will almost certainly change this back for both above reasons.&nbsp; I can understand the need for speedy play, but there are and have been other means to attain such.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 3815956, member: 3192"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification