Why saving throws? Why doesn't the attacker roll to beat your score?

[Hypersmurf]

Otherwise, it is equally mechanically effective and just a matter of style.

Any mechanics that allowed a reroll (feats, domains, etc) or a modification (action points) of a saving throw would need to be drastically altered.

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Any mechanics that allowed a reroll (feats, domains, etc) or a modification (action points) of a saving throw would need to be drastically altered.

-Hyp.

Reroll the enemies' roll or give yourself a bonus of +1d6 to your Fortitude score. Not much work involved (I still *much* prefer the usual saves though. Even though some have commented that you get to roll the spellpower check, this isn't true for noncasters, who now have even less to do)

 

[Meloncov]

I imagine the system used is somewhat better when dealing with area of effect spells. If a NPC wizard casts a fireball on hte party, its easier for all the players to roll once then for the DM to roll four times, then check the players stats and any relevant special abilities (such as evasion).

 

[Umbran]

Why wouldn't this work? Is there something about rolling to resist effects that is better than having the attacker make all the rolls?

What you said would work, mechanically. However, there's something better about rolling to resist, but it is psychological, rather than mechanical. It is about the feeling of having an impact on your character's survival. It means the player takes an active part in both attack and defense.

 

[Psion]

I think that when effects can be as sweeping on a character as saves can be, giving the player of the character who is about to be slain or charmed or turned to stone gives them a sense of responsibility over their fate.

I don't think as a "psychological tool" it should be changed.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

When you attack with a sword, your attack roll must beat your foe's AC. When you try to open a lock, you must beat the DC of the lock. True, sometimes there are opposed rolls, like when you're picking someone's pocket, but I wonder why d20 can't just go to flat resistances.

Instead of Fort being a roll you make in response to a spell, your Fort is 10 + class-based bonuses + Con + miscellaneous. Whenever a wizard casts a Fort save spell against you, he would roll d20 + Intelligence + spell level, and if he beats your Fort, you're affected.

Why wouldn't this work? Is there something about rolling to resist effects that is better than having the attacker make all the rolls?

Of course, I don't know what would happen in such a system when a person is trying to avoid heat stroke. There's no attacker to try to beat his Fortitude, so what would happen? I'm just curious about potential variant designs for game systems.

As long as only one person rolls, it should be fine... except, picture these scenarios.

1) The evil wizard casts Wail of the Banshee. He rolls a natural 17. The whole party dies.

2) The evil wizard casts Wail of the Banshee. He rolls a natural 2. What a joke!

IMO, the victims make the save because of area-of-effect attacks.

3.0 psionics had roll to set the save DC, along with rolled saves. Problems abounded. I recall basically wiping out the whole party in the first combat round of If Thoughts Could Kill because a mind flayer blasted them with Mind Blast with a high roll on the save DC. The cleric rolled a natural 19 or so, which is the only reason he made it. Then he had to fight off the whole enemy party for a minimum of three rounds or watch his buddies get CdG'ed/eaten one-by-one.

 

[RangerWickett]

Obviously if such a system were to show up in 4th edition, it would need a lot of other tweaks to work. Spells like wail of the banshee simply wouldn't exist. It's fine to deal damage, which is what I think instant death effects should do anyway. So wail of the banshee would do X damage, or X/2 if your spell doesn't beat a character's Fortitude/Will (which is it?). X would be a lot of damage, but not enough to kill in a single round.

 

[Hypersmurf]

IMO, the victims make the save because of area-of-effect attacks.

True - it prevents all-or-nothing effects.

There aren't many of those in 3E; Whirlwind Attack uses a separate attack roll against each AC, spells use a separate saving throw for each target against a single DC. One potential exception is spell penetration; there's often debate, I believe, as to whether the caster makes a single caster level check for the spell, or a caster level check against each creature with SR. I believe the strict answer is "One check per creature" (which is the intuitive mechanic when creatures encounter an effect separately, like a dozen drow walking through the same Wall of Fire on different rounds), but the common answer is "One check for the fireball that's affecting eleven creatures at once".

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Obviously if such a system were to show up in 4th edition, it would need a lot of other tweaks to work. Spells like wail of the banshee simply wouldn't exist. It's fine to deal damage, which is what I think instant death effects should do anyway. So wail of the banshee would do X damage, or X/2 if your spell doesn't beat a character's Fortitude/Will (which is it?). X would be a lot of damage, but not enough to kill in a single round.

What about spells like Sleep, Mass Hold Person, Sound Burst, etc? At the moment, if you cast one at six orcs, you might expect half to be slept/held/stunned, and the other half not to be. With the single-caster-roll, it's all, or none.

Would these spells cease to exist in 4E as well? Will all condition-inducing spells be replaced with direct damage?

-Hyp.

 

[Delta]

As perviously mentioned, the original idea was to put the rolls in the hands of the players (who are more often the target of poison, dragon's breath, ghoul paralysis, etc.)

See also Unearthed Arcana's "Variant: Players Roll All the Dice":
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm#savingThrowsAndSaveScores