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

[Herremann the Wise]

I think the reason why not is a logical one. I cast a single spell that may affect multiple targets. Do I roll multiple attacks against these targets (from my single spell) or should they get multiple chances to avoid the effect? To my way of thinking, I am only "attacking" with a single spell and so it only deserves a single roll if any by the caster. In addition, it becomes much easier for the targets to say whether they are affected rather than individually checking with different attacks.

Anyway, spellcasters already get to "attack" certain targets anyway with ranged attack spells (which normally don't offer a save) and thus replicate the situation you are thinking of. As far as I can see, the game has been designed meticulously well and offers exactly what you are looking for anyway.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[frankthedm]

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?

1. The players will feel cheated when their "saves" are overcome.

2. It gives players too much info about thier foe. Armor class can be seen, even a deflection bonus arguable has a visual effect, knocking aside the strike before the blade touches armour. Mental defences and Life force cannot be seen by the attacker. The defender may feel the magnitude of the effect by roling high and still failing, but the Attacker only deserves Pass/fail, if that.

 

[Stalker0]

Rolling dice is fun!!! Other than attacks, saves are one of the things players will get to roll through a traditional adventure. Most players love to roll, its exciting, its fun, it makes you feel cool when you roll a 20. While your method is mechanically sound it is NOT equal to the current system when you look at the player's enjoyment of the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think Hyp raised a good point, too, about it being different than an "all or nothing" on an area effect. Though you could require one "magic power roll" for each beastie, a la Whirlwind Attack.

 

[Terwox]

A friend of mine made a system where you only roll for defense against an attacker's static score.

I tried explaining "but I want to roll to hit things, not dodge stuff!" but he didn't ever really get it...

Oddly enough you still roll your attack roll for shooting a bow in his system. Oh well.

But anyway, yeah, the system can work however you want it to. I think it works that way because saves used to be rolled against dungeon traps primarily... and having a pit trap roll to attack you when you fall into it seems a little odd.

 

[Voadam]

There is no mechanical difference between rolling to resist and attacker rolls.

You could reverse the numbers so that the attacker must beat a DC based on the resister's save modifier and it would be exactly the same.

I believe Unearthed Arcana even has a section on how to allow PCs to roll every die in combat, their own attacks, resisting the attacks against them with their AC bonus, their saves, and the success of their spells on enemies.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

When a spell is cast, it has a certain effect. That effect should be consistent throughout its area of effect.

The targets are not necessarily consistent. Even within a group of identical beings, sometimes one can't roll out of the way of a spell (This one was leaning left instead of right. That one was attacking low and was stooped), or have the mental toughness to stave off its effects.

Each target rolling a save makes more sense to me.

 

[Klaus]

There is no mechanical difference between rolling to resist and attacker rolls.

You could reverse the numbers so that the attacker must beat a DC based on the resister's save modifier and it would be exactly the same.

I believe Unearthed Arcana even has a section on how to allow PCs to roll every die in combat, their own attacks, resisting the attacks against them with their AC bonus, their saves, and the success of their spells on enemies.

Indeed, it's the "Players Roll All the Dice" option.

 

[Mercule]

Having the mage (for an example) roll the attack, rather than the target roll the save, would give the spell system much more of a feeling of the casters making a skill check, rather than having guaranteed success on their castings. For that reason alone, I would be intrigued by an inverted save system.

 

[Nellisir]

I'll third the reference to Unearthed Arcana's "Players Roll All the Dice" option. I use it and love it.

Mechanically, there's no difference as far as a roll to attack and a roll to defend (or save). In the PRAtD option, players roll vs a fixed DC to save vs spells, and roll a "magic attack" vs a defenders fixed save DC when the player casts a spell, so they are rolling both to defend and attack.

And since there's no mechanical difference, it comes down to flavor and convenience. I think it keeps my players more involved in the game.