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

[I'm A Banana]

I like it when the players roll all the dice. It's a psychological thing. I can't get lucky and mess them up, but they can get lucky and change the world.

 

[Treebore]

If I understand the OP correctly, C&C essentially does this. It is an opposed roll between the caster and the defender in that they both add their levels to the TN or roll, but only the defender rolls because the caster has the base TN of 12 or 18 on their side, depending on whether the defenders relevant stat is Prime (12) or not (18). The usual modifiers (the same you would apply in 3e) apply, such as stat and magic bonuses.

 

[jmucchiello]

Heck, why not go to a GURPS like system and have both an attack and defense roll? Of course, GURPS doesn't have iterative attacks or the claw/claw/bite sacred cow.

 

[Psion]

Heck, why not go to a GURPS like system and have both an attack and defense roll?

Because you are doubling the number of rolls it takes to resolve any conflict, in addition to introducing a whole new probability curve to the equation.

 

[Conaill]

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.

Yeah, that's why I don't like D&D's static AC defense either.

Sure, the two are essentially equivalent, but there's really no good reason why attack vs AC should work different from attack vs DC.

(The main exception to this being effects that affect multiple targets - I do think that you should have one roll per target. But that roll could be made either by the attacker or the defender...)

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Only if the attacker rolls once for each defender, rather than once for all... and you still end up with reroll and action point mechanics not working any more.

-Hyp.

 

[Ranger REG]

It's called "caster level", but is mostly used in such a context for spell resistance.

I mean offensive-wise, not defense.

 

[Nellisir]

Only if the attacker rolls once for each defender, rather than once for all... and you still end up with reroll and action point mechanics not working any more.

I think that's an exageration, at the least. An action point spent to influence a d20 roll can give an equal bonus or penalty to the DC that opposes it for mechanically the same effect. And whether you get a reroll, or force a reroll, also ends up being the same thing.

If you play with Players Roll All the Dice, rerolls are actually more useful, since you can reroll hits, saves, and defenses. I ran a campaign using PRAtD and a modified version of void points from Rokugan, and didn't have any problems.