D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?

[Agrippa]

All this talk about rolls etc. makes me wonder why it is that they decided to make the person saving against an effect the one to roll but you roll to hit. I mean, they sort of managed consistency with 3.X in that it's 'roll greater than' pretty much every time, but why the hell did they do that with saves?

That's how it was done in previous editions. It's a concept that originally came from a few wargames of the era ('60's to '70's). Now you know.

[Raineh Daze]

That's how it was done in previous editions. It's a concept that originally came from a few wargames of the era ('60's to '70's). Now you know.

What was done in previous editions? @_@

[Icewraith]

Attack someone? Crap, I missed! - or - Yay! I hit!

Saving throw vs. death? Crap! I failed! -or- Yay I dodged!

Offensive rolls convey ownership of the action, defensive rolls convey ownership of the character.

[Felhammer]

What was done in previous editions? @_@

In War Games, an attacker rolls a die to hit and a die for damage, while a defender rolls a die to avoid the damage.

[Raineh Daze]

In War Games, an attacker rolls a die to hit and a die for damage, while a defender rolls a die to avoid the damage.

Still baffling that in 3.X they'd very nearly got it working so that the person behind the action was the one rolling. Then... saves.

[Felhammer]

Still baffling that in 3.X they'd very nearly got it working so that the person behind the action was the one rolling. Then... saves.

I believe saves were kept in the game for the sole purpose of giving the players a sense of drama when attacked by traps.

What's more exciting:

DM: You trigger the Trap and acid sprays out of the key hole. *rolls a die* You are hit for *rolls* 10 damage.

OR

DM: You trigger the Trap and acid sprays out of the key hole. Make a Reflex Saving throw!
Player: "Hope I make this! *rolls* 12."
DM: "You take *rolls* 10 damage*

More than anything else, the "Make a Reflex Save" is pretty iconic.

[Ashdate]

I can tell you that in my 4e game, the players seem pretty excited when I miss their Fortitude defense by 1, or they get the chance to use a power to make the attack miss. At the very least, you give the players someone else to blame (the DM's rolling) when things go badly, which I don't think is a bad thing.

I think the consistency is more important, so would rather everything be an attack roll rather than a defense roll. You could change DnD Next such that a Dragon's Frightful Presence is a +6 attack against a characters Wisdom score (i.e. try to meet or beat their Wisdom) for example.

Regardless, I personally would prefer not having six saving throws when three work pretty darn well.

[obryn]

More than anything else, the "Make a Reflex Save" is pretty iconic.

...For one edition of the game?

-O

[Stubbazubba]

Regardless, I personally would prefer not having six saving throws when three work pretty darn well.

Agreed. I can only assume that giving every ability its own bonus was some misguided attempt to reduce the advantage that SAD characters had over MAD ones, by making everyone more MAD. The problem there is that SAD characters were never SAD because of the saving throws, so it won't work anyway.

[MtlGuy]

I signed up for the 5th edition playtest and read through the rules. There's some stuff I like, the language of race and character creation has a 2nd edition feel to it. I like that you have both Race and Subrace, each with a modifier. Saving throws have been increasingly simplified and streamlined over time (just look at all the categories in 2nd edition and compare it to the three kinds of saves in Pathfinder). Tying ability scores to saving throws is a continuation of this trend. I wonder if we'll just end up moving towards a armor class rating for magical attack etc. That would be a mistake, the saving throw is a moment of dramatic tension, it would be best not to remove it.

4th edition was very polarizing. Enough players went over to TSR's spiritual successor, Paizo, to make Pathfinder a success. I read through 4th edition, but I never played it, can't say I was enthusiastic abotu the prospect. I read and played Pathfinder and enjoyed it immensely. That's not the measure of a rules system by any account, but it is my experience. I think 5th edition is an effort by WotC to reclaim spiritual ownership of the D&D brand from Paizo, which has gone on to claim that Pathfinder is now the best selling RPG. By crowdsourcing the playtest, WotC doesn't have to wait until the product is completed to 'change the channel' on Paizo. Furthermore, by making the game modular it can be everything to everyone. Will it work? Does it matter?

[Doug Lampert]

I believe saves were kept in the game for the sole purpose of giving the players a sense of drama when attacked by traps.

What's more exciting:

DM: You trigger the Trap and acid sprays out of the key hole. *rolls a die* You are hit for *rolls* 10 damage.

OR

DM: You trigger the Trap and acid sprays out of the key hole. Make a Reflex Saving throw!
Player: "Hope I make this! *rolls* 12."
DM: "You take *rolls* 10 damage*

More than anything else, the "Make a Reflex Save" is pretty iconic.

3.x has plenty of spells where caster rolls attack and plenty of traps where the DM rolls attack. Nor is there any real consistency as to which spells use which method except that area attacks use defender saves in 3.x (which makes some sense, and if that were the distinction, area attacks defender saves, I could live with it).

But note that in editions prior to 3rd the ATTACKER had no real influence on the chance of the defender saving. Your save vs. spells was the same no matter who threw the fireball, which makes sense based on the idea that the fireball is placed where the caster wants it with no roll or skill beyond the ability to cast required, and then the defender's ability determines whether he avoids.

So if we went back to saves being static based on your level and class with maybe small modifications for abilities and gear then I'd be fine with defender rolls. But if the attacker is doing something that substantially affects the chance then the attacker should roll.

And as has been pointed out, reflex save rolls existed in 3.x ONLY. They're not very iconic to any other edition.

[Scow2]

I believe saves were kept in the game for the sole purpose of giving the players a sense of drama when attacked by traps.

What's more exciting:

DM: You trigger the Trap and acid sprays out of the key hole. *rolls a die* You are hit for *rolls* 10 damage.

OR

DM: You trigger the Trap and acid sprays out of the key hole. Make a Reflex Saving throw!
Player: "Hope I make this! *rolls* 12."
DM: "You take *rolls* 10 damage*

More than anything else, the "Make a Reflex Save" is pretty iconic.

Saves worked for traps. They didn't really work for spells. 4e's NADs were better for casters, I think.

[Flickerdart]

Saves vs traps do make sense, since the trap isn't really a creature. You could hypothetically have a game where character and monster design was so asymmetrical that saves made sense for everything - the dragon, like the trap, acts more as a force and it's your job to actively dodge its attack, and still get to roll the counterattack. But then the PCs roll basically all the dice, which has pros and cons.

[Felhammer]

3.x has plenty of spells where caster rolls attack and plenty of traps where the DM rolls attack. Nor is there any real consistency as to which spells use which method except that area attacks use defender saves in 3.x (which makes some sense, and if that were the distinction, area attacks defender saves, I could live with it).

But note that in editions prior to 3rd the ATTACKER had no real influence on the chance of the defender saving. Your save vs. spells was the same no matter who threw the fireball, which makes sense based on the idea that the fireball is placed where the caster wants it with no roll or skill beyond the ability to cast required, and then the defender's ability determines whether he avoids.

So if we went back to saves being static based on your level and class with maybe small modifications for abilities and gear then I'd be fine with defender rolls. But if the attacker is doing something that substantially affects the chance then the attacker should roll.

And as has been pointed out, reflex save rolls existed in 3.x ONLY. They're not very iconic to any other edition.

Personally, I like the idea of making magic just be magic regardless of who casts it (save for minor adjustments if you cast a spell through a magic item).

Having played a lot of 3E and 4E, I can say both systems have their merits. I think the attacker always rolls is a more stable and predictable system.

I forgot 2E didn't have Ref Saves, I should have just said, "Make a saving Throw."

[Talakeal]

Having the target roll is a lot easier when dealing with area of effect or multi target spells.

[Raineh Daze]

Having the target roll is a lot easier when dealing with area of effect or multi target spells.

Not... really, not if you just have the caster make one roll and compare it to all the saves.

[Scow2]

Not... really, not if you just have the caster make one roll and compare it to all the saves.

That gets REALLY annoying when you get an "All hit" or "None hit" result. Rolling one damage isn't as bad as rolling just one To-Hit.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Not... really, not if you just have the caster make one roll and compare it to all the saves.

I dislike this, because in crowds of similar enemies (like, say, if you're fighting 6 kobolds) that means the spells affect everyone or they affect no one.

[Moreb Benhk]

Personally, I like the idea of making magic just be magic regardless of who casts it (save for minor adjustments if you cast a spell through a magic item).

What does that even mean?

[Talakeal]

Not... really, not if you just have the caster make one roll and compare it to all the saves.

Then you have situations where you hit everything or nothing, which is both unrealistic and tacticly boring. Also, when everyone has a different target number the math is a lot more labor intensive than just rolling seperately for each target imo.

[Raineh Daze]

Then roll to hit multiple times. You get the same number of rolls either way, and the burden's on the person actually causing the effect rather than the recipient like pretty much everything else.

[Talakeal]

Then roll to hit multiple times. You get the same number of rolls either way, and the burden's on the person actually causing the effect rather than the recipient like pretty much everything else.

Again, this is just my oppinion, but that seems like a lot more work.

The DM saying "everyone roll a save" is a lot easier and more engaging on the part of the players.

On the other hand, the mage rolling 34 times to affect a horde of mooks is boring for everyone else at the table, and if the player is doing the rolling rather than the DM he will have to ask for target numbers every time.

It is even worse if you are in a group where you keep the target numbers a secret and the wizard player has to ask "ok, does a 14 hit an orc? How about a 16? Does a 15 hit an orc chief? Does a 12 hit an orc shaman?"

[Raineh Daze]

Again, this is just my oppinion, but that seems like a lot more work.

The DM saying "everyone roll a save" is a lot easier and more engaging on the part of the players.

On the other hand, the mage rolling 34 times to affect a horde of mooks is boring for everyone else at the table, and if the player is doing the rolling rather than the DM he will have to ask for target numbers every time.

So it's fine to have 5 people make 5 different rolls they didn't cause, but not fine to have 1 person make 34 rolls he did cause? Rolling 5 to-get-past-saves-whatever-they're-called is a lot easier on the DM than rolling 34 saves, too.

If you want engagement, do something. Passively waiting for something to engage you is going to be more boring.

It is even worse if you are in a group where you keep the target numbers a secret and the wizard player has to ask "ok, does a 14 hit an orc? How about a 16? Does a 15 hit an orc chief? Does a 12 hit an orc shaman?"

This is absolutely no different from an attack roll. Why should there be different rules for hitting something with a sword and a spell?

[Talakeal]

So it's fine to have 5 people make 5 different rolls they didn't cause, but not fine to have 1 person make 34 rolls he did cause? Rolling 5 to-get-past-saves-whatever-they're-called is a lot easier on the DM than rolling 34 saves, too.

If you want engagement, do something. Passively waiting for something to engage you is going to be more boring.


This is absolutely no different from an attack roll. Why should there be different rules for hitting something with a sword and a spell?

With an attack roll each player is making one (or several in the case of a full attack) attack at a time and then moving to the next player. This is quick and keeps the ball rolling.

Likewise if every player is rolling a save they feel like they are doing something, and everyone is rolling at once rather than waiting for a single person to make half a dozen rolls.


With a spell like fire ball or wail of the banshee the mage could be hitting dozens, perhaps hundreds, of enemies at once. This is going to be slow and boring no matter who does the rolling, however if the DM does the rolling it will go faster as the DM (presumably) knows the target numbers he is looking for a lot better than one of the PCs does.



I find that people have the most fun when they are doing something, even if that something is reactive (like rolling a dice) rather than proactive. Mechanics should minimize the time any given player (including the DM) is sitting around watching someone else do something.

[Raineh Daze]

With an attack roll each player is making one (or several in the case of a full attack) attack at a time and then moving to the next player. This is quick and keeps the ball rolling.

Likewise if every player is rolling a save they feel like they are doing something, and everyone is rolling at once rather than waiting for a single person to make half a dozen rolls.

With a spell like fire ball or wail of the banshee the mage could be hitting dozens, perhaps hundreds, of enemies at once. This is going to be slow and boring no matter who does the rolling, however if the DM does the rolling it will go faster as the DM (presumably) knows the target numbers he is looking for a lot better than one of the PCs does.

Now imagine what happens when the enemies act! Let's say that they all have weapons and aren't using magic. The DM might even have to keep asking the PC's what their AC is if there's a lot of them or it changes vs X condition.

Besides, not only mages should get to affect groups of enemies at one time like that. Now if the non-mage characters don't use magic and saves and use attack rolls... oh, look, the same problem. Hell, the same problem even if the PC gets a whole bunch of attacks on one target. This is not a problem with having the person attacking rolling, this is a universal problem for lots of rolls.

It doesn't need to take that long for the DM to check when the PC rolls, either. It's not as if it can't be cut down to this:
"8, Kobold Warrior."
"Save."
"13, Kobold Warrior."
"Hit."
etc.

I find that people have the most fun when they are doing something, even if that something is reactive (like rolling a dice) rather than proactive. Mechanics should minimize the time any given player (including the DM) is sitting around watching someone else do something.

Clearly, no enemies should ever roll to hit, they should have a static attack value and the PC's roll to defend.

... except not, because that's messy, and doesn't really mesh with the rest of the system. Saves are weird; there is no reason for them to be rolled. A universally applicable mechanic (person taking an action is the one to roll) is better than players maybe not getting to roll when a trap comes up. :|

[Talakeal]

The mere fact that the problem exists in other areas does not mean that it isn't a problem or should be allowed to spread.

Although I will say that the DM keeping track of the PCs numbers is much simpler than the PCs keeping track of the monsters, especially if you have a DM who insists on keeping target numbers a secret for some inexplicable reason (but that's a different topic).

... except not, because that's messy, and doesn't really mesh with the rest of the system. Saves are weird; there is no reason for them to be rolled. A universally applicable mechanic (person taking an action is the one to roll) is better than players maybe not getting to roll when a trap comes up. :|

That's true. It is wierd that magic and melee use different systems, and if one can find an elegant solution to unify them I would be all for it.

However, I still maintain that in an AOE type situation it is much simpler and more fun for everyone involved if the victim rather than the agressor rolls.

Clearly, no enemies should ever roll to hit, they should have a static attack value and the PC's roll to defend.
|

I specifically said the DM counts as a player. In an ideal world EVERYONE at the table should have roughly even spotlight time, although this is seldom possible when the DM is running multiple characters at once.

[Raineh Daze]

The mere fact that the problem exists in other areas does not mean that it isn't a problem or should be allowed to spread.

Although I will say that the DM keeping track of the PCs numbers is much simpler than the PCs keeping track of the monsters, especially if you have a DM who insists on keeping target numbers a secret for some inexplicable reason (but that's a different topic).

... but it's not a problem. I don't understand why you're insisting that one person rolling a lot of dice if they affect a lot of things at once is a problem. It creates a basic chain of cause and effect throughout the entire system: perform action -> roll dice.

And, uh... sorry to burst your bubble, here, but the PC's don't need to track the monster's AC and saves. All they need to do is give a number and find out whether it hit or not. Or they can track the saves if they want to, just like they can with AC.

That's true. It is wierd that magic and melee use different systems, and if one can find an elegant solution to unify them I would be all for it.

However, I still maintain that in an AOE type situation it is much simpler and more fun for everyone involved if the victim rather than the agressor rolls.

How can you get more elegant than a universal 'roll to beat'? You're focusing way too much on AoE's here. Not all spells are AoE, just as not all attacks involve multiple rolls. Let's take a nice, simple spell that doesn't involve a huge area of effect, like Sleep. Is it 'simpler and more fun' for the DM to roll the save to resist Sleep, whilst the player just gives their action, whilst the fighter rolls to hit?

[Scow2]

I agree that Reflex saves are great when players are hit by AoE's... maybe better when players make almost all the rolls. However, D&D Next is using saving throws for stupid stuff like "Light of Heaven" and most of a wizard's straight attack spells, when it should be something like 4e's NADs. Having them be interchangable might be a step in the right direction, making who the task falls on be able to be determined by whatever's most convenient - you can have a party make a Will Save to resist sleep, or have the party wizard cast Sleep on a group of goblins and "Roll to beat Passive Will".

[navar100]

This is absolutely no different from an attack roll. Why should there be different rules for hitting something with a sword and a spell?

It helps to make combat fighting and casting a spell feel different in play. One complaint of those who don't like 4E is the sameness of the classes. While not the only cause of the sameness, the wizard having to roll to hit and the fighter having to roll to hit means "spell" is just another word for "sword".

[Raineh Daze]

It helps to make combat fighting and casting a spell feel different in play. One complaint of those who don't like 4E is the sameness of the classes. While not the only cause of the sameness, the wizard having to roll to hit and the fighter having to roll to hit means "spell" is just another word for "sword".

The problem is that saves don't even necessarily have to come from spells--and sometimes spells are going to end up using attack rolls. So there may as well be a universal mechanic, but that'd probably be too much to ask for...