Has anyone had any experience with the spell attack rolls alternate rules from unchained?
I like the idea myself, it feels more in-line with regular attack rolls and there's less of a focus on failure. What I mean by that is, it's not on you to fail, but for them to succeed against you.
Although I'm not a particularly huge fan of the DC being 11+modifier. I understand it's to keep the same math, but it feels sort of... Blocky? We don't attack vs AC 11+modifier after all, so it just feels a little off-putting to me.
I personally like the idea when I'm a player. All too often I've saved a couple big SOS/SOD spells for the BBEG. The fight starts, I drop my bombs, and he saves against every one of them. Then I'm just firing my crossbow for the climactic battle.
I'm left to wonder, did the GM "fudge" the rolls so I wouldn't nuke his BBEG too easily? Did I become the worlds worst crossbowman for the dungeon's best encounter all because the GM hides his saving throws from me?
Heck, I don't even blame the GM for doing that - a 7-round struggle for life and death makes a far better climactic fight than a 1-round failed save followed by a coup-de-grace and spending the next 6 rounds looting the iconic BBEG.
But it sure seems to invalidate my character for the whole fight. Worse, it's the biggest/best fight of the dungeon and I'm basically a spectator.
I've taken to privately calling "save or suck" spells as "cast and I suck" instead, because at least with some GMs, that name seems more appropriate.
My point being, if spells had and AC and I could roll my own d20 to see if they work, there would be no more fudging the saves behind the GM screen. At least this way, if my rolls are crappy, I know that it really was bad luck rather than GM intervention that sidelined my spellcaster.
I've play-tested the rules but never used them for a campaign. I like them but cannot convince any GM, including myself, to actually use them.
Why haven't you been able to convince yourself to use them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I'm not a particularly huge fan of the DC being 11+modifier. I understand it's to keep the same math, but it feels sort of... Blocky? We don't attack vs AC 11+modifier after all, so it just feels a little off-putting to me.
First, it actually isn't the same math. They either forgot to account for the average roll being 10.5 or for ties, either way for things to stay the same it actually needs to be 12 + modifiers, not 11.
Regardless, it is trivial to switch around. Make the DC 10 + modifiers and make the attack roll modifiers - 2 instead.
I wouldn't recommend just getting rid of it, though. Spells are already TPK fuel (for monsters or players), and you really don't want to give them +10% chance of success.
As for the system, I prefer the "players roll everything" variant from 3.5. Basically the players use spell attack rolls offensively and saving throws defensively. Same with normal attacks and "defense rolls." It keeps people invested and makes them feel like they are responsible for success/failure, even if the math is all the same.
I back about a decade ago I had a huge amount of house rules - I started growing them in 3.0 and they just kept growing. New feats, changed feats, edits to balance races and classes, spell rewrites, critical hits, combat maneuvers, a whole new metamagic system, etc. I typed it all up in Word and it was 120 pages long. I printed it and kept it in a binder at the table.
It was tedious trying to remember all of that. Even though it made the game more balanced and fun, and the players thought so too, it was just overwhelming to have every decision each player makes requiring reading the official rulebooks AND consulting the giant houserule document.
I Just leveled up. I think I'll take Feat X. Let's open up the rulebook and make sure I know how it works. OK, looks good. Now let's open up the giant house rule binder and find out if it still works the way the rulebook says...
Overwhelming.
So a few years ago I scrapped that. Now I have fewer than 10 houserules that fit on a single printed page and most of them are optional anyway.
The game is less balanced, but much easier to play. I can invite a new player to my table and he'll already know what to do (if he's already played Pathfinder before) - no learning curve.
Life is simpler now.
Now I only house rule something that I think truly makes the game obviously and significantly better. I don't believe spell attack rolls fits that criteria so, despite being somewhat a fan of it, I'm not eager to complicate my game by using it.
Besides, as a GM, I like the idea that sometimes, for the sake of drama, I CAN fudge a die roll here and there. I definitely try not to marginalize any PC by fudging him into uselessness, but for the sake of good storytelling, there are times when luck shouldn't be the ONLY deciding factor. Others may disagree, but that's how I feel. (to that extent, I've had this discussion with my players so they know some iconic bad guys may be protected by "mysterious forces in the universe" that shield them from instant loss caused by a moment of bad luck - that's just how this universe works, so use SOD/SOS spells at your own risk against these iconic villains).
Oh, and sometimes I fudge die rolls to help the PCs, like when a battle is going badly and a caster whips out his last good spell but I roll a good saving throw, I'll fudge it so the spell works and the heroes are saved.
In other words, my GM screen is there to hide some rolls so I can make sure everyone gets a good story of high adventure and have a great time overcoming challenges. When too much of that is decided by die rolls instead of story tellers, the adventure can be diminished in the process.
I like the optional rule, but I don't like relinquishing control to it.
Although I'm not a particularly huge fan of the DC being 11+modifier. I understand it's to keep the same math, but it feels sort of... Blocky? We don't attack vs AC 11+modifier after all, so it just feels a little off-putting to me.First, it actually isn't the same math. They either forgot to account for the average roll being 10.5 or for ties, either way for things to stay the same it actually needs to be 12 + modifiers, not 11.
Regardless, it is trivial to switch around. Make the DC 10 + modifiers and make the attack roll modifiers - 2 instead.
I wouldn't recommend just getting rid of it, though. Spells are already TPK fuel (for monsters or players), and you really don't want to give them +10% chance of success.
As for the system, I prefer the "players roll everything" variant from 3.5. Basically the players use spell attack rolls offensively and saving throws defensively. Same with normal attacks and "defense rolls." It keeps people invested and makes them feel like they are responsible for success/failure, even if the math is all the same.
This is correct.
Use 12 + modifiers to get the exact same chance that spells succeed or fail.
And definitely use it. It's easy to remember "every roll is 10 + modifiers" but it's almost as easy to remember "spells are 12 + modifiers and everything else is 10 + modifiers".