So I reading about some games coming out that wanted to use a more reactive dice rolling system for defense. Instead of the attacker rolling to hit, it'd be the defender rolling to dodge. If you applied this to Pathfinder, giving a 10 + Attack modifiers to the NPCs/Monsters and having the player roll a d20 and add their armor modifiers, how would that change up combat for the players? And how would it change it up for the DM?
|
The current version of Hackmaster uses this system. I liked it because it puts the burden on the player if they roll badly. Although it makes it harder to fudge attack rolls (if you find that necessary as a GM) since everything is rolled out in the open.
As the GM it made it easier for me, since I could say "Defend yourself against the monsters X number of attacks!"
My players liked it because it makes them feel like they have more control over what happens to their characters instead of just being told, "you're hit!"
I've seen d20 systems where the attacker rolled his attack roll, and the defender rolled his defense roll; a hit was determined after these rolls were resolved. Ultimately, these slowed down combat, but not by much. Anything that adds in extra rolls will do that.
The system of rolling defense and using attack as the static stat would just be the reverse of what we currently have. No extra rolls, so about the same, really.
|
theoretically, it can save the DM time to have the players effectively rolling the attack rolls (in the form of defense rolls) for him or her.
mechanically, you have to stop and think about how to resolve 'ties' so you are not giving one side an effective +1 or -1.
let's stop and think:
let X = attack bonus
let Y - defense bonus
so, a successful attack is normally 1d20+X =/> 10+Y
with a 'tie' going to the attacker
a 1d20 averages a 10.5
a 10 'averages' a 10
thus, a successful attack is (10.5)+X =/> (10)+Y
inversely now, a successful defense would be 1d20+Y vs AB 10+X
or, (10)+X vs (10.5)+Y
to make this an equivalent statement to earlier, (10)+X =/< (10.5)+Y
which means a 'tie' must still go to the attacker?
...
(somebody check my 'math')
so, to allow the player character defense roll to 'feel' more like a 'DC' - ie with 'tie' going to the player - the monsters should have an attack score of 11+X (as opposed to 10+X).
this this stack up?
Your math looks right to me, but I just gave it a quick scan.
Player Thought Process: "The GM rolled, we either just missed a trap, secret door (AND LOOT) or monsters!"
Now they barely pay attention to my die rolling. It got them out of the "meta-gaming" habit, so I'm happy.
My players like to roll their dice. Me? I don't really care so long as it's random.
We also have a funny rule (well, I think it is) about rolling: If you can't hit the table, you can't hit the monster (or DC or save, and so on).
You bring up a good point Rain. 11 + Attack Modifiers would be a good start. Then the players just have to beat that score instead of meet and beat it.
In addition, I wonder how crits would be handled? Surely rolling a 1 would mean the attacker crit, but then how do you confirm a critical? And the crit threat values would have to be switched to a 1, 1-2, and 1-3 system, which is simple. I suppose that the Critical Focus would add +4 to the attacker's Attack Class when confirming a crit.