I'm not sure if this is the right section of the forum but here goes.
When 4th edition was introduced my group picked it up hoping for the best. Unfortunately after about 4 game sessions we decided to abandon the system because it did not provide what we were looking for. A member suggested PF and the rest is history. One mechanic from 4th edition that we did like was the saves. Rather than rolling a saving throw vs a spell the caster rolled vs your save which was presented as a static number much like armor class. (Ie. Rather than roll a reflex save d20 + 5 vs breath weapon DC:16 the breath weapon rolls vs you d20 + 6 vs Reflex 15)
My players enjoyed it more because as a caster they liked to feel as though success was up to them rather than the monster rolling to defeat the spell. I have mulled over just switching saves around because it is a simple conversion. Either way is effective but as a player it feels great to hit that success, and the opposite side of the coin it stinks when a low level monster hits that 19-20 and resists your powerful spell. If they roll a one there's much less grumbling than if I hit a few 20's vs spells in an encounter.
Just wanted to know what everyone's feelings the static saves system are.
I and my group had pretty much the opposite reaction - we didn't like the ability to prevent monsters inflicting a save on us, or at least the chance to avoid/negate it, taken away from us.
It sounds nice when it's the PCs rolling against the monsters' defenses, but turn it around to when it's the monsters aiming to hit saves on them and, at least in my experience, they like not being able to roll to avoid/negate/reduce a lot less.
I don't like the static defenses very much, in part, because I like to use Action Points. I'd rather have the players have the option to use an action point to add 1d6 to their saving throw than have static defenses.
I like both ways, though I think using the Defenses works better if your group uses action points/hero points/force points/whatever they're calling it this time.
I appreciate the input so far. Again this is not me trying to say one is better than the other. Just that my group and I felt it was a better fit for us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of the caster rolling just so we could give them a fumble possibility.
There is always things like "you rolled a 1, you dropped your sword", so a "you rolled a 1, the spell exploded in your face" would be interesting. And maybe make casters slightly less powerful, while making magic more unpredictable and interesting...
The conversion is simple enough, but I'm too lazy to make it with every ability ever and I'm not sure if my gaming group would like the idea.
Grifter,
It's funny that one of my groups had almost the exact same experience with the editions.
Now, as for saving throws, there are pros and cons to both sides. You are right that sometimes a caster just wants to roll them bones and see if their magic did the trick, but when that happens it is much akin to a magic user targeting a specific magical armor class. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's fun for the caster, but each person walking around with a static "magical armor class" against certain types of magic seems a bit odd. Of course, odd, in a world where there are creatures that are part humanoid and part spider, is a conversation all its own. The flavor of having a strong fortitude, great reflexes, or impressive willpower makes a decent amount of sense. Can someone's constitutional integrity (fortitude) be examined, noticed, maybe even measured? Sure. Can someone's agility be examine, noticed, measured? Yeah. Willpower? Perhaps, though the experiments to measure such would be interesting. With this system magic becomes much more predictable and static (which is kind of odd too, one would think magic to be a fickle mistress, but I digress). In this fantasy game we play, having magic be static and constant is a good thing. You wouldn't want that +2 Dragon Bane Longsword to suddenly stop +2-ing! So having magic as a static counterpart, and making the targeted creature check to see whether they can withstand the magical challenge to their: fort, ref, will just makes sense. At least insofar as our group is concerned.
There is, of course, validity to both systems, but my group has found from a flavor perspective, that this system fits better with our perspective on the game world. Also, casters do still get to roll attacks depending on the spell, touch attacks, ranged touch attacks, etc. are great opportunities for the caster to roll them bones.
There is always things like "you rolled a 1, you dropped your sword", so a "you rolled a you, the spell exploded in your face" would be ineresting. And maybe make casters slightly less powerful, while making magic more unpredictable and interesting...
The conversion is simple enough, but I'm too lazy to make it with every ability ever and I'm not sure if my gaming group would like the idea.
I agree completely and have the same problem.
I like the idea of the caster rolling just so we could give them a fumble possibility.
There is always things like "you rolled a 1, you dropped your sword", so a "you rolled a you, the spell exploded in your face" would be ineresting. And maybe make casters slightly less powerful, while making magic more unpredictable and interesting...
The conversion is simple enough, but I'm too lazy to make it with every ability ever and I'm not sure if my gaming group would like the idea.
It also left options open for critical's with spells that normally wouldn't be able to crit with. I like that the system added options for critting with ranged touch spells and this opens options to expanding on that.
My players enjoyed it more because as a caster they liked to feel as though success was up to them rather than the monster rolling to defeat the spell. I have mulled over just switching saves around because it is a simple conversion. Either way is effective but as a player it feels great to hit that success, and the opposite side of the coin it stinks when a low level monster hits that 19-20 and resists your powerful spell. If they roll a one there's much less grumbling than if I hit a few 20's vs spells in an encounter.
Put all the rolls in the hand of the players and get the best of both worlds!
Have the players roll their own saves, and make the players roll "attack rolls" against flat save DC against monsters.
Can't seem to access the old hypertext d20 SRD site, but you should find that variant under the Variant Rules of unearthed arcana
That's my favorite method when GMing, for AC as well as saves. Saying, "Defend yourself," when a monster attacks a PC and letting the player roll the die is much more dramatic than rolling the die myself and asking, "Does a 27 hit?"Put all the rolls in the hand of the players and get the best of both worlds!
Have the players roll their own saves, and make the players roll "attack rolls" against flat save DC against monsters.
Eww, no. One of my players is in another group that does that and was very surprised to find that not only did I not use that rule, I actively dislike it.
Combat takes long enough as is, and at the levels where it doesn't, variable AC makes characters too potentially squishy.
That and I hate using different rules between PCs and NPCs. One system for both sides, if they have to roll so do you, and vice versa.