|
Is it possible to make the game so the players make all rolls?
Monsters and NPCs can be given static statistics that players need to roll against, instead of PCs having static AC players gain an AC bonus they add to a d20 roll vs monster’s static attack number (11+ Attack bonus), and players gaining a Spell attack bonus vs NPCs static saves.
This really helps free up the GM to focus on narrative and tactics, speeds up monster turns, and keeps players active and engaged when it’s not their turn.
I think it would be a fantastic change to implement in Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
I like this a lot, was one of my favorite rules in Unchained. Make spellcasters more involved instead of them waiting to find out if their target made it’s save roll, have the design space to give people abilities that are based around making defense rolls, like getting a free attack when you crit. I am on board.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Na, I like making saves for my NPCs and monsters. Probably more so then I like making them for my characters. The table loves it too for the tension. Ill admit your way is faster, but would kill the fun a little. /not signed
Now while I LIKE this change I know that there are some that wouldn't.
Doing this makes it harder for the GM to fudge things.
The troll attacks roll your AC check. 15. Okay you're hit for 16 damage how much HP are you at? 1 hp left.
Well the troll attacks again since you're up and only one in range, roll AC, 13, .... that misses cause I don't want you to die here.
Currently there's the option of rolling in secret and ignoring the roll and pretending that they rolled a nat 1 on their attack that time. Can't do that if the players make the roll and see the result.
Eh, I’ve never been a GM who fudges rolls. The dice are out in the open and are played as they fall. Can be a bit brutal but it also keeps anybody from feeling like someone else got special treatment or thinking I am going easy on them. Bad stuff is going to happen to the players, let it.
Eh, I’ve never been a GM who fudges rolls. The dice are out in the open and are played as they fall. Can be a bit brutal but it also keeps anybody from feeling like someone else got special treatment or thinking I am going easy on them. Bad stuff is going to happen to the players, let it.
As a DM, I always make all my rolls in the open. What I do fudge, is monsters' decision to attack. Sometimes they'll take a turn to gloat or brag and won't do optimal attack sequences.
I'd like to see spellcasters make more rolls, in fact I'd like to see them have to make rolls for all spells, so there is a chance of failure just as there is for martials. But I don't like the idea of players rolling to see if the monster hits them or not. Since the DM is "playing" the monsters, it just seems logical for the DM to make those rolls.
YMMV.
I'd like to see spellcasters make more rolls, in fact I'd like to see them have to make rolls for all spells, so there is a chance of failure just as there is for martials. But I don't like the idea of players rolling to see if the monster hits them or not. Since the DM is "playing" the monsters, it just seems logical for the DM to make those rolls.
As a GM, I don’t feel like I would be losing anything by not making those rolls, it would free my tablespace up if anything. But I have played other systems like Numenera where the players make all the rolls against static monster numbers, even the damage from enemies is static, and it works beautifully. Puts more of the control in the players hands and makes successes and failures that much more impactful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I enjoy rolling my dice just as much as my players enjoy rolling theirs.
It’s absolutely easy to houserule, so if t isn’t changed officially I will still do it. I just think it would be cool if classes and abilities were balanced to take advantage of said design space. That said, those things are easily house ruled as well.
I cannot say no to this hard enough.
4e did similar with their saves system and I didn't like it then, I definitely don't like it now with even more stuff potentially being made that way.
Keep your mitts off my dice!
|
I would love to see defenses and attacks unified. I don't care which way. Currently the attacker rolls to hit sometimes, but other times the defender rolls defense, and some of the defenses overlap and are confusing. Like why does one spell roll to hit vs touch ac while another rolls do defend with reflexes. Would be great to have a unified and sensible system.
|
|
When a player attempts disabling a trap, the number on the dice is usually the biggest contributor to success.
Having the player roll their own "Disable Device" check removes almost all of the uncertainty from the outcome of their attempt.
A GM can't be ambiguous about the result, if the players know the number on the dice.
There was an article / pdf / <something> that had defense rolls detailed where the players rolled for attacks (to hit only) instead of the DM. I looked thru my hard drive, but can't seem to find it, but it did speed up play a lot. As DM I still rolled damage and saves, but at least the to hit came from the players.
-- david