| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saving Throws have been around longer than I've been alive. They are a classic element of D&D's legacy. However, does having two systems for resolving attacks really benefit this new ruleset?
Do we need to keep the legacy mechanic of the victims of some effects rolling an active defense check, but not others?
I propose that Paizo change Reflexes, Fortitude, and Willpower into static DCs (10 + level + ability modifier + proficiency modifier, etc), and remove TAC (see below).
This would have the benefit of always putting the dice in the hands of the PC or GM doing the thing. Spells and effects that previously required saving throws would instead require the appropriate kind of checks(s) against the appropriate difficulty class of the victim(s). Spells and effects that previously targeted TAC would target Reflexes instead, and have the Touch trait to indicate the effect cannot generally be blocked, only avoided. Armour and shields could still grant a bonus to Reflexes against Touch spells and effects; based on their limited ability to provide you with cover and/or deflect such effects harmlessly.
That sounds pretty similar to the Defense System that 4e used.
Which I personally like myself.
When you drink poison, how do you tell if you resisted it? Does the poison make an attack roll against you?
That could actually work.
The good part about something like this is that Spellcasters get more rolls.
The problem is that players get to roll MUCH less, which means less funz.
Spellcasters already get to fire off a spell even if they don't roll to do it, so it feels like they may not even need to get something like this.
As a pair of side proposals:
First, "Armor Class" could be renamed Deflection.
The benefit would be that the name no longer presumes one source, a long vestigal AD&D legacy. However I admit the change is mostly aesthetic.
Second, Medium and Heavy Armor, and Heavy Shields could possess a trait substituting the wearer/wielders Strength for their Dexterity when determining AC. Medium Armor could have a different trait to use the higher of the two instead (for those ranged-weapon using Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians). These traits would be perfect foils to the Finesse Trait possessed by many weapons.
This change would have the benefit of increasing Strength's value, without allowing it to obviate Dexterity's role either (as it still determines Reflexes). Armor in such a system would no longer need a defined Dexterity Modifier Cap; instead the Opportunity Cost for their increased AC should be represented through penalties elsewhere; such as through higher armor check penalties, penalties to reflexes against non-touch attacks, or other flavorful flaw traits.
When you drink poison, how do you tell if you resisted it? Does the poison make an attack roll against you?
The GM should be making the roll in secret either way, but yes. Poison and Disease would make Checks against the victim's Fortitude.
If you had cast Contagion the check would be based on your proficiency and ability score just the same.Many spells would be able to be rewritten with their 'good-stuff' in the critical success category instead of 'the victims' critical failure. Which just feels better to me even though it is a semantic difference.
The biggest potential problem with my proposal is the handling of AoE spells and effects. One of the big reasons they kept saving throws in 3rd edition was that generally the GM was expected to be using more of these effects on the players than vise versa (fireball notwithstanding). Having the players roll those defenses instead of the GM gives them a greater feeling of agency... but it also gives fore-knowledge. Specifically regarding diseases and poisons, which lose all dramatic tension by being so mechanically transparent.
Conversely, when the players did use AoE spells and effects, it was the GM loaded down with making a dozen checks for the victims instead of the player. This works nicely for the players because it means they rarely have to make more than one d20 check for a given action; but the poor gm has to run all those calculations instead.
There are at least two solutions under my proposal:
First: The Caster makes a check against each victim's DC, and it takes them forever; But you get cinimatically unpredicable results.
Second: The Caster makes one check and compares it to every victim's DC, it is much faster; but you get swingy results where your Firball flops and doesn't hurt anybody, or everybody barely saves (because groups of mobs will have similar statistics).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've thought about a system where all GM-facing rolls would use a flat value and all player-facing rolls would include a, er, roll.
How this would work is that monsters would have flat save/DC values that players would need to hit in order to cause an effect - AC of 15, Fort of 12, Reflex of 13, etc. The GM wouldn't need to roll for monster attacks, either - everything, including weapon attacks, would require a roll for the player.
If a goblin shoots you with a shortbow, instead of the GM rolling an attack roll the player would roll their Armor save, similarly to how you'd roll a Fort, Reflex or Will save. Roll well enough to beat the DC and the attack misses, roll low and it hits.
I like the idea because it leaves all the rolling in the hands of the players, and simplifies the DM's job since they don't need to make rolls for their monsters - it's simply a flat value that the player has to roll against instead. It also preserves and even enhances the fun the player has, where they get to roll dice and see if their character gets out of the way in time or not. The downside is that it definitely, 100% sets up GM controlled characters and player controlled characters with different rules, and I know some people hate that.
4e-style spell attack rolls versus set saves, similar to AC, is also a good solution.
Making all defenses active defenses is also a neat idea, but I wouldn't want a seperate system for PCs vs. NPCs.
I'd prefer instead that the various sub-systems work as similarly as possible; so I really like the whole 'every statistic is based on Level, Ability, and Proficiency modifiers' principle. I just think that defenses could easily go that last step and use a unified resolution mechanic as well.