|
[forgive me if I'm glaringly missing something here; I've drank too much wine today]
Why does attacking and defending work differently for physical combat than magical combat in 2E? i.e. physical combat (strikes, shoves, etc.) are all rolled by the initiator, but for most magical combat (except aimed magic like rays) the defender is the one who rolls. I get why it was that way in 1E (because 3.5 worked that way), but why not in 2E?
I'm playing a wizard right now and combat seems kinda flat. For example, when my ranger strikes and I roll an 18 I think "yeah! this character rocks! swoosh swoosh!" but when my wizard casts dominate and the enemy rolls a 3 I think "I only succeeded because the enemy can't keep the drool from dribbling down his chin."
Is there a reason that I can't switch to a system where Save DCs work like AC (i.e. 10 + proficiency + mods) and have all spells with degrees of success/failure are rolled like spell attack rolls? I have a sneaking feeling that there must be some balance reason or complexity that I'm not seeing, because otherwise it seems to be the simple "just makes sense" system that 2E would have implemented in the first place.
There are three additional bonuses to this type of system I see here:
1. Storytelling-wise it makes more sense for a lot of spells that "your wizard fumbled her complex arrangement of hand motions and incantations", rather than "mook #2 felt particularly steely minded in that moment".
2. It makes things faster, especially when there are lots of enemies affected by a spell, the GM doesn't have to roll and do math for 5+ enemies
3. It puts the power back in the hands of the PC to be inventive. Frequently I see physical combatants be like "can I throw the chair at the jug to knock it over onto his head with a difficult DC?" but never hear "can I try to widen the cone of this spell on the fly with a more difficult DC?" Maybe it's me, but with the character rolling, they might be more inclined to be more inventive in combat.
What are the drawbacks I'm not seeing?
Because spells are more like grenades and radar guided missiles. You don't miss, the target avoids.
Hawkeye has to aim, Iron Man just shoots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a stylistic choice.
The things you claim "make more sense" really don't, they're just aesthetic and stylistic choices. You could change them, if you really wanted to, but to answer your question, you don't aim charm person because the people designing the game thought it didn't make sense to aim that kind of spell.
FWIW, I think "the enemy's resolve allows them to resist the full effect of your assault on their mind" sounds a lot better than "ahaha whoops your clumsy wizard nearly dropped their spell focus and so your spell only has half effect" so I'm not sure your idea of 'better' from a storytelling standpoint really is either.
|
|
It's a stylistic choice.
The things you claim "make more sense" really don't, they're just aesthetic and stylistic choices. You could change them, if you really wanted to, but to answer your question, you don't aim charm person because the people designing the game thought it didn't make sense to aim that kind of spell.
FWIW, I think "the enemy's resolve allows them to resist the full effect of your assault on their mind" sounds a lot better than "ahaha whoops your clumsy wizard nearly dropped their spell focus and so your spell only has half effect" so I'm not sure your idea of 'better' from a storytelling standpoint really is either.
I'm tracking. I see how it might just be more a flavor thing.
For a lot of spells Will saves don't make sense to me. And maybe that's just it, "me"; it makes sense to me so if it works for me and my group then we can just do it that way.
As I see it, the wizard casts daze and the enemy rolls a 12 and succeeds. The bard casts daze and and the enemy rolls a 19 and critically succeeds. The sorceress casts daze and the enemy rolls 1 and is stunned. What happened to the enemy in that 6 second period to have their will go on a roller coaster? IMO, it would make much more sense for their will to have stayed constant but the casting to have been performed worse/better by each caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also consider Area of Effect spells: Suddenly one roll determines if all those in the area of a fireball take no, half, full or double damage.
Less dice rolled = more extreme results.
Also consider Area of Effect spells: Suddenly one roll determines if all those in the area of a fireball take no, half, full or double damage.
Less dice rolled = more extreme results.
You could roll a separate attack against each creature in the area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another way to run it is to have the players always be the ones who roll. PC casting Daze on an enemy? Player rolls d20 and has to beat a static save value. Enemy casting Daze on PC? Player rolls a save as normal.
It's a fairly easy house-rule to run and has minimal effects on gameplay balance.
It is certainly a mechanical difference. Reroll abilities would work to make spells more effective if the player was rolling them. That would likely make save based debuffs too powerful.
In particular, the target needs to try to not crit fail against dying to Finger of Death using their inspiration instead of just trying to power it through as the caster. The Sword of Damocles is hanging over the head of the one trying to save; it's a fun narrative.
You can definitely change it when you feel that it makes sense to do so. Matthew Downie's advices are golden.
Just consider another thing: currently, the PC/NPC who is rolling the dice has an advantage.
Look at this:
Spell attack roll result = d20 roll + ability modifier used for spellcasting + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties
Spell DC = 10 + ability modifier used for spellcasting + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties
Consider the situation where you are casting a spell with a +10 total bonus (so the spell DC is 20), and the target also has a +10 bonus on their save.
They have 5% chances of critical fail (natural 1), 40% of fail (2-9), 50% of success (10-19) and 5% of critical success (20).Turning things around, and making you roll against their save DC (which is 20) means that the probabilities are reversed, making you more likely to land the spell.
If you want to keep the balance as it is, you have to raise the DC by 2 whenever you are inverting who is going to roll the die.
I don't know how much of an issue it would be in real play, but to keep the balance identical you'd have to make reroll abilities work in the same situations they do now. So something that allowed you to reroll a failed save would become something that forced the caster to reroll a successful spell.
|
|
Franz's point is a good one. A well rolled AoE spell by an enemy could lead to a TPK.
And Matt, I like your solution to this, that one could adopt a "PCs do all the rolls" system. This makes PCs even swingier, but that could be fun.
I don't know how much of an issue it would be in real play, but to keep the balance identical you'd have to make reroll abilities work in the same situations they do now. So something that allowed you to reroll a failed save would become something that forced the caster to reroll a successful spell.
I don't know the math. Does "Fortune for the PC" = "Misfortune for the NPC"? Since, by the book, fortune and misfortune cancel each other out makes me think that they are close to equal.
Another way to run it is to have the players always be the ones who roll. PC casting Daze on an enemy? Player rolls d20 and has to beat a static save value. Enemy casting Daze on PC? Player rolls a save as normal.
It's a fairly easy house-rule to run and has minimal effects on gameplay balance.
I've considered modifying systems in a way to allow this, but I ultimately didn't because I realized I as the GM really like rolling dice. Kind of a silly reason, but it's definitely a factor for my enjoyment as a GM.