Spell Roll Variant?

[Calimehter]

Page 36 of the DMG describes a variant rule in which the save DCs for spells changes from 10 + spell level + mods to 1d20 + spell level + mods. I've never added it to my games and I've never crunched a lot of numbers with it, but I've always been intrigued by it.

Has anyone tried it out? What was the verdict?

[Tyndmyr]

More variability, and more dice rolled.

Meh. I dislike it. Adding more dice to combat is generally undesirable.

[manyslayer]

3.0 psionics did this. Led to some disgusting DCs for the telepath I DMed for. Mathematically it balances out virtually the same, but makes it so much more variable I was very glad to see it changed in the 3.5 psionics.

[DukeofDellot]

It's good for the "Players roll the dice" approach... the one where the player's roll everything so that they feel more involved.

It actually works for some players, but it will throw some variability into the game when it comes time to cast spells. However, some settings that want magic to have a chaotic essence give you that feeling (that is, if you're accustomed to the standard approach).

The added variablity gives the chance that the save will be low enough that someone who couldn't possibly have saved normally has a small chance to do so... and creatures who can't possibly fail their save now have a small chance to do so, but the odds of saves being made within the normal range you're likely to be using... the difference is hardly noticeable... unless your group casts spells by the hundreds each session.

It really wouldn't be much different than if you had "Armor Rolls" where you replaced the 10 in AC with a d20 roll. I believe there is written a variant rule for that, but for some reason it might not be as popular once you get to characters who make seven attacks per round.

[Tyndmyr]

It really wouldn't be much different than if you had "Armor Rolls" where you replaced the 10 in AC with a d20 roll. I believe there is written a variant rule for that, but for some reason it might not be as popular once you get to characters who make seven attacks per round.

Yes, this sounds painful. I would never, ever want to use that variant.

[Calimehter]

The "double d20 roll" mechanic is already in the game in the form of opposed skill checks . . . but those don't come up as often as the combat rolls in most campaigns. I could see the extra dice rolling being a pain. Imagine resolving a touch attack spell that allowed saves when using both variants. :smallamused:

If the Spell Roll was being used, would your spellcasters change their tactics at all? Most (optimized) casters already boost their save DC through the roof for their favorite attacks, resulting in saves that are all but impossible to make with the standard rule. Would the increased chance for a failed save (i.e. a low spell roll) reduce one's reliance on save-or-die spells in favor of more spells that had had some effect even on a successful save?

Edit: spellingz is tuf

[DukeofDellot]

The original variant is that the AC of the PCs is rolled, but the attacks of the enemies are based on a 10 instead so that the players make all the rolls... but in honesty, my main system requires defense rolls (not contested) for each attack received, it doesn't slow down combat that much...

But I don't recall any characters who make more than three attacks per round without handling it as rapid fire.

[Flickerdart]

I believe the variant changes saves to 10+mods instead of 1d20+mods, so there's no difference in the amount of rolls.

[FMArthur]

Although it does leave one with the feeling that your perfect spherical AOE is just unevenly distributed instead of your enemies resisting it to various degrees.


Also, it's not exactly the same since 1d20 rolls actually average 10.5. Your enemies will have lost .5 to the average roll by going from 1d20 to 10 on the save while you will have gained .5 on average by going from 10 to 1d20 as part of the DC calculation. Meaning your spells are harder to resist by 1 point.