PDA

View Full Version : Active Defense House Rule: Saving Throws For Everything



Thomar_of_Uointer
2014-07-22, 08:26 PM
I had a crazy idea that I think would be a lot of fun for players. Why not remove player Armor Class entirely and make players roll saving throws against all attacks against them? It would also unify the saving throw system in the game to be the only type of defense you have. This is essentially a variation on the DMG "players make all the rolls" rule, but I still think it's fun to homebrew.


Variant Rule: Saving Throw Defense
PCs do not have an Armor Class. Instead, monster attack rolls are a static value (10 + the monster's attack roll) which PCs must roll Dexterity saving throws against. Characters add their armor and shield bonuses to their Dexterity saving throws against melee and ranged weapon attacks.

You could extend this rule into proficiency as defense for low-armor settings like Dark Sun or modern games where heroes don't wear heavy armor and shields.


Armor isn't used in the setting for various reasons. PCs who do not wear armor gain the following bonuses:
Light Armor Proficiency: All characters who are proficient with light armor add their proficiency bonus to Dexterity saving throws against melee and ranged weapon attacks, unless they were already proficient in Dexterity saving throws.
Medium Armor Proficiency: All characters who are proficient with medium armor increase their proficiency bonus to defense by +2.
Heavy Armor Proficiency: All characters who are proficient with heavy armor further increase their proficiency bonus to defense by +2.

da_chicken
2014-07-22, 08:43 PM
The DC used for defense rolls should be 11 + monster attack bonus. This is to correct for the fact that ties go to the die roller. Also, make the defense roll not a Dex save. Using an actual Dex save means Rogues have the highest AC, and breaking bounded accuracy like a twig.

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-22, 08:57 PM
Well I don't dislike but I don't it would fit with my tables play style. Still interesting idea to mess with.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-22, 09:52 PM
More dice rolling = slower play. House rule opinion: it could work. Table opinion: not at mine.

pwykersotz
2014-07-22, 10:01 PM
3.5 had this variant. I've never tried it myself, but it seemed to spark some interest with a couple of my players when I told them about it.

obryn
2014-07-22, 10:02 PM
You're better off making either (a) everything actor-rolled, like 4e; or (b) making it so players roll all the d20's, against your target numbers.

MeeposFire
2014-07-23, 01:51 AM
I actually really liked how 4e had defenses rather than saves. I thought that worked really well. You could probably do the same thing. IN Star Wars Saga they did not have AC and instead you would attack their reflex defense. I suppose with some minor tweaks you could do something similar here. Hard to say for sure since I have not read how attacks and defenses work in 5e yet and it doe seem slightly different.

Thomar_of_Uointer
2014-07-23, 02:45 AM
You're better off making either (a) everything actor-rolled, like 4e; or (b) making it so players roll all the d20's, against your target numbers.

That's the idea. Monster attacks have flat save DCs.

Tholomyes
2014-07-23, 04:36 AM
Personally, I don't see the use. I've never bought into the notion of 'rolling more dice = more fun' and if it doesn't alter the math, I don't see any purpose behind it. Unifying everything as defenses in 4e was a good idea, only because it unified everything, but in 5e, it seems like all it'll do is slow play down while the defender rolls (which is slower than attack rolls, since the attacker knows they'll be attacking, so they're more ready to roll, and have their bonuses more easily on-hand, where a defender needs to respond, make the roll, and look up their relevant bonus without knowing ahead that they're being attacked. Maybe just a couple seconds, but it's got no real purpose, otherwise).

Joe the Rat
2014-07-23, 07:31 AM
It's an adjustment in play, but not insurmountable. Palladium did well with rolling defense* even with multiple-multiple attacks per round. And that's the simple part of the combat block. Most dice pool games effectively do this as well. You simply replace Armor Class with Defense Bonus, and roll the bones.

* In detail: d20 plus mods, anything over a 4 is a hit, unless you do something to not be hit - parry or dodge, which may or may not use up actions depending on your training and abilities. Armor absorbed damage unless you rolled over its armor rating, but armor could only take so much damage...

1337 b4k4
2014-07-23, 08:29 AM
I think people are misreading the OP. The proposed system doesn't change how many dice are rolled. Each attack still requires one d20 roll. The difference is the players are rolling the die against a static DC set by the monster rather than the monsters rolling a d20 against a static DC set by the PCs. It really

TrexPushups
2014-07-23, 08:33 AM
How do monsters crit under this system? When a PC crit fails their defense?

obryn
2014-07-23, 08:45 AM
How do monsters crit under this system? When a PC crit fails their defense?
Yep; natural 1 = the monster gets a critical hit.

There's some cascading effects with (for example) halfling luck.

TrexPushups
2014-07-23, 08:55 AM
Does that also apply to spells like fireball, etc that don't crit in standard 5e?

obryn
2014-07-23, 09:01 AM
Does that also apply to spells like fireball, etc that don't crit in standard 5e?
I'd say that if you're using a "players roll all dice" model, you should probably aim for simplicity and consistency rather than trying to correspond 1-for-1 to the current rules.

Person_Man
2014-07-23, 02:10 PM
I just let my players roll almost all the dice, period. Ogre attacks you, you roll for it. You attack Ogre with a spell that requires a Saving Throw, you roll for it. It works pretty well, makes the game more fun for them, and it removes the "did the DM cheat behind the screen" factor.

Nagash
2014-07-23, 08:06 PM
I like rolling active defenses, I've never noticed it slowing the game down and can increase the drama sometimes and make combat feel more like a duel.

I just use opposing attack rolls though with the defender being able to add shield and dex. We also used armor as DR though.So that made a difference as well.

charcoalninja
2014-07-24, 01:59 PM
I've used this variant for many years and it's great, having players roll the dice engages them in combats more than me rolling.

Though I recommend not making it a saving throw at all, and instead simply convert AC into a defense roll. So simply drop 10 from their AC and have them roll the d20. That way the game's math doesn't change at all.

If I have a dozen monsters running around attacking people rather than me sitting there for 10 minutes rolling dice and talking while the players sit passively waiting, instead everyone that is being attacked is immediately engaged in the action. It's been a great boon to my games, and also has allowed me to expand my theatric house rule to defenses as well.

In my games if the player describes their attacks and actions rather than simply saying "I attack" they get a +1 to hit or a +2 to damage or a +1 to spell save DC. Now I can have them describe how they avoid the monsters attack and let them gain a +2 to their AC.

More engagement all round. My combat rounds DO take longer for sure, but every round is immeasurably more fun for everyone involved, which is a huge deal when melee classes in 3.P can pretty much ONLY do "I attack"...

Fwiffo86
2014-07-24, 02:30 PM
I've used this variant for many years and it's great, having players roll the dice engages them in combats more than me rolling.

Though I recommend not making it a saving throw at all, and instead simply convert AC into a defense roll. So simply drop 10 from their AC and have them roll the d20. That way the game's math doesn't change at all.

If I have a dozen monsters running around attacking people rather than me sitting there for 10 minutes rolling dice and talking while the players sit passively waiting, instead everyone that is being attacked is immediately engaged in the action. It's been a great boon to my games, and also has allowed me to expand my theatric house rule to defenses as well.


Sounds like GURPS combat. I like GURPS combat. But it sometimes means taking 3 hours to resolve several game seconds. While playing D&D, (especially what of 5 I've played) I enjoy the speed of combat. Fast, furious, entertaining. But that is really just my opinion.

Thomar_of_Uointer
2014-07-24, 10:17 PM
Sounds like GURPS combat. I like GURPS combat. But it sometimes means taking 3 hours to resolve several game seconds. While playing D&D, (especially what of 5 I've played) I enjoy the speed of combat. Fast, furious, entertaining. But that is really just my opinion.

In theory this won't slow anything down. Players only defend with a D20, so the GM has less dice and numbers to track.

Tholomyes
2014-07-25, 01:37 AM
In theory this won't slow anything down. Players only defend with a D20, so the GM has less dice and numbers to track.The thing is, for the most part, a DM knows when they're going to need to roll dice, and most of the time, the same type of monster all go together on the same initiative. Having enemies make the attack rolls means that the DM is ready with dice in hand and attack bonuses in mind. With players making saving throws, the players don't know that they're going to be attacked, necessarily, meaning they might not have those numbers in mind or dice in hand. In addition, with multiple defenders, you don't have the expediency benefit of one person making roll after roll, instead having more players make rolls, which takes more time.

And I ask, what does this game slowage earn? What value comes of it? I have yet to see any proof to the vague notion that Players rolling dice is somehow more fun (even when said rolling of dice is for damaging effects), and personally I have seen no difference in the level of fun when rolling dice or when not rolling dice, so I can see absolutely no benefit.

brocadecity
2014-07-25, 06:09 AM
One thing to consider. Even if you did this for most combat, it would seem like a funny way to model things in situations where defense was largely passive. Imagine 2 fighters wearing splint mail, let's say without shields, hitting each other with swords. Not a lot of chance for a player to actively defend. Ditto situations where people are clumped besides reach other in a castle siege setting. Just a thought

charcoalninja
2014-07-25, 07:58 AM
In theory this won't slow anything down. Players only defend with a D20, so the GM has less dice and numbers to track.

Well in my variant it DOES actively slow combat down because rather than someone saying "okay I full attack the orc." They instead say "Okay I take my swords and chop across the orc in an X pattern aiming for his arms to knock aside his defense before turning the blades straight out in a double thrust at his gut."

People LOVE getting +2s for nearly no effort. Just been my experience and in this case, the slow down in combat is worth it because of how much more engaged everyone becomes.

charcoalninja
2014-07-25, 07:59 AM
One thing to consider. Even if you did this for most combat, it would seem like a funny way to model things in situations where defense was largely passive. Imagine 2 fighters wearing splint mail, let's say without shields, hitting each other with swords. Not a lot of chance for a player to actively defend. Ditto situations where people are clumped besides reach other in a castle siege setting. Just a thought

How is two FIGHTERS, fighting not a perfect place for active defense?

Thomar_of_Uointer
2014-07-25, 11:46 AM
How is two FIGHTERS, fighting not a perfect place for active defense?

Yeah, that would be the one difference. It would make a duel a series of opposed ability checks.

brocadecity
2014-07-25, 03:57 PM
Charcoal ninja. In response to yr fighters fighting question:

Because when i think of splint/plate mail fighting, you would be largely sucking up your opponents blows with your armor and swinging at them as hard as you can. There wouldn't necessarily be a lot of dodging, bobbing,and weaving. Brandon sanderson does a pretty good job of illustrating this sort of dueling in his words of radience novels.

Now two sword and shield fighters with chain mail or agile breastplates, the active defense makes more sense to me.

Yakk
2014-07-25, 05:27 PM
Light Armor uses a Dex save.

Medium Armor uses a Strength save. (with bonus similar to Light armor)

Heavy Armor uses a Con save. (with a better bonus than Light/Medium)

Thomar_of_Uointer
2014-07-26, 10:34 AM
Light Armor uses a Dex save.

Medium Armor uses a Strength save. (with bonus similar to Light armor)

Heavy Armor uses a Con save. (with a better bonus than Light/Medium)

Now we're getting way too complicated. :( Maybe make all attacks allow one of two saves? Melee is Strength or Dexterity. Ranged and light are Dexterity or Wisdom. Psychic blasts are Intelligence or Wisdom. Etc Etc.

Morty
2014-07-27, 04:27 AM
Charcoal ninja. In response to yr fighters fighting question:

Because when i think of splint/plate mail fighting, you would be largely sucking up your opponents blows with your armor and swinging at them as hard as you can. There wouldn't necessarily be a lot of dodging, bobbing,and weaving. Brandon sanderson does a pretty good job of illustrating this sort of dueling in his words of radience novels.

Now two sword and shield fighters with chain mail or agile breastplates, the active defense makes more sense to me.

Two heavily armoured opponents with shields will try to strike above and below each other's shields, find gaps in the opponent's armour, and, if necessary, try to make gaps in the armour. While at the same time preventing the opponent from doing the same by manoeuvring with their shield, pre-emptive striking and positioning. There's plenty of active effort there.