Variant Rule: Spell roll

[johnbragg]

Noticed a variant rule in the DMG.

PAge 36, Spell roll. Instead of DC = 10 + SL + ability modifier, DC = d20 + SL + ability modifier.

Anyone tried it? (Seems like a close cousin of Players Roll All The Dice, actually.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

There're two ways it can go.

A) You change saves to static numbers by adding a 10 where you would roll: this makes it play pretty much exactly the same as normal except the failure chance is in the players hands. It's purely a psychological difference.

B) You roll both the spell roll and the save: You expand both the odds of failure and the odds of success on any individual roll while making the whole thing a bit more granular. However, an increase in random circumstance is -generally- going to hurt the players in the long-term.

[DrMartin]

I had a DM who loved using this rule, with the addiction that if you roll a 1 on your spell roll, you may fumble your cast. And if you rolled a natural 20 on your spell roll, your opponent's save would succeed only on a natural 20.

This was fun for a few times (in a benny hill/three stooges sort of way) but it slowly led to stir away from spell that allow saving throws at all. Also adds more dice rolling, which is not exactly something that 3.5/pf feel the lack of, in my opinion :)

[Khedrac]

Average of a D20 is 10.5 not 10.

This means that on average, rolling a D20 instead of a straight 10 is slightly favorable to the roller

So if you make Save DCs D20+ mods spells are slightly harder to resist.
If you also use a target number of 10 + save + mods (instead of a roll) then they have been made still harder (slightly) to resist.

So if you let the players roll their DCs against fixed targets and saved vs fixed targets when the enemies cast it is a slight but significant boost to the PCs.

Note: this is probably a good thing.

Edit: actually it has a major effect with multiple-target/AoE spells.
Consider a fireball (or a glitterdust) against a group of identical mooks. If only the player rolls, the spell becomes all or none, no chance for one plucky mook to roll well and make (or badly and fail).
Futhermore, if the players know this, just observing the effect on the first one to act will tell them if all the mooks are blinded or not.
This I consider a major negative about adopting this variant. Either roll DC for each creature (which again will tell them which ones are likely to be OK) or roll both the DC and the saves (I would prefer this option).

[johnbragg]

I think if I used this, it would be the Players Roll All the Dice flavor. The caster is rolling against the DC of the target, 10 + Save bonus. (For mass spells, spread out the DCs over the +1 to +20 range. 4 targets, roll 3 8 13 18, etc.)

That puts the die-rolling fun in the players' hands, where it sort of belongs. Maybe I'd go with opposed rolls for BBEG casters.

I guess I'm thinking whoever is narratively important should be rolling.

[DrMartin]

If you'll have only the characters roll and have this take the place of the saving throw, consider how this rule will interact with abilities that grant rerolls, to prevent (or encourage, if you swing that way) fishing for nat 20s

[BowStreetRunner]

Another way to implement this is to include spell DCs and saving throws both as options for the 'take 10' rule. Basically you put the option in the hands of the person who would make the roll.

[Psyren]

This was fun for a few times (in a benny hill/three stooges sort of way) but it slowly led to stir away from spell that allow saving throws at all.

This is the main problem I see. Also, it removes some ability to fudge from the GM. If a battle is going poorly against the PCs, the GM can roll saves behind the screen and that hail-mary Glitterdust or Sleep might hit the powerful monster, allowing the PCs to escape. Or they can't stop their BBEG from being knocked unconscious in the first round and turning a combat completely anticlimactic.

[Jay R]

Obviously, if you roll a 10, it's the same as the old rule.

Over the long haul, you are equally likely to roll an 11 or a 9, so the +5% from one cancels out the -5% from the other.

That cancellation applies just the same to rolls of 8 & 12, 7 & 13, up to 1 & 19.

So for rolls of 1-19, there is no long-term effect on the probability of making the roll.

So the only actual effect this rules change would have is that 1 time in 20, there's a 50% change in the probabilities.

So you've just upped the value of the roll by 2.5% over the long term. Not worth making an extra roll for.

[johnbragg]

So you've just upped the value of the roll by 2.5% over the long term. Not worth making an extra roll for.

Unless of course, rolling dice in itself is fun. So rolling your save DC vs a static NPC/monster's saving throw transfers fun from the DM to player. (Which makes sense, that's not a dramatic moment of fun for the DM)

If you're okay with distinguishing mechanics between random mooks and more important antagonists, THEN you go with an opposed roll.

[Kol Korran]

Hmmmm, my group has been using "players roll all the dice" for a few years now, and we LOVE it! Note, that it fits groups that like the Challenge Aesthetics ("The 8 Aesthetics of Play", worth looking it up) but not so well with groups who prefer the Narrative Aesthetics. (Other Aesthetics, such as Fantasy and Expression may view this in different ways).

I've touche upon this in some of my logs, so I'm copy pasting from there. Note that the roll is against 22+modifier, not 20+... The match works, not sure why, but it does.


Players roll all the dice:
I as DM roll no dice. Instead of monster attack rolls, there are PC defense rolls, instead of monster saves, there is spell/ power roll, and so on. DCs are known in most cases, or told once the decision to roll has been made. The main effects are:
- I can't fudge dice, and this gives the game more credibility, an enhanced sense of danger, and it takes things to unexpected places, which is always cool.
- A major time saver (5 players roll the attacks against them way faster then one DM rolling all dice). It also helps me keep my concentration on the battle instead of just numbers.
- It had made battles quite more engaging and tactical, with the players feeling they understand better the odds, and have more control of the battle.

Or in more detail, from a further post:


The idea is quite simple really. The system is mostly used for player defense rolls (Instead of monster attack rolls) and players spell/ ability roll (Instead of a monster saving roll). Anything else that involves a d20 quite follows the same thing. A few more small guidelines follow.

Defense roll
The player rolls a 1d20+AC. The target number is 22+the monster's attack bonus. Reaching it means to have avoided the attack, not reaching it means you got hit. Criticals are on the lower spectrum of the d20 (1, 1-2, or 1-3 depending on the monster's attack usual threat range). players roll the damage done to them.

spell/ ability roll
This is basically the same. The player rolls 1d20+Spell/ ability's DC. the target number is 22+ the monster's save bonus. Same rules.

(Don't ask me why it's 22, but it works. I've tried many attempts, and the probabilities are the same as in rolling normally. You can try, it works. Some math guys tried explaining it to me, but I'm no math wiz. It works anyway...)

About Skills
Static skill checks are handled the same. For opposed skill checks I just let another person roll, but tell the bonus after it's rolled (Since then the character tested the difficulty of the task).

General rolls
All kind of random rolls and such I either tell the players the possible outcomes up front, or if that is not possible, I make the beneficial results be the high ones, and the negative results the lower ones. The players all know that in my game, "High is Better than Low".

Things to note:
1) You basically means you can't fudge rolls. I suggest lowering slightly the difficulty when you start this, to get a hold of what is tough and what's not.
2) Battles behave unexpectedly at times. A simple battle becomes extremely tough, or a tough battle a walkover. I find this is a great thing, which creates many unexpected and fun moments in the game.
3) Players will probably become much more tactical, and often quite more involved. This is one of the most major benefits. They feel it is more... REAL in a way.

Some examples for the 22+ number
1. Defense roll: Say a PC with an AC of 15, gets attacked by a monster with a +9 to hit.
In the original rules, the monster needs a 6 or more to hit, which gives a range of 6-20 on a 1d20, or 75% to hit, 25% to miss.
In the "players roll all the dice", the PC rolls 1d20+15 (the AC) vs. 31 (22+9). So the player needs a 16 or more to avoid getting hit, or a range of 16-20. Or in short- 25% for a miss, 75% to get hit. The same precentages.
Try is for other examples, with different ACs and "to hit", and see it works.

2. Spell roll: The player casts a spell with DC 17 on monster with a save bonus of +5.
In the original rules, the monster needs to roll 12 or higher to save, or a range of 12-20, which means 45% to save, 55% to fail.
In the "Players rolls all the dice", the PC rolls 1d20+17 (The spell's DC) vs. 27 (22+5). The player needs to roll 10-20 or more to succeed, to affect the monster, or 55% to effect the monster (= the monster fails it's save), and 45% to not effect it (The monster saves). It works.

[manyslayer]

The roll for the DC was the way the 3.0 psionics worked. As a DM I hated it. It required more rolling, and more time. And made things very swingy. Mathematically it may not have had much of a change overall, but in individual combats it made power use seem completely ineffectual or steamrollered over the foe who couldn't hit a DC of a roll of 20 plus the mods.

Now, doing it as the players roll everything variant I can see working better.

[Jormengand]

Spell rolls, defence rolls, and so forth make the game as a whole more swingy, so people are more likely to pass harder saves and fail easier ones. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you.