A DM who rolls almost nothing (players roll everything variant)

[Nifft]

This was a thing in 3.5e via Unearthed Arcana variants, and was doable in 4e with the easy translation of passive / active skill checks and the transparency of attack vs. NAD scores.

What are the options for doing Players-Roll-Everything in 5e?

Have you tried one? What's your experience with it?

Thanks!

[Mr.Spastic]

I think it's possible but it seems kind of lazy. I don't know how you would do things like saves and attacks for monsters apart from literally just having the players role the dice for you.

[Potato_Priest]

I think it's possible but it seems kind of lazy. I don't know how you would do things like saves and attacks for monsters apart from literally just having the players role the dice for you.

My original post was inaccurate, but my mistakes jump-started the discussion, which might not make sense to read through otherwise. For the sake of not misleading people, I'm going to put the original in a spoiler and list the correct math.

When players cast a saving throw spell you could restructure saves as "save attacks" and have the players roll with a bonus of (spell save DC-10) against monster "Save Class" of 11+saving throw bonus. (11 because now the player rather than the monster wins on a tie roll).

You can do the same for monster attacks. The monster has a Dodge DC of 11+Attack bonus, and players roll with a bonus of (AC-10). If the player rolls a 1 the attack is a crit, if they roll a 20 they dodge regardless of the DC. Effects that grant advantage on attacks grant disadvantage on the dodge roll, and vice versa.

Contested ability checks are the easiest. Using the same framework as passive perception and investigation (10+skill bonus), give monsters a passive score for each skill. Players roll against that when they make a contested ability check and like normal, nothing happens if there's a tie.

When players cast a saving throw spell you could restructure saves as "save attacks" and have the players roll with a bonus of (spell save DC-10) against monster "Save Class" of 12+saving throw bonus. Also, there's a more elegant way to do this through a link in the post below.

You can do the same for monster attacks. The monster has a Dodge DC of 12+Attack bonus (why 12? **** if I know, but it works out if you calculate the probabilities), and players roll with a bonus of (AC-10). If the player rolls a 1 the attack is a crit, if they roll a 20 they dodge regardless of the DC. Effects that grant advantage on attacks grant disadvantage on the dodge roll, and vice versa.

Contested ability checks are the easiest. Using the same framework as passive perception and investigation (10+skill bonus), give monsters a passive score for each skill. Players roll against that when they make a contested ability check and like normal, nothing happens if there's a tie.

I should've used this in one case where the player kept wanting to dodge monster attacks after they hit him. It's the same mechanically as a regular attack, but makes the player feel cooler.

[RedMage125]

When players cast a saving throw spell you could restructure saves as "save attacks" and have the players roll with a bonus of (spell save DC-10) against monster "Save Class" of 11+saving throw bonus. (11 because now the player rather than the monster wins on a tie roll).

You can do the same for monster attacks. The monster has a Dodge DC of 11+Attack bonus, and players roll with a bonus of (AC-10). If the player rolls a 1 the attack is a crit, if they roll a 20 they dodge regardless of the DC. Effects that grant advantage on attacks grant disadvantage on the dodge roll, and vice versa.

Contested ability checks are the easiest. Using the same framework as passive perception and investigation (10+skill bonus), give monsters a passive score for each skill. Players roll against that when they make a contested ability check and like normal, nothing happens if there's a tie.

I should've used this in one case where the player kept wanting to dodge monster attacks after they hit him. It's the same mechanically as a regular attack, but makes the player feel cooler.

Someone just did this for Spell DCs and Saving Throws (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?573987-Help-me-houserule-NADs&p=23516064#post23516064)

The TL;DR version is that the math is the targets NADs (Non-Armor Defenses, which replace saving throws) is 14+save modifier. And The PC just uses normal Spell Attack rolls (d20+prof+stat), but in this instance the attacker wins ties. The math is all worked out in that thread I just linked, and 14+mod seemed too high at first to me, too, but there's a nice breakdown towards the end.

[Marywn]

I have a dice that has never rolled me above a 5.
I can't bring myself to get rid of it.

[Snowbluff]

And The PC just uses normal Spell Attack rolls (d20+prof+stat), but in this instance the attacker wins ties.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't an attack a form of check, and therefor if your attack roll meets the DC (AC), you succeed and hit?

[RedMage125]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't an attack a form of check, and therefor if your attack roll meets the DC (AC), you succeed and hit?

That is what I meant by "attacker wins ties".

Because with saving throws, the "defender" (i.e. person rolling the d20) wins ties.

[strangebloke]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't an attack a form of check, and therefor if your attack roll meets the DC (AC), you succeed and hit?

The general rule is "Roller wins ties."

So generally, the person making the save wins ties. In order to preserve balance in the 'spell DCs as spell attacks' paradigm, it logically follows that 'spell save attacks' lose if they tie the target's DC.

But that's a very fiddly bit of nonsense and I wouldn't bother with it.

[Snowbluff]

The general rule is "Roller wins ties."

So generally, the person making the save wins ties. In order to preserve balance in the 'spell DCs as spell attacks' paradigm, it logically follows that 'spell save attacks' lose if they tie the target's DC.

But that's a very fiddly bit of nonsense and I wouldn't bother with it.


That is what I meant by "attacker wins ties".

Because with saving throws, the "defender" (i.e. person rolling the d20) wins ties.

I mean know the roller wins ties that's how DCs work.

I was confused because Redmage's phrasing made it sound like the attacking winning was the exception. He meant it was the exception for casting a saving throw spell. :smalltongue:

[RedMage125]

I mean know the roller wins ties that's how DCs work.

I was confused because Redmage's phrasing made it sound like the attacking winning was the exception. He meant it was the exception for casting a saving throw spell. :smalltongue:

Did...did you just quote me responding to you, and then refer to me in the 3rd person?

Snowbluff is an odd one. ;)

[LudicSavant]

This was a thing in 3.5e via Unearthed Arcana variants, and was doable in 4e with the easy translation of passive / active skill checks and the transparency of attack vs. NAD scores.

What are the options for doing Players-Roll-Everything in 5e?

Have you tried one? What's your experience with it?

Thanks!

How about this?
- The formula for saving throws is easily inverted. Saving throws become "save attacks" with players rolling against a save defense.
- All skill rolls by the DM are passive.

[Potato_Priest]

How about this?
- The formula for saving throws is easily inverted. Saving throws become "save attacks" with players rolling against a save defense.
- All skill rolls by the DM are passive.

I think that’s a great idea, and also exactly what I suggested at the top of the thread!:tongue:

To that thing that Redmage linked- so if a player with a spell save DC of 13 and a spell attack bonus of +5 (from a 16 casting stat) targets a monster with a save throw of + 3, normally the monster has to roll a 10 or better to succeed, and fails 9/20 times. With this, the player has a spell attack of +5 attacking a monster defense of 17. Thus, the player has to get a 12 or better for their spell to succeed, meaning that the monster succeeds 11/20 times. Did I do the math wrong or is this thing busted?

[LudicSavant]

I think that’s a great idea, and also exactly what I suggested at the top of the thread!:tongue:

Sorry, I didn't read all the replies before answering the OP question :smalltongue:

In that case, I recommend that thing that Potato Priest apparently said. :smallbiggrin:

[Mr.Spastic]

Now that I've seen how to do it, the question that pops into my head is... Why? One of my favorite parts of DMing is watching the suspense of players as I roll an attack that could drop a party member. Or I roll a save for a monster. I think that the physical action of rolling dice and watching somebody else roll dice adds to the experience of the game. When you get to tell the party that the monster failed it's will save on the hold monst spell and they all explode with joy, that's really fun. Having the player do it seems like it distances you from the intimacy a little bit.

[Tanarii]

To that thing that Redmage linked- so if a player with a spell save DC of 13 and a spell attack bonus of +5 (from a 16 casting stat) targets a monster with a save throw of + 3, normally the monster has to roll a 10 or better to succeed, and fails 9/20 times. With this, the player has a spell attack of +5 attacking a monster defense of 17. Thus, the player has to get a 12 or better for their spell to succeed, meaning that the monster succeeds 11/20 times. Did I do the math wrong or is this thing busted?
You didn't do the math wrong. In both cases the monster saves player fails 11/20 times, and the player succeeds 9/20 times.

The correct conversion is Defense = 14 + defensive mod.

[Potato_Priest]

You didn't do the math wrong. In both cases the monster saves player fails 11/20 times, and the player succeeds 9/20 times.

The correct conversion is Defense = 14 + defensive mod.

Ah, ok, so I'm just a dope and confused who won and who lost. :smallredface: Thank goodness. My faith has been restored in mathematics. :smallsmile:

Edit: Now that I know that these things are complicated, I'm going to double check my solution on attack rolls and make sure it works out.

Monster attack bonus +0, player AC 11

Normal: Monster hits 50% of time, with roll of 11.

PRE: Monster has a dodge DC of 11, player has a dodge bonus of +1. Player dodges on a roll of 10 or above, so monster hits 45% of the time. This obviously doesn't quite work. If the monster's "attack class" starts at 12, the player dodges on a roll of 11+, or 50% of the time and the system works.

Monster attack bonus +6, Player AC 15
Normal: Monster hits on a roll of 9 or above, so 12/20 or 60%

Base attack class 11: Monster has attack class 17, player has +5. Player dodges on a roll of 12 or above, so monster hits 11/20 of 55% of the time.

Base Attack Class 12: Monster has attack class 18, player has +5. Player dodges on a roll of 13 or above, so monster hits 12/20 or 60% of the time.

In conclusion, I don't really get why, but for making the player roll to dodge attacks the monster needs an "attack class" of 12+attack bonus, and player gets a bonus of (AC-10).

[GreyBlack]

I think it's possible but it seems kind of lazy. I don't know how you would do things like saves and attacks for monsters apart from literally just having the players role the dice for you.

Only within a certain framing. If I were to run this variant, I would tell the players what the monster does and ask what they're doing to prevent the monster from doing it. They'd then roll against a certain DC at a penalty of whatever the monster's hit dice is and then either succeed or fail.

[Potato_Priest]

Now that I've seen how to do it, the question that pops into my head is... Why? One of my favorite parts of DMing is watching the suspense of players as I roll an attack that could drop a party member. Or I roll a save for a monster. I think that the physical action of rolling dice and watching somebody else roll dice adds to the experience of the game. When you get to tell the party that the monster failed it's will save on the hold monst spell and they all explode with joy, that's really fun. Having the player do it seems like it distances you from the intimacy a little bit.

Like I said in my first post, if one of your players feels like they're a nimble mother hubbard and ought to be able to dodge attacks, this can sometimes help them feel like they're doing it without changing game balance at all. By the same token, I imagine that at a certain point some spellcasters might feel like all they do is cast spells and don't get a chance to overpower the monsters' resistances with their formidible mental might. This can make the system feel more "fair" (as in, things don't happen to you without you getting a chance to weigh in) without changing the math.

[Snowbluff]

Snowbluff is an odd one. ;)
I'm also not a moth
https://media1.tenor.com/images/4f77ae60cf812d760decd359d1b26acf/tenor.gif?itemid=5648878
N-no I'm normal this never happens everything I do is normal and not nuts.