Is there a compelling reason why attacks and saves use different mechanics?

[Greywander]

It just seems strange to me that these use different systems. In one, the attacker makes the roll, in the other, the defender rolls. I know we can rework things so that the math works out to be identical, but now everything is an attack roll (with "save ACs" that you roll against), or everything is now a saving throw (where you roll a save against someone's attack DC). But both of these have issues. Players like to roll their own attacks, so it would feel weird to have the enemy to roll to avoid their attack. On the other hand, they might enjoy rolling to avoid enemy attacks, so YMMV. Also, it's one thing to say that mages now make attack rolls against their targets' save ACs, but it gets a bit more questionable for traps, and even more so for things like a noxious cloud of gas.

Perhaps the best paradigm is one where the players are always the ones rolling. If the player attacks, they make an attack roll against the target's AC. If the player gets attacked, they make an evade roll against the target's attack DC. If the player casts a spell, they make an attack roll against the target's save AC. If the player has a spell cast on them, they make a saving throw against the caster's spell save DC.

I'm just not a big fan of the asymmetry here; I know I might be a minority opinion here, but I prefer when NPCs work the same way that PCs do, as I find it makes the rules more consistent. Also, what happens when an NPC attacks or casts a spell on another NPC? Or a PC on another PC? This also seems like it might play havoc with the advantage system. Is there a better way to do handle these? Maybe making everything a contested check? E.g. my attack roll vs. your evade roll? That seems like it could slow the game down.

[Kane0]

This is another one of those things that 4e did, Fort/Ref/Will were called NADs (Not-AC-Defenses) and the rule of thumb was that the attacker was always the one that rolled against the defender's static [target number].

Worked perfectly fine. Some people HATED it.

[Dimers]

I'm accustomed to 4th ed, where the attacker always rolls to hit the opponent's defense (AC, Fortitude, Reflex or Will -- for 5e, there would be seven possible defenses instead of four). It works fine there, no issues with advantage/disadvantage that I've seen. "Attacker always rolls" also introduces the possibility of critical hits on things that used to be saves, and that's a nice design space to add even if it doesn't apply to every spell. EDIT: For multi-target effects, you'd have to decide whether to roll damage separately for each target or once against all targets.

"Players roll everything" isn't bad, but it's just as asymmetric as the existing situation where attack rolls and saves are handled differently. You'd need a sub-rule for when NPCs fight each other, and you'd also potentially give away information that's supposed to stay hidden, like when mind-control spells or subtle traps target a PC.

Opposed rolls would slow down the game, as you noted, and would also make combat substantially more random -- not a desirable result in my opinion. A d20's complete lack of bell curve is quite random enough already.

[Telok]

Mechanically? No (proper math goes both ways).

Commercially? Yes (4e).

To match the narrative? Depends on how you want the mechanics to support or drive the adventure/story. OD&D and AD&D had pretty good explanations of why saves were what they were and how modifiers to them could work. But these days "its tradition" is basically the unassailable one true way answer.

[OldTrees1]

Having one attack and one defense be rolled allows mechanics that interface with rolls to affect a bit of both regardless of PC or NPC.

Is that compelling? *shrug* However it is an example.

[Sherlockpwns]

I believe the design intent is to make the player feel like they are being attacked, adding to the narrative tension. You won’t feel that if you are the one “in control” rolling the dice (oxymoronic as that sounds).

I actually believe having someone roll dice at you is a big part of what makes combat feel exciting. Dumb as that may be.

So yeah that’s my take on why it is this way.

[Anymage]

Once upon a time attacks had at least as much to do with the attacker than the defender, while saves were almost entirely based on the defender. That's just how the original developers decided to do things. Attacker rolled attacks because that makes sense, while defender rolled saves because it was based on their numbers.

3e kept that philosophy because it wanted to feel like a logical extension of 2e. 4e bucked the trend, and the idea got caught in the backlash against everything that 4e was. So right now it's mostly inertia and wanting to steer clear of anything that might remind people too much of the 4e-ism.

[Selion]

It just seems strange to me that these use different systems. In one, the attacker makes the roll, in the other, the defender rolls. I know we can rework things so that the math works out to be identical, but now everything is an attack roll (with "save ACs" that you roll against), or everything is now a saving throw (where you roll a save against someone's attack DC). But both of these have issues. Players like to roll their own attacks, so it would feel weird to have the enemy to roll to avoid their attack. On the other hand, they might enjoy rolling to avoid enemy attacks, so YMMV. Also, it's one thing to say that mages now make attack rolls against their targets' save ACs, but it gets a bit more questionable for traps, and even more so for things like a noxious cloud of gas.

Perhaps the best paradigm is one where the players are always the ones rolling. If the player attacks, they make an attack roll against the target's AC. If the player gets attacked, they make an evade roll against the target's attack DC. If the player casts a spell, they make an attack roll against the target's save AC. If the player has a spell cast on them, they make a saving throw against the caster's spell save DC.

I'm just not a big fan of the asymmetry here; I know I might be a minority opinion here, but I prefer when NPCs work the same way that PCs do, as I find it makes the rules more consistent. Also, what happens when an NPC attacks or casts a spell on another NPC? Or a PC on another PC? This also seems like it might play havoc with the advantage system. Is there a better way to do handle these? Maybe making everything a contested check? E.g. my attack roll vs. your evade roll? That seems like it could slow the game down.

It's something that comes from the early versions of D&D and has never completely changed (it has been widely improved though)
I always found weird that leveling up you improve your ability to hit, but you don't improve your ability to dodge/parry, with difficulty of the attack action totally related to mechanics that don't take in account expertise (dexterity and armor).
In other systems you allocate part of your bonus in attack and part in defense, selecting each round how much you want focus in defense and in attack (previous versions of d&d had this mechanic related to specific feats, which were largely unused though), which "sounds" more realistic, but doesn't necessarily look more realistic, especially in a turn based game.

I think a symmetric system could work with multiple static defenses (like, ref defense, cha defense and so on), and probably it could be done without much troubles (just add 12 to TS to simulate a magic defense and roll d20 + prof bonus + ability bonus for magical attacks).

There is a downside easy to overlook, though, this is a ROLEplaying game, the focus is narration, which would be easily broken with this symmetric system, and even more with a contested roll system, for example:

"you are in a cave, you hear words echoing in a unknown language, then the ceiling begin falling apart: roll a DEX save, CD 15"
The narration is effective and gives the players tension responding to a unknown events with a roll, in respect to:
"you are in a cave, you hear words echoing in a unknown language, then the ceiling begin falling apart: everyone, how much is your dex defense (everyone tells the dm) (roll roll roll roll behind the screen) you, you and you lose 13 hp, you and you are safe "

The thing works fine even the other way
"i cast charm on the bartender, CD 15" (DM rolls behind the screen and answers without interrupting the narration)
As opposed to
"i cast charm on the bartender (roll), i got a 17 in total" (DM answers)"

So, we got a compromise between simplicity, balance, narration and tradition, while realism and symmetry have never been the points. You may improve these aspects in future editions, but you should be careful that they don't affect the core objectives of the game

[solidork]

Even if they come down to being more or less the same thing, I think people would feel differently about getting lucky and rolling high on a save VS their opponent getting unlucky and rolling low to attack their Wisdom.

Also, attacks have auto hit/auto miss mechanics associated with them - it probably won't matter unless your rocking the equivalent of a save DC boosting item but you do kind of have to address the issue of if Fireball can crit.

Also also, some stuff doesn't really make sense for an attack - I'm not sure how you'd frame a Concentration Check as an attack.

[Willie the Duck]

As others have said, it is an artefact of the early versions of the game, and the wargames from which they came. It should probably be noted that there was a third category of these overall things as well: non-character dependent effects. Early era modules often had challenges like pit traps which had a chance of going off that was '2-in-6, 1-in-6 chance if moving cautiously' or other only-action-gated (not character AC, to-hit, save score, etc.) resolutions. There was never really any intent that they all be symmetrical -- saves, for instance, were really meant as a last-ditch effort to save your butt. The intended primary defense was not to be subject to the effect in the first place (notice the realistic statues and prepare for the medusa, etc.).

Since the game quickly moved away from that paradigm, it makes all the sense in the world to standardize such things. If for no other reason than you can have a single language for all things (something meant to enhance ability of your attacks landing can give a +'1 to-hit', rather than '+1 to-hit, or +1 to the save DCs of spells and effects you produce', or the like. Tradition (and the exception being tied to 4e) is one explanation for why it isn't the case. Another is that they complexity of not doing so can be seen as a fiddly benefit for complexity-seekers. Not having '+1 to-hit' work the same for different attacks means you can have Bless and Shield of Faith to shore up your defenses, for instance.

[solidork]

Another reason not to do it is that you kind of have to reconsider a ton of mechanics that buff attacks by giving bonuses or granting advantage. It's relatively easy now to get advantage on an attack, but pretty difficult to grant disadvantage on a saving throw - maybe it would be as simple as just adding "attack against armor class" to all that stuff, but it doesn't seem very elegant.

[Keravath]

As others have said, both systems could work mechanically but use of separate to hit and saving throw mechanics is both historical and narrative.

To hit rolls are used for direct effects against another target. Hitting with a weapon, hitting with some spells. However, calling it a "to hit" roll carries a certain narrative connotation which carries over when the mechanic is used to resolve situations that aren't strictly "to hit".

Examples:
- dodging a fireball - did the target avoid it because they are dextrous or did the attacker somehow place the fireball better to damage that particular target. It is usually interpreted as the first - which is an active defense on the part of the target so it makes more narrative sense for the target to roll the defensive effect.

- falling in a pit trap - did the trap jump out and catch the character (to hit roll) or did the character manage to stumble back from the brink just in time (defensive - saving throw)

- collapsing ceiling - did the ceiling target the character (to hit roll) or did the character manage to scramble out of the way (saving throw).

- hold person spell - did the caster someone focus harder on the spell so that it does a better job of affecting the target (to hit) or did the target use their force of mind/will/knowledge to resist the effect of the magic (wis saving throw) ?

Most spells with saving throws aren't narratively aimed - the attacker doesn't do anything except cast a spell and attempt to impose a condition on the target - it is an activity by the target (mental or physical) that narratively determines the effect of the spell. So, narratively, it makes more sense for the target to roll for their active defense.

Compare this to a to hit roll, the attacker is aiming, narratively pitting their skill with a weapon or an aimed spell against the equipment (and dodging ability of the target) - in this case it is narratively mostly an active effect from the attacker against a static defense of the target. In this case, it narratively makes more sense for the attacker to roll to resolve the situation since their skill/ability/attack is working to overcome the target's passive physical defense (AC).

I'm sure D&D isn't completely consistent with that but I think it is the concept of active vs passive defense that determines the difference between using a saving throw and a to hit role to resolve an interaction. For many folks there is narrative break if the ceiling or pit trap roll "to hit" vs a target's defense. I can see how the system would be simpler but it is not how it was done historically and there is a narrative dissonance between the resolution mechanic and what is happening in the game if the "to hit" mechanism is used to resolve all interactions.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I believe the design intent is to make the player feel like they are being attacked, adding to the narrative tension. You won’t feel that if you are the one “in control” rolling the dice (oxymoronic as that sounds).
Besides tradition, I think this is the biggest reason. Rolling the dice yourself gives the impression of control, that success or failure is based on YOUR skill and luck.


Perhaps the best paradigm is one where the players are always the ones rolling.
I'm a big fan of this paradigm, though I've never really looked at using it in 5e. Besides the illusion of control, it's got two big things to recommend it:
It's faster, because it gets rid of the "does a 19 hit?" exchange.
It's more newbie-friendly, because you're being prompted with the exact thing you need to roll every time. You can also hide more complicated interactions behind the GM screen (not much of an issue in 5e, admittedly, but it's really nice when you have weird mechanics like Mutants and Mastermind's damage system)

(I've done this a lot, and NPC-on-NPC isn't usually an issue. You either designate one as the "player" and have them roll, or--better yet--handwave the whole thing because rolling against yourself wastes everyone's time)

[Segev]

Speaking as one of those who really hated 4e, I never had an issue with every defense being static. I thought that Reflex Defense got a little overloaded since it also became Touch AC, but that wasn't a huge deal. My problems with 4e were more in the class design.

[Hytheter]

To hit rolls are used for direct effects against another target. Hitting with a weapon, hitting with some spells. However, calling it a "to hit" roll carries a certain narrative connotation which carries over when the mechanic is used to resolve situations that aren't strictly "to hit".

Except it's not called a "to hit" roll. It's called an attack roll, and Fireballing someone definitely qualifies as attacking them in all senses but the mechanical.


Most spells with saving throws aren't narratively aimed - the attacker doesn't do anything except cast a spell and attempt to impose a condition on the target - it is an activity by the target (mental or physical) that narratively determines the effect of the spell. So, narratively, it makes more sense for the target to roll for their active defense.

But the DC of the save is determined by the caster's stats, so they must be doing something.


Compare this to a to hit roll, the attacker is aiming, narratively pitting their skill with a weapon or an aimed spell against the equipment (and dodging ability of the target) - in this case it is narratively mostly an active effect from the attacker against a static defense of the target. In this case, it narratively makes more sense for the attacker to roll to resolve the situation since their skill/ability/attack is working to overcome the target's passive physical defense (AC).

AC isn't a purely static defense either. Dexterity is built into the base calculation to represent their ability to avoid attacks by moving around.

[Telok]

Speaking as one of those who really hated 4e, I never had an issue with every defense being static. I thought that Reflex Defense got a little overloaded since it also became Touch AC, but that wasn't a huge deal. My problems with 4e were more in the class design.

4e was a decent, if bloated, mini based tactical skirmish fight game once the math was fixed. It just didn't function (to my people) as a roleplaying game. And I say that as someone who has seen those people do serious amounts of roleplaying in classic Traveller, which has zero roleplaying text unless you're using the playable alien species add-ons.

[strangebloke]

Short answer is no, not really. You could have WIS-AC, INT-AC, DEX-AC instead of saving proficiencies.

Longer answer is, saving throws are very high-impact relative to attacks. Attacks happen dozens of times per round, they're low impact and not very exciting so people can just roll away en masse, sometimes even roll multiple attacks at once along with the damage. Saves aren't always high impact, but they are more often. When the evil wizard casts disintegrate, its important to let the player roll because a failed save might literally kill their character.

Like forget about mechanics and theory for a moment - think about how this dynamic works at the table. You tell your player to roll a dex save, she knows the stakes. She gets stressed, she picks out her 'lucky' blue dice, she does a really dramatic roll, the whole party is watching... and then she succeeds! Everyone cheers! Or she fails! Everyone gasps in shock.

If the DM is rolling a "spell attack against DEX-AC" they don't have the same investment in the character, and so the roll is a lot less dramatic and the party as a whole is less invested. Succeed or fail its less interesting, and if you're rolling behind a screen the player may (wrongly or rightly) believe that you're fudging the dice.

[Segev]

Except it's not called a "to hit" roll. It's called an attack roll, and Fireballing someone definitely qualifies as attacking them in all senses but the mechanical.AoEs are always saves, it seems. It makes a certain amount of sense: you're hardly able to "miss" somebody with an AoE, while hitting the guys to either side of him. Generally, saving throws happen when something fills an area or otherwise isn't "moving in to strike" but


But the DC of the save is determined by the caster's stats, so they must be doing something.They are. Their fireball is hotter, or more effulgent, or otherwise harder to find a way to mitigate. It isn't more accurate, though.


AC isn't a purely static defense either. Dexterity is built into the base calculation to represent their ability to avoid attacks by moving around.You're absolutely right, here, if what you're getting at is that the "who rolls?" question isn't solely related to the question of "who's actively doing something?"

Attack rolls are about aiming. Saving throws are about resisting. (Dexterity saves are a little weird, there, because you "resist" by moving out of the way in some sense.)

[Skrum]

This is another one of those things that 4e did, Fort/Ref/Will were called NADs (Not-AC-Defenses) and the rule of thumb was that the attacker was always the one that rolled against the defender's static [target number].

Worked perfectly fine. Some people HATED it.

I never played 4e, but it sounds like it had a lot of good ideas. Strong core mechanics, basically. I'm a sucker for good game mechanics lol

[Tanarii]

The idea is that saves are for something (generally deadly) that has already affected you due to poor decision making or generally automatically working and the chance of avoiding it is purely based on skill of the avoider, and attacks depend on the skill of the attacker and the skill of the defender.

This was always a little questionable for spells in the first place. But generally speaking, they were considered to be in the "always works, unless a lucky or skilled target somehow manages to avoid, no caster skill impacts chance of success".

3e broke this paradigm. From that point on, saves depended on both the skill of the defender AND a variable DC based on difficulty of the save, which could include things like spell power of the spell. But in theory that target DC was still independent of caster skill for spells.

5e broke it even more, by having the target DC of a spell save vary with the skill of the caster.

In short, in 5e, spells being saves are a sacred cow gone wrong due to changes in the system, and should have been updated to attacks instead. Anything that depends on skill of the attacker, including spells, should be attacks. Or at the minimum should not have a variable DC that scales based on attacker skill (prof bonus in the case of spells).

[Unoriginal]

A compelling reason? Well, it helps separating the attacks from other acts and effects.

Imagine a lvl 10 Monk fighting a boss and deciding to go all out on Stunning Strikes:

Current rules:
Monk spends 1 ki to roll 4x STR-or-DEX mod + prof mod vs boss AC. Each time an attack hits, the boss then roll CON mod (+ prof mod if they have it) vs 8+prof mod+Monk WIS.

"One AC for each stat" rules:

Monk rolle 4x STR-or-DEX mod + prof mod vs boss AC. Each time an attack hits, Monk then rolls WIS mod+prof mod vs boss CON AC.

Now what if it's an Astral Monk?

Monk rolls 4x WIS mod+ prof mod vs boss AC. Each time the attack hit, Monk rolls WIS mod + prof mod vs boss CON AC.

Now what if the Monk is instead using a poisoned blade? Do they have to roll 1d20+the poison's relevant stat mod + the poison's proficiency mod vs the boss's CON AC?

It's certainly possible to do a "no save, 7 ACs" system. But I see no compelling reason to not have two separate ways of rolling resolutions, to represent separate things.

[Hytheter]

Attack rolls are about aiming. Saving throws are about resisting. (Dexterity saves are a little weird, there, because you "resist" by moving out of the way in some sense.)

That's probably a better way of looking at it. It also better covers Con saves, which are clearly not active defenses.

Though there are still some weird edge cases. I'd posit that spells like Catapult and Disintegrate must surely be aimed to be effective.

[Jakinbandw]

Yes.

If you make one attack roll against a group of identical foes (say goblins) you either hit them all, or hit none, which doesn't feel right. If you roll an attack against each one separately, then you have to make several rolls which can slow down the game. If however each one rolls a save, then the rolls can all be done at the same time, with each one having different results.

Of course the GM has to roll for all the goblins, so the only time this actually saves any time is when the GM makes an area attack against the party, but it does save time there.

[Sigreid]

I don't think it matters mechanically which way it happens, but think that getting to roll for a save gives the player a sense of active control in their defense against the spell. So, it's really just a psychological thing for the players to not feel powerless when a spell is cast.

[Catullus64]

Another reason not to do it is that you kind of have to reconsider a ton of mechanics that buff attacks by giving bonuses or granting advantage. It's relatively easy now to get advantage on an attack, but pretty difficult to grant disadvantage on a saving throw - maybe it would be as simple as just adding "attack against armor class" to all that stuff, but it doesn't seem very elegant.

Yeah, I think that from a game mechanics perspective this is the biggest reason. Maybe there could be a workaround for distinguishing certain kinds of attacks from others in terms of what effects grant advantage, but at that point I think you're surpassing the complexity of the current attacks vs. saves system.

I think it's also partly so that players themselves see the dice and feel active in resisting harmful effects when they get targeted by them, rather than have it be something that happens behind the screen.

[tiornys]

I never played 4e, but it sounds like it had a lot of good ideas. Strong core mechanics, basically. I'm a sucker for good game mechanics lol
4E had the best mechanics for combat as sport that I've seen in a tabletop RPG, but got there by deemphasizing and nerfing mechanics for combat as war. That made it great for groups like mine that were already pushing 3.5 as far towards combat as sport as we could get it, but not so good for groups that enjoy a more simulationist experience (because honestly the realistically smart way to approach combat is always as combat as war). If you think you'd enjoy a more balanced combat experience then I'd recommend giving 4E a try if you can get like-minded players together.

(Post/essay on the difference between combat as sport and combat as war (https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715/))

[Pex]

It just seems strange to me that these use different systems. In one, the attacker makes the roll, in the other, the defender rolls. I know we can rework things so that the math works out to be identical, but now everything is an attack roll (with "save ACs" that you roll against), or everything is now a saving throw (where you roll a save against someone's attack DC). But both of these have issues. Players like to roll their own attacks, so it would feel weird to have the enemy to roll to avoid their attack. On the other hand, they might enjoy rolling to avoid enemy attacks, so YMMV. Also, it's one thing to say that mages now make attack rolls against their targets' save ACs, but it gets a bit more questionable for traps, and even more so for things like a noxious cloud of gas.

Perhaps the best paradigm is one where the players are always the ones rolling. If the player attacks, they make an attack roll against the target's AC. If the player gets attacked, they make an evade roll against the target's attack DC. If the player casts a spell, they make an attack roll against the target's save AC. If the player has a spell cast on them, they make a saving throw against the caster's spell save DC.

I'm just not a big fan of the asymmetry here; I know I might be a minority opinion here, but I prefer when NPCs work the same way that PCs do, as I find it makes the rules more consistent. Also, what happens when an NPC attacks or casts a spell on another NPC? Or a PC on another PC? This also seems like it might play havoc with the advantage system. Is there a better way to do handle these? Maybe making everything a contested check? E.g. my attack roll vs. your evade roll? That seems like it could slow the game down.


This is another one of those things that 4e did, Fort/Ref/Will were called NADs (Not-AC-Defenses) and the rule of thumb was that the attacker was always the one that rolled against the defender's static [target number].

Worked perfectly fine. Some people HATED it.

It was hated because it contributed to the sameyness people complained about 4E. It's not about math or balance but mechanics. Having the effects resolve in different manners contributes to the feeling of variety. It's a tactile distinction. The difference in methods is the point, its own value.

[Justin Sane]

If you roll an attack against each one separately, then you have to make several rolls which can slow down the game. If however each one rolls a save, then the rolls can all be done at the same time, with each one having different results.I'm sorry, how are those situations different? What's stopping a player from rolling all the attacks at once, in exactly the same way a DM would roll all saves at the same time?

[Hytheter]

Fort/Ref/Will were called NADs

Wait, I overlooked this the first time but... Were they actually called that?!

It's not just me who thinks that's funny, right?

[Segev]

That's probably a better way of looking at it. It also better covers Con saves, which are clearly not active defenses.

Though there are still some weird edge cases. I'd posit that spells like Catapult and Disintegrate must surely be aimed to be effective.

In earlier editions, disintegrate had both an attack roll and then a save for reduced damage. I appreciate reducing the number of rolls to 1, but they probably should've left it an attack roll, rather than making it a Dexterity save.

Catapult, on the other hand, I kind-of get: it's essentially a (modified) line effect, like lightning bolt or Tasha's caustic brew: it targets everything in a line you send it careening down. It could've been an attack roll against each creature in the line until you hit one, but that gets into weird space with you arguably aiming it as it flies, when the effect is looking to be you flinging it once, in the best line you can for your target. So having each target in succession "roll to dodge" makes a little bit more sense.

[Anymage]

Wait, I overlooked this the first time but... Were they actually called that?!

It's not just me who thinks that's funny, right?

Not officially, no. They're just all referred to as "defenses". NADs was just player shorthand that caught on because of simplicity and also the joke.

[Keravath]

That's probably a better way of looking at it. It also better covers Con saves, which are clearly not active defenses.

Though there are still some weird edge cases. I'd posit that spells like Catapult and Disintegrate must surely be aimed to be effective.

I agree that Segev's suggestion of aiming vs resisting is likely a better way to phrase it - though it is the same idea I was trying to get at, just stated more clearly.

However, the reason that spells like catapult and disintegrate don't need to be aimed would be because the magic causes them to unerring attack whoever the spell is aimed at. Whoever designed these spells decided that it was up to the target to resist the effect rather than the caster to aim it. The spell effects from stronger spell casters are more difficult to resist (thus higher DC).

All that said, mechanically, everything could be resolved as attack rolls vs static defenses which is how I think 4e handled it.


P.S. My issues with 4e were mostly that everything seemed the same. Classes had similar abilities with different names - at will damage, encounter abilities, daily abilities, everyone had healing surges - anyway for me it just didn't have the "feeling" that I expected from D&D. It felt more like a role playing game designed to work well as a video game. If I wanted to play a different system, I could play Gurps Fantasy, Rolemaster, Middle Earth, Warhammer, Pathfinder (which is really just a version of D&D) or any number of other fantasy role playing games with interesting and effective mechanics, different levels of simulation, different magic implementations .. but if you are looking to play D&D then it has certain historical design decisions that are key to the style when playing the game (which ones are most important likely vary from player to player). In my opinion, 4e diverged a bit too much from whatever the consensus notion of what D&D is ... so it lost folks.

[Keravath]

In earlier editions, disintegrate had both an attack roll and then a save for reduced damage. I appreciate reducing the number of rolls to 1, but they probably should've left it an attack roll, rather than making it a Dexterity save.

Catapult, on the other hand, I kind-of get: it's essentially a (modified) line effect, like lightning bolt or Tasha's caustic brew: it targets everything in a line you send it careening down. It could've been an attack roll against each creature in the line until you hit one, but that gets into weird space with you arguably aiming it as it flies, when the effect is looking to be you flinging it once, in the best line you can for your target. So having each target in succession "roll to dodge" makes a little bit more sense.

In AD&D, Disintegrate was just a save vs spell. It did not require an attack roll.

I don't think any AD&D spells directly required an attack roll. There were some that would affect an item like an arrow or crossbow bolt which then would need to be fired using a missile attack but the spells themselves didn't have attack rolls. AD&D shocking grasp for example only required the caster to get within touching distance of the target to discharge the effect with no saving throw.

"To hit" rolls in AD&D seem to have only been used for weapon attacks. So there has been quite a bit of design evolution since then :)

[Telok]

In AD&D, Disintegrate was just a save vs spell. It did not require an attack roll.

I don't think any AD&D spells directly required an attack roll. There were some that would affect an item like an arrow or crossbow bolt which then would need to be fired using a missile attack but the spells themselves didn't have attack rolls.

AFB, but check vampritic touch & flame arrow. I recall some issues with them when they ended up a wizards only attack spells. Also probably depends on AD&D 1e or 2e.

[Dimers]

Wait, I overlooked this the first time but... Were they actually called that?!

It's not just me who thinks that's funny, right?

You are not alone, my friend. "Hit 'em in the NADs."

[Psyren]

I heard "tradition," and I heard "it makes attacking and resisting feel different." Both of these are valid reasons.

However, I haven't seen anyone mention the elephant in the room that not everyone might be comfortable considering - it aids the DM with fudging.

One of the biggest differences between attacks and saves is that the latter can take someone, even someone higher CR like the Big Bad, out of a fight instantly. And while that outcome isn't inherently bad, I can also understand WotC wanting a default that makes that easier to prevent. Putting the roll in the DM's hands, behind the screen in many cases, does that.


I know I might be a minority opinion here, but I prefer when NPCs work the same way that PCs do, as I find it makes the rules more consistent.

I think a great deal of the contentions on this subforum come either from groups who fundamentally disagree on this philosophy interacting with one another, or even just folks who in spite of their own personal feelings recognize WotC clearly do not feel the game should work this way and would rather not rock the boat.

[kazaryu]

It just seems strange to me that these use different systems. In one, the attacker makes the roll, in the other, the defender rolls. I know we can rework things so that the math works out to be identical, but now everything is an attack roll (with "save ACs" that you roll against), or everything is now a saving throw (where you roll a save against someone's attack DC). But both of these have issues. Players like to roll their own attacks, so it would feel weird to have the enemy to roll to avoid their attack. On the other hand, they might enjoy rolling to avoid enemy attacks, so YMMV. Also, it's one thing to say that mages now make attack rolls against their targets' save ACs, but it gets a bit more questionable for traps, and even more so for things like a noxious cloud of gas.

Perhaps the best paradigm is one where the players are always the ones rolling. If the player attacks, they make an attack roll against the target's AC. If the player gets attacked, they make an evade roll against the target's attack DC. If the player casts a spell, they make an attack roll against the target's save AC. If the player has a spell cast on them, they make a saving throw against the caster's spell save DC.

I'm just not a big fan of the asymmetry here; I know I might be a minority opinion here, but I prefer when NPCs work the same way that PCs do, as I find it makes the rules more consistent. Also, what happens when an NPC attacks or casts a spell on another NPC? Or a PC on another PC? This also seems like it might play havoc with the advantage system. Is there a better way to do handle these? Maybe making everything a contested check? E.g. my attack roll vs. your evade roll? That seems like it could slow the game down.

i mean....its a fairly elegant way to ensure some things can crit and others can't. not sure if that was ever a consideration, but it is a practical effect that it has. especially for AoE spells, if you're always rolling an attack roll vs some defense value, then you're FAR more likely to crit when you hit 6 people with a fireball.

[Rynjin]

However, I haven't seen anyone mention the elephant in the room that not everyone might be comfortable considering - it aids the DM with fudging.

Honestly I also think it's just more intuitive. Defenses are in control of the defender, attacks are in control of the attacker. It limits the knowledge you need to play the game to just your own knowledge. You know your attack bonus and damage; the GM knows the enemy's AC and any damage reduction, and vice versa.

I've played one game where damage was a reactive effect: Mutants and Masterminds. Damage saves have always been one of the clunkier-feeling parts of the system to me. It just feels WRONG.

[Jakinbandw]

I'm sorry, how are those situations different? What's stopping a player from rolling all the attacks at once, in exactly the same way a DM would roll all saves at the same time?

Nothing! Which is why it only works to speed up play when a monster does an aoe against a group of pcs.

Though thinking about it, there is less information exchange needed, rather than "does a 9 succeed, how about a 10, what about a 7", the person rolling has all the saves right in front of them. So it actually might be faster if not all the foes have the same save.

[VoxRationis]

The illusion of agency being on the part of the saver, rather than the caster, for spell effects also has the effect of underscoring the Vancian nature of early D&D magic. Magic is discrete and largely fire-and-forget; once the entangle or fireball spell is unleashed, the caster has limited agency over it. The point of failure thus becomes less to do with what the caster is doing and more to do with what the targets are doing.

Now, since the Vancian nature of D&D magic has diminished over time, one could argue that it's less appropriate, but there are still reasons, as others have noted, to keep the defender-rolls save mechanic.

[AvvyR]

I severely preferred 4th's static defenses, always putting the rolling on the attacker for several reasons. First, to this day I can't tell you how often I see players when they try to do something, ask "Do you roll, or do I?" it's something all new players go through, and takes a while to get past.

The 4e system also had spell crits, which was fun too.

The other thing is narrative. I get the idea of "being in control of your fate" or whatever, but to me rolled saves rob more of the fantasy of being an awesome adventurer, particularly where failure is involved. This reasoning also doesn't hold water given that we don't do the same for incoming attacks (you aren't "in control of your fate" when an axe is swinging at your head).

Consider the same situation narratively using both systems: You're playing a rogue, and an enemy caster is throwing a lightning bolt at you. Your Dex is good and statistically you have a very high chance of avoiding the attack.

System 1: "The wizard rolls a 19! You expertly dodge, but the evil mage is one step ahead and sends the bolt to where you were going to be! You take 27 damage!" The result here is an escalation of tension. The enemy seems like more of a badass.

System 2: "You roll a 1 on your save. You try to dodge, but trip over your own feet like a moron. Take 27 damage." The result this time is the player character looking incompetent and the player being frustrated at their inability to do the things their character is supposed to be good at.

About the only good thing I can say for rolled saves is that it forces everyone to always be paying attention because you might have to roll on someone else's turn. Obviously, you should be paying attention anyway, but it's not forced as hard otherwise.

[Tawmis]

It just seems strange to me that these use different systems. In one, the attacker makes the roll, in the other, the defender rolls. I know we can rework things so that the math works out to be identical, but now everything is an attack roll (with "save ACs" that you roll against), or everything is now a saving throw (where you roll a save against someone's attack DC). But both of these have issues. Players like to roll their own attacks, so it would feel weird to have the enemy to roll to avoid their attack. On the other hand, they might enjoy rolling to avoid enemy attacks, so YMMV. Also, it's one thing to say that mages now make attack rolls against their targets' save ACs, but it gets a bit more questionable for traps, and even more so for things like a noxious cloud of gas.

Perhaps the best paradigm is one where the players are always the ones rolling. If the player attacks, they make an attack roll against the target's AC. If the player gets attacked, they make an evade roll against the target's attack DC. If the player casts a spell, they make an attack roll against the target's save AC. If the player has a spell cast on them, they make a saving throw against the caster's spell save DC.

I'm just not a big fan of the asymmetry here; I know I might be a minority opinion here, but I prefer when NPCs work the same way that PCs do, as I find it makes the rules more consistent. Also, what happens when an NPC attacks or casts a spell on another NPC? Or a PC on another PC? This also seems like it might play havoc with the advantage system. Is there a better way to do handle these? Maybe making everything a contested check? E.g. my attack roll vs. your evade roll? That seems like it could slow the game down.

To me, there should be.
A spell that is trying to hit someone's physical body (say like Firebolt) is different than say, Psychic Lance (to me, anyway) - where you're trying to do something more complex and "damage their mind" - so a save comes into play.
I've felt the same about AOE type spells - the spell's coming, can you get out of its radius in time (even if technically you're not moving).

I personally have always liked the idea - that way it allows both sides to do different things.

[clash]

1. Some players hate rolling the dice. One seen players that take a set of abilities that require never rolling the dice to do their thing.

2. Thematically some spells don't make sense to miss like fireball and even if you think of it as power of your spell roll it doesn't make sense that the value would be different in a per target basis. If you only do one roll for a group of identical targets you can't end up with a situation of some successes.

[Segev]

I think a great deal of the contentions on this subforum come either from groups who fundamentally disagree on this philosophy interacting with one another, or even just folks who in spite of their own personal feelings recognize WotC clearly do not feel the game should work this way and would rather not rock the boat.

Personally, I have a strong preference for NPC/PC parity, but I don't expect it to be perfect. Where I get annoyed is when the NPCs aren't even able to represent the same kind of being as the PCs, and vice-versa. As long as I can say, "Ah, the Champion is basically the NPC fighter, and I can see how one translates to the other," I'm largely okay with things being condensed or not in a particular level order. But when the NPC "wizard" is actually a magic archer who has energy blasts that no PC wizard can ever learn, and where the mechanics that fuddle the PC's efforts have no effect on the NPC "wizard," it stops being a game with a believable world. Why can't we phoenix down Aerith? I am not so bothered by this in a video game, but I am in a tabletop one. When I say mechanics that divide PC and NPC make it "more like a video game" in a disparaging tone, THAT is what I'm talking about: things that you have to accept in a video game because it's not being controlled by an intelligent being that can react to it ,and it isn't a rich and real world that can react to what you do. To me, the whole point of tabletop is that the game can better emulate a real world that really reacts to you doing things your PC narratively should be able to do, rather than being limited to the narrow field of game mechanics that the designers thought of ahead of time.

This is also why a hallmark of particularly bad modules, to me, is when they make glaring assumptions about PC capabilities or choices such that they become useless if the DM doesn't railroad as hard as, well, a JRPG.

[Snowbluff]

Another note is that more things affect a save, like various magical resistances. It's on the onus of the roller to determine these modifiers and apply them correctly. For explain, a monster you control may have magic resistance without your team knowing, or an Elf PC might be resistant to a charming spell.

[Kane0]

For reference, this is 4e's Fireball spell:

5th level Wizard Daily Power
Standard Action
Range 20 squares, Area Burst 3

Attack: Intelligence vs Reflex
Hit: 4d6 +Int Fire damage
Miss: Half damage


So focusing on just the attack mechanism, converting this to 5e is making a Spell Attack for your fireball, with the 'AC' of each target being their Dex saving throw as if they rolled a 10. It would be like a passive Saving Throw, which would still work with advantage/disadvantage and other mechanics that plug in elsewhere in the system.

[Greywander]

It occurs to me that there might be a way to have our cake and eat it too. And the secret is actually found in the skill system. You can actively roll a skill like Perception, but at the same time you also have passive Perception.

So what we could do is reframe things as defaulting to a contested attack roll vs. defense roll. Then we add in a "passive attack" and "passive defense" values. Some abilities, spells, or situations may call for an attack roll against passive defense, or a defense roll against passive attack, or a contested attack vs. defense roll. Or the players/DM can just decide which ones they prefer to use. Some people would rather have the goblins roll defense against their passive spell attack for their Fireball, while other people would rather roll their spell attack against each individual goblin's passive defense.

Now, a contested roll will necessarily have different math than making one roll against a passive value. But we can work things out such that it doesn't matter if the attacker or defender is rolling. Maybe the default should be that contested rolls don't happen, except when specifically called for, but I think it would still work if a table really wanted to use contested roll. The math is different, but it's not that different.

Anyway, this would easily allow us to enable a paradigm where the player is always the one to roll, if so desired. If two PCs or NPCs attack each other, then the attacker rolls. Or, for PvP, maybe that's the one case where a contested check would make sense. Point being, doing it this way actually provides general rules that work the same for both PCs and NPCs, and it would be super simply to flip things around and have NPCs roll against PCs, if the players would prefer that. An attack roll against passive defense is mathematically identical to a defense roll against passive attack, making them fully interchangeable.

[KorvinStarmast]

I actually believe having someone roll dice at you is a big part of what makes combat feel exciting. Rolling the dice in vegas is more fun than watching the roulette wheel. Nothing dumb about that.

I think it is the concept of active vs passive defense that determines the difference between using a saving throw and a to hit role to resolve an interaction. It works, and it's simple.

Except it's not called a "to hit" roll. It's called an attack roll, and Fireballing someone definitely qualifies as attacking them in all senses but the mechanical. It's the difference between a howitzer and a rifle.

[Hytheter]

However, I haven't seen anyone mention the elephant in the room that not everyone might be comfortable considering - it aids the DM with fudging.

I didn't consider it because A) I don't think it's up to game designers to solve bad DMing and B) everyone I know rolls openly anyway.

[Tanarii]

So focusing on just the attack mechanism, converting this to 5e is making a Spell Attack for your fireball, with the 'AC' of each target being their Dex saving throw as if they rolled a 10.
IIRC it's actually 13+Dex for the TN if you convert a save to an attack roll.

[Kane0]

IIRC it's actually 13+Dex for the TN if you convert a save to an attack roll.

Defences were calculated as 10 + 1/2 level + stat mod + other bonuses (race, class, etc) but we have Proficiency Bonus which neatly replaces the 1/2 level thing. Now 5e likes to do DCs with 8 + Prof + Stat so that may be an alternative, depends on whether you want NADs to be inherently easier to hit than AC which is typically 10 + stuff.

Prof bonus is pretty much exactly the same concept wearing a fake moustache anyways, slowed down to 1/4 level +1. Thanks again 4e!

[Tanarii]

Defences were calculated as 10 + 1/2 level + stat mod + other bonuses (race, class, etc) but we have Proficiency Bonus which neatly replaces the 1/2 level thing. Now 5e likes to do DCs with 8 + Prof + Stat so that may be an alternative, depends on whether you want NADs to be inherently easier to hit than AC which is typically 10 + stuff.

Prof bonus is pretty much exactly the same concept wearing a fake moustache anyways, slowed down to 1/4 level +1. Thanks again 4e!
No, my point is that 13+DefenseStat is the mathematical equivalent of NAD for 5e, if you convert a save to an attack bonus. That's because the save DC is 8+Prof+Attackstat instead of 10+prof+Attackstat, and ties go to the saver instead of the attacker, which is the 3rd point of difference.

If you make it 10+defense stat saving throws just got 15% harder across the board than before the conversion.

Edit: I think it's actually 14+defensestat. Because at DC 8(base)+11(prof+attackstat), a +0 defensestat saves on a 19-20. That means +11 attack roll should only miss on a 1-2. So 3(rolled)+11(prof+attackstat)=14(base)+0(defensest at). So it's actually a 20% penalty if you convert to 10+defensestat.

[Psyren]

I didn't consider it because A) I don't think it's up to game designers to solve bad DMing and B) everyone I know rolls openly anyway.

Yes yes, every DM who dares to roll behind a screen is committing badwrongfun in your eyes. Got it.


But when the NPC "wizard" is actually a magic archer who has energy blasts that no PC wizard can ever learn, and where the mechanics that fuddle the PC's efforts have no effect on the NPC "wizard," it stops being a game with a believable world. Why can't we phoenix down Aerith? I am not so bothered by this in a video game, but I am in a tabletop one. When I say mechanics that divide PC and NPC make it "more like a video game" in a disparaging tone, THAT is what I'm talking about: things that you have to accept in a video game because it's not being controlled by an intelligent being that can react to it ,and it isn't a rich and real world that can react to what you do. To me, the whole point of tabletop is that the game can better emulate a real world that really reacts to you doing things your PC narratively should be able to do, rather than being limited to the narrow field of game mechanics that the designers thought of ahead of time.

This is also why a hallmark of particularly bad modules, to me, is when they make glaring assumptions about PC capabilities or choices such that they become useless if the DM doesn't railroad as hard as, well, a JRPG.

First: You can't Phoenix Down Aerith either because PD isn't actually bringing anyone back from the dead (only mostly dead (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M)), or the specific circumstances of Aerith's death simply aren't fixable by that means. In other words - as my sig indicates, there are usually reasonable explanations that allow the narrative and mechanics to be reconciled, so long as you are open to recognizing them.

Second: you already have the strength of tabletop over video games at your fingertips, namely that you don't have to access and reverse-engineer any proprietary source code in order to make the more PC/NPC transparent statblocks you seem to want. That doesn't mean the default statblocks have to follow that particular philosophy. They've provided you the tools to make NPC casters that work exactly like the PC ones if that's your bag - and that is where their responsibility, such as it is, ends.

[PhoenixPhyre]

First: You can't Phoenix Down Aerith either because PD isn't actually bringing anyone back from the dead (only mostly dead (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M)), or the specific circumstances of Aerith's death simply aren't fixable by that means. In other words - as my sig indicates, there are usually reasonable explanations that allow the narrative and mechanics to be reconciled, so long as you are open to recognizing them.

Second: you already have the strength of tabletop over video games at your fingertips, namely that you don't have to access and reverse-engineer any proprietary source code in order to make the more PC/NPC transparent statblocks you seem to want. That doesn't mean the default statblocks have to follow that particular philosophy. They've provided you the tools to make NPC casters that work exactly like the PC ones if that's your bag - and that is where their responsibility, such as it is, ends.

Can we not re-litigate this in every thread? Please? Both (all) of you?

[Psyren]

Can we not re-litigate this in every thread? Please? Both (all) of you?

Sure thing, but the OP brought it up, not me:



I'm just not a big fan of the asymmetry here; I know I might be a minority opinion here, but I prefer when NPCs work the same way that PCs do, as I find it makes the rules more consistent.

[Rukelnikov]

I second the many "makes things feel different".

And also think its probably faster having the DM roll saves for the vampire, its spawns, and its thralls vs a set DC, than having the player roll attacks vs everyone and having to ask does X hit the vamp? does Y the spawn? etc.


I didn't consider it because A) I don't think it's up to game designers to solve bad DMing and B) everyone I know rolls openly anyway.

Unpopular(?) opinion, fudging ain't bad DMing.

[Phhase]

On the surface, it might seem not. But my take on the matter is that although the systems might seem redundant, both exist in order to, between the two of themselves, spread out the power budget. That is to say, increase the attack surface available to any one combatant. That way, you couldn't just turbocharge a single defensive attribute and be untouchable. You can have a Really good AC, and that'll be a huge asset, but that likely comes with sacrifices to saving throws, or at least a vulnerability that can be used to somewhat circumvent a high AC. The inverse applies too, of course.

Additionally, one being an offensive check and one being a defensive check changes the meaning of what a critical success and a critical failure is, depending on how you handle those.

[Hytheter]

Yes yes, every DM who dares to roll behind a screen is committing badwrongfun in your eyes. Got it.

That isn't what I said.

Edit: To clarify: Rolling behind the screen is not bad, though I prefer not to. It is a useful way of maintaining suspense and mystery. Using the screen to fudge rolls in particular is bad.

[Waazraath]

That isn't what I said.

Edit: To clarify: Rolling behind the screen is not bad, though I prefer not to. It is a useful way of maintaining suspense and mystery. Using the screen to fudge rolls in particular is bad.

It is in almost every edition of the game explicitly handed to the DM as a tool to prevent really bad luck leading to not-fun outcomes. You are of course free to dislike it, but calling it 'bad' and saying ' I don't think it's up to game designers to solve bad DMing' makes little sense, when the designers consider fudging rolls good or at least acceptable DM'ing, and that a lot of rules in the book are there to encourage good DM'ing and discourage bad DM'ing.

[Hytheter]

I suppose I should add the caveat that secretly fudging dice is fine IF you've established that the group is fine with that sort of thing. In that case, sure, go nuts.

But otherwise? No. I don't care what the DMG says. It's literally using deception to cheat, to force the game to go the way you, personally, think it should be. It robs the players of what they've earned and/or gives them things they haven't. It makes choices meaningless. It makes the dice meaningless. But mostly the lying and cheating thing. "Lying to your friends is bad" shouldn't be a controversial statement.

Oh, but it's fine as long as they don't find out? Pray your wife doesn't feel the same way about shagging the milkman. :smallamused:

If the game really has gone so terribly wrong that you need to cheat to get things back on track, just come clean. It costs you nothing but pride to admit you made a mistake, and by being honest you grant the players the chance to accept or reject your solution instead of just sneakily dictating terms under the cover of the DM screen.

[Psyren]

Using the screen to fudge rolls in particular is bad.

No, fudging is one tool among many in the DM's toolbelt. Like all tools, it has its place and is not inherently bad, though it can be misused. The benefits and drawbacks of fudging are described on DMG 235 for this very reason - it's acknowledged in the rulebook as a valid playstyle for the DM to choose. Your DMs don't and that's good for them, but other DMs are not bad DMs for playing differently than yours.

[Keravath]

AFB, but check vampritic touch & flame arrow. I recall some issues with them when they ended up a wizards only attack spells. Also probably depends on AD&D 1e or 2e.

In AD&D (1e) - I couldn't find Vampiric Touch in the PHB (it could be from another source) and flame arrow actually enchanted arrows :) .. so things have changed a lot. (Also, shatter only affected objects).

Flame Arrow: "Once the magic-user has cast this spell, he or she is able to touch one arrow or crossbow bolt (quarrel) per segment for the duration of the flame arrow. Each such missile so touched becomes magic, although it gains no bonuses "to hit". Each such missile must be discharged within 1 round, for after that period flame consumes it entirely, and the magic is lost. Fiery missiles will certainly have normal probabilities of causing combustion, and any creature subject to additional fire damage will suffer + 1 hit point of damage from any flame arrow which hits it."

As a 3rd level spell it was pretty useless unless you wanted to set something on fire - and then fireball was likely better at that too. :)

[Keravath]

For reference, this is 4e's Fireball spell:

5th level Wizard Daily Power
Standard Action
Range 20 squares, Area Burst 3

Attack: Intelligence vs Reflex
Hit: 4d6 +Int Fire damage
Miss: Half damage


So focusing on just the attack mechanism, converting this to 5e is making a Spell Attack for your fireball, with the 'AC' of each target being their Dex saving throw as if they rolled a 10. It would be like a passive Saving Throw, which would still work with advantage/disadvantage and other mechanics that plug in elsewhere in the system.

The interesting thing to me is that the description above doesn't feel like D&D at all :) ... which is why I didn't play 4e much. It might have been a good game system but just didn't feel like D&D when I played it.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, fudging is one tool among many in the DM's toolbelt. Like all tools, it has its place and is not inherently bad, though it can be misused. The benefits and drawbacks of fudging are described on DMG 235 for this very reason - it's acknowledged in the rulebook as a valid playstyle for the DM to choose. Your DMs don't and that's good for them, but other DMs are not bad DMs for playing differently than yours. If I may +1 this 'it's a tool' approach.

[Segev]

It's a tool to use extremely judiciously, in my opinion. But yes, sometimes you don't actually want to trust the dice. I'm always extremely leery of using it, though, because any fudging leads to the players' choices mattering less, as a general rule. Not always (and I am more inclined to be okay with fudging when those "not always" situations come up), but most of the time. That said, fudging a roll doesn't even always require rolling behind the screen: if the players don't yet know the bonus in question, declaring that a roll succeeds when it fails can be as simple as pretending the bonus is that high. And vice-versa for declaring failure when there was a success. (Of course, particularly high or low rolls require particularly high or low fudged bonuses, which is its own telling "thing" to a savvy player.)

Where I find fudging to be particularly hazardous, myself, is an area I think a lot of DMs are most comfortable doing it: hit points. Give the monster more or fewer hp dynamically to extend or shorten a fight. But... that effectively makes hp damage pointless, because if you're going to do that, it doesn't matter how much or little damage the PCs do, since you've really just determined the fight will last n rounds, and you let the monster die only at or after n rounds have passed.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the OP:
The game doesn't need a compelling reason beyond: it works, it keeps people participating, and of course it isn't broken so it doesn't need a fix.

[Psyren]

It's a tool to use extremely judiciously, in my opinion. But yes, sometimes you don't actually want to trust the dice. I'm always extremely leery of using it, though, because any fudging leads to the players' choices mattering less, as a general rule. Not always (and I am more inclined to be okay with fudging when those "not always" situations come up), but most of the time. That said, fudging a roll doesn't even always require rolling behind the screen: if the players don't yet know the bonus in question, declaring that a roll succeeds when it fails can be as simple as pretending the bonus is that high. And vice-versa for declaring failure when there was a success. (Of course, particularly high or low rolls require particularly high or low fudged bonuses, which is its own telling "thing" to a savvy player.)

As you mentioned, you can fudge while rolling openly but that has a tendency to "lock you in" to whatever high or low penalty you assigned to that roll, unless of course your players aren't paying attention. Static bonuses tend to be, well, static, so having them obviously change between rolls removes the mystique.


Where I find fudging to be particularly hazardous, myself, is an area I think a lot of DMs are most comfortable doing it: hit points. Give the monster more or fewer hp dynamically to extend or shorten a fight. But... that effectively makes hp damage pointless, because if you're going to do that, it doesn't matter how much or little damage the PCs do, since you've really just determined the fight will last n rounds, and you let the monster die only at or after n rounds have passed.

I'd say fudging can be useful even here. Sometimes the players are having a string of bad rolls despite the fight functionally being over / not being interesting to play out anymore. And sure, you can simply declare the fight to be abruptly over but it's often more fun for the players to know "who got the kill" and give them the opportunity to narrate that. (At our tables, one of the most fun moments in any fight is when a player deals the last few points of damage and the DM asks "how do you want to do this?" leading to that player getting the spotlight for a few seconds so they can narrate a suitably gory finisher.)

[strangebloke]

Secret rolling is bad because players know the only reason you're rolling in secret is to fudge rolls. So whatever happens - even if you're not fudging, players suspect you are. Elder dragon failed a save? Lich failed concentration? Hobgoblin warlord rolls a nat 20? There's going to be a voice in the back of their head saying "is that legit?" If they actually voice doubt, the DM might lift the screen to prove it... but there will be a lot of cases where they feel doubt but don't voice it, even though the DM isn't fudging rolls at all.

So its awkward. IMO? If you must fudge stuff, fudge literally anything other than rolls. Change enemy HP. Have new enemy reinforcements that didn't exist before show up. Add a high level spell to the monster outta nowhere, or take one away.

[Sigreid]

Secret rolling is bad because players know the only reason you're rolling in secret is to fudge rolls. So whatever happens - even if you're not fudging, players suspect you are. Elder dragon failed a save? Lich failed concentration? Hobgoblin warlord rolls a nat 20? There's going to be a voice in the back of their head saying "is that legit?" If they actually voice doubt, the DM might lift the screen to prove it... but there will be a lot of cases where they feel doubt but don't voice it, even though the DM isn't fudging rolls at all.

So its awkward. IMO? If you must fudge stuff, fudge literally anything other than rolls. Change enemy HP. Have new enemy reinforcements that didn't exist before show up. Add a high level spell to the monster outta nowhere, or take one away.

I'll sometimes roll in secret for things like perception rolls or perhaps some social rolls and such where knowing what I rolled may influence player decisions.

[Ionathus]

I might have missed someone else mentioning this part, but I like the difference between attacks & saving throws for the flavor & lore reasons.

When I make an attack, rolling to see if I succeeded makes me feel like an active participant in the combat. It feels like I am the one working for my success in a very grounded, "honest" way.

When I force a saving throw, it's usually through a magical or supernatural effect. There's something abnormal about it, and it feels fun to be forcing the monsters to save against my DC. Instead of being an active attacker, I am passively sitting back and forcing my will upon the world, and the "burden of proof" is on the world to override my assumed success.

There's a reason that every living creature is capable of an attack roll by default, but effects that require saving throws need to be specifically obtained, are mostly supernatural in origin, and are almost always a limited resource. It allows spellcasters to affect the battlefield in big, flashy ways at important moments, even while the bread-and-butter of most combats is still decided by a bunch of attack rolls.

[tiornys]

My primary reason for rolling behind a screen is to remove any consideration of metagaming based on the die results. It's a different dynamic if the players see me roll a 19 and a 17 with no explanation during a scene vs. the players seeing me roll dice with no explanation during a scene.

[Psyren]

Secret rolling is bad because players know the only reason you're rolling in secret is to fudge rolls. So whatever happens - even if you're not fudging, players suspect you are. Elder dragon failed a save? Lich failed concentration? Hobgoblin warlord rolls a nat 20? There's going to be a voice in the back of their head saying "is that legit?" If they actually voice doubt, the DM might lift the screen to prove it... but there will be a lot of cases where they feel doubt but don't voice it, even though the DM isn't fudging rolls at all.

So its awkward. IMO? If you must fudge stuff, fudge literally anything other than rolls. Change enemy HP. Have new enemy reinforcements that didn't exist before show up. Add a high level spell to the monster outta nowhere, or take one away.

This is another reason to make as many rolls secret as possible. Some (like Insight, disease, or certain mental saving throws) are already recommended to be in the rulebooks. And if you only roll behind the screen when you're fudging something you might as well be hanging up a neon sign - which does little but deprive you of that tool pre-emptively.

[Sigreid]

This is another reason to make as many rolls secret as possible. Some (like Insight, disease, or certain mental saving throws) are already recommended to be in the rulebooks. And if you only roll behind the screen when you're fudging something you might as well be hanging up a neon sign - which does little but deprive you of that tool pre-emptively.

Sometimes when I roll in secret, it means absolutely nothing except I'm looking to raise tension a little. hehe

[Psyren]

Sometimes when I roll in secret, it means absolutely nothing except I'm looking to raise tension a little. hehe

This is indeed a great use of the screen. Especially when you just start doing it if the party is dithering aimlessly :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

I'd say fudging can be useful even here. Sometimes the players are having a string of bad rolls despite the fight functionally being over / not being interesting to play out anymore. And sure, you can simply declare the fight to be abruptly over but it's often more fun for the players to know "who got the kill" and give them the opportunity to narrate that. (At our tables, one of the most fun moments in any fight is when a player deals the last few points of damage and the DM asks "how do you want to do this?" leading to that player getting the spotlight for a few seconds so they can narrate a suitably gory finisher.)The way I think this is most effectively done to maximize fun is if you know somebody is winding up a big "finishing move" and that nobody has anything special lined up afterwards:
If the monster dies due to having fewer hp than the party thinks it did, and the finishing move is happening on a later turn in the same round, letting Willy the Wizard's firebolt that he tossed out because he's out of effective leveled damage spells fail to kill it even though it only had 3 of those 7 hp he rolled with it left is fine. Keep the monster alive long enough for Bob Fightmasterson to use that really cool ability he's gotten set up for that is going to deal umpteen bazillion damage on his turn, and let that be the killing blow.
If, conversely, Bob Fightmasterson's massive move goes off and the monster has only 6 hp left, rather than making Willy have to plink that away, just let the monster die to that big hit. Fudging hp so the fight ends with the big finishing move, when the fight was more or less decided by that move anyway (or when the fight would be more interesting with the move in it) is probably not going to offend anybody if they know about it, nor is it likely to spark, "Wait, was that legit?" questions.


IMO? If you must fudge stuff, fudge literally anything other than rolls. Change enemy HP. Have new enemy reinforcements that didn't exist before show up. Add a high level spell to the monster outta nowhere, or take one away.This tends to be much more effective fudging. It's still not something you want to do all the time, but "forgetting" that your gorgon witch who has been really lucky in turning PCs to stone has transmute rock to mud prepared and ready to go may be perfectly acceptable when, instead of it being 1-2 PCs in danger, it's the whole party. Vice-versa, if the party is being overly blase about the petrification because they can reverse it "later," demonstrating she HAS that spell (even if she didn't, before) can make the fight suddenly a lot more tense.


This is indeed a great use of the screen. Especially when you just start doing it if the party is dithering aimlessly :smallbiggrin:Asking for their passive perception scores and if they would make a Wisdom saving throw, please, is similarly fun and effective. :smallcool::smallbiggrin:

[Ionathus]

Really, the most compelling reason for rolling behind the screen is that I'm sitting down, and the players are spread across the table so I'll have to throw the d20 far enough for them all to see, and there are a bunch of minis in the way, and picking my dice back up would require standing up and leaning forward.

[Psyren]

The way I think this is most effectively done to maximize fun is if you know somebody is winding up a big "finishing move" and that nobody has anything special lined up afterwards:
If the monster dies due to having fewer hp than the party thinks it did, and the finishing move is happening on a later turn in the same round, letting Willy the Wizard's firebolt that he tossed out because he's out of effective leveled damage spells fail to kill it even though it only had 3 of those 7 hp he rolled with it left is fine. Keep the monster alive long enough for Bob Fightmasterson to use that really cool ability he's gotten set up for that is going to deal umpteen bazillion damage on his turn, and let that be the killing blow.
If, conversely, Bob Fightmasterson's massive move goes off and the monster has only 6 hp left, rather than making Willy have to plink that away, just let the monster die to that big hit. Fudging hp so the fight ends with the big finishing move, when the fight was more or less decided by that move anyway (or when the fight would be more interesting with the move in it) is probably not going to offend anybody if they know about it, nor is it likely to spark, "Wait, was that legit?" questions.

Maybe I'm an outlier, but our group never has "was that legit?" questions. Combat in this game takes long enough as it is, usually everyone is happy it's over even if they were supremely excited at Initiative.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sometimes when I roll in secret, it means absolutely nothing except I'm looking to raise tension a little. hehe

I just do that openly.

[OldTrees1]

I just do that openly.

Sometimes it is useful to ask the players to do it.

[strangebloke]

This is another reason to make as many rolls secret as possible. Some (like Insight, disease, or certain mental saving throws) are already recommended to be in the rulebooks. And if you only roll behind the screen when you're fudging something you might as well be hanging up a neon sign - which does little but deprive you of that tool pre-emptively.

No, my point was that any roll behind a screen will be subject to being suspect. Context doesn't matter. Anything that's 'too perfect' will be subject to the player wondering whether the DM is fudging rolls or not. Stuff that's too good for the player or too bad for the player.

If you only do some rolls in secret, obviously those rolls will be very sus, but if you do all rolls in secret, all rolls will be a little sus.

It's not, like, badwrongfun to roll in secret, but speaking as someone who used to do this, I now see zero value in doing this for any reason. Best practice is, dice are in the open and players can trust that the dice fall where they fall, and any on-the-fly difficulty adjustments come via other means.


Sometimes when I roll in secret, it means absolutely nothing except I'm looking to raise tension a little. hehe

Doesn't have anything to do with the screen or not to be quite honest.

[KorvinStarmast]

Secret rolling is bad because You don't like it. It's a useful tool sometimes. If you don't have a trust relationship between DM and Players, then priority one is to Fix That before you play again.

Sometimes when I roll in secret, it means absolutely nothing except I'm looking to raise tension a little. hehe Yep.
This is indeed a great use of the screen. Especially when you just start doing it if the party is dithering aimlessly :smallbiggrin:

I just do that openly.

Sometimes it is useful to ask the players to do it. I have my players roll a d12 or a d20 frequently so that I can gage who is still paying attention (we play on line) and who is awake or who has passed out (happens with some frequency with two of my players who are still, literally, "partakers of the herb"...and if I get up early on a Saturday, I've been known to doze off during a Saturday Night game (on line) as we approach 11 or midnight without realizing it).

[Snails]

I don't think it matters mechanically which way it happens, but think that getting to roll for a save gives the player a sense of active control in their defense against the spell. So, it's really just a psychological thing for the players to not feel powerless when a spell is cast.

I would mention that this paradigm works very well when it comes to Legendary Saves. Mechanically speaking, there are other ways of accomplishing the same, of course. But it would feel different if the Mummy Lord had a means of changing my Disintegrate attack roll after I rolled it, rather than imagining that it tapped into some deep karmic reserve on its own.

[Kane0]

The interesting thing to me is that the description above doesn't feel like D&D at all :) ... which is why I didn't play 4e much. It might have been a good game system but just didn't feel like D&D when I played it.

Yeah like I said at the start, it functioned just fine but players often had a visceral reaction to it. Which is a bit of a shame, I find that casters in 5e tend to have far more 'you roll' than 'i roll' effects in their spell lists.

[strangebloke]

You don't like it. It's a useful tool sometimes. If you don't have a trust relationship between DM and Players, then priority one is to Fix That before you play again.
Why should your players 'trust' that you're not fudging rolls, when you are?

And in what cases is fudging rolls a uniquely useful tool that couldn't be simulated by other means?

[Rukelnikov]

Secret rolling is bad because players know the only reason you're rolling in secret is to fudge rolls. So whatever happens - even if you're not fudging, players suspect you are. Elder dragon failed a save? Lich failed concentration? Hobgoblin warlord rolls a nat 20? There's going to be a voice in the back of their head saying "is that legit?" If they actually voice doubt, the DM might lift the screen to prove it... but there will be a lot of cases where they feel doubt but don't voice it, even though the DM isn't fudging rolls at all.

So its awkward. IMO? If you must fudge stuff, fudge literally anything other than rolls. Change enemy HP. Have new enemy reinforcements that didn't exist before show up. Add a high level spell to the monster outta nowhere, or take one away.

I roll in the open for combat, but for exploration and social stuff, I roll a lot "behind the screen" (don't really use a screen but a pencil notebook where I jot down notes and stuff). The reason being I don't want the players to have info their characters don't have if possible.

If they are trying to con someone, and see the 20 insight roll from the NPC, when the NPC goes along with it, they know they are being played, and its not the same, even if they are not metagaming, they can't be surprised by the fact, cause they have already been spoiled.

[Psyren]

If you only do some rolls in secret, obviously those rolls will be very sus, but if you do all rolls in secret, all rolls will be a little sus.

Eh, a little sus(picion) is healthy. It certainly wouldn't bother me. My role is to deliver a compelling narrative, not merely be a dice dispenser.


It's not, like, badwrongfun to roll in secret, but speaking as someone who used to do this, I now see zero value in doing this for any reason. Best practice is, dice are in the open and players can trust that the dice fall where they fall, and any on-the-fly difficulty adjustments come via other means.

I'm not against this but it too has drawbacks/limitations. If your Big Bad gets paralyzed on turn 1 for instance, followed by three rounds of failed attempts to recover, there's only so far you can fudge their health for crit after crit before they realize you're just padding. Or you don't, and the epic battle you've been hyping for weeks just fizzles like a deflated balloon. Or you scramble to throw in reinforcements you didn't actually think you'd need to salvage some semblance of challenge. Sure Legendary Saves help with this, but not all bosses have them.

In short, I understand where you're coming from and that there's value in both approaches, but it wouldn't surprise me an iota if the idea that not all of those rolls being in the players' hands was intentional design to help facilitate rolling behind the screen.

[OldTrees1]

Why should your players 'trust' that you're not fudging rolls, when you are?

And in what cases is fudging rolls a uniquely useful tool that couldn't be simulated by other means?

Personally I don't fudge rolls, but I think your questions got a bit off track.


It is not about trusting a counterfactual. In a group that is okay with dice rolls being fudged when merited, they are trusting the GM will do it IFF it is merited.

It is rare that any tool would be uniquely useful. A d6 is not a uniquely useful way of a randomly determining an output of 1,2,3,4,5,6 from a uniform distribution. I can use slips of paper instead. I can even use a d7. Fudging has the benefit of using RNG but limiting the output to less options than physically on the RNG tool. Fudging with a 1d20 is not only way of rolling 1d18+1, but it is one way.

[Tanarii]

Yeah like I said at the start, it functioned just fine but players often had a visceral reaction to it. Which is a bit of a shame, I find that casters in 5e tend to have far more 'you roll' than 'i roll' effects in their spell lists.
This has been a sticking point with some spellcaster players I know. Most are happy that the DM has to do the rolling, because they've already got a lot of cognitive load thinking about what spell to cast and if it's worth a resource etc. But some caster players get annoyed that they aren't rolling attacks most of the time.

As a DM, I'd be very happy if the game went back to 4e style NADs. Rolling saves for a bunch of monsters against AOEs on top of rolling their attacks is too much on my side. I tend to use large groups of enemies over just a few.

[Snails]

Eh, a little sus(picion) is healthy. It certainly wouldn't bother me. My role is to deliver a compelling narrative, not merely be a dice dispenser.

Obviously I do not know you at the gaming table, so I speak in ignorance of specifics and I am in no way intending to insult you when I say that "deliver a compelling narrative" is a two-edged sword.

Few DMs engage in DM vs Player games for the personal pleasure of screwing over players. What is more often the case is the DM has a positive motivation: his ideas about "compelling narrative" that is not understood and shared by all the players. The DM may understand that it is "obvious" that his precious narrative would be spoiled by the BBEG failing a save on Turn 1. A player may understand that it is "obvious" he has certain big guns in order to hunt big game; players get frustrated to discover that his elephant gun will always miss a real elephant, because of "compelling narrative" and secret rolls that are lied about.

In terms of 5e, we do have Get Out Of Jail cards for the BBEG (Legendary Saves), so it is not as if the BBEGs are exactly helpless.

[Psyren]

It is not about trusting a counterfactual. In a group that is okay with dice rolls being fudged when merited, they are trusting the GM will do it IFF it is merited.

It is rare that any tool would be uniquely useful. A d6 is not a uniquely useful way of a randomly determining an output of 1,2,3,4,5,6 from a uniform distribution. I can use slips of paper instead. I can even use a d7. Fudging has the benefit of using RNG but limiting the output to less options than physically on the RNG tool. Fudging with a 1d20 is not only way of rolling 1d18+1, but it is one way.

Agreed on all counts.


This has been a sticking point with some spellcaster players I know. Most are happy that the DM has to do the rolling, because they've already got a lot of cognitive load thinking about what spell to cast and if it's worth a resource etc. But some caster players get annoyed that they aren't rolling attacks most of the time.

As a DM, I'd be very happy if the game went back to 4e style NADs. Rolling saves for a bunch of monsters against AOEs on top of rolling their attacks is too much on my side. I tend to use large groups of enemies over just a few.

Most of the time if you have large groups of monsters, isn't there some degree of homogeneity amongst them? What's wrong with either rolling 1-3 saves, or randomizing the quantity that fail instead of whether they fail?


Obviously I do not know you at the gaming table, so I speak in ignorance of specifics and I am in no way intending to insult you when I say that "deliver a compelling narrative" is a two-edged sword.

Few DMs engage in DM vs Player games for the personal pleasure of screwing over players. What is more often the case is the DM has a positive motivation: his ideas about "compelling narrative" that is not understood and shared by all the players. The DM may understand that it is "obvious" that his precious narrative would be spoiled by the BBEG failing a save on Turn 1. A player may understand that it is "obvious" he has certain big guns in order to hunt big game; players get frustrated to discover that his elephant gun will always miss a real elephant, because of "compelling narrative" and secret rolls that are lied about.

In terms of 5e, we do have Get Out Of Jail cards for the BBEG (Legendary Saves), so it is not as if the BBEGs are exactly helpless.

I'd get frustrated at "guns that always miss" too, but thankfully I never said that.

Legendary Saves are a great addition to the game, but they're not universally applicable. Notably, they very rarely show up at low/mid tiers, but those tiers can have boss fights too.

[Snails]

Notably, they very rarely show up at low/mid tiers, but those tiers can have boss fights too.

Seems to me that Three Is A Magic Number, but the DM is not obligated to stick with exactly three Legendary Saves. There are ways to scale this down (or up).

[Psyren]

Seems to me that Three Is A Magic Number, but the DM is not obligated to stick with exactly three Legendary Saves. There are ways to scale this down (or up).

I'm talking about the fact that boss monsters, or even just monsters that could reasonably be used as bosses, exist that don't have any at all. They're also yet another thing for the DM to keep track of rather than simply deciding in the moment.

[strangebloke]

Personally I don't fudge rolls, but I think your questions got a bit off track.

It is not about trusting a counterfactual. In a group that is okay with dice rolls being fudged when merited, they are trusting the GM will do it IFF it is merited.
Sure, but even if you trust the DM's judgement, the secret rolls are still poison to hype over actual luck. Knowing that the memorable thing (eg, 3 nat 20s in a row, 3 nat 1s in a row) is only happening because the DM is allowing/forcing it makes it less hype when it does happen.

It is rare that any tool would be uniquely useful. A d6 is not a uniquely useful way of a randomly determining an output of 1,2,3,4,5,6 from a uniform distribution. I can use slips of paper instead. I can even use a d7. Fudging has the benefit of using RNG but limiting the output to less options than physically on the RNG tool. Fudging with a 1d20 is not only way of rolling 1d18+1, but it is one way.
you're "hiding the fudge" in RNG, but because of how you're doing it (secret rolls) its clear that you are hiding the fudge in this way. So the fudge ain't hidden, the purpose isn't achieved.

And since the other means accomplish the same ends without that drawback... use the other means.

[Phhase]

I think we may have veered slightly off topic. Back about saves versus attack rolls, I reiterate my take that The reason for having both is to increase the possible attack surface on any one individual, and to change to context of critical successes and failures depending on which is used.

[Psyren]

Sure, but even if you trust the DM's judgement, the secret rolls are still poison to hype over actual luck. Knowing that the memorable thing (eg, 3 nat 20s in a row, 3 nat 1s in a row) is only happening because the DM is allowing/forcing it makes it less hype when it does happen.

Uhh, that can still happen. The players generally aren't rolling behind a screen, so they can still have the hype moment of triple crits (or the agony of triple fumbles) and what have you.

In fact, I'd argue the exact scenario you describe - the DM getting 3 crits in a row, which is highly likely to outright delete someone's character - is precisely a moment where fudging can be warranted.



And since the other means accomplish the same ends without that drawback... use the other means.

They don't. Not always.

[Kane0]

Well you could rule that spell attacks cannot critical hit, only weapon attacks. But that's a bit of a bandaid.

[Greywander]

Yeah, this has gotten way off topic. For the record, I prefer rolls to not be fudged. But it's just that: a preference. For me, it makes a victory feel hollow when the DM fudges in my favor, or it feels like artificial difficulty when the DM fudges against me. At some point, it's just... why bother rolling if you're going to ignore the result? But not everyone feels that way. So it will vary from table to table, and from player to player.

Getting back on topic, I think I may have found a viable solution to the issue I wrote about in the OP, and I don't think I've seen anyone comment on it yet. Basically, you know how you can roll Perception, but you also have passive Perception? Well, we could do the same with both attacks and defenses. You can either roll an attack against a passive defense, or roll defense against a passive attack. Both would be mathematically identical, and thus fully interchangeable. In other words, you can choose whether the gobbos roll a saving throw against Fireball, or whether you want to make an attack roll against each of their passive DEX saves. This actually would allow you to have the player make all the rolls while still being symmetric between PCs and NPCs. Because maybe one player doesn't want to roll, and chooses to let the monsters do all the rolling. Because you'd be able to do that, if you wanted to.

[OvisCaedo]

The main issue with making a change like that now is needing to potentially adjust or make exceptions for a whole lot of things that give advantage or disadvantage. Disadvantage on saving throws is generally much harder to impose than gaining advantage on attack rolls. I suppose also if it was an attack roll, bless would apply to it by default.

You could make exceptions, but I think they'd feel a little weird. The simplest wording would probably be to make all of the current attack roll boosts be on "attack rolls against AC"...?

[AdAstra]

I find the point about player rolls giving the players more info than NPC rolls to be the most compelling argument. When the player rolls, it gives them a better idea of what they're up against. If you roll high and still fail, you know the target is high. Roll low and succeed, you know it'll be pretty easy the next time. While when the DM rolls behind a screen, even if they tell you the result it's a bit harder to gauge how large the bonus is (only rolls above 20 or below 1 say anything, and even then only a bit). It can also slow things down when you have targets with different defenses.

And DND still incorporates plenty of traps and saves against environmental effects forced by circumstance. The pit of spikes should probably not be a more active game entity than a player.

If there were any two systems that could be merged, they might be checks and saves. You could make Will, Fortitude, and Reflexes (or even all six stats) into "skills", or pick a selection of suitable existing skills instead. For example, Str(Athletics) and Dex(acrobatics) effectively serve as saving throws of sorts during the opposed check involved in Grappling. But even then, there's a good reason to prevent everything that can affect ability checks from affecting saves, and vice versa.

[Rynjin]

If there were any two systems that could be merged, they might be checks and saves. You could make Will, Fortitude, and Reflexes (or even all six stats) into "skills", or pick a selection of suitable existing skills instead. For example, Str(Athletics) and Dex(acrobatics) effectively serve as saving throws of sorts during the opposed check involved in Grappling. But even then, there's a good reason to prevent everything that can affect ability checks from affecting saves, and vice versa.

5e is already pretty close to doing the same thing but from the opposite direction: turning all skills into attribute checks.

It would take surprisingly little tweaking to go the rest of the way with this.

[Ortho]

This has been a sticking point with some spellcaster players I know. Most are happy that the DM has to do the rolling, because they've already got a lot of cognitive load thinking about what spell to cast and if it's worth a resource etc. But some caster players get annoyed that they aren't rolling attacks most of the time.

If only there were entire classes built around the concept of rolling multiple attack rolls....


I don't think I've seen this brought up yet, but rolling saves just gives players something to do when it's not their turn. Combat in D&D takes a while to resolve - if you finish your turn, you're often left twiddling your thumbs for a good fraction of an hour until your turn comes around again. Saving throws give you a chance to interact with the game outside of your turn. 4e-style AC for everything can't do that.

[Tanarii]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]Combat in D&D takes a while to resolve - if you finish your turn, you're often left twiddling your thumbs for a good fraction of an hour until your turn comes around again.
If a round is taking more even 10 minutes, of course the players are twiddling their thumbs. A round of 5e combat can easily be handled in half that.

[Kane0]

Really depends on the table and situation, ecen a mid level party vs 6 enemies created vaguely like another party of PC plus two creatures with legendary actions will take some time to get through, especially with spells, reactions, legendary actions, magic items, concentration checks and so on. As you gain levels there just more and more if, buts and otherwises thrown in.