Spell Attack house rule

[Matthias]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I have lately been considering having spellcasters make "spell attacks" instead
of their targets making saving throws. Instead of imposing save DCs on the
victims of their spells, the spellcaster rolls a d20, adds the spell level of
the spell being cast, and the relevant ability modifer (Int for wizards, Wis for
clerics, etc).

On the flip side, it's the targets of magic that carry the Difficulty Classes
for the spells being cast. Each character has a Fortitude /score/, Reflex
/score, and Will /score/, which are 10 + level/HD modifier + Con or Dex or Wis
modifier.

This is part of two larger rationales:

1) Consistency: The attacker is the one who makes the die rolls. Weapon, spell,
doesn't matter.

2) Balance Between Party Members: In a setting/game system such as Xcrawl where
you grant Mojo (action points) for natural 20 rolls, the party wizard can
contribute to the party's Mojo pool just like the party fighter.


What side-effects (if any) might there be with "reversing" saving throws?


Note: In pursuit of #1, you might also consider simplifying opposed die rolls
(e.g. Bluff/Sense Motive) to single rolls versus DCs like everything else (e.g.
a Bluff check against a Sense Motive DC of 10 + Sense Motive ranks + Wisdom
modifier + any misc. bonus). Eliminating opposed checks changes the dynamics
somewhat, though. Whereas a weak skill check (say d20 + 1 rank + 2 ability
modifier) against a superior opposed check (say d20 + 12 ranks + 4 ability
modifier) where there's a chance of success only if the opposed check goes below
a natural 8, the same skill check has no chance of success with a fixed opposing
DC (i.e. fixed DC of 26, versus a maximum check result of 23).

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Geoff Watson wrote:
> "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6g6k41dejcvl14o9h4q5q5ofpb1qic5nb7@4ax.com...
> > I have lately been considering having spellcasters make "spell
attacks"
> instead
> > of their targets making saving throws. Instead of imposing save DCs
on the
> > victims of their spells, the spellcaster rolls a d20, adds the
spell level
> of
> > the spell being cast, and the relevant ability modifer (Int for
wizards,
> Wis for
> > clerics, etc).
> >
> > On the flip side, it's the targets of magic that carry the
Difficulty
> Classes
> > for the spells being cast. Each character has a Fortitude /score/,
Reflex
> > /score, and Will /score/, which are 10 + level/HD modifier + Con or
Dex or
> Wis
> > modifier.
> >
> > This is part of two larger rationales:
> >
> > 1) Consistency: The attacker is the one who makes the die rolls.
Weapon,
> spell,
> > doesn't matter.
> >
> > 2) Balance Between Party Members: In a setting/game system such as
Xcrawl
> where
> > you grant Mojo (action points) for natural 20 rolls, the party
wizard can
> > contribute to the party's Mojo pool just like the party fighter.
> >
> >
> > What side-effects (if any) might there be with "reversing" saving
throws?
> >

Well it creates one major problem I see. It means a particular DC roll
against a group of people is either going to fail or succeed on all of
them. I don't think it's a good idea if your villain casts an insta
death spell against the party, rolls a single 20 and they all die. In
fact I think this is a very very bad idea. I wouldn't do it. If you
make it a seperate roll against each person in an effect that would
work, but it's a lot of dice for a player to roll and keep track of. I
don't think that would work in your campain however as it's going to
rack up a lot of mojo...

> Change the scores to 12+, instead of 10, to keep the odds the same.
>

I thought it was 11? Lets see, average d20 roll is 10.5 against a DC
of say 10 that's a .5 advantage, if we flip it, we get a save of 10
against a dc roll of 10.5 so a .5 disadvantage. If we make it a save
of 11 against a dc roll of 10.5 it's a .5 advantage again. Yep 11
base.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> writes
>I have lately been considering having spellcasters make "spell attacks" instead
>of their targets making saving throws. Instead of imposing save DCs on the
>victims of their spells, the spellcaster rolls a d20, adds the spell level of
>the spell being cast, and the relevant ability modifer (Int for
>wizards, Wis for
>clerics, etc).
>
>On the flip side, it's the targets of magic that carry the Difficulty Classes
>for the spells being cast. Each character has a Fortitude /score/, Reflex
>/score, and Will /score/, which are 10 + level/HD modifier + Con or Dex or Wis
>modifier.
>
>This is part of two larger rationales:
>
>1) Consistency: The attacker is the one who makes the die rolls. Weapon, spell,
>doesn't matter.

>2) Balance Between Party Members: In a setting/game system such as Xcrawl where
>you grant Mojo (action points) for natural 20 rolls, the party wizard can
>contribute to the party's Mojo pool just like the party fighter.
>
>
>What side-effects (if any) might there be with "reversing" saving throws?

Unless you're going to change the rules for certain traps, poison,
disease, ad infinitum, PCs are going to retain saving throws. The
record keeping thus extends - by a minor amount, granted - as they
record Will bonus and score, and so on.

Most spells produce an effect, and it is the effect that the save is
against. For instance, a wizard casts fireball. In essence, he's
causing a big ol' ball of flame to appear at a certain point - that's
it; that's his active participation over. The poor sods caught in the
ball then have the active participation of trying to avoid damage from
it.

In the case of a fireball, the wizard rolls damage, and those caught in
the blast roll saves. Under an attack roll method, how would you handle
this? Would the caster, for example, treat the fireball as a
grenade-like missile, attacking a square and subject to possible
scatter? Euch. Would he have to make attack rolls against each
individual caught in the fireball's radius? That's a lot of potential
rolling for one player, when coupled with the damage dice.

However, your attack spell system would work nicely for direct target
spells, particularly mind-affecting ones (caster attempts to punch
through "Will AC"), but that's me coming from the standpoint that I like
Rolemaster, and Rolemaster's spell system was set up on an "attack
spells require attack rolls" basis. But even with that, RM has a saving
throw-like system for a more active participation to avoid effects on
the part of a PC, and I also like the idea of a PC taking a more active
roll in resisting spell effects (in the mind-affecting case, focusing
his Will so as to shake off that charm spell).

If you want to look for consistency, it's there in the core (PCs save
against effects, and spells are one component of the game that create
effects; PCs make attack rolls when they are the primary instigator of a
direct attempt to strike a target, which encompasses both weapon attacks
and directed spell attacks, like rays and touch spells).

So... I don't know. I like the idea of spell attack rolls, but
introducing AC-esque targets for a spellcaster to overcome creates its
own inconsistencies when considering saves due to other elements of the
game - "sometimes your Will bonus contributes to Will AC; sometimes your
Will bonus contributes to a Will saving throw".

I've no idea what XCrawl is, so I can't comment on the ramifications of
PC balance using its system. If there is an issue of PC balance, I'd be
concerned as to why the system itself hadn't already considered such
balance issues.

--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6g6k41dejcvl14o9h4q5q5ofpb1qic5nb7@4ax.com...
> I have lately been considering having spellcasters make "spell attacks"
instead
> of their targets making saving throws. Instead of imposing save DCs on the
> victims of their spells, the spellcaster rolls a d20, adds the spell level
of
> the spell being cast, and the relevant ability modifer (Int for wizards,
Wis for
> clerics, etc).
>
> On the flip side, it's the targets of magic that carry the Difficulty
Classes
> for the spells being cast. Each character has a Fortitude /score/, Reflex
> /score, and Will /score/, which are 10 + level/HD modifier + Con or Dex or
Wis
> modifier.
>
> This is part of two larger rationales:
>
> 1) Consistency: The attacker is the one who makes the die rolls. Weapon,
spell,
> doesn't matter.
>
> 2) Balance Between Party Members: In a setting/game system such as Xcrawl
where
> you grant Mojo (action points) for natural 20 rolls, the party wizard can
> contribute to the party's Mojo pool just like the party fighter.
>
>
> What side-effects (if any) might there be with "reversing" saving throws?
>
Change the scores to 12+, instead of 10, to keep the odds the same.

Geoff.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:
> I have lately been considering having spellcasters make "spell
> attacks" instead of their targets making saving throws. Instead of
> imposing save DCs on the victims of their spells, the spellcaster
> rolls a d20, adds the spell level of the spell being cast, and the
> relevant ability modifer (Int for wizards, Wis for clerics, etc).
>
> On the flip side, it's the targets of magic that carry the Difficulty
> Classes for the spells being cast ....

While it's not without disadvantages, the idea does pass a sniff test.
D&D has even used a similar mechanic: The 3.0 psionics rules had
attackers make an "attack roll" like that, and the XPsiHB offers it as
an official optional rule.

The main advantage is that attackers always make the die roll. The main
disadvantage is that it can cause workflow problems if you roll one
attack per target, and it can make TPKs more likely if you don't.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Geoff Watson wrote:
>
> Well it creates one major problem I see. It means a particular DC roll
> against a group of people is either going to fail or succeed on all of
> them. I don't think it's a good idea if your villain casts an insta
> death spell against the party, rolls a single 20 and they all die. In
> fact I think this is a very very bad idea. I wouldn't do it. If you
> make it a seperate roll against each person in an effect that would
> work, but it's a lot of dice for a player to roll and keep track of. I
> don't think that would work in your campain however as it's going to
> rack up a lot of mojo...

It would be, but the current system, those are all dice for the DM to
roll.

One or the other they're going to be rolled.

>> Change the scores to 12+, instead of 10, to keep the odds the same.
>
> I thought it was 11? Lets see, average d20 roll is 10.5 against a DC
> of say 10 that's a .5 advantage, if we flip it, we get a save of 10
> against a dc roll of 10.5 so a .5 disadvantage. If we make it a save
> of 11 against a dc roll of 10.5 it's a .5 advantage again. Yep 11
> base.

It would be, but usually the roll has to be 'equal to or greater than'
to succeed.

Int 18, fireball (Wiz3): save DC = 17
Ref bonus: +2. Roll required == 15+ (30% save)

turn it around

Int 18, fireball (Wiz3): spell attack bonus = +7
Ref bonus: +2. 'Hit DC' == 11+2 = 13.
Roll required == 6+ (75% 'no save').

The numbers don't work out quite right. If you use base of 12:

Int 18, fireball (Wiz3): spell attack bonus = +7
Ref bonus: +2. 'Hit DC' == 12+2 = 14.
Roll required == 7+ (70% 'no save').

you get the correct behavior.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Geoff Watson wrote:
> >
> > Well it creates one major problem I see. It means a particular DC
roll
> > against a group of people is either going to fail or succeed on all
of
> > them. I don't think it's a good idea if your villain casts an
insta
> > death spell against the party, rolls a single 20 and they all die.
In
> > fact I think this is a very very bad idea. I wouldn't do it. If
you
> > make it a seperate roll against each person in an effect that would
> > work, but it's a lot of dice for a player to roll and keep track
of. I
> > don't think that would work in your campain however as it's going
to
> > rack up a lot of mojo...
>
> It would be, but the current system, those are all dice for the DM to
> roll.
>
> One or the other they're going to be rolled.
>
> >> Change the scores to 12+, instead of 10, to keep the odds the
same.
> >
> > I thought it was 11? Lets see, average d20 roll is 10.5 against a
DC
> > of say 10 that's a .5 advantage, if we flip it, we get a save of 10
> > against a dc roll of 10.5 so a .5 disadvantage. If we make it a
save
> > of 11 against a dc roll of 10.5 it's a .5 advantage again. Yep 11
> > base.
>
> It would be, but usually the roll has to be 'equal to or greater
than'
> to succeed.
>
> Int 18, fireball (Wiz3): save DC = 17
> Ref bonus: +2. Roll required == 15+ (30% save)
>
> turn it around
>
> Int 18, fireball (Wiz3): spell attack bonus = +7
> Ref bonus: +2. 'Hit DC' == 11+2 = 13.
> Roll required == 6+ (75% 'no save').
>
> The numbers don't work out quite right. If you use base of 12:
>
> Int 18, fireball (Wiz3): spell attack bonus = +7
> Ref bonus: +2. 'Hit DC' == 12+2 = 14.
> Roll required == 7+ (70% 'no save').
>
> you get the correct behavior.
>

Ah the flipping of ties. I didn't think of that. I will remember in
the future.

- Justisaur.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

A more pervasive wrinkle than XCrawl Mojo might be Action Points, used
in the Eberron Campaign Setting, among others.

Off the top of my head, I don't think a spellcaster can usually spend
action points to make her spells more effective.

Under this sort of proposal, it looks like she could. All in all, I'm
inclined to think that's a feature, not a bug.

In any case, something to consider.




Cheers,
Roger Carbol

 

[Matthias]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 08:37:09 -0800, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well it creates one major problem I see. It means a particular DC roll
>against a group of people is either going to fail or succeed on all of
>them. I don't think it's a good idea if your villain casts an insta
>death spell against the party, rolls a single 20 and they all die.

Good question. Let's say that a spell attack against multiple targets would
require a separate die roll against each target of the spell. The situation
hasn't changed, just the perspective.



>In
>fact I think this is a very very bad idea. I wouldn't do it. If you
>make it a seperate roll against each person in an effect that would
>work, but it's a lot of dice for a player to roll and keep track of. I
>don't think that would work in your campain however as it's going to
>rack up a lot of mojo...

Dice: Yes, it would require several d20's for the spellcaster players. Yet I
have trouble imagining a player who does not have as many d20's in his
possession as he would have any other common die type. He may have his favorite
d20's and all that, but there is nothing stopping him from rolling multiple
d20's or rolling a few d20's several times sequentially just like the high-level
fighters have to.

Mojo: As far as I can remember, a character can only earn one mojo per action.
The odds of earning one greatly increase with multiple d20's though, and casters
can easily outpace the high-level fighters in d20's used if they pick the right
spells. Now you could limit the spellcaster to picking a limited number of d20's
that could qualify for earning mojo, depending on level (where a 1st-level
wizard might only be able to qualify any one d20 while an 11th-level wizard
could qualify any three d20's from his spell attacks). Limited d20 qualification
would put a spellcaster on par with a fighter or barbarian or ranger of equal
character level. The secondary spellcasters (e.g. paladin, ranger) might be
weaker at earning mojo with their spell attacks, with a number of qualifying
d20's equal to the number of attacks a rogue or a monk of equal level has.


>> Change the scores to 12+, instead of 10, to keep the odds the same.
>>
>
>I thought it was 11? Lets see, average d20 roll is 10.5 against a DC
>of say 10 that's a .5 advantage, if we flip it, we get a save of 10
>against a dc roll of 10.5 so a .5 disadvantage. If we make it a save
>of 11 against a dc roll of 10.5 it's a .5 advantage again. Yep 11
>base.

12 did seem strange to me. But so does 11. There's a bad taste to it either way,
I guess.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen

 

[Matthias]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 08:33:21 -0800, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Keith Davies wrote:
>> Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Geoff Watson wrote:
>> >
>> > Well it creates one major problem I see. It means a particular DC
>roll
>> > against a group of people is either going to fail or succeed on all
>of
>> > them. I don't think it's a good idea if your villain casts an
>insta
>> > death spell against the party, rolls a single 20 and they all die.
>In
>> > fact I think this is a very very bad idea. I wouldn't do it. If
>you
>> > make it a seperate roll against each person in an effect that would
>> > work, but it's a lot of dice for a player to roll and keep track
>of. I
>> > don't think that would work in your campain however as it's going
>to
>> > rack up a lot of mojo...
>>
>> It would be, but the current system, those are all dice for the DM to
>> roll.
>>
>> One or the other they're going to be rolled.
>>
>> >> Change the scores to 12+, instead of 10, to keep the odds the
>same.
>> >
>> > I thought it was 11? Lets see, average d20 roll is 10.5 against a
>DC
>> > of say 10 that's a .5 advantage, if we flip it, we get a save of 10
>> > against a dc roll of 10.5 so a .5 disadvantage. If we make it a
>save
>> > of 11 against a dc roll of 10.5 it's a .5 advantage again. Yep 11
>> > base.
>>
>> It would be, but usually the roll has to be 'equal to or greater
>than'
>> to succeed.
>>
>> Int 18, fireball (Wiz3): save DC = 17
>> Ref bonus: +2. Roll required == 15+ (30% save)
>>
>> turn it around
>>
>> Int 18, fireball (Wiz3): spell attack bonus = +7
>> Ref bonus: +2. 'Hit DC' == 11+2 = 13.
>> Roll required == 6+ (75% 'no save').
>>
>> The numbers don't work out quite right. If you use base of 12:
>>
>> Int 18, fireball (Wiz3): spell attack bonus = +7
>> Ref bonus: +2. 'Hit DC' == 12+2 = 14.
>> Roll required == 7+ (70% 'no save').
>>
>> you get the correct behavior.
>>
>
>Ah the flipping of ties. I didn't think of that. I will remember in
>the future.
>
>- Justisaur.


(pre-script: it is late, and the maths above are confusing. Ugh.)

What if an exact match of attack roll versus DC was not a victory for either
side, but used a simple flip of a coin to determine the winner?

So for instance a spellcaster with a spell attack bonus of +7 who rolls a
natural 11 against a Will score of 18, results in an exact match. The DM flips a
coin; heads favors the attacker and tails favors the defender.

What Fort/Will/Ref base would be appropriate used along with this rule?

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen

 

[Spinner]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>I have lately been considering having spellcasters make "spell attacks"
>instead
> of their targets making saving throws. Instead of imposing save DCs on the
> victims of their spells, the spellcaster rolls a d20, adds the spell level
> of
> the spell being cast, and the relevant ability modifer (Int for wizards,
> Wis for
> clerics, etc).
>
> On the flip side, it's the targets of magic that carry the Difficulty
> Classes
> for the spells being cast. Each character has a Fortitude /score/, Reflex
> /score, and Will /score/, which are 10 + level/HD modifier + Con or Dex or
> Wis
> modifier.
>
This has been discussed recently (as well as in ancient days) along with the
"rule of 12" -- but with a different aim, ie., to put die rolls into the
hands of the players. IOW, only the *players'* spells use an attack roll;
NPCs' spells still trigger PC saves.

Advantages? Players roll more and DMs roll less (this creates a better
balance as DMs tend to have to spend too much time rolling IME).
Spellcaster player feels active about their success/failure rather than
passive. DM has more thinking time to plan NPC strategy or just to sit back
and relax a bit.

Disadvantages? Some rewriting of NPC save bonuses. May not meet one's
perception of "consistency". Doesn't solve the mojo problem (unless you
just add Mojo for 20s and subtract it for 1's).

BTW, this dice-switching in favour of players has been proposed in tandem
with a similar reversal in NPC attacks (ie., PCs roll to defend themselves
rather than just calling out their AC).

Spinner

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2005 08:33:21 -0800, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

> (pre-script: it is late, and the maths above are confusing. Ugh.)
>
> What if an exact match of attack roll versus DC was not a victory for
either
> side, but used a simple flip of a coin to determine the winner?
>
> So for instance a spellcaster with a spell attack bonus of +7 who
rolls a
> natural 11 against a Will score of 18, results in an exact match. The
DM flips a
> coin; heads favors the attacker and tails favors the defender.
>
> What Fort/Will/Ref base would be appropriate used along with this
rule?
>

Depends who you want to give the advantage to. In either case you will
be giving a .5 advantage to someone vs. the rules as written. You
still need an 11 or 12 as a base in that case as well.

- Justisaur