AOE Spells - 1 attack roll vs. All Targets?

[GoodKingJayIII]

When using AOE spells in 4e, it appears we roll for each target caught in the effect.

How would it effect the game if I were to change the rule to 1 attack roll vs. all targets? At a glance, I think it would make aoe spells "swingy"; either all targets are hit, or none are. But what other implications might this change have?

 

[EricNoah]

You might end up with a whole swack of targets who become "bloodied" all at the same time.

 

[cdrcjsn]

If you're the type of judge who thinks rolling a single saving throw for all bad guys caught in a fireball fair, then feel free to roll just one attack in 4e.

Otherwise, you're right. Multiple attack rolls will make AoE less swingy.

Since you only roll damage once for AoE, it's not gonna take any longer than 3e, except the attacker is making the roll rather than the defender making a save.

 

[Eldragon]

Our games have been using spells saves as attack roles for a while now. We have 1 roll for every creature in the AoE.

If the DM rolls well, he can crush the party horribly in one fell swoop since everyone effectively failed their save.
A player rolling poorly when he has a limited number of spells available is effectively a wasted spell.
Resolving the AoE effect is quite fast. Roll once, call out the number. Everyone who has less than that number failed. Simple. No dealing with rolling separately for each Kobold hit by the fireball.

Players tend to focus more on the Spell Focus feats because they perceive them to be more important when just 1 roll is all you get for your "spell attack"

 

[Campbell]

When using AOE spells in 4e, it appears we roll for each target caught in the effect.

How would it effect the game if I were to change the rule to 1 attack roll vs. all targets? At a glance, I think it would make aoe spells "swingy"; either all targets are hit, or none are. But what other implications might this change have?

If you use a single roll for area effects you'll probably want to ignore criticals.

 

[Voss]

Crits become extra-special explosions of gloriousness. Particularly with the devastating critical feat and similiar magic items, weapon traits and abilities.
Its kind of a bad idea, unless you're specifically going for a 'and now there is a hole in the side of the mountain' flavor.

 

[Thasmodious]

It's tempting to roll once. It makes some sense - you would be rolling for the power level of the spell, how well it was channeled and cast. I think wizards would get tired of missing whole groups pretty quickly though. With multiple rolls, it would be rare that an AE spell had no effect, at least someone in the burst would get hit. With a single roll, it would happen often, or often enough to be fairly frustrating for a player. I don't think it is a good sacrifice just to speed up play a bit.

Now, as a DM, rolling once for an NPC caster might work a bit better. You could even roll 2d20 and take the better when the caster is catching a number of PCs in the effect to mitigate the complete miss chance.

 

[HeinorNY]

It depends. Do all the trarget have exactly the same Defense value?

 

[keterys]

No, but they're likely to be within 5 or so of each other... and it also makes AoE far more predictable in effect. Ie, you'll never hit person A without also hitting person B.

 

[TerraDave]

If you use a single roll for area effects you'll probably want to ignore criticals.

Ya, I think it is this. I know in SWSAGA they where having cases of the entire party being killed by a grenade on a crit and errated it to make an attack role for each target.