Players Roll All the Dice: 11 vs 12?

[DrSpunj]

I don't have the book, so here's what I know copied from the front page:

Players Roll All The Dice -- Each time an enemy attacks a PC, the player rolls a defense check (1d20+character's AC modifiers) against the opponent's attack score (11+enemy's attack bonus). Any time a player casts a spell or uses a special attack that forces the enemy to make a saving throw, he rolls a magic check (1d20+ spell level + ability modifier + other modifiers) against the enemy's fortidude/reflex/will score (11 + enemy's save modifier).

Now, that sounds cool to me. The PCs get to continue rolling on the DM's "turn" instead of sitting there waiting for their turn. However, with the Core rules, assuming a Monster's AB (MAB) of +5 and a PC's AC of 15, the chance for the Monster to hit is 55%, on a 10 or better, since they only have to equal the AC.

Using the math outlined above, the player now rolls a d20 and adds their AC modifiers (+5) and tries to beat the Monster's attack (11+5=16). That means the PC needs to roll an 11 to avoid the attack, IOW, on a 10 or less, the Monster hits them successfully, which is 50%.

So is the variant supposed to make Monster attacks 5% [EDIT] less likely to hit successfully? Or is my math bad? Shouldn't the variant be 12 + MAB?

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[DanMcS]

Well, first, the way you described it, the monster is 5% less likely to hit, it hits 50% of the time instead of 55%.

+5 monster attack, +5 character defense. When the DM rolls, he needs a 10 to hit, and hits 55% of the time, since ties go to the attacker.

When the player rolls, at +5 versus a target of 16, an 11 or higher ties the target. That's a 50% chance of the monster missing. If the rule is still "ties go to the attacker", then the character needs to roll a 12 or higher, to beat it, and then the percentages line up, 55% chance of the monster hitting.

So yeah, either the person explaining it did a bad job, or the rule is confusingly worded, or the rule is wrong, but if you want to keep it simple, so that ties go to the PC, for instance, then use 12 + the modifiers as the monster's attack score.

 

[DrSpunj]

So yeah, either the person explaining it did a bad job, or the rule is confusingly worded, or the rule is wrong, but if you want to keep it simple, so that ties go to the PC, for instance, then use 12 + the modifiers as the monster's attack score.

I'd like the percentages to line up, please!

Seriously, I suppose for some people it may be easier to remember "ties always go to the attacker", as you say.

Me, I'd rather keep the dice rolling consistent with every other dice roll in the game: "The player rolling has to equal or exceed the DC."

Thanks!

DrSpunj

 

[dcollins]

This reminds me of the conversion of 3rd Ed. Spell Resistance from 1st/2nd Ed. Magic Resistance. If the conversion had been SR = MR/5 + 12 then the percentages would have been identical ever since AD&D 1st Ed. But instead when the 3rd Ed. conversion booklet came out they dictated that it was SR = MR/5 + 11.

That said, part of me, if I were using this system, would actually want to just use a bonus of +10 to make the math ultra-easy, even with the little added benefit to the PC's.

 

[GodPhoenix]

I don't have the book, so here's what I know copied from the front page:]

What book are you talking about? Is this something from Unearthed Arcana?

Now, that sounds cool to me. The PCs get to continue rolling on the DM's "turn" instead of sitting there waiting for their turn.

Sounds like a nightmare to me Might be fun at low level, but our high level combat takes long enough...with the ranger, fighter, and paladin executing a withering 15+ attacks a round combined. Add to that a 'roll off' for each attack...*shiver*

 

[Nail]

Add to that a 'roll off' for each attack...*shiver*

You are mis-reading the message. Try again.

There is still only one roll. The difference: the players roll, rather than the DM. Same number of rolls --> just changing who does them.

This variant is supposedly in Unearthed Arcana, a new WotC supplement.

 

[DarkMaster]

You are mis-reading the message. Try again.

There is still only one roll. The difference: the players roll, rather than the DM. Same number of rolls --> just changing who does them.

This variant is supposedly in Unearthed Arcana, a new WotC supplement.

normal system on average

Your AC = 10+ modifier to hit 10,5 + hit value

New system

Your AC = 10,5 + modifier to hit 11 + hit value

No difference

 

[GodPhoenix]

Oh...I see, Nail. So monsters never roll...I thought they also rolled a d20 and added their attack mod (as usual)

So...if monsters never have to roll, how can they score critical hits?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

So...if monsters never have to roll, how can they score critical hits?

The easiest method is to invert the threat range. Typical monsters threat and automatically hit if the player rolls a 1. They automatically miss if the player rolls a 20.

This keeps the roll mechanic consistent and a high roll is always good for the person rolling the die.

 

[DrSpunj]

The easiest method is to invert the threat range. Typical monsters threat and automatically hit if the player rolls a 1. They automatically miss if the player rolls a 20.

This keeps the roll mechanic consistent and a high roll is always good for the person rolling the die.

Exactly! That's what we've been doing for the last few sessions since I saw this option in the House Rules forum. It's worked really well for us. I ask the players to defend against an attack from the Orc with a Great Axe (Attack Bonus +9) with a DC 21. If their d20 + AC mods is 21 or higher, they successfully avoided the attack. If the d20 comes up a natural 1, they make another AC check (same DC) to avoid the confirmed threat. If they miss that second roll, they've got x3 great axe critical damage headed their way.

Now, does it mean the player's know what the attack bonus is? Absolutely, but since I was rolling all my DM rolls out in the open before, they had a pretty good idea of what that bonus was to begin with; at least within 1 or 2 after a couple rolls and comparing to their ACs, and by the fact that close hits or misses I try and colorize for game imagery. Besides, I think the PCs would have enough combat savvy to know after a round or two of combat if they were fighting something pitiful (DC of ~12, so ~+0 Attack Bonus) or something very likely to hit them (they all started sweating a bit last week with the Brown Bear whose Claw attacks were a DC 23 to avoid). After all, the PCs are adventurers, who place themselves in danger every chance they get. I don't consider that metagaming knowledge at all, I consider that "PC knowledge" that is mechanically converted through this mechanic to Player knowledge. YMMV.

Thanks.

DrSpunj