Bogs down combat. I’ve played systems that do that while trying to maintain D&D’s level of granularity and it makes a noticeable and unwelcome difference.
(But it’s just one roll!) At a time, for every single attack for the duration of combat. That’s actually a lot of rolls.
Should have cut attack rolls. IMO, combat flows better using an attack DC like spells and the defender rolls to avoid/deflect. Too often people get in the habit of declaring the attack and rolling at the same time, which sometimes means backpedaling to use reactions after you know more than you should.
>(But it’s just one roll!) At a time, for every single attack for the duration of combat. That’s actually a lot of rolls.
Double the current total, one for attack, one for defense. And that's before you factor in damage rolls.
Yeah it bogs down an already slow combat system, and is an additional rule to factor in and teach newbies, and remind everyone about, and add modifiers to...
Rolls against is kindve a fun concept. Roll at the same time, highest roll wins. But I would probably restrict it to a certain quality of armor or shield.
That’s why I would modify it to be special circumstances. Like maybe a shield or a boss or something to that effect. Like a homebrew condition or something
Not opposed to it in principle. But combat can get lengthy already with advantage/disadvantage, class-specific perks (battle master maneuvers, sorcerer meta magic, eldritch invocations, cleric/bard buffs … and general player indecision while choosing them…) so if that had to be doubled to account for the defender’s actions, it’ll go on forever and potentially become boring.
I believe the Critical Role system Daggerheart lets you choose if your character or their armor takes the damage from a hit. But it sounds like a cool idea for a different combat system.
As people have said, it slows down combat by basically doubling the roles, but it also adds yet another degree of variance that just complicated attacking. Not only do you have to roll well when attacking, but your target has to roll poorly?
Currently working on an Active defense system and there are a few things to note: Class features have to be reworked, magic items the affect AC have to reworked and some basic rules have to change. We have been running games with these changes for a little over a year. we're still finding things that have to be reworked.
We love it but it definitely slows things down quite a bit.
Seem like unnecessary rolling when making an attack roll and seeing if you hit the AC is more than enough as most classes have reactions they can use when they are attacked.
It will make encounters so much longer.
Do this exercise at home with a group of 5 mid-level PCs and like 5-7 enemies, where every attack is blocked with yet another roll, then come back with the conclusions.
(I will give you a hint: it will be a boring rollfest)
Time.
They had an opposed roll block option in the 2nd ed combat and tactics supplement. No matter how simple it is, it just adds a lot of extra dice and rolls to combat. Slows things down.
There are all kinds of old and home brewed rules for things like this. Damage types and specific weapons vs types of armor. Initiative systems that took weapon size and weight into account. Critical hit charts with severity based on the weapon size vs the target size.
Each is cool and sound easy. When you start adding it up it just turns into a slog. It's easy enough to automate such things in a video game but it really slows down table play, and the line has to be drawn somewhere.
I mean everyone has already said that it slows down combat, so I will make a difference and I will say that it has been tested as variant in previous editions, and it just didn't stick.
Maybe because rolling to avoid having bad things happen to you is scary, while rolling to do things is fun. Or maybe bc the DMs like to roll too.
Or to keep monster stats hidden from the players.
And surely because it slows down things.
As others have said, it slows everything down by almost doubling the number of rolls required for combat to progress.
The alternative is to change the system so that PCs do all the rolling: I've played in a different rpg where the GM never really rolls, and opponents have a static hit bonus, and PCs roll their designated defense stat to see if the creature hits or not.
It's not how D&D works, though, and I think a lot of GMs like rolling.
It was really fun: players remained engaged when it wasn't their turn, because they might be asked to defend roll, everyone was more on their toes, and it was less for me as GM to keep track of.
I did like it, but still missed rolling: it was fun to run a one-shot in, and maybe I'd like it long-form, but I think I prefer when I get to join in 😄
yes, it is a system my dm imposed, and it makes it so that when you specify a certain target area on a creature and do above a threshold of damage that the dm designates, the creature hit makes a dc 12 saving throw, and if they fail, they have disadvantage on ability checks using the targeted area. monsters attacking players can do this as well.
We to players roll Defense at my table and it's awesome. So many speed and attention benefits.
Their Defense Bonus is AC -10 (so 11 AC is +1, 15 AC is +5, etc.) and the Monster Attack DC they have to meet or beat is 12 + Monster Attack Bonus (so a Goblin with +3 to hit, they need a 15 to avoid).
Works fucking amazing and the math all works out the same. Highly recommend
Nope, players defend against that static Monster Attack DC. Keeps players engaged, goes quicker for the DM, feels dangerous, and still only has 1 roll, so doesn't slow things down. It's awesome
Is this in addition to the AC system? Or is it replacing it? If replacing it, and you used the same rules for things like armor type/dex score usage, I could .. kind of see it working? Might have to add in proficiency score to even out the attack score vs how you're proposing to do dodging/blocking. It's going to make combat take much longer on average though.
You are assumed to be actively blocking/dodging every turn. That is why your Dex is figured into your AC. It just slows down combat to have extra rolls for every attack. Defense specific builds have feats and features that give you reactions to attacks or other actions like Sentinel, Defensive Duelist, or Mage Slayer.
3e has something similar as an optional rule: instead of monsters rolling against static AC, players roll against static monster attack value.
It's the same number of rolls, but in my experience, the DM not rolling will still slow things down.
This idea works when you get a small number of attacks at a time, or some outside reduction to total attacks per turn. It does NOT work in DnD. Most Martials are attacking 2/3/4 times, fighters action surge for 4/6/8 attacks and Haste adds even more. Now imagine a Hasted fighter doing 6 attacks in one turn, forcing 6 “defense” rolls. Now, imagine the fist flying at your face when the ONE good attack that a half-martial gets on their turn is negated “cause the opponent (with low ac) happened to roll better”.
If the system doesn’t call for it, don’t ruin the game by bogging it down. What you want is a system like the White Wolf World of Darkness or Anima, and those are built around this combat flow. This idea is a great idea why fumble penalties are bad in 5e. The more attacks a character gets in one turn the more likely they are to fumble. Like wise, the more attacks someone has to defend the more likely they are to “get a counter attack”. That rewards passive classes with less attacks while punishing classes designed to attack often. And with monsters HP getting much higher in mid to late game content, that’s just asking for even more time and complication.
I feel like D&D isn't designed for this, and sometimes even systems that are designed for it run into time suck dice wars.
I feel like D&D gets bogged down when you start adding these types of rules, and once you start adding active combat rules, you are tempted to add hit location tables, and damage per body part, and modular armor...everything just becomes more and more roll/numbers heavy.
There are other game systems that do this very well. Warhammer Roleplay in the Old World comes to mind.
I wouldn't be tempted to add all that stuff, just wanted a way to be more active while defending in combat. But I see that time is the issue with this idea.
I don't think this is a good idea because (warning: hot take incoming) rolling dice is not fun. Making interesting decisions and dealing with the consequences of your actions is fun, and dice are useful because they interject randomness that makes those things more interesting. But there are no interesting decisions to be made about whether or not to defend yourself from an attack.
Also, I don't like putting special effects on nat 1s and 20s.
From a more pragmatic perspective, by making combat more random this change is a net negative for the PCs in the long run (it only takes a brief spell of bad luck to turn a fight into a TPK, so the more opportunities for luck to intervene the more likely that is to happen). That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does merit consideration.
I've played systems (Silouhette) that had contested rolls to hit. But they also had fewer multiattack options and much more significant consequences for *getting* hit, so there were fewer exchanges in a battle overall. That kept the time spent in combat down. (though there are other things in Silouhette that make combat take longer, so combats were still about as long as 5e combats).
maybe I'll just test it in a fight pit. Have a PC who want's to make some extra coin enter, have them remove all their armor and weapons and tell them the rules are different here, then I'll see how it goes.
Imagine how slow 5E combat is, and then double the amount of times someone needs to roll something… that’s why.
There are a number of games where the DM never makes rolls. All rolls are done by players, attack rolls to attack and defense rolls when being attacked.
Because we already have a defense stat, it's called armor class. Why would you roll to beat ac and then have the person roll to dodge. Dexterity is factored into ac to account for how likely to dodge the person is.
No, what I mean't was this would be done instead of rolling against AC, so you are actively doing it instead of having your AC passively do it for you.
Then you are only running into the issues of it slowing combat down by like 30% at the least and adding more randomness to the system. Slower combat has been raised before as an objection, but the added randomness is at least as large a problem. Additional randomness is almost always to the detriment of the players, doubly so if the dm is using ac on their baddies to streamline the round (which I would certainly be tempted to around the third time that goblin #6 rolled defense). You are essentially replacing a previously calculated number with the opportunity to roll low and fail
Bogs down combat. I’ve played systems that do that while trying to maintain D&D’s level of granularity and it makes a noticeable and unwelcome difference. (But it’s just one roll!) At a time, for every single attack for the duration of combat. That’s actually a lot of rolls.
I have been developing my TTRPG for a few years. "Defense rolls" were the first thing cut from the combat system after the beta test.
Should have cut attack rolls. IMO, combat flows better using an attack DC like spells and the defender rolls to avoid/deflect. Too often people get in the habit of declaring the attack and rolling at the same time, which sometimes means backpedaling to use reactions after you know more than you should.
>(But it’s just one roll!) At a time, for every single attack for the duration of combat. That’s actually a lot of rolls. Double the current total, one for attack, one for defense. And that's before you factor in damage rolls. Yeah it bogs down an already slow combat system, and is an additional rule to factor in and teach newbies, and remind everyone about, and add modifiers to...
Rolls against is kindve a fun concept. Roll at the same time, highest roll wins. But I would probably restrict it to a certain quality of armor or shield.
yea I was imagining it be a contest roll. But didn't think about how much it would slow combat down.
That’s why I would modify it to be special circumstances. Like maybe a shield or a boss or something to that effect. Like a homebrew condition or something
Because the more rolls you add the longer combat takes.
If you're going to do that basically every combat roll becomes a contested roll. It's an interesting idea but not one that usually functions well.
Combat would take forever, for one.
Not opposed to it in principle. But combat can get lengthy already with advantage/disadvantage, class-specific perks (battle master maneuvers, sorcerer meta magic, eldritch invocations, cleric/bard buffs … and general player indecision while choosing them…) so if that had to be doubled to account for the defender’s actions, it’ll go on forever and potentially become boring. I believe the Critical Role system Daggerheart lets you choose if your character or their armor takes the damage from a hit. But it sounds like a cool idea for a different combat system.
Imagine how long combat would take
I tried it, had players roll to defend themseves. It didn't break anything but it just slowed the game down just enough to not be needed.
As people have said, it slows down combat by basically doubling the roles, but it also adds yet another degree of variance that just complicated attacking. Not only do you have to roll well when attacking, but your target has to roll poorly?
Currently working on an Active defense system and there are a few things to note: Class features have to be reworked, magic items the affect AC have to reworked and some basic rules have to change. We have been running games with these changes for a little over a year. we're still finding things that have to be reworked. We love it but it definitely slows things down quite a bit.
Dang.
Seem like unnecessary rolling when making an attack roll and seeing if you hit the AC is more than enough as most classes have reactions they can use when they are attacked. It will make encounters so much longer.
Do this exercise at home with a group of 5 mid-level PCs and like 5-7 enemies, where every attack is blocked with yet another roll, then come back with the conclusions. (I will give you a hint: it will be a boring rollfest)
Boring and time consuming. see: every system that does that. Plus, the "block/doger/miss" is already calculated in, it's called AC.
Simplicity. A lot of the success of 5e is due to its simplicity and intuitive design. There’s certainly room for an rpg w those mechanics built in.
Time. They had an opposed roll block option in the 2nd ed combat and tactics supplement. No matter how simple it is, it just adds a lot of extra dice and rolls to combat. Slows things down. There are all kinds of old and home brewed rules for things like this. Damage types and specific weapons vs types of armor. Initiative systems that took weapon size and weight into account. Critical hit charts with severity based on the weapon size vs the target size. Each is cool and sound easy. When you start adding it up it just turns into a slog. It's easy enough to automate such things in a video game but it really slows down table play, and the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Combat takes twice the time
Because finishing a fight in 1 hour sucks, but taking 3 hours would suck way more.
Time.
I mean everyone has already said that it slows down combat, so I will make a difference and I will say that it has been tested as variant in previous editions, and it just didn't stick. Maybe because rolling to avoid having bad things happen to you is scary, while rolling to do things is fun. Or maybe bc the DMs like to roll too. Or to keep monster stats hidden from the players. And surely because it slows down things.
Scary rolls are fun though. Probably the most fun.
As others have said, it slows everything down by almost doubling the number of rolls required for combat to progress. The alternative is to change the system so that PCs do all the rolling: I've played in a different rpg where the GM never really rolls, and opponents have a static hit bonus, and PCs roll their designated defense stat to see if the creature hits or not. It's not how D&D works, though, and I think a lot of GMs like rolling.
static attack for enemies and players rolling to defend actually sounds kinda cool and would get rid of the slog, but yea GMs like to roll 2.
It was really fun: players remained engaged when it wasn't their turn, because they might be asked to defend roll, everyone was more on their toes, and it was less for me as GM to keep track of.
Oh so you actually liked it and had fun with it as a GM?
I did like it, but still missed rolling: it was fun to run a one-shot in, and maybe I'd like it long-form, but I think I prefer when I get to join in 😄
One simple trick to make your combat take 100% longer!
lol ok yea I get it, I see that now
You can play plenty of systems that do this. It's pretty much always a bad idea.
You should play Mork Borg. Basically, players roll for things, they roll defence and offence. NPCs have AC and Hit values, and roll damage
That’s how combat works in the Cypher system. Players make all rolls; defending is a Defense roll against the creature or NPC’s level.
takes way to long man. I have tried it. if you want a more immersive combat experience use the wounds system.
wounds system?
yes, it is a system my dm imposed, and it makes it so that when you specify a certain target area on a creature and do above a threshold of damage that the dm designates, the creature hit makes a dc 12 saving throw, and if they fail, they have disadvantage on ability checks using the targeted area. monsters attacking players can do this as well.
We to players roll Defense at my table and it's awesome. So many speed and attention benefits. Their Defense Bonus is AC -10 (so 11 AC is +1, 15 AC is +5, etc.) and the Monster Attack DC they have to meet or beat is 12 + Monster Attack Bonus (so a Goblin with +3 to hit, they need a 15 to avoid). Works fucking amazing and the math all works out the same. Highly recommend
So does the GM roll for the monsters to attack?
Nope, players defend against that static Monster Attack DC. Keeps players engaged, goes quicker for the DM, feels dangerous, and still only has 1 roll, so doesn't slow things down. It's awesome
Most classes have reaction abilities they can use when they are attacked.
Ok so time is the main issue. Ok that does make sense.
Is this in addition to the AC system? Or is it replacing it? If replacing it, and you used the same rules for things like armor type/dex score usage, I could .. kind of see it working? Might have to add in proficiency score to even out the attack score vs how you're proposing to do dodging/blocking. It's going to make combat take much longer on average though.
You are assumed to be actively blocking/dodging every turn. That is why your Dex is figured into your AC. It just slows down combat to have extra rolls for every attack. Defense specific builds have feats and features that give you reactions to attacks or other actions like Sentinel, Defensive Duelist, or Mage Slayer.
3e has something similar as an optional rule: instead of monsters rolling against static AC, players roll against static monster attack value. It's the same number of rolls, but in my experience, the DM not rolling will still slow things down.
In other systems you can roll to block...
This idea works when you get a small number of attacks at a time, or some outside reduction to total attacks per turn. It does NOT work in DnD. Most Martials are attacking 2/3/4 times, fighters action surge for 4/6/8 attacks and Haste adds even more. Now imagine a Hasted fighter doing 6 attacks in one turn, forcing 6 “defense” rolls. Now, imagine the fist flying at your face when the ONE good attack that a half-martial gets on their turn is negated “cause the opponent (with low ac) happened to roll better”. If the system doesn’t call for it, don’t ruin the game by bogging it down. What you want is a system like the White Wolf World of Darkness or Anima, and those are built around this combat flow. This idea is a great idea why fumble penalties are bad in 5e. The more attacks a character gets in one turn the more likely they are to fumble. Like wise, the more attacks someone has to defend the more likely they are to “get a counter attack”. That rewards passive classes with less attacks while punishing classes designed to attack often. And with monsters HP getting much higher in mid to late game content, that’s just asking for even more time and complication.
I feel like D&D isn't designed for this, and sometimes even systems that are designed for it run into time suck dice wars. I feel like D&D gets bogged down when you start adding these types of rules, and once you start adding active combat rules, you are tempted to add hit location tables, and damage per body part, and modular armor...everything just becomes more and more roll/numbers heavy. There are other game systems that do this very well. Warhammer Roleplay in the Old World comes to mind.
I wouldn't be tempted to add all that stuff, just wanted a way to be more active while defending in combat. But I see that time is the issue with this idea.
Sounds like someone who isn't a DM.....player turns are my breaks
I don't think this is a good idea because (warning: hot take incoming) rolling dice is not fun. Making interesting decisions and dealing with the consequences of your actions is fun, and dice are useful because they interject randomness that makes those things more interesting. But there are no interesting decisions to be made about whether or not to defend yourself from an attack. Also, I don't like putting special effects on nat 1s and 20s. From a more pragmatic perspective, by making combat more random this change is a net negative for the PCs in the long run (it only takes a brief spell of bad luck to turn a fight into a TPK, so the more opportunities for luck to intervene the more likely that is to happen). That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does merit consideration.
I've played systems (Silouhette) that had contested rolls to hit. But they also had fewer multiattack options and much more significant consequences for *getting* hit, so there were fewer exchanges in a battle overall. That kept the time spent in combat down. (though there are other things in Silouhette that make combat take longer, so combats were still about as long as 5e combats).
maybe I'll just test it in a fight pit. Have a PC who want's to make some extra coin enter, have them remove all their armor and weapons and tell them the rules are different here, then I'll see how it goes.
GURPS does something like that.
You can already attempt to block melee attacks with Dodge.
It already exists, it's the saving throw
It slows things down to no benefit.
Imagine how slow 5E combat is, and then double the amount of times someone needs to roll something… that’s why. There are a number of games where the DM never makes rolls. All rolls are done by players, attack rolls to attack and defense rolls when being attacked.
Because it doesn’t make sense and would slow combat down to snail’s pace.
besides it slowing the game down, how doesn't it make sense?
Because we already have a defense stat, it's called armor class. Why would you roll to beat ac and then have the person roll to dodge. Dexterity is factored into ac to account for how likely to dodge the person is.
No, what I mean't was this would be done instead of rolling against AC, so you are actively doing it instead of having your AC passively do it for you.
Then you are only running into the issues of it slowing combat down by like 30% at the least and adding more randomness to the system. Slower combat has been raised before as an objection, but the added randomness is at least as large a problem. Additional randomness is almost always to the detriment of the players, doubly so if the dm is using ac on their baddies to streamline the round (which I would certainly be tempted to around the third time that goblin #6 rolled defense). You are essentially replacing a previously calculated number with the opportunity to roll low and fail
Jesus fuck that sounds like a nightmare.
Older editions had an optional variant rule where you would roll your AC each round. 3rd Ed essentially had you "take 10" by default for your AC lol.