How many die rolls is too many?

[JonSetanta]

Wellll... that's why you have:

• Natural Healing
• Regeneration
• Really Talented Clerics
• Healing Items
• Grafts
• Event-Rejection Powers

Pretty much different themed methods for saying "Wounds? I see no wounds here."

[souran]

Depending on the kind of game

1) Offinensive check roll
2) Offensive Effect roll
-> Like most everybody else this seems to make people have the most fun. It sucks when you have only the check because then usually how well you roll on the check is directly the damage. This means that you never feel like you hit something difficult to hit hard. It also limits the number of combat character types right out of the box. Basically there becomes no difference in the sure hitter/hard hitter. So two rolls here is satisfying.

it is not the most elegant. The most elegant is DP9's system. Easily the best system for scaling difficultly and success...but emotionally unstasifying to play. true exponetial difficulty makes things awesome on paper and crap to play.

3) Defensive Negation roll
I think that most players want a defense roll of some kind. Even though it usually would hurt them. Most game masters don't want there to be something else they have to roll after an attack.

I propose a players defense roll that reduces the effect roll. However, this is incredibly hard to balance. D&D doesn't have it, and never has. Wod had it but not really as an active roll.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So, what do you do about AoEs and multiple attacks? Having multiple rolls can really add up quickly.

I don't really agree with the idea of getting rid of multiple attacks unless you get rid of AoEs, too, but practically no one would want to play a close-quarters wargame where you can't hit more than one target at once.

[MGuy]

For me AoE would fall under the save roll category. I always pin people's save bonuses to my DM screen so all I have to do is have everyone roll at once then examine the bonuses.