# "Ties go to the defender" - Where does this fallacious rules citation come from?



## airwalkrr (Nov 21, 2006)

I often hear people quote "ties go to the defender" as a way to resolve tied results of rolls. However, the PH clearly lays out that in the cases of opposed rolls, ties go to the character with the higher bonus (PH 64). Let alone that it seems absurd to claim ties go to the defender on things when such a precedent does not exist in the case of AC (i.e. if you "tie" someone else's AC, you hit them, they don't dodge you). Where does this fallacious notion that "ties go to the defender" come from? Does it come from anywhere besides common practice?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 21, 2006)

Its probably from a variety of sources...my first guess would be the old board game, Risk.  In it, ties go to the defending army.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 21, 2006)

I had that misconception myself! I first heard it during a grapple situation, which, as you pointed out, is wrong. "In case of a tie, the combatant with the higher grapple check modifier wins. If this is a tie, roll again to break the tie."

First I discover that "Jubilex" is really "Juiblex" and now this! I wonder how many other misconceptions I have.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I wonder how many other misconceptions I have.



 Well, despite being a lawyer, Dannyalcatraz is actually a nice guy.

Back on topic, the misconception is doubly wrong because in the previous edition, ties go to the attacker.  The defender basically "set the DC" and merely meeting a DC is sufficient for success.  Fortunately, that rule was changed in 3.5.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 21, 2006)

I think the "tie goes to the defender" rule was also quite common in the various conflicting 2E splatbook rules variants.


----------



## danzig138 (Nov 21, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> First I discover that "Jubilex" is really "Juiblex"



Who said what now? It's _not _Jubilex?


----------



## Twowolves (Nov 21, 2006)

If I'm not mistaken, the idea of "ties go to the defender" predates... well, most any game. The idea is that in true warfare, with all other things being equal, defending is a better position in which to be. And, a defending force could hold off a much larger attacking force, often more than three times its size. The axiom found it's way into many, many games, since it was sort of a "given" in rule design.

But obviously, not in all rules systems!


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> The idea is that in true warfare, with all other things being equal, defending is a better position in which to be.
> 
> But obviously, not in all rules systems!




I think in modern warfare that's certainly not true. Initiative and surprise will often win against equal or superior forces.

But I'm glad to hear all of this...I was still using the old ruling about attacker always winning ties and didn't know it!!


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 21, 2006)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Who said what now? It's _not _Jubilex?




Exactly! And I learned it is sah*ua*gin, not sah*au*gin, casting _sleep_ is a full-round action, and that you can't take a 5' step in a swamp.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> I often hear people quote "ties go to the defender" as a way to resolve tied results of rolls.



Perhaps these people used to play the Hero system? IDHTBIFOM but IIRC it's explicitly stated there.


----------



## Aeric (Nov 21, 2006)

Well, I know that's how we used to play in oWoD...dunno if it was an official rule or not, though.


----------



## Twowolves (Nov 21, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think in modern warfare that's certainly not true. Initiative and surprise will often win against equal or superior forces.




Well, as any student of Robert E. Lee or Nathen Bedford Forrest can tell you, even 140 years ago it wasn't always true. But then again, in the 10,000 years before that it probably was, and that's a long time to have the idea pounded into general wisdom.


----------



## Milkman Dan (Nov 21, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> ...casting _sleep_ is a full-round action...



_Sleep_ has a casting time of 1 round, much like various _summon_ spells, but that's not a full-round action.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 22, 2006)

Milkman Dan said:
			
		

> _Sleep_ has a casting time of 1 round, much like various _summon_ spells, but that's not a full-round action.




From the Magic Overview chapter:
"_A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action._"

Of course, that is a simplification, and the paragraph goes on to explain "_It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed._"  Also, the Feats chapter explains that "_If the spell’s normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same as a 1-round casting time.)_"

But we do have a direct quote from the book stating that it "is a full-round action" 

-Hyp.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 22, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think in modern warfare that's certainly not true. Initiative and surprise will often win against equal or superior forces.




It has always been true that small unit skirmishes were often extremely violent and bloody in a way that tended to make most mass battles look like a stroll in the park.  If both sides choose to close in earnest rather than just toss a few javelins and flee, of course.

D&D focuses on small unit skirmishes or smaller.


----------



## Lopke_Quasath (Nov 22, 2006)

To "defend" against something using a saving throw, you only have to tie the DC to beat it.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 22, 2006)

Although when you're being attacked, the tie explicitly does NOT go to the defender in D&D -- if you roll and exactly equal the defender's AC, you hit.

Other games, yes -- which is somewhat odd given D&D's wargame roots.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 22, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Exactly! And I learned it is sah*ua*gin, not sah*au*gin, casting _sleep_ is a full-round action, and that you can't take a 5' step in a swamp.



I don't care what they say.  I don't care what you heard.  I've been mispronouncing a lot of stuff for too long to let anyone tell me different.  It's _pronounced_ jew-bil-ex no matter how it's SPELLED, and it's sah-how-gwin or sah-haw-gwin - your choice.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Nov 22, 2006)

IIRC correctly, 3E didn't have a mechanism for resolving ties on opposed rolls.

In our game, we house-ruled that the active player was setting the DC, which the defending player than had to meet.  (Thus, ties to the defender.)

In other games, folks just ignored the rationale and went with the very common rule of war-games for decades: defender wins ties.  That itself was based on the idea that in most conflicts, all else being equal, the defender usually had a "home field advantage."


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 23, 2006)

No, the opposed roll mechanism was in the original 3E PHB.  I don't have mine handy, but IIRC it was fairly early, where the d20 mechanism was explained (though it might also have been in the combat or skill sections where opposed rolls also come up).


----------



## kengar (Nov 23, 2006)

I think "tie goes to the defender" is just an extension of the old rule that "ties go to the runner." In school, playing kickball, or baseball, or softball where -if you don't have an umpire- you just decided that when it was too close to call, the runner was safe.

Whether it makes sense to equate the runner with the defender is another issue, but I suppose the thinking there was that the DM was usually the attacker, and he had a lot going his way already. *shrugs*


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Nov 23, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> No, the opposed roll mechanism was in the original 3E PHB.



I didn't say opposed rolls weren't in 3E ... I said that resolution of ties for such rolls wasn't in 3E.  Not at least insofar as my group could find, and we searched for it several times.  (By contrast, we noticed the rule in 3.5 right away.)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 23, 2006)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> I didn't say opposed rolls weren't in 3E ... I said that resolution of ties for such rolls wasn't in 3E.  Not at least insofar as my group could find, and we searched for it several times.  (By contrast, we noticed the rule in 3.5 right away.)




From the 3E SRD, Skills Overview chapter:

_*VS. Opposed Checks*
Some skill checks are opposed checks. They are made against a randomized number, which is usually another character's skill check result. Whoever gets the higher result wins the contest.

*For ties on opposed checks, the character with the higher key ability score wins.*

If these scores are the same, flip a coin._

-Hyp.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Nov 23, 2006)

AFAIK, it comes from the board game, _Risk_. Which uses that exact terminology.


----------

