D&D 5E Rolling for All Spells

[Falling Icicle]

One thing I would like to see is to require casters to roll a check (magic ability modifier + skill die) for every spell they cast. I don't like magic being automatic and predictable. I also think this could have a lot of mechanical benefits. A higher roll could improve the spell's duration or other effects, like what 4e did with rituals.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'll second this. Though if the spells totally fails, I'd probably not count it as used for the day. Losing a once-per-day resource to a failed roll wouldn't be fun.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Spell attack rolls? Yes - but only for spells you 'aim' like a weapon. This includes rays, touch spells and all attack cantrips.

Attack rolls make little sense for un-targeted spells where the target dodges out of the way, or resists it, more that the caster 'shoots' them with it. Examples: charm person, fireball, sleep.

 

[Klaus]

Mike Mearls said on twitter that spells that make sense targetting AC will have attack rolls.

 

[Raith5]

Agree 100%. I like the idea of casters rolling their attacks and the possibility of getting crits with damaging spells. But I also think that defenses other than AC make a lot of sense.

 

[Sunseeker]

I like the idea of all spells requiring a concentration check. It adds a level of unpredictability to spell casting, a way to balance out the power with less surety. I think for targetted spells, we ought to simply combine the attack roll and the concentration check. I prefer in general to have players be rolling the dice, not players pushing buttons that cause the DM to react. Plus it ties in nicely to potential overlay systems of "wild" magic where strange things could happen if a spell is a significant failure or success.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I enjoyed when Fourth Edition moved to the caster attacking defenses, but I didn't enjoy it so much to advocate for it over game simplicity. The functional merging of saves and ability checks is worth more to me. Still, where an attack roll makes sense, I'm all for it.

 

[Jester David]

Spell attack rolls? Yes - but only for spells you 'aim' like a weapon. This includes rays, touch spells and all attack cantrips.

Attack rolls make little sense for un-targeted spells where the target dodges out of the way, or resists it, more that the caster 'shoots' them with it. Examples: charm person, fireball, sleep.

Agreed. You should roll when you're the active party, when you're aiming and targeting a creature.

If you're casting a fireball you're not the active party: the people dodging are. You're not aiming at the five goblins caught in the fireball, you're aiming at the square in the middle. Ditto other spells like charm where you're not attacking the mind or trying to hit, AC has no part in the process but the target is trying to shake off the spell.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Attacking AC incorporates Dex, no reason to ever have separated those (4e), or even invented touch AC (3e).

In no edition since 2e has plate armor been even remotely worthwhile compared to a light-armored build where you keep your dex as high as possible. But yeah, your spell fizzling when you're being harassed during combat adds excitement, and was a major thing they broke in 3e. They should fix it to make magic less pew pew and more whoah, BOOM

 

[Sadrik]

One thing I would like to see is to require casters to roll a check (magic ability modifier + skill die) for every spell they cast. I don't like magic being automatic and predictable. I also think this could have a lot of mechanical benefits. A higher roll could improve the spell's duration or other effects, like what 4e did with rituals.

Call me old school, I am firmly in the magic is automatic boat. No to hit rolls for fireball or charm person please. I also want touch spells to be automatic to hit. The interesting thing about spells is not if they hit or not (or successfully activate like you are proposing above) but if the save defends against the magic. For instance, ray of enfeeblement should auto hit but the targeted person should try and resist the effects of the magic. "Hitting" is not what I care about with spellcasters, effecting is what I care about. Leave the hitting to the warrior types.

That said I do not completely dismiss your idea. I think this would be the preferred way to handle it. No "hitting" but instead successfully activating. You could also have modifiers to your activation roll for every spell you have up, for if you are fatigued, exhausted, and so on... I think it is a valid option to use instead of spell slots. That said, I think base D&D 5e needs to use spell slots and lose the spell from memory style vancian magic.