D&D 5E Rolling for All Spells

[Weather Report]

Once again, the 1st Packet seemed to have the right idea; did Mike Mearls really say they are bringing back AC targeting spells?

It makes sense for things like rays, etc, to target AC, but AoE spells and charm type action to force a Saving Throw.

And you can always make a table-wide decision to make Saving Throws attacks (DC 15 Wisdom Saving throw is a Magic Attack of +5 vs. the target's Wis modifier + 10).

 

[Klaus]

Once again, the 1st Packet seemed to have the right idea; did Mike Mearls really say they are bringing back AC targeting spells?

Only when it made sense, on a spell-by-spell basis.

 

[Weather Report]

Only when it made sense, on a spell-by-spell basis.

Right on, that's how I like it, so lance of faith seems like one to return to vs.AC.

 

[MrBauxite]

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.

I don't like the concept of a better roll means a better result (as the flipside of course means a spell caster ends of wasting a precious spell based on a poor bit of luck). However I do like making spell casters "work" for their spells. One good method I used was to require my spell users to speak the spell name in Latin whilst casting the spell (without checking their notes!). Nothing like a crunch moment in combat and a bit of pressure to see if you wizard really can remember how to cast "Magicus telum"

 

[Sadrik]

It really isn't as swingy as you think. And it doesn't make the difference 39 points. Normally, with static DCs, the attacking spellcaster is effectively taking 10. The other guy, rolling a d20, can get up to 9 points higher or 10 points above that, for a range of +/-10 (rounding up for the sake of simplicity). If both players roll, the most extreme possible outcome is one player rolling a 1 and the other rolling 20. That's a maximum possible difference of 19, not 39. In any case, it doesn't really matter because the effect is binary. The attacker either hits or he doesn't.

Actually it is correct, if one player sets the DC to 1 and the other player rolls a 20 that is a +19 result. If the player sets the DC to 20 and the other player rolls a 1 that is a -19 result. That is a range -19 to -1 and 0 and +1 to +19 for a total of 39 possible results. This is as opposed to a single d20 which only has 20 possible results and which opposes a single possibility, the DC.

Opposed rolls are crap, if a d10 was used for the opposed rolls it could fix it somewhat. But then it does not feel like a d20 system. That would be the only way I could get behind an opposed roll mechanic in d20, it would bring the extreme swingyness into the realm of the d20.

 

[Sadrik]

Once again, the 1st Packet seemed to have the right idea; did Mike Mearls really say they are bringing back AC targeting spells?

It makes sense for things like rays, etc, to target AC, but AoE spells and charm type action to force a Saving Throw.

And you can always make a table-wide decision to make Saving Throws attacks (DC 15 Wisdom Saving throw is a Magic Attack of +5 vs. the target's Wis modifier + 10).

Why not just add your armor and shield to some DEX saves? Armor and shield bonuses are reduced somewhat compared to older editions. It makes sense that you can use your DEX or your armor/shield to protect you from dragon breath and fireball. I can see some spells ignoring it, namely electrical attacks (unless you want to get realistic and talk about grounding and metal armor, lightning rod much?). LOL.

 

[Sadrik]

Neato burrito double post

 

[LostSoul]

I'd point out that in Basic/Expert D&D, there was no spell failure. Spells could be cast in combat with impunity.

Not really:

"Similarly, because the words and gestures must be repeated exactly, spells cannot be cast while performing any other action (such as walking or fighting)." - B15.

"If the caster loses initiative and takes damage or fails a saving throw, the spell is interrupted and lost." - X11.

I'd imagine that the expert rule is a clarification on the basic rule that you can't cast spells while fighting.

 

[Gorgoroth]

I definitely want that, but no skill like "concentration" like in 3e which was an automatic take for any casters, i.e. a boring choice. There needs to remain a very likely chance that kobold will interrupt your spell if he wins initiative. That was the balancing factor that was missing. It feels right, like reloading a crossbow in melee, or standing up from prone would have caused an OA in 3e (I think). But the concentration rules were just kludgy and a mess, you could get it to never-fail levels or it could be never succeed on the other end.

I'm not sure if I want cantrips to be interruptible though, I think they should just go off regardless of whether you take damage beforehand in that round. So it becomes a tactic to resort to cantrips while harrassed and pull out the big guns when / if they ignore the wizard. Bad move, for either Team PC or Team Monster to do that. Having spells merely rely on an attack, every single one (in 4e), only made me think the only solution to every problem was killing it, i.e. the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, so everything looks like a nail. At that point, tactics become, give me a bigger/better hammer. Bo-ring.

The more I think about it, the more I like the early D&Ds, they really did get a lot right. I am very grateful they seem to be acknowledging that, and building upon it rather than merely spurning it out of a fruitless fixation on modernity. Next appears to be shaping up like a post-modern D&D. Pick the best things from any edition, improve upon them, or come up with new stuff, in whichever way makes for the best game, given "best" is a moving target. At least we can all agree that magic should be distinct from martial, it should be fun and powerful but risky to use, and contain some serious drawbacks and tradeoffs (such as the wizard could easily kill himself or his own party with his spells if used recklessly or thoughlessly). One time our party in AD&D was about to lose the battle to some pirates on a ship, and the pirate captain had some knowledge that would have ended civilization and was on his way to share it, had we not prevented him, it was game over, so I cast fireball, the entire ship sunk, everybody drowned. The end! Or not...the sea elves raised the ship and the pope rezzed us all. The party wasn't too happy with me, but I did the right thing, and the paladins eventually acknowledged that giving up their lives to save the world was a worthy sacrifice. I want D&D to contain possibilities for DM injecting realism, not roadblocks to it. If the rules themselves contain good ways to make magic feel strange, powerful, and deadly, while not all being about reducing enemy HP, D&D Next will have succeeded.

 

[thedroid]

Actually it is correct, if one player sets the DC to 1 and the other player rolls a 20 that is a +19 result. If the player sets the DC to 20 and the other player rolls a 1 that is a -19 result. That is a range -19 to -1 and 0 and +1 to +19 for a total of 39 possible results. This is as opposed to a single d20 which only has 20 possible results and which opposes a single possibility, the DC.

Opposed rolls are crap, if a d10 was used for the opposed rolls it could fix it somewhat. But then it does not feel like a d20 system. That would be the only way I could get behind an opposed roll mechanic in d20, it would bring the extreme swingyness into the realm of the d20.

A binary result isn't more random because there are more possible numbers that can be rolled. If I roll d100 and succeed on a 51 or more, it's no more swingy than flipping a coin.

The problem an opposed roll would raise is that you would need a new rule for what happens when you get a tie.