D&D 5E Lets Talk Spells

[Sadrik]

The biggest issue for spells for me was discussed in this thread.

Targeted spells (such as the Cleric's Lance of Faith) do not require rolls-to-hit (by the player), but require a save-to-avoid (by the target). I get that it means it can be a save based on any of a number of abilities, but in the name of fun, it takes away the chance for the spellcaster to hit an armour class. I'd like two changes:

1. Go back to roll-to-hit, for the majority of these spells (if not all). Keep the players active in the game.

2. Make the attack roll a ranged attack not a magic attack (and so based on Dex rather than the Spellcasting stat). This makes better conceptual sense (YMMV) and means casters need more than a single ability (if they pursue this route). Tied to this, I would not object to a feat that let a cater use their casting ability in lieu of dex for such an attack.

Remarkably I don't see this as an issue. I dont really see an issue with who rolls for effect. A wizard who casts a fireball should be mad because he does not get to roll to attack them all? To me that just seems silly. However I do see your point about it being a DEX attack roll. That is an issue.

Here is an option I could get behind, rays and ranged touch attacks roll to hit and the target if hit roll to save vs effect. In many of the early editions this is how it worked for the low level spells. The upper level rays automatically hit and no roll was necessary. They only saved vs. effect.

Example: scorching ray the 3e version (the 5e version is crap, machine gun rays... really) gave a 4d6 damage ray. In 1e/2e that ray would have auto hit but the person might have made a save to reduce the damage by 1/2.

I do not have an issue with going back to this, rays that auto-hit work for me. Then again I would also not be opposed to rolling to hit and then target rolls for save. I just don't like the binary of the attack roll. In 3e I always wished that ray of enfeeblement had a save for reduced effect. If rays auto-hit ray of enfeeblement could be something like reduce STR by 1d6 + 1/2 level for fail for 1 minute per level OR the same for 1 round if made. With an attack roll it is hit or miss period.

I think I have just talked myself out of agreeing. Rays and touch attacks should be auto-hits with saves vs. effect.

 

[Sadrik]

I think the main problem with spell saves is that it looks like it will be too difficult for monsters or characters to make saves, especially at mid to high levels of play.

I agree, the only thing I can think of is they are thinking all PCs will have a ring of protection and they need to counteract that with a level bonus. The default should not be to expect a ring of protection. I am firmly in the high level characters and monsters should have an slightly easier time saving rather than slightly harder, ala 1e/2e. That said I am of two minds on this. I would also be ok keeping the scores raw, with no level bonus on either side. The only thing I am against is how it is currently where it is more difficult to save.

 

[Sadrik]

I think mass spells could be resolved in another way than scalable spells are done. There could be mass keyword with spells that can have mass versions. In the rules for spellcasting there would be an explanation of this keyword, to something like:
Mass - any spell with this keyword can be cast on more than one target, by spending higher level slots. For each level added, double number of possible targets.
Come to think of it, there could be other keyword doing similar things. Keywords like hastened, extended, prolonged, undispellable, etc.

Variant 2, and this one involves rules for metamagic. Same as above, but activating keyword is only possible if you have an appropriate metamagic feat. So with a mass metamagic feat a wizard could cast any spells he knows with mass keyword as mass versions, at the cost of higher level of course.

I like this concept very much.
Extend spell would be very good and it could turn rounds to minutes or minutes to 10 minutes or 10 minutes to 60 minutes, etc. for each level higher increase duration by one step.
Mass spell would double targets per spell level.
Those are the two big ones. The others you mention seem like stuff that should be built into the spell, for instance feather fall should be hastened but fireball should not. Not saying fireball should not, just that some general ability should not be able to do it. Perhaps, spellcasters could not take advantage of the keyword unless they took a feat to unlock it. Your variant 2.

 

[Szatany]

Perhaps, spellcasters could not take advantage of the keyword unless they took a feat to unlock it. Your variant 2.

Since feats are getting better, maybe a single feat, called Metamagic, to unlock all keyword-abilities.
Or one feat for each type of metamagic, but each feat also grants a number of virtual spell levels to spend on metamagic effects only.

 

[Sadrik]

Isn't the solution for the HP threshold simply to determine the threshold by level of the monster? Not the hit dice but the level listed under "encounter building" on each entry?

From what I can see the information is not being used for anything else right now. More importantly, it's absolutely the easiest thing to fix: it takes all other abilities of the creature into account, and marks clearly the challenge the creature poses. And if a mistake is made, it is absolutely the easiest thing to update in errata since it is a number that emerges from all the other stats, and does not affect them in any way.

The HP threshold mechanic is there to show that higher level people are effectively immune to the effect. What about giving a save bonus to these spells. Rather than making it a foregone conclusion and effectively immune give them a save bonus. This could also handle the charm person effect vs charm monster. Charm at low level affects people but when used against a monster the monster gets +5 to save or advantage. Then when memorized at a certain level that penalty is removed. For the HP threshold if they are level 1 they get +0 but if they are level 10 they get +5 against the effect. Basically some spells would have the disadvantage of effecting higher level opponents. I like this because it obfuscates the direct gameyness of players working off monster levels or monster HP. It's under the hood.

 

[Raith5]

These are all good points but there's a major problem on the road to fixing them: Sacred Cows.

Sleep is a 1st level spell because it's always been a 1st level spell. If sleep isn't a 1st level spell you'll have people crawling out of the woodwork in inchoate rage. Every single one of these points can be argued (poorly) that they are what makes D&D spellcasting what it is (as if that were something to envy).

The second problem is why stop there? If you're going to do this slaughter a few cows why not just slaughter them all? Dump the entire spell system in the rubbish and start over with something that makes sense, is easy to explain, doesn't make some arbitrary characters wildly more complex than others, and doesn't violate balance like a schoolgirl in a tentacle monster convention.

The old "copy and paste vancian spellcasting system + spells from previous edition and make a few adjustments" has gone through three iterations now (1e -> 2e -> 3e -> 5e) and the resulting frankenstein has only gotten uglier and more unwieldy and difficult to work with. When 5e first came out I had hoped that the spellcasting features of the classes who had them were, much like 99% of the material in the first packet that was a literal copy/paste of older material, simply a stand in while they worked on other things. I'm less optimistic about that happening a year later but it's still something I feel they need to tackle. Without a ground up overhaul of magic in general I can't really take 5e seriously as a game I might buy.

I agree with this. Im pretty underwhelmed by the choice of spells in DDN. I dont mind traditional spells but id really like to see some new spell ideas and some spells lifted in level. Fly always leaps out to me as a spell that should be a higher level ability.

 

[Starfox]

Scaling
So most spells do not scale automatically anymore. They often require the caster to use a higher level slot to get a more potent effect from a spell. This is an awesome addition to the spell system and I wholeheartedly support this. There are several spells though that still scale and they just happen to be some very egregious ones. Polymorph scales with the HD of the caster. Nix that instantly please. Another issue is that there are some spells that can be turned into scalable spells that are not such as dispel magic. Lastly, their are several spells which have a "mass" version of them this seems like an excellent way to scale up spells through memorizing them at a higher level, affect more targets. try and remove the, mass versions and make that a scalable feature through using a higher level spell slot.

I'd be careful with this. One of the classic reasons for the 5 minute adventuring day is that only the few highest spell slots are relevant - if you can cast 7th level spells, anything 3rd level or lower is basically useless. This is not a good thing. I much prefer something like how this worked in 1E - low level spells remained relevant, and high-level spells took a LONG time to recover. When taking a break, you could easily recover your spells of level 1-3, and those spells were useful and relevant. The higher level spells were pretty much fire and forget, and often situational as well.

IMO, spell damage caps was one of the worst inventions of 2E.

 

[Sadrik]

I'd be careful with this. One of the classic reasons for the 5 minute adventuring day is that only the few highest spell slots are relevant - if you can cast 7th level spells, anything 3rd level or lower is basically useless. This is not a good thing. I much prefer something like how this worked in 1E - low level spells remained relevant, and high-level spells took a LONG time to recover. When taking a break, you could easily recover your spells of level 1-3, and those spells were useful and relevant. The higher level spells were pretty much fire and forget, and often situational as well.

IMO, spell damage caps was one of the worst inventions of 2E.

Wow, I don't see it. Caps were such an important invention in my opinion. 20th level caster does 20d6 fireball, no way that allows too much potential for lower spell slots. Fireball now does 5d6, and memorize it at higher level for +1d6, is this currently enough damage? So a 9th level slot it would do 11d6. I dont think so, for a 9th level slot. That said, higher level spells will do more base damage.

The other thing is the current spell list mixed right with the number of spells per day? perhaps not. Since the emphasis is put on your upper level slots for damage dealing and your lower level slots for buffs and utility spells. Perhaps the spell chart is not set appropriately.

There is a lot of multi-classing potential with this system. Taking a 3e style multi-classing system. if you are a 3/3 cleric/wizard you might have the slots as a 6th level caster but only know the spells of a 3rd level cleric and a 3rd level wizard. So you can cast up to 3rd level spells but you only know up to 2nd level spells. you can fill those slots with pumped up 1st and 2nd level spells. Very good system I think.

One last thing, I don't think the power of high level spells should be balanced against a really long time to recover them like in 1e/2e. No one used that. It could take a cleric a whole day to recover his spells as I recall. Nah.