D&D 5E Spellcasting Bonus: can't we just lose it?

[Rhenny]

I'd also like to drop the bonus. Spellcasting DCs are too high. I do agree that some spells should still target AC though (as mentioned in this thread).

 

[DogBackward]

I really don't want to go back and read through spell descriptions time and time again just to figure out if I need to make an attack roll, or how to determine if I hit or not.

To do that, we'd have to also make every spell deal the same damage, and have the same effect... you're gonna have to either look up or make notes for your spells no matter what. It won't hurt to also just note "Attack +5" or "Dexterity DC 15" at the same time.

 

[Sadrik]

I am going to disagree with all this disagreeing about spells (rays) needing to roll to hit. I don't think so. Rays should auto-hit, like they mostly did in 1e. Then they should make a save to avoid the effect. For instance: ray of enfeeblement, in 3e, this was a to hit roll. If you hit, the target was automatically affected with the magic (no save). I would like to see it go back to auto-hit, then perhaps CON save for reduced effect. If a player is miopic enough to not want auto-hitting rays, well that is just silly.

 

[SatanasOz]

I am going to disagree with all this disagreeing about spells (rays) needing to roll to hit. I don't think so. Rays should auto-hit, like they mostly did in 1e. Then they should make a save to avoid the effect. For instance: ray of enfeeblement, in 3e, this was a to hit roll. If you hit, the target was automatically affected with the magic (no save). I would like to see it go back to auto-hit, then perhaps CON save for reduced effect. If a player is miopic enough to not want auto-hitting rays, well that is just silly.

The force of your argument thins out at the end quite dramaticaly. Silly? As silly as pretending to be an elven-wizard shooting rays? In the end, I think we should leave it to the wizard players reporting playtest feedback. In this particular case, it seems like quite the either / or thing. Some player like to roll more themself, some like the mental image of auto hit spells. The math should be the same anyway.

Majority makes the rule here - I hardly think the fun of play hinges entirely on this one fact.

On the topic of Spellcasting Bonus: I like them. As long as they arrive somewhere near to if not a higher chance of success as melee attacks have. I like the current math going from arount 55% to hit to 80 % to hit at high levels. Just feels right in play. Satisfing with a hint of danger of missing. Just a hint.

 

[cmbarona]

I'm of the camp that prefers all spells be attack rolls, like they were in 4e. It basically took the mechanic of saving throws and flipped the perspective. Under saving throw assumptions, spells automatically hit... unless someone can dodge out of the way, or is physically or mentally resilient enough to shrug off its effects. Moving that to the perspective of the player opposing a defense is really the same assumption, just a different mechanic. And it's a mechanic which is more consistent with non-spell attacks. Further, I think using spell mechanics that are consistent with attack mechanics can help streamline the math. Granted, WoTC didn't always make that math streamlined in 4e, and they aren't yet properly doing it in Next, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

Either way, I think the OP's objection is twofold: 1) mechanics should be consistent, 2) math should be consistent. (hbarsquared, is that accurate?) Whether 1 is answered by making all spells saving throws or making them all attack rolls, I think they should all fall into one category or another, and that should make 2 easier to deal with.

 

[Sadrik]

The force of your argument thins out at the end quite dramaticaly. Silly? As silly as pretending to be an elven-wizard shooting rays? In the end, I think we should leave it to the wizard players reporting playtest feedback. In this particular case, it seems like quite the either / or thing. Some player like to roll more themself, some like the mental image of auto hit spells. The math should be the same anyway.

Majority makes the rule here - I hardly think the fun of play hinges entirely on this one fact.

I can buy the idea of consistency. All spells as to hit a save score vs effect OR to save against effect. In fact, I think 5e should have a module for putting attacking saving throws but it should also use saves. Where my conflict is, I like spells that auto-hit. Need to touch someone for shocking grasp, auto-hit. Need to shoot finger of death ray, auto-hit. Need to launch a fireball at square X 200 feet that away, auto-hit. Really the key for spells in my mind is save vs. effect. Now if you want to make that an attack roll to save vs effect or you want to make that a savings throw, the individual group should determine that and clear rules on how to make the math work out on both ends should be present.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Isn't the obvious solution here that all PC spell attacks roll to-hit... and all monster attacks require the PC to roll to save? That way it's always the PC who does the rolling?

Now sure... we're going to get the standard complaints of how PCs and monsters are not operating the same way (where in the theory the evil spellcaster should be rolling to hit with his Ray spell just like the PC spellcaster would)... but it's there that we have to ask ourselves what is more important?

--PC and monster spellcasters operating the same way on the same spells... or the players getting to make all rolls that affect their character?

 

[Dausuul]

But it's there that we have to ask ourselves what is more important?

--PC and monster spellcasters operating the same way on the same spells... or the players getting to make all rolls that affect their character?

PC and monster spellcasters operating the same way on the same spells. Anything that makes it harder to transition from player to DM is bad IMO. Good DMs are too hard to find as it is.

 

[hbarsquared]

Either way, I think the OP's objection is twofold: 1) mechanics should be consistent, 2) math should be consistent. (hbarsquared, is that accurate?) Whether 1 is answered by making all spells saving throws or making them all attack rolls, I think they should all fall into one category or another, and that should make 2 easier to deal with.

Pretty accurate.

I would be happy if spells were 4E style and used all attack rolls. I don't like the mixing of mechanics. I can make arguments all day concerning whether a specific spell should be an attack roll instead of a save DC, and why other spells should be a save DC instead of an attack roll.

In response to other posters: yes, I know players look up spell descriptions anyway, of course. "all dealing the same damage" is not the same.

In essence, what I'm looking for is for the "Do I hit?" question to be one-step. Again, it's not "a big deal" to also look up the "roll-or-DC" along with effect and damage. But it's one less thing to worry about when playing the game, and it would help it run more smoothly, I think.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Isn't the obvious solution here that all PC spell attacks roll to-hit... and all monster attacks require the PC to roll to save? That way it's always the PC who does the rolling?

That is the obvious solution, but when I raised this solution in a different conversation, there was a big objection that DMs like to roll dice too.