D&D 5E Discrepancy in Spell Saving Throws in Playtest Rules?

[machineelf]

But in that case, with the definitional construction of the rules, it is not an attack. (How to Play, p 19 on "Attack Basics" and "Attack Rolls" compared to p 28 on "Saving Throws".)

When you cast a fireball at someone, it's an attack. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. The saving throw in that case is there to resist the force of the spell attack.

If your concern is over why they didn't specify spell attacks in the "Attack Basics" section, then I agree with you. I think (and hope) they will organize the material a little better in the books. Their thinking may have been that many spells (most even) aren't offensive attack spells, but have a variety of effects, such as a sleep spell for example. So because spells can be all sorts of things including creating a portal, putting someone to sleep, changing your appearance, or casting lightning at someone, they opted to put it in it's own category instead of the "Attack Basics" category.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

I'm not asking anything. I'm replying to [MENTION=85179]ren1999[/MENTION], who complained that the rules say to make an attack roll but don't say whether to roll against AC or something else. My point in reply is that, in D&Dnext, there is nothing else against which you roll an attack. An attack roll is, by definition, a roll against AC. In this respect D&Dnext differs fundamentally from 4e (which has 4 defences, of which AC is only one) and 3E (which has touch AC, flat-footed AC etc as well as simple AC) and perhaps AD&D as well (which has various 3E-ish style variations in AC, although less systematically defined).

When you cast a fireball at someone, it's an attack.

As a matter of D&Dnext terminology I don't think this is right - it's not an attack roll, nor an instance of the attack action, but rather is an instance of the "cast a spell" action. Casting fireball ends your Invisibility not because it is an attack, but because it is casting a spell on something other than yourself.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

As a matter of D&Dnext terminology I don't think this is right - it's not an attack roll, nor an instance of the attack action, but rather is an instance of the "cast a spell" action. Casting fireball ends your Invisibility not because it is an attack, but because it is casting a spell on something other than yourself.

Indeed. Casting a spell in D&D Next is considered an attack if it requires an attack roll. The fact that it's an offensive action has no influence on the definition used in the rules. Fireball is not an attack action that targets Dex. It's a spell that allows a Dex saving throw. Totally different things.

 

[ren1999]

O.k., so all attack rolls are ability versus armor class. I see.
What about the DC8+magic ability + magic bonus?
I thought it was DC base 10+magic ability + magic bonus

 

[the Jester]

O.k., so all attack rolls are ability versus armor class. I see.
What about the DC8+magic ability + magic bonus?
I thought it was DC base 10+magic ability + magic bonus

The change to a base of 8 is because of the proficiency rules. The proficiency bonus at 1st level is +2, so if you're a first level pc wielding a normal implement that you're proficient in, it's effectively a base of 10. However, if you're caught without an implement, you don't get that +2, and at higher levels, the proficiency bonus improves.

 

[bogmad]

In next, melee and non-magic ranged attacks are against AC. But magic is a little different. You use an attribute to make a saving roll to resist the spell. So for example, if it's a fireball, you roll using your dex modifier to try to make a saving throw to resist. If it's more of a mental attack, you might roll using your intel or wisdom modifier to make a saving throw to resist. Etc.

Magic is different. Except that some spells do require an attack roll.
For the most part attack spells that cover an area rely on saving throws, as they should, but cantrips count as a spell and an attack that requires a roll to hit, no saving throw.

Melf's Acid Arrow also requires an attack roll to hit, since you're aiming arrows at a person or object and not just covering the area. However, since it costs a spell slot they threw in half damage on a miss, presumably for gamist reasons, but also with the idea that some acid from the arrow will splash the target enough to do some damage, if not full damage and acid damage next round.

 

[machineelf]

The proficiency bonus at 1st level is +2

Is it? Now I am extra confused. I want to run my group according to the playtest rules, and I have the rules that came with Scourge of the Sword Coast when I bought it, and it says that level 1 proficiency is +1. So now I am worried that if I start them off at 8 + ability modifier + 1 for proficiency, they will be too weak.

 

[tsadkiel]

Is it? Now I am extra confused. I want to run my group according to the playtest rules, and I have the rules that came with Scourge of the Sword Coast when I bought it, and it says that level 1 proficiency is +1. So now I am worried that if I start them off at 8 + ability modifier + 1 for proficiency, they will be too weak.

It's +1 in the last incarnation of the public playtest. we know from Mearls's Legends and Lore article on the bard that it will start at +2 in the final product, but we don't have the final product yet.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Is it? Now I am extra confused. I want to run my group according to the playtest rules, and I have the rules that came with Scourge of the Sword Coast when I bought it, and it says that level 1 proficiency is +1. So now I am worried that if I start them off at 8 + ability modifier + 1 for proficiency, they will be too weak.

Whether it's +1 or +2 at first level, it's unlikely to make much of a difference. Certainly, don't worry about it being too weak or too powerful merely because of a +1 difference. The game isn't balanced closely enough for +1 to really matter, either way.

 

[machineelf]

Whether it's +1 or +2 at first level, it's unlikely to make much of a difference. Certainly, don't worry about it being too weak or too powerful merely because of a +1 difference. The game isn't balanced closely enough for +1 to really matter, either way.

My comment about it being "too weak" was misunderstood, but it was probably my fault for not being clear. While I do think in Next a +1 is somewhat significant, I'm really just concerned about not wanting the players in my game using +1 when they should be using +2 and being "too weak" compared to how the playtest rules should really be.