Spellcasting - why no skill check?

[Rod Staffwand]

Everything else in D&D doesn't require a roll. Activating class features never does (at least I can't think of any). Action surge? No roll. Spending ki? No roll. Barbarian raging? No roll. Inspiration dice? No roll. Spells are essentially features of the character, in the same vein as these other abilities. Sure, players may make rolls as part of the activation (such as a fighter making a secondary attack roll with an action surge or rerolling a save with indomitable), but not TO activate their ability. Spells are simply a major subset of these types of features.

So the rules parity argument doesn't hold much water.

On the other hand, you may find the D&D magic system to be overly reliable and lacking in any sort of mystery, danger or wonder. These are valid criticisms shared by many players. D&D has long embraced functional magic over flavorful magic as a core design choice. It has creaked along with only minor tweaking for close to 50 years so I guess they think it's working all right.

Rolling for spell casting would certainly make casting less reliable and can work in theory. Other systems have done it. You would need to figure out:
1) The spellcasting DC. Let's say 8+spell level.
2) The casting roll. Let's say casting stat + PB.
3) Special rules. Does a 1 always fail? Does a nat 20 get you anything? Can you spend more time (say a minute) to get a a bonus? Can someone help you cast? What gives you advantage or disadvantage? How does it affect spell-slinging magic items?
4) Spell failure. Do you lose the spell? Lose your action? Suffer a 'mystic backlash'? Roll on a crazy magic fumble table?

If you make the rolls too easy, why bother with the extra system? If you make the rolls too hard you won't see many casters at your table. The same is true if the consequences for spell failure are particularly dangerous.

In any case, it will likely make combats more tense as spells are no longer reliable. That could be fun. On the other hand, since spells aren't reliable, the players will not be able to strategize as much. Finally, spells that allow for a complete negation of all effect on a save or on a missed attack will drop in popularity as there are now twice as many failure points.

These might all be acceptable trade-offs. However, it still won't make D&D magic any more mysterious or wondrous--just finicky and frustrating.

 

[ccs]

Because magic is common and reliable in the implied D&D setting.

Skill checks for spellcasting is fairly common mechanic in low-magic settings or settings in which magic can be dangerous to the caster.

Or in other systems created before the OGL.

 

[GlassJaw]

Or in systems created before the OGL.

But no D&D or Ad&d system ever had a check for casting.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

But no D&D or Ad&d system ever had a check for casting.

Could they reference be to the "casting on the defensive" mechanic from 3rd which required a check to be able to cast in melee without provoking an attack of opportunity? I can think of no other way previous D&D editions required "skill checks" to cast spells.

I would add previous editions had additional obsticles to spellcasting. In some editions, casting in melee was simply not allowed, also, if you took damage while casting a spell you simply lost the spell (no check). However, few who played these editions would argue that spellcasters were A LOT more powerful than melee characters, particularly at higher levels.

 

[neogod22]

Because the spell is actually memorized in the caster's head. They only need a quick gesture while holding the component and saying a word or two to actually release the spell. They aren't reading it from the book.

 

[Dispater]

Ability checks aren't an inherent thing underlying the physics of the world, but a method for resolving a question of resolution for adventurers doing adventuring things.

Adventurers can do many things without checks. Some of these things include certain spells.

The majority of combat offensive actions require Ability/Skill checks of some kind. Majority of spellcasters are adventurers out on adventuring missions where combat and stress should play a factor.

Yes, there are class features you can activate without a check, but I wouldnt say spells are class features. All spells are derived from somewhere external. For instance, as a wizard you are drawing on outside arcane forces and trying to manifest them in this world. A cleric prays for the power from his deity.

Having magic on "auto-fire" is a really unimaginative, mundane way of portraying magic in a game that is about being fantastical. The fact that all a player has to do and say is "i cast spell x" is about as dull as a tootache.

Getting back to the point, I am considering adding a houserule on this. Any suggestions? INT + Arcana for Wizards, WIS + Religion for Clerics. Vs. DC 8 + spell level maybe?

 

[Dispater]

Because the spell is actually memorized in the caster's head. They only need a quick gesture while holding the component and saying a word or two to actually release the spell. They aren't reading it from the book.

You still need to fish your component out of your component pouch,hold it right and do the right gestures and say the words. In a stressful situation and in a game where most other stuff is rolled for, I would say it is fair to say roll a skill check. Given time and no enemies, I would relax that requirement.

 

[Dispater]

On the other hand, you may find the D&D magic system to be overly reliable and lacking in any sort of mystery, danger or wonder. These are valid criticisms shared by many players. D&D has long embraced functional magic over flavorful magic as a core design choice. It has creaked along with only minor tweaking for close to 50 years so I guess they think it's working all right.

Rolling for spell casting would certainly make casting less reliable and can work in theory. Other systems have done it. You would need to figure out:
1) The spellcasting DC. Let's say 8+spell level.
2) The casting roll. Let's say casting stat + PB.
3) Special rules. Does a 1 always fail? Does a nat 20 get you anything? Can you spend more time (say a minute) to get a a bonus? Can someone help you cast? What gives you advantage or disadvantage? How does it affect spell-slinging magic items?
4) Spell failure. Do you lose the spell? Lose your action? Suffer a 'mystic backlash'? Roll on a crazy magic fumble table?

If you make the rolls too easy, why bother with the extra system? If you make the rolls too hard you won't see many casters at your table. The same is true if the consequences for spell failure are particularly dangerous.

1 /2. Lets say DC 8 + Spell level. Level 1 wizard has then about +4 (+2 INT, +2 prof bonus) to roll against DC 11, he will succeed about 60-70% of the time.
3. A natural 1 could be a fail and a random and minor negative effect (or a wild magic effect). A natural 20 could mean an added damage dice, opponent rolls save with a disadvantage and so on. Lots of potential here.
4. A casting failure means the spell fails but you dont lose the slot. You just have to try again. Makes it less punishing for low-level casters with limited slots.

Id say such a system isnt too easy or too hard. About the same as a fighter trying to hit a creatures AC in combat, and adds in critical/fumble elements, and makes magic less reliable.

I suppose part of the reason the current auto-fire system just keeps on going is because it is less punishing to players, so who is really going to complain. But if you are the DM playing a low-magic or a campaign where magic is more dangerous and wild, a casting check seems perfectly natural to have, and flows really easy with the already established DC rules and ability check requirements. The grounwork is already there.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Something has been bugging me a bit.

Why is spell-casting not a standard skill check in d&d 5e? Everything else is.

- Attack a monster. Melee skill check.

- Fire a bow. Ranged skill check.

- Jump/sprint. Strength skill check.

- Survive near death. Constitution skill check.

- Survive in nature. Wisdom skill check.

- Any sophisticated scholarly or intellectual activity - Intelligence skill check.

Spellcasting is about as difficult as it gets. Whether there are incantations and somatic movements, the prayers offered or material sacrifice. Tossing fireballs - no check in the middle of combat? (like Intelligence + Knowledge Arcana for instance vs. DC 8 + spell level for instance?) It just doesn't make sense. I get it is easy to houserule, but certain people seem to cry out when their speillcaster has to actually roll to cast their spells. Weird, huh? Did the devs ever consider it? Or is the most difficult thing to do in D&D just accepted as "auto-fire" by everyone in here?

Just wondering. Who houserules this?

I would love a system where you make a check and if you fail by a certain amount, maybe just on a roll of 1, the spell goes awry. Kind of like in Warhammer 2e where you can accidentally invoke chaos and unleash powers you never meant to by rolling bad. But then again later editions of D&D have steadily removed any dangers and negatives from spell casting, no aging with haste for example, so I don't think a more dangerous magic system is aligned with the design goals.

 

[delericho]

As noted, many spells do require rolls, in the form of either attack rolls or saving throws. I would certainly rather not add another roll on top of that.

That said, I could certainly see the merit in adding some rolls to spells that otherwise don't have them - to indicate how effective that divination was, or similar.