D&D General A puzzle about spell casting in D&D

[Manbearcat]

The simple answer to the OP’s question is “lack of foresight and full consideration (for both the fiction and the implications of unfettered Spellcasting).”

It seems to me, merely from the perspective of coherent fiction, Wizardry has to be gated behind the martial training aspect of Linguistics and extraordinary small muscle dexterity/coordination (marrying a perfectly timed sequence of impossible arcane utterances and complex articulation of fingers and arms/hands into unintuitive gestures) as much as understanding > memorization > execution of formulae.

Some combination of Poor Man’s Hawking and Poor Man’s Page and Poor Man’s Plant. If it wasn’t prodigies/savants all the way down, the world would be filled with Wizards and powered by rote Arcane deployment.

So there were multiple “oopses.”

To date, 4e is the only edition that satisfies both of these preconditions with its spellcasting mechanics and Ritual mechanics.

 

[Krachek]

Yes, AD&D has a rule that you can't cast a spell while grappled etc. And you can't cast a spell with somatic components while prone or crouching.

But that doesn't answer the puzzle. You can't pick a pocket while restrained either, or while subject to a hold person spell. The question is why, when there is no restraint, can the player of the caster always, for free as it were, stipulate that his/her PC performs the hand motions correctly, but not in those other cases?


Gygax tells us that the hand motions for casting a spell "are usually required in order to control and specify the direction, target, area, etc., of the spell effects" (DMG p 40) so they won't be exactly the same every time.

And those versions of D&D that have rules for juggling or for sleight of hand like card tricks tend to require a check, even though those are non-magical feats of legerdemain in which the motions are the same every time the trick is performed.

Because it’s a game, and we continually make short cut.
Weapon user are not bothered by the height of the ceiling, or the presence of their allies.
Despite fluffy description, we still have a game to run and make things fun for everybody.
You base your argument on a fluff description, and then want to make play Very harsh for caster. For what reasons, better fluff, better balance, better fun?
To be sure about hindering on spell casting we should bring a caster in a lab and make some accurate tests. Unfortunately we won’t ever make those tests!

 

[Hriston]

The problem here being it only does work until about level 6?

Level 7+ and M-Us start to accelerate. By level 9 they’ve reached Class Balance Escape Velocity. By 11 they’re on the moon. By 15, they’re a Type 2 Civilization!

Maybe that’s why I’ve never managed to play much past level 10.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why does spell-casting get this sort of benefit of the doubt?

The target already gets a saving throw: it's double jeopardy if the caster has to make a skill check as well.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There are game systems with magic systems that rely on a skill check. Generally, these don't have spell slots or memorisation restrictions.

 

[Manbearcat]

Because it’s a game, and we continually make short cut.
Weapon user are not bothered by the height of the ceiling, or the presence of their allies.
Despite fluffy description, we still have a game to run and make things fun for everybody.
You base your argument on a fluff description, and then want to make play Very harsh for caster. For what reasons, better fluff, better balance, better fun?
To be sure about hindering on spell casting we should bring a caster in a lab and make some accurate tests. Unfortunately we won’t ever make those tests!

I feel like this misses quite a bit of granularity (and much of it punishing!) for weapon users in 1e! How about:

• Facing Rules
• Rear/Flank/Prone (etc) attacks
• Breaking Off from Melee
• To Hit Adjustments vs Armor
• Encumbrance on Movement (which affects Close to and Break from Melee)
• Line of Sight requirement for single target attacks (and Invisibility implications) vs AoE
• Cover and Concealment
• Volleying into a Melee
• Long Range Penalty
• The dizzying Pummel/Grapple/Overbear rules

And that is just off the top of my head from 1e (I'm likely missing some things). The conditional modifiers piled on in 3e were significant!

 

[Mannahnin]

However, there is a tangential casting puzzle across all editions of D&D that has bothered me since day one: an archer has to roll to aim her shot; a person throwing a lit vial of oil has to roll to aim his throw, so why doesn't a caster have to roll to aim her ranged spell?

I've long since fixed this in my own game, but it still bugs me that the core game gives casters this huge (and IMO undeserved) advantage.

TBF, 5E does have casters make attack rolls for ranged spells (though not area effect ones). And as noted 4E has them roll for every spell.

Like Paul mentioned, games which make casters check for every spell to see if it works typically don't limit them with spell slots or memorization restrictions. I've been running 5 Torches Deep for most of the last year, and in that game casters know a limited number of spells, but can keep casting them as long as they keep passing checks. But once they fail they lose access for the day.

As Psi pointed out, spells in D&D also allow saves, so if we require caster checks AND allow saves, we get two points of failure and make spells terribly unreliable. 5E design takes this into account, making spells almost all require EITHER an attack roll OR a save. Spells which require both generally have particularly potent effects, or the save is against some additional bonus nasty effect. My new wizard in RotFM has Ray of Sickness for one of his 1st level spells. I have to hit, and then the enemy gets a save to reduce the damage to half and to avoid the Poisoned condition. But Poisoned is quite nasty, so I'm happy to take the gamble on the spell.

One thing I started toying with in the last 5E game I was running was having casters for offensive area effect spells roll a targeting check to see if it lands exactly where they want or not (perhaps a bit long or short). This creates more excitement with Fireballs, for example, and makes them act a bit less like laser-guided munitions which can be dropped into a melee and run no risk of hitting friendlies. Initial results had some promise, but you've got to be restrained with this sort of thing.

One interesting effect of the less-reliable magic in 5TD is that I have a higher than usual proportion of non-caster classes (Fighters and Thieves) than I would normally expect to see. Which is pretty neat in terms of genre emulation, giving a more Swords & Sorcery feel.

 

[Manbearcat]

The target already gets a saving throw: it's double jeopardy if the caster has to make a skill check as well.

There are game systems with magic systems that rely on a skill check. Generally, these don't have spell slots or memorisation restrictions.

* The best spells don't grant Saving Throws.

* There is a huge suite of enormously powerful utility spells that don't interface with the Saving Throw mechanics.

* In pretty much every edition, there is a fault line (and its not terribly earlier and becomes progressively less of a complication as the editions accrue, hitting its zenith in 3e and coming a bit back to earth a bit with 5e but 5e also has so many ways to recharge spells and Ritual mechanics) where Spell Slots no longer become a burden (because of proliferation of slots, recharge capabilities, Scrolls/Magic Items that bulwark loadout).

---

Dungeon World and D&D 4e puts Wizards on the same action resolution mechanics as martial characters. In DW, Cast a Spell is a move just like Hack & Slash (et al). Rituals in DW are codified but extremely interesting and require generous work to accomplish. In 4e, Wizards roll to hit (with many spells also granting a Saving Throw to avoid/mitigate worsening effects) in combat. They roll Arcana vs DC to magically stunt. They roll Arcana, Nature, Religion to use Rituals.

Interestingly, in both Dungeon World and 4e, Wizards and Fighters are extraordinarily well balanced and this is despite the fact that Fighters in both of those games are turbo-charged compared to their other D&D counterparts!

 

[aco175]

One of the things in early D&D was casting times, similar to weapon speed. I start casting fireball this round ,but it may not be finished until sometime next round and during that time I could get bumped- bumped- and lose it. We modified this a bit, but a lot of spells were lost in the 1e/2e era.

Another point is some think combat is more abstract where a fighter with one attack simply does not stand there for 6 seconds and then takes one swing. The idea is that the fighter is feinting and moving taking several 'swings', but only one of those are impactful enough to make a roll for.

5e is a long way from 1e in these ideas.

 

[embee]

Because it’s a game, and we continually make short cut.
Weapon user are not bothered by the height of the ceiling, or the presence of their allies.
Despite fluffy description, we still have a game to run and make things fun for everybody.
You base your argument on a fluff description, and then want to make play Very harsh for caster. For what reasons, better fluff, better balance, better fun?
To be sure about hindering on spell casting we should bring a caster in a lab and make some accurate tests. Unfortunately we won’t ever make those tests!

Weapon users are frequently bothered by things like the presence of their allies. Moving through an non-hostile occupied space is "difficult terrain" and you cannot end movement on an occupied space. Occupied squares provide cover. And the PHB has a section on "Squeezing Into A Smaller Space."

Most premade adventures will specify a 10' ceiling, thus making the height of the ceiling a moot issue for melee combat. But, just as underwater renders many weapons useless, you can just as easily (and reasonably) have a location with 5' ceilings. Bag End was a luxurious manor and even its capacious corridors caused Gandalf to stoop.