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

[TwoSix]

The very idea of a trap is it is "hostile" to anyone trying to bypass it. And the risk of picking pockets is because the thief knows if they are exposed, the mark will likely be upset as well, if not downright violent. That risk of injury (from trap or angry mark) is part of what makes the need for a check IMO.


Ok, magic of that caliber (even in 5E) is limited. Sure, a M-U can cast Spider Climb and climb automatically for a while. A M-U can cast Knock to open a lock without issue, but how often can he do it? A limited number of times before he needs to get slots back, and only if he happens to have the right spell prepared at the right time.

Meanwhile, in comparison, the thief can do his "thing" as often as needed and in what he can do, he can do whenever he needs to--it is always "prepared."

It is a balance between always good but limited in use (spells) vs. always use but limited in good (skills).

Yea, it's complicated. Balancing auto-success but limited use abilities versus increased probability all the time abilities is very much ability and situation dependent.

Like, if you have a certain task (like picking locks), and the normal chance of success is 50%, which would you prefer to have? A class ability that pushes the chance of success to 70%, or a once per day ability that lets you auto-succeed on picking a lock? That seems a pretty tough choice, based on my expectations for how prevalent locks are.

Now, do I think that there's room for non-magic classes to get resource-limited auto-success abilities? Absolutely. Heck, they're a main class feature in an OSR game I recently Kickstarted. But I can also understand limiting access to various combination of abilities in the name of class design heterogeneity.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yea, it's complicated. Balancing auto-success but limited use abilities versus increased probability all the time abilities is very much ability and situation dependent.

Like, if you have a certain task (like picking locks), and the normal chance of success is 50%, which would you prefer to have? A class ability that pushes the chance of success to 70%, or a once per day ability that lets you auto-succeed on picking a lock? That seems a pretty tough choice, based on my expectations for how prevalent locks are.

Now, do I think that there's room for non-magic classes to get resource-limited auto-success abilities? Absolutely. Heck, they're a main class feature in an OSR game I recently Kickstarted. But I can also understand limiting access to various combination of abilities in the name of class design heterogeneity.

Historically (AD&D and 2e especially and certainly 3.x), by level 7 Wizards have so much proliferate spell slots (not just endogenous to class, but Scrolls and Wands) and can control the rest day a huge % of the time (except for in the cases of the most adversarial, Force-fest, ham-fisted content curations GMs out there) with spells like LTH etc. When I hear "but limited resources (!)" my brain immediately goes to "this person has never played with a good Wizard player" or "this person has never GMed a mid/high level Wizard" or "this GM engages in rampant Force/ham-fisted content curation that is blatantly adversarial to Wizard players that the eye rolls at the table must have their own gravity"

But what about 5e at 7th level?

A 7th level Wizard has Toll the Dead as a Cantrip. They have Sleep at level 1. They have Web at level 2. They have Counterspell at level 3. They have Polymorph at level 4.

Is there any reason to not loadout with Minor Illusion, Enlarge/Reduce, Levitation (who needs Knock for the lock when you can smallify the door and have tons of other utility and who needs Spiderclimb?), Arcane Eye and other utility spells when you have all of the combat needs covered by those spells?

Not to mention Rituals (like the aforementioned LTH!) and 3 Spells Levels in refresh. If you're a Diviner, you've got 2 x Portent and Arcane Eye refreshes a 3/2/1 level spell? By that level they probably have a few Scrolls handy as well.

I mean, how many noncombat conflicts is that 7th level Diviner going to be dealing with that their resource pool and ability to create recharge capabilities is going to be seriously challenged? How many heists (where Levitation and Reduce/Enlarge and Arcane Eye are ridiculously powerful) aren't going to be heavily scouted and aren't going to be the exclusive conflict of the day (with nested and/or fallout conflicts involved)?

I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm asking for your actual thoughts on this. It seems to me that a highly skilled Wizard player will dominate the trajectory of play with a Diviner loadout like this around 7th level (I've GMed this guy but I don't have as much data with 5e as I do with the other D&D editions).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Now, do I think that there's room for non-magic classes to get resource-limited auto-success abilities? Absolutely. Heck, they're a main class feature in an OSR game I recently Kickstarted. But I can also understand limiting access to various combination of abilities in the name of class design heterogeneity.

Well, with features like Reliable Talent and Expertise, a higher level Rogue can approach auto-success on a few skills anyway. Since most DCs are 15 or 20 IME, a Rogue at that point will get +12-15, so results of 22-25 typically at a minimum. Even the rare DC 25 is well within reach and the incredible DC 30 at the highest levels can almost become automatic. Even without Expertise, most DC 20 checks at that point for a proficient Rogue are nearly guaranteed.

Should other, non-Rogues, have similar success? IMO not really. I am fine with others gaining Expertise (or the equal) via class features or a house-rule, but not to the extent Rogues do. WotC has leaned towards allowing feature cross-over via Feats, but personally my preference is to keep class features more distinct.

 

[Blue]

I've just been re-reading Gygax's description of spell-casting in his PHB and DMG. It talks about various components in spell casting, including the need for the somatic components to "be begun and completed without interruption in a clean, smooth motion" (DMG p 65) and the fact that "gestures must be exact and movements free and as prescribed" (PHB, p 100).

There are other class abilities in D&D that require exact hand motions to be completed cleanly - picking pockets, disarming traps, some weapon attacks - and since the earliest days these abilities have required a dice roll to determine whether or not the character successfully performs the motions in question. But generally it's never been required to make a roll to see if the somatic components can be properly performed. Why does spell-casting get this sort of benefit of the doubt?

All of the checks you mention are opposed and have consequences of failure. "Picking the pocket| of a bag sitting unattended and unobserved requires no check. Someone proficient with a weapon attacking a training dummy won't miss.

 

[pemerton]

All of the checks you mention are opposed and have consequences of failure. "Picking the pocket| of a bag sitting unattended and unobserved requires no check. Someone proficient with a weapon attacking a training dummy won't miss.

But why is this not true for casting a spell? As I posted already upthread, the somatic component of a spell helps define the target and/or AOE. This seems like it should have consequences for failure? So why is no check required?

Sure, a M-U can cast Spider Climb and climb automatically for a while. A M-U can cast Knock to open a lock without issue, but how often can he do it? A limited number of times before he needs to get slots back, and only if he happens to have the right spell prepared at the right time.

Meanwhile, in comparison, the thief can do his "thing" as often as needed and in what he can do, he can do whenever he needs to--it is always "prepared."

It is a balance between always good but limited in use (spells) vs. always use but limited in good (skills).

Yea, it's complicated. Balancing auto-success but limited use abilities versus increased probability all the time abilities is very much ability and situation dependent.

Like, if you have a certain task (like picking locks), and the normal chance of success is 50%, which would you prefer to have? A class ability that pushes the chance of success to 70%, or a once per day ability that lets you auto-succeed on picking a lock? That seems a pretty tough choice, based on my expectations for how prevalent locks are.

Now, do I think that there's room for non-magic classes to get resource-limited auto-success abilities? Absolutely. Heck, they're a main class feature in an OSR game I recently Kickstarted. But I can also understand limiting access to various combination of abilities in the name of class design heterogeneity.

My OP was not about class balance. It was about verisimilitude and consistency in the mapping of mechanics onto the fiction.

Here is the same point made in the context of the 5e Basic PDF (pp 60, 79):

Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance. . . . A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing. The Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Dexterity checks. . . .

Whenever you attempt an act of legerdemain or manual trickery, such as planting something on someone else or concealing an object on your person, make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check to determine whether you can lift a coin purse off another person or slip something out of another person’s pocket. . . .

Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
​

So why does performing spellcasting gestures not require a Dexterity check of some sort? Why can a character with Dexterity as low as 8 (possible under standard PC build rues) of 3 (possible under rolled stat rules) perform these "intricate set(s) of gestures" with no trouble?

I appreciate that, as per the 5e rules, a check is only called for "when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure" and/or "[w]hen the outcome is uncertain" (Basic PDF p 58) but it seems to me like the ability of a clumsy person to perform those gestures would be at least as uncertain as the chance of a trained person to perform a bit of stage magic.

Many of the posts in this thread seem to amount to it's OK to ignore verisimilitude and give MU/wizard characters a free success in the interest of class balance. Eg @billd91, @(Psi)SeveredHead, @Paul Farquhar, @Mannahnin, @Ruin Explorer, @Gadget, @6ENow!

But if that was the right design principle than 4e would not have been as controversial as it was.

Others (eg @Blue quoted above in this post, @Cap'n Kobold, also @6ENow!) have used the notion of "unopposed" checks. But the notion of opposition here isn't very well defined - why does a trap "oppose" being disarmed, or a lock "oppose" having its pins or whatever moved by a wire rather than a key, or a coin "oppose" being plucked from someone's ear, but the somatic gestures not "oppose" being performed?

AD&D doesn't have any general notion of a check being required when an action is "opposed", and in 5e as per the passages above the key notion is uncertainty or 'chance of failure. Which brings me back to the OP question - why, of all the feats of manual dexterity performed by characters in the AD&D game, is there one category, namely somatic components, that can be performed flawlessly every time regardless of Dexterity?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Does a fighter have to check to know how to handle his sword every time he attacks?
Does a rogue have to check to make sure he is using his thieves' tool properly?
Does a caster have to check to know they are performing their somatic components properly?

No.
No.
And no.

The mechanics, for the final time, are about determining success. This can be through an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw.

Your wanting casters to make "casting checks" to cast a spell properly, which they have studied, practiced, etc. so they KNOW how to use, would be equivalent to fighter making a weapon check to handle their weapon properly or a rogue making a tool check to know which tool to try to use to pick the lock.

The roll comes in applying what you know how to do against adversity. The attack roll against armor, the spell attack the same, saves against DCs and checks against DCs. In a situation without a consequence for failure, no roll is required.

Look--you can think about it however you want--but if you don't get it, I'm done trying. Casters don't need to make spellcasting checks to cast their spells anymore than fighters have to make weapon checks to wield a weapon or rogues make tool checks to use thieves' tools.

 

[billd91]

But if that was the right design principle than 4e would not have been as controversial as it was.

You're assuming that there weren't plenty of other reasons 4e was as controversial as it was.

 

[Manbearcat]

Does a fighter have to check to know how to handle his sword every time he attacks?
Does a rogue have to check to make sure he is using his thieves' tool properly?
Does a caster have to check to know they are performing their somatic components properly?

No.
No.
And no.

Huh?

Attack roll (this abstracts many things, which obviously must include proficiency in this deployment of their weapon)?

Dex/Thievery (this abstracts many things, which obviously must include proficiency in this deployment of their thieves' tools) Check?

And no? Correct, there is no Arcana roll to determine how proficiently the Wizard performs this deployment of their spell.

I don't understand how one comes to an alternative conclusion.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But if that was the right design principle than 4e would not have been as controversial as it was.

That doesn't follow.
That wasn't why 4E was controversial.

I mean, I'm not going to re-litigate 4E in this thread, but aspect was one of the least controversial. I mean, maybe it was on the list of controversial aspects, but it was towards the bottom, and mostly it just consisted of "Why does Fireball gotta suck now?!?". If it had been the only controversial point with 4E, or one of a few, then I think 4E would have done a lot better.

As for verisimilitude and class balance, well, you could go the other way - you could have casters check to see if they successfully cast spells and so on routinely, but then you'd either need to given a lot more spell slots, or make it so they didn't lose a spell slot on a miscast. If you didn't do those you'd be straightforwardly making them less powerful. That's probably fine - historically mid-to high level casters have been perhaps overpowered, even, I'd argue, in 5E, but it's certainly something you'd be doing and it would impact lower levels as well. You'd also need to develop mechanics to simulate this casting - and we'd be on like the fourth or later generation of those mechanics by now, if they hadn't been abandoned.

Further the question "verisimilitude to what" arises. D&D isn't simulating something. It's not a simulationist game. It's a highly abstracted game that most embodies gamist principles (in every edition). Sometimes it has some half-arsed simulationist baggage, or makes a nod towards narrativism, but it's not like it's trying to be a specific fantasy setting and spells getting miscast happens all the time in that setting, but for some reason D&D is missing this.

 

[Manbearcat]

You're assuming that there weren't plenty of other reasons 4e was as controversial as it was.

No, you're randomly smuggling that in for no purpose that seems to clarify or help the conversation in any discernible way. Bringing in nontopical things that may have been controversial to 4e serves no relevant end when discussing the "asymmetry of proficiency checks for martial actions and spellcasting actions" (except to obfuscate or otherwise frustrate the conversation!).