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

[DND_Reborn]

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.

You're not following then.

The attack roll isn't to determine if the fighter knows how to wield his sword when he attacks, the attack roll is to determine if he attacks successfully. You don't make a fighter make a Dexterity (Weapon) check to hold his sword properly before he makes the attack roll.

The thieves' tools check isn't to know how to use the tools, it is their application to overcome the lock or trap, etc. You don't have Rogues make an Intelligence (Thieves' Tools) check to determine which tool to use when trying to pick a lock or whatever.

Likewise, no Dexterity (Arcana) check is required for the wizard to perform somatic components in order to cast a spell they are proficient in using. Like the weapon attack and thieves' tools check, spells only require an attack roll or resisted by a spell save DC.

I really don't see what the hang-up is about all this... so, whatever.

 

[Manbearcat]

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

I believe what @pemerton is saying here is one of principles of 4e design was eliding certain things in the name of gameplay functionality and balance.

That was most certainly a fundamental aspect of 4e design and definitely a controversial one!

Here, if we're championing the value of "eliding certain things (in this case action resolution to determine proficiency in spell deployment) in the name of gameplay functionality and balance", it seems a bit...I don't know...inconsistent at best, incoherent or feckless at worse? Personally, I think it becomes particularly problematic given the obvious issues of LFQW that have plagued D&D.

 

[billd91]

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!).

Pemerton made an assertion, I disagreed that the assertion was correct. If you don't want to discuss it further, don't bring it up again.

 

[Manbearcat]

You're not following then.

The attack roll isn't to determine if the fighter knows how to wield his sword when he attacks, the attack roll is to determine if he attacks successfully. You don't make a fighter make a Dexterity (Weapon) check to hold his sword properly before he makes the attack roll.

The thieves' tools check isn't to know how to use the tools, it is their application to overcome the lock or trap, etc. You don't have Rogues make an Intelligence (Thieves' Tools) check to determine which tool to use when trying to pick a lock or whatever.

Likewise, no Dexterity (Arcana) check is required for the wizard to perform somatic components in order to cast a spell they are proficient in using. Like the weapon attack and thieves' tools check, spells only require an attack roll or resisted by a spell save DC.

I really don't see what the hang-up is about all this... so, whatever.

This is not responsive to what I've written.

You entirely changed what I wrote.

An attack roll isn't to determine "if the Fighter knows how to wield his sword (at all)" and a Thievery check isn't to determine "if the Rogue knows how to wield their thieves tools (at all)." Because of course it isn't!

Again (as I wrote...which you changed), its to determine (in part) "how proficiently/potent this particular instantiation of their deployment of sword/thieves tools is!"

I assume that you've been involved in some athletic or coordination-based endeavor in the course of your life? Is every_single instance of you deploying <whatever physical discipline you're familiar with> a carbon copy of the last? Or are there dozens of parameters that lead to this deployment being different from that deployment (even if just by a negligible factor)?

 

[Manbearcat]

Pemerton made an assertion, I disagreed that the assertion was correct. If you don't want to discuss it further, don't bring it up again.

No. That isn't what happened. @pemerton didn't say "this is the only thing that 4e was controversial for." He made a very clear statement that was alluding to a very specific design principle and "inconsistency of controversy around that design principle" (eg it was decried in 4e but its being championed here). You then either misappropriated (even if by accident, that is what happened) what he said and changed the subject.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I believe what @pemerton is saying here is one of principles of 4e design was eliding certain things in the name of gameplay functionality and balance.

That was most certainly a fundamental aspect of 4e design and definitely a controversial one!

Here, if we're championing the value of "eliding certain things (in this case action resolution to determine proficiency in spell deployment) in the name of gameplay functionality and balance", it seems a bit...I don't know...inconsistent at best, incoherent or feckless at worse? Personally, I think it becomes particularly problematic given the obvious issues of LFQW that have plagued D&D.

If so, that's an nonsensical position because all editions of D&D, whether it's OD&D, 1E, or 5E or even Pathfinder "elide certain things in the name of gameplay functionality and balance". There are no exceptions whatsoever. D&D is highly abstracted game full of elisions.

There's nothing specific to 4E about that, and there'd be no reason to bring up 4E were that so. The claim referred directly to 4E, and I'm not sure your mind-reading of @pemerton is correct, because I don't think he'd refer to 4E re: that.

Re: LFQW, forcing casters to roll to not cast won't resolve LFQW. Especially not if you can situationally avoid rolling somehow (or minimize risk), which you'd definitely be able to in some versions of rules. You solve LFQW but not letting casters get such ridiculously powerful spells as they go up levels. If spells stopped at level like, level 3 or 4 spells, and you just got more of them, then I don't think LFQW would be a thing.

 

[billd91]

No. That isn't what happened. @pemerton didn't say "this is the only thing that 4e was controversial for." He made a very clear statement that was alluding to a very specific design principle and "inconsistency of controversy around that design principle" (eg it was decried in 4e but its being championed here). You then either misappropriated (even if by accident, that is what happened) what he said and changed the subject.

He didn't have to say it was the only thing for which it was controversial. But to assert that it wouldn't have been as controversial as it was implies that it was a necessary factor for that level of controversy. I don't think that's the case. I suspect there may have been others that were sufficient.
But like I said, if you think this was a random discussion for some nefarious purpose, you are free to not engage with it.

 

[Manbearcat]

If so, that's an nonsensical position because all editions of D&D, whether it's OD&D, 1E, or 5E or even Pathfinder "elide certain things in the name of gameplay functionality and balance". There are no exceptions whatsoever. D&D is highly abstracted game full of elisions.

There's nothing specific to 4E about that, and there'd be no reason to bring up 4E were that so. I

Re: LFQW, forcing casters to roll to not cast won't resolve LFQW. Especially not if you can situationally avoid rolling somehow (or minimize risk), which you'd definitely be able to in some versions of rules. You solve LFQW but not letting casters get such ridiculously powerful spells as they go up levels. If spells stopped at level like, level 3 or 4 spells, and you just got more of them, then I don't think LFQW would be a thing.

Its not nonsensical. Its apropos (because it was decried then, and YES I AGREE...INCOHERENTLY OR INCONSTENTLY, but is being championed now).

I also agree that it wouldn't solve LFQW (by itself)! LFQW is the intersection of many different axes of power (proliferate spells, extremely powerful spells, the ability to dictate recharge pretty trivially, the power of spells lower in the level hierarchy, Save DC inflation, the progressive ability to dictate all terns of engagement/obviate an absurd number of obstacles or conflicts outright/and completely render null the perceived weakness of the class at low level).

 

[Manbearcat]

He didn't have to say it was the only thing for which it was controversial. But to assert that it wouldn't have been as controversial as it was implies that it was a necessary factor for that level of controversy. I don't think that's the case. I suspect there may have been others that were sufficient.
But like I said, if you think this was a random discussion for some nefarious purpose, you are free to not engage with it.

Nefarious or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that it was (a) a misappropriation of what was said (both the words and the way those words intersect with the conversation at large) and (b) that misappropriation isn't helpful to clarity (the opposite in fact) on the conversation particulars.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Apologies if I misunderstood your bend...

Again (as I wrote...which you changed), its to determine (in part) "how proficiently/potent this particular instantiation of their deployment of sword/thieves tools is!"

Just as the spell attack roll (or resisted save) determines "how proficiently/potent this particular instantiation of their deployment of" spell is.

I assume that you've been involved in some athletic or coordination-based endeavor in the course of your life? Is every_single instance of you deploying <whatever physical discipline you're familiar with> a carbon copy of the last? Or are there dozens of parameters that lead to this deployment being different from that deployment (even if just by a negligible factor)?

Yes, hundreds of times.

If the somatic component is the wiggling of a finger, will the wizard to it exactly the same every time? Of course not. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

But, can it be precise enough to release the magic? Certainly.

In the same fashion is a pitcher throws a baseball, he can throw the same pitch over and over, holding the ball "the same" each time, and the roll would be for the throw, not how he holds the ball.

Likewise, a sword won't be held exactly the same, nor with thieves' tools, nor the somatic component; but they will all be performed proficiently to allow the attack roll or ability check or saving throw.