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

[DND_Reborn]

What about the many, many spells that don't have attack rolls or saving throws? Why does a thief player have to roll to see if his/her PC can actually perform the movements necessary to pull of a piece of stage magic, or pick a lock, or whatever; but the player of a wizard/MU does not have to roll to see if his/her PC can actually perform the movements necessary to cast a Knock Spell, or a Transmute Rock to Mud spell, or a Polymorph Self spell, or . . .

There is no roll needed.

Somatic components are well-practiced things for spells the PCs know, it is part of their training. They aren't trying to delight a crowd (stage magic), etc. Again, for the final time, a rogue isn't make a check to use his tools properly, he is making the check to apply his tools to the lock.

To cast the spell, no check is needed, because the caster knows how to perform the somatic components just as a rogue knows how to use his tools. To overcome a lock with Knock, the magic of the spell opens the lock, not the caster making a check.

Anyway, this has been hashed out enough. I've explained WHY it isn't needed, if you don't like it, talk to someone else about it. You're wasting my time otherwise. Cheers.

 

[Manbearcat]

Apologies if I misunderstood your bend...

I appreciate your apology but no worries and its not necessary.

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

Let us take 5e and Dungeon World and one instance of a lack of action resolution for Wizards.

Light
Evocation cantrip

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, M (a firefly or phosphorescent moss)
Duration: 1 hour

You touch one object that is no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. Until the spell ends, the object sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. The light can be colored as you like. Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. The spell ends if you cast it again or dismiss it as an action.

vs

Light​

Level Cantrip

An item you touch glows with arcane light, about as bright as a torch. It gives off no heat or sound and requires no fuel, but it is otherwise like a mundane torch. You have complete control of the color of the flame. The spell lasts as long as it is in your presence.

There are many spells like Light in 5e (where there is no action resolution component). So how is proficiency or potency determined?

Contrast with DW. Every Light Spell requires the below move be made:

Cast a Spell (Int)​

When you release a spell you’ve prepared, roll+Int.

On a 10+, the spell is successfully cast and you do not forget the spell—you may cast it again later.

On a 7-9, the spell is cast, but choose one:

• You draw unwelcome attention or put yourself in a spot. The GM will tell you how.
• The spell disturbs the fabric of reality as it is cast—take -1 ongoing to cast a spell until the next time you Prepare Spells.
• After it is cast, the spell is forgotten. You cannot cast the spell again until you prepare spells.

So, in Dungeon World, you may have a proficiency/potency complication that emerges (the first bullet point) or it may be something else. But in 5e, Light will always be cast perfectly...forever. Just like many, many other spells (Alarm, Knock, Jump, etc).

I would say its pretty straight-forward what happened here.

1) Gygax parceled out elegance, (in)consistency, (dis)functionality, and "uuuuuh" pretty arbitrarily.

2) Subsequent designers honored that (or didn't).

3) This is either a feature or a bug depending upon your outlook.

 

[Lanefan]

4e says "hi."


PHB 1. Fireball and Lightning Bolt are both d20 + Intelligence attacks against an opponent's Reflex defense score.

<<pulls out dust-covered 4e PHB1...>>

Those affected still take half damage on a miss, making this in terms of outcome exactly the same as a saving throw in other editions - some in the area take full damage, others half, based on a die roll for each - and thus missing my point.

My point, again, is where's the roll that determines whether the targets you're trying to hit are in fact hit at all; and if yes, how many did you get relative to the theoretical maximum? Because as it is now you always hit the theoretical maximum, and that ain't right.

 

[Blue]

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?

Point of order, this is completely untrue.

I can ride my horse for 6 weeks, flawlessly. I can climb ladders without athletics checks flawlessly. I can swim, flawlessly, every time. A check is added when there's hazard, uncertainty.

So it's perfectly reasonable if, say you are in manacles, for a DM to impose a check to get your somatic components right. And that's explicitly how the system is supposed to work - instead of trying to have a rule for every unusual case, instead they explicitly tell the DM to make a ruling on it.

But, just like all of the other things in the large category that work flawlessly every time in 5e without opposition or hazard, so does casting.

So, let's flip this around and start by telling us why I can climb, swim, ride, run, and so many other things without a check if there is no hazard, including in combat, but somatic components should be the single exception to the rule.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would say its pretty straight-forward what happened here.

1) Gygax parceled out elegance, (in)consistency, (dis)functionality, and "uuuuuh" pretty arbitrarily.

2) Subsequent designers honored that (or didn't).

3) This is either a feature or a bug depending upon your outlook.

Agree.

And specifically here I think we can blame the decision to ape Vance's weird-ass magic specifically for causing this situation. In Vance, as I understand it, each individual spell is pretty powerful and stored like a coiled spring in the caster's mind. This is very different to other roads he could have taken - for example Ged in LeGuin's Earthsea books would have been a viable model. If they had gone with Ged/Sparrowhawk the mechanics would be very different. Putting "true names" aside, there would clearly be more in the way of success/failure in casting, and things could go awry and so on.

Actually, did they really have anyone else to model as a wizard apart from Ged and the guy in Vance's books? Like, all the other wizards I can think of who were in 1960s books or earlier, so could have influenced Gygax in time for D&D in 1974, either basically don't cast spells (Gandalf) or are "evil sorcerers" who basically only do rituals/summoning, usually which take an extremely long time to cast, or maybe throw the odd bolt of energy at people. Who am I missing from that pre-1974 (preferably pre-1970 because it was so much harder to come across stuff back then) list of potential wizards to model D&D's wizards on? T.H. White's Merlin maybe?

 

[Lanefan]

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"

What I don't get here is that you nicely identify the problem and then speak very dismissively of what it by far the best solution for it: GM-side content curation.

If you-as-GM don't want a spell in your game then take it out! At the very least, don't allow players to choose their spell received on level-up; make it random. And if a spell is causing problems but you need to keep it in the game for whatever reason, find a way to limit or restrict its use (adding a monetary-value component cost is one simple option).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

At the very least, don't allow players to choose their spell received on level-up; make it random.

That's only viable for Wizards, not a single other class in the game. On top of that, even for Wizards it's just turning it into X% chance of having the problem, and you then have to ensure no NPC Wizard have has his spellbook with that spell in fall into their hands. Removing problematic spells is a better solution but doesn't resolve LFQW.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: LFQW, forcing casters to roll to not cast won't resolve LFQW.

Not entirely; but speaking from a 1e standpoint, it does help.

Especially not if you can situationally avoid rolling somehow (or minimize risk), which you'd definitely be able to in some versions of rules.

Agreed, which is why I see things like combat casting as terrible ideas.

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.

That's more of the spell-nerf route, which IMO has already been travelled a considerable distance too far.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I appreciate your apology but no worries and its not necessary.



Let us take 5e and Dungeon World and one instance of a lack of action resolution for Wizards.



vs



There are many spells like Light in 5e (where there is no action resolution component). So how is proficiency or potency determined?

Contrast with DW. Every Light Spell requires the below move be made:



So, in Dungeon World, you may have a proficiency/potency complication that emerges (the first bullet point) or it may be something else. But in 5e, Light will always be cast perfectly...forever. Just like many, many other spells (Alarm, Knock, Jump, etc).

I would say its pretty straight-forward what happened here.

1) Gygax parceled out elegance, (in)consistency, (dis)functionality, and "uuuuuh" pretty arbitrarily.

2) Subsequent designers honored that (or didn't).

3) This is either a feature or a bug depending upon your outlook.

Ok, this is a bad example because Light requires no somatic component (the point of contention in the OP), but the premise for your argument is the same so let's just roll with it.

DW is a different system, of course, and it has a "significant consequence for failure" for each spell cast so requires a check. Your quote doesn't specify what happens if you roll below a 7? Does the spell just out-right fail?

Anyway, how your proficiency in a spell is determined in 5E by one of two factors: you know it (a "known" spell) or you have it prepared ("studied, prayed for, practiced"). When you know how to use something, you don't have to make a check to use it correctly, you make the check to apply it against something that is, in some fashion, resisting it. The magic of many spells could simply automatically overcome that resistance (such as Jump when it alters the reality of the physical universe by propelling the jumper further).

 

[DND_Reborn]

So, let's flip this around and start by telling us why I can climb, swim, ride, run, and so many other things without a check if there is no hazard, including in combat, but somatic components should be the single exception to the rule.

This. Yeah, I was going to try a similar example of making a check when I drive to work every day...

We had some good (i.e. very bad!) snow storms this year. One night driving home I would definitely say I had to make a driving skill check of some sort. It was very hazardous! It took me more than twice as long to get home that night!

Likewise, if I am driving along and a deer jumped out, making a check would be required because of the introduction of a hazard as well.

There is the other thread about climbing a tower with a knotted rope and grappling hook. Many people there wouldn't even require a check.