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

[DND_Reborn]

A good reason not to play 5e, I'd say; or play it with some major modofications.

That's been my struggle for the better part of a year now...

 

[pemerton]

Also, could you not just do like 4E did and have the caster roll instead of the target save and say it's this. Mathematically isn't that basically identical in modern editions? You're just swapping who is rolling.

How would this work with a Knock spell? Or Spider Climb? Or Transmute Rock to Mud?

 

[Aldarc]

<<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.

Fair enough, but it's still probably somewhat closer to what you are looking for. You could, for example, adopt something more akin to PF2 and use critical failure, failure, success, and critical success states that reflect such a fiction.

 

[TheSword]

Considering how few HP Magic-Users (and later Wizards) have in D&D, CON (which in 5E is also used for Concentration checks) is important for them (as much, if not more so than Rogues need it IMO), and they also want a good DEX since they don't typically wear armor.

With the relative importance of DEX and CON in 5E, I don't consider any class in 5E really SAD anymore.

Anyway, as others have pointed out, wizards are rolling either for attacks or their targets are rolling saves. Many spells don't require either, but those often don't affect anyone hostile to the caster.

IMO, good design results in any task being able to have the outcome determined by a single die roll. (Longer situations might require multiple rolls of the same sort, but not different sources.)

I haven’t played a character with Con higher than 12 in the last 5 years. The ‘need’ for high Con is more of a want.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How would this work with a Knock spell? Or Spider Climb? Or Transmute Rock to Mud?

So I'll be happy to discuss that when y'all admit I'm probably right about the actual answer to this puzzle, that being that Gary Gygax was attempting to emulate a very specific and bizarre type of spellcasting, that of the Dying Earth books, which doesn't feature people just fumbling spells like a putz as a trope (unlike many other takes on spellcasting). My suspicion is that the thinking is the way those spells work means you can't "naturally" screw up the movements - it takes an additional factor (armour restricting movements, other people interfering, getting hurt during the cast, and so on).

Either that or that it's so unlikely with Vancian casting as to not be worth consideration. A similar approach could be found in the old 3.XE Coup de Grace rules where you auto-hit and auto-crit even though obviously IRL, you could screw up such a manuever - it would just be probably less than 5% chance thus not really meriting rolling.

You said before we discuss balance, we need to answer the question of why this is, to answer the puzzle. I believe I have answered it correctly, but literally no-one, including you, has responded on that. AFAICT all the evidence supports my contention. Genuinely I just want someone to say "Okay, you're probably right re: the puzzle, now how to we make spell failure a useful mechanic?"

(I do have some ideas as to how to make a single-roll mechanism work with the spells you mentioned btw, I'm not just being a tease!)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I haven’t played a character with Con higher than 12 in the last 5 years. The ‘need’ for high Con is more of a want.

That's very weak logic and non-existent evidence.

CON is an extremely good stat for casters in 5E. Having more HP is extremely useful, and protects against things a higher AC doesn't, and more importantly, CON also helps with Concentration checks, which can potentially save you from losing an awful lot of spells (and if you're not running a Concentration spell most of the time, you're arguably "doing it wrong" in 5E, given how powerful they tend to be). CON is certainly going to be the second-most-important stat to most casters. DEX is helpful, given it can boost AC and helps with initiative, but there are ways to access heavier armour which are often more efficient than boosting DEX, and initiative doesn't seem as killer in 5E as it was in 3.XE or 4E. As a minor aside, the HD mechanism, which incorporates CON into your rolls means you recuperate well too, rather than potentially eating a bunch more healing spells to "fill you up".

Obviously no-one is disputing that it may have worked fine for you. But we can't know the parameters of what you see as "fine", nor know how exactly the games you've been playing go down. From a mechanical perspective, though, CON is certainly "needed" more than any other non-primary stat for a min-maxed caster.

 

[TheSword]

That's very weak logic and non-existent evidence.

CON is an extremely good stat for casters in 5E. Having more HP is extremely useful, and protects against things a higher AC doesn't, and more importantly, CON also helps with Concentration checks, which can potentially save you from losing an awful lot of spells (and if you're not running a Concentration spell most of the time, you're arguably "doing it wrong" in 5E, given how powerful they tend to be). CON is certainly going to be the second-most-important stat to most casters. DEX is helpful, given it can boost AC and helps with initiative, but there are ways to access heavier armour which are often more efficient than boosting DEX, and initiative doesn't seem as killer in 5E as it was in 3.XE or 4E. As a minor aside, the HD mechanism, which incorporates CON into your rolls means you recuperate well too, rather than potentially eating a bunch more healing spells to "fill you up".

Obviously no-one is disputing that it may have worked fine for you. But we can't know the parameters of what you see as "fine", nor know how exactly the games you've been playing go down. From a mechanical perspective, though, CON is certainly "needed" more than any other non-primary stat for a min-maxed caster.

That because at that point, I didn’t think it was a controversial point.

Wearing heavy armour comes with a serious aesthetic penalty for many people who don’t want their caster in chainmail. Not everyone wants to play Dwarf or take a level of fighter.

Dex is still the super stat, throughout 5e. I’m amazed you’re suggesting otherwise. Even then high Dex is also not a ‘Need’ it’s a ‘Want’.

Con + on spending HD is nice, but hardly essential in a system where you get all your hp on a long rest.

Con to Concentration is also nice but hardly essential when avoiding getting hit is better than taking a hit... either with protections like shield or better still by staying out of melee. Warcaster also makes a high con less necessary. At the levels where Concentration is a problem it is very rare that I don’t have an alternative concentration spell ready to go.

The idea of beefy armoured wizards walking around may suit your style of game. To claim it’s essential is frankly absurd. I remember similar claims on the Paizo boards claiming a wizard couldn’t survive without 16 Con. It was as nonsensical then as it is now.

A wizard can function perfectly fine in a party with Con 10 or 12. Anything more is a Want not a Need in anything other than an optimizers party or white room theorycrafting.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sigh... I avoided some of this logic because it opens a whole can of worms!

For example, a wizard is in combat with some trolls the party is trying to flee. The wizard, being attacked by a troll, is trying to cast Fog Cloud, hoping they can all slip away. He is clearly in a hazardous situation and under duress. Should he need to make a check?

A Concentration check.

I haven't played a caster in 5e, but I believe casters can make a Constitution check in this circumstance.

IMO Pathfinder 1e handled that better by using the caster's key stat, but that's just my opinion.

The idea of beefy armoured wizards walking around may suit your style of game. To claim it’s essential is frankly absurd. I remember similar claims on the Paizo boards claiming a wizard couldn’t survive without 16 Con. It was as nonsensical then as it is now.

I agree. Also, in most editions (other than 4th) wizards could use the Mage Armor spell, so even if they were beefy, they could be protected by invisible, weightless magical force.

 

[Mannahnin]

Can the caster (not a third party) of a Vancian spell, accidentally (not intentionally) screw up the casting of that spell?

This entire thread and your comments seem to be premised on the assumption that they can. With non-Vancian spells, with many magic systems, absolutely the caster can screw it up. Harry Potter's approach for example has people screwing up spells all the time. It's a very common trope as I mentioned. But is it present in the Dying Earth books? No-one has answered that. I suspect the answer may be "no".

My suspicion is, and this 100% fits the D&D model, AFAIK, is that Vancian spells are essentially "self-casting". Once you've "uploaded" them into your head, they're self-executing programs that move your limbs as necessary. This is why there's no failure chance from the caster themselves. Only third parties interrupting the spell, or restrictions on movement that stop the limbs moving as the program attempts to execute can screw up the spell.

EDIT - Because nobody else seems to have read the Dying Earth books (which seem incredible, but whatever), I've just downloaded a collection of them on to my Kindle and we shall see I guess. Should be a trip if nothing else.

They can, but to my recollection competent/skilled magicians generally do not. Cugel the Clever screws up spells by mispronunciation multiple times, to my recollection, and this (and a similar incident with The Grey Mouser mispronouncing a spell) is the origin of thieves being able to mess up when casting spells from scrolls in D&D.

Origins of Thieves Using Scrolls - Cugel the Clever

Math, history, and design of old-school D&D.

deltasdnd.blogspot.com

Origins of Thieves Using Scrolls - Gray Mouser

Math, history, and design of old-school D&D.

deltasdnd.blogspot.com

I remember a scene in Jack Vance's Lyonesse where a master magician is talking to a minion/apprentice and asks him how his visualization exercises are going. He talks about envisioning a tree in perfect detail, its dimensions and attributes fixed and clear to the extent that one can count the leaves, then count the same visualized leaves again and come to the exact same number. The apprentice bemoans the difficulty and wishes he could get more magical devices which don't require such demanding work to master.

I haven't read all the Dying Earth magician stories yet, I'm sorry to report. In the couple of them about Mazirian I've read I don't remember him screwing up any spells, even under duress. But I wouldn't be shocked if less-competent casters did make mistakes, as Cugel did.

I also haven't read the Harold Shea Incomplete Enchanter books by de Camp and Pratt which are the other immediate influence on Gary's concepts of fantasy magic, but to my understanding the protagonists screw up magic in those books too.

Harold Shea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So as for why Gary made the design decisions he did? I suspect it's really the game balance/differentiation of play style between classes concept. Fighters and Thieves get to do their stuff all day long, but they might miss or fail the check. Magic Users have limited use (which IS extremely Dying Earth*) of quite powerful spells, but those spells are usually (barring Saving Throws and such) guaranteed to work.

(*Reference the story Mazirian the Magician, in which the titular character memorizes his capacity of 5 mighty spells, which he employs one at a time to overcome various challenges and dangers)

 

[DND_Reborn]

A Concentration check.

I haven't played a caster in 5e, but I believe casters can make a Constitution check in this circumstance.

IMO Pathfinder 1e handled that better by using the caster's key stat, but that's just my opinion.

He hasn't taken any damage though, so just a DC 10?

It's a perfectly good answer, but the OP was looking for Dexterity checks when such somatic components were involved...