D&D (2024) 5e spell saves versus 4e spell attacks

[Yaarel]

Sorry, but I have to agree with Yaarel on this one: it is not for any of us to decide which features of D&D will or will not change; it is not our intellectual property. And if someone wants to house-rule, "Two TOTALLY SWEET new stats, everybody!," surely that's none of my business, right? So if some fine day WotC eventually comes to agree that those stats are sweet, well, it's their property and their call to make.

The only legitimate gate-keepers here are the owners of the intellectual property.

And even the owners of the intellectual properties prefer to defer to their customer base, and view themselves as stewards of D&D.

 

[Guest 7034872]

It does help a company stay in business...

 

[Yaarel]

By the way, supposing eight abilities.

• Str-Con
• Dex-Ath
• Int-Per
• Cha-Wis

One can go back to the six abilities by assigning Wis and Per the same score, and Dex and Ath the same score. Hence there are only six scores.

 

[Aldarc]

Please stop telling forumers to stop playing D&D.

No single person decides what D&D is. It is an ongoing conversation.

I'm not telling you to stop playing D&D. I'm suggesting that your gaming preferences may be better suited by other games or designing your own fantasy heartbreaker. These are not synonymous statements. I'm also telling you that the composition of the six ability scores are not likely to change. I'm also telling you that your personal preferences are not necessarily shared by the larger fanbase.

Sorry, but I have to agree with Yaarel on this one: it is not for any of us to decide which features of D&D will or will not change; it is not our intellectual property. And if someone wants to house-rule, "Two TOTALLY SWEET new stats, everybody!," surely that's none of my business, right? So if some fine day WotC eventually comes to agree that those stats are sweet, well, it's their property and their call to make.

The only legitimate gate-keepers here are the owners of the intellectual property.

Sorry, but are you agreeing with Yaarel or me here? Because the bold has been a stated part of my position. I am not deciding anything and neither is Yaarel. I recognize that the D&D is larger than either one of us. I recognize that it's WotC's brand:

It would be a massive mistake to conflate your personal views with the will of the majority regarding what "ultimately the benefit for D&D is." As I said, there are a number of TTRPG fantasy heartbreakers that already have your 4/8 attributes, but I can't see the Six Attributes of D&D changing in the next twenty years. Find a game that better suits your needs or make your own, but this is a line that WotC will likely not cross in the foreseeable future.

I also recognize that my own preferences are not necessarily reflected in the larger fanbase or the will of the majority. Please note that I have not said what my personal preferences for the ability scores are. I personally don't like the six ability scores as they are. I do believe from my own participatory experience, however, that the larger D&D fanbase is more recalicitrant to such changes with things like the six ability scores and I don't see those changing anytime soon, especially due to the emphasis on D&D's brand and legacy. WotC is welcome to prove me wrong. It's their game. Likewise, Yaarel is welcome to do what he wants with the game and hack it as he pleases, but I do think - based on the sort of changes I have seen him propose for D&D - that he is pining for a fantasy heartbreaker.

 

[Eric V]

Personally, I have no doubt that having more ability scores for PCs would make the game better (I was convinced after playing the Divinity: Original Sin series).

I also have no doubt that D&DOne will not be switching out from the classic 6 ability scores, because even if it made for a better game, it would be a less popular game (if only because of lack of backwards compatibility), and WotC have made it clear they design for popularity and not much else.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Sorry, but are you agreeing with Yaarel or me here? Because the bold has been a stated part of my position. I am not deciding anything and neither is Yaarel. I recognize that the D&D is larger than either one of us. I recognize that it's WotC's brand:

Okay. So then I find plausible enough your claim that the change he prefers is unlikely to happen--it is. But I also think there's a difference between saying, "Sorry, but I fear that change is unlikely for the official game," versus saying, "Stop advocating for that change. Go play a different game." The former, I think, is probably true; the latter, I think, is a bit dismissive.

 

[leozg]

I think spell attack makes no sense for some spells. Fireball, for example, you cast and you point your finger to the origin of the explosion. Once you do it, the explosion takes place and the explosion is what is "attacking" the ones in the area. Maybe you could roll for attack to check if you hit the origin point of the spell but after that you got no control on how it hits the ones in the area.

 

[Yaarel]

I think spell attack makes no sense for some spells. Fireball, for example, you cast and you point your finger to the origin of the explosion. Once you do it, the explosion takes place and the explosion is what is "attacking" the ones in the area. Maybe you could roll for attack to check if you hit the origin point of the spell but after that you got no control on how it hits the ones in the area.

The Fireball spell conjures fire. To cast it well means, the fire is powerful and distributing evenly covering the entire area. To cast it less well means the fire is weaker, patchy, and inconsistent.

 

[leozg]

The Fireball spell conjures fire. To cast it well means, the fire is powerful and distributing evenly covering the entire area. To cast it less well means the fire is weaker, patchy, and inconsistent.

Fireball power is measured when you roll the spell damage. Attack roll is to decide if you hit or not.

 

[FireLance]

Mathematically, as well as from the gamist perspective, it makes no difference whether the spellcaster makes a spell attack roll or the target(s) make a saving throw.

Hence, I think that the main issue is whether narratively, you favor describing how the spellcaster attacks the targets of the spell in a way that allows for varying degrees of success, or you prefer to decribe how the targets of the spell attempt to avoid its full effects, again to varying degrees of success.

I have decided on an approach that puts this problem squarely on the players of spellcasters, with the added side benefit of potentially curtailing the power of spells, namely, I will only allow PCs to cast spells with attack rolls. If a player wants his PC to cast a spell that is normally resisted by a saving throw, the onus is on the player to come up with a suitable narrative, e.g. describing fireball as an actual ball of fire spiraling from its point of origin out to the normal 30 foot radius area of effect "hitting" (for full damage) or "missing" (for half damage) all the targets in the area.