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

[corwyn77]

But this rule is not confined to Gygax's AD&D. It's a feature of 3E and 5e D&D. Is there anything to be said for it other than legacy?

There are a metric ton of things in 5e and PF that are just legacy/sacred cows. 4e broke some of those and stuff got real.

 

[corwyn77]

So, how many ugly letters am I going to get if I point out that Gygax, while instrumental and visionary, was not actually a particularly good or self-consistent game designer?

None from me; while I appreciate Gygax for creating a genre of game I love, he is highly overrated as a writer of stuff.

 

[Lanefan]

But this rule is not confined to Gygax's AD&D. It's a feature of 3E and 5e D&D.

Well, yes and no. Both 3e and 5e have various options that allow casting even if you take damage or are otherwise jostled during casting (combat casting in 3e, 5e has an equivalent I believe) or are partly restrained (in 5e you only need one hand free to cast; the other can be hanging on to a cliffside or fending off a foe); options that 1e didn't have. Which means your point about casting being automatic in 1e has been dialled to eleven here.

It's strange - with each passing edition the default design solution for overpowered casters has been to nerf the spells; yet at the same time they keep shooting that solution in the foot by making those spells easier and more reliable to cast. And in 5e they get cantrips that actually do stuff - as opposed to the 1e ones from UA that for the most part really didn't - which they can cast all day long.

Far better IMO to keep the 1e sense of magic-casting being high risk (you can easily be interrupted), high reward (if you do get the spell away, you know it's going to pack a punch), and limited availability (no at-wills).

 

[Krachek]

But this rule is not confined to Gygax's AD&D. It's a feature of 3E and 5e D&D. Is there anything to be said for it other than legacy?

IMO it’s a romantic legacy. There is slight hint in the rules to let the DM spice up casting or concentration in some exceptional situation. Pretty much like in a Dr strange or Harry Potter movie, the casting is hindered just enough to add some thrill once in a while, but overall casting is done freely. DnD is full of contradictions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't understand what affecting anyone hostile to the caster has to do with it. Picking a lock or disarming a trap or even picking the typical pocket doesn't affect anyone hostile to the caster, but checks are required.

You don't think that trap is hostile to the caster? You don't think picking someone's pocket will make them hostile if you get caught?

My phrasing was general. In short, most spells require a roll to affect someone who don't want to be affected in the form of an spell attack roll or a saving throw against it. They don't also make a roll to successfully cast the spell--that would be two rolls to affect something.

Just like a rogue doesn't make two rolls to disarm a trap (sure, maybe one to find it, maybe another to figure it out (if you use that, most tables don't IME...)). You don't make two rolls to pick a pocket, and so on. A fighter doesn't make two rolls to attack someone with a sword.

Having a caster make a successful check to cast the spell would be like making a fighter make a check to determine if he holding the proper end of the sword to attack someone with the pointy end.

In 5E, you make one roll to determine the success (or progression) in one task. Hopefully that clear up the point I was making. If not, oh well. shrug

 

[Manbearcat]

Speaking of being boned for multiple rolls. I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing?

Are we talking about the multiple checks that a Fighter would have to make to climb a 75-90 degree slope and overhang in order to ascend the 200 meter face (which would be a 20 % to 60 % chance of falling in AD&D WSG rules pending Mountaineering and circumstantial mods, a DC 25 Climb min in 3.x, and surely DC 20 Str/Ath min in 5e)?

The face that the Wizard can just press the Spider Climb spell button and not have to make any rolls at all and render the obstacle obsolete?

Things like that (or the myriad of other spells/rituals that a Wizard can deploy to obviate obstacles where the Fighter would have to undergo multiple tests within the action resolution mechanics that would likely lead to major complications if not outright failure)?

You guys have literally depicted the Fighter's lot in AD&D, 3.x, and 5e in the overwhelming bulk of noncombat challenges, whether it be parley (Charm Person), ascending a cliff face (Spider Climb), engaging in a rooftop chase (Jump/Expeditious Retreat/Longstrider et al...or just Hold Person because eff it), etc, etc (due to the granular task resolution nature of these systems and attendant DCs at minimum - but also the maths/build issues in AD&D and 3.x).

 

[pemerton]

You don't think that trap is hostile to the caster? You don't think picking someone's pocket will make them hostile if you get caught?

At least traditionally, a trap in D&D is neutral, and picking someone's pocket may make them hostile if caught, but they're not hostile when the attempt is made. They're essentially passive - that's how pocket picking works as best I understand it.

most spells require a roll to affect someone who don't want to be affected in the form of an spell attack roll or a saving throw against it. They don't also make a roll to successfully cast the spell--that would be two rolls to affect something.

Just like a rogue doesn't make two rolls to disarm a trap

But a MU/wizard doesn't need to make any roll to - for instance - climb away from an attacker using Spider Climb. Whereas a thief or similar character does. Why is a MU able to perform the intricate gestures to cast a Knock spell automatically, whereas a thief/rogue etc is not able to do the same when it comes to picking a lock?

 

[Aldarc]

However, there is a tangential casting puzzle across all editions of D&D that has bothered me since day one: an archer has to roll to aim her shot; a person throwing a lit vial of oil has to roll to aim his throw, so why doesn't a caster have to roll to aim her ranged spell?

I've long since fixed this in my own game, but it still bugs me that the core game gives casters this huge (and IMO undeserved) advantage.

4e says "hi."

I don't remember seeing anything in the 4e rules regarding having to aim a fireball or lightning bolt; though if this came in after the initial round of DMG-PH-MM releases I'd have missed it as those were the only 4e rulebooks I bought.

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

 

[Aldarc]

Imagine this "totally not an edited double-post" is filled with brilliant content.

 

[DND_Reborn]

At least traditionally, a trap in D&D is neutral, and picking someone's pocket may make them hostile if caught, but they're not hostile when the attempt is made. They're essentially passive - that's how pocket picking works as best I understand it.

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.

But a MU/wizard doesn't need to make any roll to - for instance - climb away from an attacker using Spider Climb. Whereas a thief or similar character does. Why is a MU able to perform the intricate gestures to cast a Knock spell automatically, whereas a thief/rogue etc is not able to do the same when it comes to picking a lock?

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).