D&D 5E As passive as a laser cleric.

[Kobold Stew]

One of the "silent" changes made in the latest test packet is a change to the way attacks work with the spells used by the cleric of a Lightbringer deity. Instead of requiring an attack roll (as before), they now require a Dex roll to avoid. This will make playing a laser cleric a lot less fun.

Let's look at the Lance of Faith spell, which becomes ubiquitous -- a fun spell that gets used in reactions, in attacks, and in opportunity attacks. Pretty cool. Except now that it requires a Dex roll to avoid, the player doesn't get to roll to hit -- the PC only sets the DC, and the DM gets to roll. All the time.

Boo!

(Note I'm not concerned about the drop in damage from 2d6 to 1d8 -- that's a fair tweak, and part of larger issues of rebalancing).

Are there issues with this I'm missing?

Obviously, some monsters will do better and some worse as a result of this, but the real negative to me seems to be taking the fun away from the player, who now never gets to roll to hit.

Because it was a magical attack, both the previous version and this one are still drawing on Wisdom, so that's a wash.

This is (or at least used to be) a build I want to play, but I want to have fun with it -- I want to roll to hit, and I'd even be pretty pleased if instead of a magical attack it was calculated as a ranged attack, from Dexterity rather than Wisdom.

 

[Rune]

If this is an issue, it's not really difficult for the DM to have the cleric roll the opponent's Dexterity save. Some DMs even prefer to have the players roll all the dice.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Even if this is the solution, you're still rolling (for the other guy) to fail.

 

[Manabarbs]

Yeah, same thing happened with some wizard spells. In general, spells now just require saves, rather than attack rolls. There might be an exception or two. I think they might just be trying things out. The PC does get to roll the damage die, at least, so you don't get away with avoiding touching the dice completely.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I agree. I want them to change the cantrips back to having an attack roll (and adding your ability modifier to damage). As long as these spells require a save instead of an attack roll, the player never gets to make attack rolls for his at-will attacks, and he can never, ever crit. As the OP said, this makes playing a caster much less fun.

 

[Li Shenron]

It would make sense for plain-and-simple attack spells (i.e. spells which target one creature and deal damage) to work with an attack roll instead of a ST.

I think this is slightly better for the defenders also, that can have a decent AC either from high Dex or wearing an armor (and some characters also have other ways), while only those with a high Dex would be obviously well defended in case of a ST.

If the spell is meant to essentially replace a weapon attack, melee or ranged, then why not following the same rules as them?

OTOH IMO they made these changes in order to remove the magical attack bonus progression from the game, to simplify.

This is a good thing, but then those attack spells could just use the normal attack bonus of the spellcaster class instead, if they have one, or alternatively the spellcasting bonus (depending how they will end up scaling against the AC).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would like ray spells following the pattern:

attack rol vs raw attribute. Dex 16: DC 16

This way, a ray is very effective vs someone in heavy plate, but less effective vs someone relying on high dex and light armor. Would bring a nice balance, and would allow clerics to make use of both, lance of faith and a weapon, as they are effective vs different things. I would never go back to attacking AC.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This seems to me to be another good example of what is gained by doing long-term open playtests.

By doing magical attacks one way for one packet, then switching it up in the next packet... it's actually forcing us to look at both methods and coming to opinions and conclusions on which way looks, feels, and works better. So comments we're getting here (and in the surveys) are probably the bread-and-butter of their determination of which direction it really should ultimately go.

If they didn't switch things up... people would be probably just make comments about other things in the playtest that they noticed and liked, and thus WotC might never find out whether using the Magical Attack Bonus or just using saving throws actually mattered to people one way or another. That issue might've completely slipped through the process without comment (and thus they'd never know if what they had was indeed the best way to go).

It's the same reason why occasionally putting in alignment guidelines/restrictions to the paladin and monk is a good thing-- because it generates conversation about whether it's good to have, so that WotC can get a much broader sense of where people stand on the issue.

 

[Klaus]

Several spells that are now requiring saves were spells that were "touch" spells in 3e (bypassing armor). If you acknowledge that, yes, being in heavy armor and wielding a shield could protect you from some magical attacks, they can go back to being simple ranged attacks (vs. AC). I have no problem with a knight deflecting a lance of faith with a shield, for instance.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I liked 4e shields adding to reflex saves.