D&D 5E (2014) As passive as a laser cleric.

[Sadrik]

Touch attacks are DEX saves. I am totally for that. This gets rid of the need for a separate touch AC score. I am all for that small change.

 

[Klaus]

Touch attacks are DEX saves. I am totally for that. This gets rid of the need for a separate touch AC score. I am all for that small change.

Yes, but I'm advocating for some spells to *not* be touch attacks, and be simply "attacks", so the player can roll something.

 

[Sadrik]

Yes, but I'm advocating for some spells to *not* be touch attacks, and be simply "attacks", so the player can roll something.

If the attack goes against armor class then that means is very similar in effect to a sword swing or claw attack.


Also this is not just an issue with the cleric it is an issue with all spells that utilize a touch attack. For me as a player who likes to play wizards, I don't care who makes the roll so long as I get the effect, in this case damage. Dodging a ray, is a reflex save. I think that is cool. If you want to make an attack roll, use your mace.

 

[Klaus]

If the attack goes against armor class then that means is very similar in effect to a sword swing or claw attack.


Also this is not just an issue with the cleric it is an issue with all spells that utilize a touch attack. For me as a player who likes to play wizards, I don't care who makes the roll so long as I get the effect, in this case damage. Dodging a ray, is a reflex save. I think that is cool. If you want to make an attack roll, use your mace.

And I've seen far too many players that almost "deflate" when they cast a spell, ask "what do I roll?" and I answer "nothing, I'll roll the bad guy's resistance". Psychologically, it feels as though their character's effectiveness is out of their hands.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yes, but I'm advocating for some spells to *not* be touch attacks, and be simply "attacks", so the player can roll something.

The player still rolls damage. I only think it's a problem when the player doesn't roll anything, like 4e Essentials' version of magic missile.

 

[Sage Genesis]

And I've seen far too many players that almost "deflate" when they cast a spell, ask "what do I roll?" and I answer "nothing, I'll roll the bad guy's resistance". Psychologically, it feels as though their character's effectiveness is out of their hands.

It doesn't just feel that way, it genuinely is that way. This is highlighted when effects like magic resistance come into play. Under the old scheme, magic resistance couldn't protect you against Shocking Grasp or the like. Now it can.

(As you might be able to tell, I don't really disapprove of this change.)

 

[Klaus]

The player still rolls damage.

Unless it's "save negates".

 

[Wulfgar76]

I heard a chorus of 'lame!' this saturday when I told my players I would be rolling saves for all cantrip attacks.

It did seem strange to now be rolling saves for all single-target 'rays' and 'touch ' spells, which behave just like weapons. Armor and shields should help you avoid things like Ray of Frost, and an especially good 'shot' with a Lance of Faith should be a critical hit (crits are impossible with save-to-resist).

Of course saving throws make more sense for area spells (like Fireball) and 'passive' spells that are more 'resisted' than 'dodged' (like Charm Person).

I don't know why they changed this when attack rolls seem to make much more sense. My preference would be to keep attack rolls on spells where it makes more sense than making a save.

 

[Ebon Shar]

I had already planned to allow crits on a rolled "1" on saving throws for direct attack damage spells. My players got accustomed to have an opportunity to crit with their ray spells, especially Lance of Faith, so I see no reason to remove that option. It adds to the excitement of the game.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Unless it's "save negates".

No reason you can't roll for damage at the same time the DM rolls the save.