D&D 5E Attack cantrips are a waste of the DM's time
- Thread starter Wulfgar76
- Start date
S
Sunseeker
Guest
It's my opinion that targeted attacks of any sort should be rolled by the person doing the targeting. Untargeted attacks should be rolled defensively. Chain attacks should initially be targeted then defensive.
Manbearcat
Legend
I suppose you can count me as your "entitlement deprived" GM then as I very much like the dynamic of at-will attack and utility cantrips in play.
R
RHGreen
Guest
I would like it the players did all the rolling. The DM has enough to worry about and it gives the players something to do on the DM's turn rather than just switching off and waiting for their next turn.
Player Turn.
Player roll D20+Mod Attack against Static Defence Score.
DM Turn.
Player roll D20+Mod Defence against Static Attack Score.
The DM would still need to perform hidden rolls such as perception/stealth sort of stuff, but this would cut them down.
Player Turn.
Player roll D20+Mod Attack against Static Defence Score.
DM Turn.
Player roll D20+Mod Defence against Static Attack Score.
The DM would still need to perform hidden rolls such as perception/stealth sort of stuff, but this would cut them down.
Ha! That's great news. Thanks, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]!
Manbearcat
Legend
Did you catch a follow-on saving throw; eg is there a ranged attack (presumably vs AC as there is no "touch AC") and then a saving throw a la 3.x? That would be terrible! Or did it seem like it was Attack vs AC? While it would be easy enough to do, it would be a gigantor whiplash of a change (a good one in my estimation but huge nonetheless...and one that would, naturally, provoke controversy) to redo the current combat interface to a unified Attack vs Defense (AC, Fort, Ref, Will) framework.
Its quick clear at this point that the Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma Saving Throws are not finding much headway in 5e. Each of them working as a proxy for Fort, Ref, and Will respectively would be a welcome change for ease of use and attribute parity.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Did 3.X do this much? I can think of an effect offhand that did this (Disintegrate), but most didn't (Scorching Ray, Polar Ray), from what I recall. It was usually one or the other, as far as I remember. Admittedly, I haven't played it consistently in years. As always, play what you like
Manbearcat
Legend
Did 3.X do this much? I can think of an effect offhand that did this (Disintegrate), but most didn't (Scorching Ray, Polar Ray), from what I recall. It was usually one or the other, as far as I remember. Admittedly, I haven't played it consistently in years. As always, play what you like
Yup. Most didn't. But enough did for my group to have an ample dataset of negative experiences; enough to arrive at the conclusion that such spells were collectively vetoed (after iterations of house rules to try to hammer them into functional shape) at the table (in many cases not due to handling time or mental overhead but due to inexplicable balance issues with the spells). Off the top of my head is Fire Seeds, Disintegrate, Slay Living, Ray of Exhaustion, Touch of Fatigue, Poison, Ghoul Touch, Chill Touch, the Dispel <Alignment> line...and there were plenty of 3rd party products that had the touch attack > partial save mechanic.
Plaguescarred
Hero
I wouldn't mind if some of the attacking spells and cantrips, especially those usable at-will, use an attack roll on the attacker's part rather than a saving throw on the defender's part.
Similar Threads
