• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Magical attacks - do they all require to-hit rolls?

harassed

First Post
Been reading through the playtest material and, on my first pass, I thought I'd completely misunderstood how magical attacks worked. My initial impression was that melee attacks were the traditional D&D d20+mods vs AC but that magical attacks auto-hit. Then, depending on the spell description, the target could make a save to avoid/mitigate the effect.

On re-reading, I noticed that magical attacks stated a melee/ranged attack was required but possibly followed by a save for the target to avoid/mitigate the effect.

On a more detailed read through of the spell listings, I think both cases are true. At the bottom of p24 of the "How to Play" booklet, the section on "Attack Spells" suggests that _some_ spells require a melee or ranged attack roll and the next section on p25 "Spells and Saving Throws" states that _some_ spell effects may be avoided if a target makes a successful save.

Where the confusion comes in is with the spell lists themselves. For instance, the 1st level wizard spell "Burning Hands" (p26) makes no mention of an attack roll at all but does mention half damage on a successful save. As it's a cone effect, does that mean everyone in the cone is automatically hit but can save for half damage or do you have to roll to hit (vs AC) first?

Another example is the 1st level cleric spell "Command" (p27) which again makes no mention of an attack roll - and in fact, rolling vs AC seems stupid for a charm effect, anyway which is presumably why Will existed in 4e. The description of Command does again mention a Wisdom save to resist the spell entirely (unless the target has fewer than x HP). If there is was attack roll required, then the cleric has to roll d20+mods vs AC to "hit", then the target gets to save to avoid the effect entirely which massively reduces the chance of the spell working even if the to-hit roll is successful.

On the other hand, spells such as "Shocking Grasp"and "Spiritual Hammer" (both p30) explicitly state that a melee attack roll is required.

It appears, therefore, that only those spells which explicitly state they require a melee or ranged attack need any sort of to-hit mechanic, with the remainder either applying their effects whatever, or requiring the target to save. While I actually like this mechanic (if it's correct), it does mean that players playing spellcasting characters would be in the interesting situation of not having to roll any dice at all for some magical attacks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kinak

First Post
haraseed said:
It appears, therefore, that only those spells which explicitly state they require a melee or ranged attack need any sort of to-hit mechanic, with the remainder either applying their effects whatever, or requiring the target to save. While I actually like this mechanic (if it's correct), it does mean that players playing spellcasting characters would be in the interesting situation of not having to roll any dice at all for some magical attacks.
I think you've got it. This is basically how it worked up through 4e.

Basically, you cast a spell, then do what it's description says. If it doesn't say to make an attack roll, you don't. If it doesn't say your enemy gets a save, they don't.

Hope that helps.

Cheers!
Kinak
 

Klaus

First Post
Been reading through the playtest material and, on my first pass, I thought I'd completely misunderstood how magical attacks worked. My initial impression was that melee attacks were the traditional D&D d20+mods vs AC but that magical attacks auto-hit. Then, depending on the spell description, the target could make a save to avoid/mitigate the effect.

On re-reading, I noticed that magical attacks stated a melee/ranged attack was required but possibly followed by a save for the target to avoid/mitigate the effect.

On a more detailed read through of the spell listings, I think both cases are true. At the bottom of p24 of the "How to Play" booklet, the section on "Attack Spells" suggests that _some_ spells require a melee or ranged attack roll and the next section on p25 "Spells and Saving Throws" states that _some_ spell effects may be avoided if a target makes a successful save.

Where the confusion comes in is with the spell lists themselves. For instance, the 1st level wizard spell "Burning Hands" (p26) makes no mention of an attack roll at all but does mention half damage on a successful save. As it's a cone effect, does that mean everyone in the cone is automatically hit but can save for half damage or do you have to roll to hit (vs AC) first?

Another example is the 1st level cleric spell "Command" (p27) which again makes no mention of an attack roll - and in fact, rolling vs AC seems stupid for a charm effect, anyway which is presumably why Will existed in 4e. The description of Command does again mention a Wisdom save to resist the spell entirely (unless the target has fewer than x HP). If there is was attack roll required, then the cleric has to roll d20+mods vs AC to "hit", then the target gets to save to avoid the effect entirely which massively reduces the chance of the spell working even if the to-hit roll is successful.

On the other hand, spells such as "Shocking Grasp"and "Spiritual Hammer" (both p30) explicitly state that a melee attack roll is required.

It appears, therefore, that only those spells which explicitly state they require a melee or ranged attack need any sort of to-hit mechanic, with the remainder either applying their effects whatever, or requiring the target to save. While I actually like this mechanic (if it's correct), it does mean that players playing spellcasting characters would be in the interesting situation of not having to roll any dice at all for some magical attacks.
Several spells in 1e, 2e and 3e required no rolls from their casters, relying instead on the target rolling the saving throw. This is the case here, moving away (for the moment) from the "attackers always roll" of 4e.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
This makes me feel all warm n' fuzzy inside. :)

If spells were going to require an attack roll all the time, that woulda been my first "houserule" out.

But, perhaps the most important spell question for 5e...Do Magic Missiles automatically hit? From this answer, the opinion of all other magic shall flow. :p [I don't have the playtest pack, so anyone who wants to share some light on this is most welcomed to.]

--SD
 

harassed

First Post
This makes me feel all warm n' fuzzy inside. :)

If spells were going to require an attack roll all the time, that woulda been my first "houserule" out.

But, perhaps the most important spell question for 5e...Do Magic Missiles automatically hit? From this answer, the opinion of all other magic shall flow. :p [I don't have the playtest pack, so anyone who wants to share some light on this is most welcomed to.]

--SD

Yes, yes they do :)
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Traditionally, you had two types:

1) Those that have a skill/targeting element require an attack roll - the old ranged touch attacks for rays, for example.
2) Those that do not allow a save - an area blast like a fireball, for example.
3) Though there were others, such as magic missile, which autohit for a little damage.

It was very rare that a spell would have both.

It seems 5E has has adopted this philosophy. And yes, magic missile autohits.
 

harassed

First Post
I think you've got it. This is basically how it worked up through 4e.

Basically, you cast a spell, then do what it's description says. If it doesn't say to make an attack roll, you don't. If it doesn't say your enemy gets a save, they don't.

Hope that helps.

Cheers!
Kinak

Cool, that makes sense then :) It's a long time since I played anything other than 4e. Mostly missed 3/3.5 but played 2e for a long time 20-odd years ago so you'll have to forgive my poor memory...

Overall, I like most things I've seen in the playtest. Love the advantage/disadvantage thing (in fact I may introduce it as a houserule in my 4e campaign instead of CA). The only thing I'm not convinced by is the hit dice thing and healing/resting in general.

I'll probably do a test run with some of my players this weekend if I can round the reprobates up (if you're reading, you know who you are!).
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
This makes me feel all warm n' fuzzy inside. :)

If spells were going to require an attack roll all the time, that woulda been my first "houserule" out.

But, perhaps the most important spell question for 5e...Do Magic Missiles automatically hit? From this answer, the opinion of all other magic shall flow. :p [I don't have the playtest pack, so anyone who wants to share some light on this is most welcomed to.]

--SD
Like H:):)l they do! It is cool the classic magic missiles are back. But they are a cantrip now and I don't know how to fell about it. I worry a little that a wizard could potentially own an encounter without even making a single attack roll or allowing a single save. I'm not too sure if that spell really belongs in the free-all-day category, but that remains to be seen.
 


KesselZero

First Post
I went through the exact same thought process and came to the same conclusion. Some spells use attack rolls, some don't; ditto saves. What's interesting is that as far as I can tell, all spell attack rolls use your "magic ability"-- usually Int or Wis-- even if they're explicitly making a ranged or melee attack. This is a change from 3e which required ranged touch attacks and the like that used Dexterity. I'm not sure how I feel about this, since it tends to suggest that casters min-max to get the highest magic ability, rather than needing a few points in Dex to hit with their rays and whatnot.

SD: magic missile auto-hits and does 1d4+1 damage! :D
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top