D&D 5E Rolling for All Spells

[Ahnehnois]

I think a roll to cast a spell is a move a long time coming. Not an attack roll, an actual roll to cast the spell. It's pretty much inevitable that it'll happen eventually. Not with this edition, though, I think.

 

[MichaelSomething]

You do know that the Dungeon Crawl Classic RPG system does have a magic system where you roll for every spell, generating random effects...

 

[Szatany]

One thing I would like to see is to require casters to roll a check (magic ability modifier + skill die) for every spell they cast. I don't like magic being automatic and predictable. I also think this could have a lot of mechanical benefits. A higher roll could improve the spell's duration or other effects, like what 4e did with rituals.

Me too, but the failure should not waste the slot. Instead spell should be unavailable until short rest.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Call me old school, I am firmly in the magic is automatic boat. No to hit rolls for fireball or charm person please. I also want touch spells to be automatic to hit. The interesting thing about spells is not if they hit or not (or successfully activate like you are proposing above) but if the save defends against the magic. For instance, ray of enfeeblement should auto hit but the targeted person should try and resist the effects of the magic. "Hitting" is not what I care about with spellcasters, effecting is what I care about. Leave the hitting to the warrior types.

Whether the attacker sets the save DC and the defender rolls, or the attacker rolls and the defender sets the "AC" required to "hit", it makes no actual difference. The only difference is who rolls and who sets the DC. I would actually prefer that all such spells be opposed rolls instead, since I think there's a definite contest going on when one person casts a spell and the other tries to resist it.

Me too, but the failure should not waste the slot. Instead spell should be unavailable until short rest.

Rituals in 4e didn't fail if you rolled poorly, IIRC. The spell just had a better effect the higher your result. Utility spells could work like that.

 

[Jester David]

Whether the attacker sets the save DC and the defender rolls, or the attacker rolls and the defender sets the "AC" required to "hit", it makes no actual difference. The only difference is who rolls and who sets the DC. I would actually prefer that all such spells be opposed rolls instead, since I think there's a definite contest going on when one person casts a spell and the other tries to resist it.

They did this in the package before the first public package, and you can still try this out by rolling instead of adding a static +10 to the save DC.

What you'll find is that it's slower (doubling the math) and is not particularly fun. Suddenly instead of one roll determining success or failure there's two. For every time you roll really well and beat the bad guy there's that time you roll terrible and they effortlessly pass the save.

Try it. Playtest it. Make spellcasting opposed. See how it actually works at your table. If you like it you can keep it as it's a pretty darn simple variant rule.

 

[Sadrik]

I would actually prefer that all such spells be opposed rolls instead, since I think there's a definite contest going on when one person casts a spell and the other tries to resist it.

I think it feels like there should be a contest. The name contest evokes the idea of rolling off against one another. I could not more vehemently disagree though. Contested d20 rolls are supremely swingy and random with a possible range of -19 to +19 that is 39 points. Do you really want to basically roll a d39 to resolve that? In fact to make them work properly you have to have huge numbers added to them to get predictable outcomes. Remember the size modifier for grapple checks? With tightened up math, contested rolls need to just go away and not rear their math averse ugly head again. It really is too bad the designers have them still in there.

To go back to your original concept which is not a contested roll it is a roll vs. DC to cast and a roll vs. DC to hit and then no save to resist. Did I get that right?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I´s like spells attacking Ability scores if that makes sense.

A ray could target Dexterity score.
Or maybe dexterity score or AC whichever is lower...

And on a hit, the defender makes a fortitude saving throw.

The advantage of such a system is each person only doing one roll... in 4e it felt quite wrong, that you did primary, secondary and tertiary attacks... but that was still better than attacks which targeted AC and applied mind effecting things.

 

[keterys]

I don't think we'll get checks to cast spells this go around, though I do think it'd be a valuable balancing mechanism in the toolbox. I also don't particularly feel the need to have attacks you have to hit then grant a save.

From a more "realistic" standpoint - I'm baffled about the arguments that you don't have to aim fireballs, though. I mean, if there's anything you _should_ aim it's a fireball.

 

[Wulfgar76]

From a more "realistic" standpoint - I'm baffled about the arguments that you don't have to aim fireballs, though. I mean, if there's anything you _should_ aim it's a fireball.

Fireball, and especially Lightning Bolt, are spells that really could go either way. There is an element of the caster 'aiming' to hit a location, as well as the defenders scrambling to 'dodge' out of the way.

I hope they take each spell on a case-by-case basis. Chill Touch should not be a Dexterity Save, it should be a spell attack roll. Hold Person should never require an attack roll, and should remain a Wisdom Save.

Right now having at-will attack cantrips be saves is pretty dumb, especially since most of them are either rays or touch attacks where the caster 'aims' to hit. As DM, I have better things to do than save for half damage on a 1d8.

 

[keterys]

I guess. But then the argument is that you're trying to hit someone with a shocking grasp and they're _not_ dodging, because they aren't rolling a save?

Spells should get saves or attacks based on whatever makes the spell play better, cause you can't really argue realism for one side or another. In most cases, that means Area spells should give saves. That leaves just attacks for things which could go against armor.

Which cues an argument about why armor should or shouldn't work against Ray of Frost or Magic Missile as well as they work against a frost battleaxe or arrow, I suppose. (Not really)