D&D 5E Rolling for All Spells

[Wulfgar76]

When you trying to shoot a single target with a ray, or touch them with your hand, an attack roll works better.

More often than not, it makes sense for these single-target evocation spells to target AC: things like thick leather vests, chain mail, plate steel and shields definitely DO help you avoid/resist many magical energies like balls of fire, bolts of lightning, sprays of acid and blasts of cold.

 

[Blackbrrd]

For the outcome of the attack, it doesn't matter if the attacker or defender rolls. If you have a contest (both roll) it slows down the game.

I prefer the attacker to always roll the dice, since it's the same mechanic you have for all other attacks and you can easily incorporate crit's on a 20 and such. In addition, when it's my turn, I want to roll the dice and see how it goes instead of having the DM roll saving throws and say: "nah, they all saved". I want to be able to curse my own dice, instead of the DM if my attack goes badly.

I do see some argue that it makes no sense to have attack rolls for fireballs or charm spells. I would argue that no spell attack comes out the same and that the attack roll simulates that. If the magic-user is having a bad day the fireball might be all whimpy, off-target or maybe the he got distracted by the looks of that Succubus.

In conclusion:
I want attack rolls for all offensive spells, but I do see that logically saving throws or opposed rolls makes as much sense in a simulationist view, but I prefer giving the roll to the active character, not the passive one.

Slightly off topic:
I do prefer one attack roll even vs many targets (for fireballs for instance), the 4e way of doing it is just slow. It makes spells more binary/luck based, so it's not to the advantage of the players (since one unlucky battle kills character). I am not so sure this is a good idea though.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I don't know if this is what the OP was getting at, but I'm a big fan of DCC's spell outcome tables.

If anybody were to put together such a system of tables for the DDN spells, I'd be inclined to pay good money for them.

 

[Sadrik]

When you trying to shoot a single target with a ray, or touch them with your hand, an attack roll works better.

Right so STR is an important stat for wizards so they can get the attack bonus to hit with their touch attack. And then further, you think that the attack once hit should allow no save against the magic. Did I frame your thoughts on this properly?


As to the concept of who rolls the dice I think, that could simply be a matter of DMs/Players choice. If you want to roll to roll for your fireball or roll for your charm person the math can easily account for something like that. It should be a choice that the group makes. That said though, it needs to be a save (again I don't care who rolls the dice). Saves resist effects, spells do effects. I dont want a wizard to cast a ray spell and then roll a DEX based ranged attack to determine if his effect worked. Then the target if hit gets no save. I would rather see, the ray get cast, the ray hits automatically, then the target determines if the magic affected him or not with a save. This works like this with all spells other than touch spells and ray like spells. Can you imagine if charm person was a ray? DEX check to hit, no save once hit. that is just silly. The important thing for magic, is if the effect happens and not if you hit or miss. Leave hitting to the weapons, leave the saves to the spells. Luckily in the playtest they seem to agree with that notion.

 

[Hussar]

Attacking AC incorporates Dex, no reason to ever have separated those (4e), or even invented touch AC (3e).

In no edition since 2e has plate armor been even remotely worthwhile compared to a light-armored build where you keep your dex as high as possible. But yeah, your spell fizzling when you're being harassed during combat adds excitement, and was a major thing they broke in 3e. They should fix it to make magic less pew pew and more whoah, BOOM

I'd point out that in Basic/Expert D&D, there was no spell failure. Spells could be cast in combat with impunity.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Right so STR is an important stat for wizards so they can get the attack bonus to hit with their touch attack. And then further, you think that attack once hit should allow no save against the magic. Did I frame your thoughts on this properly?

Nah, you probably missed it completely.

My take on it is that the magic user hits better if he controls the spell better. In other words int to hit for wizard spells and wis to hit for cleric spells. It's the same stat you currently have the save DC's for.

 

[Sadrik]

Nah, you probably missed it completely.

My take on it is that the magic user hits better if he controls the spell better. In other words int to hit for wizard spells and wis to hit for cleric spells. It's the same stat you currently have the save DC's for.

Ok broken down lets assume a wizard casts a ray:
Roll to hit method:
d20+INT vs. AC (10 + DEX + Armor + shield + other AC bonuses)

But you will also have to have another math system for the spells that are not rays and touch attacks, Saves:
10+ INT (DC) vs. d20 + save stat + save bonuses

What the designers have done is simply bring the rays and touch attacks into the fold of the regular save system. It also puts the emphasis on whether the spell affects the target rather than if the target is hit. 1e and 2e both had rays that auto-hit but did not auto-affect.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
But you will also have to have another math system for the spells that are not rays and touch attacks, Saves: ..

No, you would drop saves and just let the attacker do the rolling. One mechanic for all attacks.

 

[Sadrik]

Understood. All spells go against AC. Either your position is off or my understanding of your position is off. I would like to think my understanding of your position is off.

I am just guessing here but you want the save system but you want the active player to roll the dice. Is that a good way of representing your position? If that is the case I am fine with your position. I don't care who rolls the dice. The magical effect is what needs to be saved against not the if I hit with my spell. If we can agree with that, I think we are actually in the same boat.

 

[GSHamster]

I'm slightly confused. I thought the OP was advocating something like a Concentration or Willpower check to actually control the magic. And if the check fails, the spell "fizzles".

Yet most of the discussion seems to be about to-hit rolls.