D&D 5E Rolling for All Spells

[Blackbrrd]

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.

I think we are in the same boat, but we aren't in complete agreement about where the boat is going.

I don't think AC is the correct defense for a lot of spells, something like 4e's Fort/Ref/Will defense is what I think they should go for.

Mathematically it isn't important who rolls, but I hate playing a spellcaster and not being allowed to roll for my own attacks like every other type of character.

 

[Wulfgar76]

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?

No I still like the Spellcasting ability modifier for the to-hit roll for Rays and Touch spells, even if DEX is more realistic. Certainly not STR.
And yes, if the attack roll hits, it means the target took the brunt of the magic, and there is no save under most circumstances. An exception would be a 'Death Touch' spell that slays the target outright, the attack roll would probably deal damage, then trigger a saving throw to determine if the target is slain.

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.

Agree, except for rays, touch spells and cantips. Fireball and Charm person should remain passive attacks where the defender saves to dodge or resist it.

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 is where we disagree.

This works like this with all spells other than touch spells and ray like spells.

It does, and should remain that way.

Can you imagine if charm person was a ray? DEX check to hit, no save once hit. that is just silly.

Agreed, Charm Person is silly as an attack roll. Pit Traps 'attacking' a character's Reflex Defense is even worse.

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.

Disagree. 3rd Edition had Touch and Ranged Touch attacks for spells. 4th Edition was all attack rolls for spells. A few spells in DDN still use an attack roll. Making all spells passive saves would be a big step backward in my opinion.

Rolling a dice to hit with a spell is a robustly fun mechanic that players like and also makes a lot of simulationist sense for certain types of spells. I definitely hope to see spell attack rolls (for the spells that should have one) return in the next playtest.

 

[Sadrik]

I don't think AC is the correct defense for a lot of spells, something like 4e's Fort/Ref/Will defense is what I think they should go for.

The 6 stats represent those 3 defenses in 5e. So you want the save system, just you want to roll the dice to activate/cast/hit or however you want to call it. Active player rolls to see if there effect happens or not.

Mathematically it isn't important who rolls, but I hate playing a spellcaster and not being allowed to roll for my own attacks like every other type of character.

I do believe we are in the same boat. To the designers: This better be an option right up front about who rolls the dice so both our camps are happy.

 

[Sadrik]

Rolling a dice to hit with a spell is a robustly fun mechanic that players like and also makes a lot of simulationist sense for certain types of spells. I definitely hope to see spell attack rolls (for the spells that should have one) return in the next playtest.

What if the math were exactly the same and it was not an out of game setting the DM says all spells will attack or everyone will save vs. spells. What if it were a case by case thing. Since the math will always be the same on either side you could do this. Perhaps the DM does not want the player to know a hidden wizard cast charm person on him so he rolls it as an attack and keeps the results secret. I can see it be a very useful tool in a DMs arsenal to be able to freely switch during play between attacking a defense (4e style) and defending with a savings throw.

 

[Blackwarder]

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

Agree, it will bring Magic Missile back to it's roots of caster disruption spell, that plus rolling for init each round really makes combat exciting.

Warder

 

[Jack99]

Having spells not requiring a to-hit roll from the player is part of giving melee and spellcasters a different feel, something which 4e taught them there ought to be.

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer rolling saving throws.

But more importantly, I prefer spells targetting different defenses, I don't want Dex to be the main defense against spells when it already is the main defense against weapon attacks.

 

[Wulfgar76]

What if the math were exactly the same and it was not an out of game setting the DM says all spells will attack or everyone will save vs. spells. What if it were a case by case thing. Since the math will always be the same on either side you could do this.

Except the math isn't the same. AC is the sum of a different set of variables (armor, dexterity, possibly a shield). There are cases where a spell makes the most sense to target AC and not Wisdom, Constitution or even Dexterity. These cases are rays and touch spells. For those kind of spells an attack roll feels right and is the most fun (IMO). All other spells should use passive saves.

Perhaps the DM does not want the player to know a hidden wizard cast charm person on him so he rolls it as an attack and keeps the results secret. I can see it be a very useful tool in a DMs arsenal to be able to freely switch during play between attacking a defense (4e style) and defending with a savings throw.

DMs rolling secret saves is fine, but thats not the same as a spell attacking a defense. I do not like the 4e method of all spells attacking defenses, nor would I want it see it in Next.

Spells that target AC = attack roll
Spells that target Str-Dex-Con-Int-Wis-Cha = saving throw

That said, where are the Intelligence and Charisma saving throws?
I hope they make it into the game, putting some relevance on these neglected dump stats.

 

[Sadrik]

I prefer rolling saving throws.

But more importantly, I prefer spells targetting different defenses, I don't want Dex to be the main defense against spells when it already is the main defense against weapon attacks.

That is exactly what these guys are calling for though. They want dodging the ray (DEX) to be the way to defend against them.

 

[Sadrik]

Except the math isn't the same. AC is the sum of a different set of variables (armor, dexterity, possibly a shield). There are cases where a spell makes the most sense to target AC and not Wisdom, Constitution or even Dexterity. These cases are rays and touch spells. For those kind of spells an attack roll feels right and is the most fun (IMO). All other spells should use passive saves.

What is the math was the same though. If dodging a ray was dex, why not allow it to be flipped as an attack or a save on a dime depending on the situation.

DMs rolling secret saves is fine, but thats not the same as a spell attacking a defense. I do not like the 4e method of all spells attacking defenses, nor would I want it see it in Next.

Spells that target AC = attack roll
Spells that target Str-Dex-Con-Int-Wis-Cha = saving throw

Yeah, but I dont want to see spells target AC. What spells should target AC? Spiritual Hammer? Just make that a DEX save or an attack roll against DEX. AC can be melee and stay there without making it into the spell system.