D&D 5E Rolling for All Spells

[Gorgoroth]

Spells targeting AC allow heavy armor users to not get ripped a new one in this edition, yet again. It is one of the flaws that has persisted in every edition since the start : heavy armor not protecting you when you need it. Dex is just a much better investment than straight AC, due to spells circumventing it. Tell me why your magic plate shouldn't protect you from a fireball, or even anything, really. It will dissipate the heat, sure your skin might melt to it and cook you alive, but realistically, what would you rather, being hit straight up? You can always throw off your gauntlets and helmet ala "heat metal" as a penalty if you wish to give some kind of damage-over-time side effect. I love those types of things : plate'll protect you now (AC defending against damaging spells, except maybe lightning), only to hurt you later in the right circumstances (fire, heat, cold, etc).

I want the big bad enemy in plate, or the shining armor, to be better protected than the guy walking around in robes, yes, even against other magic users. They said they'd do that, and I hope it applies at least to most of the iconic spells, except I guess Magic missile, which will always find the crack in your armor or simply pierce through it each time without fail.

 

[Li Shenron]

Spells targeting AC allow heavy armor users to not get ripped a new one in this edition, yet again. It is one of the flaws that has persisted in every edition since the start : heavy armor not protecting you when you need it. Dex is just a much better investment than straight AC, due to spells circumventing it. Tell me why your magic plate shouldn't protect you from a fireball, or even anything, really. It will dissipate the heat, sure your skin might melt to it and cook you alive, but realistically, what would you rather, being hit straight up? You can always throw off your gauntlets and helmet ala "heat metal" as a penalty if you wish to give some kind of damage-over-time side effect. I love those types of things : plate'll protect you now (AC defending against damaging spells, except maybe lightning), only to hurt you later in the right circumstances (fire, heat, cold, etc).

I want the big bad enemy in plate, or the shining armor, to be better protected than the guy walking around in robes, yes, even against other magic users. They said they'd do that, and I hope it applies at least to most of the iconic spells, except I guess Magic missile, which will always find the crack in your armor or simply pierce through it each time without fail.

For some spells e.g. Fireball or acid spells, armor (and shield) could count as cover. After all, armors grant AC bonus because they act as cover, and they don't reduce damage. That doesn't strictly mean the spell must target AC, but it could be one way of doing it. Another way could be armor/shield giving bonus to ST.

For other spells e.g. Charm Person and other mind-affecting spells, it's more believable that armor is irrelevant, unless it's a magic with a specific defensive property (such a Helm of mind shielding).

For even other spells e.g. Shocking Graps and other eletricity-based spell, armor could be even harmful for the defender and make it more vulnerable than no armor.

This is just to say that a one-size-fits-all rule doesn't exist, and any attempt gives lame results.

 

[Klaus]

When Mearls said that some spells might allow the caster to roll against AC (thus satisfying players who like to roll their attacks, as opposed to the target rolling saves), I offered examples like "Ice Daggers" or "Melf's Acid Arrow", and he said "Exactly".

IMHO, any spell that armor could help protect against should be a roll vs. AC.

 

[Sadrik]

Armor in D&D serves to increase AC, AC is the ability to bounce damage. Hence why STR adds to your hit chance- it is used to pierce the AC of the target. Using AC to protect against damage spells makes perfect sense to me. How it all fits together though I have no idea.

 

[Wulfgar76]

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.

Because it's not just 'dodging'. Your shield could block the ray. The ray could glance off your armor. As many others have already said, Armor and Shields without question helps you resist and avoid just about every kind of magical 'ray' you can think of.

Yeah, but I dont want to see spells target AC.

Fair enough, but I've yet to hear a good reason why my plate armor and my shield shouldn't protect me from Scorching Ray, Acid Arrow and Ray of Frost.

What spells should target AC? Spiritual Hammer?

Any spell where Armor/Shield could conceivably protect you: rays and touch spells.

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.

Because, again, Armor should help resist these spells - irrespective of DEX.
We're talking about a pretty small group of spells here - it's not as disruptive to the 'spell system' as you think. Plus this isn't some new mechanic showing up to complicate things: 3rd edition and 4th edition both had attack rolls for spells, and some spells still do in Next

 

[Gorgoroth]

In any character sheet with magic attacks built in, it should have a little area next to it to specify "AC or X Save", with another checkbox for 1/2 damage on a save (or miss)

 

[Li Shenron]

Because it's not just 'dodging'. Your shield could block the ray. The ray could glance off your armor. As many others have already said, Armor and Shields without question helps you resist and avoid just about every kind of magical 'ray' you can think of.


Fair enough, but I've yet to hear a good reason why my plate armor and my shield shouldn't protect me from Scorching Ray, Acid Arrow and Ray of Frost.


Any spell where Armor/Shield could conceivably protect you: rays and touch spells.


Because, again, Armor should help resist these spells - irrespective of DEX.

I agree and would like also to have some spells require an attack and target AC, for the sake of variety.

But if you use terms such as "without question" then I won't follow you. Yours are just assumptions, that armor should help, but the opposite assumptions are just as valid. "A ray of frost should be blocked by armor" and "a ray of frost should bypass armor" are just as valid, because it depends how magic work: does it create physical "frost" and hurls it against you or does it create just the effect of draining heat from all your mass and attached equipment? There is no answer grounded in reality, because it's just made up physics anyway...

So rather than arguing about what "should" be because of real-life reasoning, i think we should better focus on the implication on game balance and fun (which for my tastes tend to improve with variety because it increases your tactical options).

 

[Wulfgar76]

But if you use terms such as "without question" then I won't follow you. Yours are just assumptions, that armor should help, but the opposite assumptions are just as valid. "A ray of frost should be blocked by armor" and "a ray of frost should bypass armor" are just as valid, because it depends how magic work: does it create physical "frost" and hurls it against you or does it create just the effect of draining heat from all your mass and attached equipment? There is no answer grounded in reality, because it's just made up physics anyway...

The spell descriptions usually give us a decent enough idea about what is happening when a certain spell is cast. When a Ray of Frost is cast:

You fire a beam of blue-white energy that chills you enemy to the bone.

So this is a beam of cold. The spell is called Ray of Frost. It's not Drain Heat or Chill Metal. It's a focused ray of freezing cold. It's not terribly unreasonable to assume that a heavy coat of leather, layered plates of steel, or big piece of wood strapped to your arm might help protect you against such an effect. Or is being naked just as good as being heavily armored in such an example?

You are right that it is a game, and all assumptions about reality are made up and distilled into abstract rules that attempt to simulate this imagined reality. But if in this made up world armor helps protect you from a sword stroke or flying arrow, then armor would probably also protect you from a ray of freezing cold as well.

That said, I think we agree that having some spells target AC does make for a more balanced, fun, and tactically diverse game, irrespective of any real-life simulation.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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.

It really isn't as swingy as you think. And it doesn't make the difference 39 points. Normally, with static DCs, the attacking spellcaster is effectively taking 10. The other guy, rolling a d20, can get up to 9 points higher or 10 points above that, for a range of +/-10 (rounding up for the sake of simplicity). If both players roll, the most extreme possible outcome is one player rolling a 1 and the other rolling 20. That's a maximum possible difference of 19, not 39. In any case, it doesn't really matter because the effect is binary. The attacker either hits or he doesn't.

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?

Not exactly. I think people should make opposed rolls on spells that charm, etc., the kind of spells that have saving throws right now. Spells that make attacks should just attack AC. For other spells, I envision the caster's roll working like 4e rituals. You couldn't "miss" with utility spells, they would just have a greater effect the higher you roll.

It's just an idea. I don't mind the way things work now I just think this would help spice things up a bit and make magic a bit less predictable.

 

[Li Shenron]

You fire a beam of blue-white energy that chills you enemy to the bone.

...

That said, I think we agree that having some spells target AC does make for a more balanced, fun, and tactically diverse game, irrespective of any real-life simulation.

Yes the traditional Ray of Frost can be one example where AC feels good as defense, I was just trying to point out however that a generalization wouldn't be good. The last thing I would like to see is all spells targeting AC for instance, that would be the death of balance. In case of spells, I would rather start from some balance consideration (i.e. all 6 ability scores being represented in saving throws, armor/shield working against a reasonable number of spells, etc.) then go back and check how the traditional version of spells cover these, and then change a number of spells to make things more balanced. 3e followed some pattern in making all touch and rays work the same way, which is simpler, but I don't necessarily this has to be the case, there can be some difference based on the type of effect for example, or there can be also spells allowing armor/shield bonus to apply on a ST rather than requiring an attack roll from the caster. Whatever feels more appropriate for the spell concept and description, but with some willingness to adapt such concept and description to adjust the overall balance.