D&D 5E (2014) Spell DC vs Magic User Attack Roll

[Sadrik]

Should that 19 be an 18?

Corrected, thanks.

The spells in D&Dnext seem closer to the AD&D style, of getting noticeably stronger effects with higher level spells (compared to 4e, which has much tighter damage and effect scaling). Given that, my feeling is that, as in AD&D, higher level enemies should probably have better overall chances of saving.

But I haven't done a systematic analysis to confirm this impression.

My gut hunch is that 35% success is not a very good success rate. It will feel like low level characters attacking a monster with a high AC. When you have a spell that is a daily power you would want that success rate to equate to doing something. Even if it is a 18 INT vs a 10 CHA say that means 55% success. That seems low to me. should be in the 75% range. Perhaps I am missing something?

 

[GMMichael]

It would be mathematically equivalent [for the caster to roll instead of the defender].

There is one huge downside to attack rolls vs defense rolls. With attacks the player usually rolls once, while with defense rolls every creature affected rolls. So to keep the systems equivalent for AoE spells your player needs to roll for each target separately. If they roll once and then apply it to all the targets it makes AoE spells all or nothing which is undesirable.

Well spoken. You (OP) could also try this:

Roll one save for your defenders. Compare it to the spell DC. For every point of save success, 5% more (than 50%) of your defenders succeed (assuming a fairly homogenous group of defenders). For every point of failure, 5% less than 50 fail.

Joe PC casts Turn Green on 3 goblins (the black kind, not the green kind). His spell DC is 13. The goblins get +1 to their saves. The GM rolls 15, total 16. Since 16 is 3 points over 13, the GM adds 5% for each point (or 15%) to 50%. That's 65%, or fudgingly, 66.66%. Two of the goblins (66% of 3) succeed on their saves.

Mathematically flawless? No.
Time-saving? Hopefully.
True to the 5e rules? Beats me, the rules aren't out yet.

 

[baradtgnome]

I am in favor of processes which:

• Allow the DM to concentrate on the game
• Make combats move along quickly
• Do not mess with the flavor of combat
• Do not confuse players

That said, I have used the casters make the rolls in the past. I do like it for the above reasons. However, I have encountered some longer term D&D players who are opposed to such process changes. They claim "it does not feel like D&D". I use this change only in groups who like the feel of it. I want everyone to have fun.

Regarding rolling faster or slower - if the DM can roll it a certain way, it should be able to be modeled for the player to roll in a similar way to achieve the same speed. Of course, in practice, if you cannot even get your players to roll damage die with the d20 then this is not going to work.

Regarding fudging... well, there are other ways to fudge. However, if your game requires this level of fudging to keep it moving & fun - then changing the process is not an option.

Overall - I don't see why this cannot be an optional rule which is set out. The math can be published both ways. Me as DM, I prefer to push rolls to players where ever possible. But hey - I am one of those guys who makes them track their own HP too.

 

[Warskull]

Well spoken. You (OP) could also try this:

Roll one save for your defenders. Compare it to the spell DC. For every point of save success, 5% more (than 50%) of your defenders succeed (assuming a fairly homogenous group of defenders). For every point of failure, 5% less than 50 fail.

Joe PC casts Turn Green on 3 goblins (the black kind, not the green kind). His spell DC is 13. The goblins get +1 to their saves. The GM rolls 15, total 16. Since 16 is 3 points over 13, the GM adds 5% for each point (or 15%) to 50%. That's 65%, or fudgingly, 66.66%. Two of the goblins (66% of 3) succeed on their saves.

Mathematically flawless? No.
Time-saving? Hopefully.
True to the 5e rules? Beats me, the rules aren't out yet.

Interesting, but it lacks granularity with small groups. I can see a system like this being worked in as a shortcut. However, I think you would want a minimum number of targets before you apply it. It also runs into trouble in mixed groups with a varying DC. Averaging DCs would be too math intensive to save you time.

Really, with groups of monsters, tech assistance is probably the best route. Some form of encounter tracking application for the DM.

 

[ren1999]

I'm back on board with DC, but I'd like to see the base return to 10. DC8+magic item seems a bit fiddly.

 

[Warskull]

I'm back on board with DC, but I'd like to see the base return to 10. DC8+magic item seems a bit fiddly.

DC8 makes a bit of sense when you think about it.

The caster gets DC8+[Stat they know they put points into]+[nearly guaranteed proficiency bonus]

The target gets D20+[Stat they maybe use]+[proficiency bonus they maybe get.]

So if you shoot your Wisdom save spell into a target that focuses on wisdom and has a proficiency on wisdom saves, yes you are looking at a poor chance of success. If they match your bonuses you only have a 35% chance of landing your spell.

However, the Mage probably isn't going to throw his wisdom save at the equally statted Cleric. He can pick a fortitude save vs the cleric and throw his wisdom save against the barbarian. The Mage is almost guaranteed to have a good stat and proficiency bonus. The target only has a chance at having a good save and the smart mage can specifically target weak saves.

Essentially, the lower DC is compensating for the mage's home court advantage when casting. He's always casting from a favorable stat. He is rarely casting into an opponents favorable stat. Also, monsters don't even have save proficiencies in the last playtest packet.

 

[Starfox]

Personally, I've always preferred to have the active party (the attacker in a fight) make the roll. In other words spellcaster rolls an attack roll against the defender's defense value.

I also dislike that saves and attack rolls develop differently - spells every other character level and attack/AC every character level.

 

[Jester David]

Personally, I've always preferred to have the active party (the attacker in a fight) make the roll. In other words spellcaster rolls an attack roll against the defender's defense value.

But the active party in an AoE is the people diving out of the way, be it a pit trap, a fireball, or an alchemist fire. You're not aiming the molotov cocktail or grenade at every goblin in the burst, you're just lobbing it in the middle.

 

[Jester David]

One thing to remember is that spells attack PCs as well. So while it's cool to have the player roll the attacks for the fireball against the goblins, it also means the DM needs to be rolling the attacks against the party.
It's annoying having to make a save or die, but I never liked just being told I was hit by an AoE in 4e and not being able to do anything. Especially if the bad guy crit. You really don't want to be crit by a dragon's breath weapon...

 

[Dausuul]

One thing to remember is that spells attack PCs as well. So while it's cool to have the player roll the attacks for the fireball against the goblins, it also means the DM needs to be rolling the attacks against the party.

Pretty much. This is why some systems have adopted the "players always roll" approach. If you cast a fireball or swing a sword at the enemy, you make attack rolls versus Reflex or AC. If the enemy casts a fireball or swings a sword at you, you make a Reflex or AC save.

But I don't think that would fly in D&D. Maybe as an optional module.