Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="machineelf" data-source="post: 6291835" data-attributes="member: 6774924">I don't see it that way. I think spellcasting is a difficult thing to do, that's why not everyone can do it. A wizard has to train to become a wizard, and as he/she gains experience, their proficiency at it gets stronger. Just the fact that they can cast a specific spell is only because they trained to do it. Do you see the armor class of, say, a fighter with AC 13 as a "take 13" every time he is trying to resist a sword strike or arrow attack? His AC is set, and is always that. He doesn't have to roll for it. That's the same concept as the magic user setting a DC. With magic casters it's the reverse idea, yes, but still the same basic concept. And the reason why it's reversed makes sense to me. The DCs that are set are set for a reason. With certain spells when the magic user casts it, it automatically affects the target if the target is in range. There is no aiming at the target with certain kinds of magic, like there is with swinging a sword or pointing an arrow. But a magic spell that targets the will may be resisted if the target musters up enough will to do so. Younger magic casters are weaker and thus set lower DCs. Maybe you don't think it makes sense to you, and that's fine. But I have no complaints, and actually like the way they did it. I don't want to have to aim my sleep spell. If the target is in range, I just cast it. If he can muster up enough will or whatever to resist it, then he does.It creates this nice little system where if you have a very powerful high-level wizard casting a spell on a low level creature, the creature has a hard time resisting the spell, and that makes sense. If the wizard has to roll in order to see if he hits, then he might roll a natural 1 and completely fail at trying to cast the spell at a very weak low-level creature, and that doesn't make as much sense.</blockquote>

Verification