Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="cmbarona" data-source="post: 6121999" data-attributes="member: 71281">I'm of the camp that prefers all spells be attack rolls, like they were in 4e. It basically took the mechanic of saving throws and flipped the perspective. Under saving throw assumptions, spells automatically hit... unless someone can dodge out of the way, or is physically or mentally resilient enough to shrug off its effects. Moving that to the perspective of the player opposing a defense is really the same assumption, just a different mechanic. And it's a mechanic which is more consistent with non-spell attacks. Further, I think using spell mechanics that are consistent with attack mechanics can help streamline the math. Granted, WoTC didn't always make that math streamlined in 4e, and they aren't yet properly doing it in Next, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.Either way, I think the OP's objection is twofold: 1) mechanics should be consistent, 2) math should be consistent. (hbarsquared, is that accurate?) Whether 1 is answered by making all spells saving throws or making them all attack rolls, I think they should all fall into one category or another, and that should make 2 easier to deal with.</blockquote>