Spellcasting - why no skill check?

[Ymdar]

Because the spell is actually memorized in the caster's head. They only need a quick gesture while holding the component and saying a word or two to actually release the spell. They aren't reading it from the book.

Casters should probably roll a Wis check followed by an Int check to be allowed to pick the most useful spell then remember the spell.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The massive failure of a class that was the Truenamer from 3e's Tome of Magic, demonstrated why you should never have skill checks to cast spells in D&D.

 

[robus]

This whole thing is resolved by the DM determining the possibility of failure when casting non-attack spells. If there is a decent chance the spell casting could go awry (and cause some setback) due to the circumstances then sure have the caster make an ability check. It's just like anything else the DM adjudicates.

And if a fighter wants to make some crazy leap to attack a creature in a special way we'll often have the player make an acrobatics check to see if the leap succeeds before then proceeding to the actual attack.

I don't think it's rocket science and we don't need rules for every situation. This is exactly the DMs role in the game

 

[billd91]

Spellcasting is about as difficult as it gets. Whether there are incantations and somatic movements, the prayers offered or material sacrifice. Tossing fireballs - no check in the middle of combat? (like Intelligence + Knowledge Arcana for instance vs. DC 8 + spell level for instance?) It just doesn't make sense. I get it is easy to houserule, but certain people seem to cry out when their speillcaster has to actually roll to cast their spells. Weird, huh? Did the devs ever consider it? Or is the most difficult thing to do in D&D just accepted as "auto-fire" by everyone in here?

Just wondering. Who houserules this?

There are plenty of games that have done this sort of thing under a variety of circumstances and they all run into the same problems - just how many die rolls to you want to encumber the game with to resolve things? In some cases, the additional unreliability of magic that inevitably ensues serves a game reasonably well - in others it does not. In D&D, I think it largely would not barring a very select group of people who prefer to be frustrated by the rules or value the additional simulative effects they bring over ease of game play.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Getting back to the point, I am considering adding a houserule on this. Any suggestions? INT + Arcana for Wizards, WIS + Religion for Clerics. Vs. DC 8 + spell level maybe?

Ignoring the added complexity (for now), consider the balance issue. Classes are already (roughly) balanced, given the premise that spellcasters always succeed in casting spells.

If you want to maintain class balance after giving spellcasters an additional 30% spell failure rate, then spells need to hit 40% harder in order to compensate. That must happen, or else there's no point in going to all this trouble, because nobody is going to play a spellcaster when they're so much weaker than martial characters. They'll just wait and play a spellcaster in the next campaign, when there aren't house rules designed to drag them down.

And then, after you have the game re-balanced, everyone who wanted to play a wizard or cleric will just play a bard instead, so they can take Expertise in the relevant skill (probably Perform) and gain all of the benefits of stronger spells with none of the failure chance.

 

[leogobsin]

As other people have pointed out, the big problem here is that most spells already do require some kind of roll in order to take effect. If you add a check to cast a spell, then a fighter swinging a sword only has one possible point of failure (attack roll), whereas a wizard casting Fire Bolt has two points of failure (check to cast, attack roll); the entire balance of the game's been thrown off.

 

[AmerginLiath]

It strikes me (no pun intended) that the problem here is how folks are thinking about what attacks and rolls represent. You aren’t making an attack roll because you’re swinging your sword — you can do that because you have a sword and the physical ability to swing it — you’re making a roll because someone or something is attempting to stop you (actively or passively) from doing damage with that swing and thus making it important for the sake of the game’s math. Those of us who grew up playing pre-d20 will recall the one-minute rounds that presumed characters were swinging and parrying back and forth but only getting in the number of opportunities for key strikes that their Attacks Per Rounds affording them in game terms; the six-second round doesn’t enunciate this fiction the same way (although it really should, just on a shorter timescale).

Magic is the same way, in that a contested roll (contested either against another character or against a DC) not about you casting it but rather about when it interacts with someone/something seeking to defend against its effects. That could be represented as either an attack roll by the caster or a saving throw by the defender (it’s implicitly the same, just a matter of which defense is in play — one could devise a system where AC saving throws by defenders replace physical attack rolls in some manner, as the issue is a character reacting passively to the threat against them). Of course the other issue with spells, as noted by some commenters above, is their scarcity — certain attacks (spells, special abilities, even ranged weapons vis a vis ammunition) are limited versus swinging a sword all day long; different editions have different rules about stopping the casting of a spell (and whether it’s lost), but that scarcity of spells means that the “cost” of casting isn’t reliant on a check (even if whether the spell’s attack connects might be).

Something I’ve noticed over the years is the ebb and flow of how much to rely on the dice — I always look back with a pained grimace at how mechanistically 3.5 developed in terms of creating rulesets for every possible situation (hence why I could never get into Pathfinder or 4e, both of which rulesets continued along that overly-programmed route) — and whether DMs ask players to roll for everything versus limiting their use to only those situations where chance truly alters the outcome of the game (I’ve compared it to Two-Face in old Silver Age Batman comics flipping his coin for literally every decision). Limiting where checks are made allows for player decision (not just DM fiat) to fill in the gaps, and such rules on magic — and the freedom to cast it — are a part of that.

 

[neogod22]

Part of spell preparation is going over these things. They practice until it's second nature to them. The reason why there isn't a skill check is because a wizard can't cast a spell they don't fully understand. Most casters will use their spellcasting focus, but for the spells where they need materials, they are going to place them where they can get to them easily and know where they are. You never see Batman fishing around in his utility belt, he knows where everything is.

 

[neogod22]

Casters should probably roll a Wis check followed by an Int check to be allowed to pick the most useful spell then remember the spell.

Wizards choose their spells they want to prepare every long rest. Divine casters get to choose what spells they want to prepare every long rest. There is no need to make a check.

 

[Dispater]

As other people have pointed out, the big problem here is that most spells already do require some kind of roll in order to take effect. If you add a check to cast a spell, then a fighter swinging a sword only has one possible point of failure (attack roll), whereas a wizard casting Fire Bolt has two points of failure (check to cast, attack roll); the entire balance of the game's been thrown off.

Except it is not the big problem it is made out to be. A fighter that jumps and attacks have to make two checks, one for the jump, one for the attack. A rogue that wants to sneak up has to make a stealth check, then and attack. If you have extra attack, you have to make two rolls (where you could potentially fumble on one of them) As you see every class have the potential to make more than one roll per round. Thats already part of the game. Having spellcasters having to do at least one roll for the success of their spell seems fair to me.