Spellcasting - why no skill check?

[Ashrym]

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.

But what you are describing is the equivalent of the fighter needing or make a DEX check to maintain his complicated footwork in combat or a STR check to maintain his grip against the jarring impact in of combat in order to make his attack roll.

A spell is an attack similar to a weapon when the spell requires the attack roll. That attack roll includes abstract variables because it's an abstract system. It doesn't make sense to make an abstract check in order to make an abstract check. This is similar to saving throws in other spells. A d20 is just a simplification of all the variables to determine success or failure to cover it all.

As it is, spells require either an attack roll, a saving throw, both, or the skill check associated with some utility spells just like any other ability. On top of that, there is already an additional roll in the game in the form of the concentration roll if the DM warrants it (revisit those rules), and the option for the DM to simply limit spell casters to wild sorcerers in his or her campaign if that's the style of magic the DM is looking for from the campaign.

DM's shouldn't be over-using rolls on any character regardless of class, regardless.

 

[5ekyu]

Something has been bugging me a bit.

Why is spell-casting not a standard skill check in d&d 5e? Everything else is.

- Attack a monster. Melee skill check.

- Fire a bow. Ranged skill check.

- Jump/sprint. Strength skill check.

- Survive near death. Constitution skill check.

- Survive in nature. Wisdom skill check.

- Any sophisticated scholarly or intellectual activity - Intelligence skill check.

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?

So taking these by category - if a spell needs to hit an enemy, it requires a to-hit roll.
If a spell requires to overcome a resistance, it requires a failed save.

These are very analogous to the melee attack etc.

other than that, like most of those other checks, just doing the stuff you do does not require checks. There is a whole range of survival and other types of things where you can succeed automatically. Rolls are made when outcome is in doubt.

Jump and sprint dont require checks "unless" for jump you jump farther than the min.

Adding another spellcasting check for failure on top of the rolls to hit and saves would really put spell casting into a "luck of the dice" kind of situation.

That said, i have played in systems where a spellcasting check was necessary. What it tends to do is make the casters epend their chargen and advancement on "max spell check" for "no fail". which tended to limit the range of other stuff they can do and mostly recreate the traditional paradigm of "he just casts spells."

Now, there can be good and bad with this depending on how you want to represent it in your system.

perhaps casting "as a ritual" auto-succeeds but casting on the quick requires check. (Shifts powerful magics into ritual land and lighter spells into combat options.)
perhaps casting "with expending macguffin drops" auto-succeeds but casting "dry" requires check. (creates a magical economy for the more powerful effects.)


all are reasonable approaches but a lotof significant balance work needs to go into the ritual vs combat casting and balance.

So, to me, the simple "skill roll for casting" is a pointless complication that seems at odds with the rest of the system as is... but if used as a core mechanic to fuel a different set of "magic scales" as a different magic setting - it can serve a great purpose.

As always, YMMV.

 

[practicalm]

The systems that have rolls for activating spells usually have much more spells available. GURPS, HERO, Deadlands (deck of cards) and there is more customization.

When you change a core part of how D&D's magic system works you start making the balance odd.

Also, rolling for success should only be when failure has a meaning either in story or in simulation. Rolling too many dice with how D&D does skill checks means too many failures for routine tasks. (A problem that exists in GURPS if you force rolls for routine things).

 

[5ekyu]

The systems that have rolls for activating spells usually have much more spells available. GURPS, HERO, Deadlands (deck of cards) and there is more customization.

When you change a core part of how D&D's magic system works you start making the balance odd.

Also, rolling for success should only be when failure has a meaning either in story or in simulation. Rolling too many dice with how D&D does skill checks means too many failures for routine tasks. (A problem that exists in GURPS if you force rolls for routine things).

Ran Fantasy HERO with skill checks for spells for a couple campaigns - and saw the results.

But there the campaign dials gave them meaning as they added in-game ways to offset the risk with time or material - so it created differences.

Definitely not portable into DND directly without a lot of work.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=683]Dispater[/MENTION] - good question!

At most tables, for an archer to succeed in an archery contest would require a check or attack roll of some type. But likewise, at most tabes, for a caster to succeed in casting a spell does not require a check or roll of some type.

Some people will say "It's magic! So it works automatically." But that doesn't explain why the non-magical parts of the process (moving, speaking, handling components, etc) never fail.

Some people will say "It's about balance! A limited resource needs to auto-succeed." But if you gave a high level fighter the ability to auto-hit against creatures of (say) 1/2 CR or less - so it's just about rolling damage to mow down mooks - that would be derided by many, perhaps most, posters as "unrealistic" or "magic".

The best answer I can give to your question is that what started out, in Chainmail and D&D, as a series of wargame conventions - about how to resolve artillery, including its wizardly version, and how to resolve melee, including the "alternativel combat system" in the D&D rules - has somehow become hardbaked into the D&D fanbases conception of how things work in the D&D world. Even the lowliest wizards never slip up, while even the best fighters fighting the most feeble opponents sometimes do.

 

[cbwjm]

[MENTION=683]Dispater[/MENTION] - good question!

At most tables, for an archer to succeed in an archery contest would require a check or attack roll of some type. But likewise, at most tabes, for a caster to succeed in casting a spell does not require a check or roll of some type.

Some people will say "It's magic! So it works automatically." But that doesn't explain why the non-magical parts of the process (moving, speaking, handling components, etc) never fail.

Some people will say "It's about balance! A limited resource needs to auto-succeed." But if you gave a high level fighter the ability to auto-hit against creatures of (say) 1/2 CR or less - so it's just about rolling damage to mow down mooks - that would be derided by many, perhaps most, posters as "unrealistic" or "magic".

The best answer I can give to your question is that what started out, in Chainmail and D&D, as a series of wargame conventions - about how to resolve artillery, including its wizardly version, and how to resolve melee, including the "alternativel combat system" in the D&D rules - has somehow become hardbaked into the D&D fanbases conception of how things work in the D&D world. Even the lowliest wizards never slip up, while even the best fighters fighting the most feeble opponents sometimes do.

Except that even the mightiest archmage might fail to hit a feeble opponent when throwing a spell like firebolt or scorching ray so it isn't really all that different to the fighter sometimes missing. Spells don't, in general, autosucceed as many of them require an attack roll or allow a saving throw to ignore or mitigate the effects.

 

[pemerton]

Except that even the mightiest archmage might fail to hit a feeble opponent when throwing a spell like firebolt or scorching ray so it isn't really all that different to the fighter sometimes missing. Spells don't, in general, autosucceed as many of them require an attack roll or allow a saving throw to ignore or mitigate the effects.

Relatively few spells require attack rolls. And even for those that do - does anyone narrate a miss with a Firebolt as "You failed to conjure up your flame"? Or is it understood to mean that the target dodged the bolt of fire?

Similiarly, if someone is saving for half damage, that indicates that the spell was successfully cast (you don't need to jump out of the path of a fireball if the mage never cast it; nor, presumably, would you take damage from it).

 

[5ekyu]

Relatively few spells require attack rolls. And even for those that do - does anyone narrate a miss with a Firebolt as "You failed to conjure up your flame"? Or is it understood to mean that the target dodged the bolt of fire?

Similiarly, if someone is saving for half damage, that indicates that the spell was successfully cast (you don't need to jump out of the path of a fireball if the mage never cast it; nor, presumably, would you take damage from it).

To me you are describing two disparate things...

an archer hitting a target misses the shot... he does not fail to draw his arrow and take a shot.
a caster throwing a firebolt fails to hit the shot. he does not fail to conjure the bolt.

to me the idea that a caster might fail to even cast a spell is more akin to an archer failing tosucceed at taking a shot - drawing the arrow and pulling the bow - not to a miss.

*most spells*that affect unwilling targets have either a save or a to-hit or both just like most attacks do.

Some spells that affect only willing targets or yourself - dont require either. Not unlike many non-attack features on other classes. Fighters don't fail their second wind, dont fail to get their their action surge, dont fail to get their rerolls on damage for their style etc. etc etc etc

i think there is an inherent flaw in equating an additional "casting roll" and the to-hit rolls of other abilities when hit or save is common for most attack spells. The posit that spells get some exception is not true in the broader sense.

 

[cbwjm]

Relatively few spells require attack rolls. And even for those that do - does anyone narrate a miss with a Firebolt as "You failed to conjure up your flame"? Or is it understood to mean that the target dodged the bolt of fire?

Similiarly, if someone is saving for half damage, that indicates that the spell was successfully cast (you don't need to jump out of the path of a fireball if the mage never cast it; nor, presumably, would you take damage from it).

If a fighter fails to hit with his sword, do you narrate the miss by saying he failed to swing it at his opponent?

 

[pemerton]

If a fighter fails to hit with his sword, do you narrate the miss by saying he failed to swing it at his opponent?

Some people narrate it as a mis-aimed strike, fumble, mis-step, etc. It's had to envisage a typical kobold parrying or shield-blocking a solid blow from a 20th level fighter!