Spellcasting - why no skill check?

[Dispater]

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?

 

[BookBarbarian]

Many spells have attack rolls just like Melee and Ranged weapon attacks.

Many other force saving throws.

 

[ccs]

Because this is Dungeons & Dragons. And this is how spells are cast in Dungeons & Dragons.

Next question?

 

[SkidAce]

I always thought it was because you didnt want to double penalize spells.

Fighter swings sword all day. Infinite. Attack roll to balance.

Wizard, fewer spells, some only once per day, so better chance (or 100%) of some effect.

 

[iserith]

The question is: How many rolls do you want to resolve something? An attack roll resolves an attack. An attack roll or saving throw resolves many, but not all, spells. An ability check resolves uncertainty as to the outcome of a task, if there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Arguably, most things a character do don't require ability checks at all. (Jumping and sprinting don't in most cases, for example, even though you say they do.)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Because D&D magic is far too reliable and safe. It works better than my cell phone...

 

[robus]

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?

I definitely add skill checks in when I feel the spell has some chance of mis-firing. For example AoE spells that are trying to be placed "just so". When you're trying to judge distance (especially under combat pressure) there's a decent chance you'll not be perfect. So make an Int check (or whatever the spell casting ability is) against a DC 15 or whatever you think the difficulty level is and boom.

The wizard in my group really appreciates it as it makes it a bit more challenging and uncertain. And the potential for back-firing against the party is good entertainment.

 

[guachi]

The "skill check" for spells is either the attack roll or saving throw.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You might as well ask someone to make a Con check before they're allowed to spend Hit Dice to heal. Limited resources are already limited; making them unreliable would be overkill.

 

[Satyrn]

The question is: How many rolls do you want to resolve something? An attack roll resolves an attack.

I want more rolls!

The fighter should have to make a Dex check to pull off the necessary footwork to create an opening, then a Wisdom check to spot an opening before finally getting to make that Attack roll.