Spellcasting - why no skill check?

[Dispater]

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.

I too yawn at the ridicullous amount of dice rolls some DMs enforce in their game. I think, for instance, a lot of mundane skills and ability checks (such as Percetion) should be more casual than every damn time you look at something. Only high stress situations such as combat should really force a dice roll. The d20 is (espescially for low level-characters) an extreme variable and can give really slapstick outcomes even when you are playing characters who are supposedly good at their job.

My point is here that I think magic is the wrong place to start if you want to reduce the amout of rolls, espescially if you play a game where you want to enforce the idea that magic is unreliable, dangerous or wild. The idea that chance and chaos rules magical outcomes rather than "i cast x" can be succesfuly derived from dice rolls, and add to the more unpredictable feel of magic.

An idea for spells with already added attack rolls is to make the roll for the spellcasting skill check also the same as the attack roll. So you just have to roll once for instance, beat the DC for casting the spell and hit the creature's AC.

 

[billd91]

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 notice that those are still two different things the fighter and rogue are doing - things the spell caster can do as well, in fact. The issue here is imposing a second roll when one (to hit, saving throw) already applies to determine the spell's effect. And those extra attacks? Those are all separate events, the same as a wizard casting a quickened spell (or bonus action) the same round as another spell (or cantrip). So, once again, who needs the extra complication?

 

[Dispater]

But notice that those are still two different things the fighter and rogue are doing - things the spell caster can do as well, in fact. The issue here is imposing a second roll when one (to hit, saving throw) already applies to determine the spell's effect. And those extra attacks? Those are all separate events, the same as a wizard casting a quickened spell (or bonus action) the same round as another spell (or cantrip). So, once again, who needs the extra complication?

Except there's plenty of times during the game where -one action- requires two rolls. If the rogue had attacked using poisoned knives, one attack roll, the defender would have to roll CON saves to avoid the poison. If a fighter went in for a grapple, there would be contesting strength/skill checks (2 rolls).

 

[cbwjm]

Except there's plenty of times during the game where -one action- requires two rolls. If the rogue had attacked using poisoned knives, one attack roll, the defender would have to roll CON saves to avoid the poison. If a fighter went in for a grapple, there would be contesting strength/skill checks (2 rolls).

The difference being that the rogue doesn't have to make a check to see if he can make an attack roll in the first place.

If there was a system whereby how well you roll determines effects of the spell (in a manner similar to the star wars d20 systems force powers) then I might be more interested in rolling a caster check for each spell but for DnD, I don't think a caster check helps with anything. For me, I know that if I was wanting to sit down and play dungeons and dragons and this was a houserule, I'd look at playing a class that wasn't a spellcaster.

 

[Ymdar]

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.

Sorry, forgot to put on my sarcasm face.

 

[Dispater]

If there was a system whereby how well you roll determines effects of the spell (in a manner similar to the star wars d20 systems force powers) then I might be more interested in rolling a caster check for each spell but for DnD, I don't think a caster check helps with anything. For me, I know that if I was wanting to sit down and play dungeons and dragons and this was a houserule, I'd look at playing a class that wasn't a spellcaster.

A roll of 1 could produce a wild surge or random effect (whether negative or positive). A roll of 20 could increase the effective spell level by 1 (at no extra cost). Some randomization is esaily added to a spellcasting roll. And it enforces the idea that magic is not automatic.

 

[Mort]

A roll of 1 could produce a wild surge or random effect (whether negative or positive). A roll of 20 could increase the effective spell level by 1 (at no extra cost). Some randomization is esaily added to a spellcasting roll. And it enforces the idea that magic is not automatic.

As has been stated: In D&D magic is automatic. As far as I'm aware, It's been that way from the very beginning. At this point, it's a feature not a bug.

There are plenty of systems where that's not the case (I was just playing Legend of the 5 Rings - which has a pretty good system for it).

You can certainly add a level of uncertainty in but, as I think has been shown in this thread, many people seem to be against that extra level of complexity/uncertainty in D&D.

 

[Dispater]

You can certainly add a level of uncertainty in but, as I think has been shown in this thread, many people seem to be against that extra level of complexity/uncertainty in D&D.

There has been plenty of official and homebrew alternatives and flavors to spellcasting since 2e, like Spells and Magic. No real reason why there shouldnt be alternatives in 5e.

If your setting is about dangerous magic and somebody doesnt want to play a caster because they have to make a single spellcasting roll then I would say they are not the idealkind of player for that type of spellcaster anyways. Those who just want steady eddies can go and play the melee oriented class types, although (surprisingly) they will also have to roll for their attacks there too.

 

[leogobsin]

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.

My point was exactly that spellcasters already do have to make a roll for their spells to succeed: they have to make an attack roll (or their target has to make a save, but that's effectively the same thing). And I don't think either of your suggested situations are really equivalent. The rules for jumping don't ever call for you making a check, and for the rogue if they fail the stealth check they can still make the attack: the stealth check is getting them something on top of the attack.
I wasn't saying no character should ever make more than one d20 roll per turn: I'm just saying that the game is balanced around spellcasting not requiring any kind of check and changing that is going to majorly mess with things.

 

[BookBarbarian]

A roll of 1 could produce a wild surge or random effect (whether negative or positive). A roll of 20 could increase the effective spell level by 1 (at no extra cost). Some randomization is esaily added to a spellcasting roll. And it enforces the idea that magic is not automatic.

WotC chose to incorporate this kind of think into the Wild Magic Sorcerer.