Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7478161" data-attributes="member: 6919838">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 &quot;unless&quot; 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 &quot;luck of the dice&quot; 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 &quot;max spell check&quot; for &quot;no fail&quot;. which tended to limit the range of other stuff they can do and mostly recreate the traditional paradigm of &quot;he just casts spells.&quot;Now, there can be good and bad with this depending on how you want to represent it in your system.perhaps casting &quot;as a ritual&quot; auto-succeeds but casting on the quick requires check. (Shifts powerful magics into ritual land and lighter spells into combat options.)perhaps casting &quot;with expending macguffin drops&quot; auto-succeeds but casting &quot;dry&quot; 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&nbsp; simple &quot;skill roll for casting&quot; 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 &quot;magic scales&quot; as a different magic setting - it can serve a great purpose.As always, YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7478161, member: 6919838"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification