All spells should require an attack roll and a saving throw.

Now with the current design spells are erratic. Some require attack rolls, some require saving throws, some require both. It is rarely clear or straightforward which method spells will use. This is bad. Not only does it make spells more complicated than necessary and more difficult to use but it also has terrible interaction with critical hits, player activity, and the advantage/disadvantage mechanics. To solve these problems a spellcasting roll should be made by the caster which will be resisted by the defender's saving throw.

When a caster casts a spell they always make their spellcasting roll to see how well they got their spell off. This allows them to critical hit as well as fumble with their spell. One big complaint of 4e players is that being a caster means you never get to roll in combat. Having the caster roll their attack roll would solve this. Lastly, the current rules allow a caster to shoot fireballs at a target behind cover in the darkness while drunk and adjacent to an enemy all at no penalty. Having the caster have to roll an attack like everyone else means they would equally benefit/suffer from the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Now because the target would still have to roll a saving throw against the spells spellcasting would still "feel different" from non spellcasting attacks.

Thoughts?

My 5e Homebrew Material

The Warblade: A Mythic Fighter

The Hero: A Modular Class

Now with the current design spells are erratic. Some require attack rolls, some require saving throws, some require both. It is rarely clear or straightforward which method spells will use.



Because just reading the spells description is of course to hard....


Me?  I think it's perfectly fine to have some spells require a To-Hit roll, some a save, & some both.

I also think that you're being a bit short sighted.  Because it seems you're lumping all spells into just the attack/offense catagory.
Would you really try & claim I should be rolling to hit or something with something like Cure Light Wounds?  What about any # of other non-offensive spells one can find a real use for once the inititive dice have been rolled?

Now if all you'd wanted was some sort of universal casting check....
But I can assure you that'll just get old quick.  It'd be house-ruled away (or simply ignored) like Weapon Speeds, certain weapon effects vrs certain armors, and spell components in previous editions. 
Attack rolls with combat spells is fine, but a second roll to see if the target can save? Does this same "second chance to miss" apply to mundane melee weapons as well? If not, it seems to be punishing the spellcasters.


I am currently experimenting with a d20 roll to see if a spell goes off normally, pathetically, or spectacularly. A 2-19 means the spell acts as normal. A 1 means all variables are at their minimum values, while a natural 20 means all variables are at their maximum. If there are no variables, then it doesn't matter. If a spell can have a defined area of effect (or some such thing designated by the caster), a natural 20 would not affect that. It would remain as the player defined since it is not a variable defined by the dice but by the caster's player.
@CCS yes I was primarily referring to attack spells but even spells used out of combat such as charm person should follow the same rules and be an attack roll vs a charisma save. In general any time a spell is directly affecting someone else there should be an opposed roll.

@Shiftkitty: this roll does not cause an extra miss chance at all. Instead of spells having a set DC of 10 + X now the player must roll a d20 + X for the spell DC. This actually ends up slightly in favor of the caster. It should not take additional time because the enemies roll their saves at the same time the caster rolls his attack roll. For AoE the caster should roll a single attack and each enemy in the area should make their save separately.
I've been using a fairly similar system for my own games: 

Weapon-like spells (Ice Knife) are treated exactly like weapon attacks, with an attack roll to hit and crit.

More complicated effects require an attack roll, and then a save to determine whether they get the full effect or a partial resist.  Any spell with a save on it is going to have some effect when it's resisted, to reflect that the caster had to hit with the thing in the first place.

Physical attacks are the same, with basic damage attacks being a straight attack roll to hit and crit.  Physical maneuvers are modeled similarly to spells, with a to-hit roll and a save to reduce the effect, but every maneuver that offers a save is guaranteed to have some lesser effect if it hits and is then resisted.

The metagame is not the game.

Meh, I don't like it but I don't exactly have a 'good' (as in the way most here think about it) reason for it.  See, I like variety.  I like things working differently.  Always have, always will.  And it gives me some flexibility.  If I primarily use spells that target saves and happen to be facing an enemy with very good saves, I'd like the option to switch to a ranged touch spell or something of that nature to bypass those saves.  Thought.  Something my character would both like to and actually do.  In the end, stuff like this bores me.  Can't help it, it's just the way it is.  And it's not an indictment of the idea, either - it simply doesn't work for me.  That's not a judgement, it's an opinion based on personal experience. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

eh. i would much prefer one consistent way to do all things be it casting spells or hitting with swords, either through an active offense/passive defense, passive offense/active defense or active offense & defense.

the main reason my own preference is "action initiator rolls all dice" is that it places the focus of the game on the guy rolling all the dice.

it's a small difference, but i prefer hearing "Oxybe, your firebolt successfully sears the goblin" over "Oxybe, the goblin fails to dodge and gets seared". i'm guessing it's because i've been working tech support for what... 6-7 years now and we tend to use a certain vocabulary when dealing with customers, but if given the option between "player succeeds" VS "enemy fails", i'd pick the former over the latter.

having the initiator roll all dice is the gaming equivalent of doing so. even if the luck gods are the ones determining his success or failure, he's rolling the dice. 

the other reason is that having a consistant ruleset "initiator rolls all dice", "defender rolls all dice", etc... allows for easier determination of effects. let's say Tom & Tim are fighting a group of monsters:

-Tom says "my PC makes a makeshift molotov and throws it at the monster to light him on fire". does he roll to hit the AC or does the monster roll a reflex?
-what Tim tries to throw a torch at an enemy that was doused in oil to light him on fire?

in a game that uses a consistant rule for resolution it's generally easier for the gm to adjudicate improvised actions and how to proceed with only one set of guidelines rather then stall the game while picking between the two guidelines for improvised actions.

as for rolling two sets of compared rolls? nah. it's too much potential for failure on the caster's part.  
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
it's a small difference, but i prefer hearing "Oxybe, your firebolt successfully sears the goblin" over "Oxybe, the goblin fails to dodge and gets seared". i'm guessing it's because i've been working tech support for what... 6-7 years now and we tend to use a certain vocabulary when dealing with customers, but if given the option between "player succeeds" VS "enemy fails", i'd pick the former over the latter. 



Why does a failed save on the goblin's part have to be narrated that way?  If he fails his save and fails to dodge, your firebolt has successfully seared him.  There's no reason that the fact it was a save roll means it has to be narrated any specific way.  It's just narration after all.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

I do prefer attackers rolling all the dice, but I can swallow defenders getting saves.  I'm not a fan of the spells that require both.  I'd rather see the spells toned down some.
it's a small difference, but i prefer hearing "Oxybe, your firebolt successfully sears the goblin" over "Oxybe, the goblin fails to dodge and gets seared". i'm guessing it's because i've been working tech support for what... 6-7 years now and we tend to use a certain vocabulary when dealing with customers, but if given the option between "player succeeds" VS "enemy fails", i'd pick the former over the latter. 



Why does a failed save on the goblin's part have to be narrated that way?  If he fails his save and fails to dodge, your firebolt has successfully seared him.  There's no reason that the fact it was a save roll means it has to be narrated any specific way.  It's just narration after all.



then ignore the narration is fluff then. in essence it comes down to:

"Oxybe rolls & hits the goblin" VS "Goblin rolls & fails his save"

in both cases it's luck that determines if the goblin is lit on fire, but the first one puts the illusion of succeess & failure in action's initiator's hands by having them roll the dice. when working tech support you want to give the customer the illusion that they are the smartest person around by making it sound like they're doing all the impressive work, even if it simply amounts to "turn your computer on & off by pushing a button". that way they leave the call feeling good about themselves and their abilities even if you've lead them by the hand throughout the call.

by having the player roll their attack dice you're letting the player push a button and then the game takes over and tells him if he succeeds or fails. but he pushed the button. he was the one who did the action.

it's basically applying customer service principals to game design, really, by letting the player think their action affected the result. if it's an attack, then if they succeed it's "hooray, the goblin took damage". if they fail, then they frown a bit but their character is no worse for wear. the character does nothing but gain the feeling of success with little reprocussion for failing the roll. 

it also removes the fact that the player doesn't get to fail his saves. with rolling a save, if they succeed at the roll, they're sometimes no worse for wear but in the case of fireball they still take damage. if they fail the roll then they take the brunt of the effect. basically this is subconciously telling the player "you gain little by succeeding and lose a lot if you fail". telling the player to roll a save rarely gets the player to smile, but i've yet to see a player who hated the opportunity to roll a die and see if he fries or dices a goblin.

it's all an illusion in the end, since the player has little way to influence if a dice will be 5 or 15, but if they rolled the dice on an action they initiated, and if they succeed it's their success.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
Eh... It doesn't have to be universal to all spells. To make things more intuitive, you'd just need to categorize the types of spells that require either an opposed roll or an attack roll, or both.

 For instance, you could differentiate by spell school (ie Evocations are triggered by attack rolls, Enchantments are triggered by failed saves, etc.), or by spell targetting type (ie single/direct target spells trigger attack rolls, area spells trigger saves).
Now with the current design spells are erratic. Some require attack rolls, some require saving throws, some require both. It is rarely clear or straightforward which method spells will use. This is bad. Not only does it make spells more complicated than necessary and more difficult to use but it also has terrible interaction with critical hits, player activity, and the advantage/disadvantage mechanics. To solve these problems a spellcasting roll should be made by the caster which will be resisted by the defender's saving throw. When a caster casts a spell they always make their spellcasting roll to see how well they got their spell off. This allows them to critical hit as well as fumble with their spell. One big complaint of 4e players is that being a caster means you never get to roll in combat. Having the caster roll their attack roll would solve this. Lastly, the current rules allow a caster to shoot fireballs at a target behind cover in the darkness while drunk and adjacent to an enemy all at no penalty. Having the caster have to roll an attack like everyone else means they would equally benefit/suffer from the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Now because the target would still have to roll a saving throw against the spells spellcasting would still "feel different" from non spellcasting attacks. Thoughts?



Strongly disagree.

I love not rolling dice. In part because I'm generaly unlucky, mostly because it makes me feel powerfull. It's like "I do it, it happends. Now it's up to you, try and save, if you can.". Man that's awsome.

Then why the hell should a hold person need a hit roll? I mean, am I trying to trhow something at my enemy? I summon my arcane powers and cast a course on the enemy, no need to make it something I actualy, physicaly throw at him.

As for overcomplication, I disagree. I mean, when you prepare the spell you are going to reed it's effects, aren't you? So how much harder will it be to just read one more line?

Sometimes a throw should be needed. Like casting a fireball in a difficult situation, or casting a spell drunk. But takeing 3rd edition (do not know 4th) this already happened. And I belive it should happend even in next.

About advantage disadvantage... Whe does a charm actualy work better when I'm in a situation when my opponent is more easily hit by a sword? It does not makes much sense.
then ignore the narration is fluff then.



Oh, that's fine.  I purposefully avoided addressing the rest.  I just thought it odd that - as presented - at least one issue was narration when, of course, there's nothing there demanding any specific sort of narration be done.  I won't argue the rest cuz I don't feel like it.  And cuz, as I said, my reasons boil down to 'it's more fun for me because' and there's not really a whole lot to that argument.  'Specially since I'm not tryin' to convince anyone that my fun is better, more important or the only way.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Then why the hell should a hold person need a hit roll? I mean, am I trying to trhow something at my enemy? I summon my arcane powers and cast a course on the enemy, no need to make it something I actualy, physicaly throw at him.

Have you ever heard of "Full-Contact Magic"?  I hate using Harry Potter as my main reference, but it's merely the most well-known example and far from the only one.

You "cast" a physical spell-projectile (in the form of a swirly glowy thing) which needs to hit the target in order to affect it.  Spells can be dodged.  Some spells can only be dodged, because they're irresistable.

It's a legitimate representation of magic, although far from the only one.  It's not particularly linked with traditional D&D magic-style, but there's no reason it couldn't be.

The metagame is not the game.

@Aldrein: if spells are so difficult to master why do they always work? Why is there no chance to fail? How come you can effectively cast while drunk, almost blind, flat on your back, and while an enemy is shoving a sword in your face just as well as when you are calmly performing a spell in the comfort of your tower? Backlash is a common theme in fantasy regarding spellcasting but D&D never experienced it. All of these issues and more are solved by the caster rolling an attack roll (aka spellcaster check) opposed by an enemies saving throw. The roll is there to determine how well you manage to cast the spell. Even the best athletes, musicians, performers, etc cannot succeed at a difficult task 100% of the time. Why is spellcasting any different. The spellcasting roll determines how well you cast the spell which can be hindered by things such as being distracted, being unable to fully sense your target, and having a weapon shoved in your face.
Eh... It doesn't have to be universal to all spells. To make things more intuitive, you'd just need to categorize the types of spells that require either an opposed roll or an attack roll, or both.

 For instance, you could differentiate by spell school (ie Evocations are triggered by attack rolls, Enchantments are triggered by failed saves, etc.), or by spell targetting type (ie single/direct target spells trigger attack rolls, area spells trigger saves).



yeah.  i don't have any problem with different success mechanics for different spells, but i do want a coherent, intuitive system for their effects, just to avoid having to constantly recheck the spell description.  as for rolling an attack roll AND a save, i think that's too much.  it doesn't actually change the probability of success or failure (though it does make the probability swing wide), and it doubles the dice rolling.  so, no thanks. 
Why?  Because a bunch of wizard players cried that spell disruption was 'unfun'.  -Thats- why.  But doubling the number of rolls to make spells weak is just an end-around to make martials more powerful by comparison...and I'd presume you know that.

Edit: Besides, if I'm not mistaken, aren't Touch/Rays the only ones that require hit rolls?  It's early so I may be overlooking a couple...but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Attack roll vs. Saving throw differ only in who's taking the ten.

The reasoning behind this is pretty obvious: "aggressor rolls" for area effects means there's a good chance it's an all-or-nothing, especially so in a typical encounter where the monsters are essentially clones.  Plus, there's some carryover from monster effects not having anything resembling a "DC" in 1974 or '77.
Then why the hell should a hold person need a hit roll? I mean, am I trying to trhow something at my enemy? I summon my arcane powers and cast a course on the enemy, no need to make it something I actualy, physicaly throw at him.

Have you ever heard of "Full-Contact Magic"?  I hate using Harry Potter as my main reference, but it's merely the most well-known example and far from the only one.

You "cast" a physical spell-projectile (in the form of a swirly glowy thing) which needs to hit the target in order to affect it.  Spells can be dodged.  Some spells can only be dodged, because they're irresistable.

It's a legitimate representation of magic, although far from the only one.  It's not particularly linked with traditional D&D magic-style, but there's no reason it couldn't be.



Ok, some can work like that, some worked and will work like that, others will happend and say "ok, you can try to resist. I like both, just give to each spell it's own. I find silly to throw a glowing ball at the person I try to charm.

@Aldrein: if spells are so difficult to master why do they always work? Why is there no chance to fail? How come you can effectively cast while drunk, almost blind, flat on your back, and while an enemy is shoving a sword in your face just as well as when you are calmly performing a spell in the comfort of your tower? Backlash is a common theme in fantasy regarding spellcasting but D&D never experienced it. All of these issues and more are solved by the caster rolling an attack roll (aka spellcaster check) opposed by an enemies saving throw. The roll is there to determine how well you manage to cast the spell. Even the best athletes, musicians, performers, etc cannot succeed at a difficult task 100% of the time. Why is spellcasting any different. The spellcasting roll determines how well you cast the spell which can be hindered by things such as being distracted, being unable to fully sense your target, and having a weapon shoved in your face.



Am I wrong or did I actualy say that sometimes throws should be needed? The danger of a backlash can actualy be a good balancing factor in my opinion, so I'm ok with a concentration roll to cast when drunk, as already said, or in malee or whatever makes you hard to cast the spell.
As for opposite roll, it's just the same to assume a dc of 10+modifiers. In one case I roll, in the other I take the average roll as a dc.  
Now with the current design spells are erratic. Some require attack rolls, some require saving throws, some require both. It is rarely clear or straightforward which method spells will use. This is bad. Not only does it make spells more complicated than necessary and more difficult to use but it also has terrible interaction with critical hits, player activity, and the advantage/disadvantage mechanics. To solve these problems a spellcasting roll should be made by the caster which will be resisted by the defender's saving throw.

When a caster casts a spell they always make their spellcasting roll to see how well they got their spell off. This allows them to critical hit as well as fumble with their spell. One big complaint of 4e players is that being a caster means you never get to roll in combat. Having the caster roll their attack roll would solve this. Lastly, the current rules allow a caster to shoot fireballs at a target behind cover in the darkness while drunk and adjacent to an enemy all at no penalty. Having the caster have to roll an attack like everyone else means they would equally benefit/suffer from the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Now because the target would still have to roll a saving throw against the spells spellcasting would still "feel different" from non spellcasting attacks.

Thoughts?

Absolutely agree with the OP, Spells should make more sense. It´s their attempt on going back to old design, which is bad for the game... I agree they should urgently rework it instead of copping pasting it form AD&D. I´m fine with flavor and I agree not all spells, like CLW, should use the smae mechanics, for instance attack rolls, but I don´t like the fact that there is so much discrepancy amongst spells mechanics. 

if you're rolling, it means you're actively trying to bypass an enemy's defenses.

if you're trying to charm them, dominate them, or hold person them, you're trying to break through their mental barriers with your arcane power. if you're trying to fireball them, lightning bolt them or grease them, it means you're casting the spell before they can reflexively react to it. if you're trying to polymorph them, poison them or petrify them, you're forcing your arcane power over... their... fortitudiousness? 

either way, it's you who's trying to bypass the enemy's capabilities. 
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
What 'discrepancy'?

Also, CLW, as a touch spell (read: in-combat), DID require an attack roll (in AD&D).  As I said...I think touch/rays are the only ones that do.  I can't think of any that aren't like that.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

A simple solution would be attack rolls against a single target, and saving throws against an area effect.  Get rid of the exceptions.
Except it isn't always sensual how it works or even why it works. Take ray of frost in 5e. Why can't a big burly target make a fort save to break free of the ice? Why does plate armor make you harder to hit with the ray? Then look at ennervation in 3e. It drains energy from the target, but requires a requires a ranged attack. Then when you get down to it what is the difference between AC based entirely on dexterity and a Reflex save. It isn't all that clear actually. Now while I think all attacks vs all defenses actually works far better, I know some people want saving throws so this seems like a better solution than what the 5e rules currently use. These rules work great in savage worlds already, they are intuitive, and they don't slow the game down at all.
Thinking further, "aggressor always rolls, against each victim" is probably the better idea.
Yes, some player may have to roll 20 d20s when fireballing a room, but the DM will hardly ever have to roll more than 4-6 dice when annoying an entire PC party, and saves time over having to roll saves for all the monsters all the time.
just do what we did with 4th: aggressor rolls once, compare to each victim.

i fireball for 18 VS reflex. does an 18 hit anyone's reflex? if yes they take X damage, if not, they take X/2. 
 
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
It's the mentality from people who play casters that they always succeed if they never have to roll. I look at it from the perspective that they never get amchance to succeed, because they have no say in the outcome of their actions.

Saves vs Attacks has only one benefit. When the person playing the caster gets too annoying by trying to be the most powerful at the table, which in 3(.5) always seemed to happen, themonsters start getting lucky and they never succeed at anything.

Players shouldn't be forced to decide how much fun they will have when they choose their class. But that's they way it was, as apparently history repeating itself is enough reason for it to happen again.

Personally, I use the house rule that every time a monster fails a save, it gets +1 to its next save and that keeps growing until they make a save and reset back to baseline. It keeps the casters from being too retarded with their power levels. I did this for 4 years in a 3E campaign and the players never even noticed, but it kept the casters only slightly more powerful. 
My thoughts on what works and what doesn't in D&D and how D&D Next may benefit are detailed on my blog, Vorpal Thoughts.
One big complaint of 4e players is that being a caster means you never get to roll in combat.

 
Umm... No? All we do is roll in combat. I don't understand.
It's the mentality from people who play casters that they always succeed if they never have to roll. I look at it from the perspective that they never get amchance to succeed, because they have no say in the outcome of their actions.

I remember once when I played a Dragonfire Adept, which you may or may not be familiar with, but it was a 3.5 class with an at-will zero-recharge-time AoE breath weapon.  The fighters in the group were constantly complaining that I could hit multiple targets every round, consistently, and didn't even have to roll.  They didn't seem to see the circles I had to keep running in to position myself exactly right without clipping anyone or provoking attacks, and they just ignored how I was barely averaging 5 damage per hit while they themselves were hitting for 3-4 times as much.  The grass is always greener, I guess.
Personally, I use the house rule that every time a monster fails a save, it gets +1 to its next save and that keeps growing until they make a save and reset back to baseline. It keeps the casters from being too retarded with their power levels. I did this for 4 years in a 3E campaign and the players never even noticed, but it kept the casters only slightly more powerful. 

That's actually really cool.  It seems like it might be a lot of bookkeeping, but I like the overall effect.  Something similar, with cumulative bonuses to hit if a fighter keeps missing, might also be fun... again, though, there's the bookkeeping.

The metagame is not the game.

Meh, I don't like it but I don't exactly have a 'good' (as in the way most here think about it) reason for it.  See, I like variety.  I like things working differently.  Always have, always will.  And it gives me some flexibility.  If I primarily use spells that target saves and happen to be facing an enemy with very good saves, I'd like the option to switch to a ranged touch spell or something of that nature to bypass those saves.  Thought.  Something my character would both like to and actually do.  In the end, stuff like this bores me.  Can't help it, it's just the way it is.  And it's not an indictment of the idea, either - it simply doesn't work for me.  That's not a judgement, it's an opinion based on personal experience. 



Yet Martial classes always make attack rolls. It's alright for them not to have variety though, I guess.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
What 'discrepancy'?

Also, CLW, as a touch spell (read: in-combat), DID require an attack roll (in AD&D).  As I said...I think touch/rays are the only ones that do.  I can't think of any that aren't like that.



LOL! What the crap? I could already imagine what would happen if you compound this with one of those awful critical failure charts:

[The Cleric stumbles around in his attempt to heal his Fighter friend, then finally grabs hold of something]

Fighter: Gee, thanks alot...
Cleric: No problem.
Fighter: ... for helping the BAD GUY!
Cleric: Oops...

I still think it would be a good way to deal with the advantage/disadvantage issues that creep up...Oh well.

 
I still think it would be a good way to deal with the advantage/disadvantage issues that creep up...Oh well.

Yeah, but advantage/disadvantage is a terrible system anyway.

The metagame is not the game.

I prefer a system in which only the attacker rolls, regardless of whether it is a weapon attack or a spell. It is straightforward and everyone can take their turns quickly.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
I prefer a system in which only the attacker rolls, regardless of whether it is a weapon attack or a spell. It is straightforward and everyone can take their turns quickly.



It's also easier to learn for new players...why have to diferent process/mechanics to do the same thing, resolving an attack?
I prefer a system in which only the attacker rolls, regardless of whether it is a weapon attack or a spell. It is straightforward and everyone can take their turns quickly.



It's also easier to learn for new players...why have to diferent process/mechanics to do the same thing, resolving an attack?



I certainly prefer such a system.  It worked, was elegant, and ran smoothly.  The only issue is that Grognards want their saving throws and think magic will only feel "magical" if you switch around who rolls the d20... 
I prefer a system in which only the attacker rolls, regardless of whether it is a weapon attack or a spell. It is straightforward and everyone can take their turns quickly.


It's also easier to learn for new players...why have to diferent process/mechanics to do the same thing, resolving an attack?


I certainly prefer such a system.  It worked, was elegant, and ran smoothly.  The only issue is that Grognards want their saving throws and think magic will only feel "magical" if you switch around who rolls the d20... 


Wait, I thought that I was a Grognard... no?

I am a former Grognard who converted to SAGA once D&D became unrecognizable.

I guess that makes me a SAGnard.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Sign In to post comments