Rolling for all Spells

One thing I would like to see is to require casters to roll a check (magic ability modifier + skill die) for every spell they cast. I don't like magic being automatic and predictable. I also think this could have a lot of mechanical benefits. A higher roll could improve the spell's duration or other effects, like what 4e did with rituals.
Good idea.  While we are at it, lets have the fighter roll on each attack to make sure that they are holding the sword correctly and have the pointy end pointed the right direction before they can make their attack roll.


And we'd better have clerics make a faith check before they cast each spell just to see how their deity feels about them before they cast any spells as well.  It's only logical.

Carl   
Good idea.  While we are at it, lets have the fighter roll on each attack to make sure that they are holding the sword correctly and have the pointy end pointed the right direction before they can make their attack roll.


And we'd better have clerics make a faith check before they cast each spell just to see how their deity feels about them before they cast any spells as well.  It's only logical.

Carl   



Wow, you sure critted those strawmen!
Good idea.  While we are at it, lets have the fighter roll on each attack to make sure that they are holding the sword correctly and have the pointy end pointed the right direction before they can make their attack roll.

And we'd better have clerics make a faith check before they cast each spell just to see how their deity feels about them before they cast any spells as well.  It's only logical.

Carl   

Fighters already do, it's the attack roll (and for those tables that want a crit fumble occurance). Having clerics roll for spells would be fine with me. I'd prefer the initiator roll for success instead of having sometimes attacker and sometimes defender.

As much as some are passionate about preserving saves, I'm for making them FAR less the norm, and kept strictly for resolving indirect attacks.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
It could work though I thought they tried it in house a people did not like it.
I'd be interested in an arcane check to set a spell save DC instead of using the "fixed" DC.

A little swingy, sure, but possibly rather fun.
Wouldn't make sense with most spells.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

Magic wouldn't feel magical if it had just as likely chance to miss as a warrior's attack. I don't like it. Maybe, do the roll to see if the opponent has a chance to do a saving throw that halfs damage. I think that makes more sense. Or just roll a d20 and let the spell fizzle on a 1 or 2 otherwise effects happen as normal (cuz magical forces are unpredictable like that).

But I don't like magic feeling 'normalized'. It should be magical.
Or just roll a d20 and let the spell fizzle on a 1 or 2 otherwise effects happen as normal.



Excellent example of an alternative! May actually incorporate that on spells 3+. 3-5 (1 fizzle); 6-8 (2 or less fizzle); 9 (3 or less).

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

Magic wouldn't feel magical if it had just as likely chance to miss as a warrior's attack. I don't like it. Maybe, do the roll to see if the opponent has a chance to do a saving throw that halfs damage. I think that makes more sense. Or just roll a d20 and let the spell fizzle on a 1 or 2 otherwise effects happen as normal (cuz magical forces are unpredictable like that).

But I don't like magic feeling 'normalized'. It should be magical.

Chance of success is completely independant of who is rolling. This isn't relevant at all.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Magic wouldn't feel magical if it had just as likely chance to miss as a warrior's attack. I don't like it. Maybe, do the roll to see if the opponent has a chance to do a saving throw that halfs damage. I think that makes more sense. Or just roll a d20 and let the spell fizzle on a 1 or 2 otherwise effects happen as normal (cuz magical forces are unpredictable like that).

But I don't like magic feeling 'normalized'. It should be magical.

Chance of success is completely independant of who is rolling. This isn't relevant at all.




same could be said of 'chance of success' for a fighter hitting a goblin. It's independent of who is rolling. For that matter, the DM doesn't have to roll the saving throws of the monsters, I generally let the mages do it for me.
I would prefer the caster rolls his spellcasting "attack" vs the targets defense/saving throw. I too find it silly that spells go off 100% of the time and there is never a chance to mess up while casting a spell.
Good idea.  While we are at it, lets have the fighter roll on each attack to make sure that they are holding the sword correctly and have the pointy end pointed the right direction before they can make their attack roll.


And we'd better have clerics make a faith check before they cast each spell just to see how their deity feels about them before they cast any spells as well.  It's only logical.

Carl   



   But Fighters DO make a roll each attack to make sure they're holding the sword correctly, have the pointy end aimed at the right spot, etc.  It's the Attack roll itself.  He also needs to roll to make sure he climbs correctly, hides correctly, or does much of anything really.

  With magic as it works now, only occasionally do you have to make such a roll.  It usually "just works". In most cases, it's more reliable.
Good idea.  While we are at it, lets have the fighter roll on each attack to make sure that they are holding the sword correctly and have the pointy end pointed the right direction before they can make their attack roll.


And we'd better have clerics make a faith check before they cast each spell just to see how their deity feels about them before they cast any spells as well.  It's only logical.

Carl   



   But Fighters DO make a roll each attack to make sure they're holding the sword correctly, have the pointy end aimed at the right spot, etc.  It's the Attack roll itself.  He also needs to roll to make sure he climbs correctly, hides correctly, or does much of anything really.

  With magic as it works now, only occasionally do you have to make such a roll.  It usually "just works". In most cases, it's more reliable.



Whooosh!

But being Carl usually makes good points from the standpoint of a Wise Sage atop a mountain, and less like that jerk kill_the_wiz_first, I do believe he was being cynical/sarcastic.

Though, I'm sure you'll note I missed your point with a Whoosh too now, huh?

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

Good idea.  While we are at it, lets have the fighter roll on each attack to make sure that they are holding the sword correctly and have the pointy end pointed the right direction before they can make their attack roll.


And we'd better have clerics make a faith check before they cast each spell just to see how their deity feels about them before they cast any spells as well.  It's only logical.

Carl   



   But Fighters DO make a roll each attack to make sure they're holding the sword correctly, have the pointy end aimed at the right spot, etc.  It's the Attack roll itself.  He also needs to roll to make sure he climbs correctly, hides correctly, or does much of anything really.

  With magic as it works now, only occasionally do you have to make such a roll.  It usually "just works". In most cases, it's more reliable.

For attack spells, I don't think it would be a good idea to have a Spellcasting Roll in addition to a saving throw or attack roll.  You are then requiring two successful rolls rather than 1.  For spells like Charm Person or Fireball, the saving throw takes the place of the attack roll.  It doesn't matter who rolls the D20, the point is that you need 1 roll in your favor in order for your action to work.

For non-attack spells, it is really a question of effectiveness vs. frequency.  A rogue might need to make a check in order to hide, but they can also hide at-will.  A wizard can turn invisible, but only a limited number of times/day (and at the expense of using other spells).  It would be fine to require a casting check for at-will spells, but for daily spells I don't like it.

Come to think of it, this would make for a cool new mechanic for Sorcerers, and a great way to differentiate them from Wizards.  It makes sense that a Sorcerer would be able to cast spells at-will, but also require some sort of check to see how successful/powerful each casting is.

Good idea.  While we are at it, lets have the fighter roll on each attack to make sure that they are holding the sword correctly and have the pointy end pointed the right direction before they can make their attack roll.


And we'd better have clerics make a faith check before they cast each spell just to see how their deity feels about them before they cast any spells as well.  It's only logical.

Carl   



   But Fighters DO make a roll each attack to make sure they're holding the sword correctly, have the pointy end aimed at the right spot, etc.  It's the Attack roll itself.  He also needs to roll to make sure he climbs correctly, hides correctly, or does much of anything really.

  With magic as it works now, only occasionally do you have to make such a roll.  It usually "just works". In most cases, it's more reliable.

For attack spells, I don't think it would be a good idea to have a Spellcasting Roll in addition to a saving throw or attack roll.  You are then requiring two successful rolls rather than 1.  For spells like Charm Person or Fireball, the saving throw takes the place of the attack roll.  It doesn't matter who rolls the D20, the point is that you need 1 roll in your favor in order for your action to work.

For non-attack spells, it is really a question of effectiveness vs. frequency.  A rogue might need to make a check in order to hide, but they can also hide at-will.  A wizard can turn invisible, but only a limited number of times/day (and at the expense of using other spells).  It would be fine to require a casting check for at-will spells, but for daily spells I don't like it.

Come to think of it, this would make for a cool new mechanic for Sorcerers, and a great way to differentiate them from Wizards.  It makes sense that a Sorcerer would be able to cast spells at-will, but also require some sort of check to see how successful/powerful each casting is.




  I was thinking more along the lines of replacing saves with spellcasting rolls... 
 
  And while the Rogue can hide at will, in practice, they only really need to do so for a couple of rounds a day, and when you need it, you need it.

 I'm pretty sure that if we offered a Rogues an ability that allowed them to emmulate the effects of a spell that granted effective hiding for X times a day in exchange for the hide skill, I don't see the latter holding out too well.  

  I'd rather see something like the caster rolling and then adding the result of the roll to the hide skill, or something similar. 
Just a quick note, but I'd point out that the 2nd edition Psionicist functioned under this exact same principle -- having to roll for every power used.

It was one of the first things removed from Psionicists (Psions) come 3rd edition.  Too many people deemed it 'unfun'.

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

Just a quick note, but I'd point out that the 2nd edition Psionicist functioned under this exact same principle -- having to roll for every power used.

It was one of the first things removed from Psionicists (Psions) come 3rd edition.  Too many people deemed it 'unfun'.



I might be misremembering, but wasn't the DC for Psion spells d20 + X in 3e instead of a flat 10 + X like it was for wizards?

Just a quick note, but I'd point out that the 2nd edition Psionicist functioned under this exact same principle -- having to roll for every power used.

It was one of the first things removed from Psionicists (Psions) come 3rd edition.  Too many people deemed it 'unfun'.



I might be misremembering, but wasn't the DC for Psion spells d20 + X in 3e instead of a flat 10 + X like it was for wizards?



TBH I really don't remember; my XPH is tucked away right now or I'd look it up.  But I'm referring not to saves, but to the Power Activation roll.  The save and/or attack roll came -after- that (in 2E, that is) if there was one.  Failing the PA roll meant the ability didn't even happen.  Like what I'm getting from the OP, where there is a chance of 'magic failure' (ie, the spell isn't cast properly). 

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

As much as some are passionate about preserving saves, I'm for making them FAR less the norm, and kept strictly for resolving indirect attacks.

You mean like Area of Effect spells? I thought that was how things were shaping up in D&DNext already. Targeted spells require an Attack roll and area spells require a Saving Throw.

I would prefer the caster rolls his spellcasting "attack" vs the targets defense/saving throw. I too find it silly that spells go off 100% of the time and there is never a chance to mess up while casting a spell.

There is, at least with spells that have a Casting Time of more than 1 Action.
Just a quick note, but I'd point out that the 2nd edition Psionicist functioned under this exact same principle -- having to roll for every power used.

It was one of the first things removed from Psionicists (Psions) come 3rd edition.  Too many people deemed it 'unfun'.




And then they took away anything that gave the Psionicist its identity and just made every power a slightly different version of a Wizard's spell.
"Wizard shoots fireballs with 3rd level spells? Sure, so let's make the Psion shoot "mental balls of acid" from his mind with 3rd level powers!"

The Psionicist was one of the most interesting classes 2ed had, as opposed to the terrible tragedy that was 3ed's Psion.

The 2ed Wild Mage was another great class that involved rolls for casting spells. And incredibly fun to play with!

I don't mind spells being "automatic success" as they have always been, mainly because I'm accustomed to the idea already. But a roll for spellcasting could be interesting too if done right.
I would prefer the caster rolls his spellcasting "attack" vs the targets defense/saving throw. I too find it silly that spells go off 100% of the time and there is never a chance to mess up while casting a spell.

There is, at least with spells that have a Casting Time of more than 1 Action.

Do we have any of those?  We should have some of those.

1 minute auguries and divinations.  3 Actions (spend one each round) to call down the mighty meteor swarm.

It would be a nice feature, and an appropriate balancing point to my mind, if some of the wizard's biggest bangs were mitigated by a little voodoo dancin'.  A little warmin' up the mojo.  Make the player get up and mime out that wicked business, give him advantage on the attack/save.
As much as some are passionate about preserving saves, I'm for making them FAR less the norm, and kept strictly for resolving indirect attacks.

You mean like Area of Effect spells? I thought that was how things were shaping up in D&DNext already. Targeted spells require an Attack roll and area spells require a Saving Throw.


They've wiggled around on it, presumably to try out different things. In the current packet, every spell (or very nearly every spell) uses a save. In past packets, simple attack-style cantrips (and spells in that general vein) used an attack roll vs. AC.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Sign In to post comments