D&D 5E How would YOU nerf the wizard? +

[Gammadoodler]

Hmmm. Been thinking lately about a "casting" roll for spellcasters.

Right now, spells that require a save have after a fashion a casting roll built in - if the opponent makes the save, the spell fails. Those that require an attack roll fail if they don't hit the target.

However, spells that affect one's self or an ally traditionally don't require a roll of any sort, they automatically work. What if this wasn't so? What if casting spells such as bless or invisibility required a "casting check" - something along the lines of DC 8/10 + spell level? Certain circumstances could apply disadvantage (casting on the deck of a heaving ship) or advantage (a spell of your School specialty or Domain spells) to the roll.

Would it be significant? Would there be any knock-on effects (perhaps more slots, since spells can be failed)?

If this was used, should we change how saves are done? The opponent having static defenses like 4E and the caster has to roll to overcome them?

One way of potentially using the casting roll for save spells would be to set the spell DC.

 

[Reynard]

One way of potentially using the casting roll for save spells would be to set the spell DC.

I don't think you need both rolls.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I don't think you need both rolls.

Maybe, maybe not. Need isn't like a super relevant metric here.

Ultimately, the mechanic would work out very similarly to an opposed skill check, and the places where those arise seem, to me, to be very close parallels in terms of narrative (e.g. how different is it narratively to cast Hold Person on a target than it is to Grapple that target?)

Edit: one difficult thing would be what you do with effects that occur even on a save. Seems a bit strange that you could biff your casting roll and still get half damage.

 

[Horwath]

Hmmm. Been thinking lately about a "casting" roll for spellcasters.

Right now, spells that require a save have after a fashion a casting roll built in - if the opponent makes the save, the spell fails. Those that require an attack roll fail if they don't hit the target.

However, spells that affect one's self or an ally traditionally don't require a roll of any sort, they automatically work. What if this wasn't so? What if casting spells such as bless or invisibility required a "casting check" - something along the lines of DC 8/10 + spell level? Certain circumstances could apply disadvantage (casting on the deck of a heaving ship) or advantage (a spell of your School specialty or Domain spells) to the roll.

Would it be significant? Would there be any knock-on effects (perhaps more slots, since spells can be failed)?

If this was used, should we change how saves are done? The opponent having static defenses like 4E and the caster has to roll to overcome them?

I really dislike rolls that spells could fail that have only beneficial effect.

By that logic, we should have every fighter roll sleight of hand when drawing a sword so we check will it fall out of hand or some check when drinking potions so you do not drown yourself by accident.

But, from the fun point of view, I liked 4E style more where all spells are attacks and caster makes all the rolls.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I really dislike rolls that spells could fail that have only beneficial effect.

By that logic, we should have every fighter roll sleight of hand when drawing a sword so we check will it fall out of hand or some check when drinking potions so you do not drown yourself by accident.

But, from the fun point of view, I liked 4E style more where all spells are attacks and caster makes all the rolls.

By the logic you are using,

Summoning a creature from heaven, hell, or another plane of existence is directly equivalent in difficulty to...

..Drinking?

To each their own and all, but that is an interesting worldbuilding assumption.

 

[Horwath]

By the logic you are using,

Summoning a creature from heaven, hell, or another plane of existence is directly equivalent in difficulty to...

..Drinking?

To each their own and all, but that is an interesting worldbuilding assumption.

spells are limited resource and with that they should be reliable to a point.

that is why most attack spells do something(half damage or reduced effect) even on a miss or successful saving throw.
Or another take could be, that if spell does nothing on it's action or whatever time you need, that the spell slot or other resource is not spent.

That is why Battlemaster is so popular, becuase it's resource is only triggered on successful attack and not wasted on attempt to do something.

 

[TwoSix]

By the logic you are using,

Summoning a creature from heaven, hell, or another plane of existence is directly equivalent in difficulty to...

..Drinking?

To each their own and all, but that is an interesting worldbuilding assumption.

That seems like one of those classic conflicts between “rules built for play” and “rules built to create verisimilitude”.

It might be realistic that your devil summoning only works 40% of the time, but is that actually fun at the table?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That seems like one of those classic conflicts between “rules built for play” and “rules built to create verisimilitude”.

It might be realistic that your devil summoning only works 40% of the time, but is that actually fun at the table?

Well, you know what end of that spectrum I fall on. Whether either philosophy is fun at the table is subjective.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That seems like one of those classic conflicts between “rules built for play” and “rules built to create verisimilitude”.

It might be realistic that your devil summoning only works 40% of the time, but is that actually fun at the table?

A reasonable question. But it's not like these are the only options.

Do we think that it is impossible to have fun spellcasting that is anything less than 100% reliable?

Like, we roll dice for all kinds of things in D&D, where the result of the dieroll governs whether we succeed or fail. I'm not sure why it'd be uniquely unfun to fail at spellcasting.

Hell, the wild magic sorcerer's whole deal is that it is unpredictable, and the main critique of it is that the GM may not let players roll on the wild magic surge table enough.

I thinks if the chances of failure are reasonably low and if failure has interesting consequences (not all of which have to be negative), there's plenty of room to work here.

 

[jmartkdr2]

A reasonable question. But it's not like these are the only options.

Do we think that it is impossible to have fun spellcasting that is anything less than 100% reliable?

No one is arguing that - but a few people seem to be arguing that reliablity has nothing to do with fun or that being less reliable won't impact gameplay.

Like, we roll dice for all kinds of things in D&D, where the result of the dieroll governs whether we succeed or fail. I'm not sure why it'd be uniquely unfun to fail at spellcasting.

Most things that have a chance to do nothing don't require a limited resource to attempt. The few few spells that do nothing on a successful save tend to do a lot on a failed save (ie disintegrate)

Hell, the wild magic sorcerer's whole deal is that it is unpredictable, and the main critique of it is that the GM may not let players roll on the wild magic surge table enough.

Do you think the sorcerer class would be more popular if all subclasses had that feature? Do you think people would be happy if all magic was wild magic?

I thinks if the chances of failure are reasonably low and if failure has interesting consequences (not all of which have to be negative), there's plenty of room to work here.

I'd say that's where we already are, making spells less reliable will just increase the number of feelsbad moments for casters without making noncasters get more.

I, for one, don't want to balance the game by taking away the fun parts. I'd rather add more fun parts where they're lacking or make the decision points more interesting.