# Magical attacks - do they all require to-hit rolls?



## harassed (May 25, 2012)

Been reading through the playtest material and, on my first pass, I thought I'd completely misunderstood how magical attacks worked.  My initial impression was that melee attacks were the traditional D&D d20+mods vs AC but that magical attacks auto-hit.  Then, depending on the spell description, the target could make a save to avoid/mitigate the effect.

On re-reading, I noticed that magical attacks stated a melee/ranged attack was required but possibly followed by a save for the target to avoid/mitigate the effect.

On a more detailed read through of the spell listings, I think both cases are true.  At the bottom of  p24 of the "How to Play" booklet, the section on "Attack Spells" suggests that _some_ spells require a melee or ranged attack roll and the next section on p25 "Spells and Saving Throws" states that _some_ spell effects may be avoided if a target makes a successful save.

Where the confusion comes in is with the spell lists themselves.  For instance, the 1st level wizard spell "Burning Hands" (p26) makes no mention of an attack roll at all but does mention half damage on a successful save.  As it's a cone effect, does that mean everyone in the cone is automatically hit but can save for half damage or do you have to roll to hit (vs AC) first?

Another example is the 1st level cleric spell "Command" (p27) which again makes no mention of an attack roll - and in fact, rolling vs AC seems stupid for a charm effect, anyway which is presumably why Will existed in 4e.  The description of Command does again mention a Wisdom save to resist the spell entirely (unless the target has fewer than x HP).  If there is was attack roll required, then the cleric has to roll d20+mods vs AC to "hit", then the target gets to save to avoid the effect entirely which massively reduces the chance of the spell working even if the to-hit roll is successful.

On the other hand, spells such as "Shocking Grasp"and "Spiritual Hammer" (both p30) explicitly state that a melee attack roll is required.

It appears, therefore,  that only those spells which explicitly state they require a melee or ranged attack need any sort of to-hit mechanic, with the remainder either applying their effects whatever, or requiring the target to save.  While I actually like this mechanic (if it's correct), it does mean that players playing spellcasting characters would be in the interesting situation of not having to roll any dice at all for some magical attacks.


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

haraseed said:
			
		

> It appears, therefore,  that only those spells which explicitly state  they require a melee or ranged attack need any sort of to-hit mechanic,  with the remainder either applying their effects whatever, or requiring  the target to save.  While I actually like this mechanic (if it's  correct), it does mean that players playing spellcasting characters  would be in the interesting situation of not having to roll any dice at  all for some magical attacks.



I think you've got it. This is basically how it worked up through 4e.

Basically, you cast a spell, then do what it's description says. If it doesn't say to make an attack roll, you don't. If it doesn't say your enemy gets a save, they don't.

Hope that helps.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Klaus (May 25, 2012)

harassed said:


> Been reading through the playtest material and, on my first pass, I thought I'd completely misunderstood how magical attacks worked.  My initial impression was that melee attacks were the traditional D&D d20+mods vs AC but that magical attacks auto-hit.  Then, depending on the spell description, the target could make a save to avoid/mitigate the effect.
> 
> On re-reading, I noticed that magical attacks stated a melee/ranged attack was required but possibly followed by a save for the target to avoid/mitigate the effect.
> 
> ...



Several spells in 1e, 2e and 3e required no rolls from their casters, relying instead on the target rolling the saving throw. This is the case here, moving away (for the moment) from the "attackers always roll" of 4e.


----------



## steeldragons (May 25, 2012)

This makes me feel all warm n' fuzzy inside. 

If spells were going to require an attack roll all the time, that woulda been my first "houserule" out.

But, perhaps the most important spell question for 5e...*Do Magic Missiles automatically hit?  *From this answer, the opinion of all other magic shall flow.  [I don't have the playtest pack, so anyone who wants to share some light on this is most welcomed to.]

--SD


----------



## harassed (May 25, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> This makes me feel all warm n' fuzzy inside.
> 
> If spells were going to require an attack roll all the time, that woulda been my first "houserule" out.
> 
> ...




Yes, yes they do


----------



## Morrus (May 25, 2012)

Traditionally, you had two types:

1) Those that have a skill/targeting element require an attack roll - the old ranged touch attacks for rays, for example.
2) Those that do not allow a save - an area blast like a fireball, for example.
3) Though there were others, such as magic missile, which autohit for a little damage.

It was very rare that a spell would have both.

It seems 5E has has adopted this philosophy.  And yes, magic missile autohits.


----------



## harassed (May 25, 2012)

Kinak said:


> I think you've got it. This is basically how it worked up through 4e.
> 
> Basically, you cast a spell, then do what it's description says. If it doesn't say to make an attack roll, you don't. If it doesn't say your enemy gets a save, they don't.
> 
> ...




Cool, that makes sense then   It's a long time since I played anything other than 4e.  Mostly missed 3/3.5 but played 2e for a long time 20-odd years ago so you'll have to forgive my poor memory...

Overall, I like most things I've seen in the playtest.  Love the advantage/disadvantage thing (in fact I may introduce it as a houserule in my 4e campaign instead of CA).  The only thing I'm not convinced by is the hit dice thing and healing/resting in general.  

I'll probably do a test run with some of my players this weekend if I can round the reprobates up (if you're reading, you know who you are!).


----------



## MoonSong (May 25, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> This makes me feel all warm n' fuzzy inside.
> 
> If spells were going to require an attack roll all the time, that woulda been my first "houserule" out.
> 
> ...



Like Hl they do! It is cool the classic magic missiles are back. But they are a cantrip now and I don't know how to fell about it. I worry a little that a wizard could potentially own an encounter without even making a single attack roll or allowing a single save. I'm not too sure if that spell really belongs in the free-all-day category, but that remains to be seen.


----------



## bringerofbroom (May 25, 2012)

magic missile appears to be autohit. ( as long as they are not blocked )

BoB


----------



## KesselZero (May 25, 2012)

I went through the exact same thought process and came to the same conclusion. Some spells use attack rolls, some don't; ditto saves. What's interesting is that as far as I can tell, all spell attack rolls use your "magic ability"-- usually Int or Wis-- even if they're explicitly making a ranged or melee attack. This is a change from 3e which required ranged touch attacks and the like that used Dexterity. I'm not sure how I feel about this, since it tends to suggest that casters min-max to get the highest magic ability, rather than needing a few points in Dex to hit with their rays and whatnot.

SD: magic missile auto-hits and does 1d4+1 damage!


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> But they are a cantrip now and I don't know how to fell about it. I worry a little that a wizard could potentially own an encounter without even making a single attack roll or allowing a single save. I'm not too sure if that spell really belongs in the free-all-day category, but that remains to be seen.



I actually like the cantrip aspect, but am not a big fan of the "scaling by level" aspect. Personally, I think people will be perfectly happy to have a single 1d4+1 no roll magic missile as a cantrip.

Or, actually, have it be a first level spell that scales based on what level you're using to cast it. It's possible that's already how it already works. The playtest seems to be a bit behind the articles (not that I can blame them).

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## drothgery (May 25, 2012)

I'm really, really not a fan of the idea of 'some spells make an attack roll, some you have to save against' concept, particularly if one or the other isn't a thing for unusual, niche spells. That means that weapon users have one thing to improve if they want to increase accuracy, and casters have two.


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

drothgery said:


> I'm really, really not a fan of the idea of 'some spells make an attack roll, some you have to save against' concept, particularly if one or the other isn't a thing for unusual, niche spells. That means that weapon users have one thing to improve if they want to increase accuracy, and casters have two.



To be fair, both their attack rolls with spells and their save DCs are tied to the same attribute.

Feats or class features might end up causing a division, but we haven't seen anything like that yet.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## KesselZero (May 25, 2012)

I'm not sure about Magic Missile being a cantrip. At its current damage value it can auto-kill the lowest-level monsters. That means that against a pack of kobolds or rats, for example, the wizard is essentially doing the same damage as the fighter (defined as "enough to kill the enemy in one hit"), at the same rate (at-will), but from range and with no chance of missing. (Note that the Slayer theme gives the fighter auto-damage on a miss, which would basically negate this objection, but that's only a specific theme power and not natural to any melee combatant.)


----------



## mlund (May 25, 2012)

drothgery said:


> I'm really, really not a fan of the idea of 'some spells make an attack roll, some you have to save against' concept, particularly if one or the other isn't a thing for unusual, niche spells. That means that weapon users have one thing to improve if they want to increase accuracy, and casters have two.




Magical Attack rolls use the same Magic Attribute as Magical Save DCs. It is mono-stat. The only poor soul that gets stuck with MAD in combat is potentially the Cleric of Moradin.



KesselZero said:


> I'm not sure about Magic Missile being a cantrip. At its current damage value it can auto-kill the lowest-level monsters. That means that against a pack of kobolds or rats, for example, the wizard is essentially doing the same damage as the fighter (defined as "enough to kill the enemy in one hit"), at the same rate (at-will), but from range and with no chance of missing. (Note that the Slayer theme gives the fighter auto-damage on a miss, which would basically negate this objection, but that's only a specific theme power and not natural to any melee combatant.)




Yes, the Slayer does indeed do the same average damage even when he misses, so it is a moot point with "trash" monsters. Anyone who isn't a slayer is going to get some sort of compensation in exchange for it, ideally an equivalent exchange, so there's still no disparity. Heck, the Wizard seems to specialize in controlling larger mobs of "trash" monsters with his Major spells too. Burning hands kills all the basic kobolds and rats in the blast even if they all make their saving throws and he rolls minimum damage.

Meanwhile when you attack anything with > half a hit die the Fighter is doing an average of 14 damage at-will with an attack roll while the Wizard is doing 3 without a roll or 8 with a roll. On the up side, the Wizard is at range. It all seems to come out in the wash.

- Marty Lund


----------



## OnlineDM (May 25, 2012)

KesselZero said:


> I'm not sure about Magic Missile being a cantrip. At its current damage value it can auto-kill the lowest-level monsters. That means that against a pack of kobolds or rats, for example, the wizard is essentially doing the same damage as the fighter (defined as "enough to kill the enemy in one hit"), at the same rate (at-will), but from range and with no chance of missing. (Note that the Slayer theme gives the fighter auto-damage on a miss, which would basically negate this objection, but that's only a specific theme power and not natural to any melee combatant.)




I don't see a problem here. Against very low-level monsters, Magic Missile is very useful. Why is that a problem? It does d4+1 damage; if you're fighting something with more than 2 hit points, it's not an auto-kill.

Certain tools SHOULD be very effective in certain situations. If the wizard is up against something tougher, the plinking damage from Magic Missile isn't going to keep up with the fighter's axe. Different characters shine in different situations; that's a good thing in my opinion!


----------



## KesselZero (May 25, 2012)

Right, but what if the fighter isn't a slayer?


----------



## drothgery (May 25, 2012)

Kinak said:


> To be fair, both their attack rolls with spells and their save DCs are tied to the same attribute.
> 
> Feats or class features might end up causing a division, but we haven't seen anything like that yet.



I guess I may be jumping the gun there, but I'm very much expecting this unless the D&playtest feedback is essentially the revolt of the mathematicians (there's so much math that looks broken right now...).


----------



## mlund (May 25, 2012)

KesselZero said:


> Right, but what if the fighter isn't a slayer?




Then he traded that Theme for another Theme that he believed had equal or greater value for his desired play style. He's certainly not going to trade into something *worse* that he wants less now is he?

- Marty Lund


----------



## erf_beto (May 25, 2012)

Something is bugging me about Ray of Frost. Two things, actually.

It asks for a successful _ranged _attack to hit - not a _magic _attack.  (edit: ok, I just reread the "attack spells" section, my mistake). And it doesn't say anything about damage. Isn't it strange that a spell freezes you into place but doesn't cause any damage?


----------

