Should magic miss?

[Hormalakh]

In older IE games, magic didn't miss unless it was a touch spell. Your magic missles didn't miss, and higher level spells didn't miss. Usually, you had save vs spells instead. Should ranged magic act more like ranged weapons in that they should miss or no? Discuss.

[rjshae]

Meh. Does it matter? It's just a balance issue.

[harhar!]

No, only saves.

[ValarMorghulis]

seems 6 one way, 1/2 dozen the other. Either way a % will hit and a % will miss.

[PsychoBlonde]

seems 6 one way, 1/2 dozen the other. Either way a % will hit and a % will miss.

 

Pretty much. Since they're talking about having slightly different systems for little spells vs. big whammies, it'd make sense from a tuning perspective if the little spells can potentially miss but you need special protection (like spell resistance) to avoid the whammies.

[Droogle]

In older IE games, magic didn't miss unless it was a touch spell. Your magic missles didn't miss, and higher level spells didn't miss. Usually, you had save vs spells instead. Should ranged magic act more like ranged weapons in that they should miss or no? Discuss.

 

Reflex save, will save, fortitude save. <- your armor class vs magic.

 

just like you had armor class vs normal attacks.

 

only difference ins magic has no critical miss or hit.

 

worked well to me.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Droogle

[PsychoBlonde]

 

only difference ins magic has no critical miss or hit.

 

 

1. They aren't using D&D mechanics in PE.

2. Dungeons and Dragons Online has spell crits. And they are awesome.

 

So don't rule out other mechanical variations on the basis of "that's how D&D does it". They might be cool.

[Hormalakh]

Imagine magic being the D&D equivalent of Fallout's Energy weapons. I would love to see some awesome animations when you get crit hit and die.

[Droogle]

only difference ins magic has no critical miss or hit.

 

 

1. They aren't using D&D mechanics in PE.

2. Dungeons and Dragons Online has spell crits. And they are awesome.

 

So don't rule out other mechanical variations on the basis of "that's how D&D does it". They might be cool.

1. Yes, i'm aware.

2. I imagine they are.

 

Not ruling them out, i just was giving my perspective of how magical accuracy worked in the older IE games.

 

It worked well, but i don't think it's the only way a magic system can work. The only aspect i really want (need) carried over is that different classes are stronger and weaker against different types of magical attacks.

 

I believe that a system with misses and critical hits for spells could work well in this game. iirc they obsidian said they were experimenting with having lower level spells have unlimited uses and higher level spells actually using "charges". Or something like that (don't axe me for a source). A spell missing in such a system is much less devastating than in the older IE games, where, particularly at lower levels, you had very little spell capacity. IF your level 1 wizard can throw out spells as often as a level 1 fighter can swing his sword, they should miss(and crit!) just as often.

[Arctic]

magic can .. fail , but you can miss only when you make an attack roll, other spells have by .. salvation , resistence , ect

[MoobooMagoo]

I think there should be a way to fail casting the spell, like heavy armor spell failure and such. I also think you should be able to miss, but it should be dependent on the individual spells. If you've got a spell that shoots out an energy bolt like a gun or an arrow, then it should be dodged like a gun or an arrow (but potentially pierce armor or something, it depends on the spell).

 

Some spells, though, would be much more difficult to avoid. If you turn a football field patch of ground into lava, it is going to be very difficult for that to miss.

 

My point is, whether you use reflex saves, fortitude saves, will saves, dodge bonus, armor class, or whatever to dodge a spell it should be different for each spell. You could also have some sort of anti magic field or armor that works against all spells if you wanted, but against a normal, non magical person or creature it should be spell dependent.

[Greensleeve]

I agree with the stance "It doesn't really matter." What matters is that it is decently balanced, unlike 3.5. As long as we don't get situations where the main casters are more powerful/useful in solving basically any encounter, combat or not, than most other characters, I'm very happy with it all.

[Halric]

I agree that it's a balance issue, it also depends heavily on the type of "feel" the desigers are aiming for. When magic can miss, this means you can cast more of it. So if they plan to have spells that you can cast a lot without haivng to rest, these will most likely have attack rolls associated. If, on the other hand, the spell is gone after you cast it until resting then it will most likely have a save mechanic or just hit automatically.

 

In D&D 2e/3e era, spells required rest to recharge, and you only had a limited amount of slots per day. This meant that you weren't likely to be throwing out all your fireballs in the first room of a ruined temple. However, when you did let one of those precious flaming balls of destruction loose, there was a measure of certainty that it would do damage. D&D 3e only allowed saving for half damage unless your character possessed a specal evasion feat that would allow them to save for none.

 

In D&D 4e, magic missile became an "At-Will" spell, meaning you could cast it as much as you wanted. The balance was that it no longer was an automatic hit and required an attack roll against the opponent's defense. IIRC for magic missile it was a Intelligence Attack vs. Reflex Defense.

 

So while it's a balance issue, it is also one of the key choices that determines how a magic system will "feel" because a lot of other choices will be based on the decision to allow magic to miss.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Halric

[SeekDWay]

The thing about crits on spells is that it dimishes the usaul Ommph feeling mages give off when they cast their kick ass spells, because they have to be balanced around crit probability. I'd rather have a very limited number or no stats shared between fighters and spellcasters. Having abominations llike Diablo 3 and other newer games where spellcasters are just archers with more shiny is kinda boring to me. I play mostly rangers and bards... Then again I don't like D&D 4e, so it might be just my personal preference.

Edited October 21, 2012 by SeekDWay