Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JabbaVonHutt Aug 12, 2014 9:44:49	For spells that need to hit, why isn’t it sufficient enough just to hit the target without penetrating the armour to have the spell effect go off?
#2 bawylie Aug 12, 2014 9:54:05	Reduced complexity.    Theres only one number to keep in mind when we determine what needs to be hit.    While led you might argue its "less realistic," they've/we've determined that ease of play tends to be more important than proper simulation of processes.    Ofcourse, nothing stops you changing it. Absolutely feel free to do for your group.
#3 BecDeCorbin Aug 12, 2014 10:06:06	For the same reason you can't throw a fireball or shoot magic missiles through a brick wall--offensive magical energies are blocked by obstructions by default. Armor adds extra layers of protection against such energies, the same as they do for swords and arrows.
#4 mellored Aug 12, 2014 10:15:24	Spells that penetrate armor are Dex saves.
#5 tallric_kruush Aug 12, 2014 10:39:52	It's for game balance. It does often make a certain level of sense, also.   There are cases of armor not being helpful versus magic. For instance, creatures wearing metal armor grant advantage to attackers casting the "Shocking Grasp" cantrip. I'm not sure if there are other examples like this, but it shows thought did go into this.
#6 Orzel Aug 12, 2014 10:41:01	Those Magic Spell are descendent from fey and cannot pierce metal.
#7 knightserpent Aug 12, 2014 12:14:50	Look at shocking grasp.  You get advantage if they're wearing metal armor. :D
#8 Saelorn Aug 12, 2014 12:23:50	knightserpent wrote:
#9 souldoubt Aug 12, 2014 12:34:46	To answer the OP:   1) Simplicity.   2) Balance.     Saelorn wrote:
(Reply to #4) Person_Man	mellored wrote:
#11 JabbaVonHutt Aug 12, 2014 14:00:01	Interesting, because historically there is no precedense for this. It's been a long time since I played AD&D or 2e but I don't remember any spells requiring a to hit roll. In 3e you had touch and ranged touch AC and 4e had reflex defense.    I'm just wondering if this will change how most spellcaster choose their spells such as Chromatic Orb, limited slots plus a good chance to miss well armored opponents may mean most will veer more towards more reliable spells.
#12 Tony_Vargas Aug 12, 2014 14:42:20	JabbaVonHutt wrote:
#13 viper5 Aug 12, 2014 16:30:10	JabbaVonHutt wrote:
#14 Veleria Aug 12, 2014 17:08:10	2e had several roll to hit attack spells, Melfs Acid Arrow, Flame Arrow, Plantlance come to mind off the top of my head. Generally if a spell is some kind of physical attack like fire or acid then it makes perfectly good sense that a to hit roll is used.
#15 seti Aug 12, 2014 17:41:25	I think more spells should be attack rolls. I also think that if it's not an AoE, it shouldn't do damage on a miss.    Also, electricity wouldn't always hurt you if you were wearing metal. For one thing, metal armor might not touch your skin (padding, leather, and cloth under it), for another thing, you could easily be grounded. Electricity is funny. People can survive lightening strikes, and people can also die via a plugged in broken lamp. That's why I always liked some video game interpretations of lightening damage. ie: Diablo 2 made it really swingy. IIRC, a lightening bolt could do 1-20 hp damage, where a similarly leveled fire bolt would do 9-12 hp damage. Or my favorite lightening spell in D2 (static charge) took away 1/4th of whatever it hit HP's with each hit, but could not be aimed at all. That was great for an opening move on an act boss, lol.
#16 Dark_Stryke Aug 12, 2014 19:45:37	JabbaVonHutt wrote:
#17 Tony_Vargas Aug 12, 2014 21:29:30	viper5 wrote:
#18 JRutterbush Aug 12, 2014 22:31:35	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#19 viper5 Aug 12, 2014 23:27:27	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#20 Dark_Stryke Aug 13, 2014 6:23:28	viper5 wrote: