Hey guys, I recently started DMing for my kids. I last played as a PC 25 years ago, I have read both the 5e player and DM handbooks. I think I understand the rules but am a little stumped when it comes to attack rolls with spells.
I understand how a saving throw works, but from my understanding when a spell deals damage, you roll a d20 and add the spellcasting ability to the roll. If it is equal or higher than the targets AC, the roll succeeds.
My main question is why AC? I mean if a fighter has 16+ AC and a Wizard has 10, the wizard will potentially take more hits than a fighter. To me this makes no sense. Is this the correct way to apply the roll?
Not all the damage-dealing spells require an attack roll.
A spell that deals damage may require a spell attack roll (spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus), or a saving throw from the target. In a few cases, depending on the effects, a spell may require both.
But, yes, in the case of a spell attack roll, the result must be compared with the AC of the target.
Hey guys, I recently started DMing for my kids. I last played as a PC 25 years ago, I have read both the 5e player and DM handbooks. I think I understand the rules but am a little stumped when it comes to attack rolls with spells.
I understand how a saving throw works, but from my understanding when a spell deals damage, you roll a d20 and add the spellcasting ability to the roll. If it is equal or higher than the targets AC, the roll succeeds.
My main question is why AC? I mean if a fighter has 16+ AC and a Wizard has 10, the wizard will potentially take more hits than a fighter. To me this makes no sense. Is this the correct way to apply the roll?
Your middle paragraph does describe an attack roll, but not all damaging spells make attacks. In fact, most use saves and deal at least half damage even if the save is passed.
Attack AC and save DC are essentially the same thing. A d20+modifier is rolled against a value to see if an effect occurs (usually damage). Attacks try to physically hit the target and their ability to dodge or block with armor make them harder to hit.
I'm not sure where you are getting you hypothetical ACs for your fighter and wizard. 10 is the minimum for wizard, and they should average 11-12 or be 14 AC with mage armor. For comparison, a fighter's minimum is 12, but should average 16-18 AC like you said. And wizards can get 18+DEX with mage armor and shield.
And fighters are armored melee combatants, their armor class should naturally be harder to hit through with a weapon than a wizard's.
I mean if a fighter has 16+ AC and a Wizard has 10, the wizard will potentially take more hits than a fighter. To me this makes no sense. Is this the correct way to apply the roll?
The fighter types with high AC and hit points are the ones expected to rush into battle, to be in the middle of things, to take damage. So they have a higher AC (generally) than the Spellcasting types.
Wizards tend to hang back, to throw spells from far away from the fighting if possible...
Hey guys, I recently started DMing for my kids. I last played as a PC 25 years ago, I have read both the 5e player and DM handbooks. I think I understand the rules but am a little stumped when it comes to attack rolls with spells.
I understand how a saving throw works, but from my understanding when a spell deals damage, you roll a d20 and add the spellcasting ability to the roll. If it is equal or higher than the targets AC, the roll succeeds.
My main question is why AC? I mean if a fighter has 16+ AC and a Wizard has 10, the wizard will potentially take more hits than a fighter. To me this makes no sense. Is this the correct way to apply the roll?
Yes, if a spell says to make an attack roll, then the caster rolls a d20 and adds their spellcasting modifier and proficiency bonus to it, and it's a hit if it is equal or higher to the target's AC. So yes, an unarmored wizard will often be easier to hit with a spell than a heavily armored fighter, same way it's easier to hit them with an arrow or a sword.
(Note that not all spells require you to make an attack roll - read the spell and do what it says. Some require an attack roll by the caster (needing to meet or beat the target's AC), some require a saving throw by the target (needing to meet or beat the caster's spell save DC), and others require no roll at all and simply take effect.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey guys, I recently started DMing for my kids. I last played as a PC 25 years ago, I have read both the 5e player and DM handbooks. I think I understand the rules but am a little stumped when it comes to attack rolls with spells.
I understand how a saving throw works, but from my understanding when a spell deals damage, you roll a d20 and add the spellcasting ability to the roll. If it is equal or higher than the targets AC, the roll succeeds.
My main question is why AC? I mean if a fighter has 16+ AC and a Wizard has 10, the wizard will potentially take more hits than a fighter. To me this makes no sense. Is this the correct way to apply the roll?
Not all the damage-dealing spells require an attack roll.
A spell that deals damage may require a spell attack roll (spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus), or a saving throw from the target. In a few cases, depending on the effects, a spell may require both.
But, yes, in the case of a spell attack roll, the result must be compared with the AC of the target.
Your middle paragraph does describe an attack roll, but not all damaging spells make attacks. In fact, most use saves and deal at least half damage even if the save is passed.
Attack AC and save DC are essentially the same thing. A d20+modifier is rolled against a value to see if an effect occurs (usually damage). Attacks try to physically hit the target and their ability to dodge or block with armor make them harder to hit.
I'm not sure where you are getting you hypothetical ACs for your fighter and wizard. 10 is the minimum for wizard, and they should average 11-12 or be 14 AC with mage armor. For comparison, a fighter's minimum is 12, but should average 16-18 AC like you said. And wizards can get 18+DEX with mage armor and shield.
And fighters are armored melee combatants, their armor class should naturally be harder to hit through with a weapon than a wizard's.
Okay maybe that makes more sense when a spell can increase that much of an ability. Thanks
The fighter types with high AC and hit points are the ones expected to rush into battle, to be in the middle of things, to take damage. So they have a higher AC (generally) than the Spellcasting types.
Wizards tend to hang back, to throw spells from far away from the fighting if possible...
Yes, if a spell says to make an attack roll, then the caster rolls a d20 and adds their spellcasting modifier and proficiency bonus to it, and it's a hit if it is equal or higher to the target's AC. So yes, an unarmored wizard will often be easier to hit with a spell than a heavily armored fighter, same way it's easier to hit them with an arrow or a sword.
(Note that not all spells require you to make an attack roll - read the spell and do what it says. Some require an attack roll by the caster (needing to meet or beat the target's AC), some require a saving throw by the target (needing to meet or beat the caster's spell save DC), and others require no roll at all and simply take effect.)