Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kurikin 06-26-07, 12:56 AM	I was thinking about why attacking has a chance of failing or doing something better than intended and spell casting doesn't. I came up with this. Pretty much now the DC instead of an average 10 you roll a D20 to determine the DC. On a 20 the spell becomes better than intended and on a 1 outright fails or does something different than intended. So here we go! Spell save DC is (d20 + casting stat mod + spell level). Spells that don’t have a save DC still have to be rolled for as if they had one. On a 20 the DC gains an additional +20 (+40 total) and you must roll on the Metamagic Effects Table. If the same effect is added twice or the spell is ineligible for the effect you must reroll. Metamagic Effects 30% (1-30) Enlarge 30% (31-60) Extend 20% (61-80) Empowered 10% (81-90) Maximize 5% (91-95) Widen 5% (96-100) Roll again twice On a 1 the DC gains a -20 penalty. If this brings the DC to 0 or less then you must roll on the Miss Fire Table. Arcane failure chance adds 1 to the range per 5%. Miss Fire 60% (1-60) Failed 20% (61-80) Back fired 10% (81-90) Back fired and roll on Metamagic table 10% (91-100) Cast random spell that you know of equal or lower level of same school, reroll DC Tomorrow me and my group are having a session and I plan on giving this a test run and I'll report my findings.
Bobson 06-26-07, 04:59 PM	I was thinking about why attacking has a chance of failing or doing something better than intended and spell casting doesn't. I came up with this. Pretty much now the DC instead of an average 10 you roll a D20 to determine the DC. On a 20 the spell becomes better than intended and on a 1 outright fails or does something different than intended. Any spell which requires an attack roll already does this (touch spells, rays...) - they can crit, or critically fail, and they get sneak attack. In fact, that's the entire point of the spellwarp sniper prestige class from Complete Scoundrel - turn more spells into rays so they can get sneak attack damage... Spell save DC is (d20 + casting stat mod + spell level). Spells that don’t have a save DC still have to be rolled for as if they had one. I kindof like this idea, but it has one major flaw: They still roll their save. Every other normal attack (grapples and other special combat actions are separate) involves one roll against a fixed number. The special attacks are straight opposed rolls, so 20's and 1's don't do anything special. This idea turns a spell into an opposed roll where either person can critically fail or critically succeed on their roll... What happens if you both get 20's? Or 1's? Also, some spells you do not want to enlarge or widen... "I critically succeeded on my fireball, so it blew up my party!" All that being said, I do agree that how spell DCs are calculated needs to be reconsidered. It's too easy for a spellcaster to be able to cast spells which monsters can't resist (especially so at low levels, since DC doesn't scale well) or monsters to cast spells which some PC's can only barely fail to resist (especially so at high levels, but true at lower as well).
TheDarkLord 06-26-07, 09:54 PM	I already instituted a change like this. It was a variant rule in the 3.0 DMG and a rule in 3.0 psionics. What I found was somewhat necessary was to drop alot of the SR from spells. Things that dealt energy damage and whatnot I quit having SR affect them completely. As of now though, i run a slightly modified Vanacian system casting and use a standard 1d20+1/2 cl+primary stat for the save DC. It allows 1st level spells to be useful later in levels and gives more staying power for spellcasters throughout higher levels when multiple high level spells are needed to overcome an encounter.
Rustmonster 06-26-07, 10:39 PM	I was thinking about why attacking has a chance of failing or doing something better than intended and spell casting doesn't. I came up with this. Pretty much now the DC instead of an average 10 you roll a D20 to determine the DC. On a 20 the spell becomes better than intended and on a 1 outright fails or does something different than intended. -snip- On a 20 the DC gains an additional +20 (+40 total) and you must roll on the Metamagic Effects Table. If the same effect is added twice or the spell is ineligible for the effect you must reroll. -snip- On a 1 the DC gains a -20 penalty. If this brings the DC to 0 or less then you must roll on the Miss Fire Table. Arcane failure chance adds 1 to the range per 5%. First off, spells can fail, such as if your opponent makes their save, you miss a touch attack, etc. Secondly, as pointed out, you may not want to have metamagic put on your attack. It is also kind of silly to make a roll even if the caster normally doesn't have to. In those cases, for the most part it is the opponent that makes a roll (save). It's seems that you haven't factored in that the opponent makes save. Thirdly, fumble charts are a BAD IDEA. They are absolutly no fun, and will make people not want to play magic users, in this case. Do you use a fumble chart for melee? I'd advise against this, too. All fumble charts do is penalize players, especially if they make many rolls (ie, iteritive attacks). Failing the attack is bad enough. It doesn't need to have other bad things tacked on.
Kurikin 06-27-07, 12:43 AM	I kindof like this idea, but it has one major flaw: They still roll their save. What is wrong with them still rolling their save? I like this way because it depends on what a person does at that moment instead of one side of the equation being always static no matter the situation. If you don't like people rolling why not just make every d20 roll be just a flat 10. It was save so much time and solve this "major flaw." This idea turns a spell into an opposed roll where either person can critically fail or critically succeed on their roll... What happens if you both get 20's? Or 1's? In my camapiagn there are no "auto" fails are succeeds. You instead get -20 on a 1 and +20 on a 20. I stated it was like this in my original post and how to deal with both of them. Also, some spells you do not want to enlarge or widen... "I critically succeeded on my fireball, so it blew up my party!" We actually talked about this today in my group and we thought a fix could be that if you roll up a metamagic effect that would be detrimental then you just reroll. I already instituted a change like this. It was a variant rule in the 3.0 DMG and a rule in 3.0 psionics. What I found was somewhat necessary was to drop alot of the SR from spells. Things that dealt energy damage and whatnot I quit having SR affect them completely. As of now though, i run a slightly modified Vanacian system casting and use a standard 1d20+1/2 cl+primary stat for the save DC. It allows 1st level spells to be useful later in levels and gives more staying power for spellcasters throughout higher levels when multiple high level spells are needed to overcome an encounter. I'll have to try out the 1d20+1/2 cl+primary stat and the SR thing. They both make a lot of sense. Can you explain to me what the "Vanacian system casting" is please? First off, spells can fail, such as if your opponent makes their save, you miss a touch attack, etc. What I meant is the spell fails at your end, while you are casting it you have a chance to mess up a key part of the spell. In the books it says that magic is a science that if you mess up there are grave repercussions. How it sounds to me its actually pretty easy to mess up. 5% chance is nothing compared to what fluff makes it sound it should be. Secondly, as pointed out, you may not want to have metamagic put on your attack. It is also kind of silly to make a roll even if the caster normally doesn't have to. In those cases, for the most part it is the opponent that makes a roll (save). It's seems that you haven't factored in that the opponent makes save. I'll repeat myself. We actually talked about this today in my group and we thought a fix could be that if you roll up a metamagic effect that would be detrimental then you just reroll. I'm having casters roll the DC anyways to just see if they mess up the spell or cast it better than was intended (or maybe just mess up but the change is good, kinda like evolution. Some changes greatly benefit the creature and some are bad.) Thirdly, fumble charts are a BAD IDEA. They are absolutly no fun, and will make people not want to play magic users, in this case. Do you use a fumble chart for melee? I'd advise against this, too. All fumble charts do is penalize players, especially if they make many rolls (ie, iteritive attacks). Failing the attack is bad enough. It doesn't need to have other bad things tacked on. Maybe that sounds bad to you but my group and I (so far at least) think it adds some excitement and risk to spell casting. Its like gambling. Sometimes you hit it big and sometimes your left without any shoes. Fluff wise the book says spell casting is exactly like that.
Bobson 06-27-07, 02:28 AM	What is wrong with them still rolling their save? I like this way because it depends on what a person does at that moment instead of one side of the equation being always static no matter the situation. If you don't like people rolling why not just make every d20 roll be just a flat 10. It was save so much time and solve this "major flaw." In my camapiagn there are no "auto" fails are succeeds. You instead get -20 on a 1 and +20 on a 20. I stated it was like this in my original post and how to deal with both of them. These points are related. The "major flaw" is in creating a new kind of roll with indeterminate rules. Normally, we have "Roll vs. DC" (RvDC) or "Opposed roll" (OR). Nothing else. In RvDC, with the exception of skill checks (for some reason I have yet to fathom), 1's are autofails and 20's are autosuccesses. In OR's (which a lot of skill checks are), neither one is significant. Here, you're creating what appears to be a new type of roll: "Opposed roll with autosucc/fail" (ORwA). It's undefined what happens if you both auto-succeed or both auto-fail. Above, you only stated that for the DC roll you are giving +20 or -20 to a roll. The assumption being, that for the save, auto success and auto fail still apply. Given that you're applying it to every roll, including saves, then having a ORwA in the game is less of an issue. My -5 save could still beat your -8 DC, if we both roll 1's. I withdraw that objection, since you are defining the behavior of ORwA. I have two more questions for you, though. Do you make people roll their AC as well as their attack? And how often do people who critically miss damage themselves?
Rustmonster 06-27-07, 01:05 PM	What I meant is the spell fails at your end, while you are casting it you have a chance to mess up a key part of the spell. In the books it says that magic is a science that if you mess up there are grave repercussions. How it sounds to me its actually pretty easy to mess up. 5% chance is nothing compared to what fluff makes it sound it should be. -snip- Maybe that sounds bad to you but my group and I (so far at least) think it adds some excitement and risk to spell casting. Its like gambling. Sometimes you hit it big and sometimes your left without any shoes. Fluff wise the book says spell casting is exactly like that. Where is this fluff? I do not remember the part where it said that even the most experienced wizard screws up their spells horribly 5% of the time. Sarcasm aside, where is this in a D&D book? Page number and book, please? I tend to beleive people when they give me proof. Also, I have never heard of a group that enjoys a flat 2% chance that a spell will explode in their face, no matter what level they may be or how high their stats are. Until now, of course. Do you use fumble charts for melee, too? I mean, that is like gambling, too. Just that, you know, your odds of lossing get higher as you get better at it (more attacks = more fumbles), and if you loss you get so depressed you commit suicide (hitting yourself with your own weapon). But I'm sure your group loves killing themselves more then the enemy kills them:P
TheDarkLord 06-27-07, 01:25 PM	Can you explain to me what the "Vanacian system casting" is please? The standard way you cast spells in DnD. It is referred to as the Vanacian casting because of it's creator, Jack Vance (I think, not sure). My version I use is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=772483), we've changed it a little, but apparently, no one liked it because it was a variant of the Vanacian system.
Kurikin 06-27-07, 01:51 PM	Ahh I see, was just an oversight by me. I thought I inferred it well enough. Thoughts have been rolling around in my head about rolling for AC and I asked them what they thought about me coming up with a system for that and there were really no objections, they thought it all made sense. I think I'm going to wait another session or 2 before I implement that. The spell one is still in need of fine tuning and I'd like to have to be concerned about only 1 at a time. I've always played crit miss as 1-1 and I've only seen it happen once and it was in a campaign my friend was DMing. It was quite funny how it happened. The Archer was really excited about his character and all that stuff. First attack roll that was made of the entire campaign was made by him which was 1-1 and he brought himself down to -10.
Kurikin 06-27-07, 02:08 PM	Where is this fluff? I do not remember the part where it said that even the most experienced wizard screws up their spells horribly 5% of the time. Sarcasm aside, where is this in a D&D book? Page number and book, please? I tend to beleive people when they give me proof. Under the Nature of Magic section in the introduction of Complete Arcane. Also, I have never heard of a group that enjoys a flat 2% chance that a spell will explode in their face, no matter what level they may be or how high their stats are. Until now, of course. Do you use fumble charts for melee, too? I mean, that is like gambling, too. Just that, you know, your odds of lossing get higher as you get better at it (more attacks = more fumbles), and if you loss you get so depressed you commit suicide (hitting yourself with your own weapon). But I'm sure your group loves killing themselves more then the enemy kills them:P Its not a flat 2%. If your of sufficient skill to not get a 0 on a 1 then the spell still goes off, without any problems. In my repy to Bobson I said how next I plan on working on a system like this for AC. I'm also going to do one for melee. One thing at a time though. The whole goal of what I'm doing is trying to get rid of auto fails and succeeding and all the effective taking averages built into the game. The standard way you cast spells in DnD. It is referred to as the Vanacian casting because of it's creator, Jack Vance (I think, not sure). My version I use is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=772483), we've changed it a little, but apparently, no one liked it because it was a variant of the Vanacian system. Thanks. I like what you came up with but what is the reasoning for switching up the spell lists?
TheDarkLord 06-27-07, 02:11 PM	Thanks. I like what you came up with but what is the reasoning for switching up the spell lists? More balancing issues than anything else. Clerics and Druids get great class benefits (clerics HD, BAB, and Saves), why not let wizards cast more spells?
Kurikin 06-27-07, 02:16 PM	More balancing issues than anything else. Clerics and Druids get great class benefits (clerics HD, BAB, and Saves), why not let wizards cast more spells? Maybe I should pay attention more. I always thought wizards, druids and clerics got the same spells/day then sorcerers got more. I see what your saying now.
Rustmonster 06-27-07, 02:53 PM	Under the Nature of Magic section in the introduction of Complete Arcane. Its not a flat 2%. If your of sufficient skill to not get a 0 on a 1 then the spell still goes off, without any problems. In my repy to Bobson I said how next I plan on working on a system like this for AC. I'm also going to do one for melee. One thing at a time though. The whole goal of what I'm doing is trying to get rid of auto fails and succeeding and all the effective taking averages built into the game. There is a system like that for AC, except without the -20/+20 thing. It's in the DMG, as it says that standard AC assumes you "took ten" on your AC roll, so as to reduce the number of dice neccesay to roll. I didn't notice the part about 0 DC, I might have jumped to conclusions (or you edited it [probably the first one]). Still, this means that you must have a casting stat high enough to bring the the DC(with the spell level added) to 21 before you can stop failing. Even with a level 9 spell, that mean you need a 35 in your casting stat before you are good enough to use magic properly. You probably won't get that high, so, yes, it's a flat 2%. Also, isn't it strange that your system makes higher level spells HARDER to fail than low level ones? You fail less casting wish than casting flare. But still, you need such an astronomicly high casting stat that it doesn't make much of a difference. Flat 2%. Oh, and by the way, even with a 35 casting stat and level 9 spell, as per the example above, your DC is 1. Unless the opponent gets a one on the save (because I'm assuming you want a -20 rule for that too), they will make the save anyway, effectivly a failed spell. "The whole goal of what I'm doing is trying to get rid of auto fails and succeeding and all the effective taking averages built into the game." Unfortunatly, you are adding MORE auto fails with this system, as somethign that you COULDN'T fail before is now failable. If you want to have no auto fail/success, check out the DMG page 25 for what you wanted. It's actually a good idea. I would still advise against fumbles. They start to get annoying, in my opinion. PS, would you please give me a breif example of this fluff from Complete Arcane? I tend to beleive people when they actually tell me the contents of a book that supposedly helps their argument, especially if it's one I don't have and have no intention of getting.
Kurikin 06-27-07, 04:04 PM	Thanks for pointing that about it being in the DMG, I never noticed it there. While magic allows characters to perform many wondrous acts, its also important to roleplay the limitations of magic-exclusivity, mystery and unpredictability. (Next 3 paragraphs explain the exclusivity and mystery.) Finally, unpredictability refers to arcane magic's incomplete and imperfect nature. No single arcanist, no matter how powerful, know all the spells, all feats and all methods of casting. In magic, not even the most powerful of spells is absolute. and exceptions and unforeseen complications come along with every arcane rule and law. Yeah your right about that. That didn't even cross my mind but it makes complete sense that it lower level spells should be easier to cast and that you need your casting stat so high. So here we go again. To cast a spell you need to make a casting check. You roll (d20 + casting stat mod + CL + misc.) On a 20 you get a +10 bonus and on a 1 you get a -10 penalty. The DC to cast a spell is (5 + spell level*2.) If you fail by 4 or less the spell simply fails and you don't lose the use of that spell for the day. If you fail by 5 or more The spell backfires and you take 1d6/spell level damage. The spell save DC (if it has one) is (roll - 1/2 CL.) So effectively its (d20 + casting stat mod + 1/2 CL + misc.) You can add a metamagic effect to a spell by increasing the DC by 2 per slot increase the metamagic increases it by. I'm not sure whether or not it would be too unbalancing to make all metamagic effects available without having to take feats. I'm leaning towards it would be too unbalancing but the thought just came up. Of course though if metamagic feats were free it would be just the ones in the PHB. Things like transdimensional spell and the like are things I think you would have to have extensive training (a feat) for. DC +2 Enlarge Spell Extend Spell Silent Spell Still Spell DC +4 Empower Spell DC +6 Maximize Spell Widen Spell DC +8 Quicken Spell Heighten spell adds +2 to the DC per spell level increase.
Rustmonster 06-27-07, 09:49 PM	I'm sorry to say it, but after doing the math on your system, you may have made it even less forgiving then the old one. Let me explain, although I must warn, the next little bit is number heavy. If you note mistakes in the numbers, please inform me. Let's take a 1st level spell. That mean that the DC is 7 (5+1*2). Now, that mean that if you get a 1 on the roll, you can avoid a misfire only if your total is 3 or higher (7-4). Since a 1 gives -10, that means you must have a +12 mod in your casting stat (as the 1st level spell adds 1 to the check). That works out to a you needing a caster stat of 35 or higher to not backfire a 1st level spell. And throughout that whole time, you now have a 5% instead of 2% chance of a backfire (although I like your new idea of a damage roll for backfire, although I think it may be a little high). A 35 caster stat is what I had down as the necessary number for a non-backfire before as well, so that didn't change anything. Or so it seems. Let's use a level, say, 2 spell now. The DC is 9 (5+2*2). You need a 5 or higher to not misfire (9-4). That mean that you must have a +13 mod for your caster stat to not misfire (13+2 for spell level-10). That totals a 37 or higher caster stat. Before you have that number, you have a flat 5% chance of a backfire. At spell level 9, the DC is 23 (5+9*2). That mean that you need at least a 19 to not backfire (23-4). That means you need at least a +20 mod (20+9-10). That means a 51 or higher castre stat to not backfire. Before you have that number, there is a flat 5% chance of backfire. This new system simply makes it even more difficult to not misfire, as there is a flat 5% instead of 2% backfire rate, and in order to have no chance of backfireing, you need ludicris caster stats. The only thing safe enough to use is a cantrip, because the are level 0, so they cause 0 damage. Unfortunatly, you have a flat 5% fail rate with those until you have a 33 caster stat. This system makes no sense, as an experianced wizard has the same backfire rate as an inexperianced on, until the experianced wizards reaches a certain caster stat, at which point they stop backfireing for some reason, but still fail 5% of the time. A 1st level spell will only have a 0% fail rate when the caster has a caster stat of 43. This is highly unreasonable. You might as well say a 1 is an auto backfire. This system has serious flaws, and I would suggest you go over why you wanted this system in the first place. It adds uneccesary rolls and generaly makes magic too unpredictable and dangerous to be useful. I mean, a level 1 wizard can easily KO themselves with a first level spell (about 2% chance of going into negative HP). This makes it worthless to be a caster. I am not intending to be mean, I'm just trying to show you how the system is flawed. I'm assuming that a reveiw of your idea is the reason you posted it. I am trying to be constructive and informative, and mean no offense to you. The fluff you gave me from Complete Arcane does not seem to suggest that magic backfires, or has any such inclination. I think that what it says refers to how the spells are unpredictable, but a caster can control them, although that is entirely my take. Your interpretation is just as valid.
Kurikin 06-27-07, 11:54 PM	I never REALLY worked out the numbers for everything completely. I'll work on this some more and make sure to work everything out. I did the math on it and it is a 40 to succeed across the board, 36 to fail and 34 to backfire all at the minimum level to cast the spell. I got the minimum stat mod by using this equation. For Failing you take the answer -2 and backfiring -1. -10(penalty) + DC - min CL + 1(dice roll) Heres the minimum caster levels you need to cast spells with minimum stat requirement (assuming you can cast all the spells you know) without backfiring and failing on a natural 1 1st - 13 to always succeed & 11 to never backfire 2nd - 15 & 12 3rd - 16 & 14 4th - 18 & 15 5th - 19 & 17 6th - 21 & 19 7th - 23 & 20 8th - 24 & 22 9th - 26 & 23 So with these numbers you could conclude that on a natural 1 it takes a great deal more training to always succeed and/or prevent the possibility of a backfire. Cantrips in all areas where the spell level is looked at are consider 1/2 level spells. "This system makes no sense, as an experienced wizard has the same backfire rate as an inexperienced on[e?]..." The wizard of any level has the same chance of backfiring or failing at a spell he just acquired as any other wizard who just acquired a spell. I know it has serious flaws and thats why I'm posting all my ideas here so other people can critique them and point out the obvious flaws it has. I'm going to try and work out the numbers in a way that you can never backfire about 2 or 3 levels after you acquire a spell and always succeed 4 or 5 levels after. As for damage I'll take a look at differem't damage dice besides 1d6. So the options are pretty much 3.5(1d6), 2.5(1d4), 1.5(1d3) and 1(1d2.) I'll think about this some more. "The fluff you gave me from Complete Arcane does not seem to suggest that magic backfires, or has any such inclination. I think that what it says refers to how the spells are unpredictable, but a caster can control them, although that is entirely my take. Your interpretation is just as valid." I praise the way WoTC writes their books so that anything can be interpreted in a thousand ways.