Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Stray 04-23-05, 01:37 AM	So...I've been thinking lately on what I dislike about D&D's magic system, and I've come to a conclusion. Magic in liturature is a powerful, dangerous art practiced by few. Magic in D&D is a powerful art that is TOO powerful at higher levels. I don't want to nerf the spells at higher levels, but I would like to find some sort of mechanic that would make casting a higher-level spell a more risky endevor. I had a few thoughts on this: Each spell gains a 5% spell failure chance (similar to the Spell Failure chance for wearing armors) per level of the spell. 0-level spells have no spell failure chance. This means a 3rd level spell would have a Spell Failure chance of 15% while a 9th level spell would have a 45% spell failure chance. While this method is simple, it doesn't scale with level: A 5th level mage and a 20th level mage have the exact same chance to botch a fireball. Also, I don't want to have the spell simply fail...I'd like to have something more along the lines of the spell "going wrong" somehow. I also thought of a method using Spellcraft to actually craft the spell. Each spell would require a Spellcraft or Concentration check equal to 15 + the Spell's level to cast. The problem with this method is that a wizard will be forced to max out Spellcraft or Concentration to be at all effective, and a person who puts enough effort into jacking their Spellcraft rolls could easily have a +25 bonus to Spellcraft by 10th level (or even earlier), effectivly making the spellcraft roll just a formality and not at all representing what I'm going for. So what I'm looking for is a method of putting the wonder back in spellcasting by keeping it effective, but still making higher level spells more difficult and interesting to cast. Any help?
HailSpork 04-23-05, 01:45 AM	How about a caster level check with a DC of triple the spell level?
The Stray 04-23-05, 02:28 AM	Hmm... :thinks: That might be workable, too...But what about consequences for failure? I don't want to just have the spell fail outright, But add in some sort of random mishap that will give the players more respect for the forces they are dealing with...
Braids 04-23-05, 03:07 AM	Parhaps a wild magic system could be used as the penalty for a failed check.
The Stray 04-23-05, 03:15 AM	That's what i was thinking, but what sort of basis should I use for such a system? I'd rather not have it as random as, say, a Rod of Wonder, so any help finding a wild magic system that will be fun to play with while still giving the players headaches would be helpful to locate...
Braids 04-23-05, 05:23 AM	That's what i was thinking, but what sort of basis should I use for such a system? I'd rather not have it as random as, say, a Rod of Wonder, so any help finding a wild magic system that will be fun to play with while still giving the players headaches would be helpful to locate... Do you want the wild magic to be able to benefit the casters as well? If so you could probably make use of the wild magic table on page 150 of the DMG by taking out a couple of things.
The Stray 04-23-05, 04:08 PM	:blink: There's a Wild Magic table in the DMG? *goes to take a look* :thinks: :plotting: :lightbulb :evillaugh :D I like it! That means I might just change the Material Plane into a Wild Magic plane, and get the effects I'm going for...
caeruleus 04-23-05, 04:14 PM	Each spell gains a 5% spell failure chance (similar to the Spell Failure chance for wearing armors) per level of the spell. 0-level spells have no spell failure chance. This means a 3rd level spell would have a Spell Failure chance of 15% while a 9th level spell would have a 45% spell failure chance. While this method is simple, it doesn't scale with level: A 5th level mage and a 20th level mage have the exact same chance to botch a fireball. Also, I don't want to have the spell simply fail...I'd like to have something more along the lines of the spell "going wrong" somehow. With respect to the scaling problem, how about 5% per spell level, minus 1% or 2% per caster level?
Lina_Inverse 04-23-05, 07:49 PM	so you wish to make it hard to use the wizards only ability.that randomly his only use fails.even minor magic such a cure light wounds could be bad. NO!it is not fun to see non-offensive abilitys fail,and offensive abilitys have these things called saves.
The Stray 04-24-05, 03:35 PM	so you wish to make it hard to use the wizards only ability.that randomly his only use fails.even minor magic such a cure light wounds could be bad. NO!it is not fun to see non-offensive abilitys fail,and offensive abilitys have these things called saves. Yes, I wish to make it harder for the wizards to use their only ability. I do this because it will better reflect the nature of the campaign world I am building, where magic is a rare and dangerous art praticed only by a few who understand and accept the very real risks involved with manipulating such forces. I am not totally negating the ability, either; On a failed roll, the spell might still go off, but with unintended consequences. I am doing this because saving throws represent a person's ability to shrug off bad effects, which is not how I want to represent the dangers of messing about with the forces that govern reality. I am adding this because I want spellcasting to have an element of risk involved, especially with more powerful spells which, at high levels, are usually a problem, simply because they always work as the caster intended. I am not dropping this varient into my current campaign, and I am not doing this because I hate spellcasters. This is not the only change to the magic system I am designing (I also plan on using the Recharge Magic varient, as well as making the Wizard into a more sage-like class to compensate for their reduced effectiveness in spell-casting). I am doing this because I am designing a campaign world where magic is a more dangerous practice than your typical D&D game. If you feel this is somehow wrong, then keep in mind that I am not inviting you to this game, just the people who play with me regularly. I'm not out on a crusade to nerf spellcasters universally, just to create a game that I feel will retain more diversity at higher levels, where the wizard's power will not vastly overshadow the power of the other classes, where magical items will be interesting instead of mundane. If you have any suggestions about how I might better accomplish this, feel free to post them. Otherwise, don't bother posting. Thank you.
Arcade 04-24-05, 04:10 PM	You could also take a look at the d20 Wheel of Time system. I just glanced at it once, but I think it has some of the aspects you're looking for. When casters start extending their power too far, they risk frying their brains alittle bit.
Sonn Athion 04-24-05, 04:16 PM	If you want to add more dimensions to your spells I'd probably suggest that you give an equal possiblity to have a beneficial effect as well (to keep things balanced and so that players don't complain) And besides... if Magic is Wild and Variable then there's a good chance that an unintended effect could turn out beneficial.. Not only does that Fireball go off but it leaves a cloud of acidic smoke....sadly the wind is blowing south.. directly through the orcs and towards the PCs... ect
The Stray 04-24-05, 04:37 PM	If you want to add more dimensions to your spells I'd probably suggest that you give an equal possiblity to have a beneficial effect as well (to keep things balanced and so that players don't complain) And besides... if Magic is Wild and Variable then there's a good chance that an unintended effect could turn out beneficial.. Not only does that Fireball go off but it leaves a cloud of acidic smoke....sadly the wind is blowing south.. directly through the orcs and towards the PCs... ect Well, the DMG's Wild Magic chart has a few benifical effects (One where the spell is cast, but doesn't use up a spell slot, and on that turns the spell into a heal spell for everyone, or the spell is Maximized) but, in general, I'd prefer it if rolling poorly on the Wild Magic table was generally a BAD thing, so I wouldn't have an equal possibilty for benifical results, though I don't think I'll mess with the Wild Magic table much. That said, interesting wild magic suggestions (stuff that might be benifical but which also cause headaches) would be appreciated.
Lina_Inverse 04-24-05, 05:42 PM	Yes, I wish to make it harder for the wizards to use their only ability. I do this because it will better reflect the nature of the campaign world I am building, where magic is a rare and dangerous art praticed only by a few who understand and accept the very real risks involved with manipulating such forces. I am not totally negating the ability, either; On a failed roll, the spell might still go off, but with unintended consequences. I am doing this because saving throws represent a person's ability to shrug off bad effects, which is not how I want to represent the dangers of messing about with the forces that govern reality. I am adding this because I want spellcasting to have an element of risk involved, especially with more powerful spells which, at high levels, are usually a problem, simply because they always work as the caster intended. I am not dropping this varient into my current campaign, and I am not doing this because I hate spellcasters. This is not the only change to the magic system I am designing (I also plan on using the Recharge Magic varient, as well as making the Wizard into a more sage-like class to compensate for their reduced effectiveness in spell-casting). I am doing this because I am designing a campaign world where magic is a more dangerous practice than your typical D&D game. If you feel this is somehow wrong, then keep in mind that I am not inviting you to this game, just the people who play with me regularly. I'm not out on a crusade to nerf spellcasters universally, just to create a game that I feel will retain more diversity at higher levels, where the wizard's power will not vastly overshadow the power of the other classes, where magical items will be interesting instead of mundane. If you have any suggestions about how I might better accomplish this, feel free to post them. Otherwise, don't bother posting. Thank you. remember that the D&D system forces you to be an uber specilist in magic to be viable.so your basiclly takeing away the only ability of half your party.that is unfun. fun trumps everything.
RogerWilco 04-24-05, 06:08 PM	The Wild magic table was originally designed for the change from 1st to 2nd edition, there are 3 quests that accompany it: Shadowdale, Tantras, Waterdeep, know together as the Avatar Series. They are based in the Forgotten Realms setting. It describes a time when Mystra, Goddess of Magic, has less control over the magic weave. See also the Wild Mage in Complete Arcane, and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. We are currently playing these quests in our 2nd ed. campaign, we just arrived in Waterdeep. We have a party: 2 clerics, 2 mages, 1 mage/thief, 1 thief, 1 ranger. Almost the entire party are spellcasters. I've been DM in the first quest and basically advanced all spellcasters an aditional level to compensate for the Wild Magic trouble. This isn't enough to compensate, if for every spell you have to roll on the Wild Magic table. The success rate of the spells is like 35-40%, and the clerics are having only access to level 1-3 spells (officially only 1-2). To have a reasonably chance of succeeding they have to allocate 3 slots to a spell. Conclusion: Applying Wild Magic to your campaign has huge effects for your spellcasters. You should give the some hefty bonusses to compensate, like for example. Wizards: d6 HD and 6 skill points/level and monk's AC bonus. Clerics are already quite good, I would be somewhat at a loss how to compensate, you'll basically make them about 1/3 as effecive at healing, maybe give them Lay on Hands of 4+charisma HP/level or something to that effect.
Thelon Fairblade 04-25-05, 12:46 PM	IMC, all spellcasting forms have flaws: Cleric/Paladin: *after* casting the spell, caster level check against the spell's DC or you may not cast spells again for 1 round per spell level (ticked off your diety). Druid/Ranger: No effect on *casting*, but your spell effects are influenced by the season and the terrain - weak Flame Strikes in Tundra or winter, Cure spells more functional in the Spring. Sorcerer/Warmage: *after* casting the spell, Fort save against DC 10 + spell level... or become Fatigued (-2 STR/DEX) for 1 round per spell level. 2 "fatigued" = Exhausted (-6 STR/ DEX); fatigue + exhausted = KO'd. Wizard: before casting, Spellcraft or Knowledge/Arcana check to set caster level (similar to wild-mage); if caster level is less than minimum for spell, you fail to cast it. I.e. if you are 5th and cast a 3rd level spell, you have a 50% of blowing it... if you are 10th, you can't blow it, but might only cast it at 7th level.
HailSpork 04-25-05, 02:52 PM	Cleric/Paladin: *after* casting the spell, caster level check against the spell's DC or you may not cast spells again for 1 round per spell level (ticked off your diety). Why against the spell's DC? Doesn't that mean that your own wisdom is acting against you? Wizard: before casting, Spellcraft or Knowledge/Arcana check to set caster level (similar to wild-mage); if caster level is less than minimum for spell, you fail to cast it. I.e. if you are 5th and cast a 3rd level spell, you have a 50% of blowing it... if you are 10th, you can't blow it, but might only cast it at 7th level. If a wizard keeps his spellcraft at max (or even near max), this only serves to make the wizard extraordinarily more powerful. If I'm level 5, I've got a spellcraft of probably 14 and a knowledge(arcana) of 12.
Thanatos02 04-25-05, 03:12 PM	remember that the D&D system forces you to be an uber specilist in magic to be viable.so your basiclly takeing away the only ability of half your party.that is unfun. fun trumps everything. Fun does trump everything, but different people have different ideas about what's fun. Are you using spell components? Enforcing components is one way of limiting spellcasters. Adding dangerous to attain or use components may limit the spells a Wizard can cast. Other then that, there are some rules about going mad after using magic in the Unearthed Arcana book. It's based off of Call of Chthulu, and may be a little dangerous, but adds drama and danger.
Kintara 04-25-05, 03:19 PM	The Unlimited Mana System (http://www.io.com/~sjohn/unlimited-mana.htm) is written for GURPS, but I think it could work really well as a D&D magic system. Replace the 3d6 with a d20, and convert the spellslot system to spell points, and I think it could work pretty seemlessly. The good thing about the system is the risk/reward tradeoff for ambitious or desperate mages. At the very least, take a gander at the Calamity table.
Thelon Fairblade 04-25-05, 08:48 PM	Why against the spell's DC? Doesn't that mean that your own wisdom is acting against you? That was the fastest way to get across the fact that the DC doesn't increase linearly. It actually increases with the wand/scroll spell DC (i.e. 11, 13, 14, 16, etc.). If a wizard keeps his spellcraft at max (or even near max), this only serves to make the wizard extraordinarily more powerful. If I'm level 5, I've got a spellcraft of probably 14 and a knowledge(arcana) of 12. The skill check doesn't = caster level. The skill check must match the DC (which is based on spell level; DC 10 + 3*spell level, IIRC); Meeting the DC means "caster level -1" [[the -1 represents the fact that wizardry is weaker in this world, which is compensated by being the *only* spellcasting class that *anyone* can take... no elemental blood (sorcery) or divine favor (cleric) required, and no life-sacrificing (XP cost) rituals to connect to the world's magic (druidry)... just show up for classes at the Wizardry Academy, and you become a wizard]], with a "miss" resulting in -2 (less than 5) or -3 (missed by 5 or more); success by each multiple of 5 increases the caster level by 1, with a max of +2. So yon 5th level mage with +15 on his check (skill focus, 18 int, 8 ranks) needs a 19 to cast fireball... on an average roll of 11, he gets a 26, which is +7, so he casts at 5th caster level. A lesser mage (INT 16, no skill focus) would only be +11, so would generally make the spell at -1 caster level, and about half the time cast at -2...
Mike W 04-25-05, 11:51 PM	so you wish to make it hard to use the wizards only ability.that randomly his only use fails.even minor magic such a cure light wounds could be bad. NO!it is not fun to see non-offensive abilitys fail,and offensive abilitys have these things called saves. You know, a 20th level fighter has a 5% of missing an opponent (even in situations in which the roll of a 1, if not treated as an auto-miss, would have hit). 5% chance, hitting something in front of you, using whatever he happens to be holding. Why is it so unreasonable that a wizard might have a small chance to fail in his attempt to tell the laws that bind reality to sit down and shut the f--- up? Doesn't that sound like a double standard? "But the wizard's only use is their spells." Okay, granted for the sake of argument. But then a fighter's only use is his melee/ranged attack, which has a 5% chance of failing on any given attack. "Offensive abilities allow these things called saves" Err, some of them do. But again, for the sake of argument, yes. But so do attacks. An Armor class is kind of like a save that you take 10 on. That's what the 10 (base) is in your armor class - there are variant rules for using a d20 to roll for the (base) part of the armor class, even. Heck, I would be THRILLED to see a workable system of spell-fumbling. I don't want to make it a straight up 5% chance, but I might. Fair's fair.
The Stray 04-26-05, 09:38 PM	remember that the D&D system forces you to be an uber specilist in magic to be viable.so your basiclly takeing away the only ability of half your party.that is unfun. fun trumps everything. Again, I am not adding these rules to my current campaign...I'm building a cmapaign world. The players haven't chosen characters yet, and when they do, they will be informed that this is the magic system that I have chosen before they choose a class. I am not nerfing any existing party, I'm changing options around for an upcoming game. And I don't see how the system "forces" you to become a specialist to be effective in magic any more than it "forces" fighters to choose between sword-and-board style, two-weapon fighting style, or two-handed weapon smash style to be an effective warrior. And you are right, fun DOES trump everything, and I think it would be fun to have people who violate reality by doing various cute dances and eating various disgusting creatures to lose control of that power every so often. Call me crazy. :looloo: Conclusion: Applying Wild Magic to your campaign has huge effects for your spellcasters. You should give the some hefty bonusses to compensate, like for example. Wizards: d6 HD and 6 skill points/level and monk's AC bonus. Clerics are already quite good, I would be somewhat at a loss how to compensate, you'll basically make them about 1/3 as effecive at healing, maybe give them Lay on Hands of 4+charisma HP/level or something to that effect. Oh, I agree completely, with all magic being strange and dangerous, I'd certainly like to change the classes around so that spellcasting is not their only role. For one, I'd like to change the Sorcerer class into something better resembling the Warlock class from the Complete Arcane, and I'd certainly give the Wizard more stuff to make them more Sage-like. I'd give some classes more Supernatural abilites, too, to make up for the change in not casting actual spells. I want magic to be around, after all, but I'd like to move away from the logic questions of the standard D&D magic rules. After all, if magic is so reliable, why isn't it used for more utilitarian purposes, like in Ebberron? That's the sort of stuff I want to move away from (nothing against Ebberron, of course :D). You know, a 20th level fighter has a 5% of missing an opponent (even in situations in which the roll of a 1, if not treated as an auto-miss, would have hit). 5% chance, hitting something in front of you, using whatever he happens to be holding. Why is it so unreasonable that a wizard might have a small chance to fail in his attempt to tell the laws that bind reality to sit down and shut the f--- up? Doesn't that sound like a double standard? "But the wizard's only use is their spells." Okay, granted for the sake of argument. But then a fighter's only use is his melee/ranged attack, which has a 5% chance of failing on any given attack. "Offensive abilities allow these things called saves" Err, some of them do. But again, for the sake of argument, yes. But so do attacks. An Armor class is kind of like a save that you take 10 on. That's what the 10 (base) is in your armor class - there are variant rules for using a d20 to roll for the (base) part of the armor class, even. Heck, I would be THRILLED to see a workable system of spell-fumbling. I don't want to make it a straight up 5% chance, but I might. Fair's fair. That's my reasoning, exactly, and why I created this thread.
sooperspook 04-27-05, 01:37 AM	Have a look at the Incantation rules from UA. They list some backlash results that happen if someone fails a particular check to cast the Incantation. Maybe you could use those?