The theory is that in general spell casters outshine melee, especially at high level. What I want to do is add a spell failure similar to that of a nat1 on an attack. In effect, a permanent 5% spell failure (for both arcane and divine spells).
On each casting, the caster rolls a d20, and on a roll of 1, the spell fails. The caster is trying to reshape the laws of physics, or summon the will of the gods (who may have better things to do) so there is always a chance than a misspoken word or misshaped hand wave may cause the spell to fail.
This I am ok with, and it's pretty simple. The interesting part would be to add in a critical fumble table. Something in the realm of (on a d10)
1-5, spell fizzles, no effect
6, spell casts normally, but is mis targeted. Roll for grenade splash to see where spell hits (touch/self target/no range,touch attack spells are uneffect and are cast as normally)
7, spell casts normally, all variable effects are x1.5
8-9, spell casts normally, all variable effects are halved
10, roll for wild magic effect
Personally I'd leave the fumble table out; tables like that just add unnecessary complexity to a combat system that already takes long enough. The failure roll should be enough.
Mor
I'd agree that it should only be applied in combat or under pressure... that is a good point.
Random retargeting and "wild surges" and so on are just a recipe for grief for the whole party. As is the case when a needed spell arbitrarily fails at a bad time - Sorry, Mr. Fighter, you're dead because the Heal spell failed.
sorry mister paper-armored wizard, I just missed the big baddy who one-shot you as a result.
[EDIT]
to the OP: the idea of fumble is good, but I'd side with the other posters on the "special effect" chart being unnecessary.
[/EDIT]
Ive considered using [(1% per spell level)(3)]-caster level but the math on it isn't as easy to remember. [(1% per spell level)(2)]-[(1/2)(caster level)] round down. Looks like a half decent model that I thought up while typing.
I feel low level spells should have a lower chance of failing, and higher level mages should also get a lower chance of failing.
By the end a level 20 mage has a 7% failure on any level 9 spell, while at the start a level mage has a 1% failure on a level 1 spell using that last formula, and it isn't horrible to remember.
If you want to ignore most of my post, the gist is...
If I were to run a low magic game, i would impose this penalty [(1% per spell level)(2)]-[(1/2)(caster level)] of spell failure.
It was always my opinion that 3.x made it too hard to fail a spell, the chances are just so low. Spells became kinda harry-potterish. This doesn't mean childlike or simplified, just that it's one-word and the spell goes off, vs chanting, incanting, and taking a few seconds to cast.
An option would be that maybe you can take a full round (using your move action as well) to guarantee a casting, or use the standard action to cast w/ the 5% failure.
There are a lot of ways this can be played, but I do want to implement it. Thanks for the replies (on both sides of the argument)
Mor
Adding a homerule for my next game, wanted to know if anyone had any comments/suggestions on it.
The theory is that in general spell casters outshine melee, especially at high level. What I want to do is add a spell failure similar to that of a nat1 on an attack. In effect, a permanent 5% spell failure (for both arcane and divine spells).
On each casting, the caster rolls a d20, and on a roll of 1, the spell fails. The caster is trying to reshape the laws of physics, or summon the will of the gods (who may have better things to do) so there is always a chance than a misspoken word or misshaped hand wave may cause the spell to fail.
This I am ok with, and it's pretty simple. The interesting part would be to add in a critical fumble table. Something in the realm of (on a d10)
1-5, spell fizzles, no effect
6, spell casts normally, but is mis targeted. Roll for grenade splash to see where spell hits (touch/self target/no range,touch attack spells are uneffect and are cast as normally)
7, spell casts normally, all variable effects are x1.5
8-9, spell casts normally, all variable effects are halved
10, roll for wild magic effect
A fighter rolling a nat one is just like some people slipping, everyone does it.
A caster's power comes from within(intelligence or force of personality). Either you know how to do something or you don't so you might need some new fluff to describe how the spell was messed up, and you need to consider that if a caster fumbles a spell that spell is gone for the day. A fighter/meleer never runs out of sword swings.
Now I understand this is a mechanical effect to balance the game, but it won't work, and all a fumble does is say you missed your opponent. If a caster were to miscast a spell something bad could happen. Another thing to look at is everytimes a fighter hits he may get a nat one, but he may also get a nat 20.
Will spellcasters get a benefit for rolling a nat 20?
A fighter rolling a nat one is just like some people slipping, everyone does it.
A caster's power comes from within(intelligence or force of personality). Either you know how to do something or you don't so you might need some new fluff to describe how the spell was messed up, and you need to consider that if a caster fumbles a spell that spell is gone for the day. A fighter/meleer never runs out of sword swings.
Now I understand this is a mechanical effect to balance the game, but it won't work, and all a fumble does is say you missed your opponent. If a caster were to miscast a spell something bad could happen. Another thing to look at is everytimes a fighter hits he may get a nat one, but he may also get a nat 20.
Will spellcasters get a benefit for rolling a nat 20?
Well, first off the reason for the failure table was to give a change to still work. Even on a Nat1, there is only a 50% chance to fail, a 20% chance to cast a 1/2 power, a 10% chance for it to work but be off target, and a 10% chance for it to be 50% more powerful.
"fumble" is not the right word, but the word is used for Nat1 tables. I could call it "Miscast Table" if you'd like. Even if you "know" how to do something, you can still mess up. Swords are swinging, arrows are flying, people are screaming. In the process of incanting a spell, you say "Inum Cant Tu Si" instead of "Inum Cant Teu Si", loosing the focus of the spell and having it's energy fizzle out. Maybe you got a pinch of ash mixed w/ the diamond dust, causing the spell to loose some power. Maybe, in the thick of things, you put a little extra oomph into it, making it that much more powerful.
Well, first off the reason for the failure table was to give a change to still work. Even on a Nat1, there is only a 50% chance to fail, a 20% chance to cast a 1/2 power, a 10% chance for it to work but be off target, and a 10% chance for it to be 50% more powerful.
"fumble" is not the right word, but the word is used for Nat1 tables. I could call it "Miscast Table" if you'd like. Even if you "know" how to do something, you can still mess up. Swords are swinging, arrows are flying, people are screaming. In the process of incanting a spell, you say "Inum Cant Tu Si" instead of "Inum Cant Teu Si", loosing the focus of the spell and having it's energy fizzle out. Maybe you got a pinch of ash mixed w/ the diamond dust, causing the spell to loose some power. Maybe, in the thick of things, you put a little extra oomph into it, making it that much more powerful.
I did not see numbers 7 and 8 on your chart. I do apologize for skimming, and not reading. I still don't agree, but get back to us and let us know how it works out if you do it.
> you as a result.
What he is proposing with his spell fumble is "Sorry, I just *attacked completely the wrong target* and killed you instead of the monster." That's what random retargeting amounts to - only now it gets to be a complete TPK because it involves an AoE spell.
In any case, spells already *do* fail, so the premise is faulty. Enemies get saves (and possibly SR), and/or the caster has to make an attack roll (which can miss). The few spells which don't have any of those pay for it by being weaker overall.
Or to put it the other way around, if spells can now fail like a fighter's attacks, does that mean enemies get saves vs the fighter's sword-swings even when they succeed?
Regardless, the end result will be negative all around - and the group is liable to be asking themselves who else can be the DM when the fumbled-fireball-TPK lands on them.
> sorry mister paper-armored wizard, I just missed the big baddy who one-shot
> you as a result.
What he is proposing with his spell fumble is "Sorry, I just *attacked completely the wrong target* and killed you instead of the monster." That's what random retargeting amounts to - only now it gets to be a complete TPK because it involves an AoE spell.
In any case, spells already *do* fail, so the premise is faulty. Enemies get saves (and possibly SR), and/or the caster has to make an attack roll (which can miss). The few spells which don't have any of those pay for it by being weaker overall.
Or to put it the other way around, if spells can now fail like a fighter's attacks, does that mean enemies get saves vs the fighter's sword-swings even when they succeed?
Regardless, the end result will be negative all around - and the group is liable to be asking themselves who else can be the DM when the fumbled-fireball-TPK lands on them.
I see the same thing, but I think his mind is made up.
I see the same thing, but I think his mind is made up.
I see what he is saying too, but yes, my mind is made up :D I've adjusted the idea somewhat on some of the posts, so your points are not for naught. I'm mostly an Ad&d player, so for me, magic users are way overpowered in 3.x. If you never played ad&d, the idea of spellcaster w/o perfect accuracy/casting is as unnatural as one with is to me. Thanks for the comments though.
A caster who takes any damage in a round automatically fails any spells being cast (and loses them) There's a problem with 3E's initiative here and the fact that there's no longer a declaration of intent (ie you don't have to say, "I'm casting fireball" before initiative is rolled), but AoE's cover for the possibility of a spellcaster losing a spell and you can simply rule that if a spellcaster took damage he cannot cast any spells that round. Also most people and intelligent monsters know this and target the guy in the pointy hat.
Magic Resistance is unaffected by caster level - this could go pear-shaped as 3E allows characters with Spell Resistance, but if you don't it's actually quite fair. At first it seems logical that higher level wizards can more easily overcome SR, but there is an argument for the contrary: a great wyrm dragon or demon or whatever has a flat percentage chance of ignoring ANY spell thrown at it (sometimes as high as 50%). This means that A) Melee types become more important since spells cannot be relied on for consistent damage and B) Spellcasters have to imaginative with indirect uses of spells (say using a lighting bolt to dislodge a boulder over an enemie rather than targeting the spell resistant foe).
I did say that I think the table should go, failure is enough.
And if I remember well (not so difficult as it's still written here ;)) you made an example with a Cleric failing to cast Cure X wound, not that much of an AoE... (just kidding)
Now if I may, this is an houserule I use in the campaign I'm currently DMing:
make a Spellcraft check (DC10+PP invested) each time you are to manifest a power. Failure means that you have waste your casting action (but not the PP invested).
If you want, you can add something like: "Failure by 5 (or 10) or more means that you spend the ressources too (PP or spell slot)"
In any case I wouldn't make them waste their components (nothing is casted after all).
without this optional last part, the consequences argument is worked around.
--
: or (spell level*2)-1
: or cast a spell
: or spell slot
: quote wraithstrike: if a caster fumbles a spell that spell is gone for the day. A fighter/meleer never runs out of sword swings.
-Spells cast out of combat are not effected
-Spells of the 'healing' type are uneffected
-In combat, a caster can guarantee a cast by extending the time.. the effect is delayed until the beginning of the next round, can't fail on a 1
just my
Instead of a spell's saving throw being 10 + relevant ability modifier + spell level, instead make it
1d20 + relevant ability modifier + spell level?
that would make the saving throw lots like the attack roll of a fighter. you could make it so that a natural 1 would cause the spell to fizzle, and the spell slot be lost, while a natural 20 would have some benificial effect, like an automatically unwinnable saving throw?
sure, it adds one more roll, but I think it makes spell casting much more dynamic, and less static (shouldn't magic be a little unpredicable sometimes?)
The problem comes with wands and potions. I always have them use a static saving throw, rather than a d20 roll.
To avoid having Yet Another Roll, you might combine this roll with flipping around saving throws into static defenses, like 4e/swse. Take the caster's Save DC minus 10 and use it as a modifier for a D20 roll, against the target's listed save (he doesn't roll) plus 11 (not 10, the math works out, trust me). It's mechanically exactly the same as saving throws, and gives the caster a roll that he's able to fumble.