spellcasting roll

[RLW]

Brief intro: I'm in a 4e game right now, hope to be able to run a C&C game sometime after the 4e campaign finishes. Some of the new players in the group are put off by the welter of rules in 4e. I don't plan to propose a C&C game until after the new PHB and CKG come out, however.

This gives me time to craft my houserules. I prefer a magic system which uses a spellcasting roll. My initial thought is use a straightforward SIEGE check on all spells: d20 + character level + INT mod vs. TN 12 + spell level. Bonuses are to be granted for using a "focus" like a wand or staff, or for taking extra casting time. Spells per level and recharge rates are by the book. However, a caster does not have to designate which spells to cast in advance: a 1st level wizard can cast any two 1st-level spells which he or she knows. The only penalty for missing a roll is the lost spell slot and lost action, although atrocious rolls may result in a magical mishap.

If you've used a rule like this, how well has it worked? Would you recommend any modifications?

The worst problem I can foresee is how character level outpaces spell level. A low-level character pays for the flexibility of not having to prepare spells in advance with the high rate of failure (roughly 50%). At higher levels, the chance of failure drops to practically nil, making the spellcaster more powerful than "as written," due to the flexibility of getting to choose spells on the fly. I actually like the idea that the spellcaster gets ferociously good at his craft, but I wouldn't want to make him so powerful that the other players merely become his sidekicks.

[Go0gleplex]

Do you have the spell caster being struck during casting covered in your house rule?

Looks doable to me at a glance.

Really don't need the CKG to run a game...my understanding it will really focus on options and higher level stuff beyond the basic lvl 13 in the PHB.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[redbeard]

I've thought of using spell level squared as a part of a check for casting of a spell. That wouldn't hurt lower level casters as much as it does higher level.

I've also considered a mechanic where you keep rolling until you succeed, each successive roll getting an additional bonus. This increases caster time (and the time vulnerable to being hit and losing the spell) without actually taking away a spell that could have been cast. (A critical fail, like a 1, may still lead to a mishap/lost spell).

As for your particular system, I think you're actually being pretty hard on the casters. Yes, choosing your spells is a significant advantage - but it is actually more powerful at higher levels than at lower levels when you have more choices. The low level wizard/illusionist is already a one trick pony - and by your system it isn't even a reliable pony.

Math: I doubt it would be a straight "spell level squared" but it might be (SP^2)/2 or some such to get a less steep difficulty curve.

Another possibility: The d20 Sovereign Stone system had a threshold that you had to achieve, and each round of casting added to your total.

[RLW]

redbeard wrote:
I've thought of using spell level squared as a part of a check for casting of a spell. That wouldn't hurt lower level casters as much as it does higher level.

I've also considered a mechanic where you keep rolling until you succeed, each successive roll getting an additional bonus. This increases caster time (and the time vulnerable to being hit and losing the spell) without actually taking away a spell that could have been cast. (A critical fail, like a 1, may still lead to a mishap/lost spell).

Interesting... If the spellcaster voluntarily elects to cancel a failed spell, would that count as a "lost" spell for the purposes of his spells per day?

redbeard wrote:
As for your particular system, I think you're actually being pretty hard on the casters. Yes, choosing your spells is a significant advantage - but it is actually more powerful at higher levels than at lower levels when you have more choices. The low level wizard/illusionist is already a one trick pony - and by your system it isn't even a reliable pony.

Actually, I do want magic to be hard for low-level characters, to create the sense that magic is a difficult art to master for the apprentice. As with the low hit points and arms restrictions, the pay-off comes in rapid growth as one rises through the ranks.

Another thought that occurs to me would be to allow a rival caster to "spend" one of his spell slots to increase the challenge level of an opposing caster. The original caster could retaliate by spending one of his own free slots. This would simulate a magic duel using a different mechanic than Dispel Magic or its ilk. Maybe a friendly caster could spend one of his slots to boost your roll, too. Naturally, a roll would be required to aid or hinder another caster.

Basically, I want the rule to use the SIEGE Engine for convenience and consistency. I could probably get away with ignoring higher-level casters since it'd be a long time until anyone got to those levels, and by then we might find a solution we all like...

[RLW]

I'm thinking now of setting the CL to twice the spell level. This way, the difficulty of the spellcaster's highest-level spells more or less scales with his character level. On the other hand, as he progresses through the XP charts, he'll acquire staves, magic robes, amulets, and other such prizes which give him a bonus to the roll.

[HatterMadness]

The main trouble i see with this systems way of showing that magic is a "difficult art to master" is that it makes being a low level spell caster pure suffering. You have made them less useful at low levels because you want it to "balance" with them being so powerful later on. But it means that there is even less fun to be had when you first start your character. It already can be very frustrating to be a useful member of the party as a starting Wizard, and you have now taken away the reliability of the little they can offer.

I figure there is already some balance with being powerful later vs being weak now. Seen in the Experience needed to level, low hit points, inability to wear armor, and need to memorize spells in advance. If you really want high level spells to be hard to get, make those high level spells hard to find or create more of a need for Material components. Don't punish the low level casters just because they will eventually be powerful.

[RLW]

HatterMadness wrote:
The main trouble i see with this systems way of showing that magic is a "difficult art to master" is that it makes being a low level spell caster pure suffering. You have made them less useful at low levels because you want it to "balance" with them being so powerful later on. But it means that there is even less fun to be had when you first start your character. It already can be very frustrating to be a useful member of the party as a starting Wizard, and you have now taken away the reliability of the little they can offer.

That's a just criticism. On the other hand, I don't want magic to be 100% reliable -- there should always be the chance of a mispronounced syllable or failure of concentration or inexplicable reason why the spirits never came.

What about increasing the number of spells per day, particularly at the lower levels? Then, statistically, the number of successes over the long run would be the same for the rolling spellcaster as for her Vancian sister. To give a crude example, if a 1st-level spellcaster has a 50% chance of success casting a 1st-level spell, then she would be given 4 of them instead of 2. On average, she'll succeed 2 times a day. Some days, however, she'll do better than average, to the exultation of her party, and on others--well, sometimes the magic doesn't work and the party sweats daggers trying to survive until the next day.

[jamesmishler]

You might try an "exhaustion" system, where, when a caster misses their roll, they can opt to expend hit points to cast the spell anyway. The cost is in subdual damage, not lethal damage, so they won't die directly from casting.

The caster who missed the spell would be able to expend one point in subdual damage per level per round; when the total number of points expended equals the number by which the spell caster missed his roll, the spell is cast. If interrupted at any time during the extended period of casting, the spell is ruined, and the slot and expended subdual points are lost.
Example: Zappo the Mighty, a 2nd level wizard with an Intelligence 16 (+2), fails his roll to cast magic missile by rolling a 4 (+2 +2 = 8) against the TN of 13 (12 + 1 for the spell level). He needs to expend 5 points of subdual damage in order to cast the spell; he can expend 2 points per round, and so if he is unharmed three rounds later, he can cast the spell on his initiative phase...
_________________
James Mishler

Main Man, Adventure Games Publishing
jamesagp1@gmail.com
http://adventuregamespublishing.blogspot.com/
http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com

[Jonathan of White Haven]

RLW wrote:
Brief intro: I'm in a 4e game right now, hope to be able to run a C&C game sometime after the 4e campaign finishes. Some of the new players in the group are put off by the welter of rules in 4e. I don't plan to propose a C&C game until after the new PHB and CKG come out, however.

This gives me time to craft my houserules. I prefer a magic system which uses a spellcasting roll. My initial thought is use a straightforward SIEGE check on all spells: d20 + character level + INT mod vs. TN 12 + spell level. Bonuses are to be granted for using a "focus" like a wand or staff, or for taking extra casting time. Spells per level and recharge rates are by the book. However, a caster does not have to designate which spells to cast in advance: a 1st level wizard can cast any two 1st-level spells which he or she knows. The only penalty for missing a roll is the lost spell slot and lost action, although atrocious rolls may result in a magical mishap.

If you've used a rule like this, how well has it worked? Would you recommend any modifications?

The worst problem I can foresee is how character level outpaces spell level. A low-level character pays for the flexibility of not having to prepare spells in advance with the high rate of failure (roughly 50%). At higher levels, the chance of failure drops to practically nil, making the spellcaster more powerful than "as written," due to the flexibility of getting to choose spells on the fly. I actually like the idea that the spellcaster gets ferociously good at his craft, but I wouldn't want to make him so powerful that the other players merely become his sidekicks.

What our group *used* to use was a simple D20 roll. Anything greater than a "1" or less than a "20" meant that the spell went off as planned. A "1" was a fumble, of sorts. The effect (or maleffect) was determined by the GM--usually damage to the caster. For an AoE speill, friendlies in the AoE centered around the caster got it in the shorts, as well. A "20" meant that you kept or remembered the spell, and could cast it again later. Spellcasters are allowed to choose whichever spells are listed for them in the PH--no need to search to learn new spells. Sorry, but that's a game-quickener that we've been using for 20+ years.

When we switched to C&C, we did away with the above, and included the "concentration check" for spellcasters struck during melee prior to their turn in the initiative line (we use individual initiative for each character and/or encounter group, re-rolled each melee turn.) The concentration check is per the PH.
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath

[MacLeod]

Hm, I think allowing the magic-user to long cast the spell in order to add a bonus to the spell casting roll would be good. Reliability at the cost of time. In those quick and deadly situations, adds the pressure of whether or not to take the gamble or be steady and concentrate for a round.
_________________
In this world of LIES... the TRUTH, it means RESISTANCE!

[RLW]

MacLeod wrote:
Hm, I think allowing the magic-user to long cast the spell in order to add a bonus to the spell casting roll would be good. Reliability at the cost of time. In those quick and deadly situations, adds the pressure of whether or not to take the gamble or be steady and concentrate for a round.

Agreed. Also, a missed roll doesn't necessarily have to mean the spell totally fizzled. Per the CK's judgment, it could just mean the spell had only partial success. A "failed" Feather Fall may mean the target still takes some damage, but not as much as if the spell had never been cast. A failed Message spell may come out garbled, with only half of the words successfully conveyed. A failed magic missile may only do 1 point of damage or be diverted to another target.

Any thoughts about the idea of adding spells to the spellcaster's daily limit to allow for a few failed rolls without totally nerfing low-level characters?

[MacLeod]

I had a similar rule based on a chart uploaded here at one point in time...

The chart covered two broad groups of spell levels (2nd ~ 5th at 20% chance of failure, 6th ~ 9th at 30% chance of failure) instead of each individual spell level.

The worst failure was a backfire, next up was a spell fizzle and spell slot loss, then a minor failure that didn't cause the spell slot to be lost. On the other end of the spectrum you could gain bonuses to the spells if the roll was pretty high.

I think it works pretty good. You could narrow it down to a single chart of effects, spread out the categories and apply something like... The roll has a penalty equal to the Spell's Level but a bonus equal to 1/2 of the Magic-User's Level, rounded down. That way you could reserve the bonus magic casting stuff for things above 20 so it would require a skilled mage slinging a low level spell... possibility making those low level spells worth slinging in the first place.

I think I sort of evaded the question at hand... but I hope this helps in some way.
_________________
In this world of LIES... the TRUTH, it means RESISTANCE!