PDA

View Full Version : Checks to cast spells (3.5, PEACH)



cheezewizz2000
2009-11-28, 06:56 AM
To perhaps nerf casters a little bit, how about requiring casters take a check to cast a spell in the same way that Melee-ers need to make an attack roll? Oh, and appologies if this has been suggested before.

A basic system could work something like this:

A spells “AC” is equal to 10+(spell level x2)

Casters roll their Caster level + primary casting stat bonus to make the check, if they pass, spell is cast as normal. If not the spell is not cast, but nor is it wasted as otherwise low-level wizards will have some serious difficulty with resource management.

Natural 1 results in wasting the spell (roll again to confirm a "miss"). Natural 20 results in the caster being able to add a metamagic feat that they know for no extra cost (roll again to confirm a "hit").

Spells with a metamagic feat attached have a higher level and so have a higher “AC”.

Testing the idea:
Level 1 wizard, 18 int. Wants to cast a level 1 spell. The spell’s “AC” is 12. The wizard’s Caster bonus is +5 (caster level 1, +4 from int). The wizard needs to roll a 7 to cast the spell.

Level 9 wizard, 24 int. Wants to cast a level 5 spell. The spell’s “AC” is 20. The wizard’s Caster bonus is +16 (caster level 9, +7 from int). The wizard needs to roll a 4 to cast the spell.

Level 17 wizard, 28 int. Wants to cast a level 9 spell. The spell’s “AC” is 28. The wizard’s caster bonus is +26 (caster level 17, +9 from int). The wizard needs to roll a 2 to cast the spell.

Issues:
Spells get easier to cast too quickly as the caster increases in level, even the higher level spells are easier to cast at the minimum caster level to cast them than the lowest level spells at level 1. This is not ideal. I was hoping that a level 1 spell at level 1 would be as difficult to cast as a level 9 spell at level 17. The AC progression needs to be more similar to the AC progression of monsters. Is there any easy way to achieve that without giving level 1 casters a <50% chance to cast a magic missile? Perhaps an arbitrary +5 to the “AC” of spells greater than level 5?

Spells that also require an attack roll are less fun to cast. No one wants to have to roll a d20 twice to see if they can achieve anything that round. Perhaps this should replace the attack-roll requirement for some spells.

This is further compounded for concentration checks. Using scorching ray while in melee requires you to roll 3 times to get anything done.

Any comments or improvements? Even “this is completely unnecessary” is welcome as this was just a quick idea I had while writing an essay.

Also, does this count as PEACH? I didn't know what it stood for, so I didn't want to put it in the title.

Eloel
2009-11-28, 07:09 AM
This is further compounded for concentration checks. Using scorching ray while in melee requires you to roll 3 times to get anything done.

Add to that SR check and Miss chance for Blink & stuff, and you're rolling stuff forever. Heck, this doesn't add too many rolls (increase from 4 to 5 rolls, really, doesn't matter THAT much)

Also;

PEACH = Please, Elaborate And Critique Honestly

Anonymouswizard
2009-11-28, 07:12 AM
I made a system a bit like this based of making spellcraft checks to cast spells, as what caster wouldn't max out spellcraft? the DC and penalty progression went like this.
{table]Spell level|DC|Failed by <5|Failed by >5
0|10|Nothing|Nothing
1|11|1 damage|Nothing
2|12|2 damage|+1 damage
3|13|2 damage, stunned for 1 round|2 damage
4|15|3 damage, stunned for 1 round, spell lost|2 damage, stunned for 1 round
5|18|3 damage, stunned for 2 rounds, spell lost|+3 damage, stunned for 1 round, spell lost
6|23|4 damage, stunned for 2 rounds, spell lost|3 damage, stunned for 2 rounds, spell lost
7|28|4 damage, stunned for 3 rounds, slot lost|4 damage, stunned for 2 rounds, spell lost
8|35|5 damage, stunned for 3 rounds, spell lost|4 damage, stunned for 3 rounds, spell lost
9|42|5 damage, stunned for 4 rounds, slot lost|5 damage, stunned for 3 rounds, spell lost[/table]

The check is 10+1/2 the spell level2. I thought the penalties were better that way round as, honestly, the more energy the spell has to play around with the more damage will be caused. To help low level casters, 4th level spells are lost if you fail by <5, 5th-9th level spells are lost all the time, and 0th-3rd level spells are never lost.

cheezewizz2000
2009-11-28, 07:13 AM
Thanks for the clarification on peach. I suppose rolling an extra time wouldn't matter too much. Heck, I have a friend who enjoys the dice rolling, I just didn't want to add too much more to an already dice-heavy system.

I guess it can be solved by rolling more than 1 d20 at a time to save on RSI...

Hmm. 10+spell level*3 results in the above scenarios changing thus:

level 1 wizard needs an 8 to cast a level 1 spell

level 9 wizard needs a 9 to cast a level 5 spell

level 17 wizard needs an 11 to cast a level 9 spell.

That seems a lot more even, actually.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:47 AM
While adding another level to the casting of spells, it doesn't really address the biggest issue of magic, i.e that spells can do almost absolutely anything.

And what it, in the end, it'll really accomplish, is spellcasters working even harder to make the DC, thus increasing their level of optimization. Simply because it is a necessity to even cast a spell.

But as far as some of the caster fixes out there goes, this is not a bad idea. :smallwink:

Latronis
2009-11-28, 03:17 PM
I would dub this an anti-fix.

Basically all it's going to do is insure every caster level and int bonus a wizard can get his hands

Edwin
2009-11-28, 03:19 PM
I would dub this an anti-fix.

Basically all it's going to do is insure every caster level and int bonus a wizard can get his hands

Exactly what I said.

Though you can say that it's an added benefit that the wizards will no longer have enough resources to optimize other aspects of their character, haven spend all their juice on pimping their caster check.

Baron Corm
2009-11-28, 03:33 PM
Attack rolls are to AC as ______ are to DCs.

A. Macaroni and Cheeses
B. Roys
C. Saving throws
D. All of the above

Yes, systems like this have been done before.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 03:38 PM
Attack rolls are to AC as ______ are to DCs.

A. Macaroni and Cheeses
B. Roys
C. Saving throws
D. All of the above

Yes, systems like this have been done before.

I believe he's intention was to add it in addition to saving throws.

So you would need to hit the creatures spell AC, overcome it's SR, possibly hit it's touch AC, and overcome it's saves. It's really just another layer of padding for the target.

ericgrau
2009-11-28, 04:03 PM
"DC" is the generic term for a check. I'll use "casting DC", not to be confused with save DC.

Try spell casting DC =
{table]Spell Level |DC
1 |13
2 |15
3 |18
4 |20
5 |23
6 |25
7 |28
8 |30
9 |33
[/table]
That's 2.5 per level or 5 per 2 levels. This is the same rate at which monster AC scales: ~2.5 per 2 character levels or 1.25 per level. But putting a table on the caster's character sheet will be much easier than any formula. For your examples the DCs are now 8, 7, and 7.

Balance issues: Almost none! As long as you keep saves and everything else, this house rule affects all spells of the same level equally. Spells cast outside of combat get a small advantage since you can recast after a failure. But that means more spell slots consumed which was the limiting factor on them anyway.

Since it is nigh impossible to compare casters to non-casters, casters are still essential to a party no matter how much you nerf them. Maybe they'll be worse, but still essential b/c they're unique. OTOH they will now have even more trouble at low levels. You may want to address that, or leave it alone as it tends to disappear by level 5 or so. You're looking at about 30% failure for most levels. 35% using normally rolled stats. But nowadays almost everyone has an 18 for their high stat. If you want to adjust that failure rate, increase or decrease the DCs at all levels by 1 per 5%.

This house rule basically pushes wizards into more of a utility role since there will be fewer situations where their spells will be better than swinging a sword, but there are still challenges that no amount of sword swinging will fix. The CR of such encounters should increase by 1 or (rarely) 2 to account for the weaker wizard. In the classic 4 man party regular encounters should be about 10% harder, which I don't think is enough to justify a CR increase.

Latronis
2009-11-28, 04:21 PM
Yeah sure I'm totally going to waste my limited resources that comes with an inherent chance of failure on utility. Instead of trying to get as much bang for my buck as i can.

Without the sarcasm: It pushes wizards towards I Win buttons. Not utility.

Solaris
2009-11-28, 05:16 PM
Yeah sure I'm totally going to waste my limited resources that comes with an inherent chance of failure on utility. Instead of trying to get as much bang for my buck as i can.

Without the sarcasm: It pushes wizards towards I Win buttons. Not utility.

And how is that, exactly?

Latronis
2009-11-28, 05:32 PM
And how is that, exactly?

OK if i told you you had a 40% chance of your spells just inherently not working. What would you rather cast? would you risk losing the spell and have nothing happen, even being penalised and disabled to make the beatstick fly or win the encounter?

cheezewizz2000
2009-11-28, 06:50 PM
But most wizards, as a whole, will be trying to optimise themselves anyway. And the push isn't that great as the lower level spells never get any harder to cast, and casters get better at casting them. There's a lot of use to be had out of the little spells, even at higher levels.

My use of "AC" instead of "DC" was because this whole system is based on the attack roll system, and I wanted to make it clear that that is what it was emulating.

Latronis
2009-11-28, 07:42 PM
You do realise that saving throws already are an AC vs Magic.

That's like adding rolls to see if the fighter is allowed to swing a sword.

Fortuna
2009-11-28, 07:50 PM
No, more like adding rolls to see if an Ubercharger who has found a way to auto-hit (no-save-just-suck spells) can swing his sword, with the added hit of removing utility AS WELL, all from the classes which are already the most powerful in the game out of the box, let alone after CharOp.

Latronis
2009-11-28, 08:24 PM
No, more like adding rolls to see if an Ubercharger who has found a way to auto-hit (no-save-just-suck spells) can swing his sword, with the added hit of removing utility AS WELL, all from the classes which are already the most powerful in the game out of the box, let alone after CharOp.

OK so if it's specifics that is the problem how is a character optimization enforcing system (because you need a lot of it just to get some consistency) general 'fix' affect such spells comparitively? Sure it gives them a chance to fail. But 99% of spells which are fine now have two chances to fail.

The vast majority of spells do have some hurdle to overcome. An attack roll, a saving throw againest it's effect(or partial effect) sometimes they interact with skill checks or hit points and spell resistance.

A wizard doesnt just say die and and the target dies (no not even power word:kill does that)

A fighter wants to kill something, you compare the power of the fighter to the defense of the monster. thats Attack roll vs AC

A wizard wants to kill something, you compare the power of the wizard to the defense of the monster.. DC vs Saving throw, affect vs hp total, attack roll vs (touch) AC etc. It could use some working out of the kinks though.

Now this fix wants to run a random chance of nothing happening, before it gets to the stage of comparison of power.

It's like me making up a rule that says, ok fighters if you need to make an 'aggression check' before your allowed to think about swinging that sword around.

And the more optimized fighters are going to suffer the least from it. Just like with the spellcasters

Fortuna
2009-11-28, 08:52 PM
It is by no means a perfect fix. It is not a fix, it is a nerf. I can see you argument, and I agree that it will lead to more agressive optimization, but I disagree with your statement that something like this is just a flat-out bad idea. If you want a full fix, then go rewrite the spell lists. If you want a quick (and perhaps somewhat dirty) fix, then this fits the bill.

Solaris
2009-11-28, 09:06 PM
OK if i told you you had a 40% chance of your spells just inherently not working. What would you rather cast? would you risk losing the spell and have nothing happen, even being penalised and disabled to make the beatstick fly or win the encounter?

Still not seeing the problem, especially considering fighters and other martial types already have similar problems.

Hawriel
2009-11-28, 09:57 PM
Sword & Sorcery's Advanced Players Guide already did this. Its a rather nice idea for an alternative casting method. However one spell cant take up to five checks to make; spell casting, concentration, spell resistance, attack roll, and saving throw. Not only can this make it very hard to even get a spell to work, it can bog down the game.

Another method that could work is spell drain and or mana point use.

A spell would do subdual damage equal to its level, minimum of one point. Con bonus would subtract from the drain, pluss a feat to knock off a point. Mana points could be used instead of hp. To regain mp or hp use the resting rules for healing.

erikun
2009-11-28, 10:09 PM
Still not seeing the problem, especially considering fighters and other martial types already have similar problems.
I believe s/he is saying, "If you only had one spell to cast, what would it be? A buff to the fighter, or an instakill?"

Encouraging spellcasters to memorize instakills over buffs just makes them less of a party player. If the wizard no longer wants to spend magic to enhance the fighter, the job of the beatstick becomes "stand in the way so the wizard can kill stuff" even more than it already is.

--

Back to the topic at hand, there is already an "AC" system to spells. Ranged Touch Attack is AC to magic. Savings Throws are AC to magic. Spell Resistance is AC to magic. We don't really need another roll to see if the spell connects.

I have played with DMs who required a Spellcraft check for very specific or precise use of spells, such as an illusion which looks exactly like X or a fireball which just barely leaves the party members alone. I can't say if it was a great idea, though, because it didn't come up very often.

cheezewizz2000
2009-11-29, 04:18 AM
*numerous valid points*

Would a reasonable thing to do then be to find every spell that says "saving throw: None" or "spell resistance: No" and just apply this system to that? It would mean that most spells are unaffected and some of the spells that are a little easier to abuse get a slight nerf.

Or if I was going to do that, do you think it would just be better to add saving throws and spell resistance to all those spells?

Anonymouswizard
2009-11-29, 04:19 AM
A wizard doesnt just say die and and the target dies (no not even power word:kill does that)

My PHB disagrees with you, appaerntly, a 20th level orc fighter with poor con and bad hp rolls can be killed before taking any damage. But Just to make sure:


Power Word: Kill
[SIZE="2"]b[B]Enchantment (Compulsion) [Death, Mind-[B]Level: Sor/Wiz 9, War 9
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature with 100 hp or less
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
You utter a single word of power that instantly kills one creature of your choice, whether the creature can hear the word or not. Any creature that currently has 101 or more hit points is unaffected by power word kill.

Emphasis mine. :smallbiggrin:

Latronis
2009-11-30, 02:15 AM
My PHB disagrees with you, appaerntly, a 20th level orc fighter with poor con and bad hp rolls can be killed before taking any damage. But Just to make sure:
Emphasis mine. :smallbiggrin:

That's why I included an interacts with hitpoints clause.

It's like a save or die, except the save is insured with high hp, instant failure and no amount of twinking is going to make it more effective since it relies on an inherent quality of the target rather than a DC that scales up with your own stats, feats, abilities etc.


Would a reasonable thing to do then be to find every spell that says "saving throw: None" or "spell resistance: No" and just apply this system to that? It would mean that most spells are unaffected and some of the spells that are a little easier to abuse get a slight nerf.

Or if I was going to do that, do you think it would just be better to add saving throws and spell resistance to all those spells?

Well not every spell that doesn't have a saving throw is inherently broken, but every spell should basically have an effective magical AC againest the spell be it a saving throw or actual AC. So you add an extra line to more troublesome spells saying this spell is inherently difficult to cast blah blah blah make a spellcraft check as part of your action for casting this spell blah blah blah, difficult spells cannot be used in a round you have cast any magic and difficult spells modified by metamagic feats use a spellcraft check as if they were spells of the spellslot used to cast them.