Advantages/Disadvantages of Rolling to Cast Spells?

[wayfare]

Has anyone ever used a 3.5 system that requires the players to roll to cast spells?

Are there any advantages/disadvantages to this method?

[Acanous]

Truenamer does this. It's usually thought poorly of.

Aside from that, concentration checks might be what you're going for?

[Diarmuid]

What sort of "rolling to cast spells" method were you thinking of? Difficult to discuss its merits without knowing how it works.

[Acanous]

oh, there's also Incantatrix, which rolls to cast Metamagic, and THAT works well. But some call it game-breaking-cheese.

[wayfare]

I was thinking of trying to create a class that used a caster level check to cast spells.

So basically, roll Your level + Intelligence modifier against the difficulty to cast the spell. Spellcasting DC would progress like this:

Level 1 = DC 15
Level 2 = DC 17
Level 3 = DC 19
Level 4 = DC 21
Level 5 = DC 23
Level 6 = DC 26
Level 7 = DC 29
Level 8 = DC 32
Level 9 = DC 35

[Drachasor]

I am generally in favor of having fewer rolls per turn. The only rolling to cast spells that I've liked is 4th Edition's, where you roll to hit (and saves become static defenses).

What happens if your fail the roll in your example? That seems pretty harsh for low levels, btw.

[FMArthur]

High-level casters are mostly unharmed. Low-level casters are already made of glass and become unreliable in addition. They either succeed and help the party or fail and die which disrupts the game. The extra roll slows down the game. The possibility of failure doesn't make Polymorph and Timestop and Planar Binding and Evard's Black Tentacles and Web any less rigged when they happen.

This also ruins some supportive casting that is actually good for the game, like Clerics being able to heal and remove status ailments. What's that, you're going to die of poison in a minute? No matter, I'll just remove it. Oh, whoops. Looks like I fumbled or my god doesn't like you or something. I don't have another. Bye now.

[Drachasor]

High-level casters are mostly unharmed. Low-level casters are already made of glass and become unreliable in addition. They either succeed and help the party or fail and die which disrupts the game. The extra roll slows down the game. The possibility of failure doesn't make Polymorph and Timestop and Planar Binding and Evard's Black Tentacles and Web any less rigged when they happen.

Indeed, the power problem with casters isn't "this level of spells is too powerful", but rather spells exist at every level which are too powerful while most spells are just fine.

[wayfare]

I am generally in favor of having fewer rolls per turn. The only rolling to cast spells that I've liked is 4th Edition's, where you roll to hit (and saves become static defenses).

What happens if your fail the roll in your example? That seems pretty harsh for low levels, btw.

Without veering too much into the homebrew section, I was thinking about a game where casters only knew a few spells of each level, but could cast them as often as they like, as long as they succeed at their caster level check + relevant attribute (wis for clerics, int for mage classes)

If you fail the roll, it would be the equivalent of not casting the spell -- you "miss."

One little note: I am trying this idea for a game that only goes up to 10th level. Think e6, except it goes up to 10.

I know there might be some problems with incorporating this in the full 20 level scheme, but as the game only goes up to 10th level, I think it might be doable.

[Frozen_Feet]

In CODA system, you roll a Stamina check (equivalent to Fortitude save, basically) to see if you get a spell off - if you fail, you lose the spell and increase fatigue, which in turn makes you less likely to succeed in more spells unless you take time to rest. Casting a lot of spells in rapid succession also makes the check harder.

In practice, this discourages spamming spells, encourages firing them off early (because combat causes fatigue), and encourages relying on more things than just spells (increased by the fact that most spells just imrpove your other skills, instead of obsoleting them like in D&D).

It's similar in many ways to the Truenamer, from what I gather, with the difference being that a) the victims rarely get a save, meaning there's only one point of failure, and b) the checks are more manageable. With even slight amount of optimization, you are guaranteed to get one spell off.

But really, it's a big change to D&D. I feel you'd need to build a magic system ground-up to make it work well. There's also not much need for it. Want low-level magicians who can do things at will? Use Warlock.

[navar100]

I have. It sucks. It used the 3.0 Psionics DC system where DC = 1d20 + modifiers. If you rolled a 1, spell fizzles. Roll a 20, double damage for damage spells. Maybe something extra for others.

Spellcasting became too random. You could roll the DC so high you can't make the save except on 20. You could roll the DC so low you can't fail except on 1. Having your spell fail completely is devastating. It led to a TPK because I rolled a 1 when trying to cast Miracle to get the party out of Dodge when the excrement was hitting the air circulation device.

The PCs are on camera all the time. If a bad guy spell fizzles, the bad guy was supposed to die anyway. A PC will fizzle a spell a lot more often than one particular bad guy. Over the course of the campaign this is devastating to the party. The 3E system already has built in 5% miss chances that coincides with warriors missing on a Natural 1 - bad guy rolls a 20 on a save or you roll a 1 on (ranged) touch attacks. True, it's not true parity since spells can do half damage on a made save and melee touch attacks allow you to roll again to hit next round. You can debate that with the warrior vs. spellcaster dynamic.

[Ernir]

If you want to transfer some action away from the defender and on to the spellcaster, you could try the players roll all the dice (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm) variant.

[NecroRick]

Artificer also has to make UMD to do most stuff. Including the useful 'on the fly' casting stuff. DC is 20 + (3 x spell level).

Of course, most of their infusions don't require rolls to be cast, but then most of the infusions also require casting times of 1 minute (or more). Because of that, you may find that they prefer to use wands... DC 20. Or scrolls. DC 20 + spell level

----

If you want dice rolling for casting spells, you could make the casting use rules for activating items...


Also a heads-up; there are ways of taking 10 on caster level checks

[Doktor Per]

I find that the problem with spellcasting is that it's not really that random. The formula of 1d20+modifiers is pretty solid, allowing crits, failure and the like, at least when the spell is opposed. Asking anyone to roll to cast true strike, bear's endurance or mage armor is scream worthy of badness but is it bad that Dirkwind must roll to determine how hard it is to dodge his lightningbolts?

I personally like the aesthetic of it being opposed by magical items which ALWAYS do as their told (granted that you can activate them) but have a fixed save DC.

When it comes to experience, I'm playing in a campaign that's winding up to the big finale. Most of the things were really fluid and the spell DCs were no different. I liked it a lot, playing the party wizard. I couldn't rely as much on my tricks, but when I critted a foe with Enticed Gift and set him up for total destruction... That was a moment of true elation. At the same time this saved my butt numerous times with save vs. death spells where I was rolling twos and threes.

It takes away a lot of the assumptions you can usually make as a spellcaster. Less reliability with greater power is the best way to describe it. It's not worse, nor better. It's different.

[Drachasor]

Without veering too much into the homebrew section, I was thinking about a game where casters only knew a few spells of each level, but could cast them as often as they like, as long as they succeed at their caster level check + relevant attribute (wis for clerics, int for mage classes)

If you fail the roll, it would be the equivalent of not casting the spell -- you "miss."

One little note: I am trying this idea for a game that only goes up to 10th level. Think e6, except it goes up to 10.

I know there might be some problems with incorporating this in the full 20 level scheme, but as the game only goes up to 10th level, I think it might be doable.

You could pretty much just get rid of the problematic spells, and then allow Casters to cast spontaneously. That would probably be more fun for the players too. In Core there's maybe around 4 or 5 spells on average for each level that need to get tossed out for this to work more or less ok. If you wanted you could take a page from ToB to balance this out a bit more. Each spell could only get cast once per encounter, but have a refresh mechanic of some sort.

Some spells might need more fiddling with. Grabbing the Ritual idea from 4E could be used for them, or give them a duration (like Wall of Stone).

Like others have indicated, spells with saves would allow a "double miss" with your system, where even if someone got off a spell it could still fail. Not a lot of fun, imho.

[big teej]

I have oft considered using the "spell-roll" variant.

for those not familiar with it, it is similar to how a psion's powers work.

roll d20 + caster level (or spell level, I forget which)

and this determines the DC of the save, instead of static numbers.

I presume this is what the OP is refering to.

[Alaris]

I currently have a blanket ruling in my game for the following:

-When you decide you are going to cast ANY SPELL (Arcane, Divine, Natural, Etc), you must roll a D20. If you roll a 1, you the spell fails to go off, and you lose that spell slot or prepared spell for the day.

-You add the D20 result to your spellcaster modifier (Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics), and the spell level, to determine the DC of the spell, if any.

-In areas where magic is unstable (not Wild Magic Zones), rolling a Nat1 on your casting check results in a Wild Magic Effect, as well as the loss of the spell slot.

I have found that this works well for my group. I believe there should always be A CHANCE (however minor) of failing to cast your spell. Magic is not down to a science, like in Eberron.

EDIT: Side note, TWO of my 4 players seem to, for some reason, HATE THIS RULE. They think there should NEVER BE a chance to fail at casting a spell. And I refuse to change the rule in this respect... it makes too much sense for me.

[Acanous]

the Precocious Apprentice feat that gives a lv 1 wizard a lv 2 spell makes you roll a caster level check VS DC 10 to cast a lv 2 spell. DC 15 for lv 1 seems much too high in comparison.

[Quietus]

I currently have a blanket ruling in my game for the following:

-When you decide you are going to cast ANY SPELL (Arcane, Divine, Natural, Etc), you must roll a D20. If you roll a 1, you the spell fails to go off, and you lose that spell slot or prepared spell for the day.

-You add the D20 result to your spellcaster modifier (Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics), and the spell level, to determine the DC of the spell, if any.

-In areas where magic is unstable (not Wild Magic Zones), rolling a Nat1 on your casting check results in a Wild Magic Effect, as well as the loss of the spell slot.

I have found that this works well for my group. I believe there should always be A CHANCE (however minor) of failing to cast your spell. Magic is not down to a science, like in Eberron.

EDIT: Side note, TWO of my 4 players seem to, for some reason, HATE THIS RULE. They think there should NEVER BE a chance to fail at casting a spell. And I refuse to change the rule in this respect... it makes too much sense for me.

Do note that spellcasting is balanced around the idea of limited resources per day. If you're going to limit how frequently those resources work, you should ALSO increase how many of those resources they get. Unless they only lose the spell slot on that nat 1, and other fails are just a failed attempt to cast, and the spell remains unspent, in which case.. well, I don't feel the rule is necessary, but it won't hurt too much.

[gorfnab]

One of my DMs at college had an interesting way of rolling for spells. Lets see what I remember.

All spellcasting classes gain Spellcraft as a class skill except that it uses the class's main casting as its ability modifier (Int for Wizard, Cha for Sorcerers, Wis for Clerics, etc.).

The Spellcraft DC to cast a spell is 10 + level of spell (including modifiers for metamagics) + the number of spells you have successfully cast that day.

The DC for Cantrips was I think 10 + 1/2 the number of spell you have successfully cast that day. The casting of a Cantrip did not add to your total number of spells cast in a day (or they may have counted as 1/2 a spell level, I'm not quite sure).

Vancian spellslots and spells per day were removed from all casting classes. Levels in casting classes still determined at what levels you learned higher level spells.

Wizard and Sorcerer were combined into one class called the Mage. Mages have the BAB, HD, Saves, Skills (with Bluff and Intimidate added in), Familiar, and Bonus Feats of the Wizard. Mages have the Weapon/Armor Proficiencies of the Sorcerer. Mages could choose their casting stat for Spellcraft and save DCs to be either Int or Cha based. At first level Mages know all Cantrips from the Sorc/Wiz list and 2 first level spells plus a number of first level spells equal to their Cha or Int modifier (depending on which they decided to focus on) chosen from the Sorc/Wiz list. At every level a Mage gains 2 more spells known of whatever level they can cast chosen from the Sorc/Wiz spell list. The level of spells a Mage could could cast was based off the Wizard spell progression (2nd level spells at 3rd level, 3rd level spells at 5th level, etc.).

Classes like Bard, Cleric, and Druid gain spell known in the same way as Mages with the level of spells able to cast being determined by the class.. Half casters like Paladin and Ranger gain 2 spells known at every level of their casting progression with the level of spells able to cast being determined by the class. Prestige classes gain 2 spells known at every level of their casting progression with the level of spells able to cast being determined by the prestige class.

[Alaris]

Do note that spellcasting is balanced around the idea of limited resources per day. If you're going to limit how frequently those resources work, you should ALSO increase how many of those resources they get. Unless they only lose the spell slot on that nat 1, and other fails are just a failed attempt to cast, and the spell remains unspent, in which case.. well, I don't feel the rule is necessary, but it won't hurt too much.

Well, you only auto-fail on a Nat1. And that is the only time you lose the slot without the spell going off, except under extenuating circumstances, I suppose.

[NNescio]

I have oft considered using the "spell-roll" variant.

for those not familiar with it, it is similar to how a psion's powers work.

roll d20 + caster level (or spell level, I forget which)

and this determines the DC of the save, instead of static numbers.

I presume this is what the OP is refering to.

1) This is not what the OP is referring to:


I was thinking of trying to create a class that used a caster level check to cast spells.

So basically, roll Your level + Intelligence modifier against the difficulty to cast the spell. Spellcasting DC would progress like this:

Level 1 = DC 15
Level 2 = DC 17
Level 3 = DC 19
Level 4 = DC 21
Level 5 = DC 23
Level 6 = DC 26
Level 7 = DC 29
Level 8 = DC 32
Level 9 = DC 35

2) This is not how a Psion's powers work.


Saving Throw Difficulty Class

A saving throw against your power has a DC 10 + the level of the power + your key ability modifier (Intelligence for a psion, Wisdom for a psychic warrior, or Charisma for a wilder). A power’s level can vary depending on your class. Always use the power level applicable to your class.

3) This results in a lot of unnecessary rolls and slows down the game. Furthermore, using caster level instead of spell level will result in significantly higher Save DCs -- which buffs casters instead.

[EagleWiz]

Do note that spellcasting is balanced incredibly broken around the idea of limited resources per day.

Fixed it for you :smalltongue:

[navar100]

I currently have a blanket ruling in my game for the following:

-When you decide you are going to cast ANY SPELL (Arcane, Divine, Natural, Etc), you must roll a D20. If you roll a 1, you the spell fails to go off, and you lose that spell slot or prepared spell for the day.

-You add the D20 result to your spellcaster modifier (Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics), and the spell level, to determine the DC of the spell, if any.

-In areas where magic is unstable (not Wild Magic Zones), rolling a Nat1 on your casting check results in a Wild Magic Effect, as well as the loss of the spell slot.

I have found that this works well for my group. I believe there should always be A CHANCE (however minor) of failing to cast your spell. Magic is not down to a science, like in Eberron.

EDIT: Side note, TWO of my 4 players seem to, for some reason, HATE THIS RULE. They think there should NEVER BE a chance to fail at casting a spell. And I refuse to change the rule in this respect... it makes too much sense for me.

Because there already exists a mechanic for a spell to fail to function - the bad guy makes his saving throw. As I wrote earlier, the PCs are on camera all the time. They will fail to cast a spell a heck of a lot more often than one particular bad guy. It is the Suckage. If players cannot rely on their class abilities, then it's not much different than just flipping a coin to say whether you won or loss the battle. As DM, you are playing different bad guys all the time. If one bad guy fails to cast, he was going to die anyway. Next combat you have different bad guys who don't fail. At some future combat the bad guy fails, it's a different bad guy you just amde for that particular combat. As a DM, you just don't really care as you're not so invested in one particular NPC bad guy. For the player, he'll fail to cast one combat, which hurts him and the party a lot. Next combat he never fails, fine. However, during the next combat after he fails again, and again the player will be pissed off because he's wholly invested in one particular character.

There needs to be some risk of failure, or else there's no fun. That's where the Natural 20 autosave comes in for spellcasting and Natural 1 for automiss for combat as well as the general make the save/fail to hit. Having spells fail to be cast at all is as terrible as a Critical Fumble table for warriors. The players are far more adversely affected than the NPCs.

[Alaris]

Yeah... I can see your point of view, but I still think that all casters, even NPC Casters need a chance to fail like that. And there are a hell of alot more NPC casters than PCs.

[Xtomjames]

Personally I prefer spell points over spell slots. Though the UA system that is RAW sucks. Rolling to cast spells has it's merits, for example as I recall the rolling to cast spells removes spell slots (much like spell points do) and instead merits the casting of the spell wholly and completely on the roll. Thus taking up spell slots is removed as a problem in favor of a spell caster role. What more this same role acts in conjunction for determining if you beat SR or not. Further, as I recall there is a spellcraft or concentration check that can be made to reduce the spell DC (I believe it goes something like, if you make a concentration check that exceeds the DC you gain a bonus on the actual roll to cast the spell by how much the concentration check beat the DC. That or it was spellcraft in the same sense). Thus in the previous round you roll a concentration or spellcraft check to cast a 9th level spell (DC 35 as has already been posted). If your Concentration check beats the 35 by getting to lets say 40, then you get a +5 bonus to the actual spellcaster check to beat the same DC.

This seems more realistic in some senses if you ask me, by concentrating prior to casting a spell you can focus better and cast the spell better. Using either Spell Points or Rolls to cast spells also greatly reduces the power balance difference between spellcasters and martial classes.

[Infernalbargain]

One of my DMs at college had an interesting way of rolling for spells. Lets see what I remember.

All spellcasting classes gain Spellcraft as a class skill except that it uses the class's main casting as its ability modifier (Int for Wizard, Cha for Sorcerers, Wis for Clerics, etc.).

The Spellcraft DC to cast a spell is 10 + level of spell (including modifiers for metamagics) + the number of spells you have successfully cast that day.

The DC for Cantrips was I think 10 + 1/2 the number of spell you have successfully cast that day. The casting of a Cantrip did not add to your total number of spells cast in a day (or they may have counted as 1/2 a spell level, I'm not quite sure).

Vancian spellslots and spells per day were removed from all casting classes. Levels in casting classes still determined at what levels you learned higher level spells.

Wizard and Sorcerer were combined into one class called the Mage. Mages have the BAB, HD, Saves, Skills (with Bluff and Intimidate added in), Familiar, and Bonus Feats of the Wizard. Mages have the Weapon/Armor Proficiencies of the Sorcerer. Mages could choose their casting stat for Spellcraft and save DCs to be either Int or Cha based. At first level Mages know all Cantrips from the Sorc/Wiz list and 2 first level spells plus a number of first level spells equal to their Cha or Int modifier (depending on which they decided to focus on) chosen from the Sorc/Wiz list. At every level a Mage gains 2 more spells known of whatever level they can cast chosen from the Sorc/Wiz spell list. The level of spells a Mage could could cast was based off the Wizard spell progression (2nd level spells at 3rd level, 3rd level spells at 5th level, etc.).

Classes like Bard, Cleric, and Druid gain spell known in the same way as Mages with the level of spells able to cast being determined by the class.. Half casters like Paladin and Ranger gain 2 spells known at every level of their casting progression with the level of spells able to cast being determined by the class. Prestige classes gain 2 spells known at every level of their casting progression with the level of spells able to cast being determined by the prestige class.

I like the core idea of this system. My biggest issue is that spamming a level 1 is just as taxing as spamming level 9's. Running the numbers, making a spellcraft of DC 33 is trivial at level 20, 23 ranks + 10 stat. So an unoptimized Mage could cast 14 level 9's without having to roll, more if you allow take 10. However, if a mage casts 14 level 1's and then starts casting level 9's they have roll as well. Over the long run, level 1's are the same power expenditure as level 9's, which is intuitively wrong. I propose DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2*(total spell levels cast today). This comes out to about 3-4 level 9's in a day with ease, 5-6 if they roll well. This makes low level spells significantly less taxing and makes things easier on levels 1-5 because only every other level 1 spell is going to count towards the DC. Given this system, we can expect everyone and their brother to pump that spellcraft a bit. So we can either fudge the DC a bit, but this feels like a good baseline or just make it something that's not a skill check as per the Pathfinder concentration.

[Hunter Killer]

<snip>...I propose DC = 10 + spell level + 1/2*(total spell levels cast today)...<snip>
<snip>...just make it something that's not a skill check as per the Pathfinder concentration...<snip>
I like this idea, and a propose that instead of a skill check, a caster level check (d20 + Caster Level + Casting Stat) is used instead.

That would mean mean you couldn't just dip into Wizard for a few levels, then go Factotum and pump Spellcraft to spam low-level spells all day.

I also like the penalty for failure to be something cool and significant too, but I like low-magic settings... What I'd propose for the less low-magic inclined would simply be failure of the spell, with auto-failure and loss of the spell slot on natural 1.