A "new" rule for casters [3.P]

[Chained Birds]

Hello everyone, just wanted to bring up another one of my questionable changes to make being a Spellcaster a little harder.

I was reading into the Spellslinger Archetype of the Wizard on the PFSRD and noticed something interesting. When they use their gun as their focus, their gun can gain the broken condition if they roll a 1 on the attack roll (if the spell requires an attack roll), or if the enemy(s) roll a nat 20 on their save against the spell.
Then I started reading about Backlashes for epic spells and suddenly I received some wicked inspiration. What if I combined the two for regular spellcasters?

My initial idea is that if an enemy rolls a nat 20 vs a spell being cast against it, the caster receives (1d6/ level of spell) in non-reducible damage against them. The enemy still suffers any half or other effects if it doesn't have mettle or evasion, but it can at least grin smugly at the wizard who's just got his day mildly ruined by a lucky Kobold.

This doesn't seem like too much of a change, I just feel that spellcasters should suffer through the potential fumbles any non-caster has to deal with. Concerning those massive area effects and let's say 3 creatures remarkably rolling nat 20s, I think it would be fine if the caster only receives the damage once per spell cast.
Ex: Wizard casts Fireball on 6 goblins. 1 goblin rolls a 20, so the wizard takes (3d6) damage from the backlash.
The next round, the Wizard casts Burning Hands on the remaining 3 goblins. In the most amazing turn of events, all 3 of them roll 3 nat 20s, so the Wizard is dealt (1d6) damage for a second time this battle. He still killed the little goblins, but can't help feeling that he angered the Dice Gods in some way.

So, how do people feel about this? This rule also applies to enemy casters too so it evens out pretty well in my opinion... Though it can be anti-climatic that the final blow dealt to the BBEG with the backlash he received from casting a spell at the charging fighter.

[DarkestKnight]

I like the idea of giving spellslingers a bit of consideration but I'm not sure how i feel about this. a level one wizard would be be bloody terrified of casting spells other than magic missiles. Nonlethal damage might be better if you increased the scale a bit.

[Chained Birds]

Turning it to non-lethal is a fine change, as I pretty much wanted the Spellcasters to potentially pass-out due to his/her spell being returned back to him by the target's epic resistance. It is also only a 5% chance of this happening per target hit, and there are some ridiculous rules for melee fumbling so why not have the casters join in the fun.

[Adam...?]

My initial reaction is that adding an inherent risk to spell casting could be a decent way to bring the casters down to a more reasonable level of power. However, I see some problems with your mechanics.

Fluff wise, I can see people getting confused. Getting some magical backlash because the goblin rolled a 20 to resist a charm monster makes sense, sure. But why should a wizard get backlash because the same goblin walked into the cloudkill you conjured three rounds ago and didn't die? It's kind of silly.

More importantly, if you base the backlash damage off enemy saves, it'll give casters an arbitrary preference for spells that don't allow saves. Why should magic missile and lesser acid orb be perfectly safe to cast, while fireball and lightning blot could backfire?

And then it also leads to some weird situations. Using burning hands to incinerate a lifeless, inanimate corpse is safe, but doing the same to a lifeless zombie isn't? If you close your eyes and randomly fling out a fireball, why should it matter to the caster whether it hits a bunch elves, or just a bunch of trees? I'm sure you could come up with a satisfactory explanation, but at first glance, it sure seems weird.

Finally, your system gives a flat 5% chance of the caster taking damage. I can see people seeing this as mechanically similar to much-despised critical fumble house rules. I'd find it weird that a 1st level cleric and an epic wizard have the same odds of screwing up the same 1st level spell. Maybe that's a problem?

I don't know. I've probably been swordsage'd at this point anyways.

[Mystify]

More importantly, if you base the backlash damage off enemy saves, it'll give casters an arbitrary preference for spells that don't allow saves. Why should magic missile and lesser acid orb be perfectly safe to cast, while fireball and lightning blot could backfire?


This owuldbe my main complain about it. In my experience, many casters shy away from things that allow saves anyways. This would amplify that tendency.

[Grendus]

Yea, sounds like critical fumble rules. I think we should apply the same criteria to this as we do to those - take a dozen fifth level sorcerers and have them cast spells that require both an attack roll and a saving throw at summoned creatures. If, by the time they run out of spells, any of them are unconscious, you must butter your fumble rules and eat them.

If you want a few good rules to make spellcasting harder, I'd suggest something like increasing all spellcasting times by one step (free->swift->move->standard->full round).

[Socratov]

WEll, personally the fumble would be quite justified. If you have a wizard that can cast 1st level spells you can assume he is good at it, good enough to use it reliably. the fact that even an epic wizard can screw up because of bad luck is present. See it like this: playing with magic is dangerous. Harnessing the arcane power requires a steady mind etc. Now once in a while you screw up because you had a brainfart, it would be best handled like ACF, but then with a non-lethal backlash when an enemy is lucky to such an extent that the spell goes all weird. If the player wants a reason just tell them the god(dess) of luck just screwed around with causality, disrupting the spell in progress. I agree with the fact that it should only happen on saves made in response to the direct action of casting the spell.

[Chained Birds]

Don't the orb spells require an attack roll? So it still has a 5% chance of failure and maybe even more if the enemy has an decent Touch AC.

I know casters will go for the no-saves, but what else is new. I'm certain most of those no-saves are single target, so you can't really kill 50 goblins in a small room with it, minus a couple of spells (Though a caster will most likely have these spells prepared regardless of my little rule). In my opinion, a caster would rather suck up the possibility of damaging himself for the benefits of multi-kill over filling his entire arsenal with only single target no-saves.

I will agree that the rule only works on the initial save and subsequent saves resulting from that spell won't give a backlash. Would be pretty funny if a wizard permanencied a Web spell and received backlash centuries later when the rogue from a group of adventurers made a nat 20 save against the spell. Some alarm clock! :smalltongue:

[Tenno Seremel]

Best way to use fumbles – you write them down on paper then burn it.

[Chained Birds]

Best way to use fumbles – you write them down on paper then burn it.

Oh come now, I do believe a Fireball is far more dangerous to handle than a +5 Vorpal Greatsword. :smallamused:... wait? :smallconfused:

[2xMachina]

Fireball (area) backlash is also weird. It makes you take multiple damage from a single spell.

And Reflex saves is like dodging. So... someone dodge a fireball explosion, why should it rebound?

I think only single target spells should be backlash-able. And some save types backlash has weird fluff, but may become unbalanced if separated that way...

[Chained Birds]

In my original post I did say you only receive damage once per spell, not once per enemy. Hmm, you know what, I was correct in my original post in how I wanted it to be treated. Sure, Web is a little silly with it giving the caster backlash 100yrs in the future, but it only does it once.

It's very silly, very bizarre, but it's not like a caster will die from the damage. And it's not a fumble, it's a "Backlash."

Also, concerning casters immune to non-lethal damage, they take lethal damage instead (Because I can't come up with a way to counter Warforged or Necropolitan Casters :smallfrown:).

[Mystify]

Instead of being sporadic about if and when various spells may provide backlash, just add a d20 roll to every spell casts, and on a 1 it backlashes. Remove the quirk of a guy dodging it to so well you get backlash, and greater likelyhood of backlash the more people you affect, and only backlashing on spells with saves.

[Tenno Seremel]

And it's not a fumble, it's a "Backlash."
The difference is in name only though.

[2xMachina]

Instead of being sporadic about if and when various spells may provide backlash, just add a d20 roll to every spell casts, and on a 1 it backlashes. Remove the quirk of a guy dodging it to so well you get backlash, and greater likelyhood of backlash the more people you affect, and only backlashing on spells with saves.

Do Casters get Critical Hits now that you included Fumble to their casting?

[Infernalbargain]

Do Casters get Critical Hits now that you included Fumble to their casting?

Actually, casters can crit already with spells that require a touch attack. Also if we're here to nerf casters, then we needn't treat things equally.

[2xMachina]

Actually, casters can crit already with spells that require a touch attack. Also if we're here to nerf casters, then we needn't treat things equally.

That proposed system is not only fumbling touch attack spells. It fumbles EVERYTHING. Cast Shield: Fumble.

[Mystify]

Do Casters get Critical Hits now that you included Fumble to their casting?
No more than they already do. Its means to be something of a nerf.

[Chained Birds]

That proposed system is not only fumbling touch attack spells. It fumbles EVERYTHING. Cast Shield: Fumble.

The caster wouldn't fumble Shield unless he/she was silly enough to try and save against her/his own buff. :smalltongue:

This nerf only applies to save spells, and only deals damage to the caster once per casting of the spell. So spells that have subsequent saves like charm person (I believe) and spells that have probably multiple saves like Web, only deal damage to the caster once; even if multiple creatures targeted by the spell make more than 1 nat 20 save against the spell.


Do Casters get Critical Hits now that you included Fumble to their casting?

So what would I have be a Crit for a spells that doesn't have a roll? If the enemy rolls a nat 1 or something? That already exists in a way, in that the enemy has failed completely against the spell you were casting, even when they would most likely have pasted the save on a roll of 2 or higher.

[Krazzman]

I've got another idea while reading this.

As mentioned above EVERY combative spell uses a d20 to throw.
For normal spells that have a meaning out of combat: simply increase the casting time by one segment or in terms of 1r/1m/1h double the casting time.
1 Day casting time results in the roll again.
Now we link %ages to every spell level and subtract the caster level from it.
Like:
level 0
1st - 40%
2nd - 45%
3rd - 50%
4th - 55%
5th - 60%
6th - 65%
7th - 70%
8th - 75%
9th - 80%
level 20
1st - 20%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 30%
4th - 35%
5th - 40%
6th - 45%
7th - 50%
8th - 55%
9th - 60%

Maybe inserting a feat that reduces this chance by 2 times caster level instead of 1.

Or we have this 5%chance to roll for spell failure with a variable % and the resulting spell failures.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

To me this makes no sense to spells that use Reflex saves. He dodged my spell, **** now because I didn't hit him I get hurt...WHAT?!?!

I think that only spells with a Will save should have the backlash if any spells should have it at all, because that is the only thing that makes sense.

[Keneth]

I think backlash is a bad idea. What you can do is make the world as a whole somewhat unstable in terms of magic. And so every time you cast a spell, you risk getting a Spellblight (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spellblights) (in addition to the more common areas of wild and dead magic). Of course you'd need to make more of them to make it interesting (like enough to roll a d%). And some of them would have to be harsh enough to make you think twice before casting a spell you don't desperately need. Perhaps even give a higher chance of acquiring a more serious spellblight depending on the level of the spell you cast.

[2xMachina]

The caster wouldn't fumble Shield unless he/she was silly enough to try and save against her/his own buff. :smalltongue:

This nerf only applies to save spells, and only deals damage to the caster once per casting of the spell. So spells that have subsequent saves like charm person (I believe) and spells that have probably multiple saves like Web, only deal damage to the caster once; even if multiple creatures targeted by the spell make more than 1 nat 20 save against the spell.



So what would I have be a Crit for a spells that doesn't have a roll? If the enemy rolls a nat 1 or something? That already exists in a way, in that the enemy has failed completely against the spell you were casting, even when they would most likely have pasted the save on a roll of 2 or higher.

I was referring to


Instead of being sporadic about if and when various spells may provide backlash, just add a d20 roll to every spell casts, and on a 1 it backlashes. Remove the quirk of a guy dodging it to so well you get backlash, and greater likelyhood of backlash the more people you affect, and only backlashing on spells with saves.

which fumbles everything.

[Rossebay]

Yea, sounds like critical fumble rules. I think we should apply the same criteria to this as we do to those - take a dozen fifth level sorcerers and have them cast spells that require both an attack roll and a saving throw at summoned creatures. If, by the time they run out of spells, any of them are unconscious, you must butter your fumble rules and eat them.

If you want a few good rules to make spellcasting harder, I'd suggest something like increasing all spellcasting times by one step (free->swift->move->standard->full round).

Not quite...
Think of it this way: The master swordsman, swinging in the same way many times, may eventually pull a muscle, drop the sword, have it break, etc. 2 or 3 1's in a row may do that.

Now then, we take the spellcaster. They're commanding forces much greater than them. They don't just pick up a sword and hit things, they're breaking the laws of physics. If they calculate something wrong, or do their somatic components slightly off, the spell could just fizzle, sure, but it could also be the case that the spell backfires on them. We don't have an exact science on spellcasting, but certainly, with magic, anything is possible.

I feel that if a Sorcerer continually casts spells until he's out of them, it'd better have some physical strain put on him. If he's unconscious by that time? Good! He probably blew up half the county in the process anyway!

[Novawurmson]

I like the idea of the material plane being an "Impeded Magic" plane:


Impeded Magic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/the-planes)

Particular spells and spell-like abilities are more difficult to cast on planes with this trait, often because the nature of the plane interferes with the spell. To cast an impeded spell, the caster must make a concentration check (DC 20 + the level of the spell). If the check fails, the spell does not function but is still lost as a prepared spell or spell slot. If the check succeeds, the spell functions normally.

...but maybe cutting the Concentration check DC to 10+spell level or 10+(spell level x2) or 10+(spell level^2), though the last one makes spells above level 4 almost impossible to cast.