Simple Magic Fix? [3.5]

[Rolepgeek]

So, I'm considering using a small change to magic to make it a bit more balanced in my campaign, though I have a bad feeling it'll be unbalanced in one way or another. It's simple though;

To cast a spell, you have to make an ability check based on the ability that you're using for that spellcasting class. The DC is equal to 5+2xSpellLevel. Meaning a 0-level spell is DC 5, but a 9th level spell is 23...and it's an ability check, meaning a level 20 wizard with Intelligence 30 still needs a 13 or better to cast a ninth level spell.

Just hoping for some feedback from more experienced DMs, players, and homebrewers.

[Xaotiq1]

Check out the magic system in Green Ronin Publishing's True20. It's almost that.

[Cheiromancer]

What would be the consequence of failure? Do you lose the spell, or is it just a delay to cast it? I'd suggest the latter. Players hate losing spells- even a 5% chance of ASF from armor causes frustration.

How about spells from scrolls, wands and staves? Are they reliable but costly, or just unreliable?

A marshal would be very valuable to have around (Motivate Intelligence!).

Sanctum spell would have a perverse effect; affected spells would be easier to cast outside the sanctum than in it.

It's an interesting idea. I'll have to think about it some more.

[Vadskye]

This is a bad idea. Ability checks are extremely insensitive to character attributes and development; a masterful wizard with a 20 Intelligence has only a 25% higher chance at success than Joe Shmoe the commoner with a 10 Intelligence. (Admittedly, it's much more complicated than that, but the basic principle still holds true). This injects a hefty dose of randomness into a caster's life that they have very little control over. Not fun. If you want to fix spells, it will take a lot more nuance than something like this.

[Kane0]

If you want a simple magic fix along those kinds of lines, my favorite option is to only allow spells of level 4-6 to be castable if you have spell focus in that school and spells of level 7-9 if you have greater spell focus in that school. Spells of level 0-3 are as normal.

[Rolepgeek]

I was going to have it just fail, and that spell slot/prepared spell is used up for the day, but you could easily be right. Perhaps you roll after you've cast the spell(meaning the time is still used up), and if you fail(barring critical failure), the spell just isn't cast, but you can try again? I don't know about this though, as it makes it less costly to try high-level magics without preparation 'oh I'll just try again until it finally works'. Maybe they lose the spell if they fail by a certain amount? And if they fail by even more(or on a critical failure) it backfires?

Scrolls would rely on the person using them; you'd still have to make a check, though it might be lower. Wands and staves, you probably wouldn't (though UMD checks might need to be made, of course), as they would've been made at creation(probably similar to a crafting roll, though). Scrolls wouldn't need a check at creation, however.

There'd be other things, of course. First of all, ritual magic would have some effects. There'd be various feats, and a wizard would get a +4 to spells in his specialization; however, while he could still cast spells from banned schools, they'd suffer a -4 penalty. I think the idea of being completely unable to cast spells from a certain school is silly; but being bad at them, not so much.

Perhaps you have a point, Vadskye, but it's just a concept. It could be a level check with higher DCs that you add your attributes to.

Ooh, I remember an idea I had. Make Spellcraft more useful by using your ranks in Spellcraft. The DCs should be larger if this is done, of course (Probably start at 8-10 and go up 3 per spell level)

[Jormengand]

This will just make it harder for low-OP casters to cast spells, without really affecting high-OP casters, which is the exact opposite of what you want.

[Xerlith]

I have been thinking about my own magic re-vamp for some time now. One of my best bets up to now has been a Caster Level check.
DC equal to 10+ twice the spell level. May spend a move action to add their main spellcasting ability to the check.

[LordErebus12]

The ability to cast a spell requires a successful spellcraft check. Without a successful spellcraft check, the spell fails but the spell slot per day is not expended. This is often known as a "fizzled spell". The Spellcraft DC required to cast a spell is 15 + (spell level x 3).

Spell Level|Spellcraft DC
1st|18
2nd|21
3rd|24
4th|27
5th|30
6th|33
7th|36
8th|39
9th|42

Casters cannot take 10 on spellcraft checks to cast spells or to use magical items, unless otherwise allowed through class features, etc.

heres an idea i had a while back. you can see more at my link "casting as a skill" in my signature.

[Xerlith]

Is the fact that a 1st level spell DC is not tripled intended?

[LordErebus12]

Is the fact that a 1st level spell DC is not tripled intended?

error, nothing more.

[Alabenson]

Honestly, I cringe every time I see the words "simple" and "magic fix" together. 3.5's magic system is fairly complex, and the issues with it can't really be solved with any sort of fix that could reasonably be referred to as "simple". Inevitably, these "simple" fixes either fail to adequately address the issues, or nerf magic into complete uselessness.

The specific issues I see with this "fix" are as follows:
1. Under this system, spellcasters are going to be spending a significant portion of their time being unable to contribute, with the problem getting worse as they increase in levels. This is going to be extremely frustrating for players, to the extent that many would simply rather not play a spellcaster period under such circumstances.

2. The change appears to affect all spellcasters, which not only includes the Tier 1 classes like the Wizard and Cleric, but also much weaker classes like the Paladin and the Ranger.

If your going to try to "fix" or "balance" magic, don't try to nerf the classes or the mechanic, fix the spells themselves.

[Jormengand]

Honestly, I cringe every time I see the words "simple" and "magic fix" together. 3.5's magic system is fairly complex, and the issues with it can't really be solved with any sort of fix that could reasonably be referred to as "simple". Inevitably, these "simple" fixes either fail to adequately address the issues, or nerf magic into complete uselessness.

The specific issues I see with this "fix" are as follows:
1. Under this system, spellcasters are going to be spending a significant portion of their time being unable to contribute, with the problem getting worse as they increase in levels. This is going to be extremely frustrating for players, to the extent that many would simply rather not play a spellcaster period under such circumstances.

2. The change appears to affect all spellcasters, which not only includes the Tier 1 classes like the Wizard and Cleric, but also much weaker classes like the Paladin and the Ranger.

If your going to try to "fix" or "balance" magic, don't try to nerf the classes or the mechanic, fix the spells themselves.

My problem with this "fix" is more that spellcasters who optimise (the most brokenly good ones) will be fine and spellcasters who don't (The least brokenly good ones) will be almost incapable of casting spells. It's like with the freaking truespeak checks; if you optimise enough you don't actually care at all, if you don't the class is now useless.

[LordErebus12]

If your going to try to "fix" or "balance" magic, don't try to nerf the classes or the mechanic, fix the spells themselves.

I'm thinking that nerfing magic was the point; in some games magic is overpowered and less complicated than one might want for the world.

While you are right, there is no 'true fix' for something like the magic system, imposing an ability/skill check makes it more difficult to wield and makes it all the more valuable because of that. Rather than having to go in and edit/fix every single spell (a HUGE waste of time and energy), something like this can make magic seem more realistic (oh yes, I am cringing as i say those words), since in some games its better if not every spell should always cast perfectly every time.

As for Ranger and Paladin, they are secondary casters. If at 14th level, a paladin cannot successfully roll a DC 13 Wisdom check (with OP's suggestion) to cast a 4th level spell, then he needs to smelt down his armor, sword and shield, send his pony to the glue factory and become a full time bartender, imo. :smallbiggrin:

as you can see with my "spellcasting as a skill" post, everyone could possibly be a caster, but only the dedicated ones are any good at it.

[Alabenson]

I'm thinking that nerfing magic was the point; in some games magic is overpowered and less complicated than one might want for the world.

If the OP had said that the intention of this change was to simply nerf magic into the ground for the sake of nerfing magic in order to, say, run a low magic campaign, then I would be...less vehemently opposed to it. However, the OP indicated that the purpose of this change was to promote "balance", which is problematic because this nerf affects characters at every level of the Tier system, not just the ones that could stand to be rebalanced.


While you are right, there is no 'true fix' for something like the magic system, imposing an ability/skill check makes it more difficult to wield and makes it all the more valuable because of that. Rather than having to go in and edit/fix every single spell (a HUGE waste of time and energy), something like this can make magic seem more realistic (oh yes, I am cringing as i say those words), since in some games its better if not every spell should always cast perfectly every time.

The problem is, making magic substantially more difficult to wield lessens its value to the point that many players will avoid using it altogether in favor of a system that doesn't impose a substantial chance of being useless.
And yes, editing and/or fixing every single spell would be a hideously time-consuming task, hence why there hasn't been a magic "fix" that has gained widespread use; that is the only way magic could be effectively rebalanced without either having the rebalance be an ineffective joke or having it render spellcasting unplayable, and thus most DMs rely on a combination of gentlemen's agreements and spot fixes for individual problematic spells.


As for Ranger and Paladin, they are secondary casters. If at 14th level, a paladin cannot successfully roll a DC 13 Wisdom check (with OP's suggestion) to cast a 4th level spell, then he needs to smelt down his armor, sword and shield, send his pony to the glue factory and become a full time bartender, imo. :smallbiggrin:

There are two issues here that you seem to be overlooking;
1) Your average Paladin likely can't afford to have much more than a 14 in Wisdom, due to his existing issues with MAD, nor does he likely have many resources he can spend to increase it. Therefore, that Paladin is going to fail that DC 13 roll approximately half of the time unless he dedicates substantial resources to improving his Wisdom score at the cost of other areas of his character.

2) Even if the Paladin could make the checks virtually all of the time, the fact remains that you are still functionally weakening a class that already has to struggle to remain effective, which is never a good thing.

[Rolepgeek]

It's not perfect. I know that. It's meant to be a bad which can work with other things to fix magic. There will still be spot fixes and such, it just means that the wizard isn't automatically dealing 5d6 damage a turn to multiple opponents with each fireball; they have to make a DC 11 Intelligence check first. Just like the ranger has to make an attack roll. It is true, though, that it's unfair to character development, so perhaps a special Spellcraft check would be a better idea. Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus could help, Spellcraft would be based on the casting ability in question, etc. Caster level check affected by ability score could work too.

The thing is, about the lesser spell-casting classes (I view ranger and paladin as tertiary spell-casters, while bards are secondary), is that they aren't useless without their spells. And even with this, remember that magic items can increase your ability scores. For one thing, I like to have divine magic run off charisma, rather than wisdom, meaning a paladin with a Cloak of Charisma +4 at 13th level should have around a +5 bonus. and if he doesn't cast the spell each and every time, oh well. It's meant to balance magic by nerfing it a bit. Of course, some spells could just be not allowed by simple use of 'whelp, it's so powerful ancient wizards locked it away in a dark and mysterious dungeon. Yes, this is a plot hook.' etc. Perhaps the OP wasn't clear enough. This wasn't meant to be a fix-all end-all to magic balance. It was meant to shorten the gap. Low-level caters have puny DCs to deal with. I don't like making a 1st level sorcerer have to succeed on a DC 18 check to cast 1-level spells(and I dislike a 4th level ranger needing to even more), but as it is, it assists, at least in high-level games. A 1st level wizard should certainly be able to make a DC 10 to 13 Spellcraft check, optimized or not. A fourteen or so in intelligence and four ranks in Spellcraft is a +6 bonus. Granted, this does also tone down the level of magic in a game, particularly if you make it something not be screwed around with at a whim, by giving some sort of drawback to failure beyond wasting your action(hey, at least you haven't wasted arrows, right?). There could be various additional feats meant to work with this, essentially making it similar to an attack roll, but specific to spells. Adjusted caster level checks mak this even more clear, as tertiary spell casting classes gain caster levels more slowly.

[NichG]

Nerf-into-uselessness is a bit of an exaggeration whenever these things come up. If a Lv20 caster is restricting themselves to 3rd level spells because the 9th level spells have a failure rate, they still get whatever utility one can derive from a caster using 3rd level spells without a failure rate. I'd happily play a wizard in this system who uses all his higher level slots for low-level spells that I'm pretty much guaranteed to cast successfully, and I don't think I'd be behind the other classes much in doing so. Likely if I wanted to I could still dominate the game via a combination of that, item-crafting, and downtime casting.

If a magic nerf leads to some people who would have played Wizards playing Fighters instead, thats actually a success of the nerf. It means that the Wizard is no longer so obviously the optimal choice.

That said, the problem here is that it doesn't really address the particular things that tend to make magic users dominate. A failure rate on casting does mean that sometimes your action just doesn't go off, and so you don't instantly solve the combat because of the bad roll. But it doesn't actually change the situations where you succeed in the roll and still instantly solve the combat anyhow. It just makes it more swingy. It also doesn't prevent downtime magic abuses like Polymorph Any Object to permanently improve your race for free, or things that you can set up before time is limited (e.g. DMM Persistent buffs). So I'd say its not a problem that this nerfs casters, but it is a problem that it nerfs casters while simultaneously not actually resolving the real issue.

Aside from going and rewriting or fixing every spell, or having a very constrained whitelist of permitted spells, the best fixes I think attempt to address the versatility issue rather than the usability of individual attempts at casting. For example, the Sorceror and Wizard are different tiers because the Wizard can eventually get any spell and the Sorceror is limited to a much smaller set of spells at any given time. The Wizard is considered higher tier because, even if they can cast fewer spells per day, they have much more versatility. Adding an error rate to spellcasting is quite similar to just reducing the number of spells per day, so its not really enough to counterbalance the versatility issue.

[LordErebus12]

better yet, start restricting spell access to the more broken spells, such as polymorph any object.