Magic is Dangerous, or help me avoid violating Grod's Law

[dextercorvia]

I'm trying to come up with a Magic is Dangerous situation for an upcoming game. I would like there to be consequences for casting too much in a given day. However, I'm all too aware that most such mechanics run afoul of Grod's Law.

Here's what I have so far:

Magic is Dangerous
Each time you cast a spell, you must roll a caster level check. The DC of this check is 2*the total # of spells you have cast so far today. If you fail the check, you lose the spell and are dazed for one round. If you fail three or more checks in one day <something bad happens>.

So, I realize it is potentially annoying in at least two places. The CL check is an extra roll, and the player has to keep track of the number of spells cast so far in a day. I'd appreciate any help with developing and simplifying this system.

[Gnorman]

Is it your intention to especially penalize higher-level casters?

[dextercorvia]

Is it your intention to especially penalize higher-level casters?

Not specifically. The setting is post apocalyptic, where the apocalypse was caused by a complete collapse of magic. Things have settled out a bit, but are still unstable. I'm trying to give that a mechanical representation.

[Gnorman]

Okay, then I'd try to at least rethink the spell level portion of this system. Higher level spells very quickly send the CL check off the RNG range. A level 1 Wizard could cast almost her entire repertoire and still have a 75-80% of success, whereas a level 20 Wizard would be out of luck after four spells.

[dextercorvia]

Okay, then I'd try to at least rethink the spell level portion of this system. Higher level spells very quickly send the CL check off the RNG range. A level 1 Wizard could cast almost her entire repertoire and still have a 75-80% of success, whereas a level 20 Wizard would be out of luck after four spells.

Perhaps a DC of X+#of spells cast that day? Ideally there would be a chance of failure at each level, but not a guarantee.

[Gnorman]

Perhaps a DC of X+#of spells cast that day? Ideally there would be a chance of failure at each level, but not a guarantee.

Slightly better. I don't think there's a way to do what you're trying to do here without adding some additional complexity to the system, but the incentives are at least not absurd with this version. Setting a good value for X is still going to be difficult. How high of a level do you think this game will go?

[Troacctid]

I would just sprinkle the setting with dead magic, impeded magic, and wild magic zones instead. You'll do a better job conveying what you want to convey by altering the environment. It says to the players, "Your spellcasting would work fine, if the world weren't all screwed up."

Similarly, you should thread the "warped magic" theme through your adventures by having planar breaches erupt across the world, applying templates like Spellwarped to the wildlife, and so on.

[TheIronGolem]

Spitballing here, but:

You can cast up to X spell levels per day without incurring penalty, where X is either your CON modifier or your casting ability modifier (whichever better fits your fluff).

For each level past that limit, you have a 5% ASF (even for non-arcane magic, assuming that too fits your fluff), which stacks with any other ASF. Optionally, this could be capped at some maximum.

If you lose the spell due to the ASF chance, make a CL check against a DC of 20 + the "excess" spell levels cast today. On a success, nothing more happens. On a failure, Bad Thing Happens.

Still a bit dice-intensive, because it potentially adds three dice rolls to a spell (four, if Bad Thing involves a roll). But this rearranges the rolls so that the "gateway" roll is the one that's most manageable by players.

There's also a bit of design space created, in that you could have feats or class features that affect these factors (raise the "free casting" limit, reduce the ASF gained, etc).

[dextercorvia]

Slightly better. I don't think there's a way to do what you're trying to do here without adding some additional complexity to the system, but the incentives are at least not absurd with this version. Setting a good value for X is still going to be difficult. How high of a level do you think this game will go?

I redid the OP to be 2*#of spells cast. I need to think through the ramifications of that. I also considered just making it a flat 5% chance, but only when casting spells of your highest spell level.

I plan to start at 1 and run it here on the forums, so probably not any higher than 6 or so. If, by some miracle it goes longer than that, then finding a way around the Magic is Dangerous will likely be the point of a quest.


I would just sprinkle the setting with dead magic, impeded magic, and wild magic zones instead. You'll do a better job conveying what you want to convey by altering the environment. It says to the players, "Your spellcasting would work fine, if the world weren't all screwed up."

Similarly, you should thread the "warped magic" theme through your adventures by having planar breaches erupt across the world, applying templates like Spellwarped to the wildlife, and so on.

I like this a lot, and will be incorporating it. Spellwarped and Pseudonatural are two of my favorite templates as a DM.

[Quertus]

Not sure if it helps, but I loved the 2e Channeler system. Every spell caused drain (fatigue). The extent of the drain depended on the level of the spell compared to the level of the caster.

I also like the (save or) take damage equal to spell level systems.

[dextercorvia]

Combining some of what I've read, I think there will be different areas where any of the following could apply.

Normal Zones: There are a few of these oases of magic in an otherwise turbulent sea of chaos.

Wild Magic Zones: As the planar trait, except the roll to see if something strange happens is on a 1d20+Con. If your roll exceeds the level of the spell you are casting, there is no strange effect. (The existing method is murder to low level casters.)

Impeded Magic Zones: As the planar trait.

Dangerous Magic Zones: All spells of your maximum level have a 5% spell failure chance. If a spell fails in this manner, the caster is dazed for one round.

Dead Magic Zones: As the planar trait.

Is there any existing mechanic to discover what sort of Magic Trait a region has (perhaps an appropriate Knolwedge or Spellcraft Check)?

[ATHATH]

Note that using the system in the OP might cause 10 minute adventuring day syndrome.

Have you tried converting the Warp system from one of the WH40K RPG's?

[dextercorvia]

Note that using the system in the OP might cause 10 minute adventuring day syndrome.

Have you tried converting the Warp system from one of the WH40K RPG's?

I had thought of that, but there are always ways to encourage adventurers to keep going.

I've never messed with any WH40K stuff.

[Extra Anchovies]

The system in the OP isn't so much a limiting factor as it is a feat tax. Any spellcaster can take Arcane Mastery, which lets them take 10 on CL checks. A wizard with that feat can cast all of their non-bonus non-cantrip spells every day without fail until level 14. With bonus spells, they're fine until 11th or so. A 20th-level wizard can run through all of their spells of 5th level and above, or 6th and above with bonus spells. That's without a single CL-boosting effect, too. By the time that low-level spells stop being worth the check DC increase, most spellcasters will be able to purchase and/or create scrolls and wands of those spells anyways.

From an in-setting perspective, I think the explanation of the attempted balancing mechanic is a bit redundant. The consequence for casting too much in a given day is running out of spell slots. When you're out of spell slots of a certain level, attempts to cast a spell of that level automatically fail (you're spending a standard action waving your fingers and spouting gobbledygook). If magic didn't get progressively more dangerous, spellcasters could cast whatever spells they knew as often as they wanted. Experience and talent (levels and ability scores) make it easier to keep the spells safe, which is why higher spellcasting levels and higher casting stats grant more spells per day. A 1st-level wizard is only good enough to cast two 1st-level spells per day before it's too dangerous to cast any more, or maybe three spells if they're really bright (Int 20). The really dumb wizards (Int 11) mess up their first spell badly enough that they can't even cast a second.

If spellcasters have too many slots, then, the solution is to decrease how many slots they get. For example, Wizards get two more spells per day at each class level; reducing that to three every two levels (probably +2 at even levels and +1 at odd levels, because odd levels also usually give access to a new level of spells) brings their final spells per day from 4 per level to 3 per level.

[squiggit]

40k RPG gives you a static table of bad things that's relatively hard to activate but can be extremely dangerous. Stuff from summong daemons to backfiring spells to possession to even instant death.

Your current system just encourages me to take short adventuring days and be very frugal with my spells and in my opinion any system that encourages the player to play less is a bad idea. So while I think 40k RPG's list of bad things is too punitive, the concept behind it is a sound one.

Make spell failure rarer, but more severe and add a table of consequences to roll on. That makes it less a matter of playing until the DC gets too hard or saving all your spells and more a matter of pushing the boundaries of your luck and makes the potential consequences more interesting than skip a turn. No one likes skip a turn.

[Duke of Urrel]

Would you count completing a spell with a magic scroll as "casting" a spell? If you don't count using a magic scroll as casting a spell, I imagine PCs will avoid the difficulty you have imposed upon spellcasting simply by casting fewer spells and using more magic scrolls to compensate.

[dextercorvia]

From an in-setting perspective, I think the explanation of the attempted balancing mechanic is a bit redundant. The consequence for casting too much in a given day is running out of spell slots. When you're out of spell slots of a certain level, attempts to cast a spell of that level automatically fail (you're spending a standard action waving your fingers and spouting gobbledygook). If magic didn't get progressively more dangerous, spellcasters could cast whatever spells they knew as often as they wanted. Experience and talent (levels and ability scores) make it easier to keep the spells safe, which is why higher spellcasting levels and higher casting stats grant more spells per day. A 1st-level wizard is only good enough to cast two 1st-level spells per day before it's too dangerous to cast any more, or maybe three spells if they're really bright (Int 20). The really dumb wizards (Int 11) mess up their first spell badly enough that they can't even cast a second.

This is an excellent point. I've been thinking of Magic as getting less powerful/more dangerous than usual, but perhaps before the Magipocolypse wizards were truly terrifying, and now they are limited to a handful of spells per day (per the PHB, etc.).

I'll still probably incorporate some regions with different magic traits, but use them sparingly so they mean something.

[Ruethgar]

You might give defiling a look in the Dark Sun setting.

My brother liked the commoner characters I made with the various spell feats using Whispering Way spells which cause negative levels when you cast them. Then I had them use Enduring Life and Lasting Life to remove the negative level before it took effect, essentially doubling actions required to cast or else you might become a Wight.

[Flickerdart]

If your goal is to show magic is out of whack, this is not the way to be going about it. Wild magic zones, roaming living spells, quirky options like Sun and Moon Wizard - that's how you can represent that.

When you punish casters for the number of spells they cast per day, they are drawn to using the kinds of spells that only need to be cast once. Those are the spells that end encounters. If one spell ends the encounter, the rest of the party doesn't get to do anything. Any rule that encourages this outcome - no matter the intent - is a bad rule. What you actually want is the reverse - to encourage casters to use many low-level spells (lots of which are still viable for levels and levels after first being introduced). This would be much better at representing a system of magic that has experienced decline.

Of course, whenever you want players to do anything, you need to have a carrot as well as a stick. This is because the comparison will never be drawn between magic users and non magic users in your world, but magic users in your world and magic users that the players are used to. For a player who likes wizard PCs, why should he be excited about your houserule? How can you make sure that your player enters the game thinking "it's so awesome to be playing this wizard in this setting, even though Magic Is Dangerous" and not "it really sucks playing a wizard in this setting because Magic Is Dangerous"?

[NichG]

One way of showing danger without directly penalizing the player for using their mechanics is to have the consequences of the risk not apply to the player, but apply to others. So if you cast a spell, there's no risk that it might fizzle or backfire on you or cost you a turn or whatever - you're going to get that spell off. But the 'how' may vary in details that makes it more difficult to plan precisely.

One way to do this is wild mage-like rules, where the AoE radius has a random component to it, etc. That's a bit tedious, and its easily avoided by using more precision spells or just leaving a big margin when casting. So maybe not that. Another way to do it would be to make it so that spells automatically have a sub-round delay factor - say, roll 1d4 secretly and wait that many subsequent actions before the spell goes off. I think that's a bit better at the 'out of control and dangerous' idea, but its a lot of book-keeping and worse, the book-keeping has to be done by the DM.

The environment thing brings in a good idea though. When you cast spells, everything goes as usual, but any given location has only a certain ability to repair itself from the damage caused by the release of spell energies. Once that threshold is exceeded, there will be a random, lasting change to the environment. Careful study of the area can ascertain that threshold and how close it is, but generally its not something that can be instantly read off in the heat of combat. The changes should generally be negative, but not of the 'kill you right now!' variety. 'This area now has a 5% of raising those who die in the area as undead', 'crops that grow in this area induce cosmetic mutations when consumed for an extended period of time', 'the wind completely avoids this region, and it is eerily calm; however, as a result there tends to be an accumulation of any noxious vapors produced in the area unless the vapors are manually dissipated', etc.

In the wilderness, the PCs may not care about adding an additional blight spot or weird zone to the already destroyed landscape. But when it comes to casting in towns or in their home base, it can be an issue - magic use in such places might be highly rationed to keep the environment below threshold, or you might have to travel a distance out of town to visit a local magic user. Maybe once the environment 'breaks' in this way, it doesn't break further quite as easily, so mages tend to find a negative trait they can live with and just set up there. Or perhaps further casting expands the zone and the intensity of the effects, so hostile areas might impinge on nearby settlements and thus generate a 'this nearby mage is causing all our crops to die!' type situation.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Combining some of what I've read, I think there will be different areas where any of the following could apply.

Normal Zones: There are a few of these oases of magic in an otherwise turbulent sea of chaos.

Wild Magic Zones: As the planar trait, except the roll to see if something strange happens is on a 1d20+Con. If your roll exceeds the level of the spell you are casting, there is no strange effect. (The existing method is murder to low level casters.)

Impeded Magic Zones: As the planar trait.

Dangerous Magic Zones: All spells of your maximum level have a 5% spell failure chance. If a spell fails in this manner, the caster is dazed for one round.

Dead Magic Zones: As the planar trait.

Is there any existing mechanic to discover what sort of Magic Trait a region has (perhaps an appropriate Knolwedge or Spellcraft Check)?I like this, but it is possible to mitigate the problems if you know how. For instance, a three level dip in cleric with the Initiate of Mystra feat allows you to deal with dead magic zones. The vest of steadfast spellcasting can deal with everything but the dead magic zones. The planar bubble spell can also deal with all of it, especially if you're from a different plane. And the acorn of far travel spell can also negate all of those, especially if you've got a schema device for a 1/day nonmagical casting.

Of course, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. You could outright encourage your caster players to make use of those options so they're not FUBAR'd by the rule. Note that some options, especially wild magic, can screw them over even if their spells aren't directly subjected to it.

[Troacctid]

Wild Magic Zones: As the planar trait, except the roll to see if something strange happens is on a 1d20+Con. If your roll exceeds the level of the spell you are casting, there is no strange effect. (The existing method is murder to low level casters.)

Okay, but this method just makes low-level casters completely immune to it. How do you fail a DC 1 check?

[LudicSavant]

I'm trying to come up with a Magic is Dangerous situation for an upcoming game. I would like there to be consequences for casting too much in a given day. However, I'm all too aware that most such mechanics run afoul of Grod's Law.

Here's what I have so far:

Magic is Dangerous
Each time you cast a spell, you must roll a caster level check. The DC of this check is 2*the total # of spells you have cast so far today. If you fail the check, you lose the spell and are dazed for one round. If you fail three or more checks in one day <something bad happens>.

So, I realize it is potentially annoying in at least two places. The CL check is an extra roll, and the player has to keep track of the number of spells cast so far in a day. I'd appreciate any help with developing and simplifying this system.

Sounds like a violation of Grod's law to me. As if random fumbles weren't annoying enough as it is, it's just a greater incentive for an already annoying mechanic: The five minute adventuring day. Also, it can be negated by a feat tax, which is also annoying.

[Coidzor]

Wild Magic Zones: As the planar trait, except the roll to see if something strange happens is on a 1d20+Con. If your roll exceeds the level of the spell you are casting, there is no strange effect. (The existing method is murder to low level casters.)

Can a caster with a decent CON score fail this for the lowest levels of spells?

[Yahzi]

If you want to make magic dangerous, but you don't want to penalize spellcasters, then the randomness has to do good things as well.

Every time you cast a spell, roll a D20.

On a 1, the spell has the opposite effect (damage spells heal, battlefield control boosts the enemy movement/visibility, etc.).

On a 20, the spell does double effect (damage, area, or duration - player's choice) and does not cost a spell slot.

[Gnorman]

If you want to make magic dangerous, but you don't want to penalize spellcasters, then the randomness has to do good things as well.

Every time you cast a spell, roll a D20.

On a 1, the spell has the opposite effect (damage spells heal, battlefield control boosts the enemy movement/visibility, etc.).

On a 20, the spell does double effect (damage, area, or duration - player's choice) and does not cost a spell slot.

This will lead to some weirdness. What's the opposite of Invisibility?

[Kelb_Panthera]

This will lead to some weirdness. What's the opposite of Invisibility?

Highlighted. Maybe fairy fire or something to that effect?

[Troacctid]

So if you're a 6th level Warlock, you can spam Curse of Despair on your allies until you get the reverse effect, then break all the negative curses, giving your whole team a permanent +6 to all ability scores and +4 bonus on attacks, saves, and skill and ability checks? Seems fair and balanced.

[frogglesmash]

On a slight tangent, what exactly is Grod's Law?

[Kelb_Panthera]

On a slight tangent, what exactly is Grod's Law?

Here you go. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17613518#post17613518

[Keltest]

Perhaps you could use an energy point system. Arcane casters have X energy points that they can spend to cast spells. Once the run out of energy points, they can still cast spells, and they will still work, but at reduced effectiveness. And if you want to get really complex, they can spend more energy to make the spell better than base (for example, double or triple the energy point cost to add a metamagic effect to it even if they didn't prepare it that way), and maybe even cast from their hit points (this should probably be ultra-efficient compared to energy points so it doesn't flat out kill them).

[atemu1234]

I would just sprinkle the setting with dead magic, impeded magic, and wild magic zones instead. You'll do a better job conveying what you want to convey by altering the environment. It says to the players, "Your spellcasting would work fine, if the world weren't all screwed up."

Similarly, you should thread the "warped magic" theme through your adventures by having planar breaches erupt across the world, applying templates like Spellwarped to the wildlife, and so on.

I agree with Tro on this, but you should also use the Mutation/Radiation systems from D20 Apocalypse/Future.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder Unchained has a bunch of spellcasting alterations (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/magic/spellAlterations.html) you could implement or tweak in a campaign like this. For example, you could restrict casting with Limited Magic, then let the casters overcome it by Spell Overclocking - but if they do, they run the risk of Spell Fumbles or Wild Magic occurring. You can then add Esoteric Components (and/or Metamagic Components (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/metamagicComponents.htm)) to let them overclock without risk in certain situations, provided they seek out and stockpile the right components/reagents. Certain campaign-changing spells like Resurrection or Planar Binding can also be removed entirely, and replaced with Incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm) or Rituals. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/occultAdventures/occultRules.html)

You can also combine the above penalties with Spellblights (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/spellblights.html) to make overuse of magic even riskier.

[dextercorvia]

If your goal is to show magic is out of whack, this is not the way to be going about it. Wild magic zones, roaming living spells, quirky options like Sun and Moon Wizard - that's how you can represent that.

When you punish casters for the number of spells they cast per day, they are drawn to using the kinds of spells that only need to be cast once. Those are the spells that end encounters. If one spell ends the encounter, the rest of the party doesn't get to do anything. Any rule that encourages this outcome - no matter the intent - is a bad rule. What you actually want is the reverse - to encourage casters to use many low-level spells (lots of which are still viable for levels and levels after first being introduced). This would be much better at representing a system of magic that has experienced decline.

Of course, whenever you want players to do anything, you need to have a carrot as well as a stick. This is because the comparison will never be drawn between magic users and non magic users in your world, but magic users in your world and magic users that the players are used to. For a player who likes wizard PCs, why should he be excited about your houserule? How can you make sure that your player enters the game thinking "it's so awesome to be playing this wizard in this setting, even though Magic Is Dangerous" and not "it really sucks playing a wizard in this setting because Magic Is Dangerous"?

Excellent points.


One way of showing danger without directly penalizing the player for using their mechanics is to have the consequences of the risk not apply to the player, but apply to others. So if you cast a spell, there's no risk that it might fizzle or backfire on you or cost you a turn or whatever - you're going to get that spell off. But the 'how' may vary in details that makes it more difficult to plan precisely.

One way to do this is wild mage-like rules, where the AoE radius has a random component to it, etc. That's a bit tedious, and its easily avoided by using more precision spells or just leaving a big margin when casting. So maybe not that. Another way to do it would be to make it so that spells automatically have a sub-round delay factor - say, roll 1d4 secretly and wait that many subsequent actions before the spell goes off. I think that's a bit better at the 'out of control and dangerous' idea, but its a lot of book-keeping and worse, the book-keeping has to be done by the DM.

The environment thing brings in a good idea though. When you cast spells, everything goes as usual, but any given location has only a certain ability to repair itself from the damage caused by the release of spell energies. Once that threshold is exceeded, there will be a random, lasting change to the environment. Careful study of the area can ascertain that threshold and how close it is, but generally its not something that can be instantly read off in the heat of combat. The changes should generally be negative, but not of the 'kill you right now!' variety. 'This area now has a 5% of raising those who die in the area as undead', 'crops that grow in this area induce cosmetic mutations when consumed for an extended period of time', 'the wind completely avoids this region, and it is eerily calm; however, as a result there tends to be an accumulation of any noxious vapors produced in the area unless the vapors are manually dissipated', etc.

In the wilderness, the PCs may not care about adding an additional blight spot or weird zone to the already destroyed landscape. But when it comes to casting in towns or in their home base, it can be an issue - magic use in such places might be highly rationed to keep the environment below threshold, or you might have to travel a distance out of town to visit a local magic user. Maybe once the environment 'breaks' in this way, it doesn't break further quite as easily, so mages tend to find a negative trait they can live with and just set up there. Or perhaps further casting expands the zone and the intensity of the effects, so hostile areas might impinge on nearby settlements and thus generate a 'this nearby mage is causing all our crops to die!' type situation.

I really like this about the environment. It dovetails nicely with what Flickerdart said about making it interesting and exciting, but not penalizing a specific character.


Okay, but this method just makes low-level casters completely immune to it. How do you fail a DC 1 check?


Can a caster with a decent CON score fail this for the lowest levels of spells?

They can't, in retrospect I should have probably just said a d20 roll.


Pathfinder Unchained has a bunch of spellcasting alterations (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/magic/spellAlterations.html) you could implement or tweak in a campaign like this. For example, you could restrict casting with Limited Magic, then let the casters overcome it by Spell Overclocking - but if they do, they run the risk of Spell Fumbles or Wild Magic occurring. You can then add Esoteric Components (and/or Metamagic Components (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/metamagicComponents.htm)) to let them overclock without risk in certain situations, provided they seek out and stockpile the right components/reagents. Certain campaign-changing spells like Resurrection or Planar Binding can also be removed entirely, and replaced with Incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm) or Rituals. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/occultAdventures/occultRules.html)

You can also combine the above penalties with Spellblights (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/spellblights.html) to make overuse of magic even riskier.

Thanks for the pf resources. I may not use them, but it is nice to compare to existing compatible mechanics.

[ATHATH]

One way of showing danger without directly penalizing the player for using their mechanics is to have the consequences of the risk not apply to the player, but apply to others. So if you cast a spell, there's no risk that it might fizzle or backfire on you or cost you a turn or whatever - you're going to get that spell off. But the 'how' may vary in details that makes it more difficult to plan precisely.

One way to do this is wild mage-like rules, where the AoE radius has a random component to it, etc. That's a bit tedious, and its easily avoided by using more precision spells or just leaving a big margin when casting. So maybe not that. Another way to do it would be to make it so that spells automatically have a sub-round delay factor - say, roll 1d4 secretly and wait that many subsequent actions before the spell goes off. I think that's a bit better at the 'out of control and dangerous' idea, but its a lot of book-keeping and worse, the book-keeping has to be done by the DM.

The environment thing brings in a good idea though. When you cast spells, everything goes as usual, but any given location has only a certain ability to repair itself from the damage caused by the release of spell energies. Once that threshold is exceeded, there will be a random, lasting change to the environment. Careful study of the area can ascertain that threshold and how close it is, but generally its not something that can be instantly read off in the heat of combat. The changes should generally be negative, but not of the 'kill you right now!' variety. 'This area now has a 5% of raising those who die in the area as undead', 'crops that grow in this area induce cosmetic mutations when consumed for an extended period of time', 'the wind completely avoids this region, and it is eerily calm; however, as a result there tends to be an accumulation of any noxious vapors produced in the area unless the vapors are manually dissipated', etc.

In the wilderness, the PCs may not care about adding an additional blight spot or weird zone to the already destroyed landscape. But when it comes to casting in towns or in their home base, it can be an issue - magic use in such places might be highly rationed to keep the environment below threshold, or you might have to travel a distance out of town to visit a local magic user. Maybe once the environment 'breaks' in this way, it doesn't break further quite as easily, so mages tend to find a negative trait they can live with and just set up there. Or perhaps further casting expands the zone and the intensity of the effects, so hostile areas might impinge on nearby settlements and thus generate a 'this nearby mage is causing all our crops to die!' type situation.
Can't someone just search for an area with a relatively benign effect and build their "casting chamber" there?

Maybe you could combine this with Thaumcraft's aura system. Each area has a certain amount of "energy points" of each of school of magic in the local aura. Every time a spell is cast, it depletes the energy points of that school by 1d[level of spell cast]. When the EP of a school gets too low, you roll on the random effect table for that school. A significant (10%) number of entries on that table result in Taint (not the Heroes of Horror kind, the Thaumcraft kind (look it up)). If the aura continues to be depleted (you can still cast spells while it's empty), DM determined effects start happening.

Charge-based magic items deplete the aura when they're created, while continuous or infinite-use items deplete the aura when they're activated/active.

The aura naturally starts to heal if it isn't abused for a year or two, and nearby areas will donate give some of their EP to nearby areas that are dangerously low on EP (this doesn't count as "abuse").

[ATHATH]

Areas tend to have differing levels of EP, and some areas might have unique properties and/or schools. For example, the area that the BBEG's lair might have a special type of EP in it that powers [Evil] spells and which can regenerate EP via sacrifices or something.

[NichG]

Can't someone just search for an area with a relatively benign effect and build their "casting chamber" there?

This does work if the effect is benign and cannot become worse/switch over as the area is abused further. That can be good or bad depending what you're going for. If the benign areas are fairly rare, and its not really chance but actually something about (say) alternate planes which overlap the world at different points and which manifest when the world walls grow thin, then an area with a benign corruption could actually be something like a piece of loot - a haven for arcanists to experiment safely with magic. However, if the tear spreads too far it would cross over into an area that overlaps a different, less benign plane. The arcanists would be fine in their casting chamber, but the rest of the world might have side-effects and come knocking.

[nedz]

Combining some of what I've read, I think there will be different areas where any of the following could apply.

Normal Zones: There are a few of these oases of magic in an otherwise turbulent sea of chaos.

Wild Magic Zones: As the planar trait, except the roll to see if something strange happens is on a 1d20+Con. If your roll exceeds the level of the spell you are casting, there is no strange effect. (The existing method is murder to low level casters.)

Impeded Magic Zones: As the planar trait.

Dangerous Magic Zones: All spells of your maximum level have a 5% spell failure chance. If a spell fails in this manner, the caster is dazed for one round.

Dead Magic Zones: As the planar trait.

Is there any existing mechanic to discover what sort of Magic Trait a region has (perhaps an appropriate Knowledge or Spellcraft Check)?

Rather than, or as well as, location based effects you could have magical weather.

You could even have a small chance of Enhanced Magic (as per the planer trait) just to enliven the game occasionally.

Incidentally: If you still wanted to do your original idea a better mechanic would be something like D% <= Spell level each time you cast a spell: triggers an event. This scales with power and number of spells cast without any book-keeping.

[Flickerdart]

Magical weather seems interesting for one particular reason: regular weather is reasonably simple to predict to a certain extent. You could have paladin meteorologists tracking antimagic storms and timing their necromancer-killing adventures carefully. You could have trolls and hydras who migrate following a hurricane that dampens spells that deal acid and fire damage. Wizards would live in areas where pro-magic weather is more likely.

[Segev]

The other ideas in this thread may have already shaped this for you somewhat, but I'm curious: WHY do you want magic to be dangerous in this game? Is it that you want specifically that theme, by itself, and will go with anything to make it work, or do you have some notion in your head as to what form that danger will take? Or do you have something about the setting that requires magic to be dangerous in "some way," but which doesn't dictate how that danger manifests?

[nedz]

regular weather is reasonably simple to predict to a certain extent.

Maybe in NYC, but not around here.

Also, you can have micro-climates.

I do like the idea of monsters following the weather though - flying ones especially.
"My, that was a real Dragon of a Storm" - Figuratively and Literally.

The various Control Weather spells would be a whole new thing however.

[dextercorvia]

Rather than, or as well as, location based effects you could have magical weather.

You could even have a small chance of Enhanced Magic (as per the planer trait) just to enliven the game occasionally.

Incidentally: If you still wanted to do your original idea a better mechanic would be something like D% <= Spell level each time you cast a spell: triggers an event. This scales with power and number of spells cast without any book-keeping.

If I go back to my original idea it will probably be more like that. Enhanced Magic seems interesting.


Magical weather seems interesting for one particular reason: regular weather is reasonably simple to predict to a certain extent. You could have paladin meteorologists tracking antimagic storms and timing their necromancer-killing adventures carefully. You could have trolls and hydras who migrate following a hurricane that dampens spells that deal acid and fire damage. Wizards would live in areas where pro-magic weather is more likely.

Weather rather than (or along with) regions. That sounds good. Any places where some of these weather effects are spelled out?


The other ideas in this thread may have already shaped this for you somewhat, but I'm curious: WHY do you want magic to be dangerous in this game? Is it that you want specifically that theme, by itself, and will go with anything to make it work, or do you have some notion in your head as to what form that danger will take? Or do you have something about the setting that requires magic to be dangerous in "some way," but which doesn't dictate how that danger manifests?

It is a setting thing. The idea is that society was something like Tippyverse level, with Wish traps everywhere. Due to some sort of entropy like effect, the concentrated magic began to be released, catastrophically. First the highest power things like wish traps failed. Some exploded, some just stopped. Society did everything they could to combat the problem. The only problem was that their solutions all utilized an overtaxed magic system, so more and more failures happened. The only survivors were those who evacuated to the most uninhabited portions of the world before teleportation failed. Common belief is that no one who was able to cast anything higher than a 1st level spell survived. It has been a year, and the most immediate side effects of the collapse have subsided. The thousand points of light have been replaced with a few hundred dim candles. Most settlements are no more than a few dozen individuals that happened to escape at the same time to the same place. They are just now poking their head out and starting to explore further than a few miles from their bomb shelters.

So, I wasn't hung up on exactly what form it should take, but I wanted the mechanics of the setting to somehow reflect that things were not completely out of the woods yet. That said, I was definitely going about it wrong. I knew what I was proposing wasn't right -- that is why I appealed to the playground for help.

I'm fairly sure I'm going with regions where magic is out of balance (so one school or descriptor gets a boon while the rest get a small penalty), others that are dead magic (especially close to the old city locations), and a few concentrations of power (all spells are at a greater effect). I will probably incorporate some of the Magical weather mentioned above, as that can have some interesting ramifications. That will move this away from the critical fumble like issues my proposed system had. Hopefully it will be interesting enough that someone is excited to try it as someone mentioned above.

[illyahr]

Rather than some check that you can get around, why not just say that magic is draining? Any spell cast deals nonlethal damage to the caster based on its effective spell level. It's a fairly small price to pay and one that makes the caster plan his attack. If he wants to spam high-level spells, he must be prepared to handle the caster fatigue. Say that constructs and most undead can't cast spells to get around Con - shenanigans.

Add to that the unstable magical weather or areas of altered magic and you have a world where spellcasting is a means to an end that is as dangerous to the unwary as is frequently portrayed in old fairy tales.

[Flickerdart]

Maybe in NYC, but not around here.
"Overcast" is a pretty easy prediction to make. :smallcool:


Weather rather than (or along with) regions. That sounds good. Any places where some of these weather effects are spelled out?

They're not really a game thing as-is. Just take planar traits or whatever, and make them follow weather patterns. I'm sure there are weather rules in Stormwrack or something but we can totally wing it. Let's take a simple example:

Mana Rain
Regular rain is formed by evaporating water that collects into a cloud, is blown by wind to another place, and then deposits the water vapor as droplets. Mana rain works the same way - large amounts of magical energy expended in a short period of time collect as a mana cloud in 1d6 hours after the event. The mana cloud drifts with the wind. The cloud has a 50% chance of dissipating harmlessly and a 50% chance of pouring down as a rain storm. In the latter case, it begins raining 4d12 hours after forming and rains for another 4d12 hours, affecting a 2 mile radius circle that moves with the cloud. Creatures and objects drenched by the storm turn a deep purple color; the color fades as the rain dries up.

[Darth Ultron]

Magic in my game is dangerous. I like it that way. My good players like it that way. My bad players never play spellcasters.

The easy fix is to add back in all the 2E effects for magic that 3X/P got rid off. Things like a system shock roll for changing ones shape. And the off target teleporting.

Divine magic in my game has the easy fix of ''your god watches and nitpicks every single spell you cast and can negate, change or do anything else they want at will...so you'd best follow your chosen gods ethos.'' And this works great for divine spellcasters.

Summoning magic has a chance for the creature(s) to break free, something to be mis-summoned or even open a gate.

Polymorph type spells might have a person ''loose'' their mind in the new form.

Necromancy spells that drain ''life force'', give the taker a bit of ''life'' from that creature. Telepathy does the same to the mind.

Spells, materials, items, effects, things and so forth can all act and interact with each other. Some of this is obvious and know, but lots is unknown.

Even spell resistance is dangerous. I tossed out the lame ''oh your spell just fades away'' long ago. Now I have a table of random things that happen if the roll is made. A favorite is the creature can steal the spell and recast it back. But there are dozens of others, both good and bad for both sides.

I try to avoid the ''gamy' type things like roll 1d10 plau your levels to see if whatever does whatever. I more use a 1d100 for ''positive'' or ''negative''. I just make up a lot on the spot, but also have tons of premade tables so I can roll at random too.

[Zale]

You could try replacing the count-down spellslots or spellpoints mechanics with a count up corruption scale?

To elaborate: Instead of having a system in which you treat magical energy as a resource that is expended, you could treat the use of magic as the channeling of external mystic forces.

So a character would start with zero (Strain? Corruption?) and go up as they use more and more magic, with negative effects occurring if they push to far, or if they gain (Strain/Corruption) to fast.

So if they start going too big too fast, they'll start suffering from side-effects like angry living shadows or sudden wing growth. I'd recommend working with the player to design a thematic list of possible effects instead of just using a generic table.

This way you capture the flavor of magic being dangerous while still letting it be usable. Instead of tons of rolls to see if things go wrong, things going wrong become a player choice. They can either stay safe; stay small, or they can push the envelop but suffer the consequences of playing with forced beyond their full control.

A set of tables for idea/examples for a sorcerer who uses shadow-based magic:

Cosmetic Problems



1
Your character's shadow starts to move of it's own accord.


2
People who look at your character's shadow see that it's full of hungry red eyes.


3
Those your shadow touch hear sinister whispers.


4
Your shadow no longer resembles you, instead looking as if it were cast by a hundred entangled serpents.




Serious Problems



1
Your surrounds you and everything within ten feet in pitch-black magical darkness.


2
Nearby people start to hear the whispered commands of your shadow; the weak willed begin to attack you and that which you love.


3
Your shadow comes to life in the form of a hundred intertwined snakes; begins to attack everything nearby, except you.


Dangerous Problems



1
You become possessed by your own shadow. It has unlimited use of your magic; seeks to destroy what you love and aid what you hate.


2
Your shadow shrouds everything for miles in absolute darkness; weak willed people start to give into despair and insanity.



The thing I want to emphasize is Player Choice, in that players choose to push beyond the safe range of their power because of temptation or need, and that the effects are not utterly random- there's a theme that the DM and the Player should work on so that the negative effects feel like a natural extension of their power and not just something stapled on.

[Cosi]

Personally, I think the best idea so far is to have wild magic zones. The notion of punishing people for using their abilities doesn't sit right with me, and wild magic zones (or the related ideas about planar weather) seem like something that would happen if magic went haywire. Conversely, people taking damage or whatever from doing magic seems more like a result of people not being very good at magic, which is a somewhat different tone.


Your surrounds you and everything within ten feet in pitch-black magical darkness.

This isn't something everyone wants, but I can totally imagine some characters (notably: anyone with blindsense) wanting that.


Your shadow comes to life in the form of a hundred intertwined snakes; begins to attack everything nearby, except you.

So if I use magic too much, I get a totally sweet aura that will shred people who try to melee me? That seems kind of awesome.

I'm not saying that idea can't work, but it probably needs some thought before someone tries to implement it. Also, I think it's probably a better fit for Warhammer or something else where magic is evil, rather than this game where magic is supposed to be crazy.

[ace rooster]

I think you could probably play this straight, with no hard rules changes at all. The setting is that magic has changed, meaning that the previous in universe methods of controlling magic don't work. In particular this means that high level casters don't exist, not that they can't. This means that the abstract that the player sees does not have to change (or simplify things and say the rules were different before). Soft changes without rule backing can be as effective. Just attach the following to casting,
"extended repeated spellcasting may have side effects not limited to: living spells, magic weather, the dead spontaniously rising, plague, dire animals, dinosaurs, killer plants, outsider portals, attracting dragons, monsterous births (minotaur?), Paul Bunions Disease (http://drmcninja.com/archives/comic/1p8/), and law enforcement annoyed at the above all attacking their town."
Suddenly you have a plethora of adventure hooks from dire rats to driving away a dragon to tracking down a necromancer (his necromancy is causing plagues and spontanious zombie outbreaks as a side effect).

Throw on a few wild magic zones and some dead magic zones and I think you have yourself a setting.

[Vogie]

If you're hardset on making potentially roving magic zones, or magic-infused weather, make sure there's also an opposite reaction. If people are living in this environment, they'll have created some work-arounds that the PCs have to learn about.


Normal control weather spells are useless, or only control normal weather, while different areas have developed regional control over their specific magic weather.

Some areas have figured out how to bleed the magic out of a specific zone, making that area either less dangerous or at least have some sort of risk management. Divine storms can be mitigated by alters & sacrifices, drawn there like a wurm to a thumper. Obsidian laced with voidstone fragments generated in the ground by Dead Magic zones leave an area still dead, but those obsidian shards can be transferred to calm down wild magic zones.

Perhaps the magic is dangerous due to some mind-altering things that the PCs can't put their finger on. Wands and Scrolls work fine, but prepared spells are the ones effected by the environment.

If you go the route of "dirty magic", where one or more of the spell schools are essentially radioactive, flesh out what that could mean. Perhaps they can bleed off the dirty magic using things like leeches, going into running water, or grounding themselves somehow. Perhaps they find that the effects of their spells grow in power the more corrupted by magic they are (encouraging them to use more at risk of more self-damage), or it alters their mind in some way (Necromancy drains emotions, Illusion sees hallucinations, Evocation gets addictive, et cetera), so it effects people using a single school of magic more harshly than those who diversify through multiple schools. On the flip side, you could have the PCs overwrite some of their existing spells with the slightly more dangerous corrupted ones for use outside of those zones.

Perhaps your zones change at a rate that the PCs can figure out, similar to the second Hunger Games book/movie - inhabitants of specific areas don't realize it, but since the PCs roam around, they can find the pattern

[Immabozo]

What anout making magic attract attentikon and the more magic you use, the more people try to ambush you and capture you, or something like that?

[atemu1234]

What anout making magic attract attentikon and the more magic you use, the more people try to ambush you and capture you, or something like that?

Violates Grod's Law. That idea in general comes across as directly punishing someone for using their abilities. The Magic is Dangerous or whatever you call it works best if it is for an interesting trait in the world, not accidentally getting oneself Orcus'd.

[Cosi]

What anout making magic attract attentikon and the more magic you use, the more people try to ambush you and capture you, or something like that?

That doesn't do anything.

You are an adventurer. You are going to run around fighting people, and taking their stuff. It doesn't really matter if those people are monsters in a dungeon, assassins sent to kidnap you, or whatever. You fight them, you win, and then you get XP and loot.

Now, that does all assume that you aren't throwing 10th level mage hunters at 2nd level Wizards, but the alternative is even worse. Either some character concepts occasional result in the group getting killed (bad) or some classes are expected to be balanced because they will eventually die after running roughshod over the campaign (worse).

[Immabozo]

Violates Grod's Law. That idea in general comes across as directly punishing someone for using their abilities. The Magic is Dangerous or whatever you call it works best if it is for an interesting trait in the world, not accidentally getting oneself Orcus'd.

Grod's law is "balancing a mechanic should not make it annoying to use", right?

Well, maybe above a certain level, it attracts attention? Maybe you need a lot of attention befpre people start coming after you, and a lot more to make it an entire encounter's worth of guys attacking? Maybe, bring with it people who want to tade with you and have you craft them magic items at 1.5 times normal price, because magic is so dangerous, that not many are willing to do it?

[Segev]

Technically, isn't Grod's Law that you can't balance something by making it more annoying for the player to use?

[Immabozo]

Technically, isn't Grod's Law that you can't balance something by making it more annoying for the player to use?

Seems like a good law!

[ace rooster]

Violates Grod's Law. That idea in general comes across as directly punishing someone for using their abilities. The Magic is Dangerous or whatever you call it works best if it is for an interesting trait in the world, not accidentally getting oneself Orcus'd.

No, you punish someone for misusing their abilities. A rope trick as a safe camp while infiltrating goblin territory is using their abilities. Living in one in a setting where it is stated that magic is dangerous is misusing them. A warrior using their combat stats to clear the goblins is using their abilities. Using their combat stats to hold up a shop in a town where the sherrif is 10 levels above them is misusing them.

You make it clear to your players that magic is dangerous and illegal, and not to be used lightly. If they do start to over-use it, they don't have a leg to stand on when you do whatever you usually do when the PCs do something dangerous and illegal. If it only qualifies as 'annoying' after warning about the effects, you are a more lenient DM than me.

[Zale]

This isn't something everyone wants, but I can totally imagine some characters (notably: anyone with blindsense) wanting that.



So if I use magic too much, I get a totally sweet aura that will shred people who try to melee me? That seems kind of awesome.

I'm not saying that idea can't work, but it probably needs some thought before someone tries to implement it. Also, I think it's probably a better fit for Warhammer or something else where magic is evil, rather than this game where magic is supposed to be crazy.


Oh, I'm aware. The idea isn't to hit players with the punishment stick for daring to use their class features. It's to go, hey, if you play with magic weird stuff outside of your control will start to happen. Sure you can plan around these things; maybe even turn them to your advantage, but the only real control you have over them is triggering them.

You don't get to decide who your shadow eats after all, but if you can figure out how to leverage that to your advantage by all means- do so.

This isn't meant as a balancing measure against magic, but just a thematic option that makes magic seem a bit less under-control. You can push too far and have consequences. Those consequences are things you can prepare for, or that might not even directly harm you, but stuff will happen.

Because trying to make this into a balancing feature just sounds annoying and unfun.

[Jasdoif]

It is a setting thing. The idea is that society was something like Tippyverse level, with Wish traps everywhere. Due to some sort of entropy like effect, the concentrated magic began to be released, catastrophically. First the highest power things like wish traps failed. Some exploded, some just stopped. Society did everything they could to combat the problem. The only problem was that their solutions all utilized an overtaxed magic system, so more and more failures happened. The only survivors were those who evacuated to the most uninhabited portions of the world before teleportation failed. Common belief is that no one who was able to cast anything higher than a 1st level spell survived. It has been a year, and the most immediate side effects of the collapse have subsided. The thousand points of light have been replaced with a few hundred dim candles. Most settlements are no more than a few dozen individuals that happened to escape at the same time to the same place. They are just now poking their head out and starting to explore further than a few miles from their bomb shelters.

So, I wasn't hung up on exactly what form it should take, but I wanted the mechanics of the setting to somehow reflect that things were not completely out of the woods yet. That said, I was definitely going about it wrong. I knew what I was proposing wasn't right -- that is why I appealed to the playground for help.

I'm fairly sure I'm going with regions where magic is out of balance (so one school or descriptor gets a boon while the rest get a small penalty), others that are dead magic (especially close to the old city locations), and a few concentrations of power (all spells are at a greater effect). I will probably incorporate some of the Magical weather mentioned above, as that can have some interesting ramifications. That will move this away from the critical fumble like issues my proposed system had. Hopefully it will be interesting enough that someone is excited to try it as someone mentioned above.If your concept is that magic is still "settling" from the intense spell activity of the past, and that settling includes regional and weather effects....That seems like a good place to tie things in. Suppose spellcasting contributes to throwing magic out of balance on a local scale, which in turn contributes to the intensity of local magical weather. And with high enough intensity, it could alter regional effects, and probably not for the better (that's what caused the catastrophe a year ago, after all).

You'd need to decide what effect how many spells have, but you wouldn't need a new spellcasting failure check at all. Your description sounds like what could happen with a lot of spellcasting is common knowledge: your spellcasters (players and otherwise) know they're taking a risk, and settlements in the world know what risks allowing spellcasters to rove around freely (creating local problems that manifest after they head for clearer pastures) poses to themselves. Anyone who doesn't want to risk their home being the accidental target of a storm of vengeance effect has cause to keep spellcasters away, even if they don't understand the particulars that could cause it.

[Nibbens]

Okay, having once tried this before (with near 0 success) I came up with a solution to the problem after we scrapped gaming in that world.

1) Your players should know that wonky stuff happens when you cast too much magic, but never specify exactly what happens other than what the PCs have personally seen and/or heard of happening before. You could even thread false rumors through this system from the general populace. This makes for great redherrings and/or adventure hooks.

2) Take whatever dice-rolling you would do from the characters hands (because this slows down combat/everything and violates the heck out of Grods Law.

2a) Do dice rolls yourself only after the session is over. Make notes and tally points for whatever you want to happen, but only do it outside the game. Don't do it during the session. Takes too much time, freaks players out. Etc.

3) Only after you've rolled and tallied from the previous session, when the next session begins...

3a) Explain in vague terms how the casters feel about their magic at the start of the session and explain any effects through purely descriptive terms. No numbers. No rolls. No effects. Make them roleplay the effects of agitating the magics of the area. Use the environment as well. Subtle is 100% times more effective than overt here.

or

3b) If you plan of specific effects happening to Characters rather than environments, and only during casting of spells. Wait a few spellcasts into the game, randomly throw some dice around and declare what happens to your PCs in the middle of gameplay. Again, I stress, stay away from numbers, and rely on descriptions of physical or mental changes and let your players embrace these as they see fit.

This system takes the Players eyes off their character sheets and more toward the environment which you are striving to create - which is where you want their attention. Besides, not having pure number based negatives for spellcasting, you foster an environment of alienation and unheimlich, even between their own party members, which is key in any post-apoc setting.

[Gildedragon]

An idea would be to use the wheel of time casting system, specifically overchanneling. Lower their spells per day as if one or two levels lower, or just lower their spells per level by some number or proportion (rounding down) -if whatever you pick would remove access to a spell level put a 0 there, meaning they can know that level of spells, but can't safely cast- and have them brave the risk of overchaneling

[Esprit15]

My IRL DM is working on a magic system for his game that makes magic a little less predictable. In short, every spell has a Spellcraft DC to cast it, approximately 10+Spell Level*2 (the system tossed out spell levels and most metamagic, instead opting for increases to Spellcraft DC, but things like Wish are going to be obviously harder than things like Detect Alignment). Every spell you cast per day inflicts a stacking -2 penalty to future Spellcraft checks to cast spells on that same day. If the check fails by 5 or less, it just fizzles, but more than that and you start to get into Bad Things.

So far, our experience has been good with it.

[Flickerdart]

Turning wizards into Truenamers is not going to be the solution you are looking for.

[Immabozo]

Turning wizards into Truenamers is not going to be the solution you are looking for.

Flick, I am starting a petition for you to change your name to Obi Flickerdart Kenobi

[Anlashok]

I never really understood the idea behind penalties that increase the more you cast. Generally the more optimized a wizard's build and playstyle the fewer spells they're going to cast. So such a house rule is going to pretty heavily penalize blasters and support mages and I'm not sure why you'd want to push people away from those and towards more domineering builds.

[Darth Ultron]

I like how if an "annoying " thing is in the rules everyone thinks it is ok, but if a DM does it on their own it's automatically wrong.

So the player is fine with "oh, I can't cast that spell as I don't have a 500 go diamond ", but when it's "necromancy might leak life force effects " the player whines and complains.

And the silly g law thing does work, as to only is annoying to bad players.

[atemu1234]

I like how if an "annoying " thing is in the rules everyone thinks it is ok, but if a DM does it on their own it's automatically wrong.

So the player is fine with "oh, I can't cast that spell as I don't have a 500 go diamond ", but when it's "necromancy might leak life force effects " the player whines and complains.

And the silly g law thing does work, as to only is annoying to bad players.

Okay, here's the issue: We play the game as it is. We deal with the annoyances because we had ability to give feedback and are perfectly fine with playing it as it was designed (at least in part).

But when a DM does it, it's a different matter. The DM is not a game developer, even if he's employed as one; he is required by virtue of his position to tailor his game style to the party, as the party should in part do the same to him. Thus, by adding an annoying mechanic, he is not increasing balance. He's just being a douche.

[Cosi]

I like how if an "annoying " thing is in the rules everyone thinks it is ok, but if a DM does it on their own it's automatically wrong.

Yes, that is correct. The rules represent a contract between the players (the DM is a player). Just as it is unacceptable for me to declare that my Dread Necromancer gets twice as many spells per day as the list says, it is unacceptable for you to declare that my Dread Necromancer has to make a Fort save or die whenever he casts a spell. Because the rules don't say that's how the game works. It's acceptable to play by different rules than the ones in the books, but it's not acceptable to unilaterally alter whatever rules you are playing by.

[Milo v3]

I like how if an "annoying " thing is in the rules everyone thinks it is ok, but if a DM does it on their own it's automatically wrong.
Tell that to Multiclass Penalties :smalltongue:

[Segev]

I like how if an "annoying " thing is in the rules everyone thinks it is ok, but if a DM does it on their own it's automatically wrong.

So the player is fine with "oh, I can't cast that spell as I don't have a 500 go diamond ", but when it's "necromancy might leak life force effects " the player whines and complains.

And the silly g law thing does work, as to only is annoying to bad players.


Okay, here's the issue: We play the game as it is. We deal with the annoyances because we had ability to give feedback and are perfectly fine with playing it as it was designed (at least in part).

But when a DM does it, it's a different matter. The DM is not a game developer, even if he's employed as one; he is required by virtue of his position to tailor his game style to the party, as the party should in part do the same to him. Thus, by adding an annoying mechanic, he is not increasing balance. He's just being a douche.

Atemu does a good job explaining part of it, but the real reason behind Grod's Law is that your assertion that I've bolded, Darth Ultron, is utterly wrong. The most problematic players will never let a merely annoying-to-use mechanic get in their way. They'll mitigate the annoyance, powergame around it, or bowl through it to the detriment of the rest of the players' enjoyment because the annoyance factor is something they can "share." At which point, I know your preferred response is to somehow disallow or punish them for it, but when they can point right back to your house rule as the cause of it, you're only making yourself out to be the source of the problem.

Grod's Law isn't a thing meant for players to hold over DMs. It's an observational law of reality: it literally doesn't work to violate it, because it only causes those who wouldn't have been problems in the first place to do what you want it to achieve. It makes those who would have been problems without your "balance" rule bigger problems, while giving them a "perfectly good reason" for being a problem.

Those who take Grod's Law to heart will avoid "solutions" that are not solutions to the real problem, and will instead seek elsewhere for means of curtailing issues they have. Rather than trying to annoy people into not doing something, they'll find a way that genuinely limits that "something" and its ability to be a problem.

[Flickerdart]

And the silly g law thing does work, as to only is annoying to bad players.
Ooh, are we doing a sequel to the "problem players are players who don't bow to my will" thing? I liked the last time it happened, we got Orcus out of it.

[Darth Ultron]

Thus, by adding an annoying mechanic, he is not increasing balance. He's just being a douche.

Well, with this attitude you should just sit back, play the game, and not say or think anything about topics like this.


Yes, that is correct. The rules represent a contract between the players (the DM is a player). Just as it is unacceptable for me to declare that my Dread Necromancer gets twice as many spells per day as the list says, it is unacceptable for you to declare that my Dread Necromancer has to make a Fort save or die whenever he casts a spell. Because the rules don't say that's how the game works. It's acceptable to play by different rules than the ones in the books, but it's not acceptable to unilaterally alter whatever rules you are playing by.

The rules are a contract? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Almost as bad as the Dm being a player.

And the big difference between a DM and a player is a DM can do what you gave as an example. The DM can do anything. And even if you feel the DM ''must'' somehow justify to you anything they do in the ''rules'', the whole game famework is vague enough that the DM can do so. Your Dread Necromacer enters a cave...and is now in a demiplane with a magic trait of cast a spell and make a fort save or die. This is ''by the rules'', as the DM can make a demiplane with any magic trait they want(same way the DM can make anything they want). But a player can never do that.


Atemu does a good job explaining part of it, but the real reason behind Grod's Law is that your assertion that I've bolded, Darth Ultron, is utterly wrong. The most problematic players will never let a merely annoying-to-use mechanic get in their way. They'll mitigate the annoyance, powergame around it, or bowl through it to the detriment of the rest of the players' enjoyment because the annoyance factor is something they can "share." At which point, I know your preferred response is to somehow disallow or punish them for it, but when they can point right back to your house rule as the cause of it, you're only making yourself out to be the source of the problem.

I just don't get the response of they will somehow get around it. Now, I will agree there are a lot of weak and wimpy DM's that will let that happen....but it makes no sense for most people. It's like saying ''don't lock your door, the thief will just pick the lock''.



Grod's Law isn't a thing meant for players to hold over DMs. It's an observational law of reality: it literally doesn't work to violate it, because it only causes those who wouldn't have been problems in the first place to do what you want it to achieve. It makes those who would have been problems without your "balance" rule bigger problems, while giving them a "perfectly good reason" for being a problem.

It's only for the ''reality'' if you play the game One Way.



Those who take Grod's Law to heart will avoid "solutions" that are not solutions to the real problem, and will instead seek elsewhere for means of curtailing issues they have. Rather than trying to annoy people into not doing something, they'll find a way that genuinely limits that "something" and its ability to be a problem.

Of course your solution is to talk and hug and have tea and get the problem players to do whatever you want. and sure, that is great...although it's a fantasy.

[Anlashok]

Well, with this attitude you should just sit back, play the game, and not say or think anything about topics like this.
Yes, clearly people who disagree with you should never speak again.


It's only for the ''reality'' if you play the game One Way.
That's kind of ridiculous to say given your position on everything. Everything you've been saying is some variation on telling everyone else they're doing it wrong.


Of course your solution is to talk and hug and have tea and get the problem players to do whatever you want. and sure, that is great...although it's a fantasy.

There's nothing fantastical about working with players to make something interesting. At the very least it's more likely to make an interesting campaign than this whole "scream at your players and punish them for doing anything you don't like" technique.

[Darth Ultron]

Yes, clearly people who disagree with you should never speak again.

Well, the context here is a poster saying ''if a Dm does anything I don't like they are a douche'' and ''the DM should be a player like slave to the rules''.



That's kind of ridiculous to say given your position on everything. Everything you've been saying is some variation on telling everyone else they're doing it wrong.

Yes, I game The Other Way.




There's nothing fantastical about working with players to make something interesting. At the very least it's more likely to make an interesting campaign than this whole "scream at your players and punish them for doing anything you don't like" technique.

Well, only the bad players...but they are bad, they deserve it.

The good players are welcome to play the game and make all sorts of interesting things.

And the bad ones are welcome to cry in the corner as I won't let them play their tri-sault psion/wizard/cleric.

[TheIronGolem]

Well, the context here is a poster saying ''if a Dm does anything I don't like they are a douche'' and ''the DM should be a player like slave to the rules''.


Lying about what other posters said has never worked for you here, and it isn't about to start.

[Cosi]

The rules are a contract? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Do you speak at a frequency you can't hear?

But yes, the rules are a contract. They constrain possible actions, turning the game from Cops and Robbers into a vehicle for cooperative story telling. Consistent and predictable rules are a necessary prerequisite to good role-playing. If the rules aren't consistent, you can't know what your character can do. If you can know what you character can do, you can't know what your character would do. And if you can't know that, how is it possible to roleplay in any meaningful sense?


Almost as bad as the Dm being a player.

Quickly, what would you call someone playing a game other than a player?


And even if you feel the DM ''must'' somehow justify to you anything they do in the ''rules'',

Let's flip that around. You think the DM can declare "rocks fall, everyone dies". Presumably, you would object to a player declaring that "rocks fall, everyone dies". Why? The rules don't support either.


Your Dread Necromacer enters a cave...and is now in a demiplane with a magic trait of cast a spell and make a fort save or die.

Could you perhaps identify a plane with such a trait? Or even a similar trait?


It's only for the ''reality'' if you play the game One Way.

In a shocking discovery, if you don't follow the rules, it doesn't matter what the rules say. I am shocked! Shocked, I say!


Of course your solution is to talk and hug and have tea and get the problem players to do whatever you want. and sure, that is great...although it's a fantasy.

The solution is to follow the rules. If you don't want to run a game under the rules, you are free to either not DM or convince the other players to accept a different set of rules. What you are not free to do is unilaterally alter the rules because you think casters are too good or the party wins fights too quickly.

Take it to the extreme. Can the DM just switch from D&D to GURPS or Shadowrun or Exalted if he wants?


''if a Dm does anything I don't like they are a douche''

If the DM breaks the rules, then they are cheating. Just like the exact same thing is true for any other player.


''the DM should be a player like slave to the rules''.

When you play a game you follow the rules.

But yes, those are accurate representations of people's positions.

[atemu1234]

Well, the context here is a poster saying ''if a Dm does anything I don't like they are a douche'' and ''the DM should be a player like slave to the rules''.

Wrong. More like "If a player introduces an annoying rule, in an attempt to nerf a playstyle, and will not change it back despite player complaints, they are a douche".

I don't mind the idea of arcane radiation, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't outright make magic annoying to use. Done right, the rules could be an interesting and valid mechanic. Done badly, well...

[Segev]

I just don't get the response of they will somehow get around it. Now, I will agree there are a lot of weak and wimpy DM's that will let that happen....but it makes no sense for most people. It's like saying ''don't lock your door, the thief will just pick the lock''. Nonsense. It's not the same at all. It's like saying "don't bother making the lock on your door require 14 keys turned to precise degrees in a specific order that is determined by solving a series of specific points on a nonlinear multi-modal function that changes each time it's used, because your gorgeous picture window right next to that door is a much easier way for a determined thief to get in."

If you make casting spells require that the player recite a poem every time, he'll either do it faithfully to the annoyance of the other players (because, in your world, he's a "bad player" and is out to ruin everybody else's fun), or he'll find a way to avoid doing that so the others don't get irritated (perhaps by convincing the table that they'd prefer he just announce that his character is doing it, and "house ruling" it in that he doesn't have to do it, personally, himself). If he just does it, you've stopped nothing; you've just potentially slowed down the game IRL as the player has to stop the action to take a few seconds (or maybe even a minute or more, depending on how annoying you tried to make the poem) reciting the spell-poem.

The very first game of D&D I ever played was a pure dungeon crawl with no real backstory. The DM had legendary weapons in it, each with unique drawbacks and a number of powers. The paladin got one called Patriot Light; every time it was drawn, the PLAYER had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (we were all Americans, so nobody found this pledge offensive or anything; replace with a suitably patriotic recitation for your own culture), and the character spent his round's action after drawing it doing that. The "work-around" for practical matters of avoiding it causing the paladin to lose the first round of every combat was to draw it before we entered. The DM made him recite the Pledge each time, but we got a kick out of it so it didn't hurt anything.

Essentially, players who want to be as good at their schtick as they can be will find the best way within the rules to be good at it. If this means devoting resources to getting around your annoyance mechanic, they will. You can call them "bad players" for that all you like, but it's like calling people who seek to get the best deal they can from coupons "bad shoppers" since they're trying to use the mechanics presented to them to save money as best they can. And that's somehow mean and awful.


It's only for the ''reality'' if you play the game One Way.I suppose the method of gaming you seem to be advocating would prevent this, yes. "What? You found a way within the rules to still do what I tried to annoy you out of doing but didn't expressly ban? How dare you, you bad player! Your power doesn't work anyway! And you still paid whatever you did to make it work! How do you like THAT, you cheater!?"

Of course, you could have avoided making them "be bad players" by just telling them, "I don't want you doing this." And then just banning whatever it is you try to annoy them out of doing. Because to do otherwise is to accuse anybody who can't read your mind to know what you're secretly banning and what you're secretly finding acceptable of being a "bad player."

Frankly, if the criterion for "good player" is "reads Darth Ultron's mind accurately," I wonder that you have any at all.




Of course your solution is to talk and hug and have tea and get the problem players to do whatever you want. and sure, that is great...although it's a fantasy.
Isn't your solution to kick and scream and use passive aggressiveness to get the "problem players" to do whatever you want, without telling them what that is (because you have mechanics that expressly allow them to do what you don't want them to, and get mad at them for trying to use them)?