Yet more caster nerfing

[Brock Samson]

So last night I had the random idea of something akin to spell failure, only it's not based on casting in armor, it's based on the spell level. Something akin to casting a 1st level spell means you have a 1 percent chance of "something" bad happening (roll randomly and have the dm make a fancy chart involving various horrible things that can happen to you, from basic damage to save penalties to whoopsie-polymorphing to ability score damage).

Then as you cast higher level spells the chance goes up. Possibly like 3 percent chance of failure for 2nd level spells, 5 for 3rd, 7 for 4th, etc... All the way up to those mega-huge 9th level spells? Yeah, 17 percent chance of something bad happening. Basically, the huge amount of energy surging through you always has a chance to fry you.

Then maybe letting a caster add rounds onto a casting time, and add special material components that all help reduce the chance of failure.

Or maybe even the spell still goes off, but the bad stuff still happens?

Just some thoughts.

[Caphi]

So last night I had the random idea of something akin to spell failure, only it's not based on casting in armor, it's based on the spell level. Something akin to casting a 1st level spell means you have a 1 percent chance of "something" bad happening (roll randomly and have the dm make a fancy chart involving various horrible things that can happen to you, from basic damage to save penalties to whoopsie-polymorphing to ability score damage).

Then as you cast higher level spells the chance goes up. Possibly like 3 percent chance of failure for 2nd level spells, 5 for 3rd, 7 for 4th, etc... All the way up to those mega-huge 9th level spells? Yeah, 17 percent chance of something bad happening. Basically, the huge amount of energy surging through you always has a chance to fry you.

Then maybe letting a caster add rounds onto a casting time, and add special material components that all help reduce the chance of failure.

Or maybe even the spell still goes off, but the bad stuff still happens?

Just some thoughts.

The problem I have with adding Bad Things to spellcasting is that casting a spell is the only meaningful thing most casters can do, so turning every single nongeneric action they every take into a Russian roulette is pretty mean to the player.

[Kylarra]

Fixing casting is better served by fixing spells really.

[Galdor Miriel]

I like that mechanic idea a lot, though it would need some serious play testing! You could get back to the gygaxian feel by having a nice table to roll on for an effect

chance of spell failure = 2%x spell level - 5% for each increase in casting time.

01-27 Spell effects different target chosen at random or by dms discretion
for comic affect
27-80 Spell is weakened and has half the duration and/or half the potency
80-99 Spell fizzles out and caster loses 2 hp/spell level
100 Spell causes the Tarrasque to appear who then attacks the caster and
companions only

back to the god old days!

[Hague]

The only thing you should nerf about casting is polymorphing spells and abilities. I don't see any problem with the wizard being able to do what he's good at, but it shouldn't let him take over all the roles or have horrible loopholes like 'Alter Self'

In my games, I roll attack rolls for saves. Like saving throws in reverse. The DC is of course, the target's relevant saving throw bonus + 10. You could simply use this and then add a critical failure. For spells that are willing, you roll the dice anyway. On a 1. You have a failure threat and the failure threat is confirmed if you fail to beat the DC again.

Though, I personally disagree with this sort of thing for the same reasons mentioned earlier in the thread.

[jiriku]

There are two common (bad) methods people take to nerfing spellcasting:

1) Your spells now take forever to cast.
2) Your spells are unreliable, and sometimes blow up in your face.

Neither one is very good, because neither changes the fundamental fact that the casters have more and better options than noncasters. It doesn't matter if you need 10 minutes instead of six seconds to create a massive earthquake, or if you can create a massive earthquake but only with a 20% chance of success; Joe Fighter can't create an earthquake no matter what he does.

The only way to effectively balance the two is for Joe Fighter to get something equally fun and spiffy at the same level you learn to create earthquakes. Which D&D 4e does, but of course, many fo us just can't let go of 3.5 (myself included).

[Gnaeus]

If you want to go this route, at least exempt certain kinds of spells as being safe. The last thing you want is the cleric to refuse to heal the fighter because it is dangerous to him.

[Greymane]

And to add to that, I doubt many people want their characters (who many may rightly imagine as extremely competent) to feel like the clutz of magic. Sure, you can fluff it that magic is just that dangerous, but it might now always feel like that.

"Sorry guys, I'd cast a spell, but I don't want to risk pulling a Schmendrick on us."

It's hard to fix spellcasting. In my (very limited) experience, there is not a catch-all fix. Afterall, it's typically the huge variety of terrifyingly powerful spells, not necessarily the caster themselves.

Edit: Swordsage'd a bit.

[Brock Samson]

Perhaps XP could also be used to power spells. If you spend X amount of XP on a spell you can reduce its chance of failure, for when you really NEED it to work.

And maybe not start the penalties until you get 3rd level spells. Making 1st and 2nd completely safe.

[Flickerdart]

The only way to effectively balance the two is for Joe Fighter to get something equally fun and spiffy at the same level you learn to create earthquakes. Which D&D 4e does, but of course, many fo us just can't let go of 3.5 (myself included).

What 4E did was take away the earthquakes from everybody, which is not really the same thing.

[Brock Samson]

I suppose this would be more for a game where wielding huge amounts of raw magical energy is supposed to have the potential to burn you (play with fire).

And yes, there IS a huge different between being able to create an Earthquake in 10 minutes or 1 round, namely: combat.

This way some spells can be cast more ritually-like, taking a long time but little chance of failure. Whereas when you're in a hurry, it's darn possible you might just forget a thing once in a while.

[Zeful]

It's hard to fix spellcasting. In my (very limited) experience, there is not a catch-all fix. Afterall, it's typically the huge variety of terrifyingly powerful spells, not necessarily the caster themselves.

You have to extensively comb through every spell and feat available to each caster and either change it (Gate can no longer call creatures, Planar Binding requires actual haggling), remove it (Celerity, Collegiate Wizard, Spellsurge, Anyspell), or move it (Orb of X line- all evocations, Miracle- now universal).

Which is a horrific amount of work in and of itself. Honestly making casters less S.A.D. (Wizards need Int for Save DC, effects regarding the Casting attribute, Spell Access and Wis for more spell slots, for example) is more beneficial than the extreme amounts of work required to balance all the spells available.

[Lord Vampyre]

It sounds like your adding an element of wild magic to the caster's spells. Although I like the idea of something random potentially happening when casters use magic, I don't think it should always be a negative experience.

Plus, I think you should take into account the casters Stat that directly effects the casting of their spells. And you should also account for level somewhere in that calculation. Meaning that a 1st level wizard is more likely to have something happen than a 2nd level wizard.

This kind of reminds me of Warhammer FRPG 2 ed casting system. Although, that was just down right dangerous, but the benefits definitely out weighed the risks.

[Theodoxus]

You have to extensively comb through every spell and feat available to each caster and either change it (Gate can no longer call creatures, Planar Binding requires actual haggling), remove it (Celerity, Collegiate Wizard, Spellsurge, Anyspell), or move it (Orb of X line- all evocations, Miracle- now universal).

Which is a horrific amount of work in and of itself. Honestly making casters less S.A.D. (Wizards need Int for Save DC, effects regarding the Casting attribute, Spell Access and Wis for more spell slots, for example) is more beneficial than the extreme amounts of work required to balance all the spells available.

Hrm... what if the saving throw target of each spell dictated what the stat for the DC was derived from? That'd increase the MADness of Wizards and such.

For example, an evoker would want a high Dex because his Dex score would be the casting stat for Reflex saves, while a Necromancer or Transmuter would want a high Con score for Fort saves, and an enchanter a likewise high Wis for Will saves.

Int would then only open up additional slots and maximum spell level known - it'd even out the typical Int spike, for while yes, it'd be awesome to have a 50 int for all those extra spells, it's not also powering your save DCs - a bit more care needs to done to boost otherwise typical dump stats.

Now, this isn't a fix in and of itself, but I think it has merit.

[Mystic Muse]

Hrm... what if the saving throw target of each spell dictated what the stat for the DC was derived from? That'd increase the MADness of Wizards and such.

For example, an evoker would want a high Dex because his Dex score would be the casting stat for Reflex saves, while a Necromancer or Transmuter would want a high Con score for Fort saves, and an enchanter a likewise high Wis for Will saves.

Int would then only open up additional slots and maximum spell level known - it'd even out the typical Int spike, for while yes, it'd be awesome to have a 50 int for all those extra spells, it's not also powering your save DCs - a bit more care needs to done to boost otherwise typical dump stats.

Now, this isn't a fix in and of itself, but I think it has merit.

So you use the spells that don't offer saves and require attack rolls instead.

[jiriku]

You have to extensively comb through every spell and feat available to each caster and either change it (Gate can no longer call creatures, Planar Binding requires actual haggling), remove it (Celerity, Collegiate Wizard, Spellsurge, Anyspell), or move it (Orb of X line- all evocations, Miracle- now universal).

Which is a horrific amount of work in and of itself.

Zeful is correct. I'm doing this for my campaign setting. It's incredibly time-consuming. And it's not portable either - so much of it is a judgement call, and if you download a set of house rules that any DM has posted, you'd surely disagree with his decisions for dozens or even hundreds of individual spells.

[oxybe]

Fixing casting is better served by fixing spells really.

this. the wizard class is fine. it's the tools he has access to that are a problem.

let's say you have an evil dictator with a nuke. all you're doing is turning his very normal nuke into a highly unstable nuke, so while he always has access to it, but there's a chance it just explodes his side.

as for making casters less SAD, as others have said, you find work arounds.

wizards generally use a decent dex (touch spells, saves), decent con (HP, saves) & int (DC, bonus, highest level, skill points, ect...). even if you do add cha for DCs & wis for bonus spells or whatever, you'll probably end up with spells that don't use DC and people swapping dex for wis and using transmutation spells to buff up their dex score.

[Zeful]

wizards generally use a decent dex (touch spells, saves), decent con (HP, saves) & int (DC, bonus, highest level, skill points, ect...). even if you do add cha for DCs & wis for bonus spells or whatever, you'll probably end up with spells that don't use DC and people swapping dex for wis and using transmutation spells to buff up their dex score.

Which makes them spend resources to be where they were before this all occurred, making them have less available to them. It's an opportunity cost.

[Brock Samson]

Yes, he'll have that nuke, but he'll be more wary of throwing it around.

Also, healing spells I'd imagine should still have no penalty.

[Quellian-dyrae]

I came up with a few ideas that should tone casters down while still keeping them useful. It's pretty long, but I think it would fix the majority (though certainly not the totality) of the problems.

Spoiler

Show

First, to tone down total versatility, halve the number of spells casters can have prepared. Let spontaneous casters use their spells per day rules (including bonus spells for Cha) rather than current spells known as the baseline.

Next, to make it so casters actually have to watch their resources, counter the 15-minute adventuring day, and restrict nova capacity, use a more per-encounter MP style system, with a much more restrictive limit. Let's say a number of spell levels per encounter equal to half class level + prime ability modifier. However, all spells cast in combat have their durations reduced to 1 round/level (unless instantaneous), and their range reduced to Medium Range if normally higher.

Outside of encounters, casters have two encounters worth of magic per day. Spells cast using this pool have their normal ranges and durations, to represent that this is a more powerful, and thus more limited, pool of magical energy. All spells cast from this pool have a minimum casting time of one minute.

To put some limits on pre-combat buffing, say that any spells active upon the caster count against its limits for the encounter. So a mage who goes in with Mage Armor, Mirror Image, and Fly on is down by six spell levels for that encounter, in addition to the cost to its daily encounter for casting them outside of combat.

Allow casters to cast spells on themselves, or willing adjacent targets, as an immediate action. This should help make in-combat healing more viable, and single-target or self-only buffs and defenses practical in battle.

All metamagic reducers apply once per spell (not per metamagic effect), and cannot reduce the total spell level modifier below +1.

Any effect that affects and area and does not allow a saving throw allows a Reflex save to any targets who are within the area when the spell is cast. Those who succeed may immediately leave the area by the shortest route possible. Those who enter the area thereafter are denied a save as usual. Characters who purposefully pass through such areas receive triple damage on the first round they are within the area, if the effect deals damage (because jumping through a wall of fire should be daring and heroic, not the clearly logical and sensible course of action).

Any effect that affects targets directly and does not allow a save allows an appropriate saving throw. A successful save reduces the duration to one round (a killing effect instead renders the target helpless for one round).

Any effect that requires a touch attack can allow a Reflex save to negate instead, at the option of the defender.

Any effect that essentially duplicates a skill instead allows the caster (or target) to use the skill without situational penalties or without normal tools or situational requirements, and substitute the caster level for ranks if desired. For example, Knock lets you make an Open Lock check without tools and substituting caster level for ranks, Invisibility lets you hide without cover and while being observed and substitute caster level for ranks, and so on. Spells that give skill bonuses in excess of +5 instead let you substitute caster level for ranks and take 10 on the skill check even when rushed or threatened. If the spell normally gives a bonus of +10 or more and you do not substitute ranks, you can take 20 on the skill check.

Casters can actively control a total EL worth of targets equal to its CR - 2. If it gains control of a creature with a total higher CR than this limit, it can maintain control for one round/level. The caster must pay any component cost of spells used by the creature it controls, including spell-like abilities even though they do not normally require components. The caster may have more creatures than this limit allows passively controlled; waiting to accept orders but not actively pursuing them. Passively controlled creatures act according to their normal dispositions. This single limit applies through any means of control, including summoning, calling, compulsions, animating, spawning, etc. Creatures controlled by other controlled creatures count against the caster's limit.

Direct damage spells have their damage uncapped. SL 5 and 6 have damage increased one die step. SL 7 and 8 by two die steps. SL 9 by three die steps. All direct damage Evocation spells also receive one free level of metamagic reduction.

Cure spells heal more damage; they heal the caster's prime ability modifier plus: 2/level for Cure Light, 4/level for Cure Moderate, 6/level for Cure Serious, and 8/level for Cure Critical. Inflict spells cause the same.

[Mystic Muse]

Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea!

Ask your players to not be attention hogging campaign breaking jerks!

Easiest idea yet.

[Zeful]

Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea!

Ask your players to not be attention hogging campaign breaking jerks!

Easiest idea yet.

Based on threads in this forum, that is an "unreasonable request", because almost everytime someone comes to the forum, says that casters have been reworked (sometimes not even explaining how) and there are dozens of posts proclaiming that the DM's doing it wrong and/or casters should have just been banned. Which is an annoying double standard on the forum, right along with "Mundane can't have nice things" and "Magic > Everything else and should stay that way".

[oxybe]

ignoring the problem won't make it go away. "play nice kids" is a nice ideal but doesn't solve anything if everyone isn't on the same boat.

to fix casters you need to fix their spells. the druid is in a boat of his own (a flying boat made of laser shooting bears) but for wizards & clerics, fix the spell list and you fix them.

[Mystic Muse]

ignoring the problem won't make it go away. "play nice kids" is a nice ideal but doesn't solve anything if everyone isn't on the same boat.

to fix casters you need to fix their spells. the druid is in a boat of his own (a flying boat made of laser shooting bears) but for wizards & clerics, fix the spell list and you fix them.

But how do you do this without going through every single spell and looking at it on a case by case basis? Even "fixing" it is just sweeping the problem under the rug until WOTC releases Errata that makes that the official version of wizard spells. Which, since they no longer care about 3.5, will never happen.

This is assuming your player doesn't decide to just play something else after his favorite spells have been nerfed. Which means you've just wasted your time.

[Milskidasith]

Based on threads in this forum, that is an "unreasonable request", because almost everytime someone comes to the forum, says that casters have been reworked (sometimes not even explaining how) and there are dozens of posts proclaiming that the DM's doing it wrong and/or casters should have just been banned. Which is an annoying double standard on the forum, right along with "Mundane can't have nice things" and "Magic > Everything else and should stay that way".

The standard on the forums is, as far as I can tell, A: don't be a jerk and B: if that is unavoidable, ban casters, don't stealth ban them by murdering them for using their class features.

[oxybe]

But how do you do this without going through every single spell and looking at it on a case by case basis? Even "fixing" it is just sweeping the problem under the rug until WOTC releases Errata that makes that the official version of wizard spells. Which, since they no longer care about 3.5, will never happen.

This is assuming your player doesn't decide to just play something else after his favorite spells have been nerfed. Which means you've just wasted your time.

the most you can do is remove the worst offenders and take things on a level by level basis if you want to be thorough and if he plans on buying spells, he needs to pass them by you. discuss the choices with the player

simply saying "play nice" doesn't do much without giving him direction. there are more then one way to be a jerk, and if there's one thing us french-canadians know, it's how to be stealth jerks. so stealthy we don't even notice it until we get punched in the nether regions.

[Thieves]

As for the chances of backfire - they're psychologically realistic. The chance that you will be hit back - either by backfire or by someone equally dangerous - is what some would say protects us from waking up in a radioactive desert tomorrow morning.

On the whole, I wouldn't mind a backfire rate. I wholeheartedly adopt the fluff that magic is not something you can just fiddle around with. If you're Merlin, you can Fireball **** to hell sometimes if you feel you kinda need it, but if you want to pull off earthquakes you either get Epic Seeds (no, not another euphemism for weed) or risk getting blown to hell while trying. If you want to alter the outcome of the battle of the century, you might just think that you can try it, and it may well be worth it (also because it would be story-proper to fail or not). If you want to vaporize That Guy Over There's castle for slurring you, you might want to think twice. Calling on demons may get YOU imprisoned instead, as morphing into something way out of your biologic family should always carry the possibility of you permanently gaining all the racial characteristics of Aberrations.

Fixing spells is something you should do aside from that, but I guess mostly when there is the level <-> power disproportion. Shivering Touch? Whaaat.

[Mystic Muse]

Yes, by all means, solve everything by making it so that epic spellcasting is the only thing that doesn't have drawbacks. Let me know how that works out for you.

[Soras Teva Gee]

But how do you do this without going through every single spell and looking at it on a case by case basis? Even "fixing" it is just sweeping the problem under the rug until WOTC releases Errata that makes that the official version of wizard spells. Which, since they no longer care about 3.5, will never happen.

This is assuming your player doesn't decide to just play something else after his favorite spells have been nerfed. Which means you've just wasted your time.

I'd say you can't but I try to think up a reasonably concise set of houserules one could use to go a ways.

Make say all status effects like Hold Person where its rerolled to escape, possibly with a reducing DC each time. Eliminate touch AC and make SR effective against everything, and anything without a save gets one. Make casting a bit longer so casters can't run and cast plus have a chance to be disrupted, and not stack two effects a round. All instant deaths/stat damages/level drain so forth have a penalty to their DC depending on the effect. Don't worry about 9th level since if you are playing for long at that level your campaign is an entirely different ballgame anyways.

You could maybe get down to just banning a handful of totally broken spells.

[Boci]

I'd say you can't but I try to think up a reasonably concise set of houserules one could use to go a ways.

Make say all status effects like Hold Person where its rerolled to escape, possibly with a reducing DC each time. Eliminate touch AC and make SR effective against everything, and anything without a save gets one. Make casting a bit longer so casters can't run and cast plus have a chance to be disrupted, and not stack two effects a round. All instant deaths/stat damages/level drain so forth have a penalty to their DC depending on the effect. Don't worry about 9th level since if you are playing for long at that level your campaign is an entirely different ballgame anyways.

You could maybe get down to just banning a handful of totally broken spells.

One good houserule I heard was to have increasingly harsher penalties for casting when you had more than 1 spell affecting you.