So, what should 5e do with the Wizard, anyway?

[Craft (Cheese)]

A sister thread to the other discussions in the DDN threads.

As for me, I don't have a specific outline of what I want, but here are a few salient points:

- Vancian magic can go die in a fire. Yes, I know they're not getting rid of it now, but still, one can only hope. I guess my real suggestion if Vancian magic must stick around is that wizards have 10 + INT mod spell slots, regardless of their level. Wizard level just raises maximum spell level that can be prepared, rather than increasing spell slots.

- Unified spell mechanics. Seriously, we don't need both spell attack rolls and saving throws. Pick one. Personally, I prefer 4e's attacker-always-rolls approach.

- Solve spell bloat by printing fewer, more general spells. Offer an equivalent to metamagic or augmentation instead of printing variant spells.

- The target for wizards should be T3, never T4. A wizard uses their magic to solve a wide variety of problems. If they're a one-trick pony, regardless of how useful that trick is, they're not a wizard.

- In keeping with that, I'd like to see the generalist wizard stick around. You sometimes see suggestions to the effect of "Wizards should pick one school, then only ever be allowed to cast from that one school." This could work, but the schools would need to be broadened a great deal. Divination would need to get offensive spells, for instance. However, I think just letting wizards have access to more than one school is the more elegant solution here.

[Ashdate]

I agree with most of your points, although if there is some sort of plan to have "at-will" attack powers (and I mean ones that are actually balanced to be used "at-will", meaning a magic missile that doesn't scale, and nothing as powerful as Ray of Frost) then I'm okay with an "expanding" spell list, as long as the spells drop in power over their 2e/3.5e counterparts drastically (by at least 50%).

I also think if they really want "ability saving throws" (ugh) that spells can target them. Follow 4e's example and make the target DC always 10. Spells attacking a monster's AC is just plain weird.

If you wanted to do "specialist wizard" model over a "generalist" one, I would suggest redefining the spells so that they had more than one school. That way you could have less spells overall, but allow (for example) both Transmutation and Enchantment wizards access to a spell like Haste.

[7RED7]

So, what should 5e do with the Wizard, anyway?

Yes.

I really want to see them make something functional out of the module concept, and design it to accommodate individual use of modules. Instead of just swapping out the vancian magic rules for a module of 4e style rules I would love to see a party that has two wizards where one plays something very much like the 3.5 wizard (or even just the standard wizard in the playtest, which I liked), and the other plays a more 4e style wizard with at-will, encounter, and daily abilities (One of my players has become a die-hard 4e fan, and hated the vancian nature of the spells).

I want the DM to say I'm using the basic rules and these modules for the environments and NPCs I control, and the players say "Okay, I'm using these modules for my character", and they interlock no matter what combination is used.
I see it as another optional level of design choice. You can build the basic rules for the world, or character creation, in much the same way you would build a character.

That's all I really want to see out of it. If they just remake any of the previous editions by itself, then it was a waste of time and resources.

Some people like vancian, and some people don't. Some people like other methods, and even more people don't like those. It isn't going to kill you if another player is using magic in a different way for their character.

I think unified mechanics are going to be the key to making everything work. You have to be able to do the same thing in different ways, but still speak the same language at the end of the day. I would liken it to trying to build a game engine that can support some players using physics based fps-style play with others using rpg-style play in the same setting. At some point everything just has to do it's own thing and then relate back to a central ruleset.

For spells, both can be done. A player could choose different spell modules with more general or more specialized spells.

The target with wizards should be whatever makes them believable in various iconic images of the wizard. The system should be able to handle multiple variations of that. Tiers are a horrible way of making a fun class. If someone wants to play a wizard who is a one-trick pony then they are a one-trick pony wizard. Saying they are not a wizard is opinion, and opinions are not something to build a system on.

There can be multiple options for how wizard schools work.

[Kholai]

1: Casting times.

Having a casting time that increases for bigger spells is an inherent balance to their having bigger, flashier abilities.

2: Remove higher level spells.

8th and 9th level spellcasting. It's such a big deal in 3.5 that it literally trumps every single other class ability in the game. Level 7 worked for divine casters in AD&D, it could work again for everyone.

4e's rituals had a lot of potential, moving over big spells into rituals (whilst leaving the wizard with utility spells for outside of combat, 4e's big failure on that front) would allow level 9 staples to stay in existence, possibly stopping such game changers from being "Wizard Only" by making rituals ingredient/lore/event dependent.

3: Flexible Spells per day.

Spell slots equal to twice class level + stat bonus. Each spell takes up a number of slots equal to half its level (rounding up). Level 20? You can have ten level 7 spells before Int bonus, or forty level 2 spells, or anywhere in between.

4: Stop spellcasting being a special little snowflake.

Not quite a wizard only aspect, but an advantage that mages always have is that they can pick and choose which defence they target, whilst melee always has to contend with AC (another aspect I think 4e actually managed to improve on).
Key to keeping the wizard under control is that even if she does have that ability to drop spells that make muggles weak in the knees, it's still possible for muggles to viably target those saves as well through mundane means. If the wizard gets automatically hitting, no save force bolts, then a mundane class should have similar (if not identical) sorts of utility through skill tricks/manoeuvres vein.

The wizard needs to be built with this in mind as a strict limiter - if fighters can't have nice things, then wizards' things can't be as nice either.

[Seerow]

Personally, I'd go with a variant of vancian casting where spells per day doesn't scale so much, by having lower level slots traded out for higher level slots. Then allowing you to place low level spells in higher level slots to be able to use them more frequently. (So a level 20 wizard might have 11 spells instead of 50. He might have 3/4/5 7th/6th/5th level spells [DDN has said they're doing 7 spell levels right?] but could prep say a 3rd or 4th level spell into the 5th slot as an encounter spell rather than daily.

The other thing I'd do is, given the design direction currently being used, I'd give wizards (and other spellcasters) a very limited core spell list, containing just essential stuff to do their job. In the case of wizards, you'd have some divination, you'd have some control style stuff (single target/aoe debuffs, status effect infliction, wall of ___, etc), and a couple of low level damage spells (probably like Fire Ball and Magic Missile, as the two most iconic blasty spells). Other spells would be accessed via themes. If you want a shapechanging wizard, there's a theme for that. You want a necromancer with an undead army, there's a theme for that. You want a summoner, there's a theme for that (Alternatively make each of those a separate class. Each concept has enough flexibility/power to be a tier3 class on their own. But I doubt there's room for that many classes in core, so a theme fits the bill for core release better).

For mobility/defensive options I'm still not sold on. While the Wizard has traditionally had them, the end result has always been the Wizard being a more defensive class than the classes who are supposed to be defensive. If the Wizard gets a whole bunch of options for boosting his defense and mobility, then other classes need to match and probably exceed whatever the Wizard gets in turn, which can get pretty messy pretty quickly.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The other thing I'd do is, given the design direction currently being used, I'd give wizards (and other spellcasters) a very limited core spell list, containing just essential stuff to do their job. In the case of wizards, you'd have some divination, you'd have some control style stuff (single target/aoe debuffs, status effect infliction, wall of ___, etc), and a couple of low level damage spells (probably like Fire Ball and Magic Missile, as the two most iconic blasty spells). Other spells would be accessed via themes. If you want a shapechanging wizard, there's a theme for that. You want a necromancer with an undead army, there's a theme for that. You want a summoner, there's a theme for that (Alternatively make each of those a separate class. Each concept has enough flexibility/power to be a tier3 class on their own. But I doubt there's room for that many classes in core, so a theme fits the bill for core release better).

My problem with using themes for this is that theme and class are supposed to be separate dimensions of the character. What would happen if, say, the Fighter took the summoner theme? Note I do think this could work if your answer is "The fighter is just as good at summoning as the wizard, granted he takes the same theme for it."

For mobility/defensive options I'm still not sold on. While the Wizard has traditionally had them, the end result has always been the Wizard being a more defensive class than the classes who are supposed to be defensive. If the Wizard gets a whole bunch of options for boosting his defense and mobility, then other classes need to match and probably exceed whatever the Wizard gets in turn, which can get pretty messy pretty quickly.

Well, my first thought to this is "Well, let's just get rid of all the classes that are supposed to be defensive and make that the wizard's thing" but that's probably just my spellcaster favoritism shining through.

[Seerow]

My problem with using themes for this is that theme and class are supposed to be separate dimensions of the character. What would happen if, say, the Fighter took the summoner theme? Note I do think this could work if your answer is "The fighter is just as good at summoning as the wizard, granted he takes the same theme for it."

Mearls said in one of the interivews that there will be themes that are class specific. So they could do it that way.

Alternatively I am also fine with "The Fighter is just as good at summoning if he takes the theme for it". (Similarly a while back I made a sample theme for Necromancy, just as a proof of concept you could have a necromancer theme that works just as well for a non-caster as a caster.)

Well, my first thought to this is "Well, let's just get rid of all the classes that are supposed to be defensive and make that the wizard's thing" but that's probably just my spellcaster favoritism shining through.

Sure if the game is going to be balanced on that assumption. However most people don't associate wizard with "indestructible superhero", most tend to think of wizards as frail and weak, and consider this their downside for having power. Making Wizards the official defensive class and acknowledging Fighters and Barbarians are squishy glass cannons might let you preserve more of older editions of D&D, but I doubt would really resonate well even with the people who prefer that.

[Synovia]

- The target for wizards should be T3, never T4. A wizard uses their magic to solve a wide variety of problems. If they're a one-trick pony, regardless of how useful that trick is, they're not a wizard..

T4 dosen't really mean 'one trick pony.' Most of the T3 classes are one-trick-ponies (like the Dread Necromancer).


I think any character that can solve a wide variety of problems with one class ability is a problem. The wizard NEEDS to be less of a generalist, because until that happens, hes always going to be invalidating other classes.

Alternatively I am also fine with "The Fighter is just as good at summoning if he takes the theme for it". (Similarly a while back I made a sample theme for Necromancy, just as a proof of concept you could have a necromancer theme that works just as well for a non-caster as a caster.)

This is ideally what I'd like to see. I want to see class restrictions die a horrific death. If someone wants to play a necromancer with an animal companion, they should be able to do that without being terrible at both. If they want to play a sneak who can cast divinations, they should be able to do that. If they want to play a man-of-the-woods who uses skeletons to tend his trees, that should be possible.


We should have a system that allows us to say "I want this character to be able to do x,y,z", not a system that says "this class can do X,Y,Z, but I want to do X and Q, and there's no way to do that"

[Seerow]

T4 dosen't really mean 'one trick pony.' Most of the T3 classes are one-trick-ponies (like the Dread Necromancer).


I think any character that can solve a wide variety of problems with one class ability is a problem. The wizard NEEDS to be less of a generalist, because until that happens, hes always going to be invalidating other classes.

The Dread Necromancer may be one theme, but he's by no means a one trick pony. I mean just the undead he controls is a potent/versatile enough effect to practically make tier3 on its own.

[Synovia]

The Dread Necromancer may be one theme, but he's by no means a one trick pony. I mean just the undead he controls is a potent/versatile enough effect to practically make tier3 on its own.

Of course it is. But the dread necromancer (3.5) has a ton of weaknesses (which is a good thing). He's got almost no spells that break SR. He has all sorts of mobility isues (can't fly, can't teleport, etc).

He has one thing hes very good at, but hes got issues in a lot of situations.

[lesser_minion]

I think that if the designers thought more about how magic works in the setting -- the in-universe mechanics -- then they would find it easier to balance things.

If you decide, for example, that a long-lasting spell draws its sustenance from the magical power of whoever or whatever it affects, that gives you a tonne of obvious, natural limits on spells. For example:

• There's a limit to how far a character can be buffed or debuffed.
• A character who applies too many buffs to herself will find her spellcasting suffering.
• It implies that even non-casters might be able to deny a spell through force of will, giving them a way to dispel hostile effects like this.

Those limitations would help a lot with destroying the all-powerful wizard of 3rd edition -- even if there was a combination of buffs that made you immune to the fighter, you'd probably find that it left you with no more magic to use attacking the fighter or defending against the fighter's allies.

Magic needs to have rules, and it needs to actually follow them. If someone is resistant to magic, then there must not be a spell to undo that. If someone is immune to magic, then there must not be a spell to undo that either.

[Seerow]

Of course it is. But the dread necromancer (3.5) has a ton of weaknesses (which is a good thing). He's got almost no spells that break SR. He has all sorts of mobility isues (can't fly, can't teleport, etc).

He has one thing hes very good at, but hes got issues in a lot of situations.

What types of undead he brings along with him can solve a lot of the problems you list. Seriously the whole undead army thing alone grants enough flexibility to be a tier 3 class, because it does allow him to contribute in the vast majority of situations.

Compare the Tier3 Dread Necromancer with the Tier 4 Barbarian, just as an example. They're both one trick ponies by your definition, but the Barbarian's one trick is so much less flexible it knocks him down a tier. The Dread Necro's one trick is strong enough to make him tier 3, you can almost even ignore his spellcasting and still place him there.

When you take into account his spellcasting as well, he also has debuffing, summoning, defensive buffs, control, information gathering, and SoDs. He may not have everything a good wizard/sorcerer has, but he has a good enough variety to handle the majority of situations. You say he lacks mobility, I say for the most part he doesn't need it (he's not a melee character, he can stand back and use his ranged spells and summons for the most part)

Frankly, I consider Dread Necro and Beguiler borderline tier 2. They're definitely on the much higher end of tier 3 when compared with the Factotum or ToB classes.

[Ziegander]

Personally, I'd go with a variant of vancian casting where spells per day doesn't scale so much, by having lower level slots traded out for higher level slots. Then allowing you to place low level spells in higher level slots to be able to use them more frequently. (So a level 20 wizard might have 11 spells instead of 50. He might have 3/4/5 7th/6th/5th level spells [DDN has said they're doing 7 spell levels right?] but could prep say a 3rd or 4th level spell into the 5th slot as an encounter spell rather than daily.

This is a cool idea.

The other thing I'd do is, given the design direction currently being used, I'd give wizards (and other spellcasters) a very limited core spell list, containing just essential stuff to do their job. In the case of wizards, you'd have some divination, you'd have some control style stuff (single target/aoe debuffs, status effect infliction, wall of ___, etc), and a couple of low level damage spells (probably like Fire Ball and Magic Missile, as the two most iconic blasty spells). Other spells would be accessed via themes. If you want a shapechanging wizard, there's a theme for that. You want a necromancer with an undead army, there's a theme for that. You want a summoner, there's a theme for that (Alternatively make each of those a separate class. Each concept has enough flexibility/power to be a tier3 class on their own. But I doubt there's room for that many classes in core, so a theme fits the bill for core release better).

And this is a great idea.

[Craft (Cheese)]

T4 dosen't really mean 'one trick pony.' Most of the T3 classes are one-trick-ponies (like the Dread Necromancer).

T3 - Capable of doing one thing really well, but still useful when that one thing isn't appropriate, or, capable of doing everything acceptably, but outclassed by specialists.

T4 - Capable of doing one thing really well, but useless when that one thing isn't appropriate.

I think T4 is pretty much the definition of one-trick-pony.

[Synovia]

What types of undead he brings along with him can solve a lot of the problems you list. Seriously the whole undead army thing alone grants enough flexibility to be a tier 3 class, because it does allow him to contribute in the vast majority of situations.

Compare the Tier3 Dread Necromancer with the Tier 4 Barbarian, just as an example. They're both one trick ponies by your definition, but the Barbarian's one trick is so much less flexible it knocks him down a tier. The Dread Necro's one trick is strong enough to make him tier 3, you can almost even ignore his spellcasting and still place him there.

When you take into account his spellcasting as well, he also has debuffing, summoning, defensive buffs, control, information gathering, and SoDs. He may not have everything a good wizard/sorcerer has, but he has a good enough variety to handle the majority of situations. You say he lacks mobility, I say for the most part he doesn't need it (he's not a melee character, he can stand back and use his ranged spells and summons for the most part)

Frankly, I consider Dread Necro and Beguiler borderline tier 2. They're definitely on the much higher end of tier 3 when compared with the Factotum or ToB classes.

By Mobility I was talking more along the lines of common situations like "You're on a cliff. Where you want to be is on the bottom of the cliff. " Can also be replaced with "passage has collapsed. you want to be on other side"

Wizard: I fly down.
Cleric: Wind Walk.
Fighter: I have 300 hp. I jump.
DN: Um, hey, guys. Can someone help me out here?


As to bringing undead to solve problems, what undead you have is completly dependant on what the DM wants to give you. If you haven't had a chance to get any flying/burrowing zombies, the above is an unsolvable situation.

[Seerow]

By Mobility I was talking more along the lines of common situations like "You're on a cliff. Where you want to be is on the bottom of the cliff. " Can also be replaced with "passage has collapsed. you want to be on other side"

Wizard: I fly down.
Cleric: Wind Walk.
Fighter: I have 300 hp. I jump.
DN: Um, hey, guys. Can someone help me out here?

DN: I hop on my undead griffin and fly down.

Or for the "get to the other side of the passage"
DN: I set my strong undead minions to digging through the tunnel.

Or
DN: I have the _____ that I used Planar Binding on a while ago to teleport us across.




Edit: Also a dread necro will only have 2hp less per level than a Fighter, has DR, and can heal himself an infinite amount. If the Fighter can jump down the cliff, the Dread Necromancer can do the same, and without wasting the Cleric's resources to do it.

[Ashdate]

So we've agreed then: no Dread Necromancers in 5e.

One thing to keep in mind is how they've switched the Cleric to being a "spontaneous" caster. Since it's best to think of classes compared as a whole to each other (rather than separate from one another).

Therefore, perhaps it's best to think of more than just the Wizard; if they're going to have some form of Vancian magic that requires them to pick spells beforehand, whereas the Cleric does not, how else should the two differ? Should particular effects (such as buffs, battlefield control, and damage spells) be more represented in one class than another?

[Craft (Cheese)]

So we've agreed then: no Dread Necromancers in 5e.

One thing to keep in mind is how they've switched the Cleric to being a "spontaneous" caster. Since it's best to think of classes compared as a whole to each other (rather than separate from one another).

Therefore, perhaps it's best to think of more than just the Wizard; if they're going to have some form of Vancian magic that requires them to pick spells beforehand, whereas the Cleric does not, how else should the two differ? Should particular effects (such as buffs, battlefield control, and damage spells) be more represented in one class than another?

Attack spells, buffs, and debuffs should be available to both cleric and wizard more or less equally.

Personally, I'd like to see the design assumption of healing as a role removed entirely. In-combat healing is too situational (at least not without some major changes in system assumptions) to be useful, and out-of-combat healing too necessary to be restricted to just one class. "Healing" here also refers to stuff like Remove Disease, Regeneration, and Resurrection. In my homebrew stuff I just merge the cleric and wizard together, at least in terms of what effects they have available: I do however occasionally experiment with clerics and wizards having different casting mechanics.

If the Cleric's shtick isn't "healing plus some other stuff" then they need to be defined some other way. As a temporary proposal, I might suggest that everything that 3.5 cleric has that they share with the wizard, the wizard loses and the cleric keeps (with the exception of buffs, debuffs, and attack spells). That is, undead creation, summon monster, divinations, teleportation.

[navar100]

Use 3E Psionic Power points formula. Putting extra points into a spell "augments" it, such as what was 3E metamagic or more powerful versions (more damage, affect more powerful creatures, etc.) of the same spell. Burning Hands can be augmented to Fireball. Charm Person is augmented to Charm Monster and eventually Dominate, etc. Naturally have a maximum limit of points you can put into one spell.

Alternatively, use an Erudite variation of spell slots. A spellcaster can only cast a particular number of unique spells per day for each level.

Particular spells can be changed. Some spells could be raised in level, such as Fly. Spell effects can be altered, similar to what Pathfinder did. Give Ray of Enfeeblement a saving throw for half. Spells that gave immunities are now bonuses to saving throw. Polymorph spells only give specific buffs.

Things NOT to do: Generally speaking, don't punish the wizard for casting a spell. Specifically: no insanity risk, no damage, no fatigue, no can't cast another spell for some given time, no penalty minus number to anything, no negative consequence of any kind for doing what they're supposed to be doing: casting a spell.

Using 3E spellcasting as a base, there are limitations that I do find acceptable as not punishing the wizard for casting a spell:

1) Bring back 2E casting times of a sort. Spells have a casting time equal to their level. For example, wizard on his initiative count of 15 starts casting a 3rd level spell. At start of initiative count 12, before anyone else on 12 would go, spell goes off. Wizard's initiative next round remains 15. If a wizard is damaged during the casting, Concentration check needed to keep casting. Gives a reason for wizards wanting warriors to protect them and opportune to give warriors class abilities to enable this. When a wizard is taking 6 initiative counts to cast a 6th level spell, the party needs him to be able to do it.

2) Wizards cannot know every spell. "Wizard" is just the general name of the class. Particular characters have a specialty where they can know every spell of two schools, a good number of spells from other schools, and perhaps can only cast spells of particular schools using higher spell slots. There would be opposition schools where they can't cast any spell.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Things NOT to do: Generally speaking, don't punish the wizard for casting a spell. Specifically: no insanity risk, no damage, no fatigue, no can't cast another spell for some given time, no penalty minus number to anything, no negative consequence of any kind for doing what they're supposed to be doing: casting a spell.

This is something I'm going to have to disagree with. Adding risk to an thing is a fantastic way to make that thing interesting.

Now, certain types of methods of adding "risk" are just dumb, like "Every time you cast a spell, you take 1d6 points of damage for each level of the spell." It doesn't really add risk because you don't really have any choices as to how you go about trying to mitigate it, you just either sit around and do nothing, or you cast the spells and suck down the damage.

[Lord Tyger]

I always liked the idea of longer spell casting times. Sure, you might be able to get a few low-level spells off in a jiffy, but for the big stuff, you need time. Of course, the danger there is every encounter becomes "Hold the goblins off until the wizard can finish drawing the magic symbols to call up fire and kill them all," which would be okay sometimes, but not always...

[Seerow]

This is something I'm going to have to disagree with. Adding risk to an thing is a fantastic way to make that thing interesting.

Now, certain types of methods of adding "risk" are just dumb, like "Every time you cast a spell, you take 1d6 points of damage for each level of the spell." It doesn't really add risk because you don't really have any choices as to how you go about trying to mitigate it, you just either sit around and do nothing, or you cast the spells and suck down the damage.

Personally I've been thinking along the lines of encounter based spells that can be cast more than once an encounter with those types of risks.

So within normal limits, they're fine, no risk at all. If they want to push themselves, they could end up taking ability damage, or go insane, or knock themselves unconscious, or whatever.

[Dienekes]

Hmm, was just going to pop in and say that they should force stricter specialization so the wizard cannot do everything like they can in 3.5 without giving ideas how to do it. But reading it Seerow's idea is very interesting.

Now as far as spellcasting penalties. I think we've discussed this in the 5e thread a few times before. I'm ok with them. Now that said I don't think some of the ones that get tossed around are generally speaking good ideas: insanity being the big one. While it may work for other games, having control of your character systematically taken from you seems counter to the style D&D tries to go for. I'm much more comfortable with a fatigue system or just dealing subdual damage. Because it does place a reasonable limit on spellcasting that only effects the short term encounter without ruining the character, and if the mechanics are put right really emphasizes the necessity of good tactics and emphasizes varying combat roles. Assuming the frontliners get decent mechanics to do their job, they need to make sure the magic users are safe or their ability to cast spells becomes in jeopardy.

That said, a wizard should not have all their spells have a penalty, the at-wills should definitely not, and as they level up the weaker spells stop as well.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Personally I've been thinking along the lines of encounter based spells that can be cast more than once an encounter with those types of risks.

So within normal limits, they're fine, no risk at all. If they want to push themselves, they could end up taking ability damage, or go insane, or knock themselves unconscious, or whatever.

I've been experimenting with a similar idea, actually. A spellcaster has "Magical Overheat." You can cast as many spells as you want, but each spell adds to this overheat depending on its power. Each time you cast a spell, you make a saving throw (probably with a special stat just for this) with a DC equal to your current overheat level. Fail, and you suffer miscast results according to the measure of failure. (e.g., rolling 25 when you have 30 overheat might just cause your spell to fizzle, but rolling 25 when you have 60 overheat could mean instant death.)

The overheat fades a little each round, and at-will spells are effectively those that add less to your overheat than you cool down each turn. You can also take a full-round action to vent out the steam and bring your overheat down by a lot.

[navar100]

This is something I'm going to have to disagree with. Adding risk to an thing is a fantastic way to make that thing interesting.

Now, certain types of methods of adding "risk" are just dumb, like "Every time you cast a spell, you take 1d6 points of damage for each level of the spell." It doesn't really add risk because you don't really have any choices as to how you go about trying to mitigate it, you just either sit around and do nothing, or you cast the spells and suck down the damage.

The risk is the bad guy makes the saving throw/you fail to get past the spell resistance, i.e. the spell didn't work. "May you live in interesting times" is a curse, not a blessing. You don't punish the player for the audacity of doing what his character is supposed to be doing.

[navar100]

Personally I've been thinking along the lines of encounter based spells that can be cast more than once an encounter with those types of risks.

So within normal limits, they're fine, no risk at all. If they want to push themselves, they could end up taking ability damage, or go insane, or knock themselves unconscious, or whatever.

Details to be worked out, but I can agree with the concept. If the player voluntarily chooses to make an extra effort that has a negative effect risk, I'd be ok with that. It's the "bad wizard, suffer for casting a spell" as a matter of course and whole being of playing a spellcaster that I object. In truth I'd probably prefer there was no option of extra effort with negative risk in the first place, yet given the spellcaster would do just fine without the extra effort in all ways, I hold my tongue.

[Rejnhard]

I've been experimenting with a similar idea, actually. A spellcaster has "Magical Overheat." You can cast as many spells as you want, but each spell adds to this overheat depending on its power. Each time you cast a spell, you make a saving throw (probably with a special stat just for this) with a DC equal to your current overheat level. Fail, and you suffer miscast results according to the measure of failure. (e.g., rolling 25 when you have 30 overheat might just cause your spell to fizzle, but rolling 25 when you have 60 overheat could mean instant death.)

The overheat fades a little each round, and at-will spells are effectively those that add less to your overheat than you cool down each turn. You can also take a full-round action to vent out the steam and bring your overheat down by a lot.

That seems to be a very elegant risk managment system. Did you try to run it in practice?

Funnily enough I think it could be used for some non-casters as well. Specifically I think about Barbarian/Berserker. Instead of magic overheat you have rage. You can fight conservatively using weak "at-wills" that don't bump up you rage, or powerful bloodthirsty attacks that do. Each time you use them you roll if you don't succumb to your Rage and go out of control. The result could also be tied to total rage gathered and level of failure, with small failure resulting with a player losing control over his barbarian for a round but the character still doing what he is suppoused to do (attacking enemies) and very big failure resulting in character entering mindless fury, killing everything around (allies included) until he is dead, unconcious, or the last one standing.

[Dienekes]

The risk is the bad guy makes the saving throw/you fail to get past the spell resistance, i.e. the spell didn't work. "May you live in interesting times" is a curse, not a blessing. You don't punish the player for the audacity of doing what his character is supposed to be doing.

That's not a downside that's just missing. A melee fighter can miss an attack. But a melee fighter is also, in melee. The downside to being in melee is that they are in melee and will be attacked. Or are we not supposed to have the monster attack the player in reach so that they too do not have a downside attached to their ability set?

The downside to casting a spell is. There is no downside. Personally, I'm ok with the idea of making a consistent, non-random downside that the wizard can plan around even exploit if they're smart enough.

Admittedly this is an extrapolation of sorts but it is there. Assuming that the fighters can do their job of holding the line within reason then all the risk of the combat is placed upon them and none of it is on the wizards. I'm perfectly fine with increasing that risk on wizards.

[Craft (Cheese)]

That seems to be a very elegant risk managment system. Did you try to run it in practice?

This particular variant no, but I have run an almost identical system to make it work out quite well. Instead of magical overheat, you have spell points that decrease when you cast a spell. Instead of a bonus to a saving throw, you get a number of spell points to start the combat with. Instead of cooling off, you regenerate mana each turn.

The way the math worked out was that you were perfectly safe until you started spending into the negatives, where then the risk of failure appeared: You add your current spell point total to a die roll to meet a DC 1 saving throw. I want to change it to the mathematically-equivalent overheat system mostly for fluff/presentation reasons.

[Seerow]

This particular variant no, but I have run an almost identical system to make it work out quite well. Instead of magical overheat, you have spell points that decrease when you cast a spell. Instead of a bonus to a saving throw, you get a number of spell points to start the combat with. Instead of cooling off, you regenerate mana each turn.

The way the math worked out was that you were perfectly safe until you started spending into the negatives, where then the risk of failure appeared: You add your current spell point total to a die roll to meet a DC 1 saving throw. I want to change it to the mathematically-equivalent overheat system mostly for fluff/presentation reasons.

Probably a good call. You could even use both systems. Give Magical Overheat to casters, and let non-casters have the push into negatives. Where Magical Classes push upwards and get burned for it, non-casters push themselves to their limits and beyond, and can exhaust/hurt themselves doing so.

While they're mathematically the same (good), they superficially look different, which is probably enough to pacify most people on having casters and non-casters using a similar mechanic.