Agreeing to Bad Ideas

Phangz · Nov 13, 2016

So a player of mine came up to me and discussed an idea for a spellcaster that "crafted spells." Basically he doesn't like how rigid the process of preparing a list of spells can be and would rather just ask if he can do something, then roll to see if it can happen. Basically how this would work is like this:

1.He describes what he wants to do and asks me if he can do it. I say yes or no.
2.I decide the equivalent spell level for this effect, based on my knowledge of existing spells with similar effects.
3.I tell him to roll an Arcana check with a DC equal to 10+spell level and if he succeeds, the effect happens. If he fails, nothing happens and he loses his spell slot.

I understand that this idea is inherently unbalanced, because it essentially gives him access to every spell in every book ever published, and if I'm not careful, he will munchkin the crap out of it. But I kind of like the idea because it gives him the freedom to think creatively and also gives me the chance to exercise my own judgement as a GM to keep things entertaining and fair for everyone. Plus hopefully the dice will keep everything relatively kosher.

So despite my better judgement, I'm gonna work with him to allow this to be a thing. I was just curious if there was ever a time in your experience as a GM where you, against your better judgement, made a decision that you knew was probably a bad idea. Did it work out in the end, or did you end up regretting it?

Sunseeker · Nov 13, 2016

Personally, when my DM gave me the option to just burn up "magical power" for effects I wanted to create, I was a lot less munchkiny about it.

Dandu · Nov 13, 2016

Shadowcraft Mage

Olgar Shiverstone · Nov 13, 2016

Yeah, and that Vow of Poverty druid with the poisonous velociraptor animal companion destroyed the campaign.

Man in the Funny Hat · Nov 13, 2016

Phangz said:
So a player of mine came up to me and discussed an idea for a spellcaster that "crafted spells." Basically he doesn't like how rigid the process of preparing a list of spells can be and would rather just ask if he can do something, then roll to see if it can happen. Basically how this would work is like this:

1.He describes what he wants to do and asks me if he can do it. I say yes or no.
2.I decide the equivalent spell level for this effect, based on my knowledge of existing spells with similar effects.
3.I tell him to roll an Arcana check with a DC equal to 10+spell level and if he succeeds, the effect happens. If he fails, nothing happens and he loses his spell slot.

You're playing the wrong game then. Don't take that the wrong way, though. Hear me out.

You don't want to play D&D you want to play something else... a different RPG altogether. One with a more narrative approach to game play would work better for you both, because that is flat-out just not how D&D works. D&D has rules. Rules arbitrated by the DM, of course, because rules can't cover everything, but it nonetheless has structured, crunchy mechanics for how things work. Your player wants a game more like... Edge of the Empire seems a good example to me since I've been running a game of it. You still have a number of fixed abilities but dice rolls not only dictate success or failure but provide opportunity for player and GM to both apply advantages and disadvantages IN ADDITION to success/failure. But D&D just ain't built to work that way.

I understand that this idea is inherently unbalanced, because it essentially gives him access to every spell in every book ever published, and if I'm not careful, he will munchkin the crap out of it.

Nope. The success or failure is not on him - it's ALL ON YOU. YOU decide whether he succeeds or fails. YOU determine which spell effect he gets, who it affects, what it does. All he does is tell you a general idea. YOU get to implement that idea FOR him to whatever degree YOU see fit.

I was just curious if there was ever a time in your experience as a GM where you, against your better judgement, made a decision that you knew was probably a bad idea. Did it work out in the end, or did you end up regretting it?

I have bad ideas all the time, and have even implemented a few, much to my own chagrin, nevermind the player's. Never one this deep into the core of the functionality of the game though. I've got a stack of house rules that can choke a hippo, but this is outside the scope of house rules and into complete game redesign. If you really want to go there then, seriously, you should be looking at other RPG's entirely.

Celebrim · Nov 13, 2016

I'd probably agree to something like that if he was the only player in the campaign.

Otherwise, it's biggest problem is the sort of player who would ask for that sort of thing is never going to be actually happy about it.

The only word of warning is don't like him craft items that give bonuses to skill usage. The 3.X rules are balanced on the idea that skills don't matter much, and items and spells that boost skill are priced accordingly. If your setting or rules break that assumption, skill bonus items cease to be balanced.

TDRandall · Nov 13, 2016

Sounds like he would prefer ars magica, although true20 sorcery might be easier to port and meet him at least half way? Or sovereign stone - that essentially 'crafts' spells over multiple rounds if necessary.

Greenfield · Nov 14, 2016

So any 3rd level effect is going to be a DC 13 Arcana check? (Personally I would have thought Spellcraft a better chocie, but...)

It won't be that long before he can ensure that he can't fail that check. Remember that natural 1s don't auto-fail on skill checks.

I might suggeste some alternatives.

Option 1: He selects a standard spell that his character has prepared/available that he can use as a base. Then he describes the effect he wants to turn it into and you decide what the DC for his spellcraft is, and how much higher a slot he has to burn to get the custom effects. Sort of like Metamagic feats, but increase the spell slot required by at least one more than the nearest comparable meta-magic feat.

Option 2: Say no.

I'd go with door number 2 myself, but you're the DM.

Ralif Redhammer · Nov 14, 2016

For a more free-form magic system, I’d look at the original Mage: The Ascension rules. They did a great job of balancing creativity while still having enough structure to not make it too broken.

I agree with Celebrim – in a role-defined game like D&D, I could see this easily going south in an adventuring party. In the games I’ve played where spellcasters have such free reign, they’ve easily ended up eclipsing the rest of the group and leaving us feeling like sidekicks.

As far as my own agreeing to bad ideas, certainly, there’ve been a few times. I like to think that I’ve gotten pretty good at spotting these things coming, but every now and then something still blindsides me.