[OOC] Quickleaf's Rime of the Frostmaiden [closed but waitlist is available]

[Neurotic]

I didn't read the casting classes since I don't play one. Why are you guys rolling to cast? I can understand Overchannel as some kind of 'empowerment' that comes with risk, but Alma/@happylace just said 'roll to cast'

 

[Aethmud]

I didn't read the casting classes since I don't play one. Why are you guys rolling to cast? I can understand Overchannel as some kind of 'empowerment' that comes with risk, but Alma/@happylace just said 'roll to cast'

Alma and Jack are both homebrew variants of the sorcerer class. @Quickleaf's sorcerer variant involves a roll-to-cast for any spell above cantrip level. Certain miscast effects can negate, replace, or alter the original spell, and other miscast effects take place in addition to the intended spell.

By the way, @Quickleaf, what is your ruling on the miscast table for Alma's roll? Does rolling a 9 mean "Reversal" or "Delayed Effect"? I'd read the table as meaning that a roll of 1–3 would have no miscast effect, and therefore no penalty on the roll-to-cast failure. But @happylace has a different interpretation of that same table. Attached the document (see p. 26) for easy reference.

 

[Quickleaf]

Alma and Jack are both homebrew variants of the sorcerer class. @Quickleaf's sorcerer variant involves a roll-to-cast for any spell above cantrip level. Certain miscast effects can negate, replace, or alter the original spell, and other miscast effects take place in addition to the intended spell.

By the way, @Quickleaf, what is your ruling on the miscast table for Alma's roll? Does rolling a 9 mean "Reversal" or "Delayed Effect"? I'd read the table as meaning that a roll of 1–3 would have no miscast effect, and therefore no penalty on the roll-to-cast failure. But @happylace has a different interpretation of that same table. Attached the document (see p. 26) for easy reference.

Ah, thanks for catching that!

With this homebrew variant, I was trying to avoid TOO MUCH extra rolling – so the Roll-to-Cast check (d20+prof bonus vs. DC 10+spell level) IS also acting as the Miscast Result (though that only triggers if you roll < the DC).

I'm trying to accomplish both with one roll, to cut down on burden of players having to track too many extra rolls. I know it's a bit unorthodox.

@Aethmud @happylace You're right in pointing out the weirdness of a 1-3 being a "Miscast" but there's no assigned result. This is a mistake (I hadn't yet caught) that's a holdover from a previous version of the homebrew where failing a Roll-to-Cast check meant the spell failed by default. It used to be 1-3 = failure 4-15 = failure+complication. The early feedback I received was that this was punitive and not fun for sorcerers who might effectively lose their entire action on a failed Roll-to-Cast.

Does that make sense?

OPTION 1: One potential fix for this is for us to call a Roll-to-Cast result of 1-3 as the spell fizzles outright, but the slot is not expended (which is really only possible rolling a nat '1' while in 1st-4th levels with prof bonus +2, since at 5th level when your proficiency bonus becomes +3 then your minimum roll becomes a '4').

OPTION 2: The other is for us to decouple the Roll-to-Cast and the Miscast roll as 2 separate rolls, and then rework the Miscast table die values for 1 to 12 like you were saying HappyLace.

I'm fine with either of these options, or considering your own fixes for it, but we should probably get both of you to sound off on your preferences since you're the Sorcerers!

----------------------------------------
I'll go through each of your spellcastings as an example using the current version of the variant...

Jack: Sleep, readied (upcast via Overchannel at 4th level to affect 11d8), your DC on the Roll-to-Cast will be 14 (10+spell level). Normally you'd roll d20+proficiency bonus (+2), but since it is two spell levels higher than what you can normally cast you'd take a (-2) penalty, making it a straight d20 roll. But then Tides of Chaos will make his Roll-to-Cast 2d20, take the higher result.

If he rolls 13 or less on his Roll-to-Cast, he would experience a Miscast result AND because he'd Overchanneling the spell would also fail to take effect. So if his roll was 10, for example, he'd get "Spell Worm" and the upcast Sleep would also fizzle.

He will suffer 2 levels of Exhaustion (Exhaustion is also homebrewed) regardless, but plans to negate those by spending 2 Sorcery Points.

Alma: Dissonant Whispers (1st level), your DC on the Roll-to-Cast is 11, a roll of 8 indicating a Miscast, and that '8' would be cross-referenced on the Miscast table for a "Mind Wound! You can’t cast this spell again for a week, and any attempt to Overchannel during this time deals psychic damage equal to the spell’s level to you." However, the spell would still take effect in this moment.

 

[Aethmud]

Ah, thanks for catching that!

With this homebrew variant, I was trying to avoid TOO MUCH extra rolling – so the Roll-to-Cast check (d20+prof bonus vs. DC 10+spell level) IS also acting as the Miscast Result (though that only triggers if you roll < the DC).

I'm trying to accomplish both with one roll, to cut down on burden of players having to track too many extra rolls. I know it's a bit unorthodox.

I'd prefer something like option 1. Two separate rolls is unnecessary, and combining them into one roll makes more sense to capture a spectrum of effects that are just variations on one attempted action.

Two rolls would be more orthodox though. Some other die instead of d20 seems appropriate for this, and d12 might be best for a 5e campaign. I'm probably old fashioned in preferring a d100 roll for a miscast results table. (BTW, if you want some old-school random insanity, check out this d10000 table of magical mishaps!)

Maybe a better progression of effects could be something like the following order: [ Spectacular Fail > Fail + Complication > Fizzle > Success + Complication > Normal Success > Success + Benefit > Critical Hit]? Which would make the fizzle results fall somewhere in the middle. In any case, the revised table should account for all numbers from 1 to 20, and some results could apply for more than one number (e.g., 8–10: Spell fizzles. Your actions used to cast the spell this turn are wasted, but you regain the use of any spell slots or other actions that would otherwise have been lost.)

I'm 100% in favor of a roll-to-cast failure resulting in a spell fizzle mean that spells slots are not expended. Otherwise it's just adding even more swing to an already super swingy class. It does feel punitive to have to flip a coin just to do a basic action for a character, especially when D&D spells are already designed such that success is often limited or eliminated anyway due to a subsequent save.

Further complication, though, what if the spell is also overcasted? Losing a turn is already bad. Losing well over half of Jack's expendable actions on a fizzled overcasted spell is sad. It's a little unclear to me whether the homebrew rules you've written means that any failure of an overcast spell = fizzle, or are there also overcast fail + complication and success + complication results?

I can roll with whatever your rulings are, no worries. Like Jack, I know that pushing one's luck is no guarantee of success.

I'd also suggest that refraction on oneself or on a party member is the absolute worst outcome, and not casting a random spell (which is currently the bottom result). If you're open to suggestions on how to revise or reorder the miscast table I'd be happy to share more detailed thoughts.

And regarding option 2, I swear I didn't even have the "Refraction!" miscast effect in mind when I wrote the fluff about Jack inhaling his own spell. Let me know whether you'd like to have me edit that last in-character post to make it more clearly a refraction miscast, or should we just consider it a fizzle? If it fizzles, I'd just leave my post as is and you can write about how the yeti just yawns it off.

 

[Neurotic]

You could also add penalty to the roll - if you fail your control roll by 5, your miscast effect is worse than if you failed by 1.

You could even play it so that when you fail by 1 or 2 you get a bonus - you get lesser mishap and only then the penalties start to accumulate.

Example: you need 13 to cast, you roll 12 - fail by one. The spell takes effect and you roll 1d12-2+1 (you failed by 1, you get effectively 1 row lesser effect than you would normally)
Emample 2: you need 15 to cast, you roll 7, ouch failed by 8, you roll 1d12-2+8 - you step over the limit of the table of 12 items (and need longer table)

GURPS has nice tables for fear effects, miscasts, critical hits etc...most are too lethal for DnD, but may be adapted

 

[Aethmud]

GURPS has nice tables for fear effects, miscasts, critical hits etc...most are too lethal for DnD, but may be adapted

I remember playing MERP a long time ago, very first roll of the first encounter of the first session, my ranger had a critical fail and blinded himself in one eye with the fletching of his arrow, dooming him to a lifetime penalty on perception, dexterity, and a bunch of other key abilities and skills.

Overall, I think the idea of rolling 1d12 for mishap and then adding a "penalty bonus" equivalent to how much the roll-to-hit failed would fit pretty nicely. Having refraction at the upper limits of that table would make it a relatively rare possibility.

Putting on my evil DM hat for a moment, I wonder whether for overcasted spells that "penalty bonus" should maybe also include an extra amount equal to the number of overcasted spell levels attempted.

You know, I said I preferred option 1 (roll 1d20), but now that I think through the probabilities, maybe 1d20+1d12 makes for a more realistic distribution of potential mishaps, so that minor penalties could be more common and major penalties are out on the fringe. Here's a concise comparison of how 1 vs 2 vs 3 dice works in terms of statistical distribution.

 

[Neurotic]

Overlever overchannel already includes penalty by increasing the DC and potential difference in the roll needed

 

[Necropolitan]

So if I've got our current situation down we have the option to flee or keep fighting?

 

[Steve Gorak]

So if I've got our current situation down we have the option to flee or keep fighting?

That’s my favorite understanding

 

[Necropolitan]

I personally like our odds of victory in this combat. Does anyone want to flee instead?