Critiques and errors in Wild Spellcraft?

Since Natural 20 Press and Mystic Eye have agreed to do a print version of Wild Spellcraft, I'd like to enlist the help of those who have already bought the pdf version, and who have some free time to spare. Could you please point out any suggestions, criticisms, and corrections that you have for the book?

I've already corrected Chaos Blast so it uses d% instead of d20 rolls, since the dice roll can't be modified, and I made it an optional rule to add your Will save bonus to your mishap rolls. As per one reader's suggestion, the rules examples in the sample wild spellcraft setting have been consolidated with the flavor text, so you don't have to flip back and forth between pages (e.g., human societal views of magic are followed immediately with rules effects for the setting). Also, in the "Upsetting the Social Order," one of the 'their's needs to be instead 'they're.'

A lot of folks on the boards complain that companies have poor proofreading, and wonder why they're never given the chance to look over texts for errors. Well, this is your chance. Please help make Wild Spellcraft's print version flawless.

log in or register to remove this ad


First Post
I apologize for this, but here goes.


In your very first "Design Notes" sidebar, you state that the d% is used when a flat un-modified roll is to be used, but then go on to explain how the DM is supposed to add the vicitms Will save to the d% roll when determining the effects of a mishap.

I'm sorry, but this kind of blatant contradiction really bothers me.

IMO, the whole mishap thing should have been a Will save to begin with. With the truly WooA good results not available to low level characters, and the OS FUBAR results not normally being applicable to high level characters, unless they have been cursed or similar.


I'm sorry. I didn't want to, but you asked for it.

Anyway, that was the only thing in the book that really stuck out to me. But I haven't exactly proofread the entire book. I'll try to do that this weekend. :D

Yep, it's an embarrassment to me. I've already updated the new version so that adding your Will save bonus is an optional rule. I wanted to have a way to slightly improve your chances of good luck, but not too much, though I see that it shouldn't be part of the core rules.

I wanted to have a variety of possible effects, and a d% worked best to give me a large range. I should explain that it's not really a percentage chance, but rather a table that happens to have 100 entries. Either way, though, I wholly understand where you're coming from.


First Post
Mr. Wickett:

Have you, by any chance, thought about changing the Mishaps table to a Will save? Maybe leave the listed effects there, but change it from a result of -5 to to 50 on a will save?

Well, firstly, I shouldn't wholly change the rules for a simple reprint. Secondly, it's a new effect, so it shouldn't be mixed in with a current rules mechanic. The only core rules for d20 checks that aren't just success or failure are a)critical hits, or b)certain skill checks, like Climb, that have worse effects if you fail by 5 or more.

In the Sculptor of Chaos, I use just that mechanic for Spellcraft checks (if you fail, the spell fails; if you fail by 5 or more, your spell mishaps). Critical hits are about the opposite of mishaps, so they won't work. Saving throws are meant to be either success or failure, not a gradient. I decided that a separate table works best, since I could design it specifically to work as a gradient, instead of shoe-horning in a non-compatible mechanic. If I could get a nice, elegant way to have a diverse set of effects without having to create a whole table, I would've used it, but I think having a table is the simplest way to go. It also lets the mishaps be use separate from the wild spellcaster rules, for things like Concentration check failures.

An Advertisement