...and there might be various factors that could add bonuses to a casting check, such as taking ten times as long to cast the spell (allowing an arcanist to spend a minute casting Mage Armor in the morning, and avoid a chance of an embarassing and potentially hurtful failure, for instance),
Taking time like this is where I think rituals make sense.
A ritual in this respect (Let's say
Forgreth's Impervious Barrier) takes 10 minutes to cast, requires some significant material component (over 1gp in value) and lasts for 24 hours or until the magic is broached, and provides a +6 armor bonus to AC. It has a casting DC 8/- (DC 8 to successfully cast, - represents no benefit from a critical/special casting ) and there may be a special focus that can be used to provide a bonus to casting (+2 focus bonus) or if the carapace horn of an Ankheg is used as a material component, the ritual is cast without a caster check being required).
In comparison, the canonical "
Armor of the Mage" spell (one of the spells making up a traditional canon that most Wizards will have ready access to) is a standard action to cast, does not require a material component, lasts for one hour or until broached, has a casting DC 10/24 and provides a +4 armor bonus to AC (or +6 armor bonus to AC if the special casting DC of 24 is made) and lasts for an hour or until broached.
In essence rituals are generally better (and more specific) than their canonical spell counterparts. However, you still might have several other "named" spell versions that are significantly rarer and wondrous.
"
Lucifus's Brisk Protection" might be similar to Armor of the Mage except be a swift action to cast with DC 18/26 providing the +4/+6 bonus to armor class, only lasting one minute but remains even if broached and if the casting is failed, then the caster must make a fort save DC 15 or be fatigued.
All of these would be "1st" level spells. However, only the canonical spells are found in the Player's Handbook. Other variations are kept in the GM's Liber Arcanus along with magical items. [That's one thing I would dearly love to see again in terms of preserving the mystery of the game for as long as possible.]
Lower level spells that you've mastered, two or three spell levels below your highest level spells, would naturally become easier, until it's almost impossible to fail them, while your highest level spells (or lower level spells that you are metamagicking or 'pushing' to higher levels of effect) would be increasingly risky.
As a general theme certainly. I love the idea of variation though and having harder to cast spells at 1st level, maybe having heightened effects or being based on a more difficult to master magic provides a real spice of choice.
I think the other interesting facet to this is that of spellcraft and lore and knowledge about magic. Some spells might be notoriously difficult to learn, while others are like the standard canon and of a standard difficulty. However, you might get a bonus to your spellcraft check to learn a particular spell if you already have mastered a specific related spell. For example you might get a +10 bonus to learn Argrimm's Storm of Hellfire (spellcraft DC 32) if you have already mastered the lesser Argrimm's Fireball. Or in reverse, if you have mastered a higher level spell, you may get a +4 bonus to learn the lesser Lucifus's Brisk Protection.
I'm just spraying out ideas here but I think you could form a fantastic repertoire of spells that maintains the mystery while at the same time provides a subtle limiting of casting so that a wizard does not tread on other class' toes quite as hard. Just some thoughts.
...Limiting a generic non-critical failure to temporary fatigue, like that of a Barbarian coming out of Rage, lasting only the remainder of the combat (or 10 minutes, if used out of combat, perhaps), might be a less painful way of having a spell failure manifest than some critical fumble chart or chance of the spellcaster blowing himself, or his allies, or whatever to bits.
Again in general I firmly agree with this. However, perhaps there is a notoriously difficult piece of magic out there (suitable more for a ritual than a spell) that if failed will kill the caster (or perhaps more interestingly foist them into the pits of hell or some other extreme end). It is the type of thing, dangerous to learn, dangerous to cast that only a wizard truly desperate (or truly mad) would attempt. The PCs would most likely never even try to learn such a spell let alone attempt to cast it, but knowing that such a thing is out there adds to the mystery and danger of magic as a whole while not directly affecting the PCs. Although if the party wizard did happen to have learned such a piece of diabolic arcanery - such a being would be worshipped by some, feared by many but notorious to all.
...I'm particularly against any sort of magical fumble that could hurt the other characters. When Bob the Fighter blows it utterly, he doesn't decapitate a fellow PC, so I'd be disinclined to have the party arcanist have a 5% chance per round of accidentally causing a TPK by summoning an uncontrolled demon or detonating a fireball at his feet or whatever.
Yes and yes. Magical limits on spells are there to provide an interesting range of choices and possible repercussions for the caster, not to blow up the rest of the party. Some spells might be a little indiscriminant but as usual, it is up to the caster to manage their magicks or fear the wroth of the rest of what's left of the party.
Thanks again for the response - I love stuff like this.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
If your character can kill stuff by speaking a few words and waving some bat dung around, I think it's a good thing to have a player that takes their RPGs a little more seriously pulling the character strings.
