D&D General Wild Magic, Yea or Nay?

[Scribe]

It runs too counter for my desire for control, traditionally.

 

[Zardnaar]

It was funny seeing wild magic in action after Pathfinder. We returned to 3012 2E.

Level 3 or 4 in a wild magic zones. Casts a spell conjures an anvil over ones head. 3d10 damage KOed him.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

None of the poll options quite express my opinion on the matter, which is that I really like the idea of wild magic, but I pretty much never like the execution. What I really want from wild magic is something more akin to wild meta-magic. Like, something goes wrong with the spell you were trying to cast, and it comes out different than you expected - maybe it does more or less damage than usual, maybe does a different type of damage, maybe it affects a bigger or smaller area, maybe it lasts a longer or shorter time, maybe it hits a different target, or just more targets, etc. Maybe there’s even a small side-effect not directly related to the spell you were trying to cast, but it should still ultimately feel like a mishap that resulted from your spell going awry, not like a completely random nonsense thing coincidentally happened at the same time as you cast your spell. “The fireball you were trying to cast had a larger radius than you expected and some of your allies got caught in the blast” feels like wild magic. “Your Charm Person charmed the wrong person” feels like wild magic. “Your chain lightning turned into some sort of chain frost bolt” feels like wild magic. “LOL, you’re a potted plant for the rest of your turn” feels stupid.

I am 100% with you here.

 

[Lanefan]

I myself am not a fan. Which is not surprising. It reminds of the PC who always plays a CN character--a PC who is disruptive. I tend to be a planner anyway in general, so wild magic is not up my lane of preferences.

I love it, only when it's truly wild and unpredictable - wild surges from an interrupted spell doing weird things, or broken magic items releasing their enchantments in ways unintended, that sort of thing.

I have about 400 different possible entries (a few of which amount to "make s**t up") on my wild magic surge table, anywhere from highly beneficial to die-on-the-spot bad but mostly humourous and-or harmless.

In one campaign, during a tough encounter, the wild mage ended up polymorphing themselves into a sheep which mean the rest of us had to pick up the slack and very nearly resulted in a tpk.

Love it! More, please!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I dislike wild magic, but if someone else in the group loves it, I won't speak that dislike aloud. I find it generally tedious, disruptive, and uninteresting: it takes up far too much time to add far too little excitement and far too much chance of extreme consequences (meaning, any chance at all).

None of the poll options quite express my opinion on the matter, which is that I really like the idea of wild magic, but I pretty much never like the execution. What I really want from wild magic is something more akin to wild meta-magic. Like, something goes wrong with the spell you were trying to cast, and it comes out different than you expected - maybe it does more or less damage than usual, maybe does a different type of damage, maybe it affects a bigger or smaller area, maybe it lasts a longer or shorter time, maybe it hits a different target, or just more targets, etc. Maybe there’s even a small side-effect not directly related to the spell you were trying to cast, but it should still ultimately feel like a mishap that resulted from your spell going awry, not like a completely random nonsense thing coincidentally happened at the same time as you cast your spell. “The fireball you were trying to cast had a larger radius than you expected and some of your allies got caught in the blast” feels like wild magic. “Your Charm Person charmed the wrong person” feels like wild magic. “Your chain lightning turned into some sort of chain frost bolt” feels like wild magic. “LOL, you’re a potted plant for the rest of your turn” feels stupid.

Now, this is something I could potentially find interesting. I'm still skeptical--as I always am with things that are roulette wheels that don't permit regression to the mean--but it's the first wild magic pitch I've ever heard that actually has me curious. That's no mean feat, but I'm not surprised to hear such ideas from you!

 

[Distracted DM]

None of the poll options quite express my opinion on the matter, which is that I really like the idea of wild magic, but I pretty much never like the execution. What I really want from wild magic is something more akin to wild meta-magic. Like, something goes wrong with the spell you were trying to cast, and it comes out different than you expected - maybe it does more or less damage than usual, maybe does a different type of damage, maybe it affects a bigger or smaller area, maybe it lasts a longer or shorter time, maybe it hits a different target, or just more targets, etc. Maybe there’s even a small side-effect not directly related to the spell you were trying to cast, but it should still ultimately feel like a mishap that resulted from your spell going awry, not like a completely random nonsense thing coincidentally happened at the same time as you cast your spell. “The fireball you were trying to cast had a larger radius than you expected and some of your allies got caught in the blast” feels like wild magic. “Your Charm Person charmed the wrong person” feels like wild magic. “Your chain lightning turned into some sort of chain frost bolt” feels like wild magic. “LOL, you’re a potted plant for the rest of your turn” feels stupid.

This is largely how DCC magic works. Every spell has multiple degrees of success and what it does. IIRC magic missile goes from magic missiles to a dragonball Kamehameha wave.
Or you could always roll really badly and get random bad effects.

 

[Zardnaar]

I dislike wild magic, but if someone else in the group loves it, I won't speak that dislike aloud. I find it generally tedious, disruptive, and uninteresting: it takes up far too much time to add far too little excitement and far too much chance of extreme consequences (meaning, any chance at all).

Depending on edition should probably check if everyone's ok with it.

Fireball the party level 1 or 2. Odds are low but not 0.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Depending on edition should probably check if everyone's ok with it.

Fireball the party level 1 or 2. Odds are low but not 0.

My stance on that will always be that I won't yuck someone else's yum, but if there are other things that would excite them just as much, I'd prefer they consider those other things first. If they have their heart set on it though, more power to them--and I'll be sure to stay at least one fireball's radius away from them.

 

[Distracted DM]

I love improvising and random tables so wild magic has always been my love, but I very much understand why it should be something that the group is OK with.

13th Age had a very interesting wild mage.. you rolled every round and that round you'd only be able to cast either utility, support/defense, or offensive spells. IIRC they did have some sort of a wild surge table as well... But I just liked having to deal with whatever the dice gave me at the time, re: attack defense etc.

 

[Shiroiken]

It doesn't come up very often, outside of the 2E spell that deliberately caused a Wild Surge. Overall I have little issue with it, but I don't see the appeal. It can be rather annoying, however, when you accidentally kill half the party with a fireball (as happened to me at 1st level in a 5E14 campaign).