Wild Spellcraft quibble

[Cheiromancer]

I don't like the way that rolls on the mishap are modified by other factors. No matter whether it is the spellcaster's will save, or some sort of benefical (or baneful) addition.

The reason I don't like it is because it only effects the ends of the chart. Adding a high modifier means the bottom of the chart doesn't get used at all, but the 96-00 result comes up far more frequently. Every other result has its probability unchanged.

Conversely, a big negative modifier means that the top of the chart never gets used, but the 01-05 result comes up much more frequently. The probability of the next lowest result is unchanged.

This bugs me. If the modifier applied to a preliminary roll which determines whether you roll on a good chart or a bad chart, that might work. (Under 50- bad chart; over 50, good chart). Especially if the charts weren't completely good or bad.

However, this doubles the number of rolls and the number of charts, which is a definite downside. Is there any other way of addressing this issue?

 

[RangerWickett]

The chart was laid out so that good effects are higher on the list, and bad effects are lower. Overall, a person with a good will save will have better overall mishaps than someone with a poor will save, or someone who has a curse of some sort. The effects from about 40 to 60 are as neutral as I could make them, while the effects of 30 or less get progressively worse, and 70 or above get progressively better. So your desire for a good chart and bad chart is worked into the one main chart.

Aside from 01-05 to 96-100, very little on the chart is _always_ good or _always_ bad. You're more likely to be casting spells on neutral things or on foes than on allies, so an effect that says, "Target takes 5 damage" is usually a good thing, but it can sometimes be a bad thing if you're trying to help your friends with a spell.

When I do up the print version, I'm going to edit it so the adding of your Will save bonus is an optional rule. It should have been from the get-go.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Well, I agree that 96-00 is always good, I'm not sure that 01-05 is always bad. After all, you might be intending to cast the spell on yourself. Or it might be a beneficial spell.

06-10, now that is always bad! You take damage *and* you lose the spell.

Perhaps I'll try it with with those two items flipped.

Thanks for the speedy response.

 

[RangerWickett]

Oh, wow. . . . I can't believe I overlooked that. *blinks* Thanks. Consider it errata that will go into the print version.