Your Magic Is Killing Us

[GSHamster]

From a mechanical standpoint, I think systems where magic has an in-combat risk have balance issues, especially if randomness is involved. Because a magic price could take the wizard out of the fight, you have to make her spells correspondingly more powerful.

If I made a "magic has a price" system, I would delay any consequences to after the combat is resolved. Let combat play out with mage spending her spells as necessary. Then after the combat she pays the price.

Of course, this changes the effectiveness of prices. HP damage is less effective, because it only has an effect if it does enough damage to kill the character. So you'd probably have to use some other penalty.

 

[Stormonu]

I had a system which used failure and backfire for metamagic.

If you had a metamagic feat, anyone could apply it on the fly to any of their spells (wizard, sorcerer, whatever).

The metamagic feat didn't increase spell level though - it gave a failure chance, of 10% per '+' applied.

i.e.
Enlarge spell - 10% failure
Empower spell - 20% failure
Maximise spell - 30% failure
Quicken spell - 40% failure
Empowered, Maximised, Quickened spell - 90% failure.

If a spell failed, it was used up (spell gone/spell slot used up). AND you had to make a same % check - if you failed again, the spell backfired; a damaging spell or effect ended up hitting you. Divination would give wrong information, protection would make you vulnerable etc.

Cheers

eh, I'm not a fan of random spell failure checks. I'm more of a "what are you willing to give up for that spell to work" kinda guy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

From a mechanical standpoint, I think systems where magic has an in-combat risk have balance issues, especially if randomness is involved. Because a magic price could take the wizard out of the fight, you have to make her spells correspondingly more powerful.

If I made a "magic has a price" system, I would delay any consequences to after the combat is resolved. Let combat play out with mage spending her spells as necessary. Then after the combat she pays the price.

Of course, this changes the effectiveness of prices. HP damage is less effective, because it only has an effect if it does enough damage to kill the character. So you'd probably have to use some other penalty.

As long as the system is designed so that it's safe to assume that only the most flagrant overuse of magic can take the mage out of the fight, you don't need to make things more powerful at all. If you need at least 51 points of feedback (Wyrd) to have a serious penalty, and a 9th level spell can only give you 4d6 points, you need to overuse/fumble with 9th level spells at least 3-4 times in a given adventure before that becomes a concern. Being able to cast 3-4 extra 9th level spells per adventure with only minor penalties is pretty generous.

Admittedly, mages have a bit more lasting power in this system (which does equate to raw power on some level). A simple solution might be that they receive 1 less spell slot per spell level. When they are first able to cast a new spell level, a wizard is akin to a bard in that he can cast 0 spells per day of that level plus bonus spells (sorcerers would be reduced to 2 spells per day). So a wizard without enough Intelligence to have bonus spells would be forced to accrue Wyrd in order to cast his highest level spells when he first gains access to them. There's decent flavor in that, as the next level demonstrates the Wizard's mastery of that level of magic (he now has spell slots in addition to any possible bonus spells, and can cast spells of that level without accruing Wyrd).

I think the whole point of a system like this is to make it possible for casters to use the system without abusing the system. If they can't use it to their advantage from time to time, it's a flat penalty (which works for a setting like Warhammer, but doesn't necessarily suit a classic D&D setting). If they can abuse the system without meaningful consequences it's simply broken, of course.

It's important to have clearly designated "tiers" of penalties so that they can't accidentally blunder into a crippling penalty under normal circumstances. However, if they're near the edge of a tier and make a conscious decision to take that risk, then the player ought to be able to live with that choice if it takes him out of the fight. Otherwise, risk vs reward becomes meaningless.

 

[Dausuul]

As long as the system is designed so that it's safe to assume that only the most flagrant overuse of magic can take the mage out of the fight, you don't need to make things more powerful at all. If you need at least 51 points of feedback (Wyrd) to have a serious penalty, and a 9th level spell can only give you 4d6 points, you need to overuse/fumble with 9th level spells at least 3-4 times in a given adventure before that becomes a concern. Being able to cast 3-4 extra 9th level spells per adventure with only minor penalties is pretty generous.

Admittedly, mages have a bit more lasting power in this system (which does equate to raw power on some level). A simple solution might be that they receive 1 less spell slot per spell level. When they are first able to cast a new spell level, a wizard is akin to a bard in that he can cast 0 spells per day of that level plus bonus spells (sorcerers would be reduced to 2 spells per day). So a wizard without enough Intelligence to have bonus spells would be forced to accrue Wyrd in order to cast his highest level spells when he first gains access to them. There's decent flavor in that, as the next level demonstrates the Wizard's mastery of that level of magic (he now has spell slots in addition to any possible bonus spells, and can cast spells of that level without accruing Wyrd).

You could even go farther, and scrap the whole spells-per-day mechanic. Instead, you accumulate (for example) 3d6 wyrd for casting a spell of your highest available level, 2d6 for the next highest, 1d6 for the next highest, and all others are free to cast as often as you like. Fine-tune as needed to bring wizard power level into line with where you need it to be.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You could even go farther, and scrap the whole spells-per-day mechanic. Instead, you accumulate (for example) 3d6 wyrd for casting a spell of your highest available level, 2d6 for the next highest, 1d6 for the next highest, and all others are free to cast as often as you like. Fine-tune as needed to bring wizard power level into line with where you need it to be.

True, though you might need to tweak mages to be more along the lines of sword & spell users (think Gandalf) for that to work. Unless Wyrd resets daily, it might create too much long-term attrition of a mage's magical effectiveness, so a fall back competency could be a good idea. Only a stupidly reckless level 1 mage should be at risk for accumulating 101+ Wyrd, but you don't want a conservative mage to have to twiddle his thumbs because he's too close to the next tier to risk casting another spell. It's one thing for a mage to run out of spells for that day; it's quite another for him to run out of spells for the next week/month/whatever.

Overall, I like the idea. I just think there needs to be a way for casters below 7th level to avoid reaching a point where they start a new day not daring to cast due to the Wyrd they've accumulated, but aren't competent at anything else. Also, allowing high level casters to throw around unlimited 6th level spells might be a bit too generous. The highest I'd let the free cap go would be somewhere around 3rd level spells.

Perhaps Wizards (of the frail, non-Gandalf variety) would have a daily "spell point" pool that allows them to ablate a reasonable amount of Wyrd each day. This would guarantee them x number of spells per day, even before 7th level.

Sorcerers, on the other hand, would have decent melee ability as well as spells, but little or no capacity to absorb Wyrd. The more magic they use the more they have to rely on their ability to melee, otherwise they'll be hitting the big penalties in no time.

 

[Stormonu]

Going with the Wyrd, my thoughts would be to have spells accumulate Wyrd as follows:

0th - 3rd: 0 Wyrd
4th: 1d6 Wyrd/spell
5th: 2d6 Wyrd/spell
6th: roll 3d6, keep the 2 highest die Wyrd/spell
7th: 3d6 Wyrd/spell
8th: roll 4d6, keep the 3 highest die Wyrd/spell
9th: 4d6 Wyrd/spell

Casting an extra spell beyond your normal limit: +1d6/2 spell levels Wyrd. To keep this from getting excessive at low levels, perhaps a limit that you cannot cast spells after you accrue Wyrd equal to 3x your level.

(Suggested) Wyrd effects:
0-10: No effect
11-15: Temporary Non-mechanical sensory effect, fatigued for 1 minute
16-25: Temporary physical manifestation and -1 penalty to checks, fatigued for 1 minute
26-35: Lasting physical manifestation (LPM) and -2 penalty to checks, fatigued for 1 minute
36-45: LPM, Ability damage (-1 to ability score) and -3 penalty to checks, exhausted
46-50: LPM, Ability damage (-2 to ability score) and -4 penalty to checks, exhausted
51-55: Permanent physical manifestion, Ability damage (-3 to ability score) and -5 penalty to checks, exhausted
56+: Permanent physical manifestion, Ability damage (-4) and -6 penalty to checks, 1d4 damage (+1d4/10 add'l points of Wyrd), exhausted

 

[NN]

How about that old school favorite : spell material components

Make the components for powerful spells expensive, rare, or just plain immoral

As a refinement, you could tweak it so spells can be cast without components / or with substitute components - but at personal cost (damage, curses, etc.) .

 

[Stormonu]

How about that old school favorite : spell material components

Make the components for powerful spells expensive, rare, or just plain immoral

While that is one viable solution, straight-up gold detracts from the "magical feel" IMO. The player just marks the gold off the character sheet and there's no second thought about it. Likewise, if the every spell basically requires a quest or hunt for components to cast it, that gets old and annoying quick - especially if "regular" adventures have to be put on hold to go seek out the wizard's components.

Again, it can work, but it doesn't really invoke the feeling that I am looking for - in that magic is a dangerous thing - not just to the wizard's enemies, but sometimes to himself as well.

Now, immoral component might work - if it's something the wizard himself has to be involved/do, and it's something more than HP/ability damage (which the cleric or healing magic can just patch up).

 

[mmadsen]

You should find some useful food for thought in Magic as Plot Device -- With Rules.