*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 02:56:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686663
  • Total Topics: 118120
  • Online Today: 815
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: An Alternate Spellcasting Method?  (Read 1111 times)

Offline casual tea

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 79
    • instagram.com/dlyanf
An Alternate Spellcasting Method?
« on: April 23, 2018, 07:05:37 AM »
It came up in a post game talk with a friend today; what if  rather than announcing what spell your wizard is trying to cast and then rolling for it, instead roll the die first and decide what spell you can cast with it? Has anybody tried this? If so how does the game play? It seemed like a fun idea that might enable some interesting gameplay. I also like the mental image of wizards trying to muster their magical mojo with varying success and effect.

Offline mrhytl

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 28
Re: An Alternate Spellcasting Method?
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2018, 08:13:57 AM »
... apart from the fact that you will never ever take damage from failing a casting threshold or even empowering it, it sounds like a neat idea.
but the lack of consequences makes magic just another tool and not a wavering and dangerous thing that should not be tempered with.

thus: "thanks but no thanks" for me.

while we're at it: has anyone tried to substitute 1d20 with 2d10 and leave the crit out of the game?

Offline casual tea

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 79
    • instagram.com/dlyanf
Re: An Alternate Spellcasting Method?
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2018, 07:34:34 PM »
... apart from the fact that you will never ever take damage from failing a casting threshold or even empowering it, it sounds like a neat idea.
but the lack of consequences makes magic just another tool and not a wavering and dangerous thing that should not be tempered with.

thus: "thanks but no thanks" for me.
Indeed, it would mean that you'd be less likely to take damage, but rolling a 1 is still rolling a 1, right? However it might also mean that wizards more consistently performing some sort of useful magical action, and mitigate some unfortunate die rolling that might otherwise ruin all your plans. Unclear until I can actually try it.

Personally I've never really liked taking damage from low spellcasting rolls as a rule anyway. It feels like it needlessly discourages trying to cast the more difficult spells. I've also been considering using a homebrew fumble table for spells instead.


while we're at it: has anyone tried to substitute 1d20 with 2d10 and leave the crit out of the game?
I don't typically use crit in my games. People I've played with generally agree it's a little extra. As far as as replacing a d20 with 2d10, I have never tried it. What I know about probability, with 2d10 you'd mostly be rolling between 7-14, and it would no longer be possible to roll a 1. It would certainly make things less swingy, but might also make it very difficult to damage high armor characters, for example.

Offline Murawski1812

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 55
Re: An Alternate Spellcasting Method?
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2018, 12:22:44 PM »
Hmmm, that is interesting.. you could always have a crit on snake eyes? I love the chance for failure and damage.. it adds to the chances or randomness and how magic is uncontrollable and dangerous to cast. It also does impair min-maxing too....