• 1
• 2

Klas
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun 04 Nov 2012, 19:17

### Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

Most current spells either do not have "effect ladders" when cast with more WP, or they max out at ~3 WP. (The exceptions are exponential functions that need to be fixed anyway, let's not get into that.) This means the mishap ladder for the number of rolled 1's isn't steep enough. In most situations the chance of rolling three 1's is going to be just 1 in 6*6*6 = 1/216 because the spellbinder has no real reason to use more than 3 dice.

Basically I'd like the effect of the mishap to be related to the number of dice rolled, not the number of 1's rolled. Something like this:

* You roll at least one 1: Mishap == number of dice rolled.
* Decrease mishap by spending more WP down to a minimum of 1.
* Mishap 1 => take fatigue == dice rolled. Alternatively, take misery against INT.

9littlebees
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2017, 14:22
Location: Rural Germany
Contact:

### Re: Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

* You roll at least one 1: Mishap == number of dice rolled.
* Decrease mishap by spending more WP down to a minimum of 1.
* Mishap 1 => take fatigue == dice rolled. Alternatively, take misery against INT.
Not following, sorry.  Can you clarify this a bit, please?

Klas
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun 04 Nov 2012, 19:17

### Re: Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

I don't have the English version of the rules in front of me but basically the current mishap ladder looks like this:

* One 1 : Take 1p fatigue misery.
* Two 1's: The spell works but also works on an unintended target. E.g. a friend takes damage or a foe is healed.
* Three 1's: The spell backfires. GM's time to shine.

If you roll at least one 1, check this table:
* You take a number of fatigue points equal to the number of dice rolled to cast the spell.
* If the number of dice rolled == 2, the spell works but also works on an unintended target.
* If the number of dice rolled >= 3, the spell backfires. GM's time to shine.
You may reduce the mishap level by spending more WP but will always take a number of fatigue points equal to the number of dice rolled.

Klas
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun 04 Nov 2012, 19:17

### Re: Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

So if you cast three dice and rolled 1/3/4, you'd take 3 points of fatigue, plus the spell backfires.

If you spend one extra WP the effect is reduced thus: You take 3 points of fatigue, plus the spell works on an unintended target.

If you spend two extra WP the effect is reduced thus: You take 3 points of fatigue.

It is not possible to spend three WP to completely cancel the mishap.

9littlebees
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2017, 14:22
Location: Rural Germany
Contact:

### Re: Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

Ah right, I understand now, thanks.

For what it's worth, I also was a bit unimpressed with that table, and I think your solution is a good one, made better by its simplicity.  Essentially, the more magic you are channeling, the greater the chance it will backfire spectacularly.

While I like it, it may be just a bit too harsh for some groups, especially many here on the forums who seem to want a more high-fantasy feel to the magic system (cantrips, easier access to WP, etc).

Klas
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun 04 Nov 2012, 19:17

### Re: Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

We already house ruled it that ingredients are mandatory. I guess I'll add this to the list ; )
(Requiring ingredients makes for fun play btw. Spellbinders suddenly have a real incentive to rob each other for e.g. dog teeth and other items that are totally useless to most people.)

9littlebees
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2017, 14:22
Location: Rural Germany
Contact:

### Re: Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

Another idea (adapted from WFRP) is that when doubles or triples turn up, a misfire happens.

So when using 3 dice, the chances of 2 dice being the same is pretty high, and there's a chance (though low) of triples, too. Doubles would replace the 2 skull result on the Magic Mishaps table, and triples would replace the 3 skull result.

You can then say if no doubles or triples are rolled, but there is a 1 in the pool, this replaces the table's entry for 1 skull (1 point of Fatigue).

This wouldn't make rolls using 1WP particularly dangerous, but it certainly would be hazardous to use 3!

On the "deadly" scale, it's kind of somewhere between RAW and your suggestion, Klas.

Jizmack
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri 12 Feb 2016, 23:48

### Re: Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

So if you cast three dice and rolled 1/3/4, you'd take 3 points of fatigue, plus the spell backfires.

If you spend one extra WP the effect is reduced thus: You take 3 points of fatigue, plus the spell works on an unintended target.

If you spend two extra WP the effect is reduced thus: You take 3 points of fatigue.

It is not possible to spend three WP to completely cancel the mishap.
The probability of rolling one or more 1s on 3D6 is 42%.
So, there is a ~ 3/7 chance that by rolling 3 dice the spellbinder will suffer 3 fatigue, and then will have have to spend 2 more Willpower to avoid GM wrath.
Those odds will just about eliminate the option of rolling 3 dice.

Blatifagus
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu 17 Dec 2015, 12:43
Location: Marjura

### Re: Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

Those odds are ludicrous. Why would anyone use magic if there's that high a chance for a disaster?
Would you push a button to kill your enemy if there's a 42% chance to kill you or your friend instead?
Hell no!

I like volatile and unpredictable magic, but it can't be down right suicidal to use. In a world where magic is THAT unpredictable, there wouldn't be any magicians.

Klas
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun 04 Nov 2012, 19:17

### Re: Spell casting doesn't seem risky enough

It may be too harsh. What I do want to accomplish is a you-better-have-a-backup-plan sense about it and a high risk of things going quite wrong. Paying down a few extra WP doesn't seem terrible in itself if you accept that casting spells is not an ordinary activity even for accomplished mages. Especially if it means you actually have a means to mitigate disaster, which the current rules don't provide.
• 1
• 2

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests