I think it's really significant that Shadowdark and Dungeon Crawl Classics went with roll to cast. Vancian magic has a long history with D&D, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if roll to cast ended up edging out Vancian magic within the OSR scene. Especially since umpredictability, gonzo, deadliness, and low level play seem to be more popular in the current OSR than progression to high-level play, resource management, and strategic play. If you mostly play in one-shots and short campaigns, then I can see why rolling to cast would be preferable to Vancian magic. I do also think fantasy influences have a part in this. Outside of D&D, Jack Vance's books aren't that popular or influential anymore, so they aren't directly influencing designers like they used to. Vancian magic is very specific to D&D and Jack Vance, whereas unpredictable magic is more representative of fantasy magic broadly.
@@SorobanWorld My preference is to allow both by implementing: · spells utilizing each style; · skills/feats to flip the method to cast; · alternate material components/foci that change the casting type; · classes utilizing either or both.
Good point. I think as long as the roll to cast is interesting it can add that gonzo element. I’ve just found most of the systems not interesting and very harsh to casters with little benefit.
Roll to cast is so much more fun to my taste... DCC and Shadowdark. I love the idea/feel that magic is rare and unpredictable. No denying though, that dcc's implementation is very, very crunchy and it can really slow things down with a table of casual players. SD seems like a more streamlined version of DCC in many respects, including magic.
I've been playing Shadowdark RPG for over a year now, and I like the roll to cast system. A wizard is not a one-hit wonder at level 1. You start knowing 3 spells and you cast them as often as you want until you fail the check. On a critical success, you double one aspect of the spell, such as damage, duration, or range. On a natural 1, you roll on the mishap table. It's simple and flexible.
Dungeon World has a similar mechanic for casting and what worries me about it is that these game operate under the assumption the characters won't be fully optimized so the chances of failing are high to mid. If you optimize, you can easily spam powerful spells before you actually get a failure.
@@BanditsKeep the crunch has to develop and enhance the setting and fluff. A wizard without spells better have some other mechanical tricks up the sleeve.
Much of the OSR is based on B/X and let's face it... Low-level magic users suck in BX. Yes, Charm and Sleep are very powerful and a creative player could come up with plenty of ways to contribute w/out magic, but in my experience anyway, most players really struggle with low level magic users. SDs more streamlined roll to cast system is more fun but not OP or riskless.
One thing I hate is Saving Throws. They just ruin too many spells for the spellcasters. So I just traded them for Roll to cast on any spell that affects/attacks an enemy. It gives the spellcaster a chance to roll dice for success rather than the DM taking success from the player via saving throw.
Simple solution for the "DM ruins the spell with a save" is to have the caster make the roll. It's an optional rule that first appeared in 3.0. The active character makes the rolls against a passive difficulty. So, for example, a D&D caster instead of producing a save DC of 10 plus spell level plus ability modifier, rolls a d20 plus spell level plus ability modifier, which is then compared to 10 plus the base save of the targeted enemy. In this way, it is the caster who decides if its spell works or not, not the DM. In any d20 System game, everything can be either a check or a DC, depending if you add a d20 roll or a plain 10 to whatever base score plus modifiers you get. I do prefer to add 11, though, since it gives exactly a 50% chance when on equal terms.
GLOG has a roll to cast mechanic where a wizard has a die pool of d6s. When you cast a spell, choose how many you want to expend. The spell results often have a [number of dice] and a [sum of roll] effecting the outcome. Rolling high is a more powerful spell, but 1, 2 and 3s go back into the pool after casting and are not expended.
Always happy to see DCC's magic system talked up! I really like using the Purple Sorcerer app for spells (and a bunch of other roll-related stuff) because it eliminates all the lookup time. Totally streamlines DCC to the point that I wish GG made their own apps (blasphemy I know, but it's just so helpful!)
I really like how Beyond the Wall treats roll to cast. Normal Spells are not roll-to-cast, a magician can cast a number of spells equal to caster level, but these spells lack levels and generally reflect level 1 or 2 dnd spells. Cantrips are low power magic that are always available, but must be rolled to cast. On failure they might cause the reversed effect or some other disaster. Light might cause darkness. A hex might hex the caster instead of the target. Rituals are high power magic that require specific ingredients and an hours-long rite to cast. Rituals are roll-to-cast and have levels of increasing power. If the Ritual roll is failed after it is completed, the general effects of the ritual take place, but with a twist. A failed cloud of fog might result in a sickly mist which covers the entire realm. A failed fireball might unleash the imprisoned fire elemental who was intended to fuel the magic. So you don’t always roll-to-cast, but when you do, something interesting happens either way.
Hi Daniel! I personally use a modified Chainmail table (but I'm still playtesting it). The spell can be "instant", "delayed 1 round" (count as instant in exploration), "negated" (count as delayed 1 turn in exploration), or "negated, and unable to cast for [Level of the Spell]d6 turns". I added the "unable to cast" option because, since we're talking about Chainmail, the table was created with conflict in mind, not exploration, so it doesn't take into account all the "utility" spells that could rapidly break the resource management aspect of OD&D (and that's why I need to playtest it more).
Rolling to cast can be fun BUT, I think what makes classic D&D great is that some of the classes actually have a completely different play style. There are some players that don’t like being at the mercy of the dice. Traditional vancian casters can select and plan their spells in advance and they can choose spells that will always be successful when cast. Thus the player feels like they live and die by their own decisions, and feel rewarded from that. As opposed to the fighter class that embraces the chaos of luck and that die roll. When we make all of the classes play the same (magic-users having to roll to cast) we may alienate or remove the fun for those players that prefer removing as much luck as possible in their actions.
I am playing in a Mythras game in the Thennla setting. There are different types of magic starting with Folk Magic, Mysticism, Sorcery, Theistic magic, and a few other categories. There are also rituals, and a bunch of other stuff. It makes magic less generic. Spells are rolled by percentage. If people are looking for ideas they can check it out. I'm sure you could mess with it a little bit and make it for other systems.
I really like Tales of Argosa's roll to cast system. The mix of some spells getting bonuses on a Great Success, a limited number of spell uses and Dark And Dangerous Magic effects being random and not just exploding the character makes it a lot of fun.
I agree, ToA is a good balance between the DCC system and DnD. We play ToA all the time and spell casters are always pondering when and where is the best time to cast a spell and even non-spell casters will chime in as to if a spell is needed as they understand how much the spell's risk is compared to what the party might get out of it.
The first I thought of when your video started was Chainmail and then you launched into it. The second thing I thought of was Empire of the Petal Throe. It had a roll to cast mechanic based on character level with bonuses with bonuses for a high Psychic Ability (a stat which took the place of Wisdom in the 6 ability scores) and limitations on the level of spell you could cast for a low ability (there were only 3 l3v3ls of spell complexity). There were skills you gained as you leveled up (some were spells and others were things like Read Ancient Language) and a possibility of Bonus Spells gained as you levelled up. Spells typically had limits on how many times they could be cast (typically 1-2 times a day) but you could choose the same Bonus Spell more than once. Some spells were only usable once a week iirc. I've tinkered with this type of system myself, because who doesn't like to homebrew :D
I've been looking at Dragonbane, which requires Willpower (sort of a mental HP) to cast spells and do some other things, and the more you invest, the more that the spell can do. There is a roll to cast where nothing can happen, sort of against what you like. But you don't lose the spell (it's not Vancian) and there's enough of a choice, albeit a simple one, that I think it would work well, especially for newer players or just those new to playing spell casters.
I'm currently designing a magic system, where when making spells, they have variable power levels. A spell at melee range (ex burning hands) on a single target can have a guaranteed effect, but do low damage. A spell effecting multiple targets, at range, and they get to save, will have much more potential damage, at a lower chance. Basically a series of conditions (range, targets, save difficulty, etc) that determine what size of dice is used to calculate the final damage (or other effect) of the spell
I've never GM'd or played in a roll-to-cast system, but I do like the idea of it. I did just wrap up GMing a 4-year Tales of Argona (formerly Low Fantasy Gaming) campaign, and my players and I really liked the Dark & Dangerous Magic rules therein. I've often thought of borrowing that idea, along with a basic roll-to-cast mechanic, and home-brewing it into my next Hyperborea game. It's still percolating in my mind.
Yeah, it would be a good fit for Hyperborea, it being a sword & sorcery style game. That was my main gripe, it using standard AD&D Vancian magic. Dangerous magic is most appropriate for that sub-genre, at least in my idea of it.
Great ideas as always, have a Merry Christmas man! As for me I focus on most of it being ritual based where a character has to conduct as many parts and avoid anything that could negatively effect the ritual, then they add all the modifiers and roll to see the result, ranking up to greater and better effects to the ritual going wrong and or doing something that could be quite negative to the PC, NPCs in the area or the general region.
The system I'm designing doesn't use roll-to-cast, but it does use roll-for-effect. Some spells just automatically do their thing, sure, but most require you to roll for the power of the resulting effect. This occurs during a series of rolls, each of which may be able to be manipulated by other player-effects to increase the likelyhood of a more favorable result. That, and each spellcaster has a limited number of known spells, plus a number of other spells which are randomly chosen each day. Some classes get more random spells, but less reliable ways to choose to cast any random or known spells they have available. Other classes get fewer random spells, but may freely choose to cast any known or random spell they have available.
The best roll to cast system I've ever used is Rolemaster 1st and 2nd Edition. There is a variability of results that go from total and disastrous failure to spectacular success, with many details in the descriptions. Critical hits in particular, based on the type of magic, are particularly tasty. The other is Talislanta 4th Edition, where spell casters invent their own spells and write their own grimoires.
This is how I do it: Spells are mostly taken fron DCC, but I squashed the range of effects to 4 possible levels, still of increasing power. You roll to cast 1d12 + 1d6 for power level, under your WIS/INT ( first level is 0d6, which is basically a cantrip, last level is usually HUGE ). If you fail there's a misfire effect, rolled on a table, proportional to the number of dice rolled. More common ( less disastrous ) misfires erode the mage INT / WIS, so there's no need for spell slots, the capacity to launch spells itself degrades in time until the mage rests. (imo) PRO: - there's a minigame of push your luck everytime you want to use a spell; Rolling on the fringe of your INT value, when in desperate need of a powerful outcome, is fun. - magic is chaotic, which I find more fitting, choosing spells to load into slots it's good for strategic play but not emergent stories. I find "the more i fail the more I stress my mind" mechanic more "realistic" than slots, but that of course depends on ones fantasy... CON: - sometimes combat becomes slower - I need to rewrite every spell in the book 😄 IE: "What's seemingly the leader of the three makes a gesture with his arm, and you see another half-dozen bandits armed with swords and crossbows emerge from the surrounding forest." "I try to cast Sleep." "On all of them?" "Yes, I roll 1d12 + 2d6, it should be enough." "Alright." "Oops, failed." "Oops, critical misfire: every non-magical living being within a 500-meter radius makes a saving throw at disadvantage or falls asleep."
I love DCC. The roll to cast mechanic is something I really like because it gives magic, divine or arcane, more of a feeling of wrestling with cosmic energies. Vancian magic makes magic use feel more mundane, like shooting a gun that can't ever misfire. You basically pull the trigger (cast) until you run out of bullets (spell slots). I understand that different people have different power fantasies and Vancian magic is perfectly fine for those who want to play spell slingers but to me, magic feels best when it's volatile and speaks to the notion that it's not a plaything to be mettled with nonchalantly.
I have tinkered a bit with a roll to cast system. I used the % chance to know spell as a roll to cast each spell. For a MU with a 18 Int. they have an 85% chance to succeed. If they fail, then they roll a 2nd time and either nothing happens, or the spell goes off at half effect. I use a spell point system so casters can cast as long as they have points left.
I used to use a roll to cast system in my homebrew game, though I'd say it was more of a Vancian/roll to cast hybrid. You still prepared spells by level, but you needed to roll 2d6 to successfully cast them and once cast they were forgotten and had to be reprepared (there was a whole table for casters where the target number decreased for each level as you leveled up, much like the turn undead table for clerics, and at high levels low level spells could even be cast quicker than normal. Failing to reach the target number didn't indicate a failed casting, but an incomplete one, and you could try to cast again next round with a third d6 added to the roll, and again until the casting succeeds, the spell's abandoned, or the caster is interrupted). The catch was you could reprepare spell any time you had a bit of downtime (at least 10 minutes, depending on spell level and caster level). The limiting factor was that each spell cast inflicted fatigue (non-lethal damage) on the caster, again with a massive chart to track how fatigue costs went down with level. At a certain point though I got frustrated with groups stopping all the time in the dungeon to reprepare after each fight, so I switched to the simpler classic Vancian system. I think I should look into the chainmail system though, because it does seem simple enough for my liking and provides a different feel.
Cool. I can see the party wanting to stop and recharge spells when given the chance, I think that is why I often lean toward simple Vancian 1 time per adventure casting.
I only just recently managed to read The Dying Earth (first ever polish edition came out in 2024!) and I fell in love with the original vancian model. Since in my game players cannot be magic-users, I used this inspiration to make my psionics more interesting. With grid-based encumbrance system, I make the psionics "encode" new powers (the spells) into their own minds using the space in the grid, adding that "some [of these powers are] weighting more than a solid armor and blade." And each power has two effects: dormant - a passive effect of the power, and manifested - the "one and gone" effect.
Or just play Gurps where rolling to cast a spell is incorporated into the game and its rules. Just as a sword strike needs to be rolled, so too does a spell cast. And they are likely just as quick (limit 1 spell per second though). Also just as a target can dodge a weapon they can also resist many spells. In many ways a spell is very similar to physical combat. Even casting a spell at a target too far away gets penalties to cast just like firing a bow at someone at range. There are major differences in exactly how this is done - a spell is neither a sword nor a bow - but the core concepts are the same. Of course, a spell could take the form of a melee or missile weapon and then be exactly the same with only the conjuration being spell-like. Point is, Gurps has done this successfully and seamlessly for the last 40 years. Adding personal house rules to a mess of published D&D house rules is not making it any better. Not when what you really should be doing is playing a different game that already does what you want.
OK now this is inspiring Daniel. Old school Vancian magic is tough at low level: very few spells per day, limitation on spell levels (and power), losing a spell if hit in combat. Also you have many systems that ask the wizard character to hunt for or otherwise earn new spells through efforts and research, making it being a wizard a real pain but for the more dedicated players. The "oh but old school spells are much more powerful" is both true and untrue. Some of them are powerful, sure, but there are all the more humble "quality of life" spells that get thrown away because you'd rather keep your slot for Sleep. This system sounds golden: it allows a chance to cast higher level spells at low level, making it exciting to learn "any" spell because you can use it immediately. Being it in combat doesn't mean you lost your only spell for the day. And obviously your wizard doesn't feel "useless" or less-than-a-wizard after they have cast their 2 daily spells. The counterspell sounds fun. Also you might add your INT bonus to the roll, making it Intelligence matter much more for wizard classes. I don't like the restriction on spell carrying capacity per level, so I think I'd implement a "natural 1" negative effect or similar to limit spell usage and force players into making choices. Great video and insights!
I don't know... I'm using slot encumbrance and could say that spell books take up more slots than they do. I could also ask players to "review-prepare" a certain number of spells each morning they intend using, so they may use X spells per day but are able to chose new ones every day if needed. But eventually, I'm using Dolmenwood where spellbooks are rare and either need to be learned from a mentor (quests) or stolen (risky). You can find spells in the wild but that means exploring and fighting spell gardians/audrunes. So where I see how "unlimited spells" can sound OP, spells in Dolmenwood are kinda hard to find or earn so I am not too scared tbh. I definitely feel the need to pimp DW's magic system
Roll for damage type spells to hit but not to cast... I use the open air travel type casting for effects. Hahnukin' style. So the area between the caster and the target has to be clear. All spells that don't require the target to save just work.
Played a lot of Shadowrun...so ShadowDark works well for us when we play our fantasy games. But we changed the system so that there is a power feedback when you fail a spell just like in Shadowrun. Also...a portal / rip in the warp can open and a spirit can come through. Its works for me as DM.
Fantasy Craft rpg has an eccellent Magic System in which you have to.cast spells, and now, even though it's almost a discontinued game System, it's my game of choice for fantasy. Also Fantasy Age by Green Ronin has a fantastic Rolling-to-Cast Spells Magic System
We’ve stumbled upon similar properties in the system we’re developing. Charisma casters roll to cast. The spell attack roll is the number you have it beat when trying to counter spell. Spell points can be used to boost.
Have you checked out the Dying Earth supplement for DCC? Interesting mix of DCC and the DnD take on Vancian magic. You roll when learning and spell (and if you want to upon leveling up to potentially improve it) to see its effect, but it casts at that level all the time until it’s improved. There’s also a second magic system that allows for more spontaneous, DCCish casting, but I’m less familiar with it.
Nice review! After a LONG time of testing, i ended up preferring "roll to cast", but ... i appreciate that a character should have limited energy/stamina/fuel per day with magic or with any other special feature. i tinkered with different ways of characters spending stamina or constitution points, luck or hero points, etc that you can see in various game systems. i enjoy learning about different game mechanics, and your review here is helpful to guide through the key points.
I play GURPS a lot, and its (basic) magic system is much different from D&D and its clones. In GURPS, a character learns a spell as if it were a skill -- like sword skill, riding skill, etc -- and rolls 3d6 to cast; the skill level is the target number and the goal is to roll equal to or under the target number. If you build your character right, you can end up with a pretty respectable skill level in your spells, meaning that a failure to cast is a rare event. There is no spell memorization -- you know every spell you have learned, and provided you have the energy to cast, you can cast. If you fail a cast, you just lose a single energy point and lose your turn. Critical Failures are really rare, like a little over 1% in most cases, so when they happen it's a big deal!
@@BanditsKeep At higher skill levels you can mitigate the cost of each spell by 1 or 2 points. If you keep your effects small you can cast less taxing spells all day with zero fatigue. You might only stop when you get bored or run out of targets. But even with super high skill the chance of failure is never zero. On a 3d6 bell curve casting a spell repeatedly for hours (3600 times/hour?) is almost guaranteed to fail (16+) or critically fail (17+) at some point. Same can be said about swinging a sword. Eventually you will miss or mess up, drop the weapon, have it turn in your hand, stumble your footing, swipe your own leg, etc. Additionally Gurps has Powerstones - a battery gem that can hold a number of fatigue to use in spellcasting. By using these you needn't ever get tired. However for play balance they are slow and/or complicated to charge. They tend to only get used sparingly and only in very serious fights. It is often better to wait 10 minutes to restore 1 fatigue of your personal reserves than to wait a full day for the stone to charge 1 point. So it is up to the player to choose which they want to use. Spells from items can use a Power enchantment which draws this energy directly from the ambient mana. With a powerful enough enchantment, spells it casts can cost zero as well. This is effectively the same as knowing the spell at a higher skill (see above) but may not be combined with it. Keep in mind that running about in full plate with a greatsword during a fight is tiring as well. Even if the fighter never gets hit/wounded they might still collapse under the encumbrance and fatigue at the end of the fight. So too might the lightly garbed spellcaster collapse after casting too many large spells. I believe this is to keep every player conscious of how strenuous fighting for your life can be even if you're never injured. After that you need a break, a breather, to regain energy to keep going.
@@BanditsKeepSomething I forgot to mention is that if you critically succeed on a spell it costs nothing. The effect isn't changed - a Rain of Fire spell still devastates an area - but you pay nothing for it. If you were casting it on an entire tavern room it will cost you nothing but only IF you critically succeed. Unfortunately you roll *after* you choose the target AoE. You cannot target a single room and then on a crit decide to increase the area to annihilate the entire town. But still having a free spell is nice. Not in the rules but the GM could spontaneously decide that the damage is also increased by 1 or 2 per die on a crit. If that makes their game better then go for it but it is a house rule and not a book rule.
I have been using a Roll to Cast system in my D&D campaigns since the mid 90’s. It’s better than spell slots in my opinion. Magic in my world is difficult and dangerous to cast with the roll reflecting this in various ways depending on results rolled etc.
@@BanditsKeep I'm scrolling through games sessions needing players and if given a choice to play DnD 2024 RAI or to play DnD modified with quirky homebrew mechanics, I'd just pick the RAI table. Players like me enjoy being able to port characters into various campaigns/one shots and know that their character will work as INTENDED. There's a beauty in that universality; it feels like the same world no matter what table I go to just set in a different part or with different goals (if you have a setting preference that is). We don't want to read more rules on top of the PHB rules we learned.
@@BanditsKeep I play almost exclusively casters with one melee focused character. There's nothing about the spell system that needs a change beyond the few popular tweaks to obviously broken spells like Conjure Minor Elementals. I dont need any more bells and whistles added. DnD has one of the coolest magic systems ever. It's slightly "broken" for a caster who really knows what they are doing and that's cool when it's done in smart entertaining ways. It's hard to replicate that with many MORPG casting systems.
@@BanditsKeep The spells can be if a high enough roll happens, similar to DCC but not as extensive. Overall I think most spells are powerful as written. I use 3.5 rules for everything else and the spells in 3.5 tend to be powerful enough overall. I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but almost 30 years of using the roll to cast system and we all enjoy it as its made some memorable sessions over the decades.
I started running The Nightmares Underneath recently, which incorporates a similar complexity concept. You may (and almost always do) know some spells higher level than you are. Spells of your own level or lower you can cast on a simple ability check. Spells higher than your own level you have to check against half your casting stat (rounded down).
As is similarly expressed by a few comments, while I don’t dislike Vancian Magic conceptually, I just find it limits the fantasy a bit for me. I’m of two minds about it. Part of me loves the idea of chaotic magic that can be wildly unpredictable but also powerful and freeflowing as a result. Similarly, I like the idea of the studious wizard that can “tame” it somewhat and have control over it in their own way. I think the idea of different classes casting in different ways (which I’ve also seen some comments mention) would be a great middle ground for this, albeit likely complicated. I’m less interested in mechanical balance and more thematic coherence and actually feeling different to play, and I feel like this is a good way to possibly do that. Another similar option is paying some form of health resource (damage, exhaustion points, etc) to cast more and more difficult magic or adding a modifier to a roll. It makes the magic feel chaotic and dangerous, at least to me
@@BanditsKeep I believe I watched that one as well. I think a lot of it can boil down to the fantasy versus the mechanics as well. Mechanically it can become kind of dull, but as a story device, I find it compelling
I like the roll to cast. I've never really enjoyed the Vancian system, and now 5E made it more complicated with it's sub systems for each class. If I'm playing AD&D, I'll suck it up and not complain, but in modern D&D? Well, there was reason why I mostly ran (and run) other games (lol). I love the chainmail history lesson on this stuff. And you are right, unless you have read the source material for this type of magic, it's really hard to imagine what it is supposed to be like in the story.
I got to look into DCC. My main experience is old school Rolemaster, where you have power points (basically mana) and spell lists you never forget. The modern version RMU uses all challenge rolls for all magic. So there is a lot of RNG but your tactical bonuses and level help a lot. I do like the idea of "graceful failure" like o go to cast fireball but can't quite pull out of but still get s fire bolt.
Shadow Dark is roll to cast and my playgroup loves it. We abandoned D&D when Shadow Dark released and it’s been no looking back for us. All of us have a history with D&D that goes back to the late 70s to early 80s. We’ve played a long time. It just goes to show how good Shadow Dark is for us to abandon that sort of D&D history.
I haven't been playing too long, but my table has always used roll to cast in 5e. We just like the gamble of it. Magic is powerful but finicky. But my table is pretty unhinged as a baseline, so it works for us. I could see where it wasn't for everyone
Rolling for magical success seems attractive to me. Such not only makes magic similar to other skills and abilities but presents some feeling of mystery, may facilitate variable flavor in effects, and could enable magic use optimization. While strictly non-mechanical variable flavor can be trivially added to increase a sense of mystery about magic, such seems likely to seem bland (when it is known that there is no in-game effect) or confusing (if the variation is wrongly believed to have a cause). Having a magic missile randomly arc to the target rather than follow a straight path, changing the color of a effect, flickering or pulsing rather than usual steady effects can be completely non-mechanican. Weakly mechanical flavor can be more interesting and have effects on game play. When a fire effect that normally burns cleanly produces significant smoke, the smoke could (temporarily) slightly hinder combat and searching, alert others about a danger, or even hinder smell-based determination of dangers (player or setting). Because there are in-game effects, introducing such flavor by GM fiat may be perceived negatively even if the GM is relatively trusted. A random effect is less likely to have such out-of-game consequences. Such variable flavor could also be used to provide information about the environment, the target of the magic, or the nature of the effect. Magic with variable effect (damage dice, saving throws, number of targets affected) could justify such flavor even without general roll-to-succeed magic. An area might me "magic arid/humid" without mechanical effect but with significant flavor and backstory significance. A fabric metaphor for magic might include wear, heaviness, thread coarseness, etc. that could influence non-mechanical or weakly mechanical flavor. Similarly a target might not have a mechanical resistance to an effect but a change to the flavor might indicate heritage or the possession of a significant item (e.g., an unworn ring of resitance to an effect). Informative flavor can be included without roll-to-succeed, but if used consistently such might be excessively heavy hinting. A GM fiat "random" flavor with informative bias might have similar issues as weakly mechanical effects by GM fiat. Roll-to-succeed facilitates adding significant mechanical effects because the rules specify the variability. Like skill or ability checks, such can accentuate unusual ability or difficulty. Such also seems to fit better with an "anything can be attempted" style. Skill-like checks also present opportunities for optimization. A caster might be allowed to rescue a failing casting at the cost of extra fatigue or some other condition or cause magical side effects (e.g., an extra push to make a sleep spell succeed might cause allies to fall asleep). A magical residue side effect might increase the difficulty of all spell casting in an area; this could have tactical consequences with subsequent spell casting (even mildly nerfing an opponent), campaign-level consequences (as others might not be happy about such pollution), and intermediate-level consquences (drawing biota that favor such an environment). A caster could also make preparations to maximize success. E.g., in a system that allows casting any known spell at any time, preparing a token similar to a spell scroll might be possible to greatly reduce the chance of failure at the cost of spell choice. Tokens might also be generalized to spell effect types or "school". Similarly, material, verbal, and somatic components might make casting easier (with the constraints such impose). Increasing casting time (similar to ritual) might also reduce the chance of caster-based failure. Taking the time to paint magical symbols on the floor would limit mobility and increase the danger of a too-early encounter but might make a difficult spell very likely to succeed. (Token accumulation might be managed by having slow leakage - perhaps related to item cost and preparation time - and some risk of activating the wrong token or multiple tokens. One might also allow shielded token containers that reduce/eliminate the risk of accidental interference at the cost of less immediate availability - opening time and effort might be related to capacity and shield effectiveness. Such could also be used to hide or disguise against magic detection. Token-enhanced casting seems similar to Vancian magic mechanically.) Skill-like magic also introduces the possibility of variable expertise. A magic user might specialize in a kind/school of magic, emphasize a specific effect within or outside of that kind, and develop expertise in a specific spell. Such complexity offers casters choices that can express character preferences. A cautious character might prefer low-risk spells with maximum aids while avoiding spell diversity. A character preferring high impact effects might have similar preparatory behavior but choose side effects rather than easier spells. A spontaneous character might prefer mostly general aids, spend less resources in preparation, be able to start an adventure with less delay, and be more effective against unexpected challenges or when resources are lost. I think ideally most of such complexity would be "precomputed", similar to making an ability modifier more accessible than an ability score. Rather than having tables with specific effects, simple rules might map rolls and difficulty to the extremity of variation and the extremity of variation to kinds of effects. A caster might also be allowed to bias the kind of failure, e.g., exhaustion/caster "harm" vs. wild magic vs. lesser effect; a player might feel better about choosing to nerf a spell to avoid _worse_ consequences than merely being told that the spell had no effect. Skill and difficulty might also influence how much failure mode can be biased. Counter-spell choices might also bias the effects. A substantially more powerful wizard might prefer to both reduce/nullify the effect and increase the "harm" to the caster, removing the immediate danger and reducing the danger of further spells. A desperate or crazy wizard might choose wild magic as the interference bias rather than a more difficult lessening of the effect; wild magic might also be preferred when facing more numerous opponents (e.g., a lone wizard facing a wizard with ten men-at-arms). For unusual success, it might well be reasonable to allow the caster to choose whether to increase the effect or reduce the normal cost (e.g., only half-draining a token, less fatigue than a normal casting, or reduced casting time or concentration effort). Since severe failures most need careful handling, it is fortunate that the frequency of such failures would be somewhat self-limiting (the bad effects would tend to prevent further magic use and overly difficult magic is only likely to be attempted in extreme circumstances). For lower difficulty magic, a roll might indicate time to completion or other cost factor rather than degree of success. When casting time and other costs are the primary constraint for spell frequency, easy spells might become more attractive in time-limited conditions, especially when multiple diverse dangers are present. Providing a large degree of choice without slowing game play seems likely to be challenging. Even with perfect front-loading of the computation of consequences, having to make decisions can slow play. Some of the above-noted benefits can be achieved without roll-for-success. Extra preparations could allow fixed benefits of faster casting, lower "mana" cost, reduced chance of disruption, or a modestly more powerful effect, but guaranteed consequences would seem to favor min-max computation and so urge more careful balancing of the tradeoffs. Modest fixed bonuses are probably also less interesting than variable effects. Of course, some people prefer logic puzzles over games of chance; roll-for-success would be less fun for such people.
I have played a system like this. Decision dice wqas 2d6 and if at least one of them was 1 or 2 it was a success. It was used for everything, social situations, magic, melee, etc... I liked it, very few rolls, mostly just story negotiating with the DM.
I sort ot balance the roll to hit versus the effect based spells in quite a few systems I play by having lower level 'damage cantrips' that you can cast with a roll to hit, while the others are generally left the same, but you get less of a chance to recover spell slots.
I do not like having to roll just to initiate and cast a spell but the other aspects of it are fascinating. Makes me think of another way is to roll an Intel role and how successful that is let that determine how effective the spell was. In other words if you make your role the spell goes off but if you beat it by 10 or better you get a bonus to the effect and maybe if you beat it by 15 or better it's even richer bonus. It's just a random idea. Because your videos make me think of stuff.
My understanding is that originally a session was likely just one "day" and the notion would be that a MU would use their spell(s) at the critical point and when you consider a group was larger with likely more than one, the limitations were not as extreme as for a modern group of just 3 or 4 PCs. My notion is that a roll to cast gives MU PCs more to contribute than a spell cast and poke at things with a dagger or hold the lantern, even allow a MU to be an adventurer with just a companion or two and still play. I think all roll to cast try to allow a MU to be a peer rather than a glass cannon as it might be in old D&D and more supporting to the fighter as I believe it would be until high level. I like roll to cast for lower level and smaller group play, but I respect it does allow the MU to be far more pivotal and even a more than equal PC where one may want to hold the magic back and remain focused on desperate fighters looting dungeons style. As always it has good and bad for how you want to play ar the table.
I prefer fewer, but more powerful spells. I also don’t think a magic-user without spells is just a dagger wielding fighter. There should be opportunities in the adventure for the magic user to shine beyond combat.
my idea for it is one level spell slot is a +4 and you add that to a spell check then 9 level is +36 to the spell check. i`m using this to have more open magic system.
@@BanditsKeep the purpose of this is that you can always interface with magic if don't have spell slot you can still read magic or give something in exchange for effect, i did increments of 4 so lv1=4 lv2=8 and and so on
I tempted to use this static DC approach, but with two changes: 1. DC is generally higher then expected 2. MU can convert HP into +X to casting 2a. If he does this willingly before the role the ratio is 1:1 2b. If he fails then the missing amount is taken automatically in 2:1 ratio (or 3:1 if 1 was rolled) Maybe to avoid killing of MU outright there would be an option for converting some DMG received this way into random mutations? The more DMG was taken, the more saver the mutations.
@BanditsKeep that's true. This is definitely "high risk and high reward" approach to magic and it might need some balancing on either side ;) Maybe MU's would be more extreme approach, while clerics could be using more tamed mechanic (lower risk and lower rewards).
Not sure I agree that roll to cast makes magic just like a sword. the negative effects can be far worse than a failed sword swing. It is the negative effects that make it interesting. Having a bonus effect for rolling a critical success could help with making it even more interesting, but the 150+ pages of spell effects for DCC seems like overkill.
@ I haven’t yet, no. Overall that system is high-crunch but it does look interesting. I’m following their Discord and watching the creator’s videos on occasion but my group likes modest crunch these days.
Haven't played roll to cast very much but always wanted to explore it. DCC is very clever, I sort of want something similar that's not dependent on dice steps like that but without the swingy higher dice then the hilarity is reduced, I guess. I think some sort of roll often already underscores the chaotic element, the powerful but hard to wield, nature that a lot of systems want to go for. Roll a 1 and something bad happens is a bit underwhelming, I guess because it's neat when the effect can happen even when you manage to cast correctly. More to ponder
Something I'm thinking about that was inspired by the World Tree RPG is why not have different ways of casting magic? You have Spell Points and how many Spell Points a spell costs to cast depends on the way you cast it. Vancian is the cheapest, but you can also have a spell you have learned, but not memorized, essentially choosing your spell on the fly, which cost more Spell Points. And lastly, you put a spell you don't know together on the fly and cast it, which is the most expensive way to cast and needs a roll to succeed. A wizard could have spell memorized only to see a party member die. The wizard casts 'Resurrection' on the fly and could find he is out of Spell Points for anything else until he recovers. Of course you could add a system where a Wizard exchanges Hit Points/Health Levels for Spell Points if situation grows dire. That also opens up the possibility of burning them permanently for even more Spell Points. So, how doe you spend your Spell Points? How desperate is the Party's situation? Is the World Devourer winning?
Although I haven't tried it out, I have wanted to use the roll to cast mechanic for a while, both for the cleric and magic-user classes. IMO, roll to cast would allow for more uncertainty in the worldbuilding which would open a lot of possibilities for roleplay. Since clerics and magic-user spells are guaranteed to go off in B/X (with some exceptions to saving throws) there is definitive proof of divine and arcane magical forces but if roll to cast is present, then suddenly the lore and worldbuilding becomes much murkier. Basically, it introduces doubt which is something I think would add a lot to the game.
I'm thinking of a random table for what you have to do for a ritual for, say, removing a curse. Whether it's at full moon. new moon, dawn, dusk, midnight, etc, and what kind of location it has to be, and what they would have to do. And then maybe a Willpower roll to see if it works
I do love me some DCC 😊 I’m not that invested either way, I actually like using some sort of point system to power spells. This allows for items that are spell focuses which reduce the amount of points needed or the ability for casters to combine points or even steal them from others.
I use the spell point system in my current campaigns, though I'm looking to make magic a little less easy in a future game as casters feel more like a videogame now and outshine martials. I'd cull the spell list and reduce the number of spells in a day as levels progress, plus get rid of scaling for cantrips.
@ as I recall 2nd edition used both. You could pump in more psionic points to improve your roll, which was essentially a modified ability check. Every power had a different difficulty (modifier I think), and some allowed you to do crazier stuff if you raised the difficulty. Since psionics only had greater and lesser powers instead of level, this seems to have been one of the balancing features. I’d have to dig my psionics handbook out of storage (or pdf it) to be sure. I only played first edition with the teenager next door a few times when I was like 8, so I don’t know my 1st edition AD&D rules. Though I’ve been learning about them on TH-cam. Not because I want to try the edition, just for a broader context for gaming.
@ ok, just looked up the PDF. They use a modification of the non-weapon proficiency rule for power score. Different powers or disciplines use different ability scores. If you fail the check you lose half the casting points unless otherwise noted. So it might take a little work, but psionics could probably be retooled as a more sword and sorcery magic style for D&D.
Interesting that you mention a sword there, since it seems like some modern games remove the attack roll and also go only for an effect roll. I personally like that, even though I went for my own design even a step further and have through out any competency rolls.
A roll-to-cast system for D&D could be made using FATE's core rule set. I plan on adapting D&D characters to a less pansified version of FATE for my campaign.
I have not had enough experience with systems like that, the ones I’ve seen feel a bit too gamey though (where you pick up mana running around the dungeons) though I can see the fun in that it’s not to my general taste
@BanditsKeep You need rules to make rulings upon the ruled players, and the only rule at play in a negotiation "system" is that the DM is the ultimate authority over the game (as per the *rules*) making it completely vacuous. It's like calling a landfill a "hill machine."
I like roll to cast. D20 over spell level for success. Higher roll equals better result. 1 has negative outcome. I also use spell level squared hp as the cost rather than slots. Casting spells lose you hp makes you squishy. High risk reward.
I'm generally of the opinion that rolling to cast is just spell slots without the ability to plan around them, which kind of negates the point. Both are systems intended to make spellcasting an exhaustible resource: at some point in the day you won't be able to cast the spell you need. Spell slots give you the opportunity to predict what your day is going to look like and prepare appropriately. Rolling to cast just means that at some random and unpredictable point in the day you won't have spells available. You do make a fairly compelling case though that DCC adds enough unique elements to stand on its own. I've run the system a few times--never played it--and may need to give it another look.
DCCRPG ❤ The Chainmail Fantasy Supplement has generally been underappreciated. It's really got the basics of a very satisfying game, but needs interpretations.
@@BanditsKeep ...More so that they do not have spell complexity, they do offer certain units a 'saving throw', and that they may count as missiles and not spells for the purposes of spells known?? 🤔
I kind of like the Chain Mail spell system. Especially the delayed casting idea. On page 33 it looks like the Warlock numbers at spell complexity 2 are wrong. They should be 7, 6, 4 (not 7, 8, 6).
Ah, do the winds of magic favor you? I've never been much of a fan of roll-to-cast, since I think characters should be able to use their abilities and know they will work. But as a crossover from Vancian to continuous magic, a variation that I do like is a "roll to retain" system. The magic user casts the spell the first time fine, but must then roll and if successful can retain the spell for a subsequent casting (roll is d20+MU level versus a target of 10+spell level+number of prior castings that day). That way you get your spell at least once, but perhaps multiple times based on skill and luck.
I like how DCC has spells that have growing effects depending on the roll, and am a fan of that design philosophy that a single spell can grow in power and complexity of effect with the caster, but i am not a fan of some of the "Roll to cast" rules. Namely, the interuptions and consulting a table during play, as that can bog things down when there are multiple casters.
The only thing about roll to cast is that you’re really at the mercy of the D20. For many spells you’d then have to roll a d20 to try to cast it, then roll another d20 to hit, and then the target would roll a d20 to save. A bit of a faff!
I much prefer Vancian magic. I occasionally play in a friend's game that has roll to cast. While the chance is fairly high, there is still a chance for failure and that seems to happen when you need the spell the most, making a Magic User somewhat impractical to play. I may miss my swing as a fighter, but I don't lose my sword when I miss. Having to choose which spells I have memorized at the beginning of the day seems to irk many players who want to cast any spell they have whenever they choose. Planning and resource management is an essential part of the game in my opinion. Great video. Thanks for this.
When I've played with roll to cast systems (except DCC), spellcasting always felt kind of cheap. Like there's a 50% chance of just solving many problems (including non combat problems). E.g Charm Person. Losing the spell is a much more interesting gameplay decision.
Wizards should only be able to cast a spell every OTHER round of combat. This means they have to charge up their spells before casting them and the party and enemies have time to prepare for the spell. Since they only get to cast every other round their attacks should be at least 3x as powerful as non magic attacks.
Same thing, different person making the roll. I will ask my players, but i will be they will go with keep the saving throw. Its just makes more sense that a creature would resist a spell, but the save can be viewed as overcoming their resistance.
I've always loved apellcasters in dnd. And hated its spellcasting systems. Especially 5e. In older versions spells were at least reversible, and you had some flexibility in what they did. 5e suffers from such bad feature creep that you have an entire spellbook packed with highly specific, situational and inflexible spells that are each only good for one or two situations. Of course you're going to have a blue million of them. Gotta say, Chainmail intrigues me, though. Especially the counterspelling.
Going to say, Chainmail was a decent system for magic, but the current crop of roll-to-cast is much better (having used both systems pretty extensively) - because of the scaling on failure and (IMO) lack of consequence for failure. I think DCC falls down in the complexity. Shadowdark has improved on this system and gives you the the failure, gives immediate loss of spells until next rest, and has that nice risk vs reward system I think you're overlooking by immediately ruling it out because it doesn't have multiple tables/complexity for the fail states and does utilize a pass-fail DC. Not looking at the subsystems is a short sighted view, but I do understand why "simple DCs" might not be your cuppa. Unfortunately, DCC requires too much reference to the material to be user-friendly. Multiple tables for fail and success states, it makes the system more 3E crunch (and let's not forget spell-burning and other fun stuff they add). These are in theory a solid complex and layered system, but in use at the table it's decidedly not new-player or casual friendly. If you have a die-hard and knowledgeable group of player, perfect, I definitely agree - but for a mix of newbies or a beer and pretzels type campaign, it just doesn't work well and puts a lot on the DM and players to manage. Not to say Shadowdark is flawless - At higher levels, at least for wizard, the Shadowdark system does not scale well - this is not a perfect system and it'll be most likely the big thing that I change. My party's Human wizard is at +8 to spellcasting checks by level 5, making most 3rd level spells trivial to cast. Priest scales better than the wizard because at best you're looking at a +4 by 7th level, maybe +5 if they get an 18 WIS. But the "talents" at level up for wizard quickly bloat spellchecks where the priest is limited to just +1 per roll or has other talents (like +1 melee attacks etc.) to create a more rounded class.
@@BanditsKeep It's a great casual campaign system, where the mechanics matter less than the company/story being told. It doesn't work as well for a "serious" game.
Yeah i broadly don't like roll to cast systems, I'm mostly interested in what an ars magica or mage ascension style magic system would look like in bx.
@@BanditsKeep So there are lots of different areas of magic and you make spells by combining them, a lot of the game can be about making new spells and finding rare resources to power the magic. So you might mix something like water and fire and earth to make a lava spell.
Hi Daniel. As always I enjoy and appreciate your videos and perspective. In this rare instance , I disagree with you in that I like the concept of roll to cast. I just haven't settled on exactly how I want it to be. I will try to be brief as I could eject a lot of thoughts on this. I guess it all comes down to how you want magic to "feel" at your table. Over time ( I started playing and DMing in 1976 or 77 ( don't really remember the date ) I have grown to feel that Gygax' take on Vancian magic that is at the heart of casting (In DandD ) is unsatisfying to me ( and to those playing one in the game) . Why ? I ask this of myself a lot. To answer first I must decide how I want magic to feel in my game , and to the players in my game. In a nutshell , I want magic ( and Magic User PCs ) to be : 1) Rare or at least uncommon ( I require a 2d6 result of doubles at Character creation for a Character to have Magical aptitude ) 2) Powerful - as these Characters are relatively weak in other regards , magic should be influential to the game , even when cast by inexperienced casters - just ask Mickey Mouse's the sorcerer's apprentice 3) Risky and Frightening - you mess with unnatural forces of the universe and it SHOULD be scary , even for the MU ( especially when you summon something powerful and try to control it ! ) 4) Chaotic - the exact results of a spell should vary ( at least a little ) with each casting , especially for an inexperienced caster 5) Varied Choices and (possible) Effects - this is for gameplay , but I want MU PCs to feel they have variety of choice. Over time I have begun to feel that the choice of 1 Spell to a first level character lacks variety in terms of what a MU PC can bring to a campaign of adventures. If you think of it , the MU has the least options available to them in an adventure of all the Classes ( I operate with a very minimum # of Classes , basically Warrior/ Scoundrel(Thief)/MU.) The Warrior may choose and carry several weapons of different types , a choice of armour , Shield or no Shield , Helm or no Helm etc. A Scoundrel/Thief can apply skills of stealth and guile , any weapon to the game. Any PC Fighting risks their HP in a Fight as a measure of their "life energy" for lack of a better definition. In my mind a Spellcaster should pay some kind of (energy) cost in order to cast. Like many game groups , my friends and I experimented with Spell Points for Mages , points paid to cast a spell - though in those days there was no risk applied to the attempt , you paid your points and cast your spell. There was no backfire risk. I always strive for simplicity and , and I always felt that managing a different system mechanic just to manage magic function was inelegant, and I eventually came to the thought of why not just use Hit Points for Magic Casting energy ? The immediate situation that needs to be addressed is that MUs have so few Hit Points they will have none to spare for casting. Ok so we (slightly) increase the base number of Hit Points for the Spellcasting Character , and have them pay to cast from their precious Hit Points - now they recover their spellcasting ability with normal rest like other Classes , and choosing when to cast is a difficult strategic choice - and not as crippling as using your one chance with a spell in OD and D or BX - remember that in those games , once a MU has cast their one spell they are a liability for the party for the rest of the adventure. Not entirely fun to play. You also need to work out how many spells a caster should have available at each level. This is really to the taste of the Ref , and the table , and I will end my monotribe here. Thanks again - always interesting.
I much prefer roll-to-cast to spell slots or other more Vancian-styled magic systems. I moved away from 5th edition D&D to DCC and Shadowdark, and I prefer DCC's more chaotic and mysterious magic system. Casting a spell is a big deal and is unpredictable, and the themes of power having a cost feed well into that with spellburn and luck. I found that the modern 5e-style spellcasting left a bad taste, it felt like push-button play more often than not. Every spell in DCC is a decision being made, and that decision carries really interesting consequences that can push the game in unexpected directions.
I think it's really significant that Shadowdark and Dungeon Crawl Classics went with roll to cast. Vancian magic has a long history with D&D, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if roll to cast ended up edging out Vancian magic within the OSR scene. Especially since umpredictability, gonzo, deadliness, and low level play seem to be more popular in the current OSR than progression to high-level play, resource management, and strategic play. If you mostly play in one-shots and short campaigns, then I can see why rolling to cast would be preferable to Vancian magic.
I do also think fantasy influences have a part in this. Outside of D&D, Jack Vance's books aren't that popular or influential anymore, so they aren't directly influencing designers like they used to. Vancian magic is very specific to D&D and Jack Vance, whereas unpredictable magic is more representative of fantasy magic broadly.
Remember Presto from the cartoon? I could see him as a roll-to-cast wizard. With a creative DM, he'd be a lot of fun.
@@SorobanWorld
My preference is to allow both by implementing:
· spells utilizing each style;
· skills/feats to flip the method to cast;
· alternate material components/foci that change the casting type;
· classes utilizing either or both.
Good point. I think as long as the roll to cast is interesting it can add that gonzo element. I’ve just found most of the systems not interesting and very harsh to casters with little benefit.
@BanditsKeep Fair. Sorry of them like Deathbringer have instant death on then, which is a bit much
Roll to cast is so much more fun to my taste... DCC and Shadowdark. I love the idea/feel that magic is rare and unpredictable. No denying though, that dcc's implementation is very, very crunchy and it can really slow things down with a table of casual players. SD seems like a more streamlined version of DCC in many respects, including magic.
I've been playing Shadowdark RPG for over a year now, and I like the roll to cast system. A wizard is not a one-hit wonder at level 1. You start knowing 3 spells and you cast them as often as you want until you fail the check. On a critical success, you double one aspect of the spell, such as damage, duration, or range. On a natural 1, you roll on the mishap table. It's simple and flexible.
Dungeon World has a similar mechanic for casting and what worries me about it is that these game operate under the assumption the characters won't be fully optimized so the chances of failing are high to mid. If you optimize, you can easily spam powerful spells before you actually get a failure.
If a wizard is a 1 hit wonder without spells, the game needs more depth.
@@BanditsKeep the crunch has to develop and enhance the setting and fluff. A wizard without spells better have some other mechanical tricks up the sleeve.
Much of the OSR is based on B/X and let's face it... Low-level magic users suck in BX. Yes, Charm and Sleep are very powerful and a creative player could come up with plenty of ways to contribute w/out magic, but in my experience anyway, most players really struggle with low level magic users.
SDs more streamlined roll to cast system is more fun but not OP or riskless.
@@VictorJulioHurtado DCC characters are randomly generated, 3D 6 down the line... very limited in how one may optimize if one plays as Crom intends.
One thing I hate is Saving Throws. They just ruin too many spells for the spellcasters. So I just traded them for Roll to cast on any spell that affects/attacks an enemy. It gives the spellcaster a chance to roll dice for success rather than the DM taking success from the player via saving throw.
I use the roll to cast system, but I make the save DC the same as the caster’s roll. That way the higher the cast roll, the harder the save.
But there has to be some resistance to spell work, right?
Simple solution for the "DM ruins the spell with a save" is to have the caster make the roll. It's an optional rule that first appeared in 3.0.
The active character makes the rolls against a passive difficulty. So, for example, a D&D caster instead of producing a save DC of 10 plus spell level plus ability modifier, rolls a d20 plus spell level plus ability modifier, which is then compared to 10 plus the base save of the targeted enemy.
In this way, it is the caster who decides if its spell works or not, not the DM.
In any d20 System game, everything can be either a check or a DC, depending if you add a d20 roll or a plain 10 to whatever base score plus modifiers you get. I do prefer to add 11, though, since it gives exactly a 50% chance when on equal terms.
I wonder do you favor taking away those saving throws from player characters as well?
I'm going with contested ability rolls for some superpowers in my pulp game
GLOG has a roll to cast mechanic where a wizard has a die pool of d6s. When you cast a spell, choose how many you want to expend. The spell results often have a [number of dice] and a [sum of roll] effecting the outcome. Rolling high is a more powerful spell, but 1, 2 and 3s go back into the pool after casting and are not expended.
There's a very similar system in Mausriter!
Cool
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.
Thank you! Happy Holidays to you 🎄
I am all for the chainmail chart. You inspired me to start my own Solo OE/chain mail campaign. It would be a valuable tool for sure
Cool, let me know how it goes!
Always happy to see DCC's magic system talked up! I really like using the Purple Sorcerer app for spells (and a bunch of other roll-related stuff) because it eliminates all the lookup time. Totally streamlines DCC to the point that I wish GG made their own apps (blasphemy I know, but it's just so helpful!)
I really like how Beyond the Wall treats roll to cast.
Normal Spells are not roll-to-cast, a magician can cast a number of spells equal to caster level, but these spells lack levels and generally reflect level 1 or 2 dnd spells.
Cantrips are low power magic that are always available, but must be rolled to cast. On failure they might cause the reversed effect or some other disaster. Light might cause darkness. A hex might hex the caster instead of the target.
Rituals are high power magic that require specific ingredients and an hours-long rite to cast. Rituals are roll-to-cast and have levels of increasing power. If the Ritual roll is failed after it is completed, the general effects of the ritual take place, but with a twist. A failed cloud of fog might result in a sickly mist which covers the entire realm. A failed fireball might unleash the imprisoned fire elemental who was intended to fuel the magic.
So you don’t always roll-to-cast, but when you do, something interesting happens either way.
Hi Daniel! I personally use a modified Chainmail table (but I'm still playtesting it).
The spell can be "instant", "delayed 1 round" (count as instant in exploration), "negated" (count as delayed 1 turn in exploration), or "negated, and unable to cast for [Level of the Spell]d6 turns". I added the "unable to cast" option because, since we're talking about Chainmail, the table was created with conflict in mind, not exploration, so it doesn't take into account all the "utility" spells that could rapidly break the resource management aspect of OD&D (and that's why I need to playtest it more).
Rolling to cast can be fun BUT, I think what makes classic D&D great is that some of the classes actually have a completely different play style. There are some players that don’t like being at the mercy of the dice. Traditional vancian casters can select and plan their spells in advance and they can choose spells that will always be successful when cast. Thus the player feels like they live and die by their own decisions, and feel rewarded from that. As opposed to the fighter class that embraces the chaos of luck and that die roll. When we make all of the classes play the same (magic-users having to roll to cast) we may alienate or remove the fun for those players that prefer removing as much luck as possible in their actions.
Shadowrun has a solid roll to cast system too.
Cool, I have yet to try it, on my list though.
in the DCC rulebook, unironically, 1/3rd of the book is JUST spells
Indeed!
That is the most absolutely perfect misuse of "fire and forget" I have ever heard. Nice
😊
Best DnD TH-camr by far. Thanks for the content!
Thank You! 😊
I am playing in a Mythras game in the Thennla setting. There are different types of magic starting with Folk Magic, Mysticism, Sorcery, Theistic magic, and a few other categories. There are also rituals, and a bunch of other stuff. It makes magic less generic. Spells are rolled by percentage. If people are looking for ideas they can check it out. I'm sure you could mess with it a little bit and make it for other systems.
Cool
This is a derivation of the Runequest system, which has been around almost as long as DnD.
I really like Tales of Argosa's roll to cast system. The mix of some spells getting bonuses on a Great Success, a limited number of spell uses and Dark And Dangerous Magic effects being random and not just exploding the character makes it a lot of fun.
I'll look into this. Thanks
I agree, ToA is a good balance between the DCC system and DnD. We play ToA all the time and spell casters are always pondering when and where is the best time to cast a spell and even non-spell casters will chime in as to if a spell is needed as they understand how much the spell's risk is compared to what the party might get out of it.
The first I thought of when your video started was Chainmail and then you launched into it. The second thing I thought of was Empire of the Petal Throe. It had a roll to cast mechanic based on character level with bonuses with bonuses for a high Psychic Ability (a stat which took the place of Wisdom in the 6 ability scores) and limitations on the level of spell you could cast for a low ability (there were only 3 l3v3ls of spell complexity). There were skills you gained as you leveled up (some were spells and others were things like Read Ancient Language) and a possibility of Bonus Spells gained as you levelled up. Spells typically had limits on how many times they could be cast (typically 1-2 times a day) but you could choose the same Bonus Spell more than once. Some spells were only usable once a week iirc. I've tinkered with this type of system myself, because who doesn't like to homebrew :D
I've been looking at Dragonbane, which requires Willpower (sort of a mental HP) to cast spells and do some other things, and the more you invest, the more that the spell can do. There is a roll to cast where nothing can happen, sort of against what you like. But you don't lose the spell (it's not Vancian) and there's enough of a choice, albeit a simple one, that I think it would work well, especially for newer players or just those new to playing spell casters.
Cool
I'm currently designing a magic system, where when making spells, they have variable power levels. A spell at melee range (ex burning hands) on a single target can have a guaranteed effect, but do low damage. A spell effecting multiple targets, at range, and they get to save, will have much more potential damage, at a lower chance. Basically a series of conditions (range, targets, save difficulty, etc) that determine what size of dice is used to calculate the final damage (or other effect) of the spell
Cool
You are reinventing Runequest magic.
I've never GM'd or played in a roll-to-cast system, but I do like the idea of it. I did just wrap up GMing a 4-year Tales of Argona (formerly Low Fantasy Gaming) campaign, and my players and I really liked the Dark & Dangerous Magic rules therein. I've often thought of borrowing that idea, along with a basic roll-to-cast mechanic, and home-brewing it into my next Hyperborea game. It's still percolating in my mind.
Sounds like a fun idea to try
Yeah, it would be a good fit for Hyperborea, it being a sword & sorcery style game. That was my main gripe, it using standard AD&D Vancian magic. Dangerous magic is most appropriate for that sub-genre, at least in my idea of it.
Great ideas as always, have a Merry Christmas man! As for me I focus on most of it being ritual based where a character has to conduct as many parts and avoid anything that could negatively effect the ritual, then they add all the modifiers and roll to see the result, ranking up to greater and better effects to the ritual going wrong and or doing something that could be quite negative to the PC, NPCs in the area or the general region.
That sounds really cool!
The system I'm designing doesn't use roll-to-cast, but it does use roll-for-effect.
Some spells just automatically do their thing, sure, but most require you to roll for the power of the resulting effect. This occurs during a series of rolls, each of which may be able to be manipulated by other player-effects to increase the likelyhood of a more favorable result.
That, and each spellcaster has a limited number of known spells, plus a number of other spells which are randomly chosen each day. Some classes get more random spells, but less reliable ways to choose to cast any random or known spells they have available. Other classes get fewer random spells, but may freely choose to cast any known or random spell they have available.
Love the channel so far and love DCC including DCC roll to cast magic. Thanks for the review of Chainmail.
Thanks for watching
The best roll to cast system I've ever used is Rolemaster 1st and 2nd Edition. There is a variability of results that go from total and disastrous failure to spectacular success, with many details in the descriptions. Critical hits in particular, based on the type of magic, are particularly tasty. The other is Talislanta 4th Edition, where spell casters invent their own spells and write their own grimoires.
This is how I do it:
Spells are mostly taken fron DCC, but I squashed the range of effects to 4 possible levels, still of increasing power.
You roll to cast 1d12 + 1d6 for power level, under your WIS/INT ( first level is 0d6, which is basically a cantrip, last level is usually HUGE ).
If you fail there's a misfire effect, rolled on a table, proportional to the number of dice rolled.
More common ( less disastrous ) misfires erode the mage INT / WIS, so there's no need for spell slots, the capacity to launch spells itself degrades in time until the mage rests.
(imo) PRO:
- there's a minigame of push your luck everytime you want to use a spell; Rolling on the fringe of your INT value, when in desperate need of a powerful outcome, is fun.
- magic is chaotic, which I find more fitting, choosing spells to load into slots it's good for strategic play but not emergent stories. I find "the more i fail the more I stress my mind" mechanic more "realistic" than slots, but that of course depends on ones fantasy...
CON:
- sometimes combat becomes slower
- I need to rewrite every spell in the book 😄
IE:
"What's seemingly the leader of the three makes a gesture with his arm, and you see another half-dozen bandits armed with swords and crossbows emerge from the surrounding forest."
"I try to cast Sleep."
"On all of them?"
"Yes, I roll 1d12 + 2d6, it should be enough."
"Alright."
"Oops, failed."
"Oops, critical misfire: every non-magical living being within a 500-meter radius makes a saving throw at disadvantage or falls asleep."
I love DCC. The roll to cast mechanic is something I really like because it gives magic, divine or arcane, more of a feeling of wrestling with cosmic energies.
Vancian magic makes magic use feel more mundane, like shooting a gun that can't ever misfire. You basically pull the trigger (cast) until you run out of bullets (spell slots).
I understand that different people have different power fantasies and Vancian magic is perfectly fine for those who want to play spell slingers but to me, magic feels best when it's volatile and speaks to the notion that it's not a plaything to be mettled with nonchalantly.
I have tinkered a bit with a roll to cast system. I used the % chance to know spell as a roll to cast each spell. For a MU with a 18 Int. they have an 85% chance to succeed. If they fail, then they roll a 2nd time and either nothing happens, or the spell goes off at half effect. I use a spell point system so casters can cast as long as they have points left.
Nice
I used to use a roll to cast system in my homebrew game, though I'd say it was more of a Vancian/roll to cast hybrid. You still prepared spells by level, but you needed to roll 2d6 to successfully cast them and once cast they were forgotten and had to be reprepared (there was a whole table for casters where the target number decreased for each level as you leveled up, much like the turn undead table for clerics, and at high levels low level spells could even be cast quicker than normal. Failing to reach the target number didn't indicate a failed casting, but an incomplete one, and you could try to cast again next round with a third d6 added to the roll, and again until the casting succeeds, the spell's abandoned, or the caster is interrupted). The catch was you could reprepare spell any time you had a bit of downtime (at least 10 minutes, depending on spell level and caster level). The limiting factor was that each spell cast inflicted fatigue (non-lethal damage) on the caster, again with a massive chart to track how fatigue costs went down with level.
At a certain point though I got frustrated with groups stopping all the time in the dungeon to reprepare after each fight, so I switched to the simpler classic Vancian system. I think I should look into the chainmail system though, because it does seem simple enough for my liking and provides a different feel.
Cool. I can see the party wanting to stop and recharge spells when given the chance, I think that is why I often lean toward simple Vancian 1 time per adventure casting.
Excellent, informative video!
Thank you! 😊
I only just recently managed to read The Dying Earth (first ever polish edition came out in 2024!) and I fell in love with the original vancian model. Since in my game players cannot be magic-users, I used this inspiration to make my psionics more interesting. With grid-based encumbrance system, I make the psionics "encode" new powers (the spells) into their own minds using the space in the grid, adding that "some [of these powers are] weighting more than a solid armor and blade." And each power has two effects: dormant - a passive effect of the power, and manifested - the "one and gone" effect.
I like that
Or just play Gurps where rolling to cast a spell is incorporated into the game and its rules. Just as a sword strike needs to be rolled, so too does a spell cast. And they are likely just as quick (limit 1 spell per second though). Also just as a target can dodge a weapon they can also resist many spells.
In many ways a spell is very similar to physical combat. Even casting a spell at a target too far away gets penalties to cast just like firing a bow at someone at range.
There are major differences in exactly how this is done - a spell is neither a sword nor a bow - but the core concepts are the same. Of course, a spell could take the form of a melee or missile weapon and then be exactly the same with only the conjuration being spell-like.
Point is, Gurps has done this successfully and seamlessly for the last 40 years. Adding personal house rules to a mess of published D&D house rules is not making it any better. Not when what you really should be doing is playing a different game that already does what you want.
No thanks.
Runequest has been using this system for a lot longer than GURPS. It is also a well developed and consistent system.
OK now this is inspiring Daniel.
Old school Vancian magic is tough at low level: very few spells per day, limitation on spell levels (and power), losing a spell if hit in combat. Also you have many systems that ask the wizard character to hunt for or otherwise earn new spells through efforts and research, making it being a wizard a real pain but for the more dedicated players.
The "oh but old school spells are much more powerful" is both true and untrue. Some of them are powerful, sure, but there are all the more humble "quality of life" spells that get thrown away because you'd rather keep your slot for Sleep.
This system sounds golden: it allows a chance to cast higher level spells at low level, making it exciting to learn "any" spell because you can use it immediately. Being it in combat doesn't mean you lost your only spell for the day. And obviously your wizard doesn't feel "useless" or less-than-a-wizard after they have cast their 2 daily spells.
The counterspell sounds fun. Also you might add your INT bonus to the roll, making it Intelligence matter much more for wizard classes.
I don't like the restriction on spell carrying capacity per level, so I think I'd implement a "natural 1" negative effect or similar to limit spell usage and force players into making choices.
Great video and insights!
Are you saying you’d allow players to memorize unlimited spells?
I don't know...
I'm using slot encumbrance and could say that spell books take up more slots than they do.
I could also ask players to "review-prepare" a certain number of spells each morning they intend using, so they may use X spells per day but are able to chose new ones every day if needed.
But eventually, I'm using Dolmenwood where spellbooks are rare and either need to be learned from a mentor (quests) or stolen (risky). You can find spells in the wild but that means exploring and fighting spell gardians/audrunes. So where I see how "unlimited spells" can sound OP, spells in Dolmenwood are kinda hard to find or earn so I am not too scared tbh.
I definitely feel the need to pimp DW's magic system
Roll for damage type spells to hit but not to cast...
I use the open air travel type casting for effects.
Hahnukin' style.
So the area between the caster and the target has to be clear.
All spells that don't require the target to save just work.
Played a lot of Shadowrun...so ShadowDark works well for us when we play our fantasy games.
But we changed the system so that there is a power feedback when you fail a spell just like in Shadowrun.
Also...a portal / rip in the warp can open and a spirit can come through.
Its works for me as DM.
Cool
As a DCC Judge, I liked this video for the title alone! Quick-start rules are still free.
Excellent, DCC is such a fun system
Fantasy Craft rpg has an eccellent Magic System in which you have to.cast spells, and now, even though it's almost a discontinued game System, it's my game of choice for fantasy. Also Fantasy Age by Green Ronin has a fantastic Rolling-to-Cast Spells Magic System
Cool, I’ll have to check it out
We’ve stumbled upon similar properties in the system we’re developing. Charisma casters roll to cast. The spell attack roll is the number you have it beat when trying to counter spell. Spell points can be used to boost.
Cool
I like Shadowdark roll to cast system but I even home brewed and created my own spell list and system to that.
Cool
Have you checked out the Dying Earth supplement for DCC? Interesting mix of DCC and the DnD take on Vancian magic. You roll when learning and spell (and if you want to upon leveling up to potentially improve it) to see its effect, but it casts at that level all the time until it’s improved.
There’s also a second magic system that allows for more spontaneous, DCCish casting, but I’m less familiar with it.
I have the box set, but haven’t had time to dive into it yet.
Nice review! After a LONG time of testing, i ended up preferring "roll to cast", but ... i appreciate that a character should have limited energy/stamina/fuel per day with magic or with any other special feature. i tinkered with different ways of characters spending stamina or constitution points, luck or hero points, etc that you can see in various game systems. i enjoy learning about different game mechanics, and your review here is helpful to guide through the key points.
I'm glad you found it helpful!
I play GURPS a lot, and its (basic) magic system is much different from D&D and its clones. In GURPS, a character learns a spell as if it were a skill -- like sword skill, riding skill, etc -- and rolls 3d6 to cast; the skill level is the target number and the goal is to roll equal to or under the target number. If you build your character right, you can end up with a pretty respectable skill level in your spells, meaning that a failure to cast is a rare event. There is no spell memorization -- you know every spell you have learned, and provided you have the energy to cast, you can cast. If you fail a cast, you just lose a single energy point and lose your turn. Critical Failures are really rare, like a little over 1% in most cases, so when they happen it's a big deal!
It burns strength to cast, correct? Like the fantasy trip.
@@BanditsKeep At higher skill levels you can mitigate the cost of each spell by 1 or 2 points. If you keep your effects small you can cast less taxing spells all day with zero fatigue. You might only stop when you get bored or run out of targets.
But even with super high skill the chance of failure is never zero. On a 3d6 bell curve casting a spell repeatedly for hours (3600 times/hour?) is almost guaranteed to fail (16+) or critically fail (17+) at some point. Same can be said about swinging a sword. Eventually you will miss or mess up, drop the weapon, have it turn in your hand, stumble your footing, swipe your own leg, etc.
Additionally Gurps has Powerstones - a battery gem that can hold a number of fatigue to use in spellcasting. By using these you needn't ever get tired. However for play balance they are slow and/or complicated to charge. They tend to only get used sparingly and only in very serious fights. It is often better to wait 10 minutes to restore 1 fatigue of your personal reserves than to wait a full day for the stone to charge 1 point. So it is up to the player to choose which they want to use.
Spells from items can use a Power enchantment which draws this energy directly from the ambient mana. With a powerful enough enchantment, spells it casts can cost zero as well. This is effectively the same as knowing the spell at a higher skill (see above) but may not be combined with it.
Keep in mind that running about in full plate with a greatsword during a fight is tiring as well. Even if the fighter never gets hit/wounded they might still collapse under the encumbrance and fatigue at the end of the fight. So too might the lightly garbed spellcaster collapse after casting too many large spells.
I believe this is to keep every player conscious of how strenuous fighting for your life can be even if you're never injured. After that you need a break, a breather, to regain energy to keep going.
@@BanditsKeepSomething I forgot to mention is that if you critically succeed on a spell it costs nothing.
The effect isn't changed - a Rain of Fire spell still devastates an area - but you pay nothing for it. If you were casting it on an entire tavern room it will cost you nothing but only IF you critically succeed.
Unfortunately you roll *after* you choose the target AoE. You cannot target a single room and then on a crit decide to increase the area to annihilate the entire town. But still having a free spell is nice.
Not in the rules but the GM could spontaneously decide that the damage is also increased by 1 or 2 per die on a crit. If that makes their game better then go for it but it is a house rule and not a book rule.
I have been using a Roll to Cast system in my D&D campaigns since the mid 90’s. It’s better than spell slots in my opinion. Magic in my world is difficult and dangerous to cast with the roll reflecting this in various ways depending on results rolled etc.
😴 💤 🛏 😪 No
Cool, are spells made more powerful to balance out the risk?
@@BanditsKeep I'm scrolling through games sessions needing players and if given a choice to play DnD 2024 RAI or to play DnD modified with quirky homebrew mechanics, I'd just pick the RAI table.
Players like me enjoy being able to port characters into various campaigns/one shots and know that their character will work as INTENDED. There's a beauty in that universality; it feels like the same world no matter what table I go to just set in a different part or with different goals (if you have a setting preference that is). We don't want to read more rules on top of the PHB rules we learned.
@@BanditsKeep I play almost exclusively casters with one melee focused character. There's nothing about the spell system that needs a change beyond the few popular tweaks to obviously broken spells like Conjure Minor Elementals. I dont need any more bells and whistles added.
DnD has one of the coolest magic systems ever. It's slightly "broken" for a caster who really knows what they are doing and that's cool when it's done in smart entertaining ways. It's hard to replicate that with many MORPG casting systems.
@@BanditsKeep
The spells can be if a high enough roll happens, similar to DCC but not as extensive. Overall I think most spells are powerful as written.
I use 3.5 rules for everything else and the spells in 3.5 tend to be powerful enough overall.
I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but almost 30 years of using the roll to cast system and we all enjoy it as its made some memorable sessions over the decades.
I started running The Nightmares Underneath recently, which incorporates a similar complexity concept. You may (and almost always do) know some spells higher level than you are. Spells of your own level or lower you can cast on a simple ability check. Spells higher than your own level you have to check against half your casting stat (rounded down).
Cool
As is similarly expressed by a few comments, while I don’t dislike Vancian Magic conceptually, I just find it limits the fantasy a bit for me. I’m of two minds about it. Part of me loves the idea of chaotic magic that can be wildly unpredictable but also powerful and freeflowing as a result. Similarly, I like the idea of the studious wizard that can “tame” it somewhat and have control over it in their own way.
I think the idea of different classes casting in different ways (which I’ve also seen some comments mention) would be a great middle ground for this, albeit likely complicated. I’m less interested in mechanical balance and more thematic coherence and actually feeling different to play, and I feel like this is a good way to possibly do that. Another similar option is paying some form of health resource (damage, exhaustion points, etc) to cast more and more difficult magic or adding a modifier to a roll. It makes the magic feel chaotic and dangerous, at least to me
Not a fan of the health resource - I made a video about modifying Vancian for different types of casters. All this stuff can be super fun to play with
@@BanditsKeep I believe I watched that one as well. I think a lot of it can boil down to the fantasy versus the mechanics as well. Mechanically it can become kind of dull, but as a story device, I find it compelling
I like the roll to cast. I've never really enjoyed the Vancian system, and now 5E made it more complicated with it's sub systems for each class. If I'm playing AD&D, I'll suck it up and not complain, but in modern D&D? Well, there was reason why I mostly ran (and run) other games (lol).
I love the chainmail history lesson on this stuff. And you are right, unless you have read the source material for this type of magic, it's really hard to imagine what it is supposed to be like in the story.
Indeed
I got to look into DCC. My main experience is old school Rolemaster, where you have power points (basically mana) and spell lists you never forget. The modern version RMU uses all challenge rolls for all magic. So there is a lot of RNG but your tactical bonuses and level help a lot.
I do like the idea of "graceful failure" like o go to cast fireball but can't quite pull out of but still get s fire bolt.
For sure
Shadow Dark is roll to cast and my playgroup loves it. We abandoned D&D when Shadow Dark released and it’s been no looking back for us. All of us have a history with D&D that goes back to the late 70s to early 80s. We’ve played a long time. It just goes to show how good Shadow Dark is for us to abandon that sort of D&D history.
Cool, I’m glad you found a system you all like. I read it and shelved it, but. SD seems popular for sure.
I haven't been playing too long, but my table has always used roll to cast in 5e. We just like the gamble of it. Magic is powerful but finicky. But my table is pretty unhinged as a baseline, so it works for us. I could see where it wasn't for everyone
Nice
Love roll to cast as Magic should be terrifying both in its effect on the world and the caster
Indeed
And that is an [unusually spicy take] 🤣
Merry Christmas! 🎄
Merry Christmas!
Rolling for magical success seems attractive to me. Such not only makes magic similar to other skills and abilities but presents some feeling of mystery, may facilitate variable flavor in effects, and could enable magic use optimization.
While strictly non-mechanical variable flavor can be trivially added to increase a sense of mystery about magic, such seems likely to seem bland (when it is known that there is no in-game effect) or confusing (if the variation is wrongly believed to have a cause). Having a magic missile randomly arc to the target rather than follow a straight path, changing the color of a effect, flickering or pulsing rather than usual steady effects can be completely non-mechanican.
Weakly mechanical flavor can be more interesting and have effects on game play. When a fire effect that normally burns cleanly produces significant smoke, the smoke could (temporarily) slightly hinder combat and searching, alert others about a danger, or even hinder smell-based determination of dangers (player or setting). Because there are in-game effects, introducing such flavor by GM fiat may be perceived negatively even if the GM is relatively trusted. A random effect is less likely to have such out-of-game consequences.
Such variable flavor could also be used to provide information about the environment, the target of the magic, or the nature of the effect. Magic with variable effect (damage dice, saving throws, number of targets affected) could justify such flavor even without general roll-to-succeed magic.
An area might me "magic arid/humid" without mechanical effect but with significant flavor and backstory significance. A fabric metaphor for magic might include wear, heaviness, thread coarseness, etc. that could influence non-mechanical or weakly mechanical flavor. Similarly a target might not have a mechanical resistance to an effect but a change to the flavor might indicate heritage or the possession of a significant item (e.g., an unworn ring of resitance to an effect).
Informative flavor can be included without roll-to-succeed, but if used consistently such might be excessively heavy hinting. A GM fiat "random" flavor with informative bias might have similar issues as weakly mechanical effects by GM fiat.
Roll-to-succeed facilitates adding significant mechanical effects because the rules specify the variability. Like skill or ability checks, such can accentuate unusual ability or difficulty. Such also seems to fit better with an "anything can be attempted" style.
Skill-like checks also present opportunities for optimization. A caster might be allowed to rescue a failing casting at the cost of extra fatigue or some other condition or cause magical side effects (e.g., an extra push to make a sleep spell succeed might cause allies to fall asleep). A magical residue side effect might increase the difficulty of all spell casting in an area; this could have tactical consequences with subsequent spell casting (even mildly nerfing an opponent), campaign-level consequences (as others might not be happy about such pollution), and intermediate-level consquences (drawing biota that favor such an environment).
A caster could also make preparations to maximize success. E.g., in a system that allows casting any known spell at any time, preparing a token similar to a spell scroll might be possible to greatly reduce the chance of failure at the cost of spell choice. Tokens might also be generalized to spell effect types or "school". Similarly, material, verbal, and somatic components might make casting easier (with the constraints such impose). Increasing casting time (similar to ritual) might also reduce the chance of caster-based failure.
Taking the time to paint magical symbols on the floor would limit mobility and increase the danger of a too-early encounter but might make a difficult spell very likely to succeed.
(Token accumulation might be managed by having slow leakage - perhaps related to item cost and preparation time - and some risk of activating the wrong token or multiple tokens. One might also allow shielded token containers that reduce/eliminate the risk of accidental interference at the cost of less immediate availability - opening time and effort might be related to capacity and shield effectiveness. Such could also be used to hide or disguise against magic detection. Token-enhanced casting seems similar to Vancian magic mechanically.)
Skill-like magic also introduces the possibility of variable expertise. A magic user might specialize in a kind/school of magic, emphasize a specific effect within or outside of that kind, and develop expertise in a specific spell.
Such complexity offers casters choices that can express character preferences. A cautious character might prefer low-risk spells with maximum aids while avoiding spell diversity. A character preferring high impact effects might have similar preparatory behavior but choose side effects rather than easier spells. A spontaneous character might prefer mostly general aids, spend less resources in preparation, be able to start an adventure with less delay, and be more effective against unexpected challenges or when resources are lost.
I think ideally most of such complexity would be "precomputed", similar to making an ability modifier more accessible than an ability score. Rather than having tables with specific effects, simple rules might map rolls and difficulty to the extremity of variation and the extremity of variation to kinds of effects. A caster might also be allowed to bias the kind of failure, e.g., exhaustion/caster "harm" vs. wild magic vs. lesser effect; a player might feel better about choosing to nerf a spell to avoid _worse_ consequences than merely being told that the spell had no effect. Skill and difficulty might also influence how much failure mode can be biased.
Counter-spell choices might also bias the effects. A substantially more powerful wizard might prefer to both reduce/nullify the effect and increase the "harm" to the caster, removing the immediate danger and reducing the danger of further spells. A desperate or crazy wizard might choose wild magic as the interference bias rather than a more difficult lessening of the effect; wild magic might also be preferred when facing more numerous opponents (e.g., a lone wizard facing a wizard with ten men-at-arms).
For unusual success, it might well be reasonable to allow the caster to choose whether to increase the effect or reduce the normal cost (e.g., only half-draining a token, less fatigue than a normal casting, or reduced casting time or concentration effort).
Since severe failures most need careful handling, it is fortunate that the frequency of such failures would be somewhat self-limiting (the bad effects would tend to prevent further magic use and overly difficult magic is only likely to be attempted in extreme circumstances).
For lower difficulty magic, a roll might indicate time to completion or other cost factor rather than degree of success. When casting time and other costs are the primary constraint for spell frequency, easy spells might become more attractive in time-limited conditions, especially when multiple diverse dangers are present.
Providing a large degree of choice without slowing game play seems likely to be challenging. Even with perfect front-loading of the computation of consequences, having to make decisions can slow play.
Some of the above-noted benefits can be achieved without roll-for-success. Extra preparations could allow fixed benefits of faster casting, lower "mana" cost, reduced chance of disruption, or a modestly more powerful effect, but guaranteed consequences would seem to favor min-max computation and so urge more careful balancing of the tradeoffs. Modest fixed bonuses are probably also less interesting than variable effects.
Of course, some people prefer logic puzzles over games of chance; roll-for-success would be less fun for such people.
I have played a system like this. Decision dice wqas 2d6 and if at least one of them was 1 or 2 it was a success. It was used for everything, social situations, magic, melee, etc... I liked it, very few rolls, mostly just story negotiating with the DM.
Cool, seems simple and straight forward
I sort ot balance the roll to hit versus the effect based spells in quite a few systems I play by having lower level 'damage cantrips' that you can cast with a roll to hit, while the others are generally left the same, but you get less of a chance to recover spell slots.
Cool
I do not like having to roll just to initiate and cast a spell but the other aspects of it are fascinating. Makes me think of another way is to roll an Intel role and how successful that is let that determine how effective the spell was.
In other words if you make your role the spell goes off but if you beat it by 10 or better you get a bonus to the effect and maybe if you beat it by 15 or better it's even richer bonus. It's just a random idea. Because your videos make me think of stuff.
Pathfinder 2nd edition has this effect on spells.
That could be cool
Unpredictable magic seems more desirable than predictable magic, although probably more work for the GM.
How would it be more work for the GM? I’ve ran both and they are the same
More desirable for the players?
My understanding is that originally a session was likely just one "day" and the notion would be that a MU would use their spell(s) at the critical point and when you consider a group was larger with likely more than one, the limitations were not as extreme as for a modern group of just 3 or 4 PCs. My notion is that a roll to cast gives MU PCs more to contribute than a spell cast and poke at things with a dagger or hold the lantern, even allow a MU to be an adventurer with just a companion or two and still play. I think all roll to cast try to allow a MU to be a peer rather than a glass cannon as it might be in old D&D and more supporting to the fighter as I believe it would be until high level.
I like roll to cast for lower level and smaller group play, but I respect it does allow the MU to be far more pivotal and even a more than equal PC where one may want to hold the magic back and remain focused on desperate fighters looting dungeons style. As always it has good and bad for how you want to play ar the table.
I prefer fewer, but more powerful spells. I also don’t think a magic-user without spells is just a dagger wielding fighter. There should be opportunities in the adventure for the magic user to shine beyond combat.
my idea for it is one level spell slot is a +4 and you add that to a spell check then 9 level is +36 to the spell check.
i`m using this to have more open magic system.
Not sure I follow you
@@BanditsKeep the purpose of this is that you can always interface with magic if don't have spell slot you can still read magic or give something in exchange for effect,
i did increments of 4 so lv1=4 lv2=8 and and so on
I tempted to use this static DC approach, but with two changes:
1. DC is generally higher then expected
2. MU can convert HP into +X to casting
2a. If he does this willingly before the role the ratio is 1:1
2b. If he fails then the missing amount is taken automatically in 2:1 ratio (or 3:1 if 1 was rolled)
Maybe to avoid killing of MU outright there would be an option for converting some DMG received this way into random mutations? The more DMG was taken, the more saver the mutations.
Sounds like spell casting would be very dangerous.
@BanditsKeep that's true. This is definitely "high risk and high reward" approach to magic and it might need some balancing on either side ;)
Maybe MU's would be more extreme approach, while clerics could be using more tamed mechanic (lower risk and lower rewards).
Not sure I agree that roll to cast makes magic just like a sword. the negative effects can be far worse than a failed sword swing. It is the negative effects that make it interesting. Having a bonus effect for rolling a critical success could help with making it even more interesting, but the 150+ pages of spell effects for DCC seems like overkill.
What are the negative effects? If they are “lose the spell” I don’t agree
DC20 uses roll to cast with a spectrum of outcomes. I worry a bit about its complexity but it does make sense and looks fun.
Have you tried it at the table?
@ I haven’t yet, no. Overall that system is high-crunch but it does look interesting. I’m following their Discord and watching the creator’s videos on occasion but my group likes modest crunch these days.
Haven't played roll to cast very much but always wanted to explore it. DCC is very clever, I sort of want something similar that's not dependent on dice steps like that but without the swingy higher dice then the hilarity is reduced, I guess. I think some sort of roll often already underscores the chaotic element, the powerful but hard to wield, nature that a lot of systems want to go for. Roll a 1 and something bad happens is a bit underwhelming, I guess because it's neat when the effect can happen even when you manage to cast correctly. More to ponder
For sure
Something I'm thinking about that was inspired by the World Tree RPG is why not have different ways of casting magic? You have Spell Points and how many Spell Points a spell costs to cast depends on the way you cast it. Vancian is the cheapest, but you can also have a spell you have learned, but not memorized, essentially choosing your spell on the fly, which cost more Spell Points. And lastly, you put a spell you don't know together on the fly and cast it, which is the most expensive way to cast and needs a roll to succeed.
A wizard could have spell memorized only to see a party member die. The wizard casts 'Resurrection' on the fly and could find he is out of Spell Points for anything else until he recovers.
Of course you could add a system where a Wizard exchanges Hit Points/Health Levels for Spell Points if situation grows dire. That also opens up the possibility of burning them permanently for even more Spell Points.
So, how doe you spend your Spell Points? How desperate is the Party's situation? Is the World Devourer winning?
Interesting
Although I haven't tried it out, I have wanted to use the roll to cast mechanic for a while, both for the cleric and magic-user classes. IMO, roll to cast would allow for more uncertainty in the worldbuilding which would open a lot of possibilities for roleplay. Since clerics and magic-user spells are guaranteed to go off in B/X (with some exceptions to saving throws) there is definitive proof of divine and arcane magical forces but if roll to cast is present, then suddenly the lore and worldbuilding becomes much murkier. Basically, it introduces doubt which is something I think would add a lot to the game.
Indeed
I'm thinking of a random table for what you have to do for a ritual for, say, removing a curse. Whether it's at full moon. new moon, dawn, dusk, midnight, etc, and what kind of location it has to be, and what they would have to do. And then maybe a Willpower roll to see if it works
That sounds fun
I do love me some DCC 😊 I’m not that invested either way, I actually like using some sort of point system to power spells. This allows for items that are spell focuses which reduce the amount of points needed or the ability for casters to combine points or even steal them from others.
Stealing points from others, I like that!
I use the spell point system in my current campaigns, though I'm looking to make magic a little less easy in a future game as casters feel more like a videogame now and outshine martials. I'd cull the spell list and reduce the number of spells in a day as levels progress, plus get rid of scaling for cantrips.
Cool
Wasn’t roll to cast one of the balance features of old school psionics? I grew up with 2nd edition, so it might be only that one.
I don’t recall having to roll to use psionics in AD&D, it used a point system though that was depleted as you used attacks and abilities.
@ as I recall 2nd edition used both. You could pump in more psionic points to improve your roll, which was essentially a modified ability check. Every power had a different difficulty (modifier I think), and some allowed you to do crazier stuff if you raised the difficulty. Since psionics only had greater and lesser powers instead of level, this seems to have been one of the balancing features. I’d have to dig my psionics handbook out of storage (or pdf it) to be sure.
I only played first edition with the teenager next door a few times when I was like 8, so I don’t know my 1st edition AD&D rules. Though I’ve been learning about them on TH-cam. Not because I want to try the edition, just for a broader context for gaming.
@ ok, just looked up the PDF. They use a modification of the non-weapon proficiency rule for power score. Different powers or disciplines use different ability scores. If you fail the check you lose half the casting points unless otherwise noted.
So it might take a little work, but psionics could probably be retooled as a more sword and sorcery magic style for D&D.
Interesting that you mention a sword there, since it seems like some modern games remove the attack roll and also go only for an effect roll. I personally like that, even though I went for my own design even a step further and have through out any competency rolls.
Interesting, you are right, are we moving from roll to hit to roll to cast?
Dungeon Crawl Classics has the best roll to cast mechanics ever
Yep
A roll-to-cast system for D&D could be made using FATE's core rule set. I plan on adapting D&D characters to a less pansified version of FATE for my campaign.
That would be interesting
How about Nivenian Magic? (Mana systems) my homebrew game uses Mana, but I never see much talk about it online
I have not had enough experience with systems like that, the ones I’ve seen feel a bit too gamey though (where you pick up mana running around the dungeons) though I can see the fun in that it’s not to my general taste
I've never really cared for spell slots. I really like spell points. I don't mind rolling especially if the system has a mechanic to modify this.
Cool
I like the idea, i think the Professor DM se a similar sytem in DB.
What about a Mana Point System, can you give some advice?
Thx for the video!
Any thoughts on Dungeon World? Have you tried it?
I have played a couple of times. It was fun.
As long as it isn't "negotiate with your DM" the magic system will work fine, because it's at least an actual magic system.
Why is the negotiate with DM not?
@BanditsKeep You need rules to make rulings upon the ruled players, and the only rule at play in a negotiation "system" is that the DM is the ultimate authority over the game (as per the *rules*) making it completely vacuous. It's like calling a landfill a "hill machine."
😊😊😊
😊
I'm working on a skill check based magic system that doesn’t use spells that are written out. You combine elements to make magic effects
Cool
I like roll to cast. D20 over spell level for success. Higher roll equals better result. 1 has negative outcome.
I also use spell level squared hp as the cost rather than slots. Casting spells lose you hp makes you squishy.
High risk reward.
So you need to roll a 1 to fail a level one, a 2 (or less) for level 2, etc.?
I'm generally of the opinion that rolling to cast is just spell slots without the ability to plan around them, which kind of negates the point. Both are systems intended to make spellcasting an exhaustible resource: at some point in the day you won't be able to cast the spell you need. Spell slots give you the opportunity to predict what your day is going to look like and prepare appropriately. Rolling to cast just means that at some random and unpredictable point in the day you won't have spells available.
You do make a fairly compelling case though that DCC adds enough unique elements to stand on its own. I've run the system a few times--never played it--and may need to give it another look.
I’d be curious to know if you warm up to it with a few more tries.
DCCRPG ❤
The Chainmail Fantasy Supplement has generally been underappreciated. It's really got the basics of a very satisfying game, but needs interpretations.
Indeed!
What if on fail they cast an associated cantrip and the slot is saved?
Give it a try
This makes my plans for a game for teens easier
Nice
No mention of Ars Magica? :/
Haven’t played it
Thoughts on Chainmail's Fireball/Lightning Bolt??
I use them for mass combat as the time works great.
@@BanditsKeep ...More so that they do not have spell complexity, they do offer certain units a 'saving throw', and that they may count as missiles and not spells for the purposes of spells known?? 🤔
I kind of like the Chain Mail spell system. Especially the delayed casting idea. On page 33 it looks like the Warlock numbers at spell complexity 2 are wrong. They should be 7, 6, 4 (not 7, 8, 6).
You deserve a much bigger channel. I get so much good stuff from you. You’re one of few TTRPG creators I’m excited about when a video comes out.
Thank You! That is very kind
Ah, do the winds of magic favor you? I've never been much of a fan of roll-to-cast, since I think characters should be able to use their abilities and know they will work. But as a crossover from Vancian to continuous magic, a variation that I do like is a "roll to retain" system. The magic user casts the spell the first time fine, but must then roll and if successful can retain the spell for a subsequent casting (roll is d20+MU level versus a target of 10+spell level+number of prior castings that day). That way you get your spell at least once, but perhaps multiple times based on skill and luck.
Ah yes, I’ve used this before
I like how DCC has spells that have growing effects depending on the roll, and am a fan of that design philosophy that a single spell can grow in power and complexity of effect with the caster, but i am not a fan of some of the "Roll to cast" rules. Namely, the interuptions and consulting a table during play, as that can bog things down when there are multiple casters.
Not sure I agree about blogging things down, but that depend on the players I suppose
The only thing about roll to cast is that you’re really at the mercy of the D20. For many spells you’d then have to roll a d20 to try to cast it, then roll another d20 to hit, and then the target would roll a d20 to save. A bit of a faff!
Indeed
I much prefer Vancian magic. I occasionally play in a friend's game that has roll to cast. While the chance is fairly high, there is still a chance for failure and that seems to happen when you need the spell the most, making a Magic User somewhat impractical to play. I may miss my swing as a fighter, but I don't lose my sword when I miss. Having to choose which spells I have memorized at the beginning of the day seems to irk many players who want to cast any spell they have whenever they choose. Planning and resource management is an essential part of the game in my opinion. Great video. Thanks for this.
When I've played with roll to cast systems (except DCC), spellcasting always felt kind of cheap. Like there's a 50% chance of just solving many problems (including non combat problems). E.g Charm Person. Losing the spell is a much more interesting gameplay decision.
Indeed
Wizards should only be able to cast a spell every OTHER round of combat. This means they have to charge up their spells before casting them and the party and enemies have time to prepare for the spell. Since they only get to cast every other round their attacks should be at least 3x as powerful as non magic attacks.
Sounds like a good system for a miniature skirmish game.
I commented because it was needed.
Thanks!
Same thing, different person making the roll. I will ask my players, but i will be they will go with keep the saving throw. Its just makes more sense that a creature would resist a spell, but the save can be viewed as overcoming their resistance.
Indeed - what makes it different is virtually unlimited vs limited casting - not who rolls
I would make it so that the complexity can be lowered by casting over multiple turns
Interesting idea, essentially a simple “ritual” magic rule.
I've always loved apellcasters in dnd. And hated its spellcasting systems. Especially 5e. In older versions spells were at least reversible, and you had some flexibility in what they did. 5e suffers from such bad feature creep that you have an entire spellbook packed with highly specific, situational and inflexible spells that are each only good for one or two situations. Of course you're going to have a blue million of them.
Gotta say, Chainmail intrigues me, though. Especially the counterspelling.
Going to say, Chainmail was a decent system for magic, but the current crop of roll-to-cast is much better (having used both systems pretty extensively) - because of the scaling on failure and (IMO) lack of consequence for failure. I think DCC falls down in the complexity. Shadowdark has improved on this system and gives you the the failure, gives immediate loss of spells until next rest, and has that nice risk vs reward system I think you're overlooking by immediately ruling it out because it doesn't have multiple tables/complexity for the fail states and does utilize a pass-fail DC. Not looking at the subsystems is a short sighted view, but I do understand why "simple DCs" might not be your cuppa.
Unfortunately, DCC requires too much reference to the material to be user-friendly. Multiple tables for fail and success states, it makes the system more 3E crunch (and let's not forget spell-burning and other fun stuff they add). These are in theory a solid complex and layered system, but in use at the table it's decidedly not new-player or casual friendly. If you have a die-hard and knowledgeable group of player, perfect, I definitely agree - but for a mix of newbies or a beer and pretzels type campaign, it just doesn't work well and puts a lot on the DM and players to manage.
Not to say Shadowdark is flawless - At higher levels, at least for wizard, the Shadowdark system does not scale well - this is not a perfect system and it'll be most likely the big thing that I change. My party's Human wizard is at +8 to spellcasting checks by level 5, making most 3rd level spells trivial to cast. Priest scales better than the wizard because at best you're looking at a +4 by 7th level, maybe +5 if they get an 18 WIS. But the "talents" at level up for wizard quickly bloat spellchecks where the priest is limited to just +1 per roll or has other talents (like +1 melee attacks etc.) to create a more rounded class.
I don’t love the Shadowdark system, but it’s great to know that many systems exist for all types of players and play styles.
@@BanditsKeep It's a great casual campaign system, where the mechanics matter less than the company/story being told. It doesn't work as well for a "serious" game.
Yeah i broadly don't like roll to cast systems, I'm mostly interested in what an ars magica or mage ascension style magic system would look like in bx.
I’ve heard much about Ars Magica, but I have not read or played it
@@BanditsKeep So there are lots of different areas of magic and you make spells by combining them, a lot of the game can be about making new spells and finding rare resources to power the magic. So you might mix something like water and fire and earth to make a lava spell.
Hi Daniel. As always I enjoy and appreciate your videos and perspective.
In this rare instance , I disagree with you in that I like the concept of roll to cast.
I just haven't settled on exactly how I want it to be.
I will try to be brief as I could eject a lot of thoughts on this.
I guess it all comes down to how you want magic to "feel" at your table.
Over time ( I started playing and DMing in 1976 or 77 ( don't really remember the date )
I have grown to feel that Gygax' take on Vancian magic that is at the heart
of casting (In DandD ) is unsatisfying to me ( and to those playing one in the game) .
Why ? I ask this of myself a lot.
To answer first I must decide how I want magic to feel in my game , and to the players in my game.
In a nutshell , I want magic ( and Magic User PCs ) to be :
1) Rare or at least uncommon ( I require a 2d6 result of doubles at Character creation
for a Character to have Magical aptitude )
2) Powerful - as these Characters are relatively weak in other regards , magic should be
influential to the game , even when cast by inexperienced casters
- just ask Mickey Mouse's the sorcerer's apprentice
3) Risky and Frightening - you mess with unnatural forces of the universe and it SHOULD
be scary , even for the MU ( especially when you summon something powerful and
try to control it ! )
4) Chaotic - the exact results of a spell should vary ( at least a little ) with each casting ,
especially for an inexperienced caster
5) Varied Choices and (possible) Effects - this is for gameplay , but I want MU PCs to feel
they have variety of choice.
Over time I have begun to feel that the choice of 1 Spell to a first level character lacks
variety in terms of what a MU PC can bring to a campaign of adventures.
If you think of it , the MU has the least options available to them in an adventure of all
the Classes ( I operate with a very minimum # of Classes , basically Warrior/
Scoundrel(Thief)/MU.)
The Warrior may choose and carry several weapons of different types , a choice of
armour , Shield or no Shield , Helm or no Helm etc.
A Scoundrel/Thief can apply skills of stealth and guile , any weapon to the game.
Any PC Fighting risks their HP in a Fight as a measure of their "life energy" for lack of a
better definition.
In my mind a Spellcaster should pay some kind of (energy) cost in order to cast.
Like many game groups , my friends and I experimented with Spell Points for Mages ,
points paid to cast a spell - though in those days there was no risk applied to the attempt
, you paid your points and cast your spell. There was no backfire risk.
I always strive for simplicity and , and I always felt that managing a different system
mechanic just to manage magic function was inelegant, and I eventually came to the
thought of why not just use Hit Points for Magic Casting energy ?
The immediate situation that needs to be addressed is that MUs have so few
Hit Points they will have none to spare for casting.
Ok so we (slightly) increase the base number of Hit Points for the Spellcasting Character ,
and have them pay to cast from their precious Hit Points - now they recover their
spellcasting ability with normal rest like other Classes , and choosing when to cast is a
difficult strategic choice - and not as crippling as using your one chance with a spell in
OD and D or BX - remember that in those games , once a MU has cast their one spell
they are a liability for the party for the rest of the adventure. Not entirely fun to play.
You also need to work out how many spells a caster should have available at each level.
This is really to the taste of the Ref , and the table , and I will end my monotribe here.
Thanks again - always interesting.
I agree it comes down to the taste of the ref and the players.
I much prefer roll-to-cast to spell slots or other more Vancian-styled magic systems. I moved away from 5th edition D&D to DCC and Shadowdark, and I prefer DCC's more chaotic and mysterious magic system. Casting a spell is a big deal and is unpredictable, and the themes of power having a cost feed well into that with spellburn and luck. I found that the modern 5e-style spellcasting left a bad taste, it felt like push-button play more often than not. Every spell in DCC is a decision being made, and that decision carries really interesting consequences that can push the game in unexpected directions.
DCC is the gold standard in roll to cast