Hi Ayden! Great question. Check the google doc in the video notes for a bunch of additional details on making this system work. Its all free. But to sum it up, the caster can choose to increase the DC for casting the spell before they roll. So if you want to cast Burning Hands at 2nd level instead of first, just adjust the DC up by 1 from 11 to 12. Just note that the caster needs to declare this intent before they roll, not after. Hope that helps!
@@chrisnagy377 I actually play tested using d4 dice and it became really lethal for low level characters. Hence the 1 for 1. To be fair, it sounds like what you’re saying would allow 1st level spells to remain 1:1 which is line with the current system. But think about how the additional math slows down higher level spells. Fail to cast a 6th level spell by 4 points so you have to lose 4x6 (24) hit points in blood magic to force it to be cast? That’s a pretty steep price for a 6th level spell. I think this would disincentivize all spellcasting and that’s not my intent.
@@HouseDM Well, honestly, forcing a caster to lose 24 hit points to cast a level 6 spell would only be bad for a level 6 character (As you have it). Allow the level 6 spell to be cast when it's supposed to be cast (11th level character) and 24 hit points wouldn't be as big of a deal. Not saying it's a good idea, just pointing it out.
@@genostellar you make a really great point here. So in an effort to keep max hit points lower, I don’t run campaigns past level 10. Hence the whole 9th level casters can cast 9th level spells. Didn’t want them to miss out on those high power spells. I’ve tried running campaigns that go past 10th level (highest was 14) and the game just becomes a slog with all of the abilities and it wasn’t that fun for me, at least with 5e. OSR games on the other hand don’t have this issue and can go up to level 80 if you have a dedicated enough player group. But that’s a different story.
I ran a short campaign where the DC started at 5 to cast and went up by 1- each time the spell was cast. The wizard had a blast - literally - with fireball until we reached the end and the severity of the next check sank in…
I’ve seen systems like this. I’ve found adding things to keep track of like variable dc’s can be an added burden though. Really like how simple Deathbringer keeps spellcasting checks. DC=10. Always.
Why not have the DC go up with each casting during combat for all damage dealing spells, by the spell level of the previous spells, all cumulative until you take a long rest.
I like this idea, spell slots force you to take too many rests and makes you stop too much…well everyone is out of spell slots and in game time has only been like an hour. We made it like two rooms in the dungeon at a low level and you have to leave and take a long rest…so frustrating.
I both: do not like your idea and don’t want to use it at my table; and Also: love that you made this video, as it’s thought provoking and interesting new take on how magic “could” be handled!
Hi Codie! Thanks for sharing this. I think all my house rule idea videos are me just tinkering and changing things until I find something I like. Your feedback is appreciated 🤘🏼
Finding what you like is #1 (having players that also enjoy what you like is validating, and while this one is not for me, I am certain many players WILL like this). Keep up the tinkering! :)
Agreed wholeheartedly, it'd be especially brutal at my table considering we do roughly eight hour sessions with little breaks or mercy (in game, of course ... Mostly. 🫣)
I know it's rather pedantic, but I feel it's worth mentioning that 5e casting mechanics are extremely loose compared to the original "Vancian" magic D&D used. Up through 2e, if you wanted to cast a spell three times, you had to have it memorized three times. If you had three 1st level spell slots and we're fighting a troll, you might memories memorize Burning Hands three times and hope like hell you don't need Chill Touch later that day, because you only have Burning Hands available. A spell slot was for a specific spell, not just a unit of magical energy like it is today.
I can definitely appreciate this thought process. Personally, I'm not sure if I'd enjoy using it. A lot of 5e spells are already pretty feast-or-famine (i.e. save or suck spells), and adding another necessary dice roll exacerbates that. It already sucks when you botch an Inflict Wounds attack roll, or the enemy rolls really well to save against Polymorph or Disintegrate. And getting a critical Fireball or Hold Person would probably end a lot of fights instantly. Which is super cool for the caster and would admittedly be hype as hell, but feels like it would widen the gap between casters and martials even more. That being said, I can appreciate the idea that even if I botch my Raise Dead, it doesn't waste my opportunity to cast Bigby's Hand instead, since they no longer share a resource. It would also encourage the use of utility spells like Silent Image and such, since you don't need to "save" the spell slots for combat.
Sounds like something we could fix with an adjustment to the meaning of a 1 or 20. Either say the die doesn't matter (1 and 20 aren't special) or make the penalty/bonus modest. The save DC goes up by, I dunno, 2 / DC goes down by 2. Reroll one die for that fireball / lose one die of damage. What if, spells that already require a save or an attack roll, don't require making this extra roll if the spell failed? In that way you won't be punished twice. If the spell does work, you have to make the check. A fireball spell "works" even if it doesn't hit every target. Fourth Edition solved the problem of combat spells competing with utility spells (and spell slots in general).
This was one thing that came to mind for me right away too: Adding another roll that can cause a spell to fail. I have some players who are unhappy with these kinds of rules and have been so since 3rd ed. I'm not sure if there is a graceful way to mitigate this for spells with a save DC, but one thing I would do is have the spellcasting check pull double-duty for ranged spell attacks. Use the result of the the spellcasting check for the ranged spell attack roll. Both rolls use Prof and Ability for the bonus to the roll so that might work.
I concur, it sucks when a player wants to accomplish something and then it just fails because of bad luck. It's one reason I don't utilize Roll 20 systems for my campaigns. I prefer to utilize mechanics that focus on failing forward. This could work with elements of the proposed system, such as sacrificing HP to be able to cast the spell if you "fail" the check, but it'd be nice to have other methods to interact with it beyond that, such as becoming tired, temporarily blind/deaf/mute, getting a headache, having a mood swing, etc. In my preference I like to reward players for their tactics, problem solving skills and ingenuity. Also, I don't like wasting time. Nobody wants to waste a bunch of time of whiffed attacks and failed spells. Sure, it's realistic... but it's not engaging. It's better if "failures" cause things to still move forward and to have players feel like narrative progress is being achieved (but at a cost). And players are willing to pay rather interesting costs and make some rather heroic sacrifices to achieve their goals (trust me). I would be remiss if I didn't say there was NO place for complete failure without any other objective result. This is in relevance to checks that have NOTHING to do with the primary crux of the player's goal/path. Say your goal is to navigate an abandoned dwarven mine because one of your party member thought it would be a fantastic shortcut. Any check or choice made to advance that goal should fail forward to keep up the momentum. But if, say, one of your compatriots wants to wander off in search of leftover bounty, well that check can fail if they're unlucky. Killing the momentum helps keep a focus on the primary goal, but affords the player a risk/reward opportunity to pursue a more personal affair without leaving the group feeling like time was massively wasted. Sorry for the word vomit. tl;dr: I prefer fail forward mechanics, so spells that "fail" should incur a setback either in temporary conditions or in a new challenge presenting itself (you tried to Mold Earth, you did what you wanted... but you also unearthed a sleeping *insert dangerous monster here* and she hangry)
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 I prefer a perhaps more realistic approach to gaming. Im not here to coddle players so not going to give them an 'out' because they are whining. I'll just get other players. I like most of the removal of spell slots ideas and have a version I am play testing now. I might adapt to more this way as its more interesting. A caster whining cause there spell didnt work is no more or less important to a fighter who missed their attacks really...
@@CaptnJack It's not so much to coddle and more in the interests of time and fun. I totally understand not hosting players that bitch and moan about every little inconvenience. But that's not why I play the way I do. To fully explain takes... much more text than I had already written, and it was already turning into a wall so I decided to stop. To elaborate: I find there are checks related to 2 things. Category 1 are Party/Story related checks. These are things the players do to progress the plot and move the party as a whole forward into the adventure. When these checks fail, it only serves to bring the momentum of the story to a screeching halt as now the players have to find some other way to solve the issue. Even more annoying if the solution is obvious, but the check is difficult. For Category 1 checks I utilize failing forward or introduce new twists that keep action flowing. Then there's Category 2 checks which are personal interest checks. These are personal things players want their characters to do like tame a wild animal to be a companion or take a detour in a cave to look for treasure. These checks I have no problem rendering a failure and blocking from progressing further. They serve no purpose to furthering the narrative and if focused on too long will draw too much focus on a single character at the expense of the rest of the players. Personal side quests should be short and sweet so failure means failure in those cases. Hopefully that makes a bit more sense on the grand scale. There's obviously more to it than that, but that's the skinny of it. tl;dr: I separate checks into 2 categories. Checks that further the story and help the party as a whole get the falling forward treatment and are Category 1. Checks made for personal interests are allowed to fail outright and are Category 2. This is all done in the interest of time and fun. It is not done to coddle the players.
Removing proficiency from the check seems… very strange to me because it means you never get better at it, and seems like a massive flavour fail for the same reason.
I think a soft version of this could be a way to extend past expended slots. So your spell slots now represent your ability to cast spells safely but you can extend this by doing the check. Id probably increase the DC in this case (maybe 13 + twice the spells level) and similarly double the amount of health needed to make up the difference
I just ran a test session of almost this exactly, but instead of spell slots being 'safe use' I made the roll determine if the spell slot was expended. This system I think will work really well for my solo campaign for various reasons, however I agree about the DC, in two back-to-back medium-hard encounters she cast many spells, but didn't expend any slots (only 1st lvl spells, but with her bonuses she only needs to roll a 6 to succeed, I feel like it should be more difficult). I also decided the health make-up would reduce her max hp by double the difference, but she never had to do that so I'm not sure how it would've played out.
I love the idea of blood magic. I'd like to see some kind of 'using your hit dice' to regain lost spells as well. So you could make further sacrifice to pull a clutch spell off. Also, the 'not knowing if you've can cast that spell 4 times today' really adds a bit of tension to spamming certain spells. Breaking concentration of concentration spells might also have the effect of losing the spell for the day (though maybe this is too hardcore).
Interesting idea for breaking concentration but I don’t think I would do that. If anything, this makes concentration spells better because once cast, the spell stands. Like your idea of using hit dice for regaining spells. Seems like a cool idea but then also takes away a valuable healing resource for blood magic casters. I really like how hit dice function in 5e as is but thanks for sharing your thoughts here. More for me to ponder in my tower 🧙🏼♂️
God yes, hit dice are underutilized in 5e. I've always thought that they are a great resource, with a good system for replenishment, and they just sit there much of time doing nothing.
@@HouseDM If you do blood, you kinda need either max hp or hit die expenditure, or you end up with endless spells and hp courtesy of Goodberry or something similar. I'm not sure of the numbers but I think by averages Goodberry will give more hp that it takes
@@notoriousgoblin83 great point! Except for if you use blood magic to force the spell, the spell is still lost upon casting so at that point, no more goodberry until you rest.
In "The Dark Eye" you can manipulate spells, some sponateous (when casting) some by investing XP into it. For most you have to roll, to see if the effect happpens and you can even botch, creating uninteded negative effects. The system also uses something akin to mana points.
I haven't gotten into 5e yet, but for my 3.5 casters I prefer using the alternate spell points rule in which removes spell slots from sorcerers and other spontaneous spellcasters, and wizards, clerics, etc. Had to prepare a spell only once (using up a single spell slot) to cast it as many times as you want using your spell points.
I also really like the spell points system. Seems more flexible than slots and a lot easier to explain imo. 5e has a lot of incredible things going for it, but it also has a lot of "fluff" and "poor game design elements".
@@HouseDM that's why I have been mixing 3.5 with Pathfinder as of late. Both have elements to bring that really enhances gameay for my style. I just feel bad for the warlock who gets no love in 3.5.
just a heads up, hp also correlates to your general energy level. This is shown in 5e with the fighter's second wind ability where they gain hp by dipping into a well of stamina. Just in case you would like to flavor text the blood aspect differently.
Hey so I'm looking at the doc here and what mitigation is there for this being extremely powerful? Starting with the "you can cast spells of a level equal to your character level" thing, that means for example a Wizard gets their 9th level spells 8 levels ahead of when they normally do. And if you cap out Int with your two ability score increases that wizard has a +9 on the casting check meaning that they effectively succeed on casting 9th level spells on a coin flip. At this level a Wizard also can prepare 14 spells, so even if a cast roll fails they have more spell options that can be used the next turn. So mostly what I'm trying to figure is what the damage comparison is between any given level 9 martial and a Wizard who comes in turn one with Blade of Disaster (Blood Magic for a fairly pitiful amount of damage to force the success) and from there does their two bonus action attacks per turn while also casting Meteor Swarm until the flip fails then slowly progressing backwards through the next twelve entries of the list of highest damage non-concentration Wizard spells.
You make a really strong point here! I'd encourage you to take a look at the comments on here that share the opposite opinion. Personally, I don't think its an issue. I cap levels at 10 in my campaign, hence the being able to cast spells at 9th level thing. I also use a modified proficiency bonus system that caps at +5 at level 10. This also keeps total hitpoints low and thats intentional. So personally, I think its fair that a 10th level wizard can hypothetically do what you are sharing. And if they want to prepare ALL 9th level spells and happen to know them, hey, thats their prerogative. I wouldn't recommend it but why not when you get a +9 to cast right? It sounds like you believe this is super overpowered for wizards while many other people think this homebrew actually "ruins all casters". I'm obviously of the opinion in the middle but I'd love to hear you debate this point with someone who thinks this ruins casters. The whole discussion is fascinating to me.
By that logic a ninth level spell has a base 10% chance to succeed? Heck a fifth has a 70% chance to fail? Even with the highest bonus they would be 35% and 55% chances to succeed respectively. Why would anyone risk the higher level magics? I suppose since most players never reach such levels the point is moot but still those levels seem to be outside all but the most optimized builds reach. Unless the campaign is set in a low magic setting. I can see such limitations if the world is not so dependent on magic since it will effectively limit the possibility of success at casting magic.
My friend has been building his own custom RPG system for a while now, and at one point when it was still pretty similar to D&D (it's diverged a lot since then) this was the solution we came up with to differentiate wizards and sorcerers. Wizards used spell slots, just like in D&D, but sorcerers used a system just like this one - they could cast any spell they wanted as much as they wanted, provided they made the check to cast it. There were a few main differences: 1) Even if you failed the check to cast the spell, the spell still went off. Losing your action entirely when you fail a spellcasting check sucks, especially when it's expected that it'll happen multiple times every day. You still suffer an arcane mishap if you fail the spell, though (usually self-damage, but sometimes it would randomly hit a different target, etc). 2) When you failed a spellcasting check, you lost the ability to cast spells of that level until you rested, not that particular spell. So failing to cast Fireball would lock you out of casting third-level spells entirely. You could still upcast them, though - so you would be able to cast Fireball at 4th level still if you wanted to (but then the check was harder, and you risked losing fourth level slots instead). 3) Because this was sorcerer-specific, instead of being part of all magic, sorcerers got several class features to mitigate the downsides. As they leveled, they got the ability to ritual-cast any spell, which guaranteed success (allowing them to still use utility spells out of combat without crippling their combat potential), as well as resistance to damage from arcane mishaps and improved chances to cast low-level spells without losing them. It was pretty fun - I immediately decided that the best way to make use of this system that had you occasionally explode was to be standing in melee range so the people you exploded next to were bad guys. Then I just used all the options that made my casting more powerful but higher risk, blew up everything around me for two or three turns, and then had to run away if anything survived the nova because I couldn't cast spells anymore.
I kinda like the Shadowrun spellcasting system. You cast the spell, define its limits, see how effective it is, and then try to resist the "drain", or the mental and physical repercussions of channeling the mana.
Problem with that (speaking as a long term Shadowrun GM and player) is that it *strongly* incentivises casters to min-max their Drain resistance stats to the point where they can practically ignore Drain as a mechanic and spellcast very high force at will with no penalty. This is such a problem that I've been at Shadowrun tables (not ones I've GM'd I stress) where Mage or Shaman players have been shamed by fellow players or even other GM's for failing to optimise enough (honestly a common cultural problem with SR as a system) since any caster who ever has to worry about Drain is 'weak'.
@@josephpotter5766 Ah, that makes sense. I haven't had the chance to play yet, so my knowledge is purely based on the descriptions. In one of my more recent DnD campaigns, I gave my characters the option to use a modified drain system instead of a nerfed version of the standard "Spell slot" system. Nobody took it, so I didn't get to see how it would work ;-;.
@@josephpotter5766 True that happens yet at the same time that "nova hot" mage getting their arm blown off having to get some cyber basically put them in the same spot that nonperfect mage or shaman. You still need a silenced pistol since corps and cops can tell if some wild spells been slung. But yeah most tables want ALL players to be Sam Fisher with a twist even though SR is so open skill wise you can pretty much make ANY campaign happen. Since I had a game where we simply played as street doctors
@@ExeErdna Of the campaigns in SR I've run, from 1st edition to 5th (skipping 4th and 6th) I think only about 30% of them were what you might call "classic shadowrun". I love street level games, games playing gangers, games playing BuMoNA doctors in Berlin, reporters in Laos or rockers on the East Coast of the UCAS.
@@josephpotter5766 Shadowrun is such a great system to run any type of game in it's world. Shadowrun is also the biggest bitch of a system to run because there is way too much to learn and balancing it all is rough. I love Shadowrun. I also hate it lol.
I did something similar. I want it to be exhausting to cast spells, so I got rid of slots, I made casting casting save (of 8+ Spell level versus D20 + con mod + Proficiency bonus) If you fail you get a level of exhaustion. Exhaustion works normally and affects the casting rolls. You recover a level of exhaustion with a 20 and get an extra exhaustion with a 1. The caster eventually gets exhausted to the point that they either have to stop casting spells or die. Aside from that spells work normally whether the roll succeeds or fails. All exhaustion levels are removed on a short rest.
There are two major mechanical issues I can see with this: 1. Buffing the check. The most commonly available option is enhance ability. Advantage on the check drops the mishap chance to 1/400 and the failure chance below 10% for most of your spells. And also there is the circle of stars druid who cannot fail to cast a spell when their dragon constellation is active (min 10+mod rolled on Int and Wis checks). This is not even an endgame thing, it is a 2nd level feature. Suggestion: Magic has no effect on casting checks. 2. Spells that use saves. Is the save replaced by this roll? If yes, then Int, Wis and Cha save proficiencies are basically useless. If no, then these spells are extra unreliable. If single target, it might not even be worth learning them. Suggestion: Keep saves, but add +2 to spell save DC-s. There is also non-mechanical issue: bad rolls. If a primary caster rolls badly at the start of the day, they can just go and sit in a corner for the rest of the day. Not managing a resource well is your fault, thus living with its cosequences is ok. But rolling bady is not a choice. Going with the standard adventuring day, you will have about 4-6 encounters, and a wizard could run out of spells, without actually casting any successfully or getting seriously injured, on the first one. I don't think many would consider this to be fun. Suggestion: Using blood magic makes you actually succeed on the check. (Maybe only for an additional sacrifice: 2x the cost, or lose a HD.) All in all I get what you are going for, but this is such a core feature of the game, that I have to ask: why not just play, say, Savage Worlds, which already has a roll-to-cast option?
Enhance ability requires concentration, so it would limit your options for other spells. And it would also require a check of it's own to succeed. But, that said, I think if you had tools to boost a couple of checks to cast Enhance Ability (Favoured the gods, Dark one's own luck...), and were content just casting non-conc spells, this would be potentially wild.
I actually don't think that the first one is an issue, since it is defined as a "spellcasting check" and not an "ability check," so technically those features wouldn't apply. As for saving throws, I think it would be interesting if the number you rolled on the spellcasting check was both the spell save dc and the attack roll for spells that call for it. That way you don't have to slow down gameplay with a million dice rolls on a turn, while keeping some of that variety the system is meant to introduce. I definitely agree with your last point, though.
@@ataruDev We also use eg. "strength check" and "stealth check" as expressions, and both are actually ability checks. The base assumption is that there are only 3 types of d20 rolls. Exceptions would have to be explicitly noted. Making them separate would resolve the issue, though. But I would prefer to minimise the number of core game mechanics we break :)
@@joshuawinestock9998 Well, yeah, there are still limitations with EA. I just felt like they were not properly addressed / thought through. Spamming leveled spells is definitely an issue, even if you are limited to non-concentration ones.
The system I've been toying with is based on how Psionics and power points were used back in 3e. Start by taking the "magic points" optional rules in the DMG and use them instead of spell slots. At each level, casters have X number of points and spells cost however many points to cast. In 3e psions had a points threshold where half their at will abilities always worked so long as they had more points left to spend than their threshold number. So pick a number. Probably based on caster level or primary casting stat. So long as you have that many mana points left in the tank, you can freely cast spells using those points. When you dip below that threshold, you might have to roll what used to be called a spellcraft check. Say you have fewer points than your threshold, but you want to cast a spell with a spell level higher than your proficiency bonus. Roll d20+ PB+ casting mod. Roll nat 20 and the spell crits. Roll above 10+ spell level, and the spell is cast. Roll below, and the spell fizzles, but you keep the MP. Roll a nat 1, and you fizzle, plus you either lose the MP or you roll on a wild magic surge table. There's lots of random magic effect tables out there if the wild magic sorcerer table doesn't do it for you.
Back in AD&D, we used spell points! at 3rd level you had one 2nd level spell and two 1st level spells you could cast, which gave you 4 spell points, and you could have memorized Magic Missile, Grease and Web! and each day you could cast 4 Magic Missiles or 2 Webs, or Web and 2 Magic Missiles!
@@thomastw6757it does, but the numbers aren’t perfectly linear. They follow the same progression as converting sorcery points to spell slots iirc (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, etc)
I run 3.5e and let the player choose to use the original method or use a similar spellcasting method to what you described. Sorcerers are natural spellcasters who know a limited spells and never need to roll to cast. A wizards can cast any spell they know an unlimited number of times (but they need the components) using Spellcraft DC 10+SL for lvl 0-4, DC14+SL for lvl 5-7, and DC18+SL for 8 & 9th lvl spells. The DCs ensure that ability scores and skills placed in Spellcraft are required for the hardest spells. Spellcraft checks can result in critical failure and critical casts. Nat 20s generally provide a metamagic effect. Nat 1s either implode (pull people in + DMG), explode (blast people away + DMG) or cast a random curse on a random person or item. The curse is my absolute favorite because they can be anything, including strong narrative or role-playing elements. Any component can be used over and over as a focus, but if you fail your check, the component is consumed (critical or otherwise). This removes the need for inventory management, but you do need to specifically replace any destroyed component or focus if you want to cast that spell.
This reminds me of a homebrew system I use with one of my players. She's an alchemist artificer in a low-magic setting, flavored that her spells are cast through alchemically altered bullets, so rather than using spell slots, she can cast whatever she is able to create at the time--including one use of one spell up to one level above what she can normally cast. Unfamiliar to the stress of combat, she rolls on a d20 table to determine whether she grabs the correct bullet. This includes healing spells, which has (once) caused her to shoot a dying comrade point blank with a normal bullet. Hilarious and chaotic.
This is how it also works in Dungeon World! For wizards, when they cast an arcane spell, they always need to make a roll, and there's no spell slots involved. There's 3 tiers of success: 1) success, 2) success at a cost, 3) failure. Even in failure, it doesn't mean that the spell isn't cast necessarily, but there's consequences. The Wizard might have to forget the spell for the day, take a minus, or the spell might go awry and cause problems itself. For success at a cost, there's the chance that the spell is forgoten, or not forgoten but a there's a -1 to future spellcasting rolls, etc.
Uh oh you said the B word. Balance is a farce imo. Features like arcane recovery regain failed spells, just as @RJ1580 said. This is how I’ve handled those scenarios at my table and I haven’t had any issues.
@@HouseDM Cool man :) Asking since i like the idea and it was things not brought up in the video :) I'm guessing warlocks would also regain failed spells on a short rest, and i'm happy to see my pactbound peeps do more than just spam eldritch blast :D
Where can I find the arcane mishap table and pay tribute? EDIT: I found it. It's in the google doc linked in the description. I had been searching for "arcane mishap" and "pay tribute" to be spelled out in the description, consequently overlooking the google doc.
At 3:25 I was like “yeah DCC! He better say something about it.” Love your homebrew rules for. I added luck to my game borrowed directly from DCC. Players love it. I can’t wait till they find a place in the world where Goodman magic works….and they find out magic works differently!
I started doing similar with a roll to cast from an alternative rule in 2.5 in the mid 90’s and have tweaked it over the years Its much better to roll to cast then a spell slot and the unpredictable nature of magic becomes a great story telling tool Good to find others doing similar Cheers
awesome video man! just started dming my first campaign about 5ish months ago (been playing 5e since the pandemic started) and these videos are great at expanding my horizons/making me think about my world. Thanks!
It's an extremely entertaining idea to change the spell casting system in this way. Especially the part about blood magic as well as arcane mishap table and options on nat 20. I see a couple of curious things with which the roll to cast system will work strangely. It turns out that the arcane trickster after level 11 is considered the most reliable caster since they will not be able to roll casting check below 14. Also, bards and warlocks, when receiving spells of the 8th circle and having learned glibness, will be able to spam high-level spells every turn. (because they will not be able to roll less than 15 + a spell characteristic modifier, which by that time is most likely at least 4).
Good job existing. After mentioning how I wanted to allow a player to multiclass between two archetypes of the same class and how I wanted a player to explain exactly HOW he was helping and made him move in order to be able to provide the help action in pushing someone over a cliff when he was fifteen feet away, I was run out of Reddit as some sort of villain. I'm glad someone out there doesn't see D&D as a religion and the words of WotC as a pantheon of gods whose words can't be altered (even though the DMG says the DM is the final arbiter of the rules and has the right to alter them). Subscribed.
This is really cool. I love the "blood magic" idea, and have had thoughts of similar mechanics myself. I figured you were going to have some kind of MP system, but this is so much cooler of an idea than that, especially for D&D specifically since it allows use of the mechanics of Proficiency and the d20 rolls in that system. You saying "You might roll hot and cast infinite spells... for a time" made me think, what if in this system somebody does roll really well very consistently? Would it cause some sort of buildup of arcane energy within them? Maybe being very lucky and just constantly casting could have some kind of drawback, too.
Hi Zix! Love that your stoked about this system! The way I see it is if you have a player who gets really lucky with their casting, let it be. Your player will feel so cool and could build a reputation in game for being a legendary magic user. And that’s totally fine in my book. This is how legends are made. And remember, the time will come when their luck runs out and it will come when they least expect it. Thanks for watching!
I would actually love to borrow this idea as the basis for a homebrew class. Call it the "Conduit" or something. Subclasses could be something like Arcane, Nature, and Divine, borrowing the spell lists from sorcerer, druid, and cleric, respectively.
@@HouseDM I think the real challenge is balancing this as its own class in a game where other players are playing regular spellcasters with the regular rules. Since every spell could be attempted at least once, a character with, say, 4 3rd level spells known, and a 75% chance to cast each of those successfully, that character will usually get to cast three of those spells once, and two of them twice, and probably one of them three times (The statistics get a little difficult). So is that the equivalent of 6 3rd level spell slots? I would say not really, since the player doesn't get to choose which spells they can repeat the most. However, if they choose spells that have a similar effect (ie. fireball, hunger of hadar, erupting earth, and lightning bolt are all AoE damage spells), it could end up having the effect of having 6 spell slots. So it's tricky.
I just started using spell points in my 5e game, but with the charts from Strar Wars 5e (SW5e). Base 5e uses a bunch of funky math whereas SW5e is very simple; each class has spell points equal to # x their level + their casting modifier. Wizards have 4 times their level, so a 2nd level Wizard with a +3 bonus has 4 x 2 + 3 spell points. From there, casting a spell beyond a cantrip costs the spell level + 1, so 1st level is 2 points, 2nd level is 3 points, and so on. The last tweak I added is that you can reduce your current and total hit points by any number of points to regain the same number of spell points (up to your maximum), but can only regain those hit points on a long rest. And, in the opposite direction, you can expend any number of spell points to gain an equal number of temporary hit points.
I love this. I prefer casters, but I prefer magic that is magical, rather than scientific. The blood magic really makes it for me. It rewards sacrifice without requiring it.
Hell yeah! I like giving players more choices. Definitely one of the fun and strategic aspects of Frostgrave and it works really well in D&D. Thanks for watching!
So question. Example: scorching ray. Do you roll for spell success and to hit? Or if the spell succeeds does it automatically hit. I think it would feel pretty bad to roll success then miss the attack, and then roll failure the next turn.
Interesting ideas. I personally have gotten to play quite a bit of Dungeon World lately and I have to say that I find their system quite refresing. It can be a bit tricky to adjust as a whole, as it varies a good bit to D&D type games but the way combat and checks in general are handled is interesting. First of - DCs are done away completely, everything depends on your dice throw. Second - A D20 is not used in this particular system. You roll everything with 2D6s. If you roll a 1-6 on a check, you fail, if you roll a 7-9 you succeed on what you planned, but something unexpected happens in addition to that. And a 10 and above is a complete success without drawback. The "you succeed, but..." part is where it shines for me. Our DM usually gives us a few options of bad sideeffects that we can choose from. Mostly something like "you take damage yourself", "you hurt somebody else along with it", "you increase the overall stakes of the encounter", "you sustain a status effect until your next rest", and so on. Whichever are appliccable in the given situation. We also use an optional rule for advantage and disadvantage wherein you use a 3rd D6 and take the two highest or lowest respectively. As a third change - AC works differently. It no longer raises the DC but the AC gets directly subtracted from the damage taken (granted DW is a lot scarcer with hit points - 20 already being very good). I feel like this could also be adapted to D&D, but haven't tried it yet. The D6 thing is somewhat a matter of taste I think. If this sounds interesting, I strongly recommend having a look at the system. Just be warned - it's a very different playstyle to general D&D and related systems. Before anyone asks, yes DW is a PBTA system.
I've read through Dungeon World and listened to some podcasts. Plus Runehammer used to talk about it awhile back. Big fan of PbtA games but I keep gravitating towards d20 systems. Idk why lol. Thanks for sharing!
@@HouseDM My pleasure. I totally get you on the D20 thing. It's just a different feeling. But I'm inclined to try the check-stages with it. Maybe: 1-10: Fail 11-15: Success, but... 16-20: Success Not sure on the stage intervals yet. Also not sure if I should include a mishap whenever a spell check fails outright. Like: "The effect blows up in your face", "You forget the spell until you next rest" or "A different random magic effect happens". Could get a bit annoying, but definetely checks that hard to contol magic vibe. Plus your give-blood-to-pass-check-mechanic feels like a good tradeoff here.
I think Dungeon World does it in an interesting way. It's made to be very simple in comparison to D&D and it's balanced with that in mind. But I don't think you can just take that system and bring it over to D&D because of how different it is. However things like offering different choices between downsides for failure or partial success is a very good thing that could likely be brought over quite easily. For a thing like House's system, I see that as being a very good tool for making the players not feel screwed over by the punishments that can happen. Instead of just flat out losing a spell and have to spend 10 days to trek back to a town to be able to restore it, you can simply pick another choice of what happens. Different choices can also mean different things in different situations. Losing a spell maybe isn't too bad if you're already in said city, but it's game-ending in a dungeon. Meanwhile the spell having undesired effects can be really bad if you're trying to pass by the guard when stealing something from the town, while it's not that big of a deal when you're fighting the big bad boss in a dungeon.
@@ANoBaka Hmm, you got a point there and the ability to choose between bad concequences is definetelyagood thing. I'll have to thing on that. Thanks for your input.
Watch, the day will come where everyone is like, damn, Shadowdark and other non-D&D rpg's have everything I want. Bye WOTC! Thanks for your support Kelsey.
Beautiful! Bravo. I really enjoyed this. I think you just changed my concept of magic in D&D. That's a first in 27 years. I'm excited to run some magic players now. Thank you.
@@mustakrakish I don't know the answer to the question about hacks, but I have played several different rules systems. D&D has changed so much over the years, from the 3 book boxed set to now, but we still call it D&D. However, I find 5e the best framework to run my campaigns in, and am always looking for "embellishments" to make player characters more unique, or the game more enjoyable for the group.
Spellcasters in my campaign have been using your system to pretty awesome effect! One suggested an interesting addition that we're gonna try out: if you critically cast a concentration spell, you can choose to have it not require concentration. It becomes "set it and forget it", freeing you up to simultaneously have another concentration spell running. It also frees you from having to make concentration saves for that spell when you take damage. We'll see how it works out.
@@squali1930 *Shrug* I mean, what does OP even mean when I as the DM can adjust the difficulty of any encounter at any time? Sure, I've upped the CR of most of the encounters. But it's hard to say whether that's the result of adopting roll-to-cast or whether it's because I'm playing with some very experienced clever strategic players. Regardless, it means my spellcasters get to do awesome stuff frequently. And they do indeed wear themselves down paying the blood/HP cost when they fail their roll to cast. In the months I've been using this, only once or twice has a player elected to let a spell fail rather than pay the blood sacrifice.
There is a BESM d20 system sourcebook for the anime Slayers that was heavily magic focused. Each spell had a spellcasting DC based on the 'level' of the spell. If you succeeded the DC, you cast the spell with no issues. However, if you failed the DC, you still cast the spell, but lost HP based on how badly you failed the check. You had options to decrease the DC of the spell by taking longer to cast it by reciting the full incantation as well as yelling out the spell name, potentially alerting you target to your intentions. There were also mechanics to amplify a spell effect by having multiple casters cast the same spell at the same time, as well as offer to share their HP with the caster in case they failed and a few other nifty tricks. Personally, I like the idea of implementing an MP system to D&D and I discovered there already is one in the DM guide.
Your blood magic reminds me of spellcasting in the original Chivalry & Sorcery where you had fatigue points that came back hourly (normally used to cast spells) and body (more akin to D&D hit points) that came back daily. If you were out of fatigue points, you could still cast magic using your body points. It was a fun system and I had never thought about how to incorporate that into 5e.
Love the blood magic idea. I myself use the 3e spell points system with the ability to upcast and downcast by spending extra points. Works for my table.
As someone who usually plays a caster class, this has me super intrigued. I like the modification to the natural spellcasting, as while it brings in more random chance, I agree that spellcasting shouldn't feel as mundane and carefree as it does in RAW. I have sent this to my group's DMs, and am hopeful to try it out in a one shot sometime very soon. And if they aren't up to it, well, this might just be interesting enough for me to go full Thanos and say "Fine, I'll do it myself" and finally jump into the DM seat for a one shot.
This system is intriguing, it also gives viable reason for casters to carry around spell scrolls and potentially even make them, because yikes if you run out of spells due to an unlucky streak mid combat, also gives good explanation why someone would learn to make magical items that allow reliable casting with charges, that would be how you have spell slots still in the world, someone who’s a caster except they’re just a collector of magical items that don’t require attunement, or perhaps a wizard’s spell book requires attument for them to cast the spells they have learned and recorded while they’re also able to cast spells they haven’t got recorded because they still experimenting with them
I always hated the way magic works RAR in D&D. {Witness, the door}: DM: Your way is blocked by a locked door. Barbarian: I smash it! DM: Okay, roll a strength check. Rogue: I pick the lock DM: Okay, roll a lockpicking check, Dexterity at disadvantage if you don't have any skill points Wizard: I cast 'Knock' DM: Okay, the door opens. {End scene} There's a discontinuity of rulesets here.
Agreed. With Spellcasting checks, a savvy caster can choose to use blood magic if they roll poorly to get the same effect, and with the associated cost, it adds another clock to keep them in check. Thanks for watching Cy Williams!
No, there isn’t. Non-casters have unlimited use of their abilities but limited effectiveness. Casters always have maximum effectiveness but limited use.
In more flexible or homebrew games, this rule could help to improve the engagement. But I definitely know some players who would challenge this as being too novice friendly. Overall great idea and good to share with others.
Yeah, it’s definitely a departure from traditional spell casting though I find it interesting you have players who would find this too novice friendly. Would you mind sharing which part?
It makes more sense as you're supposed to be a trained person in magic or at lease known of magic for a long time. Spell slots to me is more or less something to trick young casters to be a bit more careful to not hurt themselves. When really they can cast the useful more often.
Funny to find a video on this. In my homebrew, I'm making spells to function closer to AD&D psionics, which function somewhat similar to this. Interesting channel, instant subscribe
I like all of this stuff, couple other references and suggestions you may find value in. Consider mining the FFG WH40k rpg stuff for their Psyker mishap tables, they're awesome. RE: modifying the check, removing proficiency etc... Consider taking a look at Castles & Crusades for how that would work out math wise, their prime attribute vs non prime is mechanically like, a +6 I believe, which is kinda the difference you're talking about with removing the Prof bonus and lowering the difficulty, there's probably a lot of math that's been done on that. Another thing I always suggest regarding people using a straight d20 roll for "randomization". Stop. Something I noticed when I was building encounter tables for a sandbox game is the old AD&D encounters are based on a D12+D8 roll, which actually gives you a curve as opposed to a flat d20 roll, so a 2 and a 20 are actually more rare and thus can be weighted as such in regards to their results.
Wrath and Glory's casting system is very neat, but not easily transferable to 5e. Basically you roll lots of D6s and normally one of those is a special die (a Wrath die) with especially potent effects when you roll a 1 or a 6 on it (so basically something negative in both cases, but also something good when you roll a 6). You can add an additional one of these special Wrath dice by casting 'Unbound' or a potential 4+ additional Wrath dice by casting 'Transcendent'. The wrinkle is, once you cast at that level you have to continue casting at that level for the rest of the scene.
I found your video because I'm working on a new video tentaively titled, "Why I Hate Spell Slots." Your "roll to cast" system in similar to what Margaret Wiess and team did with Sovereign Stone D20. They even have an option to sacrifice HP to cast a spell faster. Question: do you use a mana pool of points to limit a mage's power level? Or, can they continue to cast spells indefinitely?
It’s definitely an interesting idea, I personally don’t see a world where I would use it. I find the combat system the one place i am not comfortable homebrewing
Original shadowrun casting: cast the spell (possibly with skill check for degree of success), and then soak some drain. Drain is non-lethal if you're being reasonable, and physical if you're pushing your luck. D&D learned/subsumed some of this with the idea of cantrips - the spell you can cast all day every day. In shadowrun the equivalent of a cantrip was one where you were putting most of your pool of dice into soaking the drain, so you didn't have so many to make it do big boom boom, but you also were practically guaranteed* to not take damage from casting it. *But never 100%
I too was thinking of the casting in Shadowrun. I quite like their system of handling that. You can handicap yourself on the front end by not drawing a lot of power, or you could hurt yourself in the back end by pulling so much magic through your body that it starts to burn you from the inside out. On a tangential note - they also had a good counter to just relying on a heal bot with infinite casting potential by making wounds only able to be healed by magic once. If you get hit again your fresh wounds can be treated, but already partially-treated wounds remain. (So the caster might have to decide whether to go big and restore you to near full now, or just enough to keep you from dying til the team can get you out of there)
OK sharing a story. Druid. Had a hard day. Went back to the inn, said: "Right, I am taking a kitten break." Went to our room,' Summon woodland creatures, kittens' and laid down to have kittens playing all over him. Room service raw fish. Room service, bowl of milk. Kittens knocked over the bowl of milk. He looked down at the spilled milk and said; "Well there's no use crying over that." Whole table erupted in laughter. Oh we had a roll d20 system. Just like a physical attack 1 was a fumble, 20 was double damage. 1 was a backfire. Weird shit could happen. Like literally change the entire world as you are plane travelled. Very low chance. Unless the DM was bored or decided to have a little fun.
What stops the mage from casting magic missile at max level infinitely though? You could probably add a thing for critical failure since it's so easy to cast low level spells at high rank without spell slots. It might not seem that significant but a wizard with 20 INT (+5 INT mod) and +5 proficiency could cast a 1st level spell which is a DC 11 with a NAT 1. Nothing is stopping him from always casting a guaranteed spell to damage, even if it's only 3d4. It's force damage and guarantees to hit unless someone has shield. Speaking of shield, the same can be said about that spell as well.
I like this, but I think I might only use it for Sorcerers. That might seem weird, but frankly the lore on sorcerers suggests that they shouldn't even know spells, they just do magic. I've never felt like the sorcerer was acting like what I was supposed to be. They can be powerful, don't get me wrong, but they also kind of feel like discount wizards with a neat trick. What I'd actually like to do is create a system where Sorcerers use their sorcery points to apply metamagics to a "working" and make a roll to see if that succeeds. (metamagics, and how many one could apply to one working, would be gated by levels, and include things like: Range increments, damage types, amount of damage [both amount of dice and degree of dice] condition effects, etc. So in theory you could sacrifice range, but make your touch range fireball do necrotic and do some amount of d10's instead of d6's, with a risk of some kind of magical surge. One would gain different unique metamagics based on one's bloodline, allowing them to create unique workings others could not) I also think all sorcerers should have wildmagic surge tables based on their archetype. However I don't have the time to create and test this complicated system. But the one you've provided feels unique enough that it might do a good job in it's place. Thanks!
Metamagic used to be available to all spell casters, and honestly that was a better system. Sorcerers have taken over 5E, because they are so easy and get all the benefits.
@@thanesgames9685 I mean previously they got crap spell selection, but yeah now they just get a list of spells with ever subclass. I do like the old metamagic system, it was neat (my Cleric in Pathfinder doesn't have enough Feat slots to make use of them, but still).
sounds like this would break the balance between melee classes and spellcasters. a melee class can reliably fight. if a spellcaster loses the ability to cast spells until a long rest, then they are completely useless. now, if you made it so they could cast certain spells they've studied (memorized) reliably, but if they wanted to cast spells not memorized with those risks, then i think you could balance it better. i've been at a table where we all could NOT stop rolling nat 1's. so having spellcasters end up potentially completely useless in a fight would be inconvenient to the rest of the party.
Hmmm I don’t like the term “balance”. The game isn’t balanced, intentionally. Otherwise, what’s the point of having different classes? Also I think the inconvenience of having no spell slots is totally fine. Your PC’s will be forced to think creatively instead of just pushing a button for a spell. I like to reward clever thinking at my table as opposed to just always having guaranteed magic. Take a look at Shadowdark if you want to see a system that implements Roll to Cast better than my house rule in this video! Cheers!
This. Is. Amazing. I have been looking for a way to implement this kind of idea for a while, running 3.5 and I am absolutely putting this to use. Might even consider trying it out with the net library 10k wild magic tables.
This is similar to how Cypher System handles abilities and magic. You can eventually get to where you can use them as much as you want, but all abilities have a cost, and you have 3 pools to spend from; Might, Speed, & Intellect. Each ability pulls from a different pool and you can get better at spending from a particular pool as you go, but these pools are also your HP. If your speed hits 0, you can't physically move from where you are, might would remove the bonus to damage on attacks and you can't apply 'effort' to rolls (using from a pool to reduce the DC of a check) and intellect running out can mean you pass out, go into shock or become panicked. If all three pools hit 0, you're dead, no questions asked. And your enemies may not always go for only a single pool, I love catching my friend's big strong hunter off-guard with some 'psychic' damage straight at his INT pool when he gets cocky, and when they haven't built up that pool much they really feel it. I really like seeing them gamble on one last powerful spell that could leave them at death's door only to have it save the day. It feels a lot more dynamic and risky that way.
This is excellent. Definitely adding this to the "homebrew I want to use in that campaign I want to run... someday" pile. In regards to caster power, I appreciate cantrips not scaling, removing one way in which they compete with martials, though not at low levels, which is fine. I have a few questions, though, and a couple of tweaks I'd suggest. My questions: 1) What damage type did you envision for the potential damage dealt after rolling a 1? I suppose you could just have it be undefined damage, but I think it would be cool and add an interesting angle if it did the same type of damage as the spell would normally do, if the spell has a damage type. This would give characters resistant to that damage type more incentive to pick those spells, and we always need more reasons for players to vary their spell choices. (I'm again saddened that no character is by nature vulnerable to damage types, as this would have added _another_ angle, both in character concept and in making hard choices during gameplay.) This does leave the question of what damage types to use if the spell has multiple, or none. 2) When you wrote "double the area" as one of the choices after rolling a 20, did you mean "double the number used to determine the area"? Since doubling the radius of a circle ups the area by considerably more than double, but having to calculate the exact shape of an area after it is doubled would be a pain in the arse. 3) How would you handle ritual spells, since with there being no spell slot to lose the advantage of casting a spell as a ritual becomes naught? I have an idea in that regard that I'll put into the tweaks section. 4) What about half and one-third casters? Surely a 5th level ranger shouldn't be able to cast 5th level spells? I'm guessing the way you'd solve this would be to let half casters cast spells equal to half and one-third casters cast spells equal to one-third their levels, rounded up or down. Multiclassing still needs to be solved, though, and the _number_ of spells they can cast per day should also be lower, somehow. My tweaks: 1) In regards to rituals, how do you feel about using passive skill checks to cast spells? In other editions (I can't remember which) you could "take ten", meaning you took ten times as long in order to automatically get a 10 on the roll, which the rules on passive checks ("Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly,", p.175 _Player's Handbook)_ seem to allude to. This would in essence give every spell a ritual version and make it the smart course of action for spells that have no time limit and you could achieve on average, as well as add flavour by reintroducing rituals into the game. If you want you could even increase the material cost (say, double, or staying on brand, by ten) if you want to discourage players using rituals to frequently bypass the risks of casting spells. And combining this with Blood Magic (as well as my tweaks to blood magic below) really puts the flavour into overdrive. 2) I'd move the bard from the tribute cost side to the arcane mishap side. I always felt what distinguished bards from other magic users was _how_ they manipulated the Weave - though art -, rather than them being beholden to some muse. That way you have clerics, druids, paladins and warlocks on the side that get their magic from somewhere else, be it gods, nature, oaths, or powerful beings, while on the other side you have artificers, bards, rangers, sorcerers and wizards (and Eldritch knights, Four Elements Monks and Arcane Tricksters), who learned to manipulate the Weave by themselves through various means, be it enchanting objects, art, natural concoctions, raw talent or study. 3) I think the Blood Magic system is mechanically sound, but a bit underwhelming thematically. It doesn't seem to me that blood magic should be something a caster dips their toes into every time they fail to cast a spell and think "Eh, I can spare the hit points." Blood magic seems like it should be a Big Deal. And one important element of Blood Magic seems to be missing: Using or sacrificing other creatures to increase your magical power, both willing and unwilling. I'd suggest not just removing hit points when using blood magic, but also decreasing the maximum hit points by the same amount until the end of their next long rest. That way a spell caster can't just heal back up after using blood magic, making it an even bigger decision to use it. And as for using other creatures, I'd suggest something like: "Damage to other creatures can also fuel spells. Every point of damage dealt that: * Is dealt during the casting of the spell; * Is dealt with the intention of fueling the spell; * Is dealt within five feet of the caster; * Is dealt to a creature that is not in combat with the damage dealer can be added to the roll of the spell, though not exceeding the damage necessary to reduce a creature to zero hit points. [To prevent 500 points of damage being done to a rat.] Damage dealt this way also reduces the creature's maximum hit point by the same amount until they finish a long rest." The only problem I foresee here is casters using their big beefy friends as volunteers to fuel their spells, at low risk to everybody involved, making me inclined to tie the amount of damage dealt to the hit die a character has and the number of points that can be added to the spell roll to the number of hit dice spent, or something like that, so that it is the amount of damage _proportional_ to the hit point maximum dealt that is relevant, rather than the absolute amount. But this would lead to killing a rat being equal to killing a character, which is not a good idea, so perhaps _both_ should be relevant somehow? I'd have to think about it. Other ways blood magic could be expanded would be other permanent problems (as well as power, perhaps) coming from overuse - you could tie dangers of using blood magic resurrections to this - and character classes interacting with it in different ways. The "classic" warlock and necromancer wizard especially seem like they should have features that interact with it. 4) There needs to be some way that the old amount of spell slots characters have become relevant. I already mentioned half and one-third casters, but especially relevant here is the warlock, who now feels the same as every other spellcaster in the number of spells they can cast per long rest. _Something_ needs to be added to differentiate them, but I don't know what. Perhaps warlocks always lose the spells they know when they cast them, but regain them on a short rest? That's all I have to say for now. Once I started new things kept popping into my head, so this comment turned out much longer than I expected. I hope the feedback is helpful, at least.
I am definitely intrigued and interested by this version of magic casting. There has always been something missing from Vancian casting systems, and your system seems to have a better flavor than RAW. I have a home-brew campaign I've been working on and I think I'm going to integrate this into the campaign.
You could even adjust the DC for each spell, like if your Wizard trains with magic missile a lot, you can lower the DC by 1. Or give out magic items, like wands and staves, that give like “+1 to casting Firebolt”. Sounds cool.
I really like the idea of removing spell slots, as they've always felt unfitting for most fantasy worlds. However, I think keeping track of each spell and if you have it available or not is going to lead to a lot of book keeping, which is something I'd like to stay away from. Therefore, I've come up with an idea; what if you had a mana die instead? It would start at a d4, and whenever you reached a level in a spellcasting class that raised your proficiency bonus, it would increase by one; so at 5th level it would be a d6, and 9th level a d8, and so on, up to a maximum of d12. When you cast a spell, you would roll your mana die, and if you roll higher than your mana die, the spell fails unless you invoke blood magic, and in addition your mana die would drop one size. So for example, a 9th level caster would have a d8; if they wanted to cast a 3rd level spell, they would roll it, and on a 4 or higher they would cast it without spending resources. On a 1-3 they would need to use their blood magic or be unable to cast it, and regardless of their choice, their mana die would drop to a d6. They could still try to cast 3rd or even 4th level spells, but the chance of failure and dropping to a d4 would be much higher, causing a risk vs reward effect. I'd love to hear thoughts about the idea.
It's interesting, but I think one of its biggest issues is that it's too front-loaded. What I mean by that is casters can typically choose to nova their spells or not. With spell slots that's quite straight forward (use low level slots in lieu of high level slots). With the system from this video, you avoid casting the spells that you want to save for later. In this system, you can be rocking a d10 mana die and lock yourself out of your 9th level spells by casting a 1st level spell and rolling a 1 (10% chance, which means it's a question of when, rather than if). That means that after a day with multiple encounters, you've either primarily relied on cantrips all day (boring) or your mana die has probably been reduced, locking you out of your better spells (which you arguably would have liked to save for the end). It also has an issue with healing spells. This is based on the presumption that once your mana die is a d4 that it no longer drops to a smaller die on a failure. Cure Light Wounds is a 1st level spell that heals 1d8+mod HP. Even if you roll a 1 and have to use blood magic to cast it, you take 1 dmg to recover 1d8+mod. Meaning that anyone who can cast CLW or HW would be able to restore effectively infinite HP.
if you just want a more flexible system, have a look at the spell points variant rule on the last pages of the dungeon masters guide. its essentially mana.
@@Fanaelialae One of the late game abilities for one of players in the campaign we just finished was he can cast any spell that was Illusion, Enchantment, or Conjuration, and he has to roll a d10. If the number was equal to or lesser than the spell level, he couldn't use this ability to cast a spell of that school again until he took a long rest.
Since returning to gaming after the second break in my life, I have encountered these discussions on spell mechanics and it is intriging. As a kid I don't recall any of these discussions, but we did not have the interwebs. I really appreciate the range of magic casing systems and house rules. Keep up hte great content. THank you.
So there is no "right or wrong way of playing D&D"... but why don't you just play completely different system that actually reflects the way you want it to work? Dungeon World is very light system without a spell slots and with consequences of failed spellcasting roll. It's even more streamlined than 5e and is much easier to "balance out" these types of "hacks". Heck, it's even more moldable than D&D will ever be.
This feels similar to my favorite “magic” system: Force Powers in Star Wars Saga Edition. I also really like Powers in True 20, which have fatiguing effects on failed checks. You could pass out from casting.
@DargorV God forbid people try out more of the TTRPG space than D&D. This exact spellcasting system is done justice elsewhere. Even then, this guy could just make his own TTRPG, which is the logical conclusion of Homebrew. Why restrain yourself by a game system that doesn't really help you make big alterations? Changing spellcasting like this completely alters more than half the classes and potentially breaks other interactions with the spellcasting system. You don't have to feel the need to bastardize and twist 5e to be whatever you want, because what you want is out there in some form in other games. It's like how people turn Skyrim into a Souls-Like through mods. There's a point where you should probably just be playing a Souls-Like.
I enjoy the initial concept of this home ruling but I feel there are perhaps a few other RAW points that may have been looked over. 1 - With the spell level being equal to caster level this means that core casters cap out at lvl 9 and give world ending magic to characters that are not even half way through their potential. In addition half casters would also drastically acquire spell power very early. 2 - You covered warlocks in your FAQ but may have glossed over the many conflicts this class would have in this system. Consider that warlocks have a forced spell level, so each spell no matter what has an overtly high casting check (in comparison to their counter parts). Admittedly this _may_ cause a balance by the spell slot limitation being removed but an unlucky warlock essentially becomes powerless by losing spell access to an already rather low spell pool while a lucky warlock becomes game breakingly over powered. (On a counter ruling of simply not have a forced level and casting at initial level, it takes away a large part of the intrigue of playing a warlock mechabically). Furthermore how would you handle evocation spells which give non spell slot use spells? Do these remain RAW? 3 - The clarifications/modifications to Arcane Recovery and Font of Magic seem uneeded and rather strict. Why not just retain their initial costs and allow recovery of lost spells of appropriate levels in place of spell slots? 4 - On the more facetious and not picking side, you covered spell attacks and saving throws against spell casting successes. However, this would only be if a creature's AC is _above_ the casting check? What if a casting check is higher than a targetted AC. Implying that a character rolls a check that would have hit the trarget AC but not meet the casting DC. (Ignoring the counter of why would one would cast a higher level spell on a low level or weaker creature). Further, not as much a balancing issue but on the reverse if a character succeeds a casting check but the roll would not it a creature's AC. While not a loss given the system it does seem to be rather dissapointing given that it is both a success and loss. 6 - Perhaps more lore/logic than mechanic but how would handle/rule/explain advantages? Ie. in the case of Faerie Fire one would have advantage on the attack roll, does this mean the casting check has advantage or that after making the cast check the caster may make a second roll for a hit? Same imlied on the reverse of disadvantage due to a dodge action. 7 - The nerfing of cantrips seems a bit unneeded. 8 - Causing spell loss inadvertently forces casters to pick more damage spells over utility ones seeing as should they lose access to a combat spell they become less and less useful throughout an encounter let alone an adventuring day. Although there are non damage spells that are useful inside a combat many other are solely for outside of combat. Admittedly while certain classes such as cleric, druid or wizard can overcome this in a way through their ability to prepare spells, classes with known spells will inevitably be forced to prioritize pure combat over interesting utility and role play spells.
I already use critical rolls for casting. if it's a DC extra effect on the target or no effect plus some other benefit. if it's damage I allow doubling or the spell goes off in your face and hits you.
I started using spell points for my big homebrew world, and it fixed so much about the setting. It let me easily incorporate potions that recover magic, have magic items grow with users more organically, and create a system of risk where pulling more magic than you are normally capable and losing control of it causes an arcane explosion focused on the caster
Interesting idea for rolling to succeed instead of expending guaranteed spell slots. I won't be taking this system, but it did define what I've seen in other RPG's which have magic so I can better understand what magic systems are out there. Thank you for sharing.
I've been playing with changes to the casting system as well to make it less reliable. Currently we are using d10 checks with the DC equal to 1 + spell level.
Thanks for the vid! I’m about to run a wands and wizards home brew (Harry Potter style) and it didn’t make sense that they can only fire off a spell once till they rest in that world. I was planning on using a scaling value for the spells based on how long they have known the spell and this helps a lot.
After moving away from 5e, I started developing my own system, and one of my biggest problems with 5e was Spell Slots, which was one of the first things I removed and reworked. What I did was give players a list of Known Spells, much like 5e, but instead of giving them leveled slots that restrict the number of times they can cast a number of spells at each level, I gave them Mana Points to spend. Every Spell Level (from 1 through 10) describes how many Mana Points must be spent to cast them, and spells can be Upcast based on each individual spell's description, as some spells cost more to Upcast than others, and each spell has a limit to how many times it can be upcast as well. The number of Mana Points a player has is USUALLY equal to their Charisma Modifier (for non-Class Spellcasting purposes), but taking the Spellcasting Perk from a Caster Class changes your Magicka Pool to equal your Primary Spellcasting Ability Score (Wizards get Mana Points equal to their Intelligence Score, for example). No spells cost 0 Mana Points, so spellcasting is not infinite, and after reaching level 5 in any Spellcasting Class, Casters also gain the ability to expend a Hit Die to recover spent Mana Points.
I'm experimenting with casting rules like this in my own homebrew system but I think it's too much to have a casting roll and THEN still having to roll to hit or rolling for saves, doubling the amount of dice rolls for almost every spell. So what I'm working on is a system where there the spell difficulty to cast is modified by whatever attribute the target would use to save against the spell so that both rolls are combined into one.
Interesting concepts. I've used a blood magic caster at my table (I'm not a 5e DM) where blood could also be spent for other effects: rerolling the spell effects for either damage or whatever other chart might be being used for teleport safety, monster summoning, etc., but the costs are high in HP and characters have actually chosen to go into negative HP and almost die just to have a chance at casting teleport successfully. My system doesn't use Vancian rules for spellcasting either, though I don't mind that system since I started with it. It's just that for what I was trying to do I wanted something different.
@House DM, do you do known/prepared spells differently from basic 5e? Do you use the spell slots for a Wizard as a guideline for spells prepared? What about the known spells vs spellbook vs Prepared spells game balance between casters? My apologies if you've answered this somewhere I can't see.
I use the spell points rule from DMG p288 It's just a lot better. You don't need to keep track of how many slots you have of Lv1, Lv2, Lv3 and so on. You just memorize how much they cost in points (wich is very easy. It starts at 2 and goes up by 1 each Lv, except 3, 6 and 9 where they go up by 2) and keep track of 1 big pool of that resource. It saves so much time and effort
This is a solid idea, especially as a PF2e player where the 4 degrees on skill checks comes in and the system gives you a bit more numerical wiggle room to work with. This also gives you a neat way to add flexibility to spellcasting- the age-old "that spell doesn't actually let you do that, but..." conversation.
Ngl, I love the idea and system and I'm definitely gonna use it in some future campaign but I have a few questions (I hope I didn't miss it in the video but I couldn't find anything in the document). How do you differentiate between different types of spellcasters? Does everyone get infinite casting with the drawback or do Warlocks keep their restricted casts? Also how do you rule Paladin smites since they usually cost spellslots?
Funny coincidence, Anima has a spellcaster class that works like that, the psychic. Using your powers has a chance of causing you fatigue, and once you have enough fatigue points you can't use them anymore (or you suffer damage when using them or something, I don't remember exactly)
A question in case anyone has the insight: how would this affect warlocks? They're balanced around less slots but higher power, does this just unify all casters?
Something I added to my 2e campaign (a quarter century ago) was rules for interrupting spells. In those days, a spell took time to be cast from the moment you started till the moment the effects came about could be several phases if not a full round depending on the spell. If a magic user began casting and someone did something to break their concentration, like shooting them with an arrow, or punching them in the face, or even just grabbing and restraining them, there was a chance that the ruined spell would blow up it everyone's face. The results often resembled something off the Wild Magic Table.
I really like the idea of blood magic. Question with this system though, how do you account for up casting spells?
Hi Ayden! Great question. Check the google doc in the video notes for a bunch of additional details on making this system work. Its all free. But to sum it up, the caster can choose to increase the DC for casting the spell before they roll. So if you want to cast Burning Hands at 2nd level instead of first, just adjust the DC up by 1 from 11 to 12.
Just note that the caster needs to declare this intent before they roll, not after. Hope that helps!
My first thought is perhaps to make blood magic cost the spell level in hp for each +1 to the roll.
@@chrisnagy377 I actually play tested using d4 dice and it became really lethal for low level characters. Hence the 1 for 1. To be fair, it sounds like what you’re saying would allow 1st level spells to remain 1:1 which is line with the current system. But think about how the additional math slows down higher level spells.
Fail to cast a 6th level spell by 4 points so you have to lose 4x6 (24) hit points in blood magic to force it to be cast? That’s a pretty steep price for a 6th level spell. I think this would disincentivize all spellcasting and that’s not my intent.
@@HouseDM Well, honestly, forcing a caster to lose 24 hit points to cast a level 6 spell would only be bad for a level 6 character (As you have it). Allow the level 6 spell to be cast when it's supposed to be cast (11th level character) and 24 hit points wouldn't be as big of a deal. Not saying it's a good idea, just pointing it out.
@@genostellar you make a really great point here. So in an effort to keep max hit points lower, I don’t run campaigns past level 10. Hence the whole 9th level casters can cast 9th level spells. Didn’t want them to miss out on those high power spells.
I’ve tried running campaigns that go past 10th level (highest was 14) and the game just becomes a slog with all of the abilities and it wasn’t that fun for me, at least with 5e.
OSR games on the other hand don’t have this issue and can go up to level 80 if you have a dedicated enough player group. But that’s a different story.
I ran a short campaign where the DC started at 5 to cast and went up by 1- each time the spell was cast. The wizard had a blast - literally - with fireball until we reached the end and the severity of the next check sank in…
I’ve seen systems like this. I’ve found adding things to keep track of like variable dc’s can be an added burden though. Really like how simple Deathbringer keeps spellcasting checks. DC=10. Always.
@@ork44 ok, that is a cool idea!
Why not have the DC go up with each casting during combat for all damage dealing spells, by the spell level of the previous spells, all cumulative until you take a long rest.
@@SophiaAphrodite we’re going to try this
I like this idea, spell slots force you to take too many rests and makes you stop too much…well everyone is out of spell slots and in game time has only been like an hour. We made it like two rooms in the dungeon at a low level and you have to leave and take a long rest…so frustrating.
I both: do not like your idea and don’t want to use it at my table;
and Also: love that you made this video, as it’s thought provoking and interesting new take on how magic “could” be handled!
Hi Codie! Thanks for sharing this. I think all my house rule idea videos are me just tinkering and changing things until I find something I like. Your feedback is appreciated 🤘🏼
Finding what you like is #1 (having players that also enjoy what you like is validating, and while this one is not for me, I am certain many players WILL like this). Keep up the tinkering! :)
Agreed wholeheartedly, it'd be especially brutal at my table considering we do roughly eight hour sessions with little breaks or mercy (in game, of course ... Mostly. 🫣)
I would love to say that this reply exemplifies how we should think. Even in the things we don't like can act as fuel for thought.
I know it's rather pedantic, but I feel it's worth mentioning that 5e casting mechanics are extremely loose compared to the original "Vancian" magic D&D used. Up through 2e, if you wanted to cast a spell three times, you had to have it memorized three times. If you had three 1st level spell slots and we're fighting a troll, you might memories memorize Burning Hands three times and hope like hell you don't need Chill Touch later that day, because you only have Burning Hands available. A spell slot was for a specific spell, not just a unit of magical energy like it is today.
I can definitely appreciate this thought process. Personally, I'm not sure if I'd enjoy using it. A lot of 5e spells are already pretty feast-or-famine (i.e. save or suck spells), and adding another necessary dice roll exacerbates that. It already sucks when you botch an Inflict Wounds attack roll, or the enemy rolls really well to save against Polymorph or Disintegrate. And getting a critical Fireball or Hold Person would probably end a lot of fights instantly. Which is super cool for the caster and would admittedly be hype as hell, but feels like it would widen the gap between casters and martials even more. That being said, I can appreciate the idea that even if I botch my Raise Dead, it doesn't waste my opportunity to cast Bigby's Hand instead, since they no longer share a resource. It would also encourage the use of utility spells like Silent Image and such, since you don't need to "save" the spell slots for combat.
Sounds like something we could fix with an adjustment to the meaning of a 1 or 20.
Either say the die doesn't matter (1 and 20 aren't special) or make the penalty/bonus modest.
The save DC goes up by, I dunno, 2 / DC goes down by 2. Reroll one die for that fireball / lose one die of damage.
What if, spells that already require a save or an attack roll, don't require making this extra roll if the spell failed?
In that way you won't be punished twice.
If the spell does work, you have to make the check.
A fireball spell "works" even if it doesn't hit every target.
Fourth Edition solved the problem of combat spells competing with utility spells (and spell slots in general).
This was one thing that came to mind for me right away too: Adding another roll that can cause a spell to fail. I have some players who are unhappy with these kinds of rules and have been so since 3rd ed. I'm not sure if there is a graceful way to mitigate this for spells with a save DC, but one thing I would do is have the spellcasting check pull double-duty for ranged spell attacks. Use the result of the the spellcasting check for the ranged spell attack roll. Both rolls use Prof and Ability for the bonus to the roll so that might work.
I concur, it sucks when a player wants to accomplish something and then it just fails because of bad luck. It's one reason I don't utilize Roll 20 systems for my campaigns. I prefer to utilize mechanics that focus on failing forward. This could work with elements of the proposed system, such as sacrificing HP to be able to cast the spell if you "fail" the check, but it'd be nice to have other methods to interact with it beyond that, such as becoming tired, temporarily blind/deaf/mute, getting a headache, having a mood swing, etc.
In my preference I like to reward players for their tactics, problem solving skills and ingenuity. Also, I don't like wasting time. Nobody wants to waste a bunch of time of whiffed attacks and failed spells. Sure, it's realistic... but it's not engaging. It's better if "failures" cause things to still move forward and to have players feel like narrative progress is being achieved (but at a cost). And players are willing to pay rather interesting costs and make some rather heroic sacrifices to achieve their goals (trust me).
I would be remiss if I didn't say there was NO place for complete failure without any other objective result. This is in relevance to checks that have NOTHING to do with the primary crux of the player's goal/path. Say your goal is to navigate an abandoned dwarven mine because one of your party member thought it would be a fantastic shortcut. Any check or choice made to advance that goal should fail forward to keep up the momentum. But if, say, one of your compatriots wants to wander off in search of leftover bounty, well that check can fail if they're unlucky. Killing the momentum helps keep a focus on the primary goal, but affords the player a risk/reward opportunity to pursue a more personal affair without leaving the group feeling like time was massively wasted.
Sorry for the word vomit.
tl;dr: I prefer fail forward mechanics, so spells that "fail" should incur a setback either in temporary conditions or in a new challenge presenting itself (you tried to Mold Earth, you did what you wanted... but you also unearthed a sleeping *insert dangerous monster here* and she hangry)
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 I prefer a perhaps more realistic approach to gaming. Im not here to coddle players so not going to give them an 'out' because they are whining. I'll just get other players. I like most of the removal of spell slots ideas and have a version I am play testing now. I might adapt to more this way as its more interesting. A caster whining cause there spell didnt work is no more or less important to a fighter who missed their attacks really...
@@CaptnJack It's not so much to coddle and more in the interests of time and fun. I totally understand not hosting players that bitch and moan about every little inconvenience. But that's not why I play the way I do. To fully explain takes... much more text than I had already written, and it was already turning into a wall so I decided to stop.
To elaborate: I find there are checks related to 2 things. Category 1 are Party/Story related checks. These are things the players do to progress the plot and move the party as a whole forward into the adventure. When these checks fail, it only serves to bring the momentum of the story to a screeching halt as now the players have to find some other way to solve the issue. Even more annoying if the solution is obvious, but the check is difficult. For Category 1 checks I utilize failing forward or introduce new twists that keep action flowing. Then there's Category 2 checks which are personal interest checks. These are personal things players want their characters to do like tame a wild animal to be a companion or take a detour in a cave to look for treasure. These checks I have no problem rendering a failure and blocking from progressing further. They serve no purpose to furthering the narrative and if focused on too long will draw too much focus on a single character at the expense of the rest of the players. Personal side quests should be short and sweet so failure means failure in those cases.
Hopefully that makes a bit more sense on the grand scale. There's obviously more to it than that, but that's the skinny of it.
tl;dr: I separate checks into 2 categories. Checks that further the story and help the party as a whole get the falling forward treatment and are Category 1. Checks made for personal interests are allowed to fail outright and are Category 2. This is all done in the interest of time and fun. It is not done to coddle the players.
Removing proficiency from the check seems… very strange to me because it means you never get better at it, and seems like a massive flavour fail for the same reason.
If you're adding the character's level to checks...that represents getting better as you level up.
I think a soft version of this could be a way to extend past expended slots. So your spell slots now represent your ability to cast spells safely but you can extend this by doing the check. Id probably increase the DC in this case (maybe 13 + twice the spells level) and similarly double the amount of health needed to make up the difference
I just ran a test session of almost this exactly, but instead of spell slots being 'safe use' I made the roll determine if the spell slot was expended. This system I think will work really well for my solo campaign for various reasons, however I agree about the DC, in two back-to-back medium-hard encounters she cast many spells, but didn't expend any slots (only 1st lvl spells, but with her bonuses she only needs to roll a 6 to succeed, I feel like it should be more difficult). I also decided the health make-up would reduce her max hp by double the difference, but she never had to do that so I'm not sure how it would've played out.
That's basically how "drain" works in Shadowrun. Like you can cast what you can handle then it gets sketchy when you cast too much.
I did this in pathfinder but something more similar to exhaustion - Failed checks compounded themselves as the mage gets more desperate.
This just gives more spellslots. Stop.
@@orionar2461 So reduce the spell slots on top of it.
I love the idea of blood magic. I'd like to see some kind of 'using your hit dice' to regain lost spells as well. So you could make further sacrifice to pull a clutch spell off.
Also, the 'not knowing if you've can cast that spell 4 times today' really adds a bit of tension to spamming certain spells.
Breaking concentration of concentration spells might also have the effect of losing the spell for the day (though maybe this is too hardcore).
Interesting idea for breaking concentration but I don’t think I would do that. If anything, this makes concentration spells better because once cast, the spell stands.
Like your idea of using hit dice for regaining spells. Seems like a cool idea but then also takes away a valuable healing resource for blood magic casters. I really like how hit dice function in 5e as is but thanks for sharing your thoughts here. More for me to ponder in my tower 🧙🏼♂️
God yes, hit dice are underutilized in 5e. I've always thought that they are a great resource, with a good system for replenishment, and they just sit there much of time doing nothing.
I did a wizard subclass that revolves around that. They can also use their hit die to increase damage and ac and such
@@HouseDM If you do blood, you kinda need either max hp or hit die expenditure, or you end up with endless spells and hp courtesy of Goodberry or something similar. I'm not sure of the numbers but I think by averages Goodberry will give more hp that it takes
@@notoriousgoblin83 great point! Except for if you use blood magic to force the spell, the spell is still lost upon casting so at that point, no more goodberry until you rest.
In "The Dark Eye" you can manipulate spells, some sponateous (when casting) some by investing XP into it. For most you have to roll, to see if the effect happpens and you can even botch, creating uninteded negative effects. The system also uses something akin to mana points.
I haven't gotten into 5e yet, but for my 3.5 casters I prefer using the alternate spell points rule in which removes spell slots from sorcerers and other spontaneous spellcasters, and wizards, clerics, etc. Had to prepare a spell only once (using up a single spell slot) to cast it as many times as you want using your spell points.
I also really like the spell points system. Seems more flexible than slots and a lot easier to explain imo. 5e has a lot of incredible things going for it, but it also has a lot of "fluff" and "poor game design elements".
@@HouseDM that's why I have been mixing 3.5 with Pathfinder as of late. Both have elements to bring that really enhances gameay for my style. I just feel bad for the warlock who gets no love in 3.5.
YES!!!! My SPELL POINT BROTHERS AND SISTER UNITE!!!!!
I prefer 3.5 over 5e, but everyone transitioned over. Soo 5e it is.
@@jonathanfenton8695 Warlock was something the DM was more expected to handle back in 3.5, at least in my experience.
4:22 So to cast a spell, you need to roll chance, *then* roll save/to hit? Not on a strong start to convince me to use it.
just a heads up, hp also correlates to your general energy level. This is shown in 5e with the fighter's second wind ability where they gain hp by dipping into a well of stamina. Just in case you would like to flavor text the blood aspect differently.
Hey so I'm looking at the doc here and what mitigation is there for this being extremely powerful? Starting with the "you can cast spells of a level equal to your character level" thing, that means for example a Wizard gets their 9th level spells 8 levels ahead of when they normally do. And if you cap out Int with your two ability score increases that wizard has a +9 on the casting check meaning that they effectively succeed on casting 9th level spells on a coin flip. At this level a Wizard also can prepare 14 spells, so even if a cast roll fails they have more spell options that can be used the next turn. So mostly what I'm trying to figure is what the damage comparison is between any given level 9 martial and a Wizard who comes in turn one with Blade of Disaster (Blood Magic for a fairly pitiful amount of damage to force the success) and from there does their two bonus action attacks per turn while also casting Meteor Swarm until the flip fails then slowly progressing backwards through the next twelve entries of the list of highest damage non-concentration Wizard spells.
You make a really strong point here! I'd encourage you to take a look at the comments on here that share the opposite opinion. Personally, I don't think its an issue. I cap levels at 10 in my campaign, hence the being able to cast spells at 9th level thing. I also use a modified proficiency bonus system that caps at +5 at level 10. This also keeps total hitpoints low and thats intentional. So personally, I think its fair that a 10th level wizard can hypothetically do what you are sharing. And if they want to prepare ALL 9th level spells and happen to know them, hey, thats their prerogative. I wouldn't recommend it but why not when you get a +9 to cast right?
It sounds like you believe this is super overpowered for wizards while many other people think this homebrew actually "ruins all casters". I'm obviously of the opinion in the middle but I'd love to hear you debate this point with someone who thinks this ruins casters. The whole discussion is fascinating to me.
By that logic a ninth level spell has a base 10% chance to succeed? Heck a fifth has a 70% chance to fail? Even with the highest bonus they would be 35% and 55% chances to succeed respectively. Why would anyone risk the higher level magics? I suppose since most players never reach such levels the point is moot but still those levels seem to be outside all but the most optimized builds reach. Unless the campaign is set in a low magic setting. I can see such limitations if the world is not so dependent on magic since it will effectively limit the possibility of success at casting magic.
My friend has been building his own custom RPG system for a while now, and at one point when it was still pretty similar to D&D (it's diverged a lot since then) this was the solution we came up with to differentiate wizards and sorcerers. Wizards used spell slots, just like in D&D, but sorcerers used a system just like this one - they could cast any spell they wanted as much as they wanted, provided they made the check to cast it. There were a few main differences:
1) Even if you failed the check to cast the spell, the spell still went off. Losing your action entirely when you fail a spellcasting check sucks, especially when it's expected that it'll happen multiple times every day. You still suffer an arcane mishap if you fail the spell, though (usually self-damage, but sometimes it would randomly hit a different target, etc).
2) When you failed a spellcasting check, you lost the ability to cast spells of that level until you rested, not that particular spell. So failing to cast Fireball would lock you out of casting third-level spells entirely. You could still upcast them, though - so you would be able to cast Fireball at 4th level still if you wanted to (but then the check was harder, and you risked losing fourth level slots instead).
3) Because this was sorcerer-specific, instead of being part of all magic, sorcerers got several class features to mitigate the downsides. As they leveled, they got the ability to ritual-cast any spell, which guaranteed success (allowing them to still use utility spells out of combat without crippling their combat potential), as well as resistance to damage from arcane mishaps and improved chances to cast low-level spells without losing them.
It was pretty fun - I immediately decided that the best way to make use of this system that had you occasionally explode was to be standing in melee range so the people you exploded next to were bad guys. Then I just used all the options that made my casting more powerful but higher risk, blew up everything around me for two or three turns, and then had to run away if anything survived the nova because I couldn't cast spells anymore.
I kinda like the Shadowrun spellcasting system. You cast the spell, define its limits, see how effective it is, and then try to resist the "drain", or the mental and physical repercussions of channeling the mana.
Problem with that (speaking as a long term Shadowrun GM and player) is that it *strongly* incentivises casters to min-max their Drain resistance stats to the point where they can practically ignore Drain as a mechanic and spellcast very high force at will with no penalty. This is such a problem that I've been at Shadowrun tables (not ones I've GM'd I stress) where Mage or Shaman players have been shamed by fellow players or even other GM's for failing to optimise enough (honestly a common cultural problem with SR as a system) since any caster who ever has to worry about Drain is 'weak'.
@@josephpotter5766 Ah, that makes sense. I haven't had the chance to play yet, so my knowledge is purely based on the descriptions. In one of my more recent DnD campaigns, I gave my characters the option to use a modified drain system instead of a nerfed version of the standard "Spell slot" system. Nobody took it, so I didn't get to see how it would work ;-;.
@@josephpotter5766 True that happens yet at the same time that "nova hot" mage getting their arm blown off having to get some cyber basically put them in the same spot that nonperfect mage or shaman. You still need a silenced pistol since corps and cops can tell if some wild spells been slung.
But yeah most tables want ALL players to be Sam Fisher with a twist even though SR is so open skill wise you can pretty much make ANY campaign happen. Since I had a game where we simply played as street doctors
@@ExeErdna Of the campaigns in SR I've run, from 1st edition to 5th (skipping 4th and 6th) I think only about 30% of them were what you might call "classic shadowrun". I love street level games, games playing gangers, games playing BuMoNA doctors in Berlin, reporters in Laos or rockers on the East Coast of the UCAS.
@@josephpotter5766 Shadowrun is such a great system to run any type of game in it's world. Shadowrun is also the biggest bitch of a system to run because there is way too much to learn and balancing it all is rough. I love Shadowrun. I also hate it lol.
I did something similar. I want it to be exhausting to cast spells, so I got rid of slots, I made casting casting save (of 8+ Spell level versus D20 + con mod + Proficiency bonus) If you fail you get a level of exhaustion. Exhaustion works normally and affects the casting rolls. You recover a level of exhaustion with a 20 and get an extra exhaustion with a 1. The caster eventually gets exhausted to the point that they either have to stop casting spells or die. Aside from that spells work normally whether the roll succeeds or fails. All exhaustion levels are removed on a short rest.
There are two major mechanical issues I can see with this:
1. Buffing the check. The most commonly available option is enhance ability. Advantage on the check drops the mishap chance to 1/400 and the failure chance below 10% for most of your spells. And also there is the circle of stars druid who cannot fail to cast a spell when their dragon constellation is active (min 10+mod rolled on Int and Wis checks). This is not even an endgame thing, it is a 2nd level feature.
Suggestion: Magic has no effect on casting checks.
2. Spells that use saves. Is the save replaced by this roll? If yes, then Int, Wis and Cha save proficiencies are basically useless. If no, then these spells are extra unreliable. If single target, it might not even be worth learning them.
Suggestion: Keep saves, but add +2 to spell save DC-s.
There is also non-mechanical issue: bad rolls. If a primary caster rolls badly at the start of the day, they can just go and sit in a corner for the rest of the day. Not managing a resource well is your fault, thus living with its cosequences is ok. But rolling bady is not a choice. Going with the standard adventuring day, you will have about 4-6 encounters, and a wizard could run out of spells, without actually casting any successfully or getting seriously injured, on the first one. I don't think many would consider this to be fun.
Suggestion: Using blood magic makes you actually succeed on the check. (Maybe only for an additional sacrifice: 2x the cost, or lose a HD.)
All in all I get what you are going for, but this is such a core feature of the game, that I have to ask: why not just play, say, Savage Worlds, which already has a roll-to-cast option?
Enhance ability requires concentration, so it would limit your options for other spells. And it would also require a check of it's own to succeed. But, that said, I think if you had tools to boost a couple of checks to cast Enhance Ability (Favoured the gods, Dark one's own luck...), and were content just casting non-conc spells, this would be potentially wild.
I actually don't think that the first one is an issue, since it is defined as a "spellcasting check" and not an "ability check," so technically those features wouldn't apply.
As for saving throws, I think it would be interesting if the number you rolled on the spellcasting check was both the spell save dc and the attack roll for spells that call for it. That way you don't have to slow down gameplay with a million dice rolls on a turn, while keeping some of that variety the system is meant to introduce.
I definitely agree with your last point, though.
@@ataruDev We also use eg. "strength check" and "stealth check" as expressions, and both are actually ability checks. The base assumption is that there are only 3 types of d20 rolls. Exceptions would have to be explicitly noted.
Making them separate would resolve the issue, though. But I would prefer to minimise the number of core game mechanics we break :)
@@joshuawinestock9998 Well, yeah, there are still limitations with EA. I just felt like they were not properly addressed / thought through. Spamming leveled spells is definitely an issue, even if you are limited to non-concentration ones.
@@joshuawinestock9998 Infinite Fireball has entered the chat
The system I've been toying with is based on how Psionics and power points were used back in 3e.
Start by taking the "magic points" optional rules in the DMG and use them instead of spell slots. At each level, casters have X number of points and spells cost however many points to cast.
In 3e psions had a points threshold where half their at will abilities always worked so long as they had more points left to spend than their threshold number.
So pick a number. Probably based on caster level or primary casting stat. So long as you have that many mana points left in the tank, you can freely cast spells using those points. When you dip below that threshold, you might have to roll what used to be called a spellcraft check.
Say you have fewer points than your threshold, but you want to cast a spell with a spell level higher than your proficiency bonus. Roll d20+ PB+ casting mod. Roll nat 20 and the spell crits. Roll above 10+ spell level, and the spell is cast. Roll below, and the spell fizzles, but you keep the MP. Roll a nat 1, and you fizzle, plus you either lose the MP or you roll on a wild magic surge table.
There's lots of random magic effect tables out there if the wild magic sorcerer table doesn't do it for you.
Back in AD&D, we used spell points! at 3rd level you had one 2nd level spell and two 1st level spells you could cast, which gave you 4 spell points, and you could have memorized Magic Missile, Grease and Web! and each day you could cast 4 Magic Missiles or 2 Webs, or Web and 2 Magic Missiles!
This still exists as a varient rule in the DM Guide if I remember correctly.
@@thomastw6757it does, but the numbers aren’t perfectly linear. They follow the same progression as converting sorcery points to spell slots iirc (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, etc)
I run 3.5e and let the player choose to use the original method or use a similar spellcasting method to what you described.
Sorcerers are natural spellcasters who know a limited spells and never need to roll to cast.
A wizards can cast any spell they know an unlimited number of times (but they need the components) using Spellcraft DC 10+SL for lvl 0-4, DC14+SL for lvl 5-7, and DC18+SL for 8 & 9th lvl spells. The DCs ensure that ability scores and skills placed in Spellcraft are required for the hardest spells.
Spellcraft checks can result in critical failure and critical casts.
Nat 20s generally provide a metamagic effect.
Nat 1s either implode (pull people in + DMG), explode (blast people away + DMG) or cast a random curse on a random person or item.
The curse is my absolute favorite because they can be anything, including strong narrative or role-playing elements.
Any component can be used over and over as a focus, but if you fail your check, the component is consumed (critical or otherwise). This removes the need for inventory management, but you do need to specifically replace any destroyed component or focus if you want to cast that spell.
This reminds me of a homebrew system I use with one of my players. She's an alchemist artificer in a low-magic setting, flavored that her spells are cast through alchemically altered bullets, so rather than using spell slots, she can cast whatever she is able to create at the time--including one use of one spell up to one level above what she can normally cast. Unfamiliar to the stress of combat, she rolls on a d20 table to determine whether she grabs the correct bullet. This includes healing spells, which has (once) caused her to shoot a dying comrade point blank with a normal bullet. Hilarious and chaotic.
This is how it also works in Dungeon World!
For wizards, when they cast an arcane spell, they always need to make a roll, and there's no spell slots involved.
There's 3 tiers of success: 1) success, 2) success at a cost, 3) failure.
Even in failure, it doesn't mean that the spell isn't cast necessarily, but there's consequences. The Wizard might have to forget the spell for the day, take a minus, or the spell might go awry and cause problems itself.
For success at a cost, there's the chance that the spell is forgoten, or not forgoten but a there's a -1 to future spellcasting rolls, etc.
How does this affect the balance between warlocks and the other casters? And what do you replace features like "arcane recovery" with?
Maybe you could recover a number of failed spells instead of spell slots
Uh oh you said the B word. Balance is a farce imo. Features like arcane recovery regain failed spells, just as @RJ1580 said.
This is how I’ve handled those scenarios at my table and I haven’t had any issues.
@@HouseDM Cool man :) Asking since i like the idea and it was things not brought up in the video :) I'm guessing warlocks would also regain failed spells on a short rest, and i'm happy to see my pactbound peeps do more than just spam eldritch blast :D
Where can I find the arcane mishap table and pay tribute?
EDIT: I found it. It's in the google doc linked in the description. I had been searching for "arcane mishap" and "pay tribute" to be spelled out in the description, consequently overlooking the google doc.
Blood magic is a HUGE part of my campaign world. It’s almost like the Force in Star Wars. I like the ideas here.
At 3:25 I was like “yeah DCC! He better say something about it.” Love your homebrew rules for.
I added luck to my game borrowed directly from DCC. Players love it. I can’t wait till they find a place in the world where Goodman magic works….and they find out magic works differently!
I started doing similar with a roll to cast from an alternative rule in 2.5 in the mid 90’s and have tweaked it over the years
Its much better to roll to cast then a spell slot and the unpredictable nature of magic becomes a great story telling tool
Good to find others doing similar
Cheers
awesome video man! just started dming my first campaign about 5ish months ago (been playing 5e since the pandemic started) and these videos are great at expanding my horizons/making me think about my world. Thanks!
Thanks for saying this Plop! I’m always looking to try new things in the pursuit of enhanced game mechanics. Cheers!
It's an extremely entertaining idea to change the spell casting system in this way. Especially the part about blood magic as well as arcane mishap table and options on nat 20.
I see a couple of curious things with which the roll to cast system will work strangely. It turns out that the arcane trickster after level 11 is considered the most reliable caster since they will not be able to roll casting check below 14. Also, bards and warlocks, when receiving spells of the 8th circle and having learned glibness, will be able to spam high-level spells every turn. (because they will not be able to roll less than 15 + a spell characteristic modifier, which by that time is most likely at least 4).
Ought to read the google doc.
Good job existing. After mentioning how I wanted to allow a player to multiclass between two archetypes of the same class and how I wanted a player to explain exactly HOW he was helping and made him move in order to be able to provide the help action in pushing someone over a cliff when he was fifteen feet away, I was run out of Reddit as some sort of villain. I'm glad someone out there doesn't see D&D as a religion and the words of WotC as a pantheon of gods whose words can't be altered (even though the DMG says the DM is the final arbiter of the rules and has the right to alter them). Subscribed.
This is really cool. I love the "blood magic" idea, and have had thoughts of similar mechanics myself. I figured you were going to have some kind of MP system, but this is so much cooler of an idea than that, especially for D&D specifically since it allows use of the mechanics of Proficiency and the d20 rolls in that system.
You saying "You might roll hot and cast infinite spells... for a time" made me think, what if in this system somebody does roll really well very consistently? Would it cause some sort of buildup of arcane energy within them? Maybe being very lucky and just constantly casting could have some kind of drawback, too.
Hi Zix! Love that your stoked about this system! The way I see it is if you have a player who gets really lucky with their casting, let it be.
Your player will feel so cool and could build a reputation in game for being a legendary magic user. And that’s totally fine in my book. This is how legends are made. And remember, the time will come when their luck runs out and it will come when they least expect it. Thanks for watching!
the consistency of spells is nice for strategy, if your dm can designes combat correctly it becomes a fun puzzle your party can work together to solve
I would actually love to borrow this idea as the basis for a homebrew class. Call it the "Conduit" or something. Subclasses could be something like Arcane, Nature, and Divine, borrowing the spell lists from sorcerer, druid, and cleric, respectively.
Sick! Love to see what you come up with.
@@HouseDM I think the real challenge is balancing this as its own class in a game where other players are playing regular spellcasters with the regular rules.
Since every spell could be attempted at least once, a character with, say, 4 3rd level spells known, and a 75% chance to cast each of those successfully, that character will usually get to cast three of those spells once, and two of them twice, and probably one of them three times (The statistics get a little difficult). So is that the equivalent of 6 3rd level spell slots? I would say not really, since the player doesn't get to choose which spells they can repeat the most. However, if they choose spells that have a similar effect (ie. fireball, hunger of hadar, erupting earth, and lightning bolt are all AoE damage spells), it could end up having the effect of having 6 spell slots. So it's tricky.
I just started using spell points in my 5e game, but with the charts from Strar Wars 5e (SW5e). Base 5e uses a bunch of funky math whereas SW5e is very simple; each class has spell points equal to # x their level + their casting modifier. Wizards have 4 times their level, so a 2nd level Wizard with a +3 bonus has 4 x 2 + 3 spell points.
From there, casting a spell beyond a cantrip costs the spell level + 1, so 1st level is 2 points, 2nd level is 3 points, and so on.
The last tweak I added is that you can reduce your current and total hit points by any number of points to regain the same number of spell points (up to your maximum), but can only regain those hit points on a long rest. And, in the opposite direction, you can expend any number of spell points to gain an equal number of temporary hit points.
I love this.
I prefer casters, but I prefer magic that is magical, rather than scientific.
The blood magic really makes it for me.
It rewards sacrifice without requiring it.
Hell yeah! I like giving players more choices. Definitely one of the fun and strategic aspects of Frostgrave and it works really well in D&D. Thanks for watching!
What about magic in DnD is scientific? 🤔
So question. Example: scorching ray. Do you roll for spell success and to hit? Or if the spell succeeds does it automatically hit. I think it would feel pretty bad to roll success then miss the attack, and then roll failure the next turn.
Interesting ideas. I personally have gotten to play quite a bit of Dungeon World lately and I have to say that I find their system quite refresing. It can be a bit tricky to adjust as a whole, as it varies a good bit to D&D type games but the way combat and checks in general are handled is interesting.
First of - DCs are done away completely, everything depends on your dice throw.
Second - A D20 is not used in this particular system. You roll everything with 2D6s. If you roll a 1-6 on a check, you fail, if you roll a 7-9 you succeed on what you planned, but something unexpected happens in addition to that. And a 10 and above is a complete success without drawback.
The "you succeed, but..." part is where it shines for me. Our DM usually gives us a few options of bad sideeffects that we can choose from. Mostly something like "you take damage yourself", "you hurt somebody else along with it", "you increase the overall stakes of the encounter", "you sustain a status effect until your next rest", and so on. Whichever are appliccable in the given situation. We also use an optional rule for advantage and disadvantage wherein you use a 3rd D6 and take the two highest or lowest respectively.
As a third change - AC works differently. It no longer raises the DC but the AC gets directly subtracted from the damage taken (granted DW is a lot scarcer with hit points - 20 already being very good).
I feel like this could also be adapted to D&D, but haven't tried it yet. The D6 thing is somewhat a matter of taste I think.
If this sounds interesting, I strongly recommend having a look at the system. Just be warned - it's a very different playstyle to general D&D and related systems.
Before anyone asks, yes DW is a PBTA system.
I've read through Dungeon World and listened to some podcasts. Plus Runehammer used to talk about it awhile back. Big fan of PbtA games but I keep gravitating towards d20 systems. Idk why lol. Thanks for sharing!
@@HouseDM My pleasure. I totally get you on the D20 thing. It's just a different feeling.
But I'm inclined to try the check-stages with it.
Maybe:
1-10: Fail
11-15: Success, but...
16-20: Success
Not sure on the stage intervals yet. Also not sure if I should include a mishap whenever a spell check fails outright. Like: "The effect blows up in your face", "You forget the spell until you next rest" or "A different random magic effect happens". Could get a bit annoying, but definetely checks that hard to contol magic vibe. Plus your give-blood-to-pass-check-mechanic feels like a good tradeoff here.
I think Dungeon World does it in an interesting way.
It's made to be very simple in comparison to D&D and it's balanced with that in mind.
But I don't think you can just take that system and bring it over to D&D because of how different it is.
However things like offering different choices between downsides for failure or partial success is a very good thing that could likely be brought over quite easily.
For a thing like House's system, I see that as being a very good tool for making the players not feel screwed over by the punishments that can happen.
Instead of just flat out losing a spell and have to spend 10 days to trek back to a town to be able to restore it, you can simply pick another choice of what happens.
Different choices can also mean different things in different situations. Losing a spell maybe isn't too bad if you're already in said city, but it's game-ending in a dungeon. Meanwhile the spell having undesired effects can be really bad if you're trying to pass by the guard when stealing something from the town, while it's not that big of a deal when you're fighting the big bad boss in a dungeon.
@@ANoBaka Hmm, you got a point there and the ability to choose between bad concequences is definetelyagood thing. I'll have to thing on that. Thanks for your input.
I like the spell bar in many video games where it must be refilled with blue portions or a long rest.
We are sharing and magnifying our brain waves! 😃🙌 Love your implementation of roll-to-cast!
Watch, the day will come where everyone is like, damn, Shadowdark and other non-D&D rpg's have everything I want. Bye WOTC! Thanks for your support Kelsey.
Beautiful! Bravo. I really enjoyed this. I think you just changed my concept of magic in D&D. That's a first in 27 years. I'm excited to run some magic players now. Thank you.
Awesome! Glad you enjoyed it David!
I agree totally with the concept of there is no right or wrong way to play D&D. Making D&D unique and fun is paramount in my campaigns. Great video!
Hell yeah! Rock on!
How many hacks before someone is playing a different game, and maybe should look at different systems sooner rather than later?
@@mustakrakish I don't know the answer to the question about hacks, but I have played several different rules systems. D&D has changed so much over the years, from the 3 book boxed set to now, but we still call it D&D. However, I find 5e the best framework to run my campaigns in, and am always looking for "embellishments" to make player characters more unique, or the game more enjoyable for the group.
Spellcasters in my campaign have been using your system to pretty awesome effect! One suggested an interesting addition that we're gonna try out: if you critically cast a concentration spell, you can choose to have it not require concentration. It becomes "set it and forget it", freeing you up to simultaneously have another concentration spell running. It also frees you from having to make concentration saves for that spell when you take damage. We'll see how it works out.
Sick idea!
So its no too OP at your table?
@@squali1930 *Shrug* I mean, what does OP even mean when I as the DM can adjust the difficulty of any encounter at any time? Sure, I've upped the CR of most of the encounters. But it's hard to say whether that's the result of adopting roll-to-cast or whether it's because I'm playing with some very experienced clever strategic players. Regardless, it means my spellcasters get to do awesome stuff frequently. And they do indeed wear themselves down paying the blood/HP cost when they fail their roll to cast. In the months I've been using this, only once or twice has a player elected to let a spell fail rather than pay the blood sacrifice.
There is a BESM d20 system sourcebook for the anime Slayers that was heavily magic focused. Each spell had a spellcasting DC based on the 'level' of the spell. If you succeeded the DC, you cast the spell with no issues. However, if you failed the DC, you still cast the spell, but lost HP based on how badly you failed the check. You had options to decrease the DC of the spell by taking longer to cast it by reciting the full incantation as well as yelling out the spell name, potentially alerting you target to your intentions.
There were also mechanics to amplify a spell effect by having multiple casters cast the same spell at the same time, as well as offer to share their HP with the caster in case they failed and a few other nifty tricks.
Personally, I like the idea of implementing an MP system to D&D and I discovered there already is one in the DM guide.
Your blood magic reminds me of spellcasting in the original Chivalry & Sorcery where you had fatigue points that came back hourly (normally used to cast spells) and body (more akin to D&D hit points) that came back daily. If you were out of fatigue points, you could still cast magic using your body points. It was a fun system and I had never thought about how to incorporate that into 5e.
Love the blood magic idea. I myself use the 3e spell points system with the ability to upcast and downcast by spending extra points. Works for my table.
Have you looked at dark heresy and pushing spells?
As someone who usually plays a caster class, this has me super intrigued. I like the modification to the natural spellcasting, as while it brings in more random chance, I agree that spellcasting shouldn't feel as mundane and carefree as it does in RAW. I have sent this to my group's DMs, and am hopeful to try it out in a one shot sometime very soon. And if they aren't up to it, well, this might just be interesting enough for me to go full Thanos and say "Fine, I'll do it myself" and finally jump into the DM seat for a one shot.
This system is intriguing, it also gives viable reason for casters to carry around spell scrolls and potentially even make them, because yikes if you run out of spells due to an unlucky streak mid combat, also gives good explanation why someone would learn to make magical items that allow reliable casting with charges, that would be how you have spell slots still in the world, someone who’s a caster except they’re just a collector of magical items that don’t require attunement, or perhaps a wizard’s spell book requires attument for them to cast the spells they have learned and recorded while they’re also able to cast spells they haven’t got recorded because they still experimenting with them
I always hated the way magic works RAR in D&D.
{Witness, the door}:
DM: Your way is blocked by a locked door.
Barbarian: I smash it!
DM: Okay, roll a strength check.
Rogue: I pick the lock
DM: Okay, roll a lockpicking check, Dexterity at disadvantage if you don't have any skill points
Wizard: I cast 'Knock'
DM: Okay, the door opens.
{End scene}
There's a discontinuity of rulesets here.
Agreed. With Spellcasting checks, a savvy caster can choose to use blood magic if they roll poorly to get the same effect, and with the associated cost, it adds another clock to keep them in check. Thanks for watching Cy Williams!
No, there isn’t. Non-casters have unlimited use of their abilities but limited effectiveness. Casters always have maximum effectiveness but limited use.
you forgot to mention that every hostile creature in a 300 ft radius is now out to get you
Thanks!
Thanks a ton Matthew!
In more flexible or homebrew games, this rule could help to improve the engagement. But I definitely know some players who would challenge this as being too novice friendly. Overall great idea and good to share with others.
Yeah, it’s definitely a departure from traditional spell casting though I find it interesting you have players who would find this too novice friendly. Would you mind sharing which part?
It makes more sense as you're supposed to be a trained person in magic or at lease known of magic for a long time. Spell slots to me is more or less something to trick young casters to be a bit more careful to not hurt themselves. When really they can cast the useful more often.
@@Squeekysquid Lots of gatekeeping in the hobby.
Funny to find a video on this. In my homebrew, I'm making spells to function closer to AD&D psionics, which function somewhat similar to this. Interesting channel, instant subscribe
I like all of this stuff, couple other references and suggestions you may find value in.
Consider mining the FFG WH40k rpg stuff for their Psyker mishap tables, they're awesome.
RE: modifying the check, removing proficiency etc... Consider taking a look at Castles & Crusades for how that would work out math wise, their prime attribute vs non prime is mechanically like, a +6 I believe, which is kinda the difference you're talking about with removing the Prof bonus and lowering the difficulty, there's probably a lot of math that's been done on that.
Another thing I always suggest regarding people using a straight d20 roll for "randomization". Stop. Something I noticed when I was building encounter tables for a sandbox game is the old AD&D encounters are based on a D12+D8 roll, which actually gives you a curve as opposed to a flat d20 roll, so a 2 and a 20 are actually more rare and thus can be weighted as such in regards to their results.
Wrath and Glory's casting system is very neat, but not easily transferable to 5e.
Basically you roll lots of D6s and normally one of those is a special die (a Wrath die) with especially potent effects when you roll a 1 or a 6 on it (so basically something negative in both cases, but also something good when you roll a 6). You can add an additional one of these special Wrath dice by casting 'Unbound' or a potential 4+ additional Wrath dice by casting 'Transcendent'. The wrinkle is, once you cast at that level you have to continue casting at that level for the rest of the scene.
I found your video because I'm working on a new video tentaively titled, "Why I Hate Spell Slots." Your "roll to cast" system in similar to what Margaret Wiess and team did with Sovereign Stone D20. They even have an option to sacrifice HP to cast a spell faster. Question: do you use a mana pool of points to limit a mage's power level? Or, can they continue to cast spells indefinitely?
It’s definitely an interesting idea, I personally don’t see a world where I would use it. I find the combat system the one place i am not comfortable homebrewing
Original shadowrun casting: cast the spell (possibly with skill check for degree of success), and then soak some drain. Drain is non-lethal if you're being reasonable, and physical if you're pushing your luck. D&D learned/subsumed some of this with the idea of cantrips - the spell you can cast all day every day. In shadowrun the equivalent of a cantrip was one where you were putting most of your pool of dice into soaking the drain, so you didn't have so many to make it do big boom boom, but you also were practically guaranteed* to not take damage from casting it.
*But never 100%
I too was thinking of the casting in Shadowrun. I quite like their system of handling that. You can handicap yourself on the front end by not drawing a lot of power, or you could hurt yourself in the back end by pulling so much magic through your body that it starts to burn you from the inside out.
On a tangential note - they also had a good counter to just relying on a heal bot with infinite casting potential by making wounds only able to be healed by magic once. If you get hit again your fresh wounds can be treated, but already partially-treated wounds remain. (So the caster might have to decide whether to go big and restore you to near full now, or just enough to keep you from dying til the team can get you out of there)
OK sharing a story. Druid. Had a hard day. Went back to the inn, said: "Right, I am taking a kitten break." Went to our room,' Summon woodland creatures, kittens' and laid down to have kittens playing all over him. Room service raw fish. Room service, bowl of milk. Kittens knocked over the bowl of milk. He looked down at the spilled milk and said; "Well there's no use crying over that." Whole table erupted in laughter. Oh we had a roll d20 system. Just like a physical attack 1 was a fumble, 20 was double damage. 1 was a backfire. Weird shit could happen. Like literally change the entire world as you are plane travelled. Very low chance. Unless the DM was bored or decided to have a little fun.
What stops the mage from casting magic missile at max level infinitely though? You could probably add a thing for critical failure since it's so easy to cast low level spells at high rank without spell slots. It might not seem that significant but a wizard with 20 INT (+5 INT mod) and +5 proficiency could cast a 1st level spell which is a DC 11 with a NAT 1. Nothing is stopping him from always casting a guaranteed spell to damage, even if it's only 3d4. It's force damage and guarantees to hit unless someone has shield. Speaking of shield, the same can be said about that spell as well.
I'm sorry but for me this fall into "why are you even playing 5e and not trying out a different system that fits your tastes better at this point ?"
"This sounds reasonable."
Halfling divination wizard with lucky: "Are ya sure about laddie?"
I like this, but I think I might only use it for Sorcerers.
That might seem weird, but frankly the lore on sorcerers suggests that they shouldn't even know spells, they just do magic. I've never felt like the sorcerer was acting like what I was supposed to be. They can be powerful, don't get me wrong, but they also kind of feel like discount wizards with a neat trick.
What I'd actually like to do is create a system where Sorcerers use their sorcery points to apply metamagics to a "working" and make a roll to see if that succeeds. (metamagics, and how many one could apply to one working, would be gated by levels, and include things like: Range increments, damage types, amount of damage [both amount of dice and degree of dice] condition effects, etc. So in theory you could sacrifice range, but make your touch range fireball do necrotic and do some amount of d10's instead of d6's, with a risk of some kind of magical surge. One would gain different unique metamagics based on one's bloodline, allowing them to create unique workings others could not) I also think all sorcerers should have wildmagic surge tables based on their archetype.
However I don't have the time to create and test this complicated system. But the one you've provided feels unique enough that it might do a good job in it's place.
Thanks!
Metamagic used to be available to all spell casters, and honestly that was a better system. Sorcerers have taken over 5E, because they are so easy and get all the benefits.
@@thanesgames9685 I mean previously they got crap spell selection, but yeah now they just get a list of spells with ever subclass. I do like the old metamagic system, it was neat (my Cleric in Pathfinder doesn't have enough Feat slots to make use of them, but still).
sounds like this would break the balance between melee classes and spellcasters. a melee class can reliably fight. if a spellcaster loses the ability to cast spells until a long rest, then they are completely useless. now, if you made it so they could cast certain spells they've studied (memorized) reliably, but if they wanted to cast spells not memorized with those risks, then i think you could balance it better. i've been at a table where we all could NOT stop rolling nat 1's. so having spellcasters end up potentially completely useless in a fight would be inconvenient to the rest of the party.
Hmmm I don’t like the term “balance”. The game isn’t balanced, intentionally. Otherwise, what’s the point of having different classes?
Also I think the inconvenience of having no spell slots is totally fine. Your PC’s will be forced to think creatively instead of just pushing a button for a spell. I like to reward clever thinking at my table as opposed to just always having guaranteed magic.
Take a look at Shadowdark if you want to see a system that implements Roll to Cast better than my house rule in this video! Cheers!
This. Is. Amazing. I have been looking for a way to implement this kind of idea for a while, running 3.5 and I am absolutely putting this to use. Might even consider trying it out with the net library 10k wild magic tables.
Man, you are so free and wild with 5e...I love it! I'm enjoying your channel
People will really change everything about 5e before they just decide to play anything else.
This is similar to how Cypher System handles abilities and magic. You can eventually get to where you can use them as much as you want, but all abilities have a cost, and you have 3 pools to spend from; Might, Speed, & Intellect. Each ability pulls from a different pool and you can get better at spending from a particular pool as you go, but these pools are also your HP. If your speed hits 0, you can't physically move from where you are, might would remove the bonus to damage on attacks and you can't apply 'effort' to rolls (using from a pool to reduce the DC of a check) and intellect running out can mean you pass out, go into shock or become panicked. If all three pools hit 0, you're dead, no questions asked. And your enemies may not always go for only a single pool, I love catching my friend's big strong hunter off-guard with some 'psychic' damage straight at his INT pool when he gets cocky, and when they haven't built up that pool much they really feel it. I really like seeing them gamble on one last powerful spell that could leave them at death's door only to have it save the day. It feels a lot more dynamic and risky that way.
This is excellent. Definitely adding this to the "homebrew I want to use in that campaign I want to run... someday" pile. In regards to caster power, I appreciate cantrips not scaling, removing one way in which they compete with martials, though not at low levels, which is fine. I have a few questions, though, and a couple of tweaks I'd suggest.
My questions:
1) What damage type did you envision for the potential damage dealt after rolling a 1? I suppose you could just have it be undefined damage, but I think it would be cool and add an interesting angle if it did the same type of damage as the spell would normally do, if the spell has a damage type. This would give characters resistant to that damage type more incentive to pick those spells, and we always need more reasons for players to vary their spell choices. (I'm again saddened that no character is by nature vulnerable to damage types, as this would have added _another_ angle, both in character concept and in making hard choices during gameplay.) This does leave the question of what damage types to use if the spell has multiple, or none.
2) When you wrote "double the area" as one of the choices after rolling a 20, did you mean "double the number used to determine the area"? Since doubling the radius of a circle ups the area by considerably more than double, but having to calculate the exact shape of an area after it is doubled would be a pain in the arse.
3) How would you handle ritual spells, since with there being no spell slot to lose the advantage of casting a spell as a ritual becomes naught? I have an idea in that regard that I'll put into the tweaks section.
4) What about half and one-third casters? Surely a 5th level ranger shouldn't be able to cast 5th level spells? I'm guessing the way you'd solve this would be to let half casters cast spells equal to half and one-third casters cast spells equal to one-third their levels, rounded up or down. Multiclassing still needs to be solved, though, and the _number_ of spells they can cast per day should also be lower, somehow.
My tweaks:
1) In regards to rituals, how do you feel about using passive skill checks to cast spells? In other editions (I can't remember which) you could "take ten", meaning you took ten times as long in order to automatically get a 10 on the roll, which the rules on passive checks ("Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly,", p.175 _Player's Handbook)_ seem to allude to. This would in essence give every spell a ritual version and make it the smart course of action for spells that have no time limit and you could achieve on average, as well as add flavour by reintroducing rituals into the game. If you want you could even increase the material cost (say, double, or staying on brand, by ten) if you want to discourage players using rituals to frequently bypass the risks of casting spells. And combining this with Blood Magic (as well as my tweaks to blood magic below) really puts the flavour into overdrive.
2) I'd move the bard from the tribute cost side to the arcane mishap side. I always felt what distinguished bards from other magic users was _how_ they manipulated the Weave - though art -, rather than them being beholden to some muse. That way you have clerics, druids, paladins and warlocks on the side that get their magic from somewhere else, be it gods, nature, oaths, or powerful beings, while on the other side you have artificers, bards, rangers, sorcerers and wizards (and Eldritch knights, Four Elements Monks and Arcane Tricksters), who learned to manipulate the Weave by themselves through various means, be it enchanting objects, art, natural concoctions, raw talent or study.
3) I think the Blood Magic system is mechanically sound, but a bit underwhelming thematically. It doesn't seem to me that blood magic should be something a caster dips their toes into every time they fail to cast a spell and think "Eh, I can spare the hit points." Blood magic seems like it should be a Big Deal. And one important element of Blood Magic seems to be missing: Using or sacrificing other creatures to increase your magical power, both willing and unwilling. I'd suggest not just removing hit points when using blood magic, but also decreasing the maximum hit points by the same amount until the end of their next long rest. That way a spell caster can't just heal back up after using blood magic, making it an even bigger decision to use it. And as for using other creatures, I'd suggest something like:
"Damage to other creatures can also fuel spells. Every point of damage dealt that:
* Is dealt during the casting of the spell;
* Is dealt with the intention of fueling the spell;
* Is dealt within five feet of the caster;
* Is dealt to a creature that is not in combat with the damage dealer
can be added to the roll of the spell, though not exceeding the damage necessary to reduce a creature to zero hit points. [To prevent 500 points of damage being done to a rat.] Damage dealt this way also reduces the creature's maximum hit point by the same amount until they finish a long rest."
The only problem I foresee here is casters using their big beefy friends as volunteers to fuel their spells, at low risk to everybody involved, making me inclined to tie the amount of damage dealt to the hit die a character has and the number of points that can be added to the spell roll to the number of hit dice spent, or something like that, so that it is the amount of damage _proportional_ to the hit point maximum dealt that is relevant, rather than the absolute amount. But this would lead to killing a rat being equal to killing a character, which is not a good idea, so perhaps _both_ should be relevant somehow? I'd have to think about it.
Other ways blood magic could be expanded would be other permanent problems (as well as power, perhaps) coming from overuse - you could tie dangers of using blood magic resurrections to this - and character classes interacting with it in different ways. The "classic" warlock and necromancer wizard especially seem like they should have features that interact with it.
4) There needs to be some way that the old amount of spell slots characters have become relevant. I already mentioned half and one-third casters, but especially relevant here is the warlock, who now feels the same as every other spellcaster in the number of spells they can cast per long rest. _Something_ needs to be added to differentiate them, but I don't know what. Perhaps warlocks always lose the spells they know when they cast them, but regain them on a short rest?
That's all I have to say for now. Once I started new things kept popping into my head, so this comment turned out much longer than I expected. I hope the feedback is helpful, at least.
New to the channel, but I’m a forever follower now. My dm sort of worked a mana system. Really love these ideas!
I am definitely intrigued and interested by this version of magic casting. There has always been something missing from Vancian casting systems, and your system seems to have a better flavor than RAW. I have a home-brew campaign I've been working on and I think I'm going to integrate this into the campaign.
You could even adjust the DC for each spell, like if your Wizard trains with magic missile a lot, you can lower the DC by 1. Or give out magic items, like wands and staves, that give like “+1 to casting Firebolt”. Sounds cool.
I really like the idea of removing spell slots, as they've always felt unfitting for most fantasy worlds. However, I think keeping track of each spell and if you have it available or not is going to lead to a lot of book keeping, which is something I'd like to stay away from.
Therefore, I've come up with an idea; what if you had a mana die instead? It would start at a d4, and whenever you reached a level in a spellcasting class that raised your proficiency bonus, it would increase by one; so at 5th level it would be a d6, and 9th level a d8, and so on, up to a maximum of d12.
When you cast a spell, you would roll your mana die, and if you roll higher than your mana die, the spell fails unless you invoke blood magic, and in addition your mana die would drop one size.
So for example, a 9th level caster would have a d8; if they wanted to cast a 3rd level spell, they would roll it, and on a 4 or higher they would cast it without spending resources. On a 1-3 they would need to use their blood magic or be unable to cast it, and regardless of their choice, their mana die would drop to a d6. They could still try to cast 3rd or even 4th level spells, but the chance of failure and dropping to a d4 would be much higher, causing a risk vs reward effect.
I'd love to hear thoughts about the idea.
It's interesting, but I think one of its biggest issues is that it's too front-loaded.
What I mean by that is casters can typically choose to nova their spells or not. With spell slots that's quite straight forward (use low level slots in lieu of high level slots). With the system from this video, you avoid casting the spells that you want to save for later.
In this system, you can be rocking a d10 mana die and lock yourself out of your 9th level spells by casting a 1st level spell and rolling a 1 (10% chance, which means it's a question of when, rather than if). That means that after a day with multiple encounters, you've either primarily relied on cantrips all day (boring) or your mana die has probably been reduced, locking you out of your better spells (which you arguably would have liked to save for the end).
It also has an issue with healing spells. This is based on the presumption that once your mana die is a d4 that it no longer drops to a smaller die on a failure. Cure Light Wounds is a 1st level spell that heals 1d8+mod HP. Even if you roll a 1 and have to use blood magic to cast it, you take 1 dmg to recover 1d8+mod. Meaning that anyone who can cast CLW or HW would be able to restore effectively infinite HP.
if you just want a more flexible system, have a look at the spell points variant rule on the last pages of the dungeon masters guide. its essentially mana.
@@Fanaelialae One of the late game abilities for one of players in the campaign we just finished was he can cast any spell that was Illusion, Enchantment, or Conjuration, and he has to roll a d10. If the number was equal to or lesser than the spell level, he couldn't use this ability to cast a spell of that school again until he took a long rest.
Since returning to gaming after the second break in my life, I have encountered these discussions on spell mechanics and it is intriging. As a kid I don't recall any of these discussions, but we did not have the interwebs. I really appreciate the range of magic casing systems and house rules.
Keep up hte great content. THank you.
So there is no "right or wrong way of playing D&D"... but why don't you just play completely different system that actually reflects the way you want it to work? Dungeon World is very light system without a spell slots and with consequences of failed spellcasting roll. It's even more streamlined than 5e and is much easier to "balance out" these types of "hacks". Heck, it's even more moldable than D&D will ever be.
I love this idea! Definitely going to run it by my players and see if we want to use it in our upcoming campaign
Amazing! I'd love to hear what you and your group decide. Cheers!
This video should be called “why I haven’t figured out that I should play a different game so I am making a video about reinventing the wheel “.
Exactly. People will spend 10x more time and effort "fixing" 5e than they would just learning a new system.
On the other hand, I watched this to get ideas for how to swap out spell slots in PF2e because I hate vancian magic with a burning passion.
Do you understand the point of homebrew content or nah? I bet you make ramen exactly per the instructions on the bag.
This feels similar to my favorite “magic” system: Force Powers in Star Wars Saga Edition.
I also really like Powers in True 20, which have fatiguing effects on failed checks. You could pass out from casting.
This is clearly a case of "just go play a different system".
God forbids someone changes an imaginary game 😂 don't worry, if you can't handle homebrews there's always chutes and ladders
@DargorV God forbid people try out more of the TTRPG space than D&D. This exact spellcasting system is done justice elsewhere.
Even then, this guy could just make his own TTRPG, which is the logical conclusion of Homebrew. Why restrain yourself by a game system that doesn't really help you make big alterations? Changing spellcasting like this completely alters more than half the classes and potentially breaks other interactions with the spellcasting system.
You don't have to feel the need to bastardize and twist 5e to be whatever you want, because what you want is out there in some form in other games. It's like how people turn Skyrim into a Souls-Like through mods. There's a point where you should probably just be playing a Souls-Like.
@@Aazdremzulon the other hand, homebrewing systems together to create the blend that you want should not be stigmatised.
I enjoy the initial concept of this home ruling but I feel there are perhaps a few other RAW points that may have been looked over.
1 - With the spell level being equal to caster level this means that core casters cap out at lvl 9 and give world ending magic to characters that are not even half way through their potential. In addition half casters would also drastically acquire spell power very early.
2 - You covered warlocks in your FAQ but may have glossed over the many conflicts this class would have in this system. Consider that warlocks have a forced spell level, so each spell no matter what has an overtly high casting check (in comparison to their counter parts). Admittedly this _may_ cause a balance by the spell slot limitation being removed but an unlucky warlock essentially becomes powerless by losing spell access to an already rather low spell pool while a lucky warlock becomes game breakingly over powered. (On a counter ruling of simply not have a forced level and casting at initial level, it takes away a large part of the intrigue of playing a warlock mechabically). Furthermore how would you handle evocation spells which give non spell slot use spells? Do these remain RAW?
3 - The clarifications/modifications to Arcane Recovery and Font of Magic seem uneeded and rather strict. Why not just retain their initial costs and allow recovery of lost spells of appropriate levels in place of spell slots?
4 - On the more facetious and not picking side, you covered spell attacks and saving throws against spell casting successes. However, this would only be if a creature's AC is _above_ the casting check? What if a casting check is higher than a targetted AC. Implying that a character rolls a check that would have hit the trarget AC but not meet the casting DC. (Ignoring the counter of why would one would cast a higher level spell on a low level or weaker creature). Further, not as much a balancing issue but on the reverse if a character succeeds a casting check but the roll would not it a creature's AC. While not a loss given the system it does seem to be rather dissapointing given that it is both a success and loss.
6 - Perhaps more lore/logic than mechanic but how would handle/rule/explain advantages? Ie. in the case of Faerie Fire one would have advantage on the attack roll, does this mean the casting check has advantage or that after making the cast check the caster may make a second roll for a hit? Same imlied on the reverse of disadvantage due to a dodge action.
7 - The nerfing of cantrips seems a bit unneeded.
8 - Causing spell loss inadvertently forces casters to pick more damage spells over utility ones seeing as should they lose access to a combat spell they become less and less useful throughout an encounter let alone an adventuring day. Although there are non damage spells that are useful inside a combat many other are solely for outside of combat. Admittedly while certain classes such as cleric, druid or wizard can overcome this in a way through their ability to prepare spells, classes with known spells will inevitably be forced to prioritize pure combat over interesting utility and role play spells.
How does this work thematically for Divine magic?
I already use critical rolls for casting. if it's a DC extra effect on the target or no effect plus some other benefit. if it's damage I allow doubling or the spell goes off in your face and hits you.
This was an eye opener! I always disliked the kind of lack of randomness of magic, i'll add a tweak of this system in my homebrew ASAP!
Hell yeah! Or test it out and see if your players are down. You can always go back 🤙🏼
I started using spell points for my big homebrew world, and it fixed so much about the setting. It let me easily incorporate potions that recover magic, have magic items grow with users more organically, and create a system of risk where pulling more magic than you are normally capable and losing control of it causes an arcane explosion focused on the caster
Interesting idea for rolling to succeed instead of expending guaranteed spell slots. I won't be taking this system, but it did define what I've seen in other RPG's which have magic so I can better understand what magic systems are out there. Thank you for sharing.
Somewhat late by 5 months and don't know if it was mentioned, but 5E does has an alternate rule system for spells by using mana.
I've been playing with changes to the casting system as well to make it less reliable. Currently we are using d10 checks with the DC equal to 1 + spell level.
Thanks for the vid! I’m about to run a wands and wizards home brew (Harry Potter style) and it didn’t make sense that they can only fire off a spell once till they rest in that world.
I was planning on using a scaling value for the spells based on how long they have known the spell and this helps a lot.
After moving away from 5e, I started developing my own system, and one of my biggest problems with 5e was Spell Slots, which was one of the first things I removed and reworked. What I did was give players a list of Known Spells, much like 5e, but instead of giving them leveled slots that restrict the number of times they can cast a number of spells at each level, I gave them Mana Points to spend. Every Spell Level (from 1 through 10) describes how many Mana Points must be spent to cast them, and spells can be Upcast based on each individual spell's description, as some spells cost more to Upcast than others, and each spell has a limit to how many times it can be upcast as well.
The number of Mana Points a player has is USUALLY equal to their Charisma Modifier (for non-Class Spellcasting purposes), but taking the Spellcasting Perk from a Caster Class changes your Magicka Pool to equal your Primary Spellcasting Ability Score (Wizards get Mana Points equal to their Intelligence Score, for example). No spells cost 0 Mana Points, so spellcasting is not infinite, and after reaching level 5 in any Spellcasting Class, Casters also gain the ability to expend a Hit Die to recover spent Mana Points.
I'm experimenting with casting rules like this in my own homebrew system but I think it's too much to have a casting roll and THEN still having to roll to hit or rolling for saves, doubling the amount of dice rolls for almost every spell. So what I'm working on is a system where there the spell difficulty to cast is modified by whatever attribute the target would use to save against the spell so that both rolls are combined into one.
Interesting concepts. I've used a blood magic caster at my table (I'm not a 5e DM) where blood could also be spent for other effects: rerolling the spell effects for either damage or whatever other chart might be being used for teleport safety, monster summoning, etc., but the costs are high in HP and characters have actually chosen to go into negative HP and almost die just to have a chance at casting teleport successfully. My system doesn't use Vancian rules for spellcasting either, though I don't mind that system since I started with it. It's just that for what I was trying to do I wanted something different.
Great ideas. Hope to try these out at my table.
Nice! I’d love to hear how it goes.
@House DM, do you do known/prepared spells differently from basic 5e? Do you use the spell slots for a Wizard as a guideline for spells prepared? What about the known spells vs spellbook vs Prepared spells game balance between casters? My apologies if you've answered this somewhere I can't see.
I use the spell points rule from DMG p288
It's just a lot better. You don't need to keep track of how many slots you have of Lv1, Lv2, Lv3 and so on. You just memorize how much they cost in points (wich is very easy. It starts at 2 and goes up by 1 each Lv, except 3, 6 and 9 where they go up by 2) and keep track of 1 big pool of that resource. It saves so much time and effort
I use a similar homebrewed system. I didn't like the DMGs system.
This is a solid idea, especially as a PF2e player where the 4 degrees on skill checks comes in and the system gives you a bit more numerical wiggle room to work with. This also gives you a neat way to add flexibility to spellcasting- the age-old "that spell doesn't actually let you do that, but..." conversation.
I like that being able to pay the difference with HP. Good appropiation!
Another really interesting topic and definitely one of the reasons we removed spell slots and went with a mana system and spells being learned skills.
Ngl, I love the idea and system and I'm definitely gonna use it in some future campaign but I have a few questions (I hope I didn't miss it in the video but I couldn't find anything in the document).
How do you differentiate between different types of spellcasters? Does everyone get infinite casting with the drawback or do Warlocks keep their restricted casts?
Also how do you rule Paladin smites since they usually cost spellslots?
I really reallly like this idea! I would love a video simulating this combat for tutorial purposes!
Funny coincidence, Anima has a spellcaster class that works like that, the psychic. Using your powers has a chance of causing you fatigue, and once you have enough fatigue points you can't use them anymore (or you suffer damage when using them or something, I don't remember exactly)
A question in case anyone has the insight: how would this affect warlocks? They're balanced around less slots but higher power, does this just unify all casters?
Something I added to my 2e campaign (a quarter century ago) was rules for interrupting spells. In those days, a spell took time to be cast from the moment you started till the moment the effects came about could be several phases if not a full round depending on the spell. If a magic user began casting and someone did something to break their concentration, like shooting them with an arrow, or punching them in the face, or even just grabbing and restraining them, there was a chance that the ruined spell would blow up it everyone's face. The results often resembled something off the Wild Magic Table.