That's one of my personal favorite magic counters - anything in the general area of risk of backfires, possible random results, side-effects, permanent character modification, magic slowly twisting the caster, etc. I like to target the things that otherwise become industrial, automatic, constantly-used, and that become like built-in-character-super-powers, and/or that remove entire classes of obstactes/interestingness from play. So the first ones targetted were magic items (added house rules for magic item reliability that can wear down, and magic item breakdown tables that start easy but escalate with excessive use), and similar house rules for side-effects of heavy use of healing magic.

Of course, some players want the opposite of that. And it's good to understand the odds you're putting in your tables, since it can be easy to accidentally just make magic horribly dangerous and not worth the risk at all.

Quote from: estar;921042That is basically the Dungeon Crawl Classic answer to the question. Actually it really bad for wizard characters.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]398[/ATTACH]

Then the problem is compounded by the fact that the result of the spell is random. I had a wizard killed because he wanted to loosen a door and used enlarge to pop it out of the frame. He rolled well for the actual result. Too well as the door expanded to a 1000% it normal size and shot out of there like a bullet. The caster was standing in front of the door about 20 feet away*, failed his save, and was killed. And it was was the entrance to the dungeon to boot.

The whole thing was a first for me in 35 years of roleplaying where get killed by the door while entering the dungeon.

So in the DCC RPG, a spell working way better than expected can cause it own issues.

*I was using miniatures and the player placed his character in a direct line in front of the door. So there was no really any debate on this issue.

I believe that players can usually choose a lesser result of any spell check they make?

Quote from: RPGPundit;922598I believe that players can usually choose a lesser result of any spell check they make?

No I don't believe that is a rule in RAW.

Spell Check

QuoteWhen your character casts a spell, you roll 1d20 and add your caster level. This is called a spell check. You also add your Personality modifier if you are a cleric or your Intelligence modifier if you are a wizard. Wizards also apply modifiers for wearing bulky armor (see Table 3-3), and there may be other modifiers specific to certain situations.

Compare the result to the casting table for that spell. In general, your spell succeeds if your spell check is equal to or higher than a base DC of 10 + (2x spell level). The higher you roll, the more extraordinary the result, according to the casting table.

Make the spell check when the spell is first cast, even if the casting time is more than one round. High results may reduce casting time.

Reading the rest of page 106 and any other place with spell check, I don't see an option where the caster and reduce the result.

There is this however

QuoteAutomatic criticals: There is one additional option for spellburn. A wizard who sacrifices a full 20 points of ability scores in one fell swoop automatically treats his next spell check as a roll of natural 20.

I did a quick google search and one person suggest as a reasonable house roll that you can modify it by one steps per level.

I will say not being able to reduce the effect of the spell seems consistent with how magic works in the DCC RPG.

Quote from: Psikerlord;919193To second Cranebump, I think adding a degree of unreliability, or dangerousness to magic, can work well, provided you're careful not to outright nerf casters in a way that unbalances things.

That post was quite a bit ago. Still, I just wanted to note that in some editions, anything that nerfs casters can at best put them back to a balanced position with the other classes.
And that's if it works:D!

Quote from: RPGPundit;922598I believe that players can usually choose a lesser result of any spell check they make?

No, by RAW, they can't:). There's even a whole Patron in one of the supplements who kills you if you achieve a 42+ result on your Patron spell.
When you take Death as a patron, make sure not to impress him too much, lest he takes you as his own;).

And that's fully in line with DCC's way, as I see it. Randomness can be too good, or too bad, and all of them make your life interesting. Why else did you become adventurer, if you didn't want this?

Quote from: RPGPundit;922598I believe that players can usually choose a lesser result of any spell check they make?

Some spells allow that, others don't. Some spells results are just one effect with increasing intensity/range/duration... but others, like Force Manipulation, are a bundle of different effects you can choose from if you roll high enough.

I mentioned this in one of the other threads.

One thing we did change with 5e was to get rid of the spell focus. It just felt too cheaty in bypassing (some, but not all) spell components.

Also. It it just me... or does it feel like too many spell components are now multi-use?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;918986Thing that has been seriously bugging me lately: The average D&D setting (not the player characters, the setting itself) seems strangely lacking in the resources necessary to remain functional in the face of what casters can actually do.

Not really. It works like this,

1. win initiative
2. put yard of steel through wizard's guts

This works well unless you assume that wizards are 10% of the population or something. The AD&D1e rules, for what it's worth, don't seem to support that. They tell us (in the henchman section) that 1 in 100 of the human population, and 1 in 50 of the rest, are "capable of level advancement", ie have some character class. They further tell us that MUs are 20% of these. So that MUs are 1 in 500 of the population generally. They're outnumbered by other classes, and more importantly by men-at-arms (0 level fighters) and the like.

Now factor in that levelling up requires adventuring, adventures in which many of whatever class will die, and you don't get many high-level wizards. So magic is significant but not to the extent often imagined.

Of course if you put in zillions of wizards and never let any adventurers die it's different.

Quote from: Omega;923131One thing we did change with 5e was to get rid of the spell focus. It just felt too cheaty in bypassing (some, but not all) spell components.

The thing is, a spell focus is an object the caster needs ready in hand, so it can actually be disarmed if you use the disarm mechanic from the DMG. Spell components in pouches are safe from that interference.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;923139Now factor in that levelling up requires adventuring, adventures in which many of whatever class will die, and you don't get many high-level wizards. So magic is significant but not to the extent often imagined.

You don't need that many casters to upend a conventional medieval world, especially if they don't get into combat in the first place. Teleportation, scrying, invisibility, flight, gaseous form, shapeshifting, disguise illusions, mind-reading, mind-control, invisible familiars spies, earthgliding... all these sorts of effect applied with even a moderate amount of cunning can bypass numerical advantages and make stealing, spying, assassinating, and sabotaging trivially easy.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;923191The thing is, a spell focus is an object the caster needs ready in hand, so it can actually be disarmed if you use the disarm mechanic from the DMG. Spell components in pouches are safe from that interference.

You don't need that many casters to upend a conventional medieval world, especially if they don't get into combat in the first place. Teleportation, scrying, invisibility, flight, gaseous form, shapeshifting, disguise illusions, mind-reading, mind-control, invisible familiars spies, earthgliding... all these sorts of effect applied with even a moderate amount of cunning can bypass numerical advantages and make stealing, spying, assassinating, and sabotaging trivially easy.

1: So can spell components. The focus removes one of the logistics problems casters have to work under. Mainly that their spells used up the components. I'd even take it further and have all spells use up their components.

2: And you again and again keep ignoring that there are things to counter this. Like range, duration, or the simple fact that things like invisibility are not even remotely infallible. And the plethora of items that can defeat these powers. Depending on the settings rarity if items that may well mean theres alot of these things around. Especially since some of them can be crafted by a 3rd level character in a month to 6 months.

Quote from: Omega;9231921: So can spell components. The focus removes one of the logistics problems casters have to work under. Mainly that their spells used up the components. I'd even take it further and have all spells use up their components.

Nope, spell components are taken from their pouch at the moment of casting, and the spell pouch is worn, not carried in hand. I could design a house rule for cutting off worn items, but that opens a whole world of issues and complexity that frankly isn't worth it.

Quote from: Omega;9231922: And you again and again keep ignoring that there are things to counter this. Like range, duration, or the simple fact that things like invisibility are not even remotely infallible. And the plethora of items that can defeat these powers. Depending on the settings rarity if items that may well mean theres alot of these things around. Especially since some of them can be crafted by a 3rd level character in a month to 6 months.

Well you'll notice I haven't been posting in this thread as much precisely because I've been mulling over everything that's been said here. If you saw my Table Rules thread you'd notice I've been leaning toward a lighter touch. I just had to comment because Aaron kind of skipped a lot of legitimate issues that were discussed earlier.

In the end youve painted yourself into a conceptual corner and are unwilling to accept alternatives that dont mesh to that narrow little conceptual corner youve fabricated.

You are inferring that casters, and particularly wizards are either everywhere and/or are so powerful that they dominate and change the world.

Totally ignoring the facts that there are various fallacies to that assumption right off the bat and that there are various checks in place that keep these problems from occurring. Clerical type casters get their powers from gods and outer forces who can and will deny powers based on their own outlooks or just on a whim. For wizards theres the problem of actually finding new spells. Its totally possible to end up very high level and have never once looted a single scroll or spellbook. The few spells the wizard picks up from levelling may well be all they ever have.

Also ignoring the immense attrition rate adventurers go through in just about any established setting. Especially Forgotten Realms which rivals Dark Sun for the sheer hostility of its environment. Wizards while beefed up a little in 5e are still relatively fragile at the lower levels and still have that not so little problem of surviving to later levels if they dont have those supposedly useless fighters to keep them alive. Also at higher levels you have the problem of other mages gunning for you if not whole adventuring parties just to loot your stuff.

Also ignoring that by your own inference of caster supremacy then by that same inference theres magic items, particularly countering magic items everywhere because the commons and uncommons can be crafted in anywhere from a week to a months time. As noted before. Dust of Sneezing and Choking takes a mere 10 days to craft. Also as noted simple one shot charms (instead of scrolls) that cast protection cantrips are absurdly easy. A mere 2 days and 50gp to craft.

And so on and so fourth which as usual you'll ignore or cherry puck some sentence from the rules to snidely back your narrow little corner painting. You are literally trolling yourself.

Quote from: Omega;923519And so on and so fourth which as usual you'll ignore or cherry puck some sentence from the rules to snidely back your narrow little corner painting.

Nah, I'll take this into consideration, like everything else. A new round of testing and world-building should help me solidify an approach.

On a less fed up note.

Something to consider.

Things not in the books. Keep in mind that all the info in the rulebooks in primarily geared to adventurers and adventuring.

There must then exist things that keep some of the odder problems in check that simply dont fall into the adventuring category. In particular things that counter or curb magical incursions and scouting. Dragon touched on these fairly often with more ubiquitous items. spells, and tricks that are more in the hands of the citizenry than the adventurers. Such as a variation on guards and wards/glyph of warding that blankets a larger area or is more focused. Sacrificing the spectrum covered for more area or ease of casting at lower levels.

example: A magic banner that when placed on the tallest point of a castle protects the premises from scrying. Or more powerful ones that interdict invisibility and teleporting.

example: placing six pure silver or mithril rods of a specific length and thickness in a precise hexagonal pattern creates a zone where no magic works. The closer the rods are to eachother the higher level magics are nullified. Or alternatively these must be made of crystal or precious gems and the value of the gem determines the effectiveness.

example: the above mentioned modified glyph of warding. Instead of causing damage when triggered it instead covers a 100x 100 area and merely alerts the caster or those designated to be alerted when someone meeting the trigger parameters enters the area. Possibly dropping its level then to 2 or 1.

example: Pets and watch animals. A few have passive perceptions sufficient to make sneaking into an area difficult. A hawk has a passive perception of 14 and an active perception bonus of +4. A mastiff has a 13. Now imagine someone breeding to enhance some animals quality to detect magic or the invisible. Or just some faithful pet that is better at it than the norm.
Or a flock(swarm) of ravens that really don't like invisible flying wizards in their territory and are fully capable of pecking them to death. AC 12, 24 HP, and a passive perception of 15 and a batch of resistances and outright immunities, and a base 7 damage per swarm. And that is straight from the MM with no tweaks at all.

There is more. But you can see the potential here. All of it possible without changing anything severely, if at all, adding any real bookeeping, or screwing over the players.

Cats can see the invisible of course.

And why do you think the peasants put out bowls of milk or honey for sprites and fey?

Quote from: Simlasa;923092Some spells allow that, others don't. Some spells results are just one effect with increasing intensity/range/duration... but others, like Force Manipulation, are a bundle of different effects you can choose from if you roll high enough.

Ah, ok. This is what I was thinking about, looking at things like mortal runes, ekim's mask, etc. where each step is a radically different power.