Goodman Games

-editted... need to re-think what I wrote.

Joseph,

LOL --- we had this discussion months ago (March or April in an email thread). I sent you a % chart write-up that showed the differences between using the standard method (success = cast again) and a class die (equal to or greater than spell level +2).

Here is a link to the percentages:

Note: Top table is standard DCC %'s for # of times each spell can be successfully cast. Bottom table is using a class die to determine how many times a spell can be successfully cast. The %'s work out differently because the class die determines success.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads ... y=CPm7pJQK

(I updated it today to show all the spell levels in separate tabs)

I am a fan of the class die being part of every class (Warrior and Thief already have it). But if Joe says no, I am not going to be heartbroken.

I posted about the class die in one thread... here is my thoughts on the rest of the questions:

1. Yes. 3rd level spell should be harder. Heck, you have a built in mechanic for Wizards to cast spells from scrolls of a higher level! Right now you have a 50%-ish chance to cast your highest level spell at least once. As you get more practiced, you fail less often.
2. A higher level spell should always have a higher power level than an equivalent spell of a lower level for the same die roll. Why run a higher chance of failure unless you get greater rewards?

Because DCC RPG does not have spell slots, if the higher level spells are not more difficult then everyone will just stock up on higher level spells as they level up instead of doing a balance. Maximum bang for the buck!

So unless we go back to a slot system for Wizards (NOOOO!!!!!!!), you need to keep the various DC level for Spells.

I know we are not about unified mechanics, but it would be very weird to have higher DC's for Clerics and not for Wizards.

We aren't talking about the class die determining success. We're talking about the class die determining loss/retention independently of success/failure. You're chart was confusing until I realized you were calculating something entirely different. Working up the loss/retention percentages with the class die would be interesting.



No comments on my suggested chart?

But if you use the class die to determine spell retention/memory loss (not success/failure) at a target of spell level +2, a high level spell will be much more difficult to retain in your memory. If you don't take some lower level spells to balance things, you may quickly find you have no spells to cast. A fifth level wizard, rolling a d7 class die, needs a 5+ to retain a 3rd level spell every time they cast it (failure or not). That's not something I would bank on.



Personally I think the cleric and wizard need the same mechanics here, it really feels like trying to be different for the sake of being different at this point.



Thanks for explaining that, I wondered what was going on with the chart.

As for your chart I really like where you are going with it. That would mean a 30+ on a 1st level spell is roughly equal to a mid-power 3rd level spell. For argument sake let's assume that is a 5d6 or 6d6 Fireball. That seems just about right for what I think the maximum a Magic Missile should do.

My post below will explain why I think you need to de-power low level spells and your chart is perfect for ball-parking what the numbers should roughly look like.

Those are good point (about the class die), but what you are missing is the first column. Notice for each spell level how much higher the chance of successfully casting the spell at least once with the class die method?

The reason behind that is:

you have a X% chance to recast the spell... even on failure. Look at a 1st level wizard casting a 1st level spell.

55% chance to cast it successfully straight up.
33% chance to get to try it again.

So that when you fail the spell, you still have a chance to cast it again. This would be similar to have a 9-11 (fail but can cast again). I know people asked about that above, and I shot it down. Because it is does not have the unbalancing effect if you are successful.

You only have a 33% chance to successfully cast it again even if you are successful. So it this system significantly increases your chance of casting a spell once or twice, it will dramatically decrease casting the spell multiple times. Look at the %'s again... do you want to cast it at least once? Or do you want to have a higher chance for 2-3 times?

For certain dark spells, yes, I think corruption should be a real concern every time it is cast. But for most spells I disagree, where corruption should come in to play is seeking "forbidden knowledge" or boosting or taking short cuts to power. Thus I would first reduce the power of lower level spells, making them much less attractive though still allowing for the odd semi-powerful cast but I would allow the following:

-Casters can bargain to roll a d24 (possibly a d30) to cast individual spells like with mercurial magic
-Casters can learn spells up to two ranks higher (up to max spell level) and cast them, though due to a class die they would likely get one cast / day.

Both of these options would incur corruption however. Thus a 1st or 2nd level mage really only has the talent and ability to cast 1st level spells, even though they may have the innate talent (max spell level) to cast higher. If they wish, they can seek to learn higher level spells but this is knowledge that is typically forbidden to one of their rank (which ties in nicely with class titles). This requires bargaining with immortal beings to make the break-through, and thus requires a roll on a corruption chart. Worse, every time they cast a spell above their "natural progression" they are likely to suffer corruption (perhaps any roll on the casting die of 10 or less or something).

I imagine corruption happening like this:
"Master, I seek vengeance upon the Red Court who have dared belittle me this day. I need a spell to slay them all, henceforth this city shall fear Xius the Astrologist".

"My dark apprentice, you seek knowledge beyond your station. When you are a Sorceror I shall teach you to cast Fireball and the entire Red Court will be engulfed in flames".

"Master I beg of you, teach me this spell. Their laughing haunts me and I want for sleep."

"Then I will teach you the secret of flame and fury but know that this comes at some cost, for your mind will be opened to possibilities you are not ready for, and have not guarded against. And I shall further caution you once, and once only, do not be tempted to use it again until you have reached the rank of Sorceror. For each casting shall re-open your mind and subject it to such chaos and power that I fear for what you will become... my dearest Xius".

To me this is much more thematic and flavourful than just happening on "fumbles", randomly.

The key is that by de-powering the spell charts of low level spells you make higher level spells more attractive. A 15 result on magic missile should pale to the same result on a Fireball and thus a 1st level caster REALLY wants Fireball. The question for them becomes, do they want to pay the price? This now becomes a player option, if you want to be Gandalf and tread the safe path, clear of corruption you can do so. If you want to be Ningauble and leap to power that is your choice as well. The idea is to make it very, very tempting for players to decide to make that leap.

After all, taking two rolls on the Greater Corruption chart is worth having a d30 Fireball at 1st level right? Right?

Actually, my chart does not really do anything except use the class die for loss/retention. The %'s are calculated based on class_level+ability_modifier. *** SAME AS WHAT YOU SUGGESTED AFTER FURTHER READING --- I just think of it differently... % you keep vs % you lose ***

Using a class die instead of a level modifier for calculation of spell craft checks will not work (as a side point). Each increase in a class die is = .5 bonus increase.

dx = Avg Value
d3 = 2
d4 = 2.5
d5 = 3
d6 = 3.5
d7 = 4
etc...

It provides a higher spell craft at low levels, but falls apart at the higher levels.

Honestly I think having a higher chance to cast once and lower chance to cast multiple times is a good thing. This is made doubly true in light of my above views on how corruption should be handled and low level spells de-powered. I don't see how this game can't be broken with high level casters who can cast almost limitless times per day. Corruption is supposed to be the limiting factor but I think it's being applied poorly and for the wrong reasons, to the detriment of the game.

Casting over and over reminds me of a video game and I can't think of any great fantasy novels I've read where casters do this. They are far more likely to cast a spell successfully once, maybe twice in a day and then not see it used again. Seeing a mage cast magic missile 10x a day is silly, he may as well be carrying a ray gun or wand.

So again, yes this is actually something I would want.

I don't understand why that won't work, you just need to play with the numbers no? If you are off by .5 does it really matter? Or am I missing something...

I did not quote all of your text as it was well written by lengthy. Looking at higher level play, I do not think you can eliminate the automatic corruption on a 1. That is the only thing that would make a Wizard pause at using magic for everything. (unless we go to using a class die for spell retention). If you look at that spreadsheet, a high level wizard could technically cast a first level spell QUITE a bit if he did not have a chance at failure.

Even if we went to a d16 or d14 (for no corruption chance). At higher levels a wizard can still blow the power curve because their bonuses are high enough to not ever fail a 1st level spell and they would just give up or 2-3 net points on average.

(side point: With class die determining percentage or recasting... I could see doing spell level +3 or +4 to eliminate no corruption chance)

Lets look at the comparison:

Bonus Bonus
Class Level vs dx
1 2
2 2.5
3 3
4 3.5
5 4
6 4.5
7 5
8 5.5
9 6
10 6.5

This means a 1st level wizard averages one more spell check point at first level.
2nd and 3rd levels... almost to exactly identical
4th level you start to fall behind the power curve.
By 7th level your spell check averages 2 full points less.

Since DC are 10+spell_level*2, the current DC mechanic becomes shot. I know someone is going to say just do DC12+spell level for the DC. But then ability score modifiers become exceptionally huge as opposed to just helpful.

*edit to fix some butchering of the English language*

I pointed out in my post the "success" level of spells would have to change if the class die was adopted. I read this:

By 7th level your spell check averages 2 full points less.

and say "AWESOME". Nerf that wizard!! People complain all the time that wizards are too powerful at high level.

And if you want to "fix" it. Spell success should be 12 + spell_level instead of 10 + 2*spell_level.

The chart you refer to compares the d20+caster level > 10 +2*spell level versus class die > spell level +2 to determine success AND retention. My concept decouples the two items. Success would be d20+class die > ***10 + 2*spell level***. And retention would be class die > spell level + 2. You are missing the d20+class die chart. A 1 on the class die does not mean failed casting since the d20 can overcome the DC. Likewise a 3 on the class die retains a 1st level spell but does not mean the spell was cast successfully.

*** or 12 + spell level is you want to be fair to the diminishing effect of the class die (but I don't think that's necessary). The extended class die chart is d3, d4, d5, d6, d7, d8, d10, d12, d14, d16. At worst, the d16 averages 8.5 for a 10th level caster. Your fear about the diminishing effect is unfounded. At 6th level, the d8 average 4.5, only 1.5 below "average".

I'm an idiot. Andy's bonus comparison chart for class die is incorrect, IMO. I always assumed the class die sticks to Zocchi dice. No d9, d11, or d13. Thus:

Reading the General Principles of Wizard Spells and the Magic section of the beta, magic in and of itself would be forbidden knowledge and a shortcut to power in DCC. There is no normal or benign class of wizardly magic with which to compare a "forbidden" or extra-dark level of magic.

Good point and I am prepared to have to house rule this heavily for my world where similarly magic was forbidden knowledge, but the use in and of itself is not corrupting.

Regardless I still say the 1 on d20 idea doesn't work well from a game mechanics stand point, especially when also used as a way to limit spell casting. If you reduce the chances of corruption it leads to increased casting and if you keep it as is, you make casters afraid to cast spells in campaign play and ruin the fun of them.

The second table that I have utilizes the d20+class_level+ability to determine success. The class die is purely if the spell is retained (successful or not). So you are correct, I do not illustrate exactly what you are describing.



Actually, 1.5 is a fairly big effect over time. Especially since 1.5 = 7.5% on a d20 scale. Also, by compressing the DC's together you start to overvalue the benefits of having a higher intelligence. Right now it just helps, but if they are are sequentially numbered then a +1,+2, or +3 has a far larger effect.

It also has the flip side (on another thread) for comparable spell effects. By compressing spells together, a first, second, and third level spell would all fall into a 13-15 range of spell effects (1st DC12, 2nd DC13, 3rd DC14).

I was asking for exactly what you wanted a few months ago, but changing to a class die for spell craft bonus for a Wizard is not a subtle change, but a major re-balance attempt to the game system. It works in combat for a warrior, because AC's are already depressed by design. But spells would have to be redone...

Yes, I know the argument is just change each spell step to 2 instead of 3 #'s. But that starts to bring the higher effects inline much quicker when you roll a 20, instead of keeping them subtly out of reach of the caster until they hit higher levels.

Hence the concept of creating tiers of corruption (minor, lesser, greater, (major? for a 4th tier)). So corruptions is part of the game, but picking up a few minor corruptions is not paralyzing. Even after a few corruptions, they still will have a chance of getting a lesser non-major corruption.

If we get to the concept of a class-die determines if the spell is retained, then we can have a 1 not be primarily corruption but instead more of a spell failure with a chance of corruption.

But right now as the rules stand, corruption has to exist to limit casters.

NO It doesn't. 1st 2nd and 3rd level spells fall into any range the designer wants them to. I was just suggesting that you could change the range if you wanted to. But the core of my concept is actually going to make casting high level spells harder. That's a plus I would think. There is no requirement that Success for spells move to 13, 14, 15, etc, they can stay 12,14,16,etc or 13, 15, 17 if you prefer.


You can type that without laughing? What spells have to be redone? Like Fireball balance against Magic Missile? Please. The spell descriptions and their so called "balance" is based on eyeballing the numbers. Show me 100 spells of 1st to 5th level and prove to me the "balance" is thrown off if it becomes 7.5% harder to reach the 20-21 range of a 4th level spell and then prove that that same 7.5% means wizards are not viable classes afterward.

The only change that "must" be done is to move success at 1st level to 13+ to maintain the 50/50 chance at 1st level to cast a first level spell for an "average" wizard of 13-15 Intelligence. Did I really say "must"? When did I drink the Kool Aide? 50/50 is not writ in stone from some faceless patron. It just sounds nice. It does not mean that a 5th level wizard casting a 3rd level spell MUST have a 50/50 chance of success.

Besides, you could equally argue that 12+ makes more sense. Sure spell casting becomes "easier" at low levels. That is the patron sucking the fool in. With a d3 class die, he can't cast the spell more than once a day 2 out of 3 days.

Tons of new to read and respond to in this thread! Mixing input metaphors, here is my down and dirty $0.02 drive-by:

I do like the idea of a class die for spell retention, a lot.

I also agree that a similar numerical result on a higher level spell should be a clearly better result; two character levels per spell level better. On an average round a warrior who is two levels higher will do about 25% more damage per combat round, so I'd say a 19 on a level 2 spell should be at least 25% better than a 19 on a level 1 spell. 19 on a level 3 spell should be 55% better, etc.

My preference is still that Clerics work a bit differently than wizards for spell casting. For example, I'd like to see the following for a Cleric's class die roll with every spell:
1 - Faith tested, spell casting is resolved normally, but then spell or ability is lost until you give an offering or 12 hours pass.
2 - Your deity is silent, spell casting is resolved normally, but then the spell is lost for four hours or until you give an appropriate offering if it is the highest level spell you can cast.
3 - Minor boon, add +2 to spell check.
4 - Major boon, add +4 to spell check and you have a faint glow or aura appropriate to your deity for 1d8 rounds.
5 - Aspect of Power, add +6 to spell check and you prominently take on the appearance of your deity in some significant feature for 1d4 turns.
6 - Minor Visitation, add +8 to spell check. You also recover a spell previously lost today. An aspect of your deity manifests strongly as a breeze, light, darkness or scent around you for 1d6 rounds.
7 - Major Visitation, add +10 to spell check. You also are healed as though laying hands upon yourself with a check equal to your spell check result. An avatar of your deity appears and manifests your spell and then embraces you as it disappears.

The spell check results for clerics could then remain the same, just without losing a spell on failure.

Final thought, I'd like to tie corruption more closely to spell burn and put limits and opportunities into both. No specifics, just a thought.

I do really like the idea of possibility of greater corruption to get to roll a d24.

I really don't like the idea that the odds of getting corruption while cast Cantrip are the same as when casting a patron spell.

So the class die is not added to the d20 roll except as noted above? Nice, very different from MDoA and wizard spell loss. I assume that also means the cleric does NOT add his caster level to his spell caster rolls. EXCELLENT. Another great way to make the class die unique.

*grins* Yes I can type that. I think that I am having a problem explaining all of the permutations that I see. You are just the 7.5% the spell check roll.

If you also modify the DC # (1st 13, 5th DC 17) you also adjust the % chance of spell success.

Look at pure averages for a caster with +1 ability modifier.

9th level caster

OLD: Spell check bonus of 10
NEW: average bonus of 7.5 (you)... if d11 then 6. (d11 is the mathematical extension of increasing dice. Roll a d12, re-roll 12's --- see below for more)

PS - I have not seen that a d11 (or d9) will not be utilized. A zocci die may not exist for it, but that does not mean it will not exist [Side note: Maybe that is the reason Joseph only wanted 5 levels... the dice did not go to 10 -- LOL]

OLD: Average roll: 20.5 (DC 5th level spell is 20)
NEW(d14): Average Roll: 19 (DC 17 for 5th level spell) [hitting 65% or 70% chance of spell success]
NEW(d11): Average Roll: 17.5 (DC 17 for 5th level spells)

With a d11 for a caster with +1 int, you are dead on with the approximate 45%/55% (fail/pass) that Joseph was striving for with the old system.

Now you look at the ranges you are going to hit on average at 9th level:

OLD: 11-30
NEW(d14): 3-35
NEW(d11): 3-32

Some other interesting facts:

With the D14 method you can hit the highest of the spell effects on the current table. But by design, they are unreachable under normal circumstances (i.e. Int 18 or w/out spell burn). But I will give you that the chance of that occurring is very small. Because once you start to roll two dice, you start to get a bell curve of results.

So in a way two dice do prevent larger swings of results. It will result in a caster failing a larger number of spells than they would under the old system. Even a first level spell is no longer a gimme with a 5% chance of failure. You are now looking at a 20% chance of failure for a 1st level (apprentice-style) spell. You are no longer going to average in the 20's, but now in the teens for effects.

Compressing the table of results to bring the sweet / average spots into alignment do not help with a linear table because of the wide range of numbers that can be reached. Yes, it can be addressed by larger number groupings at lower number with smaller groupings at higher levels.



The average for a caster with +1 bonus is 45/55 (fail/success). That seemed to be Joseph's target number so keeping that inline so it scales to all spell levels is what I am trying to statistically accomplish.

Like I said before, I was in favor or using a class die for the spell crafting check months ago. But after a few discussions, I dropped it as not workable with the current structure of DCC RPG and magic.

I think simply adding the class die to JUST determine if the spell is retained is something that can be easily added to DCC RPG. I think it is not an optional modification, but something that needs to be done to provide additional balance for Wizards are higher and lower levels.

I will leave you with one more thought on using the combination of class die for spell checks and retaining spells. I have not done the full statistical analysis on this... but from rough calculations... if you roll low on the class die, you are most likely to fail. If you roll high on the class die, you have a much higher chance of successfully casting a spell. So by using the same die for both results, you are more often than not... rewarding spell casters that successfully cast spells and not those that fail.

If you want to continue this discussion, I would suggest re-posting on a second thread so this does not get too cluttered.

Which is not a bad thing necessarily.

For my house rules I considered using the class die as a seperate roll, simply to determine if the spell is memorized or not but I worry that is confusing or cumbersome. Switching the spell ranges so that they are wider groupings on the low end and smaller groupings on the high end (due to the bell curve results) was another option I considered. You could also simply make go for smaller adjustments on the low groups (ie. an attack spell that does d4, d6, d8) and then bigger jumps on the higher end (d12, d20, 2d16). This is not something I was willing to tackle though (for now) so I put it on the back-burner while I waited to see what the final product looked like. I was hoping some brilliant change would happen and I wouldn't have to house rule.