Goodman Games

My group of players have one wizard in their group who has ever only cast one spell on one occasion by rolling a die: Ropework. The reason for this isn't that she isn't casting spells, but that every time she casts a spell she fails the roll and loses access to the spell for the rest of the day. In one very tense combat the player was about to quit the game and I said "You know your patron will cast a spell for you if you take a bit of minor corruption right now." and so she did. In hindsight this was bad because the wizard's patron is the Three Fates and they hate corruption - it was a bad call on my part. But when the wizard only has one offensive spell and there are no warriors in the party, this makes me think the party is doomed for a TPK once their luck, and the wizard's Luck, runs out. (They've almost TPK'ed twice now.)

I'm thinking of instituting a house rule where wizards can still attempt to cast spells they failed, regardless of the roll, but every failed spell check simply adds a cumulative -1 to the spell check roll. This penalty is completely removed if the wizard gets at least 6 hours of sleep or quiet rest. Within the game world, I translate this as a general fatigue that builds up in the wizard's system and makes it harder for her to concentrate on the mystical energies which she draws upon to power her spells.

Thoughts?

I'm thinking the problem is less that the wizard keeps failing rolls than that the party has no warriors. With a strong front line, the wizard could at least hang back and lob missile weapons once the spells dry up. That would keep the character from feeling completely useless, and as 2nd level starts to approach, you could take pains to make sure another offensive spell is found on a scroll or in a tome to shore up the wizard's repertoire.

Just for the sake of curiosity, what are the wizard's spells? Are any of the non-offensive spells something you could try to build opportunities to use into your dungeons?

I'll note also that Joseph Goodman posted a quote from Jack Vance on another thread that seemed to strongly imply that "spells known" means "spells available in memory at a given time." If you adhere to the spirit of the Vance quote, a wizard who finds a new spell can ditch an old one, and possibly even shift between a variety of acquired spells on a daily basis. Even if you don't like that interpretation, you could have the group quest for a way to switch out some of the wizard's spells, or have an arcanophage attack the wizard, draining away her memories of the noncombat spells and effectively leaving her with "open slots" that she could fill in with spells you allow her to find.

That's a good solution -- but should probably be clear it is a 'fix' to the situation, not a permanent house rule...

Some are comfy with sub-rules and house rules changing from game to game, but others will cry "we didn't do it this way last time!" and feel unhappy that the game changes.

The alternative is to change the pace and or lethality of the game....

Or get the wizard to take some action in her own defense, i.e., figure out how to survive in the world by augmenting what she's got. If I caught a cold everywhere I went, I'd start figuring out how to get done what I need to get done while protecting myself from germs. The wizard needs to figure out how not to rely on the magic she has right now, and supplement it with something more...

Right! If she's failing all her spell checks anyway, why not put on that banded mail and put her short bow proficiency to use?

Absolutely! Moreover, the rules-light approach of DCC begs the player to be creative. Rather than trying to go toe-to-toe with the baddies, she can manipulate the environment through either mundane or magical means to hinder or harm her foes. Throw oil on the floor to make it slick; throw a torch on the oil to roast some monsters. Move dungeon debris to try to herd the monsters into advantageous positions, make the warrior's position more defensible, etc. While successful casting and doing damage are great ways to contribute to the monsters' demise, there are many other ways as well...

Why doesn't she simply spell burn?



Our wizard frequently manages to lose his magic missile spell with a rather disappointing "pffft" sound, and so spends the rest of the session carving himself up in more and more creative ways in order to cast the spell again.
In practical terms, wizards don't need Strength, so he just spell burns a single point of it each time he needs to cast the spell again. And unless you're on the run the entire time, your wizard can heal 2 points of spell burn back each day, with rest.

The player has decided that the character can't allow any of her abilities to fall below 6 less she become overburdened with negative modifiers, and she has already spellburned a lot.

If the player had been willing to spellburn down to 3 in all ability scores then the wizard might be able to get off a few more spells, but then none of those spells were offensive. The tradeoff just didn't seem worth it (especially after the player rolled 1s for spell check twice at the beginning of the first big fight).

I've instituted a houserule that says that the wizard can one time each day, times level, cast a "safe" spell at minimum success(plus deed die - taken fram Fighter of the same lvl)

i.e. a first level Wizard can say that he wants to cast a safe spell. He won't need to roll for success as once a day he can do this. As a first level spell needs at least 12 to succeed, he gains a twelwe plus 1d3 (1st lvl warrior great deed die). This means that his spell goes of without a hitch in the 13-15 range.

Not to unbalancing I believe (but I haven't tried it at higher levels yet) and it makes certain that the wizard won't feel too depressed by a few bad rolls at the table ...

....

but I like the Splint mail/Short bow Wizard as well

Why would you give a player huge mechanical advantage just because she rolled poorly a few times? There is no reason to think she will not roll well in the future. It's like saying "A warrior in my group has only succeeded once on a MDoA check. I propose making them succeed on a 2 or higher."

I think the issue is that you're tracking modifiers for spellburn. It's too much work, and leads to the kind of situation you're in now.

It's much easier, in my opinion, to just add/subtract those rolls yourself. I don't bother with this most of the time, until we get down into 3-5 range.

Otherwise, I just handle it with DM fiat. Burn a bunch of strength? You may be forced to wield single-handed weapons in two hands, 2-handed weapons are rolled with -1d; Dexterity? You move slower.

Except you're supposed to track the modifier for Luck (page 19), so it's implied you track the modifiers for spellburn.
And if spellburn didn't lower abilities' modifiers then there would be no reason to hold back from using spellburn regularly.



I don't see it as a huge mechanical advantage. It definitely makes it easier for a wizard to cast lost spells without requiring spellburn, but the easiest spells to cast require a 12 or higher to get a minimum effect. That's a base 45% chance of success and I think if you assume that all wizards are going to have at least a +0 modifier in Intelligence then you're going to see it as powerful.
But given the nature of role-playing during the funnel, characters do not always go after the classes they were "rolled for." We have a cleric in the party with a Personality of 4, and the wizard I'm mentioning has an Intelligence of 7.

Maybe most players look at their highest stat and frame their character's decisions around the math rather than role-playing, but mine don't. I'm rather blessed by this so I like to throw my players boons whenever I think it might be appropriate. If you think it's a bad idea than offer an alternate suggestion, don't just chastise.

It doesn't actually say that you're supposed to track the luck modifier on page 19.

But you're right, these games are all meant to be played rules-as-written, no houserules ever.

Wrong.
In reference to the birth augur roll: "Note that the lucky roll modifier does not change over time as the character’s Luck changes. ... This modifier does not change if his Luck score changes."


Also wrong.
Page 314: "I know you will homebrew this game: I trust it will remain recognizable but different from as I conceived it. Such is as it should be."

I will stop trying to channel Dwight Schrutte now.

It does not say, "Track your luck modifier if the score changes." I understand you could arrive at that through some implications, but you are wrong to think that it says that. Those words are not there.

Besides, I thought the point of this topic was to offer solutions. That was my version.

I think you guys should fight it out IN THE OCTOGON. OF DOOM.

What page is that on?

HAHA

Beer has his own book.

Be afraid...

Wait, so this player chose to make her borderline retarded character a wizard and now she's mad that the wizard is inept? And you're looking for a way to make that wizard not inept? Why would a dumb wizard be any good at casting spells? It doesn't seem that she cares about role playing at all -- a person role-playing a dumb wizard should expect nearly every spell to fizzle, because the PC is stupid and bad at memorizing things. It could be fun -- ("Alakaza! ... wait is that supposed to be Orlakaza? Sonofabitch I just grew a third nose!").

I think it's great when players decide not to min max. But when you play directly against the natural abilities of your PC you have to recognize that the PC is not going to be effective in her chosen profession. As I mentioned above, that can be good times. It might be hilarious and rewarding to play, e.g., the 4 personality cleric you mentioned who is no doubt constantly offending his baffled and irate deity and utterly failing to attract new worshipers. But if a player with 5 strength decides to be a warrior, then complains that he never succeeds when he tries to cleave baddies in twain I'm not going to be sympathetic. He's a measly runt! He can barely lift the great axe!

Basically I don't see any problem that needs fixing. Dumb wizards *should* be bad at casting spells.

If the character has a 16 agility and a 13 strength, I would tend to agree. But I think you're overlooking the possibility that the character's stats are 9, 7, 8, 5, 7, 13. When a player's only surviving funnel character is going to be bad at more or less any class, I don't think the judge is out of line to try to help her out a bit.

That said, there's an extent to which DCC begs players and GMs alike to set aside the stigma of a TPK. If everyone in the party is saddled with truly inept characters -- and isn't having fun role-playing that situation -- then maybe a clean sweep might be for the best.

And here's another possibility: have the sad-sack group rest up in town for a week or so nursing their wounds while you run a different set of 0-levels through a separate funnel adventure. Then either merge the survivors of both parties, or alternate between parties week after week, with both parties in the same campaign, each hearing rumors about the other, while never quite crossing paths.

I think all your ideas are good, but I disagree with the first paragraph. The 9, 7, 8, 5, 7, 13 PC is basically one that nature didn't favor. He's sickly, dumb, clumsy and weak. When his luck runs out, is he more likely to die underground than someone with more physical/mental gifts? Yes. And that's as it should be. The DM should not favor weak PCs, but should instead "let the dice fall where they may." Every character should play by the same rules.

"Let the characters die if the dice so dictate it. Nothing is as precious as a PC’s life when it can be taken away—and nothing is so unchallenging as a game where the players know the judge will not kill their characters. The DCC RPG is designed for high character death rates—let this be true in your game as well. Achieving 5th level in the DCC RPG is a true accomplishment." p. 314.

Achieving SECOND level with a 7 intelligence Wizard should be a "true accomplishment" -- not something the DM bends the rules to create.

Yep, I'd agree that a character with 9, 7, 8, 5, 7, 13 is...ill-favoured, shall we say. And it's likely going to be a struggle to have fun with that character.

However, just to be bloody-minded about the original spell-burn situation – even if a wizard has those stats, then he can spell-burn down to 1 in Strength with no real issue. He can spell-burn a point of Agility without incurring any worse modifiers to Armour Class or Saving Throws. Likewise a couple of points of Stamina.

That's eleven extra attempts at casting that offensive spell after you've already lost it.
If you've got a situation where a character is failing to cast a spell successfully 12 times in a row, then either there's something wrong with your d20, or you have a really low luck score in real life...

I'm curious as for what to do if this player asks, "can I be a warrior instead"?

W/ those stats, should have been a Thief, no question.

I think a distinction needs to be made between bending the rules to promote character survival (which I agree conflicts with the letter and spirit of the DCC rulebook) and working with a player to create story situations that allow low-stat characters to be playable and fun. There's no reason you can't throw in story hooks that could lead to an Intelligence-increasing magic item or phenomenon, for instance, so long as you put real challenges between the PCs and the goal they're questing for, rather than making it a "gimme."

Story-based help is the kind of help I meant when I talked about helping out a sickly character who survived the funnel.

And I think Merl makes an excellent point about using a point of spellburn to cast a lost spell. All but the feeblest of characters ought to be able to keep casting for quite a while unless the dice are just against them.