Goodman Games

I quickly looked through the book today and I still see a potential problem that was not addressed in the beta:

What is stopping a wizard from spell burning all their available ability points between adventures to cast spells like Patron Bond or Find Familiar? I see no reason (other than fear the DM may send an NPC after you) for a wizard not to go all out when casting spells like these. This creates situations where 1st level casters can easily cast the highest versions of the spells.

I suppose I could easily house rule this, a wizard may burn from 0 to 10 points as normal or they may choose to go all out and "take 20" for a critical result (at a cost of 20 points), but I am wondering what other ways DM's have handled this situation.

bholmes4 wrote:I quickly looked through the book today and I still see a potential problem that was not addressed in the beta:

What is stopping a wizard from spell burning all their available ability points between adventures to cast spells like Patron Bond or Find Familiar? I see no reason (other than fear the DM may send an NPC after you) for a wizard not to go all out when casting spells like these. This creates situations where 1st level casters can easily cast the highest versions of the spells.

I suppose I could easily house rule this, a wizard may burn from 0 to 10 points as normal or they may choose to go all out and "take 20" for a critical result (at a cost of 20 points), but I am wondering what other ways DM's have handled this situation.

You can totally blow 20 points of Ability Scores, and your character will be a bumbling mess for at least 20 days. You can only heal 1 ability point a day, and clerics don't cast healing all willie-nillie like they used to (Disapproval is a bitc#.)

If you think it's a problem stress that bad things could happen to their sickly wizard should they choose to burn themselves out that much. During that month they're laid out without ability scores, with a max of 1d4+1d4-3 HP, any number of things could take them out. A hungry rat could kill them. The party could go adventuring and leave them behind. A falling chamber pot could slay them as they stagger out of their hovel for a crust of bread. Plague could ravage their crippled immune system.

If the character has the gold to buy their way into safer accommodations then let them spend it for the safety.

The thing is you don't need to be gibbering mess to do this. If you are even "normal" and have strength of 10, agility of 11 and stamina of 11, you could burn down to a score of 4 in each for a total of +20 to your roll. Maybe get a halfling to add another +2 and you are +22 to your roll. Now all you need to do is a roll a 10+ and you have the top result for Patron Bond and you haven't left yourself as some defenseless idiot. As long they stay in town holed-up away from danger, I see no reason to go after the PC *just* for taking advantage of a mechanic in the game (having the cleric heal you up is another story and I have no problem with repercussions for this).

I was really hoping that for ritual spells you had to divide the points over the number of days (thus for a week long spell you need 7 points for a +1 bonus) or some other similar ruling. The length of time required to cast them suggests they are more taxing on the body and you would think that you would be in a weakened state to begin with. Perhaps 2 points per bonus even would help (I may even rule this is necessary for all spells, maybe 4 points/bonus for ritual type spells).

Like I said, easy to house rule I was just hoping there was official rules or at least suggestions.

Don't forget that eventually they will roll a 1 while spell burning and bad things will happen.

Remember also that some patrons may require the spell to be cast in specific areas, such as a burning desert. You can set any special conditions for any patron you want.

You can also use the patron's requests to balance the benefits the character gains, as per the book.

I think it's vitally important for anyone using spellburn to look at Ability scores as more than mere numbers too. Reduced your Agility to 3-4? Be ready to trip and fall down the stairs, fumble even basic tasks, and otherwise cause yourself a lot of inconvenience, pain, minor damage, and potential danger (especially if you also burned down your Stamina). Reduced your Stamina to 3-4? Say hello to every illness attacking your immune system! Enjoy the benefits of potential infection from even minor cuts (say, like those you get when you stab yourself in the cheek due to your Agility 3-4)! Revel as your body struggles to fight off even the most minor bugs on the food you consume! Reduced your Strength to 3-4? Walking becomes a struggle as suddenly your body feels much, much heavier. Better not try to get around anywhere quickly or easily. Combine all these, and you're looking at disaster, and you're barely above being crippled. Sure, a character could confine themselves to bed to avoid the worst perils, but then they'd still have to fight off airborne illness, have to have someone to very carefully prepare food for and feed them, have to have them give them bed baths, and heck, going for the bedpan can be all sorts of potential trouble.

A big consideration is that the changes are sudden; they're going to be very difficult to get to grips with and quite disorientating to begin with unless the character already had an abysmally low Ability score anyway. Imagine what you feel like when you get very ill. Now, imagine being hit with something worse that *immediately* saps your strength, coordination, and health drastically. How's someone going to feel or react then?

Add in the danger of rolling a 1, and any special Patron requests and considerations, not to mention any enemies that might come calling if they somehow find out the character is bed-bound, and spellburn isn't something to be sniffed at. Sure, a lot of it is roleplaying-based (and some folks sniff at anything that's not mechanical in nature) but it's still a consideration, and I've never avoided giving players the benefits and drawbacks of roleplaying-based elements just because they weren't necessarily supported with system nitty-gritty. If someone played a half-ogre, for example, I'd ensure that their massive size caused difficulties in areas scaled for humans (let alone dwarves or halflings!) even if it wasn't written in that they had to roll X to fit within doorway Y. Same kind of thing.

Colin

My thinking is that a wizard would rarely, if ever, submit themselves to negative penalties unless the fate of the world, or whatever, really is at stake. And, if they did, it would probably be against some big-bad guy and it would be towards the end of a major adventure or epic campaign. A wizard wouldnt' do this at the beginning of an adventure, and probably wouldn't do this deep down in the bowels of the underdark. No one wants to be a sitting duck, and that's what the wizard would be for a few weeks.

reverenddak wrote:My thinking is that a wizard would rarely, if ever, submit themselves to negative penalties unless the fate of the world, or whatever, really is at stake. And, if they did, it would probably be against some big-bad guy and it would be towards the end of a major adventure or epic campaign. A wizard wouldnt' do this at the beginning of an adventure, and probably wouldn't do this deep down in the bowels of the underdark. No one wants to be a sitting duck, and that's what the wizard would be for a few weeks.

I agree with you. The problem is a spell like Patron Bond could have implications the rest of their adventuring career. There is big incentive to roll the top result as you will carry the benefit as long as you keep that patron.

I understand what everyone is saying I just don't think the risk outweighs the reward. Especially on a 1st level PC.

bholmes4 wrote:I agree with you. The problem is a spell like Patron Bond could have implications the rest of their adventuring career. There is big incentive to roll the top result as you will carry the benefit as long as you keep that patron.

I understand what everyone is saying I just don't think the risk outweighs the reward. Especially on a 1st level PC.

As long as the risks are real, letting the player gamble with them is fine. Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. The road to power is about taking risks, and it is important to allow player-chosen risks to matter.

Obviously, though, the more the wizard/elf draws upon the patron, the more the patron demands. It is a reciprocal relationship that automatically includes a serious handicap for the would-be user of patron magic. IOW, the more benefit you gain, the more risk you undertake, both in terms of patron taint and patron-imposed quests.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about this too much.

RC

I agree with the folks that don't see this ideas as troubling.

But, if it does bug you that wizards can supercharge spells during breaks int he campaign, you could always houserule that any spellburn over a certain amount automatically involves permanent score loss from the shock. Say 1 point for every ten points of burn. Or if you roll under the amount of burn on a d30, you lose 1 random point permanently.

--Berc

Not having devoured the rulebook yet (waiting for my hardcopy), I'd throw this into the mix:

Since the spellburn mechanic is part of playing the game, used to improve critical rolls -- and make the game more exciting, first and foremost -- a wizard can decide...

1) Make this roll at the end of an adventure. If you burned during the adventure, that still applies to this new burn, i.e., you aren't starting from 'full' (unless you were frugal during the adventure, saving up for this new roll).

OR

b) Make this roll at the start of an adventure. Whatever you burn now, is already burned for the course of what is to come...

Even if, logically speaking, the 'downtime' between adventures would allow a full healing, the game is played 'at the table' so to speak. Spellburn has consequences, we're going to represent those consequences in this way. We're playing for maximum fun and drama. Gambling has drama; rules-lawyering and weaseling out of side-effects has no drama, no fun, and no soup for you. Want to make a character that does everything important behind the scenes and only with no risk of danger? Fine. But that's not what we're playing here.

Option b makes a fair representation of an example from above: Yes, you did your burn in downtime, but the icky, creeping flu you caught in the process is still with you now. Roll for initiative...

I have taken some inspiration from the patron examples in the book, and decided that a caster of a spell is not aware what form their spellburn must take until they have declared irrevocably that they are in fact going to spellburn, and how many points (though not where those points are coming from) which they are "putting on the table" to burn.

Then I, usually by way of rolling on either table 5-1: Spellburn Actions (for casters with no bond to a patron) or the appropriate 4 result table in the section for the patron they are negotiating the spellburn with, decide what form their spellburn must take.

In the case of one character this has meant that he, bonded with the fates, has once received the bonus without actually spending points, and has once paralyzed himself as the fates decided to take his spellburn from only his strength score.

In another character's case... he is down 10 points of spellburn that will not return until he completes a task given to him by the demon that aided his spellcasting, at which point it will all return at once.

In a third character's case, one of these days he is going to declare spellburn and find that he must spend twice as many points as the bonus he gains... but could take those points from the hit dice of creatures ritually slain for the spell (he should really hire some henchmen).

The whole point, to me at least, is to make sure that a player cannot ever be certain how long (or even how at all) he will recover from his spellburn - otherwise the mystery and danger go right out of the whole thing.

TheNobleDrake wrote: The whole point, to me at least, is to make sure that a player cannot ever be certain how long (or even how at all) he will recover from his spellburn - otherwise the mystery and danger go right out of the whole thing.

Thank you. This is the angle I needed! Maybe I will create a spellburn table for spells that require more than one day to cast, complete with complications and such.

I don't want to change how mid-game spell burn works, just the downtime spellburning between sessions. Right now as written it is not risky enough and too predictable (heal 1 point per day) unless you step in as a DM but that is not explicitly encouraged in the text in the same way that clerics healing spellburning wizards is. This way I can just lay it out for the players beforehand:

"Yes you can spellburn as many points as you want on ritual spells but be forewarned, ritual spells are more taxing and have their own unique Table of complications. The more points you spellburn, the greater the risks. "

Raven_Crowking wrote:patron-imposed quests.

I think this is the simple solution to any casting of the Patron spells. They SHOULD require an immediate quest afterward so spellburning those spells means going on a quest with spellburn penalties. After that, let the wizard do as he wishes.

This thread is great! The initial question is a straight mechanics question, in the way that many modern players would approach it: "Well, the rules give a mechanical option to take this action, so why can't I do it?" And in the responses, you guys have covered all the appropriate role-playing based responses: the patron may have specific requests associated with the spell burn, the weakened wizard may trip or get sick, the wizard's rivals may learn of his weakness and come to steal his spell book, etc. Great job everyone - this is exactly the sort of dynamic I love to see in DCC RPG!

So what is the rule with Crits and spells?
I can't find anything about crits anyplace... which confuses me because... under "spell-burn" it says that if you Burn 20 points you automatically" get a crit.
Granted, I understand that higher is better... but ... Why the crit??


T

Troy812 wrote:So what is the rule with Crits and spells?
I can't find anything about crits anyplace... which confuses me because... under "spell-burn" it says that if you Burn 20 points you automatically" get a crit.
Granted, I understand that higher is better... but ... Why the crit??


T

When you roll a critical with a spell you add all your normal modifiers, and then also add your caster level.

Example: +4 base spell check modifier (say that is 3 from caster level and 1 from ability modifier), roll a 19 on the die, end result is 23.

Roll a 20 (critical) and the result is a 27, not just a 24.

For casters critical rolls on spells get a more and more pronounced effect as levels are gained.

Makes sense but... I thought you always added your caster level. (D20 + Ability + CL)
ah wait... are you saying you add it a second time???

T

Troy812 wrote: ah wait... are you saying you add it a second time???

Yes, a natural 20, you add your CL again.

Spellburned much? Be prepared to die in the next corner where your lost points would've been useful. This is why I don't use final bosses. An adventure is not about getting from the entrance to the boss, but about leaving a haven to finish your job and survive until you get back to another safe place. Heck, even the havens aren't safe, there are thieves, brigands, whores with STDs... It's funny that the strongest monsters my players encountered usually appeared in the wilderness as a random encounter, when they were getting back to town to get some rest and recover.

Troy812 wrote: This should help calm down the tendency for some NPC mages to be nothing more that kamikaze spell casters.

Since when is that a tendency?

NPCs "tend" to not even have spells or spell-like abilities.
NPCs with spells or spell-like abilities "tend" not to actually have any option to spellburn since they aren't PC classed.
NPCs that do happen, despite astounding rarity and reasons for the contrary, to actually be able to spellburn aren't all that likely to go burn-wild in a confrontation against the PCs - I say this as NPCs "tend" to try and survive, not try to harm the party as much as possible before their inevitable demise, and it is a big pain in the A to survive when you intentionally cripple yourself in the middle of a dangerous place.

NPCs, just like PCs, should be cautious with their spellburn - they never know when the rest of the PC party is going to come barreling into the area as backup, just like the PCs never know that there aren't going to be more of whatever the hells that was coming after them.

Yep, TND is correct:

1) NPCs rarely follow the same rules as PCs in DCC.
2) NPCs should be roleplayed just like PCs should be; creating rules to account for abusive players or GMs is never a good idea. Got an abusive Player or GM who can't be reasoned with? Don't play with them; life's too short to play with numpties and no gaming is better than bad gaming.
3) So a rare Big Bad happens along with PC-style spell-casting rules including spellburn, run by a numpty Judge, and goes kamikaze because of said Judge's numptiness? "Oh look!", says Evil Lieutenant, "My abusive master is weakened and vulnerable!" Stabbity stab stab! Big Bad couldn't have been all that bright if he didn't considered treachery among the ranks and limit his spellburn appropriately.

Colin

yeah....
I understand "best practices"
it's just ....
Some GMs I've played with...