"Limiting" Corruption

[bholmes4]

So, after discussions about house-ruling we instead deciding to ditch the Wizard as a PC class and just stick with warriors and thieves (no demihumans). I hope it'll be fun but it means play may too limited for my liking (having just finished a no-magic Heroes campaign I wanted a change).

Which is crazy to me (as a fault of the current ruleset, not your group) since the big "draws" of this game for many people will be the warrior rules, wizard spell charts, character funnel and setting. You just removed a major part of that and your game will suffer for it I imagine. Corruption just doesn't work from either angle: in short campaigns and one-offs it is just a nuisance, in long campaigns it means wizards are "afraid" to do the one thing they do best, the one thing that makes them fun other than pointy hats.

I really, really, hope this is addressed in the final rules.

[jmucchiello]

it had already been suggested before that spell charts should have "fizzle" results for 1-11, but i don't recall anyone proposing the use of taints in place of corruption.

Ah, but taints are specific by patron. Will the base game support enough of them to be playable?

[dunbruha]

I really, really, hope this is addressed in the final rules.

As do I. I do like the idea of danger associated with spellcasting, but not the permanent, evil-type of corruption for EVERY caster.

[abk108]

it had already been suggested before that spell charts should have "fizzle" results for 1-11, but i don't recall anyone proposing the use of taints in place of corruption.

Ah, but taints are specific by patron. Will the base game support enough of them to be playable?

you mean taints? there are already 18 per patron, that could become 24 if we use a d8 instead of a d6 (designing taints is a lot of work, though).

[goodmangames]

You guys have a lot of great ideas in this thread. I think some version of the "modified corruption concept" will definitely make it into the final rules. The idea of spell-specific misfire results is growing on me. I think it can be done without too much added difficulty. And I'm re-thinking the range of results. This started with high-level spells...I'd like a way to balance out the fact that it's simply harder to cast them (i.e., you need a 16+ to succeed on a level 3 spell), so a result of "X" on a level 3 spell should be correspondingly better than a result of "X" on a lower-level spell. The risk of failure makes the higher-level "X" more important. This is leading me to think "Lost" and "Failure" should be uncoupled. For example, in the basic level 1 spell, it looks like this:

1-11: Lost, failure
12+: stuff happens

...but maybe on level 3 spells, it becomes:

1-11: Lost, failure
12-15: Failure but not lost
16+: stuff happens

Then, per the various suggestions in this thread, there are alternative ways to structure the results of 1-11. Lots of possibilities here...as you've discussed...so I'm still thinking over how to do it. Things I definitely want to accomplish:

* Spell misfire results specific to the spell (i.e., fireballs blow up in your face)
* Corruption results specific to the spell (i.e., corruption from a fireball makes your skin look permanently burned) and potentially to a patron where applicable
* Some differentiation between misfires and corruption -- some spells have one or the other, others have both, depending on nature of the spell
* Some scaling of low rolls, as you guys have discussed: sometimes a 1 is corruption, sometimes it's misfire+corruption, etc. depending on the spell

Lots of great ideas and I think some variants on the same themes will be in the final rules.

[meinvt]

Lots of great ideas and I think some variants on the same themes will be in the final rules.

Simply. Awesome.

[dunbruha]

You guys have a lot of great ideas in this thread. I think some version of the "modified corruption concept" will definitely make it into the final rules.

YAY!!!

The idea of spell-specific misfire results is growing on me. I think it can be done without too much added difficulty.

YAY!!!

Things I definitely want to accomplish:

* Spell misfire results specific to the spell (i.e., fireballs blow up in your face)
* Corruption results specific to the spell (i.e., corruption from a fireball makes your skin look permanently burned) and potentially to a patron where applicable
* Some differentiation between misfires and corruption -- some spells have one or the other, others have both, depending on nature of the spell
* Some scaling of low rolls, as you guys have discussed: sometimes a 1 is corruption, sometimes it's misfire+corruption, etc. depending on the spell

Lots of great ideas and I think some variants on the same themes will be in the final rules.

Outstanding news! If this make it into the final rules, I am definitely going to buy, and get my players to give it a try.

[bholmes4]

Great news! Thanks for this update.

[jmucchiello]

1-11: Lost, failure
12+: stuff happens

...but maybe on level 3 spells, it becomes:

1-11: Lost, failure
12-15: Failure but not lost
16+: stuff happens

Thematically this is kinda weird. Give the 1st level spell a chance to not be lost as well (on an 11, I guess). How does it make sense that more powerful spells stick around MORE than simpler spells?

Then, per the various suggestions in this thread, there are alternative ways to structure the results of 1-11. Lots of possibilities here...as you've discussed...so I'm still thinking over how to do it. Things I definitely want to accomplish:

* Spell misfire results specific to the spell (i.e., fireballs blow up in your face)
* Corruption results specific to the spell (i.e., corruption from a fireball makes your skin look permanently burned) and potentially to a patron where applicable
* Some differentiation between misfires and corruption -- some spells have one or the other, others have both, depending on nature of the spell
* Some scaling of low rolls, as you guys have discussed: sometimes a 1 is corruption, sometimes it's misfire+corruption, etc. depending on the spell

Lots of great ideas and I think some variants on the same themes will be in the final rules.

(How) Will this affect cleric spells?

While points 1, 3, and 4 are "simple" to do as we've demonstrated above, I don't think point 2 is feasible given the number of spells, the different kinds of patrons and the limit of page space. I think corruption should be done "per patron", perhaps by expanding the taints a patron causes. Driving misfire/corruption from the spell's chart is much easier. And I like that most results of a spell are contained right on the spell's page.

Hope you'll pass on a "final" version of this once you make up your mind.

[abk108]

Thematically this is kinda weird. Give the 1st level spell a chance to not be lost as well (on an 11, I guess). How does it make sense that more powerful spells stick around MORE than simpler spells?

They won't stay around more... they will stay around with the exact same probabilities...
A 3rd level Wizard with +1 INT would have a +4 Spellcheck.
He'd lose a 1st level spell on a 7, he'd succeed at casting it with a roll of 8.
He'd lose a 2nd level spell on a 7, he'd succeed at casting it with a roll of 10.

Same chance of losing the spell (35%) , different chance of pulling out the spell correctly (65% vs 55%).

However, i kinda like that even for 1st level spell
1-10 failed and lost
11 - Spell failed but not lost
12 - spell ok

[bholmes4]

Thematically this is kinda weird. Give the 1st level spell a chance to not be lost as well (on an 11, I guess). How does it make sense that more powerful spells stick around MORE than simpler spells?

Abk108 is correct. By the time you reach level 3 spells you are actually caster level 5 though (+5 casting). You are just as likely to forget a 1st level spell as a 3rd (roll a 6 or less), the 3rd level spell does not stick around more. The only difference is the 3rd level spell is more complicated thus providing more miscasts (rolls of 10 or less).

While points 1, 3, and 4 are "simple" to do as we've demonstrated above, I don't think point 2 is feasible given the number of spells, the different kinds of patrons and the limit of page space. I think corruption should be done "per patron", perhaps by expanding the taints a patron causes. Driving misfire/corruption from the spell's chart is much easier. And I like that most results of a spell are contained right on the spell's page.

Hope you'll pass on a "final" version of this once you make up your mind.

Disagree, unless you are expecting 30 corruption results per spell. I was thinking 1-6 ie. Fireball on a:
1 - Arms permanently blackened
2 - Hair burnt and falls off permanently
3 - Eyes burn like tiny furnaces, no bonus to vision but easily spotted in the dark
4 - Face blackened like coal [-1 Personality], often mistaken for a Drow or demon
5 - Smoke trails rise from your ears, the smell lingering in an area for 1 hour after you leave making you easier to track and follow
6 - Patron specific. (Re-roll on your Patron chart or the General chart as applicable)

Then you just need some individualized Patron charts, as well as a general one for those without a Patron, and it's a small addition to each spell.

Edit- Obviously its not that simple and needs to be re-ordered to account for luck and such, you could even ignore natural 1s (other than a sure failure and lost result) and account for them in a combo misfire/corruption chart so that a % of results are corruptions as desired for the spell and spell level. The point is you don't need a huge chart and if you allow a result like "re-roll on Patron chart" you allow for a lot of possibilities.

[jmucchiello]

Disagree, unless you are expecting 30 corruption results per spell. I was thinking 1-6 ie. Fireball on a:
1 - Arms permanently blackened
2 - Hair burnt and falls off permanently
3 - Eyes burn like tiny furnaces, no bonus to vision but easily spotted in the dark
4 - Face blackened like coal [-1 Personality], often mistaken for a Drow or demon
5 - Smoke trails rise from your ears, the smell lingering in an area for 1 hour after you leave making you easier to track and follow
6 - Patron specific. (Re-roll on your Patron chart or the General chart as applicable)

Not all fumbles/mishaps are corruption. So now there would be a fumble table and a corruption table on the spell. For example, from the prior page:

Magic Missile
1* Failure. Spell lost. Mishap Roll d6 (1: Roll for corruption; 2-4: Missile arcs from finger, circles back and strikes you for 1d4 damage; 5-6: Missile strikes nearest ally for 1d6 damage) Corruption Roll d4 (1: Missile energy flares and burns off index finger off; 2: Flare of energy blackens hand; 3: Flash of light causes permanent spots in wizard's eyesight, -2 to perception checks; 4: Patron specific.)
2-10: Failure. Spell lost.
11: Failure.
12-13: Success....

Will a second table in the first box of the spell make sense? Should the mishaps be combined with corruption better?

[bholmes4]

1* Failure. Spell lost. Mishap Roll d6 (1: Roll for corruption; 2-4: Missile arcs from finger, circles back and strikes you for 1d4 damage; 5-6: Missile strikes nearest ally for 1d6 damage) Corruption Roll d4 (1: Missile energy flares and burns off index finger off; 2: Flare of energy blackens hand; 3: Flash of light causes permanent spots in wizard's eyesight, -2 to perception checks; 4: Patron specific.)
2-10: Failure. Spell lost.
11: Failure.
12-13: Success....

After I made that post I realized I forgot to account for some things, like the fact that not all fumbles/mishaps are corruption, but due to laziness I just editted it to say "its not that simple". What you have here though is closer to what I imagined and hinted at by saying you could combine them in a chart so that a % account for the chance of corruption, as desired.

Looking at the spell you have listed, Magic Missile miscasts on a natural 1 only (this might vary I suppose), and has a 16% chance of corruption (1 on 1d6) with the rest misfires. We could therefore combine these on a d30 chart (or condense to a d24 or smaller die) in to something like the following, which accounts for luck:

-2 to 1 Energy flares causing index finger to burn and fall off
2 Flash of light causes spots in wizard eyesight
3 Flare blackens hand
4 Patron specific (re-roll on the Patron Taint chart)
5 Patron specific (re-roll on the Patron Taint chart) and Missile strikes random ally for 1d4 damage
6-20 Missile arcs from finger, circles back and strikes you for 1d4 damage
21-30+Missile strikes nearest ally for 1d6 damage

Making it look this:

Magic Missile
1* Failure. Spell lost. Mishap, roll d30 (-2 to 1: Energy flares causing index finger to burn and fall off, 2: Flash of light causes spots in wizard eyesight, 3: Flare blackens hand, 4: Patron specific (re-roll on the Patron Taint chart), 5: Patron specific (re-roll on the Patron Taint chart) and Missile strikes random ally for 1d4 damage, 6-20: Missile arcs from finger, circles back and strikes you for 1d4 damage, 21-30+:Missile strikes nearest ally for 1d6 damage.)
2-10: Failure. Spell lost.
11: Failure.
12-13: Success....

[bholmes4]

There are other ways to do it as well, depending on the spell. In fact it may be easier to have the Mishap chart listed as its own box in the spell and reference it in case of multiple mishap entries.

Urts Lashing Tentacles
1: Spell lost, failure and Mishap roll (see chart)
2: Spell lost, failure and Mishap roll (+3 to results)
3: Spell lost, failure and Mishap roll (+10 to results)
4-10: Spell lost and failure.
11: Failure
12-13: Success
...

Urts Lashing Tentacles Mishap Table (d30 + luck modifier)
-2 to 1: Casters arm turns to a tentacle
2 -3: Allies arm turns in to a tentacle
4: Casters mouth turns in to a beak
5: Caster loses all hair
6: Casters skin turns inky black
8: Re-roll a Patron Specific Taint plus 10' area sprayed in black ink
9: Re-roll a Patron Specific Taint
10-17: 1d3 tentacles form in the area desired and are hostile to the caster and his allies
18-25: 1d3 tentacles form at the caster feet and are hostile to him and his allies
26-29: 10' area around caster sprayed in black ink
30+: A single drop of black ink forms at the casters feet and then dissipates.

[dunbruha]

Urts Lashing Tentacles
1: Spell lost, failure and Mishap roll (see chart)
2: Spell lost, failure and Mishap roll (+3 to results)
3: Spell lost, failure and Mishap roll (+10 to results)
4-10: Spell lost and failure.
11: Failure
12-13: Success
...

The issue with this is that a spellcheck result of a 2 or 3 is pretty unlikely, as level (at least 1) and attribute (likely at least +1) will be added. Thus, a mishap will really only happen on a roll of a natural 1 (which I think is good).

Urts Lashing Tentacles Mishap Table (d30 + luck modifier)
-2 to 1: Casters arm turns to a tentacle
2 -3: Allies arm turns in to a tentacle
4: Casters mouth turns in to a beak
5: Caster loses all hair
6: Casters skin turns inky black
8: Re-roll a Patron Specific Taint plus 10' area sprayed in black ink
9: Re-roll a Patron Specific Taint
10-17: 1d3 tentacles form in the area desired and are hostile to the caster and his allies
18-25: 1d3 tentacles form at the caster feet and are hostile to him and his allies
26-29: 10' area around caster sprayed in black ink
30+: A single drop of black ink forms at the casters feet and then dissipates.

I like this kind of table, and it could be included in each spell as a mishap table (if natural 1 is rolled). Thus:

Urts Lashing Tentacles
1: Spell lost, failure and Mishap roll (see chart)
2-10: Spell lost and failure.
11: Failure
12-13: Success
...

The main problem I see with this is that it makes the spell tables very long...

[jmucchiello]

The main problem I see with this is that it makes the spell tables very long...

With the amount of empty space on the spell pages now, this is not an issue. The tables don't have to be vertical, like the manifestation "chart".

[Hamakto]

I very much disagree with Joseph on the following concept for a 3rd level spell

1-11 Fail, lost
12-15 fail, not lost

There are several issues here.

(1) The more chances you have for wizards to cast a spell the (exponentially) more powerful a wizard becomes as they level up.
(2) The more chances they have to cast a spell, the more often they will trigger corruption. Simple mathematical fact. A wizard is supposed to run out of spells. But with the above concept, Wizards will be casting spells until they 'literally' turn blue (because of a corruption effect)

Remember as written, Wizards are brutally tough at higher levels. At low levels, they can greatly over shadow their 1e and 2e brethren. At higher levels, if you give them greater chances to keep their spells you make them insanely powerful.

[bholmes4]

I very much disagree with Joseph on the following concept for a 3rd level spell

1-11 Fail, lost
12-15 fail, not lost

There are several issues here.

(1) The more chances you have for wizards to cast a spell the (exponentially) more powerful a wizard becomes as they level up.
(2) The more chances they have to cast a spell, the more often they will trigger corruption. Simple mathematical fact. A wizard is supposed to run out of spells. But with the above concept, Wizards will be casting spells until they 'literally' turn blue (because of a corruption effect)

Remember as written, Wizards are brutally tough at higher levels. At low levels, they can greatly over shadow their 1e and 2e brethren. At higher levels, if you give them greater chances to keep their spells you make them insanely powerful.

I saw that and I know what he is trying to do but I don't see it working without serious effects on the game at high levels. Perhaps he needs a "Spell is lost but stuff happens" entry instead.

I know he's not a fan of the class die idea for wizards but what if you tied the retaining of spells to a class die? Make it so that you must roll higher on the class die than a target number to retain the spell. Just rolling higher than the spell level would be too easy so maybe level +1. The problem is it might be a bit more cumbersome (though so is checking a chart constantly).

I also thought of giving wizards a die based on their intelligence score and tell them they must roll a 3 or higher. It would be a constant chance to remember spells though (something I don't mind), regardless of level or spell level. I just don't think it can work though.

For my games I will likely have a max casts / day but you can lose spells, thus your actual number of casts are not written in stone and their is still uncertainty involved.

[jmucchiello]

I know he's not a fan of the class die idea for wizards but what if you tied the retaining of spells to a class die? Make it so that you must roll higher on the class die than a target number to retain the spell. Just rolling higher than the spell level would be too easy so maybe level +1. The problem is it might be a bit more cumbersome (though so is checking a chart constantly).

This is brilliant. The class die removes the +caster level from the spell die roll. Instead you add the class die (d3/d4/d5/d6/d7) to the spell roll. I would actually go with spell level + 2 or higher allows you to not lose the spell and allow spell lost on SUCCESSES as well.

So base chance of spell loss becomes:

Code: Select all

\SL      1     2    3
CL       3     4    5
1 d3    67%    -    -
2 d4    50%    -    -
3 d5    40%   60%   -
4 d6    33%   50%   -
5 d7    28%   43%  71%

I wonder how well this works if you can still lose the spell on a successful casting.

So a spell becomes:
Nat 1 -- Failure. Roll D6 (corruption misfire etc)
up to 12 -- Failure. (This has to go up for level 1 spells because the d3 averages +2 giving a bonus to first level casters.)
13+ -- Success.

And the class die controls spell loss. This would actually get me to think spells SHOULD have levels.

Now the question I ask: does using the "class die" in this manner make the warrior's MDoA "less special"/unique? I don't think so.

[bholmes4]

This is brilliant. The class die removes the +caster level from the spell die roll. Instead you add the class die (d3/d4/d5/d6/d7) to the spell roll. I would actually go with spell level + 2 or higher allows you to not lose the spell and allow spell lost on SUCCESSES as well.

Yes +2 or higher is probably the only way to go and in the heavily modified house rules I was working on (but had to put on hold while I work on other things) I intended to have spells lost on the class die regardless if the spell was a success/failure. If you just determine it on failures some high level wizards will amost never lose their spells and it gets out of control.

What I liked about it is that I could much more easily calculate how many casts on average a caster could make at each level. You even open up options to tie it in to other things (ie. mishaps and corruption) if you desire.

[goodmangames]

I think I created a monster with those class dice. You guys really seem to like them.

Let me pose the question a slightly different way. Here's the challenge I'm trying to solve: the fact that a level 3 spell has a minimum success threshold of 16+ on the die, while a level 1 spell has a minimum threshold of 12+.

Should a level 3 spell be harder to cast than level 1?

Should a level 3 spell have proportionately more powerful results; i.e. a 19 on a level 1 spell is less powerful than a 19 on a level 3 spell?

What do you guys think?

[bholmes4]

Should a level 3 spell be harder to cast than level 1?

Harder to learn, not necessarily cast.

I suppose I look at wizards as musicians. When they are raw they often make mistakes (low casting bonus) and can play only the simplest of songs (low level spells). With training and practice they are able to play more and more complex songs but are they more "difficult" to play for them? After years of training they can play even complex songs almost effortlessly. Learning to play them, getting to that point and having the talent to do it is the hard part.

Should a level 3 spell have proportionately more powerful results; i.e. a 19 on a level 1 spell is less powerful than a 19 on a level 3 spell?

Emphatic yes.

[bholmes4]

I think I created a monster with those class dice. You guys really seem to like them.

When I first read about the warrior MDoA die (before the beta was released) I assumed this mechanic was carried over to all classes. At the time I didn't think of it as the "class die", it just seemed like such a genious idea that would be used in place of class progression bonuses where possible. I was surprised to find this wasn't the case though I am starting to understand why (I could now go either way on this)

I also assumed that each spell would have a table that had similar ranges (ie. 1-10 = fail, 11-14 = X, 15-20 = Y etc.), though a 36 result on a magic missile would be laughable compared to a 36 on a Meteor Swarm. The problem is I also thought you would have a limited number of casts/ spell level/ per day. Not limiting casts is what really complicates things in my opinion as you must account for that in the charts as well. Tieing it to the class die (I know, I know) may not be the best idea but at least it's a way of seperating it from the charts. Of course I have no problem with limiting casts/day either (with some variables, to keep players guessing).

[jmucchiello]

I think I created a monster with those class dice. You guys really seem to like them.

The day I heard about the attack die I felt it was the HOOK on which all of DCCRPG should be hung. By extension, it requires Zocchi dice. It adds to the randomness of everything. Basically anywhere d20 says +class level should be replaced with +class die. The icing on the cake is tying other results to the class die. Warriors use it for MDoA. This post shows how casters could use it to determine if they lose access to the spell. And you have to admit that decoupling loss of access to a spell from whether it is successfully cast is cool.

Let me pose the question a slightly different way. Here's the challenge I'm trying to solve: the fact that a level 3 spell has a minimum success threshold of 16+ on the die, while a level 1 spell has a minimum threshold of 12+.

Should a level 3 spell be harder to cast than level 1?

(Class die modifies those numeric thresholds but that's a separate issue.) What does harder mean? You've already made that decision by making the casting threshold 10+2xspell level. So casting a spell is always a base 50/50 chance at the caster level where the spell is first learned and goes up 5% each level thereafter.

Should a level 3 spell have proportionately more powerful results; i.e. a 19 on a level 1 spell is less powerful than a 19 on a level 3 spell?

I think you need to make a chart like this and be explicit about it. The numbers below don't follow the standard spell progression (12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 28, 30, 32+). It just gives a feel for where the power levels are. For example, the 20-23 result of a 1st level spell should be just about 3rd level in power:

Code: Select all

Power              Spell Level
Level     1      2      3      4      5
RANGE   12-32  14-34  16-36  18-38  20-40
-----   -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
1st     12-13    -      -      -      -
...     14-15    -      -      -      -
2nd     16-18  14-15    -      -      -
...     19-21  16-17    -      -      -
3rd     22-25  18-20  16-17    -      -
...     26-29  21-23  18-19    -      -
4th      30+   24-27  20-22  18-19    -
...            28-31  23-25  20-21    -
5th             32+   26-29  22-24  20-21
...                   30-33  25-28  22-23
6th                     34+  29-33  24-26
...                           34-37  28-30
7th                            38+   31-33

So basically, the progression base level n, n+1, n+2, n+3 goes up in a +4, +6, +8 progression.

[abk108]

I think I created a monster with those class dice. You guys really seem to like them.

I'm not a huge fan of class dice for all classes, but i admit they could work wonderfully for retaining spell loss. Something similar could be added to the cleric spellcasting mechanic: we've already seen there's something wrong with that -1 cumulative penalty. Maybe you should just get rid of it and make clerics use the same spell loss mechanic of wizards.

Designing a game, i don't like it when you think "mmmh i have to put this feature in all classes, so what could i use it for in the cleric!?" ... it should always be so that "features serve a purpose", so that if there's something to fix in that class you use the class die to try and fix it. If a class is ok without it, then don't use it.

Let me pose the question a slightly different way. Here's the challenge I'm trying to solve: the fact that a level 3 spell has a minimum success threshold of 16+ on the die, while a level 1 spell has a minimum threshold of 12+.
Should a level 3 spell be harder to cast than level 1?

Should a level 3 spell have proportionately more powerful results; i.e. a 19 on a level 1 spell is less powerful than a 19 on a level 3 spell?

What do you guys think?

There are many ways you can scale the power of spells. What's important is that

• for higher powers there are greater costs/risks/chances of failure
• lower level spells shouldn't replace higher level spells. Unless under certain environmental conditions, a wizard who can unleash a fireball should do so over any 1st level offensive spell.

You could implement the first point increasing corruption chances & effects for higher level spells, forcing some min spellburn to cast that spell (equal to SL -1 ?), or, as for BETA, having a different min threshold
As for the second point, you could make higher level spells stronger than lower level spells at an equal result, or you could make it easier to reach the higher results with higher level spells.

Thus: If you keep a 19 result for magic missile equal in power to the 19 result of fireball, then people would just cast magic missile, especially with the BETA rules as they are, since they're more likely to be able to retain that spell and succeed and "still do something" with a 15... when a Fireball would be failed and lost, at 15.


...
Or you could just get rid of spell levels, or use them only as a rough indication of power, so every spell would have its own min result, effects and stuff. So maybe it'd be ok for magic missile to be the awesomest spell ever, seeked by any wizard & elf: it's easier and does tons of damage. DMs should then be careful about which spells to give his players access to, but that could work as a nice rp element, the search for unknown powers etc etc