D20 (any) Spellcasting rolls instead of slots

[Necrozius]

So I've been really warming up to the concept of spellcasting rolls instead of spell slots (Vancian or otherwise) in D&D, in general.

A few Youtube personalities have talked about this, including Dungeon Craft and House DM (great vids, check them out), pulling from Dungeon Crawl Classic's spell tables (to some degree, behind the DM screen, anyway).

Having recently adopted Mythras, I truly love this approach. It seems far easier to "hack" this or adjust to taste.

Imagine doing religious rituals or sacrifices to "enhance" a spellcasting roll ahead of time to guarantee a success (or even a critical)?

Has anyone done something like this?

For 3e and up, it seems like it would be relatively easy to implement. Older editions though? How would you do this in, say, OSE or Labyrinth Lord (B/X)?

 

[AsenRG]

Rituals and sacrifices to get bonuses are a standard thing even in DCC. What do you think spellburn is?

 

[Necrozius]

Rituals and sacrifices to get bonuses are a standard thing even in DCC. What do you think spellburn is?

Yes, I know, but I'm not talking about DCC, I'm talking about importing DCC magic rules INTO D&D games in general.

My desire is entirely selfish: I want to import this into Old School Essentials, the only D&D type game that I'm interested in right now, but I figured a general thread would be helpful to other users as well.

 

[AsenRG]

Yes, I know, but I'm not talking about DCC, I'm talking about importing DCC magic rules INTO D&D games in general.

My desire is entirely selfish: I want to import this into Old School Essentials, the only D&D type game that I'm interested in right now, but I figured a general thread would be helpful to other users as well.

I'd just import them wholesale.

 

[Silverlion]

So I've been really warming up to the concept of spellcasting rolls instead of spell slots (Vancian or otherwise) in D&D, in general.

A few Youtube personalities have talked about this, including Dungeon Craft and House DM (great vids, check them out), pulling from Dungeon Crawl Classic's spell tables (to some degree, behind the DM screen, anyway).

Having recently adopted Mythras, I truly love this approach. It seems far easier to "hack" this or adjust to taste.

Imagine doing religious rituals or sacrifices to "enhance" a spellcasting roll ahead of time to guarantee a success (or even a critical)?

Has anyone done something like this?

For 3e and up, it seems like it would be relatively easy to implement. Older editions though? How would you do this in, say, OSE or Labyrinth Lord (B/X)?

I've used them as a form of (pre-3E) fatigue. The spell itself you can cast as long as your appropriate levels. (I changed it to PC level = Spell Levels you can cast.) However, you made an Int roll to see if you were fatigued. Fatigue acted as a limiter on Strength/Dex-related rolls for the in-game day until the PC could get rest.

Rituals gave you a modifier, physical components gave you a modifier (I hated them for regular spellcasting.)

If I were to do it today, I'd probably tweak it some. I never wanted spell failure to equal something dramatic, because in some cases the spell not going off or being very fatigued was dramatic enough for the game.

Mind you I did a lot of tweaking in 2E AD&D to make it more mine before I was burned out and stopped using AD&D at all after 98 or so and switched to other games entirely. I did go back and try 3E/4E and 5E. The latter which I'd probably hack if I were to use it again. Right now I don't plan on it, but I can't say what will happen. I've never been a fan of spell slots even after reading Vance.

 

[VisionStorm]

I've thought about doing this a bunch of times, and even developed house rules to do it, but never got around to actually using it. Seems like it should be simple enough—just make Casting DC = 10 +2/Spell Level, or something similar.

My biggest concern is healing spells, which could become endless with this approach. There's also the concern about endless spells in general, but one approach I've thought of using to address that is to also include some sort of "strain" mechanic that adds a cumulative -1 penalty (or +1 to DC) to rolls per casting attempt (whether successful or not) per day. Eventually the penalty would be so high it would make further attempts impossible.

Another similar approach I've considered using is to make the roll a Saving Throw instead of a Casting check. If you fail your save you suffer some sort of temporary penalty or condition, or maybe get one level of Exhaustion or whatever. That would make it more a "magic with consequences" type of thing, rather than a pure skill check.

 

[Necrozius]

The House DM guy basically goes like this:

- DC is 10 + spell level
- failure? Lose the spell until next long rest (5e Warlocks on a short rest)
- roll a 20? Choose from a list of augmented effects (eg double dice, double targets etc)
- roll a 1? As per a failure and roll on miscast table.

I think I’d want to think about things like endless Fireballs and healing, or at least, go with the Dungeon Crafter’s ideas of actual spell effects determined each time based on the roll and specific situation. Or just use the DCC tables.

 

[TJS]

So I've been really warming up to the concept of spellcasting rolls instead of spell slots (Vancian or otherwise) in D&D, in general.

A few Youtube personalities have talked about this, including Dungeon Craft and House DM (great vids, check them out), pulling from Dungeon Crawl Classic's spell tables (to some degree, behind the DM screen, anyway).

Having recently adopted Mythras, I truly love this approach. It seems far easier to "hack" this or adjust to taste.

Imagine doing religious rituals or sacrifices to "enhance" a spellcasting roll ahead of time to guarantee a success (or even a critical)?

Has anyone done something like this?

For 3e and up, it seems like it would be relatively easy to implement. Older editions though? How would you do this in, say, OSE or Labyrinth Lord (B/X)?

Oh my god yes. There's about a gazillion variations of this for d20/3.5. It was one of the most common things to do.

One the better versions of this was probably the Psychic's Handbook from Green Ronin which used a feat and skill based magic system and was often copied by others.

(The Fading Suns D20 book had a neat variation of this for Theurgy/Cleric style magic).

 

[Necrozius]

Has anyone done something like this with an older version of D&D? In my case, I’m interested in B/X and it’s clones (Labyrinth Lord, Old School Essentials etc)

 

[VisionStorm]

Has anyone done something like this with an older version of D&D? In my case, I’m interested in B/X and it’s clones (Labyrinth Lord, Old School Essentials etc)

I never thought of doing this back when I played earlier editions of D&D, except maybe late in 2e when I was already moving onto other systems or inserting elements of them into my house rules, then eventually jumped to 3e once it came out. But I'm guessing that if something like "d20 + Proficiency Bonus + Ability Modifier vs DC 10 +Spell Level" works for 5e, then "Roll Under Score -Spell Level" probably works for older editions of D&D as well.

 

[TJS]

I never thought of doing this back when I played earlier editions of D&D, except maybe late in 2e when I was already moving onto other systems or inserting elements of them into my house rules, then eventually jumped to 3e once it came out. But I'm guessing that if something like "d20 + Proficiency Bonus + Ability Modifier vs DC 10 +Spell Level" works for 5e, then "Roll Under Score -Spell Level" probably works for older editions of D&D as well.

Is that keeping spell slots?

I remember from 3e days that there's a few issues that come up.

If you keep some kind of cost for spellcasting even on a successful roll. like hit point or magic points or even spell slots then the roll is mechanically redundant except for flavour - (which is fine sometimes you want the flavour of occasional failure).

If not you need to think carefully about DCs and usually balance things out by having a cost for failure only. A DC that increases by 1 for spell level is usually in such cases not sufficient - players are more likely to always gamble on the higher spell. In D20 adding 3 per DC per level was about the right amount. However, this wouldn't work so well in old school D&D because the range of numbers just aren't really there.

You might want some kind of chart to reduce the DCs across the board as the PC goes up in level so that higher level spells become possible.

 

[finarvyn]

Has anyone done something like this with an older version of D&D? In my case, I’m interested in B/X and it’s clones (Labyrinth Lord, Old School Essentials etc)

You might check out the original Chainmail rules. I know that 3E (the silver comb-bound TSR version, not sure if the pre-TSR editions use this or not) has spell rolls instead of spell slots, and I've used those rules sometimes for my OD&D campaigns. Should be fine for B/X, etc., as well.

 

[Sloth_in_a_bowl]

Making something up off the top of my head for OSR spell casting rules.

When Magic-Users cast a spell they make a spell test on 2d6 Vs a target number.
Equal or better than target then the spell fires that round else is delayed to the following round and the test needs to be made again.
If the failure is also a double then the mage gets a further random penalty (1 hp loss, stunned for a round, deaf for D6 rounds, etc)

The base target number is 5 + fatigue level.

Fatigue level starts each day at 0 and goes up by 1 each time a M-U has successfully cast spell levels equal to their M-U level.
E.g. a 3rd level M-U casts 2 magic missiles, web, light and flying. For 7 total spell levels. Then they have a current fatigue level of 2.

Effectively, once you have a fatigue level of 4 then the M-U is not going to be a consistent spell caster.

 

[VisionStorm]

Is that keeping spell slots?

I remember from 3e days that there's a few issues that come up.

If you keep some kind of cost for spellcasting even on a successful roll. like hit point or magic points or even spell slots then the roll is mechanically redundant except for flavour - (which is fine sometimes you want the flavour of occasional failure).

If not you need to think carefully about DCs and usually balance things out by having a cost for failure only. A DC that increases by 1 for spell level is usually in such cases not sufficient - players are more likely to always gamble on the higher spell. In D20 adding 3 per DC per level was about the right amount. However, this wouldn't work so well in old school D&D because the range of numbers just aren't really there.

You might want some kind of chart to reduce the DCs across the board as the PC goes up in level so that higher level spells become possible.

Yeah, I'm assuming that the point is to get rid of/replace spell slots, so there'd be no cost involved, per se. I mentioned +1 DC per spell level going by the House DM video, and also because this example assumes 5e, where the modifier range is very limited, given that the Proficiency Bonus only goes up to +6, so I figured higher would be too prohibitive. But rethinking it, an increase of +2 DC per Spell Level would still be workable at the higher end in 5e, just extremely difficult to fire off higher level spells, even at max Proficiency Bonus and Ability Score.

A lot of this depends on what the ability ranges are. Though, going roll under ability score, level 9 spells would still be possible even for average scores of 10. And older editions of D&D had spell level caps based off key ability scores (or at least 2e did).

 

[The Mad Hatter]

It's not hard to do this. But I think it goes against how magic in D&D, is supposed to work.

In D&D magic always succeeds. To be even more specific, the casting of a spell always succeeds. The effects of the spell might fail however. If a mage casts a Charm Person, the target might succeed at a saving throw against it. But the mage doesn't fail at casting the spell, but instead uses up a spell slot.

Which is why, I always went with a spell point system similar to hit points instead. Not everyone's cup of tea either and not that easy to balance.

Not dissing the idea here. Just wanted to point the above out.

 

[DeadBob]

It's not hard to do this. But I think it goes against how magic in D&D, is supposed to work.

In D&D magic always succeeds. To be even more specific, the casting of a spell always succeeds. The effects of the spell might fail however. If a mage casts a Charm Person, the target might succeed at a saving throw against it. But the mage doesn't fail at casting the spell, but instead uses up a spell slot.

Which is why, I always went with a spell point system similar to hit points instead. Not everyone's cup of tea either and not that easy to balance.

Not dissing the idea here. Just wanted to point the above out.

Howabout an MU can cast a spell until someone passes an (immediate) save and then they lose access to the spell until they do something annoyingly complicated/time consuming/expensive?

I realize this would take some tweaking to work obviously, but could it be the basis of a system?

It would also probably work better in a setting that assumes monsters and heroes are rare and likely the few higher Level/HD individuals around, with most people (however that is defined) being largely lower level, and even heroic types tending to be lower than name level.

 

[Necrozius]

In the Carcass Crawler zines for Old School Essentials, they presented alternatives to a few spellcasting classes, using the Thief skill system to cast some iconic spells and powers. That, and DCC’s magic system, really got me thinking…

One option is to have it that spells always work, but the spellcaster must roll to see how well they handle it. A better roll might upgrade some of the effects (or even keep the spell slot). A worse roll could have all manner of effect, including backlash or unintended consequences.

I do like how the Dungeon Craft guy explains to his players during the pitch that magic spells are not easily understood or catalogued. The ones in the rulebook are the “baseline” or most common interpretations. That each spellcaster has a unique take on it. I rather like that idea (as a DM I would bookmark a few tables of spell effects from DCC based on the player’s spellbook entries).

 

[opaopajr]

Remember the catchphrase from "Let's Game it Out" youtube channel: "Is there a limit?" If not, go watch him destroy some games. It's a lesson why playtesting matters and is a tragically lost art today.

Magic is literally the definition of world-rules breaking events. That's why magic-rules systems are developed to deliberately make things finite, to confine, that which by definition breaks the regular (the world's) rules. First delineate how you can stop infinites, exponents, multipliers, et cetera before falling in love with an idea -- make sure your 'on' switch has real good 'off' switch before turning it on.

At a cursory glance those rules look too easy to break for me, especially in WotC D&D and its many exception-based designed widgets. There's a reason I keep joking about the widget factory; it eventually causes design problems. Just the 5e Halfling race(species) feature, Lucky feat, let alone Divination Wizard archetype features (I can already see multi-class dips needing to be scratched off), and I am already seeing huge warning signs -- and I am not even trying to break your happy idea.

Those rules are a solid start (see? I am being kind! ) but the ingredients are not fully restricted, combined in tight sequence, let alone baked. "Cooking's an art, baking's a science." You'll first need to curate your world's classes, archetypes, races(species), sub-race(species), Feats, Spells, Magic Items, and so on before you traipse into another exception-based designed minefield. This is a mere wishful outline, but you need a lab; define your goals, state hypotheses, limit your reagents, and playtest the shit out of your first attempt. Good luck!

 

[Sloth_in_a_bowl]

Remember the catchphrase from "Let's Game it Out" youtube channel: "Is there a limit?" If not, go watch him destroy some games. It's a lesson why playtesting matters and is a tragically lost art today.

Magic is literally the definition of world-rules breaking events. That's why magic-rules systems are developed to deliberately make things finite, to confine, that which by definition breaks the regular (the world's) rules. First delineate how you can stop infinites, exponents, multipliers, et cetera before falling in love with an idea -- make sure your 'on' switch has real good 'off' switch before turning it on.

At a cursory glance those rules look too easy to break for me, especially in WotC D&D and its many exception-based designed widgets. There's a reason I keep joking about the widget factory; it eventually causes design problems. Just the 5e Halfling race(species) feature, Lucky feat, let alone Divination Wizard archetype features (I can already see multi-class dips needing to be scratched off), and I am already seeing huge warning signs -- and I am not even trying to break your happy idea.

Those rules are a solid start (see? I am being kind! ) but the ingredients are not fully restricted, combined in tight sequence, let alone baked. "Cooking's an art, baking's a science." You'll first need to curate your world's classes, archetypes, races(species), sub-race(species), Feats, Spells, Magic Items, and so on before you traipse into another exception-based designed minefield. This is a mere wishful outline, but you need a lab; define your goals, state hypotheses, limit your reagents, and playtest the shit out of your first attempt. Good luck!

Is this post missing some quotes as it scans as though it is referring to other posts?

 

[TJS]

Yeah, people are talking about different editions so they're not all going to have exactly the same issues.

A lot of the conversation is about OSR D&D in which case there's a lot less interactions to worry about.

 

[TJS]

Thinking about it, this would probably be harder to do in 5e than other versions of D&D because spells work differently - they're much more like generic powers.

As well as cantrips you have spells like Shield which is a reaction that is really dependent on spell slots (it's whole point being it's what you use low level slots for when most of your low level slots are redundant).

Basically I think you need a new magic system.

 

[VisionStorm]

Thinking about it, this would probably be harder to do in 5e than other versions of D&D because spells work differently - they're much more like generic powers.

As well as cantrips you have spells like Shield which is a reaction that is really dependent on spell slots (it's whole point being it's what you use low level slots for when most of your low level slots are redundant).

Basically I think you need a new magic system.

Not sure why Shield, or other Reaction based spells, would not work without spell slots, or what's the necessary connection between Shield and lower level spell slots (not sure why that spell specifically needs to be used to burn lower level spell slots, or what does it matter once you replace spell slots with Casting rolls and spell slots stop existing anyways). It'd be basically the same thing, only you make a Casting roll as a Reaction instead of spending a spell slot.

In the case of cantrips you can simply use them without having to make a Casting roll, as usual. And in the case of casting a spell like a higher level spell, you'd use the higher level spell's DC for the casting roll instead of spell slots. Not sure how replacing spell slots with Casting rolls breaks any of this.

 

[TJS]

Not sure why Shield, or other Reaction based spells, would not work without spell slots, or what's the necessary connection between Shield and lower level spell slots (not sure why that spell specifically needs to be used to burn lower level spell slots, or what does it matter once you replace spell slots with Casting rolls and spell slots stop existing anyways). It'd be basically the same thing, only you make a Casting roll as a Reaction instead of spending a spell slot.

Because it's equally useful at all levels (as is a spell like Bless, or Misty Step). If you use scaling to reduce the ability to hit higher DCs for higher level spells until later levels then you also run into the issue that at a certain level DCs for low level spells will become trivial. This is an issue because, as designed, they are still meant to consume resources. You can only use Shield a certain number of times per day - not use it reflexively.

In the case of cantrips you can simply use them without having to make a Casting roll, as usual. And in the case of casting a spell like a higher level spell, you'd use the higher level spell's DC for the casting roll instead of spell slots. Not sure how replacing spell slots with Casting rolls breaks any of this.

Well you can. But if you do that then what's the point of introducing spellcasting rolls? Presumably you'd be doing it to make magic feel different. You won't achieve this if you leave cantrips as they are.

 

[VisionStorm]

Because it's equally useful at all levels (as is a spell like Bless, or Misty Step). If you use scaling to reduce the ability to hit higher DCs for higher level spells until later levels then you also run into the issue that at a certain level DCs for low level spells will become trivial. This is an issue because, as designed, they are still meant to consume resources. You can only use Shield a certain number of times per day - not use it reflexively.

Yeah, but all Casting roll systems I've seen use some type of mechanism to address the potential for infinite uses. I mentioned in my first post in this thread using a cumulative penalty per each casting attempt throughout the day (-1 per attempt), which would eventually make even lower level spells prohibitive or impossible to use (I believe this has been uses in various 3e roll-based casting systems). The House DM (mentioned in the OP) mentioned losing your spell for the rest of the day if you fail a roll. There could also be negative consequences for each attempt (like risk of stacking exhaustion levels or suffering other conditions). There are ways to get around infinite casting with roll-based systems, and pretty much all roll-based casting systems I've seen have one.

Well you can. But if you do that then what's the point of introducing spellcasting rolls? Presumably you'd be doing it to make magic feel different. You won't achieve this if you leave cantrips as they are.

The point still remains to get rid of spell slots. Cantrips are immaterial in this. If you leave cantrips as is, and replace slots with casting rolls, spell slots are still gone. If you hate spell slots, you still got rid of spell slots. And if you prefer magic to be skill-based, you still made magic skill based. I don't see how leaving one single, relatively minor group of spells that don't rely on spell slots untouched undermines any of that.

Plus like I mentioned above, most (all?) roll-based casting systems have a mechanism to prevent infinite casting. So cantrips still play a role in allowing you to use minor magic once that mechanism starts to get in the way of you casting Level 1+ spells. And they may also allow other options in casting. If cumulative penalties per casting are used as stopgap mechanism, for example, you could opt to use cantrips instead to avoid stacking further penalties for the rest of the day. And If spell loss on a failed roll are use instead, opting to use cantrips allows you to avoid the risk of losing spells.

There are still uses for 5e style cantrips even in a roll-based casting system, at least if stopgap mechanisms are used. And if not, you could always get rid of cantrips and simply allow potentially infinite roll-based casting. Though, that approach would have balancing issues of its own.

 

[Mankcam]

The House DM guy basically goes like this:

- DC is 10 + spell level
- failure? Lose the spell until next long rest (5e Warlocks on a short rest)
- roll a 20? Choose from a list of augmented effects (eg double dice, double targets etc)
- roll a 1? As per a failure and roll on miscast table.

I think I’d want to think about things like endless Fireballs and healing, or at least, go with the Dungeon Crafter’s ideas of actual spell effects determined each time based on the roll and specific situation. Or just use the DCC tables.

That's pretty close to how I would do it

 

[Necrozius]

That's pretty close to how I would do it

For Old School Essentials (B/X) attribute modifiers are far lower than in later editions, so this might just work fine (less of a chance of a PC spamming lightning bolt without worry of failure.

As per Dungeon Craft’s house rules, I’d make the casting check more fluid than binary pass or fail so that I can have fun with the DCC spell tables.

 

[opaopajr]

Also TSR Caster Level & WotC Upcasting seems to be lost in this first iteration of translation. Basically the benefit of spells potentially being more powerful in relation to character growth. Is that a feature or a bug?

I mean, both companies took several takes on non-Vancian casting. What exactly are you seeking in this likely high-magic-volume style? Less bookkeeping: no slots, no points, less strategic resource concerns?

Talking out the whys and wherefors helps you get your dream ideas grounded into reality.