INT = Wild Magic?

[Osvir]

Wait a minute before you jump to conclusion and assume based on title.

What if Intelligence could govern chances of Magical/Ability success rate?

Meaning: A low intelligence character has a higher chance of getting a spell or an ability blowing up in their face. A Knockdown ability that accidentally hits your teammate instead of the target, or an Escape ability that doesn't trigger.

It makes sense, in a way, doesn't it?

If Intelligence governs how you shape the powers, wouldn't a Low Intelligence shape Magic chaotically?

Thoughts?

[Sacred_Path]

If you have some influence on the process this can be a nice feature. I liked that in Wizardry I could attempt a more powerful version of a spell with a higher chance of failure.

 

Without spell power levels though... it would be mostly annoying.

[Azrael Ultima]

I'd expect any trained adventurer to at least be capable of not beating himself up unintentionally.

 

While i could see how it would make sense for Int to govern this effectiveness, i don't agree that it makes sense for these failures to exist unless the characters don't have proper training in their skills.

 

Especially not for emergency abilities.

[Osvir]

I agree that there's inheritantly a pretty annoying "RNG" value in this idea, but that doesn't mean that there's a solution to that as well!

These thoughts are related to:
A) Some people are whining about the Attribute system
B) Some people want penalties on Attributes
C) A Muscle Wizard gains no disadvantages. Sure, their abilities won't last for as long and their AoE isn't as big as it possibly could be.
D) Intelligence is interesting on Narratively built characters, in Combat... not so interesting.

One solution (Idea) to add:
- Level ups. When you're Level 1 with 1-3 Intelligence then your first Tier 1 spells won't be as effective and/or have a chance to backfire on you.
- When you get to level 3-4, your Tier 1 Spells could get 100% success rate.

When you get to Level 12 with 3 Intelligence, you'd be able to use almost all of your lower level Spells without disadvantage or risk, but your higher level Spells would still have the risk to them.

Turning it around, having a 12-15 Intelligence would allow your spells to have a 90%-95% success rate throughout the entirety of the game, and 18-20 Intelligence would be 100% success rate throughout the entirety of the game.

3 Intelligence: (Concept/Idea/Broadstrike)
- Wizard Level 1 - Tier 1 Spells have a 50% chance
- Wizard Level 2 - Tier 1 Spells have 60% chance
- Wizard Level 3 - Tier 1 Spells have 70% chance, Tier 2 Spells 50%
- Wizard Level 4 - Tier 1 Spells have 80% chance, Tier 2 Spells 60%

etc

18 Intelligence
- Wizard Level 1 - Tier 1 Spells have 90% chance
- Wizard Level 2 - Tier 1 Spells have 100% chance
- Wizard Level 3 - Tier 2 Spells have 90% chance
- Wizard Level 4 - Tier 2 Spells have 100% chance

etc
 

Also:

I'd expect any trained adventurer to at least be capable of not beating himself up unintentionally.

Is Level 1 a trained adventurer, or someone just beginning their journeys?

I view a Level 4-5 adventurer as a trained adventurer, a Level 10-12 a renowned adventurer.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Osvir

[PrimeJunta]

Nope, makes INT too valuable. Also random failures are not fun.

 

How many of you tried playing an armored arcane caster in the NWN's, with a non-zero chance for spell fizzle? I did. Took off the armor and went cheerfully to the back row again.

[Osvir]

What about effectivity then PrimeJunta?

If MIG could boost the MAX Power... could INT boost MIN Power?

Example:
10 MIG, 10 INT = 10-20 Damage
20 MIG, 10 INT = 10-30 Damage
10 MIG, 20 INT = 20-20 Damage

EDIT: The sense of my idea: An intelligent character does not perhaps deal more damage, but they'd be intelligent enough to deal approximately the same damage repeatedly. They'd be able to shape their attacks in a more likely form to deal the same damage over and over again (be it with a sword or with a spell) /EDIT

At the moment, INT isn't very valuable for all Non-Caster Classes. Even within the Caster Classes it's debated whether it's useful or not. I think that INT should have a bigger impact, generally. It's probably going to get a bigger difference in AoE radius-size I suspect, and that might be enough. But until that point, I wanted to put these ideas on the table at the very least~

Edited August 26, 2014 by Osvir

[Longknife]

Nope, makes INT too valuable. Also random failures are not fun.

 

 

This.

 

This is ultimately why Morrowind got so much crap. If we're being reasonable I don't think Morrowind's system (just as an example) was that bad as it prevented meta-gaming that became all too easy in Oblivion and Skyrim, but it was still damned frustrating and unpopular. And imo that was more "justified" there cause it added RPG elements to a shoddy RPG system. Here? There's just no need. It'd be pure frustration and ultimately serve to diminish the use and popularity of classes where a failed cast hurts the most.

[PrimeJunta]

I'd rather add more abilities with durations and AoE. Barbs for example rely a lot on Frenzy and Defiant Resolve. Those are powerful and duration-limited, and INT already makes a tangible difference. Plus Carnage of course. Knockdown duration is a big deal for fighter effectiveness, and hobble duration makes a lot of difference for rogues as well. I say keep the effects as is and add more of those.

 

I'm also not super-thrilled with the idea of making more than one attribute affect the same combat stat. It makes the system more confusing and blurs the differences between abilities.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, I agree that this is not a great idea. However, I'd love to see something like Wild Magic implemented in another (optional) way because Wild Mage playthroughs are hilarious.

[Wintersong]

Wild Magic sucks. 

 

A Fighter with higher intelect has his knowdown ability to last longer. But in any case, he shouldn't have to worry about not having spent enough points on intelect. Having your verteran fighter knock himself down from time to time because he didn't max intelect? WTFBBQ?

 

If characters are not mightly/dexterily fit, should they incur in similar penalties too with mundane/regular attacks?

 

About character levels, it depends on the system. From the backgropund point of view, you have not been generated by spontaneous generation but have been doing stuff in the world (mercenary, slave,...).

[Fearabbit]

So... I'm the only one that loves fizzle mechanics? Seriously, I think they're fun. They make magic seem less controllable, in a "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" kind of way, which is really cool.

 

But anyway: We do have accuracy right now. Isn't that mechanically the same thing as what Osvir is proposing?

[Wintersong]

So... I'm the only one that loves fizzle mechanics? Seriously, I think they're fun. They make magic seem less controllable, in a "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" kind of way, which is really cool.

 

But anyway: We do have accuracy right now. Isn't that mechanically the same thing as what Osvir is proposing?

You use a roll to simulate a possible result when the result itself is not obvious or guaranteed. In a purely storytelling enviroment, the storyteller would determine if you hit or miss a target. Systems like D&D use rolls to simulate that.

 

But your abilities/spell do work fine by themselves. If the target has some kind of defense (AC, saving throws,...), then it'd be a check. If your accuracy is better than the defense, you will problaby get a better hit. If it's worse, you are more likely to just graze. But in any case, you don't need to "roll" to see if you can actually use your accuracy (or maybe get none at all or maybe you get a boost).

 

But Wild Magic is being lucky that you actually can use your ability as is (or maybe a benefitial wild surge) and then check if the target has some kind of defense to it.

[Fearabbit]

 

So... I'm the only one that loves fizzle mechanics? Seriously, I think they're fun. They make magic seem less controllable, in a "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" kind of way, which is really cool.

 

But anyway: We do have accuracy right now. Isn't that mechanically the same thing as what Osvir is proposing?

You use a roll to simulate a possible result when the result itself is not obvious or guaranteed. In a purely storytelling enviroment, the storyteller would determine if you hit or miss a target. Systems like D&D use rolls to simulate that.

 

But your abilities/spell do work fine by themselves. If the target has some kind of defense (AC, saving throws,...), then it'd be a check. If your accuracy is better than the defense, you will problaby get a better hit. If it's worse, you are more likely to just graze. But in any case, you don't need to "roll" to see if you can actually use your accuracy (or maybe get none at all or maybe you get a boost).

 

But Wild Magic is being lucky that you actually can use your ability as is (or maybe a benefitial wild surge) and then check if the target has some kind of defense to it.

 

 

Sorry, I had forgotten how much Osvir's proposal focused on detrimental effects of a failure.

I was thinking about fizzling. People seem to not like it, yet it seems to me that mechanically it is the same (or could be implemented in the same way) as Accuracy. With Accuracy, a spell can either hit, graze or miss. With Fizzle it is technically the same.

 

(P.S. Not sure what you want to tell me with the first part about rolls and storytellers. Like... I know what rolls are, thank you. )

Edited August 26, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Grand_Commander13]

Sounds to me like still another attempt to mandate that mages all be very smart. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons: the game doesn't have to base every little thing on it.

[Wintersong]

(P.S. Not sure what you want to tell me with the first part about rolls and storytellers. Like... I know what rolls are, thank you. )

I must apoligize then.  

 

Melee attack:

Step 1: Accuracy - Defense = X

Step 2: Random number + X = Critical/Hit/Graze/Miss

 

The Step 2 is a simulation of huge number of variables resumed in "Let's roll a dice and let's call it a day", with thresholds that detemine the outcome. In Step 1, there is no rolling about if you are accurate or not. Either you are accurate or you are not. Same for defense: you have it or you haven't. Those can be modified by external bonuss/penalties (magic items, spells...) but you don't need to roll for them. You take their current values and do the math.

 

Spells and skills should be like that, imho. Magic spells having failure chance when casting exist outside Wild Magic. Old D&D surely had those arcane penalty failures for wizards* but that it's a external "penalty" to the spell's casting. But while some may have fun at having an innate chance of failure when trying to use spells/skills, I don't think that's actually fun. It can lead to lots of frustration (and TPK) too**. If he knows how to cast magic missile or how to swing a sword, he knows. Period. If the situation is special, consider bonuses/penalties. Forcing to max certain attributes to negate RNG? Tsk tsk tsk tsk.

 

* "balance", they said...

** YMMV and that's ok

[Ink Blot]

Nope, makes INT too valuable. Also random failures are not fun.

 

How many of you tried playing an armored arcane caster in the NWN's, with a non-zero chance for spell fizzle? I did. Took off the armor and went cheerfully to the back row again.

Meh. I just tended to accept that my caster would be effectively a level or so behind a non-armored caster and grabbed the Still Spell feat.

 

Re the INT idea, I agree it would tend to make it too valuable. Also, as the game system stands now, there are no penalties for low ability scores, so a complete overhaul would be required so all abilities would give you a penalty for low scores.

[Azrael Ultima]

I'd expect any trained adventurer to at least be capable of not beating himself up unintentionally.

Is Level 1 a trained adventurer, or someone just beginning their journeys?

 

I view a Level 4-5 adventurer as a trained adventurer, a Level 10-12 a renowned adventurer.

Trained as in "has finished basic training and is ready to go out unsupervised". A level 1 fighter is still a fighter, not a random guy who so happens to have a sword. What you call "trained", i'd call "experienced".

Basically, an untrained guy would be classless(or civilian or something like that). Perhaps even level 0.

[Osvir]

Who was the character before he became a Fighter? Let's say a slave. By picking up a sword one day, he became a Fighter? Or did he begin a path towards becoming one?

EDIT: And I am converted and enlightened, the INT ideas/brainstorm weren't really properly well thought out, but it sparked some interesting discussion I do like the intensity of risks and challenges, and want to have the idea that nothing is truly "safe" in this world of Eora (Soulstorms anyone?). Animancy is an old ancient art, that just now has been re-discovered (as I understand it). It is in its infancy, anew~ that's how I view it, and thus magic that is wild and untamable could be commonplace.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Osvir

[Wintersong]

Who was the character before he became a Fighter? Let's say a slave. By picking up a sword one day, he became a Fighter? Or did he begin a path towards becoming one?

The background system doesn't seem to make much sense with our limited vision right now. I'd tie background to areas and classes. An Aristocrat Ranger, as described by the Aristocrat background, sounds weird. Unless aristocrat elves also work as rangers?

 

But unless the game states it otherwise, we could assume that between the time of the background and the beginning of the game, some time could have passed if you decide that for your character.

[rjshae]

So... I'm the only one that loves fizzle mechanics? Seriously, I think they're fun. They make magic seem less controllable, in a "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" kind of way, which is really cool.

 

But anyway: We do have accuracy right now. Isn't that mechanically the same thing as what Osvir is proposing?

 

What you could do is randomize spell uses per rest for Wild Mages: each time you cast a spell, there's a chance that you will get no more uses until your next rest.

 

I typically don't like spell fizzles in CRPGs--they're generally annoying.

[Osvir]

 

Who was the character before he became a Fighter? Let's say a slave. By picking up a sword one day, he became a Fighter? Or did he begin a path towards becoming one?

The background system doesn't seem to make much sense with our limited vision right now. I'd tie background to areas and classes. An Aristocrat Ranger, as described by the Aristocrat background, sounds weird. Unless aristocrat elves also work as rangers?

 

But unless the game states it otherwise, we could assume that between the time of the background and the beginning of the game, some time could have passed if you decide that for your character.

 

I view it as a character that either once was an Aristocrat, prior to the beginning of the game, and that they either recently picked up the "Ranged" arts, or perhaps even was a hunter with a hunting rifle, hunting animals with a trusted companion, or perhaps found a companion and bonded with it spiritually during the course of hunting (depending on the animal). 

 

They could even be an Aristocrat when the game begins, and circumstances (and the path you have chosen) lead them towards the "Ranger" archetype moreso than the "Aristocrat" archetype.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Osvir

[prodigydancer]

Also random failures are not fun.

Indeed. Random spell failures (like anything that is completely random in nature) promote save scumming. That's how people played wild mages in BG2: "Oh, I just blew up my party. Time to reload."

 

Randomness is good as long as it doesn't affect anything important. E.g. random encounters are usually OK.

[Teslacrashed]

The only problem is, if "low int"  leads to wild spell failures...well...who is going to use a low int person as a caster anyways?

 

Nobody is going to be using a low int caster anyhow, so it's a waste of dev time to make it, imo.

[Azrael Ultima]

I view it as a character that either once was an Aristocrat, prior to the beginning of the game, and that they either recently picked up the "Ranged" arts, or perhaps even was a hunter with a hunting rifle, hunting animals with a trusted companion, or perhaps found a companion and bonded with it spiritually during the course of hunting (depending on the animal).

A noble who regularly goes hunting with his trusted hunting hound. Doesn't sound particularly far-fetched to me.