Topic: Spell Fumble Risk Factors

[GrumpyOldFart]

If every power use (spell cast, PP used, whatever depending on system) increased your risk of a "failure" or "fumble" resulting in something bad happening, at what level of failure risk would you stop using magic?

[Defendi]

I don't think your poll goes low enough for me, assuming this is a straight spell failure chance, even 10% hit a certainty far too quickly.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Where would you put it? 01-04?

I gotta admit, morning stars are considered bloody hazardous, with their RM fumble range of 8%.

[jdale]

Depends how bad, and how powerful magic is.

Given the RMFRP spell fumbles, if it's an informational spell I'd probably go past 50%. Not really bad unless you get a fumble result over 185. "Other" spells are not too bad either. Elemental and Force spells are more risky. Maybe 20-30% there.

[providence13]

I'm in the camp of "it depends on how bad you need the spell".

Sometimes I give magic items that add to SCSM; +10 Ring to one List, for instance. This doesn't reduce fumbles so much as tries to keep them out of that range.
 
I've been thinking of a magic item that only reduces the roll on the fumble chart. An apprentice Mage Class Ring, maybe.
 

[GrumpyOldFart]

It's always going to depend on how badly you need the spell.

If it's a choice between a 90% chance of fumbling the spell and something bad happening, or a 100% chance that you're going to get eaten next round by the monster, you'll go for the 10% chance of coming out of it alive and outside the monster's belly.

But outside of that realm of possibility, where "you need it"... but you could probably solve the problem by running away and waiting until your risk goes down... where would you draw the line?

[rdanhenry]

What are the alternatives? How bad is the failure if it happens? What do I get if it succeeds? What are the other costs. If I have an 80% chance of survival by running away and a 40% chance of failure if I cast the spell, then success with the spell better provide some awesomely rewarding reward. If it gets me some legendary dragon hoard, then maybe. But if I can spend another hour searching for my car keys or find them right away with a 1% chance that my head will explode when I cast Find Car Keys, then I'll keep looking the old-fashioned way. Unless I've got five minutes to find my keys and get lost before an overwhelming force of murderous goons arrives and no way to get away without my keys. So, so, so circumstantial here.

However, any magic with high risk of failure is only going to be learned in the first place if the results are truly spectacular or if skills are equally prone to failure.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I'm thinking in terms of risk increasing throughout the day, as you use more and more power between rest periods. As to the consequences of failure, stipulate for the sake of argument that as risk rises, direness of consequences also rises. So the "light the candle" cantrip in the predawn when you wake up has a tiny chance of failure, and about the worst that can possibly happen is that it consumes the candle all at once and leaves you searching for another one in the dark... and that's a "catastrophic failure" of the casting. But after you've been chased by orcs through Moria for 2 straight days without any rest, by the time you meet the balrog you're so wiped out that just believing it's possible for you to do magic is hazardous. Not just because of the fatigue of the 2 days, but because of 2 spellcasting days, your fatigue and mental sloppiness and therefore your risk is well beyond that of the fighters who stayed up that same 2 days. Even lighting the candle might kill you. After all, enough energy to power a lighter flame passed through your brain at some point in the process, no?

Yes, I realize there are a lot of variables, and how much you're willing to bet will vary not only with the odds of winning but with the size of the pot. I'm just trying to get a feel for what gamers think of as "high risk" in spell failures/fumbles.

[Defendi]

Remember, the more often you ask a player to make a roll, the more certain you are making his failure.  Everyone fails over a long enough timeline.  I was lucky that I had a good GM in Serenity, for example.  Somebody from an RM background in that game would have killed us in one session by asking for too many piloting checks.

01-02 is as bad as I think any reasonable person would go.  I mean a 2% chance of spell failure means your dead in five years, realistically, with even moderate spell casting.  We make allowances enough because this is a game. 

Bob

[GrumpyOldFart]

01-02 is as bad as I think any reasonable person would go.  I mean a 2% chance of spell failure means your dead in five years, realistically, with even moderate spell casting.

Only if "spell failure means your dead."

If there's a 10% chance of a "fumble", but only 10% of "fumbles" are lethal, that's 1%. I can see the sense in keeping the total lethality at 2% or less, possibly 1% or less. But "fumble" can be an extremely wide range of results in itself, too. That said, even if "you fumbled the spell" = you have to start the casting over and no worse, if this round was your last chance before the monster gets you, you're just as dead as if the fumble had blown your head off.

[rdanhenry]

At 1% lethal failure rate, your odds of having survived drop below 50% after 69 attempts. That's without any other risks (like having a troll take off your head because you missed casting your defensive spell). So if you only cast a spell every 26 days or so, yeah, you could expect about even odds of making it through 5 years without your magic killing you directly.

Given how often spells are actually cast in most fantasy game environments, 1% lethal failure rate would be enormous.

[Defendi]

That's my point.  I'd consider once every 26 days way less than moderate.

[arakish]

I would input that it would also depend on whether the spell casters could learn a skill that would lower the fumble chance, say perhaps Spell Mastery, but on a global scale instead of restricting it to just one list or just one spell.

If that were possible, then I'd go as high as 50%.  Using spell mastery and rolling a result of 70 would lower that 50% to 15% (50 - (50 x .7)).

But that is just my idea.

rmfr

P.S. - I did not vote since my ultimate choice would 1% to 5%.

[Marc R]

This poll is missing the "Why am I trying" factor.

If it's to save the universe, where if I don't try the downside fail is 100%, then anything short of 100% is acceptable.

[providence13]

How many rolls does it take to make an average magic item?
If it takes a month, that's a lot of rolls. When you add multiple functions, it's a wonder items are crafted at all.

[GrumpyOldFart]

The sheer number of rolls does explain "cursed items", certainly.

[providence13]

I haven't done the numbers, but in a magic school, alchemist lab, whatever, the attrition rate for casters would be high, I guess. But like the reason for OP, everyone has a different comfort level of risk.

You might have to pay to attend and you might not survive. A risky investment, but the rewards balance the risk for those who want the knowledge.

Some of my players are skilled in Spell Mastery now; ~10th lvl. But they have wrecked more than one inn and a few houses by totally neg'ing down. Leave town fast or blame someone else.

[markc]

Quick Thought: IMHO this is a very good idea for a book or fiction but in games where people play magic users I can see it not being a big hit or simply ignored.


MDC

[Marc R]

Try on "What's the odds of being killed after soaking 20 criticals"