I really like the idea of blood magic. Question with this system though, how do you account for up casting spells?

I ran a short campaign where the DC started at 5 to cast and went up by 1- each time the spell was cast. The wizard had a blast - literally - with fireball until we reached the end and the severity of the next check sank in…

I both: do not like your idea and don’t want to use it at my table; and Also: love that you made this video, as it’s thought provoking and interesting new take on how magic “could” be handled!

I can definitely appreciate this thought process. Personally, I'm not sure if I'd enjoy using it. A lot of 5e spells are already pretty feast-or-famine (i.e. save or suck spells), and adding another necessary dice roll exacerbates that. It already sucks when you botch an Inflict Wounds attack roll, or the enemy rolls really well to save against Polymorph or Disintegrate. And getting a critical Fireball or Hold Person would probably end a lot of fights instantly. Which is super cool for the caster and would admittedly be hype as hell, but feels like it would widen the gap between casters and martials even more. That being said, I can appreciate the idea that even if I botch my Raise Dead, it doesn't waste my opportunity to cast Bigby's Hand instead, since they no longer share a resource. It would also encourage the use of utility spells like Silent Image and such, since you don't need to "save" the spell slots for combat.

I think a soft version of this could be a way to extend past expended slots. So your spell slots now represent your ability to cast spells safely but you can extend this by doing the check. Id probably increase the DC in this case (maybe 13 + twice the spells level) and similarly double the amount of health needed to make up the difference

I love the idea of blood magic. I'd like to see some kind of 'using your hit dice' to regain lost spells as well. So you could make further sacrifice to pull a clutch spell off. Also, the 'not knowing if you've can cast that spell 4 times today' really adds a bit of tension to spamming certain spells. Breaking concentration of concentration spells might also have the effect of losing the spell for the day (though maybe this is too hardcore).

just a heads up, hp also correlates to your general energy level. This is shown in 5e with the fighter's second wind ability where they gain hp by dipping into a well of stamina. Just in case you would like to flavor text the blood aspect differently.

I haven't gotten into 5e yet, but for my 3.5 casters I prefer using the alternate spell points rule in which removes spell slots from sorcerers and other spontaneous spellcasters, and wizards, clerics, etc. Had to prepare a spell only once (using up a single spell slot) to cast it as many times as you want using your spell points.

In "The Dark Eye" you can manipulate spells, some sponateous (when casting) some by investing XP into it. For most you have to roll, to see if the effect happpens and you can even botch, creating uninteded negative effects. The system also uses something akin to mana points.

I kinda like the Shadowrun spellcasting system. You cast the spell, define its limits, see how effective it is, and then try to resist the "drain", or the mental and physical repercussions of channeling the mana.

awesome video man! just started dming my first campaign about 5ish months ago (been playing 5e since the pandemic started) and these videos are great at expanding my horizons/making me think about my world. Thanks!

Beautiful! Bravo. I really enjoyed this. I think you just changed my concept of magic in D&D. That's a first in 27 years. I'm excited to run some magic players now. Thank you.

I started doing similar with a roll to cast from an alternative rule in 2.5 in the mid 90’s and have tweaked it over the years Its much better to roll to cast then a spell slot and the unpredictable nature of magic becomes a great story telling tool Good to find others doing similar Cheers

Back in AD&D, we used spell points! at 3rd level you had one 2nd level spell and two 1st level spells you could cast, which gave you 4 spell points, and you could have memorized Magic Missile, Grease and Web! and each day you could cast 4 Magic Missiles or 2 Webs, or Web and 2 Magic Missiles!

Funny to find a video on this. In my homebrew, I'm making spells to function closer to AD&D psionics, which function somewhat similar to this. Interesting channel, instant subscribe

New to the channel, but I’m a forever follower now. My dm sort of worked a mana system. Really love these ideas!

Love the blood magic idea. I myself use the 3e spell points system with the ability to upcast and downcast by spending extra points. Works for my table.

This is really cool. I love the "blood magic" idea, and have had thoughts of similar mechanics myself. I figured you were going to have some kind of MP system, but this is so much cooler of an idea than that, especially for D&D specifically since it allows use of the mechanics of Proficiency and the d20 rolls in that system. You saying "You might roll hot and cast infinite spells... for a time" made me think, what if in this system somebody does roll really well very consistently? Would it cause some sort of buildup of arcane energy within them? Maybe being very lucky and just constantly casting could have some kind of drawback, too.

Man, you are so free and wild with 5e...I love it! I'm enjoying your channel

Love Frostgrave. Love your concept here. Thank you for the video.

There are two major mechanical issues I can see with this: 1. Buffing the check. The most commonly available option is enhance ability. Advantage on the check drops the mishap chance to 1/400 and the failure chance below 10% for most of your spells. And also there is the circle of stars druid who cannot fail to cast a spell when their dragon constellation is active (min 10+mod rolled on Int and Wis checks). This is not even an endgame thing, it is a 2nd level feature. Suggestion: Magic has no effect on casting checks. 2. Spells that use saves. Is the save replaced by this roll? If yes, then Int, Wis and Cha save proficiencies are basically useless. If no, then these spells are extra unreliable. If single target, it might not even be worth learning them. Suggestion: Keep saves, but add +2 to spell save DC-s. There is also non-mechanical issue: bad rolls. If a primary caster rolls badly at the start of the day, they can just go and sit in a corner for the rest of the day. Not managing a resource well is your fault, thus living with its cosequences is ok. But rolling bady is not a choice. Going with the standard adventuring day, you will have about 4-6 encounters, and a wizard could run out of spells, without actually casting any successfully or getting seriously injured, on the first one. I don't think many would consider this to be fun. Suggestion: Using blood magic makes you actually succeed on the check. (Maybe only for an additional sacrifice: 2x the cost, or lose a HD.) All in all I get what you are going for, but this is such a core feature of the game, that I have to ask: why not just play, say, Savage Worlds, which already has a roll-to-cast option?

Interesting ideas. I personally have gotten to play quite a bit of Dungeon World lately and I have to say that I find their system quite refresing. It can be a bit tricky to adjust as a whole, as it varies a good bit to D&D type games but the way combat and checks in general are handled is interesting. First of - DCs are done away completely, everything depends on your dice throw. Second - A D20 is not used in this particular system. You roll everything with 2D6s. If you roll a 1-6 on a check, you fail, if you roll a 7-9 you succeed on what you planned, but something unexpected happens in addition to that. And a 10 and above is a complete success without drawback. The "you succeed, but..." part is where it shines for me. Our DM usually gives us a few options of bad sideeffects that we can choose from. Mostly something like "you take damage yourself", "you hurt somebody else along with it", "you increase the overall stakes of the encounter", "you sustain a status effect until your next rest", and so on. Whichever are appliccable in the given situation. We also use an optional rule for advantage and disadvantage wherein you use a 3rd D6 and take the two highest or lowest respectively. As a third change - AC works differently. It no longer raises the DC but the AC gets directly subtracted from the damage taken (granted DW is a lot scarcer with hit points - 20 already being very good). I feel like this could also be adapted to D&D, but haven't tried it yet. The D6 thing is somewhat a matter of taste I think. If this sounds interesting, I strongly recommend having a look at the system. Just be warned - it's a very different playstyle to general D&D and related systems. Before anyone asks, yes DW is a PBTA system.

Since returning to gaming after the second break in my life, I have encountered these discussions on spell mechanics and it is intriging. As a kid I don't recall any of these discussions, but we did not have the interwebs. I really appreciate the range of magic casing systems and house rules. Keep up hte great content. THank you.

This is just fantastic. Liked & subscribed!!! That hit the nail on the head of a quandary for me: magic just doesn't seem magical enough. It might break down at higher levels - putting more spells in your head is good, and having a chance to cast 2+ 5th-level spells and beyond is cool, but scary. The option of removing the proficiency bonus helps... But I wouldn't know till playtesting. It opens up a great option for unique treasure: rare spell components that give an advantage on the spellcasting check! Awesome suggestion, I love it.

There is a BESM d20 system sourcebook for the anime Slayers that was heavily magic focused. Each spell had a spellcasting DC based on the 'level' of the spell. If you succeeded the DC, you cast the spell with no issues. However, if you failed the DC, you still cast the spell, but lost HP based on how badly you failed the check. You had options to decrease the DC of the spell by taking longer to cast it by reciting the full incantation as well as yelling out the spell name, potentially alerting you target to your intentions. There were also mechanics to amplify a spell effect by having multiple casters cast the same spell at the same time, as well as offer to share their HP with the caster in case they failed and a few other nifty tricks. Personally, I like the idea of implementing an MP system to D&D and I discovered there already is one in the DM guide.

Blood magic is a HUGE part of my campaign world. It’s almost like the Force in Star Wars. I like the ideas here.

I... Genuinely... Wow... This improves spell casting, by so much. With no shame. I am stealing this. You have been notified. 😁👍

excellent video and take ive just got back into dnd in about the last year love your take back when i was dm in the late 80s/early 90s had a bit of math in spell use to cast spells correctly it was base of 10 + spell level - the casters level i dont normaly subscribe however seems like you have similar ideas that i have had in the past so love to hear more ideas from you so i will subscribe keep up the awesome ideas

I would actually love to borrow this idea as the basis for a homebrew class. Call it the "Conduit" or something. Subclasses could be something like Arcane, Nature, and Divine, borrowing the spell lists from sorcerer, druid, and cleric, respectively.

It's an extremely entertaining idea to change the spell casting system in this way. Especially the part about blood magic as well as arcane mishap table and options on nat 20. I see a couple of curious things with which the roll to cast system will work strangely. It turns out that the arcane trickster after level 11 is considered the most reliable caster since they will not be able to roll casting check below 14. Also, bards and warlocks, when receiving spells of the 8th circle and having learned glibness, will be able to spam high-level spells every turn. (because they will not be able to roll less than 15 + a spell characteristic modifier, which by that time is most likely at least 4).

This is a brilliant idea! I really like the feel for magic it creates. I think I would add a spell fatigue system though too. It would scale based on level but the more spells you successfully cast fills up the table with advancing negatives that are applied to the Spellcasting check.

Thanks for the vid! I’m about to run a wands and wizards home brew (Harry Potter style) and it didn’t make sense that they can only fire off a spell once till they rest in that world. I was planning on using a scaling value for the spells based on how long they have known the spell and this helps a lot.

We are sharing and magnifying our brain waves! 😃🙌 Love your implementation of roll-to-cast!

Removing proficiency from the check seems… very strange to me because it means you never get better at it, and seems like a massive flavour fail for the same reason.

This is awesome, i think i'm going to use this in my game. Thank you so much.

Great ideas. Hope to try these out at my table.

This reminds me of a homebrew system I use with one of my players. She's an alchemist artificer in a low-magic setting, flavored that her spells are cast through alchemically altered bullets, so rather than using spell slots, she can cast whatever she is able to create at the time--including one use of one spell up to one level above what she can normally cast. Unfamiliar to the stress of combat, she rolls on a d20 table to determine whether she grabs the correct bullet. This includes healing spells, which has (once) caused her to shoot a dying comrade point blank with a normal bullet. Hilarious and chaotic.

As someone who usually plays a caster class, this has me super intrigued. I like the modification to the natural spellcasting, as while it brings in more random chance, I agree that spellcasting shouldn't feel as mundane and carefree as it does in RAW. I have sent this to my group's DMs, and am hopeful to try it out in a one shot sometime very soon. And if they aren't up to it, well, this might just be interesting enough for me to go full Thanos and say "Fine, I'll do it myself" and finally jump into the DM seat for a one shot.

Just found your channel!!!!! This is amazing!!!!!

I really reallly like this idea! I would love a video simulating this combat for tutorial purposes!

I agree totally with the concept of there is no right or wrong way to play D&D. Making D&D unique and fun is paramount in my campaigns. Great video!

I love this. I prefer casters, but I prefer magic that is magical, rather than scientific. The blood magic really makes it for me. It rewards sacrifice without requiring it.

Fantastic. Great ideas, Thanks for sharing

This looks awesome!! Perfect for the campaign I'm writing

I like all of this stuff, couple other references and suggestions you may find value in. Consider mining the FFG WH40k rpg stuff for their Psyker mishap tables, they're awesome. RE: modifying the check, removing proficiency etc... Consider taking a look at Castles & Crusades for how that would work out math wise, their prime attribute vs non prime is mechanically like, a +6 I believe, which is kinda the difference you're talking about with removing the Prof bonus and lowering the difficulty, there's probably a lot of math that's been done on that. Another thing I always suggest regarding people using a straight d20 roll for "randomization". Stop. Something I noticed when I was building encounter tables for a sandbox game is the old AD&D encounters are based on a D12+D8 roll, which actually gives you a curve as opposed to a flat d20 roll, so a 2 and a 20 are actually more rare and thus can be weighted as such in regards to their results.

I am definitely intrigued and interested by this version of magic casting. There has always been something missing from Vancian casting systems, and your system seems to have a better flavor than RAW. I have a home-brew campaign I've been working on and I think I'm going to integrate this into the campaign.

Thanks for this video. Just discovered your site. Some interesting ideas and applications here.

I love these ideas and the blood magic is a cool concept.

In more flexible or homebrew games, this rule could help to improve the engagement. But I definitely know some players who would challenge this as being too novice friendly. Overall great idea and good to share with others.

How does this affect the balance between warlocks and the other casters? And what do you replace features like "arcane recovery" with?

Interesting concepts. I've used a blood magic caster at my table (I'm not a 5e DM) where blood could also be spent for other effects: rerolling the spell effects for either damage or whatever other chart might be being used for teleport safety, monster summoning, etc., but the costs are high in HP and characters have actually chosen to go into negative HP and almost die just to have a chance at casting teleport successfully. My system doesn't use Vancian rules for spellcasting either, though I don't mind that system since I started with it. It's just that for what I was trying to do I wanted something different.

Interesting idea for rolling to succeed instead of expending guaranteed spell slots. I won't be taking this system, but it did define what I've seen in other RPG's which have magic so I can better understand what magic systems are out there. Thank you for sharing.

This. Is. Amazing. I have been looking for a way to implement this kind of idea for a while, running 3.5 and I am absolutely putting this to use. Might even consider trying it out with the net library 10k wild magic tables.

This is excellent. Definitely adding this to the "homebrew I want to use in that campaign I want to run... someday" pile. In regards to caster power, I appreciate cantrips not scaling, removing one way in which they compete with martials, though not at low levels, which is fine. I have a few questions, though, and a couple of tweaks I'd suggest. My questions: 1) What damage type did you envision for the potential damage dealt after rolling a 1? I suppose you could just have it be undefined damage, but I think it would be cool and add an interesting angle if it did the same type of damage as the spell would normally do, if the spell has a damage type. This would give characters resistant to that damage type more incentive to pick those spells, and we always need more reasons for players to vary their spell choices. (I'm again saddened that no character is by nature vulnerable to damage types, as this would have added _another_ angle, both in character concept and in making hard choices during gameplay.) This does leave the question of what damage types to use if the spell has multiple, or none. 2) When you wrote "double the area" as one of the choices after rolling a 20, did you mean "double the number used to determine the area"? Since doubling the radius of a circle ups the area by considerably more than double, but having to calculate the exact shape of an area after it is doubled would be a pain in the arse. 3) How would you handle ritual spells, since with there being no spell slot to lose the advantage of casting a spell as a ritual becomes naught? I have an idea in that regard that I'll put into the tweaks section. 4) What about half and one-third casters? Surely a 5th level ranger shouldn't be able to cast 5th level spells? I'm guessing the way you'd solve this would be to let half casters cast spells equal to half and one-third casters cast spells equal to one-third their levels, rounded up or down. Multiclassing still needs to be solved, though, and the _number_ of spells they can cast per day should also be lower, somehow. My tweaks: 1) In regards to rituals, how do you feel about using passive skill checks to cast spells? In other editions (I can't remember which) you could "take ten", meaning you took ten times as long in order to automatically get a 10 on the roll, which the rules on passive checks ("Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly,", p.175 _Player's Handbook)_ seem to allude to. This would in essence give every spell a ritual version and make it the smart course of action for spells that have no time limit and you could achieve on average, as well as add flavour by reintroducing rituals into the game. If you want you could even increase the material cost (say, double, or staying on brand, by ten) if you want to discourage players using rituals to frequently bypass the risks of casting spells. And combining this with Blood Magic (as well as my tweaks to blood magic below) really puts the flavour into overdrive. 2) I'd move the bard from the tribute cost side to the arcane mishap side. I always felt what distinguished bards from other magic users was _how_ they manipulated the Weave - though art -, rather than them being beholden to some muse. That way you have clerics, druids, paladins and warlocks on the side that get their magic from somewhere else, be it gods, nature, oaths, or powerful beings, while on the other side you have artificers, bards, rangers, sorcerers and wizards (and Eldritch knights, Four Elements Monks and Arcane Tricksters), who learned to manipulate the Weave by themselves through various means, be it enchanting objects, art, natural concoctions, raw talent or study. 3) I think the Blood Magic system is mechanically sound, but a bit underwhelming thematically. It doesn't seem to me that blood magic should be something a caster dips their toes into every time they fail to cast a spell and think "Eh, I can spare the hit points." Blood magic seems like it should be a Big Deal. And one important element of Blood Magic seems to be missing: Using or sacrificing other creatures to increase your magical power, both willing and unwilling. I'd suggest not just removing hit points when using blood magic, but also decreasing the maximum hit points by the same amount until the end of their next long rest. That way a spell caster can't just heal back up after using blood magic, making it an even bigger decision to use it. And as for using other creatures, I'd suggest something like: "Damage to other creatures can also fuel spells. Every point of damage dealt that: * Is dealt during the casting of the spell; * Is dealt with the intention of fueling the spell; * Is dealt within five feet of the caster; * Is dealt to a creature that is not in combat with the damage dealer can be added to the roll of the spell, though not exceeding the damage necessary to reduce a creature to zero hit points. [To prevent 500 points of damage being done to a rat.] Damage dealt this way also reduces the creature's maximum hit point by the same amount until they finish a long rest." The only problem I foresee here is casters using their big beefy friends as volunteers to fuel their spells, at low risk to everybody involved, making me inclined to tie the amount of damage dealt to the hit die a character has and the number of points that can be added to the spell roll to the number of hit dice spent, or something like that, so that it is the amount of damage _proportional_ to the hit point maximum dealt that is relevant, rather than the absolute amount. But this would lead to killing a rat being equal to killing a character, which is not a good idea, so perhaps _both_ should be relevant somehow? I'd have to think about it. Other ways blood magic could be expanded would be other permanent problems (as well as power, perhaps) coming from overuse - you could tie dangers of using blood magic resurrections to this - and character classes interacting with it in different ways. The "classic" warlock and necromancer wizard especially seem like they should have features that interact with it. 4) There needs to be some way that the old amount of spell slots characters have become relevant. I already mentioned half and one-third casters, but especially relevant here is the warlock, who now feels the same as every other spellcaster in the number of spells they can cast per long rest. _Something_ needs to be added to differentiate them, but I don't know what. Perhaps warlocks always lose the spells they know when they cast them, but regain them on a short rest? That's all I have to say for now. Once I started new things kept popping into my head, so this comment turned out much longer than I expected. I hope the feedback is helpful, at least.

Great vid! I'd love to subscribe but I don't want notifications on youtube shorts. I don't get anything out of shorts. Great vid! Hope to see more full length videos like this with great substance

Forwarded to my DM- interesting! Thanks!

OK sharing a story. Druid. Had a hard day. Went back to the inn, said: "Right, I am taking a kitten break." Went to our room,' Summon woodland creatures, kittens' and laid down to have kittens playing all over him. Room service raw fish. Room service, bowl of milk. Kittens knocked over the bowl of milk. He looked down at the spilled milk and said; "Well there's no use crying over that." Whole table erupted in laughter. Oh we had a roll d20 system. Just like a physical attack 1 was a fumble, 20 was double damage. 1 was a backfire. Weird shit could happen. Like literally change the entire world as you are plane travelled. Very low chance. Unless the DM was bored or decided to have a little fun.

I always hated the way magic works RAR in D&D. {Witness, the door}: DM: Your way is blocked by a locked door. Barbarian: I smash it! DM: Okay, roll a strength check. Rogue: I pick the lock DM: Okay, roll a lockpicking check, Dexterity at disadvantage if you don't have any skill points Wizard: I cast 'Knock' DM: Okay, the door opens. {End scene} There's a discontinuity of rulesets here.

🎉 well done, Jake!

Another really interesting topic and definitely one of the reasons we removed spell slots and went with a mana system and spells being learned skills.

It’s definitely an interesting idea, I personally don’t see a world where I would use it. I find the combat system the one place i am not comfortable homebrewing

I like this, but I think I might only use it for Sorcerers. That might seem weird, but frankly the lore on sorcerers suggests that they shouldn't even know spells, they just do magic. I've never felt like the sorcerer was acting like what I was supposed to be. They can be powerful, don't get me wrong, but they also kind of feel like discount wizards with a neat trick. What I'd actually like to do is create a system where Sorcerers use their sorcery points to apply metamagics to a "working" and make a roll to see if that succeeds. (metamagics, and how many one could apply to one working, would be gated by levels, and include things like: Range increments, damage types, amount of damage [both amount of dice and degree of dice] condition effects, etc. So in theory you could sacrifice range, but make your touch range fireball do necrotic and do some amount of d10's instead of d6's, with a risk of some kind of magical surge. One would gain different unique metamagics based on one's bloodline, allowing them to create unique workings others could not) I also think all sorcerers should have wildmagic surge tables based on their archetype. However I don't have the time to create and test this complicated system. But the one you've provided feels unique enough that it might do a good job in it's place. Thanks!

I really like these ideas, thank you for the video! :) There was one thing I was thinking of when you talked about spell dc and how good you are at casting. What would you think of a "spell familiarity bonus" or something similar. If you have cast a spell a lot and under different circumstances, I think that should be rewarded, for that spell. If you have looser definitions of the spells the players would really be challenged to be creative with fewer signature spells, or just go all round but without that bonus

I love this idea! Definitely going to run it by my players and see if we want to use it in our upcoming campaign

I really like the idea of removing spell slots, as they've always felt unfitting for most fantasy worlds. However, I think keeping track of each spell and if you have it available or not is going to lead to a lot of book keeping, which is something I'd like to stay away from. Therefore, I've come up with an idea; what if you had a mana die instead? It would start at a d4, and whenever you reached a level in a spellcasting class that raised your proficiency bonus, it would increase by one; so at 5th level it would be a d6, and 9th level a d8, and so on, up to a maximum of d12. When you cast a spell, you would roll your mana die, and if you roll higher than your mana die, the spell fails unless you invoke blood magic, and in addition your mana die would drop one size. So for example, a 9th level caster would have a d8; if they wanted to cast a 3rd level spell, they would roll it, and on a 4 or higher they would cast it without spending resources. On a 1-3 they would need to use their blood magic or be unable to cast it, and regardless of their choice, their mana die would drop to a d6. They could still try to cast 3rd or even 4th level spells, but the chance of failure and dropping to a d4 would be much higher, causing a risk vs reward effect. I'd love to hear thoughts about the idea.

I genuinely love the idea but it feels unfair for a table. If you arent a magic user, you arent at risk using your abilities, unless you have a particularly cruel DM when it comes to NAT 1s. It seems unfair to have magic users be in the crosshairs of unpredicatable outcomes constantly, while non magic users dont have to. It feels like ultimately magic users are being punished for doing what they are supposed to. Is it fun and narratively interesting? Sure but after a time you'll probably get frustrated players.

I enjoy the initial concept of this home ruling but I feel there are perhaps a few other RAW points that may have been looked over. 1 - With the spell level being equal to caster level this means that core casters cap out at lvl 9 and give world ending magic to characters that are not even half way through their potential. In addition half casters would also drastically acquire spell power very early. 2 - You covered warlocks in your FAQ but may have glossed over the many conflicts this class would have in this system. Consider that warlocks have a forced spell level, so each spell no matter what has an overtly high casting check (in comparison to their counter parts). Admittedly this _may_ cause a balance by the spell slot limitation being removed but an unlucky warlock essentially becomes powerless by losing spell access to an already rather low spell pool while a lucky warlock becomes game breakingly over powered. (On a counter ruling of simply not have a forced level and casting at initial level, it takes away a large part of the intrigue of playing a warlock mechabically). Furthermore how would you handle evocation spells which give non spell slot use spells? Do these remain RAW? 3 - The clarifications/modifications to Arcane Recovery and Font of Magic seem uneeded and rather strict. Why not just retain their initial costs and allow recovery of lost spells of appropriate levels in place of spell slots? 4 - On the more facetious and not picking side, you covered spell attacks and saving throws against spell casting successes. However, this would only be if a creature's AC is _above_ the casting check? What if a casting check is higher than a targetted AC. Implying that a character rolls a check that would have hit the trarget AC but not meet the casting DC. (Ignoring the counter of why would one would cast a higher level spell on a low level or weaker creature). Further, not as much a balancing issue but on the reverse if a character succeeds a casting check but the roll would not it a creature's AC. While not a loss given the system it does seem to be rather dissapointing given that it is both a success and loss. 6 - Perhaps more lore/logic than mechanic but how would handle/rule/explain advantages? Ie. in the case of Faerie Fire one would have advantage on the attack roll, does this mean the casting check has advantage or that after making the cast check the caster may make a second roll for a hit? Same imlied on the reverse of disadvantage due to a dodge action. 7 - The nerfing of cantrips seems a bit unneeded. 8 - Causing spell loss inadvertently forces casters to pick more damage spells over utility ones seeing as should they lose access to a combat spell they become less and less useful throughout an encounter let alone an adventuring day. Although there are non damage spells that are useful inside a combat many other are solely for outside of combat. Admittedly while certain classes such as cleric, druid or wizard can overcome this in a way through their ability to prepare spells, classes with known spells will inevitably be forced to prioritize pure combat over interesting utility and role play spells.

Love the concept. I had done something similar by heavily modifying the wild magic table.

So there is no "right or wrong way of playing D&D"... but why don't you just play completely different system that actually reflects the way you want it to work? Dungeon World is very light system without a spell slots and with consequences of failed spellcasting roll. It's even more streamlined than 5e and is much easier to "balance out" these types of "hacks". Heck, it's even more moldable than D&D will ever be.

This is clearly a case of "just go play a different system".

Spellcasters in my campaign have been using your system to pretty awesome effect! One suggested an interesting addition that we're gonna try out: if you critically cast a concentration spell, you can choose to have it not require concentration. It becomes "set it and forget it", freeing you up to simultaneously have another concentration spell running. It also frees you from having to make concentration saves for that spell when you take damage. We'll see how it works out.

Interesting idea. I think it would work in a campaign where there may be more battles in a given in-game day, so having more resources is useful. But, if things go south it could really ruin a time-crunch campaign (where there is a time limit or the BBEG does the big bad evil thing). I mean, if you roll poorly then you could be losing spells left and right, and need to take the time to go recover them. One thing that would be issue for me is that it is taking a system that is already rather complicated, and making it more complicated. 5e seems pretty simple, but there are a lot of things that I have to keep double checking the rules because there is so much to remember, or behaviours are inconsistent between similar things. I personally was considering a complete overhaul of the 5e spells at one point, but eventually that led to me trying to find another system and then start designing my own system. This idea actually moved in a similar direction as my spell system... and has made me consider some further adjustment to mine. I have some 5e artifacts still left in my system that I didn't realize I could actually remove. I will spend time considering this...

This video should be called “why I haven’t figured out that I should play a different game so I am making a video about reinventing the wheel “.

Very clean, thanks for sharing, subbed,

Love this idea!!!! Going be trying it at my next game :-)

Very interesting. Thank you

This was an eye opener! I always disliked the kind of lack of randomness of magic, i'll add a tweak of this system in my homebrew ASAP!

Ngl, I love the idea and system and I'm definitely gonna use it in some future campaign but I have a few questions (I hope I didn't miss it in the video but I couldn't find anything in the document). How do you differentiate between different types of spellcasters? Does everyone get infinite casting with the drawback or do Warlocks keep their restricted casts? Also how do you rule Paladin smites since they usually cost spellslots?

Just discovered you randomly and I must say I love how professionnal your video looks and sound, and how succinct you are in your approach. You got yourself a new subscriber!

We totally agree, we went to a roll to cast system over a decade ago. It has been very well received. Rolling for spells allows for crit success, crit fail and of course success or failure. This adds great tension and great variety to playing a caster.

I like this, a lot! It feels balanced yet so simple. My only concern is the amount of damage from the mishap table seems a bit high for starting groups 2D6 damage and possible spell damage to everyone within range (i.e. probably most the group) could easily lead to a TPK. For my campaign, I might tone it down a little, but still a great concept. something I might allow is a savings throw to mitigate some of the damage.

Does this replace the attack/saving throw rolls or does this take place before/after that? Btw I love blood magic and your implementation is the most interesting one I've come across!

Wow, this is really interesting! I might try this in my game actually! 😃

I like that being able to pay the difference with HP. Good appropiation!

This is a solid idea, especially as a PF2e player where the 4 degrees on skill checks comes in and the system gives you a bit more numerical wiggle room to work with. This also gives you a neat way to add flexibility to spellcasting- the age-old "that spell doesn't actually let you do that, but..." conversation.

Reminds me a bit of arcane spell failure from 3.5. I do like the added risk reward element of wearing armor as a wizard.

Cool idea. Reminds me of Shadowrun drain. Or Tellah casting meteor.

Something I added to my 2e campaign (a quarter century ago) was rules for interrupting spells. In those days, a spell took time to be cast from the moment you started till the moment the effects came about could be several phases if not a full round depending on the spell. If a magic user began casting and someone did something to break their concentration, like shooting them with an arrow, or punching them in the face, or even just grabbing and restraining them, there was a chance that the ruined spell would blow up it everyone's face. The results often resembled something off the Wild Magic Table.

I like it. Rolling to cast makes me want to play Ars Magica. I love their magic system.

Great video!

You could even adjust the DC for each spell, like if your Wizard trains with magic missile a lot, you can lower the DC by 1. Or give out magic items, like wands and staves, that give like “+1 to casting Firebolt”. Sounds cool.

Been doing this for years!!! Sooo much better!!!

I use the spell points rule from DMG p288 It's just a lot better. You don't need to keep track of how many slots you have of Lv1, Lv2, Lv3 and so on. You just memorize how much they cost in points (wich is very easy. It starts at 2 and goes up by 1 each Lv, except 3, 6 and 9 where they go up by 2) and keep track of 1 big pool of that resource. It saves so much time and effort

Reminds me of a video where a guy made DND 5E combat a lot more risk reward where he drew inspiration from The Raid Redemption. I took on this idea for my campaign and now I'm doing it to you

this is such an interesting idea! it reminds me of my favorite part of the monster of the geek system that when you roll to cast magic, you can fail and the GM takes a hard move- it forces you to think about whether or not the risk is worth the potential reward- exactly what i find so intriguing about this d20 test element to casting!

This is similar to how Cypher System handles abilities and magic. You can eventually get to where you can use them as much as you want, but all abilities have a cost, and you have 3 pools to spend from; Might, Speed, & Intellect. Each ability pulls from a different pool and you can get better at spending from a particular pool as you go, but these pools are also your HP. If your speed hits 0, you can't physically move from where you are, might would remove the bonus to damage on attacks and you can't apply 'effort' to rolls (using from a pool to reduce the DC of a check) and intellect running out can mean you pass out, go into shock or become panicked. If all three pools hit 0, you're dead, no questions asked. And your enemies may not always go for only a single pool, I love catching my friend's big strong hunter off-guard with some 'psychic' damage straight at his INT pool when he gets cocky, and when they haven't built up that pool much they really feel it. I really like seeing them gamble on one last powerful spell that could leave them at death's door only to have it save the day. It feels a lot more dynamic and risky that way.

I just started running a d20 modern variant called Blood and Vigilance. It's a superhero setting, so they change the casting rules to something very similar to what you describe. It's a spellcasting check using knowledge arcane lore or knowledge philosophy and theology. It's one of the more interesting quirks of this system because it allows a spell caster to keep up with a superhero character.

This is how it also works in Dungeon World! For wizards, when they cast an arcane spell, they always need to make a roll, and there's no spell slots involved. There's 3 tiers of success: 1) success, 2) success at a cost, 3) failure. Even in failure, it doesn't mean that the spell isn't cast necessarily, but there's consequences. The Wizard might have to forget the spell for the day, take a minus, or the spell might go awry and cause problems itself. For success at a cost, there's the chance that the spell is forgoten, or not forgoten but a there's a -1 to future spellcasting rolls, etc.

You could still make use of the spell slots table with this as well. It's easier to cast if you've cast a number of times equal to or lower than what the spell slots table would normally allow, but once you go over it gets harder each time.

Yep. I pretty much use this same system in my home brew. I have used for a couple of years now. It works great and my players really like it.