[3.5 , PF] Intentional Spell Failure

[Wannabehero]

Does anyone here have any experience with PC's needing to intentional cause their spells to fail Caster checks?

I envision a simple spellcraft check, though I am not certain of the DC. I am leaning towards a DC 15 + spell level check to intentional fail the caster check but still successfully cast the spell.

The situation has arisen due to a player wanting to intentionally fail using an erase spell on an explosive runes spell in order to trigger the boom when an enemy walks over the piece of paper innocuously left on the floor. I am very pleased with the player's creativity and willingness to not try and abuse this strategy, so I want to accommodate his request in a fair manner.

So, before I implement this houserule, I thought I would ask for some input from other players in the playground. How would you houserule this?

[Eloel]

Sounds fair enough, yet it IS a houserule. I like using a Wand of Erase & having Arcane Mastery feat to fail that check by RAW, leaving no space for 'Does it work this way or not?' myself.

[Milskidasith]

He can just dispel the runes for the same effect, and you autosucceed checks on your own spells. No need for a houserule.

[Ashtagon]

No reason you couldn't intentionally detonate an explosive rune enchaned object with an erase spell.

Just don't let them place multiple explosive runes on the same object. The normal interpretation is that the first rune detonating will automatically destroy any other runes that may be on the object. Otherwise, you open yourself up to 600d6 damage with an erase spell.

[Mulletmanalive]

He can just dispel the runes for the same effect, and you autosucceed checks on your own spells. No need for a houserule.

This statement makes no sense. You can dispel the spell by touching your own spell but that'll just cancel it. You can cast Dispel Magic, but you'll automatically cancel the spell, which stops them exploding. Only way to do what is being asked is to cast erase and fail the casting.

Based on prescident, in that you can purposefully fail a save, an attack and rolls to penetrate spell resistance if desired, there's nothing wrong with just letting him futz the effect. The Spellcraft check is fine if you want it but not really necessary if you're just going for consistency.

[Lysander]

Simple. Just use erase to get rid of just one of the runes in explosives runes (plural).

Or use a scrying spell to read them remotely.

[Wannabehero]

Thanks for the input folks.

I wasn't sure if the precedent of intentionally failing attack rolls and saves applied in this case, as intentionally failing a caster check still requires successfully casting the spell but miffing the power. The analog of auto-failing an attack roll or saving throw seems to me more the equivalent of going through the motions of a spell but fudging it so the incantation/gesture is wrong enough the spell doesn't activate.

But now that I think about it, creating potions and wands allows the caster to set the effective CL of the spell lower than their maximum, allowing players to make cheaper but less powerful items if they so choose. Whatever the process involved, that is a precedent showing casters able to power down their magic, making an erase spell of such insignificant power as to automatically fail the CL check seem possible.

Whether or not this powering down a spell requires significant effort and magical skill is the question. If it does, it should require a check to do while in combat or under stress. If it does not then it should be a freebe.

Because I have the player's assurance that he will not just prepare a hundred Explosive Runes traps before an adventure and be constantly dishing out 6th level equivalent fireballs for the cost of a 1st level spell, I think I am going to go with the suggestion that this be an automatic success and hope that it doesn't come back to bite me in the a**.

Edit:

Simple. Just use erase to get rid of just one of the runes in explosives runes (plural).

Oh, I see what you did there. Very clever. That further reinforces the "automatic" argument then I guess. :smallsmile:

[lightningcat]

If it becomes a problem, you could rule that to place a second explosive runes on a object would destroy the first.

BTW, why would they want to use erase with its range of touch, as it places them squarely in the blast radius, rather then dispel magic?

[Ashtagon]

If it becomes a problem, you could rule that to place a second explosive runes on a object would destroy the first.

BTW, why would they want to use erase with its range of touch, as it places them squarely in the blast radius, rather then dispel magic?

I'm guessing because they want to use 1st level spells to activate the runes, saving the high level spells for other uses.

[Wannabehero]

If it becomes a problem, you could rule that to place a second explosive runes on a object would destroy the first.

BTW, why would they want to use erase with its range of touch, as it places them squarely in the blast radius, rather then dispel magic?

He's not placing secondary runes, he's creating expendable magical command-detonated grenades out of parchment and a little pre-planning

Erase has a range of close 25ft + 5ft/2 levels. Double checking it now I see the little bit about needing to touch magical writing to erase it. That is going to throw a wrench in the works. Poor guy is going to be so bummed, he was pretty excited. He's going to need a Spectral Hand spell or equivalent to execute this little manuever.

Thanks for inspiring me to read the text a little closer.

Edit:
Upon thinking about it more, would failing to touch the magical writing of the Explosive Runes while casting an Erase spell on the writing count as an automatic failure that would trigger the spell? I'm currently inclined to rule yes.

[Ashtagon]

Edit:
Upon thinking about it more, would failing to touch the magical writing of the Explosive Runes while casting an Erase spell on the writing count as an automatic failure that would trigger the spell? I'm currently inclined to rule yes.

I'd say a definite no.

Note that the rules say that the runes detonate when read, or when a dispel magic or erasefails to remove the spell. Merely touching them has no effect. This also means that a non-intelligent creature, which can't actually read, will never detonate them.

In the case of an erase spell cast from afar, the magic never actually reached the runes in the first place, because magic writing is not a valid target for the spell unless touched.

[Wannabehero]

post removed

[Siosilvar]

I'd say a definite no.

Note that the rules say that the runes detonate when read, or when a dispel magic or erasefails to remove the spell. Merely touching them has no effect. This also means that a non-intelligent creature, which can't actually read, will never detonate them.

Braille explosive runes!