Spellcasting to HP damage

[Reinboom]

For you spellcasting centric players out there (referring mostly in the D&D sense), I would like to propose a hypothetical and then a question to follow.

Suppose you have a game system where spellcasting is nearly unlimited. All "at-will" in the sense of D&D 4E or Warlock-like in the sense of 3.5E. Do not make any assumptions as to the power level of this, only assume that it is somehow balanced. With this, also assume that one of the balance points was that you deal damage to yourself for spellcasting.
A more direct mechanic would be "When you would start to cast a spell, if you are not currently focusing magic, you must take 3 damage (unpreventable, unmodifiable, cannot be redirected) to start focusing. A magic focus lasts for 10 minutes. After that time, you lose your magic focus and must start a new focus when you decide to cast another spell (causing damage again)."

Now, the actual mechanics of this may be significantly different from this point (it could be 5 damage, or it could be damage per spell), and assume there is a decent plenty amount of HP to handle it. With the original (3 damage for 10 minutes of spellcasting), let's say... 20 HP is available from the start, 100 HP being about the high end, and there is ways to heal yourself each day (but nothing infinite).


To me, this mechanic is flavorful. However, when I started looking for overviews and character building on a system, I was greeted by a friend's mindset of (a friend who plays spellcasters quite a bit):
"If you take damage, you are doing it wrong [as a spellcaster]". I believe they were going for the mindset that "You play a spellcaster in order to avoid damage", however, I could not get a statement out of them that elaborated more.

With that hypothetical system and scenario given, would you as a spellcaster player like the trade off this system offers? That is, taking damage to cast spells.

So, opinions?

Edit in to reiterate want I am asking:
I would like to note that I am not asking for ideas, how to balance this (or what the balance points are), preexisting systems, or similar.

I am simply asking, how do you feel about taking damage as a spellcaster in order to cast spells?

[Jorda75]

As a player I have played a large number of wizard, sorcerers and so on, specifically in 3.5 D&D, and I can say from this perspective the trade off is not worth it until much higher levels. The easiest way to see where this system fails is at level 1.

Even if I play a dwarven wizard with a 20 constitution and the Toughness feat I will have a grand total of 12 HP at level one. This means that anyone with a greatsword, even with a 10 strength can potentially kill me in one hit. A well placed bolt from a crossbow brings me down to 2 HP and a simple dagger can reduce me to 1/3 HP with no strength modifiers. The idea of taking any additional damage, especially for spellcasting of any kind, seems like a terrible idea to me.

I would suggest a "fatigue" system that deals either subdual damage or perhaps it's own form of damage that leaves the spellcaster "winded" for a number of rounds, with penalties to attacks, Fort saves, movement, ect, depending on the length of casting, power of the spell, ect.

[lyko555]

Theres a class from a mongoose splat book Called the choas mage that uses spells that dmg your hp rather than take up slots.

[Snake-Aes]

I don't remember if it's True20, or StarWars d20 that did that, but spellcasting was, roughly, a spellcraft check that caused nonlethal damage.

Spells were few, using a build up not unlike the epic Seeds, and what gave an edge to actual casters is that they have a buffer of temporary hp to lose to spellcasting and an easier cost curve to augment those spells.

[Reinboom]

Even if I play a dwarven wizard with a 20 constitution and the Toughness feat I will have a grand total of 12 HP at level one.

Now, the actual mechanics of this may be significantly different from this point (it could be 5 damage, or it could be damage per spell), and assume there is a decent plenty amount of HP to handle it. With the original (3 damage for 10 minutes of spellcasting), let's say... 20 HP is available from the start, 100 HP being about the high end, and there is ways to heal yourself each day (but nothing infinite).

[subject42]

Theres a class from a mongoose splat book Called the choas mage that uses spells that dmg your hp rather than take up slots.

I've had a player that used the chaos mage from this book in a game once. It ended very, very poorly at higher levels.

[Ravens_cry]

I've had a player that used the chaos mage from this book in a game once. It ended very, very poorly at higher levels.

Are we talking Spell-to-Power Erudite poorly or Truenamer poorly?

[subject42]

Are we talking Spell-to-Power Erudite poorly or Truenamer poorly?

Generally speaking, he was absurdly overpowered because he had the versatility of a wizard combined with the flexibility of a spontaneous caster.

On top of that, there was some poor editing on the part of the publisher that resulted in him being a no-save stunlock machine.

The main problem, though, was that he existed in a state of binary usefulness. Either he was an UNSTOPPABLE MURDER MACHINE, or he would fail his caster check for the spell and be out of the fight.

On top of that, it really slowed down combat for him to calculate spell effect check DCs on the fly.

[mabriss lethe]

"The character's soul goes screaming into oblivion" poorly. That's usually the way it goes for a chaos mage at high levels.

But aside from the unfortunate path of chaos mechanic (your character is doomed to a horrid demise the instant he starts to use chaos magic), Chaos Mage is a good place to start from.

Have a peek.

[Reinboom]

I would like to note that I am not asking for ideas, how to balance this (or what the balance points are), preexisting systems, or similar.

I am simply asking, how do you feel about taking damage as a spellcaster in order to cast spells?

[Snake-Aes]

it can work.

[mabriss lethe]

Generally speaking, he was absurdly overpowered because he had the versatility of a wizard combined with the flexibility of a spontaneous caster.

On top of that, there was some poor editing on the part of the publisher that resulted in him being a no-save stunlock machine.

The main problem, though, was that he existed in a state of binary usefulness. Either he was an UNSTOPPABLE MURDER MACHINE, or he would fail his caster check for the spell and be out of the fight.

On top of that, it really slowed down combat for him to calculate spell effect check DCs on the fly.

When I DM a player who wants to use Chaos Mage, I insist upon him having a list of premade chaos spells with precalculated DC and a cheat sheet for modifiers.

It's not difficult to come up with some nasty mid level spells with DCs that you only fail on a 1 or 2, so the own/suck switch shouldn't be a problem (unless the player either doesn't understand how to tweak the system or doesn't care if he knocks himself out of the fight half the time by over extending himself.)

Chaos Mage should really be left to more experienced players.

[Jorda75]

Oh, uhh, it can work if you're high enough level and have enough hit points to support it and combat damage. Seems pretty obvious to me :P I think it's been done before in a few systems and in fantasy literature many many times over.

[Reinboom]

it can work.

I'm also not asking if it "will work" or not. I know it can work.

So you would have no issue playing such a spellcaster?
This is more a... psychological question than a game balance question.

Oh, uhh, it can work if you're high enough level and have enough hit points to support it and combat damage. Seems pretty obvious to me :P I think it's been done before in a few systems and in fantasy literature many many times over.

I would like to note that at no time did I specify this was D&D 3.5 and specifically emphasized the requirements for such an idea in to a hypothetical system.

[Snake-Aes]

I'm also not asking if it "will work" or not. I know it can work.

So you would have no issue playing such a spellcaster?
This is more a... psychological question than a game balance question.

no, not really. it's a common theme.

[subject42]

I am simply asking, how do you feel about taking damage as a spellcaster in order to cast spells?

I feel that it will end poorly for everyone else at the table. I would like to explain more, but you don't want that.

[Reinboom]

I feel that it will end poorly for everyone else at the table. I would like to explain more, but you don't want that.

Why would it end poorly?

[Jorda75]

I'm not saying it has to be D&D, or any system in particular, I'm saying it's not a new idea and since this forum is about role playing games and not hypothetical meta-game questions one should expect a reaction like the one I and several others gave.

Yeah it CAN work, I could make a magic system where magic requires eating grapes before casting or blowing up bunny rabbits in order to cast spells. Just because it can work doesn't mean it should be implemented. I'm not sure what kind of response you want here, yeah it can work, duh

[Makiru]

Your proposed magic system is actually very similar to that in the Slayers D20 book. I recommend checking that out if you haven't already.

[subject42]

Why would it end poorly?

Balancing casting on HP ends poorly because it's a binary state. Either you're fully alert, conscious, and capable of raining down EXPLOSIVE FIERY CATACLYSMS, or you're unconscious and unable to do anything at all.

Since out-of-combat healing is cheap and easy, there's no in-game reason not to go completely nova in every single fight in order to remove the threat as quickly as possible. It's basic good sense and it's immediately gratifying to do so. The only downside is it keeps other players out of the spotlight.

On the other hand, if you burn your HP, you're out of the fight. Since you have to plan encounter difficulty based on the strength of your total party, every other PC is now in a very bad place. Also, the HP spellcaster's player is likely to get bored and wander off to get a soda and some cheetos or something, so you'll have to break game flow to find him once the other players revive his PC.

If you have very careful, mature players, it can work, but I would be very leery of it.

[subject42]

Yeah it CAN work, I could make a magic system where magic requires eating grapes before casting or blowing up bunny rabbits in order to cast spells.

I also had a player try that system. I banned it after the first session due to complaints from my neighbors.

[Thinker]

@SweetRein:
I would probably play about as many spell-casters as I do now. Assuming it is balanced, I don't know why anyone would have a problem having whatever limit is placed on whatever archetype/class.

Balancing casting on HP ends poorly because it's a binary state. Either you're fully alert, conscious, and capable of raining down EXPLOSIVE FIERY CATACLYSMS, or you're unconscious and unable to do anything at all.

Since out-of-combat healing is cheap and easy, there's no in-game reason not to go completely nova in every single fight in order to remove the threat as quickly as possible. It's basic good sense and it's immediately gratifying to do so. The only downside is it keeps other players out of the spotlight.

On the other hand, if you burn your HP, you're out of the fight. Since you have to plan encounter difficulty based on the strength of your total party, every other PC is now in a very bad place. Also, the HP spellcaster's player is likely to get bored and wander off to get a soda and some cheetos or something, so you'll have to break game flow to find him once the other players revive his PC.

If you have very careful, mature players, it can work, but I would be very leery of it.

The OP did say that in this scenario things would be balanced. She was simply asking if you felt in a fully balanced system (where it was already accounted for that HP was taken so that you can cast), if you would play a spell-caster.

It's not that hard of a concept.

[arrowhen]

In Microlite20 you spend HP to cast spells.

I think it's a good idea, offering players a tactical decision between effectiveness and survivability. I'd like to see it extended to non-spellcaster classes too.

[Reinboom]

I'm not saying it has to be D&D, or any system in particular, I'm saying it's not a new idea and since this forum is about role playing games and not hypothetical meta-game questions one should expect a reaction like the one I and several others gave.

Yeah it CAN work, I could make a magic system where magic requires eating grapes before casting or blowing up bunny rabbits in order to cast spells. Just because it can work doesn't mean it should be implemented. I'm not sure what kind of response you want here, yeah it can work, duh

And I would have an issue with those magic systems because they do not invoke a very telling feel or style (or atleast, one I would be unwilling to play). I would question the reason why grapes or rabbits have any particular thing to do with magic and what the author was trying to accomplish. They do not refer to any written work that I am aware of, and they surely do not provoke a significant base line for new work (or give a compelling reason to).

I, once again, am NOT asking for the mechanical implications that such a system would have behind it. These points I can handle just fine. These points are what sets the condition of "can it work?" or not. Once again, not what I am asking.

I am asking, if there is any general mindset that would cause a player not to want to play such a caster on the simple grounds of "I do not want to take damage", and requesting the commonality or viewpoints on this mindset as I portrayed within the original post. Is this too difficult to understand?

In a forum about role-playing games, asking about the mindset that may be evoked out of mechanics of a role-playing game does not seem very off topic (read: at all) and doesn't lead me to believe I should get a storm of posters who neglect to read a post in its entirety. Of course, as this (the forum) is a group of people utilizing a web application that is built on the premise that others would indeed read and then write responses based on such reading and the grounds for topic given by that reading, I should definitely not expect people to read.

:edit:

@SweetRein:
I would probably play about as many spell-casters as I do now. Assuming it is balanced, I don't know why anyone would have a problem having whatever limit is placed on whatever archetype/class.

The OP did say that in this scenario things would be balanced. She was simply asking if you felt in a fully balanced system (where it was already accounted for that HP was taken so that you can cast), if you would play a spell-caster.

It's not that hard of a concept.

Thank you. For both a clear response and to fill in an answer there, I sort of felt like I was standing alone.

[Jorda75]

{Scrubbed}

[Eldariel]

I love paying for spells with health; it's very flavorful and allows for a logical "conversion of energies". Though I feel one must have the ability to also fuel magic with environmental or alternative power sources for this to truly work.

I actually like to allow casting spells with Constitution Burn in D&D; I feel it's not a terribly large boost but a very flavorful "Oh ****!" button. Works much better with Psionics and in general, point-based systems though.

[dextercorvia]

I love paying for spells with health; it's very flavorful and allows for a logical "conversion of energies". Though I feel one must have the ability to also fuel magic with environmental or alternative power sources for this to truly work.

Indeed, playing a spellcaster that fuels spells with his own health, it would be natural to wonder, "Is there a way around this?" leading eventually to, "Can I get someone else to pay the cost?"

[Dogmantra]

I think I would play a spellcaster as much as I do already, although I might be a little reluctant at first. It would obviously depend on the mechanics, but I think there'd be a sense of futility - the fighter can manage to avoid taking damage by either dodging, getting better armour, good positioning or any other mechanic that's part of the system and allows avoidance of damage, whereas the spellcaster can't avoid the damage. However, I also think that as long as it's well-balanced, that feeling wouldn't crop up very often.

[arrowhen]

It would help to think of HP less as "damage" and more as "a resource I can spend to stay in the fight and do cool stuff."

[subject42]

Now that you've edited your post a bit and it makes more sense on a second reading, I'll answer on more hypothetical, character-centric terms.

Please note that these arguments fall apart if you are using more than one tracking system for physical/spiritual damage.

If spellcasting does damage to your body, as represented by abstract hit points, it means that the best arcanists will be those people who are physically tough.

In the vast majority of cases, people are physically tough due to extensive training and exercise. They are generally stronger, larger, and better conditioned than normal people due to this constant training. Achieving such a state is time-consuming and fairly taxing, and you must maintain it, lest you atrophy back to a normal state.

Please note that this may be negated if a meaningful portion of the population is inherently very tough, in which case the rest of my argument is invalid.

While there is no real-world analogue, arcane mastery is almost universally portrayed in fiction and myth as a mental or spiritual pursuit. It is difficult to master and generally requires a considerable amount of time and effort to achieve any form of meaningful control.

Please note that this may be negated if all arcanists have an inherent, instinctive control of their abilities, in which case the rest of my argument is invalid.

If that is true, then most people in a game world are unlikely to have the time to achieve and maintain a state of physical toughness while simultaneously spending the time necessary to master the arcane arts.

Since simply casting a spell does HP damage, it may kill you outright. If that is true, then there is an implication that you must be fairly sound of body before you may even simply begin studying to be a mage.

Since building physical toughness tends to lend itself, even if only marginally, to pugilistic capability, it seems unlikely that someone who has worked themselves up into a superb specimen of physical might would be willing to give all of that up to figure out how to light a candle with their brain.

It seems a little immersion-breaking.