I complain about D&D magic a lot, but haven’t really done anything about it. This post aims to address the mechanical issues I have with the magic system.
As a separate problem, I just don’t like most spells in D&D. The tone is off – it’s not the sort of magic you’d see on the screen or the page, while also being entirely toothless. It’s not dangerous weird – it’s sanitary weird, like a kids’ chemistry class. This is very difficult to fix without rewriting a ton of stuff. I’m not going to, and instead will play a different game, if the spell lists ever bother me that much.
The issues
Spell slots are terrible. They are confusing to explain and learn. The Finnish OGL game Legendoja & Lohikäärmeitä (Legends & Dragons) combines spell slots into a single magic point pool. Every spell then costs its level in magic points, use them as you like. You can get rid of the dumb daily spell memorization while at it.
Learning spells as you level up is an abstraction too far. Magic users should have to deliberately learn specific spells, finding them in grimoires or from a mentor.
Saving throws take the little that is fun out of magic. Great, you happened to have a useful spell for this occasion? Let me cancel that with a higher likelihood than not. Better to move the uncertainty on the caster: if they succeed with casting, much like an attack roll, let them succeed.
Binary magic doesn’t feel very magical. There needs to be variance built in. Shadowdark does cool things, with spellcasting failures causing you to be unable to cast that spell for the rest of the day, critical failures resulting in magical mishaps, and critical successes boosting the spells (double a numerical effect).
Casting spells
When you cast a spell, roll your spellcasting attribute (Wis/Int/Cha) + Proficiency bonus + D20. The DC is 10 + spell level. You get advantage if you can take your time (outside of combat, primarily).
On a success, you pay the magic points, and the spell’s effects take place. If the spell would grant saving throws to the target, ignore them. (To be determined in playtesting: is a separate attack roll ever justified? I think not, but might change my mind in play.)
On a failure, you don’t pay the magic points, but you can’t attempt to cast that spell again until a long rest.
On a critical success (natural 20), you do not have to pay the magic points, and you may double one of the spell’s numerical effects.
On a fumble (natural 1), you pay the magic points, and see below.
What this does is make using magic a little more reliable than attacking in most circumstances, but you also don’t really boost your chances at it a great deal as you level up. It should remain a little uncertain at all times.
Magical fumbles
Warhammer style catastrophic spellcasting failure doesn’t fit D&D, but a degree of danger would be welcome.
When you fumble a wizard spellcasting check (roll a natural 1):
Roll D6 to see what is affected.
If the result doesn’t apply (for example, there are no enemies in the vicinity), always default to targeting the yourself.
| D6 roll | What is affected |
| 1 | Yourself |
| 2 | Nearest ally |
| 3 | Random ally |
| 4 | Random enemy |
| 5 | Random bystander. If no bystanders, random background element |
| 6 | Random item in your possession |
Deal (spell level x spell level) damage to the affected thing.
Example: you fumble a third level spell. Roll 2 for “nearest ally”. Deal (3×3=) 9 points of damage to nearest ally.
This means that beginner magic users will at most harm someone with a mishap, and serious risk scales slower than ally HP. These are unlikely to be deadly outcomes unless someone is already weakened in combat. But the bystander and random item outcomes might cause a lot of complications.
Clerics don’t get random damage on a fumble. Instead:
When you fumble a cleric spellcasting check (roll a natural 1):
Pay the magic points without casting the spell, and you displease your god, and lose access to that spell until you make amends.
As a guideline, this will take the spell level in days of amends, or a single more high profile act in their god’s name.
Edit history:
April 20 2025: a friend pointed out that a Proficiency bonus would make more sense here than adding half of the caster’s level. I agree. I also got thinking about whether there are circumstances where a separate Attack roll would be required… I decided “no” for no, but have a feeling I might get back to that.
Leave a Reply