>What you didn't account for is that most offensive
>spells/communes have saving throws; most offensive skills
>don't.
>
>I don't really see a change as you're describing taking place
>without mages etc. taking a big jump up in power in other ways
>at the same time. Warriors are doing plenty fine.

I thought about that. First, as you note, it only deals with offensive. There are a whole host of spells/communes that aren't. Frankly a 5% chance of misspeaking a spell when putting up shields, stoneskin, etc. seems barely a burden, but more realistic and balanced. Likewise on things like teleport or word of recall. If it has that inherent "every now and then it fails" quotient, then a mage might die what, two? three more times in the course of a character, when it fails at just that critical moment? That seems fair as well, considering all the bashes and throws and everything else that just misses, despite being "perfect" at it.

Also, for the offensive spells, many of them are just damage spells and even saving doesn't stop the spells, you just take less damage.

The remaining ones, like poison or other work/notwork spells, many of the warrior counterparts are equally "saveable" by gear or other methods.

If you want, why not make it for those non-offensive spells? I think it should be for all, but compromise is compromise, as they say. And warriors may be doing plenty fine, but so are mages and communers. Warriors and fighter classes spend a lot of time trying to get those skill up. But their 100 is a lot less meaningful than the mage/communer. Making them a bit more alike seems both fair, and good for the game. Why should the mage/communer have an automatic machinelike ability? Characters are are still mortal and can make mistakes. They shouldn't be outside that.