The Campaign Builder's Guild

Some of you may remember or have participated in this thread (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?51574), in which I basically said we should throw abilities out the window as redundant.  A stimulating discussion followed and many interesting points were made.  The original point was made in part for the sake of argument, but I did mention near the end that:

Quote from: CaveatWhat I have in mind is not a modification of D&D, though as D&D is nearly the sum total of my gaming experience it's inevitable that what I propose will resemble it.  I generally use terms (like "rank") in the same way, but this is not a d20 variant system.[/note]
I'm well aware that with my extremely limited knowledge of gaming systems that I may well be re-inventing the wheel.  I make no claims to originality or innovation here.  What I've got in mind is by no stretch of the imagination a finished product, but maybe something will be gained from presenting something a bit more tangible than I was able to give in the thread that prompted this one.
[note=Acronym]"NTSA," if you were wondering, stands for "Not This Shit Again."[/note]
Attributes

I have not ditched abilities entirely.  They are present in the form of attributes.  Which attributes doesn't matter terribly at this point, but let's begin with a matrix I rather like.  They should be fairly self-explanatory.

Strength*Stamina*Coordination*Perception*Cunning*Aptitude*Charm

Skills and Synergy

The attributes are end products, meaning that you don't put any points into them.  Rather, their values are determined through other means.  For a PC, they are assumed to "start" at +0.  What we really need to start with are skills.  Let us give an example skill:

Ranged Combat (Per|Coo)

Every skill, including the one above, is keyed to two attributes.  The one listed first (Perception) is the primary attribute, and the one listed second (Coordination) is the secondary attribute.  Skill checks are handled like so:
[ic=Skill Check]# of points in skill + Primary Att. + Secondary Att. + 1d6 = Result[/ic]I have chosen to base this system on the 1d6 not so much for reasons of ease (since I don't expect to play with people who lack non-cubic dice, and in any case anybody can just use a dice roller on their computer for free), but because I want to reduce the amount of luck involved.  I'm interested in a setting where rolling is more strategic, and characters look to rack up circumstantial modifiers rather than waiting for that high dice roll.

But let's return to attributes.  A skill's Primary Attribute determines what category it is in.  Ranged Combat is defined as a "Perception Skill" because its Primary Attribute is Perception (simple, no?).  And here comes the synergy:
[ic=Rule of Categorical Synergy]For every 5 points a character possesses in skills of a certain category, the attribute linked to that category is increased by 1.[/ic]In other words, if a character has 5 points in Ranged Combat, their Perception is increased by 1.  They need not spend it all in one place, however.  The same character could instead put three points in Ranged Combat and two points in Observation (Per|Sta), and this would also increase Perception by 1 because the total ranks add up to 5.

Thus, spending points in skills of a certain category will boost your abilities in all skills of that category - if you hone your abilities of perception through archery, you'll become a better observer as well.  The implications go beyond that, however, because of Secondary Attributes.  Consider the skill Evasion (Coo|Per).  Evasion is a Coordination skill, not a Perception skill, but its secondary attribute is Perception, so an increase to Perception by buying Perception skills will also increase a character's Evasion roll.  In other words, Evasion is considered primarily a skill that uses and trains physical reflexes, but a character who is very perceptive will find that their Evasion attempts benefit from their perceptiveness as well.

General Rolls

Abilities are nice because they allow you to perform tests "raw;" that is, without skills.  Sometimes a skill just doesn't make sense in a situation - kicking down a door should rely on brute strength.  Adding a "door kicking skill" or any other skill for any conceivable general task would quickly make the number of skills unmanageable.

Such "general rolls" can be easily accomplished with NTSA by simply using the raw attributes.  The advantage here is that, while you can't put skill ranks into "door breaking," putting ranks into Melee Combat (Str|Cun) or other Strength skills will build up your door kicking ability through Categorical Synergy.  Every 5 ranks in Strength skills increases your Strength by 1 - that's not a bonus to other Strength skills, but a raw bonus to Strength, and so it applies to general rolls as well.

Projections and Talent

As young adults setting out in the world with high hopes but not much practical experience, typical new adventurers using NTSA will rely heavily on their racial bonus.  Low-level members of a "strong" race will actually be stronger than others, not just "stronger on average."  As characters gain experience and skill, they further differentiate themselves from the pack, either specializing in one or two skill categories or training their attributes more broadly.

NTSA renders rolls and point buy of abilities irrelevant, but a GM can still tweak the power level of a campaign by altering how many skill points are assigned by level.

An objection made in the previous thread was that abilities were necessary because skills reflected only learned skill, and did not reflect innate talent.  Without set attributes at the beginning of the game, then, all characters would be "clones."  I don't find this argument compelling because I feel giving a "talent bonus" is not any different than assigning skills (and thus synergy bonuses) at 1st level.  While it's true that characters at first level are going to be closer to each other in terms of skill and bonuses, this isn't terribly unique to the system, and I don't see any particular problem with it.

Closing Thoughts

Obviously this is not a full system, though I've fleshed out a lot more myself.  The idea is rather to get feedback and opinions on the "skeleton" of the system, a product of the "ability-less" discussion but also one that is perhaps less radical and more accommodating than I originally proposed.  I believe it answers the tentative criticisms about skill bloat and synergy bloat; that is, the system does not necessarily require any more skills than any other system, and there is no need to balance a whole web of very narrow and specific synergy bonuses.

I might have to steal this, as it is very good.

This looks pretty neat, and i think it should be able to handle as you only have to do the math whenever you gain new skill points, so with a sufficiently organized sheet it should be no problem. I love the idea about trying to remove abilities (you might remember that i was one of the people who often took your side in the aforementioned thread), and although you still have abilities, i like the way you've connected them more innately to skills. The synergy mechanic is elegant and nicely made, although I'm afraid that it might get a bit out of hand with enough skill points: with a high enough bonus most difficulty ratings become obsolete. How many points do you imagine a character starts with? (also, aptitude=intelligence?)
I saw a small RPG that also had a lot of interplay between abilities and skills (actually, the abilities were used directly for skills) so you might find this http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/assassinx interesting. Or maybe not. I just remembered it.
An idea: Maybe focusing on one synergy would limit you in others? Or vice versa, if you want to limit the characters' options to focus on a single attribute.

I like this. Though personally, I'd rather have more than a 1d6 roll... Maybe have 3d6 for the sake of a curve and award people more skill points. skill points would still be the primary factor (instead of luck) and characters could start play a great deal more differentiated from one another numerically.

Also, everything starts at +0... what about people who are really bad at something? just curious.

My guess would be some kind of limiting trait? Maybe it gives you more skill points to spend elsewhere or some such. And i think that even with 3d6 a lot of it boils down to luck. With Standard+1d6 you have a minimum that you can't get below, and you can't be vastly better. I recently came up with the concept to use Standard+1d10-1d6 which gives a pretty interesting division of chances and a range from -5 to 9, with around a 25 % chance of getting negative, a 50 % chance of getting a bit more than standard and a 25 % chance of getting a good deal more.

Or you could have +1d4-1d4 and write it so skill totals go from about 5 to 15. Unskilled characters roll 1-9. Skilled characters roll 11-19. Whatever your skill it's a bell curve with your level of skill dead center.

I'm just sayin' 1d6+ some pretty steep looking mods might be rough to write for.

Quote from: intelligence?)[/quoteBasically.  I differentiate between "Aptitude," which is basically your ability to learn, process, and understand new information, and "Cunning," which represents ingenuity, intuition, and "mental reflexes."  Aptitude will probably end up giving you a boost to skill points in some way, as it reflects your learning capacity.

Quote from: beejazzI like this. Though personally, I'd rather have more than a 1d6 roll... Maybe have 3d6 for the sake of a curve and award people more skill points. skill points would still be the primary factor (instead of luck) and characters could start play a great deal more differentiated from one another numerically.

Also, everything starts at +0... what about people who are really bad at something? just curious.

I should probably have added that I want to introduce a "focus point" (kind of like action points) system that allows characters to add one or more dice a limited number of times per encounter.  As for the number of skill points awarded, I still haven't decided that, and in any case it should probably be linked to the cap (which I also haven't decided).  I'm not necessarily averse to increasing the amount of dice, but I want to avoid a huge potential range that makes modifiers subordinate to the roll.

As for +0, there can certainly be negative modifiers, including negative racial modifiers if your species just sucks at something - but 0 in NTSA is conceptually the same as 8 in D&D; it's the low baseline of PC scores (at least, 8 is the baseline in most point buy systems for D&D I've seen).  If your PC is really uniquely bad at something (eg. blind), I believe that can be covered with ancillary traits.

Creatures that are weaker than PCs will just have substantial negative racial modifiers, similar to how it works in D&D.  Unlike d20, however, there is no lower limit to attributes, so you can make some really harmless creatures if you like!

Hmm, i don't have that much to comment on yet. Is your system original in any specific ways beyond skills/attributes (not that that isn't quite a lot). Otherwise i'll just wait for you to post some more :)

- Nomadic Dwarf has been interrupted by a carp
- Nomadic Dwarf admires a masterwork thread

That's all I have to say about that. I am a bit like CC... gotta wait for your next post for any in depth commenting.

More on Skills

Coming up with a skill list that is both comprehensive and concise is a task in itself.  This isn't at the top of my list of things to do, but here is an illustrative list of skill examples for all categories.
[spoiler=An Example of Skills, by Category]

Melee Combat (Str|Cun)*Throwing (Str|Coo)*Jumping (Str|Coo)

*Climbing (Sta|Str/Coo)*Swimming (Sta|Str)*Survival (Sta|Apt)

*Evasion (Coo|Per)*Stealth (Coo|Cun)*Balance (Coo|Sta)

*Observation (Per|Sta)*Ranged Combat (Per|Coo)*Tracking (Per|Cun)

*Gaming (Cun|Per/Apt)*Feint (Cun|Coo)*Bluff (Cun|Cha)

*Crafting (Apt|Coo)*Herbalism (Apt|Per)*Rhetoric (Apt|Cha)

*Negotiation (Cha|Per)*Intimidation (Cha|Str/Cun)*Perform (Cha|Coo)

[/spoiler]
You'll notice that some of these skills have more than two attributes listed.  When attributes are separated by a slash (e.g. Str/Cun) it means that either one of these may be used for the skill roll.  Only Secondary Attributes can be divided in this way, because having a skill's category subject to change would become very confusing very quickly.

Which secondary is used depends on the skill's own description.  Climbing and Gaming, for instance, use whichever is highest.  Intimidation, on the other hand, forces characters to make a choice as to whether they are intimidating the target through physical threats or through less direct, more 'cunning' means.  A character who wants to intimidate somebody without roughing them up might want to use Cunning even if their Strength is higher.

I think it's wise to keep these "alternate secondary attributes" to a minimum as to not add too much complexity, but because secondary attributes don't change a skill's category, giving players a few more options won't require much extra number-crunching.

Skill Caps

The function of the skill system in NTSA is not to encourage "maxing out."  I want to encourage "broad" builds and discourage "narrow" ones.

As it stands, however, putting ranks into a skill directly is 6 times more efficient than buffing a skill with synergy from other skills.  This can be somewhat ameliorated by decreasing the iteration of Categorical Synergy (that is, reducing the number of ranks per attribute bonus to 4, or 3, or less), but that has the side-effect of causing a much faster rate of advancement, something that I want to resist.  I think a cap of some kind has to exist, because incentives/disincentives can only go so far.  Additionally, caps solve another problem, that of underpowered skills.

In the majority of campaigns, Evasion will always be more commonly used than Rhetoric.  Evasion is the first line of defense against traps and missile weapons and can be used against melee attacks as well (though its utility in this regard is a bit limited).  I don't think it's realistic to balance the uses of all skills, and even if I could in some prototype campaign, campaigns always vary.

It's still important to make sure players spend points in underpowered skills.  Categorical Synergy is helpful here, because no skill point is ever a "waste."  Caps are also helpful, because when someone hits the cap with more widely-used skills, they are forced to look elsewhere to spend their points.  Hard caps, however, have the tendency to seem arbitrary, and if they're too low they prevent characters from really specializing in things.  The result is the Soft Cap Rule:

[ic=Soft Cap Rule]A 'soft cap' for skills is set at 1+Level.  A character can buy ranks over this amount, but all ranks past the cap are not counted towards Categorical Synergy.[/ic]
Thus, you can buy 6 ranks in Melee Combat (Str|Cun) at 1st level, but only 2 of those ranks will count towards increasing your Strength attribute.  A character who spends those 6 points on 2 ranks in each of 3 Strength skills will get a +1 bonus to Strength, effectively giving them +3 in 3 skills where the first character only gets a +6 in one.  This allows a character to get really specialized, but the more specialized he becomes the more Categorical Synergy he misses out on, and specialized builds are thus less efficient overall.  In the example I just mentioned, the 'broad' character gets to apply that +1 Strength bonus not just to those three skills, but to all Strength skills, all skills with Strength as the secondary attribute, and all Strength general rolls.

As the soft cap increases, those ranks will start counting for synergy again, but the character who burns 6 on Melee Combat will have to wait for level 5 before all those ranks get counted (and this assumes he's not putting more ranks into the skill in levels 2-4).  He doesn't 'lose' anything permanently, which is good, but he's made his build less efficient for levels 1-4 in exchange for an impressively high Melee Combat skill early on.  This might be a no-brainer if he's a pit fighter who does that for a living, but as an adventurer in a well-rounded campaign, he will be paying for that advantage for some time.

This also helps GMs make skilled NPCs without giving them ridiculous levels.  No longer do you have to make a 10th level blacksmith just to get enough skill points to feasibly make full plate armor; your blacksmith can be, say, 2nd level and just sink most of his points into the applicable skill.  It's an inefficient build, but a village blacksmith only really needs to be a blacksmith '" synergy with Melee Combat and Throwing probably isn't very important to him (or to the GM).  All this would be impossible with a hard cap.

A "high hard cap" might still be a good idea, however, to avoid patently ridiculous skills.  Something like this:
[ic=Hard Cap Rule]A 'hard cap' for skills is set at 5+Level.  A character cannot buy ranks over this amount.[/ic]
That limit may be raised later; this is all tentative.  I don't think it's a very onerous hard cap, however, because I don't imagine many characters will ever reach it - 4 ranks uncounted for Categorical Synergy is a pretty big deal.

As Long As We're Talking About Levels'¦

I have designed NTSA as a level system.  This kind of system doesn't strictly need to be a level system - I imagine you could just directly assign skill points at the end of an adventure or gaming session.  Levels, however, allow you to easily track progress and provide a basis for the soft cap, and are useful for comparing NPCs and monsters to each other and their PC rivals.

I am a proponent of free-form experience, and my recommendation would be for levels to be based on adventures completed and challenges overcome.  Ultimately, the GM needs to decide how quickly he/she wants character power to grow, and should assign levels accordingly.

Classes and Traits

NTSA has, at this point, little need for classes.  There are no "cross-class" skills, which I see as unnecessarily limiting of character choice - any character can take any skill.  Additionally, functions that are traditionally delegated to classes in d20 have either been devolved to skills (e.g. attack bonus) or no longer exist in this system (e.g. saving throws).

Class abilities can also be duplicated through Traits, which are NTSA's equivalent of Feats.  Characters in NTSA gain one Trait per level (which is another reason the system has levels).  Traits will eventually be organized into progressive "trees," and have various rank, level, and attribute requirements.  My hope is that this will allow characters to fully customize their abilities and be the kind of character they want to be without being restricted by class or being forced into archetypes that they aren't necessarily interested in.

Closing Thoughts

I didn't set out to make NTSA classless, but it seems to be the logical choice given the re-emphasis on skills.  The challenge here will be to make sure enough Traits (and to a lesser extent, Skills) exist to allow players to play their concepts.  For now, however, I will be staying away from a comprehensive list of Skills and Traits and continuing focus on the core mechanics.

The elephant in the room here is 'how many skill points per level?'  I'm not prepared to answer that yet, in part because I don't know exactly how many skills there are going to be.  I'm not interested in the d20 system of front-loading skill points (quadruple at 1st level) because that is specifically designed to facilitate characters 'maxing out' on d20's hard cap.  Any number I would choose would be consistent for each level.  As a placeholder, I've been using 10 points per level for my own internal character generation, modified by the character's Aptitude bonus.

That may turn out to be too much power for Aptitude, but that will depend on how useful Aptitude turns out to be '" if most Apt skills are fairly esoteric or have select, narrow uses, it might be a fair trade to have Aptitude modify skill points per level.  If Aptitude skills are broadly useful and very competitive, there is a risk of Apt overpowering the other attributes.  I don't want to end up with a 'Charisma situation' where a certain attribute becomes a typical dump stat (or the reverse, where an attribute becomes indispensable).

Quote from: PolycarpThis can be somewhat ameliorated by decreasing the iteration of Categorical Synergy

writes[/i] this crap anyway? :blah:

Combat, Part 1

Objectives of Combat

I have a few basic objectives in mind for NTSA combat.

*Firstly (and obviously), I want combat to center around opposed rolls with combat skills.  Externalities to the skill system (stuff like base attack, AC, hit points, etc.) should be kept to a minimum, and if they do exist they should modify skills rather than standing alone.*Secondly, I want combat to be less about individual blows, parries, etc. than who has the advantage in combat at any given moment.  Advantage should compound '" that is, the weak get weaker '" but there should be mechanics that enable a character to make a comeback and turn the tide.  We've all seen action sequences where some guy is really beating the pulp out of the hero, but the hero 'focuses his thoughts' or 'unexpectedly throws the guy' or 'breaks a vase over his head' and regains the initiative.  It's that kind of shifting advantage that I want to achieve.*Thirdly, I'm seriously considering making NTSA combat more simultaneous instead of turn-based within a round.  This ties in with Objective #1, because attacks aren't just rolls against someone's static defense (like AC), but something that they oppose.*Fourthly, while I'm not a fan of super-streamlined mechanics, I am wary of complexity and want to make something that can be understood and duplicated readily.

But first, it's necessary to build up our basics.

Fatigue

NTSA does not have hit points as such.  Instead, damage is dealt in terms of Fatigue Points.  Every FP that a character takes incurs a -1 penalty to all skills and general rolls.  Fatigue points are cumulative, so a character with 3 FPs has a -3 penalty.

Every time a character receives one or more FPs, he must make a Stamina general roll against a TN (target number) equal to the number of FPs they have.  With one FP, this is easy, but since FPs also decrease your general skill rolls, a character who racks up a lot of fatigue will find it more and more difficult to deal with it.  If a character fails one of these checks, he succumbs to fatigue and falls unconscious.

Being hit in combat is not the only way to take FPs; some strenuous actions and Traits deal fatigue damage or require a character to spend FPs to achieve a certain result.  Fatigue damage from any source always stacks.

If a character is unconscious, and takes further fatigue damage from an attack, he dies.  There's no way around it '" you can easily execute a helpless character who has collapsed from exhaustion.  This does mean, however, that it's impossible to 'accidentally' kill someone in normal combat, which makes non-lethal combat a more viable option for characters inclined to take prisoners or just avoid causing unnecessary death.

A character loses accumulated FPs at the rate of 1 per hour of rest, which is defined as non-strenuous activity that makes you less tired, not more tired.  Hiking through a jungle is not restful; taking a casual walk through your garden is.

Focus

On a conceptual level, focus essentially represents mental concentration.  Expending it represents moments of supreme mental and psychological exertion '" essentially, raw will in a moment of insight driving a person to greater heights of ability.  Depending on the setting, this may be treated as mundane (grit and determination in a crisis) or pseudo-magical (chi or a sorcerer-like supernatural exertion of will).

In NTSA, focus has two primary uses.  Firstly, it can be used rather like 'Action Points' in d20 variant rules (that is, it can be used to add dice to rolls).  Secondly, it replaces many of those 'use/day' things like class abilities and spell uses - most 'special abilities' use focus, or allow a character to expend focus to get more use out of them.

Focus tends to be more 'mental' while fatigue is more 'physical' (though there is a substantial crossover).  Using a physical trait (for example, something like barbarian rage) might inflict some amount of fatigue damage as a cost, or inflict temporary fatigue damage that lasts for X rounds.  Using a spell might require X amount of focus, or force you to make a skill or general roll to avoid losing X amount of focus.  The most important difference is that a character has a set amount of focus that is depleted through use, while a character starts with 0 fatigue but builds it up through combat and trait abilities.

[ic=Focus]A character has Focus equal to 2 + Level + their Cunning attribute.[/ic]
Focus is regained with a more or less 'normal' amount of daily rest; for humans, that's about 8 hours of reasonably restful sleep, but it may vary for other creatures, and GMs should not be in the practice of penalizing players for only getting 7 one night.  A character that expends all their focus for the day is not fatigued, but has done a lot of difficult concentration that day and may be a bit 'frazzled' or mentally strained.  They can function normally but are unable to 'push themselves' beyond their normal limits.

The Second Wind

An important mechanic in combat is the Second Wind, which is basically a Trait that every character gets.

[ic=Second Wind]At the end of any round, a character may spend 2 Focus to reduce their number of Fatigue Points to 0.  This ability can only be used once per day.[/ic]
Second Wind allows a character to use their will-power to overcome exhaustion and stage a comeback '" but it can only be used once per day, so a character must decide carefully when to use it.  Too early, and a character may waste it on a comparatively inconsequential fight.  Too late, and a character risks failing a Stamina check and passing out before he's able to use the ability.  Characters must also decide whether to keep 2 Focus in reserve in the event they might need it for this ability, or use it to power some other spell or trait.

Second Wind is generally something reserved for PCs and NPCs/monsters of importance.  It allows for some tense moments and cinematic reversals, but that can become tedious if every goon and random encounter has it.  On the other hand, if the goons in question go down in one hit, they won't be able to use it anyway.

Causing Damage

Fatigue damage is caused by weapons (among other things).  In general, bigger weapons cause more damage, 1d6 being the largest number.  6 is a lot of FP, considering that this equals a -6 penalty to all rolls and then requires a TN 6 Stamina check at -6 to stay conscious (in other words, getting a 12 on an attribute check, which is impossible unless you've got serious modifiers or you're using Focus) '" but this is equal to getting an incredibly direct hit in the [insert vulnerable area here] with a claymore, and it's wholly justified that such a blow would take you down.

It should be considered, however, that NTSA is a system that uses armor for DR, and so in practice 6-FP hits are quite rare.  A character wearing heavy armor may actually end up with a higher DR than a weapon's normal maximum damage.  There are some limited ways to get around this, but it's entirely possible that a character with the right type of armor against the right type of weapon could be totally invulnerable (barring a critical hit, which ignores armor DR).  My advice would be to find a more appropriate weapon or back off.

Wounds

I find complex localized wound systems in general to be distracting from combat '" sure, the hit point system gets a lot of flak, but at least you don't have to stop the action to roll on a table every time you get hit to see if you lose an earlobe.  On the other hand, however, it may strain credibility to take a bardiche to the dome, pass out, and wake up a few hours later with no ill-effects save being a bit tired.

The basic NTSA combat system assumes most hits are the theatric kind '" glancing blows, flesh wounds, getting the wind knocked out of you, and so on, and that damage can be abstracted as fatigue.  In the case of a blow that forces a character into unconsciousness, however, I can see the realism advantage of having more serious effects.

[ic=Wounds]If a character fails a Stamina check caused by receiving Fatigue damage from a weapon, and that damage is at least 2 FP, the character takes a Wound.[/ic]
The '2 FP' thing is to prevent characters getting disfigured by minor, 1-FP hits.

So, what is a wound?  Well, in an ideal situation I'd have a nice table to show you, with things like skill penalties for getting your arm lopped off.  I don't, however, as that's the kind of thing that's essentially 'flavor,' not core crunch '" and since it's not essential to the combat system, I won't give it much more attention.  Because wounds are 'compartmentalized' and not integral to other parts of the system, it's possible to insert your own wound table depending on how badly you want your characters to savage/be savaged.

I would find it totally justified if a GM running a more heroic, less brutal campaign decided to get rid of wounds and deal solely in abstracted fatigue damage.  My present campaign world is one in which one of the standard PC races can regenerate limbs, however, and I'll be damned if I don't find a way to work that into the system somehow.

Closing Thoughts

There's more to combat, of course, but I've addressed here the issues of damage, death, and fatigue '" essentially, the results of successful combat.  With a basic skill system, and a way of quantifying damage, what we have left is to link the two together '" and indeed, the next installment will detail how one deals damage with combat skills.

I've mentioned 'theatrical' a few times, and in case it's not obvious yet, that partially describes the direction I want to go here.  Stunning recoveries, reversals, and surprise comebacks are all things I want to see in combat.  Still, you shouldn't take 'theatrical' to mean light '" NTSA has the potential to be brutal to characters.  If you go up against a halberd-wielder with no armor and he gets a high-FP hit, you're probably going down regardless of what your level is, and on the next round he gets to auto-kill your dumb self.  Focus can help swing the odds in your favor and Second Wind gives you a 'second chance' to win or get the hell out, but these aren't inexhaustible resources.  My goal for NTSA is to treat characters like the mortals they are '" they may be very skilled and able to awe simple folk with their abilities, but they still bleed just like anybody else.

I must give credit to Luminous Crayon (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?50644) and Snakefing (http://75.70.105.39:8080/gamewiki/GameSystemCombat), whose work in the links provided was invaluable to me.  My influence from those sources may not always be immediately obvious, but 'Aha!' moments were definitely had while reading them.

On an unrelated note, I'm thinking of renaming Traits to Talents.  It seems more apt.

Hmm, just an idea from the Unhallowed Metropolis system concerning wounds: there wounds deal penalties to begin with according to severity, but after battle, the very severe wounds become specific when examined by a doctor. So in the combat he takes a very severe wound and a -3 penalty from it. After battle he is inspected and they discover that he has a broken rib/whatever and the -3 penalty goes away and is replaced with a specific penalty. This keeps combat from getting messed up by having to consult tables. Of course, the specific penalty might be higher/lower than the general one but this can be ascribed to shock/adrenalin.

Combat, Part 2
No, I'm not done with this

Actions in Combat

As noted, combat is resolved with opposed rolls.  Opposing a combat roll represents a character responding to the attack in some way '" blocking, dodging, hitting back, changing stance, and so on.  The system is very loose conceptually '" if you lose a Melee Combat role, it doesn't necessarily mean you missed with your strike.  Maybe an opportunity to make an effective attack simply never arose.  The point is that, especially in melee combat, it's mostly about gaining advantage until damage can be done, and the GM (not to mention the players) has wide latitude when it comes to describing it.

A character is not limited in the number of 'attacks' he can make, because as mentioned, combat rolls don't necessarily denote attacks (a combat roll that leads to damage could be described as one great blow or a series of smaller ones; it makes no practical difference).  A character can use an unlimited number of combat skills per round, with the following restrictions:

A character may not use more than one combat skill on any one opponent in a single round.
*For each combat skill used in a round beyond the first, the character receives a -1 penalty to all skill checks in that round, combat or otherwise.
*Multiple Ranged Combat and Throwing checks

can be made against the same opponent in a round, but a character is limited to two Ranged Combat and/or Throwing checks in one round.
*A character may only move up to half their normal movement rate in any round in which they make a combat roll.  Movement may impose penalties on some skill checks.[/list]
Because of that cumulative -1 penalty, 'dog-piling' is a key strategy in taking down a big opponent.  Even a simple club-wielding hireling can be useful in bringing down an enemy's skill, making the opponent less likely to hit and more likely to be hit.

Passive Checks

Sometimes, a character wants to concentrate on one opponent (or a few) in combat '" and he can do that, at the expense of his other rolls.  This is where the passive check comes in.

A passive check is a skill check made when you are doing something other than fully concentrating on using the skill.  Only certain skills can be used passively; at this point, Evasion and Observation.  A passive check is exactly like a normal check, but you do not add 1d6 to your result '" in essence, you just use your raw skill points + key attributes.  Additionally, you can't use Focus on a passive check.  Unless a skill specifically says it can be used passively, it can't.

Passive Evasion is an important tactic in combat, because while it is weaker than regular Evasion (1d6 weaker, to be precise), passive checks don't count as combat skill uses for purposes of that -1 cumulative penalty for multiple checks.  Passive checks do not contribute to the cumulative penalty, but are still affected by any cumulative penalty that exists.  Thus, a character surrounded by enemies in melee could oppose one enemy with Melee Combat (with no penalty) and passively Evade the rest; passive Evasion is often the wiser choice when surrounded by a lot of enemies or under fire from many archers.

Though passive Evasion does not count as a combat skill use for purposes of the cumulative penalty, a character is still bound by the rule that he cannot target an opponent with more than one combat skill in a single round.

If a character chooses not to oppose a combat skill with either an active or passive check, or is unable to oppose the skill because of unconsciousness, lack of awareness, or immobility, the attacker automatically gets a hit and deals damage.  The exception to this is ranged attacks; the ranged attacker must still roll to hit the appropriate TN as if the target was an inanimate object.

Combat Skills

A character is defined to be 'in combat' on any round in which he uses or is the target of a combat skill.  Combat skills are:

Melee Combat (Str|Cun)*Throwing (Str|Coo)*Ranged Combat (Per|Coo)*Evasion (Coo|Per)

Other skills may be used in combat subject to the GM's discretion, but in any case performing a non-combat task in combat incurs a -2 penalty to the roll.

All combat (save 'combat' against unconscious or immobile targets) is resolved through opposed rolls.  There are certain ways rolls can be combined:

Melee Combat can be opposed by either Melee Combat or Evasion.
*Throwing and Ranged Combat can only be opposed by Evasion.[/list]
Evasion appears to be the most useful skill of the above because it can oppose any other combat skill, but Evasion doesn't allow a character to strike back, so it is at best a defensive measure.  A high Evasion skill may protect a character in battle, but it won't win the battle alone.

Using Combat Skills

Like non-combat skills, combat skills operate based on their individual skill descriptions.

[spoiler=Melee Combat] Melee Combat (Str|Cun)
The Melee Combat skill allows you to strike at an adjacent opponent and defend yourself against them.  You can use this skill whenever you participate in melee combat, whether you initiated it or not, with any weapon you have in hand (or unarmed, if you have none), but if the object is not designed for use as a weapon it counts as an improvised weapon.  Using a ranged weapon (but not a sling or thrown weapon) such as a bow or crossbow at melee range also uses the Melee Combat skill, and counts as using an improvised weapon.

Opposition: Melee Combat is always used as an opposed check.  A Melee Combat roll can be opposed actively with Melee Combat or Evasion, or passively with Evasion.

Result:

If your Melee Combat result is the same as your opponent's result, no hit is scored.
*If your Melee Combat result is higher than your opponent's result, you gain a +1 advantage bonus against that opponent on the next round.
*If your Melee Combat result is higher than your opponent's by 3 or more (but less than 6), you score a hit.
*If your Melee Combat result is higher than your opponent's by 6 or more, you score 2 hits.

[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Throwing]Throwing (Str|Coo)
The Throwing skill allows you to strike a nearby target or opponent with a thrown object with some degree of force and accuracy.  You can use this skill against any target within the range of your thrown weapon, but not against targets adjacent to you.  Nearly any object that can be lifted can be thrown, though objects that are not specifically designed to be thrown count as improvised weapons.  Using a sling also uses this skill.

Opposition: Throwing is generally an opposed check, unless targeting at an inanimate object.  A Throwing check can be opposed actively or passively with Evasion.

Result:
The TN to hit a medium-sized inanimate object at close range is 3.  This is modified by the object's size and your distance from it.

For opposed Throwing checks:

If your Throwing result is the same as your opponent's result, no hit is scored.
*If your Throwing result is greater than the opponent's result, you score a hit.

Modifiers:

You can move up to half your movement rate while using this skill, but if you do, you receive a -2 penalty to your Throwing skill.
*You receive a penalty on your Throwing check depending the range of the object thrown.

[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Ranged Combat]Ranged Combat (Per|Coo)
The Ranged Combat skill allows you to strike a nearby target or opponent with a non-thrown projectile, such as from a bow, crossbow, or blowgun (but not a sling, which uses the Throwing skill).  You can use this skill against any target within the range of your weapon, but not against targets adjacent to you.  Improvised ranged weapons are uncommon, but a crude bow or blowgun fashioned quickly from local materials might count.

Opposition: Ranged Combat is generally an opposed check, unless targeting an inanimate object.  A Ranged Combat check can be opposed actively or passively with Evasion.

Result:
The TN to hit a medium-sized inanimate object at close range is 3.  This is modified by the object's size and your distance from it.

For opposed Ranged Combat checks:

If your Ranged Combat result is the same as your opponent's result, no hit is scored.
*If your Ranged Combat result is greater than the opponent's result, you score a hit.

Modifiers:

You can move up to half your movement rate while using this skill, but if you do, you receive a -2 penalty to your Ranged Combat skill.
*You receive a penalty on your Ranged Combat roll depending the range of the weapon.

[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Evasion]Evasion (Coo|Per)
The Evasion skill allows you to avoid attack, whether melee, thrown, or ranged, both by dodging missiles and blows and trying to predict where the enemy will aim.

Opposition: An Evasion roll can be used actively or passively.  Active evasion counts as normal combat skill use.  Passive evasion is a response to attacks that you are not opposing with an active check (either with active Evasion or Melee Combat), and is essentially an Evasion skill roll without the roll (you use your attribute and miscellaneous modifiers, but you do not add 1d6, nor can you add Focus).

Result:

If your Evasion (active or passive) result is equal to or greater than your opponent's result, no hit is scored.

Modifiers:

Passive Evasion is an exception to the normal rule of cumulative penalties for using multiple combat skills in a round.  The passive use of this skill does not count towards your number of combat skills used, and penalties accumulated from using multiple combat skills do not apply to passive Evasion checks.*If you are unable to passively evade an attack (because of sleep, inability to move, lack of awareness, unconsciousness, etc.), or if you choose not to evade the attack, that attack hits you automatically.

[/spoiler]
Closing Thoughts

I've tried to preserve some balance between ranged and melee combat.  Melee combat can hit any number of opponents '" but by definition, only ones in melee range.  Ranged combat has a limited number of attacks per round, but those attacks can be used on anyone in range.  Melee combat only scores a hit if you beat the opponent's result by 3 or more, but melee combat also gives you a subsequent advantage bonus, while ranged combat starts accruing penalties beyond close range.  A Melee Combat check can deal more than one hit if high enough, but a character can target a single opponent with multiple Ranged Combat checks.

Some basic strategies of NTSA combat should be appearing at this point.  Get numbers on your side, and if you can't do that, concentrate your main efforts on one or a few opponents (while hoping passive Evasion proves enough to ward off the rest).  Combine melee and ranged attacks on a single strong opponent; the enemy will be forced to use passive Evasion against at least some attacks or take big negatives to his combat skill checks.  The 'advantage' mechanic has appeared for the first time here, but you haven't seen the last of it.  While +1 may sound small, there are other sources of advantage bonuses, and all of them stack.

I've been toying with some other combat skills and maneuvers (Feint, Taunt, etc.) but that can be added later.  For now, this constitutes the core of the system, and we've taken a brief tour of everything from skills to fighting and dealing damage.

Combat Addendum

A few more details are needed to wrap up combat so I can move onto other things.

Improvised Weapons

The rule of thumb for any improvised weapon '" that is, any object not designed to be a weapon (e.g. a chair or shovel) or any weapon not being used in its 'proper' manner (e.g. a crossbow being used in melee) '" is that the user takes a -2 penalty to combat rolls with that weapon.  In the case of Melee Combat, fighting unarmed also counts as an improvised weapon, but there will be a Talent you can take (like Imp. Unarmed Strike in D&D) that allows you to ignore this penalty when fighting unarmed.  Most beasts and monsters with natural weapons will have this talent for free.

Weapon Advantage

I've mentioned that NTSA uses an 'armor as DR' system.  I'm not going to go into that in too much detail right now '" like wounds, that's something that's 'compartmentalized' and not crucial to the skeleton of the game '" but the weapon type system I am using does merit a brief description here.

Originally, I conceived of the Armor system as responding to the classic weapon types '" piercing, slashing, bludgeoning.  I became a bit dissatisfied with those exact categories, however, because I feel that concentrates too much on superficial similarities and not enough on how the weapon is actually used.  As a result, my system categorizes weapons somewhat differently.

Pole weapons are piercing weapons that rely on massive force behind a single point to impale the enemy.  They include spears (both short and long) and many polearms.*Crush weapons rely on weight and brute force to chop or bash.  They include axes, maces, and many two-handed weapons.*Edge weapons are generally light slashing and/or thrusting weapons that rely on finesse and a razor-sharp edge, point, or both.  They include knives and one-handed swords.*Strike weapons are light and usually blunt weapons that use precision and speed to buffet and pound.  They include staves, nunchaku, and clubs.[/list]
The weapon types have a rock/paper/scissors relationship '" certain weapon types give the wielder an advantage over an opponent wielding another certain weapon type.

Pole has the advantage over Crush '" a spear-wielder can easily keep an axe or mace-wielder at a distance, and Crush weapons cannot easily parry these piercing blows.*Crush has the advantage over Edge '" heavy chopping and smashing weapons are difficult to deflect with light blades, keeping the edge-wielder on his heels.*Edge has the advantage over Gore '" blades can parry a spear-thrust and move in to stab and cut where a spear-wielder is less able to defend himself.*Strike weapons are neutral '" they have no advantage over any other type, and no other type has an advantage over them.[/list]
Having the advantage over an enemy gives you a +1 bonus to your Melee Combat skill against them.  This applies to improvised weapons as well, so a chair (Crush) is a reasonably good choice against a sword-wielder if no proper weapon is available.  The +1 advantage bonus won't totally overcome the -2 improvised penalty, but it will help mitigate it.

Advantage bonuses from any source always stack '" for example, the advantage bonus from weapon type and the advantage bonus from besting your opponent in a Melee Combat check.

Armed and Unarmed

Weapon types apply to unarmed attacks as well, but only for purposes of determining armor soak; an unarmed combatant never gets a type advantage.  The unarmed attacks of all PC races have the Strike type, but (for example) a wyrm's maw is Crush.  An armed combatant always has the advantage over an unarmed one (so a creature with an Edge weapon has the advantage over a creature with an unarmed Crush attack, even though Crush normally trumps Edge).

This applies even to improvised weapons.  Thus, if you aren't a trained martial artist, picking up a chair to ward off the jaguar is going to be better than nothing, but a character with the aforementioned Talent (your unarmed attacks no longer count as improvised weapons) will likely have better luck with his fists.

Types at Range

Type advantage is only applied in melee; thrown and ranged weapons have types for purposes of determining armor soak, but do not confer an advantage against an opponent (as it hardly matters what weapon a warrior carries when being shot at).  When used in a melee, the type of a ranged weapon still applies only to armor penetration; a character using a ranged weapon in melee combat does not receive a type advantage, nor do their opponents receive a type advantage against them.  It should be remembered that using a ranged weapon in melee combat uses the Melee Combat skill and counts as using an improvised weapon.

Designing Weapons

I'm not going to provide a weapons list, because that depends on the setting.  My current list for TCJ is heavily influenced by South and East Asian weapons, and hasn't got things like arming swords.  Still, a few points should be kept in mind.

Damage should range from 1 to 1d6 (recall that damage dealt is in terms of Fatigue Points; see 'Combat, Part 1' for more on this).

FP-1 weapons are generally useless against anything but a truly unarmored opponent; even a wild animal probably has hide DR 1, and an under-layer of armor like a gambeson or padded vest will make a 1-FP weapon useless.  One way to use FP-1 weapons might be to make 'shuriken' '" shuriken were thrown not to kill or seriously injure, but to distract and disrupt.  Make a FP-1 throwing weapon and house-rule that it gives a +1 advantage bonus on a successful combat roll regardless of the damage it does (just like Melee Combat allows).  There's your historically accurate shuriken '" toss it at the beginning of combat for the chance at a 1st-round edge in the ensuing melee.

FP-d2 weapons have a 50% chance of being just as bad as FP-1, but at least have the chance of (lightly) damaging a wild animal or getting damage past light armor.  FP-d2 weapons might include (civilian) knives, batons, thrown rocks, blowgun darts, that kind of thing.  I would recommend the typical unarmed strike dealing d2 as well.

FP-d3 weapons are a bit more serious.  A TN 3 Stamina check at -3 is not a joke for low level characters.  A d3 weapon is likely to damage an opponent in light armor and has the potential to scratch those in medium types too.  A plate-clad warrior is going to laugh at you, but that doesn't mean it's useless.  FP-d3 weapons might include clubs, hatchets, daggers, throwing knives, staves, and other weapons that might be overshadowed on the battlefield but will make anybody not dressed for war think twice.

FP-d4 weapons are the mainstay of combat.  They have a good chance of felling an unarmored, low-level character in a single hit, and pose at least a potential threat to all save those in the heaviest of armor.  This includes things like one-handed swords and war axes, maces, javelins, arrows, and sling stones.  A character with a d4 weapon is obviously armed for combat, not just a guy with a dual-purpose tool or a self-defense weapon.

FP-d5 weapons (halve a d10, or roll d6 and reroll on 6) are really quite damaging.  Even high-level characters will wince at being threatened with FP-5 hits, and those hits are enough to get through virtually any kind of armor I have in mind.  This may include unusual one-handed weapons, but mostly encompasses two-handed gear like long spears, bastard swords, and flails.  Crossbow bolts probably go here as well, particularly ones from heavy crossbows/arbalests.

FP-d6 weapons are big and pain-inducing.  They are also always two-handed.  This includes weapons like halberds and Danish axes, two-handed mauls, and greatswords.

Damage should rarely go higher than this.  Something environmental that does more damage than a two-handed sword is probably enough to kill a character outright, like a falling boulder.  Siege weapons or oversized weapons wielded by very large creatures might merit larger dice, but should be used very sparingly because of their potential to take out even high-level characters in a flash.  Realistically, a ballista bolt is probably not survivable regardless of how tough you are.

Designing Armor

As I said, I'm not going to list armors here or anything like that.  In general, however, armor designed for NTSA should entail some kind of balance.  A character should have to choose between armor that protects very well against a certain type of damage and 'compromise' armor that offers mediocre protection against everything.

My own armor system for TCJ uses additive layers that stack with each other; it's a little more complexity but not something required of NTSA.

Medium and heavy armors should inflict a -1 or -2 penalty (respectively) to all skills in the Coordination category.  A character weighed down by armor will find Evasion to be more difficult, but (in theory) makes up for it with superior resistance to damage.

Closing Thoughts

Combat systems can become very complex.  My objective is not necessarily to make a simple system, but I'd like complex elements to be modular instead '" something I can add or remove from the basic structure without compromising that structure.  For now, I'm done with the combat system, but nothing can take the place of actual testing.  This is really just a concept at this point, an idea of what I'd like to see, and will of course have to change based on how encounters actually work out.

I hope I've at least illustrated how a skill-based combat system could work within the basic premises of NTSA.

Magic

It is with some hesitation that I broach the topic of magic; in some ways, it is another 'compartment,' a module that can be switched out at will for a system more appropriate for a specific setting.  I do think, however, that I need to demonstrate how magic could work in NTSA, even if significant changes were made by someone else.  After all, if D&D left out a magic system and said 'make your own,' you'd just call them lazy.  I may not be selling a product, but there is some expectation here for me to demonstrate that this fantasy system is conducive to the broad tropes of fantasy.

That said, I'm not going to give you any real fleshed-out mechanics, or even the text of a single spell.  Instead, I'm trying to come up with the groundwork for how the skill-based magic system of NTSA works with the other features already discussed.

Skills and Magic

Like combat, magic is skill-based.  Depending on your specific system, it may be one skill or several skills.  You could differentiate between different sources of magic (divine vs. arcane), styles of magic (innate vs. learned), and/or traits used in magic (cerebral and intellectual vs. force of will).  For purposes of this post, however, we will be dealing with only one magic skill, Channeling (Apt|Per).

Magic skills behave like any other skill, in that they contribute towards synergy and are in turn effected by it.  In this case, training your Observation skill (a Perception skill) will indirectly boost your ability to channel by incrementally raising your Aptitude.  By this point I'll assume you know how this works.

In my current system, Channeling is a non-combat skill, meaning its use in combat incurs a -2 penalty to the check.  I may include a Trait that reduces or eliminates this penalty for those who are practiced in the art of using magic in sticky situations.

Though most skills allow you to make a check regardless of whether you've put ranks into it or not, we will make a special exception for magic skills and state that you can't make a Channeling check unless you have at least one rank in the skill.  If your campaign has very common magic, you might consider waiving this rule, but my suspicion is that most will want to keep it.  In a very low-magic world, a GM could put certain RP restrictions on gaining that first rank '" it's likely something you'd need special study for in game, not something that you just pick up out in the wilderness.  But then again, I'd say that about all skills '" the GM should make sure that players only gain ranks in skills they're actually using.

The Check

Making magic skill-dependent implies that there will be skill checks, and I expect this to be something that more than a few balk at.  If you roll checks to successfully cast, you risk the unfortunate situation of a string of bad rolls reducing the party's spellcaster to ineffective gesticulation for the duration of the encounter.  At least melee fighters have actually done something when they roll poorly (namely, miss); a failing wizard just looks frustratingly dumb.  Not everyone will embrace the idea of randomness in casting that is implied by a skill check.

You might say that there is no uncertainty to D&D magic.  This is true in one sense '" when you cast a spell, you cast it, with no skill roll to see if you do everything right.  In another sense, however, D&D simply shifts the randomness to the target, who gets saving throws, magic resistance, and so on that could negate the effect of the spell entirely.  Certainly the caster who fails to cast anything because of bad skill rolls isn't any more or less impotent than the one who fails to affect anybody because of failed saving throws/SR.

But I'm not interesting in settling for 'just as flawed as D&D.'  Rather, I want a system where casters must prioritize '" do you really want that spell?  How badly?  If you fail your check, are you willing to pay extra to make sure it casts?  Instead of a stark pass/fail mechanic that limits choice, I want a mechanic that makes people consider their choices more carefully.  But how do I implement costs for failure that are significant without being so harsh as to negate the spell entirely?

Focus Magic

That was a rhetorical question, because NTSA already has something for this, and you can read about it in 'Combat Part 1,' above '" focus.  If you'll recall,

Quote from: FocusA character has Focus equal to 2 + Level + their Cunning attribute.[/ic]
Focus already has uses that we've discussed; the addition to dice rolls, and the 2FP that Second Wind requires.  A character needs to think carefully about spending focus, and it is an ideal fuel for spellcasting as well.  So, we come to this:
[ic=Failing Magic Checks]To cast a spell, a character must roll a Channeling check equal to or greater than the spell's TN (target number, like a DC).  If a character fails to achieve the TN, he must expend one FP or the spell fails.  If the character rolls a 1 on this check, he must expend one FP or the spell fails even if a 1 is sufficient to make the TN.[/ic]
In this way, a spellcaster can cast many low-power spells without much risk (though there will always be a 1/6 chance that any given spell will force a 'FP or fail' decision), while high-power spells will entail more risk, as a character's reservoir of FP is quite limited.  If we assume that the most basic, average novice has 1 rank and no attribute modifier, a TN 5 spell is one that said novice could have a 50% chance of casting without having to burn focus.  If that novice is 1st level (again, with no attribute modifiers), he has 3 FPs to burn before he's done for the day, and that assumes he doesn't need to use focus for anything else.

Caps and TNs

So we have established that all spells need to have a casting TN.  We still need to restrict the spells a character can cast, however, because to that aforementioned novice there's no difference between a TN 7 spell and a TN 1,000 spell '" he'll have to burn 1 FP to cast both.  Some kind of cap is needed to declare that certain spells are just too high a level for a character to cast.

I could just directly link the cap to rank '" say, you can only cast spells at 5 plus your rank in Channeling.  The problem with this is that as a character gains experience, attribute bonuses increase, and the highest spells a character can cast will be relatively easy to cast and rarely burn FP as a result.  I think the better solution is to make the two independent of each other.  For instance, we have a spell called Taproot, and it's written thusly: Taproot (6/10)

This spell has two TNs, 6 and 10.  The first is the Fail TN, meaning that if you do not make this TN, the spell does not work.  The second is the Focus TN, meaning that if you do not make this TN, you must burn 1 FP or the spell will fail.  Thus, that novice will only be able to cast this spell at all 33% of the time, and even then he will have to burn a FP.  A spell with a Fail TN of 8 would be impossible for him to cast.  I choose to make the two numbers independent of each other because you can use this to get some interesting effects '" for instance, a spell with a Fail TN and Focus TN very close together would be a sort of all-or-nothing spell, where there is a fine line between succeeding easily and failing utterly.  A spell with TNs wide apart would be 'easy to learn, hard to master,' something that even a beginner could do but only a great master could do routinely.

The Price of Failure

At present, there is no cost of failure except a wasted round.  I've never liked the idea of having a hard and fast limit to how many spells one can cast, and this system allows me to impose a sort of 'soft limit' where casting degrades your focus until you can only use the very easiest of spells.  I like this but it's not ideal for every situation '" a novice who tries a very difficult spell and fails may have more problems than just a wasted round.  In game terms, no further consequences also means a character can, given enough time, cast many spells with no loss of FP (as you could just retry a spell until you make the Focus TN).

So let's say that if one tries a spell and does not make the Fail TN, one automatically loses a FP.  This prevents an amateur from just mucking about with no consequences until he finally gets it.  Attempting a spell that's really too complex for your ability can really tire you out, and if you're unlucky that effort could be all for naught.  That's the price you pay when you mess with magic beyond you.

There's also the idea of a 'backlash,' some negative effect associated with failing, but I think in general losing a FP is bad enough.  Individual spells (especially powerful and dangerous ones) may have a specific backlash associated with them, but in general a lost FP is the worst consequence you can suffer.

Spell Lists

One thing D&D is useful for is that it nicely outlines the three basic ways of understanding a spell list.  First, you have the Cleric, with an unlimited list '" every Cleric knows the entire spell list (though he can only prepare a certain number at a time).  Second, you have the Wizard, with a learned list '" he can cast all the spells he's come across and written down, and could potentially learn the whole spell list.  Finally, you have the Sorcerer, with a limited list '" his list of spells is very short, is only added to when he advances in level, and will never include the whole list.

NTSA is capable of replicating any of these; it's really dependent on what the GM wants.  You could tie the number of spells learned to character level and achieve limited list spellcasting, you could have your players learn spells and record their personal lists for learned list spellcasting, or you could throw the doors wide open, let your players have a gander at the whole list, and enjoy unlimited list spellcasting.  I'm partial to 'learned lists' myself, as it gives more goals to spellcasting characters ('where can I find spell X'¦') along with another possible reward the GM can throw in for a job well done.  NTSA, however, will not discriminate unless you want it to, yet another I reason I believe the inclusion of discrete levels was a good idea.

Closing Thoughts

What does a NTSA wizard look like?  I mean in terms of gameplay, not 'robe and wizard hat' stuff.

Well, it's impossible to exhaust a wizard's supply of cantrips (low level spells) in NTSA.  If a spell's Focus TN is low enough (and his skill high enough) that he can make the check every time, he can successfully cast the spell 5 out of 6 times whenever he wants (and that sixth time, he can still cast it if he wants to burn focus).  Even without any FP left, he'll still succeed at that minor spell 5 out of 6 times.  Thus, spellcasters really are magical beings '" instead of 'oops, that's minor spell number eight, guess I'm done for the day,' experienced spellcasters can always rely on their lesser tricks.

A wizard's big guns, however, have a finite usage.  He can conserve focus by letting a spell fail if he misses the Focus TN '" the 'slow and steady' approach '" but in time-sensitive situations (like combat), this is ultimately untenable.  He'll have to burn focus to bring the real heat every round, and once he runs out his performance becomes spotty at best '" perhaps still powerful, but very unreliable.

Of course, a NTSA wizard can also pull out all the stops and lay something on you that's significantly higher than his level.  Losing a FP for nothing is bad, but in a last-ditch bid for survival it might start sounding like a pretty negligible concern.  If you corner a wizard and he's got no other option, there's a slight but small chance he might make that Fail TN and turn the tables (assuming he knows such spells).  Parties will carefully consider their actions even towards spellcasters who are nominally below their level, as they might still have a trick or two up their sleeves that might '" just might '" work.