The Campaign Builder's Guild

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.