[Magic] Alternate Reduced Energy due to Skill

[The Rampant Gamer]

Sorry if this is rehash, but my searches proved futile...

I'm not a fan of the flat breakpoints of reducing energy costs for spells by 1 at a 15-, and by 2 at 20-, etc. It leads to characters who buy just enough IQ and Magery to get 15- for a single point, and every spell is purchased at that level.

How awful would it be if, instead, you gave the caster a point break based on how well they roll on the spell itself? Make your roll by 4, the energy cost is reduced by 1, make it by 8 and it's reduced by 2. You never know going in how much your spell winds up costing you, and if you don't have enough, and you roll poorly, your spell fizzles instead.

Plausible? Terrible? Too much uncertainty? Too much bookkeeping?

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by The Rampant Gamer

Plausible? Terrible? Too much uncertainty? Too much bookkeeping?

Not a bad idea. I'm partial myself to making it a player decision rather than automatic - ie, they reduce energy cost by accepting a skill penalty before casting, in the range of -3 or -4 per point. They might even be able to boost their effective skill by dumping more energy in, though probably not better than +1 for 50% extra power. Either way, this will most noticeably impact resisted spells, in which every little bit of skill matters.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by The Rampant Gamer

Sorry if this is rehash, but my searches proved futile...

I'm not a fan of the flat breakpoints of reducing energy costs for spells by 1 at a 15-, and by 2 at 20-, etc. It leads to characters who buy just enough IQ and Magery to get 15- for a single point, and every spell is purchased at that level.

How awful would it be if, instead, you gave the caster a point break based on how well they roll on the spell itself? Make your roll by 4, the energy cost is reduced by 1, make it by 8 and it's reduced by 2. You never know going in how much your spell winds up costing you, and if you don't have enough, and you roll poorly, your spell fizzles instead.

Plausible? Terrible? Too much uncertainty? Too much bookkeeping?

We use similar, although I believe the magic Margin Of Success is multiples of 3, not 4? Seems to work fine. We're running online however, so we use a macro to roll for spells and it automatically points out how much cheaper it was - which is nice :)

[Refplace]

Third Edition actually had this as an optional skill penalty, I do not recall the number though. With it you could reduce either the FP cost or the ritual requirement as separate penalties. I think it was -3 for each or -5 for both but no longer have those books to check. My group later on made it a technique so you could buy it off and specialize in a spell once those rules came out.
I personally like the idea but it can mess up some of the calculations used for enchantment costs.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Refplace

I personally like the idea but it can mess up some of the calculations used for enchantment costs.

How so? The energy reduction for high skill never applies to enchantments, as far as I know. I wouldn't change that, even if switching the automatic discount for an optional penalty.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Third Edition actually had this as an optional skill penalty, I do not recall the number though.

So does 4e. It's in GURPS magic in the (irrc) first chapter?

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Bruno

So does 4e. It's in GURPS magic in the (irrc) first chapter?

I only know about the ritual reduction not the energy reduction. Where is that?

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

How so? The energy reduction for high skill never applies to enchantments, as far as I know. I wouldn't change that, even if switching the automatic discount for an optional penalty.

Eh, your right. Sorry about that I forgot.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by The Rampant Gamer

Plausible?

Meh.

Terrible?

It isn't terrible. I wouldn't run games with it though.

Too much uncertainty?

And this'd be why I wouldn't run games with it. I like knowing what my players' can reliably do. The more random their capabilities are? The more likely I'm going to kill them by accident.

"Oops. I'm sorry. I expected you to have another five fatigue available at this point; your bad rolls resulted in my estimation being wrong. So ... shall we retcon this TPK, retcon that rule or make a new campaign?" ... is something I'd rather not be saying, ya know?

Too much bookkeeping?

I'm not seeing the bookkeeping? Well, not anymore than using fatigue in the first place anywise.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

"Oops. I'm sorry. I expected you to have another five fatigue available at this point; your bad rolls resulted in my estimation being wrong. So ... shall we retcon this TPK, retcon that rule or make a new campaign?" ... is something I'd rather not be saying, ya know?

I don't think there's that much uncertainty. Spell cost will vary by a point or two in most cases. Still, that's easily taken care of if it's voluntary, trading skill for efficiency.

[Crakkerjakk]

As Bruno said, we use it. I like it, especially paired with optional skill bonuses for taking extra time, various bits of ritual, etc. It let's a caster taking their time fairly reliably being able to cast more powerful effects, while those trying to rush or be unobtrusive end up spending a lot more FP.