Has anyone tried no-point-cost magic?

[Ulthar88]

The RAW Magic system has always struck me as kind of double-dipping.... the mage has to succeed at a skill roll and pay the point cost. It seems to me only one of these should be necessary to moderate spell-slinging.

This is just a wild notion that crossed my fancy... how about replacing energy cost with reduced chance of success:

1) Magery does not add to spell learning; instead, it reduces skill penalties.

2) Calculate the energy cost of a spell as normal, but subtract Magery from the total (to a minimum of zero) -- this becomes the skill penalty for that spell.

Further skill penalties from the book (such as for Teleport) are ignored. Spell Maintenance can either continue to use FP as normal, or it can be made to require a concentration check as a free action.

I don't know that further brakes on rapid-fire spell-casting would be necessary -- but if they were, we could make the spell critical failure table a bit more, um, daunting. :)
And I'm assuming that some adjustments to energy costs may have to be made to bring down some of the more extraordinary penalties.

Has anyone attempted anything similar?

[Danukian]

Well, If you want to avoid Double Dipping, have you tried using Powers for magic? it's kinda the opposite of your proposal - no skill magic instead of no-point cost.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Danukian

Well, If you want to avoid Double Dipping, have you tried using Powers for magic? it's kinda the opposite of your proposal - no skill magic instead of no-point cost.

He was talking about fatigue points, not character points.

[Danukian]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

He was talking about fatigue points, not character points.

So was I. Many Powers advantages do not cost fp, and those that do can be changed.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ulthar88

1) Magery does not add to spell learning; instead, it reduces skill penalties.

Remember, the spell learning thing is to make it compatible with Talents, and to help justify the vast skill lists that magicians typically have. Reducing range penalties would be interesting though although it tend to make ungifted magicians gravitate toward missile spells.

2) Calculate the energy cost of a spell as normal, but subtract Magery from the total (to a minimum of zero) -- this becomes the skill penalty for that spell.

That would make it impossible to cast the more high-level spells.

[Ulthar88]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Remember, the spell learning thing is to make it compatible with Talents, and to help justify the vast skill lists that magicians typically have.

I agree that some substantial adjustments would have to be made (to say the least). Many of the spell descriptions include increased point cost for increased effect based on the assumption that FP is used. These would work out differently if we assumed skill penalties.

One way to start (as per another thread here today) would be to spread the spells out in difficulty from Easy to VH, rather than just H or VH. But I imagine a number of spells would still have to be hand-cranked to still be usable.

But I'm not really anticipating doing all that work just yet :)
I'm really just wondering if the very idea is feasible at all. Would casting spells become a frustrating exercise? Would spell-caster's just fill the skies with endless magic whoopees?

[kirbwarrior]

Have you read Thaumatology? There are variants in there, and I've been using Syntactic magic without costs, and it has rules for replacing FP costs with either Margin of Success or skill penalties.

[Ulthar88]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Have you read Thaumatology? There are variants in there, and I've been using Syntactic magic without costs, and it has rules for replacing FP costs with either Margin of Success or skill penalties.

I have read a few chunks of it... and I do like Syntactic magic -- it's quite a lot like an old home-brew magic system of mine.
But the replacing of FP/Threshold with Margin of Success/etc., is a less of an issue with spell-systems that are already limited by casting time or multiple skill rolls (as in ritual or syntactic). I was wondering how it would affect the standard spell-slinging of the Magic book.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Ulthar88

I have read a few chunks of it... and I do like Syntactic magic -- it's quite a lot like an old home-brew magic system of mine.
But the replacing of FP/Threshold with Margin of Success/etc., is a less of an issue with spell-systems that are already limited by casting time or multiple skill rolls (as in ritual or syntactic). I was wondering how it would affect the standard spell-slinging of the Magic book.

Here are the main problems I see;
Permanent Advantages (Flight, ST, DR, Charm, etc)
Any spell for getting from one place to another (Flight, Teleport, Timeport)
Any spell that is already dubious, or almost too good (Enlarge Other, etc)

How do you envision enchanting?

[Ulthar88]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

How do you envision enchanting?

hm -- good points; as for enchanting, since I generally run low-magic worlds, I don't envision enchanting at all :P

I suppose that whole chapter could be swept under some sort of ritual requirements rug to either raise the material costs or decrease the probability of success.