Having written yesterday’s post about magic and its faults, I am today not so convinced that the problem I described is a big deal; and in any case, it can be resolved to some extent by inventing magic items which improve wizard’s save DCs. Nonetheless, I think the magic system is anachronistic in AD&D, representing the accumulation of years of ideas from different versions of the game, and it can be both streamlined and redeveloped so that it a) fits the skill resolution framework and therefore b) is amenable to the introduction of a spell-free magic system.
Here I aim to present some alternative methods of spell resolution, based on skill systems similar to the combat system. I will for now avoid discussion of the problem of how many spells a character gets, or the cost of using them. Let us first consider some methods of resolving the fundamental problem of magic – the spell attack – through a couple of skill resolution methods based on different fundamental magical cosmologies:
- More powerful magic is harder to cast and harder to resist: We imagine that more powerful magic requires greater effort by the caster to use, and more skill to handle, but unleashes greater power that is more difficult to resist. Set the DC of casting the spell to be the same as that of resisting it, calculated as for example 15+(spell level). The player rolls the spell-casting roll using spellcraft, and if successful the spell is cast at the stated DC. If unsuccessful the spell fails and/or costs more to use. If successful, the magnitude of difference between the failure and the DC determines the size of the effect.
- More powerful magic is harder to cast and easier to resist: This framework is closest to the existing philosophy of the d20 skill system. Consider, for example, a move silently challenged skill check. The difficulty of the check is determined by the listen skill roll of the person being stalked, but the rogue’s skill roll is modified by situational modifiers related to the environment and the difficulty of the particular stalking task. Creeping up behind someone to backstab them with a dagger is harder than creeping within 30′ to ambush them using a bow, and should be modified differently. With magic, we assume the greater energies being manipulated in more powerful spells mean that the caster is less able to focus them accurately, making them easier to resist. Consistent with this philosophy, the save DC of the spell is fixed by the caster’s spellcraft check, with a penalty equal to the level of the spell. The magnitude of the effect is determined by the degree of the target’s failure. Then the target makes a save against this DC. Under this model the hardest spells to resist will always be the ones with least effect, which the mage has most familiarity with.
- Difficulty of resistance is entirely spell dependent: This is the current system, where spells are like a device independent of the training of the mage – when read, their effects are unleashed with an objective power level over which the mage has limited control. In this model there is little use for a skill check
The three methods are consistent with subtly different styles of play, particularly regarding the cost of using spells, the degree to which one wants a wizard’s power to be restrained by the choice of spells available, and indeed the range of spells one is interested in using. Drawbacks for the 3 methods are:
- Is not entirely consistent with the skill framework, the difficulty of both save and spell-casting being partially fixed against a 3rd number; but it is the easiest to adapt to non-challenged spell rolls (such as simply casting a knock spell) and the easiest to adapt to any system in which the cost of using spells is dependent upon their success.
- Method 2 is the simplest and most versatile, but I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the idea of more powerful spells being easier to resist. If one wishes to make the cost of spell-casting dependent upon failure, method 2 is also bad because the cost of spell-casting depends on the opponent’s ability to resist, not objectively on the power of the spell. Also, this method doesn’t extend well to non-challenged spell rolls, since there is no fixed, objective DC for a spell roll.
- Is inconsistent with the skill system and heavily vulnerable to overbalancing (as in, for example, those most horrific of spells, Horrid Wilting, or Power Word, Kill). I remember being told by a friend that the best way to kill dragons in Neverwinter Nights is Disintegration, because their saves were weak and the spell is over-powered. However, this method is more consistent with having unique and idiosyncratic spell effects (like the 1/2 damage on successful saves for fireball). Note also there is no simple system for linking spell failure to spell cost in this system.
I am inclined towards developing and testing some spells for use with method 1. I may get a chance to test this system soon, so we will see what I can come up with.
Compromise and Conceit 
Leave a comment