Re: (TFT) Long-lived Pentagrams?

[Peter von Kleinsmid <pvk@oz.net>]

At 09:07 AM 2/25/04 -0600, Mark Tapley wrote:
> All,
>         more pentagram questions.
>
>         AW p. 32 (Permanent Pentagram), says "...Record the IQ of the 
> wizard that drew the pentagram, and make a 3/IQ roll against it the first 
> time each new being attacks the pentagram. A failed roll destroys the 
> pentagram, but a successful one means that that being can NEVER break 
> that pentagram...."
>
>         Yuck. I want to use pentagrams to protect parts of castles, 
> but...10/216 of the time (automatic misses), an IQ-8 wizard can break 
> them, just by popping off a 1-D Magic Fist or an Image of a fly, even if 
> the drawing wizard is IQ 18 (which he'd have to be anyway, for Lesser M.I.C.).

Yes, this seems to me a case of the straight 3-die roll breaking down at 
high levels. Even with non-permanent pentagrams, it requires IQ 15, so all 
of the IQ rolls for pentagrams can generally ignore the IQ, since 16-18 
will fail anyway. The instruction to record the IQ of a wizard for purposes 
of a 3/IQ roll, for a spell which requires IQ 15+, is silly if a 16-18 is 
an automatic failure! No?

A house rule might be that any auto-failure which is equal or below the 
actual attribute being tested, gets to re-roll with one die added (maybe 
add two dice if the first roll was a natural 18 on 3d6). So roll 3 dice - 
on a 16-18, roll 4/IQ - on an auto-failure that's below the actual IQ, roll 
5/IQ, etc. Of course, I'm just making it up. But when faced with a rule 
which seems to express an intent which is made meaningless by the 
mechanics, it looks like a good place to adjust the rule.

This rule fits the apparent intent, and drops the odds to 10/216 of 
requiring a 4/IQ roll for the wizard.

You can also use concentric pentagrams to multiply the number of mages the 
attackers need.

>         Can the drawing wizard use a Charm or Charm +2 item?  That could 
> drop the odds to 4/216 or 1/216, respectively. If so, does the drawing 
> wizard have to keep wearing that charm, or does the fact that he was 
> wearing it *when he drew the pentagram* effectively imbue the pentagram 
> with the roll bonus? I tend toward the latter, explanation being that the 
> wizard was more likely to have drawn the pentagram "perfectly" because of 
> the charm.

I would tend toward the latter too. The pentagram is rolling, rather than 
the caster.

>         Still not very good odds, though. Sigh. This is one case where 
> I'd really like to waive automatic misses.
>         Can a Permanent Pentagram also be a Curse, operating against any 
> magical creature *in contact* with it? A 3-point Curse could shift the 
> roll out of the "automatic fail" range, so nothing could break it by just 
> walking in. That, together with self-powered Reverse Missiles, takes care 
> of most of the possibilities.

Even if so, wouldn't you need to multiply the cost of the curse by the size 
of the pentagram?

>         Alternately, a new type of Permanent Pentagram spell, where a 
> failed roll means that the pentagram is ineffective against that 
> particular creature, but remains in effect for all other creatures. I 
> suppose this would be more expensive. (Sigh.) Suggestions for cost?

At least double cost. I wouldn't do this though - I'd just make the roll 
harder somehow, either as above, or perhaps better, as an opposed roll 
where the challenger's own IQ is taken into account as well as the 
caster's, and if it's not sufficiently high, the auto-fail chances don't 
come into play.

PvK
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"