Re: (TFT) A Thought on the St Cost to Renew Spells

[ErolB1@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/15/2003 9:32:00 PM Central Daylight Time, 
rsmith@lightspeed.ca writes:

[re my idea of letting the subject of a spell pay the renewal cost for ben
eficial spells]

>    This is quite a powerful way to
> spread the cost of spells around (making
> wizards and magic even more powerful) so
> I would put strong restrictions on this.

An improvement over standard spellcasting, yes. A "powerful" way to spread St 
costs, maybe. But I was thinking in terms of a comparison with magic items. 

IME, beneficial continuing spells cast by wizards are weak compared to the 
same spells granted by magic items - terribly weak if the item grants the spell 
with no St cost. I don't see it as being a game breaker if a wizard can cast 
Reverse Missiles on his warrior buddy, with the wizard paying the initial 2 St 
and the warrior paying the 1 St per turn to maintain. After all, by the book 
the warrior could buy a Reverse Missiles item for only $5000, and pay 1 St per 
turn to keep the spell up that way. 

Granted, there's the 'Rule of Five' wrt how many items a character can use at 
once, but even so, items are a very good deal compared to having a wizard 
cast the spell. 

>>A. The subject should be able to do this with automatic success, if he
>>himself knows the spell.
>
>    Something this powerful should not
> be done with automatic success.  It should
> require a successful IQ roll, perhaps by
> both wizards.

This is something my own opinion has firmed up on: It really *should* be 
automatic if the casting wizard is willing and the receiving wizard knows the 
spell. If a GM thinks it would be "too powerful" in his campaign to let by without 
a die roll, then it's something that that GM shouldn't allow in his campaign 
at all. 

>>B. If the subject doesn't know the spell, he might need to have some sort
of
>>minor magic item allowing him to receive control of the spell.
>
>    I would say that it should be wizards
> only.  If you allow heroes with magic items
> to do so, increase their IQ roll to transfer
> the spell by AT LEAST one die.

On this point I'm really puzzled by your insistence that this is such a 
powerful ability that it needs IQ rolls to keep it under control. A non-wizard 
doesn't need a roll to activate a protective magic item, so why would he need to 
make a roll when he has a magic item that allows him to share the cost of a 
spell that the protective item duplicates? 

>> D. Or the subject might need to make an IQ roll to receive control of the
>> spell.
>
>    I would add more rolls to try to
> minimize 'industrial disease' in magic.

I'm missing something here. How do you see this as contributing to 
'industrial disease' in magic? Especially when compared to item creation? 

Even if I decided to take it to extremes and allow *any* spell subject to 
take over the renewal cost without any die roll, magic item, or spell-knowledge 
requirement whatever, I still don't see the problems you're implying. The 
casting wizard would still be paying the initial St cost of the spell, with the 
subjects paying only the "it costs 1 St each turn to maintain the spell" 
afterwards. It's not like the wizard is granting the ability to *cast* the spell or 
even to store the spell for later use. 

Can you give an example of how something like this would be bodaciously 
powerful in your campaign, rather than just a poor man's substitute for a 
continuing-spell magic item?

-- 
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"