[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Magic Item creation: Notes D thru H. Dan nails it?

Hi Dan, everyone.
  That is not my understanding.

In Advance Wizard (AW) page 26 at the bottom of the page
it says, "Each week a wizard works, he must make his DX roll once."

A bit later in the same paragraph it says, "If he misses the roll, no
damage is done, but the week's work is lost.  He does not have to
start over, UNLESS he rolled an 18.  An 18 ruins the entire spell,
and the wizard must start over from the beginning."

You may be thinking of building potions, where there could be an


So perhaps, the extra price is for the chance of rolling an 18?  
Well, since only the current enchantment is lost, it does not make 
sense to multiply it by the cost of the UNDERLYING item.  

But what is the chance of rolling an 18, for long enchantments?

There is a 0.99537 chance of NOT getting an 18 on one roll.  So this 
value to the 10th power is 0.9547.  Doing this for the values from the 
book gives us:

10 weeks... 95.47%    ---> +10%
18 weeks... 91.99%    ---> +20%
25 weeks... 89.05%    ---> +30%
40 weeks... 83.06%    ---> +50%
70 weeks... 72.27%    ---> +100%

(The +10% etc. is the bonus given in the book.)

So this is a valid reason to charge a premium for long enchantments.
The chance of rolling an 18 builds up for long enchantments, and 
so wizards charge a bit more to make up for the rare disaster.  They
are responsible for making up the difference when they destroy a
partly made enchantment.

However, the premium Steve Jackson gave, was about double 
what he needed to.

Nor does this explain why you multiply it by the underlying value of
the item being enchanted.  If I have a crystal ball made out of solid
diamond (worth $5,000,000), why would the cost of the enchanting
it be increased over one made of glass?

This brings up another thought tho.  Auto-failures come up a lot 
more often than an 18.  (9 times more likely in fact.)  Even a wizard
with a 15 DX will fail his DX rolls, and not advance the item by 
that week.  What is the chance of getting a 16 or 17 (thus blowing
a weeks work)?  It is 4.167% per week.  So on long projects, you
would be expected to blow a few rolls, and not make money on 
those weeks.

That suggests that you should charge more for long enchantments
to avoid getting paid less.

Just out of curiosity, here is the chance of completing a 10, 18, etc.
week project while NEVER rolling a 16 or higher.

10 weeks... 62.25%
18 weeks... 42.60%
25 weeks... 30.57% 
40 weeks... 15.02%
70 weeks...    3.62%

So as can be seen, the chance of not blowing at least one roll on long
projects is remote.

If that is what Steve Jackson was thinking of, he made two mistakes.
First, it should be adding to the cost of the enchantment, and NOT to
the value of the underlying item.  Second, it should work on ALL
enchantments that take that long.  (That is, if a weapon / armor 
enchantment will take 16 weeks, because it is the 5th enchantment 
cast on an item, then it should use the D bonus.  You could argue it
should use the E bonus, since 16 weeks is a lot closer to 18 weeks than 
to 10 weeks.)

On the other hand, the D, E, etc. bonuses are quite generous, (about 
double what they should be), so you could round down and still have
the wizard make a profit.

I suspect, Dan, that you have nailed it.  The bonus for long enchantments
is based on the chance of auto failures and destruction of the item.  
I have no idea why SJ, put in that line about the value of the 
UNDERLYING item.  I'm going to treat that as a typo in my campaign.


The simple thing to do, is set up my spreadsheet to auto calculate the
chance of utter destruction, and reduce the cost of ingredients per 
week to boost the profit high enough to make up for the occasional 
loss.  (In other words, cook in the chance of failure into the costs of the

This sounds great, but it just won't work.  In the w/ae example I gave
above, a small value is baked in for a 1 week enchantment, but if it was
the 5th enchantment on the item, then the baked in amount is wrong.  
This value has to be multiplied on to the end price AFTER you know 
how many weeks it is going to take.

Warm regards, Rick.

On 2016-11-03, at 3:02 PM, <drfaustus61@cox.net> wrote:


I don't think it makes sense at all.  From what I just read, you have to
roll for success every OTHER week.  

Thus, the approximate chance for catastrophic failure for a
10 week item:   23%
18 week item:   37%
25 week item:   46%
40 week item:   65%
70 week item:   83%

Assuming you survive, a catastrophic failure mans the utter
destruction of your lab and all of it's contents.

As a ruler, I would NEVER allow a wizard (or Guild) to create
magic items within city limits - you'd be constantly rebuilding
the section of town the lab(s) were housed in.  No .. wizards
labs must be in places where either the blast can be contained
or no harm would come the city.

Granted, it's been a LONG time since I've looked at these
rules - I may have some nuances wrong.  But this aspect of
ITL has always bothered me.  I don't think SJ playtested this
aspect of the game very much.


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