Re: Magic Item enchantments: Chance of critical failures.

[Jeffrey Vandine <jlv61560@yahoo.com>]

Erm... actually, he still rolls the exact same number of times.  It takes him twice as long (rolling every OTHER week).

(I bolded a different part of the sentence, that's all... )

So, statistically speaking, I don't think there's a lick of difference.

As for the "value of the UNDERLYING item" being an "error," that's an assumption on your part, not a fact in evidence.  Just sayin'. 

After all, he had numerous opportunities to correct it if it WAS an error, in the errata published in the Space Gamer, among other places.  Likewise, when the books were re-issued by HT in their second edition, it could have been corrected, but was not.

Respectfully,

Jeff

---

From: Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca>
To: tft@brainiac.com
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Magic Item enchantments: Chance of critical failures.

Hi all,

  While working on my revised magic item enchantment rules, I found a rule

which we have been playing wrong for a long time.

  Steve Jackson wrote...

The "team" approach is the most efficient way to perform multiple enchantments. But it's not the only way. A lone mage, if he has time enough, can do anything a team can do. If one wizard is putting a second spell on an item by himself, it takes him twice as long (rolling every OTHER week). Thus, his material and apprentice costs are the same, but spread over more time.

   (The phrase underlined, I have done now for emphasis.)

    The thing we have been playing wrong is that the lone wizard was rolling

every week for the enchantment.  These rules say that the item is created, 

but the wizard only rolls 1/2 as often.  If it is the 3rd enchantment, the DX roll

is made only 1/4 as often, etc.

  This rule makes it much rarer to lose later enchantments on multiply 

enchanted items to rolls of an 18.  Thus, the risk of rolling an 18 CAN BE 

"baked Into" the cost of items that take a long time to make.

  It also makes the D, E, ... H, type notes make more sense.  I am now 

pretty sure that these ARE to make up for the chance of a critical failure

destroying the current enchantment.  

  The phrase, "value of the UNDERLYING item", which I was talking about

in earlier posts, is still in error.

  I'm guessing here, but I suspect that phrase ("... UNDERLYING item...")

was included when an 18 destroyed ALL enchantments on an item.  

Play-testing decided that this was too grim, and so the idea was revised 

but that phrase was missed when the rules were updated.

  Warm regards, Rick.