Re: Magic Item enchantments: Notes D thru H.

[Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca>]

Hi Dan, everyone.
  Dan, I think you have missed my point.

  The cost of a silver ring or gold ring is insignificant compared to the cost
of the enchantment.  But let us think of the cost of enchanting two crystal 
balls.  One was a solid diamond the other is glass.  Let us assume that the 
diamond would cost more.

  To make this example concrete let us say that the glass ball has a cost 
of $500, and the diamond ball has a cost of $3,000,000.  

  A crystal ball is a G type enchantment, which adds 50% to the underlying
value of the item to the cost of the enchantment.  This enchantment costs
$50,000.

  So using the rules in AW, the cost of the enchantment on the glass ball 
is: $50,000 + 50%($500) = $50,250.  Note that the cost of the enchantment
has increased based on the value of the underlying item.  That price does 
not include the cost of the glass ball, so the final cost is: $50,750.

  But casting the spell on the diamond ball is: $50,000 + 50%($3,000,000)
= 1,550,000.  Including the cost of the diamond ball the total is: $4,550,000.

  This seems totally wrong to me.

  I am pretty certain that what Steve Jackson intended is not what was 
written in the rules.

  Warm regards, Rick.



On 2016-11-07, at 5:59 PM, Daniel W Tulloh wrote:

> Rick,
> 
> I think charging the buyer for the underlying cost of the item makes sense from this perspective:  if the Wizards Guild buys a gold ring ( or makes it or causes it to be made ), they claim the right to charge the customer for ring and any enchantment that were added.
> 
> If however, the Thorz gave them a coat of armor and directed them to enchant it with Reverse Missiles, then that enchantment is all they can legally charge the Thorz for.
> 
> After all, you wouldn't expect to pay the same price for a silver Reverse Missiles ring as you would for a gold one.  ( assuming of course, that silver can take an enchantment )
> 
> That's the way I've always rationalized that "underlying" statement.   I could be wrong, of course - there was a documented case in the 90's.
> 
> Dan
> 
> On November 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca> wrote:
> 
> Hi Thomas,
>  It changes the failure rate from the way we were (incorrectly) playing it.
> 
>  I think I have figured out how the TFT rules evolved.  I think that in an
> early draft of TFT, an 18 destroyed ALL enchantments on an item, and
> that that rule was revised before Advanced Wizard went to print.  The
> phrase "... value of the UNDERLYING item..." was left over from that
> old rule set.
> 
>  Warm regards, Rick.
> 
> 
> 
> On 2016-11-07, at 5:10 PM, Thomas Fulmer wrote:
> 
>> Rick,
>> 
>> I don't think this changes the failure rate. Twice as long rolling every other week...
>> 
>> So if it would normally have been 10 weeks and 10 rolls, now it's 20 weeks and 10 rolls. Same failure chance but it takes longer.
>> 
>> Third enchant is presumably 40 weeks and 10 rolls.
>> 
>> --Thomas
> 
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
> 
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"