[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Magic Item creation: Notes D thru H. What? What???
(LOL, I tried to open my PDF of AW, and the stupid Adobe Update
program started resetting my computer, shutting down my email program
and losing my first reply to this.)
Even though there is only one roll, it represents and entire 1-2
weeks of activity by both you and your apprentices, which I might use
to justify a ruling that it's not in scope for a Charm effect. But
the main motivation for doing so is that it seems like a very
gamey/cheesy way to avoid what would otherwise be an interesting risk
of complication or failure in doing something very powerful which
would with a Charm become more like automatic and uninteresting. And
for precisely the reasons you pointed out easier, that it means an
enchanter would almost certainly always want to have one for
enchanting anything of any particular value, which would make Charm
items likely to be found in/around most serious enchanters. And on
top of that, because Charm itself is really powerful and seems to me
gamey/cheesy and also reduces the challenge and balance and
interestingness of almost everything else in the game. In fact, even
my first TFT players soon judged Charm to be cheesy & cheap and
suggested we just say they don't even exist.
Also (though DMG may snarl) I am tainted by GURPS Magic, where "A
critical failure always destroys the item and all materials used."
(4e Magic, p.17), and the equivalent GURPS effect of a TFT Charm
(called a Blessing) "will not affect critical successes and failures."
But of course that's mainly me.
However, I would say that if you do allow Charms to erase risk to
enchantments, then that should throw the minimum cost calculation off
and as you say, make those costs for risk to lose the item not make sense.
With the risks in, though, it would make sense to have the cost of
the underlying item multiplied by the risk. If the item itself is at
risk, then it would make sense to include that. If you keep the risk
but not to the intrinsic non-magic item, then only the enchantment at
risk would make sense to multiply by the risk.
At 05:56 PM 11/14/2016, Rick Smith wrote:
The rules say that an 18 do not destroy the underlying item, just
the enchantment that is being worked on. See AW 26, bottom of
If you are wearing a charm for a week, why not have its bonus on
a roll that represents an entire week? However, rules specifically
say that the DX roll at the end of a week of enchanting, is in fact a
single DX roll. AW page 26.
Also the rules specifically say that Charms work on these rolls.
See AW 26, top of second column.
On 2016-11-14, at 5:31 PM, Peter von Kleinsmid wrote:
> At 03:09 PM 11/4/2016, Jeffrey Vandine wrote:
>> Hmm. I can see the status of the magician in question figuring
into the base price -- that makes absolute sense; when you hire the
very best, you PAY for the very best. But I'm not sure I'd agree
with factoring that in as a changing cost factor like this. It's
almost like you're saying the guy's status goes up based on the
magic item he has yet to create. Now AFTER he creates, I could see
something like that applying ("Wow! You got Heironymous the Truly
Active to create your +5 Magical periapt? Remember the job he did
on that Ring of Wishes? Amazing!"), but BEFORE doing it? Not so
sure I follow that logic.
>> Not saying you're wrong, just saying it doesn't seem logical to
me. But thanks for explaining it. That helped.
> When we added magic item breakdown rules, the IQ of the creator
was the base reliability of the item, so it did matter who created it.
> Even if it didn't, it would make some sense that it would cost
more for more competent creators (for the failure checks) and
important people (because their time is worth more because they
could be doing other things).
> As for the underlying item costs going up by the rate of risk of
rolling 18, it seems pretty clear that's about an 18 destroying the
> It seemed pretty clear to us too that these costs were the
minimum costs, and that actual prices would tend to be higher
because a Wizard's Guild that can create magic items would tend to
have more demand than it could supply, as well as many competing
demands, needs and interests for the attentions of powerful
wizards, which get more and more extreme the more powerful the
person you're talking about.
> As for using a Charm, I would tend to think that a Charm should
not apply to rolls that represent two entire weeks of work.
> Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body