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

Re: Magic Item creation: Notes D thru H. What? What???

Hi Rick,

(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:
Hi Peter,
  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
the page.

  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 underlying item.
> 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.
> PvK
> =====
> 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"