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

[Peter von Kleinsmid <pvk@oz.net>]

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.

PvK



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.
>
>   Rick
>
>
>
> 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"