tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post6933063936510572546..comments2024-03-28T15:32:19.036-04:00Comments on Dungeon Fantastic: DF Limited Power Enchantment ideaPeter Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14246000382321978462noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post-59402222533492255232014-08-18T11:03:15.659-04:002014-08-18T11:03:15.659-04:00Fair enough, a Wizard with a free, no-fail Iron Ar...Fair enough, a Wizard with a free, no-fail Iron Arm isn't unbeatable; it takes all of two spearmen in his face and not just one. I agree a primary caster with even a mediocre warrior in his face is in a world of hurt already, Blocking spells or no.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post-12592841580549370712014-08-16T10:35:13.415-04:002014-08-16T10:35:13.415-04:00Well, "Free" as in "$22,000" b...Well, "Free" as in "$22,000" by the RAW - that's 22x the starting wealth of a PC. Someone with Filthy Rich can afford one, barely, and someone with Very Wealthy can't. Plus, it's one Parry. Back in our 3e days, when Blocking spells absolutely could and did take advantage of the energy cost break, we joked that Dual-Weapon Attack was the wizard killer. You Feint, then the next turn you do DWA. The wizard gets a free, automatically successful defense, and then dies trying to Parry or Dodge the second attack. Tacking a FP cost on the first success wouldn't balance anything IME.<br /><br />Lend Energy needs better wording in any case - back in the 1e/2e days, it was clear it was a way to hand ST (aka FP, based on ST back then) from one person to another, not a spell that turned energy from whatever source into FP. So Power didn't make sense in any way for it, because Power didn't give you ST to hand over. And actually in 1st edition, you couldn't even learn Lend ST at a skill over 14!<br /><br />But yes, you're correct, it would be fairly simple to say that Power doesn't work on spells that don't get to take advantage of high skill cost reductions. I've already allowed it to work on Blocking spells in my DF game, because honestly, Blocking spells are so highly limited they aren't sufficient to keep a wizard alive without significant boosting. The only time I find them overpowering is in <a href="http://dungeonfantastic.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-myth-of-featureless-plain.html" rel="nofollow">Featureless Plain</a> duels, not in fights like the confused melees in my DF game. The only reason I haven't changed the rules back to 3e's approach to blocking spells is inertia, not because Blocking spells are overwhelming.Peter Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246000382321978462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post-52240623784003937902014-08-15T16:23:43.179-04:002014-08-15T16:23:43.179-04:00Thinking about it further, for me, it's a bad ...Thinking about it further, for me, it's a bad idea not to apply that limitation. Otherwise, Lend Energy for 100 and Power 1 for 500 gets you 1 FP back each turn; this is bad. You also get a free, automatically successful Parry each turn with Iron Arm and Power, and this is also something I'd say should be avoided.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post-38524223270336736072014-08-15T11:03:52.593-04:002014-08-15T11:03:52.593-04:00It's an easy confusion to make - using "P...It's an easy confusion to make - using "Power" for the self-power enchantment and "Power" for the effective skill of a magic item wasn't a great choice.<br /><br />Magic 4e doesn't make it clear if the ruling on Blocking spells never gaining any free points from high skill is supposed to extend to the Power enchantment or not. Since it doesn't say it does, it logically shouldn't extend. Especially since the Speed enchantment carries explicit wording that ties it to the existing rules about halving casting speed, and Power carries no wording tying to the cost-reducing effects of high skill. So either it was left off on purpose or by accident, and generally I assume "on purpose" unless shown otherwise.Peter Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246000382321978462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post-3996936958250912502014-08-14T07:24:01.935-04:002014-08-14T07:24:01.935-04:00Not so - by the RAW, some items that cost $100 are...Not so - by the RAW, some items that cost $100 are $1/point (for example, Lighten 25%), some are $20/point (for example, Deflect). It's on DF1 p. 30, right there on the chart for Deflect.<br /><br />In this case, the power boost you get from the Power spell is enough to be worth erring on the upside.<br /><br />If it wasn't for this breakpoint, I'd make One Spell 25% cost, not 20% cost, to ensure it was $20/point for enchantment. But DF allows for deciding where that line break at 100 occurs for specific spells, so I took advantage of it.Peter Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246000382321978462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post-33038060586075472402014-08-13T22:58:45.144-04:002014-08-13T22:58:45.144-04:00I really thought Power had an explicit line about ...I really thought Power had an explicit line about not reducing the cost of spells that don't get a reduction from high skill. Never mind, my mistake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post-35043491603731399212014-08-13T22:54:27.083-04:002014-08-13T22:54:27.083-04:00By RAW magic items explicitly don't provide a ...By RAW magic items explicitly don't provide a reduction of cost with high skill and a Power enchantment does not increase item skill. As a house rule that could be a really good one. William Knowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07075848234082280333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post-60048418834168099442014-08-13T22:51:57.748-04:002014-08-13T22:51:57.748-04:00By RAW you've been doing "up to 100"...By RAW you've been doing "up to 100" wrong. It's inclusive, as on DF1:30 "Lighten -25% from weight Armor/Shield $100 Light of Lightness". Personally, I wouldn't allow Q&D at all. <br /><br />I think your proposal is probably OK. I don't really trust it but, given how you can abuse Power 1 and mess of little enchantments (e.g. Lend Energy, Lend Vitality, Mage Light, Awaken, Dispel Illusion, casting a trail of Glow hexes, maintaining Infravision, etc.), I don't think it's worse and at least a focused Rod of Tickle is more awesome then a mess of utility spells. William Knowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07075848234082280333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817710432110712270.post-49282898663734320892014-08-13T22:42:52.388-04:002014-08-13T22:42:52.388-04:00Blocking spells don't get a reduction in cost ...Blocking spells don't get a reduction in cost from high skill, so they really shouldn't get a reduction from Power either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com