Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Rice
Pardon me if this has already been brought up....
I always felt that Missile Spells gave a bit too much "Bang for your Buck" than other spells and often encouraged lazy solutions to problems; "blast the monster!"
Also, the fact that the Wizard could pump as much ST as he wanted into them meant it was possible to fry even powerful monsters with a 6-8 die bolt in a single round. Although I used them when playing a wizard, I kinda felt they were cheating.
Now, I know that a 6-8 die missile spell is going to seriously deplete a Wizards power, but then so is summoning a Giant for a few turns (I also felt summoning spells were weak compared to other spells for their cost). And of course, they could potentially be "dodged". But I would still like a cap on them.
I was thinking of having four Spells with set damage levels and increasing IQ requirements: Magic Fist 1d6/2ST, Magic Bolt 2d6/3ST, Fireball 3d6/4ST and Lightning Bolt 4d6/5ST. If you really want an unlimited ST missile Spell you could have Wizards Wrath as a very high IQ spell.
This allows the Wizard to retain some Missile capability but caps the power a bit.
What do you guys think? Or were Missile spells never a problem for you? I'm interested in your views.
|
It's an incredibly astute observation you are making Chris; and in point-of-fact, many a Wizard (stand alone) battles were fought with the prohibition that a wizard's first spell cannot be a missile spell - for the exact reason you cite.
However, down in the labyrinth, it is up the skill of the GM to adapt and overcome - and by craftiness in strategy - and take advantage or penalize with the tactics of the enemy monsters, a party who faces every major opposition with: "
Bring forth the Spell-Cannon!!".
So, do I personally feel we need a rule change in this problematic case? No, what we need in the majority of all these cases (Missile Spells, Healing, Experience Award, etc.) is better all-around GM'ing-skills.
Perhaps a SJG book on: "How to be a better GM" would be more called for, more so than new rules for TFT with which to constrain player-agency and player abuse.
I will say this: I do like the overall line-of-logic you employed Chris. I always respect a mind when it exhibits well thought-out and well-informed rationale, even if I see no practical call for the solution offered.
Keep up the "good TFT thinking" my friend.
JK