Aid Spell, Damage, and Fatigue

[phiwum]

Thanks for the clarification. I had forgotten that you interpret the winner of the Death Spell competition taking only fatigue and not damage.

Thanks also for the reference to the Facebook discussion. I don't use Facebook so I don't see those discussions.

[larsdangly]

It is relevant to note that the Aid spell can also be used to briefly increase DX or IQ to improve chances of success at a relevant task, so it stands to reason that when it is used to briefly increase ST you are actually physically stronger during those two turns. In the context of TFT's rules, that means you also have greater reserves against physical damage during that period.

If you follow that line of reasoning, you might also conclude that no more than 5 points of Aid to ST should be possible at once, as per RAW stipulations about magical stat improvements.

[hcobb]

My favorite hack is to use Aid given ST to pay for a self Aid ST spell, over and over again for an average of a minute or two.

[larsdangly]

For what purpose? I'm not sure I understand what can be accomplished that way.

[phiwum]

I think Henry's idea is to keep oneself alive. I'm not sure when this would work, unless it's the following situation.

An ST 6 goblin wizard (what else could it be?) is the current beneficiary of an Aid spell, perhaps self-cast with Mana, and has effective ST 9. He gets hit for 8 pts damage, so he keeps re-casting Aid to keep himself from dying. He has to do this every other turn at least, more if he fails on occasion.

[hcobb]

You could also carry a heavier load out of the dungeon, but only for a few minutes, unless charms work on spellcasting as per ITL 150.

Q: What happens when you're using a +2 charm and roll an adjusted 3 on a self-Aid of ST?

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by hcobb

You could also carry a heavier load out of the dungeon, but only for a few minutes, unless charms work on spellcasting as per ITL 150.

Q: What happens when you're using a +2 charm and roll an adjusted 3 on a self-Aid of ST?

By the rules, you get a choice of triple duration for no additional cost (in this case the Aid lasts 6 turns instead of 2), or triple effect for no additional cost (you paid 4 ST but got +12 in Aid (3x4), although the rule of 5 limit would make most of that go to waste).

Me, I don't even like to make wizards roll to cast spells on themselves, unless distracted and/or engaged, because that should be something relatively easy. In that case Critical Success can't be rolled anyway so it becomes a non-issue. Alternatively, I'm happy making wizards roll only 2d6 to cast spells on themselves, at least under relaxed circumstances; in that case a roll of 2 would be an automatic success, but the rules are silent on whether that would mean anything extra for casting a spell.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Whataboutisms ITL 15 "Note: a wizard cannot cast a spell which would reduce his ST below 0."

Ergo this so-called Death spell never actually kills anybody.

No.

The section you mention on ITL p.15 is talking about not being able to expend more ST than you have casting a spell, which is irrelevant to the Death Spell, because the Death Spell doesn't even have a ST cost. What it has are effects, including directly causing death as a magic effect, and reducing the ST of a survivor, neither of which are the costs per se; they are the effects.

[larsdangly]

That is the most straightforward reading of the spell, for sure, but I'm not convinced it was the intent. The text of the spell hasn't changed since the original edition of Wizard, so when it was written there was no such thing as fatigue or mana or anything else like that - it described ST loss the way all spell casting worked, just with a variable amount that depended on the circumstances. So, while yours is a reasonable reading, I still think it falls under the heading of 'table rulings'

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

The text of the spell hasn't changed since the original edition of Wizard, so when it was written there was no such thing as fatigue or mana or anything else like that - it described ST loss the way all spell casting worked, just with a variable amount that depended on the circumstances.

I'm beginning to think that a doctrine of originalism might be a good idea.