Staff, mana, stored ST

[zot]

Originally Posted by KevinJ

Afain, most of this revolves around 'arena' play and long term campaign play.

In arena or dual style, a sorcerer having a fully charged staff may make no sense, or it might be part of the scenario.

Excellent point!

In campaign games, this makes a warlock more able to pull his weight. After all, a warrior doesn't a limit to the number of time he can swing a sword or stab with his pole arm.

I think starting combats at full ST is probably fine though, since wizards face off against heroes in the arena just fine if they start at full ST.

I like the idea of the staff being a mana source, so long as it takes time and effort to recharge it. If you have 14 or 28 extra mana that recharges at 1/15 minutes then you can really go hog wild in combat, but it YOU recover at 1fST.15 minutes and then have to recharge your stauu, even if it is 1:1, you still have to spend a lot of time resting after going hog wild before your Mana is fully recharged.

Wasn't that the problem Steve mentioned at the start though?

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by zot

Wasn't that the problem Steve mentioned at the start though?

Yes, but I read all the replies and this is my opinion based on everything said.

I'm still up in the air about spending 1fST to do +1d dmage with a melee strike vs just doing 1d damage.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Steve's idea of PCs needing to spend XP to improve their understanding op the Staff spell such that they can store mana in their staff is a great way to provide alternatives to buying up ST and keeping point balance with other characters. It is pretty simple (a hallmark of TFT) to understand and to implement, and has a certain consistency with using XP to improve your character. I think some of the several ideas discussed in this thread could quickly make wizards too powerful against mundane threats. Other ideas are intriguing, but I'm not sure that they are any better than Steve's.

THIS. In fact, the Wizard who spends his XP to build up his staff is making a decision to forego personal advancement for a less useful form of ST (it can only be used for one thing, doesn't absorb hits, and doesn't allow the Wizard to bend iron bars). So balancing isn't quite as off-kilter as people just looking at the Staff in isolation are assuming. In effect, it's a trade-off, just like so many other things in the game. I think it will be just fine.

[tomc]

Originally Posted by Kirk

The challenge in TFT is caused by resource shortage, effectively. Good play comes from having to carefully decide how to spend, say, 2 exhaustion to get help the party turn the corner in a tough spot, not just blast lightning knowing there is a lot more where that comes from.

Yeah, I was exaggerating to make the point that I think wizards would be more fun if they were more effective in a wider range of scenarios. Capping missile spells at 3 or 4 ST helps limit the damage they do on the high end, but on the low end you need a GM clever enough to give the Wizard opportunities to show his stuff. That's a lot of fun in the right type of campaign, but harder to do in combat heavy ones.

Ever try running a party of 4 wizards through Death Test? It ain't pretty.

BTW, if you are into puzzly, intense, resource management games with a strong fantasy theme, check out Mage Knight. It plays well solo, and seriously scratches that itch.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by tomc

Yeah, I was exaggerating to make the point that I think wizards would be more fun if they were more effective in a wider range of scenarios. Capping missile spells at 3 or 4 ST helps limit the damage they do on the high end, but on the low end you need a GM clever enough to give the Wizard opportunities to show his stuff. That's a lot of fun in the right type of campaign, but harder to do in combat heavy ones.

Ever try running a party of 4 wizards through Death Test? It ain't pretty.

BTW, if you are into puzzly, intense, resource management games with a strong fantasy theme, check out Mage Knight. It plays well solo, and seriously scratches that itch.

My brother about 40 years ago was the first to suggest this amongst us, I believe, and they did OK, though I can't remember the details. Getting just one point back max after each room was a very interesting challenge, what I hope will remain for new players to the system.

I've played MK and had my friends try to convince me to like it, but it was meh for me. Some games hit the spot, others don't, by my age now I've automated the analysis and can usually tell after about 5 minutes of play how I feel about a game, if that long.

[Helborn]

What about having the Staff lower the ST cost of a spell? Staff = -1 (minimum 1) Staff of Power = -2 or -3 or more (no minimum or minimum 1). All other requirements remaining the same, the Staff would lower the fatigue cost at the time of casting. Same effect on energizing continuing spells or since most cost only 1 to continue, maybe 1 per 2-5 turns

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all,
As Steve has pointed out, wizards have to put experience into the Staff so that they will be disadvantaged compared to heroes. But I think he is missing a point.

I have a swords man. I put up his attributes until they are nearly maxed out, buy Knife, Sword, Fencing, Running, and then... Well, Swimming might be cool. And... well I could get Climbing. Well I'll push hard, put my last point into ST and buy Warrior. And then, how do I become a better swordsman? Buy Animal Handler? Grab Literacy (why not?) and Boating maybe?

Where as well developed wizards have a goal for a lot more experience points. They have a place to put LOTS of experience points which will help them become better and better.

For someone who LIKES wizards and heroes to be approximately balanced, this makes me sad.

***

Those who have suggested the mana in the staff does not act like an Aid spell, but rather refills the wizard's fatigue ST bank, I very much like the idea. For example, if I have a Wizard with ST 9, and a Staff with 7 mana attributes put into it, what is the max fatigue ST that I can spend on a spell? Is it 7 (but after I cast I can draw in mana and refill myself. Or is it 16?

I hope that this will be clear, and hope that it is the former. Steve says he wants wizards to be able to do several fights in a row, so if pulling the fatigue out from the staff is not instant, that helps this idea. (If you could only pull out 4 fST per minute that would help more!)

Warm regards, Rick.

[JLV]

I've seen a lot of interesting ideas on this thread, but I can't help thinking that whatever Steve decides to adopt, he keeps Occam's Razor sharp and the KISS principle firmly in mind. I hope we don't get a ton of extra paperwork and rules exceptions/special cases over the Staff rules, however they finally shape up.

[schoon]

I'm liking the option as staff as a rapid recharger source.

This prevents too much STR being dumped into a spell just depending on the staff, as opposed to the wizard's innate talents.

It should also resolve both the campaign play and make staves continuously upgradeable.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Those who have suggested the mana in the staff does not act like an Aid spell, but rather refills the wizard's fatigue ST bank, I very much like the idea. For example, if I have a Wizard with ST 9, and a Staff with 7 mana attributes put into it, what is the max fatigue ST that I can spend on a spell? Is it 7 (but after I cast I can draw in mana and refill myself. Or is it 15?

I hope that this will be clear, and hope that it is the former. Steve says he wants wizards to be able to do several fights in a row, so if pulling the fatigue out from the staff is not instant, this helps this idea. (If you could only pull out 4 fST per minute that would help more!)

I agree. My first write-up didn't do that but I found the arguments compelling.