Quote:
Originally Posted by hcobb
The balance errata would go here at ITL 29:
[When each figure makes its first attack against the pentagram,] "the wizard who drew it must make a 3-die saving roll against IQ to see if he drew it correctly."
Alternatively the GM can rule that only the first hostile attack forces the roll.
|
Indeed that would make things more consistent. Although I sorta slightly kinda like the idea of first proving it was drawn correctly as being one test (maybe 4 vs IQ?) distinct from the tests to see if something can break a working and proven one. Although the latter if retained could have some really weird consequences. Like it stands up to a Greater Demon, then collapses when the illusion of a mouse tries to run through it. I suppose we could always rationalize that as the Demon weakened it, and the mouse illusion was the straw that broke the camel's back?
As a point of clarification, I assume we all mean "attacking" in these cases is a generalization for anything attempting to violate a pentagram's borders, even unconsciously or accidentally.
Be a cool variation if a pentagram could be set to allow magical things
in, but not
out. You draw it, toss an old throw rug over it, and
voila you've set a trap for any magical creature passing through the room :)