Summoning undead

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by JLV

I'm thinking of the enormous increase in IQ necessary to have even a remotely useful collection of such summoning spells. Now we're once again confronted with the need for a 40IQ Wizard; thus increasing the "need" for enormous attribute bloat in order to get even close to the kind of wizards we see in the fiction all the time. Seems to me like this merely exacerbates an already large issue...

Having to be selective with which spells to learn is not a bad thing; it encourages focused characters. Even just a few spells, used shrewdly, can be enormously useful.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Having to be selective with which spells to learn is not a bad thing; it encourages focused characters. Even just a few spells, used shrewdly, can be enormously useful.

That's the theory -- unfortunately the unintended side effect is more encouragement for attribute bloat.

[Shostak]

Dealing with the fundamental problem of outrageous attributes would be preferable to creating another problem, such as spells becoming too flexible.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Dealing with the fundamental problem of outrageous attributes would be preferable to creating another problem, such as spells becoming too flexible.

"...too flexible"?!?! ;-)

[BrotherBill]

Originally Posted by JLV

I'm thinking of the enormous increase in IQ necessary to have even a remotely useful collection of such summoning spells. Now we're once again confronted with the need for a 40IQ Wizard; thus increasing the "need" for enormous attribute bloat in order to get even close to the kind of wizards we see in the fiction all the time. Seems to me like this merely exacerbates an already large issue...

I don't think anyone would want to be able to summon all the possible creatures, but it would be nice to have more to choose from. They can be balanced regarding cost and effectiveness. It also lets my dwarf summon wild boars instead of wolves, and where would the wicked witch of the west be without her flying monkeys?

[BrotherBill]

Originally Posted by JLV

"...too flexible"?!?! ;-)

Say instead, too easily abused, like lizardmen with naginatas.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by BrotherBill

I don't think anyone would want to be able to summon all the possible creatures, but it would be nice to have more to choose from. They can be balanced regarding cost and effectiveness. It also lets my dwarf summon wild boars instead of wolves, and where would the wicked witch of the west be without her flying monkeys?

Those would be great spells! I just think they should be separate from Summon Wolf, Summon Bear, etc.

[Dave Crowell]

I like the possibility of different Wizards having different signature summoning spells.

[ecz]

I'm also to keep separate each summon spell.

More spells are fine and add variety, but I do not see the reason to make them generic and/or flexible to reduce the IQ needed to learn them all.

The way I see wizards in TFT, even the most powerful, is compatible with t a low number of spells available in their grimories. The great wizards (at least the way I see them) have IQ 20-22, DX 15-16 a few magic items and/or a small team of assistants with aid spell for ST.

the idea super heroes/wizards in TFT must have everything available in the rules (hence the need for IQ 40+) is something I have never found in the rules and never experienced at my table .

My players never gained too many points and, if memory serves, the best hero reached 44 or 45 points in total during my CGs. Also I do not know how long they should have played and survived to gain that level of experience (1000 ex pts per attribute point) !
But I understand other groups may have different approaches and styles.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by ecz

I'm also to keep separate each summon spell.

More spells are fine and add variety, but I do not see the reason to make them generic and/or flexible to reduce the IQ needed to learn them all.

That's not really what I said. If I went the way some other folks have, I'd say it was a wilful misinterpretation of what I said, but I assume that's not the case here and you just didn't get what I was about.

Originally Posted by ecz

The way I see wizards in TFT, even the most powerful, is compatible with t a low number of spells available in their grimories. The great wizards (at least the way I see them) have IQ 20-22, DX 15-16 a few magic items and/or a small team of assistants with aid spell for ST.

the idea super heroes/wizards in TFT must have everything available in the rules (hence the need for IQ 40+) is something I have never found in the rules and never experienced at my table .

Again, you seem to be attributing an opinion to me which I never expressed or even thought.

Originally Posted by ecz

My players never gained too many points and, if memory serves, the best hero reached 44 or 45 points in total during my CGs. Also I do not know how long they should have played and survived to gain that level of experience (1000 ex pts per attribute point) !
But I understand other groups may have different approaches and styles.

Indeed they may. I, for example, followed the guidelines on XP awards in ITL very religiously -- which meant my players got XP for a lot of different things, precisely as outlined in ITL on page 10. There are five different categories for which players may be rewarded with XP, all of which I used. The result is that my players didn't solely gain experience for killing things (which also creates a murder hobo game by definition), but instead got them for lots of things, including clever play, luck, time spent in play, combat, and casting spells, all just as described in the rules.