Staff Zaps

[Shostak]

I'm reversing my position on range penalties for the staff's occult attack. Under Special Spells on ITL 140 it reads "If a special method of DX adjustment for the spell is described, use it." The mechanics for making a staff attack are described under the Staff I description, and no range penalty is mentioned there. I guess that qualifies for "a special method of DX adjustment".

[phiwum]

If you take p. 140 literally, that there is no range penalty explicitly mentioned suggests that the penalty comes from Thrown Spells.

In my games, I will continue to play as I always have. I don't think that the reference to staves in Hexagram 9 is clear proof that the occult attack is spellcasting and I don't like the notion that the wizard's most common attack can be thrown into HTH without even the slightest risk of hitting an ally.

Thus, I will treat the occult zap as a kind of attack, similar to a spear jab in the sense that it can strike two hexes away at higher levels. I'm okay with applying the rules regarding occult zaps in HTH from Hexagram 9 and I'm not treating it as a Special or Thrown Spell, nor as a Missile or Thrown Weapon, so no range penalties.

In sum:
(1) -4 adjDX in HTH and the +4 adjDX that physical attacks get in HTH does not count.
(2) No range modifiers
(3) If target is in HTH, apply the rule for Thrown or Missile Weapons on ITL 117.

I don't think I can finagle a consistent interpretation that supports all of these three conditions under RAW, now that I look at it ((2) and (3) seem to fit together poorly), but I do like the outcome, so let's call it a house rule.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I don't think I can finagle a consistent interpretation that supports all of these three conditions under RAW, now that I look at it ((2) and (3) seem to fit together poorly), but I do like the outcome, so let's call it a house rule.

I think you are on firm ground. Nice summary.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

I think you are on firm ground. Nice summary.

I concur. With all of the conflicting info about the occult staff zap, phiwum's summary is a good logical result.

I like the new staff spells in Legacy TFT. However, it seems like it was a new puzzle piece that pushed into an existing puzzle. Some of it's various tabs don't seem to fit completely.

[phiwum]

The only thing I don't like about the staff spells is that they're so advantageous that having a staff is almost a no-brainer. Any PC wizard who expects to be around for a while has a very compelling reason to have a low-cost mana battery.

Of course, there may be good roleplay reasons to avoid the staff, but you'd be sacrificing in-game advantage for character concept.

Aside from that, yes, I rather like the staff too.

[hcobb]

Staff Mana "costs" twice as much (by XP to Gold ITL 46) as a large Powerstone.

The big advantage is the Staff Zap which inflicts damage onto anything subject to thrown spells, and often bypasses all armor while doing so.

And also being able to cast full IQ spells while retaining a ready weapon to defend with.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

The only thing I don't like about the staff spells is that they're so advantageous that having a staff is almost a no-brainer. Any PC wizard who expects to be around for a while has a very compelling reason to have a low-cost mana battery.

Over on my occasional blog, I offer some thoughts on familiars as an alternative to the staff.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Over on my occasional blog, I offer some thoughts on familiars as an alternative to the staff.

That link doesn't work for me, but this one does:


https://www.hcobb.com/tft/new_spells.html#Familiar

[Shostak]

Weird. How about this link? https://myriangia.wordpress.com/2021...-fantasy-trip/

[Bill_in_IN]

The staff in classic TFT was not common other than just looking like a wizard. The staff couldn't store mana points. Therefore, the common method of storing and using energy was the Power Stone.

The Legacy Staff Spells allows for non-staff designations as a staff as well as 4 more levels of the Spell.

The Classic TFT Staff Spells were the basic IQ 8 spell which reads almost exactly like its Legacy counterpart other than the allowance of swords, spears, etc. to be considered as a Staff. Then, you had the Much higher Staff of Power Spell that was like IQ 17+ (I don't have my Advanced Wizard Book handy). It allowed for some occult type damage but that was about it. It was much more practical for a wizard to have a weapon talent with a silver weapon than a staff and a power stone.

According to Legacy ITL, a 5 point Power Stone costs $1,000 for the gem and $5,000 for 5 points. Unless your game group throws treasure around like candy, it would still be more beneficial and economical in the long run to get Staff 2 and start charging it up with mana points. Either way it will take time (1,000 XP) or money ($6,000) to get to 5 points.

ITL seems a bit sketchy on how to go about charging a power stone. However, As I interpret it, a wizard can store his own power into a power stone at a cost of 5 ST per 1 point. The magic items table (ITL, page 152) shows a 1 point and 5 point power stone.

Can a wizard purchase a power stone of 1 or 5 points and start adding his own ST to it at the described rate? Are those points levels the max for the stone? ITL page 163 doesn't state that there is a truly known maximum but does state what may be known to exist. To me, it leaves the door open for a wizard to store their energy at 5ST/point into a power stone. I assume that he would be required to have greater magic item creation and IQ 20 to actually make the power stone. Could a lower IQ wizard purchase a 1 point power stone and then start storing energy in it? So, the functional aspects of storing energy into power stones seem ill defined in ITL. The implication to me is that it would take the IQ 20 wizard to make the power stone and that it would take a similar wizard to add more points to it. However, the cost structure ends at 5 points on the table.