global enchantments when there are 5 already?

[Graeme Dice]

Agrajag said:
Doesn't Luck scale play a role here?

The luck scale has absolutely no effect on dispelling globals.

[Ygorl]

If I remember correctly (a forum search that I'm too lazy to do could corroborate), each spell gets 1d6 open-ended, with the high roll winning. To each roll is added the number of extra gems spent on the spell (above the normal cost - if you're using a site that decreases the cost, it starts counting from the *full* cost of the spell, not the reduced cost, so the site is useless if you want to add extra gems) and the caster's extra magic levels in the appropriate kind of magic.

[archaeolept]

^^ I believe that is the correct formula. I once empowered my caster to a modded 14 astral str just to get an extra +3 or so on the roll, w/ max gems

1. if the global you cast is already up, it will compete w/ that one

2. if not, it will compete w/ one of yours that is already up.

3. if you don't have any, i believe it will compete w/ a random one.

4. sometimes it doesn't seem to act according to these rules - the situation has always seemed a bit buggy

[capnq]

archaeolept said: 2. if not, it will compete w/ one of yours that is already up.

I hope you are mistaken about this. If true, it seems like a really poor design decision.

[archaeolept]

dunno what's poor about it... other than it irritates the player - but if you got rid of elements that cause trouble for the players, that's like half of Dominions


generally, to support a claim that something is a poor design decision, it is considered polite to actually provide some argument...

[capnq]

archaeolept said: generally, to support a claim that something is a poor design decision, it is considered polite to actually provide some argument...

Good point, my bad.

It makes no sense to me that magic spells would preferentially interfere with other spells by the same caster. Especially when competing with spells supported by an enemy.

OTOH, the limit of five global enchantments only makes sense from a metagame programming perspective anyway.

[archaeolept]

yah, that's why the rule is irritating to the (usually dominating) player - but it probably works from a balance perspective, as it makes it more difficult for someone w/ an edge in gems to corner the globals, or to parlay gem producing globals into further ones...