Solomoriah wrote:Analyze Magic
...
With respect to bonuses (for magic weapons, etc.) use the following table:
Result Detected
<table><tr><td>Bonus</td><td>Weak</td><td>Moderate</td><td>Strong</td><td>Very Strong</td></tr><tr><td>+1</td><td>1-18</td><td>19-20</td><td>--</td><td>--</td></tr><tr><td>+2</td><td>1</td><td>2-19 </td><td>20</td><td>--</td></tr><tr><td>+3</td><td>1</td><td>2-7 </td><td>8-19</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>+4</td><td>--</td><td>1 </td><td>2-19</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>+5</td><td>--</td><td>-- </td><td>1-2</td><td>3-20</td></tr></table>
So, for a Sword +1, +3 vs. Dragons, if the caster makes his or her first roll (learning about the first feature, the base +1), the DM rolls 1d20 secretly. If the DM gets 1-18, he describes the basic enchantment as "weak;" if he gets 19 or 20, he calls it "moderate." If the second roll is made (for the +3 vs. Dragons), the DM rolls again, but this time the most likely result is "strong." The caster will know at this point (but not before) that there are no further features to discover.
This is much more sensible than the versions I know, but wouldn't it be even simpler to just give the player the plus? As it is, this is almost the case, but we have to paraphrase the bonus using the table's terms, with the exception of +3, which seems to be called mostly "strong" but often "moderate." So after the DM tells the player the words she or he rolled up, the player has to look up what that word most likely means. It seems to be simpler (in BFRPG tradition) and more straightforward to say that 3-18 gives you the correct plus, 1-2 one under and 19-20 one over, or something of that kind. But that might just be me. I know there's a strong tradition of not telling players exactly what's going on. It just seems that this effort to streamline that spell makes the hypocrisy at play here a little too obvious.
Hmm. I just thought of a false problem with my way of thinking. If the player has a number, he or she will probably use it when it is relevant. For example a player with an allegedly +2 dagger may well announce that she has rolled a total of 14 on her attack roll, including the dagger's magical bonus, but the bonus may be mistaken, and the DM might miss the fact that the dagger is really +1, and that the total roll is really 13.
I don't think this is a real problem because the effort for the DM of noting that the player has the wrong bonus is probably still less than the effort it would take for the DM to account for
all magical bonuses that the party enjoys. That's to say, if the party has a few items that are magical, and the DM is trying to use the method as proposed, she or he has to track all the magical modifiers of each weapon, armor, and other relevant magical items, while, under the method I am suggesting, the DM only has to track those items that were not identified correctly, which should only be a small percentage of the analyzed items.
Second question: in the example, would the second successful roll tell the player that it was "strong against dragons" or simply that there was a second "strong" aura?
Third question about this spell: would repeated castings yield the same, possibly mistaken, results? Otherwise I would certainly cast the spell a few times, to make sure I got the correct result. Maybe allow new results only after the caster has gained a new level?
Fourth question: what about other details, such as the charges in a wand, or the command word? Will the spell reveal these details?
Solomoriah wrote:Bird of Desire
Inspired by Zelazny? Nice title for a spell, in any case.
"Nice veins." - Dr. Dreyfuss, in The Apartment