Topic: New definition for 'critical zone' spells

[Dark Schneider]

There are some spells that directly rolls criticals, for example firewall, but, is this correct?, it doesn't use the caster skill and the defender abilities.

I see more correct to use a ball table as attack, the problem is that any ball table is modified for the base spell, so cold ball table is lesser damage than fire ball table because fireball is 10'R and cold ball is 20'R. I can be wrong, and maybe this is in this way because fire is more destructive than cold.

But, using an attack table you are using the defender elemental resistance, its QU (if you pass quicker you receive less damage) and magical defense (as ball tables don't use any other DB). Too, you are using caster skill as you add spell list ranks to OB.

So, you only create modifiers for any critical result, for example, firewall 'A' critical has a +0 modifier, we could add a +20 for any critical more, so 'B' critical is +20 OB, 'C' critical is +40 OB, etc. or any other modifier (you need to play to try the best balanced one).

As I say, the problem is that you need to search for other elements ball tables, as any element have their good and bad points against any armor type.

[Arioch]

That's could be a good idea. You could use the general Ball attack table on the core RM manual, instead of specific Cold/Fire Ball attack table.
The larger is the area of effect of the spell, the higher should IMHO be the OB of the attack, while gravity of the crit normally delivered by the spell should limit the maximum result on the attack table.
For example, a spell delivering "A" criticals could be limited to a maximum result of 20 on the attack table, while another delivering "E" criticals will not have any restriction.

[Marc R]

There are other effects like this, namely immoliate from CT. . . .which for different monsters used different rules. . .I think the salamander blew up in a fireball, but the demons and undead just inflicted a set cold or heat critical in a given radius.

The elementals had variations of ways to handle this also.

Might be worth checking out.

[RandalThor]

But isn't the reasoning behind some spells going automatically to a critical being that they do not require an attack roll - the target puts themselves into the area of affect. Take a Firewall: If the mage blocks the corridor with the spell and you decide to try and go through it, you take the critical it indicates. If he fires a lightning bolt at you, he has to make a successful directed spells attack to deal damage to you.

Just my opinion, but I think the rules handle this pretty-well, and allows for quicker resolution by not adding in even more rolls.

[Dark Schneider]

Yes, you can use it for faster the game, this rule could be for more realistic use.

Take a Firewall: If the mage blocks the corridor with the spell and you decide to try and go through it, you take the critical it indicates

But, look at 2 targets, 1st has +0 to QU (it is slow) and have no fire resistance, 2nd has +10 QU (wow!) so it can pass through the fire in no time, it has +20 to fire resistance (talent or racial) and someone cast an 'fire armor' spell on it (other +20 magical resistance), do you see well that both suffer the same damage?.

Many people talks about using the resistance to substract it from critical roll, but then, the attack is totally destroyed, using an attack table you always have the high-ended or UMR risk possibility.

[Temujin]

Yes, I also think spells like that would be more coherent with the whole system of DB/RR if it used an attack table, otherwise you get silly things precisely like Resist Heat being useful vs Fireball, but not Firewall.

[Warl]

thing about a fire wall vs a fireball, You can try and dodge a fireball and it is an Instant effect, Where as a Firewall, if you choose to step through or even get close, your are deliberately exposing yourself to the direct "persistent" flame. I could see resistance reducing the possible crit or even the severity level, and yes this COULD create a situation where the crit does very little, but it is possible for that to happen.

I have seen People run Out of burning buildings through what appears to be a sheet or wall of flame and the worst they got was some hair singed off, where the next guy to jump through gets His face severely burned.

I am fine with how those spells work and if a protection item or spell gives resistance to that type of damage then I would have it reduce the severity a level or reduce the roll some what in the case of an "A" crit. Luck and randomness of life Determines what happens at that point.

As for one guy running through really fast and the other guy being a bit slower. Unless Unless the first guy can Run faster than Humanly possible, the difference in amount of time exposed is going to be very Small and insignificant.  So you DB isn't gong to apply, especially since you CAN'T really dodge something you purosefully Exposed yourself too.  The only time it will make a difference is If the next guy is moving SO slow he ends up in or near enough to it more than 1 round of time, in which case he will take another crit.

[Dark Schneider]

I have seen People run Out of burning buildings through what appears to be a sheet or wall of flame and the worst they got was some hair singed off, where the next guy to jump through gets His face severely burned.

Remember that the attack table can do that, it has many results (more than with using the same critical).

As for one guy running through really fast and the other guy being a bit slower. Unless Unless the first guy can Run faster than Humanly possible, the difference in amount of time exposed is going to be very Small and insignificant.  So you DB isn't gong to apply, especially since you CAN'T really dodge something you purosefully Exposed yourself too.

The QU as in any other case, it can be not applied part or at all, for example, fighting in balance you can't use much QU for DB, and this is the same case, I think that for a wall you can use your QU DB if you can roll or tumbling from 1 side of wall to the other one, if not, you don't use QU DB (or only partial).

But the resistance always should be used, is the same a 'north man' (that likes the cold) than a dwarf (great fire resistance)?. Using only the 'Luck and randomness' is not enough IMO if not you can apply that rule in many other situations, and then we have the Star Wars RPG  with no solid rules.

[Marc R]

There was already a thread getting into Elemental resistance vs persistant, no attack and/or no RR auto effects. . .like firewall, or "melee attack inflicts elemental critical of one less severity":

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=5728.msg75921#msg75921

[Dark Schneider]

OK, I can finish this with the solution for:

As I say, the problem is that you need to search for other elements ball tables, as any element have their good and bad points against any armor type.

It is simple, using the cold and fire ball tables with modifiers, so more destructive elements we use fire and others we use cold table. Then, we use +-5 OB modifier to compensate the armor attack modifier (viewing tables you can see that we can't use bigger mods), and using the right crits.

For example:
- Electricity: it uses fire with -5 to leather and +5 to metal armors.
- Impact (as water or air): use cold with -5 to plate and +5 to no-armor.

This is GM decision but I think is not bad, and I see balanced. See that these elements could require some spell research as they don't have spells of this type by default. So you can research for a 'high pressure water wall', that substracts OB and if anyone pass it receives the impact attack.

You can read other methods in the other thread.