Topic: Change to ice bolt

[Dark Schneider]

We can continue here this topic, with origin here http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=8739.msg111977#msg111977

There is another bolt that should be changed definitely, the ice bolt, with the current description I see it as if we take an ice piece of our freezer and throw it to target, for that it uses impact criticals, IMO that interpretation is wrong.

I see the ice bolt like a condensed cold, it has no mass (it can be ignored) like the fire or light bolts, so it should use cold and not impact criticals. Like cold criticals are better than impact (if I remember well) and the bolt has no mass, then secondary critical should be removed.

So, the ice bolt is like the fire bolt but does cold criticals, I think this is the correct interpretation.

The last post is this:

Cold, 81-85	| +13, snp2	| +14, snp3, 4/r	| s6, f-40, 5/r	| s9, 6/r	| +17, d9
Impact, 81-85	| +10, f-25	| +10, s2, f-25	| +15, s3, f-40	| +20, out	| +30, d6
------------------------
Cold, 86-90	| down, s2 (f-70)	| down, s3 (f-75)	| s9, f-80, 6/r	| down (d12)	| d9
Impact, 86-90	| +10, down3, np3	| +20, s3, f-50	| +20, snp2, f-60	| +20, s12 (d6)	| +50, d3
------------------------
Cold, 91-95	| down, s3 (s6, f-50)	| +17, snp3, f-75	| +17, down (d9)	| +18, d9	| +19, d6
Impact, 91-95	| +20, snp3, f-50	| +25, d (out)	| +20, snp9, f-75	| +50, d3	| +30, d6
------------------------
Cold, 96-99	| s9 (out)	| out (d9)	| +18, d6	| +19, d6	| +20, d, nr+10
Impact, 96-99	| +20, out	| +25, d12	| +50, d	| +25, d1	| d, nr+20
------------------------
Cold, 00	| +21, out	| d1, nr+5	| out	| +20, d2	| d
Impact, 00	| +25, out (d3)	| +30, out	| d, nr+10	| d, nr+25	| d

So, I made a comparative table.

• +X   = +X hit damage,
• snp  = stun no parry,
• X/r  = bleeding damage of X hits per round,
• f-X  = fights at -40,
• s    = stun
• np   = no parry,
• dX   = death in X rounds with no number given meaning instant death,
• out  = cannot fight any longer,
• ()    = happens if no armour at location,
• down = is down (but not out),
• nr+X  = +X to next roll.

In green, the result I think is best, in red the exact reason why. So I have 4 cases where Cold critical is better, 20 where Impact critical is better, and 1 where both are equal. I think this gives my opinion on the matter. Reasoning:

• no parry is good!
• Sure damage is better than conditional damage.

So let's continue.

[Dark Schneider]

So I have 4 cases where Cold critical is better, 20 where Impact critical is better

Yes, but that is in "brute", splitting criticals results in single damages, an example:

Cold, 86-90   | down, s2 (f-70)
Impact, 86-90 | +10, down3, np3

This is, in brute, 2 better for impact, but grouping all damage in one as it is really, what is better?, it is not clear, if can kill the target in those 3 rounds, impact seems better, but if not the case (you need 2 rounds to prepare the spell for example), the (f-70) is clearly better.

Another example is the C(91-95), I think an instant death is good even if it has delay. Or the C(86-90), if you are fighting alone against that target with a spell user (you use a spell user for sure if you do cold/impact criticals), is really snp2 better than 6/r+s9 (this are 54HPs for free with no risk for us, and continue bleeding next rounds), IMO not.

For D(96-99) I have d8 in my tables for impact (so this is a red for cold), and for E(96-99) is d3 for impact. But in any case, generally I don't care some more or less rounds to death if target can do nothing, is not relevant really, so many greens or reds for this is not very important IMO.

I think looking at the whole damage is very different.

This is my opinion for each result using the entire damage (e=equal, c=cold, i=impact):

81-85: A(e) B(c) C(c) D(e) E(i)
86-90: A(c) B(e, because with armor(i) but without(c)) C(c) D(c, is out in any case) E(i)
91-95: A(i) B(i) C(c, because delayed die) D(i, but is kill with no activity in any case) E(e, because impact could allow a spell user to cast a spell before die, but does more damage for non-spell users)
96-99: A(c, is out) B(i, but both are out in any case) C(i) D(e) E(e, impact gives us greater bonus but could allow a spell caster to cast with a SCSM for no hand use).
100: A(c, both are out but cold is death always) B(c, impact allows to cast spells with SCSM) C(i) D(i) E(c, nr+20)

Counting... Cold = 10, Impact = 9.

The problem is that for these high result, all is important damage, so 1 or 2 better results for each one is not very relevant, IMO is more interesting look at medium results to make an average critical damage. I'll look them and then I'll post other comparsion type A() B() C() D() E().

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

This is, in brute, 2 better for impact, but grouping all damage in one as it is really, what is better?, it is not clear, if can kill the target in those 3 rounds, impact seems better, but if not the case (you need 2 rounds to prepare the spell for example), the (f-70) is clearly better.

No, because it's conditional.
As I said, certainty is IMO always better than conditional damage, not to mention you're assured the guy cannot even parry!

Another example is the C(91-95), I think an instant death is good even if it has delay.

Once again, conditional damage. In the cold case, you may inflict certain death whereas in the impact case, you're certain to have a stun no parry for 9 rounds. Personally, I'll take the latter any day (it's not as if the condition was impossible since it's merely "if opponent has armour at location").

Or the C(86-90), if you are fighting alone against that target with a spell user (you use a spell user for sure if you do cold/impact criticals), is really snp2 better than 6/r+s9 (this are 54HPs for free with no risk for us, and continue bleeding next rounds), IMO not.

IMO, yes. First, because as previously, you put conditions (which is already giving a biased opinion) and second because your opponent won't be able to parry whatever you do to him next.

Anyway, you're persuaded that cold is better, so power to you. For my part, I made and posted the chart because I didn't have any opinion (now I have one) and to allow others to see for themselves.

[Nders]

Olf is hitting the nail right on the head here

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I didn't notice, but...

100: A(c, both are out but cold is death always) ... E(c, nr+20)

What? It's clearly something I don't have in my RM2 Spell Law book. Which book do you use, DS?

[Marc R]

I suspect, that would actually be something more like a cold or frost bolt. . . .something like the "bolts" done by dragon breath attacks per CT?

[mocking bird]

I was thinking more along the lines of the frost bolts out of the Elemental Companion - RMSS, don't know about the RM version.

From this it also means the ice bolt is actually using elemental ice rather than simple frozen water.  It also means that you don't have a puddle of water or spear of ice left over as it would dissolve back to its natural element fairly quickly.

And from there you have the interesting question does elemental water conduct electricity as normal water does.  To which I would say no as elemental water would be considered distilled which is actually a resistor but I digress...

[Dark Schneider]

I didn't notice, but...

100: A(c, both are out but cold is death always) ... E(c, nr+20)

What? It's clearly something I don't have in my RM2 Spell Law book. Which book do you use, DS?

RMFRP, well in A(100) it is not really death, but is coma, impact is unconscious with armor. This could be an equal instead cold.

From this it also means the ice bolt is actually using elemental ice rather than simple frozen water.

That is exactly what I am talking about, the current ice bolt is like a frozen water instead what is supposed to generate the 'ice law' spell list without external elements. It could be the possiblity of use it as 'cold bolt' if there is not water near and 'ice bolt' (the frozen water that uses impact) if there is water near.

Anyway, these are only conjectures because until I would test it I can't be sure about if using cold is really better, the possiblity to use as cold/ice if water near, etc.

I only talk using my own first person experience, as my character is a magician, and after many combats, using all types of attacks, but this one (using cold crits. with ice bolt table) is not tested. But I see many results in middle range of 3, 4 and 6 bleeding and by own experience I know this balance the combat to your side. Currently my favorite is the fire bolt for that.

[mocking bird]

That is exactly what I am talking about, the current ice bolt is like a frozen water instead what is supposed to generate the 'ice law' spell list without external elements. It could be the possiblity of use it as 'cold bolt' if there is not water near and 'ice bolt' (the frozen water that uses impact) if there is water near.

Unless you take it that the ice is created by the caster 'out of thin air'.  If you require a water supply nearby then using that logic could you cast shock bolt,  creating a beam of intense light, at night?  I prefer to use the former as it makes things simpler.  Otherwise you get into the problem of having this spell or water bolt for that matter sucking the water out of nearby creatures, or even the caster, to power itself.

[rdanhenry]

The Mystic needs a source for his elemental bolts, a Magician creates the elemental material himself (or pulls it from another plane or whatever... in practical terms, it appears at his command). And the list is called "Ice Law", not "Cold Law", so it isn't as if Spell Law assumes there is elemental cold.

[Temujin]

Indeed.  I find it funny you go to great lenghts to demonstrate that you have the "correct interpretation" by using a spell not as written, switching criticals because you want the spell to be something else.  Btw, if you want a Cold Bolt, there is such a thing in the Elemental Companion, Cold Law iirc.  But maybe your interpretation will make Ice Bolt a spell on Cold Law and Cold Bolt a spell on Ice law, I suppose, more power to you, just don't come arguing that this is the "right interpretation" all along

[Dark Schneider]

if you want a Cold Bolt, there is such a thing in the Elemental Companion

I didn't noticed that.

I suppose, more power to you, just don't come arguing that this is the "right interpretation" all along Roll Eyes

Wrong, I am the 1st one that want a balanced game, i.e. see at this http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=8773.0

but it is true that the cold critical is underused and the impact critical is overused in 'spell law' not using the 'elemental companion', that each 'bolt' does their respective critical (fire-heat, lightning-electricity, water-impact) and ice could be the exception, there are some reasonable points for doubt about if use impact or cold criticals, and the question is if using cold criticals is balanced for the ice bolt table as lvl 6 spell, in other words, if is balanced with 'fire bolt' for example, or if it not suffers a downgrade using another point of view (cold version instead frozen water).

The over/under-use is a good reason, if we not use the elemental companion, see how many spells uses impact criticals (water bolt, ice bolt, vacuum, fail to summon demons, I am sure there are more...) and how many cold (cold ball, cold wall and its 'cube' version) and that usually doesn't do more than a 'C' but for UMRs. For that the intention to balance more the use of each one, see that new CC uses cold for 'ice bolt' if I am not mistaken.

But is really far to be a question about gain power for that bolt, see that it was propposed to remove the secondary critical if used cold because IMO (before test it) the cold could be a bit better than impact.

[thrud]

Just to make it more interesting... 
Waterbolt is a tier IV Impact attack and Ice Bolt a tier IV cold attack in CC.
I think waterbolt just became a more popular spell. 

[providence13]

Unless you take it that the ice is created by the caster 'out of thin air'.  If you require a water supply nearby then using that logic could you cast shock bolt,  creating a beam of intense light, at night?  I prefer to use the former as it makes things simpler.  Otherwise you get into the problem of having this spell or water bolt for that matter sucking the water out of nearby creatures, or even the caster, to power itself.

"Out of thin air" is pretty important here. For waterbolt, it does specifically state a water source. Flexible GM's may allow this moisture to come from the atmosphere, but that would draw moisture from the air in a massive radius! Others may say that it's a mixture of this and essence. I always like the pictures in the book of the caster diverting streams and such.
The same could be said of shock bolts. There would be plenty of "charge", if I may, in the air/between caster and target. The "essence" could form the solenoid tunnel the bolt rides until it hits its target.

OTOH, Firebolt sounds like a bolt of another color..

[providence13]

And beam at night?

Well there is light; moonlight, starlight, etc.
Animals with excellent night vision (and nasty Elveses, ) seem to reflect lights. They don't make it of course, but reflect ambient. Maybe Shockbolt does this too.

[Temujin]

but it is true that the cold critical is underused and the impact critical is overused in 'spell law' not using the 'elemental companion'

I'll grant you that Cold critical is less used than Impact crit, using Spell law only as a reference.

[rdanhenry]

Unless you take it that the ice is created by the caster 'out of thin air'.  If you require a water supply nearby then using that logic could you cast shock bolt,  creating a beam of intense light, at night?  I prefer to use the former as it makes things simpler.  Otherwise you get into the problem of having this spell or water bolt for that matter sucking the water out of nearby creatures, or even the caster, to power itself.

"Out of thin air" is pretty important here. For waterbolt, it does specifically state a water source.

Not for the Magician. The Mystic needs a source from which he directs his bolts. The Magician (or any user of the various lists which provide Shock Bolts) does not.

[providence13]

rdanhenry,
Ahh, good point to remember.

[mocking bird]

And beam at night?

Well there is light; moonlight, starlight, etc.

How much water is needed to make a bolt?  By comparison how much moonlight is needed to create a shock bolt?  What about underground?  How much wood would a wood bolt bolt if a wood bolt could bolt wood?

[Marc R]

1 cubic foot I think. . .(woodchuck)

a cubic foot of light. . . .hmm, where's smug or one of the other physicists when I need one to describe something like that in amusing technical terms? ("So, if you assume the cubic foot is the number of photons present in one cubic foot of direct sunlight, then that is equal to. . . .")

(The cubic foot is the wall spells, not sure about the mystic bolts. . .but the theory is the same.)