Topic: Add on elemental attacks vs elemental resistance

[markc]

Lord Miller and Yammahoper,

 Maybe both need to be done. A way to increase the power of elemental spells at higher levels and a way to provide for defencive spells to have a worthy impact in the game.

MDC

[Dark Schneider]

I am agree with yammahoper in that defensive spells should be stronger. You are talking about +30 DB...what spell gives you +30 DB?, I don't like the idea that are races (dwarves for fire) or with talents you can have more PERMANENT elemental protection than with magic.

I think once all we define a balanced rule for this, post it in ICE Vault as official document, mainly because sometimes some players are a bit stubborn.

To begin, I think all of us are agree with 2 things:

1) double the bonus for spells.
2) don't apply full bonus for natural bonus (race/talent) in certain cases, as against area spells, magical defense ALWAYS is FULL applied. Maybe this 'cases' should be defined better.

[PiXeL01]

I was wondering then, how would you apply those resistances to the follow up effects on Lightning Bolts (it is electrical but can have fire and impact elements), Ice Bolts (being mainly an attack of kinetic energy) and other attacks which can have secondary effects

[Arioch]

This is an interesting question, but I think that when we have found a way to deal with the main problem secondary effects will be solved easly.
Also the secondary and tertiary criticals from the various Bolt spells are not "true" spearate crits, IMHO they're linked to the first critical.
What I mean is that, for example, a Lightning Bolt may give you a secondary "A" Heat crit, but that is not a real "A" crit, it's part of the "F" Electricity crit obtained by the lightning bolt. So, even if it's a Heat crit, it still comes from Electricity and you cannot apply your Heat resistance to it...

[yammahoper]

Marc, I accept and embrace your diplomatic solution.

Good roll

lynn

[Balhirath]

This is an interesting question, but I think that when we have found a way to deal with the main problem secondary effects will be solved easly.
Also the secondary and tertiary criticals from the various Bolt spells are not "true" spearate crits, IMHO they're linked to the first critical.
What I mean is that, for example, a Lightning Bolt may give you a secondary "A" Heat crit, but that is not a real "A" crit, it's part of the "F" Electricity crit obtained by the lightning bolt. So, even if it's a Heat crit, it still comes from Electricity and you cannot apply your Heat resistance to it...

Hmm You'll have to define what protection really is, then. Is it an aura-like shield around the body or does the magic exist in the body?
If it is a shield I would say that a lightning bolt penetrated the shield and that the secondary (Or tertiary) heat is caused in the body. If the magic is IN the body, then the spell would work against that heat critical, be cause IMO heat is heat no matter how it is delivered.

[Arioch]

So if you had a dwarf (+30 vs Heat) hit badly by a lightning bolt and receiving and "F" crit from it you would reduce the result of the secondary Heat crit?

[Marc R]

Perhaps it's better to pose a more extreme example to answer that one.

If the target is immune to heat/fire "Takes no damage from fire or heat criticals" is I think the wording. .and you slap them with a lightningbolt result that includes a heat crit, would they ignore it per immunity?

I think the wording of immunity implies that they would only take the elec and impact crits, and you don't even roll the heat crit since they're immune.

[vroomfogle]

Finally read through this thread.

I agree with the idea that defensive spells should be stronger then offensive spells in magnitude as they often work against a limited type of attacks.

I think Crit Reduction is the best way to go for Resistance.   Modifying the crit roll itself is unprecedented, and again, we are talking about resistances to only certain elements or types of criticals, not against all criticals.     If an adjustment is made to the crit roll itself the only thing that makes any sense is 5:1, like Ambush, anything else is way too powerful.  A E-20 is a Free Get-Out-Of-Death card (except for that 1% chance of 66).   There is no precedence for that in the rules that I can recall.

[yammahoper]

Crit reduction would be great, with the prescedent of -25 and -50 if crits are reduced below A's.

So light armor I, +20DB, 1/2 hits, reduce all lightning crits by I, including secondary crits if any.

lynn

[Marc R]

Issue would need to address double taps though.

Like, if I lightningbolt you, you shouldn't necissarily get +20 DB and a crit reduction.

No problem with "Walk through lightning wall, no attack roll or RR, reduce crit by 1 level" in that situation.

As to secondaries, I'd think "Reduce by 1" would make an F an E, rather than making the E and A that make up the F into a D and an A-25. . .then again, my "immunity" comment above would almost seem to say that you're right.

[Fidoric]

Just to muddy things a litle more, what do protective magic protect you from ?
Against the magic powering the attack or the elemental manifestation of it. That is, do your elemental resistance (ice) protect against the magic throwing at you the ice bolt or against the ice shards being propelled ? In the latter case, then it acts more like a a deflection IMO.
BTW, does a Cold resistance serve against a icebolt, granting you DB. After all, it's a cold-based attack in name only.

I think part of the problem stems out of magical attacks against which nothing protects (elemental wall for example). Every other spells are either resisted or you can apply your DB against them. Those 'no RR' spells are just handled differently, hence the problem.
The resistance spells are definitively designed to work against RR or DB spells. May be the only solution would be to change the 'no RR spells' and make them normal ones ?

Anyway, I don't think that any spell should suppress the sudden death completely, lest you play RM no more... Maybe a powerful elemental protection can make you invulnerable to any critical under C (eg 20th lvl spell), but IMHO, no mere resistance or armor spell should be absolutely safe. After all, no armor, no matter how thick, will guarantee you can not be beheaded.

[Ecthelion]

To begin, I think all of us are agree with 2 things:

Sorry, but not all of us agree to the above. At least I don't.

1) double the bonus for spells.

I agree that the defensive spell should give better protection than they do at the moment. But I am quite sure that the solution to simply double the RR bonus is not a good one. It may be part of a solution, but not more.

2) don't apply full bonus for natural bonus (race/talent) in certain cases, as against area spells, magical defense ALWAYS is FULL applied. Maybe this 'cases' should be defined better.

Why should this be done? If you think that in comparison to the spells the racial bonuses are too high then it might be better to reduce the racial bonuses and e.g. cut them in half. But adding complexity but defining in which cases to only apply a part of the bonus would not be a good solution.

[Balhirath]

I usually draw a rather sharp line between natural elements and magic or super natural elements.
Races with a bonus against some elements (like the +30 for dwarfs), can only apply that bonus against the natural form of the element. It have no influence on the resistance against the Super Natural form.
(This is also the case of the spells from Elemental Shields. Heatarmor for example protect against all natural heat, and modify spells with heat by 20.)

As the question about Ice bolt, I'll have to say that in theory it is the physical impact of the Ice that do the damage and not cold, However for the sake of simplicity I would go with the wording of the spell and give the caster a +20 db, since it is a spell involving cold.

I have forgotten the reason why I just substracted the bonus from the critical, but I thought that it was a rule. However looking through the books didn't help until I got hold of Spell Users Companion.
On Spell users Q&A on page 146, Question 9: How does Heat/Cold resistance affect a character who goes through a Wall of Fire or a Wall of Cold?
Answer:  Substract the bonus given from the spell from the critical roll.

However I have to say that after following the debate here, I will change the way I handle the Elemental Shields spell and go with the Crit severity shift instead.
Of cause that only apply in the case where DB and Resistance roll doesn't apply.

[Dark Schneider]

Like, if I lightningbolt you, you shouldn't necissarily get +20 DB and a crit reduction.

I am agree, bonuses should be applied only once, so against attacks you apply DB, if there is no attack (crit without RR) then modify crit., and if there is crit if failed RR, apply it to RR.

2) don't apply full bonus for natural bonus (race/talent) in certain cases, as against area spells, magical defense ALWAYS is FULL applied. Maybe this 'cases' should be defined better.

Why should this be done? If you think that in comparison to the spells the racial bonuses are too high then it might be better to reduce the racial bonuses and e.g. cut them in half. But adding complexity but defining in which cases to only apply a part of the bonus would not be a good solution.

I think are not high, in a 100 based system (100 roll + 100 skill bonus possible) are not too high. The problem are rolls that are not based on 100 bonus skills, as area spells, appling full bonus for those attacks can make the resistance too high, but ONLY in that case.
If I remember well, in 'monsters & creatures' is suggested that you use half DB against area attacks, an easy method for not hard computation (search for QU, resistances, etc. for that creature).

1) double the bonus for spells.

I agree that the defensive spell should give better protection than they do at the moment. But I am quite sure that the solution to simply double the RR bonus is not a good one. It may be part of a solution, but not more.

Maybe should be based on spell roll (as roll/4 for lesser spells, roll/2 for medium spells, etc.), so more ranks in spell lists, more powerfull the spells.

I forgot to mention that we can't forget about 'spell mastery', you can increase spell power (double, triple...) the effect, so increasing the bonus could be allowed for defensive spells. This option is not provided in basic skill description or in SoHK, so we could add it.

I think it can be a good solution for ALL defensive spells and a reward for specializing in a defensive spell list (the -50 OB for bladeturn, -10 OB/10 RR fail, the bonus for 'magic defenses'). But, as many of defensive spells are instantaneous, the SCSM roll should be avoided and only use the risk of skill fumble, or in the case of using it, change the 'you can cast the next round with no roll' result for 'the spell is converted to class I' (so then initiatives are used).

[Arioch]

I think are not high, in a 100 based system (100 roll + 100 skill bonus possible) are not too high. The problem are rolls that are not based on 100 bonus skills, as area spells, appling full bonus for those attacks can make the resistance too high, but ONLY in that case.
If I remember well, in 'monsters & creatures' is suggested that you use half DB against area attacks, an easy method for not hard computation (search for QU, resistances, etc. for that creature).

I think that the DB is halved only because quickness is not going to help you very much in evading a fireball... I think that applying the whole BD bonus for racial resistance against Ball attack is ok. Balls hit with very low results, so a Fireball against a dwarf is probably going to do only a few hits, which I think is right, since the dwarf is resistant to fire...

[Warl]

Since this has started up in a newer thread, I thought I would repond here even thought the thread is a little "cold".

I had an Idea to Keep it much simpler than having to look up 2 results on a weapon attack table and covers static effects like a wall of fire under the same rule.

each increment of 25 resistance  reduces the crit result 1 level. You have to be within 5 points of the 25 mark to gain the reduction.

20-25 resistance or greater= -1 severity level
45-50 or greater = -2 severity levels
70-75 or greater= -3 severity
95-100 or greater = -4 severity

and so on and so on.

This helps to cover all aspects. So a dwarf with a +30 resitance to fire would reduce all fire criticals 1 level.

[Marc R]

I'd like to think that -100 equates to immunity. Like an Elf's +100 vs Disease modifier.

Easier way to look at that logic would be to say "Every -20 = 1 crit reduction"

So -100 is 5 steps, or E to D to C to B to A to nothing.

but, the rules already do have the logic of "A crit reduced 1 step = A -25" and "A crit reduced 2 steps = A -50" which would make that logic really:

So -100 is 5 steps of -20, or E to D to C to B to A to A-25.

A-100 would be "Nothing" or "No possible Effect", following the -25, -50 logic that would seem to be:

E to D to C to B to A to A-25 to A-25 to A-75 to A-100.

Which, is 8 steps, not the most friendly number.

reduce 1 crit level per -12.5? That would mean that a +100 resistance to something means you cannot take damage from it and are immune. Not the best number in the world, with that .5 in there, but it does seem to make logical sense.

So Resistances vs no attack roll, no RR critical results:

1-11 = no effect on critical
12-24 = -1 severity
25-37 = -2 severities
38-50 = -3 severities
51-62 = -4 severities (immune to A or less)
63-75 = -5 severities (immune to B or less)
76-87 = -6 severities (immune to C or less)
88-99 = -7 severities (Immune to D or less)
100    = -8 severities (immune)

(I know there are F, G, H, etc crits, but all are rolled as E+A or E+B)

[RandalThor]

OK, so I am a little late to the party...... 

As for the "do the defensive spells defend against the element the spell creates or the spell itself" question: It protects from the element created which is why it is called Lightning Armor or Heat Armor or whatever. If it was against the "raw" magic of the spell it would be a Cancel or Dispel spell (which they have).

For racial bonuses being natural or supernatural: that all depends upon how the GM interprets the race for that particular world. If they say the dwarves resistance to heat/fire is because they are always in their forges or their underground cities are near lava tubes, then it can be deemed "natural." If they say it is because they have magical resistance - well that speaks for itself doesn't it?!?  What difference this makes (I believe) should be very little. Because the spell pulls in or creates the element in question the natural/supernatural resistance should help in defending them. If it really bothers you to have a "natural" defense help against a "supernatural" attack, than don't let it, or halve it. Whatever works for you.

The +100 resistance equalling immunity I did not know, I always thought that immunity meant immunity and if there was a number (no matter how high) meant that a roll had to be made in case they flubbed. If the individual/race/creature/whatever is going to be immune to a particular attack or element or whatever than maybe it should just be listed as: IMMUNUTY. (Crazy, I know, but I am a rebel like that.  )

As for the +/- 20 protection from fire (or whatever) I would just apply the +20 to DB vs. Bolt/Ball/Cone/Parallelograms and/or the -20 to whatever crit roll was achieved (but only to the crit type the protection works against) if it says it is to do that - most don't. As for it against the static effect (wall spells, etc.) I might half it and apply it to the critical roll - or I might not have it help at all. I mean, they are trying to run through a WALL OF FIRE (or whatever) If it says -1 level of crit, I would subract from that crit and if it meant they did not get an F crit (i.e., an E crit + an A crit), then they don't. That is the power of the protection. If it says both, than they get boths (That would be some serious protection!)

 

[Marc R]

yeah, it does get snarky. . . .and immunity does actually work differently.

if you have a +80 RR/DB to fire, and for instance that meant 4 crit reductions. . . .

You walk into a wall of fire. . .you could even stand in it and hang out. . .you could go to sleep in it, as you're effectively immune to A crits.

But a firebolt, rolled well, could inflict an A crit on you, since for that the resistance is just DB.

While an immune would just ignore both, no need to even roll the firebolt.

Which is kind of strange. . . .in the end, the only way to really make a shift like this make wholistic sense, you'd make damage resistance vs a given type of damage only affect one end, rather than DB/RR or crit depending on circumstance.