Topic: Why should I scale up a bolt/ball spell?

[Mungo]

Hi,

I remember it was alreadydiscussed some years ago, but forgot the conclusion.

Why should I scale-up a bolt/ball spell?

It gives me -10 per size increase, but looking at the tables (H&S) the difference in critical result is 10 if I go one size higher, i.e. I lose 10 in the roll to lower the barrier to reach a certain crit by 10....

BR Juergen

[WoeRie]

As far as I remember there was no conculsion. Some suggested to reintroduce damage caps, others said that there is no problem, regardless of any math

In my campaign I reintroduced damage caps at 130/135/140/145, but it changed overall after my players had PP adders, because the main problem is the faster casting and this can be changed with an appropriate adder. I think I wouldn't use my caps in a new campaign anymore, leave the bolts and balls Tiny. The caster has to increase his ranks anyway, the main issue is the bonus (OB) and the option of scaling is more or less a free byproduct to it.

[Right Wing Wacko]

I seem to remember that Rasyr had a good conclusion to this, but I may be wrong. That was a while ago...

[Ecthelion]

Scaling a bolt/ball spell probably makes more sense with the HARP core combat system where a Tiny attack is limited to a maximum result of 80 on the table and the fatal criticals usually start at 106. Then scaling is the only chance to knock out or kill an opponent. Plus the table ends relatively quickly at 80 if you don't scale. For Hack & Slash scaling is IMHO mostly quite useless since even a Tiny attack can achieve a deadly critical and scaling does not change the critical unless you achieve a result of >150. Only if the caster is quite certain that he will break 150 or if the critical is not so important for some reason, then it might make sense to scale a spell when using Hack & Slash. Otherwise safe the Power Points and go for the Tiny bolt/ball.

[Maelstrom]

But,but,but...  bolts and balls scaled for huge crits look so much coooooler!   

[WoeRie]

But,but,but...  bolts and balls scaled for huge crits look so much coooooler!   

Yes, my NPCs quote that 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I seem to remember that Rasyr had a good conclusion to this, but I may be wrong. That was a while ago...

These threads should help (I did a search using only the terms "bolt" and "scaling"

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=5679.0

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=1803.0

[Mungo]

I will introduce a house rule for H&S in my games that death criticals are ignored if your attack size is smaller than the target's size. Except a condition is met that allows you to ignore damage caps (f.e. unmodified 99 and 100).

BR Juergen

[WoeRie]

Also for weapons? That would make the short sword and dagger an even worse weapon.

[Mungo]

Also for weapons? That would make the short sword and dagger an even worse weapon.

Yes. But I think this is ok:

a) Killing even an unarmed man with a dagger in 1 round when the unarmed man is defending himself is VERY difficult in my opinion.

b) The highest result of a dagger or short sword against a human is with my ruling: 44 hits, 7 rounds stunned, 10 hits/round bleeding (7 if you don't use hit locations), -85 penalty. I don't want any one of my characters receive this.

c) There are enough ways to ignore the damage cap:
- unmodified 99 or 100
- Ambush
- Dirty Fighting
- Sniping
- Frenzy
- False Disengage

BR Juergen

[Mungo]

But,but,but...  bolts and balls scaled for huge crits look so much coooooler!   

I suggest (without any personal interest of course  ) that you introduce in your games "style points" for cool actions. And if a player gets 10 style points, he gets a fate point or a coo item or can reroll one action ...

BR Juergen

[RandalThor]

I dno't know what the original thread said but I have done some investigating and have come up with this [I am going on the assumption that the scaled roll will have a -10 total crit number than the non-scaled spell, is that what you all are going with?):

H&S internal only (no comparison to original crit tables): You will get a higher amount of hit damage, though the critical type (A, B, C, etc) will stay the same. This increased damage can end up being quite a bit if you scaled more than once. Is it worthi ti to you? I don't know, that is up to you. In one instance, the results of a spell scaled all the way from tiny to huge was 6L (tiny/100 result) vs 22L (huge/60 result). In the end the difference was 16 hits. Is that worth it for you to have a greater chance of "missing"? That's totally up to you.

H&S Compared to the original charts: No reason to scale. In one example, the original chart ended up with 1 extra hit, 2 more rounds of stun, and an extra point of bleeding each round. Not earth shattering, but better none-the-less.

Original crit charts only: This is the weird one. With the +10 and -10 pretty-much offsetting each other isn't the resulting number basically the same? The only diffeence being the max possible number - which only comes into play if you roll really well. Again, totally a decision for the spellcasting player.

It seems to me that the way it was originally developed (no H&S) - with each size increase granting a +10 to the crit result but also a -10 to the casting roll - that scaling would end up being a totally personal choice. Do you go with the possible bonus damage or not?

Of course, in the above examples, the added PP expenditure meant a slower casting time. That is the same across the board so I decided to not factor it in.

Personally, if/when using H&S I would go ahead and scale the spell at times, usually whan I wanted to do as much hits as I could.

[WoeRie]

Of course, in the above examples, the added PP expenditure meant a slower casting time. That is the same across the board so I decided to not factor it in.

Personally, if/when using H&S I would go ahead and scale the spell at times, usually whan I wanted to do as much hits as I could.

If you look at H&S only the additional -10 for faster casting is the main problem. It reduces your critical beyond the critical of the unscaled spell, making the scaling not only useless, but less effective than the unscaled version.

But this is described in far more detail in the two threads Rasyr linked in his above post.

[RandalThor]

Yes, but that is only if choose to use the faster casting option. You have then chosen another complication that you don't have to have.

[WoeRie]

Yes, but that is only if choose to use the faster casting option. You have then chosen another complication that you don't have to have.

Come one... If you don't choose it, you have to compare two Tiny Bolt spells with one single Small spell. Because you can cast them in the same time. I doubt that the -10 is worse than loosing a complete round of action (for a Ball spell the problem comes later, not at the first scaling).

[RandalThor]

I like to look at this like Butcher does in the Dresden Files. Working with magic is hard. Pushing it is even harder. That is why you make items to help you. Before you try that scaled elemental bolt spell, get yourself, or make yourself, a blasting rod. Otherwise, you are going to be losing something in translation. It's magic, it doesn't have to "add up" - even for a game.

Perfect balance has never been a priority for me so I don't see a problem with this situation.

As a player in each situation, you will have to make up your mind on how you are going to cast the spell. Some situations will require you to go fast, others you will be able to take it slower so you can devote more to each spell. And sometimes you may need to do both! Watch out for the charging horde of ogres!!!!!!