Topic: Combat actions for spellcasters

[jasonbrisbane]

Hi

A simple question that generated a heated question last night:


Can a spellcaster, at any time, cast a spell whilst moving, according to the Harp rules?

Whilst it doesnt say there is the ability (Te combat action move and attack states OB which is clarified as melee or missile but Spells are not clairified as OB - indeed they are almost always stated specifically as in seperate skills/catgeories/abilities/etc.

Fights and archers can move and attack, taken a penalty to their oB relative to the distance moved.

Can spellcasters do the same whilst casting spells?
Does the same move and attack combat action also apply and was this simply an oversight being left out of the book?

Regards
Jason Brisbane

[jasonbrisbane]

melee or missile but Spells are not clarified as OB

just to clarify... is this stated somewhere or just implied...I'd like an Official answer too as well as others discussions...

Thanks.

[Elessar]

Well, you can see errata p.69. For this question, Tim answered :
""I don't see why not. Just treat it the same as the Move & Attack Combat Action. For multi-round casting, the penalties from each round would be combined."
Regards,

[jasonbrisbane]

Thank you.

[jasonbrisbane]

Any other observations about this?

How do you handle things when a caster wants to move 15' to be behind a wall and cast Minor Heal on himself at the same time?

[Pat]

These are the reasons I believe spell casters should not be allowed the Move and Attack action:

1) It's listed under Scaled Combat Actions (basic). The chapter says "A character gains access to the different categories based upon how many skill ranks that they have in their weapon." Unless we are now defining spell OB as "weapons" then Move and Attack is restricted to weapon skills. Also, if spell casting can be utilised with Move and Attack then why not other skills such as Charging, Disarm Foe or even Parry? In Martial Law Parry is defined as "A character may increase their Defensive Bonus against melee attacks by allocating any amount of their OB to their DB." It doesn't say weapon in the description so if spell casters can Move and Attack why can't spell casters parry with spell OB?

2)  I believe that Move and attack was designed as an offensive action. By this I mean that the player would move towards the target with the intention of damaging a foe, disrupting a spell casters spell or getting in melee combat with archers. I can't really see spell casters using this action in this way. I could see spell casters and archers moving away from attackers while casting or shooting but rarely moving towards melee combat which I believe would be against the authors intent. Also, if the caster/archer is moving away from melee combat to perform this action does that mean that they are back pedaling (i.e. moving backwards) or are they turning, running away and then facing their for again to cast or shoot?

3) HARP core states that it takes 1 round per 5 pp's to cast a spell. It seems unfair that a spell caster can get the bonus of being able to run up to 5x base movement and 5 pp's per round. If this is possible why can't a Ranger build a rope trap while running away or a healer apply first aid to a colleague while running or a Monk perform Chi skills on the run? Spells, I believe, need to be formed and require concentration. While Move and Attack does provide negatives, I would think the negatives should be compounded (if movement is allowed) because it would be much easier to move and hit someone with a weapon than to be moving and spell casting. I also think the negatives should be compounded again if the caster is not moving towards the opponent. It would be harder to split your attention between an opponent and an escape route than just running towards an opponent.

4) Generally (but not exclusively), I see warriors as wearing heavy armour (such as plate), while spell casters would not be wearing armour due to casting penalties. This means that heavily armoured warriors would receive minimum maneuver penalties of -20 (basic full set plate) on movement. HARP core pace maneuver difficulty (chapter 5) says that a run (for instance) is a hard maneuver. Therefore, if a heavily armoured warrior is chasing an unarmoured spell caster (both performing a Move and Attack, the warrior forward and the spell caster backward), then the spell caster would be at -20 (hard maneuver role) while the warrior would be at -40 (hard maneuver role and minimum maneuver penalty). Given similar stats and movement rate, the spell caster would have a substantial bonus over the warrior in movement.

Lastly, I believe that Move and Attack was designed by the author/s as an offensive maneuver for melee warriors. In HARP core it states under chapter 10, Combat Actions "In the chaos of melee combat, characters are usually concerned only with landing a successful and damaging blow upon their foe. There are, however, a variety of other actions that a character may perform during combat. Called Combat
Actions, they represent only a few of the potential actions that characters can take."
While in Martial Law it does not say melee combat such as in HARP core, I believe that the inference is there as it is an expansion of the original Combat Actions. I personally believe that Move and attack should be restricted to melee users and that spell casters and archers should be excluded. To me, Move and Attack was designed for melee users to disrupt spell casters or to get within melee range of archers.

[Elessar]

Pat,
I agree when you write that "Move and Attack was designed by the author/s as an offensive maneuver for melee warriors". But i think that a caster or an archer can move without lose his action (casting, etc.).
I must admeet that i've tried a simple rule in my games : casters can move 1/2 BMR / rnd with -20 on spell casting. I think it's not so bad ...

On your example 4), i think that the movement itself doesn't require any roll, only actions performed while progressing at a given pace require a roll with modifiers.
For me, actions modifiers specified in Harp core p.26 (-20 when you're running for example) don't have to be add up with modifiers resulting from "Move and attack". In this case, i would rule :
- for the warrior : OB - 20 (armor) - modifiers resulting from "Move and attack" action
- for the caster : bonus from spell skill - modifiers resulting from "Move and attack" action

[jasonbrisbane]

OK, lets dissect this...

It's listed under Scaled Combat Actions (basic). The chapter says "A character gains access to the different categories based upon how many skill ranks that they have in their weapon." Unless we are now defining spell OB as "weapons" then Move and Attack is restricted to weapon skills. Also, if spell casting can be utilised with Move and Attack then why not other skills such as Charging, Disarm Foe or even Parry? In Martial Law Parry is defined as "A character may increase their Defensive Bonus against melee attacks by allocating any amount of their OB to their DB." It doesn't say weapon in the description so if spell casters can Move and Attack why can't spell casters parry with spell OB?

Rasyr has already clarified this in Errata and forums previously that this was an error and meant any offensive attack as it was meant to include all attacks including bows and crossbows and missile weapons. The errata also states that Spell casting can also be included in this category. Yes it was badly written (Hint for Nicholas during the re-write!?)

I think  your examples were poorly chosen. I am sure there are more suitable examples and as we usually do, we can address them as a group when those situations arise and make a vote on them.
Disarm foe = you need to be keeping up with them to do this so if you werent near them then they couldnt melee attack you either. Thus you couldnt disarm them if you were seperated. If you were in melee combat and left it prior to doing a disengage maneuver then we already ignore the rules and have the houserule that the other combatant gets a free out of round attack against the leaving combatants back (no shield, etc). So any discussion about that is moot since we have a house rule about it.

Charging = this IS a move and attack with xtra penalties for a full out attack. Including move and attack penalties would be duplication.


Parry = you need to be defending against a persons attack so you would again need to already be in melee. If you were out of melee and entering then you could declare a move and parry but would still need to make an attack roll as per parry rules to see if you drop your weapon, fumble, etc. As a GM I see no reason to NOT allow the weapon to have dropped back where you started moving, or a scatter diagram from that initial location. All parry attempts would have only base OB minus the penalty for moving and attack, of course...

Spellcasters Spell parry = This is just silly. a physical attack cant parry a non-physical spell  matrix without any magic. That is what bladeturn is for. Its a magical spell that allows spell casters to parry physical weapons. Deflection allows to parry missiles too (at higher levels). Spells cant parry spells either. This is called counterspell or Dispell magic if the spell already exists.

Im getting hassled by the kids so I will address the other points later.

[jasonbrisbane]

2)  I believe that Move and attack was designed as an offensive action. By this I mean that the player would move towards the target with the intention of damaging a foe, disrupting a spell casters spell or getting in melee combat with archers. I can't really see spell casters using this action in this way. I could see spell casters and archers moving away from attackers while casting or shooting but rarely moving towards melee combat which I believe would be against the authors intent. Also, if the caster/archer is moving away from melee combat to perform this action does that mean that they are back pedaling (i.e. moving backwards) or are they turning, running away and then facing their for again to cast or shoot?

You do seem to have a very distinctive view of Melee combat versus other types of combat.
As we have seen in our games and undoubtedly in lots of other peoples games too, that melee and ranged combat often take place together. Indeed whilst players are "stalking" up to what they believe is a NPC monster, others have detected them and are acting to enable their own defenses at the same time. PLayers cast defensive spells and ready weapons, draw bows, pull throwing knives whilst the NPC's do the same. It all happens together. The NPC's use move and attack to move around the corner to attack PC's from behind that the PC's think are in front of them during a surprise round, or move and attack to reinforce their own NPC allies who are getting attacked.

If you read the forums enough you will relais that the Authors Intent, as you put it, was to create a game where there are LITTLE rules and where situations can be clarified  easily with only one roll for multiple actions. He has repeatedly made clarifications that he wanted there to be as little "rules" and made efforts to simplify rules that people wanted clarifying. Allowing melee weapon wielders to do one type of action whilst denying the same action to someone else solely based upon their choice of weapons (ranged, thrown daggers, etc or spells) is entirely AGAINST the authors intent. So this point is unfortunately, entirely wrong and moot.

[jasonbrisbane]

3) HARP core states that it takes 1 round per 5 pp's to cast a spell. It seems unfair that a spell caster can get the bonus of being able to run up to 5x base movement and 5 pp's per round. If this is possible why can't a Ranger build a rope trap while running away or a healer apply first aid to a colleague while running or a Monk perform Chi skills on the run? Spells, I believe, need to be formed and require concentration. While Move and Attack does provide negatives, I would think the negatives should be compounded (if movement is allowed) because it would be much easier to move and hit someone with a weapon than to be moving and spell casting. I also think the negatives should be compounded again if the caster is not moving towards the opponent. It would be harder to split your attention between an opponent and an escape route than just running towards an opponent.

Everyone would agree that maneuver rolls for running are the one area that are SERIOUSLY lacking. How do you resolve a run? IN combat? What about a dash? If you fail then do you not run at all? What about fumble? How far would you go if you failed a fast sprint but someone next to you only tried to run and went further then you (and neither fumbled)? None of it makes sense.

IN combat we deemed that a run was acceptable without a manuever roll. it was agreed and we always stuck to that.

BTW: Spell casters wouldnt run 5xmovement. They would Longdoor... or Shadowport...

A rope trap needs to be placed somewhere. A Ranger could run around the same 5 foot square and take a penalty per 5 foot moved but why when he can stop and not be at a penalty? A healer needs to bandage a patient who would by definition be unconcious or very wounded.  A not so wounded person could run beside him but would you trust someone to cast a healing spell under that sort of pressure? Your characters dont even trust half the party to heal you most of the times, but do it grudgingly. I believe its a religious belief thing? Didnt andrews character heal you when you were unconcious just so he could say that his evil god had healed a good cleric, thus trying to "infect" you? (I know it was one of his plans... )

It says a monk specifically needs to focus his energies to achieve chi skills. He could run and take a penalty but since it is so hard anyway, why would you bother?

I think penalties over all could probably be clarified by multiplying all movement penalties by the movement rate attempted. So attempting a dash of 20 feet would be -5 x 4 x 5 = -100.

Splitting your attention is part of combat. Its always handled by combat perception rolls.

[jasonbrisbane]

4) Generally (but not exclusively), I see warriors as wearing heavy armour (such as plate), while spell casters would not be wearing armour due to casting penalties. This means that heavily armoured warriors would receive minimum maneuver penalties of -20 (basic full set plate) on movement. HARP core pace maneuver difficulty (chapter 5) says that a run (for instance) is a hard maneuver. Therefore, if a heavily armoured warrior is chasing an unarmoured spell caster (both performing a Move and Attack, the warrior forward and the spell caster backward), then the spell caster would be at -20 (hard maneuver role) while the warrior would be at -40 (hard maneuver role and minimum maneuver penalty). Given similar stats and movement rate, the spell caster would have a substantial bonus over the warrior in movement.

Lastly, I believe that Move and Attack was designed by the author/s as an offensive maneuver for melee warriors. In HARP core it states under chapter 10, Combat Actions "In the chaos of melee combat, characters are usually concerned only with landing a successful and damaging blow upon their foe. There are, however, a variety of other actions that a character may perform during combat. Called Combat
Actions, they represent only a few of the potential actions that characters can take."
While in Martial Law it does not say melee combat such as in HARP core, I believe that the inference is there as it is an expansion of the original Combat Actions. I personally believe that Move and attack should be restricted to melee users and that spell casters and archers should be excluded. To me, Move and Attack was designed for melee users to disrupt spell casters or to get within melee range of archers.

the same details apply if a heavily armored melee fighter is running after a small unarmored thief with a throwing dagger of returning, or 20 throwing daggers. The same penalties apply as you detailed and yet it still IS possible. A spellcaster can still learn thrown weapons (spear of returning) with the same effect as a medium weapon or worse with a magic bonus (elemental fire spear of returning, as an example).

We have to simply disagree on your last point, point blank.
I believe that combat actions are for ALL characters, not simply melee weapon wielders.
Restricting these actions to only once type of person/offensive action goes against Everything that I have read and heard and spoken to Rasyr about...

Without Rasyr posting here we wont know his opinion.

Nicholas could comment about the New HARP (which will use HARP Scifi rules enhancements) But I think you will then argue that this goes against the original rules that we bought and thus you wont accept that....

[Pat]

Hi Jas,

Your responses are a bit spread out so I'll try to answer them in order of writing.

Number 1 response - Can you please reference the errata you are referring to?
I think you mis-read my examples and have become a bit confused. My examples were based on other combat actions that are available not to be used in conjuction with Move and Attack. My point was that IF spell casters can Move and Attack as a combat action, then why are other combat actions excluded? Disarm foe (for example), I would presume the caster would be in melee range and wants to disarm his attacker. Why can't the caster blast a sword out of the attackers hand with a firebolt (i.e aim at the sword not the foe)?
Further you say "Disarm foe = you need to be keeping up with them to do this so if you werent near them then they couldnt melee attack you either" however in ML there is an expert combat action called ranged disarm. Therefore you wouldn't beed to "keep up" with anyone, you'd just need to be in missile range. Further (even though it specifically says bows and crossbows) if the rules are so subject to interpretation, then why couldn't casters use ranged disarm with a spell? This also counters " Thus you couldnt disarm them if you were seperated." Again, Charging was another combat action that, if a caster can perform a Move and Attack, why can't they perform a charge?
With your diatribe about parry I'm not sure I understand it and it doesn't seem to relate to the discussion so I'll give that a miss.
Spell casters parrying with spells was supposed to be a silly example. I believe it is at the same level as casting and Moving and attacking.

Response 2 - Yes I do have a distintive view of melee combat. I also have distinctive view on spell casting and ranged combat. They should be seperate styles with different abilities and skills. Spells can "power up" by scaling, an archer can assassinate another with sniping so why can't melee combatants have their own defined combat actions? You also say that all the actions happen together. I agree with that statement but your example doesn't mean anything. It doesn't support your arguement or dismiss mine so I'll skip this as well. I'll also skip the part about the author's intent and the forum as it doesn't seem to mean anything.
"Allowing melee weapon wielders to do one type of action whilst denying the same action to someone else solely based upon their choice of weapons (ranged, thrown daggers, etc or spells) is entirely AGAINST the authors intent. So this point is unfortunately, entirely wrong and moot."
Ummm This entire sentence is utterly and completely wrong. EVERY offensive skill has it's own restrictions and specific abilities. A melee user can use combat actions defined in HARP core and ML. Missile users can snipe and kill from a distance and use specific combat actions. Spell casters can cast offensive and defensive spells as well as healing etc. A melee user can't use scaling options with a sword, an archer is at -100 if trying to fire during melee combat and the list continues. These were all written by the author's and I presume, would be a reflection of their intent so your point is unfortunately, "entirely wrong and moot."

Response 3 - "How do you resolve a run? IN combat? What about a dash? If you fail then do you not run at all?" Your character attempted a quick move in combat last session, failed the maneuver roll and was restricted to a walk if I remember correctly.
"BTW: Spell casters wouldnt run 5xmovement. They would Longdoor... or Shadowport...". They would if they had the spells available. If the spells are not part of their sphere or if they haven't put any ranks into them, then running from, say, a dragon, at 5x speed, would seem like a very good idea.
Example 1 - Ranger with rope trap. The ranger is being chased by a mounted knight so he wants to create a rope trap of a rope spread between 2 trees to knock the knight off his horse. He wants to tie the rope to 1 tree and run to the other tree 40' away. He ties the rope end into a noose while running to throw onto a branch completing the trap before the knight arrives.
The healer wishes to heal a warrior bleeding at 1 a round while being chased by a group of goblins. The wound doesn't have to be heavy or the wounded person unconcious to be healed on the move.
Your comment in regards to Monks seem to say that it should be possible depending more on the skill level of the Monk's chi abilities rather than any other reason. Interesting.
"Splitting your attention is part of combat. Its always handled by combat perception rolls." So your saying, if I read this right, you believe that a Move and attack towards an opponent does not require a combat perception roll BUT Move and attack away from an opponent or to position would require a combat perception roll. I presume if the player fails the combat perception roll then they can't perform a Move and attack?

Response 4 - "the same details apply if a heavily armored melee fighter is running after a small unarmored thief with a throwing dagger of returning, or 20 throwing daggers. The same penalties apply as you detailed and yet it still IS possible. A spellcaster can still learn thrown weapons (spear of returning) with the same effect as a medium weapon or worse with a magic bonus (elemental fire spear of returning, as an example)."

I agree. That's why I'm arguing against Move and attack being used for running AWAY from combat or for positional bonus. As I said before, IMO Move and attack should only be used when moving towards a foe, Not running away while casting, throwing or firing missiles.
"We have to simply disagree on your last point, point blank.
I believe that combat actions are for ALL characters, not simply melee weapon wielders."
I believe that combat actions are for all characters as well. If a spell caster has enough ranks in staff to perform the combat action Haft Bash, then go for it.
Legendary Combat action for whirlwind attack in ML says "Whirlwind Attack: This Combat Action is usable
with any melee weapon with a length of 2' or greater. The character receives a -50 to his OB. He then makes a single attack roll. This roll is then applied to all foes within a 5' radius of himself and the attack is resolved separately for each foe within range."
According to your statement you do not need to have a melee weapon of greater than 2' and a surrounded mage could cast a fire bolt against all opponents within 5' radius. I'm sorry, I don't agree with this either.
"Nicholas could comment about the New HARP (which will use HARP Scifi rules enhancements) But I think you will then argue that this goes against the original rules that we bought and thus you wont accept that...." Then again, the new rules may support my arguements perfectly so you will dismiss them out of hand. It's hard to use a document neither of us has seen as support for this discussion.

Finally, I would suggest that if you argue that combat actions are available for all, then spheres of magic are wrong as well and everyone should have access to every spell listed regardless of their "sphere" restriction. Just something to think about.....

[jasonbrisbane]

The Erratta is the official HRP errata.

I have a copy on my Hard drive. Its available on the net. It should be available on the Vault too!

1- combat actions are excluded because they have an * next to them - they are full round actions. These cant be combined with other types of attacks. So you cant do a charge and power attack, for example. This does not exclude spellcasters though - just because there is no spell casting action doe snot mean that spell casters or spell casting cannot be involved in combat at all - that would be a ridiculous assumption.

I believe that thinkthat spell casting creates physical objects that can be interacted with. A Fire wall SLOWS DOWn action that goes through it. A Bladeturn SLOWS down/deflects/ turns/bounces off the attackers blade/weapon.
The spells that can interact with physical objects are outlined as such.
Thus my huge Fire fiend is completely useless as a servant as he cannot hold anything physical  - I cant get him to reach across a pit, and flickthe lever on the other side, etc as it cannot interact with anything - just like a real fire couldnt interact with a lever.... it can only burn flamable objects.

So this makes spellcasters able to disarm foe if they have the SKILL disarm foe - or failing that they can use AGx2 as per the combat action. The combat action clearly outlines all possible ways to use this.

If your going to defend your position with sily examples (re: spellcasting and movenattack) then why are you arguonig at all? If you cant back up your position with valid statments then please dont take such a hard and fast "if you dont play it my way then Im leaving" attitude. We have always had give and take over the years and had votes on what our position would be to clarify rules.

If you are going to refuse to take up this process (which YOU started by the way when we had our fast disagreement regarding HARP rules in 2004) then you cannot disagree with our points. Any argument is moot without the valid aassumption that everyone will listen to all arguments and make a call.

What your doing is creating a Kangaroo court - everyone can say what they like but I will never change and wont listen or play wityh anyone who doesnt do exactly what I want.

Yes, you said this - the first point in the argument.
"If this comes in, then I cant play with this".


All arguments at this point become irrelevant if the outcome is going to be the same so without a statement on your part that you ARE willing to listen to all points and listen to what the group has to say and allow a vote on it that you are prepared to live with, then any furtheer discussions are moot.

We allowed the No sleeping in armor of any kind rule.
We allowed the Magic doesnt stack with armor rule.
We dont agree on this.

[Pat]

I'll try to find the errata you are referring to. If I can't find it then you can show me next session. I'll be interested to have a look.

"1- combat actions are excluded because they have an * next to them - they are full round actions. These cant be combined with other types of attacks. So you cant do a charge and power attack, for example. This does not exclude spellcasters though - just because there is no spell casting action doe snot mean that spell casters or spell casting cannot be involved in combat at all - that would be a ridiculous assumption."

Please read what I posted previously. I never said combat actions could be mixed or should be mixed. If you can't put forward a case to defend your position based on what you believe and my counter arguments, then don't make stuff up.

Secondly, I never said spell casters can't cannot be involved in combat at all. What I am saying is that combat actions were designed for weapon skills not spell casting skills. A mage with 50 ranks in sword can perform Legendary combat actions as well as any other character but they can't, IMO tranfer combat actions to spell casting. (i.e. just because a spell caster has 50 ranks in fire bolt doesn't mean he can use Whirlwind attack as per my previous example.)

" So this makes spellcasters able to disarm foe if they have the SKILL disarm foe - or failing that they can use AGx2 as per the comba action. The combat action clearly outlines all possible ways to use this."

So are you saying that you believe Disarm foe can be used by spell casters with offensive spells? Or do you mean as a normal weapon skill?

"If your going to defend your position with sily examples (re: spellcasting and movenattack) then why are you arguonig at all?"

Actually I think I've defended my view point very well. Please feel free to go back and read my postings. I think you'll find that I presented my arguements well, referenced HARP where appropriate and countered any arguement that you have presented. I think the frustration you have shown with comments such as this one are based, not on my arguements, but on the fact that you have presented very little in support of your own. And the fact that anything you have presented has been effectively countered and dismissed.

The rest of your comments appear to be in the form of a rant rather than a cogent arguement so I'll pretty much give it a miss. I will admit that I did say that I preferred not to play in a game where combat actions such as Move and attack are allowable for spell casting. That's my opinion however and my choice. If I believe that a game becomes so skewed and unbalanced due to what I see as ridiculous rule changes, then of course I have the right to remove myself from the game. If I'm not enjoying it, why should I be there?

Lastly, I don't believe that the introduction of this rule change is based on game improvement. I believe it's based on making the prime characters (i.e. spell users) tougher again thereby diminishing an already dying class (pure fighter, pure rogue). We haven't had a pure fighter in our game for a long time (and really the last person who took it was based on apathy rather than game play). I really think that rule changes such as this are proposed, not on game improvement, but as a form of min/maxing.

[Pat]

Jas,

I'd just like to get your opinion on another couple of things. You have said previously:

"Rasyr has already clarified this in Errata and forums previously that this was an error and meant any offensive attack as it was meant to include all attacks including bows and crossbows and missile weapons. The errata also states that Spell casting can also be included in this category"

"I believe that combat actions are for ALL characters, not simply melee weapon wielders.
Restricting these actions to only once type of person/offensive action goes against Everything that I have read and heard and spoken to Rasyr about..."

"Allowing melee weapon wielders to do one type of action whilst denying the same action to someone else solely based upon their choice of weapons (ranged, thrown daggers, etc or spells) is entirely AGAINST the authors intent. So this point is unfortunately, entirely wrong and moot."

How would these comments impact on items such as underwater combat in ML? It says "The weight of the water makes effective melee attacks almost impossible. Missile attacks are not allowed." Since spell casting has not been mentioned, I'm presuming casting is unrestricted (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Based on your comments above, you believe that all attacks should have the same restrictions regardless of chioce of weapon. Therefore, would you argue that an archer can shoot underwater without penalty? Or should spell casters have the same restrictions as an archer if casting a ranged spell? (i.e. they are not allowed)

In Disengaging while in combat in ML (I won't put the whole example in this post) it says the player has not disengaged since "#3: No, he is only at RI 0 for a short bow. He would need to be a minimum of 181' away (RI 6) or be out of the line-of-sight."

Shouldn't he be still engaged with the melee warriors as well since "Allowing melee weapon wielders to do one type of action whilst denying the same action to someone else solely based upon their choice of weapons (ranged, thrown daggers, etc or spells) is entirely AGAINST the authors intent."

You are also arguing that the Dirty Fighting skill should be available to all. For example, the mage is 100' away from the foe but, using Dirty Fighting, flashes reflected sunlight into the foes eyes with a mirror. The caster succeeds in his Dirty Fighting skill roll and therefore adds his ranks in Dirty Fighting to his damage and ignores damage caps.

In Frenzy it says "Character cannot cast spells or activate magic items." Under your arguement does that mean that it should read "cannot attack or activate magic items while under frenzy." Wouldn't that defeat the point of Frenzy?

I'd be interested in how your opinions match these examples as well.

[jasonbrisbane]

Jas,

I'd just like to get your opinion on another couple of things. You have said previously:

"Rasyr has already clarified this in Errata and forums previously that this was an error and meant any offensive attack as it was meant to include all attacks including bows and crossbows and missile weapons. The errata also states that Spell casting can also be included in this category"

"I believe that combat actions are for ALL characters, not simply melee weapon wielders.
Restricting these actions to only once type of person/offensive action goes against Everything that I have read and heard and spoken to Rasyr about..."

"Allowing melee weapon wielders to do one type of action whilst denying the same action to someone else solely based upon their choice of weapons (ranged, thrown daggers, etc or spells) is entirely AGAINST the authors intent. So this point is unfortunately, entirely wrong and moot."

How would these comments impact on items such as underwater combat in ML? It says "The weight of the water makes effective melee attacks almost impossible. Missile attacks are not allowed." Since spell casting has not been mentioned, I'm presuming casting is unrestricted (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Based on your comments above, you believe that all attacks should have the same restrictions regardless of chioce of weapon. Therefore, would you argue that an archer can shoot underwater without penalty? Or should spell casters have the same restrictions as an archer if casting a ranged spell? (i.e. they are not allowed)

They are not allowed. The same penalty applies to all and as you have stated, ML clearly outlines this.

In Disengaging while in combat in ML (I won't put the whole example in this post) it says the player has not disengaged since "#3: No, he is only at RI 0 for a short bow. He would need to be a minimum of 181' away (RI 6) or be out of the line-of-sight."

Shouldn't he be still engaged with the melee warriors as well since "Allowing melee weapon wielders to do one type of action whilst denying the same action to someone else solely based upon their choice of weapons (ranged, thrown daggers, etc or spells) is entirely AGAINST the authors intent."

You are also arguing that the Dirty Fighting skill should be available to all. For example, the mage is 100' away from the foe but, using Dirty Fighting, flashes reflected sunlight into the foes eyes with a mirror. The caster succeeds in his Dirty Fighting skill roll and therefore adds his ranks in Dirty Fighting to his damage and ignores damage caps.

In Frenzy it says "Character cannot cast spells or activate magic items." Under your arguement does that mean that it should read "cannot attack or activate magic items while under frenzy." Wouldn't that defeat the point of Frenzy?

I'd be interested in how your opinions match these examples as well.

Dirty fighting would have that effect yes (but as stated in these forums and elsewhere, dirty fighting is a very badly written skill and there have already been other arguments about it. We already decided to ignore the dirty fighting skill in our games. But lets take your question. What attack would the attacker with the mirror do? Heat critical with a reflected mirror? At best a parabolic mirror with perfect reflection and focal point would be a tiny -50 (if you used that critical) but more than likely it would represent an attempt to use dirty fighting to blind someone. The person would get a RR versus stamina to overcome the stunning effects of the blind attempt.

Frenzy is another badly written skill that has been previously debated on these forums by others. But in that case spell casters and what they can do ARE explicitly written into the skill.

The question you are posing is to  disallow spellcasters fomr doing anything that is not explicitly written. Move and attack does not explicitly mention spellcasters or casting spells so they are not allowed to cast and move, correct?

So, according to the Harp Core, what combat actions can a spell caster take?
According to your argument, they certainly cant cast spells as they are not explicitly mentioned.

Rasyr has already written in the Errata and clarified that spellcasters should be allowed to take any action that others would normally be allowed and has clarified this in all the examples that people put to him in 2004.

Would you also deny the fighter the ability to take a 5 foot step and attack a foe because he cast bladeturn on himself last round? According to your interpretation on the rules he should.

he is casting a spell: therefore he cannot move in that round.\


PLease refer toHARP Core COMbat page 85

However, a character’s Offensive Bonus may also come
from actions or skills not related to whichever weapon a
character is currently wielding. For instance, a character
may take the opportunity to use a combat style. With all
combat styles, a character must always use the lesser of the
two bonuses, whether combat style or actual skill with a
particular weapon, unless otherwise stated

... or from say a spell he is casting.... We know warrior mages use their weapons as spell foci and thus are allowed to weild them using the somatic talent as if they had a hand free.
This clearly allows spells to be an offensive weapon. This weapon, thus can also be used to attack, or parry or perform other actions. A fighter may attack with his sword, parry with a spear or slice a rope holding a stone block as he passes by it to stop goblins from following him in a passage. A spellcaster can attack with a fireball, parry with bladeturn/deflect, or cast minor heal, dispell magic, counterspell, etc.

Since the spells have no physical form they cannot be used to "parry" a physical object. Thus my huge fire elemental cannot parry anything. He had to  stand their and take any attack you gave since he has no wepaons but his fists which cause heat damage, not crush, etc.

[Pat]

"They are not allowed. The same penalty applies to all and as you have stated, ML clearly outlines this."

Actually this is incorrect. Melee users have the following restictions "Combat Modifiers - Only piercing type weapons can be used effectively underwater and receive a -20 OB modifier; all others have a –50 OB modifier because the water resistance to motion is too much to use any other kind of weapon with great effect, except nets."

My point is that melee users have different allowances compared to others. This is against your comment of ""Allowing melee weapon wielders to do one type of action whilst denying the same action to someone else solely based upon their choice of weapons (ranged, thrown daggers, etc or spells) is entirely AGAINST the authors intent. So this point is unfortunately, entirely wrong and moot."

If you'd like to moderate or change this view point, please feel free as it's pretty conclusive that the current statement is incorrect.

"What attack would the attacker with the mirror do? " I think you missed the point. Flashing reflected light into the opponents eyes is the Dirty Trick. It's not an attack in any way, shape or form.


"But in that case spell casters and what they can do ARE explicitly written into the skill." I agree entirely which is one of my original points when I said "A character gains access to the different categories based upon how many skill ranks that they have in their weapon." as listed in ML. And in HARP core where it says ""In the chaos of melee combat, characters are usually concerned only with landing a successful and damaging blow upon their foe. There are, however, a variety of other actions that a character may perform during combat. Called Combat Actions, they represent only a few of the potential actions that characters can take."

Both quotes relate to weapons and melee combat which I would say leads directly into your comment " But in that case spell casters and what they can do ARE explicitly written into the skill." My argument is that IMO, what spell casters can do IS already written into the Combat actions as well. If they have a weapon they can perform combat actions if they have enough ranks in the weapon skill. NOT spells.

"So, according to the Harp Core, what combat actions can a spell caster take?
According to your argument, they certainly cant cast spells as they are not explicitly mentioned." You may want to check out HARP core chapter 11. It has a whole chapter on spell casting. Also, there is a whole book called College of Magic which relates to spells, spell casting etc They can also use any Combat action listed provided they have the ranks and the correct weapon. What I'm saying they can't do is transfer combat actions to spell casting.

"Rasyr has already written in the Errata and clarified that spellcasters should be allowed to take any action that others would normally be allowed and has clarified this in all the examples that people put to him in 2004."

I unfortunately, haven't got the errata and can't seem to find it in the vault. I look forward to checking your copy. What I will quote is from Elessar previously "Well, you can see errata p.69. For this question, Tim answered :
""I don't see why not. Just treat it the same as the Move & Attack Combat Action. For multi-round casting, the penalties from each round would be combined."

To be honest, reading the response from Tim, it doesn't look like much time, thought or effort was put into the answer. It seems to me like a quick, off the cuff comment without the benefit of considering effects or play testing. I would be interested to know what was the basis of the decision and if play testing was under taken.

"Would you also deny the fighter the ability to take a 5 foot step and attack a foe because he cast bladeturn on himself last round? According to your interpretation on the rules he should."

HARP core says "Certain spells are marked with an asterisk (*) beside their name. These spells are instantaneous in regards to casting time. A character may cast one of these spells at any time, except while he is casting another spell. When cast, it does not count against the character’s action for the
round."
So the answer is no. The fighter can perform an instantaneous spell and move. In fact, in the same round, he could cast an instantaneous spell and perform a combat action without penalty. The only time an instant spell affects a player is if a caster is casting a multi round spell and is, therefore, not allowed. If you were trying to use a non-instant spell as an example, then yes, the fighter could not move since it takes a full round to cast a non-instant spell. (However, yes we do allow a 5' step as a house rule for all classes during combat.)

"... or from say a spell he is casting.... We know warrior mages use their weapons as spell foci and thus are allowed to weild them using the somatic talent as if they had a hand free.
This clearly allows spells to be an offensive weapon. This weapon, thus can also be used to attack, or parry or perform other actions."

Wow...That statement is hugely faulty logic. How does using weapons as spell foci jump to "This clearly allows spells to be an offensive weapon." By this logic, a wand wielding Nagazi can use his wand as a sword. A weapon as a focus is still a weapon, it just has the advantage to help casting. It doesn't make the spells more offensive in anyway. (If the warrior mage cast minor healing using his weapon focus, are you now saying it's an offensive spell because a weapon was used in casting?)

"Since the spells have no physical form they cannot be used to "parry" a physical object." I agree entirely. My point is why do spell casters get to pick and choose what they can and can't use in combat actions? My Paladin would love to be able to do a spinning slash attack but it's limited to bladed weapons and my weapon is concussion. I would love to be able to perform a Shield Bypass (Major) but I don't use chains. There are heaps of examples where exclusions to groups apply so why is it so unfair to limit combat actions to weapon use? It doesn't stop spell casters from using the skills with weapons, just with spells. Plus, if I'm a pure fighter (i.e. don't use or cast spells and have no ranks in such) then why do combat actions have a (potential) greater bonus to spell casters than non-spell casters? Spell casters can invest ranks into weapon skills and have the same access to combat actions as a fighter but they can also (in your opinion) use combat actions for spell casting. All of a sudden, actions that were developed to assist fighters can now help spell casters more.

There was also a post made prior to this area of discussion. I don't know if you saw it or not as the points were not addressed.

[jasonbrisbane]

YOu used badly written rules which have been disputed by all and sundry on these forums to justify your even worse point.
Then you go and accuse the writer of the Rules that he doesnt know the rules?

.........

Yes I saw all posts.

We will simply have to agree to disagree.

[Pat]

"YOu used badly written rules which have been disputed by all and sundry on these forums to justify your even worse point.
Then you go and accuse the writer of the Rules that he doesnt know the rules?"

I'm not sure here whether you agree with me or disagree with me. Firstly you agree that there are badly written rules (which I presume supports my assertion that there was a lack of consideration in areas and a lack of play testing), then you say I'm accussing the writers of not knowing the rules. I'd think this entire forum is made up of rule clarifications and changes.

The other point I'd like to make is that you accuse me of being rigid and inflexible yet my arguments have all been valid. I've also (I believe) countered your position yet you have been as unwilling to budge on your opinion as I have been on mine, even though I've produced a mountain of evidence to support my view that you have not been able to dispute.

Really your only argument is that it's something you want for your character. Nothing else has really stood up to scrutiny (I do not include the errata in this statement as I have not seen it so I can not comment.)

[Elessar]

This is an exciting discussion !
First, i think you can get the errata following this link (see p.69 for this topic) :
http://www.icewebring.com/errata/comment-page-1/

For this subject, as a GM, i don't know why casters could not move while casting. However, it could depend of the spell focus style : for example, can caster move when he's in trance ? Regardless a precedent topic, just try to cast a spell singing when you're under water ! 

IMO, rules are only a way to resolve actions, rules are not the game. And yes, i think "Move and attack" action don't suits so well for casters, just because this combat action was created to move and attack in ONE round, and not for multi-round casting. BTW, is this so important ? As a GM, i just want to have one or two rules or guidelines to resolve this type of action. And in facts, this combat action can resolve my problem if i follow Tim's guidelines, and i don't think it's unbalanced.
I would just remind something, in Harp Core p. 173 "The rules are not set in stone : They are guidelines for how to run certain aspects of the game. If a rule doesn’t fit your game’s style, change it.". For me, that's the spirit of Harp !
Regards,