Topic: spell initiative

[providence13]

I'm using the borrow from Initiative (up to 20pts) to add to OB OR borrow from OB (up to 20pts) to add to initiative House Rule. It sounds like a lot of games do something similar.
So you can perform a less accurate but fast attack OR a slower more precise attack.
For us, this eliminates "snapping phases" of 3 parts to a round and that is working good.

My problem is with spell casters...
What can they borrow from to increase their initiative OR go slower to increase their spell roll? I thought of modding RR, but that doesn't apply to all spells, and I didn't want to add a ton of new rules just to do this...
Then there is the spell casting roll... I could use that..??
I'm allowing 2 spells per round; one instant and one normal.

Someone has likely encountered this before. And I'm sure someone will say "just do it like the book says!"

This is a group I've recently taken over GM'ing, that I'm slowly breaking of their "old ways".
Using %Activity worked ok, for the first game. I think they liked it! When they found out why they could or could not perform an action... you could see the light come on in their eyes.. But I could be deluded.

[markc]

1) provide a set time to cast spells and let them borrow from that.
2) have them roll initiative just like everyone else.
3) I think borrowing from the casting roll is also ok.

MDC

[providence13]

So, spell casters can increase the chance that their spell fumbles, but could cast it faster by the same amount... ok.

Now, the second allowed spell per round... this is where it gets a little screwy.
I was thinking that it goes 10 init points after the first... That is just an arbitrary number...  Instants take 10% Act.

[markc]

So, spell casters can increase the chance that their spell fumbles, but could cast it faster by the same amount... ok.

Now, the second allowed spell per round... this is where it gets a little screwy.
I was thinking that it goes 10 init points after the first... That is just an arbitrary number...  Instants take 10% Act.

 I agree that is the problem because once you define the amount of time to cast a spell it is possible to disrupt the casting [ie start over] and that will take longer than the round. Or maybe they go at the end of the round no matter what.
 Or you can say, OK you are casting a spell and have a chance to cast an instant spell without breaking your concentration but it takes 10 longer. Or what ever number you are using. So you have spell casters take a lot of ranks in the concentration skill [I think that is a skill] and everything is OK if they make the roll. If they do not then they cast the instant and next round they start all over.

MDC

[Marc R]

It would seem sensible to borrow from casting bonus to init, or init to casting bonus, for a like-like similarity.

I'd be wary and test this in mock combat. . . .suck to give something like this to your players, hit an exploit, then have to take it back.

[providence13]

suck to give something like this to your players, hit an exploit, then have to take it back.

That is totally true.
But they know that we are kicking around some new ideas... The spell casters lament that allowing init/OB increase seems to give "fighters" a(nother) huge combat advantage. To which I tell the spell casters "don't get in combat with fighters." 

Still, goose/gander, we like to say. If you can do it so can the enemy.


A lot of this came up when they were rolling init for instants like Blade Turn.
If you cast Blade Turn on someone, you can hold the effects until you have a target; ie someone who is about to get whacked! This sounds familiar..
But aren't we having 3 different inits trying to race each other?
Fighter wants to swing to hit Thief and Caster is holding Blade Turn until Fighter gets in a reasonable roll. The thief hopes that the Caster gets init on the Fighter, holding until he lets the Fighter go first and then releases spell.
While Holding a spell, is the caster Concentrating? Is he using %Act? And how will he know, in the flurry of blows in one round that are assumed in one die roll, which is actually getting through? Maybe that's just a game mechanic..

My thought was that (it would be simpler) you cast Blade Turn that round and if the Target is the subject of an melee attack roll, then the spells affects come into play, but they only last that round. This lets Caster shoot off the spell and maybe move with the rest of their %Act or whatever else they want to do...

Another argument is that the spell affects the blade of the guy about to swing. This sounds reasonable too as that's how it reads.. I just thought that the spell would be easier to manage if it was a "field" around your buddy.
This will need some work. That's why I'm asking how other people do it.

[Marc R]

The game IMO has a strong natural bias (not overwhelming, but strong) toward casters starting at 5th level, and becoming more evident past 10th. . .so juicing the arms a bit will likely just delay the point when they start whining about the casters being overwhelming to their input to the game.

[providence13]

How about the timing of events for things like "Blade Turn" like I posted above?

If we take the 1st lvl spell Turn Missile, the caster must see the missile as it passes within 100'. This implies (IMHO) that the init has already been won by the person firing the missile. Therefore, is the "instant" spell truly that, instantaneous? And the caster can affect the missile in....1/10 sec or so.

If that's correct, then instant spells truly are crazy fast!
I'm sure that this has been argued into the ground and settled. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the possibility of adding a non-instant spell in the same round AND when does it go off.

[markc]

 Just a point here. The game was created many many years ago and it was mainly for fun. So there may be some problems tacking some concepts down to todays standards.

 But again I have done the same with my own custom combat system. But in your example yes I would have instant spells be 1/10 of a second or if people declare actions at the start of the round then they can cast it then. The reason would be that the caster sees what is going on around him and is able to react to the environment. You as the GM may also require an Alertness roll to see things around him or Observation at a penalty and a penalty to all actions after that. IMO you should not be able to do an Observation roll and a spell roll but an Observation and an instant is fine IMO.

MDC

[providence13]

I always appreciate the feedback, Markc.

So, one possible solution could be...
If casters want to be able to cast one instant and one normal OR one normal and then one instant they must state it at declaration of actions. Even if they aren't exactly sure if their Bladeturn is necessary. Could a spell also be cast and then the caster wait for a suitable target... next round? I wouldn't allow this with instants. Just normal spells.

How long can a caster wait? Is that considered concentration? It might not be if the caster has to observe to find a suitable target of the spell. They wouldn't have much %Act left. 50% concentration and 40% at most for a -30 Observation, IIRC.

 

[Marc R]

I'm not sure if this has come up, but while movement completes when the % does, and also for say reloading, the same is not always true of all actions.

i.e. if you cast an instant spell for 20% action, it doesn't necissarily go off at the 20% mark (2 sec into the round) it may go off instantaneously, then the caster is recovering for 20% (2 sec).

Much like if an attack is made for 100% action, you don't necissarily hit at 100%, exactly at the end of the 10 second period of one round. . .

Similarly, waiting for someone else to commit to acting doesn't necissarily put you behind them fully. . .i.e. an archer is shooting for 50% action, someone stating they'll fire if the archer fires isn't necissarily wasting 50% action / 5 sec waiting. . .they may see the archer in the process of firing and fire, not having actually wasted any activity or time, merely sacrificing initiative for the round.

It's one of those things a GM just has to make a judgment call on.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I always appreciate the feedback, Markc.

So, one possible solution could be...
If casters want to be able to cast one instant and one normal OR one normal and then one instant they must state it at declaration of actions. Even if they aren't exactly sure if their Bladeturn is necessary. Could a spell also be cast and then the caster wait for a suitable target... next round? I wouldn't allow this with instants. Just normal spells.

How long can a caster wait? Is that considered concentration? It might not be if the caster has to observe to find a suitable target of the spell. They wouldn't have much %Act left. 50% concentration and 40% at most for a -30 Observation, IIRC.

This is beginning to mirror a conversation held in the HARP forum recently. 

Here is a link to a post I made in that thread -- http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=9384.20;msg=121517

Depending upon how you are handling initiative and percentage activities in the game, the results of trying to cast a instantaneous spell and a regular spell should follow from that.

The basic thing to remember is that a character will NEVER be able to cast an instantaneous spell WHILE casting another spell - period.

Personally, I would say that "Waiting for somebody else to take action, does take a character's activity", so that means that if a spell user is waiting for an archer to fire a bow, then the spell user is using up his activity waiting for the missile to go off.

As Lordmiller points out, the release of the arrow need not be at the end of that 50%, however, it it isn't, then you need to, as a GM, designate a specific activity percentage point in which it does, and then apply that consistently for all (PCs and NPCs/Monsters).

The reason that I say the above is that the wording of the Deflections I spell (RMSS Spell Law, page 89) clearly uses language that indicates that the spell is already in flight.

And unlike melee, in which  the attack roll is considered to be either "the best strike" or "the culmination of multiple lesser strikes" (and thus are actually happening over the entirety of the percentage activity for a melee attack), a missile attack is one shot, one hit/miss.

To me, this says, the spell, Deflections I, cannot be cast until the missile leaves the weapon, and thus makes it something you cannot really declare beforehand. At least, I wouldn't allow it to be declared before the missile was fired (and yes, that means it is super-fast to cast, and as LM suggests, the 20% activity for casting it could/would be considered recovery, after the fact).

(Bladeturn, on the other hand, I would allow to be declared, because of the definition of what constitutes a melee attack, as mentioned above, thus that spell actually applies to the "roll" made for the attack, not each, individual strike.)

[markc]

 IMO if they cast an instant spell it has to take effect that round or it is lost. But as many spell casters say it is good to haver some defense up just in case.

MDC

[providence13]

Rasyr's comment from a HARPY post:
Yes, it does need to be fired. Deflections is a Utility spell, meaning that it cannot be cast upon an unwilling target, and as long as the archer has not released the arrow, it would be within his aura, thus protecting it from the Utility spell.

OK.... I haven't played HARPY, but I was directed here because of another post on a similar topic.
If the above is the reasoning for the rule, and I've had this "stay inside my aura" (Zardoz  ) explanation for why spells are U or get RR or don't..
Then how does Bladeturn work?

And I don't mean...

(Bladeturn, on the other hand, I would allow to be declared, because of the definition of what constitutes a melee attack, as mentioned above, thus that spell actually applies to the "roll" made for the attack, not each, individual strike.)
(If I'm using it against a chokonu or grapeshot catapult... then it acts like a melee attack in the fact that one roll would likely suffice to determine the result.)But don't be derailed by this example..

This is a U spell and someone is obviously holding it. The above answer doesn't always apply.
If the answer is "because it's in the spell description".... I'm going to throw something.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Personally, I think that both spells work by creating a momentary field that sort of deflects the attack (kinda like bouncing/deflecting an attack off of a shield). Because the target is in motion and that motion hitting this "deflection field" is what makes it work.

You have to remember, I did not write the RM spells, that was done something like 20 years before I started working for ICE.  Thus, at this point, all I can really say that it is because of how the spells are written, and try to make sense out of them after the fact. 

[Marc R]

It's the inverse of the aura issue. . .you're not actually attempting to affect the weapon in that nasty person's hand, which is blatantly inside their nasty aura, the target is you, you jack your aura up so that it deflects weapons, granting you a bonus to DB. . .similarly you could cast a bladeturn with a range on someone else, but it would then affect them, granting them a bonus to DB, again not affecting any weapons. And since it's a U spell, they'd have to be willing. . .though "pardon, I'm going to cast bladetu. . ..um, well, too late"  

Thus, despite the spell being titled "Bladeturn" it's likely really supermagichappyfunparrybonus. . . .but it's easier to say "This causes 50 to be subtracted from the attack" than to say "grants 50 DB vs that one attack, but not any other attacks"

Otherwise the attacker would get an RR vs it, and it'd be an F spell. . .

No throwing things!

OB and DB are often referenced interchangeably as inverse values, even when they shouldn't be, I suspect this is one of those moments. . . .but in "subtracting from the attack" it succeeds in referencing neither. . .I suspect in this instance, since it's a U spell, it should be taken as a "one off" limited DB bonus to a target defender rather than an OB malus to a target attacker, since the latter would provoke an RR.

[providence13]

I can totally understand what you're saying.
I'm also glad it's not me that everyone turns to for the 20yr old answers

I'm leaning more and more to your description of a "field" that might help deflect blows. This puts the Utility spell on the person who is to receive the protective benefit of the spell.

Escalating the normal rules to higher levels... the magic of the spell allows the caster to deflect three or more arrows that they can see, while the missiles are in flight.. wowzers!
IMHO, the spell could just form around a point that you want to protect. This totally changes the Area of Effect to "10 or 100ft radius" (or a 10' rad +5'/lvl...) for the missile Deflectors and "target" for the bladeturns!

You won't be able to cherry pick which missiles/blades are allowed/disallowed. They would all be affected.

[providence13]

since it's a U spell, it should be taken as a "one off" limited DB bonus to a target defender rather than an OB malus to a target attacker, since the latter would provoke an RR.
Exactly. I think it will be used as "a point determined within 100 ft" and "one target" which the spell can help defend.

[markc]

 I also think of it as a deflection field or force from your body/aura to intercept the attack.

MDC

[Marc R]

The range of 10' is limiting, though the aim untrue is more handy. . .mass deflections would be quite handy.

My read would not require the missile to be in flight. . .caster must see missile. .. much like all the other "aware" or "seen" bonuses ala adrenal defense I'd think that this wold work.

I see you, vile archer, shooting at me, I can declare deflections on your attack.

Much like you can't bladeturn an attack you're unaware of.

That's not to say you need to be able to see the arrow in flight, which seems a trifle wonky. . .at point blank range a heavy crossbow bolt cannot really be "seen" in flight for the 5' it takes to hit you. . .as GM if the crossbowman was in front of you, and you declared a deflect on them, I'd allow it to work. . .if I allow it to work for that, then there's no reason I'd then say at 100' you'd need to be able to see the bolt in flight as it comes at you. . .you'd just need to have LOS on the attacker and the path the bolt will take, be aware enough an attack is pending to declare the spell casting, and that's sufficient.

Even if the GM wanted to be be strict and require you to await, you could use the concentration to hold multiple effects rule on page 230 (7.1.16) . . . .If you can "Hold" a deflection III until three missiles are deflected, it would seem to follow suit you could hold 1. (If you can "concentrate to hold a deflections II until fired upon twice" but not hold a deflection I, again it seems your GM is perhaps a trifle strict.)

Assuming that, you could just cast the deflections and sit on it. . .it'll cost you concentration and half your activity until you let it go or it's triggered. . .and thus you cannot cast. . .but you could run away. . .or shoot back with your crossbow at 50% activity.