Topic: Cretinous spells & spell adders

[ZuS]

I am in agreement with Ecth that the casting time should still be required - but the scaling cost savings is huge on its own (especially with your spellcaster!!!)

Casting time required? As in you can't shorten it with the -10 to casting per round rule? Now, THAT would be a substantial limitation. Spell adders would still be omgwtf, but at least you couldn't hip-shoot them like our caster does now.

Anyone know official position on this? I fear it's not the case and that you can just eliminate casting time by taking -10 per round.

[Ecthelion]

Casting time required? As in you can't shorten it with the -10 to casting per round rule? Now, THAT would be a substantial limitation. Spell adders would still be omgwtf, but at least you couldn't hip-shoot them like our caster does now.

IMHO the rules assume that the casting time for a spell cast using a Spell Adder is the same as if the spell were cast normally using the same number of PPs and scaling options, no more no less. If it were the case that the casting suddenly takes only 1 rnd I would except to find some notion of this in the rules, and if fast casting using the -10 per round less were not allowed I would also expect this. But since, according to the rules, the only changes when using a Spell Adder are that a) no PPs are needed and b) scaling casting penalties are removed, I assume that casting times work just like for any other normal spell. That means that, also when using a Spell Adder, a 25 PP spell takes 5 rounds to cast but these can be reduced down to only 1 round for a -40 penalty.

The only problem here is related to the removal of the scaling penalties: If you have 25 ranks in a spell and suddenly have no penalties for scaling up the spell and the -40 for fast-casting a spell are the only penalty the caster has to consider, then this penalty is not really a hindrance. Therefore I assume that spell casters in your group, ZuS, very often resort to fast-casting when casting from a Spell Adder. That were different IMO if the fast-casting penalty were on top of the other scaling penalties.

[HarperSam]

What do you think about not rotating GM's each game? You be the GM for a few sessions. Don't argue the rules. The rules for any game shouldn't get in the way of fun. Tell them what happens. When they buck, remind them softly and sternly "that's my ruling now let's move on"..

I have to agree, House rules makes it sound like everybody has a say, Its the GM thats running the game and that has to keep it fair, balanced and fun for all so the GM should set their own house rules, of course I would let the players have a say but not a discussion for hours, and if no agrement is reached in a short time, its the GM's interpritation of the rules that should stand.

In regards to the 'Magic Darts' if its so powerful, every spell caster in the realm would have, which would mean the Enemy would to, also every other spell caster in the realm would develop a spell or make a item specifically to combat 'Magic Darts' otherwise they would end up dead very quickly.

In regards to the teleporting archer the enemy would come with traps / protect themselves with spells against arrows or just have a number of dogs running around sniffing out the characters also why did'nt they just finish of the characters in the first place instead of retreating 20+ men attacking a camp of weekend characters would have seemed logical.

In regards to spell balance there are always going to be flaws in any system,
it takes experiance not to exploit them (and alot of fun out the game).

Also I think you maybe using 'Mental focus' incorrectly, i belive its a seperate skill that needs a seperate roll to see what bonus you get which takes a round itslef, this bonus then applies to your spellcast roll, not your MF bonus (these increse in round numbers like -10,-5,0,+5) so i think 27 is not possible.

[ZuS]

What do you think about not rotating GM's each game? You be the GM for a few sessions. Don't argue the rules. The rules for any game shouldn't get in the way of fun. Tell them what happens. When they buck, remind them softly and sternly "that's my ruling now let's move on"..

I have to agree, House rules makes it sound like everybody has a say, Its the GM thats running the game and that has to keep it fair, balanced and fun for all so the GM should set their own house rules, of course I would let the players have a say but not a discussion for hours, and if no agrement is reached in a short time, its the GM's interpritation of the rules that should stand.

We cycle GMs every 3-5 sessions, or as long as a scenario takes. We do this to keep a motivated GM and fresh players - it works awesome. We've never had better gaming than with this system.

In regards to the 'Magic Darts' if its so powerful, every spell caster in the realm would have, which would mean the Enemy would to, also every other spell caster in the realm would develop a spell or make a item specifically to combat 'Magic Darts' otherwise they would end up dead very quickly.

Tell me, how fun is it to have every NPC do exactly the perfect thing against what you do? Not very. And how fun is it to have a world full of one-trick ponies that kill everything the same way? Not at all.
The ONLY sustainable solution is balancing the rules.

In regards to spell balance there are always going to be flaws in any system,
it takes experiance not to exploit them (and alot of fun out the game).

That is why I am here to point these flaws out to the people in charge You know, like beta testers for software.

Also I think you maybe using 'Mental focus' incorrectly, i belive its a seperate skill that needs a seperate roll to see what bonus you get which takes a round itslef, this bonus then applies to your spellcast roll, not your MF bonus (these increse in round numbers like -10,-5,0,+5) so i think 27 is not possible.

Nope. It's the Spell Casting Styles from College of Magic, they just use Mental Focus as an accompanying skill - no action needed. The bonus added are the ranks in the Style skill, if role is successful.

[ZuS]

IMHO the rules assume that the casting time for a spell cast using a Spell Adder is the same as if the spell were cast normally using the same number of PPs and scaling options, no more no less. If it were the case that the casting suddenly takes only 1 rnd I would except to find some notion of this in the rules, and if fast casting using the -10 per round less were not allowed I would also expect this. But since, according to the rules, the only changes when using a Spell Adder are that a) no PPs are needed and b) scaling casting penalties are removed, I assume that casting times work just like for any other normal spell. That means that, also when using a Spell Adder, a 25 PP spell takes 5 rounds to cast but these can be reduced down to only 1 round for a -40 penalty.

Yea I figured that that was the ugly truth.

The only problem here is related to the removal of the scaling penalties: If you have 25 ranks in a spell and suddenly have no penalties for scaling up the spell and the -40 for fast-casting a spell are the only penalty the caster has to consider, then this penalty is not really a hindrance. Therefore I assume that spell casters in your group, ZuS, very often resort to fast-casting when casting from a Spell Adder. That were different IMO if the fast-casting penalty were on top of the other scaling penalties.

Yes... yes it would.

[Ecthelion]

We cycle GMs every 3-5 sessions, or as long as a scenario takes. We do this to keep a motivated GM and fresh players - it works awesome. We've never had better gaming than with this system.

We do the same, btw., and for similar reasons.

I have to agree, House rules makes it sound like everybody has a say, Its the GM thats running the game and that has to keep it fair, balanced and fun for all so the GM should set their own house rules, of course I would let the players have a say but not a discussion for hours, and if no agrement is reached in a short time, its the GM's interpritation of the rules that should stand.

We've made the experience that you better agree on a similar set of rules for all those who GM in a group. It is easier for everyone if you only have to care about one set of house rules than one such set per GM. You simply lose track of how each GM handles the rules for his group otherwise. I agree, though, that it probably makes sense to use the GMs interpretation if the need for a new ruling comes up and to postpone a possible discussion until after the session. It otherwise interrupts the game unnecessarily.

[HarperSam]

We've never had better gaming than with this system.

Thats good to hear, same for us.

Tell me, how fun is it to have every NPC do exactly the perfect thing against what you do? Not very. And how fun is it to have a world full of one-trick ponies that kill everything the same way? Not at all.
The ONLY sustainable solution is balancing the rules.

I agree that its not fun at all and that sounds thats excalty what your players are doing, whilst I also agree the rules need updating in the mean time its up to the players and GM to balance the game themselves. If this is taking hours to set house rules maybe discuss it on email first then just have a vote at the game sessions. I have found that regardless of the system or rules someone will always find a loophole or expoilt a weekness.

That is why I am here to point these flaws out to the people in charge You know, like beta testers for software.

Maybe you can start a concise list with those you've found so far that other can add to, i'm sure it will help the next time its re-released or errta printed.

Nope. It's the Spell Casting Styles from College of Magic, they just use Mental Focus as an accompanying skill - no action needed. The bonus added are the ranks in the Style skill, if role is successful.

Must have missed this , that would explain it

[HarperSam]

We've made the experience that you better agree on a similar set of rules for all those who GM in a group. It is easier for everyone if you only have to care about one set of house rules than one such set per GM. You simply lose track of how each GM handles the rules for his group otherwise. I agree, though, that it probably makes sense to use the GMs interpretation if the need for a new ruling comes up and to postpone a possible discussion until after the session. It otherwise interrupts the game unnecessarily.

On the whole I agree, but where we can't agree the GM takes precidence. In most cases we run campaigns which last for 6mths + (one ran for 5 1/2 years), so have 1 GM for a long period.

[jasonbrisbane]

I am asking just so I know the mechanics - in our case it matters little. 27 ranks of spell would take 6 rounds to cast, or 1 round with -50 OB penalty. Since the caster has 159 OB with the spell, he would smoke anything short of a dragon 95% of the time anyway, so casting time addition to Spell Adder is little help to this situation.

As per the Spell descriptions in HArp Core (i.e. how magic spells work and are cast), the magic users creates a spell matrix and then focuses the power into that.
The PP in this case comes from the address, not the mage himself, but he still needs to focus that power into the matrix that he builds.

The benefit of using an adder is that he doesnt suffer the PP penalty, but he still gets an overcasting or fast casting benefit/penalty.

And as per Harp core, a caster who takes ANY damage whilst casting the spell looses the spell and the power points (Yeah!, I found this paragraph on the last week, causing me to rethink how our own house rules regarding combats work...)


He the mage needs people to protect him whilst he casts the spell, but a single fighter with Arcane Bolt (universal) can disrupt the mage from range...

[ZuS]

And as per Harp core, a caster who takes ANY damage whilst casting the spell looses the spell and the power points (Yeah!, I found this paragraph on the last week, causing me to rethink how our own house rules regarding combats work...)

He the mage needs people to protect him whilst he casts the spell, but a single fighter with Arcane Bolt (universal) can disrupt the mage from range...

See, that is another point of insanity: if your spell takes only 1 round to cast, you can NOT be interrupted by damage (unless stunned in the same round). And I won't even mention the fact that everyone in group has around 30 initiative bonus.

What strikes me as innately crazy about the round system is that you can actually cast a spell every 2 seconds. This should not be the case IMO. A warrior running towards a caster from 100 meters away, assuming he is Ben Johnson on steroids and covering the 100 meters in 10 seconds, will be hit by 5 fireballs before he has a chance to hit the caster. Correspondingly, an archer with a longbow can fire every third round, so that the caster basically can Deflect->Fireball->Fireball->Deflect his ass into oblivion.. It is just wrong.

[ZuS]

Point with the last post is that you have huge incentive to cast in one round - always. Less chance of being stunned during casting, more action (a spell every 2 seconds) and no chance of being interrupted by damage.

[ZuS]

We've made the experience that you better agree on a similar set of rules for all those who GM in a group. It is easier for everyone if you only have to care about one set of house rules than one such set per GM. You simply lose track of how each GM handles the rules for his group otherwise. I agree, though, that it probably makes sense to use the GMs interpretation if the need for a new ruling comes up and to postpone a possible discussion until after the session. It otherwise interrupts the game unnecessarily.

Yea, same with us. We basically decided no house rules - eliminates discussion and existing rules are taken much more seriously. You have some good points and it looks like you guys ran into some of the same issues we did. We just happen to have a math wiz who enjoys destroying systems on board.

Maybe you can start a concise list with those you've found so far that other can add to, i'm sure it will help the next time its re-released or errta printed.

While you may have a point, none of us will commit to anything of the sort, unless it's going to be considered somewhere in the HARP situation room.

[jasonbrisbane]

I was wondering if this would come up.

Harp Core, page 84, second column:

With this system, players are required to roll Initiative each round due to changing conditions...

In Our group (Our house rules), we decided that this was extra dice rolling that we didnt want, so we roll at the start of combat and keep the same initiative order, unless we hold actions, etc..
This has the problems that we can hear what everyone else  is doing and it is hard to keep "player knowledge" about what is happening in combat separate form character knowledge. We solved this mostly by giving everyone the Earrings of Association, thus everyone gets a "bonus" to combat...
It also means that one round spells cant be interrupted...

This applies to NPC's as well as PC's though... This was very clearly defined during the time we decided upon the house rules.

IN the standard combat, everyone decides what they are going to do first, then they proced to roll initiative meaning that a fighter that is hidden from the mages view, may  run at the mage last in the round. Next round he rolls initiative and goes first, getting to attack and stun the mage - preventing casting of any attack spell. Utility/defense spells are at -50 too remember (the stun rules, page 95)

Finally, remember that you are supposed to declare actions BEFORE you roll initiative.
So a mage declares he is casting a spell and has no idea what the NPC's are doing unless he wants to also declare that he is using a combat perception to spot what is going on.

(As spells require the user to concentrate so much on forming the sigil, this can be debated to mean that if he fails this combat perception that he doesnt see the warrior charging at him at chi speed mode!)
So he is taking a chance that he will roll an initiative whose end result is higher than the enemy he is facing. if the enemy gets to attack him first he has three options: Cancel his 1 round spell and Sudden dodge; or cancel his 1 round spell and cast an instantaneous spell (bladeturn is a favourite!); or ignore the attack and hope his DB is good enough to deflect all damage (otherwise pg 109 takes effect and he looses the spell and PP).


Again, house rules on how you roll initiative for combat are extremely important in determining if mages can cast 1 round spells with immunity.

I hope this explains the reasoning behind it. And good luck deciding what house rule you wish to follow for even deciding to use the books word for word is still a house ruling. Deciding to use COM or ML is a house ruling. Some of these rules dont gell (such as using MAFG with HARP core monsters, or Codex with HARP core spells: re: Control Animal).

Everything is a House Ruling!

If

[ZuS]

IN the standard combat, everyone decides what they are going to do first, then they proced to roll initiative meaning that a fighter that is hidden from the mages view, may  run at the mage last in the round. Next round he rolls initiative and goes first, getting to attack and stun the mage - preventing casting of any attack spell. Utility/defense spells are at -50 too remember (the stun rules, page 95)

I am not sure what this is a comment on, but if it's about my little comment on spell-per-2-sec, then what I said is that it takes 10 seconds to run 100 meters, fire 3 arrows or 5 fireballs. Guess which I would prefer.

(As spells require the user to concentrate so much on forming the sigil, this can be debated to mean that if he fails this combat perception that he doesnt see the warrior charging at him at chi speed mode!)

Err, yes he does see the warrior. They stand in front of each other 100 meters apart. The warrior starts running and the caster starts frying his ass. That was my example.

if the enemy gets to attack him first he has three options: Cancel his 1 round spell and Sudden dodge; or cancel his 1 round spell and cast an instantaneous spell (bladeturn is a favourite!); or ignore the attack and hope his DB is good enough to deflect all damage (otherwise pg 109 takes effect and he looses the spell and PP).

And here I come in with HARP Rule book, page 109, section Casting Spells in Combat:

What happens when a character is in the middle of casting a spell and is hit and takes damage? If the spell
being cast will be completed on the round that the character takes damage, then he completes it without a problem. If the spell takes multiple rounds, and this is not the final round of the casting, then the spell is lost, but the character does not lose the Power Points used by the spell.

See that bold area? That is why I argue that 1 round casting cannot be interrupted simply by taking damage. This brings the incentive to shorten casting to 1 round to the following:
1)   less chance of interrupt by stun, since your casting is concentrated to that one round
2)   more action, since you cast double the amount of spells than if you cast 2-round spells f.eks.
3)   0% chance of being interrupted due to damage alone, as long as the damage does not kill you outright

Either way you look at it, the fighter/archer needs to have the caster completely unaware of his presence, divine intervention, or simply magic to avoid certain death. Our whole group decided not to go with divine intervention, but magic instead - every last one of us has at least one sphere of magic available. Which I think is a shame caused partially by the 2-second casting rule, quadratic damage of some spells and the ease with wich mages reduce casting time using Spell Adder insanity or just by having crazy spell OB. I say partially because there are many other reasons to have magic spheres available.

[Thom @ ICE]

ZuS - You are on target. These are valid comments about the fastcast vs reload, etc.

[ZuS]

ZuS - You are on target. These are valid comments about the fastcast vs reload, etc.

Except for my brainfuck in 1). Of course you have the same chance of being interrupted by stun, but you never lose more than a round of spellcasting on any given stun - if you get stunned on round 5 of casting a spell, all of the 5 rounds of casting are lost.

[Pat]

I have a standard rule whever I GM a game.....Whatever the players are allowed to do, so are the bad guys.

If you don't like players using magic darts spells maxed out with spell adders, then send them up against a ninja/ magic user enemy. When half the party dies in the first round by unseen enemies casting magic darts into them they may change their minds.

Conversly, if the players are all mages get a mage hunting party together to "take them out". Their speciality could include max ranks in counter spell. Counter spell can severely affect a spell casters effectiveness as it's an instantaneous spell and doesn't affect your melee attack.

Lastly, I believe teleporting, shadow step, long door etc should have an effect based on:
1) Line of sight.
2) Knowledge of an area.
3) Blind casting.

If a character has line of sight then he/she can teleport to that area with no penalties.
If a character is teleporting to an area he/she knows well (say back to their bedroom or local tavern) then (providing they can teleport that far) there is no penalty.

Blind casting is different. If the player is casting to an area that cannot be seen then I would rule that they maintain there same height above sea level. So, if the caster can't see where they are teleporting to then it is up to the GM to inform them. For example, my archer has fired an arrow from the top of a hill and wants to teleport 100 foot backwards to an unknown location. Spell is cast and is successful. I, as GM, rule that since it is an unknown destination that he/she can't see, the player re-appears at his current height (top of the hill). The hill is 60 feet above the teleported to area so he falls 60 feet (unless a spell is cast) taking falling damage.

Another example would be an ambush in a wooded area. The archer shoots his arrow and wants to teleport 50 feet through the wooded area behind his enemies. I would rule that this is possible but since he is now in a new position he will need to make a perception or combat perception checks to find his foes.

[Ecthelion]

I have a standard rule whever I GM a game.....Whatever the players are allowed to do, so are the bad guys.

In general I agree but...

If you don't like players using magic darts spells maxed out with spell adders, then send them up against a ninja/ magic user enemy. When half the party dies in the first round by unseen enemies casting magic darts into them they may change their minds.

...in such cases, where the spell is so powerful that PCs will get killed, then this must be the last line of defense. I'd say that killing a party of PCs is certainly no fun for the players. And I guess many players will constent to tone down a spell like Magic Darts or not use it when confronted with the alternative that the GM might use it against them otherwise and their PCs might get killed. So better first talk with your players and only use such extreme means like erasing a party if there is no other way.

[Marc R]

When I run into a situation like that as GM, and get push back resistance to a change, I often propose a mock combat in which the NPCs use similar tactics against the party. . .after all, if a caster bounty hunter is after the PCs with a "Dead or alive" bounty, they make their living out of exactly the same sort of high end takedowns PCs engage in, so "creative" use of the angles is exactly the sort of thing an NPC like that will come up with.

Generally after an engagement resulting in a 50% TPK the PCs tend to agree to modifications.

[ZuS]

When I run into a situation like that as GM, and get push back resistance to a change, I often propose a mock combat in which the NPCs use similar tactics against the party. . .after all, if a caster bounty hunter is after the PCs with a "Dead or alive" bounty, they make their living out of exactly the same sort of high end takedowns PCs engage in, so "creative" use of the angles is exactly the sort of thing an NPC like that will come up with.

Generally after an engagement resulting in a 50% TPK the PCs tend to agree to modifications.

All the suggestions of this sort might be valid enough, but we cycle GM duty - which means that one GM might enforce in-house bounty hunter and other provisions, while others may not. In this type of environment rules become arbitrary and ONLY ONE solution is ultimately valid: official balancing of the rules.