Topic: Bladeturn and Aim untrue...

[MariusH]

I still prefer targeting the ATTACK, not a person. However, in order to do so, we allow these instantaneous spells to actually be cast - well - instantaneously. That means if you are aware of an attack, you can always cancel your action and cast deflection/bladeturn etc. immediately, that is, just before the attack is resolved (unless you have already cast a spell that round or other factors deem you cannot cast the spell).

You see an enemy about to fire an arrow into your friends? Stop preparing that fire ball and cast deflection! A second orc just moved up to your fighter with his scimitar raised? Quit running away and cast blade turn!

[yammahoper]

That looks like a post I'd make while drinking. . . .

And yes, IMO the target should be the person defended, and the effect a blocked attack (much like the target of a resist fire is the person protected, not the fire). It's unfortunate the spells don't read that way.

A six pack isn't drinking, just relaxing and enjoying the fine flavor of Bells Pale Ale.  Drinking fyi involves liquor.

[Marc R]

I thought in michigan, drinking liquor fell under the heading of "keeping warm"?

Still think in general a defense should target the person protected. . .and the effect is on the attack made.

[MariusH]

But the spells clearly state you have to be aware of the attack. How can you know of the attack when you cast the spell on a person? What if that archer is firing on someone else? What if your spells target is attacked by an attack you were not aware of? Spells like "protection", "blur" and the likes does this sort of thing - and they have a target as "area of effect" and a suitable duration.

Also, the spells clearly state that the "Area of effect" is "one attack" or "one missile" - NOT one target.

I also like the picture beside "Shield mastery" - the mage there is CLEARLY deflecting the missile as it is fired, not pre-casting the spell on the thief.

But, like I said, this requires that you are allowed to actually cast these spells instantanously, as you can't know of an attack in deliberate phase when casting the spell in snap phase.

[Marc R]

Shrug, to each his own, but I generally think of resist fire targeting the resisting person, and having an effect on the fire. . . .or flight targeting the person who flies and effecting gravity. . .

In the end, the mechanical effect is to grant a +100 DB to one person vs one attack. . .

Technically, if the spell actually targets the sword-in-hand chopping, or the arrow in bow about to fire. . .then the attacker should and would get an RR vs you doing anything to affect an object in their direct possession (like any other F vs object allowed to affect objects being held by a person). . .instead it's a defensive spell and doesn't offer an RR. . .which implies the target is the person being defended, and the area of effect is "1 attack" or "1 missile". . . .

[MariusH]

Indeed - everyone should play it their way! No disagreement there! 

Now, back to the book - specifically, "spell law" and the list "spell reigns". Unlike Deflections and Blade Turn ,which are utility spells (in my view affecting the missile in flight or a sword being swung), "Spell bending", "Reverse spell" etc. are actually force spells. In this list, however, the spell descriptions clearly state that the SPELL is the target: "The attack spell which is targeted with this spell...", "The target elemental attack spell..." etc.

Except for letting the target spells get an RR, as indicated, I will handle these spells the same way I handle deflection and blade turn. Thoughs? I guess I'd have trouble with "reversal true", though - that one really ought tho have a duration of "1 rnd", not "-".

[Marc R]

yeah, all those apparent "interrupt" spells with a duration of "-" create these same issues of when you cast them etc. . .likely best to just treat them all the same.

Blade "in hand" is considered the same as the hand in terms of rr or no rr. . .and "Bladeturn" works vs a martial arts attack. . . .if you consider these spells from that aspect you really need to consider: is this a U spell affecting the defender granting a +100 to DB and no RR, or an F spell giving -100 to one attack to which the attacker SHOULD get an RR. . .

If you can't get an RR vs a spell affecting your fist, then when is that line crossed?

[MariusH]

Treating them the same is probably a good idea. I think I'll do that - except for the RRs. To me, it's stated pretty clearly in the book when an RR is allowed: Versus F spells, NOT U spells. So when a spell is LISTED as U, I'll not give an RR, even if it's "affecting your fist".

You can also affect peoples mind (like telepathy) without RRs. I'll just use whatever category a spell is listed as when considering if RRs are allowed or not.

Thanks for your opinions. I'd also really appreciate if someone could also give me some examples of how these spells were actually used and handled during real gaming sessions - anyone?

[Marc R]

Only problem is RAW that U cannot ever affect unwilling targets. . .which means if the U is affecting my fist (attack is target), rather than the person I'm aiming to punch (defender is target), by RAW it would fail every time the attacker decided they were unwilling (which, unless it were a play fight, would be every time)

I concur that an RR is not appropriate, nor indicated by the spell. . .which indicates to me that the flaw lies in targeting the attack, rather than targeting the person to be defended.

The rules on passive/informational spells won't allow you to affect someone's mind (like mind domination, forget, etc, without an RR) it will allow you to pick up information without changing or otherwise affecting anything.

Generally you cast them in a prior phase, or use the interrupted/changed action rules to stop some other action to cast one.

often:

Fighter declares 70/30 OB/DB and will move up on snap, attack the Mage on deliberate.

Mage could declare casting the bladeturn on snap, or some other actions. . .then cancel the other action to cast the bladeturn in snap or normal. . .though IMO if the latter, they need to beat the fighter's initiative to get the bladeturn in normal off before the attack in normal.

[Marc R]

(Heh, I said "attack in deliberate" above, change the fighter's declaration to "attack in normal" and then all that will then make sense.)

[MariusH]

Well, I nevertheless understood what you meant :-) It seems we'll just be doing this differently, but that's obviously not a problem.

I have a feeling that doing it "my" way, these spells become a bit more powerful than "your" way, since in my system, the spell doesn't have to be cast until just before the attack, and so you'll never "waste" a spell on an attack that neven happens. Also, I don't run the risk of protecting the wrong person against a missile attack, since I don't target the person to be protected, but the attack itself. On the other hand, with "your" system, you may be able to protect people against attacks you don't see coming too? Do you agree with this assessment?

[Marc R]

No, the spell text/errata both state it must be an attack you are aware of, so you can't deflect the attack in the back you never saw coming.

Frankly, considering the spells effectively don't fit into the round logic properly as is, I suspect each of us plays them a little differently, so I'm not surprised at all.

[Eldainen]

Sorry if I missed all the discussion, but thanks to everyone for the answers. It's pretty clear that the rulings we are currently using as a group are utterly wrong. I hope this thread helps me convince my friends to change their opinion.

[providence13]

Even when I House Rule the spells to last a few rounds, I never let the spells stack. I wouldn't allow a Bladeturn, then another Bladeturn, then another...
18 bladeturns you say.. <shiver!>

[MariusH]

I think the 18 bladeturns came from an 18th lvl mage casting "Mass bladeturn", providence.

[providence13]

ahh, reading too fast.
Thanks MariusH.

This is still a problem I have with the spell RAW. That's some specific magic that lets you see 18 missiles in the air before the hit.

[MariusH]

It IS a difficult spell, I agree. I see it as being able to cast "deflection" up to 18 times in a round (on 18 different missiles) - or, by concentrating, spread over a number of rounds.

[Marc R]

The weirdness lies in the designating target issues. . . assume you're carrying the mass Deflection into combat via concentration. . .does each declared deflect count as one of your three actions? Can you deflect up to 18 missiles within one phase as one action? Does it count as no action?

The problems arise in the details there.

[MariusH]

I think of it as no action. You only need to concentrate. But it IS difficult!

[providence13]

This is one of those spell descriptions that can't be handled by the Rule Logic as we have come to understand it.

It's like Controlling a Mount or Ritual Magic or the others that have their own rules.

And that's why I don't like it.
Yamma's idea of Realm stat bonus for a duration in rnds is a good one, IMHO.
Some spells have alternate effects depending on how they're used.
I'm allowing this to be used either way.
1) "Thief be careful scouting ahead. Here's a Blade turn but it'll only last a little while. Hurry back".

2) "Since I see that skeletons are behind the thief with weapons raised, I'll cast Bladeturn in case he is hit this rnd".

But honestly, I couldn't see a missile in flight. I could see a blur, an impact and quickly infer the point of origin.. but my eyes aren't what they used to be.