Topic: An idea for Magic House Rules...

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Something I've been thinking about, primarily as an extension of my House Rule that spellcasting skills should apply to whole Spheres/Circles, is the idea of having skills that function like Combat Styles do for Fighters. (Separate from Casting Styles, which I love.)

Double the penalties for PP scaling and for rapid casting, then allow Rapid Casting and Enhanced Casting (SD/Pr) to absorb those penalties the way that the Armor skill absorbs maneuver penalties, to a minimum penalty of -10 for each.

This could be further expanded with other "spellcasting styles" that allow characters to enjoy different benefits while casting spells, like a Defensive Casting skill that allowed the character to "parry" while casting a spell by reducing their spellcasting roll, or a Sculpted Casting skill that allowed casters to change the shape of area effect spells.

Thoughts?

[ZuS]

I thought it already was possible to toss an instant Deflect/Blade Turn AND cast a spell that takes no more than 1 round in a single round? Or am I mistaken?

It would make sense if I was mistaken, because if you can toss off that combo, no reason why you shouldn't be able to toss off multiple insta spells in a single round, and that of course is idiotic.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It would make sense if I was mistaken, because if you can toss off that combo, no reason why you shouldn't be able to toss off multiple insta spells in a single round, and that of course is idiotic.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic of the thread...

But there's nothing wrong with saying you can cast 1 instantaneous spell either in or out of turn, and that if you need to cast a second instantaneous spell it must occur in your turn and it counts as your turn. They're not truly instantaneous, after all, and there's only so much you can do in between your "regular" actions.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Hmmm...
I thought it was only one spell per round, no matter if it was instantaneous or not...
But I am not sure if I am remembering correctly and I don't want to derail the Rats thread...

[RandalThor]

I thought it was only one spell per round also. And that includes spells cast from items, I am pretty-sure.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Wouldn't be the first rule I've read wrong.

[jasonbrisbane]

There was a rules clarification by Rasyr a while back.

The rule is:
One instantaneous spell per round and one other spell (normal casting, fast cast or instantaneous).

Otherwise a mage couldnt defend against any missile attacks - the archer could aim each round (max +30 bonus IIRC?) but push it for 10, 20, 30 rounds until the mage starts waving his arms around (i.e. spellcasting) and then loose the arrow (holding initiative until the spellcasters initiative).

The mage could not defend at ALL as the are spellcasting.

This was NOT the intention of the rules and so it was clarified...

Unfortunately I dont know where this was stated

[RandalThor]

So they can cast an instantaneous spell & a regular spell.... in the... same... round.... by the rules..... gasp...... choke..... must be in alternate universe...... a player friendly ruling..... by ICE!........ gasp...... choke..... molecules disbanding....

Well, there's another rule I don't have to ignore/blow through. Yay!

[Right Wing Wacko]

Now that Jason mentions it, I do remember reading that somewhere. I just don't remember where....

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

So they can cast an instantaneous spell & a regular spell.... in the... same... round.... by the rules..... gasp...... choke..... must be in alternate universe...... a player friendly ruling..... by ICE!........ gasp...... choke..... molecules disbanding....

Funny....  The general policy is to favor the players when making a ruling, if the there is some ambiguity in what the ruling should be, and so long as that ruling does not upset the balance of the game in some fashion.

So, that means that yes, a character may cast an instantaneous spell in the same round as another spell. However, there is a caveat in there as well.

For example, a character cannot cast an instantaneous spell WHILE casting another spell, without disrupting that casting (this becomes especially important when dealing with spells that take multiple rounds to cast).

So he can cast an instantaneous spell BEFORE or AFTER a regular spell, but not while casting a regular spell. If he does, then he has essentially stopped casting the other spell (no PP lost).

[Thom @ ICE]

So effectively this ruling favors spellcasting players - but the combat guy who can Sudden Dodge, loses his attack for the round, while the spellcaster who opts to Instantaneous cast a spell, can still get another attack that round.

Why not maintain consistency and allow the caster to use the instantaneous spell in place of their other action, and if they already acted that round it counts as their action for the next round?  This would mirror the Sudden Dodge action.

If you have a mage facing off with an archer - the archer fires his bow and the mage uses deflection. The mage casts a fireball and the archer sudden dodges... Next round the archer can do nothing while the mage casts another spell.... bye bye archer!

I understand the idea of why you want to make it "instantaneous" - because the spell grants something that needs split second reaction to be effective, but logically if you can cast 1 spell in an instant and still have other actions, then you should also be able to cast infinite # of instantaneous spells (especially since you can scale up the instantaneous spell with no casting time penalty) - which would be completely unbalancing to the nth degree.

The ruling is IMO illogical, inconsistent and unbalanced.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

The ruling is IMO illogical, inconsistent and unbalanced.

Incorrect. A Sudden Dodge is essentially a full round action, which an instantaneous spell is not.

However, both do somewhat operate in a similar manner because you can abort other actions to perform (losing that other action in the process).

[Thom @ ICE]

They are only different because you defined Instantaneous that way and from what I have seen there is no logical grounds for your ruling.

* Is there a limit to # of PP that can be processed in 1 round?  Normally 5 unless rushed, but that is thrown out for instantaneous spells.
* Is there a limit for # of normal spells that can be cast in 1 round? Yes, only 1 if you use non-instantaneous spells.
* Instantaneous spells are suddenly exempt from rules and give spellcasters an edge.

If an instantaneous spell can be cast for 50PP scaling instantaneously, and then followed up with another spell in the same 2 second round - then logically 5 instantaneous spells should be able to be cast within 1 round.  You have implemented a ruling without any logic behind it just to avoid abuse - but the result is an imbalance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters.

As for interrupting a multi-round spell - no different than holding back and aiming and then having to dodge. You lose your aiming bonus.

You can have your ruling... but IMO it is imbalanced and illogical.  You have refuted neither of these points by providing either a logical reasoning for the special benefits given to instantaneous spells, nor by showing how it is balanced in game play. 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Certain spells are marked with an asterisk (*) beside their name. These spells are instantaneous in regards to their casting time. A caster 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. No matter how many Power Points are put into the spell, the casting time never changes. A caster may cast only one instantaneous spell per round.

Seems that the rules are pretty clear to me. What I said above wasn't a "ruling" per se (is it in an official ruling block?), it was an extrapolation of the quoted paragraph. It changes nothing about the rules.

If I were making an official ruling, it would look like this
[oRule=
Official Ruling]
official ruling text here
[/oRule]

 

[Thom @ ICE]

I stand corrected - it is an illogical and imbalanced rule, which was later clarified to further perpetuate the lack of logic

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I stand corrected - it is an illogical and imbalanced rule, which was later clarified to further perpetuate the lack of logic

Gee, I didn't realize that you hated HARP that much...   

If you have a mage facing off with an archer - the archer fires his bow and the mage uses deflection. The mage casts a fireball and the archer sudden dodges... Next round the archer can do nothing while the mage casts another spell.... bye bye archer!

You are forgetting that the character is still considered to be performing the Sudden Dodge the next round, which means that he still gets that bonus to his DB as well, the same bonus he got against the spell attack.

You are also forgetting that players are supposed to declare actions before rolling for init.

This means that if the mage did not know about the missile attack before the round began, he would already be casting his other spell, and thus would have to cancel that to cast the instantaneous spell.

but the result is an imbalance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters.

Spell casters, in ICE games, have always had an advantage over non-casters, simply because they have magic (this actually can apply to most any game). HARP reduces that a lot from the imbalances in RM, but nobody has ever tried to claim that HARP is perfect.

However, getting upset and attacking HARP just because you disagree with one small part, a part that almost nobody has ever complained about before seems, to be a bit much to me.

[Thom @ ICE]

Actually I don't Hate HARP and I never used such a statement. Please do not try to put words into my mouth that were never said or felt. Even in jest I find such a comment inappropriate.  I am a staunch supporter of HARP, though I believe there are definite issues with aspects of it.

I am well aware that the players actions the next round are automatically pre-set for another Sudden Dodge - while the mage is casting his third or maybe 4th spell (if he used another instantaneous one).

In my description both parties were aware of each other, therefore he did know and the init comment is invalid.

As for the fact that there are imbalances I fully agree - but to create a rule that further extends those should not be necessary, and without logical justification such a rule should be corrected if possible. In this case it could easily be corrected, but you continue to stand by a position without rational backup for it.

I am not attacking HARP and my upsetment is only related to your statement that my opinion is Incorrect without even making an attempt to justify your position with logic.  I am sorry that you feel that my approach to this is "a bit much", for my part I feel that I am defending my argument with logic.

[ICEBruce]

This is a game with magic in it.  Logic can be highly over-rated and game balance and fun have to be at the forefront of any design.  The problem here to me is that the example below as given by ChosenDM is invalid.

"If you have a mage facing off with an archer - the archer fires his bow and the mage uses deflection. The mage casts a fireball and the archer sudden dodges... Next round the archer can do nothing while the mage casts another spell.... bye bye archer!"

It is invalid because the mage casting deflection would render his offensive spell unusable.  So archer attacks and mage defends- end of round as the offensive spell was cancelled

The init comment is hardly invalid. Indeed init is key as it determines the entire exchange under the example as set up.  The archer gets the benefit from the Sudden Dodge throughout round 2, but if he used that is would not have proceeded as you used in the example.

Mage decides on a fire bolt, Archer decides to shoot whoever gets init goes on offense

Mage goes first and archer sudden dodges or Archer goes first and mage deflects and loses his fireball.  Either way offense is cancelled by defense and both are free to act normally the next round.

Things change slightly when the person taking the first attack ignores it.

Mage goes first and acher ignores it and spell misses and archer shoots and Mage deflects.  Both free to act next round

Archer goes first and mage ignores it and shoots off a spell after the shot misses.  Archer sudden dodges and is committed to that and gets the DB benefit in the remainder of this round and the next round.

So the difference is that committment to the next round in certain circumstances.  And the fact the Mage has limited PP available.

[Thom @ ICE]

OK - I surrender....
Bruce's example is flawed, but it's not worth the argument at this point.
Tim hasn't explained why Instantaneous spells are given preferential treatment.
Bruce steps in with a flawed example (Tim at least had the mechanics and the init issue part accurate - just not the rationale).

Consider my version a house rule as I don't accept the idea that spellcasters need even more advantages (isn't casting spells enough....)

[Thom @ ICE]

By the way - IMO - my house rule would include the following:

Instantaneous Spell could be applied any time.
Casting during a round before acting takes the place of the action that round.
Casting during a round after acting takes the place of the action the next round.
If the casting exceeds 5PP then for every 5PP there is a -10 penalty to casting (based upon the Reducing Spell Casting Times rules). 
Note: This was not referenced in the rules originally, but since the phrasing is based rounds reduced rather than PP used, I felt it important to clarify this.

If you like it feel free to use it.
If not, then feel free to use the rules as originally written.
Enjoy your gaming....