Topic: An idea for Magic House Rules...

[providence13]

Of course, I never understand why wizards in Harry Potter didn't use enchanted machine guns and why Jedi or Sith don't carry grenades or rockets (use the Force to fling rockets perfectly at bad guys seems particularly effective).

Steampunk/Psipunk weapons would be sweet!

If you've covered my post, forgive me, but consider this..
If I'm grappling (touching) someone and another person tries to cast a beneficial spell on my opponent... can I try to resist the effect just because I'm touching them?
It might sound silly, but the idea is an example of taking these 'aura' shenanigans to the extreme.

[Marc R]

I truely wished potter had ended off by popping a cap in V man, but perhaps that would have been too much like "Wizards" the cartoon movie. (This is how we roll in the muggle world %#$&@$ <bang-bang>.)

ahem. . .

I think there are a few. . .I too had to sift through the whole pile to find some early on in this topic. . .there's a disease spell that causes death with a bad RR, and I think one or two others. . .I think a curse and one other elsewhere. None were in the standard, casual, easy to find spell items, they were all either bad cascading RR failures or an obscure scaling option. I think the costs ranged around 24-30+. . .though the low cost end one was the cascading failure one, where you needed to fail RR by 75 or 100 or something similarly horrible to die.

If someone doesn't post them, I'll try looking again tonight and posting them up.

[Marc R]

Disease, p 86-87 of CoM, scaled to either Pneumonia (20pp) or Black Death (21pp) could kill with a really bad roll set of rolls. . . .but you need to utterly fail the first check, then fail the second. . .I couldn't find any others. . .but that's a decent bottom end in terms of "Spells that just barely reach RR or die". . .heating someone's brain into a steaming pudding would be more nasty, worth more the 25-30pp range at least, perhaps more.

[jurasketu]

Right. And those don't even kill you right away. A standard Cure Disease would fix that. So I think +24PP to make to scale a given utility spell into an instant "Death" spell seems reasonable.

Although the snarky side of me says that a properly placed 500mA electric jolt across the heart would put most beings into cardiac arrest. Blowing a simple bubble in a blood vessel could easily cause an immediate and fatal embolism within moments. Why can't a spellcaster choke off someone's air a la Darth Vader. None of those actions would seem to require a lot of "effort". Just subtle application of minimal magical force.

Given the mechanics of utility and attack spells, it is as though the magical matrix (whatever that might be) understands intent and can predict consequences and say naturally resists harm - so significantly more power must be utilized to overcome that resistance. So I would argue that any spell cast with the intent of causing great harm however tangentially would necessarily require more power (since the magical matrix can predict the outcome in theory). In some respects, this means that spells that require a saving throw are probably a bit undercosted and elemental attacks should require more PP for scaling.

Of course, that is the problem with magic... So I'm not arguing for or against anything already discussed - just making an observation.

I would certainly support scaling utility spells into attack spells anywhere from +12 to +24 for the range of no direct *harm* to predictable *death*.

Robin

[Marc R]

I'd focus more on a given target # for "RR or die" and scale based on spell base cost. . .if you decide that 30pp = RR or die. . . .then it's +28 on a 2pp spell, but only +15 on a 15pp spell.

It generally comes down to meta reasons. . .nothing else. . .How much energy goes into creating a 10' x 10' x 1' wall of stone out of essentially nothing? More than you'd need to blast someone so hard they'd be stripped to subatomic particles. Energy level in a science sense would tend to turn magic on it's head. . .and it would take very little energy to just kick a clot off in someone's brain. . .thank god it's magic! heheh.

Then again, "Choke" or any of those others would be easy enough to create as new spells . . .just keep an eye on the balance of effects to PP costs.

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Hun. Well whatta ya know... Check this out...

I was perusing the Vivamancer spells in CoM yesterday for an unrelated reason and suddenly saw a relevant item.. The Animal Transformations, Creature Transformations and Plant Transformations spells have an Unwilling Target Scaling option +12 PP, +16 PP and +12 PP respectively (not sure why the difference in cost)..

It's a scaling option directly proportional to the base cost of the spell.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[RandalThor]

I truely wished potter had ended off by popping a cap in V man, but perhaps that would have been too much like "Wizards" the cartoon movie. (This is how we roll in the muggle world %#$&@$ <bang-bang>.)

OK, before I go to read the rest of the posts..... friggin hilarious!!!

[RandalThor]

J got to it before I could (damn not having internet at home!!). I think the key is intent. Unlike a gun, magic has the ability to interpret intent, of course that could really be just the game side of things coming through.

Also, LM, you must be bringing in concepts from either another game system or RM with the "heat their brains" scenario. I don't see anything like that in HARP. As was mentioned, there are very few instances where you have a utility spell that might be used in the manner in which we are suggesting - unless you rewrite or add whole new parts to the spell.

I think the +20pp is too high (shocker), but then I haven't sen any situation where it would be "save or die" either. In all cases, I feel as though if you are successful in the use of the utility spell, it will give you an advantage, not kill your opponent outright. Like Changing Ways, it physically changes your opponent, doesn't change them into something that is dead. The thing they change into is alive and still has their brain and can defend itself. Yes, I could think of a way to make it more advantageous than just changing the orc chieftain into a deer and watch it run off, but even changing him into a tiny bug gives him some way of defending himself (tiny is hard to hit).

So, I think that the makers of HARP did a good job in not making any "save or die" spells - except in the case of elemental attack spells where it is I roll a good attack and you die...no save.

[Marc R]

I was talking about having already gone this route in RM2. . .we first allowed any spell to be used offensively vs an RR, then had to remove certain low level U spells as being just too heinous to be allowed vs live targets. . .like "Heat Solid".


With HARP, you at least have the option of taking one of those lowish level, would be fatal if used on others spells and giving it a fat scale to make it offensive and retain balance. . .didn't have that option back then.

To offer an example:

I beleive it's the Heat spell, if you had a scaling option like:

+25PP, usable on living or animate targets, Stamina RR to resist.

10 degrees a round I think? (Don't have the book with me) That's rapidly fatal. . .108 temp on round 1 is already at the border of incapable of acting and brain damage. . definitely dead by rounds 3 or 4 at 128-138 body temp.

As to "Changing" the spell perameters. . .many of the scale options do so as is.

[Uriel]

I was talking about having already gone this route in RM2. . .we first allowed any spell to be used offensively vs an RR, then had to remove certain low level U spells as being just too heinous to be allowed vs live targets. . .like "Heat Solid".


With HARP, you at least have the option of taking one of those lowish level, would be fatal if used on others spells and giving it a fat scale to make it offensive and retain balance. . .didn't have that option back then.

To offer an example:

I beleive it's the Heat spell, if you had a scaling option like:

+25PP, usable on living or animate targets, Stamina RR to resist.

10 degrees a round I think? (Don't have the book with me) That's rapidly fatal. . .108 temp on round 1 is already at the border of incapable of acting and brain damage. . definitely dead by rounds 3 or 4 at 128-138 body temp.

As to "Changing" the spell perameters. . .many of the scale options do so as is.

I'm getting flashbacks of a guy (RM, back in the early 90s...) who kept trying to get me to let him use Heat Solid/Boil Liquid on target's eyeballs... Er. Blech.


-Uriel

[Puin]

(large portion of the original post by Rasyr has been erased to shorten my post) <-Puin

First off, the characters must declare their actions BEFORE rolling init. The characters won't know the actions of the other, they might have a general guess, but won't know  for sure.

The thing is, you cannot really declare a Deflections spell unless you know for sure the attack is coming, and even then the mage cannot cast it until the arrow has been fired, as you cannot cast the spell without a target, and the arrow cannot be a target before it is fired.

This means that if he wins init, he would have to give it up, and that would mean he is waiting on the other guy, and under THOSE circumstances (i.e a waiting action), I would not allow the mage to cast a second spell in the same round.

Back to the original question..... Can a mage cast an instantaneous spell and a regular one in the same round? Answer is Yes.

But the more important question, to my mind, is "How often will it actually come up?" and the answer is - "If performing the action declaration and roll init parts as given in the rules as used as they are supposed to be used, then a mage actually casting 2 spells in the same round are very very small."

Picking out and setting up an example that exploits one thing, without taking everything else that could impact the situation serves nobody.

I'm having serious doubts about:

Back to the original question..... Can a mage cast an instantaneous spell and a regular one in the same round? Answer is Yes.

Can he cast a regular one and an instantaneous spell in the same round?

Lets say the group has been ambushed by orcs and it's working it's way out.
The mage states that he will cast a firebolt vs an orc archer.
The mage gets a high init this round so there it goes the firebolt and an orc archer gets killed. One less !! Huzza !!!
Later this round, another orc archer looses an arrow vs one of the adventurers.
Can the mage, that is aware of the scene, cast Deflections against that arrow?

So it seems to me reading this thread.

Txs in advance for the answers.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Can he cast a regular one and an instantaneous spell in the same round?

Lets say the group has been ambushed by orcs and it's working it's way out.

The mage states that he will cast a firebolt vs an orc archer.
The mage gets a high init this round so there it goes the firebolt and an orc archer gets killed. One less !! Huzza !!!

Later this round, another orc archer looses an arrow vs one of the adventurers.
Can the mage, that is aware of the scene, cast Deflections against that arrow?

So it seems to me reading this thread.

Not quite what I was saying... I said 2 spells in a round are possible, but that through the normal course of events and actions, that they are likely to be improbable and only occur rarely (and essentially require that they be declared before the rolling of init).

The main thing to remember is that the HARP combat round is only 2 seconds long. Another thing to remember is that all actions are happening simultaneously.

There is no "later in the round another archer fires". He is firing at the same time as the first archer, that the character fried.

And in order to be able to counter that other archer, he would either have to interrupt his first spell (which normally takes the full round to cast, and that was his declared action), and/or be very lucky in making a Combat Perception roll (at -50) to notice the other archer, considering that his attention is focused on the target of his spell.

[RandalThor]

The: "everything happens at the same time" method has always struck me as sort of crazy. Sure, it could happen, but to say that is the norm. No way.

Of course, HARP's combat round being 2 seconds long (and I thought that the Shadowrun 3 second combat round was short!) leaves little room for movement. I think that is why I like to go with a longer combat round, with the ability to gain more attacks (or just actions) during that time - reflecting the growing experience of the combatant. The problem is to translate thatfor spellcasters...... I'm thinking..... I'm thinking.....

....when I come up with something, I'll let you know.

I was talking about having already gone this route in RM2. . .we first allowed any spell to be used offensively vs an RR, then had to remove certain low level U spells as being just too heinous to be allowed vs live targets. . .like "Heat Solid".

Which is what I meant when I said you are bringing in things from other games. In HARP the spells have been handled much more delicately, so the old RM rule for utility spells isn't needed.

[Puin]

Back to the original question..... Can a mage cast an instantaneous spell and a regular one in the same round? Answer is Yes.

But the more important question, to my mind, is "How often will it actually come up?" and the answer is - "If performing the action declaration and roll init parts as given in the rules as used as they are supposed to be used, then a mage actually casting 2 spells in the same round are very very small."
...
There is no "later in the round another archer fires". He is firing at the same time as the first archer, that the character fried.

And in order to be able to counter that other archer, he would either have to interrupt his first spell (which normally takes the full round to cast, and that was his declared action), and/or be very lucky in making a Combat Perception roll (at -50) to notice the other archer, considering that his attention is focused on the target of his spell.

Great, that's just how I see it. Otherwise it was to powerfull. 

But I still can't see when a spell user can cast a regular plus an instant spell in the same rnd
Can U give as an example, please?

In two weeks our group will have our very first HARP sesion and I, as GM, would like to apply all ok. I've been postulating for HARP for over half a year and at last I have the chance to try HARP over RMC. I do really think HARP improves a lot of things vs RMC but I see that the "Opportunity stance" will be hard to adapt from RMC to HARP

Txs again for Ur answers

[Thom @ ICE]

If I understood Rasyr's earlier posts (and we did argue a bit over them so he may need to clarify this if I am wrong)...

You would need to be fully aware of the archer firing upon you, declare your action to cast a spell that can be completed in 1 round, and win initiative.

Example -
In the declaration phase the mage announces that he is firing an arcane bolt at the archer while the two are focused solely on each other. The archer is prepared to fire upon the mage.  The mage wins init so even though both actions are occurring simultaneously, the mage's spell is resolved first and then the arrow shot from the archer.

The arcane bolt blasts the archer - the spell is resolved with the appropriate dice rolls but the arrow has already been shot so it will still be resolved regardless of the result to the archer.

The archer's shot then flies through the air (since it had been fired at the same time the spell was cast) and the arrow is resolved.... but before the arrow is resolved the mage can cast an instantaneous spell of deflection to try to prevent the impending critical that he is likely to receive.

If the archer wins init then the mage can still cast the Deflection spell, but needs to interrupt the Arcane Bolt to do so.

If the arrow was being shot by another individual, then it would require a Combat Perception (-50) to even be able to react, but if the mage's init was higher and his spell was already resolved he could still cast the Deflections, or if the mage's init was lower and his spell was still pending he could still interrupt it and cast the Deflections.

At least that is how I interpreted Rasyr's comments previously.  I'm sure someone will correct me if my interpretation is wrong.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Thanks Thom - That is close enough for government work.

Sorry Puin, but at the moment, i have so much going on that trying to come up with an in-depth example right now is a little beyond my capacity...

I hope that Thom's explanation answers your questions.

[Puin]

I hope that Thom's explanation answers your questions.

Txs to both.

I've been chewing the answers and I think I've got it.

Actions "happening simultaneously" has been somewhat difficult to insert in my RM rpg mind. 

I must say that melee combat breaks that rule between the engaged parties. As who wins init may choose to hit first (he can full parry!!) and affect his foe before he/she/it swings back. I think if both have the same init, blows will be simultaneous too. 

So, an example to end my doubts:

a)   The mage vs archer got it right. Both will act. The init factor afects the Mage, so he could cast a normal AND instant (has win init) or only the normal OR the instantaneous (has lost init). (More an statement than a question)

b)   Instantaneous like Bladeturn. A spellcaster can cast a Bladeturn against a target regardless his init value, and will take effect once (if in this round) this target attacks, even if target has the highest init. Meaning Bladeturn will always affect a melee (whatever init has the spellcaster) since it is “instantaneous”.

c)   One round casting like Jolts. The spellcaster declares jolts against a target wich is in melee against his friend ranger.

c1) The mage wins init vs the foe. So the Jolts is cast and affects the target. If it gets stunned his friend ranger can attack against this “stunned” foe at will.

c2) The spellcaster loses init against the foe. Normally, the foe will swing against the ranger before the spellcaster casts Jolts. (Very important stright answer here, please) So if Jolts affects him, he will be stuned for next round, since this one has already acted attacking the ranger.

c3) But the spellcaster, can interrupt his Jolts and cast Bladeturn instead, that takes effect before the foe swings and thus affects his attack against the ranger, right? Even if the caster had the lowest init.

I hope this will be the last post because of this doubt, hope so  , since I think all answers must be simply ...... Yea !!!  

[Puin]

No answers means Yep to all

Some will be appreciated though.... 

[Puin]

No answer in 15 days ... means I was righ !!! 
 
Or maybe people in ICE is to busy to give an strigh answer !!! Huzzaaaaa, means we will soon see some new HARP products.   
 
Or maybe "we are crossing a desert" as we say down here ... meaning we are having "bad times" and they will last long.     Maybe tooooo long !