Dante wrote:
Magic spells are definitely affected by not including bonuses "to Arcanum Action Skill Rolls" in Passive Values:
[1] Greater difficulty in adding adaptations to spells--and optionally more action skill rolls may be needed to successfully cast spells with adaptations. When having a net +2 "to Arcanum Action Skill Rolls" doesn't count towards Arcanum Passive Value (which is compared with CTN), that bonus doesn't let the caster automatically get more adaptations.
<snip>
Correct. If you've got Metaphysical Understanding or Prodigy they are bonuses to the ASRs.
Quote:
However, the caster can still choose to roll and take the gamble on failing. With +1, it's not necessarily worth the risk of failure for an average of +1, but for a net +4 (which experienced characters can achieve from multiple independent sources), it can very well be worthwhile to take the risk of failure for that extra adaptation (albeit maybe just the one that's +2 CTN and not the one that's +4).
Correct, it can be, but just because you got a good roll, doesn't make you a better caster in general. Passive is still the best indicator.
Quote:
[2] It can be easier to disrupt a spell than it is to cast it in the first place. Both Counter Spell (ta) and Unravel the Thread (sp) rules state that the dispelling mage should make an Arcanum Action Skill Roll against the caster's Passive Arcanum Value. Thus, the dispeller can get more bonuses than the original caster.
(I'm not trying to argue but just talk it through.)
You are correct. It is easier. The use of passive values makes sense in some areas and far less in others. There are places where I believe a contested ASR would make more sense, but that's not the way the rules are.
Of course all of this works both ways - for and against the players.
With a sweep of his hat,
Paul