| Paradigm Concepts https://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/ |
|
| Spells into Melee https://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=968 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | archangel [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Spells into Melee |
The rule itself is fine. I'd just suggest that we point out Adaptation: Arcane Accuracy as was done with the bow ruling and quick hands talent. I know Arcane Accuracy is a talent I missed several times going through the books as I don't think of it as an adaptation talent. |
|
| Author: | PCI_StatMonkey [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Spells into Melee |
archangel wrote: The rule itself is fine. I'd just suggest that we point out Adaptation: Arcane Accuracy as was done with the bow ruling and quick hands talent. I know Arcane Accuracy is a talent I missed several times going through the books as I don't think of it as an adaptation talent. :O) Write up the Q and I'll give you the A |
|
| Author: | archangel [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Spells into Melee |
Q: Ranged attackers have the martial technique Precise Aim to aid in firing into melee. How can I reduce penalties for casting spells into melee? A: The talent Adaptation: Arcane Accuracy. My comment was more so about just adding the suggestion of dealing with the negative effects of the ruling, as was done with Quick hands on the casting while using a bow question. |
|
| Author: | PCI_StatMonkey [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Spells into Melee |
archangel wrote: Q: Ranged attackers have the martial technique Precise Aim to aid in firing into melee. How can I reduce penalties for casting spells into melee? A: The talent Adaptation: Arcane Accuracy. My comment was more so about just adding the suggestion of dealing with the negative effects of the ruling, as was done with Quick hands on the casting while using a bow question. well thank you.. the more we can help players the better! |
|
| Author: | mith [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Spells into Melee |
As written Adaptation: Arcane Accuracy requires Ranged (Marksman). Why not say any Ranged skill? For example, there's just no good reason a Ss'ressen Shaman would have 'Marksman', since they can't have flintlocks (legally). |
|
| Author: | Alessia Val'Mehan [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Spells into Melee |
I find the Ranged skill unnecessary as a requirement for this talent. Most casters would never utilize it and it becomes a wasted skill point which in this system are pretty precious. I think it should be removed as a requirement. I want to go a bit farther into this particular ruling however with the generic -4 penalty to all spells cast into melee. Its clear in many places this was not the intent and that only avoidance spells were subject to the -4 penalty for casting into melee as the only two talents in the books that reduce this penalty only reduce it for avoidance spells... Another example that points to this is: Q: In relation to Misdirect Fire Spell (CoH) does a "Ranged Attack" also count ranged spells? A: yes as long as that spell attacks your Avoidance. I think that if you are going to do a blanket statement that all spells cast into melee are at a -4 penalty you need to allow for a talent that will reduce them all when fired into melee and not just avoidance. Or stick with the original plan and just have avoidance spells effected by the cast into melee penalty. My first opinion was non psychical spells being cast into melee shouldn't be able to strike an unintended target. Which would negate any penalty for most discipline spells and some fort spells. However i believe that you need a uninterrupted line of effect for most if not all spells. It also brings up another fun point... do casters get tactical edge for having more allies surrounding enemy's in melee it would seem to contradict things a bit... anyways food for thought. ~Tony |
|
| Author: | Nierite [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Spells into Melee |
Alessia Val'Mehan wrote: I find the Ranged skill unnecessary as a requirement for this talent. Most casters would never utilize it and it becomes a wasted skill point which in this system are pretty precious. I think it should be removed as a requirement. I think this was included to represent the very similar 'skills' needed to aim a gun (or crossbow) and point a spell not to hit. I'd personally be fine restricting it to Ranged (Any), but I personally like the flavour that the addition of this skill adds. It makes perfect sense to me in game as being trained in ranged implies your aim is good, but being trained in Arcanum means you can cast spells. They are not in any way similar, so you can't just say that a regular Arcanum is sufficient. Quote: I want to go a bit farther into this particular ruling however with the generic -4 penalty to all spells cast into melee. Its clear in many places this was not the intent and that only avoidance spells were subject to the -4 penalty for casting into melee as the only two talents in the books that reduce this penalty only reduce it for avoidance spells... I believe it is listed as Avoidance and Fortitude. There was a discussion about this elsewhere on the forums. . . Quote: My first opinion was non psychical spells being cast into melee shouldn't be able to strike an unintended target. Which would negate any penalty for most discipline spells and some fort spells. However i believe that you need a uninterrupted line of effect for most if not all spells. You still have to aim a Castigate which targets discipline, and it isn't a 'physical spell' because you are aiming the spell at a specific person. I like the idea of ALL ranged spells taking the penalty (and this is from an Elemental Bolt, Castigate, etc caster) for simplicity, with various talents to counteract this issue. |
|
| Author: | wilcoxon [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Spells into Melee |
Nierite wrote: You still have to aim a Castigate which targets discipline, and it isn't a 'physical spell' because you are aiming the spell at a specific person. I like the idea of ALL ranged spells taking the penalty (and this is from an Elemental Bolt, Castigate, etc caster) for simplicity, with various talents to counteract this issue. I agree. I like the simplicity of all spells suffering the -4 into melee. I also agree that, if this is the case, then there needs to be adaptations for Fort and Disc spells (or change Arcane Accuracy to work on any defense but I'm not as fond of that fix). |
|
| Author: | Alessia Val'Mehan [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Spells into Melee |
Explain to me why Blessed Devotions doesn't have ranged marksman as a requirement to it then? Also as of this proposed FAQ it is listed as all three spell types not just Avoidance and Fortitude. Q: Is there a penalty for casting spells into melee? A: Yes, casting spells into melee incur a -4 penalty to the casters attack roll, regardless of the targeted defense. Ranged spells are considered ranged attacks and are covered under Cover rules on page 305 (and clarified in errata below) |
|
| Author: | Nierite [ Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Spells into Melee |
Arcane =/= Divine? In universe, Divine spells operate using slightly different physics than Arcane, so that might be the source. Also, please remember that Divine cannot be combined so maybe this was their olive-branch? |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|