Hat wrote:
First, I apologize for the common sense comment. It was late and not meant to be negative.
Thank you, that comment did rankle a bit.
Hat wrote:
Second, I know Matt felt this spell combo was tricky when I talked it with him, so I don't think this is set in stone yet. He wants to be careful about the precedent and any possible unintended consequences. As for differences at different tables, there will always be some variation between GMs, but I agree that where reasonable it should be limited.
I think if we vary from the rules as written it is very important to consider precedent and consequences. That's why I think we should vary as little as possible. Also, consider that I am in essence, using the damage, materiality, etc. answers for this question to apply to my Body of Light spell as well.
As for table differences, I expect there to be some just due to GMing styles, but honestly, the degree of variability, and the strong opinion that they are going to run it "they're way" with little consideration to how that might effect players I've seen on the boards has been a little scary.
Hat wrote:
1. Base damage - d4 dagger, d6 GoL, recommendation: apply normal stacking rules but flexible
I think this should still be the damage from both (d4+Mi+d6+Primary+1), after all it is in essence a tier 3 spell. You could instead have pumped a GoL with your passive insight and a die bump for the cost of this spell, so the damage differential between using the adaptations vs the advanced spell are relatively minor.
If you don't combine the damage, then how it should work defaults to whether you make the weapon solid or insubstantial. If you make it insubstantial, than I think it has to be race specific, speed 4, and ignore AR, and use your primary stat in the damage calculations. In that case, you are essentially just using a funky looking GoL (d6+stat+1), right? Nothing much gained from the combination to a tier III equivalent spell.
If you make it solid, it isn't race specific anymore (it can damage a human, for example) and it allows for AR, and should use might or quickness for damage instead of your primary stat, right? So essentially what you get is a MoS weapon [d4 or d6 + (Mi/Qu)] that you can apply GoL spell die bumps to for weapon damage, despite it no longer functioning like a GoL in any meaningful way? Or is it essentially a speed 4 dagger most of the time that "flares to life" against the selected races and does a d6/d8 against them, and can only be die bumped against them? If so, I'm not what you really get out of this combination instead of casting MoS if you're fighting a human or GoL if you're fighting one of the select races.
Hat wrote:
2. Speed - 3 for MoS, 4 for GoL, I would make base speed consistent with the damage die (3 for d4, 4 for d6)
I would combine the damage to have both, and default to the speed 4. I don't see any way to combine the spells where it doesn't default to the slowest speed.
Hat wrote:
2. Quality - MoS says fine, GoL nothing stated or none, recommendation: apply stacking, weapon is fine, so +1 base damage
I was wondering where that +1 in damage came from! Now I see. I agree, that the fine quality damage is definitely part of the damage under current rules no matter how you slice it. My suggestion would be that it only apply if any part of the weapon is solid in a final ruling. Having a fine quality insubstantial whatever seems odd. Same with the application of runes, since I'm not sure how you apply a rune to light. But under current rules it works.
Hat wrote:
3. Shape of weapon - GoL says any, MoS says dagger, recommendation: overlap says dagger; caveat: potentially modified by Adaptation: Shadow Weapons
I agree, if any part of this spell is solid, than it should be whatever weapon shape the solid portion consist of. So weapon tricks of the solid weapon should apply. This would be true of unarmed combat as well, in the Body of Light spell.
Hat wrote:
4. Melee skill - GoL says any, MoS is balanced, recommendation: matches shape of the weapon, which would mean balanced if #3's recommendation is accepted
I agree
Hat wrote:
5. Substantiality - GoL says pass harmless through non-favored targets, MoS is solid - Suggestion (rather than recommendation) - solid. Part of the reason for making it substantial is that the CTN for the combined spell is consistent with a Tier III spell. There should be some base improvement over the Tier I GoL spell reflected.
suggestion - both, a solid portion and an insubstantial portion. I'm not sure how making it substantial is an improvement over the base spell since I would think that if it is solid AR must apply. Essentially, you now have a GoL (d6+stat die+1) damage, but solid, so you can hit anything with it like a MoS, apply AR like MoS, but die bump the weapon damage like a GoL.
I like a mixed approach, because it seems that no GoL damage should be possible to any creature but the selected ones, even in an advanced spell. I think the advanced damage (d4+Mi+d6+Pr+1) is what you get for it being the equivalent of a higher tier spell.
Hat wrote:
6. Weapon tricks - #5 impacts the use of weapon tricks. If solid weapon tricks would be allowed with the weapon as it would with MoS, it has mass after all. If it's insubstantial, no weapon tricks per GoL.
I agree, with the caveat that that is not what the current rules allow for, but would make sense.
Hat wrote:
7. Effect vs. Undead, Spirits, Entropic and Infernals - the die bump to damage vs. Entropic to d8 makes sense by the stacking rules. If the decision on #1 is base d4, then vs. Infernals, Undead and Spirits it would still make it d6.
I agree, even if you have now somehow solidified a GoL if that spell is in the mix, it should work better against it's selected targets.
Hat wrote:
8. What happens when the blade is released - GoL fades immediately, MoS fades after 12 ticks of being unattended. Suggestion - Wrapper effect (GoL) fades immediately upon release returning the weapon to the core shadow dagger form. This seems like a merging / compromise of the two effects. Again, something that reflects the fact that the spell is 2 tiers higher than the base spells.
I agree, with the caveat that that is not what the current rules allow for, but would make sense.
I'm trying to think how various interpretations of these rules might be broken with other spells, but am not coming up with any yet. I suspect I am too locked into thinking about these combinations right now.
Please let me know if you agree, but I think what is apparently needed is:
1. A global clarification of how damage from the spell combinations work - e.g. does making a combined weapon work differently than other combined spells. I don't see why it should, but obviously others disagree.
2. A ruling about how GoL combines with solid spells, in terms of whether the resulting weapon is insubstantial (which is what I think the current rule says), a mix, or solid; and what the ramifications of that decision are (in terms of AR, creatures effected, weapon tricks, fine quality, rune effects, etc.)