blocking spells and shock

On 2009-07-03, MeaningWhat <meaningwhat2009.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i meant the casting. guess i wasnt clear on that.
> however, if it is an active defence of a mage, it should not apply.

The spellcasting itself is not an Active Defense, it is the magical
effect that follows that is sometimes treated as one. The spell-
casting therefore /should/ be subject to shock penalties the way I see
it.

If the casting of a Blocking spell were in itself an Active Defense I
would have expected to see the skill/2 + 3 sort of thing applied to
it. And such casting would, strangely, get DB from shields, be subject
to posture penalties, you would get +1 for retreat, etc., as per
pp. B548-549.

If magical Active Defenses were to not receive any of these bonuses,
this would need to be explained in the "Defending" chapter starting on
p. B374, expanding on how magical active defenses work.

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.TakeThisOut@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

Rob Kelk schrieb:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:33:34 +0200, MeaningWhat
> <meaningwhat2009.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> normally characters get a shock penatlty after suffering injury. the
>> penalty excludes active defense. what about a mage casting a blocking spell?
>> in magic it says that some blocking spells are considered active
>> defenses. what about block and hardiness? while block adds DB to an
>> active defense i would assume that it is not an active defense itself.
>> so shock penalty would apply to this spell. same with hardiness.
>>
>> what do you think?
>
> I don't mind not applying the shock penalty to the use of the blocking
> spell, as long as you remember to apply it to the casting of the
> blocking spell (just as you would to the casting of any other spell).
> There's no reason to be double-penalized, after all.
>
i meant the casting. guess i wasnt clear on that.
however, if it is an active defence of a mage, it should not apply.

Bent C Dalager schrieb:
> On 2009-07-03, MeaningWhat <meaningwhat2009.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> i meant the casting. guess i wasnt clear on that.
>> however, if it is an active defence of a mage, it should not apply.
>
> The spellcasting itself is not an Active Defense, it is the magical
> effect that follows that is sometimes treated as one. The spell-
> casting therefore /should/ be subject to shock penalties the way I see
> it.
>
lets take an example, return missile spell, p.M168. It says that the
spell is considered a parry for combat purposes. This means that after
casting (no matter if it fails or succeeds) no other parry can be made
by the caster AND it means that the success roll (in this case a spell
check) is to be treated as a parry, which is an active defense for
combat purposes, i.e. that shock penalty should not apply.

> If the casting of a Blocking spell were in itself an Active Defense I
> would have expected to see the skill/2 + 3 sort of thing applied to
> it. And such casting would, strangely, get DB from shields, be subject
> to posture penalties, you would get +1 for retreat, etc., as per
> pp. B548-549.
>
> If magical Active Defenses were to not receive any of these bonuses,
> this would need to be explained in the "Defending" chapter starting on
> p. B374, expanding on how magical active defenses work.
>
> Cheers,
> Bent D

On 2009-07-04, MeaningWhat <meaningwhat2009.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Bent C Dalager schrieb:
>> On 2009-07-03, MeaningWhat <meaningwhat2009.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> i meant the casting. guess i wasnt clear on that.
>>> however, if it is an active defence of a mage, it should not apply.
>>
>> The spellcasting itself is not an Active Defense, it is the magical
>> effect that follows that is sometimes treated as one. The spell-
>> casting therefore /should/ be subject to shock penalties the way I see
>> it.
>>
> lets take an example, return missile spell, p.M168. It says that the
> spell is considered a parry for combat purposes. This means that after
> casting (no matter if it fails or succeeds) no other parry can be made
> by the caster AND it means that the success roll (in this case a spell
> check) is to be treated as a parry, which is an active defense for
> combat purposes, i.e. that shock penalty should not apply.

Where do you find this?

As far as I can tell, what it actually means that a spell is
considered a parry is incredibly poorly defined. Now, it /is/ possible
to parry multiple times in a round but extra parries are at cumulative
-4, accumulated per weapon (p. B376). Does this mean that if I already
parried once, my Blocking spell is at -4? If I parried with a fencing
weapon, is my spell only at -2? With what hand is the spell considered
to be cast; if I parried with my off-hand main-gauche does this mean
that my spell isn't at a penalty after all? Or is spell-casting a
separate "weapon" altogether, unaffected by previous hand-based
parries?

It is also not entirely clear to me why I should be getting a +2 to
spellcasting for holding a shield, or a -2 for sitting, but both of
these are normal modifiers to a parry.

Martial Arts says on p. 100 that if an opponent parried one of my
attacks then I can Beat against that attack on my next turn. How do I
visualize a Beat on a magical parry and what exactly is the weapon
that I am Beating?

Without further explanation, the very concept of "this spell is
considered a parry" seems fundamentally flawed and not something I can
employ to form useful conclusions.

However, digging a bit further, the best argument for having Blocking
spells ignore shock is to be found on p. B419 under "Shock":
"Shock affects DX- and IQ-based skills, but not active defenses or
other defensive reactions (...)"

and on p. B421 under "Temporary Attribute Penalties":
"Exception: Defensive reactions that don’t require a maneuver to per-
form – active defenses, resistance rolls, Fright Checks, etc. – never
suffer penalties for attribute reductions. For instance, -2 to DX
would not affect Block, Dodge, or Parry."

It still bothers me that Blocking spells aren't explicitly listed
since all the examples given are weird non-skill type rolls but a
Blocking spell is definitely a "defensive reaction that [doesn't]
require a maneuver". And this would presumably cover all Blocking
spells, not just the ones that are "considered" some form of active
defense.

I think I'll just chalk this one down to more GURPS Magic brokenness.

Cheers,
Bent D (holding out hope for 5th edition)
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

Bent C Dalager schrieb:
> On 2009-07-04, MeaningWhat <meaningwhat2009.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Bent C Dalager schrieb:
>>> On 2009-07-03, MeaningWhat <meaningwhat2009.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> i meant the casting. guess i wasnt clear on that.
>>>> however, if it is an active defence of a mage, it should not apply.
>>> The spellcasting itself is not an Active Defense, it is the magical
>>> effect that follows that is sometimes treated as one. The spell-
>>> casting therefore /should/ be subject to shock penalties the way I see
>>> it.
>>>
>> lets take an example, return missile spell, p.M168. It says that the
>> spell is considered a parry for combat purposes. This means that after
>> casting (no matter if it fails or succeeds) no other parry can be made
>> by the caster AND it means that the success roll (in this case a spell
>> check) is to be treated as a parry, which is an active defense for
>> combat purposes, i.e. that shock penalty should not apply.
>
> Where do you find this?
ok, you can do multiple parries. i forgot. so i guess you can do other
parries. the later part i find in Campaigns, p.419. shock penalty should
not apply.
the part about the success roll: you claimed that the spell check (the
success roll) is not an active defense. i think it is. the spell is
treated as a parry. a parry has a success roll. in case of a spell it is
a spell check.
>
> As far as I can tell, what it actually means that a spell is
> considered a parry is incredibly poorly defined. Now, it /is/ possible
> to parry multiple times in a round but extra parries are at cumulative
> -4, accumulated per weapon (p. B376). Does this mean that if I already
> parried once, my Blocking spell is at -4? If I parried with a fencing
> weapon, is my spell only at -2? With what hand is the spell considered
> to be cast; if I parried with my off-hand main-gauche does this mean
> that my spell isn't at a penalty after all? Or is spell-casting a
> separate "weapon" altogether, unaffected by previous hand-based
> parries?
>
a blocking spell most certainly is not the SAME weapon as a main gauche,
fencing weapon or any other weapon. so you should assume it is not at
some penalty even if you already parried.
With how many hands you cast a spell depends on how you handle gestures.
if you allow that a hand held main gauche does not hinder the gestures i
would assume that the spell is cast at no penalty. i use the optional
rules for gestures in magic in my group. this would mean that a hand
held main gauche or a broadsword in the main hand both hinder gestures.
if the mage wields both weapons he would be at -4 to cast.
there is no off-hand in spell casting.

> It is also not entirely clear to me why I should be getting a +2 to
> spellcasting for holding a shield, or a -2 for sitting, but both of
> these are normal modifiers to a parry.

shield: a shield protects in a passive way. so you can concentrate more
on the ritual/casting.

sitting: i assume that these modifiers are for melee weapons only.
considering spell casting, sitting would extremely hinder your ability
to use gestures. most likely you could not use your feet. using the
optional rules on p.M9, you would be at -2 to casting because you cannot
use foot movements.

>
> Martial Arts says on p. 100 that if an opponent parried one of my
> attacks then I can Beat against that attack on my next turn. How do I
> visualize a Beat on a magical parry and what exactly is the weapon
> that I am Beating?
>
the weapon in this case is nonexistent. it is a spell. it is impossible
to target a spell with a normal attack. it is something similar to the
foe dropping the weapon he parried with. it is not there anymore, so
this Beat option cannot be used.

> Without further explanation, the very concept of "this spell is
> considered a parry" seems fundamentally flawed and not something I can
> employ to form useful conclusions.
>
right, some further explanation would be nice.
> However, digging a bit further, the best argument for having Blocking
> spells ignore shock is to be found on p. B419 under "Shock":
> "Shock affects DX- and IQ-based skills, but not active defenses or
> other defensive reactions (...)"
>
> and on p. B421 under "Temporary Attribute Penalties":
> "Exception: Defensive reactions that don’t require a maneuver to per-
> form – active defenses, resistance rolls, Fright Checks, etc. – never
> suffer penalties for attribute reductions. For instance, -2 to DX
> would not affect Block, Dodge, or Parry."
>
> It still bothers me that Blocking spells aren't explicitly listed
> since all the examples given are weird non-skill type rolls but a
> Blocking spell is definitely a "defensive reaction that [doesn't]
> require a maneuver". And this would presumably cover all Blocking
> spells, not just the ones that are "considered" some form of active
> defense.
>
> I think I'll just chalk this one down to more GURPS Magic brokenness.
>
> Cheers,
> Bent D (holding out hope for 5th edition)

here is the official ruling by Kromm

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=779088#post779088

looks like they are not active defenses. maybe they will fix the
misleading spell descriptions in magic at some unknown time in the far
far future. if they care at all.

On 2009-07-05, MeaningWhat <meaningwhat2009.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Bent C Dalager schrieb:
>> (...)
> a blocking spell most certainly is not the SAME weapon as a main gauche,
> fencing weapon or any other weapon. so you should assume it is not at
> some penalty even if you already parried.
> With how many hands you cast a spell depends on how you handle gestures.

Presumably then, a skill 20 caster should not be affected by previous
parries while a skill 19 or below should.

>> It is also not entirely clear to me why I should be getting a +2 to
>> spellcasting for holding a shield, or a -2 for sitting, but both of
>> these are normal modifiers to a parry.
>
> shield: a shield protects in a passive way. so you can concentrate more
> on the ritual/casting.

But then this should be a general bonus for spell casting since all
spells will benefit from the caster feeling more secure.

> sitting: i assume that these modifiers are for melee weapons only.

They are general modifiers for active defense rolls. They do, for
instance, apply to defenses vs missile weapons and they apply whether
you are wielding a weapon or not when you are defending.

> considering spell casting, sitting would extremely hinder your ability
> to use gestures. most likely you could not use your feet. using the
> optional rules on p.M9, you would be at -2 to casting because you cannot
> use foot movements.

The basic rules have skill 20 casters completely unaffected though,
which is not entirely compatible with having posture modifiers for
spells as active defenses.

>> Martial Arts says on p. 100 that if an opponent parried one of my
>> attacks then I can Beat against that attack on my next turn. How do I
>> visualize a Beat on a magical parry and what exactly is the weapon
>> that I am Beating?
>>
> the weapon in this case is nonexistent. it is a spell. it is impossible
> to target a spell with a normal attack. it is something similar to the
> foe dropping the weapon he parried with. it is not there anymore, so
> this Beat option cannot be used.

But nowhere does it say this. The complete absence of any comments as
to how a magical parry is to be treated leads me to conclude that it
is a parry only in the most peripheral sense. It can not be in the
core nature of the spell because this would expose the success roll to
all sorts of unexplainable modifiers and rules.

It also opens up for some nasty abuses. For instance, since active
defenses get to critically succeed on a roll of 3-4 even if the
effective skill was below 3, a caster can use Reflex on some
particularly difficult spell (effective skill of 2, for instance) to
trigger it as an active defense and thereby increase his chance of
success with it. Indeed, if using the buying successes optional rule
this can change an otherwise impossible casting into one that is
guaranteed with the expenditure of earned CPs. Or, for a less extreme
case, it gives you an easy +2 to cast the spell since the friend you
have attacking you will have been told to make it a Telegraphic
attack. Oh, and you're using a large shield of course for another +3
to cast it. This just seems wrong.

Of course, to complicate matters, the Reflex spell says that its
subject spell is an active defense for all practical purposes, except
it doesn't get +3 for Retreat. This seems to indicate that the spell
/should/ be getting all the other modifiers, such as a penalty for
your enemy's Feint on the previous turn etc.

A search on this subject brought up the following comment from the
GURPS line editor:

--
Blocking spells aren't active defense rolls; they're spells that
generate an effect equivalent to a successful active defense if
they're cast successfully. They take literally no time, so they're
faster than any feint or attack, and they don't require the user to
know a damned thing about combat. As such, they're unaffected by the
modifiers that apply to active defenses (Combat Reflexes, Deceptive
Attack, Feint, flanking, footing, posture, Telegraphic Attack,
etc.). Instead, they're affected by the modifiers that apply to spells
(mana level, shock, spells "on," etc.). The GM who dislikes that is
welcome to rule otherwise . . . but there will doubtless be places
where that doesn't make much sense, and I can't help you there.

Believe me, if we had meant for Blocking spells to be active defense
rolls, we'd have said so, allowed them to resist Feint at full skill,
and made the actual defense a roll against Iron Arm/2 + 3 or whatever.
--

This would seem to contradict both the Reflex spell description and
the p. B419 comment about defensive reactions not affected by Shock.

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.DeleteThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

Bent C Dalager schrieb:

> A search on this subject brought up the following comment from the
> GURPS line editor:
>
> --

> Believe me, if we had meant for Blocking spells to be active defense
> rolls, we'd have said so, allowed them to resist Feint at full skill,
this is so laughable. they actually SAID so. "to be treated as a parry
for combat purposes" says exactly that.
i begin to understand the advantages of D&D magic system.

> and made the actual defense a roll against Iron Arm/2 + 3 or whatever.
> --
>
> This would seem to contradict both the Reflex spell description and
> the p. B419 comment about defensive reactions not affected by Shock.
>
> Cheers,
> Bent D