Spell questions

[mythfish]

Can a character's ADPs be used to defend against the PH of a Harm effect spell? Does armor help against the PH of a Harm spell? I was assuming not, but I don't recall seeing it explicitly stated anywhere one way or the other.

How about a spells page on the Eldritch Wiki?

[dancross]

Can a character's ADPs be used to defend against the PH of a Harm effect spell? Does armor help against the PH of a Harm spell? I was assuming not, but I don't recall seeing it explicitly stated anywhere one way or the other.

How about a spells page on the Eldritch Wiki?

Hello there! Only "Dodge" can be used against some spells. When dodging area effects, the character must run to some point outside the radius in any direction. Movement in ERP is usually abstract, so the GM must determine whether this is possible. A good rule of thumb is to compare the spell’s radius with the character’s Speed or Move Rank × 2. If the speed or move score is equal to the radius, the character can dodge to reduce damage. If not, he cannot move fast enough to dodge

[mythfish]

So if an elementalist had a Harm effect spell that ripped a small chunk of rock from a mountain and hurled it at an opponent, that opponent could not avoid it and the damage would applied to Resilience then Toughness? But if a giant ripped a piece of rock from a mountain and threw it at an opponent, that opponent could use any of his ADPs to avoid damage and any damage would go directly to his Toughness?

Or would you use a different spell effect to represent that sort of spell more accurately?

[mythfish]

In the section on creating conjure spells, it says the Spell Difficulty is set equal to the summoned creature's primary attack form. It also says that a character needs D12 summoner Mastery rank to summon legendary type creatures.

The Summon Demon spell has a difficulty of only 1D6. Shouldn't this be 3D12 (its primary attack)? Or am I misunderstanding something? Should it also not have a prerequisite of D12 summoner Mastery rank? Is "summoner Mastery rank" just another way of saying "sorcery Mastery rank"?

[dancross]

So if an elementalist had a Harm effect spell that ripped a small chunk of rock from a mountain and hurled it at an opponent, that opponent could not avoid it and the damage would applied to Resilience then Toughness? But if a giant ripped a piece of rock from a mountain and threw it at an opponent, that opponent could use any of his ADPs to avoid damage and any damage would go directly to his Toughness?

Or would you use a different spell effect to represent that sort of spell more accurately?

If the Harm effect hurled a chunk of rock at a target, then I'd compare the character's Speed (x2) to the area affected by the spell (how big is the chunk, etc), and guesstimate if the target can use "Dodge" DP. Or just say the target can use Dodge if it makes more sense to do so.

[dancross]

In the section on creating conjure spells, it says the Spell Difficulty is set equal to the summoned creature's primary attack form. It also says that a character needs D12 summoner Mastery rank to summon legendary type creatures.

The Summon Demon spell has a difficulty of only 1D6. Shouldn't this be 3D12 (its primary attack)? Or am I misunderstanding something? Should it also not have a prerequisite of D12 summoner Mastery rank? Is "summoner Mastery rank" just another way of saying "sorcery Mastery rank"?

That was a typo. Conjuring objects requires a roll vs. 1D6. The developer who wrote that spell was drinking heavily, along with our proofreaders. So, yes, the summoned demon's difficulty would be vs 3D12.

[d(sqrt(-1))]

Ok, a few of Cantrip/item questions:

- Cantrips cost 1 pp each to cast. It seems from the book that they are created 'on the fly' i.e. there are no pre-created cantrips, as there are for spells - is that correct? If not, then is there a limit on how many are known as for spells?

- The Cantrip to recharge magic items (assuming that the item is either permanant or not yet inert) is defined to restore 1d(Arcanum Base) PP to the item. Do these stack (for want of a better term) on successive castings? For example, item is down to 2 PP, if I cast a cantrip, my Arcanum base is 1d10 and restore (say) 6 PP, can I then cast another one on the next round to further recharge it? If so, then magic items can be restored indefinitely (provided that they don't become inert and you are prepared to spend the PP) between fights. I guess after a while the limiting factor then becomes how many PP you are prepared to expend to maintain magic items vs casting spells?

- permanent items created by artificing e.g. magic swords. Do they still have PP? Do you still have to expend PP every round to get the bonus on using them?

thanks,

Mark

[dancross]

Ok, a few of Cantrip/item questions:

- Cantrips cost 1 pp each to cast. It seems from the book that they are created 'on the fly' i.e. there are no pre-created cantrips, as there are for spells - is that correct? If not, then is there a limit on how many are known as for spells?

That is correct. Cantrips are "free form", but the minor effects should be based on the power source used (as decided by the caster). So there is no limit, because these spells are not memorized.

The Cantrip to recharge magic items (assuming that the item is either permanant or not yet inert) is defined to restore 1d(Arcanum Base) PP to the item. Do these stack (for want of a better term) on successive castings? For example, item is down to 2 PP, if I cast a cantrip, my Arcanum base is 1d10 and restore (say) 6 PP, can I then cast another one on the next round to further recharge it? If so, then magic items can be restored indefinitely (provided that they don't become inert and you are prepared to spend the PP) between fights. I guess after a while the limiting factor then becomes how many PP you are prepared to expend to maintain magic items vs casting spells?

Yes, recharging an item can be done anytime with a simple cantrip. If done during combat it takes up the character's action for the round. So, you're right, the only limiting factor is the SP used.

- permanent items created by artificing e.g. magic swords. Do they still have PP? Do you still have to expend PP every round to get the bonus on using them?

Some permanent items have energy points, yes. They don't become inert though...a user can dip into his Resilience score to keep on using the item after it's reached it's limit.

thanks,

Mark[/quote]

[d(sqrt(-1))]

That is correct. Cantrips are "free form", but the minor effects should be based on the power source used (as decided by the caster). So there is no limit, because these spells are not memorized.

Great.

Yes, recharging an item can be done anytime with a simple cantrip. If done during combat it takes up the character's action for the round. So, you're right, the only limiting factor is the SP used.

Ok, good.

Some permanent items have energy points, yes. They don't become inert though...a user can dip into his Resilience score to keep on using the item after it's reached it's limit.

For "some items having energy points", how is this determined? For example, I was originally thinking of the archetypal magic sword. It seems a bit odd for it to have PPs that you have to expend each round to get its benefits, since anyone who is good at fighting will probably have a lowish Arcanum score, and therefore low PPs. OTOH, maybe that is a feature - arcanists who are poor at fighting can boost themselves by creating magic swords, but they aren't so useful to someone who is already good at melee. Maybe I've missed this bit - I'll have a re-read of the artificing section!

Many thanks,

Mark

[orcbreath]

My thought is that a sword that gives +2 Harm would not use any PP, but a sword that teleports you on command would. Or a "dancing" ability, or increasing the die rank of an ability, or "slaying". Not a sword with increased max split, or increased initiative, or speech and intelligence, but one with a curse of attracting enemies....oh the fun has come back to GMing!

[mythfish]

So if an elementalist had a Harm effect spell that ripped a small chunk of rock from a mountain and hurled it at an opponent, that opponent could not avoid it and the damage would applied to Resilience then Toughness? But if a giant ripped a piece of rock from a mountain and threw it at an opponent, that opponent could use any of his ADPs to avoid damage and any damage would go directly to his Toughness?

Or would you use a different spell effect to represent that sort of spell more accurately?

If the Harm effect hurled a chunk of rock at a target, then I'd compare the character's Speed (x2) to the area affected by the spell (how big is the chunk, etc), and guesstimate if the target can use "Dodge" DP. Or just say the target can use Dodge if it makes more sense to do so.

Okay, let's assume you have a spell effect that hurls a small rock, like the size a human could throw (why you'd design a spell that only does that, I have no idea, but let's assume it's a normal Harm effect spell). It totally makes sense to me that the rock could be evaded or deflected, and possibly even parried depending on what weapon is being used. And I can think of a number of spell effects that would follow this model...is there a better way to represent this kind of spell than a Harm effect? If not, do you think it would be unbalancing in any way to allow Harm spells to work exactly like weapon attacks (damage goes straight to Toughness, but can be avoided with any ADP)? Basically, a new aspect option for Harm spells that the spellcaster would choose when the spell is created?

[dancross]

For "some items having energy points", how is this determined? For example, I was originally thinking of the archetypal magic sword. It seems a bit odd for it to have PPs that you have to expend each round to get its benefits, since anyone who is good at fighting will probably have a lowish Arcanum score, and therefore low PPs. OTOH, maybe that is a feature - arcanists who are poor at fighting can boost themselves by creating magic swords, but they aren't so useful to someone who is already good at melee. Maybe I've missed this bit - I'll have a re-read of the artificing section!

Items have a number of energy points equal to the MRV of the original creator's Arcanum + the relevant Power Source + School (or basic + specialization + mastery MRV total).

I wouldn't blink as GM if somebody allowed free use of a magic item that had a permanent +1 to Harm You could make it depend on the object too, to make it interesting.

[dancross]

My thought is that a sword that gives +2 Harm would not use any PP, but a sword that teleports you on command would. Or a "dancing" ability, or increasing the die rank of an ability, or "slaying". Not a sword with increased max split, or increased initiative, or speech and intelligence, but one with a curse of attracting enemies....oh the fun has come back to GMing!

That's how I'd run it! The possibilites for magic items is really untapped right now...

[dancross]

If the Harm effect hurled a chunk of rock at a target, then I'd compare the character's Speed (x2) to the area affected by the spell (how big is the chunk, etc), and guesstimate if the target can use "Dodge" DP. Or just say the target can use Dodge if it makes more sense to do so.

Okay, let's assume you have a spell effect that hurls a small rock, like the size a human could throw (why you'd design a spell that only does that, I have no idea, but let's assume it's a normal Harm effect spell).

Yes, a Harm effect spell using the "bolt" sub-type.

It totally makes sense to me that the rock could be evaded or deflected, and possibly even parried depending on what weapon is being used. And I can think of a number of spell effects that would follow this model...is there a better way to represent this kind of spell than a Harm effect? If not, do you think it would be unbalancing in any way to allow Harm spells to work exactly like weapon attacks (damage goes straight to Toughness, but can be avoided with any ADP)? Basically, a new aspect option for Harm spells that the spellcaster would choose when the spell is created?[/quote]

What you said makes sense yes. But if Active Defenses were allowed in such a way, it would be tough keeping the rule that Harm spells affect Resilience then Toughness. I'd say a spell would allow defense by means of ADP *or* Resilience, depending on the type, if such an optional rule were active.

Maybe when creating such a spell, if a Harm Effect, it can be created in such a format:

(A) Mitigated by Evade, Dodge, or Deflect, then Armor, then Toughness. Works just like a regular weapon attack. Resilience would not factor. Manifestation would have to be physical matter, and not of a nature normally reduced by Resilience (like elemental forces). A projectile rock is a good example. Spell cost follows standard rules.
or
(B) Mitigated either by Dodge and/or Resilience, bypass armor, then Toughness (the norm).
or
(C) Mitigated by Resilience only, bypass armor, then Toughness.
or
(D) Mitigated by Resilience only, and once Resilience drops to zero, effect takes hold.