Simple Resistance

[Deleted]

Target only gets to resist at time of casting. Target makes 3/IQ check. If target passes, the result is used to decrease the duration of a Timed spell or set the duration of a Permanent spell. Instant spells cannot be resisted.

[reaperwolf]

What if the target is on full defense, are they still forbidden to anticipate and dodge the incoming instant spell? Makes instant spells very very powerful.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure what was intended on 'missile' or 'touch' spells that deal damage but my thinking is: Yes, your full defense adds 1 die to the caster's casting roll. Yes, you can attempt to dodge. That is not resistance. That is dodging or taking cover or whatever. How does one 'resist' a bolt of fire or lightning? How does one 'resist' a summoned creature?

Even if you don't allow dodging and whatnot to be used...

Fist, Strike, Fireball, and Lightning - the wizard can cast from a safe distance but the damages are very limited.

Hammertouch, Death Spell, Pain Channeling are all touch-based. The wizard must put himself in danger (adjacent to his foe) to use these, they have fairly high EN cost, and they are upper-level spells. When you see a wizard closing in on you, you must ask yourself, "what's he got up his sleeve?". It would be wise to not let him near you. The unwise get what they deserve.

Wizard's Wrath is IQ18. It should be powerful.

Summoned creature spells are by far more powerful.

So, I disagree.

[reaperwolf]

For the record I don't believe summoned creatures can be resisted.

As for other types of spells, I'm all for no free lunches so most if not all spells should be dodgeable/resistable provieded the target is aware the spell is incoming and (a big AND!!!) has some of their turn saved up for defense, i.e. only one action taken/going to be taken and only up to 1/2 movement.

[Deleted]

Jan 13, 2015 11:06:36 GMT -5 reaperwolf said:

For the record I don't believe summoned creatures can be resisted.

As for other types of spells, I'm all for no free lunches so most if not all spells should be dodgeable/resistable provieded the target is aware the spell is incoming and (a big AND!!!) has some of their turn saved up for defense, i.e. only one action taken/going to be taken and only up to 1/2 movement.

i agree with your logic, ruling, intent, or whatever you'd call it - no freebies. but i wonder what you mean by the bolded statement. i think it ties into what i'm about to say in the MV and Berserk thread. too many ifs, ands, and buts - exceptions - are being built into the rules. it creates complexity and lends itself to confusion.

imo, you always get an action AND a reaction. now, your action might be limited by your movement (up to 1/2 MV etc.) but no matter what you get at least one reaction. the only time you get more than one reaction is from high skill level with shield or weapon, block or parry.

[Deleted]

Jan 13, 2015 11:06:36 GMT -5 reaperwolf said:

For the record I don't believe summoned creatures can be resisted.

As for other types of spells, I'm all for no free lunches so most if not all spells should be dodgeable/resistable provieded the target is aware the spell is incoming and (a big AND!!!) has some of their turn saved up for defense, i.e. only one action taken/going to be taken and only up to 1/2 movement.

Also, this bolded statement is where one of us is mistaken and causing our major disagreements. I would appreciate some clarification from Mr. Brandon. There is an evolutionary history to these mechanics. TFT -> LAW -> HOW

Background reading
TFT - bluwiki.com/go/Tft-melee
LAW - darkcitygames.com (Legends of the Ancient World)
(Mr. Brandon wrote the 'Wolves on the Rhine' adventure for LAW some years ago.)

In LAW, you get an action and a reaction - both! However, the reaction forfeits your next turn (no movement, no action) - but you can still react again! I have always had the same conception about HOW actions/reactions - except HOW lightened the penalty of the reaction to 'no movement on your next turn'. RAW do not say you get one or the other, yet you seem to have this impression. I wonder which of us is right?