Need a ruling on deflect

[Tinman]

By RAW your GM is inccorect. I'd just point out the relevent paragraphs in 'Magic', they are quite clear.

However if he disagrees, he is the GM.

If your desperate for an answer you could PM Kromm. He's usualy very good at answering a direct question.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Godogma

So are you agreeing with Lupo and I that if I pay full price for the enchantment it covers the whole body or saying that Deflect can only be bought incrementally? Because it confuses the crap out of me currently.

My 2¢:

If you pay full price, it adds to defense rolls for all locations.

If you pay for incremental protection, it adds to all defense rolls for the protected location. 'All defense rolls' means 'all' of parry, dodge, and block rolls to defend against hits to that location, not every defense roll to every location. Yes, I agree that it could be written more clearly*.

Some enchantments only add to a particular type of defense roll, such as Defending Weapon, which only adds to Parry rolls, and Defending Shield, which only adds to Block rolls.

*there has been enough criticism of the shortcomings of the 4th edition Magic book that I consider it unnecessary to add to it.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by rosignol

*there has been enough criticism of the shortcomings of the 4th edition Magic book that I consider it unnecessary to add to it.

Well, we have discussed it a few times in the past, but it has not been mentioned yet in this thread that some of us think the Deflect enchantment is broken. IMO, it is better to just ignore it and use Defending Weapon/Defending Shield.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Well, we have discussed it a few times in the past, but it has not been mentioned yet in this thread that some of us think the Deflect enchantment is broken.

I daresay that you could find someone on this board that considers any specific aspect of the default magic system to be 'broken' in some sense.

Quibbling over an ambiguous line on one spell description that could be interpreted more broadly than the author probably intended seems unnecessary, IMO. GMs who think Deflect is broken instead of just having a spell description that isn't entirely clear are entirely capable of declaring the spell does not exist in their game. I wouldn't, but that's mainly because I'm more than a little biased in favor of things that help the PCs survive the stuff I throw at them.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by rosignol

Quibbling over an ambiguous line on one spell description that could be interpreted more broadly than the author probably intended seems unnecessary, IMO. GMs who think Deflect is broken instead of just having a spell description that isn't entirely clear are entirely capable of declaring the spell does not exist in their game.

The ambiguity is the smaller part of the problem with the spell, I think. See this old thread for one discussion of it.

[Godogma]

I'm not really interested in who thinks the spell is broken, just a ruling. The interpretation he's currently using is that one must pay double energy cost to get a full body version of the enchantment instead of just full because it "only covers where the armor does," I'd really like to be able to just get the enchant for full regular energy price and be done with it instead of paying double because the armor piece doesn't cover "full body", asking him why it also includes swords and shields in the description gets his reply that its a confusing spell but that it was only intended to cover one hit location.

My response of "full price has to mean something" was not well received, and the idea of putting it on a piece of gear for each individual hit location for some piddly sum is a lot more complicated note taking than I honestly want to use.

We've already had one fight about it and I just want to know for sure one way or the other for the future.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

The ambiguity is the smaller part of the problem with the spell, I think. See this old thread for one discussion of it.

As I said upthread: "there has been enough criticism of the shortcomings of the 4th edition Magic book that I consider it unnecessary to add to it."

[Godogma]

Well, I PMed Kromm, hopefully he'll answer in my favor or even otherwise - I just don't want to have another row with my GM over the issue based on the wording in the book where the spell "contradicts" page 66 and uses the forum post I pasted about stacking to justify it but says it only works for one hit location.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Godogma

Ah, sorry I missed the name on your first post and your second post. Unfortunately my GM doesn't agree with that point of view

If your GM decides that a Shield with Deflect+1 will protect against any attack, but a ring with the same enchantment (for the same cost) will protect only against attacks to the hand...
... then your GM has no sense of fairness whatsoever...

[Godogma]

Well, Kromm ruled in my favor - I was right, unless the GM decides different full price covers the entire body no matter what its enchanted on and you don't have to pay piecemeal prices. Of course, that's up to the GM *crosses fingers*.

Here is the message by Kromm for anyone else who runs into this issue:

Full-priced Deflect adds its DB to all locations. It's normally cast on a suit of armor, but that's mostly a special effect . . . it could be on a sword, ring, helmet, whatever. The piecemeal costs only apply if you're enchanting individual bits with their own unique DB.