10-14-2018, 04:17 AM | #11 |
Join Date: Jan 2018
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
as I have said I have always house ruled out this possible extensive interpretation from day one.
Probably my understanding of the written English is poor, but I firmly believe that RAW allows any reader to think that any spellcaster is exposed to shock when spends 5 or more ST points in any case this is a clear example of how rules have been written (and sadly re-written) not in the best possible way. A simple example of a spellcaster spending 5+ ST points would help but it does not exists in Wizard and/or In The Labirinth. Also I wonder if a wizard at ST 3 or less, for wounds and fatigue, is subject to the -3 DX. |
10-14-2018, 06:44 AM | #12 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
Sounds like another good topic for the FAQ that someone proposed in a different thread.
|
10-14-2018, 08:54 AM | #13 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
Gandalf having to take a knee after casting a 10 point Lock spell to hold back the Balrog; Ged passing out after casting and maintaining some sort of funny fog spell we don't have in our TFT spell book; I think this rule is a juicy dramatic opportunity, not a problem.
|
10-14-2018, 09:53 AM | #14 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
Yeah, I don't think it's either good or bad, so long as the players know about it beforehand.
|
10-14-2018, 11:47 AM | #15 | |
Join Date: Jan 2018
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
Quote:
My question is pretty basic and regards what the rules are supposed to say. That it is not so automatic to understand (as everyone sees), despite the 35 years of playtesting and the rewrite. |
|
10-14-2018, 11:58 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Jan 2018
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
Quote:
What I decided when a boy in the eighties in five minutes still stands today. Fatigue is NOT injury for DX penalties. But it seems that the abiguity in the rules, poor written in that point, still makes victims in 2018. In any case there is no way to decide per RAW if a wizard reduced at ST 3, for wounds and fatigue, suffers the -3DX |
|
10-14-2018, 02:41 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Geelong, Australia
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
Casting a long range very detailed illusion spell killed Luke Skywalker.
|
10-14-2018, 03:05 PM | #18 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
I think this thread demonstrates people can get confused by the wording of that one part which is trying to explain fatigue.
I don't think there's any question that it was originally intended for spell fatigue to cause effects of injury. If you read the original rules, they are pretty deliberate and never mention such an effect from spellcasting - the reactions to injury rules talk about injury and hits, not fatigue or exhaustion. If you read Advanced Melee page 25 on Recovering Lost Strength, it refers to "injury", "hits" and "damage" as one thing, and ST lost from spell casting as "exhaustion". The Effects of "Injury" section seems clearly about injury. With all the redundant rules explanation, if it were intended that wizards needed to worry about collapsing and suffering penalties from casting spells, I'd expect that it would say so someplace. As a house rule, I think the -2 DX part could be colorful to add, maybe even on top of an injury penalty (if a wizard ever manages to lose 5+ ST from spellcasting and 5 ST from injury on the same turn and still be conscious). I think the falling down part seems extreme to the point of being a bit slapstick, though. I can see wizards with walkers... and attendants trained to catch them when they keel over... As for the -3DX at 3 ST or less... I think that yes, it does apply, as that's just an effect of your ST being that low, not a one-time reaction to injury. Compare the wording: "A figure that takes 5 or more hits in one turn has its DX adjusted -2 for its next action (spell, attack, etc.)." "A figure that takes 8 or more hits in one turn immediately falls down." "Any figure whose ST is reduced to 3 or less has an extra -3 DX for the rest of the combat." Seems pretty clear to me there where the effects in question are listed. No? |
10-14-2018, 03:36 PM | #19 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
I would say the intent is totally ambiguous; you could construct an argument in favor of one approach by quoting various passages, and then turn around and construct the opposite argument by quoting one or two other passages and arguing by omission (i.e., surely if they meant X it would say so). I think until an FAQ addresses the issue directly we should just do what we want.
(And then after an FAQ appears, keep doing what you want.) |
10-14-2018, 04:06 PM | #20 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|