Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-12-2017, 09:23 PM   #1
ArchonShiva
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Blocking spells cast without an attack

Either way clearly works fine, but I’m trying to determine what RAW is actually saying about casting Blocking spells when no attack exists to trigger them.

Spells p.9 says “Blocking spells (p. 14) may be cast without concentrating, during a foe’s turn, to defend against an attack.”, which reads more like an option than a restriction.

Page 14 says “A Blocking spell is cast instantly as a defense against a physical attack or another spell. It’s the magical equivalent of a block, parry, or dodge (and often counts as one of these defenses; see the spell description).”

This sounds more like “this is what blocking spells do”, but can legitimately be read as “Instantly is how a Blocking spell is cast when used as as a defense”. On the other hand, nowhere does it say than you cast them without responding to an attack - it has to be implied from how other spells can be.

Some spells actually say “Regular or Blocking”, but that means they get cost reduction when cast as Regular spells.

Can you punch yourself to trigger casting Command?
ArchonShiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 10:04 PM   #2
Stone Dog
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Default Re: Blocking spells cast without an attack

What would your intent be to block yourself from punching you?
Stone Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 10:05 PM   #3
finn
 
finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Default Re: Blocking spells cast without an attack

This thread might be relevant. Kromm has also mentioned that "Where it would make sense to cast a given Blocking spell as a Regular spell, go ahead and do so". Kromm's comment is for GURPS, but it makes sense for DFRPG too.
finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 10:17 PM   #4
malloyd
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: Blocking spells cast without an attack

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonShiva View Post
Can you punch yourself to trigger casting Command?
Why would you want to cast Command on yourself anyway?
__________________
--
MA Lloyd
malloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 10:26 PM   #5
ArchonShiva
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Blocking spells cast without an attack

The last bit was a joke. It doesn’t say that Blocking spells that are cast at a target (Command, Fumble in GURPS, and a few others) have to directed at the attacker who triggered the defense.

I know Kromm has said “it’s fine where it makes sense”. I’m trying to get to “what do the rules, as written, actually say about it?”, because I’m not even sure that’s entirely clear.
ArchonShiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 10:36 PM   #6
Stone Dog
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Default Re: Blocking spells cast without an attack

It sounds like you are asking something like, "When the orc swings his sword at me, can I "parry" the shaman's wand instead?"

So unless the DFRPG text is really vague on blocking spells being magical active defenses I'd lean heavily towards, "No, you can't Command the archer to drop a bow just because the swordsman hit you."
Stone Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 10:44 PM   #7
finn
 
finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Default Re: Blocking spells cast without an attack

As far as I know, the rules as written are indeed not clear or conclusive about ArchonShiva's original question. That's why going by Kromm's answer instead is reasonable.
finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 10:50 PM   #8
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Blocking spells cast without an attack

Given that "A Blocking spell is cast instantly as a defense against a physical attack" and given that attacks are always sequenced (i.e., the rules don't allow simultaneity), there's no sensible way to read the rules as allowing a Blocking spell to be cast against attack A in order to defend against attack B. At some point, it's necessary to read common English instead of Lawyer-ish. :)

At any rate, in the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game (the only game that's on-topic here), there are just two spells that can be cast as Regular or Blocking. Those are Fascinate and Master. And both say "Normally takes one second to cast, but may be cast as a Blocking spell as [event occurs]," so there's no doubt. Other Blocking spells aren't "Regular or Blocking" and don't include this rule. I'd say that's completely prescriptive . . .

If you want to add "Normally takes one second to cast, but may be cast as a Blocking spell as [event occurs]" to all Blocking spells and turn them into "Regular or Blocking," that's a house rule. You're on your own with how such a spell might work if you omit the hostile event that's normally part and parcel of how the spell works.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News]
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2017, 10:00 AM   #9
ArchonShiva
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Blocking spells cast without an attack

Thank you, that’s crystal clear.
ArchonShiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.