07-31-2016, 11:40 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Jul 2016
|
Fumble spell clarification
Greetings all, I am a long time gurps player seeking clarification of the blocking spell Fumble. The way the spell appears to be written it is possible for my fighter/Mage character to have his opponent "fumble" his defense roll after my character makes a successful attack roll. Is this possible? Any and all help would be appreciated. Thanks
|
07-31-2016, 02:39 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Fumble spell clarification
I'd allow a mage to use a Blocking spell on behalf of someone else, but I'd treat it much like a Sacrificial Parry, requiring the mage to have a "Sacrificial Fumble" perk. The sacrifice here is that the spell still interrupts the mage's concentration, and that it counts as the one Blocking spell he can cast that turn. So, no other Blocking spells that turn for self-defense, or for the rest of the party, for that matter.
Fumble is good for this application since it takes regular range penalties. Something like Iron Arm, for instance, would require the mage to be standing next to the person he's protecting (just as Sac Parries happen only within weapon reach). |
07-31-2016, 03:45 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jul 2016
|
Re: Fumble spell clarification
Thank you for your reply. My question is more about using the fumble spell to force a critical defense failure by an opponent while attacking in melee. All opinions are welcome.
P.S. Hint Hint Kromm |
07-31-2016, 03:54 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
|
Re: Fumble spell clarification
No, because as a Blocking spell it is cast as an Active Defense.
You do not have an Active Defense to use on your Attack against the spell's subject. What you can do is use the Fumble spell when he attacks to make him roll on the Critical Miss table (which will usually mean the weapon is Unready or dropped), then when you Attack on your turn, he has to use Dodge or Block to defend. Keep in mind he does get a Resistance roll. |
07-31-2016, 04:46 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Jul 2016
|
Re: Fumble spell clarification
I could be mistaken, not having my books in front of me at the moment, I thought that in the spell description for fumble that it specifically states that the spell could make someone critically fail a defense roll. Thanks for extending the conversation.
|
07-31-2016, 04:56 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
|
Re: Fumble spell clarification
I believe Mattchoo is correct in that Fumble can be cast on someone making a defense roll. It is a Blocking Spell but would seem to be something that isn't usually cast as one -- the circumstances under which it is cast are completely different. It is also subject to range penalties. I suspect that it should be treated as a zero-time-to-cast Regular spell that interrupts other castings as would a Blocking Spell.
I don't think anyone in any of my games has ever used this spell, but if it came up that is how I'd treat it. |
07-31-2016, 05:08 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Jul 2016
|
Re: Fumble spell clarification
That is how I see it as well Rob, I am just looking for a possible consensus to take to my GM. I have already agreed that he is the final arbitrator for his world, but I know he has a high opinion of many here on this forum.
|
07-31-2016, 06:30 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Dec 2006
|
Re: Fumble spell clarification
Without some ability to do two things at once (compartmentalised mind, atr, etc) I would not allow a melee caster to fumble there own target.
I would be very inclined to treat fumble like a regular spell if it is being used offensively (takes concentration, but gets full discount for high skill). Side note: if you want kromms opinion, best to IM him |
07-31-2016, 07:41 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Fumble spell clarification
The spell description explicitly cites its use to make someone fail their Active Defense, calling out all three of Parry, Dodge, and Block.
Quote:
|
|
08-01-2016, 01:40 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Dec 2015
|
Re: Fumble spell clarification
You need to take a wait maneuvere if you want to use a Blocking spell like a regular spell to interrupt an active defence, and casting this way consumes your blocking spell for the turn. There is already a clarification by Kromm that says as much, but I don't have the time to hunt it down before work. Perhaps someone else would like to do the honours? I'll certainly have a look once I get back if no one else can find it.
E: this came up in a forum discussion about the Command spell, I believe. Expy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|