07-13-2015, 11:07 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2010
|
spellcasting ranges.
Question for the crowd. The rules state that regular spells are cast at -1 per yard of distance to the target. Why doesn't this use the range/speed table like everything else?
__________________
My Campaign Website |
07-13-2015, 11:19 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Re: spellcasting ranges.
As I see it that is mostly a balancing factor, forcing mages who want to use those "save or lose combat" spells close enough to their opponents so they have a chance. So they balance with melee combatants better.
Using speed/range table the mages could stand back far and use those spells from relative safety. Edit: I have used the campaignwide switch of using range/speed table for spells and found it fairly workable. And the only real issue I found is that it makes "save or be out of combat" spells too powerful if you have enough energy to cast them many times as you can retry several times while at range. In my campaign I fixed that by giving targets for any resistable spells a cumulative +3 to resist them from the same caster, that and the fact that you still get some range penalties if you try to stay out of range seemed to balance out fairly well. Of course that switch does increase the power of magic compared to standard magic. |
07-13-2015, 11:26 AM | #3 |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ellicott City, MD
|
Re: spellcasting ranges.
Regular spells are basically Afflictions with Malediction 1. The balancing factor is that a mage who wants to use an IWIN button has to actually get close and take some risk.
|
07-13-2015, 11:30 AM | #4 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: spellcasting ranges.
Quote:
You could change it if you like, though if you do you really ought to go ahead and separate the spellcasting roll (which then wouldn't take any range penalties) from a new to hit roll (which would). Keep in mind that some spells will be unbalanced without a rewrite, because the authors assumed they were short ranged when creating them and weighed that in any balance considerations.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
07-13-2015, 11:30 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Feb 2010
|
Re: spellcasting ranges.
I tend to avoid using a BBEG. I hit my players with hordes instead. It seems unduly harsh given the high mana cost and chance to resist. All just to take out one of many threats. That is why I am asking.
__________________
My Campaign Website |
07-13-2015, 12:48 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: spellcasting ranges.
To be fair, plenty of spells are already unbalanced. Your best bet is to use a different magic system.
|
07-13-2015, 01:31 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA. Near the river Styx in the 5th Circle.
|
Re: spellcasting ranges.
Quote:
So, basically, the penalty is to keep the Mage in the melee and in some danger instead of being able to lob spells from safety from all but missile attackers.
__________________
Eric B. Smith GURPS Data File Coordinator GURPSLand I shall pull the pin from this healing grenade and... Kaboom-baya. |
|
|
|