Re: Staff I spell versus Wizard’s staff
Quote:
At Staff II you ignore critical failures on the roll also. Targets that can be zapped, but not bashed: Wraiths (and other Insubstantial figures), sylphs, salamanders and undines (full vs half damage from bashing), Goo, slimes you don't want on your staff, and what else? |
Re: Staff I spell versus Wizard’s staff
I stand corrected. It appears that Henry is right. Nonetheless, it feels wrong to me that the occult attack does not have to miss intervening figures or possibly hit unintended targets, especially those in an HTH scrum.
|
Re: Staff I spell versus Wizard’s staff
Seems like that is the only big advantage it has at IQ8.
|
Re: Staff I spell versus Wizard’s staff
Isn't it strange that wizards would arm even their starting apprentices with a kill anything that's not a ghost spell?
|
Re: Staff I spell versus Wizard’s staff
I blew my original answer - that will teach me not to respond to technical questions without checking the book!
In any case, I don't think the new staff powers are as over powered as they are made out to be in some discussions. There is a near-infinite variety of character types who have offensive firepower in line with a wizard's staff, and many of those are far more robust to defense against attacks. |
Re: Staff I spell versus Wizard’s staff
Note that you can defend against an occult zap but not dodge it.
|
Re: Staff I spell versus Wizard’s staff
Quote:
If it's a zap, then it seems to me both of the ways you've suggested handling it are backwards from how I'd do it. (That is, I'd have it able to accidentally hit others in the same hex, and be dodgeable but not defendable). And if it's really meant to us the generic Special Spell mechanic as you suggested before, then it would seem to me that there would be no possible defense other than being immune to magic effects (e.g. Spell Shield). |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.