Quote:
Originally Posted by PK
As written, a ward vs. magic stops "hostile spells" from being "cast on the subject or into the area," where a hostile spell is defined as one which the subject attempts to resist. Unfortunately, the rules in neither GT:RPM nor DF19 explicitly discuss missile spells, which are (by definition) neither resisted nor cast directly onto a subject.
So this needs to be a FAQ, which means it needs a bit of consideration.
It's tempting to say that a missile spell is certainly "a hostile spell," definition on p. 24 be damned. But that opens up a slippery slope -- sure, an impossible-in-nature ball of flame being thrown across the street feels like something a ward should affect, but what about a conjured rock? Or a summoned sword? Wards vs magic aren't supposed to be force-fields that block physical attacks; they're protection against being mind controlled, turned into a toad, having your liver turned to ice, and so on.
My instinct is to say that an area effect ward vs. magic will resist missile spells (and other external attacks which are 100% created by a ritual) that cross its threshold. After all, the hostile mage can just walk through the ward to get around that problem. But I think it's cheating to say that a subject protected by a personal ward is now potentially immune to stone missiles, lightning, etc.
|
1st, a FAQ is brilliant idea !
2nd, looks more fair to cast a Greater Destroy Magic+ Meta+ AoE + Duration to create a "Ward that block missiles conjuured with magic" ? Looks fair to me, dont remenber if some rule forbid to add Duration to a dispell