Illusion Trap

[hcobb]

1. The scenario is that the wizard has a small head start and runs up to a bend in the corridor which is two hexes wide.
2. She casts Shadow in one of these hexes.
3. She casts an illusion of an octopus with three spears in the shadow hex
4. She casts Mage Sight on herself then runs off

A few turns later some guards reach this Illusion Trap and face the following:

1. If they shoot into the shadow from a distance at the unseen illusion their shots are at -6 DX vs a dodging target.
2. If they run up next to the shadow hex the Octopus counter is placed on the board, engages them to a stop, and does a triple set vs charge of adjDX 17 for 2d6 on each attack. This strikes first and the guards can't disbelieve because they moved more than one hex.
3. If they stop two hexes away they get triple jabbed and most likely fall over.

[TippetsTX]

You're using a loophole to create an effectively invisible illusion. That violates the intent of the spell.

I vote 'NO' to whole premise.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

You're using a loophole to create an effectively invisible illusion. That violates the intent of the spell.

I vote 'NO' to whole premise.

It my be an undesirable outcome, but I don't see that there's any rule which forbids this strategy. I'd be loath to rule against a player who does this.

[phiwum]

I'm shocked, Henry, that you didn't maximize the threat. Three spears?

An octopus has ST 20. He can wield a pike axe with one "hand", per raw, so the charge damage would be 3d+2 rather than 2d or 2d+1.

Mind you, the use of polearms set to receive a charge is one place I would put my foot down. The polearm should be visible outside the shadow hex, so at least I'd let the pursuers recognize the danger before they are engaged, whether it says so in the rules or not.

Of course, a pike axe or three sticking out of a shadow hex is likely to give the pursuers some pause, so if the wizard just wants to get away, this would do it.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I'm shocked, Henry, that you didn't maximize the threat. Three spears?

An octopus has ST 20. He can wield a pike axe with one "hand", per raw, so the charge damage would be 3d+2 rather than 2d or 2d+1.

The spears are each being used as 1-handed. Thus three of them. So, if you want a pike axe, it would replace two spears. So, one pike axe and one spear will give you less damage over all during the charge, unless the target has armor. After the charge, the pike and spear is better than the three spears. Either has its advantages.

[Axly Suregrip]

I also would allow it.

Using shadow to put other creation spells into it is a key function of this spell.

A wizard can create an illusion before others enter a room. Someone else seeing the illusion is not a prerequisite.

They will become aware of its presence in the shadow hex as soon as they are adjacent to it, just as if it was a real person/octopus in the shadow. Once aware, they may disbelieve, even if all they see is tentacles wrapped around spears jabbing/attacking out.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

The spears are each being used as 1-handed. Thus three of them. So, if you want a pike axe, it would replace two spears. So, one pike axe and one spear will give you less damage over all during the charge, unless the target has armor. After the charge, the pike and spear is better than the three spears. Either has its advantages.

If your ST is 3 higher than the ST required to wield a 2-handed weapon, it can be wielded with one-hand.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by phiwum

An octopus has ST 20. He can wield a pike axe with one "hand", per raw, so the charge damage would be 3d+2 rather than 2d or 2d+1.

That rule does not apply to the octopi, see Hexagram #2, page 17, lower right corner.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by hcobb

That rule does not apply to the octopi, see Hexagram #2, page 17, lower right corner.

Pages 15 through 18 of that Hexagram gives some good info about octopi additional to ITL. Thanks for mentioning it.

This particular reference to which you point is below.

Note that the ST of an octopus represents its overall tenacity. An octopus would probably lose an arm-wrestling contest with an average man.
Therefore, octopi don’t get to use two-handed weapons with a single arm!

It does not definitively prohibit the wielding of a 2-handed weapons with one hand when ST is 3 greater than the minimum to wield it. It only says to not get used to it. This allows a substantial amount of room for a GM to apply that rule. If the intention was for it to be prohibited for octopi, it should have been stated as such. As stated, it has some wiggle room for application.

As a result of this, I would at least allow weapons with a one or two-hand wielding option to have the two handed damage (bastard swords and spears). One could argue that some ocotpi could wield two-handed weapons with one hand under certain conditions or even shorter periods of time. This would be more justifiable if the ST is greater or above the typical of 20. Perhaps, one could invoke the Classic TFT for this rule to be 10 ST greater than minimum to wield.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by hcobb

That rule does not apply to the octopi, see Hexagram #2, page 17, lower right corner.

Too bad that explicit language didn't make it into the Bestiary. However Bestiary describes how their high ST reflects overall toughness, not brute strength AND that octopi can wield three 1-handed weapons with no penalty. Given that the largest weapon's ST requisite is 16 and that this is more than 3 points lower than an average octopus's ST, one could reasonably expect the description to explicitly mention that an octopus can wield three 2-handed weapons at no DX penalty, if that were an actual possibility. But since it doesn't, one has to conclude that they can't.