Countering the dual rapier fencer

[hcobb]

My reasoning that a physical shield provides no protection against any level of occult attack is that by ITL 108 it offers no protection against thrown spells, just missile spells.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by hcobb

My reasoning that a physical shield provides no protection against any level of occult attack is that by ITL 108 it offers no protection against thrown spells, just missile spells.

I don't see on p. 108 where it states that "a physical shield provides no protection against any level of occult attack". Staff 3 zaps and above bypass armor. However, I don't see where Staff 1 and 2 zaps bypass shields provided that the facing allows it.

[hcobb]

ITL 108: "Shields protect against physical or missile-spell attacks"
So only those two categories of spells.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by hcobb

ITL 108: "Shields protect against physical or missile-spell attacks"
So only those two categories of spells.

That quote indeed says two things, but only one of those things is a category of spells. The proper reading is:

"Shields protect against (1) physical attacks and (2) missile-spell attacks."

"Physical" is not a spell category, "missile-spell" is.

I would still count getting clubbed or jabbed as a "physical" attack, not a spell casting of any category, even if the hand weapon was a Staff (and even though Legacy has turned a Staff into a glorified cattle-prod). So a shield would still count.

[Axly Suregrip]

Slaying the dual fencer:

I mentioned archery. Seriously, any standard beginning archer is a major threat to dual fencers as none of their defenses help against missile weapons and they have very low ST and they have low armor (to keep their DX high). Nothing special, just pick your favorite missile weapon build.

Same can be done with wizards. A beginning goblin/elf (since we seem to pick goblins) wizard with DX 15 and Sleep spell can put down the fencer at range or adjacent. Then dispatch the defenseless sleeper. No dodging or defending will avoid a thrown spell.

Lots of other wizards can be a pain for fencers. As long as the wizard's DX is higher than the fencer, it gets a chance to win before the fencer may strike.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

I don't see on p. 108 where it states that "a physical shield provides no protection against any level of occult attack". Staff 3 zaps and above bypass armor. However, I don't see where Staff 1 and 2 zaps bypass shields provided that the facing allows it.

Yes, interpreting the rules to mean that all staff occult zaps bypass shields is clearly a stretch.

[hcobb]

Shields protect against illusions of fire elementals (melee, not HTH attack), but not illusions of fire hexes, both of which are (for this game) physical attacks. The other category of spells they protect against are the missile spells. Hence no protection against thrown or special spells such as Blast (ITL 23), while cloth armor would offer some protection against all of the above (except for Staff III+ occult attack, or other special exceptions such as the Death spell).

Q: Evil Halfling Wizard (redundant I know), slings an 8d explosive gem into the hex of one knight who is in a front hex of another knight. (both facing this obvious threat of course.) Do their shields help protect against this "physical attack"?

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Shields protect against illusions of fire elementals (melee, not HTH attack), but not illusions of fire hexes, both of which are (for this game) physical attacks. The other category of spells they protect against are the missile spells. Hence no protection against thrown or special spells such as Blast (ITL 23), while cloth armor would offer some protection against all of the above (except for Staff III+ occult attack, or other special exceptions such as the Death spell).

None of that suggests that Staff I and Staff II occult attacks bypass shields.

Q: Evil Halfling Wizard (redundant I know), slings an 8d explosive gem into the hex of one knight who is in a front hex of another knight. (both facing this obvious threat of course.) Do their shields help protect against this "physical attack"?

Yes, of course it would.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Shields protect against illusions of fire elementals (melee, not HTH attack), but not illusions of fire hexes, both of which are (for this game) physical attacks. The other category of spells they protect against are the missile spells. Hence no protection against thrown or special spells such as Blast (ITL 23), while cloth armor would offer some protection against all of the above (except for Staff III+ occult attack, or other special exceptions such as the Death spell).

Let's be cautious about being overly literal in this interpretation, however. Shields protect because they intercept or interrupt directed force or energy. Thus, I would argue that a shield would absolutely be effective against BLAST, though perhaps only partially. The question of a shield's effectiveness vs. the 'occult blast' (which isn't really relevant to the original topic, TBH) is a bit less clear, but I still think common sense would say that putting an object in between the wizard and their target should provide the latter with some measure of protection.

[Drakenbow]

In a previous thread (from me) I do beleive someone pointed out that the Staff's Occult is essentially a thrown spell from p.140 (and the staff is essentially a Magic Item p.148 which the holder employs to 'throw' the spell). The spell is a hit or miss and no DX penalty for intevening figures.

I am trying to find other thrown spells that do damage directly, not those which give the recipient an ability to do damage like Breath Fire or Hammer Touch.

With that I would agree with HCOBB that shields do not provide defense against the Occult attack when reading p.108 "Shileds protect against physical or missile-spell attacks..."

But considering that the Fencing weapons do 2-1 damage (saber with the +1 bonus), wouldn't just wearing heavier armor tend to reduce damage quite a bit? I might be missing the point of the discussion though.