11-19-2012, 05:10 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jacksonville FL
|
Blocking Spell Conundrum
If a mage is using blocking spells to defend is his skill affected negatively by feints and/or deceptive attacks against the wizard just prior to the incoming attack.
__________________
Two things that I learned from Dungeons & Dragons is that I LOVE GURPS and it isn't really a compliment when a gnome tells you your hair smells nice. |
11-19-2012, 07:43 PM | #2 |
Fightin' Round the World
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
|
Re: Blocking Spell Conundrum
No, they aren't.
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD My Author Page My S&C Blog My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog "You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev |
11-19-2012, 07:45 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Provo, UT
|
Re: Blocking Spell Conundrum
They do fail vs. a critical attack however.
|
11-20-2012, 11:22 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jacksonville FL
|
Re: Blocking Spell Conundrum
Is there anything in the RAW that say this is the case? Blocking spells are active defenses and can only be made against known attacks. This leads me to believe that the wizard times them (or something like that) with an incoming attack. It seems that if the wizard's awareness of the impending attack is required for a defense then that awareness should be able to be manipulated with feints and deceptive attacks.
I'm not disagreeing with what has been said, I'm just posing an argument that was posed to me.
__________________
Two things that I learned from Dungeons & Dragons is that I LOVE GURPS and it isn't really a compliment when a gnome tells you your hair smells nice. |
11-20-2012, 11:48 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Blocking Spell Conundrum
Several past threads with interesting debate on the question, but I didn't see any cites for RAW, FAQ entries, or Krommposts. Seems like a nice area for a ruling and FAQ entry.
|
11-21-2012, 03:06 AM | #6 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: Blocking Spell Conundrum
Quote:
The penalty to active defenses assumes that you're physically trying to get out of the way (Dodge) or trying to put something in the way (Parry, Block) of the incoming attack. But, many Blocking spells just do something entirely different - like teleporting the mage out of the way or melting the attacker's weapon before it does damage. In those cases, it just doesn't make sense that the caster has skill penalties. |
|
11-21-2012, 08:50 AM | #7 |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Blocking Spell Conundrum
While the effect of a Blocking spell is equivalent to an active defense, the roll involved isn't an active defense roll. Just to start with, the roll is against a full skill, not (skill/2)+3. On the downside, Blocking spells are affected by the penalties for low mana, shock (DX/IQ penalty for injury last turn), spells "on," and a lot of other things that don't affect active defense rolls, and do not get +1 for Combat Reflexes. In addition, they always cost FP (even high skill can't change this), automatically interrupt long castings (no Will-3 roll allowed), and can't be used repeatedly in a turn (even at a penalty). As they have their own, fairly extensive drawbacks like this, making them subject to the standard run of active-defense penalties as well would be excessive. Thus, Blocking spells aren't affected by standard active defense penalties.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
11-21-2012, 10:28 AM | #8 |
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jacksonville FL
|
Re: Blocking Spell Conundrum
Kromm has spoken and as always, he brings wisdom to us mere mortal.
Thank you.
__________________
Two things that I learned from Dungeons & Dragons is that I LOVE GURPS and it isn't really a compliment when a gnome tells you your hair smells nice. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|