Epic final spell?

[MikMod]

Given that you recover 1 point of fatigue for every 15m of rest and that if you can 'come back' to life if you can recover to 0 ST within one hour, is there an 'epic final spell' option where a wizard casts a spell that drops their ST to -3, falling unconscious but waking up 45 minutes later?

[larsdangly]

Sounds totally within RAW.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

The question is if you spend the ST first, and then aim and release, or you aim and release and while it is traveling you continue to power it until you pass out?

If someone wanted to do that in my campaign I would give some sort of DX penalty. Maybe -1 for every negative ST? I could also see a wizard keeping a spell going, like a defensive spell on his friend. And when his ST wanes, he falls to his knees and then to the floor, gasping a last whisper, "You are on your own now..." before unconsciousness finally overtakes him at -3ST or some such.

In D&D there used to be a rule that you could do a fortitude save every turn to do a heroic last action even with negative HP. Maybe an ST or IQ (will) save to keep the spell up or finish holding that dooooor.

I like the idea with people going down in a fight, but they are still conscious, can come with comments, maybe a last word or advice. And if they really want to do something, like standing up or a last heroic action, they can, but it will cost them...

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Sounds totally within RAW.

No, RAW is "... must have enough ST to pay the “cost.”".

But it is possible to get dropped below 0 by something else (e.g. injury) and then wake up when the fatigue rests off.

[amenditman]

Unconciousness is at 0, not -3.
I can't imagine a way to voluntarily go below 0.

But an attack could drive you down when you are at 0, like Skarg said.

[MikMod]

Originally Posted by amenditman

Unconciousness is at 0, not -3.
I can't imagine a way to voluntarily go below 0.

But an attack could drive you down when you are at 0, like Skarg said.

So you *can* cast a spell which drops you to zero ST?

[larsdangly]

I don't understand the distinction between expending enough to drop to 0 and expending enough to drop to -3. You end up incapacitated either way.

I think the only rational readings of the rule are either that 'having enough ST to pay the cost' means you have to stay above 0 after casting the spell, or that you can dip below but must deal with the consequences.

This is one of several places where the wording of the rules are too imprecise to reach a totally clear conclusion. I'm sure the author knew what he meant, but he didn't state it concretely, so we are left having to make a ruling.

Personally, I like the high drama of a wizard casting a spell that costs him or her dearly, so I'd permit a wizard to cast any amount they like, provided the accept the consequences of the resulting damage.

[amenditman]

pg. 15 ITL
"Note: a wizard cannot cast a spell which would reduce his ST below 0."

Pretty clear language. Not much room for the above speculations.

[MikMod]

Originally Posted by amenditman

pg. 15 ITL
"Note: a wizard cannot cast a spell which would reduce his ST below 0."

Pretty clear language. Not much room for the above speculations.

Thank you! If I allow it then it is a house rule. Got it.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by amenditman

pg. 15 ITL
"Note: a wizard cannot cast a spell which would reduce his ST below 0."

Pretty clear language. Not much room for the above speculations.

That is pretty clear! Thanks for that.