[Magic] Battlemages and their favourite spells

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by wellspring

Missile spells shouldn't be your go-to spells in combat, but they definitely have their uses. For that, I've noticed no one has mentioned Stone Missile except in passing. It's got better range, Acc, and damage than Fireball despite having a prereq count that's only barely higher (and those are spells you'll use anyway).

It also does crushing damage. In an Infinite Worlds setting, where you get those kevlar/nanoweave type armors, having the ability to do lots of blunt trauma can come in very handy.

Mostly because Stone Missile is an Earth Mage build and they tend to be more Strategic when it comes to Battlemages than Tactical. Using their spells to the battlefield more favorable to their side.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by wellspring

Missile spells shouldn't be your go-to spells in combat, but they definitely have their uses. For that, I've noticed no one has mentioned Stone Missile except in passing. It's got better range, Acc, and damage than Fireball despite having a prereq count that's only barely higher (and those are spells you'll use anyway).

It also does crushing damage. In an Infinite Worlds setting, where you get those kevlar/nanoweave type armors, having the ability to do lots of blunt trauma can come in very handy.

Stone Missile is a good choice if you were going to limit yourself to one missile spell. The prereq difference is minimal (note that the prereqs for Fireball also have general utility), but still something to consider. If ease of learning is not an issue, Sunbolt is a possible alternate, with even better range, and imp damage to help offset the -2/die reduction (compared to Stone Missile).

[wellspring]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Stone Missile is a good choice if you were going to limit yourself to one missile spell. The prereq difference is minimal (note that the prereqs for Fireball also have general utility), but still something to consider. If ease of learning is not an issue, Sunbolt is a possible alternate, with even better range, and imp damage to help offset the -2/die reduction (compared to Stone Missile).

What I especially like about Stone Missile is that everyone expects you to know some variant of Fireball and over-invest in defenses against it.

Sunbolt is also a good choice. Ideal for sniping, and if I recall off-hand, you get the utility effects of having a pseudo-fire spell handy. My one beef with impaling damage is that while it's great, crushing damage is better against all kinds of Injury Tolerance (Annoying) beasties.

Of course, I can't emphasize enough that missile spells aren't your best options in most combat situations. To me, they're useful specialist weapons for ranged combat.

[vierasmarius]

Some missile spells do carry useful secondary effects. A Fireball has a good chance of igniting some or all of a target's clothing, Lightning bypasses metal armor and can Stun, Sunbolt can blind and is unaffected by Missile Shield, etc. They're still not great choices for combat (especially compared to Heroic Archers) but they have their niches. The mistake some players make is trying to stretch these spells into the "blaster" role of D&D wizards.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by wellspring

Sunbolt is also a good choice. Ideal for sniping, and if I recall off-hand, you get the utility effects of having a pseudo-fire spell handy. My one beef with impaling damage is that while it's great, crushing damage is better against all kinds of Injury Tolerance (Annoying) beasties.

Sunbolt was erratad to be tight-beam burning, wasn't it? I'm almost certain that's official errata... it could be a house-rule I've heavily internalized though. This removes the shinyness of Impaling, but adds back general utility against IT (Annoying) :D

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Sunbolt was erratad to be tight-beam burning, wasn't it?

Nope. It's actually way confused now. In the text it says "burns like laser light and does burning damage" but the Cost still says "The bolt does 1d-1 impaling damage per energy point".

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Nope. It's actually way confused now. In the text it says "burns like laser light and does burning damage" but the Cost still says "The bolt does 1d-1 impaling damage per energy point".

from the Errata page:

Originally Posted by Magic Erratta

P. 114. Under Sunbolt, change "and does impaling damage" to "and does burning damage".

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

from the Errata page:

Yes, it does say "and does burning damage." I quoted that part. Note that it doesn't say "tight-beam burning damage", either.

The "impaling damage" under "Cost" for the spell has not been errated. So now the spell says one thing in the description and another thing under "Cost"

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yes, it does say "and does burning damage." I quoted that part. Note that it doesn't say "tight-beam burning damage", either.

The "impaling damage" under "Cost" for the spell has not been errated. So now the spell says one thing in the description and another thing under "Cost"

While I agree about the tight-beam part how ever the cost part is being overly pedantic reading. It clear that the intend is Both instances of swaping impaling for burning

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

how ever the cost part is being overly pedantic reading.

I'm literarly reporting what's in the current version of GURPS Magic, you might think that expecting the text to match is pedantic, but I call it errata.

It clear that the intend is Both instances of swaping impaling for burning

If it's so clear why wasn't it done when the pdf was updated?