Casting ranged spells into melee?

This topic has 27 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by Anonymous.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)

Author
Posts
January 4, 2014 at 11:14 pm #150504
Anonymous
Inactive
If you cast a ranged spell at a target in melee, do you take the penalties as with a bow? Does it depend on which defense is targeted?
January 4, 2014 at 11:15 pm #254544
Anonymous
Inactive
You are subject to free Strikes.
January 4, 2014 at 11:20 pm #254546
Anonymous
Inactive
If you cast a ranged spell at a target in melee, do you take the penalties as with a bow? Does it depend on which defense is targeted?
If it targets Avoidance or Fortitude, yes.
January 5, 2014 at 12:19 am #254548
frootsnax
Participant
Yes, spells that target avoidance or fortitude can be a pain to cast against targets in melee. Though see Codex of Heroes for Adaptation: Arcane Accuracy as a possible solution.
January 5, 2014 at 1:39 am #254549
Anonymous
Inactive
Standard: The target is at least halfway obscured, but much of the character remains visible. Attacks against this character suffer a -4 modifier. This penalty also applies to firing into melee.
PG 305 Cover, can be avoided with T3 hawkeye & the arrow knows the way
Ranged weapon attacks (including Ranged Martial Techniques) make the attacker vulnerable to Free Strikes from adjacent enemies, unless otherwise noted.
Pg 310 Basic attack
January 5, 2014 at 3:27 am #254550
Anonymous
Inactive
Yes, spells that target avoidance or fortitude can be a pain to cast against targets in melee. Though see Codex of Heroes for Adaptation: Arcane Accuracy as a possible solution.
So there is no way to use a spell that targets Fortitude without taking a penalty? That seems absurd. Why are spells that target Discipline not affected but those that target Fortitude are? I don’t see the difference (I expected Avoidance targeting spells to be penalized).
January 5, 2014 at 3:31 am #254551
Anonymous
Inactive
Standard: The target is at least halfway obscured, but much of the character remains visible. Attacks against this character suffer a -4 modifier. This penalty also applies to firing into melee.
PG 305 Cover, can be avoided with T3 hawkeye & the arrow knows the way
Ranged weapon attacks (including Ranged Martial Techniques) make the attacker vulnerable to Free Strikes from adjacent enemies, unless otherwise noted.
Pg 310 Basic attack
Yes but the cover section heavily implies weapons and the second quote explicitly talks about weapon attacks. Where does it say that spells are subject to firing into melee penalties? I’m especially interested in the rule that says Fortitude spells are affected (I’m baffled why Fortitude spells would be but Discipline spells are not as val Holryn said).
January 5, 2014 at 4:22 am #254552
Anonymous
Inactive
Where does it say Discipline spells aren’t effected?
January 5, 2014 at 5:03 am #254553
Anonymous
Inactive
Where does it say Discipline spells aren’t effected?
I don’t know. I couldn’t find anything that said spells were or weren’t affected by the “firing into melee” penalty. val Holryn said Discipline spells weren’t affected. I expected one of:
all spells to be affected (which seriously penalizes non-Avoidance spells since you can’t negate the penalty)[/*:m]
only Avoidance spells to be affected[/*:m]
no spells to be affected (though the existence of Arcane Accuracy adaptation indicates #2 at least)[/*:m]

January 5, 2014 at 5:19 am #254555

Participant

Ye gods…

I have no idea why ranged Fortitude spells are potentially penalized and discipline spells aren’t…except that I sorta get the idea of a mental attack not needing to to “aimed” while a “physical attacks” does. Personally I might have tried something along the lines of rays versus “emanations,” with the first penalized and the second not. I don’t make the rules around here. $\":D\"$ Thank the gods. I would mention that the number of attack spells that target fortitude is not huge (and diminish senses is sufficiently awesome to still be worth taking) so on a practical level I don’t worry about it much.

There was a big discussion on the old (now lost) boards. This is the summary of our Stat Monkeys final clarification/position. I can confirm that there was/is a penalty for firing into melee with many spells. It does affect which spells I have selected with my two spell casting PCs.

I agree and concede the A:RPG book is unclear in its text on this point.

January 5, 2014 at 3:31 pm #254561

Anonymous

Inactive

On the old forums the ruling was any and all ranged attacks, powers and spells took the negative 4. Spells are powerful enough cited as one of the reasons. They didn’t need anymore help.

January 5, 2014 at 3:56 pm #254562

Anonymous

Inactive

On the old forums the ruling was any and all ranged attacks, powers and spells took the negative 4. Spells are powerful enough cited as one of the reasons. They didn’t need anymore help.

That is what I thought as well. I don’t remember spells vs. Discipline being given a special exception. Iirc, the benefit to avoid the penalty was only negated to Avoidance via Arcane Accuracy/Blessed Inscriptions because Discipline and Fortitude were considered easier to hit, anyway.

January 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm #254563

Anonymous

Inactive

On the old forums the ruling was any and all ranged attacks, powers and spells took the negative 4. Spells are powerful enough cited as one of the reasons. They didn’t need anymore help.

You might be right in terms of Discipline from the old forums. I thought I remembered in the answer that since Discipline uses your casting Attribute, it was more force of will upon a target, and therefore wasn’t being ‘aimed’ at them through a combat.

John

January 5, 2014 at 4:07 pm #254565

Anonymous

Inactive

If -4 for spells into melee is the official ruling, that’s what I’ll go with. I just don’t see it – opponents are usually in melee and -4 will more than make up for Fort/Disc being “easier to hit” (from what I’ve seen, there is not a 4 difference between Avoidance and other defenses (except for some player characters)). I think there needs to at least be a talent similar to Arcane Accuracy that works with Fort/Disc spells.

A quick look through the stat blocks for HP1-14 (BI) shows a total of 1 enemy with Avoidance 4 higher than Fort or Disc and multiple enemies with Fort or Disc higher than Avoidance. I fail to see any such “easier to hit”.

January 6, 2014 at 8:04 am #254583

Anonymous

Inactive

Seperate but related problem: is there a way to penalise players who are using very careful placing of templates to avoid players but maximise enemy targets in melee?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)

1 2 →

The forum ‘Arcanis: Rules & Rulings’ is closed to new topics and replies.