Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Octavius

Spells, Spackets, and Immunities

Recommended Posts

I had an interesting scenario last game.

 

Threw a greater command undead. The undead reflected it. I called no effect because I am a human and it doesn't affect me. However. Are humans 'immune' to it? Should I have used a charge from my aura of reflection?

 

Within the same lines... I have no power on my sheet. Would mana drain work the same way? Am I immune or are charges of anti magic protections still used?

 

After having time to think about it I think, for consistency, they should waste aura/anti magic shield charges regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if magic hits your anti-magic protection, the anti-magic protection will activate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldnt that mean i can blitz anyone's magical protections with a repel undead?

 

It would seem to me that not being undead or not having power would be in the same family as having an immunity, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being undead is one thing. Having no power and being hit by a mana drain is another. You still could have power, and if you were hit by a mana drain with no MP left you wouldn't call no effect - you would simply take the effect and still have zero power. Calling no effect would imply that the spell did not take effect, not that it's effect was moot. In my opinion, lesser command should not be the go to spell for removing reflect and anti-magic aura. If you use a command spell (nature, undead, dominate) on the wrong creature type, you should gain no secondary special advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spell description, in this case, should say something explicit. Like 'will have no effect on non-undead targets' or go the other way with 'will only have an effect on lesser fae, bugs, and plant creatures'. Then there's no ambiguity. Humans/PC Races call no effect to repel/command undead or repel/commnand nature. This makes more sense rule-wise.

 

If the complexity isn't an issue, I think it makes more sense. My only argument for keeping it the other way is for constancy. It's always easier to say - 'Yes, aura reflects any and all tagbags. Period.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldnt that mean i can blitz anyone's magical protections with a repel undead?

 

That's been a valid tactic for dropping anti-magic protections since I've started playing this game. I've seen it done with Natural Repulsion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That tastes like loopholing and i'd like to close it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RULES TEAM, GO!

 

This is why I can't do rules. Both answers sound totally valid to me, because I can't apply logic to fake magic. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immunities kick in first. The rules specify spells here, but I don't consider it a stretch to include natural immunities. I think the version I wrote was a little more specific about that.

 

(Edit: I take that back, my draft was also talking about spells. Still, the spirit of the rules here is that a limited protective layer is only used if it's helping.)

 

Spell Effect Precedence

 

In the case of overlapping protective effects, any spells that grant immunity take precedence over other spells (e.g. if a Magic Dart spell strikes a target protected by Battle Mastery and Anti-Magic Shield, the Magic Dart would be nullified by Battle Mastery and the Anti-Magic Shield would not be discharged).

 

For non-immunity spells the higher level spell will take precedence over the lower level spell (e.g. Aura of Reflection will take precedence over Anti-Magic Shield).

 

For non-immunity defensive abilities of the same level, the more tailored (specific) application of the ability will take effect over the other. (e.g. Grounding Wire will take precedence over Anti-Magic Shield when being hit with a Magic Dart from Magic Swarm.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the view for repeal nature and undead shouldnt count towards protections the requirement for the spell havnt been met

Not if you are immune to it. Those spells only take effect when they hit the right creature type.

For mana drain and the like they should use up protections regardless since the effect of the spell stil works just to no

Benefical effect. (Cursing someone with 1 body is another example of this) they are still cursed regardless of how much body they have.

 

These have more rules link to them too (example have 1 body get cursed no effect it then drink an ogre extract to go up 2 body seems odd to me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using those spells to tear down magical defenses sounds like it makes sense and is a clever use of power. An Anti-Magic Shield doesn't know what hit it or what the protected player is already a valid target for or isn't. It stops the next magical spacket to hit it. End of mechanic. Aura of Reflection does the same. An undead might be using an AoR and a Fiend might be using an AMS.

 

Look at it this way: If a player without expensive damaging effects can strip down an enemy's defenses so that the Battlemage can finish them off with the last few points of power he has... awesome. Good job guys.

 

It's also simpler not to have to add a notation that spells only effect magical defenses based upon what the protected target is or is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask an alternate, but relevant, question: Do we want KoN to be a game of spacket throwing or a game of weapon fighting? Certainly both, but if we had to favor one over the other, which way would we collectively lean?

 

If the intention is to favor the aggressor, and turn attacks like repel insect into defense popping countermeasures, then we'll see more spackets and sorcery as folks try to rock-scissors-paper this mechanic. Might we see less armored up guys, as more and people go fast and light to outrun/dodge spackets since they clearly will not be able to defend against them with any efficacy?

 

If the intention is to favor the defender, and keep defensive aegis magic in line with the intention of the rules set (refering to Bob's post above), this means magic is less universally relevant to breaking down a target's protections. Meaning magic isn't the multitool that solves every combat challenge. Which in turn means more swordplay, instead?

 

I don't know the answers for the game. But I think consequences of decisions like this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask an alternate, but relevant, question: Do we want KoN to be a game of spacket throwing or a game of weapon fighting? Certainly both, but if we had to favor one over the other, which way would we collectively lean?

 

If the intention is to favor the aggressor, and turn attacks like repel insect into defense popping countermeasures, then we'll see more spackets and sorcery as folks try to rock-scissors-paper this mechanic. Might we see less armored up guys, as more and people go fast and light to outrun/dodge spackets since they clearly will not be able to defend against them with any efficacy?

 

If the intention is to favor the defender, and keep defensive aegis magic in line with the intention of the rules set (refering to Bob's post above), this means magic is less universally relevant to breaking down a target's protections. Meaning magic isn't the multitool that solves every combat challenge. Which in turn means more swordplay, instead?

 

I don't know the answers for the game. But I think consequences of decisions like this matter.

 

I always thought of it as a mainly fighting game, with spells and thrown alchemy as a way to bypass having to directly engage in combat with someone. Aegis was a way to counter that, bring it back to a weapon based conflict. It does seem to be moving more in the direction of magic being more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's been a valid tactic for dropping anti-magic protections since I've started playing this game. I've seen it done with Natural Repulsion.

 

I've always RP'd that you are Immune to things that simply don't apply to you...

 

"Greater command undead" vs a Living character, should not activate anything but a laugh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always RP'd that you are Immune to things that simply don't apply to you...

 

"Greater command undead" vs a Living character, should not activate anything but a laugh...

 

That's how it's always been for me. Dropping defenses with cheaper spells can be done, but it was done with spells applicable to the target like disengage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought we had a design for the way spells went off.

 

1st: Immunities

2nd: Aura of Reflection

3rd: Anti-Magic-Shield

 

It would seem to me that a living character is "immune" to the undead spells. If this is not the case, than Battle Mastery becomes stupid... You would waste a Aura of Reflection and Anti-Magic-Shield before your immunity kicked in to stop the Devastation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, way to be cheaters, guys. :P

 

But nah, I definitely agree with changing the rules to make humans immune to Natural Repulsion and Repel Undead. Makes perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stripping magical protections off someone with lesser spells is perfectly valid, but the repel spells are both the cheapest per tag bag and are perfectly safe to chuck at someone with Reflection. Even weakness and disengage you receive some kind of negative effect it it tags you back. Aegis has already been nerfed this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to see a strong argument here. It just adds another layer of complexity when teaching new players or when NPCs unfamiliar with the system are trying to sort effects. I'm not a fan of that. Fighting game or not.

 

Also, Natural Repulsion on all suspected Dopplegamgers from here on out. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropping defenses with cheaper spells can be done, but it was done with spells applicable to the target like disengage.

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still put forth that in the case of Mana Burn or similar effects (despite how rare that ability has become, now that it's out of PC hands) should not be No Effect'ed simply because the target has no usable mana. Same as Curse on someone with 0 or 1 body, as someone else has pointed out.

 

For the record, I still like treating PC races as Immune to Command (or repel) spells other than Dominate for the purpose of spell defenses. The same should apply to all instances where the target of the Command (or repel) spell is of the wrong type. I don't see that as too confusing for new players when explained that way, especially considering that they must first understand how layering defenses work.

 

The rule could simply read

10.4.1.4.6.9: For the purpose of spell defenses, creatures are treated as being Immune to Command Spells and Repel Spells that do not effect their creature type. Ex. Living beings are Immune to Repel Undead, and this spell does not burn their magical defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×