Combat magic vs Pure melee

User avatar
Bosper
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 am

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Bosper » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:53 pm

i guess it will be part of the deep rules, so i guess its ok

Ignisphaero
Bravery/Sagecity/Constitution

Time to cast: 4 Actions
AE Cost: 32 (cant be modified)
Range: 32 metres/yards
Instant
Target: Zone
Elemental
Guild Mage
B

2d6+QL*3 in the centre (also as structure damage to objects)
5 metre/yards radius
Each metre/yard from the centre subtracts 3 dmg
creatures who try to actively dodge (using their defense reaction) can move 1 metre/yard from centre per QL of a Bodycontrol (or whatever it is in english) check
target armour is reduced as with Ignifaxius
flammable targets burn on 1-3 on a d6

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Thorgarth » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:44 pm

Bosper wrote:Its a long time until the new spellbook will be out. But the Magic Supplements will contain most (close to all) spells i think. Hundreds of Spells and spell variants.
And there are a few very potent combat spells in TDE, like the fireball already published in Quarreling Kingdoms (5 metres radius 2d6+QL*3 ) but those are extremely expensive (32 AE +) and take a few rounds to cast.
As been said, dealing damage never was a main focus for a mage in TDE. They got dozens of supporting and hindering spells and again dozens of out-of-combat spells that are enourmously useful. Mages are scientists and scholars, not soldiers. A Combat Mage would be able to cast a few ignifaxius' or a fireball followed by an armour spell and melee combat.
But with the damage linked to the QL, combat spells already are more cost effective than in previous editions ( before it always was fixed dmg and dmg=AE cost)



Can´t agree with you on this Bosper. I know you have a lot more experience in TDE than me but you only have to look at the list of spells in the core book to see the a very high percentage are combat related or with combat applications, and scholarly pursuing spells are next to non-existing. In a setting with magic so pervasive, with such grand and formal organizations devoted to magic, with so many diverse traditions, it´s seems weird to conceive that, at the very least, a small percentage of it´s practitioners wouldn´t use and develop their magical powers in a more aggressive way, as a weapon.

On the other hand this stereotypical roles approach is an artifact of the class-based systems, which, like so many of you stated is the opposite of what was intended with this edition. Fighters do damage in combat, rogues hide, detect traps and climb, priests heal and Mages support sounds WAY WAY to close to class "restrictions".

From the logical point of view a magic system, and I´m talking in a dual perspective of out of game and in game logic and consistency, that allows to modify certain parameters like range and the time needed to cast should allow to fortify and even reduce the amount of damage a spell does by augmenting or diminishing the AE cost. This is actually one of the most classic parameters that systems with an approach to improvised/mutable magic consider possible to change.

User avatar
Bosper
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 am

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Bosper » Fri Jun 24, 2016 3:07 pm

Thorgarth wrote:
Bosper wrote:



Can´t agree with you on this Bosper. I know you have a lot more experience in TDE than me but you only have to look at the list of spells in the core book to see the a very high percentage are combat related or with combat applications, and scholarly pursuing spells are next to non-existing. In a setting with magic so pervasive, with such grand and formal organizations devoted to magic, with so many diverse traditions, it´s seems weird to conceive that, at the very least, a small percentage of it´s practitioners wouldn´t use and develop their magical powers in a more aggressive way, as a weapon

The core rules are cery basic and of course adventure oriented spells are the focus there (there are literally hundreds missing) And of course there are mages thar specialise on fighting. There are a few combat academies. But hey usually dont use it for direct damage because it isnt very cost effective. That always was part of tde. In key situations a fireball can be worth a lot. But a mage is just as expensive and way more limited than a profane piece of artillery. Sword&Staff mages specialise in fightin mages
Thats Werke combat magic makes sense. But as a means of war magic has little worth (except very good summoners vor artifact creators) because its very exhausting.
A weapon that can only Fire twice before it recharges a week is interesting for a special Commando, not for war. So solely doing damage just makes no sense for a mage. There are seafaring combat mages which can manipulate weather, obscure their Position , shield parts if their ship AND additionally could fast fireball( but the ships weapon will be more effective) . combat magic was always best in altering the circumstances not in fighting with magic, this was just a fact in the game world, illusion, fear, manipulation , these are effective means of fighting which the warmages of ancient times were good at and that the new aventurian academies begin to rediscover, damage spells are a tool for situations in which normal weapons cant help (demons, shieldspells) or a very expensive spell can turn the tide.

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Thorgarth » Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:07 pm

No doubt as magic parameters stand in TDE Mages are not built for sustained combat, hence why I think they should have the chance to alter the damage parameter on their spells, just like range, in order to excel in burst damage. This means they would burn through their AE pool fasters BUT would have the chance to end the conflict or at least have a higher impact on the outcome.

On the other hand and mechanically speaking "supporting" spells like horriphobus have a very limited practical effect other than cause some penalty. In effect, unless you manage to cause a level IV fear condition the max you can hope for is induce an -3 mod to checks on the target. That´s all a panicked character gets, since there is no direct effect on the fear condition that translates into forcing a character so affected to run, or coward away and not being able to act, only the penalties, and which aren´t exactly that high.

User avatar
Bosper
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 am

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Bosper » Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:51 am

-3 is a very high penalty if you take in consideration that the average defense will be about 9-11. And it adds to every other effect like pain etc. Of course the highest quality is were the spells excell, and thats nothing that a specialised mage cant do.
There was the possibility to adjust the power of the ignifaxius in last editions (you got a skill of 10 , you could inflict D6-10d6 damage with dmg=AE) but that was changed for a more "standart attackspell" variant with a way better dmg to AE ratio. The Magic Books will introduce spell variants, maybe this will have a comeback, too. We'll see. But i guess it was the idea that the mage will not save all his AE for the "endboss" to kill him in a single spell. gamewise this was a common thing and a very boring one which lead to important enemies all carrying "artifacts TM" that protected them. So the mage didnt cast spells to save for the one big boom...which then never happened.
Not a very fun way of playing

Morgoth
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:41 am

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Morgoth » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:11 pm

Thanks for posting that translation Bosper; so fireball does the same damage as Ignifaxus but has a bigger area.

Are there any spells that can instantly take enemies out of the fight? Say that paralysis spell, could a mage cast it at a lower QL than 5, and then slit the enemies throat (coup de grace), or can the enemy still defend? (no penalty to defence from the spell?)

What about the transformation spell; could a mage transform a bandit into a frog and then step on him? (RoA games had this spell and your opponent turned into a toadstool/mushroom!! :D )

Finally, Sword & Staff mages do not get any unique special abilities or spells yet correct? Did they get anything unique in previous editions of DSA?

in 5e they only appear to have proficiency/training with the sword like a warrior, and I guess they could take special abilities with sword but they will have to spend more APs on that. A mage could do that with just a Staff, instead of splitting APs between sword and staff. (though I still intend to play a Sword and Staff white mage like the profession in the core book; the art alone looks so cool)

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Thorgarth » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:12 pm

Bosper wrote:-3 is a very high penalty if you take in consideration that the average defense will be about 9-11. And it adds to every other effect like pain etc. Of course the highest quality is were the spells excell, and thats nothing that a specialised mage cant do.
There was the possibility to adjust the power of the ignifaxius in last editions (you got a skill of 10 , you could inflict D6-10d6 damage with dmg=AE) but that was changed for a more "standart attackspell" variant with a way better dmg to AE ratio. The Magic Books will introduce spell variants, maybe this will have a comeback, too. We'll see. But i guess it was the idea that the mage will not save all his AE for the "endboss" to kill him in a single spell. gamewise this was a common thing and a very boring one which lead to important enemies all carrying "artifacts TM" that protected them. So the mage didnt cast spells to save for the one big boom...which then never happened.
Not a very fun way of playing


The thing is with the way conditions are treated, simplified and standardized, mechanically they are reduced to the application of a mod., be it from confusion, fear or stupor. It´s all the same.

But let´s return to Horriphobus. "Creatures react to fear in very different ways. Some won't let the cause of their panic out of their sight, others try to back away or even flee, and still others clumsily try to get rid of the cause."Back away or flee"? Why would they?!? certainly not because of any irrational fear since THAT does not result directly from the spell. Would´t it made more sense to test Courage, modified according to the QL, with any failure resulting in cowardly running from the cause of fear. If the test was successful THEN the condition (Fear) would result in the simple application of the penalties.

User avatar
Bosper
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 am

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Bosper » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:44 pm

Morgoth wrote:Thanks for posting that translation Bosper; so fireball does the same damage as Ignifaxus but has a bigger area.

Are there any spells that can instantly take enemies out of the fight? Say that paralysis spell, could a mage cast it at a lower QL than 5, and then slit the enemies throat (coup de grace), or can the enemy still defend? (no penalty to defence from the spell?)
of course he can defend, he got a penalty from the condition paralysis but until the condition is below 4 he can still defend. and if he is turned to stone he is invulnerable.
What about the transformation spell; could a mage transform a bandit into a frog and then step on him? (RoA games had this spell and your opponent turned into a toadstool/mushroom!! :D )
The transformed creature keeps its LP it will be a damn tough frog.
Finally, Sword & Staff mages do not get any unique special abilities or spells yet correct? Did they get anything unique in previous editions of DSA?
Nope mages are mages. The difference is the choice of spells and that some get a few extras. like sword & staff is allowed to wield a longsword and wear cloth armor. (but i heard that the magic I+II supplement might add academy specific abilities, just like the compendium did with warrior colleges. But i cant varify that clearly.
in 5e they only appear to have proficiency/training with the sword like a warrior, and I guess they could take special abilities with sword but they will have to spend more APs on that. A mage could do that with just a Staff, instead of splitting APs between sword and staff. (though I still intend to play a Sword and Staff white mage like the profession in the core book; the art alone looks so cool)
[/quote] Not more APs then anyone else, but yes, a mage has enough fields to put his AP into, two weapons means more AP spent. But they indeed are cool. And they know that they are special with their dispense on wielding a sword.

User avatar
Bosper
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 am

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Bosper » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:47 pm

Thorgarth wrote:
Bosper wrote:-3 is a very high penalty if you take in consideration that the average defense will be about 9-11. And it adds to every other effect like pain etc. Of course the highest quality is were the spells excell, and thats nothing that a specialised mage cant do.
There was the possibility to adjust the power of the ignifaxius in last editions (you got a skill of 10 , you could inflict D6-10d6 damage with dmg=AE) but that was changed for a more "standart attackspell" variant with a way better dmg to AE ratio. The Magic Books will introduce spell variants, maybe this will have a comeback, too. We'll see. But i guess it was the idea that the mage will not save all his AE for the "endboss" to kill him in a single spell. gamewise this was a common thing and a very boring one which lead to important enemies all carrying "artifacts TM" that protected them. So the mage didnt cast spells to save for the one big boom...which then never happened.
Not a very fun way of playing


The thing is with the way conditions are treated, simplified and standardized, mechanically they are reduced to the application of a mod., be it from confusion, fear or stupor. It´s all the same.

But let´s return to Horriphobus. "Creatures react to fear in very different ways. Some won't let the cause of their panic out of their sight, others try to back away or even flee, and still others clumsily try to get rid of the cause."Back away or flee"? Why would they?!? certainly not because of any irrational fear since THAT does not result directly from the spell. Would´t it made more sense to test Courage, modified according to the QL, with any failure resulting in cowardly running from the cause of fear. If the test was successful THEN the condition (Fear) would result in the simple application of the penalties.

They will flee if the condition reaches 4. before they are a bit shaken but continue. of course as a GM you can interpret fear as you like. if its a cowardly foe maybe he will flee at fear 3, or you make a check. but RAW they wont panic before fear 4 (or with the compendium panic rules, if the LP drop too low)

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Thorgarth » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:36 pm

Bosper actually at level IV they will not run anywhere... Hell, they won´t even be able to move since they turn "Catatonic" ;).

In any case I will introduce a Courage test in this mechanic. Failure WILL result in cowering or running away. In either case they will be unable to act in any rational way. Of course on levels 1 and 2 there will be bonus to the check. On level 3 there will be a mild penalty. On level 4 this results will be automatic.


Return to “Rules Questions (TDE)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest