I’m looking at the defender rule on page 173 of ARM5. This is the rule that lets shield grogs do their shield grog thing.
I’m wondering how this interacts with magical attacks. The rules say “ The defended character is only injured if the defenders botch or are incapacitated.” I think I’m supposed to read that as meaning that the defended character is protected against weapon attacks, since the defenders would not get a defense roll against a Pilum of Fire. On the other hand, a Pilum of Fire would injure the defended character, and certainly a defender could step in front of the Pilum.
Considering Perdo magic that directly harms the target, it seems here that a defender could not block The Wound That Weeps. But here this would be a case where the defended character is being injured even though the defender has not botched and is not incapacitated.
Then there is Mentem magic which is not injuring the defended character, like Visions of the Infernal Terrors. To me this seems the most obvious case where the defender can do nothing to defend another character.
Finally consider Touch range spells. Kiss of Death requires that you actually touch your target, so even if you think that Wound that Weeps can’t be be defended, surely a defender can stop a maga from kissing the character they are defending.
I guess my more general question is how people have run defenders vs magical attacks and if there are some useful rules I can bring in to my game.
I think it might depend on the spell. For example pilum of fire specifies that a spear (Pilum) of fire leaps from the casters hand towards the target. In principal that could be intercepted though whatever intercepted it would take the damage. Certainly spells which require a finesse roll to hit in order to avoid magic resistance should be regular missiles and able to be intercepted once they have been magically launched. On the other hand curses and spells which do not attack in a conventional manner would be impossible for a grog to help protect you, at least through ordinary means. There may be outliers like reVi or MuVi spells that can change the targe of a magical attack to the grog...
This has been debated before. My view is that if the spell is resisted, not targeted by a Finesse roll, then it can't be dodged, intercepted etc. If the shield grog could block the spell, that implies it could be dodged by the target, say by using a tree as cover. (In fairness, I didn't convince everyone of that.)
I think the original poster is right that a shield grog can prevent some Touch range spells, but apart from those and aimed spells, I don't think the shield grog can do a lot.
(Okay, one other exception: a big enough shield grog could completely hide the person they are protecting. No ability to sense => no spell casting.)
Yes, in my sagas the rule is that if you need to make a targeting roll for the spell, a grog can intercept it. But if the spell hits automatically—as Pilum does—a grog cannot intercept it.
Note also the expanded combat rules in Lords of Men that make interception not automatic, but depend upon Qik rolls.
You can 'dodge', but it involves acting first and getting out of sense rather than an ability. However you do it, ducking behind cover or fast casting a spell to throw up a wall for example, results in loss making you no longer a valid target for the spell when it goes off.
Pilum is strange- it was written before the finesse aimed spells were an option (and would gain no benefir from that, being magical fire), but the spell description specifies that, unlike virtually every other spell, it flies through the air from point Aa to point B, which in my mind makes it possible to intercept. To my mind that means some wizard somewhere who invented the spell decided that looking cool in throwing fire as a weapon was more important than it being impossible to intercept (or just didn't think about it)
That said having a grog that will willingly throw himself in the path of a spear of fire is going to be exceptionally rare, and nothing at all would indicate that this fire-spear is moving as slow as a mundane weapon such as an arrow or crossbow bolt, so I would expect it to also be incredibly difficult to block, kind of like trying to dive into the part of a firework rocket after it goes off, but probably more difficult.
Jason's ruling is the one I use. It also makes sense in game mechanics - magi already have defenses against magic, the shield grogs are most necessary for mundane attacks
All CrIg spells are legacy from 2nd ed. But when you look at their design according to the core rule, the fire appears at the target (small t), whereas the fire is the Target (as parameters) big T.
So no shielding is possible.
The flying from hand is a cosmetic effect - I believe if you do some search on this forum, there could be even a statement from David Chart about it.
They could be reinvented without a single parameter change where the fire appears on the target - incidentally, it would make the effect more discreet, since it won't be so obvious where it is originating from.
In my games we've generally had CrIg you-make-and-shoot-fire spells work a little differently than other spells.
A finesse roll isn't always required if the spell must penetrate MR - and that's the way they generally still work - but circumstances can interfere with damage and even provoke some sort of targeting roll. OTOH, you can blind fire the spells, and generally play a little fast and loose with RDT.
Theres certainly a place for direct-ignition spells, but really flinging fire around is fun.
I'll add that my current game has a elementalist with a preference for fire, and many a session I've been glad our saga is taking place in relatively-soggy Denmark.
I would like to point out the “defenders as interceptors” rule in LoM.
The defender rules (see ArM5, page 173) are simple to use, but they can sometimes lead to strange results when few are defend- ing against many. A single defender can hold off one attacker, or twenty, with equal effectiveness. This optional (but more complex) rule is for troupes who dislike that implica- tion of the standard rule. It uses the mechanics of the interrupting actions option (see Option: Interruption Actions, earlier in this chapter) but can be used even if the troupe doesn’t want to allow interrupting actions in other contexts.
A character or group may perform an extended action to defend another character (or a fixed location such as a doorway). While this extended action is in effect, the defender monitors a two-pace radius around himself. He may attempt to interrupt, using the interrupting actions rule, any enemy who moves into this zone or who makes a melee attack against the character he’s defending. If the defender successfully interrupts by win- ning the action priority roll, that enemy becomes engaged in melee with the defender. If the defender successfully interrupted a melee attack, the attacker must attack the defender instead of the original target, or else forfeit his action entirely.
A defender can also attempt to interrupt missile attacks aimed at the character he’s defending. If the interruption attempt succeeds (again, by the defender generating a higher Action Priority Total), the missile attack resolves against the defender instead of the original target. This is a case where the sequential nature of combat should not be taken too literally. Defending against missile attacks has more to do with positioning oneself to spoil an opponent’s aim than with throwing one’s body into the path of an arrow that’s already in flight. Also, the sto- ryguide should disallow the defender from intercepting missile attacks that he couldn’t logically block, such as attacks from behind.
Defending is an extended action, so a defender can’t attack in the same round. He can, however, use exertion on defense. A de- fender’s usual tactic is to keep defending un- til all enemies are engaged in melee with the defender, and then start attacking them.
A character being defended can still at- tack. If he does so, then he becomes engaged with his target and the defender can no lon- ger block attacks from that target. The de- fender can still prevent additional opponents from attacking his charge, however.
A defender can only protect one other character, and only as long as that character remains within two paces of him. There is no limit to how many enemies a defender can try to interrupt in a round, though sooner or later his luck will run out and an enemy will slip past him.
Under this optional rule, the grogs can interrupt the pilum- likely by “blocking” it, which would be an Interrupt Action. Narratively, they would raise their shields or such.
So under the base rules in Ars you can’t, but under the LoM optional rules you can defend someone from non-aimed spells- under certain conditions
I think the fact remains that, mechanically, the Pilum is magically targetting the individual, not being aimed. So it is not relevantly like a missile attack, except in appearance.
In practice, I would rule that a Pilum of Fire will dive around obstacles to the target, and only fail if the target is entirely inaccessible (because I feel the aesthetic aspect should have some consequence in that regard, though a minimal one).
I think the fact remains that, mechanically, the Pilum is magically targetting the individual, not being aimed. So it is not relevantly like a missile attack, except in appearance.
The focus isn’t it being a missile attack, but that spell casting in itself is an interruptible action. There is no reason a grog can’t raise a shield to protect someone from the magic by cutting visual senses on the target.
That's not how it works. You can stop a spell like Pilum of Fire by intercepting the created fire with some kind of obstacle.
See the insert "Dimicatio in Detail" in HoH:S p21
For example,
if one magus casts Ball of Abysmal Flame
(CrIg 35), his opponent might defend
using Creo Aquam (to quench the fire),
Rego Ignem (to deflect the fireball), or
even Creo Herbam (to create a wooden
shield).
