Discussions concerning Fast Casting

Retired Play by Post Campaigns Ars Magica 5th Edition: In the Ruins of Bibracte
15

You need to show a bit more respect, Marko. I don't mind a vigorous debate, but your statement is contemptuous and certainly passive/aggressive. I cannot lie about how I find your post offensive in tone and in substance.

The running of this saga is a pretty straightforward concept. I change a ruling if everyone else agrees with (or doesn't object to) the proponent of the opposing view. I'm taking jebrick's comment as an objection to the fast casting. So that's issue one down. Or you can convince jebrick to drop his stance, or just not care about advancing that position, and try and build consensus. But really, that means, I need to see every player make an endorsement of your view, or an "I don't care." Such comments from each player ensure that there is a healthy debate and everyone with a stake in the change gets to make up their mind. Often times when a rule changes it disadvantages someone else in the saga.

You have a view of the Dimicatio that doesn't comport with existing history of the Dimicatio as it was previously played in this saga. If you really want to change it, the same rules do and can apply. I could call it a story thing, but fine, we'll call it a rules issue. So now it's to the troupe to decide which way they'd like to play. Again, the same thing, an endorsement of your view, or an I don't care. Again, jebrick has made a comment that you need to have him disavow, to get it to come around to your point of view, in addition to everyone else saying they agree with you or "I don't care."

You're new to the saga, and the other players are playing characters designed for the saga as I laid it out in the invite thread. You asked to come aboard, and you resisted my attempts to make changes to your character, and now you're trying to impose your will on the saga. That's a bit much. If you want a Dimicatio event as you describe, challenge a player to it, challenge Marcus to it, if you'd like. I haven't updated him in the 6 years since the previous Tribunal. And all of the advantages you seek he could take, and quite honestly do it better. He's Self-confident, too. He could just wail with 6, maybe 7 by now, Balls of Abysmal Fire. It's not like what your proposing is innovative. Certainly not. I find it utterly predictable and boring, and a little more than an child going, "look what I can do." It's much more interesting to have a serve and volley. The times I enjoyed playing Marcus most in that event were the few times where I was seriously concerned because I was going second.

Do not ascribe to me the full reason your view isn't being accepted. It's not on me, Marko. It's on you.

16

To be honest, I would say "I don't care" (because I kind of don't), but I would rather we not change the way fast-casting, dimicatio, expeliarmus, or whatever has been done so far without a pressing need. And I'm not seeing a pressing need, nothing that indicates to me that the status quo is broken.

17

I apologize and willl say sorry.
I rarely do both.
By apology I mean explaination. By sorry I mean that I regret offending you and stepping out of line.
The apology; Two different players offered a compromise that I was more than happy with. One of them was Jebric! But you sorta brushed all that aside as if no one ever said anything.
I also clearly stated that I know my perception is not reality. I thought I explained that clearly. It feels like I am getting chumped, but I know from experience th( this is not the way it really is.
I am also cranky because my own saga isn't working out. Very slow and disappointing. It has an emotional effect.
And I am sorry. I know I am a dk. That's just how I am. The more I try to mitigate it, the worse I come off.
Still, two players offered a compromise that I was very happy with. One was Jebric. I don't know if you even took notice of that. So from my perspective (and I am really very sorry for coming off like a dk, please forgive me), it seemed as if you ignored the troupes compromise and imposed your will anyway.
Maybe that's not what happened. Maybe I misunderstand. Please reaize that, just as easilly as you may misunderstand me, I perhaps may misunderstand you.
You still hold the rank of Broseph :smiley:

18

I honestly don't see what jebrick said was a compromise. He started off with a premise, and then later ascribed to my view. Maybe if he can refine what he meant, but my sense was that he pretty much endorsed my view of fast casting and the Dimicatio.

Much the same as anything else. a compromise has to be endorsed by everyone, or at best receive an I don't care. It's a hurdle, sure. You should be cognizant that sometimes the things you ask for may not be as good for you as you think they are. The world is a bad place, and for all the advantages you seek to accrue to your characters, there are NPCs who accrue those same advantages. It changes the character of the saga, which is why I want everyone to either explicitly accept the change, or just say I don't care enough about it.

19

Grr...
I was previewing and accidentally selected submit.

I accept and appreciate the apology. I like a spirited debate, but yours was veering a bit off course. I tend to look at things holistically and go down a very deep rabbit hole and examine how a change impacts the world. Each rule change yields a thought experiment, and I'm extremely conservative in reading and interpreting the rules.
The rules shape and inform the saga, they are the framework from which I hang the stories. The covenant's hooks and the players story flaws give the framework a character or lens through which to view the story.

As to your own saga; well, it's starting fresh. I think it's in the nature of every saga to have a long drawn out discussion where everyone feels everyone else out. It takes a while to create action. This saga took a month of wrangling to get off the ground, then two of the original players stopped posting, one was a slow poster, and I had to do something to invigorate the saga as it was foundering a month later. Eventually other players came on, some other players left, and one "almost character" continues to feel the full brunt of my disdain. I understand the frustration, believe me. I just don't put up with guff. :smiley: If you're going to give it, expect me to call you on it. If you skin a smokewagon, you will see what happens. :smiley:

If you want to commiserate further, feel free to PM me. :smiley: I'm going to let this thread live for a bit so we can have a better idea of where things stand.

20

There is no need to apologizes to me. I've been playing with JL long enough to know the bases for the rulings. Read the book and take it at face value. If you can convince JL or a majority of the players that your comprise or interpretation is correct then you will get it.[1] As normal for me I will post my initial thoughts then reread the section much more carefully. That is why I went with the more conservative view of fast cast.

[1] If you look at this topicfrom the main boards, you will see several of us ( namely JL and I) in a knock down drag out fight over wording of several sections. Through 10 pages of discussion we reach a comprise and it is a house rule.

21

I do not understand the argument in that link. For Mastered rituals, I believe Mastery reduces botch dice, not eliminates them (unless you have a high mastery score). Rituals take 15 minutes per magnitude of ceremonial effort. I cannot concieve of this as a relaxed situation.
What did you guys decide here?

The compromise I speak of, which you alluded to and Q specifically stated, is being able to use a Fast Cast as an Interruption if my Fast Cast speed roll is high enough. Say I equal or barely beat the opponent's IN, then MAD. If I can far exceed it, say by double or adding some number to it, then a FC counts as an Interrupt action.
You had suggested ease factors for stopping a crossbow or intercepting a catapult boulder. That is along the lines of my thinking. Q spoke of a similar idea. I would be very happy with those ideas.

Other things that make me cranky; I am sitting in a house with no electricity or heat, I am supposed to move but a loan fell through and so this guy with the apartment is cancelling the deal and keeping my money. My ex is playing games and I ain's seen my son since June. And I am still irritated by the changes in the history of House Flambeau (and frustrated in my attempts to officially reverse it, though I managed some small success (which you will eventually see :wink: )

22

You could have added more pages to that debate :slight_smile: Basically, if you are going to get experience for an action/period it is a stress die. Otherwise it can be a simple die ( if you have mastery). Casting a mastered AoH is handwaved. Casting it during the course of an adventure, stress die.

23

Marko, you and I have the same view on ritual spells, but there are several contradictory statements in the RAW. One can even read into the RAW that so long as the person is relaxed the person cast a ritual spell with a simple die. I even conceded that it was written in such a way that conclusion could be drawn, but I don't believe that was ever the intention.

In any event, most of the players here found differently...and so I went along with it.

24

That's a rather liberal ruling. How did you talk him into that?

As for myself, I honestly believe in my heart that my basic view on Fast Casting is a very close interpretation of the rules' both in wording and in spirit. I am perplexed why everyone doesn't see what I see. As for Fast Cast as a defense, that is only one very small portion of the rules, in reference to spont defenses. Why do the rules allow for Fast Casting as a mastery option without mentioning the only-fo-defense clause? I believe the intent in ArM5 is to be able to FC offense spells. In was in ArM4 and earlier editions that fast casting was for sponting defense only.

Back to the idea at hand. Jebric, would you agree to allow a FC spell to interupt an action if the speed roll far exceeded the opposing Initiative?

25

Basically the process playing out here. There was a concurrence among the players that my interpretation was too strict, or they didn't care one way or another (ties like that go to the players).

26

I see nothing in the rules which leads me to believe that a fast cast action can come before the action that it is reacting to. If you can point me to wording that suggests that I would consider it.

Read through the ten pages before telling me it is liberal. Most of the argument was not that a ritual could be cast with a simple die. It was how do I tell if it is a non-stressful situation.

27

I ain't gonna rehash your old debate here. it falls into the "I don't care" category.

:smiley:
My strongest single example of explicit wording comes from Lord of Men, p. 119. There it speaks of optional rulles for Interrupting actions. Fast Cast Interrupts are discussed on p. 120.
However, the quote I am about to cite does not pertain to these rules at all. Rather, I am quoting a passage that refers to RAW Fast Casting as an illustrative example of how an optional combat rule is employed.

Now it does mention Defense, I'll give you that. But saying a Fast Cast can only be used for Defense seems illogical for the following reasons...

  • In the Fast Cast rules, only the last third of that section mentions Fast Cast Defense. If it was the only exclusive use, it would have been stated in the first sentence.
  • That first sentence does indicate a fast cast is a reaction. But "reaction" is not the same as "defense". I can choose to act offensively, or react by trying to magically change the color of my robe before you zap me.
  • Fast Cast is offered as an option for Mastery with no mention of Defense being the only option. In fact, few Formulaic spells are of any use in a Fast Cast Defense situation. These defense rules are designed for Spontaneous spells. Formulaic spells must obviously have some other usefulness for Fast Casting other than sponting a defense.
28

And the paragraph immediately following speaks to when someone can respond to an event and have the action resolve before his opponents action takes effect.

So, to delay action, you must have won initiative.

Then later on the same page it it discusses that interrupting is not fast casting, and that fast casting does not require delaying the action.
Synthesizing that with the optional rule for fast casting as an interrupting action says to use the normal fast casting procedure but to use the action priority total as the ease factor for determining whether an event can be responded to. All this does is try and make the rules more consistent, whether the event can be responded to with an appropriate spell then gets resolved based on the action priority total.

29

What was quotes is much like the delayed action in the old Champions rpg. In that rule, you did have to have a faster speed/higher dex to delay action until X happened ( which had to be declared). It makes more sense in this case as well. Fast cast to go before someone who won the initiative does not make sense. You get into fast cast duels which would have to end in favor of the person who won the initiative in the first place.

IMHO, You could use fast cast to cast an offensive spell at an opponent but that would be the MAD and their spell would effect you first.

Fast cast defense has it's own section because it has special rules for figuring out what is being cast and being able to counter it with a defense. y

30

You misunderstand me. I am not refering to those rules or options. Only the part of the quote in bold, which points to (the author's interpretation of) RAW Fast Casting as an illustrative example. The whole Action Priority optional bit simply reinforces my argument. But those are options. I speak of basic RAW Fast Casting.
But as far as those options go, I cannot see anything that contradicts my argument, just stuff that reinforces it. So Jonathan's quote seems non-sequiter in my understanding. The part about spells says...

In my mind, "stop" means you just cancel that attack, not match it in time for simualtaneous results.

Let me put forth an extreme example. Wizardly combatants meet and roll IN. Magus A scores a total of 5 and casts PoF. Magus B totals 7, before A, but wants to try and Interrupt his spell with a Fast Cast. He rolls a 1 followed by a 1 followed by a 6. With Quik of +1. His total is five times the opponent's Initiative. With a reaction gap that wide, I would think that Magus B should be allowed to fry his opponent with an IoL before the word "Creo" fully escapes his opponent's lips. If it kills him, no PoF is ever cast. If he survives, and he makes a concentration roll, then he finishes the PoF after all.
How does this seem unreasonable or not in the spirit of the RAW?

31

You want to add more into the combat system then is there. Again I go to another Game system. In Boothill the initiative system was like this. You would divide the quickness/skill by 10 to get the number of actions. It was possible to have 2 or even 3 actions before some people acted.

I will have to wait until I get home to look at Lords of Men.

So if you have a delayed action, you can get your own spell in first. Not a defense. Then you can fast-cast a spont defense if the opponent gets their spell off.

Magus B can delay his action until Magus A acts. He can now blast Magus A because he still goes before him. But Magus B had a targeted spell and he missed!!! Now Magus A does a CrIg. Magus B is allowed to spont fast cast a defense against this spell. He could spont fast cast an attack vs Magus A but it would not stop the CrIg from happening. Thus Mutual Assured Destruction.

32

Not trying to add anything with this debate. I would like to use the combat rules from LoM, but for now, I am only refering to an illustrative example that compares the rule to RAW Fast casting (resolved before the event being reacted too).
But in those rules, a delayed action for normal spell casting counts as an Interrupt, as well as a Fast Cast spell. These are two chances to stop an attack.
The LoM combat rules are all about sequence, priority, and actions that alter the sequence.

As for your counter to my example, IoL is an auto hit, not aimed. And seriously, beating the opponents IN by 20 points doesn't allow an Interrupt? What if I rolled three consecutive "1's"? Six, or ten? A Fast Cast total of 6145 versus IN 5.

I am not familiar with Boot Hill or Champions. I ran original D&D, AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D, old Top Secret, old World of Darkness stuff, and Cyberpunk. I played some other stuff with less familiarity with the rules: Shadowrun, DC Heros, Palladium, and stuff I can't remember off hand at the moment.
I do not want to drag any of that stuff into here though. But I will mention that it was hard to get AD&D players (used to ultiple attacks per round) to buy into Ars Magica combat (I started with ArM4, with a combat system that was much more abstract).
In ArM4, I did make the mistake of presuming Fast Casting was an option for Mastered spells (the rules are on the same page). When I realized my error, I just rolled with it anyway. ArM5 made it kosher.

33

For the record, I prefer Dimicatio to be ritualized so that it's "one spell - one counterspell".

Sure, combat is different, but dimicatio is there to allow magi to display their strength in the arts.
Why would high-level spells like BoaF be favored when it's so much easier/efficient to multicast a Pilum (and IMO, most flambeau are able to multicast PoF)?
So yes, you may win at the dimicatio and lose in real battle. A win at the dimicatio indicates higher arts/mastered counterspells, that's all.

For the record: It also probably shouldn't work.
Contrary to "Unraveling the Fabric of (Form)" spells, Wind of Mundane silence (of which your spell is just a variant) specifically "does not affect spells of Momentary duration". I ran into this a while ago. This means that even a PeVi mage must either discern, or guess the form used by his opponent.

If you want to ask JL to rule that it does, though, I'll support you. I don't think it is game breaking.

:frowning: :frowning: :frowning:
That's quite bad, especially with winter being on us :frowning:
I'm sorry for your son. I have a friend in a similar situation, and it's... aaargh! People shouldn't do this.

Very well worded.

As I see it, a fast cast spell can at most occur at the same time as the initiative it is reacting to.
In fact, the whole FC roll is to determine this: Either you act just in time, or you're too late.

So, when fast casting in reaction to a cast BoaF with a PoF, it can not occur before it. Not unless you knew the guy was gonna cast a BoaF before he did it.
So, on this, I'm with JL.
But I'm with Marko elsewhere, in that I'd allow you to "double" your standard action with a fast-cast spell, based on your own init, so as to begin combat with a fast cast.
For exemple, roberto can enter play by rolling init, doing whatever he wants (even nothing!), and fast-casting a pilum based on his own init. Someone wanting to react to that pilum would need to beat Roberto FC roll.

Holy Sh*t. And to think I had mostly skipped LoM... I shouldn't have :laughing:

I'm not sure I like it, but I think you're right. Based on LoM, fast cast can act as an interrupt.
The example later even gives an example of an interrupt for a non-offensive action (sure, this is not a FC, but this is a delayed action, which is previously compared to a fast-cast spell).

34

And in my example Magus B had two chances to STOP Magus A. He had a delayed action that went before and he could fast-cast a defense. There is still nothing that says the fast-cast spont goes before the action it is reacting to.

Is there anything in the rules which says that beating an opponent initiative by 1 vs 6140 is any different?