Fast casting vs other mages.. better to be second?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
41

Hi Nerhesi,

the problem you address has been - kind of - acknowledged in LoM p.117ff 'Optional Combat Rules', in particular p.119ff 'Option: Interrupting Actions' and 'Option: Fast Casting as Interruption'. I recommend that you get this book and look for yourself, whether the modified combat rules there fully resolve your campaign's issues with initiative.

Here's just a quick summary and a quote from these subchapters, so you can see whether that LoM chapter is worth your time and money.

First, it contains on p.119 an unequivocal acknowledgement that, with the normal ArM5 p.83 rules, a Fast-Cast spell already does interrupt the action it defends against: "... a successful Fast-Cast spell resolves before the attack against which the magus is defending."
Then it introduces an optional system to handle combat interruptions in general, starting with the concept of an 'Action Priority Total' to be generated for each one involved in the potential interruption, which Totals are then compared to decide who goes first, and whether the interruption really takes place.
Finally, on p.120, it suggests to replace the Ease Factor for a 'Fast-Casting speed roll' - which anyway resembles very much the generation of the 'Action Priority Total' of the the Fast Caster - by the 'Action Priority Total' of the party to be interrupted by that Fast Casting.

Cheers

42

But what does that mean in this context? It does not unequivocally state whether it resolves before the casting of a(n attack) spell, or just the effect of that spell once cast. :confused:

43

Which context are you pointing at, without naming it?

Wouldn't that depend on the Fast-Cast spell, in particular its Target?

I hope this shall not become a discussion, with scarce text base and lots of opinion, about what Fast-Cast spells can target.

Cheers

44

Ah... that would be the one we've all been discussing for the last 2 1/2 pages and that I reiterated in sentence following the one you quoted, of FastCasting a spontaneous spell to interrupt the casting of another spell.

No. How would that matter? You're suggesting the rules are unequivocal about some Targets, but not others? :confused: We're discussing timing, not Targets (altho' by default the target (small "t") of one would be the mage casting, and the target of the other would be something else, for instance the spell once cast.) And (as I said) the rules simply don't comment directly on the subject.

45

Assuming you're talking about the one where I was disagreeing strongly, that's entirely backward. I disagreed entirely with the claim that that interpretation was "clearly implied" entirely separately from whether it was stated explicitly or not. So this line of reasoning has absolutely no bearing on this thread and should be dropped; thread-necromancy on the other thread would be the place for it.

It's also stated that non-Fast Cast spells take time in the Virtues and Flaws chapter. Check Slow Caster. Adjusting what is written to make one sentence spells take "the normal one round time" "to prepare and execute," unless you have this Flaw. Fast Cast spells take less time that a round.

Is it completely ignored, or is it simply not stated and assumed understood at that point? Is there anything that shows this time required to cast a spell isn't the case? I'm not saying you're incorrect, but I don't recall anything off-hand, either. If there is nothing opposing this time, it could just be a misinterpretation of what is written for initiative instead.

ArM5 does say that being jostled during spell casting can cause the spell to fail by losing concentration. Is that not physically (jostling) interrupting spell casting (loss of concentration on the casting)?

Chris

46

But "understood" to be... what? That "stuff" can happen in combat? Doesn't sound like AM to me... the rules don't tend to make "assumptions" that tenuous.

(I've always assumed that's talking about "riding a horse" or "in a mob" or something that is ongoing, not an intentional attack by an adversary.)

But again - what does "during" mean? How much time does "during" allow? You are repeating these citations - they are undeniable, I utterly concede they are there (if perhaps in sections that are not directly combat-related). Yet we have yet to find any application of them within the Rules!

If you want to rule that it is longer than "instantaneous", fine - but then it just as clearly doesn't last the entire combat round. So where does that leave us - in the Rules, that is? How long before casting can one be "jostled"? Half the round? With an open-ended Initiative roll possible, that could go up into double-digits, how long is that? How long is a caster vulnerable to such - and from where in the Rules does one "understand" that?

And if it does take time, fine! Let's assume it does - done. Then Initiative must be when the spell "goes off", right? (I mean, since, if a mage acts on Initiative 7, the spell goes off on 7 - so the casting must have been occurring before then, even if an undefined time before then.) So if Initiative is when the spell "goes off", that casting must have occurred previous to that instant - and since we all(?) have agreed that fastcasting never occurs before the Initiative it's reacting to, we're back to any fastcasting being too late to stop the casting itself.

47

No, not assumed rules. Assumed understanding. That is, that having already twice stated that casting a spell takes time it doesn't need to be stated a third time. I agree with you that, regardless of where it is state elsewhere, it really should be stated in these sections and that assuming readers have read the earlier comments is risky. The reason I agree with you there is that rules are used more as reference than as a book that is read from cover to cover, so things need to be stated where they are likely to be looked up.

Chris

48

Now you and I are talking the same language... which leaves us with many questions and few answers. :cry:

Chris

49

So it has nothing to do with the problem in Nerhesi's OP, which consists of the Fast Casting Speed being typically higher than the Initiative Totals of magi? It was rather what a Fast-Cast spell would affect?

Then we come back to the targets of Fast-Cast spells.

You answered this yourself in a weird parenthesis of the same post:

Branching from that to discussions on timing between standard and Fast-Cast spells doesn't help, the ArM5 rules (also LoM p.117ff) are not made for this kind of detailed sequencing of interlacing actions.

Cheers

50

At the risk of a) being completely wrong (hey, it happens :wink:); and b) butting in when most of the rest of you are already bored with this discussion, here's my two penn'orth:

The OP's question seems to be:
Magus A (eg initiative 7) casts a spell (eg Ball of Abyssal Fire) at Magus B (eg Initiative 3). Normally, B would fast-cast a defense, preventing the original BoAF from reaching him. Then he gets to cast a spell on A, who in turn can also try a fast-cast defense.
However, what happens if B fast-casts an offensive spell at A? And is it better to be first or not?

Being first is best, in all 3 versions that I can think of.

Version A
The troupe rules that any reasonable response can include an attack and not just a defense.
A's BoAF will then hit B (if it penetrates, etc) and hurt him. This will happen regardless of any of the fast-cast events.
B needed a fast-cast 'initiative' that beats A's original one (eg of 7); his offensive fast-cast spell may or may not penetrate/harm A.
A will get his own fast-cast defense spell, which in my opinion still needs to match his own original initiative. It probably isn't worth A's while to do a fast-cast attack, but he can if he wants to. This would allow B's fast-cast offense to take effect which will now happen regardless of any of subsequent fast-cast events.
If A does do a fast-cast offense, then B would get another fast-cast opportunity, now needing to beat a much higher initiative total (7+6=13). Again, defense or offense. A can counter again, ad infinitum, until someone fails to achieve the higher and higher initiative requirements.

However, each round where an offensive fast-cast spell is attempted, there are more spells that have not been countered and will take effect.

After all that, B (if he is still alive - this is why it is better to go first - and not too fatigued) gets to cast his own actual spell on initiative 3 (NB the rules actually state that failing to achieve the required speed prevents any further spell-casting, but I think it should only prevent further fast-casting. And, if the troupe agrees, might only apply to each triggering event). Which A can then defend against. See above.

If B does a 'normal' fast-cast defense, I would not allow A any fast-casting - that B defended himself is not a surprise. The surprise or unexpected event would be if B attacked A.

Version B
The troupe rules that a fast-cast defense can only be a defense and no attacks are possible. This is contrary to the opening paragraph on fast-casting on p83, but implied in the bottom paragraph of the middle column where it uses the word 'defense' when using fast-casting against magic (it is not clear if alternatives eg offensive magic are allowed or prohibited). This method has several advantages, not least being the time each combat round takes.

Version C
The troupe decides that casting spells is interruptable, like it is/was in D&D 1st ed-3rd ed (I've never played 4th). In which case that troupe needs to come up with rules about how long formulaic and spontaneous spells take to cast, how easy it is to physically interrupt them as well, and probably several other ramifications. These rules do not currently exist, as shown by Callan and C'hound in their discussions, above.

I would go with version B, myself. It's the simplest and stops everyone playing non-magi getting really bored during combat. C requires some house rules, but might end up being pretty good.

As an aside, I lived through several iterations of similar arguments about instantaneous spells in Rolemaster. The publishers eventually came up with a rule that a mage could only cast a max of 4 of these a round...which did not help much since spellcasters with that type of spell were 4 times better than those who did not have them on their spell lists. What worked was a rule that a mage could cast one instantaneous defense spell in addition to his normal action of one spell of any type, since most defense spells were instantaneous.

51

This is exactly the situation I described earlier. The RAW are perfectly able to cope with this situation. You don't need to make up any rules.

B can do this. He needs to make a Fast Cast speed roll against A's Initiative (which is 7) --- he also needs to make the casting roll, of course (with a -10 Penalty for Fast Cast).

A can try to interrupt B's interruption of him (i.e. block the block). The Ease Factor to do this is 3 (B's Initiative Total).

B can then try to block the block of the block. The Ease Factor is still 7 (because he is reacting to A), but there is a -6 Penalty to the roll (because it is B's second attempt to Fast Cast). This can continue until the characters cannot cast fast enough, or they give up.

It is always better to go first.

52

Would you rule that the defending Magus B would not know what to cast as a defense, or even if a spell was being cast if Magus A has silent and subtle magic?

eg. Magus A is still winning initiative against Magus B, but B is not aware of the inbound magic so does not fast cast. Would he get a defense at all? There is no words or gestures to analyse for the form/tech defense spell, and no indication of hostility.

53

Categorically: No. There are no rules for actually interrupting/disrupting or otherwise preventing anyone casting a formulaic or spontaneous spell. All you can do is fast-cast a response. You can block the incoming magic; the original mage cannot do anything about that. If the defender does anything other than block the original spell, then the originator can fast-cast his own response (Version A, above). That is still not an interruption, and cannot 'block' the casting of a fast-cast defense.

Read my 'Version C' and check p83 and read C'hound and Callen's discussion.

54

If B cannot detect/notice anything, then I would not allow any fast-cast at all. If A were plainly visible and B were watching closely, and A's spell is a visible effect streaking towards him, then I would allow some sort of fast-cast, but with a penalty to the speed roll and without automatically knowing what the incoming spell did (there is a roll to determine non-hermetic effects and I would allow that).]

Sometimes the first moment you know you are under attack is when your Parma deflects a spell. And sometimes the first time you know is when you are creating a new character after your Parma failed...

55

I thought Mastery directly allowed fast casting as a valid option, with no real constraints mentioned. Seems reasonable to fast cast a harmful spell, as that may stop the other magus anyway - which kind of says that fast casts can be harmful (imho). I think the confusion is created by that last paragraph in the middle column of p83, which starts talking about "fast cast defense" in terms of perceiving the hermetic form, rather than straight "fast cast" above it. The two are separate, one is for trying to defend, where the earlier text is just for fast casting. A magus could just as easily fast cast a ReHe spell to stab somebody with their spear, as close a door.

I'm interested in why a magus who has selected to normal cast, and then fast casts instead would re-roll their dice (which I think I saw in an example in this thread) - wouldn't they just use the dice score as rolled and add their Finesse?

i.e. Normal (formu and spont) is Quickness +d, and Fast Cast just adds Finesse score?

My read is that if the Fast cast is quicker than the opponent's initiative action, then they can attempt to cast - otherwise they're out of luck. Too slow. This way two magi who fast cast against each other are just rolling fast cast initiative rather than normal spell initiative.

When we see the situations where Magus A is then trying to fast cast in reaction to what Magus B is fast casting, you should still just apply the finesse score to the original initiative roll, and see who wins. A magus with high finesse and high quickness should be quicker?

56

And therein lies the second half of my problem;

You can't fast-cast anytime you want... so, somehow, mages are capable of great feats of spell-casting during oh-shit moments. However, when perfectly ready, limbering up, and stretching? Sorry 1-spell a turn.

Nope. Don't buy it. Sorry :frowning:

This is of course apart from the whole who interrupts who - interestingly enough, you guys remember that you have to make a perception roll to see what the spell that is being cast is to try to fast cast a defence? So .. somehow, the option exists whereby you are fasting while they are still casting.

Sam W.

57

By the RAW, that Mastery allows FC'ing of that known, Mastered Formulaic spell - otherwise it's exactly the same as FC'ing a spont spell.

But I think there's room to houserule that FC'iing also allows a mage to cast more than one spell in a round. Maybe with an immediate -6 to the first FC after the primary casting (for balance), but I'd think it could work. (This does make magi far more terrifying on offense, especially in ambush situations.)

Without a serious reworking of the timing of a round (for both combat and magic), I don't think there's an easy way to model this with any more detail than that.

+1

If nothing else, the first caster gets to cast a spell on their Initiative, and then as many Fast-cast spells as their die-rolls will allow - once they miss, they're done. Once the second caster misses a fast-cast roll, they're done too - but then they do not get to cast on their initiative. So unless you're going to rework the timing to allow a FC spell to somehow actually "interrupt" the casting of a spell (which potentially raises all kinds of paradoxes/problems with Initiative), it's better to go first.

58

Yup, so would we be the ease-factor? Let say I'm trying to cast multiple spells against someone who is doing nothing. There has to be a baseline.. it can't be my initiative - because that would make it harder with no real need to do so. Maybe base EF of 3 or so.

59

With that houserule, if we assume that "average" Initiative is about 6 (based on stress die + 0 Quickness), and taking into account that such casting is largely self-initiated(*), I'd say that 3 is conservative, and "0" might be better - after all, the caster is starting the action, right? One standard spell starts things, then one fast-cast at -0 (or -6 if that sounds better for balance), and then others as the dice allow. Next round anyone left standing rolls initiative as normal.

(* In some ambushes, standard rules would apply as caster is "reacting" to a "surprising event" - the sudden arrival of the ambushee - and the SG would then set an Ease Factor as approp. In other ambushes, there is no rush to respond, the caster has plenty of time to choose when to start the festivities, and it would work as above.)

60

Quick question:

Do the Lords of Men optional rules allow for (fast casting) even when not interrupting? As in the scenario where I just want to cast many fast spells (not to be confused with multiple spells mastery)?

Sam W.