the LoM Optional Combat Rules allow you to interrupt another spell even with a normal spell (i. e. not Fast-Cast, no -10 to Casting Score, no +2 botch dice, most casting options available), provided you prepared to do so and delayed your action accordingly. But Fast-Casting remains special, in that it allows to quickly react with an interrupting spell even if surprised or unprepared - which one cannot do with dagger, sword or crossbow.
Fast-Casting is not meant by ArM5 as standard means to cast multiple spells quickly - and the lousy Penetration and added botch dice for any spell Fast-Cast would discourage most magi anyway from that. Typically only those magi with maxed out Finesse and some aimed Rego magic not needing to penetrate (Vilano style Flambeau or such) might benefit, if it were possible. The others master their spells anyway.
Thanks - I find it useful, that fast-cast high penetration spells can also work - especially when fast-cast with the multiple cast mastery.
Something like CreoIgnem +15 dmg spell with Mastery 3 (fast cast, multiple cast, penetration) - from a mage with a major or minor focus in the correct field. Now, I know you're considering botch dice, but mastery is also reducing it by 3, and considering the sheer amount of rolls, all it could take is a single 1 - and you end up with a Mage who is now unconscious or or dead.
You are right, its not very common especially with the -10 on fast cast; but it's better than just casting the one spell a turn. (Id risk rolling 1 botch die per botch, for the ability to cast 12 instead of 4 pilum's of fire or whatever they're called) - especially when you consider that if I'm doing so, I am probably in a bad situation.
Hmm- I didn't even take into account familiar cords - on average, a mastery 3 spell, you're looking at -3 botch dice from mastery, -2 from familiar - so -5 botch dice. Zero botch dice (mastery can reduce to 0).
Thanks for your reply, I was hoping to find something official (never played 4th edition but I did notice something on the character sheet about multiple castings) - but it looks like I will stick to the "fast cast vs 0".
Perhaps we can simply consider making a fast cast roll, and for every 6 points of the result, you can cast an additional spell at that speed roll or slower... meh; requires more thinking.
Sorry I skipped a couple pages of this. Um could this be a case of the magic rules being more complex than the rest of the combat rules. If I'm getting this right the sequence could be:
Magus A: BoAF(Feint)
Magus B: Fast Cast Defense (block)
Magus A: Fast Cast Pilum of Flame (intended attack)
Magus B: Can't role high enough to respond, gets burned.
The problems comes from the sequence of
Magus A: BoAF (feint)
Magus B: Suck my Parma, Fast Cast Pilum of Flame
Magus A: Fails fast cast role, gets burned.
The problem seems to be that the 5th ed Parma rules. In earlier editions anything that penetrated was likely to fry the target. Under current rules penetrating spells may do low enough damage that they can be ignored.
Oh, also I don't think you can simply teleport 50 feet and be out of range of a voice spell that does not require a finesse roll. If you try the spell swerves and hits you.
I'd argue the opposite of that - if the Magus can move out of voice range (subject to the voice used), then the spell effect ends before it reaches the target.
i.e. Two Magi stand 10 paces apart, as A and B.
A and B roll their cast times, Qui + d10; as A = 12, B = 9.
A - is the Quicker starts a Formul spell, as a flaming wave with voice range. Casts normal voice.
B - rolls to detect form + effect and passes.
B - adjusts casting to fast-cast a Formul teleport spell (mastered), re-calcs speed to include finesse (+4) to fast cast, and beats Magus A's speed now with 13.
B - rolls to cast at -10, and passes. Appears 50 feet away.
A - completes flaming wave spell, but target is out of voice range. the spell expires before hitting B.
Outcome: If A had yelled, then it would have probably hit B; depending on how many yards you think speaking vs yelling covers.
To my suss the issue in this topic was that magi could (potentially) fast cast a response against a fast cast defense roll, and that in some circumstances it appears that being 2nd was better. I think the outcome of the thread was the RAW indicate that being first is better (from what I've remembered). At a certain point it gets stupid from a pragmatic sense that each wizard could interrupt each other over and over, and that so much action could happen in a single round (3-5 seconds).
As a response I tend to say that a Magi can make one set of casting attempts per round; and that their actions must complete their casting. Thus they can drop the normal speed spell and decide to fast-cast, but they do not then also get to cast normally in that round. It makes it touch though to think they a magus can't defend against a spell after their action, and then perhaps magi should always get a defense against something inbound, but it creates the same problem of too many actions per round.
I'm also a fan of using the Initiative rolls as the driver for who acts first for fast cast and normal speed:
Weapon normal = Qui + WpnSpd - Enc +d10
Spell Normal: Qui - Enc + d10
Spell Fast-cast = Qui+Fin +d10
This way you can resolve really quickly if a Magus can actually intercept the inbound fast cast or normal speed spell, just by using the Initiative. It means that Quickness becomes a darn handy stat for magi and that weapons and spells start to interact far more dynamically.
(I'm sure opinions would vary on whether you missed anything, but possibly. Essentially, canon was cited supporting the position that there are no rules for how the "casting" of a spell can be deliberately, specifically interrupted (by a FC spell or otherwise), but it was also pointed out that other parts of the rules imply this should be (somehow) possible, and that for some Players it would certainly be a desirable part of combat.)
Yes and no.
It's a case of "timing", specifically using timing to determine "interruption", being loosely defined in the basic rules, both combat and magic. In this thread, the interruption requires one to know how long it takes to cast a spell, and so how long the opportunity exists to interrupt that casting - and that simply is not defined.
It's not that Mage A would fail the FC roll, the roll would (presumably) succeed - it's the Penetration that fails.
Again, it depends on "timing", and your Troupe's interpretation of that. If the spell has already "targeted" the victim, then teleporting might just carry the spell effect with the teleporter - that's one reading (tho' a rather radical one). Otoh, if the spell has not hit yet, but is "forming" (or something) when the FC defense effect occurs, then the victim is long gone and (in this example) beyond Range when the spell actually takes effect.
Essentially, canon was cited supporting the position that there are no rules for how the "casting" of a spell can be deliberately, specifically interrupted (by a FC spell or otherwise), but it was also pointed out that other parts of the rules imply this