True. I wasn't saying that you shouldn't ask for it in the errata thread. (Indeed, I asked for clarity in the examples thread and someone kindly copied the meat of that post in this one.) I was obliquely pointing out that the rule isn't just hard to find in the rules. Rather, it's missing entirely. As often happens, I dashed off a quick note, and wasn't specific enough. Mea culpa.
It is in the rules, but hard to find, spread out over several sentences in different places, and hard to find.
Did I mention it is hard to find?
"Treat the total as
an attack total (see âCombatâ on page 171). If
the âattackâ hits, the spell effect is in the right
place; what effect this has depends on the spell."
Core rulebook, p86
So you calculate an attack total to see if the attack hits, but have to check the spell description to see what happens if it hits.
"If the Attack Total exceeds the Defense Total, the
attack has hit. The Attack Advantage is the
amount by which your Attack Total exceeds
your opponentâs Defense Total."
Core rules p172
That part is pretty clear as far as it goes and tells us how to us the Attack Total calculate if a spell hit or not, but it does not tell us what do with the Attack Advantage for spells.
Then on page 181 under "Injuries" we find the little sentence "These rules are also used for calculating
damage inflicted by spells."
So if the rules on p181 are used for calculating spell damage, then clearly Attack Advantage isn't used for calculating spell damage.
So the rule is there and is pretty clear once you have found it, but having to look in a section talking mostly about non-combat damage in order to find out how to calculate spell damage isn't exactly what I'd call intuitive.
2 Likes
Actually, it's more unclear than that, because (as you noted) that sentence is tacked on to the end of a section detailing non-combat damage. So, given the language on p. 171 referring to an attack total, the divide between combat damage and non-combat damage, and the location of that sentence, it seems reasonable to conclude that it's referring to damage from spells that occurs outside of combat, where an Attack Advantage won't be generated due to the lack of an Attack Total. Rules that are stated by implication in sections that muddy the waters to the point that multiple interpretations are highly likely (compounded by having portions of them spread across multiple sections of the book, tens of pages away from each other), rather than plainly, explicitly, and clearly, are rules that are effectively missing as far as I'm concerned.
Hmmm... Apologies for the rant. 
1 Like
Note that it doesn't say these rules are used for all spells, just that they're used for spells. And if a spell already has a method with Attack and Defense Totals, does it need another? It really isn't clear one way or the other in the books, and you cannot logically fix it one way or the other based on what is written in the books. It still comes down to a judgement call.
But without any other qualification that does mean all spells, unless there is some exception listed somewhere.
Such as that this is for non-combat stuff and that aiming works with Attack and Defense Totals, which are specifically combat stuff?
Nope, not like that.
The section on aiming just says that the Attack Total is used for figuring out if the spell hit, and that the effect of a hit depends on the spell. No mention of using the Attack Total to figure out the effect, or anything about Attack Advantage.
Then we have the following statement on p116
"Many spells have damage listed in the form +X. This is an abbreviation for stress die +X. The damage inflicted by such spells varies from one casting to another."
If spells do "stress die +X" damage, then they can't be using Attack Advantage for calculation since that does not involve any die but instead adds the Attack Advantage to calculate damage.
It does however match the rules on p181 just fine.
If you really think it's so simple for spells, please explain how you calculate damage from The Treacherous Spear.
1 Like
Since you ask so nicely 
That spell clearly works differently from most spells. In particular it does not do "+X" damage.
The crucial part of the description is "Once the weapon breaks free or is released, it attacks its wielder, using his Attack and Damage scores."
My reading is that it uses the normal rules for melee combat, with Attack Total and Damage Total calculated as if it was wielded by its (former) wielder.
One point which is unclear is what happens if the wielder of the weapon botches when trying to hang on.
The description says "the wielder loses control of the weapon and is hit by it automatically".
If it is an automatic hit the normal attack resolution cannot be used, since that can result in a miss.
My ruling would be to do the attack as normal, but use a Defense Total of zero (same as with a botch in normal melee) and then calculate Attack Advantage and damage from that.
The simple fix is to alter the Aiming and Combat sections.
Under Aiming (p.86), after, "...what effect this has depends on the spell.":
Add, "Unless stated otherwise in the spell description, damage for spells is determined as shown under Injuries on p. 181."
In the combat section, just after the Missile Combat sub-heading (p.172):
Add a "Spell Combat" sub-heading with a very short paragraph that reads, "Attack and damage are handled differently for most spells; see Aiming on p. 86 and Injuries on p. 181 for details".
Suddenly, all ambiguity is removed, because the rules are now explicit about which formula to use, and the pertinent rules are referenced in all of the portions of the rules where they are relevant. Without those explicit statements and references, the rules simply are not what I would ever consider clear on the subject.
3 Likes
Yes. My point is that we're agreeing that there are times, even in core, when combat spells deal damage via combat methods rather than the non-combat methods. Meanwhile, there were no core Vilano-style attacks at the time.
1 Like
Serf's parma, so not an exact quote.
Grogs p65 states that you may take up to 7 points of negative characteristics at chargen, and, IIRC, references the corebook for that. It even has a nice chart displaying possible values for characteristics based on that.
While I happen to like this rule, I have never seen it anywhere else.
I see 3 options:
- Remove it through errata
- Add it to the core
- Change it so that it only applies to grogs, which, anyway, would probably need it to be stated in the corebook.
1 Like
This would require tracking down and errata'ing far too many existing characters to be a realistic option. Even just in the core book, the Ex Misc template has eight points negative.
Oh, here's another that is very hard to find, as I don't think any guidance other than some examples has ever been given:
When do MuVi spells need to be Form-specific v. when can they work across Forms?
5 Likes
In... Between Sand of See, p112, there's a description of a caste of craftsmen.
It includes additional detail for Superior and Wondrous items, first introduced in... City and Guild I believe?
Namely that, while Superior items (those that grant a +1 bonus) are usable by anyone, Excellent items must be tailored for a specific user to give any bonus, otherwise, they act as "just" superior items.
So if Roberto of Flambeau gets made an Excellent Sword, custom-made, tailored for his hand, height and fighting style, which gives +3 to Attack and Damage, and it gets stolen by a thief, the thief can only use it as a Superior sword with, say, +1 to attack.
Not only is this clarification easily forgotten by those who have both books, but knowing it requires a later, very saga-specific book
3 Likes
Does anyone have anything to add here?
1 Like
One thing I had to look around a fair bit for was a clear answer to whether defense totals could go into the negatives (in the end I found a bit in LoM which said that helpless characters have a defense total of â10 which I took to mean that negative defense totals in general are a thing which can happen). It is never stated that they can't, but it isn't necessarily obvious that they can. This could perhaps use a definitive statement?
2 Likes
Also, if they can be negative, a note whether a Defense Botch increases it to zero (unlikely, but...), or if not, what does happen on a botch.
1 Like
What happens if you attack someone that are unaware of you? Say, sniping (with a crossbow, obviously) or a blow from ambush.
Do they generate a defense total?
1 Like
They do generate a defense total in that case.
"A character who comes under at-
tack nearly always gets a Defense roll, even if
he doesnât see the attack coming (though he
would suffer major penalties to his Defense
Total in that case)." (LoM p124)