Members | Sign In
All Forums > Rules and Mechanics
avatar

Spell casting times?

posted Jan 28, 2013 18:53:42 by thomas5251212
This is primarily in regard to sorcery here.

It seems like any sorcerer who doesn't want to have to get right up to a target he is trying to deal with offensive magic is going to be operating quite slowly with the 1 round per Shaping point used rule. At best, he's getting off a spell every other round, and most I'd expect would be doing so every three rounds.

While I'm not going to deny Wrack (a spell which, after all, bypasses armor) and the few other offensive spells could be effective, but I'm not sure they're so much more so at the typical starting levels (even a nearly maxed out adult sorcerer is only going to be somewhere in the 50-60% range far as I can tell from the character generation system) to justify the time involved.

Even the optional Swiftness manipulation only seems to help so much here as I'd think that the combination of manipulations would get prohibitively pricey here (getting it down to one round would be 5 points combined with the above range shift, which unless its easier to bank up magic points for a sorcerer than my current reading suggests seems kind of prohibitive.

I almost wonder if the desire to put Range and Duration on the same table as Combine and Targets didn't influence this decision (since I can see some reasons not to want to put some extra limitation on someone's abilities to blitz 4-5 targets at once or roll together a nasty cocktail of spells a bit more than I can the desire to keep ranges tight or the largely meaningless time limitation duration boosting).

Is RQ6 really supposed to be slanted that strongly toward traditional sword-and-sorcery style games in its orientation? Because I can see that's a very good mechanic for the Conans of the world to want to get up on top of the evil sorcerers before they get that lightning bolt off but it might be a little less amusing to the players of the Dilvishes of the game as the howling savages descend on them while they're trying to get a spell off.
page   1
5 replies
avatar
bluefenix42 said Jan 28, 2013 18:59:04
I believe it is 1 ACTION per shaping point used, not 1 round, which makes a pretty big difference. The Sorcerer in my game has 3 AP per round, so he can easily cast a shaped spell in 1 round, or maybe 2 if it's heavily modified.
avatar
bluefenix42 said Jan 28, 2013 19:01:04
And actually, I should clarify even more - it's 1 action per type of shaping, not per shaping point. So, if a Sorcerer only modifies range and nothing else, that's a 2 MP, 2 action spell, no matter how much he increases the range by.
avatar
thomas5251212 said Jan 28, 2013 19:03:35
Ah, I misread it then. That's a lot more reasonable, though I'm still not sure the jump between touch range and, say, 10 meters particularly justifies the extra action. But at least its not likely to be debilitating in its time consumption.
avatar
bluefenix42 said Jan 28, 2013 19:09:09
though I'm still not sure the jump between touch range and, say, 10 meters particularly justifies the extra action.


10 meters is pretty far in a game where most characters and monsters only move around 6 to 8 meters per round (unless charging, which has its own pros and cons). That's plenty far enough to mess with an enemy without needing to engage him in melee, especially if you have allies keeping the foes off of you.

And remember, a sorcerer with 15 Pow and Shaping 50% can decide he wants to go 5 steps up the range table, putting him at a range of 20 * 15 = 300 meters (if I remember the table right), and it *still* only costs him 2 MP and 2 Actions to do so.
avatar
thomas5251212 said Jan 28, 2013 19:27:42
I realize that, but its the difference at the bottom end that seems more punishing than it should be.

(Figured out my mistake; I subconsciously carried over the idea from earlier editions that each level of manipulation would cost a magic point rather than each type (you'll see that in my first post) so when it said the action cost was normally the same as the magic point cost...)
Login below to reply: