group buff spells

[Alrik Vas]

Are there any spells in any palladium game that buff a group, specifically run speed?

[Nekira Sudacne]

The only one I know of are Protection Circle and Protection Circle Superior.


Palladium really never went for group buffs as a concept.

[Glistam]

"Group" buff spells that increase running speed? Listed are the closest things I could find. I did not include any spells that only affect one person at a time, or ones which only bestow flying or swimming speed. A magic casters best bet though would be to use spells that slow down the enemy, such as Carpet of Adhesion, Magic Net, any of the Wall spells, and so on, rather than trying to increase the speed of the group.

From the Rifts: Book of Magic

Invocations:
Superhuman Endurance (page 109) has a range of "Self or one person up to 10 feet away or two by touch." While this won't necessarily make those enchanted run faster, it will allow them to run at their top speed without tiring for the duration of the magic, which is two solid hours.
Ley Line Time Flux (page 129) has a range of "Self and one other per level of experience) and one of its effects is to speed up time for those affected such that "Skill performance, duties and travel time/distance travelled takes half the time they would normally."

And that was it. I thought I'd find more in other books, or in other games outside of Rifts, but so far my search has come up empty (remember, a minimum of two targets affected at once).

[drewkitty ~..~]

Fly as the eagle and Cleanse are the only multiple target spells I can think off on top of my head.

[Alrik Vas]

Thanks guys. Got someone who is fixed on this sort of thing and I didn't know where to start.

[Glistam]

Some of the African tribal magic seemed group-oriented in general but there was nothing that I saw to increase speed.

Palladium Fantasy circle makers can protect and even buff a group, but the people being affected have to stay in the circle. Can Ward magic work to the benefit of those around it, or is it only always to the detriment of those who set it off?

Nazcan Line magic has some cool buff-type effects that could be prepared ahead of time, and uneashed when needed - but they would still activate one at a time.

Those are some more ideas, I hope they help.

[The Beast]

Technically speaking, any spell with a range of "touch" can be cast on more than one target per casting.

[Glistam]

Technically speaking, any spell with a range of "touch" can be cast on more than one target per casting.

Some spells simply say "touch" in their range, while others say "two by touch." Unless it specifies "two by touch" then "touch" only means one person.

[The Beast]

Technically speaking, any spell with a range of "touch" can be cast on more than one target per casting.

Some spells simply say "touch" in their range, while others say "two by touch." Unless it specifies "two by touch" then "touch" only means one person.

If that was true, then there would be no need for a spell to specify "one other by touch."

[eliakon]

Technically speaking, any spell with a range of "touch" can be cast on more than one target per casting.

Some spells simply say "touch" in their range, while others say "two by touch." Unless it specifies "two by touch" then "touch" only means one person.

If that was true, then there would be no need for a spell to specify "one other by touch."

Easy, if the spell DOESNT say 'other' in the description then you cant cast it on another person. (that and decades of cut and paste of course). So some buffs are self (only self), some are buff (one other) by touch, some are buff (two, or how ever many) by touch, some are one other by ranged.....
I would defiantly say that any statement that spells can have multiple targets would need some sort of explicit statement someplace, as that's a pretty.....impressive power bump. Though of course in your game do as you wilt shall be the whole of the law and all that.

[The Beast]

Technically speaking, any spell with a range of "touch" can be cast on more than one target per casting.

Some spells simply say "touch" in their range, while others say "two by touch." Unless it specifies "two by touch" then "touch" only means one person.

If that was true, then there would be no need for a spell to specify "one other by touch."

Easy, if the spell DOESNT say 'other' in the description then you cant cast it on another person. (that and decades of cut and paste of course). So some buffs are self (only self), some are buff (one other) by touch, some are buff (two, or how ever many) by touch, some are one other by ranged.....
I would defiantly say that any statement that spells can have multiple targets would need some sort of explicit statement someplace, as that's a pretty.....impressive power bump. Though of course in your game do as you wilt shall be the whole of the law and all that.

Show me the book & page where it says that a range of touch = 1 person.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Technically speaking, any spell with a range of "touch" can be cast on more than one target per casting.

Spells are constructs of exception. that is, spells break the normal rules of the game in the manner discribed under the effects of each spell. unless a spell says specifically it can be used for X, it cannot. Unless a spell says it can effect more than one target, it cannot, weather or not the range is touch has no effect on the number of targets you can hit.

All spells by default have a target. some say "self", some say "within range", some say "touch", and some other variants. some have more than one possible range.

"touch" does not say "however many you can touch", it says "You touch the target of the spell". without something to say that there is more than one target available, you cannot assume that is what is the spell is implying.

Asking for "So where does it say specifically that i'm wrong" is a fallacy. unless you have a line proving you're right, it fails on it's own merits, weather or not any other interpretation is supported.

[The Beast]

Technically speaking, any spell with a range of "touch" can be cast on more than one target per casting.

Spells are constructs of exception. that is, spells break the normal rules of the game in the manner discribed under the effects of each spell. unless a spell says specifically it can be used for X, it cannot. Unless a spell says it can effect more than one target, it cannot, weather or not the range is touch has no effect on the number of targets you can hit.

All spells by default have a target. some say "self", some say "within range", some say "touch", and some other variants. some have more than one possible range.

"touch" does not say "however many you can touch", it says "You touch the target of the spell". without something to say that there is more than one target available, you cannot assume that is what is the spell is implying.

Asking for "So where does it say specifically that i'm wrong" is a fallacy. unless you have a line proving you're right, it fails on it's own merits, weather or not any other interpretation is supported.

Sorry I didn't get back sooner. Page 125 of WB16 specifies that spells with a range of "touch" can be cast on two people per casting unless the spell states otherwise.

[Glistam]

Technically speaking, any spell with a range of "touch" can be cast on more than one target per casting.

Spells are constructs of exception. that is, spells break the normal rules of the game in the manner discribed under the effects of each spell. unless a spell says specifically it can be used for X, it cannot. Unless a spell says it can effect more than one target, it cannot, weather or not the range is touch has no effect on the number of targets you can hit.

All spells by default have a target. some say "self", some say "within range", some say "touch", and some other variants. some have more than one possible range.

"touch" does not say "however many you can touch", it says "You touch the target of the spell". without something to say that there is more than one target available, you cannot assume that is what is the spell is implying.

Asking for "So where does it say specifically that i'm wrong" is a fallacy. unless you have a line proving you're right, it fails on it's own merits, weather or not any other interpretation is supported.

Sorry I didn't get back sooner. Page 125 of WB16 specifies that spells with a range of "touch" can be cast on two people per casting unless the spell states otherwise.

This ruling was so obscure it took the one person who remembered reading it 108 days to find it again.

However, to be a little more clear... here's the actual wording:

Touch means that the magic’s effects can only be transmitted through physical contact. In many cases (but not all) a spell caster can place magic on two people with one spell by touching both at the same time. Most spells where this is not possible will state it, but when in doubt the G.M. always has the final say.

Although two paragraphs before that excerpt, on the same page at the beginning of this section about Range was this:

Range indicates the maximum distance the magic can be cast. It may be limited to "X" number of feet, "X" number of feet per level, touch, or radius (area of a spell's effect). Unless stated otherwise, it is assumed that a spell affects only one character at a time. All area affect spells will define its radius of effect.

So in the end, everybody's right and everybody's wrong. Defer to your local Game Master's interpretation.

[Mlp7029]

I used the spell modification rules from Through the Glass Darkly to create these:

Supernatural Superhuman Speed
Range: Self or others by touch.
Duration: One minute day per level of experience.
Saving Throw: None.
P.P.E.: Ten Forty
Level: Six Eight
The invocation bestows the character with the equivalent of a Speed attribute of 44 (equal to 30 mph/48 km) and adds a bonus of +2 to parry and +6 to dodge for the duration of the magic. All movement during this period are done without fatigue.

Supernatural Superhuman Strength
Range: Self or others by touch.
Duration: 2 melees days per level of experience.
Saving Throw: None.
P.P.E.: Ten Forty Eight
Level: Six Eight
The incantation magically gives the character a Supernatural P.S. of 30.

You could something similar to add an area effect instead of extending duration.

[Tor]

If that was true, then there would be no need for a spell to specify "one other by touch."

I guess the question is... how many people can you touch? A ley line walker who is a titan would have more skin to spare than a gnome, for example.

I would also definitely take it literally, as in 'no gloves, no armor', fleshy contact needed for touch spells. If someone is going to exploit this to help dozens of people then they better strip.

if the spell DOESNT say 'other' in the description then you cant cast it on another person.

I think that would only be the case if it said 'self' alone. If it didn't say 'self' or 'other' then I would assume it to mean 'self or other' since otherwise no target would be specified at all.

Spells are constructs of exception
spells break the normal rules of the game in the manner discribed under the effects of each spell
unless a spell says specifically it can be used for X, it cannot
Unless a spell says it can effect more than one target, it cannot

This is based on the idea that the default status of a spell is to affect a single target? Is this printed anywhere?

"touch" does not say "however many you can touch", it says "You touch the target of the spell".

It doesn't say either of those two things. The first is inclusive, the second is exclusive. I default to inclusive interpretations when things are vague.

without something to say that there is more than one target available, you cannot assume that is what is the spell is implying.

If the default were 1-only then 1-only statements would be pointless in spells. Rather than seeing 'two by touch' as an expansion on a 1-only default, perhaps we can see it as a restriction from a 'three by touch' possibility implied by touch.

Asking for "So where does it say specifically that i'm wrong" is a fallacy. unless you have a line proving you're right, it fails on it's own merits, weather or not any other interpretation is supported.

If we explicitly need a "2 by touch" to affect 2, then shouldn't we need a "1 by touch" to affect 1? Otherwise the default would be 0-by-touch.

Page 125 of WB16 specifies that spells with a range of "touch" can be cast on two people per casting unless the spell states otherwise.

Nice find! Although I'm not sure it's being perfectly paraphrased. The exact thing is:

In many cases a spell caster can place magic on two people with one spell...
Most spells where this is not possible will state it

This means that there are some spells where it is not possible to double-cast which do not state it is not possible. But since they are in the minority, it means we would have to do a tally.

If we tally up spells which do not state the impossibility of 2-touch and compare it to the number of spells which do state the impossibility of 2-touch, the first group must exceed the second, so we are limited in how many in the first we outlaw 2-touch for because those plus the second group cannot exceed the remainder of the first which must be 2-touch.

Although two paragraphs before that excerpt, on the same page at the beginning of this section about Range was this:

Unless stated otherwise, it is assumed that a spell affects only one character at a time.

So in the end, everybody's right and everybody's wrong.

The entry under 'touch' trumps this bit under range.

"It is assumed" is not an authoritative declaration. It can be dismissed as the attitudes of some spell-casters rather than an actual rule. Phrases like "will state" and "not possible" are far stronger.

[eliakon]

How is "it is assumed" to be lest valid than "many spells" and "most"
It would seem to me that we have two things here, that would add up to:
Spells as a general rule target one person. Many (but by no means all) spells that can be transmitted by touch can get around this and affect two people.
As usual exceptions will exist and are exceptions.

[The Beast]

If that was true, then there would be no need for a spell to specify "one other by touch."

I guess the question is... how many people can you touch? A ley line walker who is a titan would have more skin to spare than a gnome, for example.

It's another vague rule. Is it that magic can only be cast on two people through touch per casting, or is it because the rule's written as if you're playing someone with only two arms & hands, and PB figured that we'd be able to know that those with more than that can cast upon additional targets?

If it's the former, then it sucks for mages with additional arms & hands/tentacles.

[Lukterran]

List of the Best Buff spells in Palladium Fantasy.

Stats and Combat:
- Fleet Feet
- Superhuman Speed
- Superhuman Strength
- Size of Behemoth
- Strength of Utgard Loki

Movement and Stealth:
- Chameleon
- Fly as an Eagle
- Swim as a Fish
- Invisibility
- Turn to Mist

Armor:
- Armor of Ithan
- Impervious to Energy
- Invulnerability

Languages and Sight
- Tongues
- Eyes of Thoth
- Eyes of the Wolf

[eliakon]

List of the Best Buff spells in Palladium Fantasy.

Stats and Combat:
- Fleet Feet
- Superhuman Speed
- Superhuman Strength
- Size of Behemoth
- Strength of Utgard Loki

Movement and Stealth:
- Chameleon
- Fly as an Eagle
- Swim as a Fish
- Invisibility
- Turn to Mist

Armor:
- Armor of Ithan
- Impervious to Energy
- Invulnerability

Languages and Sight
- Tongues
- Eyes of Thoth
- Eyes of the Wolf

Why does everyone leave off Invisibility: Superior, Shadow Meld, Lifeblast and the like when making 'awesome buff lists'?
If I am buffed so that you can't see me .... well the surprise attack rules are rather harsh
And Life Blast is not JUST a super anti necro/anti vamp weapon... its ALSO a pretty potent buff spell.
(there are a TON of other great buffs out there that are not in the core PF book....but making a proper list of all of them would take quite a bit of time and a decision as to what game lines/version we were going to take spells from, and the exact definitions of spell and.....)

[Lukterran]

List of the Best Buff spells in Palladium Fantasy.

Stats and Combat:
- Fleet Feet
- Superhuman Speed
- Superhuman Strength
- Size of Behemoth
- Strength of Utgard Loki

Movement and Stealth:
- Chameleon
- Fly as an Eagle
- Swim as a Fish
- Invisibility
- Turn to Mist

Armor:
- Armor of Ithan
- Impervious to Energy
- Invulnerability

Languages and Sight
- Tongues
- Eyes of Thoth
- Eyes of the Wolf

Why does everyone leave off Invisibility: Superior, Shadow Meld, Lifeblast and the like when making 'awesome buff lists'?
If I am buffed so that you can't see me .... well the surprise attack rules are rather harsh
And Life Blast is not JUST a super anti necro/anti vamp weapon... its ALSO a pretty potent buff spell.
(there are a TON of other great buffs out there that are not in the core PF book....but making a proper list of all of them would take quite a bit of time and a decision as to what game lines/version we were going to take spells from, and the exact definitions of spell and.....)

Well invisibility superior is on the list. I just called it invisibility

Shadow Meld - Almost made the list (I normally use that and Chameleon together). However, since again a simple Globe or Daylight or Torch can really screw up your invisiblity I didn't list it.

Life Blast isn't a "core" Palladium Fantasy spell. If you start bring in all spells from all the different Rifts, Necromancers etc. than the list gets crazy.

You would have to put "Death Strike", "Strength of the Whale" and "Strength of the Dead" on the list for sure.

[Mouser13]

Well that why I give talismans out to each character.