Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk Palladium Fantasy.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

Can your Wizards and Priests Cast and fight in HTH

Wizards and Priests can fight and cast spells.
12
71%
Wizards and Priests can't fight and cast spells.
3
18%
What are you talking about?
2
12%
 
Total votes: 17

User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

I'm just curious how may people play with this rule, because I must say I don't, and won't, because I think it hampers the wizard too much in a fight.
Imagine how much easier it would be to fight a Dragon. Dragon casts a spell in a fight, now can't parry, dodge or attack for the round, and the fact that it was hit means the spell doesn't go off anyway. (well %90 chance anyway)
User avatar
Whiskeyjack
Adventurer
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:35 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, NW Ontario

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Whiskeyjack »

I'm still tweaking my magic house rules, but I'm aiming for spells being cast faster as the caster levels up as well as a way to disrupt spells. It takes more than making a mage move though. Their attention has to be drawn away from the spell (HF or awe) or you have to hit them hard enough that the injury will stop the casting. Still working on the exact method,
User avatar
Soldier of Od
Hero
Posts: 996
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:32 am
Location: Great Britain

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Soldier of Od »

If a wizard or dragon casts a spell it doesn't mean they can't take part in any combat after that. If the spell has been cast it can't be interrupted after the casting is complete! The rule is that combat may (90% chance) interrupt spell casting, so I interpret that as a wizard can cast level one and two spells (which only take one attack to cast and therefore can't be interrupted) with no problems during combat, but higher level spells that take longer than that could be interrupted if they dodge, parry or take damage. Dodging uses an attack anyway, so for me it makes sense that the spell would interrupted, as the wizard is now performing a different action with their following attack. Same as if the wizard began to cast a spell and then changed their mind and chose to hit someone with their next attack.

Mysteries of Magic changes the rule slightly in that a wizard may only be distracted if they take more than 8 points of damage. So if they were wearing armour and the damage is absorbed by their armour I would say the are not distracted because they haven't taken any damage. This enables a wizard to simply stand his ground and choose not to defend himself from an incoming attack, concentrating on the casting of the spell in the hope that his Armour of Ithan will absorb the blow. Same with natural A.R. of dragons and other creatures - if they don't take any damage then there is no need to roll to see if they have broken concentration. I hadn't thought about big things like dragons - maybe I would up the minimum damage for some creatures from 8 points to something higher (80?!).
Rifter Contributor:
Rifter 61 – Purebred animal templates for Mutants in Avalon (After the Bomb)
Rifter 77 & 78 – Khemennu, City of the Eighteen Cosmic Gods (Palladium Fantasy)
Rifter 83 – The Prophet O.C.C. (Palladium Fantasy)
Rifter 83 – Half-Ogres (Palladium Fantasy)
Rifter 84 – Spellbound O.C.C. (Nightbane)
Rifter 85 – Relics of Empire: Elven Cities of the Old Kingdom (Palladium Fantasy)
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

For whoever has no idea what I'm talking about, palladium has a rule that wizards and priests can't fight in hth combat and cast spells, so if you strike, parry, or dodge you can't cast spells, and if you take damage it has %90 chance of interrupting the spell.

Page 46 left hand column second paragraph down for second ed.
Magic Attacks: Most men of magic get two spell attacks per melee
round (each spell casting counts as two or three melee attacks). A spell
caster actively engaged in hand to hand combat, parrying, dodging, and
taking damage cannot focus enough to cast a spell. There is a 1-90%
likelihood that a spell caster will lose his concentration if struck a painful
blow, preventing the casting of a spell. Note: this applies to both
men of magic and clergy


Mysteries of Magic up this to 9 pts (8 points won't do it) for a wizard harry, but it also says a dodge isn't likely to break his concentration, but being gagged/prevented from speaking will stop his casting (yaay). But this is very specific for wizards. Looks like wizards get the update but priests don't (doh).

and apparently you can't stop a warlock casting at all, but you can priests. Down side to using the specific OCC word, as spell caster slips into a blurb at the start, but then not from there.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Prysus »

Greetings and Salutations. This is a topic I have strong opinions on, but I'll also admit that this is probably the less popular opinion. Practitioners of Magic and Clergy can cast spells and fight in hand to hand combat, just not at the same time. Wielding mystic energies to break the laws of physics and reshape reality by sheer force of will is something I'm okay with you NOT being able to multi-task during. Casting magic requires concentration and focus, and if you're focusing on other things then you won't be very effective in combat.

Magic users aren't actually weak in combat though. They can't cast magic well in combat. Be smart. If someone is in melee range, don't try to cast a spell that is likely to be interrupted. Have friends that will protect you. Draw a sword or staff and fight, because Practitioners of Magic and Clergy can fight in hand to hand just as well as a Men of Arms. Use the right tool for the job. Mysteries of Magic has spells level 1-2 cost only 1 action so use something like Blinding Flash to impair the opponent and then get some distance. Magic users have lots of options that don't involve just mindlessly trying to cast a spell while others interrupt them. Like in D&D, a Rogue can complain that he can't keep up with the Fighter and Barbarian as a frontline combatant, but that just means the player doesn't recognize the character's weaknesses and isn't playing up his strengths.

Note 1: I'd let most of the same things that interrupt a magic user also interrupt things like a Long Bowman spending two shots for a Special Aimed Shot, or a Mercenary doing a Power Punch (two actions).

Note 2: When all is said and done, I'm okay with magic users in Palladium being difficult to interrupt. I just don't believe it should be free. Power should come at a cost. I'm also okay with tougher magic users in other settings (Fairy Tail comes to mind), but don't believe this fits into the Palladium system nearly as well (again, at least not without a cost).

The mechanic from the PF2 main book doesn't cast spells in attacks per melee. This makes sense if you can't use them as the same time, but becomes cumbersome and ineffective if you want to mesh them together. You can only cast two spells of level 5 in a melee round (15 seconds). Your character has 4 attacks at level 1. Saying a spell costs 2 attacks is simple enough, yes? Now what happens when you get to 6 attacks? Can you cast 3 spells (ignoring the rule), or do the spells now cast over 3 actions? Do you still cast 2 spells at 2 actions and then let the last two be hand to hand options*? What about when you're at 5 or 7 attacks?

*For note, this would be my personal ruling, but if you take a hand to hand action any time before that then you can't cast for the rest of the round. I could explain in more detail the reasons for that being my ruling, if desired.

The concept of a magic user being weak in combat and being interrupted with physical confrontation is supported in PF2 main book, RUE, as well as parts of Mysteries of Magic. RUE does simplify things a bit by converting casting times into actions instead of a number per melee round and speeding up some of the lower level spells.

Mini-rant in Spoilers ...
Spoiler:
Mysteries of Magic; page 53 wrote:It is incredibly difficult to keep your focus and mental image, correctly recite a spell invocation, and channel the flow of P.P.E. to create a very specific magical effect when you are getting interrupted, beaten, knocked down, kicked, rendered unconscious, chocked, gagged or stabbed, fighting for your life or dodging a volley of arrows.

Then, a paragraph later we have ...

Mysteries of Magic; page 54 wrote:Even dodging an incoming attack is not likely to break his concentration unless he actually has to leap out of the way or is facing multiple attacks (two or more). A punch and even a stab from a weapon that does 8 damage or less points of damage will not break is concentration either.

So basically ignore everything the book just finished saying because that was wrong. Interrupting? No way, magic users can ignore any type of outside distraction (I didn't quote that part as it was a few sentences). Beaten? Unless a single attack is doing more 9 or more damage, Wizards can shrug it off because they are seasoned warriors. Knocked down? Depends if you count this as falling, otherwise this doesn't work either. Kicked? A roundhouse kick has about a 50% chance of interrupting. All other kicks (not counting jump kicks) are even less likely. I mean, it could happen, but you're probably better off ignoring that line too. Rendered unconscious, chocked, gagged? Okay, this will still do it. Stabbed? Pfft, Wizards laugh at knives to the gut and short swords to the chest. Seriously, who would ever think something like that would bother someone. Fighting for your life? Not unless you're losing that fight. Don't worry, you can't totally fight while casting spells. Dodging a volley of arrows? Depends on if a G.M. rules that as having to leap out of the way. I mean, if the volley is focused enough that they'll all hit and I can leap out of the way, I can always argue a side step will be enough. Let's just forget that too. I mean, what fun is a magic user being weak in physical combat if it actually limits them at all? Best to have weaknesses that never come up!
End mini-rant.

kiralon wrote:and apparently you can't stop a warlock casting at all, but you can priests. Down side to using the specific OCC word, as spell caster slips into a blurb at the start, but then not from there.

Well, if the Mysteries of Magic rule only applies to Wizards (which is debatable), then Warlocks would still fall into the category of men of magic in the PF2 main book.

Anyways, that's just my thoughts on the matter. Farewell and safe journeys for now.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Yup, got the warlock bit wrong, but what I see as the biggest problem for it is I think one of the bigger problems of 2nd ed and that's the number of attacks, especially at higher level, unless you have enough people to totally surround the wizard so he doesn't get hit.
It depends if the rule is a per round or a per action thing too. Does it only count While the wizard is wiggling his fingers, or does it count for the whole round. First Ed would have been the whole round because it didn't have any updated casting rules but 2nd does.

Also what about the spells that have touch for range. Going to be a bit hard to touch someone if you can't strike.
and wizard spells tend to be fairly short ranged, so unless your party is big enough to surround the wizard, protecting him isn't going to be easy as the enemy will usually be within walking distance of the wizard.
User avatar
Whiskeyjack
Adventurer
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:35 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, NW Ontario

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Whiskeyjack »

I play it as two attacks per spell, so if a mage has three attacks they can cast and do one other action. 4 they can cast twice or cast once and perform 2 actions and so on.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Do you allow fleet feet to let them cast more ?
Do you allow fleet feet ?
User avatar
Whiskeyjack
Adventurer
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:35 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, NW Ontario

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Whiskeyjack »

I've actually never had it used in a game. But I would say no. It increases physical speed, not mental.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Fleet Feet, especially at higher level would have to increase speed, strength (how easy is it to swing a two handed sword around 15 times in 15 seconds), weight or the ability to stick to the ground due to momentum, mental acuity (Target acquisition and aim), endurance (you are moving twice as fast).
So there is a lot of things it has to increase to actually work. Speaking twice as fast shouldn't be a problem I would have thought (and likely would just happen naturally).
But like most DM's I don't like the spell and don't like pc's getting it.
User avatar
Whiskeyjack
Adventurer
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:35 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, NW Ontario

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Whiskeyjack »

Magic isn't just wagging fingers and speaking though. You're using your mind to warp reality. Psionics completely destroys my point though, as it's purely mental and in canon is directly li jer to your physical attacks per melee. So a psychic would get full benefits. I think it's easier to just scrap the spell.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:Yup, got the warlock bit wrong, but what I see as the biggest problem for it is I think one of the bigger problems of 2nd ed and that's the number of attacks, especially at higher level, unless you have enough people to totally surround the wizard so he doesn't get hit.

Greetings and Salutations. I have a few different responses to this ...

1: I mentioned that I'm okay with magic users being difficult to interrupt, for a cost (usually Related skills, in my method). By higher level, the character could've spent a skill or two to compensate for this weakness, or they didn't in which case that's on them. So at lower levels it shouldn't be as much of an issue, and at higher levels you had opportunities to offset the issue.

2: If you don't want to be attacked, then don't advertise being a Wizard (as an example). Dress like a peasant, then scream and run for cover like a coward when people show up to attack you. Most enemies probably wouldn't pay you much mind, and after a spell or two they might figure it out ... but depending on what you did that shouldn't be as much of an issue. When attacking, don't go out with the rest of the group but stay hidden in cover and act like a sniper. Not only should you be able to get off at least one or two spells this way, and unless you're using spells that originate from your location you can probably cast a few more as they'll have trouble finding the point of origin.

3: If the enemy already knows you're a spell caster (either through previous experience or because you insist on advertising it), use the environment to your advantage. Per RUE you can only be attacked by 4 attackers in melee at the same time (I believe that rule is there somewhere, and is a rule I use). So you'd only need 4 protectors. Use a wall or big tree and you can reduce it to only three. Something like get in a corner or inside a carriage, and you can reduce the number to only 2.

4: Hand gestures and such aren't really required to cast magic (this is somewhat debatable per a line in RUE, but this was not the case in PF). Really, hand gestures and speaking words loudly is just for dramatic effect. IF you're going for intimidation and to scare off orcs or something with the fact you're a magic user, great. But if you're worried about lasting during combat, stay in the background while keeping the words at a whisper and barely audible. I'll recall playing a Mystic once that only had like 9 HP/SDC combined, so had to avoid combat at almost all costs. He'd do things like face down a bunch of animated dead: *Mutter.* "Such a nuisance." *Mutter.* "Stand aside!" All the dead stand aside and clear a path while the Mystic walked between them untouched, and everyone watching wondering what just happened (Turn Dead, level 2). -Or- Giving a speech about devouring all the souls of the enemies and watching as they tripped over each other trying to flee (Fear, level 2). The G.M. at the time told me (in private) that the popular theory among the other players was that I was a demi-god of some sort.

For the most part, don't just stand in an open field with a bunch of melee combatants without protection and proclaim you're a wizard and then expect to still cast magic without issues. Will there be times when there's not much you can do to protect yourself? Sure. Not every tool can be used in every situation. That's when you pull out your main weapon and fight for your life. But planning ahead can greatly reduce the times you'd need to do that.

kiralon wrote:It depends if the rule is a per round or a per action thing too. Does it only count While the wizard is wiggling his fingers, or does it count for the whole round. First Ed would have been the whole round because it didn't have any updated casting rules but 2nd does.

This depends a lot on which version of the rules we're using, and the level of spell, etc. For now, I'll use the casting times from Mysteries of Magic.

Level 1 or 2 can be cast during combat in place of a standard attack/action. So, if in one on one combat, you could parry, cast a level 1 spell, parry, strike, parry, cast a level 2 spell, dodge (mind you, that's 7 attacks).

Level 3 and higher, I'd say at the start of the melee round you have to declare if you'll be casting spells or engaging in hand to hand combat. Hand to Hand combat can proceed as above. With magic combat, you're committing the round to spell casting. Spells level 9-15 are easy, as they take entire melee rounds to cast anyway. Levels 3-8 are a bit trickier. What if you want to cast only 1 level 5 spell, but don't want to cast a second one? Or what happens if you start casting and then get interrupted?

I'd probably run the situation like this (if trying to stick to the Palladium rules): A level 3-8 spell will start being cast on the first action, and then be cast on the second action. This gives a game mechanic for hand to hand combatants to work with (whether trying to interrupt the spell, protect the caster, or waiting for the spell to provide some benefit). However, for character purposes, the spell still uses up half your actions. So if you have 6 attacks, that used up 3 of your attacks (even though only 2 melee actions have passed). You'd still have 3 melee actions to do something. If you started off the round casting and got interrupted after action 1, then I'd let you still have 5 actions for the rest of the round, but you can't go back to spell casting (with level 1 and 2 spells being an exception).

Note: As a G.M., for simplicity, I'd probably just let level 3-8 spells cost two actions and be done with it. So by the time you got to 6 attacks in a melee round, you could cast 3 spells. I'm good with this as it helps combat flow smoother from one to the other, but it's not by the rules.

kiralon wrote:Also what about the spells that have touch for range. Going to be a bit hard to touch someone if you can't strike.

The spells I found (only checked levels 1-5 in the PF2 main book that required touch were spells that benefited someone, like Armor of Ithan or Breath Without Air. So you know, maybe don't try to cast Armor of Ithan on the guy trying to kill you? If casting this on an ally within melee range (touch), unless the ally is trying to parry your hand away or dodge, I'd allow that to be automatic. If you have a specific spell or situation in mind though, let me know.

kiralon wrote:and wizard spells tend to be fairly short ranged, so unless your party is big enough to surround the wizard, protecting him isn't going to be easy as the enemy will usually be within walking distance of the wizard.

See above.

kiralon wrote:Do you allow fleet feet to let them cast more ?

Per the actual rules? No (level 1 and 2 spells not withstanding). If I was house ruling it, probably.

kiralon wrote:Do you allow fleet feet ?

Preferably not, but I don't like speaking in absolutes and try to keep an open mind. So I won't flat out say no, but it would take some good convincing. A player would be wise to have Charismatic Aura on themselves and/or Compulsion on me as the G.M. Player: "You feel an overwhelming need to have Fleet Feet in your games." Me: "Son of a --! I hate you! I know, I'm going to bring Fleet Feet in my games so my NPC can kill your character!"

Anyways, that's all for now. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Thanks Prysus
The most common touch spell my group uses is love charm, its an awesome combat spell when it works.

When I was playing a high level priest the can't parry thing would have got me killed a couple of times, and choosing the battlefield wasn't an easy thing to do. Truth be told with that rule in effect I wouldn't have cast any spells in combat, because at higher levels its too easy for other high level things to move around with teleport and the like, not to mention ranged attacks, he was noticeably a priest of isis, but also saying that casting spells in combat tended to be a waste of time because anything that was effective took 2+ actions, and there aren't many spells worth losing that much time over when there are 5 others who are high level in your party.

@whiskeyjack, the only thing I know that is required now for spell casting is voice. Gag a wizard and no spells. So Talking fast and willing something could maybe still cast a spell. Psionics states it goes off physical attacks so it does get doubled, not to mention there are psionics you can respond to attacks with like a psionic parry.
User avatar
TriOpticon
D-Bee
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 2:29 pm
Location: JAPAN

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by TriOpticon »

Do you think Palladium could/would clarify this officially? Whether or not it changes how people actually play this, it would be nice if they cleared it up.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Mark Hall might in the next mysteries of magic, but palladium books doesn't seem to be interested in non rifts errata anymore. Fantasy RPG is having a resurgence, and I hoped palladium was going to catch the wave themselves, but it's not likely. For example I remember lugging all the palladium books around in a big bag when I went to roleplay. It was heavy and uncomfortable to do so. DnD players can carry around all their books, dice, professionally made character sheets and maps on an ipad, tablet or laptop.
I know which I'd prefer to do, but im an oldtimer and a dm. Yes, having fully indexed pdf's of the books would be great so you could search for stuff easily would be great, but I prefer the books. The last pathfinder game I joined into however, I was the only person to have a paper character sheet. Palladium has a great world and backstory, and an unpatched game system from the 90's. It has backflipping paladins, unbalanced magic, fighters with 16 attacks per round, priests who can't turn undead and pretty much every fighter made is a martial artist in second ed, not to mention people have hitpoints and structural damage capacity and they aren't the same thing. We need PFRPG V3 with nothing cut and pasted from the old versions with tipex over the old stats and new ones written over the top in biro.

but the problem with that is that, because its megaversal sort of, everything would need to be upgraded, and im thinking that's too much work for Kevin, especially at this stage in his life, who seems to need to have his finger in every pie, and he has a lot of pies. /rant
User avatar
Whiskeyjack
Adventurer
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:35 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, NW Ontario

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Whiskeyjack »

I still wouldn't allow it to double spell attacks. Just doesn't seem right. Of course, a mind mage with fleet feet seems even worse. I think I'll just ignore that spell in my games.
User avatar
TriOpticon
D-Bee
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 2:29 pm
Location: JAPAN

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by TriOpticon »

Kiralon, I am about the same. I do buy PDFs of all my books (would be nice if a hardcopy purchase also included the PDF) just so I can search things. Of course, I have yet to actually play a game of PFRPG or any Palladium game due to these types of issues. Too many people (that I know) don't want to spend the time figuring out the rules when there are other, more popular games being played. I like to try new things and I really like the Palladium worlds but not so sure about their rules.

I am just hopeful that any new books do not contradict anything else unless it is spelled out as an update/correction in the new books...
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Whiskeyjack wrote:I still wouldn't allow it to double spell attacks. Just doesn't seem right. Of course, a mind mage with fleet feet seems even worse. I think I'll just ignore that spell in my games.

+10000 I totally agree

@Tri
Information in later books not matching previous books happens too much in palladium. Ask hotrod about the issues he has had with the maps for example, and some of the palladium rules are archaic and confusing and annoying. The magic system ha aggravated me to the point that I tried 2nd ed dnd's with it which worked great, and that's the worst thing. The system has so much potential because of its storyline, but the rules need an overhaul.
User avatar
Veknironth
Hero
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Bowie, MD USA
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Veknironth »

Well, I think a mage can cast a spell while in melee combat. The problem for the mage is he or she must decide between using actions to cast the spell or to do something else. With the low level spells, it's easy as it just takes an attack. The only thing that MIGHT interrupt is someone doing a simultaneous attack. For the mid-level spells, it would take half a melee, or half of the mage's actions. So, with 4APM, you could run behind cover, cast a mid-level spell, and then do something else with that last attack. If someone is pressing the attack, you can hope they miss and try to cast the spell. Bad idea. Now, I remember being told by Palladium in correspondence, but certainly don't have the email, that anything which requires the caster to use a melee action will interrupt the spell. So, running wouldn't and parrying wouldn't, but dodging would.

Here's another question: If the mage has invulnerability cast on him or herself, and is walloped by an Ogre with a mallet, would that break concentration? Technically, that is going to do no damage to the Mage, but will it have kinetic impact? I asked that on the forums years ago and the general consensus was that the mage would be uprooted and knocked back, but wouldn't suffer any damage. Is that distracting enough?

Fleet feet, we had in the 1st Ed. A guy commissioned a medallion with that on it. He used it judiciously, but it could have been unbalancing. When the 2nd edition book came out and it wasn't in the paperback version, we just made it Superhuman Speed. Then the errata included it and we ignored it. By the rules, it wouldn't speed up casting.

-Vek
"Can we get a mystic combat table? Why does training in boxing allow you to cast an additional Cloud of Slumber?"
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:Thanks Prysus

Greetings and Salutations. Well, as I said, I have strong opinions on the matter. I don't mind trying to explain my opinions to the best of my ability. But I also understand not everyone will agree with that opinion, and that's fine too (well, as long as we can more or less agree on the actual written game mechanics and that it can be playable, even if that method of play is not frequently used).

kiralon wrote:The most common touch spell my group uses is love charm, its an awesome combat spell when it works.

Ah, I see. I don't think Love Charm was intended as a combat spell. I'm kind of okay with needing more subterfuge and trickery to make it work. For something like that, I would allow a strike roll (no weapon, so no W.P.) as part of the spell. To make it reliable, the spell caster would be best off to make it a Sneak Attack or Attack from Behind (no defense allowed, per PF2 page 46).

kiralon wrote:When I was playing a high level priest the can't parry thing would have got me killed a couple of times, and choosing the battlefield wasn't an easy thing to do.

I'll honestly agree that having a successful parry interrupt a spell is more restrictive than I personally care for (I understand it conceptually, but I don't care for it mechanically). I'm more of the mindset that any action that does require an action/attack can be done without fear of interruption. Note: Whether or not movement requires an action to do is another matter for some debate, but I won't get into that here.

On the other hand, things like choosing the battlefield is largely dependent on the G.M. For one, the G.M. needs to provide those opportunities (not necessarily every single encounter, but at least sometimes). If the players aren't using those opportunities but blindly rushing in anyways, then the G.M. will need to try and teach them that there are other ways. Palladium is big on the concept of mages being smart and not just warriors who can also cast spells. Now, many groups won't play this way. It requires time and effort from both parties. So I understand that this rule is often done away with, as it can be easier on all involved. Note: I'm sure there are other reasons as well. This is a general statement from my experience and not designed to target every specific group's circumstances.

Anyways, that's all for now. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Backstab lovecharm, that is now becoming a rune weapon :)
The target is fully in love with someone they cant see. That will be fun to play.

The Runes will say on one side
You are my sun, my moon, my starlit sky
The other side will say
Without you, I dwell In darkness.
User avatar
Father Goose
Adventurer
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:07 am
Comment: If I could go back in time, I would join the cast of "The Thrilling Adventure Hour"
Location: Varies

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Father Goose »

kiralon wrote:Backstab lovecharm, that is now becoming a rune weapon :)
The target is fully in love with someone they cant see. That will be fun to play.

The Runes will say on one side
You are my sun, my moon, my starlit sky
The other side will say
Without you, I dwell In darkness.


This is brilliant. I'm going to use it.
taalismn wrote:Hey, you came up with a novel, attention-getting idea, you did the legwork, you worked it through, you made it fit the setting, even though initial thought might be 'nah, it can't work, it's too silly/stupid/lame', and you posted something that only required a little adjustment, yet can be added to, without diluting its original concept. How can we not give you due support and credit?
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

kiralon wrote:For whoever has no idea what I'm talking about, palladium has a rule that wizards and priests can't fight in hth combat and cast spells, so if you strike, parry, or dodge you can't cast spells, and if you take damage it has %90 chance of interrupting the spell.

Page 46 left hand column second paragraph down for second ed.
Magic Attacks: Most men of magic get two spell attacks per melee
round (each spell casting counts as two or three melee attacks). A spell
caster actively engaged in hand to hand combat, parrying, dodging, and
taking damage cannot focus enough to cast a spell. There is a 1-90%
likelihood that a spell caster will lose his concentration if struck a painful
blow, preventing the casting of a spell. Note: this applies to both
men of magic and clergy


Mysteries of Magic up this to 9 pts (8 points won't do it) for a wizard harry, but it also says a dodge isn't likely to break his concentration, but being gagged/prevented from speaking will stop his casting (yaay). But this is very specific for wizards. Looks like wizards get the update but priests don't (doh).

and apparently you can't stop a warlock casting at all, but you can priests. Down side to using the specific OCC word, as spell caster slips into a blurb at the start, but then not from there.


Warlock casting simply involves intoning the Power Word for their specific element no matter which spell they're casting, so it's much harder to lose focus. Preists have more complex prayers and wizards complex formula.
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Axelmania »

Soldier of Od wrote:Mysteries of Magic changes the rule slightly in that a wizard may only be distracted if they take more than 8 points of damage.

Seems a bit too generalized to me. For a creature with 3 HP and 4 SDC that would be enough to put them into a coma anyway. Maybe something like inflicting more than 20% of the sum of HP and SDC
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

Axelmania wrote:
Soldier of Od wrote:Mysteries of Magic changes the rule slightly in that a wizard may only be distracted if they take more than 8 points of damage.

Seems a bit too generalized to me. For a creature with 3 HP and 4 SDC that would be enough to put them into a coma anyway. Maybe something like inflicting more than 20% of the sum of HP and SDC


So if you somehow roll a mage with 3 HP and 4 SDC, then yes, 8 HP would be enough to KO you anyway.

That outlier doesn't change the rules though. it just means they got a crappy rolls.
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

I would think 5 points of damage to someone with 6 hp would hurt a lot more than 8 points of damage to someone with 90hp. (Ones almost dead, the other got a barely noticeable scratch).
And how about those people with low pain thresholds (low me and pe).
Does a flu with all the aches and pains interfere with spellcasting.
Do nickelback songs interfere with casting?
Do they have to take the 8 points, or only think they took 8 points (Think stabbed by an illusionary sword, it does no damage but the person thinks it does, but the rule says has to take 8 points, so I guess illusionary stabbings don't work)
User avatar
The Beast
Demon Lord Extraordinaire
Posts: 5956
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:28 pm
Comment: You probably think this comment is about you, don't you?
Location: Apocrypha

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by The Beast »

kiralon wrote:I would think 5 points of damage to someone with 6 hp would hurt a lot more than 8 points of damage to someone with 90hp. (Ones almost dead, the other got a barely noticeable scratch).


You're not the only one who thinks that. However, AFAIK the only damage rules based on a percentage of the original total damage capacity were the optional ones in the first Rifts Conversion Book that were for damage to mecha units.

However a flat 8 point limit is still far better than little Timmy tossing pebbles at a mage and distracting said mage instantly, even if there was no damage.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Spell casting wars would be funny now, just a whole heap of low level damaging spells to keep the other caster from casting. And is that 8 points of damage per round for concentration to be broken, or per casting instance/action. How about if the caster has already taken damage and is in pain now, or does the pain go away after the initial hit, or is it just the shock of being hit. If its just damage, whenever a wizard is down 8hp he shouldn't be able to cast because of the pain then. Why doesn't pain effect sword swings. What happens if you get a fighter, hit him the nuts as hard as you can with a mallet and then make him fight straight afterwards. He doesn't get any negatives.
Casting is supposed to be hard, but wizards fail at it a lot less than a fighter does when swinging his sword. When was the last time you saw a wizard fail a spell.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:And is that 8 points of damage per round for concentration to be broken, or per casting instance/action.
[snip]
If its just damage, whenever a wizard is down 8hp he shouldn't be able to cast because of the pain then.

Greetings and Salutations. Based on the way Mysteries of Magic 1 reads (to me), it would have to be in a single attack. The lines such as ...

... unless a hunk hits him in the head and does more than 8 points of damage ...
A punch or stab from a weapon that does 8 points or less of damage will not break his concentration either.

While the third mention of 8 or more damage is a little more ambiguous, the first mention tells us that a single hunk must do more than 8 points of damage (so at least 9, because 8 points or less won't actually do it). The second mention tells us a punch or stab (singular, for both methods of attack) need to inflict more. Both of those references tell us a single attack must do 9 or more damage. So ...

If you're playing a spell caster and casting a spell that takes an entire melee round, and I stab you for 6 points of damage, and then again for another 6 points of damage, and then again for another 6 points of damage, and again for another 6 points of damage (24 total), unless I kill you (or at least put you to 0 HP so you fall unconscious) I have 0% chance of interrupting you (per the Mysteries of Magic rules).

kiralon wrote:How about if the caster has already taken damage and is in pain now, or does the pain go away after the initial hit, or is it just the shock of being hit.

The rule in PF2 main book from page 46 mentions painful blows will cause interruption. But Mysteries of Magic states Wizards are accustomed to pain and indicate that's not sufficient. Of course, since (as far as I'm aware), PF doesn't have pain rules, this isn't much of a factor.

kiralon wrote:Why doesn't pain effect sword swings. What happens if you get a fighter, hit him the nuts as hard as you can with a mallet and then make him fight straight afterwards. He doesn't get any negatives.

Not much, RAW. Personally, I've used the Save vs. Pain from Ninjas & Superspies (page 132), but I always felt being knocked unconscious was a bit steep for most pain. I believe the original group I played with (that introduced my to Palladium and role-playing games in general) house ruled that it incapacitated the character (couldn't move or attack, but could still defend) for 1D4 melee rounds. I've also mixed the N&S saving throw with the penalties for Pain found in Rifts Conversion Book 1 (original), page 17, for more minor penalties. Pain will negatively impact a fighter, and would stop a spell caster from casting.

Anyways, that's all for now. Farewell and safe journeys to all.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

The Pain/Unc would certainly work for this, even though I mostly only use it for torture. It's even on my character sheets already.
Most of the spell interruption rules do not make enough sense to me to use, however I will use spellcasters can be interrupted if hit while casting, and ill edit the current rule of spells taking up x amount of actions, by adding prepared spells with casting times (i.e if you roll 1d20, and get a 15 and cast fireball, fireball will have a casting time of 10 {2 per lvl of spell) so if anyone hits him on initiative rolls between 15 and 5 you can interrupt the spell, if your slower than 5 your too slow, and if you are higher than 15 you can wait to smack the wizard when he's casting or do something else at the higher init.)
Wizards will be able to prepare spells for quick casting, which means they have the 2 init negative per level of spell they are casting (which is effectively the time the enem, and the spell can be cast as a physical action, but all the prepared for quickcasting spells will have to be listed, and the ppe is technically in the being used state, so it will reduce your active pool of ppe by the amount the prepared spells use, and that ppe wont regenerate until the prepared spells are cast.

E.G
A wizard with 120 ppe prepares 3 spells for quick casting
1 fireball @ 10ppe
2 lightning bots @ 15ppe
They are all lvl6 so have a casting time of 12
The wizards PPE pool is temporarily down by 40 ppe until the spells are cast, so his usable pool is currently 80.
He casts fireball, and his usable pool goes up by 10 (the cost of fireball) so he regenerates 10 ppe in the normal way.
Casting a prepared spell doesn't cost any extra ppe either.

Full loss of consciousness from damage will make him lose his prepared spells as well. Sleep won't do it.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by ITWastrel »

My house rule is ONE action for any spell. Why one action? Lemme tell you.
Rifts mages are truly handicapped when it comes to doing damage, and they must choose between Damage and utility, with PPE being a finite resource. We all know a mage cannot complete with an otherwise completely unskilled scrub with a rifle, but let's look at that a second.

Spoiler:
Level one vagabond with H2H basic: 4 APM. 4APM with a wilks 447 rifle (3D6MD/Shot), 12D6MD MDC (average damage 42MD), assuming all to-hit rolls are successful. The vagabond has used 4 charges from his e-clip. he has 16 shots left, and can shoot 4 times a round for 5 rounds before reloading.
Level one LLW with Fire Bolt spell: 4D6MD per cast, Official rules, 8D6MD (average damage 14MD) per round, provided nothing hits back. Less if in combat. Cost 14PPE, He has done 33% of the vagabond's damage.
Level one LLW with H2H basic, 4 APM, with Fire Bolt spell: 4D6MD per cast, 16D6MD (average damage 28MD) per round. Cost 28PPE. He has done 66% of the vagabond's damage.


If the LLW has average PPE, he's holding a maximum PPE of 140. By basic rules, the LLW will be OOM (out of magic) in ten rounds. House rules has him out of juice in five. Given the amount of PPE a caster has to play with the average LLW can deploy only a small percentage of the damage a vagabond with a basic wilks rifle can in any combat, and will go OOM in minutes.

The only obvious solution for a mage wanting to do damage is either A)not be a mage. or B) Use technology. Either sucks for those wanting to play a badass wizard.

OK, then, maybe a rifle toting utility mage? Sure. Let's give him Invisibility(simple) and Armor of Ithan, and Fly as the eagle and Impervious to energy. Then he can fly into combat, armored and invisible and immune to lasers! YEAH! Except... Those four spells cost 61 PPE total, and will take 30 seconds to cast. The combat is two full melees in, and is likely over by now. He's also spent almost half his PPE and done nothing to help his group.
As a player, do you want to play a PC that cannot even get into the fight before it is over? Heck, if it wasn't for the invisibility spell as first cast, he wouldn't even get the others off, as everyone knows to shoot the one in the dress first.

OK, so, our powerful, world warping mage must use tech for damage and defense, and then... use his spells for when he is out of combat. Great. He can teleport us around! Except, not with his piddly PPE. Maybe he can end the fight before it begins! Charm the baddies! Except that PE, the go-to stat for lunkheads and meatshields, grants bonuses vs magic, and his spell-strength makes the save of 12 (15 for a super-powerful wizard) stupidly easy for your average juicer or dragon or monster or...

Eventually the wizard is just the vagabond who can disable other wizards with magic. Woo-Hoo. the only advantages mages have is they don't pay cash for ammo and armor, but they get what they pay for.

Bottom line? Palladium casters need HELP, and so we must house rule them. In my house, One spell per attack, and PPE recovery is about 10 times book level per hour, with 100% PPE returned in eight hours sleep. The sad thing? My players still prefer ANY OTHER SKILL SET.

I love mages, it is just sad that the rules hamstring them so badly.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

I agree, as one of the causes is a major gripe I have, and that's number of actions per melee.
Its way too high, to even it out the fighters should have to spend 2 actions for attacks that do damage and 1 action for actions that don't.
That's pretty much what it says to wizards.

I reckon this would work for rifts too. It takes a little work, but switch out the magic system for 2nd ed d&d's.
It fits way better.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:Its way too high, to even it out the fighters should have to spend 2 actions for attacks that do damage and 1 action for actions that don't.
That's pretty much what it says to wizards.

Greetings and Salutations. This line of the post made me wonder something, and while I could start a new thread I feel it's relevant to this one as well. And anyone can answer, and this is not directed at any single individual.

In your games, does drawing a weapon cost an attack/action? In RGMG, we're told it does, but I know I've been in many games where it does not.

In your games, does moving cost an attack/action? While I don't believe this ever stated clearly, there are indicators (again, as I think of Rifts) that indicate it should, but in many games I've been in it has not.

I ask as these further impact the spell casting situation. So if a Wizard starts casting a spell that costs 2 actions, and you draw your weapon, by the second action his spell goes off before you can attack. That's, of course, considering you were in melee range to begin with. Note: Simply punching him instead of drawing your weapon may have been better (depending on which version of the rules you're using). If the Wizard starts casting a spell and you're 30 feet away, you might be able to close the gap in an action, but you might not be able to attack until after the second action.

That's all for now. Thank you for your time and answers, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

In my house ruled games
I stole the weapons takes an action to draw from N&SS(and a few other rules), as I added a perk that lets you draw your weapon without an action (and a magic item power, not to mention Iaijutsu).
I allow spd / 5 as how many squares you can move in a round (not action) for free.
You can do a fighting withdrawal move that lets you parry and dodge but not attack as a move that lets you move a percentage of your speed based off your number attacks per round.
A charge has to go for at least 30ft and lets you move your full speed and attack, but then you cant move or dodge until the next round if you use more than 1/2 your movement rate for the charge (can parry, and use your other actions, but not for movement, and if you didn't use 1/2 your movement you still cant dodge until your next action).
or you do a full round sprint for the hills, you aren't worrying about dodging, parrying or anything except moving fast (running away)
this is your full speed with extra distance depending on stats, a roll and whether you took the running skill. This takes all your actions in a round.

Unless you are mounted, and that's another kettle of fush.
User avatar
The Beast
Demon Lord Extraordinaire
Posts: 5956
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:28 pm
Comment: You probably think this comment is about you, don't you?
Location: Apocrypha

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by The Beast »

Prysus wrote:In your games, does moving cost an attack/action? While I don't believe this ever stated clearly, there are indicators (again, as I think of Rifts) that indicate it should, but in many games I've been in it has not.


It's clearly stated in N&S as Combat Ranges under the Combat Terms section. Moving toward your opponent is essentially free, but trying to move away will cost an attack/action.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Prysus »

The Beast wrote:It's clearly stated in N&S as Combat Ranges under the Combat Terms section. Moving toward your opponent is essentially free, but trying to move away will cost an attack/action.

Greetings and Salutations. I guess that would depend on your definition of "clearly."

1: The ranges only discuss combat up to about 10 feet away. That's not any or all movement, but a very limited range. So it doesn't give any context at all regarding, for example, the 30 feet of distance I used in my earlier example.
2: The rules contradict themselves. Fluff text describes a boxer and a wrestler moving in and out of each other's ranges like a dance, but the boxer can't actually move out of the range with any efficiency (the rule completely favors the wrestler). Setting that fact aside, one section of the rules says that you can move from Grappling Range to Long Range as an automatic action. Then later says moving out of Grappling Range requires an action.
3: The way the Combat Range description reads, to me, as if you're only intended to be able to move one combat range closer or further. This section also states that on a melee attack you may move further out, which again contradicts the earlier rule that to move from Combat to Long Range is an action in and of itself.
4: Even in N&S, it's listed as an "Optional" rule.

I have to get to work now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Soldier of Od
Hero
Posts: 996
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:32 am
Location: Great Britain

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Soldier of Od »

I'm not sure what the rules are for Ninjas & Superspies, by going by Palladium Fantasy rules I believe that it does cost an action to move, draw a weapon, etc. That is the way we have always understood it and they way we have played it in the past.

However, we have recently imported/modified a rule from Rifts - the wild shot. In Rifts, if you want to run and shoot, it's a wild shot; draw and shoot, wild shot; jump and shoot, wild shot. And so on. Wild shots are -6 to strike. So we figured if this works for ranged weapons, why not hand to hand? Run in, axe waving, and attack? Wild strike: -6. draw your sword and strike in one movement? Wild strike. Leap down from a wall and stab the guard in the back? Wild strike. So instead of running in to attack and having to always wait there and defend the first attack, you can have a go yourself, but with a penalty. Works for us.
Rifter Contributor:
Rifter 61 – Purebred animal templates for Mutants in Avalon (After the Bomb)
Rifter 77 & 78 – Khemennu, City of the Eighteen Cosmic Gods (Palladium Fantasy)
Rifter 83 – The Prophet O.C.C. (Palladium Fantasy)
Rifter 83 – Half-Ogres (Palladium Fantasy)
Rifter 84 – Spellbound O.C.C. (Nightbane)
Rifter 85 – Relics of Empire: Elven Cities of the Old Kingdom (Palladium Fantasy)
User avatar
Hendrik
Rifter® Contributer
Posts: 868
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:52 am
Comment: What is genius? A Victim OCC (BtS 1st ed, p. 193 ss)! The ultimate hero is a victim conquering adversity.
Location: IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OLD EMPIRE

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Hendrik »

Soldier of Od wrote:I'm not sure what the rules are for Ninjas & Superspies, by going by Palladium Fantasy rules I believe that it does cost an action to move, draw a weapon, etc. That is the way we have always understood it and they way we have played it in the past.

However, we have recently imported/modified a rule from Rifts - the wild shot. In Rifts, if you want to run and shoot, it's a wild shot; draw and shoot, wild shot; jump and shoot, wild shot. And so on. Wild shots are -6 to strike. So we figured if this works for ranged weapons, why not hand to hand? Run in, axe waving, and attack? Wild strike: -6. draw your sword and strike in one movement? Wild strike. Leap down from a wall and stab the guard in the back? Wild strike. So instead of running in to attack and having to always wait there and defend the first attack, you can have a go yourself, but with a penalty. Works for us.


Since having been introduced to (and convinced by) this rule when Soldier of Od and me gamed together the last time I am using the „wild swing“-rule, too. Works like a charm!
Handouts for Operation Minotaur (BtS Adventure published in RIFTER #83) Get them at the fabulous "House of BtS"![/quote]

May all your hits be crits!
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

According to the second ed book Charge attacks are supposed to cost 2 actions, which makes me think 2 actions are removed from your total(The way I normally do it), rather than waiting for the second action (Which I never even thought about until I played with some out of towners) because knights charging each other would have to get the distance from each other fairly correct so they don't overshoot each other before they get their attack. I play that long weapons(bigger than big swords) get first strike if you charge them and they are set to receive a charge , so on a charge into pikes, the pikes hit first, but if you run screaming at a guy with a shield and shortsword you usually get to attack first, however if you have to charge, then let the other guy hit you first it would make charges pretty useless.

Charge says it counts as 2 attacks, so to me that says it costs 2 of your attacks to do, but doesn't take 2 action segments to do.
But charge has to be done from horseback, as the only rules I have ever seen for charge attacks have been mounted combat rules.

So it does look like a little bit like if you move you cant attack, as it does say repositioning your uses an action (P.46 under non attack actions). That makes it easy to get away from someone, they run up to you and cant attack, you run from them, they run to you, you run from them. Doesn't matter if they are faster than you, only who has the most number of attacks.
Unless you include an amount of movement in attacking, which I do. When was the last time you saw an attack that didn't involve movement, even it was only a half step forward.
Last edited by kiralon on Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Veknironth
Hero
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Bowie, MD USA
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Veknironth »

Well, I don't know if it's anywhere in the books, but I have always played that drawing a weapon takes an action. This is why many of our group will have a hunch that a fight was coming, and would tell the GM to draw a weapon. For the attacks to move, that seems obvious. There are rules governing how far you can move in a round, and how many times you attack in a round. So if you move half of your maximum movement for a round, you've used half of your attack action. Now, the next question is can you do something else that is considered an attack action while moving? I'd say no. If you're moving at top speed, that's a sprint and it's exceedingly difficult to do anything other than sprint while sprinting.

"Firing a distance weapon accurately while running? Hell no."
Colonel_Tetsuya
Champion
Posts: 2172
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:22 am

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Colonel_Tetsuya »

Hokay, couple of notes here.

1 - this is a Palladium Fantasy forum and we're getting pretty far afield into Rifts, but im gonna go ahead.

2 - I think this is a "every problem is always solved by combat" problem. You and/or your players see every problem as a nail, and every solution should therefore be a hammer. You're seriously under-estimating magic in Rifts. I'm not 100% up on the differences between how magic works in Palladium Fantasy and Rifts... so my viewpoint is going to be Rifts.

ITWastrel wrote:My house rule is ONE action for any spell. Why one action? Lemme tell you.
Rifts mages are truly handicapped when it comes to doing damage, and they must choose between Damage and utility, with PPE being a finite resource. We all know a mage cannot complete with an otherwise completely unskilled scrub with a rifle, but let's look at that a second.

Spoiler:
Level one vagabond with H2H basic: 4 APM. 4APM with a wilks 447 rifle (3D6MD/Shot), 12D6MD MDC (average damage 42MD), assuming all to-hit rolls are successful. The vagabond has used 4 charges from his e-clip. he has 16 shots left, and can shoot 4 times a round for 5 rounds before reloading.
Level one LLW with Fire Bolt spell: 4D6MD per cast, Official rules, 8D6MD (average damage 14MD) per round, provided nothing hits back. Less if in combat. Cost 14PPE, He has done 33% of the vagabond's damage.
Level one LLW with H2H basic, 4 APM, with Fire Bolt spell: 4D6MD per cast, 16D6MD (average damage 28MD) per round. Cost 28PPE. He has done 66% of the vagabond's damage.



Why does a mage -need- to be able to compete with an uneducated scrub with a rifle? In Rifts, particularly, mages aren't morons. They use the best tool for the job. Magic is not, and has never been in any Palladium game im aware of, a primary source of damage. Not even 1st Ed PF. The Mage can do something pretty vital that the scrub with rifle cannot - make himself completely immune to that scrub with a rifle. He can also make himself invisible to that clown with a rifle. You're also using one of the worst damage dealing spells in the entire game for your comparison, and there are plenty that do excellent damage/PPE spent. (Sub-particle accleration cant miss or be dodged or saved against and hits for 1d6x10+1/level; Lightning Arc lest you do 4D6+2/level MD, per action, at a decent range, for 1 round/level for 30 PPE, and those are just two examples).

If the LLW has average PPE, he's holding a maximum PPE of 140. By basic rules, the LLW will be OOM (out of magic) in ten rounds. House rules has him out of juice in five. Given the amount of PPE a caster has to play with the average LLW can deploy only a small percentage of the damage a vagabond with a basic wilks rifle can in any combat, and will go OOM in minutes.

The only obvious solution for a mage wanting to do damage is either A)not be a mage. or B) Use technology. Either sucks for those wanting to play a badass wizard.


Only if your definition of "a badass wizard" is limited to the extremely narrow view of "a guy who does tons of ranged damage all the time". That's not really my definition. My definition of "badass wizard" is "guy who uses magic to make himself awesome". That's plenty viable in Palladium. In fact, If the GM isn't careful with what spells he allows you to get, with a handful of low-level spells, you can be hillariously broken and wipe out entire encounters.

OK, then, maybe a rifle toting utility mage? Sure. Let's give him Invisibility(simple) and Armor of Ithan, and Fly as the eagle and Impervious to energy. Then he can fly into combat, armored and invisible and immune to lasers! YEAH! Except... Those four spells cost 61 PPE total, and will take 30 seconds to cast.


Uhh.. you are aware that 1-5th level spells take only a single action, right? I'd argue that Fly isnt required to be useful... but sure. So, even fully powered up, it takes all of one round and the first action of another. But now he's basically immune to damage from about 80% of tech based opponents or more, they are -9 to hit him even if they have a weapon that can hurt him, and he's got a decent amount of MDC between his body armor and Armor of Ithan to catch any damage that does get through. Seems pretty awesome to me.

The combat is two full melees in, and is likely over by now.


Lolwut? Combat over in two melees? What kind of insane stuff do you hand out to your tech based characters that makes that likely or possible? Even against just a squad of CS Grunts (six guys, say), against an average party of 4-5 PCs.... with average guns... that aint happening. You're looking at six to ten rounds of combat even if you strike more often than you miss.

He's also spent almost half his PPE and done nothing to help his group.


Well, i agree here. Not the best combination of spells to be using, depending on the fight.

As a player, do you want to play a PC that cannot even get into the fight before it is over?


As a GM, is every single fight your PCs get into an ambush where they dont have time to prepare? As a GM, do you consistently stack the fights with enemies that can get killed in 2 shots so the fights are over in seconds? Or are your PCs just idiots and rushing into combat without preparing for the fight?

Heck, if it wasn't for the invisibility spell as first cast, he wouldn't even get the others off, as everyone knows to shoot the one in the dress first.


So dont wear a dress. Or stand behind cover. Or behind a friend. Or inside the vehicle. Or is every encounter in your game on a flat featureless plain where there is never cover and everyone has perfect lines of sight on everything?

OK, so, our powerful, world warping mage must use tech for damage and defense, and then... use his spells for when he is out of combat. Great. He can teleport us around! Except, not with his piddly PPE. Maybe he can end the fight before it begins! Charm the baddies! Except that PE, the go-to stat for lunkheads and meatshields, grants bonuses vs magic, and his spell-strength makes the save of 12 (15 for a super-powerful wizard) stupidly easy for your average juicer or dragon or monster or...


Or, using your previous example... he could turn invisible, fly over to the enemies, hover over them, and drop a Carpet of Adhesion on all of them. Encounter over. No relevant save (it just cuts the time you're trapped down. You're still trapped for several minutes regardless). Poof. You and your friends walk over and kill them at your leisure.

Also.. do you allow people to pick where they assign their attributes? 'cause that aint how the rules work, and chances are, your entire adventuring party, unless they are playing a class that lets them set their attributes (like a Juicer or Borg) shouldn't have more than 1 or 2 exceptional attributes between the entire party.

Regardless, there are plenty of spells without saves or without relevant saves. Use those.

Or if you want to do a truckload of damage as a mage... play a melee-centric mage. Mage + WP Sword + Fencing w/Lightblade = hell on wheels. Add Magical Adrenal Rush and/or Fighting Spirit for extra attacks and bonuses to strike (if you have both, +4 attacks, decent strike bonuses, massive parry and dodge bonuses, Paired weapons, and crit on 18-20). If you really want to tack on the absurdity, add Power Weapon to the mix, though that starts to get pricy. Without Power weapon you're at 8-10 attacks per round, doing (say you're an "average" level of 5th) 1d4x10+5+1d6 MD per swing, with at least +8 to strike (with no attribute bonuses of any kind), +10 to parry....

Oh, and, for not a ton of PPE, add Supernatural Strength to the mix to add the 3d6MD punch damage to all that too.... so... 1d4x10+5+4d6 per hit. Add another +11 if you use Power Weapon. Summon a second one if you have the PPE to spare and go ham. (Oh, and if you're an MDC creature, Magical Adrenal Rush triples your MDC temporarily; it triples your SDC/HP too, but that isn't too relevant for most casters).

Eventually the wizard is just the vagabond who can disable other wizards with magic. Woo-Hoo. the only advantages mages have is they don't pay cash for ammo and armor, but they get what they pay for.


They can also use TW items in Rifts. They can -start- with a TW Particle Beam rifle that does 1d6x10+10 per shot, that has 7 shots per charge, and costs a paltry 18 PPE to recharge.

Also, you constantly bring up PPE as a major limitation without discussing the tools built in to get around it. There are at least 2 spells that allow you to carry large amounts of PPE around with you (Energy Sphere & Talisman), and in Rifts, TW's can make PPE batteries. In PF, there are rings and gems that can be created that store PPE. Talisman, in particular, is assininely powerful. The only limit on how much PPE you can carry with you is how much of a cheese-head you want to be and how much "down time" when you aren't actively adventuring you have (Traveling, etc) and if any of that is near a Ley Line. And before you try to trot out the "well the GM doesn't have to let you have it, and its a high level spell that you cant just get" - if you, as the GM, feel that casters are underpowered, you shouldn't have a problem letting PCs get Talismans, and alternatively, if the GM is being a parsimonious jerk.... there are several Mage classes that can START with Talisman or choose it on level up very early on. Same for Energy Sphere.

Bottom line? Palladium casters need HELP,


Not really. Palladium casters are borderline broken AF, depending on which classes we're talking about (not all OCCs are created equally and some are definitely duds), and if your GM isnt careful about what he lets his magic users get ahold of, they can singlehandedly break the entire game and trivialize every encounter.

and so we must house rule them. In my house, One spell per attack, and PPE recovery is about 10 times book level per hour, with 100% PPE returned in eight hours sleep. The sad thing? My players still prefer ANY OTHER SKILL SET.

I love mages, it is just sad that the rules hamstring them so badly.


Im not really seeing how mages are hamstrung.

And i didn't even get to the part where outside-the-box thinking can make them brokenly powerful.

Situation:

Party must proceed down path A (canyon, defile, road, whatever) to get to their destination. Path A is guarded by something powerful with a long range. Lets say a Glitter Boy.
The party has nothing that can defeat the almost 2 mile range of the GB.

Or does it?

Explosives + Teleport: Lesser. I look through my telescope/binoculars from 2 1/2-3 miles away, and the next thing that GB knows, he's dead, because he didn't see the box full of Fusion Blocks/grenades/missile warheads appear on the ground behind him. Boom. Bye bye.

Have Clairaudience/Clairvoyance? Combine with Teleport: Lesser to send surprise packages of explosives inside buildings where your enemies are having a meeting not buttoned up in their armor. Sploosh, they are now paint on the walls.

I also fail to see how taking two or three rounds to prep, but the outcome being that you're a nigh-immortal demigod that hits harder than weapons on a Robot Vehicle that is immune to energy weapons, almost impossible to hit, and has well over ~300 MDC for those few attacks that CAN harm you that get through is somehow an unfair tradeoff.

Or with the same three rounds to prep, sending every person in the party into combat with (as, say, a 5th level character) an extra 125 MDC armor that goes first, impervious to energy, a HF, and 44spd and +6 to dodge isn't game-breakingly good. Add on a single more round, and the "best" fighters can also get Magical Adrenal Rush for an extra 2 attacks, combat bonii, and a tripling of their HP/SDC or MDC if they are MDC beings. (Dragon Hatchlings + Magical Adrenal Rush are hillariously good)

Mages are fine.

Just stop trying to see every problem as a nail, and youll stop being mad that you have a toolbox full of literaly every tool other than a hammer.
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:According to the second ed book Charge attacks are supposed to cost 2 actions, which makes me think 2 actions are removed from your total(The way I normally do it), rather than waiting for the second action (Which I never even thought about until I played with some out of towners) because knights charging each other would have to get the distance from each other fairly correct so they don't overshoot each other before they get their attack. I play that long weapons(bigger than big swords) get first strike if you charge them and they are set to receive a charge , so on a charge into pikes, the pikes hit first, but if you run screaming at a guy with a shield and shortsword you usually get to attack first, however if you have to charge, then let the other guy hit you first it would make charges pretty useless.

Greetings and Salutations. For charging, I'd say the attack still happens on the second action, but the opponent doesn't get to attack first (typically).

1: Control/commanding the horse, as well as closing distance.

2: The person being charged gets an action, but does NOT get to attack first (unless they have a weapon with a longer reach, or ranged weapon like a bow and arrow). The opponent WOULD get an action, but since the horse is still charging (closing distance) standard melee actions are out of the question. Movement is fluid. You don't charge, stop, then stand in front of the character twiddling your thumbs until their turn is done. The opponent might try to run and take cover, might prepare a Power Punch (which also costs two actions), might switch to a shield for better defense, or might do something like brace the pole arm they're wielding against the ground to skewer the charging horse (because the horse's body will be in front of its rider, which makes it a more viable target).

3: Charging character gets to attack (considering he wasn't shot off his horse with a crossbow bolt).

4: Opponent might finally get to attack the rider.

For the record, these are more or less the rules I'd use for movement in regards to combat (though I don't run Palladium much these days, so I haven't had much of a chance to really field test them): http://www.prysus.com/combat_movement.htm The rules include actions for movement, movement without spending an action, and attacking while moving (attacking wild).

And apologies for the side track. I mostly wanted to know because I wanted to see how it might affect people's views regarding spell casting (as I somewhat describe above). In most of the games I've been in, I've seen movement included as a free action (and you can attack without bonuses while moving). Drawing weapons could go either way, depending on the G.M. But the more free actions given to everyone else, I can see more need for mages to get extra advantages to compensate. Thank you for your time. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Turn based combat forces stops, even though there aren't in the fight, the method of working it out does.

When is the move part of the 2 part action, logic dictates move first, then attack which does follow the seeming rule of cant move and hit so in the first round the charger would do his move, then the second do his hit.
Or is it wait until second round to move and hit at the same time.

Either way its a move - stop - hit
or a stop - move - hit,
in palladium people cant be hit mid move unless they run into a prepared trap, no attacks of opportunity as it were.

The charging scenario you have works if you think the people you are charging will try to get out of your way, except heroes in palladium are way to healthy to be disturbed by a measly horse charge, +3 damage doesn't make people worry, so I wouldn't move and I wouldn't expect players to move because there aren't any rules to make them want to move. Players will stand in front of a charge because they know it won't kill usually them.
Even if they didn't
what if the person you are charging is on an elephant
Whether the charge is first action round is a move and the second is the attack, or both movement and attack occur in the second round is important, because it changes you position and can prevent or make you get targeted.

if its move stop attack
you charge up to him and stop, he wallops you, you hit him and cant move, so he smacks you a second time, then you run away, he definitely got the better of the deal
if its stop-move-attack
you call a charge, he calls a charge
both wait one action
horse charges elephant and hits, elephant hits back. Does elephant get charge bonus, he didn't actually move, and technically the horseman moved and attacked in one action because he did nothing the last action which means you can move and attack in 1 action if you stay still for 1 action.

If 2 actions are just deducted from your total, there is no stop involved. So elephant doesn't actually get to call a charge unless he was charging before hand.
and
what happens if a charge doesn't make it?

It doesn't seem to be clear on which way it actually works, either taking 2 melee rounds to do a 2 action action, or whether it just comes off your total, but because it doesn't say whether you move in first action and attack in second or both in second makes me think still that it just comes off your total.

With it taking 2 action rounds to do would you say you get to move first and then attack in the second action round, or wait and move attack simultaneously.

I also wish that the terms for actions rounds within an attack round, and the full attack round itself were defined better.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:Turn based combat forces stops ...

Greetings and Salutations. I'll strongly disagree. If I were running it and an opponent was charging you, I'd let you know someone is charging you but they have made it to you yet. What do you do?

In motion is a possibility in my mind, even if not in yours. You could, in theory, try to charge back. If you don't get knocked on your arse from their attack you could attack back (and get your charge bonus as well), or you could just simultaneous attack if you're not worried about the hit. Both people can be in motion at the same time.

The first example I can think of is a jousting match. In your rules, one knight starts to charge and then ends up on the other end of the field and attacks his opponent who never even moved. Another example would be a race. In your version. One runner will spring out. Then stop. Then another runner goes as far as they can, then stop and start looking at their watch and tapping their foot mimicking Sonic. Then another and another. Then starting over again in the world's most boring track meet ever. That version is extremely jarring to me and has always broke my immersion. I've played D&D, and I can accept it as a game mechanic, and I can use it to the best of my abilities when playing, but that doesn't mean I like it or think that it's the best way to handle things. That version may be the simplest method, but it's only really useful if you need a hard game mechanic without any imagination (in my opinion).

kiralon wrote:in palladium people cant be hit mid move unless they run into a prepared trap, no attacks of opportunity as it were.

Again, I'll disagree with you. It's true, there are no Attacks of Opportunity in Palladium. However, in my games, if you turned to run away, you will (again) be in motion. However, I don't do the teleport method nor everyone else just standing around drooling watching the character do things and waiting for their turn. The opponent can slash at your back for his action before you clear range, attempt to grab you by your collar and drag you to the ground (depending on if he has a fitting combat move that would allow this), or decide to give chase. If your path will run passed someone else and they have an action coming up, they can take a swing too (if they have nothing better to do with their action).

If your method works for you, great. But just because you don't run something a certain way doesn't mean it can't be done. The fact you think I must run games with only the binary options you provide is faulty. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

I have described this badly so ill try again, and in combat stages as if miniatures were being used.
That's why I said in palladium and in combat, so combat actions are being used, initiative has been rolled. I also use attacks of opportunity, but I have 2 types of running away, a fighting withdrawal where the enemy gets to move away and parry attacks, and the stuff it im out of here option of just turning and running, and when that option is used there is no dodge or parry (or attacking from the fleeing guy). But the way combat is described is turn based because everyone isn't doing things simultaneously. You say you will let a guys whose action it isn't slash at guy as he goes past, what if the guy avoids the slasher by 20ft in his run, the slasher could make it there and stop him in his attack but he's going last and its the runners action, does it suddenly become the slashers action as the runner gets close? How close is close enough to activate someone else. In this example 20ft is a decent distance, but easily covered in real life, but the init dice says the slasher is last.

And the way you describe it is the way turn based combat works, with the charging and running example,
one guys on a horse, one guys is on foot. is its combat actions, They roll initiative as they see each other and the footman wins
Footman is represented by &, Horsman is #
they are about 60ft apart

& #

so this is their relative positions at the start of the round

Action 1 = Footmans action is turn and run, but doesn't get out of charge range because he's on foot (in this he will be running to the left).

& #
the footman is now 3 spaces to the left because thats where he could move to at his speed as his action
Action 1 = Horsemans action, he decides to charge, and on a horse so he will catch up to the footman easily.

&#
If the first part of the 2 action charge is move, the horseman is next to the footman on action1
however if you don't move until the second part of the charge action
& #
this will still be the positions that they are in at the end of action segment 1 because horseman hasn't moved yet

Then second actions
Footman is still first as he won initiative, so he uses his second attack and keeps moving left
Footman Second action = keeps running 3 spaces left
& #¹ #²
These would be the positions if the horseman moved in the first action segment when he did his 2 action cost charge,
#¹ if you move in the first action round segment
#² or is he here because he hasn't had his second action yet,
or is he halfway there ?

If you were gm'ing where would the horseman be
Say this is happening in a city and there was a third party, say a wizard with an area effect spell, whose initiative is before the horsemans but after the footmans and spent his first action segment casting a seventh level spell which goes off on his second segment action, its an area effect spell and he doesn't want to hit the footman or any civilians but the only safe place to hit the horsmane with it is at the riders start position, where is the horseman to be targeted, is he at his starting location because he didn't move in action segment 1, or is he near the footman because he moved in action segment 1, or is he halfway there, or is he in a superposition inbetween describing his riding path, making anything that wants to target him(the rider) just have to be able to hit his riding path to be able to hit the rider himself.
I'm not trying to be annoying, but your logic has confuzzled me and im trying to work my way through it. Combat is turn based because it has to be, you can try to describe it as realtime and add rules to limit the immersion breaking so things can happen out of initiative order, but the fact that there is an initiative order to begin with means to me its turn based, everyone does things in an order, and the fight plays out like divine divinity or the ssi dnd games like pools of radiance, rather then everything happening at the same time like diablo.


Otherwise I am very very curious how you would run that situation once initiative has been rolled. With the person on horseback charging. With the charge taking 2 attacks does the horseman move in his first action or the second, or partway the first action and the rest of the way the second action. The confusion here is another reason why I think it just costs 2 actions and doesn't play out over 2 actions. If there is another way of doing the charge in combat I'd like to see it. I borrow your rules fairly often.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Prysus »

kiralon wrote:I have described this badly so ill try again, and in combat stages as if miniatures were being used.
That's why I said in palladium and in combat, so combat actions are being used, initiative has been rolled. I also use attacks of opportunity ...

Greetings and Salutations. I read this post earlier, but didn't have time to give it a proper response until now. For the record, I'm glad you use Attacks of Opportunity. Honestly, that's one of the things that makes the D&D movement system tolerable for me.

kiralon wrote:But the way combat is described is turn based because everyone isn't doing things simultaneously.

I'll say it this way. Combat is turn based so players aren't speaking over each other simultaneously. However, I view the turn based system more of a way to manage the in-world combat that is going on simultaneously.

In the Movement rules I posted earlier, I discuss things like races. I see a similar analogy applying to Initiative. While the Initiative winner does get to react first, similar to someone who gets off the starting line a little faster than the others in a race. This doesn't mean others wait while he acts. His actions may cause others to defend or hesitate, and the others might be a half-step behind him in their initial reaction, but that doesn't make them powerless while he acts.

kiralon wrote:You say you will let a guys whose action it isn't slash at guy as he goes past, what if the guy avoids the slasher by 20ft in his run, the slasher could make it there and stop him in his attack but he's going last and its the runners action, does it suddenly become the slashers action as the runner gets close? How close is close enough to activate someone else. In this example 20ft is a decent distance, but easily covered in real life, but the init dice says the slasher is last.

So let's say you're going to sprint your maximum distance as your action. For me, that means you start moving on your action. However, you will continue to run that full distance until the start of your next turn. You're moving.

So, for starters, anyone within melee range can easily make an action against you as you try to move out of range. This is the equivalent of an Attack of Opportunity, but is the character's actual next attack/action. The action could even be something such as tripping you so you fall flat on your face and you don't actually finish your movement. If you run within melee range of someone, the same concept applies. So, again, probably best for you to think of this like an Attack of Opportunity, only it's the character's next action instead of a free attack.

If the "slasher" wants to attack but is 20 feet away, there will be a couple of factors. First, can he move into attack range as part of a Combat Movement (consider this a variation on your free movement in combat rule). If so, see above. If not, then the "slasher" will need to use a movement action as well. This means he won't be able to slash this turn. If the "slasher" is trying to cut you off and he can easily get in front of you, he'll probably be able to do so (he'd need to be much closer to the cut-off point). If it's a race to the cut-off point, then I'd use my racing rules, which means both get to roll an Initiative (which is separate from combat initiative) to see who gets there first. While this second-initiative probably isn't necessary, I like it as it adds a bit more suspense to the situation. If it's a simple matter of you moved first so you'll get there first, or he's faster so he'll get there first, then it's predictable. I include it to add more of the feeling: "Will I make it?!"

Think of this more like an action movie. Two opponents look at each and pause. One of them looks towards the gun (or other object of value), then back to the opponent. One of them starts to run for it (won initiative), then the other makes a break for it a split second later. In a turn based system with movements starting and ending on the character's turn, the answer is set in stone. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but not necessarily what I want all the time from a role-playing game either.

Note: If the "slasher" can't get in front of you, then he's just out of luck. If he can get into melee range though, and you try to run more, next turn he can attempt an action (see above).

kiralon wrote:If you were gm'ing where would the horseman be

I'd have to also know the speed of the horse (I'm not sure how that converts into your system, or even if you're using the PF2 main book horse speed or the faster Monsters & Animals horse speeds), as well as possible terrain modifiers. However, going by your statement the horseman will be easily able to catch footman, and in a one on one situation, I'd probably place the horseman, after the first action, somewhere around the halfway point (maybe more or less, depending on various factors). This is more for simplicity of visuals than it is a hard location though. He's still moving, but this helps show he's getting closer (and his exact placement isn't very relevant in a one-on-one, see below if others are involved). His second action would be when the horseman is within attack range. Note: If, for some reason, the horseman couldn't reach the footman by his second action (say the footman ran just far enough away that he's now out of range), but the horseman could reach the footman by his next turn, I'd allow him to continue the charge (if desired) and then attack on his third attack.

However, let's put that same situation into the footman running for a narrow alleyway where the horseman wouldn't be able to follow. The footman would be able to make it on his 6th space (the end of his second turn). The horseman would be able to catch the footman before the end of his second turn. So, this is one of those situations where I'd apply the race rules. Because going strictly by the speed and initial initiative rolls, the answer is simple and clear cut. Sometimes this is nice, but it also (in my opinion) takes out some of the excitement. So that race initiative gives that extra uncertainty to keep everyone guessing (at least that is the intent behind it).

Maybe the horseman wins the race and knocks the footman down and then the horse blocks the alleyway. Or maybe the footman wins and then starts using ranged attacks on the horseman who can't enter the alleyway. Now the horseman either needs to retreat, dismount, or come up with a different solution.

kiralon wrote:Say this is happening in a city and there was a third party, say a wizard with an area effect spell, whose initiative is before the horsemans but after the footmans and spent his first action segment casting a seventh level spell which goes off on his second segment action, its an area effect spell and he doesn't want to hit the footman or any civilians but the only safe place to hit the horsmane with it is at the riders start position, where is the horseman to be targeted, is he at his starting location because he didn't move in action segment 1, or is he near the footman because he moved in action segment 1, or is he halfway there, or is he in a superposition inbetween describing his riding path, making anything that wants to target him(the rider) just have to be able to hit his riding path to be able to hit the rider himself.

I wouldn't detail the riding path in advance (as in, no clairvoyance), if that's what you mean. So, if we're using minis, I'd probably describe where he's already ridden, and where he is now. For now, let's say he's at the halfway point. I'd probably then move him another square. "Now he's here." If the Wizard starts thinking too long about it, I'd probably move him another square. "He's not going to wait for you to figure it out." If the Wizard can't decide his action, the horseman might reach the footman and the Wizard loses a turn due to indecision. Note: I wouldn't be cruel to a new player and due this without warning. I might due it the first time, but would be willing to reset to the initial placement of the horseman and give the player a second try, but the horseman still wouldn't wait forever.

So if needing the horseman to be at the starting position, the Wizard is out of luck and shouldn't have made a plan based around a highly mobile target staying stationary. However, spells like Carpet of Adhesion would be easy to halt the charging horse's progress and can be cast within the riding path (if within range). Sadly, the horse may suffer injuries from the full charge to sudden stop and may or may not need to be put out to pasture later. This also wouldn't hurt civilians too much (unless they're in the middle of a fire or something like that), and the footman can be easily left out of the area of effect. The Wizard could even dispel the carpet next action (if worried about civilians being caught) as the charge has already been stopped and the horseman likely dismounted (probably suffering fall damage and maybe disorientated).

kiralon wrote:I'm not trying to be annoying, but your logic has confuzzled me and im trying to work my way through it. Combat is turn based because it has to be, you can try to describe it as realtime and add rules to limit the immersion breaking so things can happen out of initiative order, but the fact that there is an initiative order to begin with means to me its turn based, everyone does things in an order, and the fight plays out like divine divinity or the ssi dnd games like pools of radiance, rather then everything happening at the same time like diablo.

I haven't played many of those games, but I did play Divinity Original Sin (I think that was the name?). A friend's wife liked it because it helped teach her D&D (a visual representation of how the combat was working). I, on the other hand, disliked it for the same reason. As an aside though, I do love the X-Com games (the more recent versions, not the old, old one) which is also turn based. Though that may have something to do with the fact it was squad based, or it's just my enjoyment of that game defies logic (I used to watch my wife play it like it was the most fascinating TV show, which is how I got into it).

Anyways, hopefully that helps give some clarity to my view of things. Whether or not you agree is a different story, but you mentioned wanting to understand, so I wanted to at least put forth the effort. Thank you for your time. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

Awesome, thanks very much sir, cleared it up perfectly. I play a little differently because I use the it costs 2 attacks, but doesn't take 2 action melees to do, so for me the horse guy would make it and attack straight away and if he has 4 attacks per melee, he now only has 2 left. But if the charge doesn't make it there's no attack but still costs the 2 attacks (I also add extra speed damage) and allow charges when on foot, not just on horseback.

I also stole the overwatch idea from warhammer 40k, where people, especially with ranged weapons, can hold their attack, and if someone moves into the area they are guarding/watching, the moving persons move stops, and the guy on overwatch has his shot, and then it goes back to original guys movement to be finished, as that seems more natural as well.
Which is just part of allowing held actions for something to happen, which I do as well.

and my players love the 1 free attack per round per PP plus to strike (minimum 1) you get when the enemy turn tail and flee after their morale has broken. So if 3 guys turn and run and you were engaged in hth, and you have a PP of 18, you can if you decide, hit 2 of them with out of initiative attacks.

If you allow tablet or laptops at your pc table I have had some fun with different versions of this
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/3219837/
make sure you get the download version
and I get the lockpickers to make a roll, and the more they make the lockpick roll the easier I make the game, then generally have combat running around them and they are the timer, when they unlock it the party can escape. Has made for some funny situations.

I have also used the pipeline game for a solving a riddle simulator. If the irl players have had a bad day the pipeline game can make for an alternative for them thinking. Flow free was an ok one for android for example. (I use a c64 one)

On a side note, if you enjoy playing games with your significant other, morrowind is now multiplayable
https://tes3mp.com/
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by eliakon »

I would just like to make a comment here...
And that is that most "actions" are at best a couple seconds long.
So there really isn't a lot of "down time" in those actions to worry about motion, or stopping and starting.

Think about it. At 5 APM (a pretty normal base line) each APM lasts 3 seconds.
And things get more hectic from there, and quickly.

I use a pass system of evenly divided passes in 3 second passes just to try and keep the actions more or less running equally.
I know another person that uses a system from a play by post game as a refinement to the pass system...
in that everyone declares all their actions, in writing, for each pass. And then they are all resolved at the same time.
In initiative order for things like stuns, kills and what not.
But you don't have time to really think about stuff and respond to others actions in the 3 seconds of the pass.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by kiralon »

So does that mean there are no more than 5 action segments (passes?) in a round and your attacks are distributed between them, so if you have 6 attacks, you roll to attack twice in the first action, and then 1 for the remaining 4 passes ?
User avatar
Father Goose
Adventurer
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:07 am
Comment: If I could go back in time, I would join the cast of "The Thrilling Adventure Hour"
Location: Varies

Re: Wizards not being to cast in Hand to hand combat

Unread post by Father Goose »

kiralon wrote:So does that mean there are no more than 5 action segments (passes?) in a round and your attacks are distributed between them, so if you have 6 attacks, you roll to attack twice in the first action, and then 1 for the remaining 4 passes ?

Exactly. Though your bonus action doesn't have to be in the first pass. It can be in whichever you decide, so long as they are distributed as evenly as possible across the five. It's actually very smooth in practice.
taalismn wrote:Hey, you came up with a novel, attention-getting idea, you did the legwork, you worked it through, you made it fit the setting, even though initial thought might be 'nah, it can't work, it's too silly/stupid/lame', and you posted something that only required a little adjustment, yet can be added to, without diluting its original concept. How can we not give you due support and credit?
Post Reply

Return to “Palladium Fantasy RPG®”