Spell Casting Skills

["Kris Ames" <kris@cioe.com>]

Actually it is one skill...Casting a spell...one handed, verbally,
nonverbally, quickly (target wise) or while moving.   How is that
different than "dorking with a weapon" - quick draw, multiple
attacks, move through, precisely, etc.  I also recommended a higher
base cost than most weapon skills cost.

-Kris

----------
From: Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>
To: Kris Ames <kris@cioe.com>
Cc: gmlist@cioe.com
Subject: Re: Move through
Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 3:08 PM



I don't like the idea.  Mainly cause its trying to do a whole lot of
different things with 1 skill.  In my mind skills should have a
narrow
focus in what they allow you to do.  Weapon skill = dorking with a
particular weapon.  Bludgeon = clocking someone in the head.  The
skill
you suggest offers several different abilities that really don't
relate
in how they are used.

Wright
 
> Hmm.  Interesting.  If there was such a skill then it would work
> like the proposed warrior one.  Wait....idea...why not move mage
> spell casting skills (or priestly spell casting skills) under one
> skill and have subskills.  I.E. base cost 200 or 300 and allow
such
> things as 1 handed casting (1d6 check or whatever), verbal
casting,
> nonverbal casting (yes I know there is a debate about whether
mages
> can use this one), quicktarget, and movement.  That way mages
could
> move the 1/5 movement rate no check , but then move the additional
> amount using their movement skill.  This would make "mage"
fighting
> skills similar to the weapon skill of the warrior.  I like it
> consistent!
> 
> -Kris
> 
> ----------
> From: Preston Wiley <quotha@laf.cioe.com>
> To: Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>
> Cc: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>; gmlist@ns1.cioe.com
> Subject: Re: Move through
> Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 2:04 PM
> 
> I think that maybe a new skill could be introduced that covers
> moving will
> casting. We already have Non-verbal, verbal, and one-handed. How
> about a
> skill that covers this?
> 
> 						- Preston
> 
> > I still highly disagree with any sort of moving, short of
> hawksoar, 
> > while spell casting.  We already know that Spell casting takes
> > the entire round(as shown by Speed and Quicken not giving
> > extra moves/attacks to spell casting).  So that means 4 full
> sec(or however
> > much) of complicated hand and mouth movements, as well as
intense
> > concentration.  This is shown by the fact that if you get hit
> while
> > casting, you loose the spell.  You need a calm steady platform
to
> > cast from, or you can't cast.  Also if you get knocked over,
then
> > you loose your spell, granted that is a more jarring spell than
> > moving, but you still are still jostling yourself while trying
to
> > devote all of your concentration to focus your energies as well
as
> > get the correct hand and mouth movements.
> > 
> > Someone suggested that walking and talking about some subject
was
> like
> > spell casting.  I disagree.  Spell casting is focusing energies
> that
> > are not inherently available to everyone.  It takes something
more
> to
> > bring up these inner reserves, it takes full and complete
> concentration.
> > Kinda like when the martial arts guys take the dramatic pause to
> summon
> > and focus their energies before doing something big.
> > 
> > It will also complicate issues highly.  Since spell casting
takes
> the
> > entire round to complete(spell effects _ALWAYS_ go off at the
end
> of
> > the round after everyone has done everything else), do you
> calculate
> > range from their original position? or final one?  Also do you
> have
> > to have line of sight at the beginning of casting or the end to
> > zorch someone?
> > 
> > Wright
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Alrighty then. We've kicked this one around a bit and the
> responses
> > > I've seen indicate that a combination of 4 and 1 sounds best.
So
> I'm
> > > going to sum that up in a new writeup and we can kick the hell
> out
> > > of that for a week before the next meeting (Sep 5th, 6PM).
> > > 
> > > Move Through. OK. There's two parts to this. The first part is
> to
> > > modify the general ruleset that handles movement:
> > > 
> > > I'm picturing this as an errata on section 2.5.1 (movement):
> > > 
> > > | It is often necessary to maneuver during combat. Each
> adventurer has
> > > | a _movement rate_ that is the distance he may move in a
round
> when
> > > | not attacking or spell casting. An adventurer may only move
up
> to 1/4 
> > > | of this distance if he is attacking, spell casting or
involved
> in a 
> > > | melee (moving into, out of, or through a melee). This
distance
> may be
> > > | modified by your GM according to terrain, obstacles, or
> circumstances.
> > > 
> > > OK. So now you can move 1/4 movement and still take an attack
or
> > > cast a spell. The last bit concerning melee is important. You
> > > _CANNOT_ run full tilt through a combat area and expect to
> utilize
> > > full DVs. Insane. If your path takes you to within 5' (melee
> range)
> > > of an opponent or ongoing melee than you become subject to the
> above
> > > rule and can only take quarter movement.
> > > 
> > > This does let a make dive through a window _and_ cast a spell
> providing
> > > they don't intend to use acrobatics or any such skill. 
> > > 
> > > So that's step one. A simple but far reaching change allowing
an
> > > aerodraco to move 120 and take an attack.... a torgon only 35'
> but
> > > thats the difference between a rate 38 creature and a rate 200

> > > draco :) The next step is:
> > > 
> > > Using option 1, we add a weapon subclass where a 2d6 check
would
> > > let you move up to half your movement rate instead of the
normal
> > > quarter. I believe this is the way people were thinking. So in
> the
> > > normal case you can always move 1/4 and get one attack (or
more
> if
> > > you make your skill check) but with the subclass you can move
> 1/2
> > > and get your one attack (or more if you make a multiattack and
> we
> > > allow split dice).
> > > 
> > > And that should be that. One rule change involving movement
and
> > > the introduction of the "move through" weapon subclass (which
I
> > > would add to combat and missile) and voila... more dynamic
> combat
> > > system that takes many more variables into account.
> > > 
> > > Someone, I forget who, voiced an objection to mages moving
while
> > > casting. If we can get a solid argument from them on this
topic
> > > we can scratch "spell casting" from the movement redefinition
> > > also. Otherwise I'd vote it stays. Its part of the fantasy
genre
> > > for mages to jump under a table while tossing a lightning
bolt,
> > > or to be running away (or in this case walking away) while 
> > > using magic to cover their parties retreat.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts, criticisms, etc... bring 'em on. Got a weekend
coming
> > > up so I'll have lots and lots of time to argue :) And
> (hopefully)
> > > bring the Centrali' Times up to current game date (always the
> > > goal).
> > > 
> > > 						-Steve
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>