.10 - Unintended Consequences of Targeting Rules

[Muir]

Okay, I see your justification, but I also see no rules support for the assumption. That is not how Shatter or Destroy work now, and it is directly opposed to the stated design goals of the armor rework. We are increasing the armor limits, as well as the possible phys reps, because it has been decided that players wearing cool armor reps is good for the game and should be encouraged. This ruling is explicitly and wholly in contravention of that stated design goal.

Current Shatter Rules:

This spell will destroy any weapon, shield or any object up to the size of a shield, rendering it useless. It cannot be used to create a shield-sized hole in an object larger than a shield. The phys rep will not become unrecognizable, only unusable. This spell can target a suit of armor and will destroy the armor completely if the suit’s maximum value is 20 points or less. The armor cannot be refit and is ruined forever. Should the armor have a maximum value of greater than 20 points, it will be unaffected by the Shatter (and the owner should call “No Effect”). The spell will not work on a permanent magic item or a magically protected item such as a Wizard Locked door. Shattering a trapped item will set off and destroy the trap if the trap was set. The target item must be named, and only the target item will be Shattered. Items that are contained within or attached will not be affected. If there are two or more items that fit the description of the incant, then a hand-held item will be affected before one simply carried on one’s person; thus if a caster says “I summon a force to shatter your weapon” then the sword that is being carried will be shattered rather than the dagger strapped to the back. If the item that is being carried is protected against the Shatter (such as by being strengthened or by being a magic weapon), then the spell is used up and will not affect another similar item in the possession of the target. A shield is not considered a “weapon” for the purpose of Shatter.

Current Destroy Rules:

This spell will utterly destroy any object up to the size of a normal door, rendering it useless. It cannot be used to create a door-sized hole in an object larger than a door. Once destroyed, the phys rep will become unusable but not unrecognizable. A Destroy cast at a door will not totally destroy the door, but will damage it enough to allow passage through the door’s frame. This spell can target a suit of armor and will destroy the armor completely. The armor cannot be refit and is ruined forever. The spell Shield will be unaffected. The spell will not work on a permanent magic item or a magically protected item such as a Wizard Locked door. Destroying a trapped item will set off and destroy the trap as well. The target item must be named, and only the target item will be Destroyed. Items that are contained within or attached will not be affected. If there are two or more items that fit the description of the incant, then a hand-held item will be affected before one simply carried on one’s person; thus if a caster says “I summon a force to destroy your weapon” then the sword that is being carried will be destroyed rather than the dagger strapped to the back. If the item that is being carried is protected against the Destroy (such as by being strengthened or by being a magic weapon), then the spell is used up and will not affect another similar item in the possession of the target. A shield is not considered a “weapon” for the purpose of Destroy.

Current Render Indestructible Scroll Text:

Render Indestructible
Aspect: General Difficulty: 2 Catalyst Required: No
NPC Only Ritual: No Role Play Only: No Scroll Type: Physical
Casting Time: 5 Minutes Duration: One Year May Be Extended: No

The ritual caster must spend 5 minutes in the casting of this ritual. This is a General Aspect ritual and will always be the same as the aspect of the ritual caster. This Ritual may not be extended. The duration of this Ritual is 1 year.

The target of this ritual is limited to an item no larger than 10’ by 10’ by 1’.

This ritual prevents an item from being affected by normal destructive means, such as Shatter and Destroy spells or normal physical damage. An item that receives a Render Indestructible ritual will look as it did before the ritual was cast. If a Render Indestructible is cast upon a book, nothing can be written in it. All entries in the book are considered permanent and indelible. If this ritual is performed on a flexible item like a book or a doll, the item cannot be torn or broken.

Out of Game:
If cast on a suit of armor it will cause that armor to be unable to be Shattered or Destroyed, but the armor’s protection may still be reduced to 0 as normal.

Required Components: 3 This ritual requires 3 reagents as listed on the scroll.

Spellcrafting: This ritual may be spellcrafted. In order to spellcraft this ritual you must report to logistics and bring the appropriate number of reagents from among those listed on this scroll. Spellcrafting is a High Magic ability and the number of Spellcrafted Rituals you can memorize is determined by how many points you allocate to this from your available High Magic points. You must use any spellcrafted rituals you have memorized before the end of the event or they immediately expire (you cannot save tags between events). The time of casting must be written on the spell crafting ticket you received at logistics.

The specific information for this ritual is the following:

Levels of formals required to spellcraft this ritual: 1
Cost of spellcrafting ritual in any reagents listed on the scroll: 1 Reagent
Duration of spellcrafted ritual: 5 days
May ritual be cast at higher level for greater effect? No
Valid target: Physical

I CALL UPON THE POWER OF <aspect> MAGIC TO CRAFT THE RENDER INDESTRUCTIBLE RITUAL.

 

[Gilwing]

Shatter: Note that if this effect is delivered via the Weapon qualifier, no target may be called and only the target which is struck will be affected. Shatter will now work on any suit of armor, even if it is over 20 points. If it is delivered via the Weapon qualifier and strikes any part of a suit of armor, the suit of armor is considered the target. Shatter now affects any single item up to a Door-sized item (instead of Shield-sized). If it is an invalid target for a Shatter (such as an object greater than door-sized) the object will remain unaffected. If Shatter is used on an indestructible suit of armor, the armor will still be reduced to 0 points (and thus require a refit before its Armor Points are restored) but the tag will not be destroyed. This damage also occurs on magical armor sources such as Arcane Armor

I think we are talking about two different sets of rules. We are referring to 2.0 and not 1.3.

 

[Draven]

I sincerely doubt that the existence of Shatter’s ability to effectively reduce armor to 0 Points will make it unlikely people would bother with Armor.

If anything, it’ll make Fast Refit more valuable.

 

[Muir]

I sincerely doubt that the existence of Shatter’s ability to effectively reduce armor to 0 Points will make it unlikely people would bother with Armor.

If anything, it’ll make Fast Refit more valuable.

I think you are deeply underestimating it. How many events to you suppose someone is going to keep wearing that awesome 40pt suit of plate that makes them slower to dodge when a half second shatter makes it dead weight?

 

[Draven]

I think you are deeply underestimating it. How many events to you suppose someone is going to keep wearing that awesome 40pt suit of plate that makes them slower to dodge when a half second shatter makes it dead weight?

All of them. Generally, people who choose that armor experience are doing it for the aesthetic. Seriously, I know a guy who wears leather, chain, and arcane armor because he’s weird. He’s also @Durnic.

Also, I’m pretty sure that guy is -really- interested in Fast Refit.

 

[DiscOH]

Armor scales up to 120 points now. Just because a 3rd level spell mitigates that does not mean armor is useless.

Most of the people I've talked to consider 60pt armor to be the new build standard, even for casters.

For what it's worth, plate no longer needs to be metal, it just needs to look metal.

 

[Tevas]

Armor scales up to 120 points now. Just because a 3rd level spell mitigates that does not mean armor is useless.

Most of the people I've talked to consider 60pt armor to be the new build standard, even for casters.

For what it's worth, plate no longer needs to be metal, it just needs to look metal.

62, with a “cap” of 124 through ritual use. When I drop Fighter in v2, and go Scholar, I am absolutely buying up to the maximum 62 points of armor. Especially with that new ritual, and the massive decrease in monster damage. As an NPC during our playtesting, non-burst damage felt practically meaningless. The sheer amount of protection from normal weapon swings afforded by the new armor system is insane.

Armor aside, takeouts are still terrible, even more so in heavier armor due to decreased mobility, but that’s another thread.

 

[Draven]

Ugh, I’ll pass on the new armor “standard.”

AA304Lyf

 

[Tantarus]

Most of the people I've talked to consider 60pt armor to be the new build standard, even for casters.

I feel like we play very different games....

 

[Alavatar]

I feel like we play very different games....

~60 is achievable now that layering will be a thing.

• Chain + Leather = 4pts per location
  • Upper Chest - 8pts
  • Belly - 8pts
  • Back - 8pts
  • Head - 8pts
    
  • Shoulder - 4pts
  • Forearm - 4pts
  • Upper Leg - 4pts
  • Lower Leg - 4pts
  • Subtotal = 48
• Real materials (metal + leather) - +1 per location = +8
  • Subtotal = 56
• In-Genre +2
  • Subtotal = 58
• Master Craft (looks good) = +4
  • Total = 62

The head protection also protects from Waylay. Remove the head protection and you still have 54pts of armor. And it will still be both light and flexible enough to not have the same restrictions as plate; I expect people in chain+leather to have minimal mobility issues assuming they use a light leather (4-6 oz) + ringmesh (note: ringmesh is stainless steel). Metal scales attached to leather will likely have a bit more impact to mobility, but still be significantly better than plate.

Edit to add: I will likely be using Celestial Armor. It goes up to 40, doesn't cost much High Magic, and does not take up a Ritual slot.

 

[MondayMcGee]

I feel like we play very different games....

So do I, and I play in the same chapter as @DiscOH. There are quite a few things to do with build that are higher priorities for me than 40 points of Wear Extra Armor. That’s about a quarter of my build total. Unless, I suppose, Plot scales assuming that everyone has 60-120, and then I’ll just be dead.

 

[Draven]

Don’t forget that WEA won’t get you any wand charges....

 

[Saephis]

If one of the intentions is to encourage people wearing physical armor, I'm frankly curious why there's armor caps and the need to make people buy Wear Extra Armor.

The physical encumbrance of a Scholar in heavy plate should be sufficient "downside", I feel, for the physical representation of a battle-wizard.

 

[DiscOH]

There are quite a few things to do with build that are higher priorities for me than 40 points of Wear Extra Armor. That’s about a quarter of my build total. Unless, I suppose, Plot scales assuming that everyone has 60-120, and then I’ll just be dead.

The choice is between celestial armor high magic and WEA. CA is 48 build for 40 armor (and 1 bonus damage on wands), WEA is 47 build for 62 (and waylay protection).

 

[Samyania]

The choice is between celestial armor high magic and WEA. CA is 48 build for 40 armor (and 1 bonus damage on wands), WEA is 47 build for 62 (and waylay protection).

But that's not the only thing you can do with formal ranks, while the only thing you can do with Wear Extra Armor is... Well...

Not that @MondayMcGee can ever get armor through high magic anyway unless she race changes first...

 

[Muir]

Biata being the only race still effectively banned from a class is another discussion about u intended consequences.

 

[Saephis]

Biata being the only race still effectively banned from a class is another discussion about u intended consequences.

Yes and no -- it fuels the argument on why balancing to "If you want to do spell damage, play Celestial" is a bad argument. I believe its been noted in one of these threads that Biata, specifically, can't be changed, so I don't expect them to suddenly develop boom-casting capabilities. But others suggesting "Just take Celestial Armor" in this debate does exclude the one unique race to Alliance -- which seems a giant flaw in any balance argument.

This is about Targeting rules, however.

 

[Polare]

A couple comments about this:

1. Many of these situations (like "Disarm - Eviscerate" on a shield) can happen in 1.3 - "Spellstrike Disarm - Prepare to Die Eviscerate" (though a slower verbal) produces the same result. This is not a new condition with 2.0, though it may be far more common.

2. Shatter and Disarm are not intended to allow either the attacker or the target to gain an OOG advantage during the time it takes a player OOG to drop an affected item. We expect players to be good sports in this situation and not intentionally machine-gun invalid locations while someone is struggling to pull an item off their arm (or, conversely, to "keep actively blocking" while trying to pull an item off their arm). We expect players to be good sports in combat in many ways, including this one.

3. We recommend that folks review the "Legal Targets" section of the existing ARB rulebook. That section includes this paragraph:

You may hold other small non-weapon items (such as gas globes, spell packets, coins, potions, etc.), either IG or OOG, in your weapon or shield hand and utilize that weapon or shield normally. This must be done safely. You may not hold a bottle, piece of wood, a mug, or anything that would be large and unsafe. If a marshal feels your combat has become unsafe because of what you are holding in your weapon or shield hand, they may require you to empty your hand of the item during combat.

In other words, Alliance combat does not generally promote combat with non-combat items in hand.

4. Packet Disarms vs Weapon Disarms - there are pros and cons to both, and they don't necessarily need to be equal. Packets can target some specific items that weapons can't in this case - such as carried bodies, Alchemy globes, Wands, and so forth. Weapons can actively block while in melee range, are much faster to attack with (no incant), and it's much easier to connect a solid swing with little chance of missing against some things like a shield.

5. This exact change to targeting rules has been requested by the playerbase for years; the 1.3 version is often derided as "useless" or "not worth purchasing" due in large part to the targeting rules. The core issue is that players want two different things from the same effect - one when used by a weapon and one when used with a spell. We continue to review comments and *especially* playtest feedback form results on concerns dealing with these targeting issues.

tl;dr: There's no easy answer for Disarm/Shatter to follow two different but intuitive sets of targeting rules. Feedback helps! But please, also be a good sport in how you play the game.

-Bryan

 

[Tantarus]

A couple comments about this:

1. Many of these situations (like "Disarm - Eviscerate" on a shield) can happen in 1.3 - "Spellstrike Disarm - Prepare to Die Eviscerate" (though a slower verbal) produces the same result. This is not a new condition with 2.0, though it may be far more common.

Can happen sure, when was the last time you saw a spellstrike disarm though? Vs them both being build skills. Sure it can happen now, But I have only seen it happen once like 18 years ago. Compared to every fighter/templar/rogue/scout can do it by default.

2. Shatter and Disarm are not intended to allow either the attacker or the target to gain an OOG advantage during the time it takes a player OOG to drop an affected item. We expect players to be good sports in this situation and not intentionally machine-gun invalid locations while someone is struggling to pull an item off their arm (or, conversely, to "keep actively blocking" while trying to pull an item off their arm). We expect players to be good sports in combat in many ways, including this one.

I dont really see how this is any different then chaining PTDs like happens now. Or people ganging up on an npcs with a ton of effects landing faster then he can call defenses.

4. Packet Disarms vs Weapon Disarms - there are pros and cons to both, and they don't necessarily need to be equal. Packets can target some specific items that weapons can't in this case - such as carried bodies, Alchemy globes, Wands, and so forth. Weapons can actively block while in melee range, are much faster to attack with (no incant), and it's much easier to connect a solid swing with little chance of missing against some things like a shield.

Would you say making disarm work two different ways makes the game simpler or more complex?

5. This exact change to targeting rules has been requested by the playerbase for years; the 1.3 version is often derided as "useless" or "not worth purchasing" due in large part to the targeting rules. The core issue is that players want two different things from the same effect - one when used by a weapon and one when used with a spell. We continue to review comments and *especially* playtest feedback form results on concerns dealing with these targeting issues.

People may want something it does not mean it is good for the game. I get people wanting to make melee disarm better, it is bad. But to me this is worse. It makes shields super bad. It adds alot of complex what if scenarios in how disarm and magic armor work. Fighters only get 1 defense against PTD effects,where as now there are alot more viable PTD effects to worry about. There is a reason I have been learning to fight with 2 weapons. I think shield is now weak against spells and melee in 2.0, Any low level rogue/fighter/scout/templar/adept can force you to use parries or drop it. Having to use parries to defend your shield just feels like bad mechanics.

I get that shatter/disarm PTDs are weak, but this is going to far in the other direction. Like way too far. At the very least Spirit link should be made to No effect disarm. It makes it simpler then a 5 sec rule that only applies to one situation. And it is no different then magic items being able to protect against shatter.

 

[Draven]

Spellstrike Disarm is a flub, the target is part of the verbal.