[.11] Blocking "Spell" arrows

[Ken]

Splitting off conversation from https://alliancelarp.com/forum/threads/denver-november-16-18-thoughts-and-musings.38721/#post-302538

Valid attack zones depend entirely upon the delivery. If an attack is swung by a weapon (i.e. the Physical delivery, which includes arrows and bolts), it only works if it is not blocked by the target. If an attack is thrown with a (non-arrow/bolt) packet, it works so long as it lands on the target or their direct possessions, including weapons and shields.

An explicit keyword has been added, Strike, which allows a Physical delivery to use the packet targeting rules for that attack only. This will be familiar for players who used “Spellstrikes” before and works exactly the same way. The Strike keyword can be added to any qualifier attack now, not just Spell qualifier, and is announced directly after the qualifier in an attack verbal.

As an example of a weird call that a PC can generate, United Blow + Imbue Magic allows a call like "90 Spell Body" to be made with an arrow, so the defender probably wants to be clear on whether they can block that. Though the packet seems weirdly indecisive about whether it should be "United Blow" or "United Strike", so that may be related. But this is a digression and not related to anything that actually happened in this playtest, so I'll drop it here.

From the playtest packet:

Any time you hear “Spell”, it means something’s being delivered via a magic spell or some other similar magical source like a monster’s innate pyramid or a Ritual effect. Applicable defenses (Magic Armor, Spell Shield, Resist Magic, etc.) have all been reworked to trigger based completely on the qualifier of the attack.

"blockable attacks (for example, not using the Massive carrier or the Spell qualifier) "

I suspect that last bit was either from an older packet or intended to say "Spell Strike", since if "Spell" by itself is equivalent to "Spell Strike" then we wouldn't bother using that keyword. That's the entire point of Strike, to make physical deliveries unblockable.

So if I fire an arrow as described above with "90 Spell Body" I would expect, based on the delivery/strike rules, that a shield would block this. But that would also require the blocker to keep track of what color packets I was throwing, which doesn't seem great. Thoughts?

 

[tieran]

Would “90 spell body” even be a valid call?

How would you end up with that?

ETA: I guess the unified blow and imbue magic makes it doable, but “90 spell body” still feels like a weird call.

If that all is the case then I would think that “90 spell body” would be blockable by a shield and would of used with a bow need to be a blue packet.

The one thing that weirds me out though is the skill being called United Blow, while being referenced as United Strike.

 

[Ken]

Yeah, if it was actually "United Strike" and was thus a Spell Strike like all the other uses of Imbue Magic it would be unambiguous whether you could block it without needing to know the packet color.

 

[Sage of Legaia]

Apologies if I come across as rude, but I'm going to make this as short and sweet as possible.

1) The Strike keyword is added to indicate that the incoming blow follows packet attack rules when it normally shouldn't.

2) In the case of Spell Strike, it's there to indicate that even though the incoming blow is a weapon, it follows the packet rules.

3) Following the above, when combining Imbue Magic and United Blow the verbal should be, "[X] Spell Strike Body", as the delivery is still a weapon, but the Spell Qualifier changes it to use packet rules.

4) If an archer calls "90 Spell Strike Body" and throws a blue packet, you take it if it hits your shield; if they forget the Strike keyword, remind them that they have to include it next time; if they throw any other colour of packet, remind them that they still have to use a blue one.

 

[tieran]

Where are you getting the addition of strike?

Per the description, United Blow allows for additional damage and the body carrier. There isn’t anything regarding it being a Strike ability other than the repeated references to (presumably) United Blow as United Strike.

 

[Gorphy]

What is this "Imbue Magic" we are talking about? Is it a ritual?

 

[Ken]

What is this "Imbue Magic" we are talking about? Is it a ritual?

Yes, in the 0.11c packet. Here:

Imbue Magic (General, Item [Weapon], Daily) - The character may expend a charge of this ritual when using the Dispelling Strike, Purifying/Draining Strike, United Strike, or Combined Strike skills to change their qualifier to Spell instead of Weapon.

The fact that it refers to "United Strike" when the skill is currently called "United Blow" suggests it might have been intended for use only on Strike skills, but United Blow doesn't produce a Strike in its current form.

 

[Sage of Legaia]

The reason you'd need to add Strike is when United Blow is used in conjunction with Imbue Magic, and only because it changes the Qualifier from Weapon (no Strike needed, can be blocked as usual) to Spell (follows packet rules, but delivered with a weapon, gets Strike keyword to indicate this).

 

[Ken]

The reason you'd need to add Strike is when United Blow is used in conjunction with Imbue Magic, and only because it changes the Qualifier from Weapon (no Strike needed, can be blocked as usual) to Spell (follows packet rules, but delivered with a weapon, gets Strike keyword to indicate this).

It seems like you believe that physical deliveries gaining the Spell qualifier automatically gain the Strike keyword somehow, but I haven't seen that spelled out or otherwise implied anywhere. Do you have any basis for that?

 

[Sage of Legaia]

Spell Qualifier attacks use packet rules, so if you're delivering a Spell through a weapon, you use the Strike keyword to indicate that. If you don't have to use it, then it would be an exception.

 

[tieran]

I get where you’re getting that from, but I think you are reading things that aren’t there.

The Spell qualifier changes the defenses that gets used from physical (weapon shield) to magic (spell shield).

I agree that it not having strike would make it an exception, but it seems like that’s what we have, unless there is some further clarification, @Polare ?

 

[Draven]

Personally, I think United Blow shouldn’t be in the list.

 

[Ken]

Spell Qualifier attacks use packet rules, so if you're delivering a Spell through a weapon, you use the Strike keyword to indicate that. If you don't have to use it, then it would be an exception.

Maybe that should be true, but that doesn't seem to be what the packet says. Qualifiers have no relation to valid attack zones, regardless of whether it's Spell, Elemental, or Arcane. The packet very clearly says "Valid attack zones depend entirely upon the delivery". Qualifiers also don't change delivery types - only Strike does that, and that's all Strike does. That keyword gets added by specific mechanics like skills or rituals. There's no mechanic that says "If a physical delivery gets the Spell qualifier, automatically add Strike". There may have been an intent by the packet's authors such that Spell (or Elemental, etc) never gets added to a physical swing without also adding Strike, but that intent was never spelled out or written in as a rule (that I can find).

 

[Draven]

The need for “Strike” is irrelevant.

Spell follows spell packet rules.

This is confirmed by the activation verbal for a spell stored spell.

“Activate 30 spell flame!”

“Activate Spell prison!”

etc etc.

 

[Ken]

The need for “Strike” is irrelevant.

Spell follows spell packet rules.

This is confirmed by the activation verbal for a spell stored spell.

“Activate 30 spell flame!”

“Activate Spell prison!”

etc etc.

That generates a spell packet, though. Swords don't, nor do bow and arrow. If Strike is irrelevant, why is it used for qualifiers other than Weapon and Poison?

Edit: I think part of the confusion here is that "spell packet" isn't a game term, it's two game terms: a packet delivery with a spell qualifier. The part of "spell packet" that makes spells target the way they do isn't the "spell" part, it's the "packet" part. Imbue Magic is adding "Spell" to an arrow, not converting it into a "spell packet", and arrows are (confusingly but very specifically) not packets as far as the delivery system is concerned.

 

[Draven]

In the original packets, Spell Strike was removed and replaced with “Spell.” So you’d hit with a “Spell Prison!” or whatever. However, the verbal was generally disliked, because people liked how Spell Strike conveyed a spell delivery via weapon (and probably slowed the attack down a bit).

So the Strike mechanic was introduced. It was never intended, or so it appears, to try to introduce an entirely new concept of a weapon damage effect that is “Spell.” That would be weird, as we already have “Magic.”

Instead, the purpose of Strike is to convey that a delivery follows the spell rules. In theory, “Spell Strike” is redundant. But it gives a basis for Weapon Strike, and we like it more.

 

[Ken]

Yeah, I remember at least one older playtest with that system. I can certainly agree that under the current playtest, spell qualifier with a physical delivery is probably not a thing that's intended to happen without a Strike, and that the 90 Spell Body arrow is almost certainly a bug that needs to be patched out in one way or another.

But it's also true that Spell qualifier does not, in this playtest, imply Strike from a raw rules standpoint. That's an unwritten meta-rule at best. There's nothing wrong with unwritten meta-rules so long as they actually hold true - I think I know I won't find anything that makes Weapon qualifier attacks with non-physical packets, for example, but only because a) there are no examples of that and b) it would be weird. But with our current example, we do find an example of it even though it's weird, so it's hard to tell (especially for a fairly new player) without clarification whether the unwritten meta-rule was violated, or whether it never existed at all.

 

[Draven]

I don’t think it’s a meta-rule. I think it’s RAI. There’s some clues to that.

1) The Strike mechanic is new, but based on an old concept.

2) Magic damage as a weapon carrier already exists, and would be blocked by shields. Thus having “Spell” damage do the same would be...weird. It actually would be resisted by Resist Spell. Note that Resist Magic was changed to Resist Spell to specifically avoid this very scenario from occurring.

3) Were the introduction of a new weapon effect intended, I suspect that this would have been outlined in the packet, much like the introduction of every other mechanic.

Thus, I think it’s pretty clear that this isn’t intended by any means. “Spell” rules apply, even if “Strike” isn’t listed. While this might mean that an argument exists to add “Strike” to the verbal, there is no indication of any sort that this wouldn’t follow the same rules as all other Spell deliveries.

 

[Ken]

And my philosophy on RAI is that it should never be different from RAW in any kind of network game, so let's get the RAW fixed during the playtest

Unrelated: I'm not sure what your point with "Magic damage as a weapon carrier already exists" was supposed to be. You can already throw "10 Spell Magic" and "10 Elemental Magic" in this playtest via storms, so I'm not sure why swinging that with a weapon would be any weirder, with or without Strike.

Edit: But either way, the carrier for this example was Body. The unmodified skill does 90 (Weapon) Body. 90 Spell Body differs only in qualifier, not carrier.

 

[Draven]

“90 Spell Body” via blue packet and “90 Spell Body” via white packet are the same effect.

One merely represents that it consumed an arrow to deliver the attack.

The other represents that it was a magic spell.

The outcome was the same. As a marshal, I would rule that it would use the spell rules in either case, because the spell qualifier is what matters.

Additionally, while I agree that RAW should reflect RAI as best as it can, errors happen, especially when introducing a new system. This is why it’s important for Marshals to try to understand the “why” behind the RAW, so that we can make calls towards RAI when questions come up, and if necessary, have ARC make clarifications later.