Riposte Question
- Thread starter Avaran
- Start date
As a follow up to this. Regarding Parry and Spell Strikes and Spell Parry.
Can you Parry a Spellstrike that hits a target within reach of your sword and take the effects yourself?
Can you Spell Parry a spell that hits a target within reach of your sword to cancel out the effect?
Can you Spell Parry a spellstrike that hits a target within reach of your sword?
Can you Spell Parry a spell that hits a target within reach of your sword and take the effects yourself?
I heard some interesting rulings regarding this so I'd like a clarification.
Marc
Can you Parry a Spellstrike that hits a target within reach of your sword and take the effects yourself?
Can you Spell Parry a spell that hits a target within reach of your sword to cancel out the effect?
Can you Spell Parry a spellstrike that hits a target within reach of your sword?
Can you Spell Parry a spell that hits a target within reach of your sword and take the effects yourself?
I heard some interesting rulings regarding this so I'd like a clarification.
Marc
jpariury
Duke
Avaran said:
Yes. Pg 50, 5th paragraph under the skill description. please note that with both Parry and Riposte, you must actually move between the attacker and the attacked (safety permitting).
From Marc:
Can you Parry a Spellstrike that hits a target within reach of your sword and take the effects yourself?
No, see page 89, under the description of "Channel". Spell strikes are not considered weapon attacks. Parries may not be used against them.
Can you Spell Parry a spell that hits a target within reach of your sword to cancel out the effect?
Can you Spell Parry a spellstrike that hits a target within reach of your sword?
Can you Spell Parry a spell that hits a target within reach of your sword and take the effects yourself?
I'll need to double-check the db, but I suspect that if any of the above situations apply, it would be the 1st.
A
Anonymous
Guest
No, no, no, no.Masticon said:
Sucks, though, I agree. It's basically just a Cloak vs Magic that uses up your Parry. See below.
~Matt
the Ritual Scroll said:
Actually, Matt, according to what you quoted it's not even a proper Cloak vs Magic. You couldn't cloak, for example, a Magic Enslavement with it. Suck. It's like a half-assed Resist Magic that doesn't really work against ALL Magic, just SOME Magic.
Sounds like someone on the ritual committee should clarify this, as it's rather an ugly exception to the rules as is.
-Bryan
Sounds like someone on the ritual committee should clarify this, as it's rather an ugly exception to the rules as is.
-Bryan
jpariury
Duke
Thanks, Matt, for posting the text.
Bryan,
It's not really an exception to any particular rule. The perceived exception comes in the difference between Matt's phrasing ("a Cloak vs Magic that uses up your Parry"), and the actual text of the scroll ("Cloak any battle magic spell or attack of Magic <Battle Magic Spell>"). The scroll is straight-forward enough: You can cloak a cast BMS or "Magic BMS", where BMS = traditionally memorized Earth or Celestial spell.
Bryan,
It's not really an exception to any particular rule. The perceived exception comes in the difference between Matt's phrasing ("a Cloak vs Magic that uses up your Parry"), and the actual text of the scroll ("Cloak any battle magic spell or attack of Magic <Battle Magic Spell>"). The scroll is straight-forward enough: You can cloak a cast BMS or "Magic BMS", where BMS = traditionally memorized Earth or Celestial spell.
Diera said:
Except, Sarah, that according to the scroll that's not true.
A Spell Parry acts as a Cloak vs Magic (Battle Magic Spell). This is significantly more specific than a "regular" Cloak vs Magic or Resist Magic.
A Cloak vs Magic could be used against a Magic Enslavement. A Cloak vs Magic could be used against a Magic Nausea. A Cloak vs Magic could be used against a Magic Obliterate. A Cloak vs Magic could be used against a Magic Destroy Magic. A Spell Parry, according to the scroll, can be used against none of these things.
The scroll speaketh, and it is so.
JP, I disagree -- I think it's a significant exception to the rule. A Cloak vs (something) is supposed to work against anything that is of that (something) delivery or that (something) effect. Why even put the word "Cloak" in there if it doesn't act as a Cloak? I thought that simplifying things like this was a major aim of the last ritual rules revision (classifying everything into effect groupings, specifying effects and deliveries, etc.) -- Spell Parry as is is something I'd have expected to see in 8th Edition, NOT 9th Edition. Somebody missed this one in the ritual rewrite IMHO.
Mark W., do you know if this was changed for the next edition of the rules?
-Bryan
5:30ish in the morning...
any battle magic effect, sorry.
Is spell parry supposed to be times per day? If it is, that would be something that would make it better than just a cloak, since to get a cloak to be times per day you have to cast a second ritual on it.
On a somewhat related (and complete griping) note... I don't have access to the scroll or the ritual database, as most normal marshals don't. Makes it a bit peskier to answer questions relating to formals, don't you think?
~Sarah
any battle magic effect, sorry.
Is spell parry supposed to be times per day? If it is, that would be something that would make it better than just a cloak, since to get a cloak to be times per day you have to cast a second ritual on it.
On a somewhat related (and complete griping) note... I don't have access to the scroll or the ritual database, as most normal marshals don't. Makes it a bit peskier to answer questions relating to formals, don't you think?
~Sarah
meltedwing
Adept
I don't believe it was even brought up for the next revision of the formal magic system. There are several formals in the system currently that are viewed as 'pointless', but really do have some pretty specific purposes. For instance Audible projection seems pointless until you really read the scroll... then you can start to figure out how it is actually useful.
I'd be loathe to bring this to the committee without some kind of suggestion for a 'fix'... at this point it's not even agreed upon by all in the conversation that it's necessarily broken... just kind of awkward...
Is there something in it that you think needs to be reworded or removed, and if so... what wording would you suggest?
I'd be loathe to bring this to the committee without some kind of suggestion for a 'fix'... at this point it's not even agreed upon by all in the conversation that it's necessarily broken... just kind of awkward...
Is there something in it that you think needs to be reworded or removed, and if so... what wording would you suggest?
jpariury
Duke
Diera said:
You need an extend, preserve, or permanence for a Spell Parry, same as Cloak.
Agreed, Secret Rules Suck?. Mike V. intended to have the complete rules for formal magic in the rulebook, however, the difference in timing for finalizing the formal rules and finalizing the rulebook resulted in the semi-hodgepodge that exists now. I recommend annoying... erm... suggesting strenuously to your local chapter owner, as well as any chapter owners you have congenial contact with, that the ritual rules, including the text of the formal scrolls, need to be publicly available, rather than a beg/borrow/steal acquisition.
JP
Not just the President of the SRSS (Secret Rules Suck? Society), also a client.
Derek Ironhammer said:
The fix I'd suggest is very simple. Spell Parry's current definition of "Magic" is at odds to the rest of the rulebook. Instead, make its definition of "Magic" jive with everything else -- no special specifics for battle magic, just anything with "Magic" delivery in the same way Resist Magic works for anything with "Magic" delivery.
Text would be something like:
The Ritual Scroll said:
Since Magic type delivery is defined very clearly in the rulebook (it has to be for Resist Magic), this should be sufficient. It would be great if you could use it for other people as well (as per a "mundane" Parry) or even better if you could Bane by using a Riposte, but those would just be gravy. My big beef with the scroll is the whole "Almost a Cloak vs Magic but not really because we won't follow the standardized delivery / effect rules we have in place".
-Bryan
Actually, here's a follow-up question.
According to Matt's (incomplete, I assume) scroll quote, Spell Parry is *not* times-per-day -- if you have say 3 parries, you could parry 3 spells, or 2 weapon hits and 1 spell, or... whatever. Is this true? If so that somewhat makes up for the lameness of the whole "specifically battle magic" bit.
-Bryan
According to Matt's (incomplete, I assume) scroll quote, Spell Parry is *not* times-per-day -- if you have say 3 parries, you could parry 3 spells, or 2 weapon hits and 1 spell, or... whatever. Is this true? If so that somewhat makes up for the lameness of the whole "specifically battle magic" bit.
-Bryan
A
Anonymous
Guest
Once per day, just like a cloak. Although that was a fix that I'd also thought of, the "as many times as you want, it just uses a parry each time" thing. Since it blows the build, I don't see that as being over powering, other then it's another "Give something cool to the Fighters and screw the Casters" ritual.
~Matt
~Matt
Polare Lissenstine said:
This, however would make it more powerful than a resist magic as resist magics can NOT be used to resist a "Magic: Ritual Name". Also worth noting is that there is no Cloak Magic available to PCs as per the ritual system so in truth having something that is almost a cloak magic is actually very useful.
Marc
Masticon said:
Er... they can't stop anything with Magic type delivery? Don't have a rulebook handy, could you (or someone) quote the applicable section? Seems that that introduces quite a bit of confusion and I'm wondering how on earth they defined this. How do you draw the line between say a Magic Obliterate, a Magic Nausea, and a Magic Dispel Magic? Shouldn't Resist Magic stop all of those?
That's true. The ritual system compared to the available defensive spells certainly are there for different things -- rituals stop effects, while spells stop deliveries (Poison Shield/ Magic Armor/ Spell Shield/ Reflect Magic vs Cloak or Bane Necromancy/Alteration/Flame/Summoned Force/ etc.). I just think it's strange and confusing to have a ritual that stops *neither* an effect group *nor* a delivery type, but something in between -- it stops only certain effects delivered in a certain delivery type. You can Spell Parry a Dispel Magic spell or a Magic Dispel Magic, but not a (theoretical) Dispel Magic poison or Dispel Magic carrier attack. But you can't Spell Parry a Magic Vertigo, while you *can* Spell Parry a Magic Sleep. Doesn't that just seem a bit contradictory when you look at all the other stuff about effects and deliveries clarified (reasonably well, even) in the last edition?
-Bryan
jpariury
Duke
Resist Magic is similarly poorly worded. It goes out of its way to specify that it works only against "Magic: <spell name>" and not any other form of magic (no caps). We will most likely need to refer both the ability and the Spell Parry ritual to the writers in order to verify their intent.
meltedwing
Adept
jpariury said:
What if I'm not physically capable of getting between the two in a moment, but I am very capable of putting my sword between the two. Do you think that would count?