Shrivelling Spell Meta Gaming

[Kyle]

I have multiple baddies with the spell shrivelling which is in the Keeper's rule book. When casting either the basic or deeper version of shrivelling, you have to choose the amount of damage you do and expend that number of magic points. Ideally for the caster, it would deal damage equal to either the major wound or the number of hit points the target has left. As the Keeper, I know both of these figures but I do not think the baddie would.

How do I make my NPC's cast this spell without meta gaming?

[Mike M]

This isn't a Keeper vs the players type of game. It's all about the story. You know that on average 6 damage is likely to cause a major wound, just as 12 points is probably enough to kill. But place it in the context of the story. Most will expend 3-4 MP to 'scare' off the PCs (1-4 points would scare off an NPC).  Does killing a PC outright serve the story? If not, then limit the response - show the players the threat. If they can't handle it, they hopefully run to be better prepared next time. And, next time, is the villain better aware of the PCs and their capabilities ? Did 1-4 scare them off last time? Then it probably will again, and if not, then the villain can spend more against what they now see as real threats.

if you fear meta gaming it - roll  = 1D4 or 1D6 or if the villain perceived a real threat, then roll 1D8 or 1D10.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Mike M

[KarlF]

As @Mike M says think of it in the context of the story which I think also means the villains' likely tactics. If it is a chance encounter or one "out in the open" then I would expect the villains' tactics to be about scaring off or capturing opponents rather than killing, so "small dose" Shrivelling spells would be more likely. That way they also retain plenty of magic points for other spells (or another Shrivelling to make a point). If the PCs are attacking the villains in their lair/home base - or the villains are specifically sent to kill the PCs -  then I would expect the villains to go for bigger hits to make sure they drop their opponents.
One thing I would say is that Shrivelling is a much more dangerous spell in 7th ed - I've come from 5th ed where it took two rounds to cast, during which time the caster usually came in for a world of pain from the PCs once they realised what was going on!

[klecser]

This exact thing happened to me in my last game and my thought process was to put myself in the shoes of the cultist. I was running a scenario in which the Cultist is pursuing the PCs and they could make Spot Hidden rolls to see the pursuit. Multiple rolls succeeded and they got a good bead on their tail. The scenario assumes that they would avoid/Stealth. Not my players. One of them turned to confront their pursuer. 

At this stage, I knew that the Cultist would run, but I had to be prepared as to what would happen if there was a fight. This cultist had a critical "mission" and needed to escape. So, I reasoned that the Cultist would be willing to severely cripple their pursuer to be able to escape. I also run CoC with the assumption that baddies know "how much Magic" they can handle in a short amount of time. They don't know exactly how many "magic points" they have, but they know when they get "tired" from casting Spells. I reasoned that this cultist wouldn't use all of their Magic Points on a surprise encounter like this. He actually had plans later on that would require Magic Point reserves. In addition, I knew that he would want to really cause a devastating blow to shake off this pursuer. Crippling them was a goal of the situation. This particular scenario described the cultists as murderous in their aims and deliberately wanting to kill the Investigators. So, I was knocking five or six in my head and went with six. Six met all of my "requirements" of the logic/madness the cultist would use in this situation. He might have chosen differently if two Investigators came at him.

This all boils down to "think like the Cultist." Are they enraged? Do they need to escape? Do they need a Magic Point reserve for later? Do they anticipate this "fight" lasting a while? (You don't put all your eggs in one basket.)

Incidentally, the Cultist had the initiative and lost the Shrivelling opposed roll.  The Investigator won their Dominate opposed roll.  So, it ended up being a moot point. They used the two rounds of Dominate to bring him closer and make him tell them why he was following them. They then knocked him out and let him go in a place where they were sure he couldn't tail them when he woke up (assuming he was the only one).

Had it gone the "other way" I would stand behind my decision. Had the cultist caused a horrific major wound and then ran, it would have given my players a lot to think about: 1) They would get a glimpse of how "bad" offensive spells can be in the game. We've been running an investigation-heavy, combat-light campaign and this would have been their first introduction to one of the nastiest of spells. 2) It might have made them think twice about confronting pursuers in the future. 3) They would have had the knowledge that someone capable of that was still out there and pursuing them.

Which is better? Eh, it's what happened. They came out on top in this exchange. Next time there will still be an option for the Cultist to "land a big one" on them. Players drive narrative.

Edited June 25, 2020 by klecser

[EricW]

I think a cultist, especially someone who has mastered the deeper version of the magic, would have a pretty good idea how much effort they need to expend to achieve the desired effect. They've tried it enough times to have a pretty good idea how it works.

As for how PCs should deal with such powerful adversaries, i mean, its kind of attract their attention and die. Bit like attracting the attention of Nyarlethotep or a mythos monster,  powerful sorcerers are essentially mythos creatures, deadly and cruel.. Whatever the PCs do they better be pretty subtle about it, like assassinating their enemies from a distance..