Use of Spirit Magic during Melee

[jajagappa]

In my PbF game, a question arose on the use of spirit magic during melee (in this case it was to cast a Mobility spell on the bull to help it escape the rock lizards while simultaneously engaged with and fighting another rock lizard), and whether you can cast any at all while engaged.  I believe you can, but curious what others have concluded.

Here's the various points I can find that I think are relevant.
p.8: While an adventurer might throw a spell at an oncoming foe and then engage that foe in combat within the same round, an adventurer cannot, while engaged in combat, attack both physically and magically. Particularly talks about magical attacks (e.g. Disruption, Befuddle), not that non-attacking spell couldn't be done.
p.8: An adventurer that starts a round engaged in melee may either attack and defend normally or defend normally and attack magically, but not both. Same note as above.
p.7: Most spirit magic spells need at least one hand free, unless the focus is on the weapon (e.g. Bladesharp/Fireblade example) Certainly a limiting factor.
p.18: If the caster’s concentration is broken in any way before they have finished with casting a spell (such as taking damage), they cannot cast the spell and must try again. Also a limiting factor.
p.16: Cast defensive and weapon-enhancing spells before combat if possible. Suggests this is advisable, but not that you couldn't cast such during melee - just may be difficult.

My conclusions:
It is possible to cast a spell while engaged in melee. However...
This is limited to spells that you can focus on during a melee (where the focus is on an object in hand or visible on your hand/arm) and either affects the object in hand, affects you directly, or represents a magical attack on the opponent.
If the spell targets the opponent, then that is the attack on the opponent and you cannot also attack physically.

Examples that could be cast if focus is available/visible:
Attack spells directed at opponent: Befuddle, Demoralize, Disruption, Slow
Spells enhancing your weapons or physical/magical armor: Bladesharp (and other weapon related spells not included in Quickstart such as Bludgeon), Countermagic, Protection (and presumably Shimmer)
Spells altering your own personal state: Fanaticism, Mobility, Strength (and others not included like Vigor)

Other thoughts?  (And I do think it would be useful to have this clarified for the final book.)

[Joerg]

You omitted minor self-healing (e.g. to stop inconvenient bleeding) and helpful ranged spells cast on other friendlies (like your mount, e.g. Extinguish).

My favourite focus item for action sequences is an archer's greave (preventing the bow sinew damaging your lower arm) with inscribed foci. The interior of a shield is nice for self-enhancement foci, too.

 

[jajagappa]

19 minutes ago, Joerg said:

You omitted minor self-healing (e.g. to stop inconvenient bleeding) and helpful ranged spells cast on other friendlies

Yes, definitely self-healing, which would fall under altering your personal state.

But, I think there is an open question on other friendlies if they are not in direct contact or engaged in the same melee.  The rules imply you need a free hand and concentration for such ranged casting (not to mention being able to see and concentrate on that target). 

[Psullie]

Always a tricky one and very much case dependant, however if I was the GM of that particular encounter I would be inclined to suggest:

Casting Mobility on another counts as attacking/offensive magic (even if the target is willing, but in your case the bull is not), therefore I would not allow the player to cast then melee attack that round, he/she may parry though, as per p8

I generally read that casting during combat relates to spells on self. Bladesharp on your sword for example, but not on someone else's. 

My rule of thumb is that spells targeting others are considered 'attacks' even if beneficial. 

 

[Yelm's Light]

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

p.16: Cast defensive and weapon-enhancing spells before combat if possible. Suggests this is advisable, but not that you couldn't cast such during melee - just may be difficult

Best case, it takes up SR's that could've been used for other actions.

[jajagappa]

48 minutes ago, Psullie said:

Casting Mobility on another counts as attacking/offensive magic (even if the target is willing, but in your case the bull is not), therefore I would not allow the player to cast then melee attack that round

In theory the bull is friendly as it's one of the clan herd cows the PC's are off to rescue and would not be necessarily averse to the magic.  However, it was not immediately near the melee as it was being pursued by rock lizards.  My conclusion was that the concentration/activity required by the caster for a ranged magic could not be achieved while simultaneously engaged in melee with another rock lizard.

 

[styopa]

Our read on this is simple: barring high-skill splitting, you can perform 2 actions in a round.

Attack, defense, or spell casting each count as an action.  You can do two of any them as long as you have the tools (ie two weapons for two attacks) and sr available.

[Psullie]

4 hours ago, styopa said:

Our read on this is simple: barring high-skill splitting, you can perform 2 actions in a round.

Attack, defense, or spell casting each count as an action.  You can do two of any them as long as you have the tools (ie two weapons for two attacks) and sr available.

but you cannot magically attack and physically in the same round while engaged

[styopa]

4 hours ago, Psullie said:

but you cannot magically attack and physically in the same round while engaged

RAW, perhaps - but honestly, why not?  If you're willing to forego protecting yourself by dodging or parrying, why not let the player have that choice?  

Maybe you're being attacked by trollkin with daggers and with your plate armor and Shield 8 you really aren't worried they're going to hurt you even if you totally ignore them.  So you stab one with your sword and toss a spell at another.

IMO I think this rule exists only because it runs aground on the (arbitrary) everything-goes-on-a-rolling-SR-count-except-melee reef.  

If doing X takes 3 SR, and the 'between action interval' is 5 SR, then you can do X on SR 3 and again on 11.  This is valid as long as X is casting a spirit magic spell or shooting an arrow.  But in RAW *not* if X happens to be poking someone with a stick?

The rules as quoted by jajagappa are extraordinarily loose semantically anyway.  Technically, an archer firing at an enemy is "engaged in combat" (just not in melee).  Technically, an arrow shot IS a "physical" attack.  So could you shoot a bow and cast a spell?  If a mouse attacks me, am I "in melee"?

Seems like a lot of the handwaving exceptions and special case interpretations could easily be simplified-out by treating spell casting, shooting missiles, and physical attacks consistently.  All those things are actions.  You get two a round, as long as you have sufficient strike ranks to do so.  

Other details I'd apply: Defensive actions cost 1 SR by default (so yes, if you're being attacked in your SR, you have to choose do I defend this SR and delay my attack by 1SR, or do I attack simultaneously, forcing my opponent to make the same decision?  In a given SR, highest dex chooses first).  You have to have 2 weapons to attack twice.  A high skill allows you to perform 2 attacks with a single weapon at the cost of only 1 action that round. (for simplicity, I'd say those two attacks happen in subsequent SRs) So yes, as well, a very high skilled attacker with a very low SR could indeed split her attack for each attack action, and end up attacking 4 times a round....regardless of whether this is a missile attack or a mace attack.  

You can parry or dodge twice a round, or one of each, with no penalty (but of course, you have no attack actions left either).  If you defended at least once this round, and have no actions left, you may perform that same defense again repeatedly, with a cumulative -20% modifier for each time you use it this round.

 

 

[Yelm's Light]

18 hours ago, styopa said:

RAW, perhaps - but honestly, why not?  If you're willing to forego protecting yourself by dodging or parrying, why not let the player have that choice?  

Maybe you're being attacked by trollkin with daggers and with your plate armor and Shield 8 you really aren't worried they're going to hurt you even if you totally ignore them.  So you stab one with your sword and toss a spell at another.

IMO I think this rule exists only because it runs aground on the (arbitrary) everything-goes-on-a-rolling-SR-count-except-melee reef.  

If doing X takes 3 SR, and the 'between action interval' is 5 SR, then you can do X on SR 3 and again on 11.  This is valid as long as X is casting a spirit magic spell or shooting an arrow.  But in RAW *not* if X happens to be poking someone with a stick?

The rules as quoted by jajagappa are extraordinarily loose semantically anyway.  Technically, an archer firing at an enemy is "engaged in combat" (just not in melee).  Technically, an arrow shot IS a "physical" attack.  So could you shoot a bow and cast a spell?  If a mouse attacks me, am I "in melee"?

Seems like a lot of the handwaving exceptions and special case interpretations could easily be simplified-out by treating spell casting, shooting missiles, and physical attacks consistently.  All those things are actions.  You get two a round, as long as you have sufficient strike ranks to do so.  

Other details I'd apply: Defensive actions cost 1 SR by default (so yes, if you're being attacked in your SR, you have to choose do I defend this SR and delay my attack by 1SR, or do I attack simultaneously, forcing my opponent to make the same decision?  In a given SR, highest dex chooses first).  You have to have 2 weapons to attack twice.  A high skill allows you to perform 2 attacks with a single weapon at the cost of only 1 action that round. (for simplicity, I'd say those two attacks happen in subsequent SRs) So yes, as well, a very high skilled attacker with a very low SR could indeed split her attack for each attack action, and end up attacking 4 times a round....regardless of whether this is a missile attack or a mace attack.  

You can parry or dodge twice a round, or one of each, with no penalty (but of course, you have no attack actions left either).  If you defended at least once this round, and have no actions left, you may perform that same defense again repeatedly, with a cumulative -20% modifier for each time you use it this round.

This ignores the basis that a round isn't really a set amount of time.  1 SR doesn't necessarily equal 1 second.  Also, there's a difference in effort between poking with that stick and thinking through a formula and/or mouthing a few words.  As far as I know, there's no somatic requirement for most battle or rune magic spells.

[styopa]

40 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

This ignores the basis that a round isn't really a set amount of time.  1 SR doesn't necessarily equal 1 second.  Also, there's a difference in effort between poking with that stick and thinking through a formula and/or mouthing a few words.  As far as I know, there's no somatic requirement for most battle or rune magic spells.

Well, actually, a round is very clearly stated as a set amount of time: about 12 seconds.   From RQG QS: "Melee Round: About 12 seconds long, this is the basic unit of time used in combat"  Your other comment (that 1 SR doesn't equal 1 second) is true of course.  

Nevertheless it doesn't change my point: even if the SRs are a time-independent unit of measure (nobody thinks it takes 5 ACTUAL SECONDS to draw a sword or nock an arrow, it doesn't take 1 full second to take a 1m step, etc), they're still ostensibly objective units of measurement that we inject into the event-ordering system to determine who acts when.  What I object to strenuously enough to keep writing about it is that 'some ticks are more equal than others' (apologies to Orwell).  I object to the inconsistency.

5 SR to shoot an arrow or throw a spell are precisely and only that.  Once a character has completed that action, they are free to use the other 7 SR in the round to do whatever they like even if it's to do the same thing again (if they have the SR available).  That seems pretty clear & simple.

5 SR to poke a stick into someone is treated ENTIRELY differently.  Those 5 SR are for the action, of course, but then (hand-wavy bit) the other 7 SR in the round in this case only have certain subsequent actions precluded because the act of stick poking inherently requires (more hand-waving) the rest of the time to be spent square dancing or moonwalking or whatever to "protect themselves"... even if they don't want/need to protect themselves!

Aside from being redundant - we have a great system that in fact already simulates the very act of defending oneself (dodge or parry) as a distinct thing - why are we rationalizing it into the melee mechanic only?  

It doesn't make logical sense:

1) archer shooting immobile target butt can strike as fast and frequently as SR allow.

2) spell caster casting at immobile spell-target can cast as fast and frequently as SR allow.

3) spear wielder pokes a combatant that cannot harm her, the rest of her round she is unable to attack again, even if she has the SR for it.  Huh?

 

[Jeff]

8 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

This ignores the basis that a round isn't really a set amount of time.  1 SR doesn't necessarily equal 1 second.  Also, there's a difference in effort between poking with that stick and thinking through a formula and/or mouthing a few words.  As far as I know, there's no somatic requirement for most battle or rune magic spells.

A round is about 12 seconds long, however all strike ranks do is determine the sequencing (or priority) of actions. The assumption is that there will be no one than one or two "significant" actions in the round that require rolling dice for resolution. Strike ranks determine in what order this significant action takes place. You add Strike Ranks to an attack when you cast a spell or ready a weapon because your "significant action" is going to occur later in the sequence than one already ready.

Now you *could* decide to go down the rathole of rolling dice for every swing, thrust, or riposte. Except that would be absurd. And probably less "realistic" than accepting the assumption that in a 12 second period there is likely going to be one potentially decisive action. I've got an old buddy of mine who knows far more about fighting than I could ever even hope to learn has pointed out to me that many martial arts work are based on the muscle memory of constant repetition of forms and would be poorly modeled by breaking things down to discrete actions - RuneQuest's "abstraction" ends up being more "realistic" than something like GURPS.

[styopa]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

A round is about 12 seconds long, however all strike ranks do is determine the sequencing (or priority) of actions. The assumption is that there will be no one than one or two "significant" actions in the round that require rolling dice for resolution. Strike ranks determine in what order this significant action takes place. You add Strike Ranks to an attack when you cast a spell or ready a weapon because your "significant action" is going to occur later in the sequence than one already ready.

Now you *could* decide to go down the rathole of rolling dice for every swing, thrust, or riposte. Except that would be absurd. And probably less "realistic" than accepting the assumption that in a 12 second period there is likely going to be one potentially decisive action. I've got an old buddy of mine who knows far more about fighting than I could ever even hope to learn has pointed out to me that many martial arts work are based on the muscle memory of constant repetition of forms and would be poorly modeled by breaking things down to discrete actions - RuneQuest's "abstraction" ends up being more "realistic" than something like GURPS.

Not sure why the strawman.  Nobody's saying they want to roll for every swing, thrust or riposte.

But wait: We do track every single arrow fired, in detail.  We do not resolve missile fire as "the meaningful results from 12 seconds of sustained fire".  It's pretty clearly perceived to be each shot is a roll of the dice.  

We do track every single spell cast, in detail.  We do not resolve the results of magical attacks as "the meaningful result from 12 seconds of casting".  It's clearly modeled as each spell = a roll.  We don't roll for every riposte (because that would be 'absurd', right?) but we DO roll for every parry and dodge...

Yet melee attacks, for some reason, are treated entirely differently.  And in RQG it's even more evident - you get to keep parrying and dodging repeatedly as needed.  The attack is the 'decisive result of 12 seconds of (whatever)', but the dodges and the parries aren't?

I've been the one saying all along that what's broken isn't the rationalization of 12 seconds of melee activity into a single resolved roll.  

SRs are - as Jeff has again laid out - ordinals; they establish order of resolution, they don't count seconds.  

...Which is why allowing spells and missiles (only) the luxury of second shots without >100% skill is so completely inconsistent.  It grossly overpowers missile and spell combat for no real reason.

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, styopa said:

Not sure why the strawman.  Nobody's saying they want to roll for every swing, thrust or riposte.

But wait: We do track every single arrow fired, in detail.  We do not resolve missile fire as "the meaningful results from 12 seconds of sustained fire".  It's pretty clearly perceived to be each shot is a roll of the dice.  

We do track every single spell cast, in detail.  We do not resolve the results of magical attacks as "the meaningful result from 12 seconds of casting".  It's clearly modeled as each spell = a roll.  We don't roll for every riposte (because that would be 'absurd', right?) but we DO roll for every parry and dodge...

Yet melee attacks, for some reason, are treated entirely differently.  And in RQG it's even more evident - you get to keep parrying and dodging repeatedly as needed.  The attack is the 'decisive result of 12 seconds of (whatever)', but the dodges and the parries aren't?

I've been the one saying all along that what's broken isn't the rationalization of 12 seconds of melee activity into a single resolved roll.  

SRs are - as Jeff has again laid out - ordinals; they establish order of resolution, they don't count seconds.  

...Which is why allowing spells and missiles (only) the luxury of second shots without >100% skill is so completely inconsistent.  It grossly overpowers missile and spell combat for no real reason.

We track single arrows or missile weapons or spells because their release is in and of itself the "significant action". An arrow in combat does exactly one thing - it moves forward through space and either hits the target or does not. It doesn't feint, riposte, slide, twist, or even interact with the enemy's movement. There's no choreography or dance involved. Same thing with that bolt of Thunder - it either happens or it doesn't. Missile weapons are deadly. Wear armor. Carry a big shield. Close the distance with the missile user quickly so their weapon is useless (and a bow is pretty useless for parrying).

 

[g33k]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

... the other 7 SR in the round in this case only have certain subsequent actions precluded because the act of stick poking inherently requires (more hand-waving) the rest of the time to be spent square dancing or moonwalking or whatever to "protect themselves"... even if they don't want/need to protect themselves!

3) spear wielder pokes a combatant that cannot harm her, the rest of her round she is unable to attack again, even if she has the SR for it.  Huh?

I will suggest to you that if your spear wielder doesn't have to moonwalk or squaredance for protection... they functionally aren't in combat (they are poking a long stick at a subject that cannot fight back... like tormenting a dog in a cage).

I'd be inclined to argue to my GM (and as a GM, inclined to listen to an argument) to the effect of "noncombat action, no moonwalking here, nosir!  Can I have my 7 SR's back, so I can poke my stike a second time?"

N.B. - if the pokee is trying to close range to where they can use their kilij/whatever on the poker, then the poker isn't moonwalking -- they're doing the macarena to fend off the closing action... and still only get the one attack per round.

[styopa]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

I will suggest to you that if your spear wielder doesn't have to moonwalk or squaredance for protection... they functionally aren't in combat (they are poking a long stick at a subject that cannot fight back... like tormenting a dog in a cage).

And I'm saying, let that spear wielder decide if their self-preservation is a priority.  Don't take that choice away from them with the patronizing ruling that "well anything else is absurd".

If they want to be able to deploy defensive actions on their own behalf (as most sensible people would, in most situations), then sure, they get that one melee attack unless they're over 100%.

IF THEY DON'T - as can be the case for, say, berserkers, or people who believe themselves immune to harm, like say an archer at range - then let them act according to SR availability.

[g33k]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

And I'm saying, let that spear wielder decide if their self-preservation is a priority.  Don't take that choice away from them with the patronizing ruling that "well anything else is absurd".

If they want to be able to deploy defensive actions on their own behalf (as most sensible people would, in most situations), then sure, they get that one melee attack unless they're over 100%.

IF THEY DON'T - as can be the case for, say, berserkers, or people who believe themselves immune to harm, like say an archer at range - then let them act according to SR availability.

I'd be happy for a rule where the character could declare "100% defense" (all parry/dodge, no attack no matter HOW temptingly-wide the opening) or declare "100% offense" (all attack, no parry/dodge no matter how dangerous/threatening what they face).

But offensively in melee, I could only see it invoked as a special, screw-your-courage-to-the-sticking-point kind of thing, not a round-by-round declaration.  It's a different mindset, a different attitude (OK, berzerks are already screwed and can call 100%-attack for free... ) .   I don't think most fighters can turn survival reflexes off-and-on that easily!

100% defense?  Sure, I can see entering a combat cautiously, carefully... then if you're confident you aren't overmatched, shifting to a more-normal mix of offense and defense.

@Jeff ?  @Jason Durall ?    Any chance of something like we're discussing making it into the main rulebook, including option/sidebar/appendix?

[styopa]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

I'd be happy for a rule where the character could declare "100% defense" (all parry/dodge, no attack no matter HOW temptingly-wide the opening) or declare "100% offense" (all attack, no parry/dodge no matter how dangerous/threatening what they face).

But offensively in melee, I could only see it invoked as a special, screw-your-courage-to-the-sticking-point kind of thing, not a round-by-round declaration.  It's a different mindset, a different attitude (OK, berzerks are already screwed and can call 100%-attack for free... ) .   I don't think most fighters can turn survival reflexes off-and-on that easily!

I have plate armor and shield 8, I'm being attacked by pixies with toothpicks that do 0-1 damage.  I wouldn't need some special circumstance to feel completely safe from harm.

Again, I'd say leave it to the PLAYER to decide their own survival instinct.  If they want to throw caution to the wind, I'd say it's an extraordinarily intrusive DM to say 'you wouldn't risk your life like that'...

(As I've mentioned before, because NPCs rarely care about "tomorrow" I would definitely restrict NPCs from using it unless they had some sort of special circumstance ie Minotaur berserk rage, etc.)

[Psullie]

6 hours ago, styopa said:

I have plate armor and shield 8, I'm being attacked by pixies with toothpicks that do 0-1 damage.  I wouldn't need some special circumstance to feel completely safe from harm.

Again, I'd say leave it to the PLAYER to decide their own survival instinct.  If they want to throw caution to the wind, I'd say it's an extraordinarily intrusive DM to say 'you wouldn't risk your life like that'...

(As I've mentioned before, because NPCs rarely care about "tomorrow" I would definitely restrict NPCs from using it unless they had some sort of special circumstance ie Minotaur berserk rage, etc.)

I believe that players can be just as impetuous as your NPCs. One of the great things that RQ laid down was the universal nature of the rules, players could play monsters, and monsters were subject to the same skill advancement and (barring social limits) open to the same opportunities. (perhaps one of your pixies is a rune lord with 185% toothpick skill :-) ). So what ever ruling is put in place it would be open to all (fanatic tigress protecting cubs, you could state an equal number of examples to support NPC use).

I also feel that having NPC's as sword fodder is a D&D thing. RQ has favoured placing NPCs in scenarios for reasons (admittedly some of the earliest scenarios were dungeon bashes). There are no morale rules in RQ because it accepted the fact that the GM would 'play' the NPC's with sense suited to them. RQ's lethal combat means that risk of death or serious injury is always present. Now how much restrictions a GM places on their player's action is a style thing, I personally favour a guided approach as I find that often players would happily forget character restrictions for player benefit.

[g33k]

14 hours ago, styopa said:

Again, I'd say leave it to the PLAYER to decide their own survival instinct.  If they want to throw caution to the wind, I'd say it's an extraordinarily intrusive DM to say 'you wouldn't risk your life like that'...

This would not be my choice for RAW in a RPG.

It strikes me as turning the PC into a piece, to be played for optimal advantage; it is NOT my experience that people often act that way.

As always:  YGMV.

(otoh, this strikes me as a fine instance for using Passion rules; and having a Passion involved in declaring an all-offense or all-defense combat strategy seems a very fine idea!)

[Psullie]

17 minutes ago, g33k said:

(otoh, this strikes me as a fine instance for using Passion rules; and having a Passion involved in declaring an all-offense or all-defense combat strategy seems a very fine idea!)

that is a great instance for a Passion roll, even a fumble could send a PC off into a careless frenzy...

[g33k]

I was thinking there might be explicit "berzerk" rules (i.e. 100%-offense no-parry/no-dodge), which are trivially available to StormBull & ZorakZoran & the like, occasionally to others, but tie into the Passion rules, both as a possible Fumble result and as something to try for when the player wants...

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by g33k

[Mechashef]

On ‎26‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 5:47 AM, Jeff said:

We track single arrows or missile weapons or spells because their release is in and of itself the "significant action". .

 

I suspect a big part of why the game system tracks individual projectiles and spells is that they are consumables that we can run out of.  We need to know every arrow or javelin or MP used so we know when we have run out and can't use any more.

And yes I know arguably a similar claim could be made about melee weapons as they could be damaged or broken, but over the various versions of RQ, that aspect has had less emphasis than running out of the other consumables.