Combining Strike Ranks For Spells and Missile Weapons?

[EpicureanDM]

On pg. 194 of RQG, in the section titled "Magical Attacks and Strike Ranks", we find the following paragraph:

Quote

However, casting a spell such as Bladesharp or Fireblade on a weapon held in the hand and striking with it in the same round only involves adding the normal strike rank to cast to the normal strike rank for that weapon for that melee round.

This rule is meant to prevent the 5 Strike Rank penalty that ordinarily applies when switching between using a spell and attacking with a weapon in the same round (which is detailed in the paragraph preceding the quoted one). 

Does this rule only apply to melee weapons or does it also include missile weapons held in the hand?

The quoted text only mentions spells that affect melee weapons, so my first reading implied that it's only for melee attacks. But if a character's got their missile weapon in hand, then why not allow the same benefit? So far, my only argument against it is that it might make missile attacks a bit more powerful than the designers intended. But I'm not sure how much more powerful or if my intuition's right about that.

[Marc]

I've always played that if the focus you need to cast the spell is on the weapon, then you don't have to pay the 5 SR penalty. If it's not, then usually you have to pay the penalty.

[EpicureanDM]

1 hour ago, Marc said:

I've always played that if the focus you need to cast the spell is on the weapon, then you don't have to pay the 5 SR penalty. If it's not, then usually you have to pay the penalty.

Wait, so if the focus is tattooed on the character's body rather than on the weapon, then couldn't take advantage of this rule, whether it's for melee or missile weapons? That sounds like an interpretation based in a previous edition's rules, not RQG.

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

The quoted text only mentions spells that affect melee weapons, so my first reading implied that it's only for melee attacks.

Seems pretty clear that casting Speedart then throwing a prepared javelin should be the same as casting Bladesharp and hitting with a sword.

[Marc]

1 hour ago, EpicureanDM said:

Wait, so if the focus is tattooed on the character's body rather than on the weapon, then couldn't take advantage of this rule, whether it's for melee or missile weapons? That sounds like an interpretation based in a previous edition's rules, not RQG.

I should spend more time thinking about posts. Yeah, I wouldn't make a player pay the SR penalty if the focus was tattooed. Basically, it depends on how hard it would be to get to the focus. Actually, this thread has reminded me of something I should tell the players in my current game. When I was running an RQ2 game, I required players to write down where they had the focus for each spell. So we would be able to tell if the focus was damaged, destroyed, or unavailable for some other reason.

[EpicureanDM]

21 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Seems pretty clear that casting Speedart then throwing a prepared javelin should be the same as casting Bladesharp and hitting with a sword.

That's where I'm ending up, but I'm curious if others see it a different way. There might be a good design reason for limiting it to melee weapons that I haven't considered.

[g33k]

2 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

Wait, so if the focus is tattooed on the character's body rather than on the weapon, then couldn't take advantage of this rule, whether it's for melee or missile weapons?

I could see some argument with metaphysical handwavery, wherein a focus on the weapon is better for making the weapon part of the casting, whereas a focus on a tattoo/etc requires you to "refocus" (i.e. be slower) in some metaphysical way; the upside being you can cast it on ANY weapon, not just your usual one with the focus carved into it.

But I could equally-well assert that a focus is a focus and they work the same.

In the end, I will say that either seems fine, and MGF should rule -- what does YOUR table think is the most interesting, the most fun?

 

2 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

That sounds like an interpretation based in a previous edition's rules, not RQG.

I would need to go over RQClassic & RQG with fine-toothed-combs to be sure; but I think you have used a crucial word:  "interpretation."  I think this point was always a HR'ed point.  In lieu of a definitive answer in the RAW(s), RQG needs an interpretation as much as RQ2 & RQ3 ever did; and I see no reason to interpret the matter differently.

 

[PhilHibbs]

We never bothered with detailing spell focuses, in any RQ game I've ever played in.

[EpicureanDM]

59 minutes ago, g33k said:

In the end, I will say that either seems fine, and MGF should rule -- what does YOUR table think is the most interesting, the most fun?

We lean towards the flexible option of letting it apply to both melee and missile provided you've got a focus of some sort. 

[g33k]

On 3/20/2019 at 12:33 PM, EpicureanDM said:

We lean towards the flexible option of letting it apply to both melee and missile provided you've got a focus of some sort. 

Just so long as they recall that every rules-tweak their PC's can use, so can the NPC's!!!  😉

[EpicureanDM]

On 3/23/2019 at 6:53 PM, g33k said:

Just so long as they recall that every rules-tweak their PC's can use, so can the NPC's!!!  😉

They learned that the hard way today in a fight with a mounted archer.

[soltakss]

On 3/20/2019 at 7:32 PM, PhilHibbs said:

We never bothered with detailing spell focuses, in any RQ game I've ever played in.

I go further and don't even have focuses in my RQ. If you know the spell you can cast it. If the PC is blindfolded, gagged and has hands and feet tied, then I might add a few Penalties to the roll, though.

[Kloster]

4 hours ago, soltakss said:

I go further and don't even have focuses in my RQ. If you know the spell you can cast it. If the PC is blindfolded, gagged and has hands and feet tied, then I might add a few Penalties to the roll, though.

Same for me (when I am the GM).