Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2012 15:33:34 GMT -5
ewookie As per LAW rules L-1 : costs 1-4 F : does 1-4d6 dam on 1 space L-3 : costs 2-8 F : does 1-4d6 dam on each of up to 3 spaces (buy 2 get 1 free - a good deal) L-7 : costs 3-12 F : does 1-4d6 dam on each of up to 7 spaces (buy 3 get 4 free - a very good deal) Cheers Colin why are you quoting rules to me? i have a copy. did i say something contradictory to the rules and not preface it as a proposed change? perhaps you could answer my last question instead? seriously, man. you just chimed in with a quote of the rules and i have no idea why. it seems totally random. can you explain why you just quoted those rules? you are very hard to follow sometimes. i suppose i am too but it sounds like you are trying to correct me on something...and i have no idea what it is. please explain so i can benefit from your instruction.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Oct 10, 2012 15:46:27 GMT -5
I think Colin meant that whether you were able to target 1, 3, or 7 hexes is dependent upon your IQ, not that IQ = spaces.
This is a good discussion, guys.
One reason for costs the way they are, it is unlikely that 7 guys would be standing directly adjacent to eachother (unless in a large assault of some kind) so the cost was not made equal to how many hexes are in the spell. The costs are fixed for the -3 or -7 hexes, regardless of whether one or seven guys were hit. Also, we felt that if you are smarter and able to master the more powerful version of the spell, you should be able to accomplish more with it. "Accomplishing more" in this case means targeting more hexes for a smaller per-hex cost. So as Colin points out, it is a good deal, you don't always get to hit that many guys.
Cheers! Bret
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2012 17:04:23 GMT -5
bret, thanks for clearing up colin's post. with your input, i now see what he meant by 'targeted spaces is determined by IQ' and that his quoting of the rules was supposed to be some kind of explanation of what he meant.
i am aware of the reasons for the cheaper costs involved in the -3 and -7 hex spells. i saw you explain that in another post. yes, as colin pointed out several posts, these spells are VERY good deals. i was under the impression that we all agreed that the deal was too good. if i was wrong about that, please let me know.
i'm guessing from the last phrase of your last sentence that you're not really in favor of redefining the multi-hex missile spells in terms of targets instead of hexes? it seems like the clearest, simplest way of defining them. you seem to imply that while it would lessen their power over multi-hex creatures, it would make them overly powerful against multiple foes. i can see that. however, there are simple 'number-tweaking' fixes for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2012 22:15:41 GMT -5
on the other hand, i have decided to visualize the lightning strikes of Lightning-3 and -7 in a different manner than i was before, in hopes of it yielding another possible solution.
instead of 3 or 7 different bolts raining down from above (as previously imagined)...instead of 3 or 7 different bolts originating from the caster...i have decided to visualize 1 arc of lightning originating from the caster (as in Lightning-1) and striking a first target and then arcing from that target to 2 additional targets (Lightning-3) if they are in spaces adjacent to the first target. for -7 it would be one arc from caster to first target, then it arcs from the first target to up to 6 different targets if those targets are in the chosen, 7 contiguous hex area.
visualizing the lightning strikes in this manner means that if there is one target that occupies 7-hexes, it only receives 1 strike no matter which Lightning spell is used. visualizing the lightning strikes in this manner means that 4d6 is the most damage you can do to this multi-hex creature no matter which Lightning spell is used. therefore, the cheapest way to do the most damage to this 7-hex creature is to use Lightning-1 with 4F to do 4d6 damage.
this would yield a spell description along the lines of ... Lightning-3...IQ16...2/4/6/8F...Does D6 per 2F spent damage to 1-3 targets as long as they are within a 3 contiguous space area. (the max any one target would take is 4d6) Lightning-7...IQ18...3/6/9F...Does D6 per 3F spent damage to 1-7 targets as long as they are within a 7 contiguous space area. (the max any one target would take is 3d6)
^that seems pretty clear and succinct to me but may just be my opinion. it gets a little hairy with Magic Fist or Fireball because of the xD6-y formula...
Magic Fist-7...IQ14...3/6F...Does D6 per 3F spent minus 2 damage to 1-7 targets as long as they are within a 7 contiguous space area. (max damage for any one target is 2d6-2)
^seems ok to me but wonder if the following would be more readily comprehensible to a newcomer...
Magic Fist-7...IQ14...3/6F...Does 1D6-2 damage for 3F or 2D6-2 for 6F to 1-7 targets as long as they are within a 7 contiguous space area.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Oct 11, 2012 9:13:36 GMT -5
i was under the impression that we all agreed that the deal was too good. if i was wrong about that, please let me know. i'm guessing from the last phrase of your last sentence that you're not really in favor of redefining the multi-hex missile spells in terms of targets instead of hexes? it seems like the clearest, simplest way of defining them. you seem to imply that while it would lessen their power over multi-hex creatures, it would make them overly powerful against multiple foes. i can see that. however, there are simple 'number-tweaking' fixes for that. Hey ewookie, Actually, I do not think the costs are too good a deal, because it does target adjacent spaces, rather than a number of foes. If Fireball-3 affected three foes automatically, I would agree. But many of the adjacent hexes will not contain an enemy, and therefore be "wasted." The spells affecting spaces rather than enemies is also consistent with other multi-hex spells, like Shadow-3, that affect adjacent hexes. This has been my experience in playing, but I am certainly listening to the input here. I guess it doesn't seem out of balance to me, because I have rarely seen the multihex missile spells affect an equal number of foes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2012 10:08:51 GMT -5
as they are now, no, the static, multi-hex spells are not out of balance when dealing with multiple foes. i thought we were only talking about the missile spells (see reply#5)... Hi, The reason I asked about creature size was for high-level missile spells. A wizard with IQ 16 casting Lightning-3 against a hex 3-4 creature could target all the hexes he could see in the same round. The fatigue cost is proportionately greater but the damage is immediate, rather than inflicted over several rounds. Even if the fatigue costs for the multi-level spells were brought in as a linear multiple of the 1-hex version, it gives the multi-level spells a great advantage eg 2 wizards each IQ16 and staffs fully charged, hit a 4 or 7 hex dragon from the side with Lightning-3 using 4F per strike ie 6 individual Lightning-1 causing 4d6 damage each. Each strike causes, on average, 14 points of damage => 84 points of damage. Natural armour will apply to each individual strike, but even a 7-hex dragon (armour 5) will suffer 54 damage points on average in that round, and the wizards haven't even depleted their staffs. Unfortunately then, it seems that size IS important (and not in a nice way). Cheers Colin what i thought me, you, and colin had agreed on was that, as the missile spells are right now (not the static spells like Shadow), they are WAY too powerful against multi-hex creatures. (see reply#7)... Colin, This is a great point. I did not comprehend this is what you were getting at. This is definitely not what was intended, though, with the multiple hex spells. These spells were intended to spread out the effect to encompass more enemies. We did not intend for it to do triple or more damage to larger creatures. I definitely see where you get the reading of this through "spaces," though. Gah! We'll have to examine the wording, here... Bret that is what i've been offering 'fixes' for in my posts. i understand the need/desire to keep the spells targeted at spaces. this is why i changed tack with my last post, where the spells do not simply affect a number of targets but affect a number of targets within a targeted area. i was trying to compromise and concede the point that the missile spells need to remain 'aimed' at an 'area' of contiguous spaces. consistency is good and desirable but there are already significant differences between how Shadow-3 and other multi-hex spells are handled. Shadow, etc. are static spells. the missile spells (magic strikes) are dynamic. because the static spells remain in play until the end of the encounter, it seems to me their primary purpose is to create hazards and obstacles. because dynamic spells expire instantly? or at the end of the round? are so short-lived and they are described as acting as missiles...it seems the primary purpose is to hit something (a target) within a space. (i don't think the same could be said for Fire, Shadow, Slippery Floor, etc.) our characters usually aim their bows and fire their arrow _missiles_ at a target, not a space.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Oct 11, 2012 10:40:33 GMT -5
I was just referencing the other multi-hex spells, to show why we had multi-hex missile spells target spaces rather than individuals.
I agree that the interpretation of multihex missile spells attacking multi-hex creatures multiple times would make them too powerful.
Sorry to be confusing!
But I think the only fix that needs to be made is to make it clear that multi-hex creatures are not hit multiple times by multi-hex missile spells. That is what I meant. Otherwise, for the reasons I stated, I think they are not too powerful for the cost.
Unless I am still missing something? Sorry to be dense, amigo!
Bret
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2012 10:52:18 GMT -5
right! so how do you do that with the rules? that's what i'm trying to do here that's what my last 'proposal' does ...or so i thought... LOL
|
|
|
Post by klingor on Oct 11, 2012 14:57:22 GMT -5
Treat it as a two-stage process. stage 1 - targetting stage 2 -delivery In stage 1, your character picks 1/3/7 target hexes connected hexes in your line of sight (the number depends on the spell and your characters IQ) aka targetable spaces In stage 2, your character decides how many of the targetable spaces to attack (aka targeted spaces) and how much fatigue per attack. The character then launches a level-1 missile at each targeted space and pays the appropriate cost for each attack. It seems straightforward and if do happen to have an IQ 18 wizard using Lightning-7 to target and attack 7 contiguous hexes that are visible to him with 4F Lightning bolts, then if he has 28 Fat points available, then let him do it. With that sort of power, he could probably do anything anyway. Cheers Colin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2012 15:18:16 GMT -5
colin, you are free to treat it as you wish. i don't begrudge that but it seems you are ignoring some rules and Bret's stated intent by doing that. i will treat it as i proposed in reply#18...
this is the most straightforward way to me...and it satisfies Bret's stated intent...and would prevent anyone from ever misinterpreting the intent.
if i understand Bret correctly, the intent is that no victim within the 7 contiguous spaces receives more than one hit/strike/bolt/whatever even if the victim is large and occupies more than one of those hexes. i find this intent very agreeable, fair, and balanced with respect to the missile spells.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2012 15:46:30 GMT -5
an IQ 18 wizard using Lightning-7 to target and attack 7 contiguous hexes that are visible to him with 4F Lightning bolts, then if he has 28 Fat points available, then let him do it. With that sort of power, he could probably do anything anyway. the way i read the current, published rules, you cannot cast Lightning-7 with 4F.. there is a defined relationship between the number of D6 used and the amount of Fatigue used. With Lightning-1, if you want the bolt to do 1d6, you use 1F. If you want the bolt to do 2d6, you use 2F. Lightning-7 is thrice the cost of Lightning-1, so in order for a bolt to do 1d6, you must use 3F. to do 2d6, you must use 6F...the fatigue costs occur in increments of 3. If you use 4F with Lightning-7, how many D6 does that give you? perhaps there is something i am misunderstanding about the current, published rules that is causing confusion.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Oct 12, 2012 9:06:01 GMT -5
Unless I am mistaken (which has happened multiple times in this thread already! ) Colin is talking about a theoretical way to apply the Fatigue to the spell, based on the rules but on a hex by hex basis based on its occupation. Actually, I don't think any of us are too far off in intent, just a difference in execution. This thread really highlights the problems that George and I have when writing spells. Even when we try to be concise, that does still leave occasional grey areas. I think I see what you are saying, Colin, and it sounds fine. But to explain it in the rules would take more verbiage than we really want to commit, if we did want to change it to that method. Maybe that is too much of our simplicity, conceit, though. But there is certainly nothing preventing you from playing it that way! ewookie, I see what you were saying now with your revised descriptions. Sorry I misunderstood! Bret
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 9:32:21 GMT -5
ok, i see now what colin was talking about. he is basically applying Lightning-1 to several hexes at the same time. to send a Lightning-1, 4d6 bolt costs 4F. to send 7 of those bolts to 7 different (but contiguous spaces) costs 28F (4F x 7 = 28). that is a pretty straightforward way of doing it. i do like it. i think it can be described in a manner terse enough for the rules...but it greatly increases the fatigue cost for 'multi-hex spelling' LOL and is a significant departure from how things currently work. i was trying to re-word the current rules without changing them so that they reflected bret's stated intent. (but yes, at first, i was trying to balance things out by increasing the fatigue cost of the spells. when bret spoke up about the fatigue costs being what they were for a purpose, i took this as a sign of disapproval. i changed tack and tried to re-word the rules to eliminate any misinterpretation of the rules and satisfy bret's stated intent.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 16:48:57 GMT -5
colin, i do prefer your method (if i understand that correctly). i apologize if i seemed to be getting "grumpy". with all of the PMs we have going back and forth, i get a little frustrated sometimes trying to figure out what you are saying. i'm just a wookie. i need things explained in baby steps
|
|
|
Post by klingor on Oct 15, 2012 17:52:06 GMT -5
ewookie, Let your beard grow again. Samson had the same problem when Delilah gave him a bad hair day. As the Ancients say "With hair comes wisdom". Cheers Colin
|
|