Frostgrave - Rules

[Dalcor]

Thanks Joe. I put on the list all the thing that could be confusing and are virtualy not mentioned in the ruleset.  am a little bit worried where I see that there is a lot ot missing things in book, thats very very sad. I want complete rules. Also I agree that employing common sense and players agreement will solve most of the matter.

BUT

If I am buing the ruleset I want the rules to be complete and clear. Leap missing word friedly, Leap an Teleport missing words  Further speaks either about bad betatesting or bad editing. I am sorry, I like the game and I honor you work, but I feel it that way.
I dont want to buy guidelines how the rules should looks loke and definetely I dont know to try to elaborate what probably autor intended with that rule as there is not precise wording.

Of course we played the movement as you suggest. Then I wonder if you discovery the wrongness during betatest, why it stick in the released rules?

Fireball type spells - Grenade/Elemental Ball/Planar Tear
For example Elemental Ball has different wording then Grenade. The question is, why it is so?
I feel that the spells are almost the same
With Elemental Ball you need to target figure, it explode but you need to have Line of Sight to all targets in the area of effect and then you need to do +5 shooting attack - with cover from me? But damage is going from the point of impact, so I believe he has to have cover against the point of impact, no?


With Grenade, there is no need to draw LOS to target in the area of effect, but still doing shooting attacks, where there will be the cover from me or from point of impact which does not need to be person but any point.

Than there is CN where Grenade seems stronger (as it has less conditions of attack) but lower CN.
In my point of view, and please consider it more like curiosity then criticism, I feel that streamlining and consistency in the rules will be easier for player and autor as well. Those are almost same spells. With Are of effect 1.5.

Planar tear is a diferent version of Fireball, it has almost the same wording except no shooting but low direct damage. cool. But the area affect is 2. Now if I want to use blast templates - I need to do several blast tempates. In my point of view - players like such gadgets.

Summoning Demons - ahh - right you are. But then Enchanter de facto does not need to recast the spell, so why even learning that, same with witch. Playing diabolist I will prefer to have permanent devil as well... Just like queen Abrogail of Cheliax. Anyway thats a matter of personal taste ;-)

I am sorry but such small remark should be in bold Shooting Stat does not effect spell . Then the Bone Dart make sense of course. But I am sorry Joe, but this has to be explicitly stated in the book.

Anyway thanks again for your comments and patiance, and I am sorry if I disappointed you a bit

[tomogui]

Joe, thanks very much for your openness and willingness to answer all these queries! It's really great. And I love the game!

With respect, I think the 'Shooting while in combat' issue I raised a few posts ago is pretty major: at the moment, the rules as written do allow models free reign to shoot while in combat (at the same time specifically forbidding spellcasting in combat, which made me think that shooting was therefore allowed).

It might be worth doing a rules FAQ at some time to clarify the bigger rules issues.

[joe5mc]

Dalcor,

I respect your opinion, and I can only say I have tried my best to make the rules as clear as I can. Designing a rules set is a long and complicated process. Playtesting for the game, beginning with me and my friends, and then expanding to a much bigger group, went on for nearly 8 months. During that time a lot of rules were changed, especially on the spells. Some things that seemed perfectly clear to that group of people, obviously are not to everyone else.

So, that is why this form, and this thread in particular exists. So I can try and help anyone who finds the rules unclear and so that everyone can help me identify those issues and clear them up.

Finally, I encourage you to remember, that I had to turn over the rules to the publisher 6 moths ago. In that time I have played a lot more games. My opinion on some matters has changed. If I were writing the game now, there are things I would change.

Grenade and Fireball just simply are not the same spell. Yes, the general effect is the same, trying to blow people up, but the magic is different. There are situations where one spell is better than the other. Planar Tear is a completely different spell. It's main purpose is to damage demons, it just happens to also have a small damaging effect to other people nearby.

If a Construct or Animal Companion dies or is destroyed, the spellcaster will have to cast the spell again to get another one. So, it is worth knowing the spell. Animate Construct is also useful because the wizard can try to get bigger and better constructs.



  

[joe5mc]

Joe, thanks very much for your openness and willingness to answer all these queries! It's really great. And I love the game!

With respect, I think the 'Shooting while in combat' issue I raised a few posts ago is pretty major: at the moment, the rules as written do allow models free reign to shoot while in combat (at the same time specifically forbidding spellcasting in combat, which made me think that shooting was therefore allowed).

It might be worth doing a rules FAQ at some time to clarify the bigger rules issues.

I agree, that should have been stated explicitly in the rules and should be in an errata. I fear this is an example of everyone in the playtest, including myself, just assumed that was the rule and never bothered to specifically check.

I will be working up an official errata, but at the moment, it is hard just to keep up with all of the Frostgrave messages, comments, questions, and game reports!

[Dalcor]

Thank you Joe. At the begining of the post I said rhat I realy loves the game in all aspects, but I believe that some of the questions, and even the sillyest one has to Be answered just to clear some possibilities to exploit the ruleset or to be tool for power gamers or rule lawyers. I think you realy did an amazing job because at the end its always and only about how you enjoy playing it and in that it excell

[Awesomeshotdude]

For what it is worth regarding the shooting in combat (as in shooting out of combat, not into), my reading of it was that you could only fight, not shoot. This is because when models move into contact, they are "In Combat". The rules then say that when "In Combat" models may choose to attack with their fight value. It mentions nothing about attacking with their shoot value...I thought it was pretty clear...

[Dakota Mike]

Unsolicited suggestion. 

For clarity and ease of finding information, this thread should probably be restricted to purely questions and official answers only.  Non-author commentary and analysis should be made in separate posts so as not to clog things up.  For example, an in-depth discussion of how someone thinks a particular spell should be changed could be made in its own post.  Also, this isn't really the place to critique the author's writing.  But I'm neither a Mod nor the author, so what I think doesn't really matter!

[blacksmith]

Are summoned creatures entering the Silent Tower affected somehow?

[tberry7403]

I would assume "normal" summoned creatures would be unaffected.

Undead/demons/vampires etc I'm not to sure of. Depends on whether or not they require "magic" to exist.

Would "Demon Bind" or similar stop working?

[Lotan]

Joe, you are a legend good sir.

I was just wondering if I could ask you what the intent of Timewalk was when you wrote it. We are just having issues seeing its use at the moment and although we love the idea of a chronomancer, its top tier spell seems a bit...well, I don't know.

The spell is an 18 to cast self only spell that allows you to act AGAIN in a turn. While that seems on a glance to be great, it doesn't actually give you much mechanically. You get you two actions in the turn, one must be a move, the other any action. So you cast the spell. Lets say you pass, not having to empower (no mean feat with an 18+ spell). That ends your activation. (If you don't you suffer a bonus 2 fail dmg, ouch!)

Now your wizard gets to activate again in the soldier phase, but he uses the same rules again. He must use a move action, then he can use any other. So essentially he needs to roll and 18+ to be able to move twice in a turn, as he loses his initial none move action to cast the spell. This essentially goes move----timewalk----move-----action. His move will probably be 6, so after all that, when it is broken down, needing an 18+ to gain an additional 6" move that is affected by all the usual movement modifiers.

So that's our problem, why spend all those resources for a 6" move when he can take leap or teleport as his tertiary spell that allows him to essentially take a 10" leap/infinite teleport? I know he still get that action to cast a spell while the leap/tele doesnt, but at such a huge difference in casting level and risk to self, it kind of rules out the spell as a reasonable option. The only way I can see it being useful is if you take it early and level it down to a reasonable number.

Was it intended to be so difficult? Are we missing a combo that it is supposed to work with? (It would be great in combo with time store but it specifically prohibits that combo 


Secondly, we just needed a clarification on what could be abused, we actually had to house rule it there and then.

The scroll mechanic was found to be rutal for speels you are not great with, and even better when you let an apprentice use it. Take a sigillist for example. He takes write scroll. Now as his tertiary spell he takes Strike Dead from necromancy. Inbetween games he can attempt to cast write scroll to produce potentially 2 scrolls of Strike Dead.

Lets say he casts it and for the next game he has a scroll of SD. In the scroll rules it states 2 uses for them. If you don't know the spell you cast it automatically at the spells base number. So if he didn't know SD his cast would be 18, not too shabby, but not impossible to overcome with a will test. The second use is for when he does know the spell. He attempts to cast the spell, and if he fails, he can make it automatically pass at the MINIMUM number needed for the spell to pass. That is where the issue arises.

The apprentice spots a ranger, uses his strike dead spell, he is guaranteed to fail as it casts on an 18 normally, but as it is his tertiary school and he is an apprentice he needs a minmum of 18+4(tertiary school)+2(Apprentice)= 24. So using a scroll to cast a spell he could not usually cast without empowering it with a lot of health, he casts it automatically for the cost of 1 health. The issue then stems from the opposed Will test that comes from that. The target has to beat a whopping 24!!! Even with empowering without a decent Will resist roll this will kill even a wizard with no issue, and a zero risk! It seems strange wecause the worse the caster is at casting it the better the scrolls effects for this spell and any spell that requires an opposed will test, though the other ones cast number is not as high as this, so the impact is less obvious.

Was this the intent or is it an unfortunate oversight?

Cheers for the help!

We house ruled it so it is cast at the casting number on the spell, not the number needed.

[Westfalia Chris]

Secondly, we just needed a clarification on what could be abused, we actually had to house rule it there and then.

The scroll mechanic was found to be rutal for speels you are not great with, and even better when you let an apprentice use it. Take a sigillist for example. He takes write scroll. Now as his tertiary spell he takes Strike Dead from necromancy. Inbetween games he can attempt to cast write scroll to produce potentially 2 scrolls of Strike Dead.

Lets say he casts it and for the next game he has a scroll of SD. In the scroll rules it states 2 uses for them. If you don't know the spell you cast it automatically at the spells base number. So if he didn't know SD his cast would be 18, not too shabby, but not impossible to overcome with a will test. The second use is for when he does know the spell. He attempts to cast the spell, and if he fails, he can make it automatically pass at the MINIMUM number needed for the spell to pass. That is where the issue arises.

The apprentice spots a ranger, uses his strike dead spell, he is guaranteed to fail as it casts on an 18 normally, but as it is his tertiary school and he is an apprentice he needs a minmum of 18+4(tertiary school)+2(Apprentice)= 24. So using a scroll to cast a spell he could not usually cast without empowering it with a lot of health, he casts it automatically for the cost of 1 health. The issue then stems from the opposed Will test that comes from that. The target has to beat a whopping 24!!! Even with empowering without a decent Will resist roll this will kill even a wizard with no issue, and a zero risk! It seems strange wecause the worse the caster is at casting it the better the scrolls effects for this spell and any spell that requires an opposed will test, though the other ones cast number is not as high as this, so the impact is less obvious.

Was this the intent or is it an unfortunate oversight?

Cheers for the help!

We house ruled it so it is cast at the casting number on the spell, not the number needed.

Hi Lotan,

I think this is a misinterpretation of the specific rule. Obviously, Joe will need to provide a definitive ruling for it, but if we follow the terminology stringently, I consider it to work like this:

As stated in the rule, you "treat the casting number as the minimum needed by that spellcaster for success" - "casting number" referring to the spell's total difficulty calculated from the base casting number and any applicable school penalties. it does not read casting roll, which is the actual dice result after applying modifiers/penalties for magic items or injuries (e.g. "Smashed Jaw").

By my interpretation, this implies that using a scroll for "failsafing" a known spell lowers the required casting number (i.e. difficulty) by such an amount that it is met or beat by the achieved casting roll result.

This would mean that a high-difficulty spell, once failed by a low casting roll, would still be cast by expending the scroll, albeit at a low casting roll. This also implies that it is easier to resist, since you perform Will rolls against the casting roll, NOT the casting number, unless clearly specified (e.g. scrolls for unknown spells).

I consider this interpretation to be sensible enough for various reasons:

• You'll need to have a scroll for a spell you know in your inventory, which is a conscious decision before a game and sacrifices a slot for this "backup" option.
• If you consider the methods of acquiring scrolls (i.e. receiving one as treasure, THEN rolling on the table for a spell you know, writing a scroll for one of your Out of Game spells[requiring the necessary spell!] or by paying a large amount for a scroll between games), I don't think most people will go through this process except for very useful spells at low wizard levels.
• While it allows you to cast difficult spells with ease, they won't be cast "as well" as by normal means, making it easier to resist and possibly causing less damage to the target

[Lotan]

As stated in the rule, you "treat the casting number as the minimum needed by that spellcaster for success" - "casting number" referring to the spell's total difficulty calculated from the base casting number and any applicable school penalties. it does not read casting roll, which is the actual dice result after applying modifiers/penalties for magic items or injuries (e.g. "Smashed Jaw").

By my interpretation, this implies that using a scroll for "failsafing" a known spell lowers the required casting number (i.e. difficulty) by such an amount that it is met or beat by the achieved casting roll result.

This would mean that a high-difficulty spell, once failed by a low casting roll, would still be cast by expending the scroll, albeit at a low casting roll. This also implies that it is easier to resist, since you perform Will rolls against the casting roll, NOT the casting number, unless clearly specified (e.g. scrolls for unknown spells).

Yeah I think the difficulty comes from the terminology. For me, it says in the section for casting known spell scrolls that "If a casting number is called for, use the spell's base casting number". That sentence alone is not needed, I can't think of any reason the casting number would be needed, if someone wants it inform me then please do, because I can't see it! (case of wood for the trees, maybe).

That sentence reads to me as if it should say if "If a casting roll is called for, use the spell's base casting number". This is because the casting roll is the one required for opposed Will checks, and I can't think of any reason you would ever need to know the cast number, as in the number on the spell, in a game.

This would then make sense for spells that need opposed will rolls. Because it leaves two options with the sentence. Either it is written with incorrect terminology, or it IS correct, leaving no other option but spells that can be opposed via a will roll can never be cast via a scroll, as there will never be a casting roll to compare to, making the sentence redundant.

I believe it should read "If a casting roll is called for, use the spell's base casting number". I may be wrong, but again, looking at the sentence for scrolls for spells you know: "Treat the casting number as the minimum needed by that spellcaster for success..."

Again, why would you ever need to know the casting number, as it is cast automatically the casting number is irrelevant to the game. The only number actually needed once a spell has been cast is the casting roll. In every spell where its effects can be broken, the number needed is the casting roll, not the casting number. That is why I believe the incorrect words were put in, and left with an oversight because I think most people would read it as the casting roll.

If I am completely wrong I hold my hands up, but if it is intended to be the way it is written it raises a lot more questions that'll need clarifying! 

[nozza_uk]

I asked these questions on TMP and was directed over here.

1) The rules state that an activated figure has two actions – one of which must be movement. If I spend my first action in combat and win the fight. Assuming the other fella survived, I have a choice of remaining in combat or pushing back the other fella. If I decide to stay in combat, what happens to my second action? If I understand correctly, I can't have a second non movement action ie fight, but the movement rules state that while a figure is in combat, it may not make a move action. So do I lose my second action?
2) Just want to check we played this correctly. I have a wizard casting elemental bolt. You roll for the wizard to successfully cast the spell. If successful, you then roll as per a normal shooting roll? Think this is a yes judging by some of the other replies I've seen.
3) Is there any additional benefit (other than succeeding) for rolling a 20 when casting a spell?
4) Elemental Ball specifically mentions "roll each attack separately". So if you use the grenade spell, is it one roll for everyone effected by the spell or do you roll individual rolls?
5) My Wizard has a movement rate of 6. So for the first action he can move 6 inches and 3 for the second action (move is halved for moving in the second action).
Now if he carries a treasure token (move is halved), it's 3 inches for the first action. Then it becomes 1.5 for the second action, is it halved again for moving in the second action or do you only halve the second movement once?

[JamWarrior]

I asked these questions on TMP and was directed over here.

1) The rules state that an activated figure has two actions – one of which must be movement. If I spend my first action in combat and win the fight. Assuming the other fella survived, I have a choice of remaining in combat or pushing back the other fella. If I decide to stay in combat, what happens to my second action? If I understand correctly, I can't have a second non movement action ie fight, but the movement rules state that while a figure is in combat, it may not make a move action. So do I lose my second action?
2) Just want to check we played this correctly. I have a wizard casting elemental bolt. You roll for the wizard to successfully cast the spell. If successful, you then roll as per a normal shooting roll? Think this is a yes judging by some of the other replies I've seen.
3) Is there any additional benefit (other than succeeding) for rolling a 20 when casting a spell?
4) Elemental Ball specifically mentions "roll each attack separately". So if you use the grenade spell, is it one roll for everyone effected by the spell or do you roll individual rolls?
5) My Wizard has a movement rate of 6. So for the first action he can move 6 inches and 3 for the second action (move is halved for moving in the second action).
Now if he carries a treasure token (move is halved), it's 3 inches for the first action. Then it becomes 1.5 for the second action, is it halved again for moving in the second action or do you only halve the second movement once?

Most of these I can answer from earlier posts in the thread.

1) If you have no valid use for your second action (as in your described case) then yes, you lose it.
2) Correct.  Note the wizard's shoot stat is NOT included in the shoot roll.
3) No.
4) Joe'll have to come in on that one, but I'd assume you roll separately in both cases and the note was just forgotten to be added on the grenade spell description.
5) Half twice for carrying treasure and second move action, so 1.5" second move for a wizard carrying treasure.  Half again to 0.75" if over rough terrain!

[joe5mc]

1) Correct. The second action is lost.
2) Yes. With the clarification that you do NOT add your Shooting Stat. The only bonus comes from whatever the spell itself calls for.
3) No. I have considered writing a 'Critical Spell Casting Table', but it in a lot of case rolling a 20 is already pretty good if the spell does damage or has to be resisted by a Will roll.
4) Roll separately for everyone in the blast radius.
5) Halve both. So, a starting wizard running flat out with treasure moves 4.5 inches.

Dang, JamWarrior got in there. Well, he's right anyway.