Frostgrave - Rules

[Westfalia Chris]

Hi Guys

(Rewritten this post so as not to confuse the issue)

RE:Scrolls

I don't think there's any doubt that the wording in the book is either bad or simply incorrect so the questions on scrolls simply boil down to this one question:

When a scroll "auto casts" a spell, and it uses the spell's "base casting number" for the "auto cast", is that number the unmodified casting number written on the spell or is that casting number the modified casting number that the spellcaster using the spell needs or would have needed (including apprentice modifiers, xp modifiers, and school alignment modifiers?

EG
I am a Soothsayer who has Mind Control improved to 5
I try to cast it and roll a 2
I use my Scroll of Mind Control to make the Mind Control cast on a 12.

If he does know the spell, he cannot use the scroll to autocast it (see below, RAW).

EG2
I am an Enchanter who does not know Strike Dead
Strike Dead's base casting number for me would usually be 24
I use a Scroll of Strike Dead. It casts as a 20.

Which is worse than a properly-performed spellcast, as it should be if you do not know the spell and only use the "shorthand" version in the scroll.

EG3 (identical to EG2 except I know the spell)
I am an Enchanter who does know Strike Dead
Strike Dead's base casting number for me would usually be 24
I use a Scroll of Strike Dead. It casts as a 20.

As above, you cannot use the scroll to autocast if you already know the spell.

This is how we're interpreting it - using the base, unmodified casting number as written on the spell - otherwise using scrolls from Neutral or Opposed schools, or using a scroll with your apprentice, would mean that the scroll spells actually cast "better" (ie on higher numbers), and being better at the spell via xp would mean you are actually "worse" at using it from a scroll (ie it casts on lower numbers)

By description, a scroll should always cast worse than a caster who learned the spell "properly" - it is a "shorthand" version of the spell in question and know fully fleshed out. It is the same reasoning that prevents you from learning a spell from a scroll, which requires a proper grimoire.

Do note, though, that by RAW, you cannot use a scroll to "autocast" a spell that you know - the first option for scrolls states, as you wrote, you can use it to "autocast" a spell "the spellcaster does not otherwise know". In that case, the benefit is obvious, in that you can cast spells you do not know, but with a fixed level of success, and easier to resist for offensive spells.

The second option is for spellcasters who do know a spell and use the scroll as a fallback option in case a spellcasting attempt fails. In that case, the benefit to the caster would be twofold - one, he doesn't suffer damage from the failed attempt, AND the spell works, albeit on "low power". As I wrote before, carrying around a scroll for a known spell involves one or more tradeoffs, e.g.

• finding one (tricky, especially if you are after a specific spell)
• writing one, which uses up one Out of Game "Write Scroll" spell, WHICH YOU MUST KNOW in the first place
• putting it in the inventory, which uses up a slot that could be used for magic or other items

Considering all this, the second option may come in really useful early in a campaign (to add protection to a low-level wizard or apprentice), but only if you come across the required spell scroll or opt for "Write Scroll" as an early spell. You could use it as a campaign tactic from the start, but I am not convinced it is extremely effective.

[wulfgar22]

But going back to the examples given, what are the Casting Numbers you use if needed?

I figured with spells you don't know you just use the Base Casting Number on the card so EG2 would be 18 as that is the Base Casting Number for the Strike Dead, right?

But I can't get my head around what happens if you know the spell. If you need a Casting Number you use the 'minimum needed by the spellcaster for success' but does that mean in EG1 that you use 5 as this is the 'minimum needed by that spellcaster for success'? And in EG3 it would be 22 as this is the minimum needed by that spellcaster (an Enchanter casting a Necromancer spell Strike Dead with a Base Casting Number of 18 at -4)? That would make it easier to resist spells cast from scrolls by high level spellcasters who have improved a spell numerous times than a low level spellcaster who hasn't.

[Westfalia Chris]

But going back to the examples given, what are the Casting Numbers you use if needed?

I figured with spells you don't know you just use the Base Casting Number on the card so EG2 would be 18 as that is the Base Casting Number for the Strike Dead, right?

But I can't get my head around what happens if you know the spell. If you need a Casting Number you use the 'minimum needed by the spellcaster for success' but does that mean in EG1 that you use 5 as this is the 'minimum needed by that spellcaster for success'? And in EG3 it would be 22 as this is the minimum needed by that spellcaster (an Enchanter casting a Necromancer spell Strike Dead with a Base Casting Number of 18 at -4)? If so then there is a discrepancy between EG2 and EG3 with the spellcaster who knows the spell (albeit from an different school) having to use a higher casting number than the spellcaster who doesn't know the spell at all.

You will need to differentiate between the casting number and the casting roll, as I wrote two pages earlier. I admit that it is not perfectly clearly-worded in the scrolls section, but if you keep in mind how spells are cast, it is quite easy to figure out.

The "base casting number" is the number found in the spell list.

The "casting number" for a spell known by a given spellcaster is the base casting number after "school penalties" and "experience bonuses" have been applied. This is the number a spellcaster needs to meet or beat with his casting roll result for a spell to work.

The "casting roll" is the result a spellcaster produces when attempting to cast a known spell. If it meets or beats the spell's casting number, the attempt is successful. This is the number referred to when a target figure attempts to resist a spell.

So, to go for that Enchanter example.

An Enchanter knows the "Strike Dead Spell", whose base casting number is 18. For an Enchanter, without any further XP bonuses applied, this means the casting number is 22 (18+4 for a neutral school spell, in this case Necromancy).

This means that a "new wizard" without any magic items cannot cast "Strike Dead" since his maximum achievable result for the casting roll is 20. He'll need to lower the spell's casting number (NOT the base casting number, which remains unchanged at 18) by at least two before he can cast it. Thus, it might not be prudent to choose high-power spells, especially from neutral schools, at the wizard creation stage.

Now, if the Enchanter finds or creates a scroll for this spell, he could in theory attempt to cast it, fail automatically, and use the scroll the "salvage" the attempt. This then means that the spell succeeded by the achieved casting roll. For the above example, the required casting number would be 22, but if the spellcaster only achieved a 17 for his casting roll, the spell WILL be cast by expending the scroll, at a casting roll of 17. Essentially, you are spending 100gc every time you use a scroll thusly, AND you would still have to roll high to make it worthwhile, otherwise the spell would be too easy to resist.

In this case, it might help to imagine the spell being an "aide-memoire" that allows the spell-caster to pull off a spell he cannot quite control YET.

In contrast, a spellcaster who doesn't know the spell can use a scroll of the spell to autocast it; in this case, the "casting roll" will be equal to the base casting number of the spell, and will never be higher. I admit this is not clearly worded in the rules, but it is the only interpretation that makes sense, because the only use of the "effective" casting number (i.e. base casting number +/- penalties) is to provide a target threshold for the casting roll to meet or beat; any resistance rolls are made against the casting roll, NOT the casting number. This is probably just a typo/error - if it read "if a casting roll is called for, simply use the spell's base casting number", it would be clearer.

Let me summarize the two options again:

Using a scroll for an unknown spell
Advantages:

• Cast a spell which you do not know, i.e. could not cast in the first place without the scroll
• Cast it without risk of failure
• No need to learn a rival school spell, which would take longer to master or even make viable

Disadvantages:

• Fixed spellcasting result (i.e. casting roll) that will never be higher than the base casting number involved
• Single-use only

Using a scroll for a known spell
Advantages

• Reduce the risk of suffering damage from a failed attempt, especially for dangerous spells
• Receive a low-power spell effect, which means this is most useful for non-offensive spells, i.e. those that cannot be resisted but can be viable in critical situations

Disadvantages

• Cost of 100gc effectively, or 400gc if you don't know "Write Scroll"
• Uses up an inventory slot
• Requires finding a known spell (more probable for high-level wizards with many spells already known) or using "Write Scroll" between games, which is not favourable for schools Opposed to Sigilism

I hope that clears up things somewhat. In my opinion, the "scrolls for known spells" option is best seen as a way to reduce the risk of casting newly-learnt spells or difficult spells from other schools, and is mainly applicable to spells with high base casting numbers.

[Darkson71]

Edit - ignore, ninja'd.

[Westfalia Chris]

BUt that's not what the rules say (hence why I think the confusion is arising):Using the example from Calmdown above, the Enchanter than knows Strike Dead the casting number is 24 (I'm assuming he was talking about an apprentice), so the RAW seem to say that the casting number is 24.

I think this is a misinterpretation of an admittedly ambiguously-worded rule. The "minimum casting number needed for the spellcaster for success" is a number that is equal to or lower than the casting roll made by the spellcaster in his attempt. It is not the general number for properly casting a spell, but the number that would be needed in this situation. If it spelt "minimum casting roll", you would be right, but by referring to a "minimum casting number", it is implied that in this specific situation and instant of time, the casting number is reduced by such an amount that the achieved casting roll would produce a success. Thus, the worst is averted, but at the cost of a poorly-done spell AND a spent scroll.

Again, it is necessary to differenciate between casting number and casting roll.

[wulfgar22]

Right! I think I've got it now! So it should really read...

For a spellcaster "carrying a scroll containing a spell that he does know...treat the casting roll (i.e. the roll the spellcaster just made and that failed to cast the spell) as the number needed to successfully cast the spell (and, therefore, as the number needed to beat to resist the spell)".

So, as you say, the higher you roll the harder it is to resist the spell.

Brilliant. Thanks for clearing that up.

[JamWarrior]

I think at this point we're all best waiting for Joe to make his promised post on scrolls after carefully formulating his words.

[Darkson71]

So why mention the casting number at all in the second usage?  This is what I'm having difficulty in understanding. If the scroll is used in the second way the casting number (whatever it is) isn't used in any way, the only thing that mattered is what I actually rolled before attempting to cast the spell.

What am I missing?

So the apprentice Enchanter above tries to cast Strike Dead.  I roll a 1.  The casting number is 24, but the casting roll is 1.  Ok, I get that bit, so the enemies will roll is made against 1.  I expect I'm missing something obvious, but I can't see why the rules mention the casting number at all for usage 2?  


[Edit] Ninja'd again! 

[wulfgar22]

I think that is exactly the problem...it should read 'treat the casting roll (the spellcaster just made and failed with) as the minimum needed'.

[Westfalia Chris]

Right! I think I've got it now! So it should really read...

For a spellcaster "carrying a scroll containing a spell that he does know...treat the casting roll (i.e. the roll the spellcaster just made and that failed to cast the spell) as the number needed to successfully cast the spell (and, therefore, as the number needed to beat to resist the spell)".

So, as you say, the higher you roll the harder it is to resist the spell.

Brilliant. Thanks for clearing that up.

I am afraid that wording does not cover what I was trying to say. If it was worded as you write (i.e. "casting number" is replaced by "casting roll"), it would mean that a spellcaster with a scroll for a known spell could expend it to cast a failed spell at the base casting number (so easier than normal for him), which would be essentially the same option as for a spellcaster who does not know the spell and "autocasts" it from a scroll.

Once more in step-by-step:

Unknown spell using scroll (NOT available to spellcasters who know the spell):
1. Expend scroll
2. Spell is cast automatically
3. Casting roll result equals spell's base casting number (for resistance purposes)

Known spell with failsafe scroll
1. Attempt spellcast by performing a casting roll
2. Fail spellcast due to a low casting roll result
3. Expend scroll to make spell work nonetheless
4. No damage is taken; the spell is considered successful despite the insufficient casting roll
5. Any resistance rolls are made against the casting roll result

So the apprentice Enchanter above tries to cast Strike Dead.  I roll a 1.  The casting number is 24, but the casting roll is 1.  Ok, I get that bit, so the enemies will roll is made against 1.  I expect I'm missing something obvious, but I can't see why the rules mention the casting number at all for usage 2?  

It is a bit of a complicated way to say "the spell works despite the casting roll being too low to meet or beat the casting number". It could have been more clearly-worded, I admit; but if you consider the basic rule mechanic for spells (base casting number->casting number->casting roll->success or failure), it is very much the only option, PROVIDED that "casting number" was NOT used erroneously and it SHOULD have read "casting roll".

I think that is exactly the problem...it should read 'treat the casting roll (the spellcaster just made and failed with) as the minimum needed'.

But that is a totally different outcome from the one described. I guess Joe will really have to make a ruling.

[wulfgar22]

When I say it should read...I mean on page 60 top paragraph after the bit about if his roll fails he may then decide to sacrifice the scroll. That's me not being clear. But I do 'get it' now...I think.

What I meant was, if you replace on p.60

"if his roll fails, he may then decide to sacrifice the power in the scroll to cause the spell to succeed. Treat the casting number as the minimum needed by that spellcaster for success'

with

"if his roll fails, he may then decide to sacrifice the power in the scroll to cause the spell to succeed. Treat the casting roll (i.e. the roll the spellcaster just made and failed to cast the spell with) as the minimum needed by that spellcaster for success (on this occasion, and, therefore, as the number needed to beat to resist the spell)'.

Blimey. Either way, I get what you mean and hopefully Joe can come up with a nice and easy way to word it that will make it clear for numpties like me.
 

[Lotan]

Thanks for the clarification. We thought it must be different than we thought as it made spells cast by apprentices with a scroll better than a wizard. I do agree though, the second scroll usage could have been worded as follows if I have interpreted your explanation correctly:

Replace sentence on page 60:
"Treat the casting number as the minimum needed by that spellcaster for success, and remove the scroll from the wizards sheet."

With:
"The casting roll becomes the required casting number for this spell for this action only, then remove the scroll from the wizards sheet."

[Dalcor]

Seems a lot of questions repeating, I will try to make a summary tomorrow, somehow

Anyway
A) Is it possible to cast INTO combat with non engaged spellcaster? (for example LEAP out thief combating a bear)?
B) Is it possilble to move columns/treasure in The Complex Temple Scenario with TELEKINESIS


By the way, today I play with my L5 Thaumaturge vs L1 Witch Complex Temple Scenario, I agreed due to difficulty in level we agreed that my oponent can place two objectives 9 inch from her table edge and agreed that rest will be in the middle of the table 6 inh away from each other. Artifical balance and sucesfull one-. Even with my three doggie I was unable to move fast enoug to stow witch to move away 4 treasures (may be we played it bad, but either way it does not matter) with combination Telekinesis + Mud.

[Calmdown]

I understand the mechanic you're explaining Chris (though I am relatively certain that almost no one reading the book will infer this from it; its incredibly confusing, and probably only makes sense to anyone who playtested the game and had it explained to them how this works, which I assume you have).

But logically, why would using the power of a scroll to cast a spell that you do know result in lower casting numbers than using the power of a scroll to cast a spell that you do not know? Surely the spell should always cast at a minimum of the base casting number. At least, the caster who knows the spell should have the option to autocast it like someone who doesn't, OR use it in "spell salvage mode". It doesn't make any sense for it to be worse.

It doesn't really follow - that's what makes me doubt the working, because this game is highly narrative and so something that makes no narrative sense seems unintentional.

[Darkson71]

Out of Game spells - how many times can you cast them?  Write Scroll specifically says "once after every game", whereas none of the others seems to specify.

I'm going to assume once each but....

Also, Embed Enchantment says "causes any Enchant Armour or Enchant Weapon spell that is still active at the end of the game, to become permanent" - does that mean if I have 3 different Enchant spells still in play at the end of the game I only need to cast it once to affect all 3?
And does Enchant Armour/Weapon stay in affect if a model leaves the table (so I can cast Embed)?