[ScytheKnight]

Is the spell supposed to damage someone? It's an offensive spell.

Is the spell supposed to hinder someone in combat? it's an offensive spell.

Is the spell supposed to assist someone in some way? It's a buff spell.

Is this REALLY so difficult to understand?!

[Medicineman]

Is the spell supposed to damage someone? It's an offensive spell.

Is the spell supposed to hinder someone in combat? it's an offensive spell.

Is the spell supposed to assist someone in some way? It's a buff spell.

Is this REALLY so difficult to understand?!

I'd like to disagree with you on #2
According to CGL something that causes Damage or is the reason for a Soaking Roll (like ending a Levitation spell so that the Victim falls to the Gound) THAT is an Offensive Spell, not one that merely hinders you

with a not-so-difficult-Dance
Medicineman

[Dinendae]

Is the spell supposed to damage someone? It's an offensive spell.

Is the spell supposed to hinder someone in combat? it's an offensive spell.

Is the spell supposed to assist someone in some way? It's a buff spell.

Is this REALLY so difficult to understand?!

I'd like to disagree with you on #2
According to CGL something that causes Damage or is the reason for a Soaking Roll (like ending a Levitation spell so that the Victim falls to the Gound) THAT is an Offensive Spell, not one that merely hinders you

with a not-so-difficult-Dance
Medicineman

Yep. By his definition, putting up a barrier spell would be an offensive spell, as would some other spells that are clearly not attack spells. I think he's reading too much meaning into things, and making it more complex than it needs to be.

[ZeldaBravo]

well I suppose that is the question is a debuff an attack?

Would YOU consider it an attack if someone used it on you? If the answer is 'yes', then it is most likely an attack.

[ScytheKnight]

Is the spell supposed to damage someone? It's an offensive spell.

Is the spell supposed to hinder someone in combat? it's an offensive spell.

Is the spell supposed to assist someone in some way? It's a buff spell.

Is this REALLY so difficult to understand?!

I'd like to disagree with you on #2
According to CGL something that causes Damage or is the reason for a Soaking Roll (like ending a Levitation spell so that the Victim falls to the Gound) THAT is an Offensive Spell, not one that merely hinders you

with a not-so-difficult-Dance
Medicineman

Yep. By his definition, putting up a barrier spell would be an offensive spell, as would some other spells that are clearly not attack spells. I think he's reading too much meaning into things, and making it more complex than it needs to be.

Actually I'm trying to simply things a little because people here are trying to poke and prod away at what may or may not be an offensive spell so they can get away with screwing someone over then ramming a lightning bolt up their ass in the same action phase.

This is one of the threads where I'm wearing my GM hat rather than Player hat.

[Kiirnodel]

I would agree that a spell is offensive even if it doesn't cause damage. But I would add the stipulation that it needs to target someone or include them in an area of effect for it to be considered offensive.

A barrier for example wouldn't qualify as it simply creates an effect that exists but does not directly hi Der an opponent. An Ice Slick created under an enemy, however, would because it is a hindrance and actively affected someone.

[PiXeL01]

Sounds like someone needs to go through all the spells and tag them O or D.

On a related note I just (re)discovered Reckless Summoning last night. Would that be stackable with Reckless Casting? I would say yes since you basically are bringing a spirit into existence

[ScytheKnight]

I would agree that a spell is offensive even if it doesn't cause damage. But I would add the stipulation that it needs to target someone or include them in an area of effect for it to be considered offensive.

A barrier for example wouldn't qualify as it simply creates an effect that exists but does not directly hi Der an opponent. An Ice Slick created under an enemy, however, would because it is a hindrance and actively affected someone.

True, some spells are a bit more circumstantial...

Physical Barrier/'solid' [Elemental] Wall:

Casting it to block a door from opening while you make a run for it? Not really offensive.

Casting it restrict movement of or divide enemies? A bit more of an offensive spell.

Ice Sheet:

Casting it at a corridor intersection in case someone comes through there? Yeah OK you're more laying a trap than casting offensively.

Casting it directly under someone or just i front of their moving vehicle? Yes, this is clearly offensive.

Basically, if you are deliberately and knowingly screwing with someone? it's an offensive spell.

Sounds like someone needs to go through all the spells and tag them O or D.

On a related note I just (re)discovered Reckless Summoning last night. Would that be stackable with Reckless Casting? I would say yes since you basically are bringing a spirit into existence

You could, but the main advantage is being able to summon and command a spirit in the same action phase.

[Whiskeyjack]

What is it with the rules lawyers lately?

Iunno. Vague rules maybe?

Maybe if people would use some common and stop looking for every BS loophole they can find the rules might become a little clearer.

Seriously 1/2 the "Waaagh the rules are badly written" stuff I see is because people are trying to find excuses to pull of shenanigans.

Common sense isn't very applicable in technical writing. It's not a BS loophole if the rules don't seem to cover the situation at hand. Which, they don't explicitly say. Hence this thread.

I don't think anyone here is complaining in order for PCs to have a greater advantage. We're complaining because the rules set up situations which are unclear, and then don't resolve them, except for Missions, which not everyone plays. I dunno about you, when I buy game books, I expect them to anticipate common situations, like "can I reckless cast a debuff and then shoot the guy I just debuffed," and be pretty clear about that in the text. It's clear you couldn't use a Lightning Bolt and a gun, so they took the first step there, and I'd even say you can't shoot someone then reckless cast something like Control Thoughts (a single target). And it's even clear you can't split your dice pool to double-Lightning Bolt the same guy.

The grenade thing from the mission FAQ surprises me, because it's not like dropping two grenades in an area, and them hitting some different enemies but the AoEs overlapping, is a weird or unexpected notion, and it's also weird how it plays out, but that ruling is pretty far on the "playability" side of the "playability vs verisimilitude" divide, and I pretty much live in PlayabilityTown exclusively, but it still feels weird to me.

Books are expensive. Argumentive players' heads are hard....


I use a 2x4. No chance of damaging a good book.

Yeah, books are expensive, shocker we want them to actually cover relevant topics like this! 

"IF U PROTEST TOO MUCH I HIT U" aka "if you have a dispute and it keeps going, solve it with violence, which is also funny!" is also just about the pinnacle of immaturity when it comes to resolving rules disputes, up there with "kill the offending character instead of talking to the player," and even if that kind of stuff elicits a snicker or two on a forum, especially in the context of "man, players can sure be shitheads, right?" it's not remotely helpful in an official document like the FAQ.

Actually I'm trying to simply things a little because people here are trying to poke and prod away at what may or may not be an offensive spell so they can get away with screwing someone over then ramming a lightning bolt up their ass in the same action phase.

This is one of the threads where I'm wearing my GM hat rather than Player hat.

Here's a legit suggestion, tell me what you think.. Go with a D&D method: "does it seem like the spell should warrant Spell Resistance?" Now, there are certainly some spells in D&D where you'd think "that should implicate spell resistance, if I grok what the point of spell resistance is supposed to be," but most spells aren't exceptions like Orb of Acid - it's clear if they do or not, or if they should or not.

Creating a slicked floor for a trap doesn't. Creating an iron wall in the middle of an enemy formation that bisects a group of enemies into two smaller groups doesn't. Throwing a fireball does. Cursing an area as a debuff, probably would allow for an SR roll when they enter it (I'm a little rusty on my D&D but I think this is the case, for spells that work this way?) This isn't common sense so much as applying another rule by analogy.

[ClaytonCross]

@  Whiskeyjack that was an awesome answer in so many ways!

     For my group we rotated GM to reduce unfair rules and favoritism. This means I need to know answers like this even though I am not currently playing a mage. Also the author of this thread never said if they were a GM/Player the assumption that they trying to come up with "BS" rules to break the game is not a reasonable conclusion. My adept posts for example are only hypothetical since I have only ever played a rigger. I build characters I never play "as backups" but also to gain some understanding of how other players characters work. I am on this post because we just added a mage to our group and I am curious about the mechanic. I have learned to read  ScytheKnight's continual assumptions on "player cheats" and "rule lawyering" as clarifying how to play characters and actually knowing how to play when rules are vague". I get ScytheKnight likes to wing it and he is a fly by the seat GM but with rotating GMs we need some idea of what rules are to keep consistency. So understanding character builds and know the RAW and RAI is important. That said ScytheKnight is GM on his table and he has the full right to make the call for his table on any basis that he can sell to players in cases like this where rules are vague and he may want a judgment not based on "strictly" on rules to keep the game pace. So I am not saying the method of "personal logic" is wrong but "rule lawyering" is a necessity of our groups design. That is why I come to the rule forums and don't plan to wing it.

   Back to point on this thread, I tend to agree with your assessment on what is and what is not an attack. Primarily because a spell that "Is the spell supposed to hinder someone in combat" could also be considered a defensive spell. If you cast armor on your self you are, as a point of fact, hindering someone all characters attack against you in combat. If you define attacks that way then any defense spell prevents you from attacking as well. While a debuff many hinder all attacks against from a character any target they pick instead of just you. In one on one combat or simple in the case they only have line of site to you casing a spell on the your self to raise your defense pool 3 or an enemies attack by 3 would be the same action. While defending against a group increasing your defense would be more beneficial and when your group is targeting a single enemy a debuff would be more beneficial. The implication to that is what spells do you choose and how you use them. So If a player builds a buff/debuff character and you prevent them from using spells because they us an AoE that does not get an a spell resistance check then they would still be able to attack vs an opponent. This encourages players to try different spells combinations and makes the game more interesting. This however would again be a GM call, no different than ScytheKnight's call other than I agree your makes since ... to me ... for the sake of game play and attacks being damage spells or spells that get a spell resistance check. Indirectly effecting someone and benefiting from it seems "to me" as a benefit of good character design and play. Just like a decker hacking a drone or shutting a door on some one walking through.

[Reaver]

What is it with the rules lawyers lately?

Iunno. Vague rules maybe?

Maybe if people would use some common and stop looking for every BS loophole they can find the rules might become a little clearer.

Seriously 1/2 the "Waaagh the rules are badly written" stuff I see is because people are trying to find excuses to pull of shenanigans.

Common sense isn't very applicable in technical writing. It's not a BS loophole if the rules don't seem to cover the situation at hand. Which, they don't explicitly say. Hence this thread.

I don't think anyone here is complaining in order for PCs to have a greater advantage. We're complaining because the rules set up situations which are unclear, and then don't resolve them, except for Missions, which not everyone plays. I dunno about you, when I buy game books, I expect them to anticipate common situations, like "can I reckless cast a debuff and then shoot the guy I just debuffed," and be pretty clear about that in the text. It's clear you couldn't use a Lightning Bolt and a gun, so they took the first step there, and I'd even say you can't shoot someone then reckless cast something like Control Thoughts (a single target). And it's even clear you can't split your dice pool to double-Lightning Bolt the same guy.

The grenade thing from the mission FAQ surprises me, because it's not like dropping two grenades in an area, and them hitting some different enemies but the AoEs overlapping, is a weird or unexpected notion, and it's also weird how it plays out, but that ruling is pretty far on the "playability" side of the "playability vs verisimilitude" divide, and I pretty much live in PlayabilityTown exclusively, but it still feels weird to me.

Books are expensive. Argumentive players' heads are hard....


I use a 2x4. No chance of damaging a good book.

Yeah, books are expensive, shocker we want them to actually cover relevant topics like this! 

"IF U PROTEST TOO MUCH I HIT U" aka "if you have a dispute and it keeps going, solve it with violence, which is also funny!" is also just about the pinnacle of immaturity when it comes to resolving rules disputes, up there with "kill the offending character instead of talking to the player," and even if that kind of stuff elicits a snicker or two on a forum, especially in the context of "man, players can sure be shitheads, right?" it's not remotely helpful in an official document like the FAQ.

Actually I'm trying to simply things a little because people here are trying to poke and prod away at what may or may not be an offensive spell so they can get away with screwing someone over then ramming a lightning bolt up their ass in the same action phase.

This is one of the threads where I'm wearing my GM hat rather than Player hat.

Here's a legit suggestion, tell me what you think.. Go with a D&D method: "does it seem like the spell should warrant Spell Resistance?" Now, there are certainly some spells in D&D where you'd think "that should implicate spell resistance, if I grok what the point of spell resistance is supposed to be," but most spells aren't exceptions like Orb of Acid - it's clear if they do or not, or if they should or not.

Creating a slicked floor for a trap doesn't. Creating an iron wall in the middle of an enemy formation that bisects a group of enemies into two smaller groups doesn't. Throwing a fireball does. Cursing an area as a debuff, probably would allow for an SR roll when they enter it (I'm a little rusty on my D&D but I think this is the case, for spells that work this way?) This isn't common sense so much as applying another rule by analogy.

See what you did there? Do you? DO YOU???
YOU, as the GM, made a judgement call!!! EXACTLY what and why there IS a GM. If the rule book covered EVERY single possible use of the rule in every single situaton, you wouldn't need a GM. (But the rulebook would be several dozen volumes).


No, i hit the players that AFTER A GM makes a judgement think it's their "Right" to screw over the other 5 players that want to play the game with a 3 hour bitch/whine/lawyer agrument instead to bringing it up after the game is over.

THIS IS PART OF THE GM'S FUCKIN JOB!!!
making calls when the rules don't explicitly something. Will the GM make a bad call sometimes? Yep. Deal with it. Spending 2 hours, or 1 hour, heck spending 30 minutes arguing a point in the middle of a game is incredibly rude to your other players.....


And THIS is why I hit them. If they are so stunted, that they can only think of themselves, THEY are NOT players I want at MY table. Full stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

On the flipside, when I am the player. I take the GMs call on the chin, good or bad. Why? Because its HIS tablr. If he makes a call I dislike, I bring it up after the game and revisit the issue. Not take 30 minutes, 1 hour, or more arguing that "casting chaos world and fireball aren't really 2 attacks..." or whatever is the exploit flavor of the month....

[PiXeL01]

@ClaytonCross
I do not agree with your definition of what hinders opponents. I believe you go way too far. By casting a spell on yourself you are not actively influencing another target's dice pool, you are only increasing your own. Your opponent's combat abilities are not reduced by an armor spell, but your own defense dice pool goes up.

If your definition was to be used then - A magic-user can only cast a single spell at a time. Full Stop.

Should that be the case then this entire discussion and mudflinging would not be necessary in the first place.
But should multiple spells be allowed then maybe something like - you are limited to casting two times at a time, a single spell at another target and one with Target - Self.
However going that far is not something I would recommend.
...
That being said, I agree with Reaver. GM makes a snap judgment which lasts till the end of the session. THEN you take the discussion OR GM goes "my table, my rules".

[ClaytonCross]

@ClaytonCross
I do not agree with your definition of what hinders opponents. I believe you go way too far. By casting a spell on yourself you are not actively influencing another target's dice pool, you are only increasing your own. Your opponent's combat abilities are not reduced by an armor spell, but your own defense dice pool goes up.

If your definition was to be used then - A magic-user can only cast a single spell at a time. Full Stop.

Should that be the case then this entire discussion and mudflinging would not be necessary in the first place.
But should multiple spells be allowed then maybe something like - you are limited to casting two times at a time, a single spell at another target and one with Target - Self.
However going that far is not something I would recommend.
...
That being said, I agree with Reaver. GM makes a snap judgment which lasts till the end of the session. THEN you take the discussion OR GM goes "my table, my rules".

@PiXeL01
I feel like you read the top of my post and stopped.
...because we kind of had the same point. I was not defining it that way myself but saying that was what was being defined by other and that it would result as you describe... to which I was using as appoint of why I disagree with their house rule.

    Also, I agree with Reaver and I don't believe anyone will disagree. The point of the "rules and such" forum as I see it is to answer the question he said could happen after the game... Am I wronge? I would hope no one is posting to settle an agreement in real time while playing. So while I agree he is right. Don't think its relevant to the discussion. Just a general correct statement about GMs and players.

[Dinendae]

I would agree that a spell is offensive even if it doesn't cause damage. But I would add the stipulation that it needs to target someone or include them in an area of effect for it to be considered offensive.

A barrier for example wouldn't qualify as it simply creates an effect that exists but does not directly hi Der an opponent. An Ice Slick created under an enemy, however, would because it is a hindrance and actively affected someone.

Actually it doesn't effect them until they try moving through it, according to the spell description. The exception to this being a moving vehicle, which needs to make an immediate crash test. That's the way my GM ran it against us; I was OK until I needed to move to get a better angle on an enemy, and then I had to roll.

[Hibiki54]

I would rule, based on RAI and plain common sense, that the player can use their cheese all they want. Just do not complain when it is used against them.

And for the record, it has been used against them to greater effect than they originally believed.