Physical Attacks vs. Magic Attacks

[Grell]

In this example a creature is listed as having 8 physical attacks or 2 magic attacks per melee round. How do you reconcile this with the spell casting rules in RUE (1 action cast for levels 1-5, 2 actions for levels 6-10, etc)?

My interpretation has always been that out of 8 possible attacks per round, only 2 of them can be magic spells and each spell takes as many actions as the spell level requires. Does anyone run this differently? If so, how does it work out for you?

[Cinos]

It's an overwritten, magic attacks per round is a thing of the past.

[Grell]

It's an overwritten, magic attacks per round is a thing of the past.

There is still a wealth of published material that was written when that wasn't the case and my original question was how others reconcile the old way and the new way. I posted the interpretation I use as an example because I play a lot of Chaos Earth where just about everything is written as having that distinction between physical and magic attacks. A notable example from my current player group is a Blue Zone Wizard that can only cast one spell per melee round. Obviously, it would be ridiculous for a level 1-3 spell to take an entire round to cast (to me) hence the interpretation I use.

Even in RUE under the write up for Dragon Hatchlings (pg. 67, I think) it states that they can only cast 2 spells per melee round.

So instead of brushing it off as a thing of the past and obsolete, how do you reconcile the old material and the new rules? I'd be especially interested if you handle it differently than I do, though I like validation too.

[drewkitty ~..~]

In this example a creature is listed as having 8 physical attacks or 2 magic attacks per melee round. How do you reconcile this with the spell casting rules in RUE (1 action cast for levels 1-5, 2 actions for levels 6-10, etc)?

My interpretation has always been that out of 8 possible attacks per round, only 2 of them can be magic spells and each spell takes as many actions as the spell level requires. Does anyone run this differently? If so, how does it work out for you?

How would I do it? While in Rifts, just ignore the "or 2 attacks through magic" and go with the Rue casting times.

HOWEVER.... while in the other settings the "or 2 attacks through magic" is still in force. Unless the GM imports the Rue casting times into their game.
Why the above? Because Rue only changed things for Rifts Canon. Not the other settings.


The most common interpretation of the "or 2 attacks through magic" is that each costs 1/2 the mage's total APM.

Another Interpretation is that the mage can cast two spells with each taking a single APM.

[Damian Magecraft]

It's an overwritten, magic attacks per round is a thing of the past.

There is still a wealth of published material that was written when that wasn't the case and my original question was how others reconcile the old way and the new way. I posted the interpretation I use as an example because I play a lot of Chaos Earth where just about everything is written as having that distinction between physical and magic attacks. A notable example from my current player group is a Blue Zone Wizard that can only cast one spell per melee round. Obviously, it would be ridiculous for a level 1-3 spell to take an entire round to cast (to me) hence the interpretation I use.

Even in RUE under the write up for Dragon Hatchlings (pg. 67, I think) it states that they can only cast 2 spells per melee round.

So instead of brushing it off as a thing of the past and obsolete, how do you reconcile the old material and the new rules? I'd be especially interested if you handle it differently than I do, though I like validation too.

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

[Grell]

Would you still honor the limit on spells per melee round or throw that out too? I "over write" the casting times as well (as stated above), but I usually keep any listed limits like spells per melee, spells per day, per target, etc. Going back to the Blue Zone Wizard example, he may only get one spell per round, but it won't constitute his only action.

[Damian Magecraft]

Would you still honor the limit on spells per melee round or throw that out too? I "over write" the casting times as well (as stated above), but I usually keep any listed limits like spells per melee, spells per day, per target, etc. Going back to the Blue Zone Wizard example, he may only get one spell per round, but it won't constitute his only action.

no I do not keep the old casting limits. IMO The RUE rules supersede all older material.

[FatherMorpheus]

IMO, the way that any of the rules are for casting spells really is broken.
I've been using a fomula to show how much PPE per arction a caster can pump into a spell.

ME + (Caster Level x 2) = PPE per action

This way, it scales as the character levels or takes skills which improve their ME. It still won't ever be as great as someone with a good rifle or a Psychic, but a mage also tends to have a much more broad selection of spells.

Having play tested this for a long time, it works very well.

[Damian Magecraft]

IMO, the way that any of the rules are for casting spells really is broken.
I've been using a fomula to show how much PPE per arction a caster can pump into a spell.

ME + (Caster Level x 2) = PPE per action

This way, it scales as the character levels or takes skills which improve their ME. It still won't ever be as great as someone with a good rifle or a Psychic, but a mage also tends to have a much more broad selection of spells.

Having play tested this for a long time, it works very well.

so a variant of the PPE Channeling rules? interesting... does having an exceptional score grant any extra benefits?

[Grell]

Would you still honor the limit on spells per melee round or throw that out too? I "over write" the casting times as well (as stated above), but I usually keep any listed limits like spells per melee, spells per day, per target, etc. Going back to the Blue Zone Wizard example, he may only get one spell per round, but it won't constitute his only action.

no I do not keep the old casting limits. IMO The RUE rules supersede all older material.

Going back to the Blue Zone Wizard, the one spell per round is actually built into the class itself as is the total limit per day. It's obviously inspired by the casting rules at the time, but it is separate. Would you also throw out this built in limit as superseded by RUE or keep it and use it with the current rules?

IMO, the way that any of the rules are for casting spells really is broken.
I've been using a fomula to show how much PPE per arction a caster can pump into a spell.

ME + (Caster Level x 2) = PPE per action

This way, it scales as the character levels or takes skills which improve their ME. It still won't ever be as great as someone with a good rifle or a Psychic, but a mage also tends to have a much more broad selection of spells.

Having play tested this for a long time, it works very well.

so a variant of the PPE Channeling rules? interesting... does having an exceptional score grant any extra benefits?

What is the result of pumping PPE into a spell, FatherMorpheus?

[Damian Magecraft]

Would you still honor the limit on spells per melee round or throw that out too? I "over write" the casting times as well (as stated above), but I usually keep any listed limits like spells per melee, spells per day, per target, etc. Going back to the Blue Zone Wizard example, he may only get one spell per round, but it won't constitute his only action.

no I do not keep the old casting limits. IMO The RUE rules supersede all older material.

Going back to the Blue Zone Wizard, the one spell per round is actually built into the class itself as is the total limit per day. It's obviously inspired by the casting rules at the time, but it is separate. Would you also throw out this built in limit as superseded by RUE or keep it and use it with the current rules?

Current RUE standard.
CE predates RUE.

[Grell]

Would you still honor the limit on spells per melee round or throw that out too? I "over write" the casting times as well (as stated above), but I usually keep any listed limits like spells per melee, spells per day, per target, etc. Going back to the Blue Zone Wizard example, he may only get one spell per round, but it won't constitute his only action.

no I do not keep the old casting limits. IMO The RUE rules supersede all older material.

Going back to the Blue Zone Wizard, the one spell per round is actually built into the class itself as is the total limit per day. It's obviously inspired by the casting rules at the time, but it is separate. Would you also throw out this built in limit as superseded by RUE or keep it and use it with the current rules?

Current RUE standard.
CE predates RUE.

I'm aware CE predates RUE. I'm not talking about a general rule on spell casting times, this is a limitation built into the class itself. I can see why someone would disregard the class mechanic, but I can also see why someone wouldn't (and I obviously don't).

Have you had the opportunity to run a Blue Zone Wizard without the spell per round limit? Did you also disregard the max spells per day? How did it work out?

[Cinos]

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

Well stop the presses, me and Damian Magecraft agree on something. But unless there's an oddity needing a GM, you can just cross out the or 'X spells per round' entry in descriptions. It was never a problem for me since I adapted a house rule that just gave a cast time to each spell well before RUE since the original spell times where non-scenically and painfully poorly balanced for casters.

[Grell]

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

Well stop the presses, me and Damian Magecraft agree on something. But unless there's an oddity needing a GM, you can just cross out the or 'X spells per round' entry in descriptions. It was never a problem for me since I adapted a house rule that just gave a cast time to each spell well before RUE since the original spell times where non-scenically and painfully poorly balanced for casters.

I was wondering why I didn't get my paper today...

This isn't really about general spell casting though, it's about creatures and special cases with some mages where there is a separate limit on spells cast per melee round that doesn't pertain to spell level. Again for example, dragon hatchlings (2 per round), many monsters/demons prior to RUE (X physical attacks or Y magic attacks) and raw spell casters like the Blue Zone Wizard (1 per round).

As stated earlier, I incorporate both: the RUE rules for casting times AND specific creature/class limits per round.

[MaxxSterling]

I'm with Damian on this one. The only bummer is it requires thinking to institute this, so generally for NPC's I'll just go with whatever is written. But for major ones I actually write up, I'd go with the RUE stuff since it's newest.

[Damian Magecraft]

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

Well stop the presses, me and Damian Magecraft agree on something. But unless there's an oddity needing a GM, you can just cross out the or 'X spells per round' entry in descriptions. It was never a problem for me since I adapted a house rule that just gave a cast time to each spell well before RUE since the original spell times where non-scenically and painfully poorly balanced for casters.

I was wondering why I didn't get my paper today...

This isn't really about general spell casting though, it's about creatures and special cases with some mages where there is a separate limit on spells cast per melee round that doesn't pertain to spell level. Again for example, dragon hatchlings (2 per round), many monsters/demons prior to RUE (X physical attacks or Y magic attacks) and raw spell casters like the Blue Zone Wizard (1 per round).

As stated earlier, I incorporate both: the RUE rules for casting times AND specific creature/class limits per round.

old rule: 2 spells per round was the max possible so a Hatchling using the RUE casting rules is on par with all other casters.
Old Rule: Blue Zone Wiz: 1 per round made them half as effective as RMB casters...
keeping the limit makes them even less effective to RUE casters. Thus ignore the 1 per melee limit.
the limits per day? ignore it. BZWs cant cast outside of the Blue Zones... (limiting enough IMO the per day limit was overkill)

[Grell]

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

Well stop the presses, me and Damian Magecraft agree on something. But unless there's an oddity needing a GM, you can just cross out the or 'X spells per round' entry in descriptions. It was never a problem for me since I adapted a house rule that just gave a cast time to each spell well before RUE since the original spell times where non-scenically and painfully poorly balanced for casters.

I was wondering why I didn't get my paper today...

This isn't really about general spell casting though, it's about creatures and special cases with some mages where there is a separate limit on spells cast per melee round that doesn't pertain to spell level. Again for example, dragon hatchlings (2 per round), many monsters/demons prior to RUE (X physical attacks or Y magic attacks) and raw spell casters like the Blue Zone Wizard (1 per round).

As stated earlier, I incorporate both: the RUE rules for casting times AND specific creature/class limits per round.

old rule: 2 spells per round was the max possible so a Hatchling using the RUE casting rules is on par with all other casters.
Old Rule: Blue Zone Wiz: 1 per round made them half as effective as RMB casters...
keeping the limit makes them even less effective to RUE casters. Thus ignore the 1 per melee limit.
the limits per day? ignore it. BZWs cant cast outside of the Blue Zones... (limiting enough IMO the per day limit was overkill)

See, the 2 spell per melee round for dragons is actually in RUE on page 67 (I believe) towards the bottom of the first column. I can believe that it may have been an oversight that got pasted in, but it is there nonetheless. Supposing for the sake of argument that it isn't an error and was intended to be included, how would you incorporate that with the RUE updated rules for casting? Does this change your stance in any way?

You raise an interesting question: should CE casters be equal to RMB/RUE casters? Surely a discussion for another topic, but a good question regardless.

[Damian Magecraft]

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

Well stop the presses, me and Damian Magecraft agree on something. But unless there's an oddity needing a GM, you can just cross out the or 'X spells per round' entry in descriptions. It was never a problem for me since I adapted a house rule that just gave a cast time to each spell well before RUE since the original spell times where non-scenically and painfully poorly balanced for casters.

I was wondering why I didn't get my paper today...

This isn't really about general spell casting though, it's about creatures and special cases with some mages where there is a separate limit on spells cast per melee round that doesn't pertain to spell level. Again for example, dragon hatchlings (2 per round), many monsters/demons prior to RUE (X physical attacks or Y magic attacks) and raw spell casters like the Blue Zone Wizard (1 per round).

As stated earlier, I incorporate both: the RUE rules for casting times AND specific creature/class limits per round.

old rule: 2 spells per round was the max possible so a Hatchling using the RUE casting rules is on par with all other casters.
Old Rule: Blue Zone Wiz: 1 per round made them half as effective as RMB casters...
keeping the limit makes them even less effective to RUE casters. Thus ignore the 1 per melee limit.
the limits per day? ignore it. BZWs cant cast outside of the Blue Zones... (limiting enough IMO the per day limit was overkill)

See, the 2 spell per melee round for dragons is actually in RUE on page 67 (I believe) towards the bottom of the first column. I can believe that it may have been an oversight that got pasted in, but it is there nonetheless. Supposing for the sake of argument that it isn't an error and was intended to be included, how would you incorporate that with the RUE updated rules for casting? Does this change your stance in any way?

You raise an interesting question: should CE casters be equal to RMB/RUE casters? Surely a discussion for another topic, but a good question regardless.

I would not incorporate it. I cannot fathom any reason to have left it in intentionally. Hatchlings are already handicapped enough for the sake of "balance" with almost no starting spells; to limit their casting capabilities even further is overkill.

[The Beast]

I would ignore everything everyone else said and use the PPE Channeling Rules found in Rifter 21.

[drewkitty ~..~]

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

Well stop the presses, me and Damian Magecraft agree on something. But unless there's an oddity needing a GM, you can just cross out the or 'X spells per round' entry in descriptions. It was never a problem for me since I adapted a house rule that just gave a cast time to each spell well before RUE since the original spell times where non-scenically and painfully poorly balanced for casters.

I would agree with both of you, if you added "in Rifts." to your stated opinions.

[Grell]

I would ignore everything everyone else said and use the PPE Channeling Rules found in Rifter 21.

Don't have it. What do they do?

[Damian Magecraft]

I would ignore everything everyone else said and use the PPE Channeling Rules found in Rifter 21.

Don't have it. What do they do?

cliff notes version: a caster can channel an amount of ppe per melee action based upon his level class and race.

Quick version: mortal casters can channel 5PPE per melee action per level of experience.
IE:1st level LLW 5 PPE per action; 2nd level LLW 10 PPE per action; etc...
CoM (like dragons) can channel 10 (IIRC) per melee per level of experience.
Supernatural critters (demons, angels, etc) 15 (IIRC)
and gods, demon lords, and Alien Intelligences 20 per action per level of experience.

[Cinos]

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

Well stop the presses, me and Damian Magecraft agree on something. But unless there's an oddity needing a GM, you can just cross out the or 'X spells per round' entry in descriptions. It was never a problem for me since I adapted a house rule that just gave a cast time to each spell well before RUE since the original spell times where non-scenically and painfully poorly balanced for casters.

I would agree with both of you, if you added "in Rifts." to your stated opinions.

I'd still use it for any PF game (Barring the channeling rules) because it's better then the original rules.

[Damian Magecraft]

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

Well stop the presses, me and Damian Magecraft agree on something. But unless there's an oddity needing a GM, you can just cross out the or 'X spells per round' entry in descriptions. It was never a problem for me since I adapted a house rule that just gave a cast time to each spell well before RUE since the original spell times where non-scenically and painfully poorly balanced for casters.

I would agree with both of you, if you added "in Rifts." to your stated opinions.

I'd still use it for any PF game (Barring the channeling rules) because it's better then the original rules.

Agreed (there it is again... is the world still turning in its orbit? )and as of MoM is now an optional casting system for PF.

[drewkitty ~..~]

By having the RUE casting times "over write" the older passages.

Well stop the presses, me and Damian Magecraft agree on something. But unless there's an oddity needing a GM, you can just cross out the or 'X spells per round' entry in descriptions. It was never a problem for me since I adapted a house rule that just gave a cast time to each spell well before RUE since the original spell times where non-scenically and painfully poorly balanced for casters.

I would agree with both of you, if you added "in Rifts." to your stated opinions.

I'd still use it for any PF game (Barring the channeling rules) because it's better then the original rules.

How would I do it? While in Rifts, just ignore the "or 2 attacks through magic" and go with the Rue casting times.

HOWEVER.... while in the other settings the "or 2 attacks through magic" is still in force. Unless the GM imports the Rue casting times into their game.
Why the above? Because Rue only changed things for Rifts Canon. Not the other settings.
...snip

There is nothing stoping a GM from importing rules from another setting. That is the GM's prerogative. In fact, This is one thing that comes from RUE where "I LIke It" and use it. And this is the only thing from RUE I would recommend that GM's import to the other settings.

As to why I would only say I'd agree if "in rifts". Is that the canon rules for each setting are only found in that setting's books. This is from Rifters that keep complaining that only the rules in the Rifts books are canon. And they are right. But not they way they meant it. What they said was correct, but Only if you add the words "in Rifts" to what was said.
(Definition: Rifters: Those who play rifts exclusively.)

As in "you should not need to get books from a setting you have no interest in just to get a canon rule to play your game."


And this Forum is for all the settings there is need to state which setting you are talking about.
*acknowledges DM stating that the RUE casting times rules is an Optional rule in PF2 as of MoM1*

[Grell]

I would ignore everything everyone else said and use the PPE Channeling Rules found in Rifter 21.

Don't have it. What do they do?

cliff notes version: a caster can channel an amount of ppe per melee action based upon his level class and race.

Quick version: mortal casters can channel 5PPE per melee action per level of experience.
IE:1st level LLW 5 PPE per action; 2nd level LLW 10 PPE per action; etc...
CoM (like dragons) can channel 10 (IIRC) per melee per level of experience.
Supernatural critters (demons, angels, etc) 15 (IIRC)
and gods, demon lords, and Alien Intelligences 20 per action per level of experience.

Very good, but what does it do? More power, more staying power, cut a penny in half?

[Damian Magecraft]

I would ignore everything everyone else said and use the PPE Channeling Rules found in Rifter 21.

Don't have it. What do they do?

cliff notes version: a caster can channel an amount of ppe per melee action based upon his level class and race.

Quick version: mortal casters can channel 5PPE per melee action per level of experience.
IE:1st level LLW 5 PPE per action; 2nd level LLW 10 PPE per action; etc...
CoM (like dragons) can channel 10 (IIRC) per melee per level of experience.
Supernatural critters (demons, angels, etc) 15 (IIRC)
and gods, demon lords, and Alien Intelligences 20 per action per level of experience.

Very good, but what does it do? More power, more staying power, cut a penny in half?

allows for a scaling of the casting ability.
Example: the spell Ballistic Fire (PPE cost 25)
A level 1 LLW would need 5 melee actions (5 ppe x his level per action) to draw enough PPE to cast the spell (the spell is subject to interrupt until it is cast)
A level 5 LLW would only need 1 melee action to cast the spell (5 PPE x his level per action = 25)
A level 1 dragon would only need 3 melee actions to cast the same spell (10PPE x his level per action)
Note: regardless of the amount of ppe a caster is capable of channeling and the cost of the spells he still cannot cast more than one spell per action

[Grell]

Do you find these rules superior to what is in RUE? Seems like a significant handicap at lower levels by your example, though providing a way to cast higher level spells faster at higher levels which seems like a very reasonable trade off to me.

[Damian Magecraft]

Do you find these rules superior to what is in RUE? Seems like a significant handicap at lower levels by your example, though providing a way to cast higher level spells faster at higher levels which seems like a very reasonable trade off to me.

Its a unique system.
I find it is no better or worse than the RUE system.
Most of us have played around various alternative casting methods.
The RUE and PPE Channeling are the two that seem to work the best. (IMO)

[Grell]

Do you find these rules superior to what is in RUE? Seems like a significant handicap at lower levels by your example, though providing a way to cast higher level spells faster at higher levels which seems like a very reasonable trade off to me.

Its a unique system.
I find it is no better or worse than the RUE system.
Most of us have played around various alternative casting methods.
The RUE and PPE Channeling are the two that seem to work the best. (IMO)

Fair enough! Thanks for weighing in, I've enjoyed picking your brain.

In this example a creature is listed as having 8 physical attacks or 2 magic attacks per melee round.

--SNIP--

My interpretation has always been that out of 8 possible attacks per round, only 2 of them can be magic spells and each spell takes as many actions as the spell level requires. Does anyone run this differently? If so, how does it work out for you?

I run it like this: They don't get both. They can make either 2 magic attack or 8 physical attacks. Or 1 magical and 4 physical. Magic takes longer to cast so it eats up time.

How does that work out for you and your group? In your 1:4 example, does the one spell take the full 4 actions (out of 8 possible) or only so much as the spell level would require?

[Grell]

I run it like this: They don't get both. They can make either 2 magic attack or 8 physical attacks. Or 1 magical and 4 physical. Magic takes longer to cast so it eats up time.

How does that work out for you and your group? In your 1:4 example, does the one spell take the full 4 actions (out of 8 possible) or only so much as the spell level would require?

I've been running it that way for over 15 years and never had a problem. In the 1:4 example, the spell takes technically 4 actions even if it is a 1st level Blinding Flash.

Do you use RUE casting rules for creatures (like humans) that don't have such restrictions normally or the RMB rules (2 low level spells or 1 high level spell per melee)?

[FatherMorpheus]

IMO, the way that any of the rules are for casting spells really is broken.
I've been using a fomula to show how much PPE per arction a caster can pump into a spell.

ME + (Caster Level x 2) = PPE per action

This way, it scales as the character levels or takes skills which improve their ME. It still won't ever be as great as someone with a good rifle or a Psychic, but a mage also tends to have a much more broad selection of spells.

Having play tested this for a long time, it works very well.

so a variant of the PPE Channeling rules? interesting... does having an exceptional score grant any extra benefits?

Kind of like channeling yes. Basically a caster can pump their ME + (Caster Level x 2) per action into casting spells.

Example: ME: 17 + (3rd Level x 2) = 23 PPE per action for casting purposes.

If it is less than 23, they can cast that spell every action, for example Call Lighting is 15 PPE. So they could cast that every action the entire round. There is a limit of one spell per round, even if you can pump 23 per action you can't cast say 4 Energy Bolts in one action.

A spell like Ballistic Fire costs 25 PPE. So you would start casting on action 1, and finish on your 2nd action. Thus taking 2 actions to complete the spell. Again, you can't cast a 2nd spell on your 2nd action even though you would have PPE left over to spend.

Some of the truly HUGE spells will take rounds to cast, but most of the time that doesn't really come into play.

[Grell]

Does your channeling rules affect rituals and external sources of PPE?

[FatherMorpheus]

Does your channeling rules affect rituals and external sources of PPE?

We apply it across the board. So big rituals take longer, and if the PPE comes from an external source it takes the same time as you draw it into your spell.

[Grell]

Is your ritual speed determined by the level of the leader or the average level of all participants?

[FatherMorpheus]

Is your ritual speed determined by the level of the leader or the average level of all participants?

It would be, though this hasn't come up much at all during play. Thus it hasn't been play tested.

[Grell]

I find ritual casting is either before or after the adventure by my experiences.

Is there any reason you choose to use M.E. as opposed to P.E.?

[FatherMorpheus]

I find ritual casting is either before or after the adventure by my experiences.

Is there any reason you choose to use M.E. as opposed to P.E.?

Just felt that it was a mental endurance of the person to channel the energy through their body. And mixed it up a little bit.

[Grell]

It looks like a cool system, I may give it a try since I have a hard time justifying a RIFTER purchase for PPE Channeling rules.