Forums of the Megaverse®

If a mage casts Armor of Ithan on him/herself and then had started casting another spell (level 6 or higher) and his/her Armor of Ithan gets damaged by an attack, will that disrupt the spell the mage was trying to cast?

dragonfett wrote:If a mage casts Armor of Ithan on him/herself and then had started casting another spell (level 6 or higher) and his/her Armor of Ithan gets damaged by an attack, will that disrupt the spell the mage was trying to cast?

As much as getting any other armor damaged while casting a spell will.

The answer is, if I recall correctly, No. Unless the attack somehow forced him to move/break concentration/get tackled/fliped/thrown/etc.

For example: A mage casts Armor of Ithan and then starts casting some spell that requires more time and concentration (As per your example, a level 6 spell or higher). A CS Grunt with an energy pistol spots the mage trying to do something magical and immediately shoots. The energy blast would impact the AoI and have no effect on stopping the mage from casting his spell what-so-ever.

On the flip side of this example. The CS Grunt sees the mage trying to cast a spell and rather than reach for his pistol, decides to body tackle the mage. The mage now has two choices to make: He can either attempt to dodge this attack before he gets knocked over, or he can just get knocked over. Either way, his concentration must now be broken in order for him to either A - take action or B - get knocked to the ground.

See?

That is what I had thought, but I was unsure. In one of the games I am involved in, I am playing a ley line walker and I wanted to have this clarified. Thanks guys!

Even though there's nothing explicitly said about this I would easily rule in favor of the Mage.

Of course, one is then forced to ask one's self why a relatively low Kinetic Energy body impact like a Grapple or Tackle disrupts the Mage's concentration and sends him flying, but a much higher Kinetic Energy attack like the impact from 23rd Century megadamage weapons (particularly solid projectiles) doesn't.

I was just more curious about the affects from energy weapons and "light" kinetic weapons (normal guns, light to medium rail guns, etc.). Guns that rely on a heavier, single slug (i.e., the Boom Gun as an extreme example) or explosives are almost guaranteed to disrupt a mage in the middle of casting a spell.

At a guess I think Kevin simply uses such a distinction to slap a player of a mage when Kevin thinks they are being 'too man at arms-ey'.

Ie, it's not a hard rule - instead it's a penalty Kevin slaps out to try and adhere to his idea of genre conventions.

Galroth wrote:

dragonfett wrote:If a mage casts Armor of Ithan on him/herself and then had started casting another spell (level 6 or higher) and his/her Armor of Ithan gets damaged by an attack, will that disrupt the spell the mage was trying to cast?

As much as getting any other armor damaged while casting a spell will.

Yup.

How much IS that?
Let's look....

P. 189-190 RUE

"A good rule of thumb is if the mage is hit, it breaks his spell casting, especially if he or his armor takes any damage from the attack."
Right there, you don't even have to take damage, just get hit.
There's a little leeway with the "especially" and "good rule of thumb," but I think those are in there to prevent stuff like "I hit him with my laser pointer!" or "I throw a paper airplane at him!" from being abused by players.

Furthermore, mages can't cast spells if the attacker is targeting him every attack, or if running, or otherwise physically exerting himself.

One must realise Kevin doesn't write rules that determine what is or isn't valid play. Instead he writes damocles swords, dropping them on players who don't do as he wants. For example, playing a heroic mage in Kevins game, helping some little kids by casting a forcefield around them to protect them while under fire - you'll find the GM/Kevin wont say your spell is interupted. Try to cast for what Kevin thinks are selfish reasons and bam, that bullet interupted your spell! Try again! Oh, interupted again! What a shame!

Kevin has followed the traditional roleplay design method of not making a game where certain actions are valid because the rules say they are, but simply a series of 'sticks' to train players to play the way he wants.

The whole trick of doing that is to fool people into thinking the big book of rules has the answer to how to play the game, like the OP does. They focus on the book, and it keeps them distracted while the GM sneaks up behind them with the symantic stick. To give the impression that somehow that when protecting the children above and when doing the other thing, the game rules somehow differentiate between the two and if you just focus on the rules, you'll find out how - this gives the GM plenty of room to move around in the blindspot created by that rule book focus.

Noon wrote:One must realise Kevin doesn't write rules that determine what is or isn't valid play. Instead he writes damocles swords, dropping them on players who don't do as he wants. For example, playing a heroic mage in Kevins game, helping some little kids by casting a forcefield around them to protect them while under fire - you'll find the GM/Kevin wont say your spell is interupted. Try to cast for what Kevin thinks are selfish reasons and bam, that bullet interupted your spell! Try again! Oh, interupted again! What a shame!

Kevin has followed the traditional roleplay design method of not making a game where certain actions are valid because the rules say they are, but simply a series of 'sticks' to train players to play the way he wants.

The whole trick of doing that is to fool people into thinking the big book of rules has the answer to how to play the game, like the OP does. They focus on the book, and it keeps them distracted while the GM sneaks up behind them with the symantic stick. To give the impression that somehow that when protecting the children above and when doing the other thing, the game rules somehow differentiate between the two and if you just focus on the rules, you'll find out how - this gives the GM plenty of room to move around in the blindspot created by that rule book focus.

That seems like kind of a pessimistic, paranoid, and cynical way of looking at things.
I can't say I've ever seen that kind of thing when playing in a game Kev was running, but I've only been in 2-3.

Rogue_Scientist wrote:Update:

I was perusing the Book of Magic QnA and I found something relevant.

Q: "Can someone casting a spell be interrupted and the spell be disrupted?"

A: " Yes. The spell caster needs to focus and concentrate his will while invoking a spoken invocation. The simplest way to disrupt a spell's being cast is to injure or knock out the spell caster, actually causing him to take physical damage, or forcing him to take defensive action, including dodging."

It goes on to say that knock-downs, things which cause loss of an action, tackling (and presumably throwing), as well as actions which prevent the mage from speaking all disrupt spellcasting.

BoM pg. 20.

Damage to body or magical armor does not "actually cause the mage to take physical damage". Therefore it does not disrupt spellcasting. Other means of disruption are still viable.

For what it's worth, this is how it's always been interpreted in the games I've played in. And where I am the GM.

Yup.
RUE made it harder to complete spells than in the previous books.
I'm guessing it's to balance out the new casting rules.

Rogue_Scientist wrote:Mmmm. I thought RUE pre-dated BoM.

Then I remembered all the plugs for BoM they put in RUE. Turns out RUE was 4 years later.

Time is relative.