Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:52 am**

This just came up in a game. Casting Magic in the Palladium Megaverse takes from 1-3 actions. The question that came up was if a Mage has auto-dodge and is casting a invocation, does the auto-dodge break the Mage's concentration and interrupt the spell? Or is the auto-dodge an innate ability and takes place unconsciously and doesn't interrupt the casting?

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:25 am**

A mage with an auto dodge... is that even possible? I would say it breaks concentration due to somantic components to the spell being stopped by the movement or at the very least make them roll to see if they lost their concentration.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:57 am**

calto40k wrote:A mage with an auto dodge... is that even possible? I would say it breaks concentration due to somantic components to the spell being stopped by the movement or at the very least make them roll to see if they lost their concentration.

Temporal Warriors can have auto dodge if they train until 5th level (I think...I've never done it...always start at level 1).

There's probably a caster or two from FoM that can get auto dodge. I don't like those OCCs so I don't remember the details.

--flatline

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:11 am**

SpiritInterface wrote:This just came up in a game. Casting Magic in the Palladium Megaverse takes from 1-3 actions. The question that came up was if a Mage has auto-dodge and is casting a invocation, does the auto-dodge break the Mage's concentration and interrupt the spell? Or is the auto-dodge an innate ability and takes place unconsciously and doesn't interrupt the casting?

Page 54 of Mysteries of Magic states that mages can dodge without interrupting their spell, as long as they don't have to dive or leap out of the way, or are facing more than one attacker.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:16 pm**

calto40k wrote:A mage with an auto dodge... is that even possible? I would say it breaks concentration due to somantic components to the spell being stopped by the movement or at the very least make them roll to see if they lost their concentration.

In Palladium spell are cast verbally only, there is no reason for gesticulation except for showmanship.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:17 pm**

temporal warriors do indeed get auto-dodge if they take a 14 year apprenticeship with a temporal raider.

Combat mages have access to a spell that grants them autododge for a limited time.

it would, as beast and MoM say, however, depend on the kind of dodge they have to do. if they are being swung or shot at and only have to sidestep or juke out of the way, this would not break their concentration.

if you launch mini-missiles at them and they have to leap/dive out of the blast radius, that definatly breaks their concentration.

also remember, MoM also says that even getting hit for minor amounts of damage dosn't automatically break it either. the attack has to deal more than 8 points of damage, otherwise the mage can shrug it off and ignore it. this is the "Anti-Timmy" rule

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:18 pm**

SpiritInterface wrote:
calto40k wrote:A mage with an auto dodge... is that even possible? I would say it breaks concentration due to somantic components to the spell being stopped by the movement or at the very least make them roll to see if they lost their concentration.

In Palladium spell are cast verbally only, there is no reason for gesticulation except for showmanship.

Not true. gestures are required. the entire thing that makes the escape spell special is that it's the only spell that dosn't (and thus can be cast while bound to remove said bonds)

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:56 pm**

Saurvon wrote:Under "Vulnerable to a Pressed Attack" and "Can't cast magic during direct attack" (on pgs. 189-190) RUE it is fairly clear that a spell higher than level 1-5 will be interruped if you parry, strike, or dodge. The Spell will also fail if the caster, or his armor takes damage. Now, none of this addresses Auto-Dodge, but as we read on we find our answer; running or performing any physical action will require the mage to stop and catch his breath before casting again. 1-2 melee actions/attacks of rest is required.

So, in summary. Auto-dodge will have no real affect on those quick level 1-5 spells, but anything more complicated will mean the auto-dodge leads to the spell being interrupted. The Caster will have to wait 1-2 melee actions/attacks before resuming the spell.

Reread the OP, he's not asking about Rifts.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:41 pm**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
SpiritInterface wrote:
calto40k wrote:A mage with an auto dodge... is that even possible? I would say it breaks concentration due to somantic components to the spell being stopped by the movement or at the very least make them roll to see if they lost their concentration.

In Palladium spell are cast verbally only, there is no reason for gesticulation except for showmanship.

Not true. gestures are required. the entire thing that makes the escape spell special is that it's the only spell that dosn't (and thus can be cast while bound to remove said bonds)

On page 53 of Mysteries of Magic they talk about what is needed to cast a spell and it says nothing about somantics in general, however I can see where some spell require it, especially those that require a to hit or targeting a person or object (Fire Bolt, Energy Bolt...).

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:21 pm**

calto40k wrote:A mage with an auto dodge... is that even possible? I would say it breaks concentration due to somantic components to the spell being stopped by the movement or at the very least make them roll to see if they lost their concentration.

unless a spell specifically states otherwise spells do not require gestures (only the spoken word).

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:23 pm**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
SpiritInterface wrote:
calto40k wrote:A mage with an auto dodge... is that even possible? I would say it breaks concentration due to somantic components to the spell being stopped by the movement or at the very least make them roll to see if they lost their concentration.

In Palladium spell are cast verbally only, there is no reason for gesticulation except for showmanship.

Not true. gestures are required. the entire thing that makes the escape spell special is that it's the only spell that dosn't (and thus can be cast while bound to remove said bonds)

cite your source: setting, book, page.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:31 pm**

The Beast wrote:
SpiritInterface wrote:This just came up in a game. Casting Magic in the Palladium Megaverse takes from 1-3 actions. The question that came up was if a Mage has auto-dodge and is casting a invocation, does the auto-dodge break the Mage's concentration and interrupt the spell? Or is the auto-dodge an innate ability and takes place unconsciously and doesn't interrupt the casting?

Page 54 of Mysteries of Magic states that mages can dodge without interrupting their spell, as long as they don't have to dive or leap out of the way, or are facing more than one attacker.

hmmm... by that reading it would imply as long as the mage is dodging just a single attack (normal or auto) then the spell remains uninterrupted.
I would call that fair.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:01 pm**

SpiritInterface wrote:This just came up in a game. Casting Magic in the Palladium Megaverse takes from 1-3 actions. The question that came up was if a Mage has auto-dodge and is casting a invocation, does the auto-dodge break the Mage's concentration and interrupt the spell? Or is the auto-dodge an innate ability and takes place unconsciously and doesn't interrupt the casting?

I would say that as long as the dodge (auto or otherwise) does not involve jumping, running or physically moving more than just 1 or 2 feet (a simple side step with a half twist would be ok) that the spell is not interrupted.

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:58 pm**

Mercenary Adventures: Combat Mage OCC plus Superhuman Agility spell. Tends to be one of the most current canon round-about approaches to casters with autododge. Mostly a combat philosophy/approach. Older more basic ones include the Temporal Warrior at a certain prep level in WB3, and so forth.

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:46 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
SpiritInterface wrote:
calto40k wrote:A mage with an auto dodge... is that even possible? I would say it breaks concentration due to somantic components to the spell being stopped by the movement or at the very least make them roll to see if they lost their concentration.

In Palladium spell are cast verbally only, there is no reason for gesticulation except for showmanship.

Not true. gestures are required. the entire thing that makes the escape spell special is that it's the only spell that dosn't (and thus can be cast while bound to remove said bonds)
cite your source: setting, book, page.

Jumping in:

PFRPG 2nd ed, pg. 104 "invoking magic energy through force of will and the spoken word", more if you read farther on the page.
BtS 1st ed, pg. 95 "The spell itself is a string of words" and "Spell magic...can be performed by the arcanist without elaborate, time-consuming ceremony"
HU 2nd ed, pg. "the spoken incantation invokes and ignites the mystic energies"

Not a single book I have looked at lists actions as part of a spell. But every book I have looked at lists words as part of a spell as a way of focusing the mind. Rifts BoM in the Q&A section starting on page 20 does not mention physical/ritual movement as a component, but does state quite clearly that spoken words are required and muting the mage will prevent spellcasting.

Rifts BoM pg. 20 did have a blurb that would address the OP, "or forcing him to take defensive action, including dodging". Losing a melee action was listed later in the next paragraph, so by strict grammar school standards they were not referring to dodging only when it took up an action, they were referring to dodging by any means, even auto-dodge.

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:55 pm**

arouetta wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
SpiritInterface wrote:
calto40k wrote:A mage with an auto dodge... is that even possible? I would say it breaks concentration due to somantic components to the spell being stopped by the movement or at the very least make them roll to see if they lost their concentration.

In Palladium spell are cast verbally only, there is no reason for gesticulation except for showmanship.

Not true. gestures are required. the entire thing that makes the escape spell special is that it's the only spell that dosn't (and thus can be cast while bound to remove said bonds)
cite your source: setting, book, page.

Jumping in:

PFRPG 2nd ed, pg. 104 "invoking magic energy through force of will and the spoken word", more if you read farther on the page.
BtS 1st ed, pg. 95 "The spell itself is a string of words" and "Spell magic...can be performed by the arcanist without elaborate, time-consuming ceremony"
HU 2nd ed, pg. "the spoken incantation invokes and ignites the mystic energies"

Not a single book I have looked at lists actions as part of a spell. But every book I have looked at lists words as part of a spell as a way of focusing the mind. Rifts BoM in the Q&A section starting on page 20 does not mention physical/ritual movement as a component, but does state quite clearly that spoken words are required and muting the mage will prevent spellcasting.

Rifts BoM pg. 20 did have a blurb that would address the OP, "or forcing him to take defensive action, including dodging". Losing a melee action was listed later in the next paragraph, so by strict grammar school standards they were not referring to dodging only when it took up an action, they were referring to dodging by any means, even auto-dodge.

Thank you; but all you did was prove my stance...
I was requesting the source for Nekira's stance that somatics are required.
Until someone can cite a source proving that stance it is yet another fallacy of the magic system carried over from another (poorly executed) system.

Posted: **Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:23 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:Thank you; but all you did was prove my stance...
I was requesting the source for Nekira's stance that somatics are required.
Until someone can cite a source proving that stance it is yet another fallacy of the magic system carried over from another (poorly executed) system.

That was my intent. :wink:

I agree with you.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:37 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
arouetta wrote:Jumping in:

PFRPG 2nd ed, pg. 104 "invoking magic energy through force of will and the spoken word", more if you read farther on the page.
BtS 1st ed, pg. 95 "The spell itself is a string of words" and "Spell magic...can be performed by the arcanist without elaborate, time-consuming ceremony"
HU 2nd ed, pg. "the spoken incantation invokes and ignites the mystic energies"

Not a single book I have looked at lists actions as part of a spell. But every book I have looked at lists words as part of a spell as a way of focusing the mind. Rifts BoM in the Q&A section starting on page 20 does not mention physical/ritual movement as a component, but does state quite clearly that spoken words are required and muting the mage will prevent spellcasting.

Rifts BoM pg. 20 did have a blurb that would address the OP, "or forcing him to take defensive action, including dodging". Losing a melee action was listed later in the next paragraph, so by strict grammar school standards they were not referring to dodging only when it took up an action, they were referring to dodging by any means, even auto-dodge.

Thank you; but all you did was prove my stance...
I was requesting the source for Nekira's stance that somatics are required.
Until someone can cite a source proving that stance it is yet another fallacy of the magic system carried over from another (poorly executed) system.

Through the Glass Darkly, page 43 under Miscasting Spells: "Spells requiring complex gestures may be miscast by clumsy characters (or left out of the written text of the scroll to protect its secrets from "outsiders"). A roll against the P.P. attribute may be required to cast such a spell correctly, or a Principles of Magic or perception roll."

Not only do spells require gestures, but failing to do them properly can cause the spell to misfire, and one can even design a spell or scroll so that failure is likely if one leaves out certain gestures.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:10 pm**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
arouetta wrote:Jumping in:

PFRPG 2nd ed, pg. 104 "invoking magic energy through force of will and the spoken word", more if you read farther on the page.
BtS 1st ed, pg. 95 "The spell itself is a string of words" and "Spell magic...can be performed by the arcanist without elaborate, time-consuming ceremony"
HU 2nd ed, pg. "the spoken incantation invokes and ignites the mystic energies"

Not a single book I have looked at lists actions as part of a spell. But every book I have looked at lists words as part of a spell as a way of focusing the mind. Rifts BoM in the Q&A section starting on page 20 does not mention physical/ritual movement as a component, but does state quite clearly that spoken words are required and muting the mage will prevent spellcasting.

Rifts BoM pg. 20 did have a blurb that would address the OP, "or forcing him to take defensive action, including dodging". Losing a melee action was listed later in the next paragraph, so by strict grammar school standards they were not referring to dodging only when it took up an action, they were referring to dodging by any means, even auto-dodge.

Thank you; but all you did was prove my stance...
I was requesting the source for Nekira's stance that somatics are required.
Until someone can cite a source proving that stance it is yet another fallacy of the magic system carried over from another (poorly executed) system.

Through the Glass Darkly, page 43 under Miscasting Spells: "Spells requiring complex gestures may be miscast by clumsy characters (or left out of the written text of the scroll to protect its secrets from "outsiders"). A roll against the P.P. attribute may be required to cast such a spell correctly, or a Principles of Magic or perception roll."

Not only do spells require gestures, but failing to do them properly can cause the spell to misfire, and one can even design a spell or scroll so that failure is likely if one leaves out certain gestures.

The passage you cite only proves that spells that require gestures will be Miscast.
Not that all spells require them.
Try again.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:24 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:I was requesting the source for Nekira's stance that somatics are required.
Until someone can cite a source proving that stance it is yet another fallacy of the magic system carried over from another (poorly executed) system.

Greetings and Salutations. Fairly sure I pointed this out to you once before but ...

Rifts Ultimate Edition; Page 189 wrote:2. To cast a spell requires verbalization - the speaking of the spell invocation. The mantra of the spell must be spoken aloud and with authority. Hand gestures are also usually part of the spell casting process that helps focus and direct the mystic energy.

Note: It uses the word "usually," not always. However, that still means it's more common than not.

Of course, this further deviates from the PF2 material, which mentions ...

Palladium Fantasy, Second Edition; Page 104 wrote:... wizards usually diguise the words of the incantation admist a string of meaningless gibberish, often mumbling the true key words. Furthermore, spell incantations are often whispered so quietly that they are barely audible. Only the meaningless parts are ever spoken clearly or shout aloud ...

Mumbling and whispering the incantation (PF2) isn't really speaking with authority (a "must" in RUE) at all, is it?

This is part of RUE, which (as things stand currently) is the newest magic system of the Palladium Megaverse. Does this mean all magic in the Megaverse follows these rules? Not necessarily (though the BtS2 magic system has yet to be revealed, Splicers doesn't have magic, and PF:UE has yet to come out either ... so time may tell). Should it be mentioned in a topic of the Megaverse (as this thread is)? Yes!

Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:11 pm**

Prysus wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:I was requesting the source for Nekira's stance that somatics are required.
Until someone can cite a source proving that stance it is yet another fallacy of the magic system carried over from another (poorly executed) system.

Greetings and Salutations. Fairly sure I pointed this out to you once before but ...

Rifts Ultimate Edition; Page 189 wrote:2. To cast a spell requires verbalization - the speaking of the spell invocation. The mantra of the spell must be spoken aloud and with authority. Hand gestures are also usually part of the spell casting process that helps focus and direct the mystic energy.

Note: It uses the word "usually," not always. However, that still means it's more common than not.

Of course, this further deviates from the PF2 material, which mentions ...

Palladium Fantasy, Second Edition; Page 104 wrote:... wizards usually diguise the words of the incantation admist a string of meaningless gibberish, often mumbling the true key words. Furthermore, spell incantations are often whispered so quietly that they are barely audible. Only the meaningless parts are ever spoken clearly or shout aloud ...

Mumbling and whispering the incantation (PF2) isn't really speaking with authority (a "must" in RUE) at all, is it?

This is part of RUE, which (as things stand currently) is the newest magic system of the Palladium Megaverse. Does this mean all magic in the Megaverse follows these rules? Not necessarily (though the BtS2 magic system has yet to be revealed, Splicers doesn't have magic, and PF:UE has yet to come out either ... so time may tell). Should it be mentioned in a topic of the Megaverse (as this thread is)? Yes!

Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Note the part that says "requires" vebalization?
It does not say requires gesturing. Only that it is used to aid in the focus.
From this we can conclude the gestures are meaningless and not required.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:28 am**

Damian Magecraft wrote:Note the part that says "requires" vebalization?
It does not say requires gesturing. Only that it is used to aid in the focus.
From this we can conclude the gestures are meaningless and not required.

Greetings and Salutations. I've noted that, and how hand gestures are included in the section talking about something that's required. Setting that aside (as it could be just bad placement), you should keep in mind how it mentions that hand gestures are "part of the spell casting process." That's not meangingless. They even state a purpose (focus is one, directing magic is another, that's two purposes).

Breaking a magic user's "focus" interrupts a spell. Hand gestures are for "focus."

A steering wheel directs where a car goes, but it is NOT necessary for a car to actually run (you can turn it on, the engine and gas will all still run properly), but you can't properly drive/direct the car without it.

While it's clearly not ALWAYS a part of the process (such as in Escape, we see the only requirement is verbalization, which is why only gagging the mage can stop it), but it is "usually." Since there are exceptions (listed as "exception," because "usually" tells us that hand gestures are the usual/common way) its not a full requirement (just included as they talk about requirements).

Also keep in mind this is in Step #2 of "Casting Magic." Not meaningless notes about magic, but a section talking about casting magic, and including something that's usually (just not always) a part of the process for "focus" and "direction." I wouldn't call either of those traits "meaningless."

I'm not asking you to play with the rule mind you, just stating that it is there. Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:48 am**

Prysus wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:Note the part that says "requires" vebalization?
It does not say requires gesturing. Only that it is used to aid in the focus.
From this we can conclude the gestures are meaningless and not required.

Greetings and Salutations. I've noted that, and how hand gestures are included in the section talking about something that's required. Setting that aside (as it could be just bad placement), you should keep in mind how it mentions that hand gestures are "part of the spell casting process." That's not meangingless. They even state a purpose (focus is one, directing magic is another, that's two purposes).

Breaking a magic user's "focus" interrupts a spell. Hand gestures are for "focus."

A steering wheel directs where a car goes, but it is NOT necessary for a car to actually run (you can turn it on, the engine and gas will all still run properly), but you can't properly drive/direct the car without it.

While it's clearly not ALWAYS a part of the process (such as in Escape, we see the only requirement is verbalization, which is why only gagging the mage can stop it), but it is "usually." Since there are exceptions (listed as "exception," because "usually" tells us that hand gestures are the usual/common way) its not a full requirement (just included as they talk about requirements).

Also keep in mind this is in Step #2 of "Casting Magic." Not meaningless notes about magic, but a section talking about casting magic, and including something that's usually (just not always) a part of the process for "focus" and "direction." I wouldn't call either of those traits "meaningless."

I'm not asking you to play with the rule mind you, just stating that it is there. Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

I would accept the concept of gestures being required if there were a mechanic (other than the OPTIONAL one presented in only one setting) for casting without using said gestures.
But since there is no other mechanic presented regardless what the section says about gestures they are not required.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:19 am**

Damian Magecraft wrote:I would accept the concept of gestures being required if there were a mechanic (other than the OPTIONAL one presented in only one setting) for casting without using said gestures.
But since there is no other mechanic presented regardless what the section says about gestures they are not required.

Greetings and Salutations. Meh, I can see your point (sort of). But not sure there's really a mechanic for casting without words (outside of Underseas which is one sourcebook in one setting which may be restricted to one specific school of magic ... and maybe Through the Glass Darkly, though I can't recall for sure on that one via Sorceror Proficiencies). There's also not a game mechanic for casting without belief. The mechanic really is that without these things, you can't cast magic (same would be true of hand gestures).

Truth be told I don't have an issue with the concept of hand gestures at all, but I also admit that I don't use magic in my games much (I think the only time it ever comes up is if I let someone play a Demi-God or something, and as an innate ability I let a lot slide). My real issue with the hand gesture concept is that it says things like "usually," which means there are exceptions. Other than Escape, we have no details on which ones though. So in the end it just becomes a big question mark what needs it and what doesn't.

Mysteries of Magic would've been a grant chance to add in some details on this (but they didn't do it). As Kevin has discussed a PF:UE qutie a few times, I'm curious if the rule will pop up there or just vanish.

Anyways, I'm tired and in an irritated mood (nothing to do with anything on here) so I'm going to stop now. More than anything I just wanted to show there was something in the books to indicate hand gestures are required (even if just a single line in a single book). I provide information, it's what I do. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:57 am**

Prysus wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:Note the part that says "requires" vebalization?
It does not say requires gesturing. Only that it is used to aid in the focus.
From this we can conclude the gestures are meaningless and not required.

Greetings and Salutations. I've noted that, and how hand gestures are included in the section talking about something that's required. Setting that aside (as it could be just bad placement), you should keep in mind how it mentions that hand gestures are "part of the spell casting process." That's not meangingless. They even state a purpose (focus is one, directing magic is another, that's two purposes).

Breaking a magic user's "focus" interrupts a spell. Hand gestures are for "focus."

A steering wheel directs where a car goes, but it is NOT necessary for a car to actually run (you can turn it on, the engine and gas will all still run properly), but you can't properly drive/direct the car without it.

While it's clearly not ALWAYS a part of the process (such as in Escape, we see the only requirement is verbalization, which is why only gagging the mage can stop it), but it is "usually." Since there are exceptions (listed as "exception," because "usually" tells us that hand gestures are the usual/common way) its not a full requirement (just included as they talk about requirements).

Also keep in mind this is in Step #2 of "Casting Magic." Not meaningless notes about magic, but a section talking about casting magic, and including something that's usually (just not always) a part of the process for "focus" and "direction." I wouldn't call either of those traits "meaningless."

I'm not asking you to play with the rule mind you, just stating that it is there. Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

RUE was printed August 2005. MoM was printed September 2009. Thus if RUE cancels out older versions of books then MoM would cancel out RUE. And MoM says "Combined with magic energy, one must use words or some sort of symbolic representation of the magic he is trying to unleash. For Wizards, there is a rigid set of four words...repeated in some combination." It goes on to talk about the power words of Diabolists, Warlocks, priests and psi-mystics.

So according to the latest book, unless you prefer to use sign language (symbolic representation) to "say" the magic words, speaking them is quite sufficient, no gestures needed. And as most mage OCCs are very similar to the Wizard (use invocation magic, rather than use runes like a Diabolist or symbols like a Summoner), it can be argued that the 4 basic power words are sufficient for them as well.

Now we are talking about the megaverse here. So in the opposite it could be argued that a rule in one book that does not repeat itself in other books is not a megaversal rule. So again, the rule in RUE is not relevant to the megaverse as it does not repeat itself in PF, HU2, the latest BtS book that deals with magic, CE, Mystic China (there is a blurb on pg 68 dealing with Western magic) and probably other books I haven't looked at.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:04 pm**

arouetta wrote:RUE was printed August 2005. MoM was printed September 2009. Thus if RUE cancels out older versions of books then MoM would cancel out RUE. And MoM says "Combined with magic energy, one must use words or some sort of symbolic representation of the magic he is trying to unleash. For Wizards, there is a rigid set of four words...repeated in some combination." It goes on to talk about the power words of Diabolists, Warlocks, priests and psi-mystics.

So according to the latest book, unless you prefer to use sign language (symbolic representation) to "say" the magic words, speaking them is quite sufficient, no gestures needed. And as most mage OCCs are very similar to the Wizard (use invocation magic, rather than use runes like a Diabolist or symbols like a Summoner), it can be argued that the 4 basic power words are sufficient for them as well.

Now we are talking about the megaverse here. So in the opposite it could be argued that a rule in one book that does not repeat itself in other books is not a megaversal rule. So again, the rule in RUE is not relevant to the megaverse as it does not repeat itself in PF, HU2, the latest BtS book that deals with magic, CE, Mystic China (there is a blurb on pg 68 dealing with Western magic) and probably other books I haven't looked at.

Not necessarily. If you were playing in strictly one setting or the other than the rules from the other setting wouldn't apply to your game. However if you used rules from the other settings when the rules in you game don't cover the subject then newer rules would override the older rules.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:06 pm**

arouetta wrote:RUE was printed August 2005. MoM was printed September 2009.

Greetings and Salutations. Now, if I had only known that before my post I might've made a comment like ...

Prysus wrote:Mysteries of Magic would've been a grant chance to add in some details on this (but they didn't do it).

Oh wait ... I did.

arouetta wrote:Thus if RUE cancels out older versions of books then MoM would cancel out RUE.

Except I never said that. What I actually said was ...

Prysus wrote:This is part of RUE, which (as things stand currently) is the newest magic system of the Palladium Megaverse. Does this mean all magic in the Megaverse follows these rules? Not necessarily (though the BtS2 magic system has yet to be revealed, Splicers doesn't have magic, and PF:UE has yet to come out either ... so time may tell). Should it be mentioned in a topic of the Megaverse (as this thread is)? Yes!

So I said it does NOT apply to the rest of the Megaverse, but it does apply to the Megaverse (which Rifts is a part of, whether you like it or not). Whew! Good thing I didn't say whatever it was you're trying to claim. :ok:

arouetta wrote:And MoM says "Combined with magic energy, one must use words or some sort of symbolic representation of the magic he is trying to unleash. For Wizards, there is a rigid set of four words...repeated in some combination." It goes on to talk about the power words of Diabolists, Warlocks, priests and psi-mystics.

Well, that's great, but that's a PF book, which expands on PF, though not necessarily Rifts. The same way RUE applies to Rifts, and not necessarily PF. Interesting how it works both ways, huh?

Note: If you could at least find a statement addressing hand gestures (required or NOT required), this would at least have more weight. As it stands now, it doesn't address hand gestures in either way, and as such says nothing meaningful on hand gestures.

Though you know what I do find interesting about that statement? It says "words or some sort of symbolic representation." This implies words are NOT necessary, and contradicts the Wizard write-up in PF2 main book (which says words ARE necessary). So if you want to use this quote to show all those other PF2 quotes you used earlier are now meaningless, you have a much better case.

arouetta wrote:So according to the latest book, unless you prefer to use sign language (symbolic representation) to "say" the magic words, speaking them is quite sufficient, no gestures needed. And as most mage OCCs are very similar to the Wizard (use invocation magic, rather than use runes like a Diabolist or symbols like a Summoner), it can be argued that the 4 basic power words are sufficient for them as well.

The latest rule book of PF2, yes. So you can use that case to negate your arguments of the original PF2 main book, but not necessarily Rifts, the same as Rifts doesn't necessarily overwrite PF2. Wow ... I feel like I'm repeating myself. Oh wait ... I am.

arouetta wrote:Now we are talking about the megaverse here.

Yup! Something both PF and Rifts are a part of, as well as HU, BtS, N&S, Robotech, TMNT, AtB, Mechanoids, Nightspawn/bane, Recon, Splicers, and any I may have missed.

arouetta wrote:So in the opposite it could be argued that a rule in one book that does not repeat itself in other books is not a megaversal rule. So again, the rule in RUE is not relevant to the megaverse as it does not repeat itself in PF, HU2, the latest BtS book that deals with magic, CE, Mystic China (there is a blurb on pg 68 dealing with Western magic) and probably other books I haven't looked at.

Rifts is a part of the Megaverse, whether you like it or not. I personally don't care for Rifts, but I don't stick my head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist either.

Now, if you're trying to make the case that a rule isn't Megaversal unless every book in the Megaverse follows that rule, then I'm afraid there are NO Megaversal rules, not even character creation. There are differences in the Eight Attributes, Stat bonuses, skills, stats of items, etc. You're trying to say that RUE isn't part of the Megaverse because it disagrees with PF, but then by your own logic the PF rules don't apply to the Megaverse because they contradict Rifts. The door swings both ways. There are no Megaversal rules for psychics either (as BtS2 rules differ from other settings). So we just negated Character Creation, Magic, and Psionics from the Megaverse if we use your logic. Are you sure that's the route you want to go?

It was stated that the rule didn't exist, and to cite a book, page, and setting for reference to prove otherwise. I've actually done that. Can you point to a source that says the quote doesn't exist? Or will this be just a: "Nuh-uh, it doesn't agree with my other setting, so it doesn't exist" type argument?

I'm not saying this rule applies to PF, or HU, or any other setting. I'm saying the rule does exist. As no setting was specified here (though stating magic takes 1-3 actions implies Rifts, though it could in theory be PF as it has "Optional" only rules in MoM), rules from ALL settings apply, and PF is just as valid as Rifts, but not more so. I love PF (my favorite setting), but I believe honesty is important as well as knowledge. Once you know what rules exist, you can pick which ones you like and which ones to ignore and which ones you'll just house rule all together.

Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day to all. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:36 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
arouetta wrote:Jumping in:

PFRPG 2nd ed, pg. 104 "invoking magic energy through force of will and the spoken word", more if you read farther on the page.
BtS 1st ed, pg. 95 "The spell itself is a string of words" and "Spell magic...can be performed by the arcanist without elaborate, time-consuming ceremony"
HU 2nd ed, pg. "the spoken incantation invokes and ignites the mystic energies"

Not a single book I have looked at lists actions as part of a spell. But every book I have looked at lists words as part of a spell as a way of focusing the mind. Rifts BoM in the Q&A section starting on page 20 does not mention physical/ritual movement as a component, but does state quite clearly that spoken words are required and muting the mage will prevent spellcasting.

Rifts BoM pg. 20 did have a blurb that would address the OP, "or forcing him to take defensive action, including dodging". Losing a melee action was listed later in the next paragraph, so by strict grammar school standards they were not referring to dodging only when it took up an action, they were referring to dodging by any means, even auto-dodge.

Thank you; but all you did was prove my stance...
I was requesting the source for Nekira's stance that somatics are required.
Until someone can cite a source proving that stance it is yet another fallacy of the magic system carried over from another (poorly executed) system.

Through the Glass Darkly, page 43 under Miscasting Spells: "Spells requiring complex gestures may be miscast by clumsy characters (or left out of the written text of the scroll to protect its secrets from "outsiders"). A roll against the P.P. attribute may be required to cast such a spell correctly, or a Principles of Magic or perception roll."

Not only do spells require gestures, but failing to do them properly can cause the spell to misfire, and one can even design a spell or scroll so that failure is likely if one leaves out certain gestures.

The passage you cite only proves that spells that require gestures will be Miscast.
Not that all spells require them.
Try again.

Actually, it says only spells that have exceptionally difficult hand gestures may require a roll or be miscast. it still makes it clear gestures are required, be they easy or hard.

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Prysus wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:Note the part that says "requires" vebalization?
It does not say requires gesturing. Only that it is used to aid in the focus.
From this we can conclude the gestures are meaningless and not required.

Greetings and Salutations. I've noted that, and how hand gestures are included in the section talking about something that's required. Setting that aside (as it could be just bad placement), you should keep in mind how it mentions that hand gestures are "part of the spell casting process." That's not meangingless. They even state a purpose (focus is one, directing magic is another, that's two purposes).

Breaking a magic user's "focus" interrupts a spell. Hand gestures are for "focus."

A steering wheel directs where a car goes, but it is NOT necessary for a car to actually run (you can turn it on, the engine and gas will all still run properly), but you can't properly drive/direct the car without it.

While it's clearly not ALWAYS a part of the process (such as in Escape, we see the only requirement is verbalization, which is why only gagging the mage can stop it), but it is "usually." Since there are exceptions (listed as "exception," because "usually" tells us that hand gestures are the usual/common way) its not a full requirement (just included as they talk about requirements).

Also keep in mind this is in Step #2 of "Casting Magic." Not meaningless notes about magic, but a section talking about casting magic, and including something that's usually (just not always) a part of the process for "focus" and "direction." I wouldn't call either of those traits "meaningless."

I'm not asking you to play with the rule mind you, just stating that it is there. Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

I would accept the concept of gestures being required if there were a mechanic (other than the OPTIONAL one presented in only one setting) for casting without using said gestures.
But since there is no other mechanic presented regardless what the section says about gestures they are not required.

I'm sorry, you ask for proof, and when given it, your response is "Well, theres only ONE thing that says they require gestures, so i'm going to ignore it".

Sorry, that dosn't really fly. there's a lot of rules that are only mentioned in one place, that dosn't make them not-offical rules.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:02 pm**

Prysus wrote:Though you know what I do find interesting about that statement? It says "words or some sort of symbolic representation." This implies words are NOT necessary, and contradicts the Wizard write-up in PF2 main book (which says words ARE necessary). So if you want to use this quote to show all those other PF2 quotes you used earlier are now meaningless, you have a much better case.

Symbolic representation likely refers to the Diabolist and Summoner, which do use written symbols.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:56 pm**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
arouetta wrote:Jumping in:

PFRPG 2nd ed, pg. 104 "invoking magic energy through force of will and the spoken word", more if you read farther on the page.
BtS 1st ed, pg. 95 "The spell itself is a string of words" and "Spell magic...can be performed by the arcanist without elaborate, time-consuming ceremony"
HU 2nd ed, pg. "the spoken incantation invokes and ignites the mystic energies"

Not a single book I have looked at lists actions as part of a spell. But every book I have looked at lists words as part of a spell as a way of focusing the mind. Rifts BoM in the Q&A section starting on page 20 does not mention physical/ritual movement as a component, but does state quite clearly that spoken words are required and muting the mage will prevent spellcasting.

Rifts BoM pg. 20 did have a blurb that would address the OP, "or forcing him to take defensive action, including dodging". Losing a melee action was listed later in the next paragraph, so by strict grammar school standards they were not referring to dodging only when it took up an action, they were referring to dodging by any means, even auto-dodge.

Thank you; but all you did was prove my stance...
I was requesting the source for Nekira's stance that somatics are required.
Until someone can cite a source proving that stance it is yet another fallacy of the magic system carried over from another (poorly executed) system.

Through the Glass Darkly, page 43 under Miscasting Spells: "Spells requiring complex gestures may be miscast by clumsy characters (or left out of the written text of the scroll to protect its secrets from "outsiders"). A roll against the P.P. attribute may be required to cast such a spell correctly, or a Principles of Magic or perception roll."

Not only do spells require gestures, but failing to do them properly can cause the spell to misfire, and one can even design a spell or scroll so that failure is likely if one leaves out certain gestures.

The passage you cite only proves that spells that require gestures will be Miscast.
Not that all spells require them.
Try again.

Actually, it says only spells that have exceptionally difficult hand gestures may require a roll or be miscast. it still makes it clear gestures are required, be they easy or hard.

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Prysus wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:Note the part that says "requires" vebalization?
It does not say requires gesturing. Only that it is used to aid in the focus.
From this we can conclude the gestures are meaningless and not required.

Greetings and Salutations. I've noted that, and how hand gestures are included in the section talking about something that's required. Setting that aside (as it could be just bad placement), you should keep in mind how it mentions that hand gestures are "part of the spell casting process." That's not meangingless. They even state a purpose (focus is one, directing magic is another, that's two purposes).

Breaking a magic user's "focus" interrupts a spell. Hand gestures are for "focus."

A steering wheel directs where a car goes, but it is NOT necessary for a car to actually run (you can turn it on, the engine and gas will all still run properly), but you can't properly drive/direct the car without it.

While it's clearly not ALWAYS a part of the process (such as in Escape, we see the only requirement is verbalization, which is why only gagging the mage can stop it), but it is "usually." Since there are exceptions (listed as "exception," because "usually" tells us that hand gestures are the usual/common way) its not a full requirement (just included as they talk about requirements).

Also keep in mind this is in Step #2 of "Casting Magic." Not meaningless notes about magic, but a section talking about casting magic, and including something that's usually (just not always) a part of the process for "focus" and "direction." I wouldn't call either of those traits "meaningless."

I'm not asking you to play with the rule mind you, just stating that it is there. Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

I would accept the concept of gestures being required if there were a mechanic (other than the OPTIONAL one presented in only one setting) for casting without using said gestures.
But since there is no other mechanic presented regardless what the section says about gestures they are not required.

I'm sorry, you ask for proof, and when given it, your response is "Well, theres only ONE thing that says they require gestures, so i'm going to ignore it".

Sorry, that dosn't really fly. there's a lot of rules that are only mentioned in one place, that dosn't make them not-offical rules.

Nope sorry...
Quoting an OPTIONAL set of rules does not make them required.
Prysus did a better job supporting the pro somatics argument.

Posted: **Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:26 am**

The rules for rolling to see if you miscast difficult gestures is presented as optional, that gestures were required was not.

Posted: **Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:09 am**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:The rules for rolling to see if you miscast difficult gestures is presented as optional, that gestures were required was not.

And once more you are wrong...

Nightbane pg. 124 wrote:Spell Magic is the spoken incantations that serve as a focus create/cast magic.

heh... no mention of gestures there... (or anywhere else in the NB core)
you are using an optional rule that references additional optional rules offered in the same book (and they are labeled OPTIONAL) to support your claim; a claim that is not supported by the mechanics.

what we do have (over the course of all game lines) is anecdotal references to some spells possibly requiring gestures (but no hard data to support that gestures are absolutely required for most spells).
My statement that unless the specific spell states otherwise that gestures are not a requirement to casting magic still stands.

Forums of the Megaverse®

A question about magic and auto-dodge

A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge

Re: A question about magic and auto-dodge