Fantasy Craft Second Printing Q&A Thread

[cjs65]

This is the same rule of thumb I have used to determine whether or not DR effects damage from spells since DR says it reduces damage from any hits.

Interesting, but I'm not sure about that. Look at the Fire Storm spell - It's not listed as an 'attack' spell but it has AP 5. Why would it need AP 5 if DR wasn't applied?

[Crafty_Pat]

Same here. I encountered the issue with a 14th level Mage who dealt massive fire damage. But my concern was twofold. First, massive damage, which I've ruled just about similarly. And second, catching fire! When you suffer from more than 50 damage in one hit, it's quite hard to succede with your Reflex save... 

That's largely by design. High-level fireballs are nothing to shrug off easily!

[Deral]

This is the same rule of thumb I have used to determine whether or not DR effects damage from spells since DR says it reduces damage from any hits.

Interesting, but I'm not sure about that. Look at the Fire Storm spell - It's not listed as an 'attack' spell but it has AP 5. Why would it need AP 5 if DR wasn't applied?

I like to use AP for "really hot fire" because it adds to damage against objects- not saying that's necessarily the intention here, but it does at least have another use.

[Krensky]

This is the same rule of thumb I have used to determine whether or not DR effects damage from spells since DR says it reduces damage from any hits.

Interesting, but I'm not sure about that. Look at the Fire Storm spell - It's not listed as an 'attack' spell but it has AP 5. Why would it need AP 5 if DR wasn't applied?

Not arguing which way is right, but that AP 5 helps firestorm burn objects and structures down. As for AP as really hot fire, there's precedent in SC2.0 which had a table of fire temperatures and AP values.

[Big_Jim]

This is the same rule of thumb I have used to determine whether or not DR effects damage from spells since DR says it reduces damage from any hits.

This is a good rule of thumb. I approve.

Whoa... this turns Magic Missile into a kill spam spell. Currently, it bounces off armored targets.

[Crafty_Pat]

This is the same rule of thumb I have used to determine whether or not DR effects damage from spells since DR says it reduces damage from any hits.

This is a good rule of thumb. I approve.

Whoa... this turns Magic Missile into a kill spam spell. Currently, it bounces off armored targets.

Sorry?

[The_Grand_User]

Magic Missile isn't an attack spell, so under the just stated criteria it ignores DR.

[Fastidious Monk]

Ok.  I am a little confused now.  Elsewhere, it was stated DR applies to the Cause Wounds spell chain.  But since it is not an attack spell, does this mean DR no longer applies to Cause Wounds?

Thanks

[Sletchman]

Ok.  I am a little confused now.  Elsewhere, it was stated DR applies to the Cause Wounds spell chain.  But since it is not an attack spell, does this mean DR no longer applies to Cause Wounds?

Thanks

Cause Wounds is an attack spell.

When a spell is used to attack, either as part of the spell description (e.g. “long range attack”) or due to the situation (e.g. a target tries to avoid a “touch” spell), the Spellcasting result is also the attack result.

The highlighted portion states that touch spells are attack spells unless the target doesn't want to avoid them - all targets would try to avoid having damage inflicted on them.  So the normal Cause Wounds spells (being all Touch) are all Attack spells (and Cure, too, for undead).  Cause Wounds, Mass becomes a little weird since they stop being Attack spells (also Level 5, so a power bump isn't a big issue IMO).  Notably, none of the existing "Touch" spells are also listed as "Attack" spells.

I feel a kind of déjà vu though.  Like we've had this discussion previously (though maybe it was just at the table with my group).

EDIT:  For what it's worth, my personal rule of thumb is that damage is damage.  Doesn't matter if it's a spell or a gun - all damage is effected equally by DR.  The only time DR is ignored is if the effect or damage type outright states it ignores DR (ex: Sonic Damage).  Makes things nice and universal, and doesn't give spellslingers an additional leg up.

[Fastidious Monk]

Thanks, that makes sense.

[Deral]

Also, try to bear in mind that- at least I think- what Pat said wasn't meant to be an official ruling, it's one of those things left intentionally vague for DMs to run in whatever way best suits their game, and I think he was just saying that that interpretation seemed at least reasonably balanced and simple to remember/understand.

[Crafty_Pat]

Magic Missile isn't an attack spell, so under the just stated criteria it ignores DR.

Actually,  you know what, I'm cracked. Nevermind what I said before. I disappove. Or unapprove. Or whatever.

Sometimes it's a Very Bad Call (tm) to speak on rules in the middle of a shipping day.

[cjs65]

Fantasy Craft 2nd printing, P. 361, section "Let Them Win":

Quote - Statistically, 5% of all rolls fail (with a natural 1), which makes sense in isolated situations — especially dire, desperate ones.

Wait a second... I just want to make sure I'm not missing something... There is no auto fail on a 1 or auto success on a 20, right? For any roll?

This did just slip through proof reading, right? 

[Big_Jim]

Magic Missile isn't an attack spell, so under the just stated criteria it ignores DR.

Actually,  you know what, I'm cracked. Nevermind what I said before. I disappove. Or unapprove. Or whatever.

Sometimes it's a Very Bad Call (tm) to speak on rules in the middle of a shipping day.

Yea! I helped!

[Crafty_Pat]

Fantasy Craft 2nd printing, P. 361, section "Let Them Win":

Quote - Statistically, 5% of all rolls fail (with a natural 1), which makes sense in isolated situations — especially dire, desperate ones.

Wait a second... I just want to make sure I'm not missing something... There is no auto fail on a 1 or auto success on a 20, right? For any roll?

This did just slip through proof reading, right? 

It's true most of the time but yeah, it's not an absolute statement. In retrospect, I'd probably just replace the word "all" with "most," because anything more complex than that is asking for trouble.