The rules committee would like some input by the player base for a ruling that may prove important for the newly suggested sorcerer class. Any input you can provide will be weighed heavily when the decision is made. The question before the committee is: Will multi-packet spells be interruptable between packets. EX. Murilacrum unleashes an Apocalyptic Storm spell. A devastating 5 packet 50 elemental damage spell. after his first two packets that were preceded by the verbal, the rogue Abadon appears behind him and back stabs the sorcerer for 50 sharp. Murilacrum still has 3 packets of 50 to throw. More than enough to deal with the rogue behind him, now visible and a real threat. As the rule stands the caster has every right to turn and throw all 3 remaining packets at the assassin. Part of the committee feels that this is broken and needs amending. What do you think? -Nick-
Ok t would appear it's unanimous that the caster should get their packets even while hit. What if they still have packets to throw and want to change spells?
EX. Murilacrum decides to cast mist form instead of throwing the three remaining packets.
Would the caster have to throw the three to finish the spell or would they forfeit the remaining packets to cast the next spell? Clearly it would be terribly broken if the caster kept the packets after casting another spell.
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Im not overly opposed to any method.
HOWEVER I can see that this stance could bring up some obstacles.
Ex. Nick the wizard throws his first 50fire packet, but decides not to throw the other 2 he can cast as per the spell. How long can he wait to throw the others?
What I have been doing is abiding by the 3 second rule for throwing multiple packets. After I say my verbal for the first packet I start my other verbal as soon as possible withing 3-5 seconds. It seems crazy that I could potentially wait an hour or more to use up my packets from one spell.
My opinion on your question Nick about giving up the packets to cast something else is yes. I would say they wouild give up using those packets. That multi-packet spell would be considered "Active" and using another spell would cause the action to be discarded.
I remember my first event when I was under the impression that with a multi-packet damage spell all that I had to do was say the verbal once and then throw the packets within a few seconds of each other like im used to, saying no other verbals before throwing. That was cleared up.
I think a quick and easy fix would be to say the verbal, and have your packets to throw over the next few seconds without saying another verbal(s). That would fix the debate about if a caster keeps his packets. I could see an inplay debate start about "Im sure I hit you while you were saying one of your verbals."
"What I have been doing is abiding by the 3 second rule for throwing multiple packets. After I say my verbal for the first packet I start my other verbal as soon as possible withing 3-5 seconds. It seems crazy that I could potentially wait an hour or more to use up my packets from one spell."
This is not how they were intended to be cast. If you were informed of it in this way I apologize for the miss communication.
"I remember my first event when I was under the impression that with a multi-packet damage spell all that I had to do was say the verbal once and then throw the packets within a few seconds of each other like I'm used to, saying no other verbals before throwing."
This however is how it was intended. And thus the point of this thread :D
Do you feel that between the packets can be interrupted, even though you are not saying a verbal? So far everyone has said no.
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
After the verbal has been said the only way for the spell to be interrupted would be that a caster has waited too long before throwing the next packet.
A time of about 3-5 seconds or so should be fine between packet throws, but any longer and I would say the spell is over.
Great discussion, guys. This seems to be the concensus so far:
- A spell can only be interrupted by an opponent during the verbal.
- An action can be voluntarily interrupted by the user at any point to use another action.
- For multi-packet and multi-weapon strike actions, the user must wait no longer than 3 to 5 seconds between packets or weapon strikes. Otherwise, the remaining packets or weapon strikes are wasted.
I'll go ahead and throw another question out there. Should countering count as an action? For example, Murilakrum is in the middle of his five-packet Maim when Brax the warrior hits him with a Slay. No doubt, Murilakrum will try to counter if he can. The question is, though, if he does, can he still throw his remaining packets?
I have my own take on it, but I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks before I share it.
"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama
WoW! a Zinger! Well my initial thoughts on this are, since you as the defender are loosing an action to counter an action then you should keep your spell. as in so many of these types of games where dice are used ties go to the defender. So let's say the same here. They are already using an ability up just to counter let's not have them use two up to counter one.
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I actually have to disagree with Nick here. I think if a caster wants to counter an action, and currently has any of their multi-packet attacks left, then they would need to "lose" the remaining packets in order to "activate" the counter.
This method makes staying out of combat while unloading with damage very viable, but does not give the caster the ability to wade in and counter many melee monsters/players/whatever abilities while still unloading with their stuff.
A valid point, Darrell, and I do like mechanics that reinforce play styles. However, bear in mind that this conversation extends to more than just casters. Should the same be true of, say, a warrior dishing out three Ruins with his sword? It's possible for the answer to be no, but, if only for simplicity's sake, I much prefer for the ruling to apply equally to everyone.
"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama
I would still say yes then, as it basically forces the player to make a decision (offense versus defense basically) about how they are going to approach the situation (attempt to soak up the ability that the enemy is using while still hurting them or negate the ability and put them back on an "even footing).
I believe if the verbal is not interrupted the spell is not interupted. Thus after the initial verable is said the packets can't be stopped.