The FAQ makes clear that spells that use 'Spellcraft(Int) vs Defense' are treated as a Melee or Ranged attack (normally a Ranged attack).

Whether it is an arrow or a bolt of fire, common sense suggests that it cannot be parried - but it is not obvious why you cannot put your shield in the way of it (Block). If you can block at arrow, then you can block a bolt of fire.

Fresnel said:

yes, the faq does make it clear that spells vs. Target Defence are affected by a players defence rating. however, defence rating is passive. active defences like dodge , parry , and block work differently. block lets you add misfortune but only if you are the target of a melee or ranged attack. parry only works against melee attacks. and dodge works against melee , ranged , and spells or blessings that target defence . each card type is also a trait and can be a requirement. yes, most spells attack from range, but they do not belong to the card type: ranged attacks .

in your own terms, it is easy to imagine blocking an arrow set on fire. but bw spells are more like living fire that flows around partial/directional defenses like shields, but can be evaded. maybe a cool magic item is one that is somewhat spell absorbant and lets the user use block actions against spells.

Thanks for clarifying the RAW.

Personally I dislike the concept of dodge-able spells that can nonetheless flow-around shields. The character adds the 'passive' defence related misfortune from the shield - so a shield only helps if the user doesn't 'actively' try to block the spell... Imo its a mess conceptually.

Isn't Flameblast much better a spell because it's a simple Spellcraft check ?

I find it very strange that this "weak" rank 1 spell should be written like this. Typo, or what ?

Quite.

In some game systems there is a clear distinction between spells that affect the target directly and spells that use 'something' which is projected at a target.

Curses, mind control, give disease, cause pain et al, are in the former catagory. The target may resist with inate bodily (Resilence) or mental defences (Discipline), but there is no 'thing' to dodge (or block).

Fire, lightening, acid, daggers thrown via magic et al, are all in the former catagory. The target has a chance to get out of its path or arrange for its path to be block by something.

Imo Flameblast should be Spellcraft vs. Defence. But maybe there is a writers guideline document somewhere that lays the design philosophy all down and the reasons why Flameblast is a simple Spellcraft check is perfectly explained.

Flameblast is good, but not overpowerful for its rank. in conservative stance:

1. magic dart : petty magic, no rank, Spellcraft, , 0 recharge. a magical bolt flies around and hits the target for 3+Int damage. 2 boons, ignore armour soak, crit w/ comet.

choking shadows seems to be underpowered for a rank 2, but when you use it in reckless stance it hits multiple targets. magic dart might do more damage than both of them against heavily armoured enemies w/ its ignore armour soak. all three of these attacks can only be dodged. but i might rule that by dodge i mean you jump behind cover or throw yourself prone as far as possible. i get what you are saying, but flameblast doesn't bother me. it ignores a couple of misfortune from shield and armour. shrug.

Bindlespin said:

No. Dodge works against melee, ranged, and spells or blessings that target defence . i.e. use the 'Skill (att) vs Defence' check form.

Magic Dart and Flamblast (and I trust Choking Shadows) use a 'Spellcraft (Int)' check, therefore there cannot be dodged. The target's Defence rating is also irrelivant.

The critical point here is that spells that use the 'Spellcraft (int) vs Defence' check are significantly harder and more risky to cast. They start one challenge higher and Defence rating and Active Dodge can pile on the pain.

Using Improved Dodge a Target can add a Challenge to the casting roll - potentially making a miscast!

shite! you got me! i actually like that better though.

my point with the spell comparison was that magic dart which has no rank might be better in damage output than flameblast against armoured opponents, and it is easier to cast than flameblast . and that choking shadows increased the number of potential targets at rank 2 but was the same difficulty as flameblast . i was just comparing simple spellcraft attacks of different ranks with others. do i think simple spellcraft check attacks are awesome? yes! do i think they are a typo? nope.

how do rank one spellcraft check spells compare with rank 2 spells that are vs. target Defence? do they do less damage against fewer opponents for more difficulty? w/o typing spells out again. i suspect that rank 2 spells that target defence are much more difficult to cast, but that on the whole they do more damage and inflict more conditions against more targets than lower rank, easier to cast spells. might there be rank 2 spells that are exceptions? yes. especially when trying to compare spells across orders.

I am away from home at the moment - perhaps someone could run a comparison of 'Fires of U'Zhul' (reckless) and 'Choking Shadows' (reckless).

Anyone know if this supplement will contain also a full set of basic action cards??

It would seems logical to me to have those included, since someone would like to bring in a new player that is a mage....and i hope so, coz i dont want to have to purchase an "adventurer toolkit" just for having 4 cards...

Ghiacciolo said:

You know you an put the basic cards in little piles around the table and then have the players use them as they need them, no need for them to each horde a hand with them, I did it that way and had more than 3 players that way easy, actually its like having 3 rulebooks in one box pretty much from the get go.

NO please no more basic cards

our group have 16 decks of basic cards. So please no more basic cards of any kind. Heck If someones badly needs a deck or two extra I will happily give a deck or two (free of charge) to anyone.

no more basic actions cards please

Good gaming