One of the Metamagic Effects presented in Arcana Exxet is giving me a headache: the one that improves (doubles) the maximum reach of a spell.

It states that the original distance (depending on the Magic Projection roll result) specified in the game manual is doubled.

For a result of 20 (Routine difficulty) the distance is the Mage himslef or something he is in contact with...now how do you double that??

Does that mean that a result of less than 40 (Easy difficulty, 5 m. max distance) is not improved by that metamagic effect?

Other results (from 5m to some Km.) are all definite numbers, so the only oddball is that "touch" range.

Any input?

Sadly, I would personally rule that one as no increase. Twice a range of 0 is still 0. And a range of 0 is effectively what a touch/self result would be. It has no range further from you than you can physically reach. It saves headache that way. YMMV, of course.

IMO, just because the number associated is zero doesn't mean it should be deprived of a bonus. I'd rule it as 'one difficulty greater than' the touch range, so Routine (20) would be the equivalent of the effect that an Easy (40) roll obtains for range.

I could see that. I like that ruling better, honestly, just hadn't thought about it. I don't remember what the range for that Diff is, but if it's not 5', could also rule it as now having a range of 5', if the Diff 40 range is deemed too far. Sadly, I still have no mages in my group that I'm aware of, so no one to bring these questions up.

Thanks for the replies. I thought about that, increasing one step on the distance and thus changing from Touch to 5m.

The problem is that increasing of 1 level of difficilty is a bit more than just a double-distance.

I was mainly thinking about healing spells in combat, while not having Projection and not having Mystical Modules (yet).

What I think is odd is that it's stated (checked in the Revised/Core Exxet) that a mage casting a spell on a target he can touch gets a +40 bonus on his Projection.

It's funny, because to cast a touch spell you just need a result of 20. That +40 Bonus is going to help only for offensive spells (wich need to pass a defense, and so needing the highest roll possible). A bit too specific imo.

A mage with an already high Projection casting a Destruction Path's Magic Discharge on touch is going to get a nice bonus.

A mage trying to heal doesn't get anything more than a roll to prevent a critical failure (he just need a roll of 4, the spell doens't change a bit for having a higher value since it's not an attack).

A bit disappointing.

There seems to be an interchangeable view of the ways in which a power is 'landed'.

To cast a spell is to project it. Therefore, all spells require a Magic Projection roll to be cast.

Now there is one way to look at this, and that is to treat non-targeted spells like an attempted Action - just like how you'd have to make an occult roll to read an occult language - Routine, Easy, Medium, Hard etc. depending on the difficult of the language.

There is another way to look at it, and that is to say that casting anything successfully requires a minimum of 10% damage on the Attack Table, regardless of whether your actually causing damage, attacking, or hitting anything at all.

It creates problems to go back and forth on this question, especially when you consider non-magic supernatural abilities are going to want to use that rule also.

I think it comes down to - is there a combatant or not?

For a Create Light spell, I don't see how 10% on the combat table is meaningful at all. Likewise, for a Spiritual spell that affects the essence of the target, the use of the 10% rule would only apply if the target can see the spell and has determined with Magic Appraisal that it is an attack (in which case they become a combatant). If they cannot see the spell, and/or are otherwise unaware they are being attacked, and/or they are willing subjects of the spell (such as a heal), I don't think a roll on the Combat Table is required. In that case, a roll vs. the degree of difficulty should be made to ensure there is no fumble, and thats it.

You might think about exploiting this, or assume that every Wizard will simply lean on their Spiritual Attacks and the element of surpirse, and be too hard to stop. However, there is a Magic Shield that can prevent the effects of Spiritual Spells, and it is called Soul Barrier from the Essence Path. This shield would be effective against many Psychic powers too. The fact that it exists shows that there is no actual hole in the rules, there is a defense against this type of magic - if you are blind for example, or want to protect an innocent or non-supernatural person from Spiritual spells, Soul Barrier is the answer. If there were not such a spell in the game, I'd adhere to the 10% combat table rule in every case, but there is, so I don't.

Just some food for thought.

Of course there's supernatural shield and other defense types, the system is built that way.

That wasn't even my concern.

Since it's related, I've posted about the Mystical Modules in another recent thread.

Healing spells (and also Buffs, since they're both not attacks, and not defense) were sort of left in the limbo.

They are both Active (mostly) and Effect spells, yet they're not specifically inculded anywhere, leaving just the deductive "it's not stated that you can't, so you can".

In the end it's all about Defense rules stating they need to be Passive or Shields (and shields are Passive, so it's redundant) and Attack rules stating they can't be used for defensive spells.

Using logic, if it's not eligible as a Defense, but it's not prevented to be used as an Attackl, then I could use it as an Attack.

The problem is that one set of rules uses actual game terms ( Passive and Shields) and the other one use a general one.

"Defense" is a type of spells. Everything that is not "defense" (aka: not used to defend against an attack) can't be used with the Defense rules.

So it can be used with the Attack ones since they doens't state otherwise. They just say "can't be a Defense".

Sort of bad wording and lack of consinstence, but logic is still logic.

And then there's the non-number "Touch range" without any exception for doubling.

Sorry if I seem edgy on the terms, but this could break a character...

I'd like an official word of any type about this matter.

Darkwings said:

No need to apologize. Our group has gone through 3 retcons and two restarts because of this exact type of issue. Being restricted to the basic core English rulebook has also been a serious pain.

Whether official rulings are forthcoming or not, what we've found to work is just to decide on one interpretation, or create a House Rule that wil make the game enjoyable and fair to both those who benefit and those who do not. Basically - will the GM be able to maintain campaign balance and allow the change?

We have a running list of amendments and customized rules for our campaign - maybe years down the road when all the books are published in English we won't need this, but right now we do.

The problem above to me is like this:

A is a group that doens't accepts B's.

B is the group accepting only B's.

Where can a C go? The answer is A...if you must decide between A and B. But if there were C to begin with, why not specifying that, since this isn't a quiz ?