[Torg] How precise is focusing?

[Kansas Jim]

Chris wrote:

[I wrote:]

>         2) This time, the magician has the Enchant Armor on her own
>         armor and
>         casts Lightning. Lightning has a duration of 40 seconds, during
>         which
>         time, the spell is nominally still on the caster. Does the
>         enchantment
>         force a check on the Principle of Definition?

>     I'd say no, the spell effect of Lightning is not being placed upon the
>     character who casts it but onto the target(s), so active spells on the
>     caster will not interfere with the Lightning spell.

> I reordered these because the response to this leads to my response to 
> the other. My understanding of the spell is that it is focused into the 
> caster, who then can release a bolt per round (or opt not to), but once 
> the duration runs out, they have no more lightning bolts. If it is in 
> fact being focused into the caster, who then releases it, the above 
> response does not quite make sense. But will lead me to another question 
> I could ask here, but will ask as part of my response to #1 below. 

If Lightning is focused on the caster then the Principle could come into
effect if he were under the effect of another Inanimate Forces spell.

The writeup of Lightning does not say that it is a focused spell so I
did not interpret it as one. However, on a second look I see that
Enchant Armor doesn't say that it's a focused spell either so I
suppose Lightning could be interpreted either way! But while it is
obvious that Enchant Armor is meant to be a focused spell, I just don't
see Lightning that way, I've always seen it as a directly cast spell.
Anyone else played it as focused?

>         1) A knight with Enchant Armor (alteration/inanimate forces) is
>         struck
>         by Lightning (also alteration/inanimate forces). Does the
>         enchantment
>         force a check on the Principle of Definition?

>     My guess at the intent would be no, the Principle of Definition does
>     not kick in as possible protection against the Lightning spell.
>     Technically the Lightning is being aimed at the knight who is not
>     being affected by another Inanimate Forces spell, it's something he's
>     wearing which is being affected by an IF spell. Unless the Lightning is
>     targeted specifically at his armor the Principle wouldn't come into
>     play.

> A knight is wearing enchanted armor and becomes struck by a Lightning 
> spell per the above example. Does the armor not get included in the 
> armor rating/toughness of the character for purposes of result point 
> determination? If it is part of that determination, then clearly the 
> lightning is hitting the armor, and should force a check. If the caster 
> were trying to hit the knight without hitting the armor, would they not 
> need to take an aim action, or similarly go about a vital blow attempt 
> in order to specifically avoid the armor and hit just the knight? After 
> that, I think I will hold off on the other question.

As I said, my guess at the intent is that the Principle is not meant to
apply. I didn't say that it was going to make perfect sense! I think if
the writers had intended for Enchant Armor to act as protection against
Inanimate Forces spells for the wearer then they would have said so in
the writeup. I think it's likely that they never even considered the
possibility.

The real question is even if they didn't intend for it to work that way,
should it? In spite of the Principle, there aren't actually that many
protective spells in the game material. Something I've always wondered
about is the basically complete lack of spells for creating protective
talismans (rings, amulets, etc), a pretty common staple in most magical
settings. Mechanically speaking, as far as the Principle is concerned is
there a difference between a Lightning spell hitting someone wearing a 
suit of armor with Enchant Armor on it and hitting someone wearing an
amulet with a spell of "protection from Inanimate Forces magic" on it?
I can't really see one so I'm inclined to say that the Principle would
come into play when Lightning hits someone wearing the enchanted armor.

Which does raise an interesting point - if the Principle does apply and
Enchant Armor wins out over Lightning it's not just going to stop the
bolt from doing damage to the wearer, it dissipates the Lightning spell
itself. The caster loses any remaining lightning bolts! Similarly, if
someone uses Altered Fireball (Improved) against someone protected by
Flickering Fire Shield, when the fireball touches the target it would
be snuffed out rather than simply not doing any damage to the target
(which is what Flickering Fire Shield's writeup seems to indicate), the
caster doesn't get to keep moving it around for the remaining duration
of the spell because the Principle dissipates the spell itself.

-- 
Kansas Jim, Torg guru (ksjim (at) sdc (dot) org)
Torg website: http://www.sdc.org/~ksjim/index.html