Pierce spell - A contradiction?

[Archer]

Regarding the Pierce spell, is the following not a contraction to how it works?

This spell can be cast on any weapon with a blade or
point. For every point of Magnitude, it ignores one
armour point when it strikes an armoured location. Pierce
can bypass magical armour as easily as normal armour,
though it must overcome AP as normal.

If it can penetrate magical armor (ignoring APs) why should it have to overcome AP as normal (assuming the spell is cast with enough Magnitude to ignore all existing APs)?

 

[DerLautrer]

Sounds Good to me!
I think it's not unbalancing...

 

[Vadrus]

I think it just means each point of pierce magnitude bypasses one point of magical or physical armour.

So if someone has protection 4 you would need pierce 4 to ignore it completely. Lower values of pierce would just negate a part of the AP.


Vadrus

 

[DerLautrer]

IMO it's not written clearly. There are some (known) in the core rules, too.

I just substracte 1AP.

 

[zanshin]

Would be a good way of balancing with Bladesharp - each point of pierce penetrates 1 physical ap and 1 magical ap.

However once people start casting both on a weapon it will get even more scary.

 

[simonh]

It may be supposed to mean it must overcome the target's magic resistance, but that doesn't make sense either because other weapon enhancing magic doesn't have to overcome magic resistance.

Pierce seems weak, but it's actualy quite versatile as it can be cast on missile weapons as well as melee weapons.

Simon Hibbs

 

[zanshin]

Still quite weak - especially as you will really slow your rate of fire down by casting pierce on each arrow, until you get your allied spirit anyway. Worth it for the ambush combat opener - speedart,pierce, aim for 3 actions - quite nasty.

 

[Archer]

You missunderstod my gripe with the spell.

1. It ignores APs (including magical armor)
2. It has to overcome magical armor APs as normal even though it can penetrate armor as easily as mundane armor. Directly implying that it does not ignore magical armor.

That is how I interpret that text. And that is a contradiction in the description.

 

[Vadrus]

Odd point, as pierce lasts 5 minutes if your target can retrieve the arrow he can fire it back at you and ignore your armour!

This would possibly be more likely with spears that are easier to find after being thrown and more likely to survive intact.


Vadrus

 

[simonh]

You missunderstod my gripe with the spell.

1. It ignores APs (including magical armor)
2. It has to overcome magical armor APs as normal even though it can penetrate armor as easily as mundane armor. Directly implying that it does not ignore magical armor.

That is how I interpret that text. And that is a contradiction in the description.

Ok, but what does 'overcome magical armour APs' actualy mean? That isn't defined anywhere that I can see, so I don't know what your interpretation actualy means.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Archer]

You missunderstod my gripe with the spell.

1. It ignores APs (including magical armor)
2. It has to overcome magical armor APs as normal even though it can penetrate armor as easily as mundane armor. Directly implying that it does not ignore magical armor.

That is how I interpret that text. And that is a contradiction in the description.

Ok, but what does 'overcome magical armour APs' actualy mean? That isn't defined anywhere that I can see, so I don't know what your interpretation actualy means.

Simon Hibbs

It means;

Character 1 has 2 AP from his mundane armor and 2 points of magical armor.

Character 2 fires an arrow against character 1 that has Pierce 4 cast on it.

Effect; The arrow ignores 2 points of mundane armor, and must overcome the 2 points of magical APs as normal (rolls damage and deduce magical APs from damage).

 

[zanshin]

The fact that it states it can overcome magical armour but must still overcome the AP's implies to me that its 1 for 1 , in the example you cite
the pierce would over come all the armour - 4 pierce, minus 2 regular, minus 2 protection - 0 protection provided..

That would be my 'reasonable' interpretation of the rules, but i agree it is not spelled out.

 

[Lorgryt]

The fact that it states it can overcome magical armour but must still overcome the AP's implies to me that its 1 for 1 , in the example you cite
the pierce would over come all the armour - 4 pierce, minus 2 regular, minus 2 protection - 0 protection provided..

That would be my 'reasonable' interpretation of the rules, but i agree it is not spelled out.

I see it as the effect on magic armor being an all or nothing affair. 2 AP, 3 Armor spell, Pierce 4, overcomes 2 AP, does not overcome 3 Armor spell, so spell is still at full.

However, I have always seen Magic AP as being hit before physical AP. So the effect only comes in at high spell levels. Thus Armor spell of 4, Pierce of 3, no effect. Armor of 3 and Pierce of 4 there is still a Pierce 1 comming to AP.

 

[simonh]

Effect; The arrow ignores 2 points of mundane armor, and must overcome the 2 points of magical APs as normal (rolls damage and deduce magical APs from damage).

The spell description says that pierce, the spell itself, can overcome magical armour as easily as normal armour. Your interpretation isn't consistent with that statement.

IMHO 'overcome' just means 'subtract from'. All it means is that pierce doen't just ignore the magical armour, it must still be higher than the points of armour in order to 'bypass' them.

I think we can agree that the wording is horrible though.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Archer]

Effect; The arrow ignores 2 points of mundane armor, and must overcome the 2 points of magical APs as normal (rolls damage and deduce magical APs from damage).

The spell description says that pierce, the spell itself, can overcome magical armour as easily as normal armour. Your interpretation isn't consistent with that statement.

IMHO 'overcome' just means 'subtract from'. All it means is that pierce doen't just ignore the magical armour, it must still be higher than the points of armour in order to 'bypass' them.

Yes, I realized that some time after my posting of the example, but was too busy with work to write a new post.

I think we can agree that the wording is horrible though.

Simon Hibbs

Indeed. I thought the function of the spell was clear enough, until I read the sentence marked bold in my first post.

A better wording would have been;
This spell can be cast on any weapon or point. For every point of Magnitude, it ignores one armour point when it strikes an armored location. This applies to armour points granted by both mundane and magical armor.

 

[atgxtg]

Well after reading this and realizing just how confusion Pierce is:

I'm not quite sure what to make of it. It looks like a 1 to 1 relationship from the writing, but that makes it much less effective than bladesharp which gets +1 damage (better) and a 5% bonus to boot..

How about we let peice work as: Ignores 2AP per point of magnitute, magical or otherwise?


Probably should make it incompatable with bladesharp. Just to prevent munckin'd sword with Pierce 5 and Bladesharp 5 ignoring 10 aromor and doing +5 damage.

 

[Rurik]

Well after reading this and realizing just how confusion Pierce is:

I'm not quite sure what to make of it. It looks like a 1 to 1 relationship from the writing, but that makes it much less effective than bladesharp which gets +1 damage (better) and a 5% bonus to boot..

How about we let peice work as: Ignores 2AP per point of magnitute, magical or otherwise?


Probably should make it incompatable with bladesharp. Just to prevent munckin'd sword with Pierce 5 and Bladesharp 5 ignoring 10 aromor and doing +5 damage.

I don't necessarily have a problem with it sucking compared to bladesharp. With the Rune Integration rules you may not have the Metal Rune integrated but do have Stasis. You still have an option, just not as good an option as Bladesharp.

Pierce is totally worthless once your skill reaches a point where you are making Precise Attacks almost every swing though.

 

[Archer]

Pierce is totally worthless once your skill reaches a point where you are making Precise Attacks almost every swing though.

What about a spear with a permanent Pierce 6 rune enchantment? Combine that with a Precise Attack to the head, and you have a nasty effect. Ignores even plate armor...

 

[simonh]

I don't necessarily have a problem with it sucking compared to bladesharp. With the Rune Integration rules you may not have the Metal Rune integrated but do have Stasis. You still have an option, just not as good an option as Bladesharp.

Pierce is totally worthless once your skill reaches a point where you are making Precise Attacks almost every swing though.

Your point about rune integration is a good one. Play ballance isn't always everything and it's not as though the spell actualy sucks. I'm sure it wll come in handy to anyone who learns it.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Gnarsh]

Pierce is totally worthless once your skill reaches a point where you are making Precise Attacks almost every swing though.

What about a spear with a permanent Pierce 6 rune enchantment? Combine that with a Precise Attack to the head, and you have a nasty effect. Ignores even plate armor...

Right. But replace the Pierce6 with a Bladesharp6. Against a foe with 6 or more AP, damage is a wash, but the bladesharp guy gets +30% to his weapon attack chance (meaning it's easier for him to do that precise strike in the first place). Against a foe with less then 6 AP, the bladesharp guy gets an extra point of damage done per point of armor reduced.

Bladesharp is superior to pierce in all cases. I can't think of any situation in which it would not be.