Wrack: Spellcasting and obscured. Or: Is spell an attack?

[Greg Smith]

What this is meant to mean, as I understand it, is that the spell automatically hits unless the target manages to get out of range before it is cast or get out of sight before it is cast. It does not mean that it can be Evaded. Going RAW, only spells with the Resist (Evade) trait can be Evaded.

I concur.

The "it hits automatically unless evaded" does not imply there is an roll on the Evade skill to avoid the spell. It means you can evade the spell by getting out of sight or range before the spell is cast.

You cannot use the Evade skill to avoid something that will hit automatically.

I think using the word 'evade' is a cause of confusion.

 

[hanszurcher]

In the case offered, I might decide that a normal success made unsuccessful by the -20% modifier Wracks the horse instead. If I was, y'know, feelin' cruel

I like the idea of friendly fire here. I'm kind of afraid it could make things complicated but I can see some potential for wickedness.

 

[alex_greene]

It's really a debate as to what constitutes "cover."

I examined the rules on p. 192, but also sought out the rule for cover on p. 136 in the combat chapter.

Here is the section of the combat chapter explaining the rules on cover:-

If a target is in cover or partially covered by an object (such as a wall, door or fence), any attack that hits a covered location will instead hit the object. See Inanimate Objects on page 91. Cover affects both Ranged and Close Combat attacks.

The normal way of negating cover is to use the Choose Location Combat Manoeuvre to aim
at the visible parts of the target – or to strike through the cover if the weapon is capable of
penetrating it.

If the cover is total but the attacker knows his attack will penetrate the cover, he cannot use
Choose Location to target a specific location and must rely on randomly determining a location
(using 1D20) as per normal. In addition, the attacker suffers a –40% penalty to his attack. Note
that this only applies where the Attacker:

• Is 100% certain that the target is behind the cover.
• The cover is not so extensive as to permit the target to move freely behind it.

Thus, a target lurking behind a bush can still be attacked, even though the attacker might not be
able to see his quarry. However a target behind a lengthy hedgerow is completely obscured and
the attack will automatically fail.

Next, I looked at the Common Magic situational modifiers on p. 157:-

Partially obscured target –20%
Heavily obscured target –40%
Totally obscured target Automatic Failure

And finally, p. 192, with those rules regarding the range of sorcery spells.

Spells cast at a Range of Touch require the sorcerer to make a successful Unarmed attack on
a resisting target. To avoid touch spells a recipient must use Evade to dodge the attack, since
defending with a Combat Skill will still transfer the magical effect through the parrying weapon
or shield.

If Range is augmented beyond Touch then the caster automatically strikes his intended target,
unless the target is able to dive for cover or flee out of reach before the spell is completed.

So. Touch spells require an Unarmed attack as a followup to the Sorcery (Grimoire) roll to cast the spell. Touch spells are the only ones that can be Evaded - which is logical, if you have the image of Gronthus the Magnificent chasing after Ral, the Maiden of Partha, in the barn with his outstretched palms glowing.

Spells with an augmented Range greater than Touch automatically hit, if the cover is partial or heavy - the modifier affects the percentage change of casting the spell, not whether the spell strikes the target once cast.

Only if the cover is complete - behind a brick wall, for instance, or around a corner, and sufficient to completely cut off the line of sight between the caster and the target - will the spell automatically fail to connect.

So if the caster still sees the target's legs sticking out from under the horse, the spell still strikes the target and not the horse. Chances are, a spell like Wrack would affect that visible portion, giving the target a real dose of the hotfoots.

Of course the caster could sting the horse a little, causing it to spook and lash out at the target - but the caster would have to be casting Wrack at the horse.

 

[hanszurcher]

I've had time to present this Wracking situation to my regular group over Halloween, here is our conclusion.

We're going to use the Cover and Firing into a Crowd rules. So if a covered location is struck the spell fails. If cover happens to be a bystander like that poor old horse, it/he/she my get a Resist roll. If the horse succeeds at an Evade roll (if applicable) the original target my still be struck. If that warrior who is courageously hiding behind the horse gets nailed in the legs, roll sequent random locations normally.

How Wrack will be resisted will depend on the trappings of the spell/order/school. Ex. Wrack(fire) could appear as a bolt of fire (Resist: Evade), Wrack(venom) may appear as a cloud of stinging insects (Resist: Resilience), a Wrack spell from an Order that specializes in Illusion or Mentalism may create phantom worms wriggling under the skin (Resist: Persistence) to keep from digging them out.

 

[Harshlax]

People seem to be reading Wrack in different ways - some that it sends an attacking effect at a target, much like the "classic" firebolt/fireball, others that it applies a "curse" on a target that5 results in damage.

My reading is the second interpretation - the spellcasting is done against the person as a whole, then, subject to maintaining concentration, the damage occurs round by round, without any further opportunities to evade or avoid. This would suggest that whether a person is in line-of-sigh or not on subsequent rounds is almost irrelevant, the magic link is established already, the damage will occur to a random location as it corruscates around the body.

If a person hides during the initial casting, then there will be modifiers to that casting due to the difficulty in targetting the actual spell, however if it works, any area of the body could be affected by the damage because the entire body has had the spell cast on it, what part is visible is at this point unimportant.

As a contrast, RQ6 Wrack specifically says each round the caster uses his casting skill to target someone with the wrack effect, thus hiding/cover etc will always be relevant as the caster is sending power afresh each round.

Thoughts?

 

[DamonJynx]

I agree that Wrack for Legend is being misinterpreted. Alex and Harshalax are right. It is either get out of line of sight before the spell is cast or make the resistance roll. No buts or maybe. I wouldn't even apply the penalties for cover, but at a stretch I might allow it if the PC's were in deep excrement. I would certainly argue vehemently against a GM apply such penalties if I were casting the spell at his precious NPC's.

In my, not so humble, opinion Wrack doesn't have a physical affect like a bolt or missile (Legend version only - RQ6 you could easily say it does as it's resisted by Evade giving the impression it's an attack that can be seen and avoided though not parried) it is a magical effect with no substance that delivers agonising, possibly debilitating damage to a random location.

As always, Your Legend May Vary - ours does.