Some discussion regarding Impedance of armor when casting spells

[imported_Rasyr]

In a recent email, somebody brought up the following issue regarding armor Impedance

Also, there were some issues regarding impedance. We decided that although the caster has to pay impedance, isn't part of anything else. So if you cast a 5 point spell with 2 impedance, you'd have to spend 7 spell points, but the save is only 19 since it's based on the spells cost without impedance. Counterspell would be the same way, but the counterspeller is also affected by his own impedance, but not the targets.

So for an example Fred and Jan are in a spell duel.  Fred has an impedence of 3 and Jan has an impedence of 5, since they both are wearing armor for some reason. Jan goes to cast Touch of the Grave, sp cost 2 + impedence 5 = 7 sp. Fred tries to counterspell. Since Jans spell is only 2 points once her impedence is accounted for, Fred still has to spend 5 sp since he has to add his 3 impedance to the spell cost of 2.

I guess a slightly clearer way to explain it might be The caster of the spell or counterspell has to pay the impedence cost in addition to the spell or counterspells normal cost, but the impedance cost isn't considered when calculating effects, target numbers, etc.

At least that's how we thing it goes.



Now, the 2nd paragraph under the heading "Casting Spells" says the following:

Wearing armor does not affect the TN of casting a spell,
but it does require that the caster expend more Spell Points
or else the spell will automatically fail. Armor has an attribute
known as Impedance (p. 31) and this is equal to how many
extra Spell Points the caster must expend in casting a spell.

And 2 paragraphs after that, it says:

If a spell requires that the target make a Save, the base TN
for this Save is 14 plus the number of Spell Points required to
cast the spell. Each spell will list what stat the Save is against.
This may also be adjusted through Casting Boon Points.

And in the description for Counterspells, we never mention Impedance.

What I want to do here is to get feedback and opinions regarding the idea that we formalize that Impedance does not, ever, affect Casting TN, Saves against, or Counterspell costs.

In my opinion, the extra SP spent on casting spells while wearing armor is basically meant to allow the caster to treat the spell as if he were not wearing armor at all. And for these other things, that armor shouldn't count either.

Another idea that I  want feedback on is the idea of allowing casters to ignore the Impedance SP cost in exchange for taking a -2 modifier to the casting roll. This makes the spell harder to cast well, but won't affect Saves against it, or counterspells...

Thoughts? Comments?

[imported_Witchking20k]

My thoughts.  As it concerns a spell caster: I think armor should increase the TN of casting & cost the impedence.  It would be kinda like forcing fluid through different sized pipes; it would all get through, but if you want it to get through in a hury you'd have to force it by applying more pressure (impedence cost) and suffering the burst of pressure on the other side (TN penalty).  Every point of impedence increases the TN, but this should be more severe than +1's  maybe the penalty doubles every time; so 1 impedence is +1, 2 is +2, 3 is+4, etc...

Counterspell should be subject to impedence; it is a spell afterall.

And saves against: do you mean the caster making a save or the target of the spell making a save? If its the target the Casting roll affects the save does it not?  If not; impedence could reduce the TN for resisting (simulating unfocused power)...

[imported_Rasyr]

The question regarding Counterspell is not whether or not the person casting the counterspell has to figure in Impedance (he does), but if the target spell/caster has armor, how does HIS Impedance figure into the calculations.

For example:

Fred the Black Magican is wearing Scale torso armor and is casting Hex (4 SP), thus he is spending 6 SP in total to cast the spell (and if we use Witchking's suggestion and use double the Imp as a CTN mod, the Casting TN of the Hex is increased from 26 to 30).

Joe, our magical hero is going to cast Counterspell (Joe is NOT wearing armor right now). He makes his Magecraft roll so he knows how many SP he needs to counter the Hex.

The question is -- When Joe makes his Magecraft roll, does it tell him that the spell costs 4 SP (its normal cost), or 6 SP since that is what Fred spent?

Personally, I would say 4 SP, since it seems wrong to me to force a Counterspeller to also pay for the target's impedance. It would also mean that something that makes a spell harder to cast also makes it harder to dispell (counter-intuitive to me).

Saves -- I was talking the target's Saves... If Fred is casting Hex on Joe, Joe's Save TN should be (IMO) 18, not 20. Now, I could see an argument for making the target's Save be 16 (14 + Base SP in spell - Imp) as THAT does make sense to me.

[imported_Witchking20k]

Is magecraft measuring the in or the out......if he's watching the inhale of the "mana" being taken in, then 6; if he's watching the exhale of the mana froming the spell, then 4.  I pesronally think 4.

[imported_Rasyr]

okay, I picture the casting of a spell to be the forming of an energy matrix using mana. The number of SP required will determine the size of the matrix (another way to think of it is as a 3 dimensional snowflake made out of energy). IMO, the extra mana required because of Impedance is used to overcome the inherent energy dampening properties of armor. (Once formed, the magical effect happens (and/or is resisted), and since we are talking effect, not raw energy, the target's armor plays no part in the Save.

So, to me, the counterspell should not include the SP from Imp.

[Right Wing Wacko]

The question is -- When Joe makes his Magecraft roll, does it tell him that the spell costs 4 SP (its normal cost), or 6 SP since that is what Fred spent?

Personally, I would say 4 SP, since it seems wrong to me to force a Counterspeller to also pay for the target's impedance. It would also mean that something that makes a spell harder to cast also makes it harder to dispell (counter-intuitive to me).

I agree with you, Tim.

[imported_Raf Blutaxt]

I think that the extra SP spend to overcome impedance should not count into counterspells and saves. In my mind they are lost on the way through the caster's armor. I don't see it like the pipes model of Witchking, I think of it more like forcing water through a thick cloth. Some of the water (SP) will just get sucked up by the cloth.
As for impedance vs. casting penalties, I'm undecided. I personally am happy with just impedance, but having a chance to decide might be nice. If so, it should be harder to overcome impedance without increasing SP than just dumping more SP into it, i.e. +2 to TN for every point of impedance or something like that.

[imported_Rasyr]

As for impedance vs. casting penalties, I'm undecided. I personally am happy with just impedance, but having a chance to decide might be nice. If so, it should be harder to overcome impedance without increasing SP than just dumping more SP into it, i.e. +2 to TN for every point of impedance or something like that.

Are you saying that you think that Impedance should translate into:
1) xx SP per each spell

OR

2) +2 to CTN per point of Impedance

Correct?

[imported_Raf Blutaxt]

I'm not sure I understand you there, but what I meant was this:
Having impedance as an extra cost on SP like it is at the moment, is a very good solution. I could se the option of having the choice to ignore the extra cost and casting the spell at its original SP cost with a penalty for those cases where the mage is running low on mana. But this should be riskier than just a flat +x to the CTN to make it a last resort kind of thing.
The reasoning being that normally the mage just dumps SP into a spell until it works, thus using more SP when he is wearing armor. If he doesn't do this, the spell matrix is more fragile and prone to collapse. Thus the higher CTN. The exact ammount of penalty is something I haven't thought too much about though. Does this make it clearer?

[imported_Rasyr]

Kinda....  Hmm.. perhaps something like automatically earning a Snag Point (regardless of final die total, in addition to the mod to the casting roll) if you don't use the mana option?

[imported_Raf Blutaxt]

Hmm, our experiences with the snag points haven't been all that great so far, so I'm a bit weary there. I'll think some more on it.

[imported_Rasyr]

No major rush....

[imported_Raf Blutaxt]

I could see it gibving a penalty in casting time because it is more difficult to create the more fragile matrix.

[imported_Rasyr]

I could see it gibving a penalty in casting time because it is more difficult to create the more fragile matrix.

Oh! Impedance == extra SP required to cast the spell AND extra Action Points required to cast spells.

So, Fred wants to cast Hex, but he is wearing Scale torso armor and a reinforced leather helm (total Imp of 3), that would mean that the spell costs 7 SP (4 base SP + 3 Imp SP) and that it would take 7 Action Points to cast (i.e. 1 full round and part of a second).

That would explain why most magic users go without armor, it makes spells cheaper, and quicker....

[imported_Raf Blutaxt]

Actually, what I meant was that he could decide if he wanted to use more SP and cast in the normal casting time, or use the normal ammount of SP and cast with a penalty and use more AP since he had a more fragile matrix, since the armor was sucking up some of the mana he was trying to pump through. Does this make sense?