My playtest of new Mage (Essentials) spells

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe a designer commented shortly after the sample Mage was posted that the final version of Hypnotism targeted enemies.

Actually, most powers that target enemies can also target allies...

but it is an offensive act and will be perceived in this way... and of course, you need to hit (break) the will of your ally first...

 

[keterys]

Actually, most powers that target enemies can also target allies...

Can you give an example?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

i don´t need examples:

I declare my ally as my enemy. Thats it. For at least this attack he doesn´t count as my ally anymore... (no warlord bonuses etc...)

The only things i consider enemy only are passive powers that trigger on enemy deaths etc.

 

[keterys]

Heh, there was a discussion the other week about the legality of doing so. It was pretty widely decried, but it's possible, yes, and there will be table variation.

At any rate, so the argument is that target 'one creature' is almost identical to target 'one enemy' because you can selectively un-ally people, which is likely never RAI, as otherwise there would be no point in the clarification.

For Essentials tables, you should never make that argument. That's not the point of Essentials.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would never suggest this on any table.

On the other hand, IF a player asks me to attack an ally with an enemy only spell, i won´t go into the discussion and tell him he is not allowed to do so...

I think a good example would be the Bard "Shout of Triumph" power, were there is a good reason to make a distinction between enemy and ally:

Each enemy in blast
Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier (+4) thunder
damage, and you push the target 1 square.
Effect: You slide each ally in the blast 1 square

Of course you can attack your former allies with this blast, but you would not be allowed to also shift them.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think you are wrong...

I will only use that 200g in the same places where I use my rituals... when the party shares the costs...

I will only memorize it when I expect using it against an army in the open...

It is not the +3 sword vs a +5 sword, it is a +3 sword (+6) if poisoned vs a +5 sword...

you always use the +5 sword (stored in your spellbook) and only take out the other one if the situation warrants it.

You have the spellbook feature... don´t forget that.

I don't think he is wrong - in an open field stinking cloud still kills minions far better than a fireball with 200gp of extra zap added to it.

The only time I can think of when you would be better off with fireball is if you were fighting undead or something else immune to poison and not immue to fire. Otherwise stinking cloud pwns fireball in pretty much every single damage causing contingency.

Regards

 

[Plane Sailing]

Agreed. PH3 contains a similar definition of "move" that should settle any argument there.

A better question is: does the enemy take damage every time it moves? It seems to me the answer is yes, since the spell doesn't say"...the first time the target moves..." If so, Phantom Cage is an awfully strong power. A creature has to approach us to attack, the fighter hits it with Tide of Iron, the druid hits it with Savage Rend, then I Beguiling Strands it next turn...that's 20 damage from movement over one round. Seems to me a cleverly built party could really rock a solo with that power.

I would say 'no', and I think you are looking for a 'dangerous' precedent.

It would be generally much safer to assume that out of two possible options the least damaging one is in force unless expressly called out. Thus unless the spell says "every time the target moves... " it should only take effect on the first move. "if he moves at all".

Otherwise you open yourself up to all manner of unexpected tricks which turn an ordinary spell into a super-spell, which is against the principles of 4e.

Cheers