Do attacks interrupt gestures and incantations in your setting?

[eepjr24]

Do attacks interrupt gestures and incantations in your setting?

[Greywind]

They can. That is part of why they are limitations.

[eepjr24]

1 minute ago, Greywind said:

They can. That is part of why they are limitations.

When you say "they can", what do you mean? Is it not all or nothing for your campaign? If it is not all or nothing, what determines if it interrupts?

[mallet]

I say yes, but then I only usually GM fantasy games. 
 

if successful attacks don’t inhibit gestures and incantations then they are not much of a limitation as the only thing that would stop the spell would be restraining the caster. And since restraining a characters arms would also stop weapon or hand to hand attacks and those don’t (Usually) get limitations for being restrainable it wouldn’t be balanced if that was the only thing that stopped casters (with gestures and Incantations limitation).

[eepjr24]

4 minutes ago, mallet said:

I say yes, but then I only usually GM fantasy games. 
 

if successful attacks don’t inhibit gestures and incantations then they are not much of a limitation as the only thing that would stop them would be restraining the caster. And since restraining a characters arms would also stop weapon or hand to hand attacks and those don’t (Usually) get limitations for being restrainable it wouldn’t be balanced if that was the only thing that stopped casters (with gestures and Incantations limitation).

I agree. I am trying to figure out if there should be some nuance and if so, what people rule people apply. For example, if you take BODY, it automatically interrupts, but if you take STUN, you get a CON roll at -1 per N STUN taken. Or you can buy a skill to mitigate it somehow. Etc. Thank you for weighing in. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by eepjr24
Wording

[Chris Goodwin]

I voted sometimes, and am elaborating as requested.  

 

My answer:  It depends.  

 

There was a thread in the past year or two on exactly this, but I can't find it at the moment.  My response then, as now is: yes, Gestures and Incantations are Limitations for a reason, but not every single attack will disrupt them.  

 

If an attack damages or destroys the hand, arm, and/or throat, this pretty much disrupts Gestures and/or Incantations, by definition.  

 

A Grab or Entangle, especially one that affects the hands or mouth will probably disrupt them.  If the Entangle is built with Stops A Given Sense (Hearing Group, or Voice using the voice-as-sense guidance on 6e2 p. 10), or the caster is hit with Darkness vs. Normal Hearing or Hearing Group, Incantations will be disrupted.  Most Entangles will disrupt Gestures, unless they're specifically built not to.  

 

In the last thread, I suggested allowing an attack specifically to disrupt Gestures or Incantations, based on a similar rationale to Disarm.  I don't remember the specifics of it though.  

 

If an attack doesn't hit the hands or arms (for Gestures) or the mouth, throat, or head (for Incantations) then it probably won't disrupt the Gestures or Incantations.  Attackers can make called shots against those locations.  If you're looking for a suggestion, I'd borrow from Impairing and Disabling Wounds for guidance.  6e2 p. 61 suggests that an Impairing or Disabling wound to the hand can cause the target to drop something they're holding, and gives guidance on how to decide.  You could also look at 6e2 p. 108 under Wounding for more guidance.  6e2 p. 111 has the rules for Impairing and Disabling.  You might also allow a Stun damage comparison similar to Body damage comparison for purposes of Impairing and Disabling; I'd suggest that if the STUN done, after defenses but before or after the STUNx for the Hit Location, is equal to or greater than half the character's CON, they might need to make a roll to keep Gesturing or Incanting.  

 

17 minutes ago, eepjr24 said:

I agree. I am trying to figure out if there should be some nuance and if so, what people rule people apply. For example, if you take BODY, it automatically interrupts, but if you take STUN, you get a CON roll at -1 per N STUN taken. Or you can buy a skill to mitigate it somehow. Etc. Thank you for weighing in. 

 

There is nuance in pretty much everything, especially when it comes to heroic level games.  

[drunkonduty]

I voted "sometimes." 

 

Basically I'm a "yes" but I don't want to rule out the occasional time where the attack might not be sufficient to do one of the following:

 

Any good hit will probably make the target stumble over their words as they hiss with pain. A shot to the stomach can knock enough wind out of someone that speech becomes difficult (at least.) A shot to the leg might knock someone off balance such that they throw out and arm to catch themselves, thereby disrupting the gestures.

 

But in a big, dramatic scene, where the caster just has to get the spell off, I might allow a "concentration check" based on the spell casters magic skill, modified for amount of damage actually taken.

[Chris Goodwin]

I found the other thread, here.  It was pointed out over there that per RAW, a single point past defenses from any attack (requiring an Attack Roll or Mental Attack Roll) is enough to disrupt Gestures and/or Incantations.  

 

Do with that what you will.

 

Edit to add:  To quote myself from that thread...

 

Quote

There are a number of ways an attacker could disrupt a caster's spell using Gestures and Incantations:

• Via an Entangle or Grab that affects the hands, unless another body part is specified for the Gestures
• By an Entangle that affects the mouth or the voice, whether this is provided by a Modifier built into the Entangle (such as Stops Sense and specifies Voice as the "sense" stopped via the "voice as sense" rules in 6e2) or by special effect and GM permission
• By a Grab that affects the mouth (possibly via an OCV penalty)
• With GM permission, by a Darkness that affects the Hearing Group, possibly requiring the "voice as sense" rules in 6e2
• With GM permission, negotiation, and discussion, an attack against the Hit Locations covering the hands, mouth, or throat might do it.  Slitting a caster's throat before they can incant, slicing off a hand or arm, smashing the fingers or throat with a club, fist, or other weapon, choking or strangling the caster... any of these probably will do it.

Pretty much all of this includes discussion with the GM as a prerequisite.  

 

Tl;dr:  To fully answer the OP's question: if a spell has Gestures and Incantations, there are a number of ways provided by the rules to disrupt the casting, and a number of others that can be had with GM negotiation.  The majority if not all of these can be performed with a Held Action. 

 

Bolding the above in my quote, even though I didn't bold it previously.  

[eepjr24]

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

I voted sometimes, and am elaborating as requested.  

 

My answer:  It depends.  

<snip>

 

If an attack doesn't hit the hands or arms (for Gestures) or the mouth, throat, or head (for Incantations) then it probably won't disrupt the Gestures or Incantations.  Attackers can make called shots against those locations.  If you're looking for a suggestion, I'd borrow from Impairing and Disabling Wounds for guidance.  6e2 p. 61 suggests that an Impairing or Disabling wound to the hand can cause the target to drop something they're holding, and gives guidance on how to decide.  You could also look at 6e2 p. 108 under Wounding for more guidance.  6e2 p. 111 has the rules for Impairing and Disabling.  You might also allow a Stun damage comparison similar to Body damage comparison for purposes of Impairing and Disabling; I'd suggest that if the STUN done, after defenses but before or after the STUNx for the Hit Location, is equal to or greater than half the character's CON, they might need to make a roll to keep Gesturing or Incanting.  

There was a time when I would have hewed much closer to this, but in general my players have resisted Hit Locations and the complexity that goes along with it. I will say, it speeds up combat to not have to worry about it, especially when the creature is non-humanoid and has custom locations. So with that said, we don't play disabling or impairing generally either, although exceptionally I will have a player injured in this manner from a particularly egregious hit.

 

I like the half CON idea, although I am leaning toward BODY automatically interrupting. I may allow something along the lines of Resistance (from the optional wounding rules). Maybe For every point of resistance you have, up to half your body minus 1, you can still make an EGO (CON?) roll to power through. In my mind, if you take half your BODY in one shot I don't care what kind of control you have you are going to flinch and cry out (assuming the you are not just outright stunned).

 

Thanks for the input.

[Beast]

if the gestures takes time(more than a 1/2 phase)

or he attacker has done a cover maneuver on the 1 doing gestures

 

[dougmacd]

I voted "Yes".  I've had no reason to make the limitations less limiting than printed.

 

Gestures: If the character takes damage from or is adversely affected by any power that requires an Attack Roll or MCV Attack Roll while he’s Gesturing, the power doesn’t activate or immediately turns off

 

Incantations: If he takes damage or is adversely affected by any power that requires an Attack Roll or MCV Attack Roll while he’s Incanting, the power doesn’t turn on or immediately turns off

 

Doug

(At least in 6E)

[archer]

I voted "Sometimes" and agree with what Chris Goodwin says.

 

I also specifically add if you take knockback that moves your character that it stops incantations and gestures.  I can accept that during magical training that they will have practiced being hit, even repeatedly, without interrupting their incantations and gestures.

 

But I have a hard time picturing someone being so disciplined as to be able to continue such things after being walloped so hard that they're literally flying through the air some number of hexes. 

 

 

[ScottishFox]

We use an interrupt style closer to D&D rules.  The interruption is not automatic.

*  If you're stunned - the spell is interrupted.

*  If your hands/arms are grabbed - the spell is interrupted.

*  If you're silenced and the spell has a verbal component - the spell is interrupted.

* For most damage scenarios the caster makes a CON or EGO roll at a -1 per 5 STUN or fraction thereof  (3 STUN is -1, 9 STUN is -2, 14 STUN is -3, etc.).

[dmjalund]

I would also include attacks that do knockback as something that may interupt

[Christopher R Taylor]

Overall, knockdown, knockback, and being stunned interrupts gestures and incantations.

 

If there's a roll, then damage may interrupt the attempt.  The target does their skill roll to attempt their effect.

 

The damage applies a penalty to that roll (after its been made, stay with me here).  If that penalty exceeds what the target made their roll by, then the effect fails (and side effects, if any are applied).

Its -1 for every BODY suffered past defenses and -1 for every 2 STUN suffered past defenses.

[Spence]

Yes, it is pretty much laid out in the rules "If the character takes damage from or is adversely affected by any power that requires an Attack Roll or ECV Attack Roll while he’s Gesturing, the power doesn’t activate or immediately turns off ."

 

Now at a suitably dramatic time in the game I may allow a Hero to try and push through and get the spell off.  But if they do they run the risk of not just the spell failing but having it misfire or backlash.  

 

It was always the players choice to try, but nothing is free