Grab vs. Gestures and Incantations

[Toxxus]

In my current Fantasy Hero campaigns the ability to foil gestures is easily adjudicated.  If an enemy entangles your character or grabs their arms they will not be able to gesture.

 

If an enemy grabs your character and chooses head/neck instead of arm for one of the two limbs would you say that...

1-  Incantations are not possible in this circumstance.

2-  Incantations are possible, but only with great difficulty so an ability / skill check of some sort would be required.

3-  Having your head/neck squeezed wouldn't interfere with Incantations.

 

I'm currently torn between 1 and 2, but would love some feedback.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

"To use Incantations, a character must be able to speak freely and clearly", so 1. 

Unless of course the Incantations were defined as playing an instrument or some other non-vocal noise, in which case there'd be some other limb to grab to shut down the Incantations. 

[Surrealone]

It's situational.  To explain what I mean, for #1 (incantations not being possible in the circumstance you described -- which was a called head/neck shot), I think more than just a called head/neck shot while performing a Grab is needed before you can deem incantations 'impossible'. Specifically, I think someone needs to go for the throat (neck) or the mouth (head) in order to prevent proper/clear enunciation of incantations and, if successful, then (in most cases) it's pretty cut/dry that if the Grab is followed by a squeeze, proper/clear enunciation will not be possible.

 

Anything less specific than a called shot to the mouth/throat using a Grab maneuver is something I feel gives rise to #2 (incantations are possible but only with great difficulty - requiring an ability/skill check).  i.e. A called shot to the head/neck that isn't specifically to the mouth/throat, so it just generally hits the head/neck and has the called shot effect per RAW.  Once damage is computer, if the hit does significant damage after defenses (GM call on what constitutes 'significant'), I feel it could then result in a skill check to see if the character can continue to enunciate words properly/clearly.

And then there's #3 (head/neck being squeezed doesn't interfere with incantations).  There's room for this, too.  For instance, where, exactly, is the head/neck of a Doppleganger or a Changeling? Given their abilities to adjust their bodies, if one is incanting, then it's a special circumstance that gives rise to the throat/mouth being successful Grabbed … having no meaningful effect.

[Toxxus]

37 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Anything less specific than a called shot to the mouth/throat using a Grab maneuver is something I feel gives rise to #2 (incantations are possible but only with great difficulty - requiring an ability/skill check).  i.e. A called shot to the head/neck that isn't specifically to the mouth/throat, so it just generally hits the head/neck and has the called shot effect per RAW.  Once damage is computer, if the hit does significant damage after defenses (GM call on what constitutes 'significant'), I feel it could then result in a skill check to see if the character can continue to enunciate words properly/clearly.

 

This idea is where my internal conflict on this decision comes from.  Grab allows you to restrain two limbs of your choosing as part of the maneuver and includes the head as an option.  A full called shot penalty (-8 OCV for neck) to adjust grabbing the head to grabbing the head/neck in a way that interferes with speech seems excessive.

 

A standard grab ends gestures immediately.  Incantations have to be a problem in some circumstances to justify it being a limitation.  Combine that with choosing neck/arm leaves the opponent a free arm to fight with and in a Fantasy setting that often means you're holding the arm/neck at the risk of being stabbed repeatedly.

 

Great feedback though!

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

9 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

This idea is where my internal conflict on this decision comes from.  Grab allows you to restrain two limbs of your choosing as part of the maneuver and includes the head as an option.  A full called shot penalty (-8 OCV for neck) to adjust grabbing the head to grabbing the head/neck in a way that interferes with speech seems excessive.

I don't see any reason to apply a called shot penalty, since declaring "both arms" doesn't mandate a called shot to the arms. 

That said, there's a valid point that grabbing the head doesn't necessarily entail obstructing speech.  If the grabber doesn't know that the grabbed has powers with Incantations, I could easily see them grabbing in such a way that it doesn't prevent incanting.  A "shut up, wiznerd" grab could be very different from a "get those eye-beams away from me" grab. 

[Toxxus]

12 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I don't see any reason to apply a called shot penalty, since declaring "both arms" doesn't mandate a called shot to the arms. 

That said, there's a valid point that grabbing the head doesn't necessarily entail obstructing speech.  If the grabber doesn't know that the grabbed has powers with Incantations, I could easily see them grabbing in such a way that it doesn't prevent incanting.  A "shut up, wiznerd" grab could be very different from a "get those eye-beams away from me" grab. 

 

I'm trying to make the limitations roughly equal in how often they get in the way.  Currently between all the grabby monsters in the game and Entangles it seems like Incantations are a free ride.

 

Silence fields are reasonably rare, so I need some way to, at least on occasion, have Incantations cause a problem.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'm gonna go with 1 mainly because its hard to get someone's head and because magic needs restrictions to control its vast flexibility and the power it can display.

 

I should add that I rule that a darkness vs silence does not stop incantations (any more than invisibility vs sound).  All it does is make the incantations inaudible.  You have to prevent them from MAKING the incantations, not simply make them quiet.

[eepjr24]

So just to put the rules I am looking at out there (6e):

 

"To use Incantations, a character must be able to speak freely and clearly — if he’s gagged or has his mouth full, he can’t activate and/or use the power. It’s also impossible to use the power while in a silence field (see Darkness). 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."

 

That said, I think what you want is the Choke maneuver:

 

"Besides being Grabbed, the victim of a Choke takes the listed NND damage and cannot speak or shout."

 

That would effectively prevent incantations as well as delivering a nice 2d6 NND if you want to keep doing it and can manage the attack roll.

 

There are some other ambiguous wording in Grab specifically about doing extra damage with hit locations, but they do in fact recommend using the called shot penalties. I think Choke is simpler.

 

- E

 

Edit: Somehow the Palindromedary snuck in an extra signature.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

To use Incantations, a character must be able to speak freely and clearly — if he’s gagged or has his mouth full, he can’t activate and/or use the power. It’s also impossible to use the power while in a silence field (see Darkness). 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.

 

Right, its the classic "area of silence shuts off incantations" ruling which never has made sense to me.  The only way that makes sense is if someone must hear the incantations in order for an effect to go off (like a prayer to a lesser god). Otherwise, you're still incanting, its just not audible.

[TranquiloUno]

25 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Right, its the classic "area of silence shuts off incantations" ruling which never has made sense to me.  The only way that makes sense is if someone must hear the incantations in order for an effect to go off (like a prayer to a lesser god). Otherwise, you're still incanting, its just not audible.

 

Hmm, so they just have to be *able* to "speak" freely and clearly? They don't actually need to speak?

Otherwise wouldn't silent incantations (I said them, just...silently) work by default?

 

Darkness versus Sound is explicitly intended to trigger the Incantations limitations. The Incantations limitation specifies: "...only if he speaks *loud phrases that are audible at a distance*.." (emphasis added)

In addition to the "must be able to speak freely and clearly" part.

 

If you're in a Darkness versus Sound field then in addition to the specific RAW guidance I don't see how a player can speak loud phrases audible at a distance if they can't make sound. Doesn't seem like you can "speak freely" when you can't actually make noise either.

 

 

 

 

[eepjr24]

25 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Right, its the classic "area of silence shuts off incantations" ruling which never has made sense to me.  The only way that makes sense is if someone must hear the incantations in order for an effect to go off (like a prayer to a lesser god). Otherwise, you're still incanting, its just not audible.

 

Obviously each GM can interpret things however they like. In my games silence fields are rare enough that it is not a big deal that they block incantations and even fits with Toxxus' observation that otherwise it is difficult to interfere with Incantations. Maybe in those types of games, Incantations should be worth 0 for instant powers and -1/4 for longer?

 

- E

[Christopher R Taylor]

Sure I get why they do it as a game mechanic, just doesn't make sense to me.  Its a method of making incantations not work for magic, primarily.  But let's be honest, how common is darkness vs sound?  I get the argument that its a way of making incantations have a limitation but its not a very likely way of stopping them.  You're far more likely to be hindered with a gag or someone's hand around your throat than a magical silence area.

 

That's why I like the idea (and have allowed it) of a grab being able to stop speech.  You have to target the head to do it, but if you do, you can cover their mouth and prevent incantations.

 

Quote

 

Hmm, so they just have to be *able* to "speak" freely and clearly? They don't actually need to speak?

Otherwise wouldn't silent incantations (I said them, just...silently) work by default?

 

 

You have to try to speak out loud clearly, but if something external makes that inaudible, it doesn't stop the effect.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

29 minutes ago, eepjr24 said:

In my games silence fields are rare enough that it is not a big deal that they block incantations and even fits with Toxxus' observation that otherwise it is difficult to interfere with Incantations.

If Incantations are a common and well known limitation on spellcasting, then silence fields should become common as well because they shut down spellcasters.  I can very easily picture a warrior learning the spell of silence just so he can force enemy spellcasters into martial combat. 

 

33 minutes ago, eepjr24 said:

Maybe in those types of games, Incantations should be worth 0 for instant powers and -1/4 for longer?

Don't forget that any damage taken while incanting ruins the incantation.  That alone makes it worth -1/4, since a canny enemy can just hold their attacks until you start with the magic words and negate your turn if they get a decent hit. 

[eepjr24]

As an aside, I thought about it a bit and wondered if Trigger could be used to stop it via the damage component. That would give fighter and rogue types another interesting option to stop the casting if the incantations last long enough. So I asked in the Rules forum, we'll see what Steve says.

 

- E

[eepjr24]

1 minute ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Don't forget that any damage taken while incanting ruins the incantation.  That alone makes it worth -1/4, since a canny enemy can just hold their attacks until you start with the magic words and negate your turn if they get a decent hit. 

I quoted the rule, pretty aware of it. 😃

 

I have found that in the holding actions game things tend to favor the caster since they typically are more prepared to attack at range and have others available to hide behind. Perhaps that turns out differently in your games. Our fighters went more the route of having combat luck or higher DCV's to avoid magic.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

As an aside, I thought about it a bit and wondered if Trigger could be used to stop it via the damage component.

 

I've been pondering a "bash" type interrupt talent for characters in fantasy games, something they can pop off to stop casters even off their phase.  Maybe a once per turn limitation on it.  A Change Environment would work (make a roll or lose spell and eat side effects finger wiggler) with a trigger.  Something that takes a half phase to set up, so they can't just do it without penalty.  Maybe require something like a shield or weapon so its not too easy to do.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Sure I get why they do it as a game mechanic, just doesn't make sense to me.  Its a method of making incantations not work for magic, primarily.  But let's be honest, how common is darkness vs sound?  I get the argument that its a way of making incantations have a limitation but its not a very likely way of stopping them.  You're far more likely to be hindered with a gag or someone's hand around your throat than a magical silence area.

 

That's why I like the idea (and have allowed it) of a grab being able to stop speech.  You have to target the head to do it, but if you do, you can cover their mouth and prevent incantations.

 

 

You have to try to speak out loud clearly, but if something external makes that inaudible, it doesn't stop the effect.

 

Does the need to Incant in the first place make sense?  Does magic generally make sense?  If you want the ability to cast in Silence, don't take the Incantations limitation.

[eepjr24]

I like that idea as well, just curious about the timing officially. Thus the Rules post. But if it worked....

 

Spell Interrupt: Change Environment, DEX roll at -2 or spell fails, Trigger: Sees a spell being cast, half phase to set, trigger takes no time, trigger expires at the end of combat (+1/4) [7 AP], Must have weapon or shield prepared (-1/4). [6 RP], [1 END]

 

Seems reasonable to me. An attack roll is still required, the caster gets a '"save", range modifiers and cover would apply if you are trying to do it at range.

 

- E

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Does the need to Incant in the first place make sense?  Does magic generally make sense?

 

Within its own system, yes.  The only reason to cling to the "silence stops you from speaking" thing is that its a D&D trope.  I get that people like that but it doesn't have to be that way by default.

[Hugh Neilson]

31 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Within its own system, yes.  The only reason to cling to the "silence stops you from speaking" thing is that its a D&D trope.  I get that people like that but it doesn't have to be that way by default.

Nothing "has to be".  If we want this to "make sense", I think we must first answer the question why these incantations are needed - how do they enable the spell to be cast?  Without knowing that, how can one conclude whether, logically, silence should prevent it?

 

Why do I need to speak the incantations in a distinct, audible manner to begin with?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Nothing "has to be". 

Except it is, in the official rules.

 

Quote

If we want this to "make sense", I think we must first answer the question why these incantations are needed - how do they enable the spell to be cast? 

 

Now you're arguing from special effect instead of rules.  Its up to the GM for their game, and the Hero rules specify specifically that darkness vs sound stops incantations.  Just not in my campaign.

[Chris Goodwin]

According to 6e2 p. 10, voice can be treated as a "sense" (it literally puts it in quotes).  So.. Entangle, blocks a sense (voice).  

[Surrealone]

4 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

Darkness versus Sound is explicitly intended to trigger the Incantations limitations. The Incantations limitation specifies: "...only if he speaks *loud phrases that are audible at a distance*.." (emphasis added)

In addition to the "must be able to speak freely and clearly" part.

 

If you're in a Darkness versus Sound field then in addition to the specific RAW guidance I don't see how a player can speak loud phrases audible at a distance if they can't make sound. Doesn't seem like you can "speak freely" when you can't actually make noise either.

This is spot-on … because the definition of 'speak' entails the articulation of sound to form words in order to communicate.  No sound … means no speech.  No speech … means no incantations.  (Vacuums work particularly well to hose Incantations too ... for the same reason -- no sound.) Those arguing to the contrary by suggesting Darkness to Sound has no impact on Incantations seem to have forgotten the foregoing.
 

5 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I don't see any reason to apply a called shot penalty, since declaring "both arms" doesn't mandate a called shot to the arms. 

That said, there's a valid point that grabbing the head doesn't necessarily entail obstructing speech.  If the grabber doesn't know that the grabbed has powers with Incantations, I could easily see them grabbing in such a way that it doesn't prevent incanting.  A "shut up, wiznerd" grab could be very different from a "get those eye-beams away from me" grab. 

Actually, specifically Grabbing the arms (and only the arms) is, quite technically, a called shot -- whereas a Grab maneuver with no called shot targets the opponent rather than the opponent's arms.  Both happen put an end to gestures if successful, but they have very different special effects … in addition to the fact that a Grab called to the arms can disable the arm(s) with a squeeze if enough damage is done -- which is untrue of a generic Grab maneuver.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Except it is, in the official rules.

 

 

Now you're arguing from special effect instead of rules.  Its up to the GM for their game, and the Hero rules specify specifically that darkness vs sound stops incantations.  Just not in my campaign.

 

So, you say "it doesn't have to be that way by default", I agree with you, and you disagree with me agreeing with you.  Yes, it is in the rules.  No, it does not "have to be" in the rules.

 

By the rules, the Incantations limitation requires you speak in a clear voice, audible from some distance away, and are prevented from doing so by a Silence field.  If my SFX suggest this is not the case, then they are not compatible with the limitation in the rules.

 

You stated that the mechanic " just doesn't make sense to me".  I asked whether magic has to make sense, and you said it does, within its own parameters.  I suggested that those parameters would then logically define exactly why you need to Incant in order to cast a spell - what does the incantation do, exactly, that allows the spell to work?  Based on the rules saying a silence field causes incantations to fail, it seems like whatever they do, they must be audible to be effective.

 

Absolutely nothing stops anyone, by RAW, stating that their character must intone the words, but they can do that underwater, in deep space, in a silence field, while being strangled, whatever you want.  That's not the Incantations limitation, so it does not get that -1/4 limitation.  Is it limited enough to merit -1/4 as a Limited Power instead?  If so, limit it.  If not, perhaps this is a -0 limitation. 

[archer]

6 hours ago, eepjr24 said:

So just to put the rules I am looking at out there (6e):

 

"To use Incantations, a character must be able to speak freely and clearly — if he’s gagged or has his mouth full, he can’t activate and/or use the power. It’s also impossible to use the power while in a silence field (see Darkness). 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."

 

That said, I think what you want is the Choke maneuver:

 

"Besides being Grabbed, the victim of a Choke takes the listed NND damage and cannot speak or shout."

 

That would effectively prevent incantations as well as delivering a nice 2d6 NND if you want to keep doing it and can manage the attack roll.

 

There are some other ambiguous wording in Grab specifically about doing extra damage with hit locations, but they do in fact recommend using the called shot penalties. I think Choke is simpler.

 

- E

 

 

My sibling's favorite maneuver was a headlock. I don't recall having difficulty speaking when I wanted to. I couldn't speak continuously. But when I wanted to and took a breath first, I could say complete and understandable sentences. And quite loudly when I chose to.

 

If you're being Choked by someone who is paying to have a Choke maneuver, that's different than a simple grab.