[PnP] Elf Shot questions

[J Hooten]

You have an interesting view point and a slightly different mechanic.
At low Els the spell is worthless against many targets due to HP limits.
At higher Els it becomes quite effective with only skill and armor 
preventing its use.
If you use the newer MDV mod then the arrow is unlikely to effect 
anything with much MDV as it reduces damage potential and increases miss 
chance.
A little armor and a 'hit' fails to work, very true against larger monsters.
So changes to the mechanics literally decides where this spell can be 
applied successfully.

Is it easier to cast a high El spell on the target, or cast a high El 
Elf Shot and then damage the target?
Notice Elf Shot requires multiple successes to work, not just one.
So it can be a powerful spell but then most higher El spells are dangerous

Lets compare Lightning Bolt El2 costs 80ep, ElfShot El3 costs 83ep
Assume 5th mage, an achievable starting character
Spell casting has a 54% and 56% chance to work with MDV 0 target.
Elfshot requires 2 casts just to set it up costing 15mana, more likely 
20+ since one should fail. Each extra arrow averages about 10? mana.
Lighning bolt costs 8 mana to cast does 3d10+2 damage at range 9 but 
likely fails half the time or more
Elfshot @ range 9 is OCV 0 line so misses 50% on DCV 0 target, and if 
they have a shield is likely wasted 25% more, hit may succeed
The extra 3% to hit from elfshot helps but if MDV applies works against 
both methods but reduces elfshot to all fails earlier in most cases.
So at range 9 the elfshot appears less likely to work though a lucky 
shot could drop target in one hit, where LB is more likely to need more hits
But the LB is a combat casting and has Abysmal failure chances, more 
than the elfshot has.
Net result is pretty much a tie for usability versus risks and costs

The advantage to the elfshot becomes its safer to cast and recover from 
before combat and it can capture.
Disadvantage is higher immunity factor at lower Els because of 
armor/shields and MDV if used as well as higher costs in many cases.
Further disadvantage is need of bow skills and spell and the success 
rate does not increase as quickly with Mel but needs skill increases
Strategy can overcome some of that by using ambush to improve chance to 
penetrate armor or choosing target without a shield or helmet etc.

The advantage to LB is direct damage to most targets no matter how tough 
unless MDV is high. Lower cost to use until higher Els.
Further advantage is faster ep gain in the spell and success rate climbs 
with Mel
Disadvantage is some failures could be abysmal which can disable the 
caster for an easy kill. Also its obvious you are a mage and thus a big 
target.
Strategy can only help a little, though some targets can have situation 
lowered MDV such as sleeping.

So my character will go with both ;) Since both have places they apply best.

Albert Sales wrote:
> This has always been an awkward spell.  It is extremely powerful.  I 
> have always used the EL+1 Arrows per bow limit, and just now noticed 
> that it isn't in the original book (oops).  I put the same limitation 
> on each person carrying them.  Having a high EL sidh dedicate them 
> does not allow a weaker druid more arrows.  Preparing the bow and 
> arrow, I handled as any other permanent magics.  This includes that it 
> must be crafted by the caster's own hands.  I also required the arrows 
> to be re-dedicated if they were ever "repaired".  And remember, the 
> maximum arrows to be dedicated was set at EL+1; I would not allow easy 
> replacements. 
>    Once they are prepared, treat them as magic weapons (or poisoned 
> weapons, perhaps), with one slight exception.  Mana allocation phase- 
> spend the mana to activate them (this is the difference).  Missile 
> fire phase- Fire them, and resolve all effects.  Magic Phase- Nothing 
> here, they are magic weapons.  Movement phase- None. 
>    I handled the success effect two different ways.  First was to 
> record the margin of success when the arrows and bow are dedicated.  
> Using the smaller of the two, I would determine if the shot "took 
> effect".  The second way was to roll the spell success as a magic 
> weapon.  On this part, I must admit, I am "stingier" than most.  
> Still, as a BMC 1 spell, some additional limitations seem 
> appropriate.  Also, the expertise gain is a benefit that my players 
> were happy to accept for the extra limits.   
>    I also percieved this in the spell: The arrow is "one with the 
> victim" while the spell lasts.  Killing the creature destroys the 
> arrow (the spell paralyzes them).  The caster can end the effect at 
> any point.  Since the arrow deals no true damage on success, the arrow 
> is undamaged unless the spell fails.  If the spell fails, dedication 
> is NOT broken, even though damage is dealt normally.   (For one 
> setting, I went against a little of this.  Killing the victim or 
> failing any success roll - Any harm done to the target of the bow, 
> essentially, would shatter the magics.  A fatal spear was meant for 
> drawing blood, elfshot was for capture only.)
>  
> Err... I just realized. There is no set structure for a failed roll.  
> Since success is determined in dedication, I suppose it would count as 
> failing any permanent magic.  Perhaps on an abysmal, have the arrow 
> tie up a slot for the bow as well as any other effect.  With the 
> success at creation being all that is needed, this is a grossly 
> powerful spell for the BMC.  Once prepared, the arrows, if strong 
> enough, automatically neutralize the target on a hit (modified by 
> MDV).  Compare the effect to any other type of permanent magic, and 
> you will see what I mean. Also, MEP and EP gains will be very small 
> without study.  I think that the target's resistance should be 
> considered against the magic (and not the hit).  This has also lead to 
> an additional interesting situation: The elf has rolled a deadly hit.  
> When rolling the success of the spell (to capture a PC for a percieved 
> crime), the PC opted not to apply their MDV.  The individual was a 
> trained magician, and probably could have faught off the spell, but, 
> in a sense, the spell was "protecting them" from certain death.  This, 
> I thought, was an interesting aspect.  It gave the target the choice 
> between capture or death.  Choosing capture was used in their favor 
> later, and they were allowed to "set right" what they had allowed to 
> happen.
>  
> Sorry for rambling there.  Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.  
> Also, the clarifications to intended use are appreciated.  Also, I am 
> brought to thinking; how do you  handle Fatal Spear?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> pnp mailing list
> pnp at abroere.xs4all.nl
> http://abroere.xs4all.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnp
>