A simple question concerning rules/situational interpretation: is a sentient being (N/PC) able to resist the attempt to steal WP through the General Spell "Transfer" while Broken, in specific after a Horror Critical Injury? Under this condition the "victim" is supposed to either flee/retreat/drop to the ground and is unable to communicate, so that I'd assume that natural instints prevail. But would that mean that there is no resistance (at all) against the attempt to sap WPs (so that the respective attacker can drain as many WPs as available, as if the vivctim was willing to give away WPs, and not limited to the spell's Power Level as indicated in the PHb for an unwilling target)?
Opinions?
Re: Situational handling question: "Stealing" WPs from Broken target via Transfer
I don't think there is a conclusive answer and the interpretation comes down to the GM and whichever reading is better for the story.
But if you'd like to dig an interpretation from the source text, we'll have to get into semantics and authorial intent.
Firstly we'd need to define "opposition" in the context of a game-story, whether it's 1) an active stance or 2) the absence of consent. Note, that other translations of the game might be clearer to interpret due to changes in terms used and their socio-cultural use.
Secondly, we'd need to define how the Magic in the system works: does it achieve its affect through mental processing, spiritual auras, physical properties, or maybe even narrative changes? Whichever the underlying force, it makes sense the opposition would somehow link with that medium.
Thirdly, we'd need to consider how the Broken state limits a characters capacity: generally it denies certain activity (item interactions?) and skill rolls, and limits certain capacities, such as movement and communication ("mumble", "wheeze", uncommunication), but what about spiritual or mental processes?
Neither opposition nor willingness towards Transfer have any roll or action associated with them, so it's tricky to argue over how that activity might be affected by the broken state.
If only willingness is active, then a Broken person (friend or foe) would always require the second state of the Transfer spell.
If only opposition is an action, then a Broken person could be leeched dry at Power Level 1.
But if you'd like to dig an interpretation from the source text, we'll have to get into semantics and authorial intent.
Firstly we'd need to define "opposition" in the context of a game-story, whether it's 1) an active stance or 2) the absence of consent. Note, that other translations of the game might be clearer to interpret due to changes in terms used and their socio-cultural use.
Secondly, we'd need to define how the Magic in the system works: does it achieve its affect through mental processing, spiritual auras, physical properties, or maybe even narrative changes? Whichever the underlying force, it makes sense the opposition would somehow link with that medium.
Thirdly, we'd need to consider how the Broken state limits a characters capacity: generally it denies certain activity (item interactions?) and skill rolls, and limits certain capacities, such as movement and communication ("mumble", "wheeze", uncommunication), but what about spiritual or mental processes?
Neither opposition nor willingness towards Transfer have any roll or action associated with them, so it's tricky to argue over how that activity might be affected by the broken state.
If only willingness is active, then a Broken person (friend or foe) would always require the second state of the Transfer spell.
If only opposition is an action, then a Broken person could be leeched dry at Power Level 1.
Re: Situational handling question: "Stealing" WPs from Broken target via Transfer
Thank you for the feedback, similar assessment here - and no clear conclusion, either, so that I guess that it will be an individual GM decision - even though I still hope for more opinions/practices.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests