Massive fatigue spells

[Velusion]

Wyatt Hebert said:
Velusion: This is how I understand it. I have a level 5 mage. He can use up to 5 gems. Spells I want to cast:

Thunderbolt AAA, 75 fatigue (iirc). He will take 25 fatigue+Enc with no gems. Give him 5 gems. He will, most likely, spend 1 gem, making him A6, meaning he takes 12 Fatigue. In this case, he _cannot_ use any more gems. He cannot empower, nor does the spell cost gems.

Now, let's assume there was an A4 spell that cost 2 gems and 200 fatigue. FOr the following gem counts, this is what can happen:

0: Nothing. Not enough gems for spell.
1: Nothing. Not enough gems for spell.
2: Spell cast. Gain 100+Enc Fatigue (200/(5-4+1))
3: Spell Cast with extra gem for empowering. Gain 67+Enc Fatigue.
4: Spell cast, as 3 above, as empowerment limit and spell cost limit have been reached.
5: Spell Cast, as 4 above.

Is this correct, KO?

Wyatt Hebert

Um.... so why would he EVER use more than one gem over the casting cost if it has no effect on fatige?

Why is there a max limit of gems per level? Are you saying:

a W3 mage casting a spell that costs 3 gems could not commit an extra gem to help against fatige? In the same vein a W3 mage casting a W2 spell that costs 4 gems would simply not be able to cast it period?

[thejeff]

Yes. You can use Gem Cost + 1 or Your level, whichever is lower.


edited due to thinko.

[Velusion]

thejeff said:
Yes. You can use Gem Cost + 1 or Your level, whichever is lower.


edited due to thinko.

I'm not sure that answered my questions... but I could not be reading it right...

[Kristoffer O]

> Um.... so why would he EVER use more than one gem over the casting cost if it has no effect on fatige?

He can't, so he WILL NOT ever use more than one gem .

If the spellcasting system allowed him to, it would have effects, but id doesn't.


> Why is there a max limit of gems per level? Are you saying:

> a W3 mage casting a spell that costs 3 gems could not commit an extra gem to help against fatige? In the same vein a W3 mage casting a W2 spell that costs 4 gems would simply not be able to cast it period?

Correct! That is why no W2 spells cost more then 2 gems. That is, unless someone has modded a spell into uselessness .

[Velusion]

Kristoffer O said:
> Um.... so why would he EVER use more than one gem over the casting cost if it has no effect on fatige?

He can't, so he WILL NOT ever use more than one gem .

If the spellcasting system allowed him to, it would have effects, but id doesn't.


> Why is there a max limit of gems per level? Are you saying:

> a W3 mage casting a spell that costs 3 gems could not commit an extra gem to help against fatige? In the same vein a W3 mage casting a W2 spell that costs 4 gems would simply not be able to cast it period?

Correct! That is why no W2 spells cost more then 2 gems. That is, unless someone has modded a spell into uselessness .

Ahh ok. It's clear now.

So the only time the max limit of gems per level comes into play is when the gem cost of the spell is exactly equal to the level of the caster in the appropriate path. In that case (and only that case) you could not spend an extra gem to reduce fatige.

Correct?

Edit for the record this is pretty much how I thought it worked... but all the other posters got me confused.

[Velusion]

And just to clarify something else (since KO is posting here). The rules say you take 1 hit point for every additional fatige over 200 (right?). But this does not apply to yourself casting spells? According to some posters here if you cast a spell that gives you huge fatige you'll just hit 200 and pass out taking no damage?

The < 200 = damage only really matters when units are forced to take fatige from other sources... like with communion slaves or Rigor Mortis?

[Kristoffer O]

It does not apply when you first reach 200 IIRC, but every time after that, including effects such as rigor mortis etc.

[Velusion]

Kristoffer O said:
It does not apply when you first reach 200 IIRC, but every time after that, including effects such as rigor mortis etc.

Thanks!

[Aethyr]

I learned a great deal reading this thread. Thanks guys.

[Wyatt Hebert]

Did what I could. I'm stumbling through a lot of it myself, but it certainly helps explain lots of things.

Wyatt Hebert