Author Topic: Wizard casting stress question  (Read 2283 times)

Offline Jack B

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
Wizard casting stress question
« on: November 10, 2010, 08:59:44 PM »
Lets say a wizard is casting a power 5 evocation with a conviction of 4.  He takes 2 mental stress.
Now lets say that he fails his discipline roll and chooses to take 2 points of backlash.

Does that mean that he takes one 4 stress hit or two 2 stress hits?

Thanks in advance.

Offline Wolfwood2

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Wizard casting stress question
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2010, 09:04:10 PM »
Lets say a wizard is casting a power 5 evocation with a conviction of 4.  He takes 2 mental stress.
Now lets say that he fails his discipline roll and chooses to take 2 points of backlash.

Does that mean that he takes one 4 stress hit or two 2 stress hits?

Two 2 stress hits (pne physical, one mental), because they're different tracks.

Offline Jack B

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
Re: Wizard casting stress question
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2010, 09:16:01 PM »
Two 2 stress hits (pne physical, one mental), because they're different tracks.
The wizard can decide if the backlash is physical or mental.  What happens if he decides it's mental?

Offline WillH

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Wizard casting stress question
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2010, 09:23:36 PM »
The wizard can decide if the backlash is physical or mental.  What happens if he decides it's mental?

It's still two separate hits.

Offline MyNinjaH8sU

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
Re: Wizard casting stress question
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2010, 09:24:22 PM »
WillH is correct. You would fill in your second and third mental stress boxes, in that case.

Offline Jack B

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
Re: Wizard casting stress question
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2010, 09:30:03 PM »
Thanks for the quick replies!