Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: blackheart Oct 12 2009, 02:12 PM

I can't find it anywhere in the rules but for 4th Ed does casting a spell while Astral Projecting still cause Physical damage instead of Stun damage?
Thank-you.

Posted by: Kerrang Oct 12 2009, 02:31 PM

Drain is always stun damage, unless you overcast. I don't remember drain being physical when Astrally Projecting in previous editions, either, but then again my memory is not what it used to be.

Posted by: darthmord Oct 13 2009, 12:05 PM

Spellcasting drain was physical while astrally projecting in 1st & 2nd editions. The fluff description I remember reading strongly implied the drain being filtered through the physical body protected the astral form. But when you are APing, there's no body to filter the drain through. It just goes directly against your astral form. Can we say ouch?

Posted by: Zen Shooter01 Oct 13 2009, 02:06 PM

I remember sorcerous drain as being physical damage in earlier editions, as well, but when I went looking for the rule in 4th ed., I couldn't find it either.

Which pushes Astral Combat further and further up the list of "Most Useless Skills", by the way.

Posted by: Thanee Oct 13 2009, 02:27 PM

Astral Combat is surely useful for defensive purposes, though.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Dahrken Oct 13 2009, 04:53 PM

It worked this way at least in 2nd edition, I don't remember in 3rd (I was playing a sammy then), and apparently this has been removed with 4th.

Posted by: Adarael Oct 13 2009, 05:17 PM

I had a player say the same exact thing, with regards to it being useless. And she steadfastly maintained that opinion until a spirit engaged her in astral combat and she almost died.

I think it's also a damn sight more useful if you have a weapon focus, too.

Posted by: Malachi Oct 13 2009, 05:54 PM

Drain doesn't change when in Astral Form: if the spell causes Stun then it still causes Stun. Most of the "special rules" while Astrally Projecting have been removed in 4e.

Posted by: blackheart Oct 14 2009, 03:58 PM

Thank-you everyone for the quick responses. Makes me feel better now that I wasn't just missing the huge "OMG page 21567 says so!" blurb.