# A Rift in Our Group - "Quickness" and "Deflection" Spells are Ruining Savage Worlds' Combat



## innerdude (Dec 5, 2013)

Over the past 4-5 sessions, I've been increasingly bored, frustrated, and generally uninterested in running combats in my Savage Worlds campaign. And for a system as combat-centric as Savage Worlds, that's a very, very bad thing. 

At first I thought it was a simple cause of PC "power creep." They're well into the "Veteran" character tier, roughly equivalent to D&D PCs of 7th or 8th level, so the number of situational tricks, bonuses, and effects available to the PCs is fairly high. So I thought perhaps it was just that I hadn't quite adjusted to the PCs' power level in designing encounters. 

But I believe I've narrowed down the cause to two specific spells, being wielded by one specific character, for causing the majority of the problems. 

One character is a two-weapon fighter / mage, who wields a broadsword / shortsword in combat. Typically his first act is to cast the _Quickness _spell, then immediately cast _Deflection_. 
These two spells are roughly equivalent to _Haste _(_Quickness_) and _Mage Armor_ (_Deflection_). The problem is, compared to their D&D counterparts, they're radically overpowered. 

In D&D 3.x, _Haste_ gives the character exactly 1 additional action per round. Not so for _Quickness_, which gives the character _an entire extra turn immediately following the current turn_. That's right. No waiting until the end of the round, and not just one additional action---the character gets an entire extra turn, with complete movement and actions available. It's essentially twice as powerful as _Haste _with zero downsides, and with a very low power point cost. 

We all know _Mage Armor_ is just a static +4 to AC. Well, as a BASELINE, _Deflection_ gives the character the functional equivalent of approximately +7 to AC (a +2 defense bonus in Savage Worlds)----while also partially negating damage from area effect spells. And if the character succeeds with a raise (i.e., critical success), the bonus goes up to the functional equivalent of +12 AC, with a higher damage reduction effect on area effects. Again, this is a very, very "low level" spell, with a minimal casting cost.

So when the character performs these actions, he essentially becomes unhittable barring miraculous luck of the dice, while wreaking havoc by making four full attacks per round at absolutely zero penalty. 

And it's completely soured combat for me. I literally dread running combats with this character around. It becomes a tedious, boring affair of trying in vain to make the challenge interesting without literally wiping the floor with the rest of the party. 

Now major caveat here: the player in question is literally my best friend on the planet. We've known each other for 20 years. 

His contention to this point is that if I choose to house rule these spells (knowing that I will go bat-crap crazy if I don't), I'm essentially "ruining his fun," and negating all of his "hard work" to construct his character. In other words, rather than worrying about how this is not fun for me at all, or thinking of game balance, or the overall vibe at the table, he basically insists that I should be "rewarding" him for his "hard work" of rules mastery, where his idea of "reward" is easy encounters, so he can build up his loot stash to "buy epic gear." 

First of all, I am the least powergamer-y player I've ever played with. [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] once commented that he always gets comments like, "Nice gimped character you have there, buddy." I'm basically the same way. I simply don't give a rat's behind how combat capable my characters are. I enjoy RPGs for the world building, player and NPC interactions, and the occasional glimpse into real social and political commentary. 

And we're maybe 6 to 8 sessions away from the campaign's climax, but it's been so bad the last three sessions, that I honestly would rather end the campaign now than keep having to deal with this. 

So I pose to you the question, EnWorlders: Do I house rule these two spells to maintain my sanity, or do I simply deal with it for now, with the idea that the next time I run Savage Worlds I'll have the house rules already in place?

I've already written out the house rules for the spells. Should I enforce them, but then give him the option to redesign his character around the changes? Simply play it as I've houseruled, without letting him make changes?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 5, 2013)

> Do I house rule these two spells to maintain my sanity, or do I simply deal with it for now, with the idea that the next time I run Savage Worlds I'll have the house rules already in place?




I'd say implement the HRs in your next campaign.  Changing the rules midstream almost always results in hard feelings.


----------



## Agamon (Dec 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'd say implement the HRs in your next campaign.  Changing the rules midstream almost always results in hard feelings.




I agree.  If you went into it saying that there might be changes during the campaign if something gets out of hand, then our friend would know that it's a possibility and can't really complain.  Without that caveat though, he has a point that you really shouldn't be changing stuff midstream.

I would find a way to expedite the end of the campaign.  I've had a similar problem with having no fun, though the end of the campaign was near (maybe 4-5 more sessions).  So I just condensed it to the real important stuff and ended it the next session.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 5, 2013)

The D&D Haste spell has the side-effect of aging a year. Is that the same in Savage Worlds? If so, have you been keeping track of the character's extra aging?


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'd say implement the HRs in your next campaign.  Changing the rules midstream almost always results in hard feelings.




This.  There's really no way around it.  

Otherwise, I would suggest some form of villain who challenges your friend to one-on-one (perhaps less than honorable) combat to the death, and just deck said villain out in much the same manner of defense and offense your friend has.  Ya know, taste of his own medicine.


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 6, 2013)

innerdude said:


> One character is a two-weapon fighter / mage, who wields a broadsword / shortsword in combat. Typically his first act is to cast the _Quickness _spell, then immediately cast _Deflection_.
> These two spells are roughly equivalent to _Haste _(_Quickness_) and _Mage Armor_ (_Deflection_). The problem is, compared to their D&D counterparts, they're radically overpowered.




Dispel would work nicely to help counter this, especially if we are talking a D&D-esque world (where Quickness would be a known tactic). Lower Trait (Fighting for example) will take the edge of their rampage. Slow would have an interesting effect, but not as effective as Dispel (but cheaper). If you really want to f' with them -  Telekinesis - if you win the resisted roll you just lift them off the ground, kill the other PCs, then deal with the other PC after their spells expires (or they drain 2 PP ever round or two to keep it going). Once they are off the ground there is nothing the breaks it. Depending on how they are built, Puppet (a Psionist with Mentalist, Elan, and Killer Instinct will own that boy).

In a fantasy campaign, one has to expect counters to Quickness just like in D&D one has to expect counters to Haste.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 6, 2013)

Also, make perfectly sure that what he's doing is 100% by the book.

For example, in my Savage Worlds Deadlands book, Quickness does not give you an extra turn - it gives you an extra action on the same turn, which may not be exactly the same thing in all situations.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 6, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Also, make perfectly sure that what he's doing is 100% by the book.
> 
> For example, in my Savage Worlds Deadlands book, Quickness does not give you an extra turn - it gives you an extra action on the same turn, which may not be exactly the same thing in all situations.




If true, then it isn't a question of HRing, but rather, "Ummm, guys, it seems *we've* made an oopsie in how *we've* been running the game..."

By using the word "we" you don't make it about you vs the other player, but instead, casts the issue as a mutual mistake, which may diffuse resentment.*








* vs you by the player getting nerfed, vs the player for "cheating" and all other permutations.


----------



## scourger (Dec 6, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Also, make perfectly sure that what he's doing is 100% by the book.
> 
> For example, in my Savage Worlds Deadlands book, Quickness does not give you an extra turn - it gives you an extra action on the same turn, which may not be exactly the same thing in all situations.




Yeah, I just looked in my Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and Quickness gives an extra action - not another whole turn.  And Deflection seems to act like armor.  So, what you have is a mage emulating a fighter with a 2-weapon build (Ambidexterity and Two-Fisted) and light to heavy armor.  It shouldn't be that unbalanced, and it does not give him 2 whole turns with 4 attacks and two movements.   

Also, make sure he is paying the casting and maintenance costs to keep those powers going.  Does he have the minimum strength to wield those weapons?  I think you need to audit his character & play, not change the rules.


----------



## innerdude (Dec 6, 2013)

Thanks all, these are some very good ideas for countering some of the effects. 

I guess part of me is just depressed that I'm having to do it all, to a degree.


----------



## innerdude (Dec 6, 2013)

scourger said:


> Yeah, I just looked in my Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and Quickness gives an extra action - not another whole turn.  And Deflection seems to act like armor.  So, what you have is a mage emulating a fighter with a 2-weapon build (Ambidexterity and Two-Fisted) and light to heavy armor.  It shouldn't be that unbalanced, and it does not give him 2 whole turns with 4 attacks and two movements.
> 
> Also, make sure he is paying the casting and maintenance costs to keep those powers going.  Does he have the minimum strength to wield those weapons?  I think you need to audit his character & play, not change the rules.




Yep, I just verified --- _Quickness _underwent a revision from Explorer's Edition to Deluxe. I don't think I'd have a problem with the EE version. 

As far as _Deflection_, I'm considering setting it up so that the parry bonus and the dodge / area effect bonuses are separate trappings. Meaning, depending on the trapping, the character receives one or the other, but not both.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Dec 6, 2013)

innerdude said:


> Now major caveat here: the player in question is literally my best friend on the planet. We've known each other for 20 years.
> 
> ...
> 
> And we're maybe 6 to 8 sessions away from the campaign's climax, but it's been so bad the last three sessions, that I honestly would rather end the campaign now than keep having to deal with this.




Why not discuss it with your friend and not arguing with rules, but with the campaign: "See, I want to bring this campaign to a satisfying conclusion in the near future. Currently combat irks me because of your spells. I'd like to cut back on your character's combat power in order to make combats more interesting for the other players, too. Especially with the big finale coming up."

You could propose that you nerf the spells a bit (EE version) and set up a more level playing field for the finale (designing the fight in a way that his favourite tactic doesn't work).


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 6, 2013)

scourger said:


> Yeah, I just looked in my Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and Quickness gives an extra action - not another whole turn.  And Deflection seems to act like armor.  So, what you have is a mage emulating a fighter with a 2-weapon build (Ambidexterity and Two-Fisted) and light to heavy armor.  It shouldn't be that unbalanced, and it does not give him 2 whole turns with 4 attacks and two movements.





(ok - someone else got to this first )
There is a change between Explorer's Edition and Deluxe (the current). Explorer's did provided an extra action. Deluxe says you get a whole separate turn (and turn 1 has to be done completely before doing turn 2). So the final ruling will depend on what set of rules guides the game

(for example if using Explorers, then you cannot cast two spells in the same round - you can only do the same Action once per turn. But with two turns, you can do the same action twice.


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 6, 2013)

innerdude said:


> Thanks all, these are some very good ideas for countering some of the effects.
> 
> I guess part of me is just depressed that I'm having to do it all, to a degree.




I would look at it as forcing him to evolve his tactics. Players should not be running their PCs the same all the time. 

Besides, you should be rejoicing - think how many times D&D tried to make a fighter/mage and failed (PrCs, specialty classes, etc) and SW does it effectively and effortlessly (and dangerously).

The other thing is to tailor a few encounters to this build. Say he mows through 10 Extras with this build - is their anything wrong with that? He does not get any extra XP (like in 3.x or 4e) but he gets to feel good about the cool PC he built. (Or those 10 Extras are going to murderize him via Gang Up and Wild Attack )


----------



## Umbran (Dec 6, 2013)

amerigoV said:


> (ok - someone else got to this first )
> There is a change between Explorer's Edition and Deluxe (the current). Explorer's did provided an extra action. Deluxe says you get a whole separate turn (and turn 1 has to be done completely before doing turn 2). So the final ruling will depend on what set of rules guides the game
> 
> (for example if using Explorers, then you cannot cast two spells in the same round - you can only do the same Action once per turn. But with two turns, you can do the same action twice.




Question:  Do you pay upkeep for powers _by the turn_?  If that is so, if you get a whole extra turn, you're paying extra upkeep, and the setup gets expensive quickly, which could be a useful limitation.


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 6, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Question:  Do you pay upkeep for powers _by the turn_?  If that is so, if you get a whole extra turn, you're paying extra upkeep, and the setup gets expensive quickly, which could be a useful limitation.




Its per initiative round, unless you create trappings otherwise (I saw that question earlier on PEG's board when I saw this thread). You might create trappings in this manner in exchange for something "extra" for the spell. But by the book, it would last the normal amount of time.


----------



## Enkhidu (Dec 6, 2013)

One of the table-policies I've adhered to over the years is respecting Mutually Assured Destruction. For example, I don't make baddies Scry/Buff/Teleport, or cast Disjunction, or equally nasty combinations unless the players cut loose with it first (after which it's fair game).

Have you thought about using an enemy (a rival, perhaps?) utilizing exactly the same combination?


----------



## Aenghus (Dec 6, 2013)

When the _Haste_ spell changed in 3.0 D&D, it granted an extra action, which allowed spellcasting, which made it far more broken for spellcasters than non-spellcasters. Indeed, lots of NPC spellcaster BBEGs had it as one of their spells. It was close to a mandatory choice for those PCs who could make it, which is one definition of broken. And 3.0 spellcasters didn't need a further boost over non-spellcasters.

I was very happy to see the revision of the spell in 3.5, which changed it back to a non-spellcaster attack buff like it was in 1e and 2e. The affected players were less happy to have their spellcasters nerfed, but accepted it as it applied to NPCs as well, and double-casting spellcasters are deadly. But the lack of balance in 2e and 3e meant that the option for DM intervention for rebalancing purposes was a regrettable necessity IMO.

Action economy improving features are easy to get wrong, and tinkering with well-established PCs is a difficult issue. A fix can change a PC from brokenly good to average or worse than average, which is a severe problem if the player highly values system mastery, as seems to be the case here. So a rules fix may be more palatable with permission for other PC changes to compensate, even a complete rebuild, or introducing a new PC.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 6, 2013)

innerdude said:


> Thanks all, these are some very good ideas for countering some of the effects.
> 
> I guess part of me is just depressed that I'm having to do it all, to a degree.



It's a by-product of different approaches to gaming. Some people absolutely want to min/max their characters. That is something they truly enjoy about gaming. For the rest of us, we either have to deal with it or find new friends with whom we can game. 



Enkhidu said:


> One of the table-policies I've adhered to over the years is respecting Mutually Assured Destruction. For example, I don't make baddies Scry/Buff/Teleport, or cast Disjunction, or equally nasty combinations unless the players cut loose with it first (after which it's fair game).
> 
> Have you thought about using an enemy (a rival, perhaps?) utilizing exactly the same combination?



Way, way back during 2E, I moved back to my hometown to discover an ongoing game in which one of the players had manipulated the house rules on weapons quite a bit. In short, his PC had a pike (reach=attack first) and a whip. He always got in the first attack and then disarmed his enemy to use that weapon.

When I ran the group for a session, I had five NPC villains show up with pikes and whips. They stole all of the PC's weapons and ran off. The player in question retired that PC before the next session. After that, nobody used the pike/whip combo ever again.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Dec 6, 2013)

I'd consider, for one thing, having a couple of opponents turn up using the exact same tactics/spells on the party -- after all, if it's that effective, it's not likely to remain a secret for long. 

And the ongoing cost of maintaining those spells (3/round total) means that he can't keep the spells up indefinitely.  Clever opponents will use waves of mooks to bleed away those power points before coming out to face the players once their spell points are gone. 

I'd be tempted to introduce a recurring villain who can start to shape some interesting tactics against the party -- an excuse, really, for opposition that learns and adapts.  They might resort to environmental hazards to try to weaken the party, too -- and to use the party's natural foolhardiness to trap them in deadly situations. 

-rg


----------



## Herobizkit (Dec 7, 2013)

I'm not savvy on Savage Worlds, but I'll ask anyhow.  His AC/Deflection might be through the roof, but does that also work on Arrows?  Bullets?  Traps/Hazards? AoE effects? Status effects?  Direct damage spells? 

Because at its core, you have a "Defender" who is also a too-competent "Striker".  Simply overwhelm him with numbers.  Practically every martial arts movie ever does it to the protagonist all the time.  Boring to run for YOU, perhaps... but is it that you're annoyed that he's "unbeatable" by standard tactics, or that you just haven't been more diverse in your combat 'arena' presentation?

Also, Send Big Things with Gobs of DR and HP.  They always have high AC's and +'s to hit.


----------



## Scorpio616 (Dec 7, 2013)

innerdude said:


> His contention to this point is that if I choose to house rule these spells (knowing that I will go bat-crap crazy if I don't), I'm essentially "ruining his fun," and negating all of his "hard work" to construct his character. In other words, rather than worrying about how this is not fun for me at all, or thinking of game balance, or the overall vibe at the table, he basically insists that I should be "rewarding" him for his "hard work" of rules mastery, where his idea of "reward" is easy encounters, so he can build up his loot stash to "buy epic gear."



House rule the spells immediately and tell him he should have known better. Maintaining Game Balance is EVERYONE's prerogative, not just the GM's. GM is just the one where the game breaker's buck stops at.


----------



## innerdude (Dec 7, 2013)

Herobizkit said:


> I'm not savvy on Savage Worlds, but I'll ask anyhow.  His AC/Deflection might be through the roof, but does that also work on Arrows?  Bullets?  Traps/Hazards? AoE effects? Status effects?  Direct damage spells?
> 
> Because at its core, you have a "Defender" who is also a too-competent "Striker".  Simply overwhelm him with numbers.  Practically every martial arts movie ever does it to the protagonist all the time.  Boring to run for YOU, perhaps... but is it that you're annoyed that he's "unbeatable" by standard tactics, or that you just haven't been more diverse in your combat 'arena' presentation?
> 
> Also, Send Big Things with Gobs of DR and HP.  They always have high AC's and +'s to hit.




The nature of the _Deflection_ spell in question is that the bonuses automatically apply to hand-to-hand, ranged, and area-of-effect. Which is frankly why it's more than slightly overpowered, in my opinion. 

Imagine _Mage Armor _ in D&D buffed up so that the total AC bonus was +10, and provided DR 5 / - against any and all area of effect spells, regardless of element type---while still being at most a second-level spell.


----------



## werecorpse (Dec 8, 2013)

I have a "system mastery guru" in my group. Whenever he finds a cunning way to exploit the rules  I just change them on the basis that his character is too powerful and the game I am running is not designed to cope with his character. Sometimes I tell him that I acknowledge that he has "won the game" but that I wish to continue playing without his character "build". He has come to accept this and now often acknowledged the rules loophole before I have to close it. That is the problem with any game as complex as most roleplaying games, even the simplified ones like savage worlds.

Specifically on savage worlds we banned quickness As being the most egregious spell in the book ( just behind summon ally )  but allowed deflection. Maybe you could take this path as a halfway house. Spells usually only last a few rounds and unless you are playing hellfrost you can just let him have his few rounds of protection and do the old d&d trick of resource depletion.

Btw you are playing the spells right using the deluxe rules IMO.


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 8, 2013)

Scorpio616 said:


> House rule the spells immediately and tell him he should have known better. Maintaining Game Balance is EVERYONE's prerogative, not just the GM's. GM is just the one where the game breaker's buck stops at.




Ok - I am going to push back and defend this PC. 

First, this is not a case of someone finding obscure rules and cobbling them together to Win the Game (tm). These are core rules and Powers, and the Powers are broad such that they encompass many of the spell concepts one sees in other fantasy games. Plus for those not familiar, Savage Worlds has some swing to it - there is no CR/XP "here is your encounter and you should survive with 25% of your resources expended, +/-2%." There are Bennies to mitigate that Swing for both the players and the GM. But there is not the pure "game balance" that most people think of when they think about D&D.

There is nothing egregious here.


What might help is if you post the character, including the progression. Savage Worlds does not have a true Dump Stat (tm), so everything has importance. Conceptually the player can either build a focused PC with some weaknesses or a broad PC with few weaknesses but is not as effective at any one thing. So to be a good warrior they need decent Strength (for damage), decent Agility, good Fighting, and solid Spirit and Vigor to take the shots. To be a good mage you need good Smarts, decent Spirit, and good Spellcasting skill, and Power Points. A good warrior picks up Edges that allows them to attack more targets, attack more often, or attack more in certain situations (First Strike, Counterstrike). A Mage picks up more Powers, more Power Points (to cast more spells), and Edges to help with spellcasting (Rapid Recharge).

So if this PC is blending the two, then they are sacrificing something to be able to pull it off. At Veteran I can have a Warrior type with Improved Frenzy which gives me an extra attack EVERY ROUND ALL THE TIME -  no power points needed. Instead of have d8 in Spellcasting I could have a 2 or 3 dice higher in Fighting which increases my Parry 2 EVERY ROUND ALL THE TIME (plus I will get more Raises, so more damage as well). Instead of picking up Spellcasting and an extra Power , I could have taken Edges like Two Fisted and Ambidextrous - which would give a second-hand attack at no penalty EVERY ROUND ALL THE TIME. I could easily have a swashbuckling swordsman with d12 Fighting and three attacks around with no penalties.

This PC is exchanging all that for some flexibility but at a steep price. They have to cast the spells (risking Backlash twice in the same round - you are enforcing Backlash, aren't you?). They have to spend a whole round doing this - using up 1 of the 3 "free" rounds of this (and using up 6 PPs to active). He has this going for 2 rounds then has to Maintain - that's 3PP per round and -2 to any other Arcane Skill check he decides to do (cast another spell). Then there is Disruption - if he takes damage (including Shaken) while his spells are Maintained he has to roll Spellcasting vs. the Damage and exceed it or he loses BOTH spells. If Shaken from a non-damage source (Tricks anyone?) then he still has to make Smarts Check (and I suspect he has not put much into this if he is more warrior based than spellcaster based). Keep in mind on the damaged version that he is at -2* since the penalty for any Maintained spells is for any arcane check (and minus and Wound Penalties he might have from the attack itself). If the PC is more Warrior build than Mage build, then they are going to run short of PPs. There are only so many fights they can get into with this tactic.

* (for those not familiar with Savage Worlds: -2 is a BIG penalty).

Quite frankly, he is just replicating a focused fighter-type with what you have describe. I think you institute this nerf you need to let him rebuild the PC, and I think you find he can replicate much of what he had without even using an arcane background - so it will be "active" 24/7 instead of just when he casts the spells.


As an aside, we did a full 0XP-100Xp campaign that had Psionist (my PC) and a "wizard" that eventually used Quickness and Bodyguard/Summon spells. My PC had neither, yet I felt my guy was as good overall as the other PC. His PC was really good at "taking out the trash" - lots of Extras would quickly disappear under the waves of creatures and Bolts. My PC was especially good at taking out Wild Cards - Telekinesis them out of the way, Puppet them, etc. After running and playing in Fantasy SW games  have no problem with Quickness and Bodyguard/Summoning spells a GM or player. What I did see was that since this other player and I ran rather focused PCs we could really rip things up in combat but we did have other holes in the game - weaknesses (if you ever hit my guy - it was touch and go if he would survive - a glass cannon) and less effective with the non-combat portions. The cool thing is that we likely will go back to this game as some point and I look to short up Weaknesses and other players can build up strengths - there is always some other advance to take!

Now Elan -- that one might be overpowered...I am not completely convinced it is, but another GM in the group would love to ban it.


----------



## Baumi (Dec 9, 2013)

Savage World Powers can be crazy powerfull and I don't think that Deflection even counts as broken (easy to counter with aim, group attacks, good skill, etc.). But Quickness is definitely very/too strong and be happy that you players don't use Summoning, which is real Campaign-Killer, since even the best Wild Cards are destroyed when you summon three ogres around the target which can then imminently attack with Ganging Up and Wild Attack Bonuses.

Retroactively changing rules is always bad form, but talk with the player, maybe you can find a good solution that will make you both happy (change the Effect for Quickness, exchange the Power to anyother one,..). 

Otherwise just remember that the Players can be very strong/imbalanced as much as they want .. you can send them infinitive amounts of enemies if you want 

And by the way you can just increase the "Savage" Part of your combats, why not let the Monsters use the same tricks or even nastier ones? That way players will learn to fear combat again and it should be only the last option to try. That doesn't mean that you should become a Killer-GM, just make the combats more difficult and trickier.


----------



## Grakarg (Dec 17, 2013)

I'd say that before you want to make any changes to his character, make sure you're running the rules correctly.  Perhaps an audit of the character sheet is in order as well.

As ameigoV mentioned, in order to be doing this he is likely sacrificing something else.

Monitor the power point usage.  He is spending a bunch of PPs to get this running (with a spellcraft penalty), plus more per round.  Normally PP's recharge at 1 per hour.  He likely can't pull this off every combat all the time, he'll run out of energy, so you can add a couple of small combats per day and he can run out of oomph before facing the big bad.  Its more like a 'daily' ability he should be reserving for big fights.

Deflection can be negated by various means.  For example, attacked by a small size critter, they get a +2 for the size difference, negating his deflection, and he is also at a -2 to attack them.

An often overlooked rule:  Drawing a weapon is an action...  cast a spell and draw a weapon=multiaction penalty on the spell.


----------

