Bloody Versus...Sword vs. Sorcery

[DarthMidget]

So, it's come up a few times in game where we have a Bloody Versus in which one character uses a Sword (or other stabby thing) and the other uses Sorcery. What I've been doing is just testing the whatever-melee skill vs. straight sorcery skill and kind of assuming a damaging spell is cast if the sorcerer does any hits.

Has anyone else had this come up in play? And if so, how did you adjudicate it?

[luke]

I do the same, but I let the Sorcerer state his intent (what he wants) and task (what spell he's casting). He doesn't necessarily have to cold kill a man.

-L

[DarthMidget]

Ah, definitely no killing required, for example, last night the player used Emperor's Hands.

[Totally Guy]

That's cool.

Do you add obstacle modifiers if the spell takes many actions or the stated spell has a particularly high obstacle?

[luke]

The spell has to be quick. Long spells aren't appropriate.

[Fuseboy]

Much in the same way that you don't do Oratory vs. Sword skill to talk someone out of killing you - fighting trumps talking.

But what about Obstacles? If you're doing Sword vs. an Ob 3^ direct damage spell, does the sorcerer need to blow three successes on just successfully casting? Or is it straight Sorcery vs. Sword?

On the one hand, Sorcery vs. Sword seems fair, but I've become somewhat wary of these straight versus tests, as it implies a level playing field that doesn't feel right - the other example being using Stealthy Close to approach somewhere where there's not a lot of cover (scrub land). One way to do it would be to give the sorcerer +1D or even +2D for a super long reach weapon, but make him test against Ob 3 and only compare his extra successes against the sword wielder.

[Nihilium]

Is the "Sorcery Vs <skill>"-test an easy way to get difficult sorcery-tests? (in stead of learning new spells and whatnot?). Also, Sorcery has an innate failure consequence, what of it?