Topic: House Rules for Utility Spells?

[Fornitus]

 In the new RMC books various spells have been clarified into "Utility" spells. This is a very good thing as are the other clarifications. IMHO.

 However, as a GM I have a problem with a amount of power (however small) being negated automaticaly by an Aura or Unconscious Will.
If the Utility spell cast is 75th lvl or some redicoulous thing, it should crush any such "automatic" negataiton on anyone below 30th LVL or so.

 So, as GM I have arbitrated a 50 to 100 pt penality for the CASTER of a Utility spell against an unwilling target.
 Example: Cleric wants to put a enemy into coma insted of killing them using Preservation on Life Mastery.
 If the enemy is awake and knows the Cleric is there, I gave the RR a +100 for the enemys benifit.
 If the enemy is already drunk and passed-out when the Cleric acts, the target gets a +50 RR. With touch, Prep rnds, and such the Cleric has a decent chance.
 
 This feels right as a balance issue to me.

 What do you all do in such situations? Do you just not allow the attempt?
 

[yammahoper]

I get an item with an arcane spell imbedded in it that changes spell type.  The spells come in wall, botl, ball, fog and storm form.  An elemental bolt of Preservation cant be resisted...though I would have to read preservation spell to see if I read it as causing a healthy person to be placed in a coma.

Arcane Companion.  Mungo say it good.

lynn

[Ecthelion]

What do you all do in such situations? Do you just not allow the attempt?

I don't own RMC Spell Law where the details of the Utility spells are probably clarified for RMC, but it seems strange that the clarifications allow a spell like Preservation to be used offensively at all. I use the RMSS/RMFRP rules and these explicitly state that Utility spells can only be used on willing targets or targets unable to resist (an unconscious person might be unable for example). Therefore I think you did the right change to make the abuse of Utility spells harder. I think you could even go so far to not permit such usage.

[markc]

 I do not have access to my RMC SL right now but I think Ecthelion is right in which the target has to be willing or they get a huge bonus to save. But I would check you book to be sure. IMO this is one good thing about a PDF as you can do a word search to fin the info fast.
MDC

[Marc R]

I think what he's saying is that the clarification in RMC SL states that you cannot directly affect the unwilling with a U spell, and that if you use trickery to make them willing, there are instances where treating the U as an F and doing the BAR/RR thing is appropriate.

He would prefer to be allowed to use U spells offensively, especially for dramatic contrast of target and spell level. (i.e. a 30th level U effect can be ignored by a 1st level target merely by being unwilling per the rules.)

My suggestion, is that if you are going to allow some or all U spells to be treated that way, to merely make U spells into F spells, but apply a penalty, as you have.

Do realise that certain low level U spells are sickly powerful if treated as F spells, and set the bonus accordingly. (It takes very little heat/cool solid/liquid to kill a person, and you can usually do it at less than 5th level.)

Your players should be made aware of this fact, and that the goose/gander logic means it can and will happen to them. (i.e. if they can boil someone's blood, then no whining when it happens to them.)

This isn't a game breaking modification, I've played in games where U are treated as F, no modifier at all, just straight BAR/RR effects. . .it had two noticeable effects on gameplay:

1) Shifted power signifigantly in favor of casters vs non casters.
2) Increased the number of spell failures, since BAR is more likely than BSC to produce them.

That's a high end "High magic game" house rule. . .you can moderate it with RR bonuses vs U, and/or by sticking with the text of the spells as written. (i.e. "Heat liquid" is not only a "U" spell, it also specifically states that it only works on inanimate liquids.)

[markc]

LM,
 I also think it would also increase the # of party members with resest "realm" spells acst upon them. So they could get a better chance of a save vs the U spells.

MDC

[Marc R]

I find that in high magic campaigns, defensive spells and magic items are deployed a lot more often.

[Fornitus]

 LM has my intent right. With those large penalities the game balance still seams to be ok. Just wana know how others handel it in their House Rules.

[KaBurr]

I don't allow the change you're talking about.  Teleporting someone a mile up, boiling their blood, only allowing them to breath water, shrinking someone's armour while they're in it, and so on are all insta-death spells.  That's a slippery slope I choose not to tread.

[Dreven1]

I tend to agree with KaBurr.  I know of a friend of mine (another GM) who allows characters to make attacks with Utility class spells.  There are...how shall we say...AWESOME and MAGNIFICANT spell combinations doing this.
Leaving on a target to 100' in the air... nice 100 foot fall/crush (which we all know that  tickles a little).
Teleport target straight into a rock wall... instant petrifaction and oil creation LOL!
Cast Portal on a targets chest...
Leaving on a targets weapon, armor, groin, skull bones, teeth, eyes...
etc...etc...etc... and this is JUST the LOFTY BRIDGE list!

I disallow this altogether as those spells never were really "tested" as attack spells I don?t believe.  Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous...

[Langthorne]

 However, as a GM I have a problem with a amount of power (however small) being negated automaticaly by an Aura or Unconscious Will.
If the Utility spell cast is 75th lvl or some redicoulous thing, it should crush any such "automatic" negataiton on anyone below 30th LVL or so.

 

There was a pretty big thread on the topic of Utility Spells a little while back (sorry, I'm not sure where it is now), which addressed a number of these issues in some detail (if you can find it, I'd say it is worth a read).

My opinion:

As a basic rule, a character who is unwilling to have a Utility spell cast on them is immune.

An unconscious character is unable to resist (just as an unconscious character gets no QU bonus Vs a battleaxe, or any other, attack ie there is no great unbalancing element here)

If a character agrees to have a utility spell cast on him but the spell cast is not the one agreed it can be cast as an F spell, with appropriate modifiers which also take into account the defender's Spell Lore and Power Awareness (beware who you trust - the world is not all sweetness and light, there are no tap backs)

I have no truck with the aura/unconscious will business.

[Fornitus]

 Langthorne- Would that mean in your worlds a target who wont know the spell is coming at all is still immune? Or do you just run it as a F spell?
 It sounds like an issue of choosing whether to reist or not in your campaigns.
 
 Dreven1- Isnt the point of being a PC to be the hero type? The guy who was able to figgure out how to use their spells just a little bit better than the rest of the "normal" aprentices?
 Your points have happened in our games of course- Long Door a gusrd off the top of a wall, ect. But is you look closely at those spells there is some automaitc mediation.
 For instance-
   Long Door is cast FROM the caster so it is in a straight line. The guard therefore falls (if they fail their RR, and dont forget the neg for targeting past the battelments...) generaly less than 60 feet due to the angle. Yes, still nasty.
   Portal can not be cast on an organic object. And is the GM rules the Portal takes a full round to form, the target can get a RR to get out of the way.
   Teleport can not have an intended "failure" as part of the casting. Putting people into stone only happens on an "unintended" failure. And for some reason we always play you need a solid surface to apear on. House Rule?

 So yes it can be a Pain for the GM to figgure, but the variations and posibilities are the reason we play Rolemaster instead of D+D dont you think?

[Langthorne]

Langthorne- Would that mean in your worlds a target who wont know the spell is coming at all is still immune? Or do you just run it as a F spell?
 It sounds like an issue of choosing whether to reist or not in your campaigns.
 

U spells require a willing target, so being unaware that the spell is coming would mean failure (unless unable to resist). The specific situation I am dealing with is when the recipient chooses to not resist the spell, but is then double crossed - in that case the spell would be treated as F with appropriate modifiers.

If the recipient/target made a successful Spell Lore roll I would rule that he could instantly choose to instead resist the double cross (and therefore it would fail), and, in the case of being targeted with a 'friendly' U spell, a successful Spell Lore role would allow the target to choose weather or not to resist based on full knowledge of the incoming spell.

(As was discussed in the old thread, the whole U spell issue is a bit of a thorny one. For me, the only grey areas are 'the double cross' and 'being unaware of a friendly U spell'. For the purpose of the existing rules, my solutions are above. For my own future campaigns, I am working on a 'marker/spell bond' type spell for the use of friendly U spells. My other plan of attack is to make some modifications to Channeling skill to allow the recipient to determine the parameters of the U spell eg Long Door)

[Dreven1]

Putting people into stone only happens on an "unintended" failure. And for some reason we always play you need a solid surface to apear on. House Rule?

 So yes it can be a Pain for the GM to figgure, but the variations and posibilities are the reason we play Rolemaster instead of D+D dont you think?

Fornitus, you are SO right about playing this game over DND, I LOVE Rolemaster?s diversity!!!!

However, some of the variations (in fact most that I have found) were WAY overpowered if you leave them all up to situational analysis or ?off the cuff? calls when players dream up a new way to use a ?U? spell?

It?s just a house rule of mine that I think works well (that I don?t allow Utility (U) class spells cast on an unwilling target.) I also allow instant recognition of a spell incoming that does not "feel" like the accepted incoming spell effect... e.g. Marko the magician tries to sneakily (is that a word?!  ) cast teleport on a now ?willing? target when the target was told to be willing to accept a healing spell of some sort...

Its just a bit more fair I believe... I mean, players sit around all day dreaming up fantastical ways to manipulate the diversity of the game "mechanics" themselves when GM's are off dreaming up places, dates, monsters, layouts, spells, situations, NPCs, scenarios, etc...

If I had the time I would research EVERY ?U? spell and make a ruling per each?I just don?t have the time?
I think I could come up with some nice ones though? after all?if the players can dream some up? can?t GM?s?   e.g. I would have every underhanded priest try to trick every PC into say teleporting them into a room of vacuum and then simply just taking their "tithe" from the cold dead bodies instead of ever asking for donations! LOL!

[Arioch]

You may also find useful these official rulings on Utility Spells:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=faq#faq_13

[Langthorne]

You may also find useful these official rulings on Utility Spells:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=faq#faq_13

Or you might find that they are just another imperfect solution to the problem (with the added disadvantage of  recourse to a 'Deus ex machina' type solution).

The Awaken spell is a good example:

Char A is asleep

Char B wishes to wake him up using Awaken spell

Why should we now ask why? Why should that affect whether char A resists? Is the spell inherently not beneficial?

eg Char B believes they are being attacked. Char A is very tired and needs the sleep. Char B casts Awaken. They are not actually being attacked (char B is paranoid/failed his surveilance roll). Does A resist? How is it that A can be aware (asleep) of what B does not know whilst awake (without a Sit Aware Sleep roll)?

If in the next 10 seconds a tree falls onto where A is sleeping, should that affect whether A resists or not?

MANY more examples available.

[Dreven1]

You may also find useful these official rulings on Utility Spells:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=faq#faq_13

Or you might find that they are just another imperfect solution to the problem (with the added disadvantage of  recourse to a 'Deus ex machina' type solution).

The Awaken spell is a good example:

Char A is asleep

Char B wishes to wake him up using Awaken spell

Why should we now ask why? Why should that affect whether char A resists? Is the spell inherently not beneficial?

Would it be to simple to just ask the target player involved in the spell  Basically "do you want to resist or not?" and allow the player to make the decision based on how she perceives the caster's intention? (whether she is asleep or not, etc is irreverent imho)

[Langthorne]

It would be simple to ask what the sleeping character wants...but it goes against consistency and believability (and dare I say it, roleplaying).

Sometimes my character can do things I can't. Sometimes I know things my character does not know.

If I was to give a longer solution to the question, I would go through every spell and address the issues raised by spell type Vs asleep Vs unconscious. But that is for another time.

[Arioch]

It would be simple to ask what the sleeping character wants...but it goes against consistency and believability (and dare I say it, roleplaying).

Magic's believability? 

[Dreven1]

Hiya Langthorne, I do hear your point. I was more referring to the "Involuntary" vs. "Voluntary" reactions that our bodies have and actually placing that "involuntary" action in-game context.

E.g. in Real-life(RL) we don?t have to "think" to make our hearts beat or to make our eyes blink. However, we can voluntarily make our eyes move.

In a situation where someone casts a utility spell on us (U class) then if we are awake, conscious, etc we can make a "voluntary" override with the effect - either accept or not accept. BUT when we are target of a malicious spell even though it is U class our bodies react to it involuntarily (not necessarily ?accepting? or ?denying? anything)

Now you could say that the GM simply decides what is malicious (because he/she knows all the facts) and would either make it work or not work according to the circumstance. But I feel that instead of placing that involuntary action (which in RL happens for us automatically) up to the GM that its placed on the person being affected.

In summation, the persons "body conscientiousness" is actually being decided by a conscious player.

Make sense? At least that is the way I would justify it, and your right...it?s a Roleplaying game... stuff like this is hard to nail down with 2 dimensional rules!