Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: Dark Schneider on October 14, 2007, 04:58:18 AM
-
This topic could be used for everyone that have doubts about a spell and how to use it.
we can use the following format to specify the spell, so it can be easily viewed when scrolling down the topic.
|---------------|
| SPELL: firewall |
|---------------|
I open this with the 'firewall' spell, it is 'E' type so there is not RR, but do you allow to cast in a place coincident with a resistant entity (one that could resist with a RR)?. So how do you manage it?, we have some possibilities:
- Demand RRs for any resistant entity in the area of effect, and if anyone success then the spell fails.
- Don't allow to cast the spell in a place where there are resistant entities.
- You allow to cast it, as it is 'E' type there is not RR and then all in the area of effect suffer the 'A' heat critical.
I suppose that all of us are agree that this is not problem for the 'fire law' level 7 spell 'summon flames' (I think in english this is the name), because it takes 1 complete round to create the cube of flames so it can be easily evaded if you can move (obviously this spell is for other uses). This spell can be casted with no limit.
-
There are several options. The easiest would be to use an RR only to see if the target moves out f the way before the wall forms, as it is only 1' thick.
Or use the targeting skill.
lynn
-
I think thier is a ruleing that all wall spells cannot be cast if thier is an opposing object in the way. So the firewall spell would fail.
MDC
-
I simply don't allow to cast it in a space occupied by someone, but you can place it right in front of him!
-
If a wall is solid, that makes good sense. But for walls of wind, fire, light or cold, who cares if there is anything there? Especially something that can move, and if it is a firewall, will move as soon as possible.
All space is occupied unless it is a vacuum. A little jurisprudence is sometimes called for by GM's. The rules cannot cover it all.
lynn
-
If a wall is solid, that makes good sense. But for walls of wind, fire, light or cold, who cares if there is anything there? Especially something that can move, and if it is a firewall, will move as soon as possible.
All space is occupied unless it is a vacuum. A little jurisprudence is sometimes called for by GM's. The rules cannot cover it all.
lynn
I think the problem is the auto crit or damage if the person is inside the wall.
MDC
-
Well, they get an RR to avoid it. Perhaps for some a mnv would be more appropriate. Or use of other skills.
lynn
-
Persons passing through a wall do not receive a RR to avoid the damage.
If somebody asked for an official ruling, I would have to give one of two answers
1) Wall can be cast where person is standing, but that person can move off of that location quite easily as the wall forms (i.e. it does not form instantaneously) -- perhaps consider it to be a mandatory 10% activity movement, and the person does NOT take damage from the wall in this manner.
or
2) Since the wall is not a physical attack like a bolt or ball, and since it is not a RR based attack, the wall spell should most likely be dual classed as both Elemental and Utility, and thus not allowed to be cast on a person on a location where a person is without that person's permission.
I would be more likely to to with the first potential ruling though...
-
I think the best is not to allow to cast the spell on an not free location.
-
IIRC the current (RMFRP) Spell Law also explicitly states that e.g. a Fire Wall cannot be cast on a non-free location i.e. directly on a person.
-
I do not think the intent is to cast the spell on a person, but on an area the person is standing in/sleepiing in/etc. The person would have time to move, as it takes at least several seconds for the wall to form, but the spell will not move with the person because they are not the target...and it is a wall, of course.
lynn
-
It's one of those iffy calls. . .I'd go with Tim's 1 above.
It's easy to avoid, I'd even consider it "casual" non activity movement. (Wall is not thick enough to constitute 10% move for any but the slowest entity). . .I would force the combatant to select which side of the wall they choose to place themselves on with their casual step off the hot spot.
OTOH if you're chained to the wall and I choose to fire wall you while my henchmen fetch the BBQ sauce, you'd get cooked. . . .Then again, if I ordered my henchman to use the BBQ forks on you, I'd call that one of those "Medium moving maneuver to kill helpless target" results.
I have no problem with utility spells being almost unstoppably fatal when used in a really smart way under the right conditions.
Another example of that kind of U effect:
5 orcs chase melvin the magician up the narrow stairs of the tower to the roof, getting there ahead of the orcs, melvin finds the top of the tower a wrecked ruin of rubble. . .200# Melvin uses multiple Teleport spells to shift large 100-200# chunks of rubble so they fall down the stairs.
Now, in a narrow stairwell, the orcs are pulp unless there's some sort of freakish luck. . .no place to run, no place to hide. . .perhaps a roll to see if a rubble chunk jams in the stairwell or bounds overhead by freak chance.
I'd let a 101 ST fighter toss those same rocks down the stairs, so I have no problem with a mage doing it with magic.
-
I agree that the problem is with a taregt that cannot move out of the way for what ever reason. I think it is easyest if you have the same rule for walls as you do for the pit spells. ie you cannot open a pit if someone is above it and you cannot cast wall spells if an unapproved target is in the way.
Now that said using a differnt iniatiative system can solve a lot of those problems. When does the spell go off? Is the target in the area of effect or not? But the biggest problem is with targets that for whatever reason unable to get out of the area of effect.
Another option is using a scaling style with walls spells with something like if you have 5 ranks above the spell the spell wiil push targets out of the way, if you have 10 ranks above the spell then you can have it form over targets.
MDC
-
You can't cast a pit spell if someone is above it? Why? Do they stop the earth from disapearing?
Weird man, weird :-\
lynn
-
I think of it this way
If you cat a fire wall on an area then it creates a wal of fire that those passing through take the effect of as it is after all a wall of fire.
However if there is someone their in the area it is cast their aura (call it what you will) can effect or disrupt the spell so they get a RR and if they succeed they disrupt the spell and stop it forming.
same with pit or any similar spell (and at a push utility spells but heavily weighted)
-
You can't cast a pit spell if someone is above it? Why? Do they stop the earth from disapearing?
Weird man, weird :-\
lynn
I do not remember the book right now but I think it was the Essence Comp that ironed out these rules. I have not been playing RM for a time so the books and rulings are not freash in my system.
MDC
Edit,
I do not know but I think the pit spell is a U spell so it cannot be used as an attack spell. But that is off the top of my head.
MDC
-
It may be a U spell...but it is not being cast on a target that can resist, unless it was cast on warded floors or earth.
Perhaps i am far more permissive than I even imagined ???
lynn
-
It might also depend on how much your 'aura area' covers for resisting things. For example if you are riding on a horse and a spell is cast on the saddle, do you use the horse's, the character's or the saddle's level for determinging the RR?
-
I think the book rule actually covers that as "Whichever is best" in instances where your personal save vs a gear save are on the line. In my opinion that would mean that if two being's auras cover one object, the RR would be the best of mount, rider or saddle.
If it's a mithril plated ancient arcane saddle of ridership +50 it might innately resist at a higher level than the rider or mount.
if Joe the 3rd level fighter is perched in a normal leather saddle on his 20th level sea dragon mount, a spell on the saddle would RR as a 20th level sea dragon.
If it's normal leather and joe is 20th level on a 3rd level horse, then joe's RR applies.
I'd think the "You may just move" is the best option, otherwise, if it's "You may not in someone's space". . .you could play games like trying to jump yourself into the way of U spells to block them. (I'd call that making yourself "Willing" if a player tried it.)
-
Bad example with the horse & saddle. What I was trying to convey is how far does your RR aura extend? Depending on how far, it could affect the ground beneath your feet or the air above your head. Would it apply to a chair you are sitting on or wall you are touching?
-
I'm pretty sure it's just your direct vicinity. Like objects you are holding or directly in contact with. . .
i.e. You cast heat liquid on soaking wet joe, it won't work, but if you cast it on a puddle joe is standing in, it just won't work directly in contact with joe, but it would heat most of the puddle, which will then heat the water next to joe's legs, etc, etc. . .at best it just offers you a chance to move before becoming soup.
I never got the feeling that those spells are intended to never be offensive, I just think they didn't want you to be boiling people's blood, or waiting for a rainy day to boil people in their clothes.
Like the teleported large rock squish. . . .
If you teleport a rock over my head, I'd say that odds are I'll have time to step away and avoid being squashed. . .unless I am unaware of you, or chained to the floor, or stuck climbing a narrow stairwell. . .
Creative use should have benefits, and sometimes that creativity should mean an almost definite kill. . . .if you set someone up to catch them perfectly, U spells are REALLY dangerous.
-
whew, okay, I am quite 'done' with the firewall discussion. (pun, though barely visible, totally intended.) Let's bring up at least one other spell...
|-------------------|
| SPELL: Poison Lore |
|-------------------|
...Off of Nightblade's lists. Or any other "grants X ranks of Y Lore" spell. I already commented in another thread(the professions used) that I don't like knowledge-granting spells. What is to keep a character from repeatedly casting the lore spell (esp. Poison Lore, I think that one's 1st or 2nd lvl) and writing down as much as possible each time. Eventually they would have thier own lore book. I would think they'd pick *something* up after all that writing. Force them to spend dp's on poison lore?
-
It's magic. . .
Like, the "Diagnosis" spell off of Midwifery ways is a star trek sick bay. . .doesn't make the caster a doctor. . .you just know everything wrong with the patient.
Like, you could just have an empathic sense of how to use the poison, without actually understanding it. If you write it down, you have instructions for that poison. . .with no ranks, you'd not recognize another bottle as the same poison.
it's sort of like the prescription on the side of a bottle. "Take 2 by mouth 4 times a day, with meals." then a 2 page pamphlet sometimes. . .
Neither of those make you a doctor or a pharmacist, you just now have instructions about this bottle of poison. If I came over and poured out the contents, and poured in sugar, your character with no lores wouldn't know unless they cast again.
-
You can't cast a pit spell if someone is above it? Why? Do they stop the earth from disapearing?
Weird man, weird :-\
lynn
Yeah, The real issue is that you cannot try to explain magic with logic. The two are mutually exclusive. Logical magic would be science :)
-
Ah. Well, I do not seek an explanation why it works, but only why it shouldnt work because of the presence of X where the spell is going to form a pit. Will a castle wall stop it? A tree stump? Rain? A large puddle? A large puddle with living fish or tadpoles in it?
Even more to the point, I have never seen this odd rule about a barrier pit not froming because something is above where the pit will form. It certainly isn't in the spell description (pg 156 RMFRP).
lynn
-
let the GM decide, often too much emphasis is placed on the rules, and not enough on GMs instinct, if you don't want to use GM instinct and common sense, D&D is a good alternative, where there is a rule somewhere for everything.
Personally I play it by ear, and decide on each situation as it comes along, and not always in the same way, after all life isn't perfect, so GMs don't have to be either.
-
Case of the wall: I'd allow the 'target' a relatively easy maneuver to get out of the way, e.g. tumbling or whatever skill the player suggested based on the character.
Case of the pit case beneath a character: same thing, allow the character a chance to move before the spell casting was completed.
In either case, if the caster 'snapped' the spell (i.e. cast as instantaneous), the 'target' would have a much more difficult time avoiding the spell area, however they should still get some chance, either at a higher difficulty level, or perhaps a Qu based RR to get out of the way.
-
IMO the best method to manage the LORE spells is giving the caster 'resources' as we read in SOHK page 17, with a default bonus of +25 for low level spells and +50 for medium level spells, unless indicated another bonus in spell description.
Lore spells are usually very low level and I don't see correct that they gives you directly ALL knowledge needed with no development cost.
An example: we have a lay-healer with 5 ranks in diagnose (know. lvl. 4). This allow him to diagnose diseases (or wounds) with a maximum of rarity 4 (or medium dificulty), if he uses the lore spells, he gains an additional +25 bonus to maneuver rolls and his knowledge level is doubled to 8 (the maximum allowed by research).
The resources effect is that you can try a LORE maneuver with double his knowledge level (see bellow).
In SOHK we read: "A character cannot attemp a Lore maneuver if...(rarity)...exceeds twice the char. know. lvl.", and next we read: "If...(rarity)...do not exceed char. know. lvl., he can attemp maneuver with no resources. Otherwise, the maneuver requires research (and resources).".
So this tell us that with resources we have our knowledge level doubled as maximum.
-
The resources effect is that you can try a LORE maneuver with double his knowledge level (see bellow).
In SOHK we read: "A character cannot attemp a Lore maneuver if...(rarity)...exceeds twice the char. know. lvl.", and next we read: "If...(rarity)...do not exceed char. know. lvl., he can attemp maneuver with no resources. Otherwise, the maneuver requires research (and resources).".
So this tell us that with resources we have our knowledge level doubled as maximum.
Oh, interesting. Is it worded similarly anywhere in RM2? I don't remember any description other than "you get x ranks". I might have to update my players, tell them they know more than they thought.
-
But then here is a problem, Nightblade is a RM2 profession, and I am talking about RMFRP rules.
In that case I see correct "add x ranks", but then is GM job to limit the knowledge based in ranks with no base rules.
I really recommend to RM players the change to RMFRP.
-
I really recommend to RM players the change to RMFRP.
(see the Thanks to ICE thread, it's locked.)
-
But then here is a problem, Nightblade is a RM2 profession, and I am talking about RMFRP rules.
In that case I see correct "add x ranks", but then is GM job to limit the knowledge based in ranks with no base rules.
I really recommend to RM players the change to RMFRP.
Or post in the RMFRP section of the forums? ;)
-
I've used a house rule for a while that lore spells give +50 to lore skills (unless the spell says otherwise)....otherwise it makes no sense to even develop the skill! I don't use knowledge ranks, only the bonus so don't deal with adding ranks.
-
I think thier is a ruleing that all wall spells cannot be cast if thier is an opposing object in the way. So the firewall spell would fail.
MDC
But in the case of a firewall spell even if you placed the wall within 1" of a target the target would still get severely burned.
-
Ah. Well, I do not seek an explanation why it works, but only why it shouldnt work because of the presence of X where the spell is going to form a pit. Will a castle wall stop it? A tree stump? Rain? A large puddle? A large puddle with living fish or tadpoles in it?
Even more to the point, I have never seen this odd rule about a barrier pit not froming because something is above where the pit will form. It certainly isn't in the spell description (pg 156 RMFRP).
lynn
It is for game mechanics. The same argument is made for not being able to create a wall inside someone or teleport someone into a solid object. It would make lower level spells much more powerful than they are now. Artificial limitations are used to regulate a spells power. In the case of the pit I would rule it possible.
-
Yeah, The real issue is that you cannot try to explain magic with logic. The two are mutually exclusive. Logical magic would be science :)
Well I for one approve of a scientific explanation of magical effects... Not hard science maybe, but at least consistent and rational.
-
I think thier is a ruleing that all wall spells cannot be cast if thier is an opposing object in the way. So the firewall spell would fail.
MDC
It has been a while since I read the fire wall spell but I think it says when you move through the wall you take damage, not if you are with in X feet you take damage.
MDC
But in the case of a firewall spell even if you placed the wall within 1" of a target the target would still get severely burned.
-
I think thier is a ruleing that all wall spells cannot be cast if thier is an opposing object in the way. So the firewall spell would fail.
MDC
It has been a while since I read the fire wall spell but I think it says when you move through the wall you take damage, not if you are with in X feet you take damage.
MDC
But in the case of a firewall spell even if you placed the wall within 1" of a target the target would still get severely burned.
I believe once the wall is created it is normal fire. You cannot stand 1 inch away from a raging bonfire without getting burnt.
-
Riverstyx,
I agree with you but it is not a normal fire but a magical fire. Also it might have changed in the new version of spell law for RMC as I do not have it. But IMO magical stuff is allways a problem or at least a time to make you take another look at things.
Thier is another thread on if magic has to obay the laws of physics or not and this could be a case in point.
MDC
-
I believe once the wall is created it is normal fire. You cannot stand 1 inch away from a raging bonfire without getting burnt.
If it become normal fire once created, then it would not have a duration, but just burn as long as there is combustible material to feed the fire...
-
Magical fire. Fire does not sit in one spot and burn in the shape of a neatly formed wall! Would a GM allow wind spells and the like to move a fire wall? I would not. The wall is fueled by magic and burns by magic. I would allow a fire wall to form underwater, generating a great deal of steam, just like I allow firebolts to be cast under water (and use water bolt table with heat crits).
lynn
-
|----------------------|
| SPELL: magical shield |
|----------------------|
There are diferent for any realm, if we do nothing in the entire round, we can parry the spell attack, but IMO the parry is very weak for losing the complete round (10+skill rank), I think it should be 10+skill bonus, so we can add our profession and stat bonus too.