Topic: Spellcasting Questions

[pastaav]

Q1: Can one prepare a spell and cast another spell in the same round (mindful of total % activity limitations of the round)? e.g. for a normal 100% activity round, preparing a spell and casting a separate instantaneous spell. e.g. if the caster has 200% activity in a round, preparing a spell and casting a separate non-instantaneous spell.

Please comment on validity of the following scenario. A caster prepares(90% activity) spell(A). In the remaining 10% activity of the same round he casts an instantaneous spell(B). The following round he casts spell(B) with the benefit of 1 round of preparation. Would the comments be any different if the instantaneous spell was cast before the preparation (both) in the first round?

Check the following discussion http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=9807

Q2: If a spell is prepared for a number of rounds before casting does the caster need to shout during both the prep rounds and the casting round to get the shout bonus for SCSM?

For game balance reason perhaps, but honestly I never thought about it before so I need to think it over. Shouting during preparation would in practice make overcasting spell impossible in many game situations. I think I would be inclined to rule he does not need to shout because spell preparation and spell casting are different actions.

Q3: Can one choose to cast what is normally an instantaneous spell in a non-instantaneous manner (and benefit from any preparation rounds)?

No

Q4: Can one concentrate on an existing (already cast) spell and cast another spell in the same round (mindful of total % activity limitations of the round. see Q1)?

I would say yes, only possible if you are hasted of course.

Q5: If a caster has 200% activity in a round does preparing a spell that round count effectively as 2 rounds of preparation for purposes of SCSM modifications? Is the answer any different if the increased activity in a single round is due to a) Adrenal Speed b) Speed spell c) Haste.

Yes

[djmarvanek]

Thanks 

I agree. For me it comes down to recognising that spell preparation and spell casting are separate and different activities.  The rules (at least RMSS) make this pretty clear. It is nothing like stretching out the spell casting over a number of rounds.

Also those with opposing views appear to assume (subconsciously?) that the preparation itself involves (prior to the actual spell casting) manipulation of the essence. As far as I can tell the rules do not actively support this assumption either.

Now just need to convince my GM.

BTW

...

Q4: Can one concentrate on an existing (already cast) spell and cast another spell in the same round (mindful of total % activity limitations of the round. see Q1)?

I would say yes, only possible if you are hasted of course.
...

Note haste(or speed) not required to cast an instantaneous spell the same round as concentration (it is still <= 100% action).

[markc]

  As for the concentration and spell casting question above, IIRC it was talked about somewhere and ruled that you could concentrate on one spell 50% activity and cast another spell by subtracting the 50% activity off every round for concentration.  So it takes twice as long to cast normally when concentrating.


  Now having said that IMHO the GM's game world takes preference over the rules if there are game world reasons for the changes. Also some GM's just do not like some rules so they drop them from the game at the beginning.
  So I would bring to the attention of the GM the opinions here about the rulings but not push it too much as some GM's can get put off by it. I would also try and contact them before the game (by email or something) so they have time to think about it and read the comments. In my game if a player brings up a rule question that seems different from my interpretation I reserve the right to rule on it next game at the earliest as I would like time to think about it and do my own research.


 Also another note you cannot cast more than 1 spell a round no matter what. That is a sold rule in the book (I sometimes rule against this if it is an instant spell from an item and a normal spell to have some balance between non-spells users and spell users, but that is a house rule I occasionally use.) that very few change ever as it preserves game balance.


 Haste and other such cases; most rule that these increase physical activity and not mental activity but I do remember a herb that allowed for x2 mental activity and x2 spell casting. But that herb was a home item in a home game so it is not by any means official.


MDC

[Ecthelion]

Q3: Can one choose to cast what is normally an instantaneous spell in a non-instantaneous manner (and benefit from any preparation rounds)?

I agree with the answers to the other questions, but this one I'd answer differently and say yes, it should be allowed.

[djmarvanek]

...
Now having said that IMHO the GM's game world takes preference over the rules if there are game world reasons for the changes. Also some GM's just do not like some rules so they drop them from the game at the beginning.
...

This is also a strong belief of mine, even though I rarely GM. A GM typically puts in the most effort to to run a game so I think they should be able to run it how they prefer. Our GM is interested in other points of view and influenced by official rulings on these forums. Hence my posts.

David

[markc]

...
Now having said that IMHO the GM's game world takes preference over the rules if there are game world reasons for the changes. Also some GM's just do not like some rules so they drop them from the game at the beginning.
...

This is also a strong belief of mine, even though I rarely GM. A GM typically puts in the most effort to to run a game so I think they should be able to run it how they prefer. Our GM is interested in other points of view and influenced by official rulings on these forums. Hence my posts.

David

 No problem I just have seen quite a few angry GM's posts after players ask questions. I have also been a GM that it has happened to. The guy loved to argue and find little things from sources to drive me crazy.


 Send him over to ask questions and I am sure everyone will pitch in. Hopefully we will all not confuse him too much as quite often everyone uses house rules and I know I am guilty of thinking a house rule was an official rule.


 So Haste, Speed and herbs do not count towards spell casting %'s. But you can concentrate for 100% and then do something else for a 100% if the GM rules it does not break your concentration or ability to cast the spell.


MDC
   

[yammahoper]

I almost always prefer flexible.

Take spell casting, which requires 75% activity.  We/I generated a house rule long ago that if concentrating on a spell another spell could be cast.  The unmodified chance of spell failure is double the missing activity needed to normally cast the spell.

First, all spells require a static casting spell mnv with an additional penalty equal to twice the missing activity.  Spell failures here are handled normally with an additional penalty equal to
double the unmodified chance of spell failure.

So if a mage is concentrating and wants cast sleep on a foe, the unmodified chance of failure is 01-54.  If the spell fails, it rolls a fumble with double the unmodified chance of spell failure, as above (in this example +108).

A fire bolt would require the SCSM and then roll its attack with a -50 OB mod, with an unmodified roll of 01-54 indicating spell failure; roll the fumble.

Instantaneous spells in these situations are treated as requiring 75% activity (like in the old days).

This has occured several times in game, with some interesting fumbles.  Note that Spell Fumbles are not open ended.

[djmarvanek]

...This has occured several times in game, with some interesting fumbles.  Note that Spell Fumbles are not open ended.

I assume you mean that spell fumbles are not open ended in your house rules. FRP rules clearly state that the roll on the Spell Failure table is high open-ended.

The reminds me of another question I have.

Q: Rolemaster SS - Standard Rules, Spell Casting Static Maneuver Table T-4.5 states that in the cases of failure you are required to roll on the Spell Failure Table 6.6 and add (varying multiples) of applicable modifications from the Spell Casting Modifications Table T-4.6. Is this to be taken literally in that a positive(+) modification on the table is to be applied as a positive(+) modification to the Spell Failure roll, and a negative(-) modification on the table is to be applied as a negative(-) modification to the Spell failure roll? This would translate to the better your chances were of casting the spell (large positive modification) the worse the effects are likely to be if it fails. Conversely if you had a very poor chance of casting the spell (large negative modification) the less severe the effects are likely to be if it fails.

I must admit that in the past our group has been (subconsciously) inverting the modification before applying it to the Spell Failure roll. The logic being that the worse the conditions are for casting the worse the effects will be if it fails. This had the effect of discouraging overcasting spells significantly higher than the caster's level.

Happy to play it either way. I can think of lines of reasoning that sort of make sense as the rules state it. e.g. The more chance you had of casting the spell the more magical energy you were able to summon and therefore the worse the effects are if you lose control of the spell, but it does have the consequence of making the effects of spell failure less severe the more ambitiously you overcast, which seems a little odd.

Can someone please confirm exactly how to apply the modifications on table T-4.6 to the spell failure roll?

[pastaav]

Q: Rolemaster SS - Standard Rules, Spell Casting Static Maneuver Table T-4.5 states that in the cases of failure you are required to roll on the Spell Failure Table 6.6 and add (varying multiples) of applicable modifications from the Spell Casting Modifications Table T-4.6. Is this to be taken literally in that a positive(+) modification on the table is to be applied as a positive(+) modification to the Spell Failure roll, and a negative(-) modification on the table is to be applied as a negative(-) modification to the Spell failure roll? This would translate to the better your chances were of casting the spell (large positive modification) the worse the effects are likely to be if it fails. Conversely if you had a very poor chance of casting the spell (large negative modification) the less severe the effects are likely to be if it fails.

There was an errata for that some years back that says you only supposed to use the negative modifications and that you should really subtract them so that they make the spell failure worse (alternate way to say it is that should add the absolute value of the negative modifications and ignore the positive ones). Correct math descriptions was not a strong area for the designers of RMSS.

[Hubbaman]

Q: Rolemaster SS - Standard Rules, Spell Casting Static Maneuver Table T-4.5 states that in the cases of failure you are required to roll on the Spell Failure Table 6.6 and add (varying multiples) of applicable modifications from the Spell Casting Modifications Table T-4.6. Is this to be taken literally in that a positive(+) modification on the table is to be applied as a positive(+) modification to the Spell Failure roll, and a negative(-) modification on the table is to be applied as a negative(-) modification to the Spell failure roll? This would translate to the better your chances were of casting the spell (large positive modification) the worse the effects are likely to be if it fails. Conversely if you had a very poor chance of casting the spell (large negative modification) the less severe the effects are likely to be if it fails.

I made a tread about this some time ago. You can read Rasyrs response there.
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=9661.msg124359#msg124359

[yammahoper]

...This has occured several times in game, with some interesting fumbles.  Note that Spell Fumbles are not open ended.

I assume you mean that spell fumbles are not open ended in your house rules. FRP rules clearly state that the roll on the Spell Failure table is high open-ended.

The reminds me of another question I have.

Q: Rolemaster SS - Standard Rules, Spell Casting Static Maneuver Table T-4.5 states that in the cases of failure you are required to roll on the Spell Failure Table 6.6 and add (varying multiples) of applicable modifications from the Spell Casting Modifications Table T-4.6. Is this to be taken literally in that a positive(+) modification on the table is to be applied as a positive(+) modification to the Spell Failure roll, and a negative(-) modification on the table is to be applied as a negative(-) modification to the Spell failure roll? This would translate to the better your chances were of casting the spell (large positive modification) the worse the effects are likely to be if it fails. Conversely if you had a very poor chance of casting the spell (large negative modification) the less severe the effects are likely to be if it fails.

I must admit that in the past our group has been (subconsciously) inverting the modification before applying it to the Spell Failure roll. The logic being that the worse the conditions are for casting the worse the effects will be if it fails. This had the effect of discouraging overcasting spells significantly higher than the caster's level.

Happy to play it either way. I can think of lines of reasoning that sort of make sense as the rules state it. e.g. The more chance you had of casting the spell the more magical energy you were able to summon and therefore the worse the effects are if you lose control of the spell, but it does have the consequence of making the effects of spell failure less severe the more ambitiously you overcast, which seems a little odd.

Can someone please confirm exactly how to apply the modifications on table T-4.6 to the spell failure roll?

Chuckles...nope, when stating a house rule I will note it is a house rule.  I am not prefect to be sure, but the rules are well read me.

OTOH, I've been wrong before.  I'm open to correction.

[djmarvanek]

Not sure about other versions of the rules but quoting from FRP  Rolemaster of Essence - Spell Law #5804P section 15.6 pg. 104

"When a spell fails, a high open-ended roll is made and
applied to the appropriate section of the Spell Failure Table
14.6 (p. 99). Then, the results are applied to the spell caster"

[VladD]

You are looking in the section where the designers are explaining the rules, in simplified form, to people that do not play RM, but are using the book to enhance their fav system.
I've seen it happen too many times not to notice, during my own games. But of course some of it is correct, except it doesn't give the complete rulings.
 
Game on!

[Doridian]

[...]
I agree. For me it comes down to recognising that spell preparation and spell casting are separate and different activities.  The rules (at least RMSS) make this pretty clear. It is nothing like stretching out the spell casting over a number of rounds.
[...]

Just my 5 cents on the question.

For sure nothing prevents a spell to be cast in the same round another spell is prepared; but I would rule anyway that an instantaneous spell does interrupt a spell preparation: in the same round a spell user could cast an instantaneous spell (say as a Snap Action) and then start preparing a spell (say as a Normal Action) but not the reverse.

Otherwise I find that it would open other problems to solve. First of all, I think that it would otherwise limit the usefulness of a spell like Identify Casting (Spell Reins, level 2): it's only my opinion, but I find that Identify Casting would be quite useless if it cannot work on a spell during preparation but only on the actual time frame of the casting action. You would detect which spell is, but you could not do anything because you would have no time (needing to wait for the next round). At least, if you can target a spell during preparation (i.e.: if preparation is indeed like stretching out the spell casting) you have at least one round to react (with another spell).

Ale 

[djmarvanek]

You would not need to wait until the next round to act on the information. Identity Casting is an instantaneous spell (10% action). So unless your opponent was also casting an instantaneous spell you would have up to 65% of the round to react to the spell (spell casting is 75% activity), although you could not react with another spell. Also it is not clear that the intent of Identify Casting was to enable one to avoid the spell (if that is what you had in mind), only to understand the effects, otherwise I imagine the spell would include information like who or what was the target of the spell.

In any case I'd rather house rule that Identify Casting can be used against a spell that is being prep'd than to house rule that prep'ing is casting.

Just my opinion of course. :-)

[Doridian]

You sound convincing.