Topic: Bladeturn and Aim untrue...

[providence13]

ToM, I also make the "Target" the person you are trying to protect.
Just couldn't wrap my head around the ability to perceive a missile in flight.
Didn't much like the aura  excuses that explained the difference between the two spells either.

My House Rule is pretty similar to yours, but it costs PP for the "/lvl" increase on duration.

[markc]

   IIRC from an old thread Rasyr said that you cannot cast these type of spells unless they have a target. By that he meant an attack. If you use a different init system or combat system from RM you might have to change the way the spells work in orde to keep the original meaning.
   IIRC Rasyr also gave a suggestion of 1/rnd per level for the "duration" of these type of spells for higher level spells.


  There could be more that I am not mentioning because I have forgot but you should be able to find them if you do a search on the RM2/C/X and RMSS/FRP threads, both active and archived.


  But as always if you find something works better you and your game, your way than the official way use your way.


MDC


Nice no lost post this time.

[Kristen Mork]

Lord Miller said:

C- Concentration is required. Concentration takes 50% of the caster's normal activity. The caster cannot cast any other spells while concentrating.

Mr. Miller (or is it simply, Lord?), you and I clearly have different versions of RMSS SL.  On page 6, my SL defines the spell types and spells out common abbreviations (including C for concentration).  However, after a fairly careful perusal of the book, nowhere does it state that concentration precludes spell casting.

(I have the third U.S. edition, January 1995)

[markc]

   I guess it is time for me to re-do spell law with spell scalability like HARP. Then I can go in and fix all of the little things that come up.
MDC

[providence13]

Peter Mork,
I must be using the same books Lord Miller.
For RMFRP, the 3 separate Ess (pg 4), Men, Chan books have that definition.

RMSS Spell Law #5522 pg 6 has the same definition.

Now, I HR it so that an instant and a normal spell (but not 2 instants and not 2 normal spells), may be cast in 1 rnd. For me, %Act and Init is everything.

Thanks for SOHK; great book!

[Marc R]

Peter,

LM is usually the easiest..(I'm actually Marc with a C, but that would get complicated with MarkC standing right there.)

My SL is also 1995, also third US edition, but 2nd printing, September 1995

I call shenanigans on all book variability! Everyone get their brooms!

Let's see if we can find a consensus of sources. . .

My RMSS Core book is First edition, 2nd printing, 1995

P210 right column, bottom half of the page, duplicates the text on no casting while concentrating on a spell.

I've seen this come up before, like when we got into a dispute on a club attack table result and realized the AL attack tables were slightly different each version, edition, and printing. Certainly glad you mentioned it, because now we can blame the books.

[Marc R]

ToM, I also make the "Target" the person you are trying to protect.
Just couldn't wrap my head around the ability to perceive a missile in flight.
Didn't much like the aura  excuses that explained the difference between the two spells either.

This is what I meant before about strange stuff with target, range, and area of effect . . . .

Like for deflection, it would seem like the target is the person protected (or self if it's one that can't be cast on others), the range is the distance from the caster to the person being protected (if any), and the area of effect is a radius from the person being protected in which an incoming missile will be deflected as it approaches. . .but as much as that seems to make sense, it's not how the RAW reads, in any version I'm familiar with.

[TerryTee]

RMC SL #6503 page 161:
"Note: When casting the Bladeturn/Deflections/Aim-Untrue spells, the caster can concentrate in order to hold the spell until it can be applied to the allowed number of targets."
 
-Terry

[Ecthelion]

For RMC this may be true.

[Marc R]

This is one of those rule disputes where even if it were somehow possible, it still wouldn't make any sense. . .if you can cast one of these instant spells for 10% activity, why would you hold it into combat via concentration for 50% activity? The phrase "I will plan ahead to make this five times more difficult" comes to mind.

I'd say that we'd already established that the scenario as laid out by the OP is not workable for a lot of reasons, but since then we've hung up on this point a bit, but this point, I don't get what the benefit would be to the caster to even attempt it.

Seriously, it's like "I could walk there for 10% activity, but instead i run there, back, there, back and there so it takes 50% activity.". . .and that's before you toss in the issues that make long term concentration a problem.

I've been puzzling over this and trying to figure out why you'd even want to, and I can't really come up with one. Can anyone? If not, then really what exactly are we disagreeing about?

[Kristen Mork]

LM: Our RMSS core books are in agreement!  (Regardless, I will continue to ignore that rule because I like giving mages flexibility (and the opportunity to burn through precious PP if they choose!).)

If you can cast one of these instant spells for 10% activity, why would you hold it into combat via concentration for 50% activity?

Because you cast Bladeturn II, and have only turned aside one blade.  Rather than lose the extra effect, you can choose to concentrate to keep the remaining effect alive.  At this point it becomes a strategic question: save PPs by concentrating or retain full activity (and spell-casting capability!) knowing that a future Bladeturn I may be needed.

[Marc R]

I get that reasoning, of maintaining the spell after casting for one deflect/turn and holding it until it's used up all it's deflects/turns. . .that logic for holding on to these spells nobody seems to be disputing.

What I mean is the issue of if it's valid to just cast it before combat and walk around with it by holding it via concentration seemed to be the remaining point of contention. . .but I can't see any benefit of doing so. (assuming the GM is requiring concentration, with it's associated penalties and that you can't do it for extended periods of time due to limits on maintaining concentration long term.)

Pre casting the spell before combat would seem to be a hindrance, not a help, and hence not something anyone would want to do anyway.

[Kristen Mork]

Oh, in that case, I think we're all in agreement.  If you require concentration to maintain the effects, then pre-casting is silly.  (The original post suggested that concentration wasn't needed to maintain the effects, in which case pre-casting is a great idea!)

[pastaav]

Fascinating that so many people can be arguing about stuff without checking sources.

Old ICE did review the issue after questions on the mailing list and gave the following clarifications.
# Bladeturn has to be cast on the same turn as the attack, not the same phase. [4/27/00]
# Bladeturn has to be cast before the attack it is affecting [X, 5/14/00]
# Bladeturn must be resolved in the turn it is cast. [4/27/00]

It can also be noted that they also issued an errata about you being allowed to cast another spell while maintaining concentration on a spell. 

[Marc R]

Actually, Ecth did reference that errata, and linked to it, in reply #2. . .

See the Rolemaster Rulings page for some official FAQs on this matter.

That we chose to keep discussing it should be no surprise.

[rdanhenry]

Here is the advantage to pre-casting Bladeturn.

The party is outside the door of an enemy guardroom. They anticipate battle as soon as the door is open. The Blue Mage of Zeggis Alona casts a Bladeturn spell and concentrates as Stealthy Pete ensures that the door has no secret snares for incautious intruders and Mighty Mike, the Man-Mountain of Moonmoor throws open the door. The guards within were relaxed, but not slothful, and took up arms at once. A spear thrust towards Mighty Mike, but the warrior was protected by the Blue Mage's Bladeturn. Then in the same round, because he did not cast a spell (and had plenty of activity left since released the spell rather than concentrating to hold it - releasing the spell should take no more than the 10% to cast it in the first place) yet this round, goes ahead and casts another spell to help the party.

Of course, if you houserule to allow an instantaneous and a non-instantaneous spell in the same round, this becomes less of an advantage. Still, if the caster has some other useful instantaneous spells, it still might be worth it. Plus, you've already cast the spell before combat starts, so you won't get a spell failure when you apply the Bladeturn. No second chances when casting during the combat.

[Marc R]

Well, at my table I'd rule that you can't be kinda pregnant, dead or concentrating. . .if you are not concentrating within the round, you're not holding the spell, and it doesn't work, if you are concentrating, then you pay your 50%.

To offer a strictly RAW example,

Round 1
the party is on a battlement, Stealthy Pete is picking the lock on the tower door while everyone else is behind cover, due to a crossbowman on the opposite tower. . .Blue Mage casts Deflections II on Sneaky Pete, the archer fires, and the shot is deflected. . .In deliberate Sneaky Pete pops the lock.

Round 2
Now, if the Blue Mage wants to keep up the spell, he needs to declare he's concentrating, which right off the bat should take up 50% action, even if on snap phase Pete pushes the door open, and the next crossbowman in the tower shoots Pete right then in snap, triggering a 2nd deflect and ending the spell. . .it's not like concentrating for a phase costs less than concentrating for 2, or the whole round, it's just 50%.

That said, since the spell is done in snap phase, Blue mage could then cast in the latter two phases of the round since he has not cast a spell this round. . .as long as it was another instant spell since he has only 50% left.

Still even assuming you house ruled to allow it, using your example above. . .if Blue Mage cast Bladeturn on round 1 Deliberate, rather than Round 2 Snap, by the same logic as the RAW Deflection II above, pre-casting he'd be spending 50% action concentration carrying it into round 2, rather than 10% action just casting it in round 2. . .the major difference being that the pre-cast-and-carry would technically allow the casting of another instant spell in round 2, while just snap casting would leave the blue mage 90% action to do something other than casting (which for a mage is usually some variation of moving and looking, perhaps a full parry.). It also guarantees the spell is on before the attack, no worrying about initiative.

So I guess there would be some upsides, though it's not pure upside, since you are spending 40% activity for the privilege of going first and being able to cast another spell in that round. . .

I honestly can't say that it's ever actually been attempted at any table I've played or run though, and the people I play with can be lawyerly cutthroat. . .reading over that errata list is often an amusing trip down memory lane of "Oh yeah, remember when we allowed that!?!"

In my experience, if presented with a round up front the mage will just let someone else stand in front who has the OB to parry with, and choose to go with the best defense being a strong offense. . .like tossing a fireball in the room, or having someone pull the door open so they can snap blast the guy inside over their shoulder outside melee range, or cast a sleep in there or some such. . .

Then again, I'm sure there are people who'd jump on that if a GM allowed it. . .and it's certainly not the killer ap the original poster was talking about. . .the pre casting, lasts until triggered, don't concentrate is definitely pure upside and would rapidly get out of hand if allowed.

[yammahoper]

I assume  by releasing the spell he means casting ot on a target, in this case the moon mountain whateva.

Any duration rules adeed to bladeturns work very well if the target of tghe spell is a PC/NPC?item rather than the "attack."

[Marc R]

That looks like a post I'd make while drinking. . . .

And yes, IMO the target should be the person defended, and the effect a blocked attack (much like the target of a resist fire is the person protected, not the fire). It's unfortunate the spells don't read that way.

[providence13]

And yes, IMO the target should be the person defended, and the effect a blocked attack (much like the target of a resist fire is the person protected, not the fire). It's unfortunate the spells don't read that way.


Any duration rules added to bladeturns work very well if the target of the spell is a PC/NPC/item rather than the "attack."


Plus, you've already cast the spell before combat starts, so you won't get a spell failure when you apply the Bladeturn.

Other's made comments I agree with, these just stuck out.
For our no phase system, this is what we found that works best. There may be a scenario that our HR will fall apart. But it works great so far.