Topic: Casting spells from attuned item: does armor interfere?

[Ecthelion]

Hi,
yesterday we discussed in our group whether armor does interfere with casting a spell from an item. Let's say a character has a ring of daily I Leaping. Can he use that ring while wearing a helm/armor? Or would he need to make a spell casting maneuver? The (RMSS) rules say that attunement allows the character to "cast spells  from an item", which sounds like the item's user must still cast the spell normally, perhaps still having to respect possible armor restrictions. OTOH Treasure Companion lists several helmets that allow the wearer to cast certain spells. These items would be quite useless if casting these spells would only be possible with a spell casting maneuver. Is there an official ruling on this topic? How do you handle this?

[Spectre771]

Casting spells from items (for our group at least) did not require special rolls.  Later on as we developed as players and GMs and learned the system better, we required an attunement roll for some items to simulate the user learning the item and how to properly activate it.  Beyond that little extra we threw in there to add a little more detail to the game, there was nothing special needed.  The rationale being that the item is casting the spell, not the user.  The spell is technically already "cast" at the time the item is created and is simply stored in the item.  The user just releases an already cast spell that the creator imbued into it.

If you or your players want to use the special rolls, one could argue that (for your Leaping I spell example) even if the user was wearing armour, the ring is in direct contact with the skin of the finger and therefore, no armour interference.  As you stated, if the user of a magical item had to remove all his armour, or remove his helm for Mentalism magic, the non-spell users would be at a serious disadvantage and the pure arms users who wear AT13 and up would have to remove all their armour to use a spell from an item.  Essentially, magic items would be useless to fighter-type PCs and doffing one's armour in the middle of combat to cast a Stun Relief I spell from a ring would be pointless.

[Cory Magel]

I don't know as if there's a single good explanation for how to treat penalties to magic due to materials. There's always going to be holes in the logic in my opinion and gamers pretty much just need to accept it's a balancing mechanic or the explanation would, effectively be, 'No one has figured out why it happens'

As to spells cast from items, we treated these as the player needing to have their character 'attune' to the item once and can, generally (I'm sure there are exceptions), use it from then on without rolls.

[jdale]

RMFRP Treasure Law says:
Before casting a spell from an item, the caster must either make an Attunement maneuver to learn how to use the item. See RMFRP for the details in making the Attunement maneuver. Note that some items have command words that must be spoken out loud. Command words are a type of key (see Section 8.7). Command words are not limited to spoken words, and may include gestures or pressing on the item in a certain way (though such ways must be visible to anyone making an Observation maneuver). Learning an item's command word requires a Very Hard Attunement maneuver.

Option: Some GMs may want to require an Attunement maneuver each time an item is used. In this case, the use of a command word can avoid the necessity of the Attunement maneuver each time.

We never required an attunement maneuver to use an already-attuned item in RMSS/RMFRP. I would assume if you don't require it that you are assumed to have figured out the command word/action when you attuned.

I would also assume that the modifiers that apply to spellcasting never apply to Attunement maneuvers; you might apply the usual modifiers for an Attunement maneuver though (e.g. modifiers for same/different realm, etc). It's also stated that it takes one round to cast the spell from the item, no prep rounds.

In RMU, you do make a spellcasting roll for the item based on your Attunement ranks (not bonus) and realm stat bonus. But the modifiers for voice, armor, etc explicitly do not apply.

I suppose you could explain that items with magic embedded in physical objects are necessarily designed to handle that physical material during the spellcasting. Perhaps you could achieve the same thing when you cast a spell if you spent as many days casting it as the alchemist did embedding the spell....

[Ecthelion]

Thanks for the all your feedback. It sounds like all here are not normally requiring additional spell casting rolls and that it's more the item that's doing the casting after being attuned to the caster. So we'll handle it the same way.

[Malim]

In addition, if its an "attack spell" the target roll resistance versus the spell level not the "caster" wearing the item.

[Majyk]

As with any spell, Item or not, I always had my players make a SCSM to avoid the dreaded 1-2 spell failure roll.
We force both everyone to roll on the weapon attack tables, so it should be no different for anyone casting from an item re: attunement rolls or my example simple SCSM(B.A.R. for RMC/RM2).

That was it, though.
RMSS/RMFRP is good for making spells work with a delayed rate if the SCSM was less than 25, I think, otherwise the spell would be cast in the same round.

[Spectre771]

As with any spell, Item or not, I always had my players make a SCSM to avoid the dreaded 1-2 spell failure roll.
We force both everyone to roll on the weapon attack tables, so it should be no different for anyone casting from an item re: attunement rolls or my example simple SCSM(B.A.R. for RMC/RM2).

That's a great point.  Something we never even thought to use.  Everyone just assumed it auto-magically worked.   Why couldn't there be a possible spell failure?  It happens in the movies all the time.

I am going to add this to our gaming sessions!

[Ecthelion]

Yeah, the spell casting roll makes sense. Another question on the casting spells from items topic: IIRC the rules say that casting a spell from an item requires 75% activity (RMSS), which is just fine for most spells and just means it works like casting a normal spell without preparation. But for Instantaneous Spells this makes no sense IMHO because it renders items with e.g. Landing or Bladeturn - which in RMSS take only 10% activity in a round when cast normally - almost useless because a Fighter would not be able to cast Bladeturn in addition to his normal attack or Landing would only work when preparing to land and not in case of an accident. So I'd rule that Instant Spells cast from items also only use 10% activity in a round. Opinions on that?

[Hurin]

I'm not sure everyone realizes how much instantaneous spells have changed from RM2 to RMSS to now RMU.

Instantaneous spells in RM2 used to cost 75% activity; that was the core rule. There was an optional rule to make them 50%. Then, the RM2 companions created various new initiative systems which reduced that percentage further, but did so in error, misunderstanding 'instantaneous' as meaning 'takes no activity to cast' rather than 'requires no prep'. RMSS/FRP however accepted the reduction in activity and kept instants as 10%; now RMU reduces them still further to 0% (or 1 AP if you want to do more than one instant action).

The problem this reduction creates is that spells like Bladeturn were never intended to take no activity; they were originally balanced on the requirement that they take 75% (or 50%) activity.

So personally, I think a spell like Bladeturn should still be 75% or 50% activity. This was how it worked originally, in RM2; it is only in error that Bladeturn was reduced to a 10% or 0% activity. Instantaneous is supposed to mean 'takes no prep', not 'takes no activity'.

That was the way Landing also worked originally: it was not a Featherfall that you could do as a reaction when you slipped on a cliff; it was something you had to cast before you fell. Or, if you used the strict phased system of RM2, you could perhaps cast landing in the spell phase of a round in which you'd slipped, and it would take effect before the movement phase when you fell and landed.
     I agree that Landing could be reworked; it is not nearly as useful if it can't be cast as a reaction. RMu allows that in a sense if you can declare instants as reactions (you can do that at least for defensive spells, so as a GM I would probably allow it as a defensive measure versus a fall). But I think that is more an issue with Landing rather than Instants in general.

What seems to have really messed up the action economy and balance of instant spells is the misunderstanding about what Instants are in the shift from the RM2 phased system to the various RM2 Companion optional initiative systems and the RMSS action system, and the erroneous reading of 'instantaneous' that resulted in instant actions no longer requiring any significant or ultimately any prep at all.

[Hurin]

Correction: my last sentence in my last post should of course read 'any activity at all', not 'any prep.at all.'

[jdale]

RMFRP Treasure Law says:
One of the advantages of casting a spell through an item is that it always takes one round to cast the spell through the item. Though this slows down the use of instantaneous spells, it can greatly speed up other casting."

This rule seems poorly written to me. I think they are saying "it always takes 75% action" like spellcasting, rather than "one round" which might even mean 100%. And if it's going to be a special case, it should have been listed as such on the table of actions in the core rules. I don't think we even noticed this rule tucked away in Treasure Law.

I also don't understand the rationale for making instant spells take extra long. It makes magic items less potent, but only a very narrow class of magic items. The items that basically allow non spellcasters to act in place of spellcasters are just as potent. It's largely the items that are meant to help Arms and Semi characters that are weakened. Given how things go at the higher levels where magic items are common, that seems the reverse of what you would want. Arms characters are the ones who need the biggest boost (and Semi characters already have their own instant spells, so they don't lose much here.)

We just played it as "spells cast from items don't require any prep rounds" and otherwise the activity requirements are the same as casting a spell normally.

[Hurin]

We just played it as "spells cast from items don't require any prep rounds" and otherwise the activity requirements are the same as casting a spell normally.

That's perfectly reasonable, and in line with the balance of the RM2 action economy.

I think the problem only crept in when 'doesn't require any prep rounds' was changed to mean 'doesn't require any prep rounds or any significant activity to cast'. That was the mistake, and the root of the problem.

I also don't understand the rationale for making instant spells take extra long.

This again I think is the result of the misunderstanding. Instant spells aren't taking extra long, from the perspective of RM2, if they take 75% activity. All instant spells required exactly that much activity in RM2. There was no spell that took less than 50%.

It's largely the items that are meant to help Arms and Semi characters that are weakened. Given how things go at the higher levels where magic items are common, that seems the reverse of what you would want. Arms characters are the ones who need the biggest boost (and Semi characters already have their own instant spells, so they don't lose much here.)

Yes, but recall that this was not the case in RM2. Casters were incredibly weak at low levels in RM2. A lot of this language has just been cut and pasted from RM2 without adjustments being made for how much Instants changed between RM2 and RMSS.

What RM2 lacked was a truly instant class of spells. RM2 used the word 'Instant' but only to mean 'requires no prep', not 'requires no activity to cast'. I'm glad we have a new class of truly instant spells in RMU, and Landing is the perfect example of an old spell that is now much more intuitive and better functioning in RMU than it was in RM2.

But that also means that some spells that were not meant to be freebies (i.e. no activity cost) now are. Bladeturn is the perfect example. RM2 never intended archers to be able to get a full, 100% OB attack and +100 to their DB in the same turn. That's why I am saying that some spells that were transformed from costing 75% activity to now costing 0% activity need to be reevaluated for balance in the new action economy.

[jdale]

Some of the spells were clearly adjusted based on how they work in RMSS. For example the 1st level spell "Attack +5" on the Paladin Arm's Way list (RoCo 2) "Adds +5 to the melee or missile attack that the caster makes the round after this spell is cast." The equivalent spell in RMSS is Holy Attack I (on Holy Arms) which "Adds +15 to the caster's melee or missile attack for the current round." The spell description is clear about when those apply, and the bonus is boosted for the RMSS version to balance out that the character will be at -10 for a 10% spellcasting action.

And bladeturn did get adjusted too; the attack is reduced in RMSS by 50 rather than 100.

So I'm not convinced that this change was an oversight, rather than a deliberate choice. RMSS style instant spells are a lot more useful for semis and the RMSS lists use them accordingly.

[Hurin]

That's a fair point, and I'm not saying that it is all a misunderstanding. And I actually prefer the way the Paladin buff spells work in RMSS to the way they work in RM2, despite my RM2 nature. But I also think that all the ramifications of changing instant spells from 75% to 10% were not entirely appreciated by the designers of RMSS; they certainly weren't by the some of the people who devised the alternate initiative systems in the RM2 companions.

The main ramification I am worried about now in RMU is what the change does to Bladeturn/Deflection. If it was appropriate to reduce the DB bonus from these spells from +100 to +50 when the casting time was reduced from 75% to 10%, then shouldn't RMU be keeping the reduced bonuses when it further reduces casting time to 0%? Yet, in RMU, the DB bonuses have been increased back to what they were (+100) in RM2. I have found this to be unbalancing in actual play.

I think Bladeturn and Deflections should either have their bonuses set to what they were in RMSS (+50) or have their Instantaneous asterisk removed.

[Ecthelion]

The problem this reduction creates is that spells like Bladeturn were never intended to take no activity; they were originally balanced on the requirement that they take 75% (or 50%) activity.

So personally, I think a spell like Bladeturn should still be 75% or 50% activity. This was how it worked originally, in RM2; it is only in error that Bladeturn was reduced to a 10% or 0% activity. Instantaneous is supposed to mean 'takes no prep', not 'takes no activity'.

Perhaps the initial idea for the Bladeturn spell was that it was a support spell that mages could cast for the fighters in the group and that it should take a round to cast and just have no preparation. But in these RM1/RM2 days Bladeturn gave -100 to the attack and not just -50 and it was - not counting the Companion books for now - not available on a Base Spell Lists of Semi Spell Users. But I remember that during our RM2 times we gladly accepted the spell rule that allowed for only using 10% activity when casting Instant spells because at that time in a couple of Companion books Semi Spell Users had appeated (e.g. Paladin, Warrior Mage) were the Bladeturn spell they could cast clearly seemed to be intended to be cast by the Semi himself. And that again only made sense when it could be done in addition to an attack or parry action in the round.

So I think the idea how Bladeturn and other Instant spells could/should be used has simply changed over the course of the Rolemaster development. So I personally think it was a good decision to make the 10% activity for casting Instant spells an official rule for RMSS. The only thing I don't like is that this rule also affects Instant attack spells.

But in any case I can understand that you prefer the 75% activity casting of Instant spells also from items if you prefer these spells to always take 75% activity to cast.

We just played it as "spells cast from items don't require any prep rounds" and otherwise the activity requirements are the same as casting a spell normally.

I think this is what we will also do.

Thanks to both of you for your feedback.

[Hurin]

Perhaps the initial idea for the Bladeturn spell was that it was a support spell that mages could cast for the fighters in the group and that it should take a round to cast and just have no preparation. But in these RM1/RM2 days Bladeturn gave -100 to the attack and not just -50 and it was - not counting the Companion books for now - not available on a Base Spell Lists of Semi Spell Users.

But it was available on an Open Mentalism list (Attack Avoidance), so it was available to all Mentalism casters.

So I think the idea how Bladeturn and other Instant spells could/should be used has simply changed over the course of the Rolemaster development. So I personally think it was a good decision to make the 10% activity for casting Instant spells an official rule for RMSS.

It is fine that usages change, and I note below that it is good that RMU now has a category of essentially no-cost, reactive spells. I just don't think Bladeturn should be one of them. I don't really think the spell was intended to be used by semis or anyone else while they get a full attack as well. That is essentially getting 175% activity every round. Bladeturn was a spell you used when you got caught in melee and had no other way of blocking it; it was exceptionally powerful, essentially almost always negating your opponent's attack. But it always forced you to choose: cast this defensive spell that will keep you safe but won't do anything to knock out your target (you cast this and tried to move out of the way); or cast an offensive spell or attack and try to take your target out. But it was never intended that you could do both at the same time.

The only thing I don't like is that this rule also affects Instant attack spells.

Yes, that opens a whole new kettle of fish, and is the reason why for years now I've been saying Instant attack spells are a bad idea, now that in RMU Instant spells cost no activity. All spells used to cost a minimum of 75% activity, so you always had to choose between casting a spell and making an attack.  You were never supposed to be able to full melee and full spell in the same round.

I like the fact that RMu now has a category of spells that essentially cost nothing. The various semi-spell user buff spells, such as the Paladin +OB spells, work far better this way. But no spells that grant an attack or virtually completely negate an attack should be "Instant" anymore... especially now that all spells of the caster's level or below have been made instant (in the old definition of the term, i.e., costing no prep).

[Aspire2Hope]

Yep! I was forced back to my Spell Law rule book for RM (The Original 1200) to refresh spell rules. Problem with MERP rules are the cut and paste out of RM into the rule books some things aren't clear. A character suddenly starts with stun relief spells and I'm scrambling to give the firm ruling on no it means no prep not Instant casting. Changes abound Stun Relief I does not seem such a handy spell......

Items - well you aren't providing the power to cast the spell so your armour etc shouldn't be the factor.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Hurin, you seem to forget in your talk about what "instantaneous" used to mean is that RM2 also had an insured order of actions. Sure, if one casts Bladeturn, he wouldn't be able to do much more since it'd use 75% of his activity, but, on the other hand, he's 100% sure the spell will be cast and active before any attack actually happens. If we go with the (IIRC) rule that actions are declared in the reversed initiative order (i.e., the one who rolled the highest initiative declared his action the last) but happen in the initiative order (i.e., the action of the one who rolled the highest initiative happens first), the spellcaster is pretty sure his spell was cast and used to actually "block" an attack.
OTOH, in later initiative rules, an attack may actually happen before the spell is cast, making the 75% activity rule all but a burden without any counterpart.

[Hurin]

Hurin, you seem to forget in your talk about what "instantaneous" used to mean is that RM2 also had an insured order of actions. Sure, if one casts Bladeturn, he wouldn't be able to do much more since it'd use 75% of his activity, but, on the other hand, he's 100% sure the spell will be cast and active before any attack actually happens. If we go with the (IIRC) rule that actions are declared in the reversed initiative order (i.e., the one who rolled the highest initiative declared his action the last) but happen in the initiative order (i.e., the action of the one who rolled the highest initiative happens first), the spellcaster is pretty sure his spell was cast and used to actually "block" an attack.

Yes, that's a fair point if you are talking about RMSS; that is a significant limitation of the spell in that system that wasn't there in RM2. And in fact in the default RM2 initiative system, spells were simultaneous, and always went before melee (because spell phase always comes before melee phase). So the spellcaster always gets his spell off first.

The point is moot though in RMU, at least in the simple round. In the simple round, characters can declare instant defensive spells when they are attacked, so RMU returns to a system where casters can be sure they can always cast their Bladeturns before they are attacked, and the bonus is back to +100 DB. It's just that now these spells take no activity % at all, and can be combined with a full OB attack.

I've seen this in practice where a Magent with a bow was able to keep casting Bladeturn repeatedly, negating his opponent's attack with this spell while also getting a full OB attack each round. The Magent with a bow was a better tank than the Fighter with sword and shield, because the Magent was effectively getting 175% activity every round compared to what the semis in RM2 used to get.