Topic: Random Musings on Spell Casting....

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

It occurred to me this morning, that one of the reasons that spells have levels is that the higher the level of the spell, the harder it is supposed to be to learn and to cast.

However, that basically never pans out, EXCEPT when overcasting using the ESF rules.

Now, with the twisty way that my mind works, I have come up with something of a solution.

Casting Target Number
First off, we create a new value called the Casting Target Number (CTN). Bear with me while I tell you how this number is determined -- it is sort of convoluted to explain, but in use, it would be pretty simple for anybody familiar with Rolemaster.

To get the CTN for a spell, you take the level of the spell and using the standard progression rate (5/2/1/0.5) for skills, generate a number based on the level (or number of PP) of the spell, and then add 20 to this.

For example, a 5th level spell would have a CTN of 45 (20 + 25 (5 x 5)), and a 14th level spell would have a CTN of 78 (20 + 58 ((10 x 5) + (4 x 2))).

This gives us a minimum CTN of 25 for a 1st level spell and a maximum CTN of 120 for a 50th level spell.

And to successfully cast a spell, you would roll d100 + Casting Bonus + other modifiers and either meet or beat that CTN.

Casting Bonus
This would essentially be different for each list. It could consist of  your stat bonus for your realm (or the average for hybrids), 1 point for level of the list known (this way it works for all acquisition methods), and a level bonus.

Just as with the core rules from RMC, Pures and Hybrids have a level bonus of 1 for each level that they have. However, we will give Semis a level bonus of +1 for every 2 levels that they have, rounded down.

So, a 5th level Magician (with an Empathy of 90) who knows Fire Law to 10th level would had a casting bonus of 25 (10 (stat) + 10 (list level) + 5 (caster level) = 25).

So, to cast a Fire Bolt (6th level spell -- and presuming that ESF rules are being used to allow for overcasting), our Magician would have a CTN of 70 (50 (norm) + 20 (ESF mod for spell 1 level above own)). This means that he would have to roll a 50 or better to cast the spell. (This presumes that the Directed Spell skill is rolled separately from the casting roll.)


Personally, I think that this makes a good bit of sense.

Opinions? Comments?

[Arioch]

I like the idea, seems also easy to add new mechanics to it (like scaling options/ spell mastery).
What about preparation time? Gives a bonus to the casting manuever? Like a +5/round of preparing?

And armor/ use of hands or voice? Maybe, to make calculation quicker, instead of giving penalties to the casting manuever they should raise the CTN. So that if you wear armor the CTN of all your spells is increased by +X, where X is the armor casting penalty.

[Ecthelion]

And to successfully cast a spell, you would roll d100 + Casting Bonus + other modifiers and either meet or beat that CTN.

Would that be required for all spells or only where currently ESF rules are applied?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

And to successfully cast a spell, you would roll d100 + Casting Bonus + other modifiers and either meet or beat that CTN.

Would that be required for all spells or only where currently ESF rules are applied?

Basically, it would be for all, regardless of ESF (ESF is only in my example cause I didn't want to change the information I put in it and ended up having the Magician casting a spell above his level... hehe)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I like the idea, seems also easy to add new mechanics to it (like scaling options/ spell mastery).
What about preparation time? Gives a bonus to the casting manuever? Like a +5/round of preparing?

And armor/ use of hands or voice? Maybe, to make calculation quicker, instead of giving penalties to the casting manuever they should raise the CTN. So that if you wear armor the CTN of all your spells is increased by +X, where X is the armor casting penalty.

Yup, this idea works just as well for HARP as it does for RM (change level list is known to with number of ranks in the spell, and drop the scaling penalties altogether, and just increase the CTN according to number of PP used in casting).

And yes, if a spell takes 2 rnds of prep and one to cast, raise the CTN by 10 for each round of prep less than normally required.

And the Casting  Modifiers (big gestures, no gesture, whisper, shout, etc.. ) all would/could work in this without much problem.

The whole point behind this is to better reflect that more powerful spells are basically tougher to cast than lower level spells. Right now, you automatically cast utilities spells so long as you don't fumble, regardless of their level.

[thrud]

No, I don't like it.
Let's take a look at the same magician@Lv20.
Have him cast a Lv20 spell -> CTN = 20 + (10x5) + (10x2) = 90
Casting bonus = 10 (stat) +20 (List level) + 20 (Caster level) = 50
4 out of 10 he's supposed to fail in casting a spell at his own level, way too hard.

The idea is ok but you should always be able to cast spells at your own level or lower without risk of failure. As long as you take your time and don't rush things.

[Fullerton]

I'm with thrud. This makes life harder on spellcasters, and (depending on that spellcaster's player's perspective on simulationism) less fun for the player.

Do spellcasters really need that sort of nerf? (Honest question. I've pretty much never run an RM game above 4th level, and that was 20 years ago...)

[Warl]

I personally like the idea, but it doesn't work well the way you have it as Thrud suggests.

It only works well if you make Each spell list a Casting Skill instead of an acquisition roll or as well as an acquisition roll. That way the caster has a chance to get a decent bonus to the casting roll.

using the Individual spell development rules, you instead have the ability to buy 3 ranks a level. But lets say that level 20 aster only bought 2 ranks per level. giving him 40 ranks.giving him a base 85 skill just from skill ranks. add in level bonus and stat bonus and he can easily reach the current target numbers. (if a +3 level bonus thats +60, and lets give a basic +20 stat bonus so the end skill is now around 165)  (so the target numbers would need minor tweaks)

 But I would also suggest keeping the target Numbers  calculation simple. Say at 10 per level of the spell Minus the casters level. that would make the level 20 spell have a target number of 180, leaving the caster with only a 15 point window for failure at level 20. and that would soon disappear with further levels.

Also give Bonuses for extra time taken to cast.

Another suggestion for target Number is base the Penalty on each 5 level portion.
10 for 1-5
25 for 6-10
50 for 11-15
100 for 16-20
150 for 21-25
200 for 26-30
so on and so on.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I'm with thrud. This makes life harder on spellcasters, and (depending on that spellcaster's player's perspective on simulationism) less fun for the player.

Do spellcasters really need that sort of nerf? (Honest question. I've pretty much never run an RM game above 4th level, and that was 20 years ago...)

As I said at the beginning -- this was just some random musings...  AT MOST, it might become an option down the road, but even that is not guaranteed.

And quite simply, where everything else in the game requires rolls and includes chances of failure (not counting fumbles), magic doesn't. If it isn't above your level, you cast it automatically, and personally, I think that might be a problem.

Rolemaster is and always has been heavily balanced towards spell users.

The idea is ok but you should always be able to cast spells at your own level or lower without risk of failure. As long as you take your time and don't rush things.

There is room to tweak... these musings were basically first draft of the idea...

Hmm.. if we double the level bonuses (which  I am not sure would be a good idea), that would make the Casting Bonus be a 70 (an 80 if we consider that the stat is likely to be high enough to give a +20 bonus rather than the starting stat of 90's +10 bonus. -- maybe lower the base for the CTN from 20 to 10 instead.

Nor does my musings take into account the racial bonuses that might be had....   

But the point still stands, right now, unless ESF rules are in effect, there is NO CHANCE for failure when casting a spell (like there is for failure in everything else!!!). You either cast the spell, OR you fumble (screw up so royally that you hurt yourself.

There is no in-between. Yet for everything else, you have fumble/failure/success -- magic is fumble/success only.

By the logic you use on magic users and spells, unless he fumbles, a warrior should hit his foe every single time, with the only variance being how well he hit, not IF he hit.

And a Thief should ALWAYS be able to pick a pocket and not get caught. etc....    (yeah, it is a bit silly, but it is just as silly to apply the same to magic users, IMO). 

[Warl]

Though I agree with you raysr on the whole premise, Spell casters are powerful and get it easier.

And quite simply, where everything else in the game requires rolls and includes chances of failure (not counting fumbles), magic doesn't. If it isn't above your level, you cast it automatically, and personally, I think that might be a problem.

Rolemaster is and always has been heavily balanced towards spell users.

This part just isn't quite true. Mabey so in the case of utility spells like lighting and fly and other such (Though i always felt that just cause you cast a fly spell doesn't mean you know how to fly well) But when you are casting a spell at a Living target that target either gets a Resistance roll, and the caster had to make a BAR to determine bonus penalty, and in the case of Attack spells like bolts and balls, had to make a directed spells roll and actualy Hit their target.

[Fullerton]

And quite simply, where everything else in the game requires rolls and includes chances of failure (not counting fumbles), magic doesn't.

But does *everything* else really require a roll?

Personally, I view casting a spell the same way I view firing an arrow. Neither of those should implicitly include a chance of failure (not counting fumbles), but you might not hit/affect your intended target if that target is uncooperative.

Or to put it another way, if I were to conceptually mirror this proposed spell casting rule to making a ranged attack, I'd say that you have to first make a roll to fire an arrow, then make a roll to see whether that arrow goes where you want it to. ...and that feels odd to me.


I could see your idea working if most utility spells had some notion of variability to them. Then, for utility spells, the result of your casting roll could affect some quality of the spell (duration, number of hits healed, potential volume of a sound, potential speed, etc.)

[Warl]

I use a spell casting Roll in my Game, But it replaces the BAR for all spells. So basicaly Included IN my Base Attack roll isa chance of failure.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

This part just isn't quite true. Mabey so in the case of utility spells like lighting and fly and other such (Though i always felt that just cause you cast a fly spell doesn't mean you know how to fly well) But when you are casting a spell at a Living target that target either gets a Resistance roll, and the caster had to make a BAR to determine bonus penalty, and in the case of Attack spells like bolts and balls, had to make a directed spells roll and actualy Hit their target.

The target getting a RR is a side issue, that is wrapped up in "how well you cast the spell"  The point still stands that you cast it or you fumble, there is no fail.

And quite simply, where everything else in the game requires rolls and includes chances of failure (not counting fumbles), magic doesn't.

But does *everything* else really require a roll?

Rolls should only be required in stressful situations. This means that unless it is for dramatic purposes such as during combat or something like that, a spell caster should be considered to be taking enough time so that they don't have the chance of failure OR fumble, and that that same methodology should follow through on all actions.

No roll unless it is a stressful situation, there is combat, or the GM wants to increase dramatic tension.

You can consider this to be talking about casting spells (any spell, I am not judging by type) in one of those situations that normally does call for rolls to be made.

Personally, I view casting a spell the same way I view firing an arrow. Neither of those should implicitly include a chance of failure (not counting fumbles), but you might not hit/affect your intended target if that target is uncooperative.

Or to put it another way, if I were to conceptually mirror this proposed spell casting rule to making a ranged attack, I'd say that you have to first make a roll to fire an arrow, then make a roll to see whether that arrow goes where you want it to. ...and that feels odd to me.

I would make the analogy more along the lines of making the arrow, and then firing it. The difference being the mage does these 2 things in rapid succession over the course of a very few rounds (in a single round at the very least).

I could see your idea working if most utility spells had some notion of variability to them. Then, for utility spells, the result of your casting roll could affect some quality of the spell (duration, number of hits healed, potential volume of a sound, potential speed, etc.)

Oh! You mean like I did with HARP? Where unusual success can result in automatic duration or target increases? 

[Kalu]

But the point still stands, right now, unless ESF rules are in effect, there is NO CHANCE for failure when casting a spell (like there is for failure in everything else!!!). You either cast the spell, OR you fumble (screw up so royally that you hurt yourself.

Disregarding RM version, wouldn't it be natural that in the case where a spell can be cast without requiring a casting roll, if the spell casting fails, the caster just attempts to cast the spell again? Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to determine if a spell casting attempt succeeds or fails without fumbling, what matters is only the amount of PP used. So while your idea has merit, why not just introduce a roll that determines the amount of PPs spent = a multiple of the spell level? Thereby, only if the caster has too few PPs to spend, the spell casting truly fails.

//K

[Moriarty]

...the higher the level of the spell, the harder it is supposed to be to learn and to cast.

However, that basically never pans out, EXCEPT when overcasting using the ESF rules.

Is the second premise true? It seems to me that:
1) Higher level spell are harder to learn, because you have to learn all the lower level spells/picks first.
2) Higher level spells are harder to cast, because they require more preparation rounds, i.e. the Class I/II/III spell system.
Spells of higher level than the caster can't be cast according to the core rules, but there is of course the ESF option.

Some of these rules are a bit too cumbersome by modern game standards, and could probably be simplified for a revision.
But basically the rules work, and I don't agree there is a problem here that needs a solution as such.

[Fornitus]

 O.K. 2 points.

 First- Where or when did utility spells stop requiring a roll? RMC?
         As far as any of us ever knew all actions require a roll of some type. A bug can fly up
         your nose just as you release your utility spell and screw you up regardless of level.

 Second-Rasyr, I'll think on that a fue days. We found spellcasters to overpower other
         classes as early as 4th or 5th level as you mentioned. In the last 2 years we gave
         a -100 to the world to cast spells at all. We balenced this with Foci and influence
         ingredents like a ritual. They are not needed but help. The effect was no more was
         the 4th lvl Magician casting his fireball instantiously. He needed the prep rounds.
         Actualy balanced out very well and added a flavor of the mystic to all magic in the
         scenairo.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

moriarty - it isn't that the current rules don't work, it is just that I think that they way that they work makes magic users a bit too powerful overall. Some people will agree with it, some won't - but that all depends on personal tastes and how an individual perceives the balance.

That is one of the great things about Rolemaster - the core works, and it is easy to modify to suit personal tastes.

Fornitus --

1) All spells require rolls (only rolling in stressful situations is a also a general rule, meaning that in non-stressful situations, the character takes his time to get it right until it (whatever it is) is done correctly). The issue is that I feel that perhaps a spell's fumble/succeed roll is a bit too simplistic, and that there should be a chance for failures to happen (i.e. you cast but the spell fizzles (but you don't have to make a fumble roll either...)).

2) That is another way to do it... As I said above, different folks have different tastes.. 

[Warl]

instead of it being a full failure , I use a table that has things like, "almost there spend another round casting" and such as that. a full fizzle with PP loss doesn't happen unless the failure was significant, Near an ESF but not quite there. I actually use the power manipulation table since I don't have anything better.

[Moriarty]

We found spellcasters to overpower other
         classes as early as 4th or 5th level as you mentioned. In the last 2 years we gave
         a -100 to the world to cast spells at all. We balenced this with Foci and influence
         ingredents like a ritual. They are not needed but help. The effect was no more was
         the 4th lvl Magician casting his fireball instantiously. He needed the prep rounds.

I don't see how it would be possible, using RM2/RMC core rules, for a 4th level Magician to cast a level 6 fireball instantly?
Even if you use the optional ESF rules, the modifications for level and preparation would indicate an automatic failure.
Also, what is the -100 'to cast spells' you mention? There are no spell casting maneuvers is RM2/RMC!

Using core rules only, in order to cast a level 6 spell instantly, the caster would have to be at least level 12.
At that point he would admittedly be very powerful, but up until then, not very much so.

instead of it being a full failure , I use a table that has things like, "almost there spend another round casting" and such as that.

This is already on the spell failure table, as a standard result:
01-20 Momentary lapse in concentration delays casting of spell one rnd.
You could just expand on that?
Contrary to what is being argued here, a fumble doesn't always indicate a 'total screwup'.

[PiXeL01]

I would say that this Spell Casting Modifier roll isn't really needed. It sounds to me like it is just an expansion to the ESF rules. Yes, magic is powerful, but getting to the point where it is that powerful takes alot of time and few people reach that far. There are already rolls for casting spell, standard spells are 1-2 with attack spells being modded by various factors so they are more dangerous to handle anyway. At levels below 5 casters are underpowered while above the balance starts to tip in their direction. It could be something used in really low magic campaigns, where magic should be even more dangerous to handle. Plus as Moriarty states you really need to screw up or roll high to really get in trouble with spell failures