Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: providence13 on August 12, 2011, 12:37:59 PM
-
1. Does parrying a missile attack use 50%Act with this spell? Although it doesn't occupy a hand, it's used just like a normal shield.
My guess would be "no", but I wanted to ask around.
2. Is the shield from a Shield Spell subject to breakage from Shield Breaker weapons/magical effects? That could be a possibility..
Maybe an RR.
-
1 and 2) No.
MDC
-
1. Does parrying a missile attack use 50%Act with this spell? Although it doesn't occupy a hand, it's used just like a normal shield.
My guess would be "no", but I wanted to ask around.
I'd say yes. It does not occupy a hand, but just like with parrying normal weapons the character has to concentrate and spend activity.
2. Is the shield from a Shield Spell subject to breakage from Shield Breaker weapons/magical effects? That could be a possibility..
Maybe an RR.
I'd suggest making an RR in such cases.
-
1) yes. it works as a notmal shield but requires no hands.
2) yes, it can break. any crit indicating shield breakage would be resolved just as if a magic shiled were struck, an rr versus weapons level. The shield spell would resist at the level of the caster. A magic shield resist at the spell level needed to make it.
-
1) The spell is an area of force that deflects in coming attacks, it takes no hands, AFAIK you cannot direct the spell to block specific attacks it blocks all attacks.
2) The description of the spell says it functions like a shield it does not summon a shield. As such it is a magical construct or plane of force and not subject to enchantment of shield breaker.
Yammahopper, Ecthelion
Q) What if the shield spell had a different name such as Attack Blocker, would the Shield Breaker enchantment still have a chance to break it in your game? What about magical walls of any type?
MDC
-
lvl 3 mentalism attack avoidance, sheild: creates an invisible force sheild in front of the caster. This functions as a normal sheild...except it does not occupy a hand. This spell cannot be combined with a real sheild.
If it was an area of force, it probably could be combined with a sheild. The spell you dscribe would make a great level 15-25 spell.
It IS a sheild, but a sheild of force. It can be broken imo.
-
Thanks everyone.
If I had a physical shield, I could determine which of 2 attackers it blocks.
If the Shield spell acts as a normal shield, it should be similar. In that case, I can determine which attack it blocks.
I'm liking the idea of 50%Act vs Missiles...
-
1) The spell is an area of force that deflects in coming attacks, it takes no hands, AFAIK you cannot direct the spell to block specific attacks it blocks all attacks.
It "functions as a normal shield" says the spell description. Therefore I would assume that it can be directed to intercept incoming attacks, just like a normal shield.
2) The description of the spell says it functions like a shield it does not summon a shield. As such it is a magical construct or plane of force and not subject to enchantment of shield breaker.
IMO that is debatable, which is why, in my first posting, I wrote that I'd "suggest" making an RR.
Yammahopper, Ecthelion
Q) What if the shield spell had a different name such as Attack Blocker, would the Shield Breaker enchantment still have a chance to break it in your game? What about magical walls of any type?
In the end this would depend on the spell description of your "Attack Blocker" spell. The "Shield" spell explicitly states that the shield "functions as a normal shield". Thus it could even be subject to breakage like a normal shield. For other spells this could certainly be differently.
-
I'd agree with mark here.
It's magic not a physical shield, more a magical barrier that has the same defensive bonus as a normal shield and can cover against the same number of (basically frontal) attacks, if the caster turns then the effect rotates with him. No concentration required and no control over it's useage thus no activity required.
Yes it's discription is subject to debate but in the absence of wording otherwise that does specifically state that an actual physical item being generated (or being augmented) like the slightly higher spell "Enchanted Shield", I'd plump for a simple force.
-
I disagree with an indestructable force generated by a low level spell. The advantage of getting an rr when a critical demands the destruction of a shield when non magical shields doesn't is enough.
Still, I could live with either definition. As a player I would prefer the unbreakable option.
-
IIRC now, in the past working with Rasyr the above question was discussed for quite sometime. The idea at the time IIRC was to get a good spell description to fix all of the various problems that arise from it lack of description in SL.
At this time I do not remember what was decided as to what worked vs. the shield spell and what did not work.
IMHO if you can direct the shield created by the spell then you would need some % activity to do so as opposed to it protecting a facing.
Hope that helps.
MDC
-
1. Does parrying a missile attack use 50%Act with this spell? Although it doesn't occupy a hand, it's used just like a normal shield.
My guess would be "no", but I wanted to ask around.
Who knew this would be such a contentious topic! In my opinion, any restrictions that you place on a shield (e.g., parrying a missile attack requires 50% activity) should be placed on a shield spell. I don't use that rule, but if I did it would apply to normal shields and to the shield spell.
Basically, a shield spell protects against one attack of your choosing.
Mark: Blocking all attacks is a significant bonus for a low level spell. Most low-level defensive spells provide +10 to DB. Your interpretation makes the shield spell +25 to DB (since it effects all attacks). So, I disagree simply from the perspective of game balance.
Yamma: I agree that a low level spell shouldn't create an indestructible force; that's ripe for abuse by clever players. I don't have a problem with shield breaker spells/effects/whatnot being used to get rid of a shield spell. The basic benefits of the spell are a) no weight and b) doesn't occupy a hand. That seems like enough of a benefit.
-
1) I say it functions as a "normal shield" in this respect. To me, that means it can be used against one attack (we also allow it against all attacks from one opponent, and in rare cases against several attack from the same position, like both a wolf and the orc riding the wolf). No extra activity for using the SHIELD BONUS (+25) against a missile attack, but then you can't use it against another attack that round. For an ordinary shield, the shield can only be used against attacks on your "shield side", that should probably be the case for the spell as well.
IN ADDITION, the spell, just like any other shield, allows you to missile parry. To me, that's something ELSE than applying your shield against an attack. For example, in melee, we allow players to use the shield against one opponent, and attack/parry with the weapon against another opponent. The opponent you use the shield against, could very well be using missile. MISSILE PARRY is when you PARRY an incoming missile attack, by reducing your OB. It is MINIMUM a 50% activity. I say if you only use 50%, you can parry with 50% of your OB, if you want to use 100% of your OB, it takes 100% activity.
2) I think I'd only allow magical effects to destroy a shield spell.
-
I disagree with an indestructable force generated by a low level spell. The advantage of getting an rr when a critical demands the destruction of a shield when non magical shields doesn't is enough.
I've been studying TreasureCo lately and that was part of the reason for my original post. For Weapon IV Effects: Armor and Shield Slayer, non-magic items save as 1st lvl. This is against a 25th lvl spell for Weapon IV, so the chance of actually making the RR is pretty slim.
As you say, the Shield spell is only first lvl, which led me to believe that it isn't any stronger than a normal, mundane shield. But I'm not telling you how to play. :)
We play making the roll vs. the caster's lvl or for us, the level based on number of Ranks in that List.
Now if you meant normal crits resulting in shield/weapon broken, we roll vs Breakage. But that might be a HR.
-
As to the awesome power of the Shield spell..
I just saw 20. Rune of Dancing under Bladerunes, Closed Arcane.
"when placed on a shield.. full effect of shield without occupying a hand.
1 rnd/lvl"
it's equal to a 20th lvl spell. ;D
-
heh, the use of that rune on a weapon is a bit more nasty. .
on the flip side, the spell shield has no break factor, so you can use it on howitzer shells without losing it.
-
OK, I waited to see if someone would bring it up.
"acts as a normal shield (subtracting 25 from appropriate attacks, etc)"
wait for it..
Then you should also be able to make a blunt weapon attack with it.
Shield Bash. :Joker2:
You wouldn't be able to see it coming.
That should definitely require 60 to 100%Act just like a melee attack.
The range could only be normal melee, but your hands are free..
Also, it has no encumbrance and it can't be dropped. :)
-
IMHO you would have to also include the dancing weapon rune to have the shield attack. IMHO When it says acts as a shield in the text it is assuming you use it defensively only.
MDC
-
There's been discussion of if you could us the shield spell to bash, or ram with it. . .or the more creative angle of "Can I chop people up with the edge of my little force field shield?". . .I think all said efforts got a "no" officially.
I might allow it to be used to block something, not sure, GM call wise. . .like if rats are pouring out of a hole in the wall and you cover it with your shield to stop them from doing so. . .but even that's off-text use of the spell.
-
I might allow it to be used to block something, not sure, GM call wise. . .like if rats are pouring out of a hole in the wall and you cover it with your shield to stop them from doing so. . .but even that's off-text use of the spell.
Yes for this stuff IMHO it would be more wall like as it is stuck to your side (R or L) as a shield would be. IMHO it is also more force like and that you could move through it with effort. So I would rule that the rats could move through the "Shield Spell Wall" with a maneuver roll. If they seceded with the insane spell mastery number I assigned to the task. Much easier trying to cast a spell above your level then bending a lower spell to do stuff it is not designed to do, IMHO.
MDC
-
To take care of all this "reasoning" I just made it so it WOULD take up a hand, because people wanted to use a corporeal shield on top of that and then the more creative use was to cast 2 shield spells and use shield in both hands, for a total of 4 shields. Then they wanted the force shields to attack their foes...
It seems too creative for a 1st lvl spell and I know the RAW, but I chose to nerf this ridiculous spell, so people can use it solely; as if they were using a normal shield. I would allow shield skill on it and parrying would use up 50% act since they would need a hand devoted to direct the shield.
One BIG advantage is the fact it is invisible, so people can cast it even when unseen and the other advantage why everyone still uses it is because it wouldn't hamper maneuvers. Also in RAW it doesn't matter much having a table top strapped to one's arm, but I assure you, it is completely debilitating when climbing trees, tumbling or getting through narrow places. So people use it when they need to do those things.
But those are just my way of dealing with things.
Ow and one last thing: the moment people can destroy enchantments by simply bashing them, that would be a woeful day for spell casters, so I chose not to go there and only allow cancel, dispel and break enchantment spells to affect spell effects. This does not pertain to magic items, which can cease to function (and explode) according to canon in Middle Earth (something with a grey wizard and a staff) or The One ring.
Game On!
-
I'd not allow a normal shield and a shiled spell to "stack". Nevertheless, the most important feature of the Shield Spell is exactly that it does NOT occupy a hand. This allows you to use it together with a one-handed weapon and still cast spells without SCSM (which you'd need with no hands free). Alternatively, you can use it together with a two-handed weapon, or even better, while wielding two weapons.
As for the "dancing weapon" rune (or whatever it was called): This is actually way better than the "Shield" spell for the following reason: It can be used on a powerful, real shield! Whereas the Shield spell is simply 25 to DB, when at level 20 (which this spell is), you'd have AT LEAST a +10 full shield, possibly better (like, say, a +20 full shield). Now THAT sure makes a difference!
-
yes yes I already said I know what the RAW says, but it is too powerful. I would allow perhaps a 10+th lvl spell to be developed that is exactly like the RAW lvl 1, but that is the lowest I would go.
Besides: I think that you would need but one hand free to cast without SCSM, so it would not hamper spell casters much to lose the +5 for 2 free hands BONUS on the SCSM roll.
My 2 gaming cents!
-
Losing the +5 for two free hands is not important. But if you're a semi, I'm assuming you have a weapon in one hand, so if the shield spell occupies one hand, you now have NO free hands. That means you actually have to MAKE an SCSM, which you don't with one hand free. That gives you a rather high chance of not getting a spell when you need it (by getting a near success or partial success), or even failing it. Also, it's likely that you're in melee, or at least in a melee environment. That's -30/-20 to static maneouvers (which an SCSM is), which REALLY makes you want to NOT have to make an SCSM in order to cast spells (note that being in melee or in a melee environment does not in itself force you to make an SCSM, but it modifies SCSMs if you have to make them). This makes it dangerous to cast spells.
So yes, for a semi (like the warrior mage), having one hand free is quite important.
We all play it how we like, of course. I'm very happy with Shield the way it is described. It gives you a +25 to ONE attack each round (if you're aware of the attack). Not necessarily better than, say, Blur, which gives you +10 against ALL attacks each round, whether or not you're aware of them, and that spell can also be used together with a real shield, and definitely does not occupy a hand.
-
And your Magician might not want to have a sword or mace in hand, but there's a fair chance he's managed to pick up a wand, rod, staff, or other handy item.
-
Your arguments are sound, but they don't take in consideration that a lvl 2 spell that does all that is simply too powerful. You are, perhaps, reading past some of my argumentation, which clearly states that I find this spell too open for interpretation and too powerful.
You cannot deny that a magic user of any kind is already unbalanced when looking at the difference between non spell users and spell users. Giving them benefits, such as Auto shielding and lots of stacking DB bonusses will be too unbalancing. Wielding weapons and casting spells just IS going be more difficult than without. Also a staff or rod in hands is going to play havok on those little nuances with your finger somatics. So I'm totally ok with making things more difficult for spell casters and when they come crying to me, I laugh in their face. GM's that want to favor those cry babies are going to be surprised when 10th lvl users start casting lvl 15 spells without much problems. I'm not going to be surprised and the magic users that feel themselves downtrodden can play a non spell user. In fact 1 of my players has already declared this.
Don't get me wrong: I like going by the rules and I'm all for open interpretation of rules and spells, in fact I encourage it, but there are limits and I know this particular spell has issues.
For example:
A player has 2 weapon combo Longsword/mace. the shield he cast is a 3' diameter INVISIBLE disk that hovers IN FRONT. How is he going to evade his own shield? Will it dodge his blow and intercept an enemy's blow? How about the shield is in the process of blocking an attack and the player decides its time to counter attack? Does it block him? Does it "magically" not block him, does it move out of the way and not work on the enemy, therefor? Would a player need perhaps a skill called 2WC: Longsword/mace/magicshield? How well would that skill work when he is out of PP, or his spell got dispelled?
too many messy questions, too many messy answers. That is why I ruled the spell as in my previous post.
Game on!
-
Anyone who is effective with two-weapon combo is probably an Arms user who took a rank or two in a spell list to get Shield, rather than a spell-casting profession.
Maybe if you'd actually stuck to RAW and told the "I'm using two Shield spell" players that spells of the same name never stack effects, you wouldn't have come to such outlandish conclusions about the overpoweredness of this simple spell.
-
Or you could do something dastardly like make the spell users make a Maneuver roll every phase to control the invisible shield, or impose an activity penalty on them for the same reason. If they fail the roll, the magic shield doesn't move in time or something similar.
I never got excited about the "having a hand free" rule for spellcasting, as I tended to tie that in part to the Realm being cast from (or the actual description of the spell). Part of it was also based on my campaign environment.
-
Anyone who is effective with two-weapon combo is probably an Arms user who took a rank or two in a spell list to get Shield, rather than a spell-casting profession.
This is a good point to raise.
Vlad, if you force the caster to actually hold the shield effect, can they use it for shield bash? :) I'm sure it would come back to bite me, but I might allow Spell Mastery to affect another facing of the caster..
I ask these and other wacky questions because I want to be ready when my players try.
markc, I could see a MM to squeak by force field effects. It's not how I run it, but I like the fact that it's goose/gander.
MariusH, modifiers for being "in combat" on SCSM and mods for SCSM by themselves may be separate. I need to check.. We don't play them cumulative.
-
MariusH, modifiers for being "in combat" on SCSM and mods for SCSM by themselves may be separate. I need to check.. We don't play them cumulative.
I'd like feedback on this! We use it this way, because of how it says when you can cast spells without SCSMs and when you have to use them. And we see SCSMs as static maneouvers (that's Spell Casting Stacic Maneouver, right?), so any mods that normally apply to static maneouvers, we also add to SCSMs. When they fail, we only add the negative mods stated specifically for SCSMs to the Spell Failure roll, though.
As for two-weapon wielders probably being fighters who have learned a spell, that might be true. However, if so, they are probably of the mentalism realm, and taking the chance of fighting without a helmet. It COULD also be a semi who is leaning more towards the arms than the magic way.
-
Actually I mentioned 4 shields, but of course using 2 magic shields is out of the question because of the aforementioned rule, but I swear it came up in a player question. in fact he was contemplating researching a new spell: Targe (so it sounded like a different spell) that would be a lvl 3 spell....but on to other issues.
@providence13: I do not allow shield bashes to be administered by a 3' invisible disk of "force" because force in my opinion is not the most powerful indestructible thing in the universe, but simply a sort of "gravity or magnetism" affecting the incoming blades adversely to provide the shield bonus. (so the force makes the weapons radiate towards the rim of the shield). This is not solid in any way.
What I am wondering about is whether it matters if an arms user is taking spell lists (very expensive hobby DP wise) or a semi spell user is developing 2 weapons and taking 2 weapon combo? (Also a very expensive DP wasting hobby) My point with the example was that there are plenty of strange circumstances that can arise when allowing the RAW shield spell and using it to its full potential.
One of the main reasons for curtailing the shield spell is that I have a problem that almost any spell user can take the spell and then develop some sick two handed weapon (flail, war mattock) and be more effective than a non spell user because of a badly worded spell, in the realm of non spell users.
I must admit: I like roles and archetypes, so a typical pure/ hybrid spell user should wear robes (I seriously enforce this by disallowing casting of higher than lvl 5 spells to him/ her. I balance this by telling players that robes (albeit bad armoring) are like wearing a suit nowadays) and a fighter should wear plate, so I'm probably biased against such cross profession spells.
Game On!
-
I know it doesn't matter in RMSS but in RM2, a shield spell gave no defense against elemental attacks making them a bit weak at higher levels. depending upon the opponent
-
I developed a more advanced version of the shield spell as a whole spell list, I think I called I the list Martial Shielding and it simply addressed the above questions with higher level spells. Yes IMHO it was a good list but it was solely directed at more advanced version of the "shield" spell.
MDC
-
Okay, I want to know who gets Shield as a 1st level spell. I think this thread is mistitled. At least in my RMSS copy of Spell Law, Shield is a 3rd level spell (Holy Shields), 2nd level spell (Shield Mastery), or a 3rd level spell (Attack Avoidance).
-
OK, you caught me. This should be titled "Shield Spell Questions".
It is interesting how GM's come up with different ways to handle the spell.
-
If I were to play a figher, I'd definitely consider choosing Mentalism as my realm and investing three spell ranks in the Open Mentalism list, and one rank in PP, and use 2WC with shield. Expensive? Maybe. But 2WC is one of the reasons for being a fighter, and the combination of 2WC and a Shield spell is very tempting. And as a "non-spell user", the Fighter needs all the power he can muster to compare to other classes.
Some GMs may even allow the PP rank and one of the spell list ranks to be developed during adolescensce, as "hobby skill ranks" (we probably would), making it quite affordable at, say, level 5 or 6, to have spent 2 x 25 DPs on the remaining two spells. The main drawback is that you can't use a helmet. Being a mentalism user, you can still use AT20.
-
If I were to play a figher, I'd definitely consider choosing Mentalism as my realm and investing three spell ranks in the Open Mentalism list, and one rank in PP, and use 2WC with shield. Expensive? Maybe. But 2WC is one of the reasons for being a fighter, and the combination of 2WC and a Shield spell is very tempting. And as a "non-spell user", the Fighter needs all the power he can muster to compare to other classes.
Some GMs may even allow the PP rank and one of the spell list ranks to be developed during adolescensce, as "hobby skill ranks" (we probably would), making it quite affordable at, say, level 5 or 6, to have spent 2 x 25 DPs on the remaining two spells. The main drawback is that you can't use a helmet. Being a mentalism user, you can still use AT20.
Agree.
MDC
-
Oh, Mentalism is the best Realm for a Fighter (or Rogue) in many ways: no armor restrictions except no helmet, no restrictions on metal or any need to keep a hand free, the best Open lists, you get a Realm bonus against a lot of insidious RR-allowing spells.
The main argument against is that Intuition is the most useful of the spell stats, particularly for non-spell-users, which means that most Arms users are going to be more suited to Channeling. Essence isn't really worth consideration.
-
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=10275.msg130960#msg130960
Here's a discussion on the topic.
Quote from: providence13 on October 06, 2011, 12:11:57 pm
MariusH, modifiers for being "in combat" on SCSM and mods for SCSM by themselves may be separate. I need to check.. We don't play them cumulative.
I'd like feedback on this! We use it this way, because of how it says when you can cast spells without SCSMs and when you have to use them. And we see SCSMs as static maneouvers (that's Spell Casting Stacic Maneouver, right?), so any mods that normally apply to static maneouvers, we also add to SCSMs. When they fail, we only add the negative mods stated specifically for SCSMs to the Spell Failure roll, though.
We've always played that SCSM are special maneuvers and only subject to modifiers on table T-4.6. Bleeding penalties, hit penalties and general exhaustion penalties are not on the chart, so we don't apply them.
We do apply general crit penalties to all actions; "broken arm, (-20)" for example.
-
A-1.27 SPELLS SKILL CATEGORY (p. 193, RMSR) reads in part:
"Classification: Static Maneuver and Special"
If the SCSM is Special, then what is the Static Maneuver part?
Furthermore, "If a caster can not automatically cast a spell, he must make a static maneuver roll in order to be able to cast the spell." (emphasis added)
That is the argument for including all normal modifications.
However, we may also read:
Spell Casting Static Maneuver Roll =
1d100 (open-ended) + 50
+ caster's skill bonus for the spell's list
+ mods from Spell Casting Modifications Table T-4.6
Noticeably absent is a mention of the General Modifiers listed on p. 140. This is case against using them.
The rules are contradictory, at least in RMSR. If RMFRP has removed the ambiguity, a citation would be very helpful.
It has been officially ruled that the general modifiers do apply,
"SCSMs are modified by the general static maneuver modifications in
T-4.4, and by penalties from injuries. [2/22/00]" http://www.icewebring.com/errata/rolemaster-rulings/#Magic (http://www.icewebring.com/errata/rolemaster-rulings/#Magic)
In the absence of a contradicting ruling from the current ICE, I would consider this the official rule.
-
Thanks for the reference rdanhenry.
A-4.18 Spells Skill Categories
Pg 126 RMFRP is almost word for word;
Spell Casting Static Maneuver Roll =
1d100 (open-ended)
+ caster's skill bonus for the spell's list
+ mods from Spell Casting Modifications Table T-4.6
The +50 was added to the chart for RMFRP, but is essentially the same.
Noticeably absent is a mention of the General Modifiers listed on p. 140. This is case against using them.
As with all things RM, there's room for argument. Have fun with the version you use. :)
Back to Shield Spells,
The Arcane spell Shielding from the Arcane Shield List is odd.
1. Shielding--- ....word for word Shield spell except Duration is "C".
Then at 3rd lvl, the standard Shield spell with 1 min/lvl Duration.
If you can get Shield effects, (functions as a normal shield...-25...no hand.. can't use "real" shield) and be required to Concentrate (50%Act), then it probably does not require %Act to actually use the shield created from the spell. Also, you probably can't use it to attack/bash because that would require %Act...
-
Back to Shield Spells,
The Arcane spell Shielding from the Arcane Shield List is odd.
1. Shielding--- ....word for word Shield spell except Duration is "C".
Then at 3rd lvl, the standard Shield spell with 1 min/lvl Duration.
If you can get Shield effects, (functions as a normal shield...-25...no hand.. can't use "real" shield) and be required to Concentrate (50%Act), then it probably does not require %Act to actually use the shield created from the spell. Also, you probably can't use it to attack/bash because that would require %Act...
Very good point.
MDC