Topic: Multiple Target Transport spells

[Marc R]

OK, if sticking with the interpretation that the target picks the destination of the spell (Thus avoiding offensive use issues like "I teleport that ogre into the active volcano on the horizon"). . .

When you cast the multiple transport spells, does this mean that each target can choose a different location? So you could cast it on a group of people and they send themselves in all sorts of different directions?

[Kristen Mork]

Ick!  Good question.  At frist, I would have to say no.  I think the caster chooses the destination, and the passengers can choose whether or not to "get on the train."  This would largely seem to apply to teleport.  Most of the other transport spells are a single target, right?

But, what if a mage casts Targets (or something similar) to increase the number of targets for a Leaving spell?  Seems like then each target should get to choose the destination.  So, in retrospect, each target gets to choose his own destination, except for Teleport, which is up to the caster (doesn't it depend on the caster's knowledge of the destination, anyway?).

[markc]

 I think I would rule each spell a bit differently as per the description of the spell. So...


1) Leaping: IMHO each target of the spell would get to chose their destination.
2) Teleport: IMHO the caster would determine the target location and the "others" would chose if they wanted to go with the mage or not.


 I guess in #1 the spell require an targets action... leaping and in #2 the spell whisks them away. If #2 was target specific then each of the targets would have to make a roll to see if they got to their destination correctly. Which IMHO could be a big problem for the group but could also be funny out of game.
 (Yes I have played in a game with a caster who always seemed to have trouble casting, ie Ice Storm in small cave, teleport  1/2 into rock, fire ball the front line fighters (because that is where the enemy is) or even better the archer who try's to fire into melee and hits his own party members which results in PC's going negative hits and the rest of the party suddenly deciding it would be a good time to run away.)


MDC

[Kristen Mork]

Leaving and Long Door fall between these two extremes.  I would treat both of these like Leaping, and allow all targets to choose their own destinations.  In fact, the only spell that strikes me as a problem is Teleport.

[markc]

 I think there may be some good rules in the Chan Comp on the Teleportals spell list.
MDC

[providence13]

OK, if sticking with the interpretation that the target picks the destination of the spell (Thus avoiding offensive use issues like "I teleport that ogre into the active volcano on the horizon"). . .

When you cast the multiple transport spells, does this mean that each target can choose a different location? So you could cast it on a group of people and they send themselves in all sorts of different directions?

Is this a general Rolemaster question? Not Harp or something else that I'm not familiar. I must not be up on current events.
This is a U spell.
It can't ever be offensive and the caster decides. Right?
Teleport is as Long Door and that is as Leaving... "Caster Teleports target to a point..." Would it be any different if it said "Caster Teleports item"..?

It sounds like the target decides on everything except Teleport.

My guys Spell Master this all the time to include additional targets. The caster decides the destination. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

[MariusH]

I'd definitely go with "caster decides destination" for teleport and similar spells (which includes long door and leaving). For leaping, I say it just allows the target to leap (it doesn't move the target), so target gets to choose destination (where to leap). However, since these spells are U spell, only willing target can be affected, of course.

I CAN see a few scenarios where the question of "Umm, sure, I'm willing to be teleported to A, but not B" would come to question. Then I think one of two would apply. Either:
A) You either accept to be teleported and take your chances, or you DON'T accept to be teleported, or
B) You claim that you're willing to be teleported to A, but not B, so if the caster tries to teleport you to B, you're not a willing target, and nothing happens.

I have to think about which one I prefer, but right now, I'm leaning towards A. Similar problems applies for other U spells as well, I'd think.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I think the key point is whether the spells make the target perform an action or give them the ability to do so. A Teleport or Leaving spell makes its targets teleport or leave, therefore the caster chooses the destination, whilst a Leap spells gives its target the ability to perform a leap with given statistics, therefore the target chooses the destination.

[Kristen Mork]

I think the key point is whether the spells make the target perform an action or give them the ability to do so. A Teleport or Leaving spell makes its targets teleport or leave, therefore the caster chooses the destination, whilst a Leap spells gives its target the ability to perform a leap with given statistics, therefore the target chooses the destination.

The original question did start with the assumption that the target gets to choose the destination.  Based on that assumption, I think the answer is that if there are multiple targets, each gets to choose his own destination.

I also don't think Leaving can should be able to make a target teleport, or Leaving becomes the mage's most powerful weapon.  It leads to +100 Fall attacks at a fairly low level.  Or, if the destination must be "safe", Long Dooring an enemy into a cage or other constraint.  So, at the very least, even RM2 needs to incorporate the restriction that only a willing target can be teleported.

[Marc R]

The two potential ways around transport spell lethal use as weapons are:

1) Targets pick destination.

or

2) Targets must be willing.

There's been some beef about #2 being too mild, in that duping becomes nasty. . .like you trick someone into accepting a teleport into a volcano, or into willingly accepting the healing touch of a dark absolution.

I'm not sure if #1 makes any real sense for say a mass teleport. . .or if it does, I can see nasty applications, like either teleporting 10 assassins simultaneously into various parts of your building. . .or ten people teleporting in various directions making it hard to impossible to track them all down.

It also means you can't teleport friends to a place you've been to, but they have not.

[Thom @ ICE]

You could word it that the caster selects the destination, and then the target is either willing or not to be teleported to that location.

[MariusH]

That would be what I called alternative B, I suppose. It's not enough to be willing to be cast teleport on; you must be willing to be teleported to where the caster tries to teleport you as well.

[Thom @ ICE]

It's actually a combination of 1 and 2.
1 requires target to select destination which means casting upon multiple targets can result in people going all over the place.
2 requires willingness to accept the spell, but doesn't force the caster to be honest about the destination intended, or even worse - casting the expected spell.
The combination of the two factors creates a situation similar to a military leader giving an order.  The leader gives the order, the soldier decides whether or not to follow it.
The caster selects the destination, the target decides whether or not to accept the spell's impact.

[markc]

 IMHO there are a couple of things;
1) the targets have to be willing
2) the targets have to know that there is a small chance of failure, ie a teleport error
3) the targets aura has to know that the teleport area is safe. By that I mean even if the caster knows he will be safe at the targets area the other teleporters aura has to know it is going to be safe. example the teleport caster wants to teleport himself and others back to his tower 50' in the air. He will be safe as he has some magic that will aid is his descent. The other targets IMHO "aura" should know that this is dangerous and automatically not go.
  3a) This prevents evil trust, mind domination, friend spells from bypassing the safe guards of the spell.


MDC   

[providence13]

If I can hack markc's post,
1. Target must be willing or unconscious/unable to resist. It is a U spell..
2. Target does not have to know how the spell works in any way.
3. Target's "aura" (FLOABT) senses no ill intent. This is the only safeguard of the spell.

The only precedent I can think of to explain this aura/ill intent shenanigans is the "hostile activity" for Invisibility.  Translocation type spells are fragile things and easily blocked/skewed/resisted.

Now this is how I see it. YGMV.
(FLOABT: For lack of a better term.)

[Marc R]

I think that's "Violent Activity" including all attacks, and more a "tear the fragile spell" issue.