Topic: Shield Spell and Shield Crit

[markc]

 Do you allow the shield spell to take the place of a real shield on situational crit's?


 I can say that I do not. I guess it is because it is the way that I view the shield spell as a energy barrier and not a physical object. ie once you pass through it you are through it.
MDC

[Marc R]

I dunno that a force shield can be broken or dropped.

If the result is something like "If shield, shield broken, if not, arm broken" it's a toss up if I'd say the arm is fine, since the shield covered it, and the shield is fine since it's unbreakable, or if I'd just break the arm and say "The shield isn't attached to the arm, so that arm had no shield on it, so the arm is broken".

[rdanhenry]

Shield spell is "broken", i.e. dispelled, by the force of the blow. The spell description says that it acts like a shield except for leaving your hand free. Any other change in function is purely a house rule.

[Marc R]

I'm leaning toward "It's not on your arm, so the arm is broken" due to the hands free issue.

The critical is on the shield arm, affecting a shield if it's there, since the shield isn't on the arm per the spell, the arm takes the hit. IF the spell created a shield that did take up a hand/arm, then it would be on the arm, and affect the crit, but since it doesn't, I don't know that it should.

I'll admit that's a bit fuzzy, but it seems right.

If the result is "Drop shield" that seems even more clearly not to apply, since you're not holding it to begin with.

[rdanhenry]

It leaves the hand free, but in some sense it has to be "on the arm", since it would interfere with the use of a physical shield.

[Marc R]

If you're waving both your arms around casting, I don't think you're keeping your forearm (and shield) in position to block things properly like a shield should be used to work properly. Just strapping a physical shield to your forearm would not allow you to use it and call your hand "free" simultaneously, so I don't think that'd be true with a force shield either.

If you have a floating shield zipping around in close proximity to your body, it may just be that a worn shield would get in the way (or vice versa).

IMO I suspect really that rule about not stacking is more rooted in the meta of not wanting to allow someone to stack up DB too easily, but the "hand free" doesn't mean your arm is fully occupied from shoulder to wrist and just your hand is free and available for use. If you tie a caster's arms to his torso, but don't strap his hands down so they can flap around freely at the bottom of the ropes, that doesn't mean he has two hands free.

[VladD]

As covered before: I think it is unwise to have spells being dispelled by physical force. What I don't have a problem with is telling the player (or ruling for a NPC) that the blow was glancing off the shield. It won't destroy the shield, but also won't break the arm since the shield is unbreakable.
I don't sense an unfair advantage, unless the shield spell is spell mastered into a full plate spell.

[rdanhenry]

If you're waving both your arms around casting,

I am not aware of any Rolemaster rule that involves "waving both your arms around" to cast a spell. That is an interpretation you can enforce in your own campaign, but subtle finger movements are all that are required to justify the rules as written.

I don't think you're keeping your forearm (and shield) in position to block things properly like a shield should be used to work properly. Just strapping a physical shield to your forearm would not allow you to use it and call your hand "free" simultaneously, so I don't think that'd be true with a force shield either.

That is true, because "just strapping a physical shield to your forearm would not allow you to use it" is true all by itself. Strapping a board to your arm would simply hinder you more than your opponent. Even shields with straps to help distribute the weight and restrict the shield's movement are held and directed with the hand.

If you consider the Shield spell effect to be purely free-floating, you should allow it to be applied against someone attacking from the rear.

IMO I suspect really that rule about not stacking is more rooted in the meta of not wanting to allow someone to stack up DB too easily, but the "hand free" doesn't mean your arm is fully occupied from shoulder to wrist and just your hand is free and available for use. If you tie a caster's arms to his torso, but don't strap his hands down so they can flap around freely at the bottom of the ropes, that doesn't mean he has two hands free.

I would, in fact, treat that as two hands free. The rules state hands, not arms, implying finger movements, not flailing the arms around. As for the stacking issue, the metagame issue of balance may have prompted the rule, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have implications within the game world.

[Marc R]

I guess we'll have to disagree on the hands/arms issue, as I'd consider a character with both their hands cuffed or bound to be at "0 hands free".

Spell law places the shield "In front of the caster" not on their arm if you're going to go by the exact wording of the spell. No hands and out front suggests a floating shield more strongly than it suggests a shield attached to your arm, though it explicitly states neither.

[yammahoper]

As covered before: I think it is unwise to have spells being dispelled by physical force. What I don't have a problem with is telling the player (or ruling for a NPC) that the blow was glancing off the shield. It won't destroy the shield, but also won't break the arm since the shield is unbreakable.
I don't sense an unfair advantage, unless the shield spell is spell mastered into a full plate spell.

This view fails to make sense to me.

A physical magical shield can be broken.  An enchanted rope, or rope spell, can be severed.  Magic arms and armors can be broken, punctured, crushed, burnt and destroyed by numerous physical methods.  Wall spells with duration, that disapear when the duration ends indicating they are manifestations of magic, can be melted, chopped, smashes and broken down.  The Armsmasters powerful defensive spells/matels and the like can be beaten down my weapons, even a large group of children throwing stones at it will eventually break them.  yet the lowly shield spell creates an indestructable force that rivals the mightiest enchantments.

It makes no sense.  Illusions are shattered by striking them.  So are phantasms.  There are many spells that are destroyable by physical force, but not the level 2 sheild spell.

I feel like B9 suffering a serious short circuit..."danger...danger...does not compute!"

[VladD]

Of course magic items are destructible, that is without question, and because the enchantment is tied to the physical matter, the item ceases functioning, perhaps it can be mended, perhaps it will explode, who knows?

As with the walls: It puts something physical down. Wood, Earth, etc. So it is logical that people may try to harm it. Then there remains the question: how would a wall of air and a wall of fire put up next to each other, react? Would the air fan the flames, would the fire consume the air? What about a water wall? In any case: for the wood and the earth walls: the designers provided clear directions how to proceed and do damage to the wall (RMFRP, spell law, of Essence, p97). Also there is a system where the elements are either damaging each other or impervious.

As for the shield spell: its a plane of force...Pushy force that displaces the attack. Same as with magnetism pushing its opposite polarity out of the way. HOWever hard you strike with a reversed magnet, it won't budge. Except the shield is magic pushy force against everything. That's why I rule it is unbreakable, ow and the fact there aren't any hitpoints mentioned for breaking the shield.
Then there is the "golden rule" of RPG's: When physical force isn't solving your problems; you need to use MORE. I'm against this approach. I like my players thinking outside of the box and surprise me with something that isn't " bashing down the front door and charging in", much less; "Ow its enchanted so I bash it to take it out". So I'm not making an exception for the shield spell, but most spells can't be bashed to dispel.

As for the Arms master lists: I'm not ever going to allow anyone those, so its probably best to leave it at that, but I think you are confusing 2 professions with each other, since there were no lists dealing with breakable enchantments mentioned in RM companion 7.
As for the Illusions: They don't shatter (page 11, 28 and 98, Spell law of essence, RMFRP) They are there, except when you strike them and seem to pass through, you have detected that they might be illusions, or perhaps ghosts!

I hope to have shed some light on the matter,

[yammahoper]

I certainly would enjoy your ruling as a player.  One advantage I like, its faster. than roling rr.

Yet if the crit reads, shield is destroyed, all mundane shields are destroyed.  If its a magical shield, it gets an rr.  I have always treated the sheild spell as a magical shield.  That seems consistent with the universe.  And maybe thats the point; consistent with my universe.

[VladD]

The RR is also a good solution, IMHO.

In my games it is always good to be on the player side. Especially now we're playing RMFRP for about 1.5 years, I'm thinking the players kinda need that advantage, at least up until the current level (6). RM is deadly enough, so I'm happy to skew some of these critical decisions in their favor. I need most of them to survive the encounters so they can do the things I planned for them in the future. Luckily there is a healer in the party, so I can weed them out a little, without much problems afterwards.

[yammahoper]

You have a Healer in the party?  That is fortunate.  Would the Healer like a little more story line time?

It's a neat magic item, a beautiful pair of leather gloves, the highest craftmanship.  Additionally, they will not stain, and liguids roll off them.  Luxurious black and supple, silver studs and gold thread, they are the highest quality withno signs of wear.

The gloves allow transfer spells to have 50' of range.  The wearer can transfer wounds to himself, then transfer them to another target, instantly healing himself but leaving the target in something of a bind.

Everytime the range ability is used, the gloves steal 1 Co point from the target and the caster, permanently.  If the Co of the caster is ever reduced to the point were he has no stat mod, they devour his soul (rr vs chan, level determined by GM as suitable for his game).

When the gloves are first put on, they do nothing.  It is only when a transfer spell is cast they activate..  Or they could devour anyones soul that puts them on and lacks the strength of soul to weild them.  Modify according to the flavor of your game, of course.

For extra fun, if the Healers soul is actually devoured, this may summon the demon that possess the gloves and it will now possess the healer.  No one may notice this for quite some time, includingthe Healer himself, though he is dead/souless, the demon animates him and uses the shell as its needs dictate.  Whats those may be are far tp varied to cover here.

[MariusH]

I'd say that the shield spell would not prevent your arm from being broken. The shield spell is "in front of caster" somehow, not on his arm. You could even have a shield spell and use two weapons. Thus, while it does make it harder for (one of) yourt opponent(s) to hit you, once they do, it's not helping vs "if shield then A, else B" results the way I see it. However, that goes both ways, and means the "shield broken" does not apply either.

[arakish]

I'd say that the shield spell would not prevent your arm from being broken. The shield spell is "in front of caster" somehow, not on his arm. You could even have a shield spell and use two weapons. Thus, while it does make it harder for (one of) yourt opponent(s) to hit you, once they do, it's not helping vs "if shield then A, else B" results the way I see it. However, that goes both ways, and means the "shield broken" does not apply either.

Very good point.  That is how I have ruled it in the past.  To reiterate your point, it does make you harder to hit, but when hit, it is as if you DO NOT have a shield.

rmfr

[yammahoper]

I'd say that the shield spell would not prevent your arm from being broken. The shield spell is "in front of caster" somehow, not on his arm. You could even have a shield spell and use two weapons. Thus, while it does make it harder for (one of) yourt opponent(s) to hit you, once they do, it's not helping vs "if shield then A, else B" results the way I see it. However, that goes both ways, and means the "shield broken" does not apply either.

Like.  I may adapt this over 20+ years of breaking the spell.  It has a nice balance to it also.  Mucho like.

[Marc R]

Spell law places the shield "In front of the caster" not on their arm if you're going to go by the exact wording of the spell. No hands and out front suggests a floating shield more strongly than it suggests a shield attached to your arm, though it explicitly states neither.

The spell isn't explicit either way, but I read it as implying a floating shield not attached to your arm also.