Topic: Starting Directed Spell bonus

[Jengada]

One of the recent forum threads (sorry, don't remember which) touched on directed spell bonuses. That got me thinking. When a character uses a spell for which they could develop directed spell bonus, but they have not, I have never made them take a -25 penalty on their attack. But reading the rules, and looking forward from RM2 to RMSS, it appears they should indeed have that penalty.
That seems overly punitive, in a way, but it's never really occurred to me before. I'm tempted to say that by the time someone can actually cast the spell, presumably they've had enough trial and error that they would be at a 0, not -25. What magic school would let a student run around casting firebolts at a -25? I think it differs from mundane weapon skill development, in that the caster must learn to make the weapon, so to speak, before they try to wield it. They aren't merely "picking up" a firebolt someone else left laying around.

Have others used the -25 penalty? Is there a buried rule I'm missing? Balance?

[jdale]

This is the thread you're referring to: https://ironcrown.co.uk/ICEforums/index.php?topic=20488.0

Personally, I haven't made an exception for how the bonus is calculated with zero ranks, but I also haven't enforced the rule about when you are allowed to develop the skill, so that kind of balances out.

[Jengada]

Yep, that was the thread, thanks. It got me thinking I'll allow DS development at the same time they're learning the spell. As you said, that balances it out, and it fits with my thoughts on schools training anyone to use directed spells expecting them to have a modicum of control.

[Spectre771]

I can't say we've never had that issue.  As a spell user, the primary "weapon" is Directed Spells.  A fighter class PC wouldn't go out adventuring with 0-ranks in their weapon of choice.  If so, -25 and maybe a good chuckle on everyone's part is in order.  As a fighter would invest in at least one rank in their first weapon category, the spell user should be investing in Directed Spells as their primary 'weapon category.'  Directed Spells is cost prohibitive for non-spell users and weapon categories are arguably cost prohibitive for spell users.

That's not to say we haven't had a player or two over the near 40 years I've been playing forget to buy skill ranks, but at level 1, the PCs level up so quickly it wasn't an issue.  It was certainly funny though!  Yes, we did impose the -25.  Those instances were super rare.  I always remind players to invest in Body Dev, Stunned Maneuver, and weapon category at each level.  Then I'll add in "Don't forget to get a Token 1 in <insert skill here> because it's better than -25 or higher."  There is also a list of skills that can't even be attempted unless the PC has at least 1 rank in the skill.  I have to see if Directed Spells is on that list. LOL

[Hurin]

Like JDale, I generally haven't enforced the rule either, as it seems a little unfair to casters. Instead, I imagined a kind of 'Karate Kid' scenario where the player's teacher or mentor is preparing him for Directed Spells by getting him to target his spells in a similar way (e.g. with a projected light spell) or working on the basic fundamentals of channeling spell energies by using spell mastery on other elemental spells, or just working on his general spellcasting technique, and ultimately these skills will help him when he finally turns to Directed Spells, so that justifies a few ranks.

All of that is a little less necessary in RMU, since all Elemental Bolts are a single specialization of Directed Spell, whereas in earlier editions casters had to develop Fire Bolt separately from Lightning Bolt, IIRC. So a first level Magician in RMU can start developing ranks in Directed Spell right away, so long as he gets to rank 2 in Light Law for Shock Bolt.

[MisterK]

Even with separate developments, various Directed Spell skills would benefit from the similar skill rule, right ?

It's not clear in RM2 RC2, I believe - table 11.3 states "xxx" at the DS x DS similarity because it is considered a single skill in the table, whereas it is in fact a set of skills with the same name, and no similar skill ratio is made explicit.

[Hurin]

Even with separate developments, various Directed Spell skills would benefit from the similar skill rule, right ?

In RMU, yes, and that is in the core RMU rules.

In RM2, no, at least in the core rules, but yes if you include the supplemental material in the Companions, which offer a few different ways to do it.