Topic: Spell targetting

[darksilver]

I would assume this question has been asked before but I can't seem to find any reference. I am curious to know what the official (or community) ruling/opinion is concerning how spells are targetted. My feeling is that different spells have different rules, as it seems logical that spells such as Presence should function through walls etc, but obviously a fire bolt could not. What about a Sleep spell? A PC hears an opponent beyond a door (detected but not sighted). Could he then attempt to cast Sleep? Could he create an illusion of a closed door beyond the door so he could open it without being noticed? I love Rolemaster but there really are so many gaps in the rules mechanics. This often leads to interesting house rules and discussion but sometimes I'd prefer to see something in black and white.

[markc]

 For sighted Targeting I use the Targeting Skill from the Ess Comp (with some house rules thrown in).


 As per the sound through the door question, I would require the caste to detect them in some way besides hearing. That could be via Presence Spell, sight or some other location spell. I might on a stretch allow someone very very familiar with the area cast the spell blindly as they can see in their mind just where they are and what they want to do. I might also make them do a lot of practicing to be able to do this and specific Talent(s) might help them also.


MDC

[yammahoper]

I consider all indirect casting to require a -50 Spell Mastery check, which allows the attack to be resolved with an additional -100, or -50 for area affect.  Extremely Hard Targeting mnvs, a seperate power manipulation skill, can reduce the penalty (rolled on the MM Table).

[darksilver]

Just wondering, what about detect spells? Can you detect if there is a magic item in a closed chest or would you need to be able to see the item first?
I suppose as the spells have a 5' radius the effect would cover most sized chests even if the centre point does not. The question really hinges around whether the centre point can be placed beyond solid obstacles.

[yammahoper]

Most spells are line of sight.  Thse that can be cast through a barrier say so in the spell description.  All other spells cast through a barrier would be indirect, be it a radius detect spell or fireball.

I assume detect spells would detect Xeven if the object is in a chest or behind a wall within the radius of the spell.  What I am talking about is casting the center of the spells effect into an area the caster cannot see.

[arakish]

Most spells are line of sight.  Thse that can be cast through a barrier say so in the spell description.  All other spells cast through a barrier would be indirect, be it a radius detect spell or fireball.

I assume detect spells would detect Xeven if the object is in a chest or behind a wall within the radius of the spell.  What I am talking about is casting the center of the spells effect into an area the caster cannot see.

I agree wholeheartedly.  This is exactly how I handle spells.  All are LOS unless description says otherwise.  Center point of detect spells is also LOS, but they will still detect things that are not LOS.

rmfr

[markc]

 I allow for specific types of material to block detection spells, such as lead and others. But in general I would allow a detect magic spell to detect an item in a chest but then the caster would not know if the chest is magical or something in the chest. So in my game it say the item in question is magical that that PC can see and not some item inside that item.
  Does that make sense at all?

MDC

[arakish]

I allow for specific types of material to block detection spells, such as lead and others. But in general I would allow a detect magic spell to detect an item in a chest but then the caster would not know if the chest is magical or something in the chest. So in my game it say the item in question is magical that that PC can see and not some item inside that item.
  Does that make sense at all?

MDC

Yes, it does.  And like you, I also allow for certain materials, substances, elements, etc. that can block detect spells.  For example, on my old world of Udava, jagasite had the ability to absorb magic and its effects.  Thus, a container lined with jagasite would block detection simply because it would absorb the magic.  Does that make sense?  Another substance, basdrunite, reflected magic and its effects and had the same net effect as jagasite.

Essentially, you could only detect jagasite and/or basdrunite simply due to the absence of detection.  Does that make sense?

rmfr

[RandalThor]

I do it like this: You use whatever your species targeting sense is, so for humans, elves, dwarves, etc.. it is sight*.

So, unless the spell says otherwise, you must see it in order to affect it, but in the case of detecting someone/thing with a non-targeting sense (like hearing or smell in humans) I will usually give them a chance, but with a hefty negative, like the -50 above. Also, whenever I give negatives like that (not all negatives, though) I give them an increased critical fumble range, to add tension and consequences to "pushing" the magic that way. (Roughly, for every -20 or -25 modifier, their critical fumble range goes up by 1. If it is a really confusing, dangerous, and/or fool-hearty action I might even go up to 1 per -10 modifier.)


*If your species is derived from a bat-like species, then maybe hearing is your targeting sense.

[MariusH]

For a force spell, like "Sleep V", I would ordinarily require LOS. Of course, you could use a Circle spell ("Circle I" for "Sleep V") to cast beyond walls and into buildings, since it is specifically stated that "Circle" spells extend beyond such hindrances.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I personally allow a caster to target anything he has detected. Yes, that includes physical spells such as a firebolt (or fireball). No, that doesn't mean the bolt or ball may go through the door/wall/whatever, merely that it can be cast at the direction of the detected target; it'd just hit the door/wall/whatever. Other than that, there's a "detected but not sighted" situation modification for the explicitely stated reason, after all, very much implying you can cast a spell at a target that was "detected but not sighted" (yes, this roll modification also exists for base spell rolls)

[providence13]

I personally allow a caster to target anything he has detected. Yes, that includes physical spells such as a firebolt (or fireball). No, that doesn't mean the bolt or ball may go through the door/wall/whatever, merely that it can be cast at the direction of the detected target; it'd just hit the door/wall/whatever. Other than that, there's a "detected but not sighted" situation modification for the explicitely stated reason, after all, very much implying you can cast a spell at a target that was "detected but not sighted" (yes, this roll modification also exists for base spell rolls)

Same here. Most spells for me are "sight or able to be perceived" unless the spells states that it steaks from caster to target. Even then, some magic items may allow spells to be cast directly through them; Greater Crystal Ball.

[Marc R]

I'd say you can use anything for a targeting sense that gives you actual exact location. . .like the the detects that merely give a yes/no answer of 5' radius are not good enough unless you're targeting them with something with an area effect of 5' radius or greater.

[dutch206]

I have always allowed "Essence Perceptions" and similar lists to work through doorways (which are only 6 inches thick) but not through walls (which are more than a foot thick).  Note that some spells (such as Leaving) specifically state "will not work through a barrier".

As for targeting, BAR and EAR handle how effectively the spell caster tags the target.  Why make it more complicated than that? The last thing RM needs is another level of complexity.

[Marc R]

Problem list in what's the BAR modifier for targeting someone you can only see via a spell effect with Sleep V, even though they are inside a building with locked doors and shuttered windows?

(I dunno, but if armor affects the BAR, then I'd think a 1' wall would also, or make it flatly impossible)

[yammahoper]

invisible targets are -100 to hit.  Detected invisible foes are -50 t be hit.  I apply the -50 logic to area affect spells against essentially invisible foes, i.e. foes that are known to be in the area but unseen.

[Marc R]

Armor affects the BAR though, so would hiding behind metal or stone or wood in and of itself affect the BAR? (Assuming the caster had a lock on their exact location via some I spell)

[rdanhenry]

Armor affects the BAR though, so would hiding behind metal or stone or wood in and of itself affect the BAR? (Assuming the caster had a lock on their exact location via some I spell)

I'd think so. Situational protection would be as effectively protecting as armor, I would think, shifting the column for the BAR. Of course, Channeling isn't bothered by organic armor, so should ignore wooden barriers.

This would be in addition to the -20 for detected but not sighted. Going to be pretty risky at lower levels to throw spells through metal doors and stone walls.

[VladD]

I have a good simple rule:

essence/ mentalism: 1' of stone and wood will stop spell effects as will 1" of metal, except lead and gold: 1/8" is enough to stop a spell.
This does not apply to elemental spells and repeated castings of firebolt on a log palisade will eventually burn through.

For channeling spells this works the same except for Wood: 3' of wood is needed to stop a channeling spell.