Topic: Spell Mastery question (proposed HR)

[DangerMan]

What about modifying damage/hits taken? IMO it shoud be banned all together.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

IMHO. Spell Mastery costs DP. It is already fairly restrictive. Those penalties already stack to make it a spell that perhaps does not need a roll at all to one that always needs a roll with a fairly high chance of something going badly wrong if rushed or attempted rather to optimistically.

I automatically allow the "additional PP for x2 damage" etc.. but only allow it on spell levels below the casters level without additional penalty. This, is in effect, using more power(effort).. compared to Spell Mastery being more efficent with the power used.

The difference between the Fighter, Thief and the Mage is still (as in D&D 1st 2nd and 3rd) a battery which expends itself when it uses it primary abilities.. where the fighter and thief don't.

Thus the Specialisation issue and the additional PP expended to boost a spell are both sacrifices with either having (knowing) more spells or physically being able to cast more before becoming tired.

[Marc R]

I agree, just that I can't see doubling a spell's effectiveness for +20% PP cost being a good idea most of the time. . .and it depends on how Spell Mastery is purchased. . .is it one skill? Purchased per list? Purchased per individual spell? I'd be more inclined to be lienient with it the more the GM restricts the scope of the skill.

The "Arms always works" vs "Casting runs out of PP" argument has two problems in this context:

1) The "out of combat, non adventuring" utility of casting is way over that of non casting. . . .how often do you need to sneak up and pick a lock or shoot/stab someone on an off day? There are loads of spells that are very handy from home.

2) The baseline SCSM system in RMSS is already loose enough it can be bent quite a bit, and the dangers to game balance seem to most come into play in situations where the "I'm an expendable battery" effect is moot and void. . .

Both of those come together when the caster is home in their den / church / tower and decides to cast with maximum preperation and bonus actions to negate a penalty to engage in casting that they'd never hazard in the field, and they can use most or all of their PP since after casting they can just go take a nap. . . .

The combination of the fairly obvious ways to manipulate SCSM with boosting effects well over stated parameters without some form of limitation in the form of PP cost and a top end of "If you expend 25pp on one spell consider it a 25th level spell" leads to ruin in the hands of a player with four brain cells to rub together. . .

I'd say that if the caster is changing the world from his tower as if he were 3-4x his actual level, while the fighter is changing his pants in his tower, then likely you're creating a game imbalance.

[yammahoper]

I agree, just that I can't see doubling a spell's effectiveness for +20% PP cost being a good idea most of the time. . .and it depends on how Spell Mastery is purchased. . .is it one skill? Purchased per list? Purchased per individual spell? I'd be more inclined to be lienient with it the more the GM restricts the scope of the skill.

The "Arms always works" vs "Casting runs out of PP" argument has two problems in this context:

1) The "out of combat, non adventuring" utility of casting is way over that of non casting. . . .how often do you need to sneak up and pick a lock or shoot/stab someone on an off day? There are loads of spells that are very handy from home.

2) The baseline SCSM system in RMSS is already loose enough it can be bent quite a bit, and the dangers to game balance seem to most come into play in situations where the "I'm an expendable battery" effect is moot and void. . .

Both of those come together when the caster is home in their den / church / tower and decides to cast with maximum preperation and bonus actions to negate a penalty to engage in casting that they'd never hazard in the field, and they can use most or all of their PP since after casting they can just go take a nap. . . .

The combination of the fairly obvious ways to manipulate SCSM with boosting effects well over stated parameters without some form of limitation in the form of PP cost and a top end of "If you expend 25pp on one spell consider it a 25th level spell" leads to ruin in the hands of a player with four brain cells to rub together. . .

I'd say that if the caster is changing the world from his tower as if he were 3-4x his actual level, while the fighter is changing his pants in his tower, then likely you're creating a game imbalance.

The in combat has one major advantage players should have: its life or death.  In these instances, all rules should favor the players.

Out of combat spells ARE more useful.  My players stack up on lore spells and divination spells, making them the best source for leads.

No fighter cares if the mage can vaporize several foes.  Keeps him alive.

[Marc R]

Your players must be more even keeled than most I know, as I've heard non casters, from time to time, make comments like:

"Shall I carry the bags sir?"

"We've disarmed or triggered all the traps for you sir!"

"Now that we've kept the rabble off you for three sessions, you can vaporize the demon lord whist we twiddle our thumbs."

For some reason PCs prefer not to feel like they've been demoted from equal to henchman.

I have gotten enough grief with casters operating at level, to think that letting them casually operate at multiples of their levels would be an improvement.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

It's the same old arguement... low level casters rubbish...high level ones too powerful at high levels.

About the only system that seems to have resolved this is 4th Ed D&D... which, quite frankly isn't much to aspire to. The Ars Magica system happily accepts that life isn't fair at higher power levels.

Magic is MEANT to be powerful..it isn't meant to be balanced to the rest of the adventurers abilities. The problem here is the "Adventuring Party ethos". Low level groups "realistically" should only ever manage to have perhaps two adventurous spellcasters in them.. due to demographics, difficulties that a weak caster would know themselves would have to realistically face. Chances are they end up dead. At that level Arms users rule the roost for survivability. At higher levels they too should have thier own minions, armies and perhaps Kingdoms. And conversely so would the higher level spellusers.. hang around with lowly arms users?.. and risk getting thier hands dirty?

The answer?  Either don't allow magic altogether or forbit pro-rating higher level characters, so they have to earn thier wings.. if you allow prorating high level casters then you are creating a rod for your own back, since they have got a "free pass" from having to risk the dangers of using Spell Mastery at lower levels.

Personally, I allow Spell Mastery to developed per Spell list. Generally this leads to specialisation, which in itself, creates complications when the caster lacks the variety of spells (which they will do because of the DP expenditure on SM) to do something else.

[Marc R]

I concur with all that, but all too often when someone brings you a character concept for 1st level, it sounds like 10th level (or 20th). . .I have often used the phrase "This concept makes for a good goal, something to aspire to, what your character wants to become."

If the players say "I don't want to aspire, I want to be that" then perhaps it's time to start the game at 10th level (or 20th).

I don't think that means it's time to slant the game so 5th level is like 10th, or 10th is like 20th. . .why bend the game to juice the power level artificially, you're the GM, just declare a move up to 10th (or 20th) level and be done with it.

I have had fun running, or playing, in 10th or 20th level games, even as the arms user. . .but I've also seen plenty of games ruined by this urge to pour juice into one aspect totally throwing off the balances in play. . .a 10th level fighter should be able to enjoy playing with a 10th level Magician, but if in practice the 10th level magician is casting like a 20th level out of the book magician, then of course, the fighter is going to feel like the towel boy.

SM by list is fairly middle of the road, and does limit things considerably, but I'd still be cautious of results like the one that started this thread, with 3x radius fireballs. . . .it forces the GM to just pile in more enemies, combat inflation for inflation's sake doesn't seem to add more fun into play, and makes the non-inflated characters feel like henchmen.

[yammahoper]

SM by the list is the rule in RMSS.  Perhaps RM2 could use some of RMSS better balancing features.  But in RMFRP and RMSS, SM per list IS the rule.  At 4/10 to develop, it aint cheap.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Having only briefly looked at the example, I'd say that perhaps that the approach was wrong with regards to how the Spell Mastery affected the effects (grammar?)... in that perhaps only the radius of the spell was enhanced but not the elemental forces involved... In otherwords, reduce the concussion hits caused by each additional radius. So targets within the x3 radius only recieve 1/3 concussion hits and reduce crits by one type for each additional radius outside the first. Therefore you get a bigger but weaker fireball. In this case, like filling two different sized ponds with the same size bucket of water.

I'd personally allow this reduction to be completly overcome if the caster to expending additional PP in the "hit multiplication method" Lordmiller cited from Spell Law..to match the multiplication of Radius.

I'd also say that it is a fairly big assumption that spell casters always have additional and ample time to prepare, and that during that time the foes hadn't been rude enough to close to a range where the blast also encompassed the allies (perhaps even the caster!).

[Grinnen Baeritt]

At 4/10 to develop, it aint cheap.

Exactly. Even with the Everyman bonuses that some professions get... it will cost a lot to do anything but specialise in perhaps 1-2 lists. Even then it probably takes about 8-10 ranks to make it anywhere near reliable (read...safe ) to use*

*especially with my dice rolling inability!

[Marc R]

Yamma,

heh, SM in RM2 is per spell, not per list. . .But RMSS SCSM vs RM2 ESF makes it a LOT easier to do things like overcast, so I'm not really sure what you mean.

GB,

Using SM to stretch the perameters, rather than merely "double" or "Triple" the spell, would indeed prevent the very power creep issue I worry about. . .if someone uses spell mastery on a fireball to make it 10x radius but 1/10 damage to erradicate a giant cloud of locusts before they land and despoil the crops, then that's creatively using the power you have to do something outside the box. . .I'd have no problem with that at all.

[yammahoper]

The idea is how this skill breaks the game.  It doesnt.  I have yet to see a player with more than three list mastered to any level worth talking about, or that could be used in tactical situations.

SM is far more common out of combat, like adding duration to spells or making illusions that can cover a large area.  From your post, I guess your players are rules abusive fiends.  Honestly, I have no proof of that, but if they are, I feel for ya.  I hope like my five gaming buds, all decades long players and GM's now, that they play for fun.  SM is one of those skills that allows creative thinking and fun.

If it is to powerful for you, don't allow it.  Don't convince ICE to nueter it during the rewrite.  Somehow I doubt several versions of the same skill will make a final print.

[Marc R]

The idea is how this skill breaks the game.  It doesnt.  I have yet to see a player with more than three list mastered to any level worth talking about, or that could be used in tactical situations.

SM is far more common out of combat, like adding duration to spells or making illusions that can cover a large area. 

Most of our games are not dungeon crawls, but rather more open style sandbox play. . .and adding duration or scope to things like illusions or divinations is a start, but also control or transformation spells. . .can have a quite dramatic effect beyond mere information/disinformation. (and frankly, access to excessive divination magic can be a game killer in itself).

From your post, I guess your players are rules abusive fiends.  Honestly, I have no proof of that, but if they are, I feel for ya.  I hope like my five gaming buds, all decades long players and GM's now, that they play for fun.  SM is one of those skills that allows creative thinking and fun.

Shrug, I have one player in mind, who loves magicians, who will only hang you with as much rope as you give him, but has no conscience using what's at hand. If the rules allow something, and a smart character uses it, are they abusing, or using the rules? If there's a convenient way to do something that helps, why not do it, how is that being abusive?

The point GB made above goes directly to how it can indeed be "creative thinking" rather than "Creatively supercharging your magic over your level."

If it is to powerful for you, don't allow it.  Don't convince ICE to nueter it during the rewrite.  Somehow I doubt several versions of the same skill will make a final print.

I wasn't aware we were trying to convince anyone of anything. . .I just recognize the problem posed by the OP, I've seen it before, and in my experience, PP charging and considering a spell cast at it's PP expended level is one of the easiest ways to control excesses in the "jack my spell up" department.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

If it is to powerful for you, don't allow it.  Don't convince ICE to nueter it during the rewrite.  Somehow I doubt several versions of the same skill will make a final print.

The original purpose of Spell Mastery was not to alter spells that were cast. The original purpose was to have  a catch-all skill that could be used for spells that might need a caster to have a skill to use properly.

You have a spell that transforms you into an animal? Spell Mastery was what you would use to get skill in those animal attacks.

You have a spell that teleports you? You learn Spell Mastery to be able to change your orientation between the beginning of the teleport and the end (i.e. from an standing to crouching, or changing the direction you are facing, etc.)

You have a spell that requires Concentration? Then you would learn Spell Mastery for it as a way to make sure events don't cause you to lose that concentration (i.e. a skill for keeping concentration, even if hit and taking damage).

That was its "original" purpose.

Rolemaster Companion II is where it was expanded into something that allowed for exceeding normal spell parameters. This was a HUGE change to the skill as well as a huge increase to the power of the skill.

RMSS/FRP expanded upon this, and increase the power of the skill some more, and it also codified these changes to a degree, but it also left it completely unregulated in other ways. It didn't require an increase in PP used for the spell, it didn't specifically indicate that increasing the power of the spell also increased its level. Nor is there any limits about not mastering a spell so that it is equal to or more powerful than a higher level version of the same spell (i.e. ranging a shock bolt so that it has a greater range than the next higher level shock bolt spell).

The RMSS/FRP version of Spell Mastery also left out (or removed) the part (part of option 1) from RoCoII where it says that failing the Spell Mastery roll also triggers ESF.....

In short, RMSS/FRP made the skill even more powerful, but without any checks or balances - which also leaves it open to all sorts of abuses. This is not the first time that this topic has come up on the forums. It crops up every once in a while when folks find the skill being abused in some manner.

IMO, this should be an optional skill that a GM can decide to add, not one that he needs to remove if/when he finds players abusing it.

[Marc R]

That's exactly how I see it having progressed also. . .and along the way somehow the two variable PP options from Spell Law were left in the dust, despite those balance-retaining rules appearing early in the progression of things. . .There were, admitedly, a few versions of Spell Mastery and Overcasting (and Undercasting) in the various companions, but it appears they all were discarded in favor of the RoCo II rules, minus the restrictions.

I also think that generally, merging all the ESF and SCSM maneuvers into a single pool, then allowing the positive casting modifiers to be applied to what were formerly ESF penalties, made some playing fast and loose with the rules as written fairly casual. . . .You see overcasting far more often in RMSS than in RM2 is one major for instance.

[yammahoper]

I cant argue with the progression.  I was there. 

I like what SM has become.  When the party needs to infiltrate an area, a x3 duration changing spell is handy stuff. 

It is a skill that helps the game, not hinder it or break it.  That is how I feel.  Revising the skill so that a spell user will only be able to cast one spell (or three if higher level) makes the skill far less useful.  I don't have a problem with demanding additional pp, but the amounts used as examples seemed excessive.  Worse is increasing the effective level of the spell because it has more pp in it.

As for "I wasn't aware we were trying to convince anyone of anything"...from these boards and the minds of the current ICE staff will arise the next version of RM. 

[Marc R]

On the flip side, I felt things like "+1 target, +2pp" seemed excessively cheap.

A dual lightning bolt, or dual dark absolution, or dual Master of Kind, for +2 PP?

Much less for free. . .

I comprehend the logic of them costing DP for ranks in SM, but effectively it allows you to overcast using a separate mechanic. . .so you double your effective level for determining duration by making a SM roll. (i.e. the 1r/l becomes 2r/l). . .

There's no similar mechanic anywhere else in the system, like "Can I make a weapon mastery roll and if I make it it effectively doubles/triples/quadruples/quintuples my OB/range/number of attacks just for this attack?". . .but of course, you have to purchase weapon mastery once for each weapon. . .but you purchase it with the weapon you use most, much like you purchase SM for the list you use most. It is, effectively the same thing. . .if you want to cast a 1r/l spell that lasts 30 rounds, be 30th level, or use Spell Enhancement on it. . .

There is one thing we agree on, SM, if you use it as written, should fail onto something like the Spell failure table, rather than requiring a 4 or less result to do so. . .the odds of actually rolling a modified 4 or less are pretty slim unless you take seriously insane risks over modifying. . .which means the odds are actually in your favor to just use spell mastery with every cast on a list you have it for, since the realistic downside is a -10 to the SCSM roll or 10 hits of damage, and the upside is at least doubling the potency of the spell in some manner. (At minimum, a failure on the spell mastery roll should blow the casting action).

There's just way too little risk built into SM for the massive benefits it offers, even at the current DP costs.

[yammahoper]

Just a note: i use the arcane spell fumble table for all failed SM rolls.  With the 1' radius rule per pp/lvl of the spell.  Elemental effect, no rr's.  Failure is 75 or less.

Another question; with plus one target, the new target should recieve an unmodified rr vesus the spell.  At best an unmodified BAR attack is applied, just like the extra bolts in tri bolt spells recieve no bonus from OB (though we do allow the OB to be split between the attacks).  A +1 target firebolt fires a bolt (with dir spell) and another bolt with no dir spell added in.

Area effect is diferent.  But any bolt turned into an area effect will attack on the most appropriate ball table, or the ram butt bash table, even the brawling table, with appropriate crits.

RPGs REQUIRE an active GM to keep balance and interpret the game.  It's the nature of the beast.  Devious Smart players make it even more so.  rust me when i say I have been out thought and played on occassion, lol.

[Marc R]

I concur, and respectively we've seen fit to modify SM from RAW, because there are issues with it. . .

I actually wasn't looking to argue with you, or influence a next version of RM, I was looking to be helpful to the OP, who playing with RAW has run into the hairy thing with sharp teeth hiding between the pages of the RMSS book. . .using SM according to RAW certainly does invite casters to roll the dice and take their chances. . .and x2 or x3 fireballs become commonplace.

Most GMs will let that go on for a bit, then look for some reigns to throw down on it to put a stop to that.

"Charging multiples of PP and considering the spell cast at the spell level of the PP used for SCSM" is one way of dealing with it, "All SM failures cause the spell to fail and spell failure should then be rolled on the Arcane table with appropriate modifiers." is another.

Either one will prevent casually tossing 3x fireballs around.

[pastaav]

I agree with what people had said here, but want to add a comment.

I think a very likely rason why extra pp part of the rules was dropped is that the available number of power point changed lots between RM2 and RMSS. Earlier editions builds on the idea "not nearly enough PP, get every spell user a power multiplier or he is toast" while RMSS uses the idea "we give you plenty of PP, but if you use to much of them you face risks similar to overcasting".

One of reasons earlier made the comment that this sounded like a good houserule for those games that are suffering from spell mastery being abused, is that the impact of increased PP cost is rather small. It is something that will make spell users think twice about spell mastering spells, but it is not something that reduces the power of spell mastering too much.

RMSS and RMFRP is designed around stacking casting penalties to limit spell users instead of them running out of PP after a few encounters. RMSS also add that you can use more rounds to lessen the penalties. The flip side of this is that the characters in some situation can use spells that are way above their normal power level because they got lots of time to prepare. Personally I don't have a problem with this since the reason they got this preparation time should be the enemies failed some rolls to discover the characters. It of course depend on the playstyle of the game group if the same holds true for your group.

If you really want to limit the power level offered by spell mastery in RMSS then you either need to make the effects if you fail more substantial or you need to change the casting level like VladD propose. Limiting what can be done with Spell Mastery is of course an option...