Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: Eldainen on October 26, 2010, 10:02:00 AM
-
This is just a simple question but it is causing many problems during our current adventure.
In the duration of the bladeturn and aim untrue spells there is a simple "-".
I personally assume that I can deflect a blow (bladeturn) or an arrow (Aim untrue) that is currently beeing shot/swinged at me and that I can see (incoming attacks in the same round as the casting of the spell).
That is not the opinion of my fellow players. They believe that both bladeturn and aim untrue are spells that you can cast on yourself in the morning for example and will affect the next attack that is made against you even if it's made many hours later in the day.
This interpretation is leading to grotesque situations in our current group of players: we have an arcanist with the arcane shield spell list casting every morning mass bladeturn and mass aim untrue on every party member (four players including the caster) using his high spell mastery skill (one spell split to four targets).
That makes us all powerhouses (+50 DB against the first 18 melee attacks and the first 18 missiles missing their target) and is causing the master to react in the same way, giving bladeturn and aim untrue to quite every enemy we face, and the archer of our group is obviously not happy…
What do you think? Are bladeturn and aim untrue really supposed to work that way?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
-
the spell can be held with concentration.
if you wish to allow the spell to last until it is triggered by the next attack, I like to use a duration of appropriate stat mod in rounds.
So if the mage has an Em mod of 9 and cast bladeturn on the fighter or self, then the spell will work against any appropriate attack in the next 9 melee rounds.
if you use spell master, the pc can use it to increase duration to one rnd per level. After that, it could be enhanced by duration increasing spells. As you have seen, this is a very powerful option. Most players will perform the spell mastery skill check out of melee and then spell store it, or if the duration is long enough, "cast it in the morning."
-
Eldainen, I am quite certain that the interpretation of your fellow players is wrong. The duration "-" in Spell Law is typically used for spells that where the duration is explained in the text or which have a duration that is shorter than one round. Any spell that stays active until a certain condition is met - in the case of your fellow players interpretation this condition would be e.g. a missile being shot at their character - has a duration of "varies" listed. Examples for this are e.g. the Quest or Suggestion spells on the Spirit Mastery list. On that same list you can find such common spells like Sleep V that also have a duration of "-". That certainly does not mean that you can cast your spells in the morning and can later decide at will whom to put asleep.
AFAIK the rules for Bladeturn / Deflection / Aim Untrue are far more restrictive than your fellow players would like to have it:
-The spell must be cast in the round when its effect should be applied.
-It must be cast before the attack. Typically this is done during the Snap Action Phase.
-After the spell is cast the caster can decide to apply the spell to an appropriate attack during the round.
See the Rolemaster Rulings (http://www.icewebring.com/errata/rolemaster-rulings/) page for some official FAQs on this matter.
P.S.: We have a house rule that allows these spells to be cast when the attack is made. This saves the casters a few PPs for cases when the attack does not get resolved. And it saves some time during the gaming sessions since a few spell rolls do not have to be made.
-
There's a few spells in there where instant is - and it's unclear the same way when you cast them, and others where range and area of effect seem inverted.
There's a lengthy thread around here somewhere getting into when a bladeturn is declared/cast and how to hold it.
But the munchkin in me is contemplating how much fun a good dispel/melee combo would be in that scenario. . ."oh, assumed you didn't have to parry? Didn't expect the dispel? You assumed wrong!" <Gak!>
-
the spell can be held with concentration.
This is not correct, the duration "-" means "none". Spells where the caster can concentrate on for a period of time are marked with "C" as duration.
if you use spell master, the pc can use it to increase duration to one rnd per level. After that, it could be enhanced by duration increasing spells.
This would be correct if the duration were "C" for concentration. But since this is not the case, the spell's duration could only be increased from "-" to "1 rnd" (for -50 to the Spell Mastery maneuver) and then this duration could be doubled, tripled etc. (for another -20, -30 etc. to the Spell Mastery maneuver). This will seldom be worth the risk or the DP investment for Spell Mastery for this list.
-
There's a notation on holding spells and targets that applies, I think the rule is page 230. Yep, 7.1.16 in RMSS SL, uses deflections III in the example.
It relates to holding an effect until expended on the allowed number of targets, which would allow you to pre-cast a bladeturn #, then hold it until # blades are turned, but requires you to concentrate to do so. . .but you could hardly concentrate all day. . .or at least, I wouldn't allow it. . .even if you did, they'd be at 50%/-50 to all actions until the spell was used up, which hardly seems worth it.
-
I only allow bladeturn type spells to be held during combat and once combat is over it goes away. AFAIK it has a requirement of combat.
MDC
-
Even if you allow these spells to be held:
Using SoHK there's a cost of 1 exhaustion per minute to concentrate on a spell.
Using Mentalism Companion there's a limit to the number of rounds that concentration can be maintained.
-
There's also the issue of the multiple casts. . .there seem to be 3 problems here
1) You would need to concentrate, and eat the concentration penalties, to "hold" onto one of these spells, per SL p230.
2) concentration can't be indefinite, per Peter's references above.
3) If you concentrating on a spell, you may not cast another, so how does every party member get a mass bladeturn and a mass aim untrue cast on them?
It seems to me like no matter how you look at this, it breaks across multiple issues, this isn't like "You're run afoul of one rule misinterpretation". . .this is "First rule 1, and if not rule 1 then rule 2, and if not rule 2 then rule 3.". . .
But "<Dispel>, Hack em down!" would still be fun to watch. . .sigh.
-
There's a notation on holding spells and targets that applies, I think the rule is page 230. Yep, 7.1.16 in RMSS SL, uses deflections III in the example.
It relates to holding an effect until expended on the allowed number of targets, which would allow you to pre-cast a bladeturn #, then hold it until # blades are turned, but requires you to concentrate to do so. . .but you could hardly concentrate all day. . .or at least, I wouldn't allow it. . .even if you did, they'd be at 50%/-50 to all actions until the spell was used up, which hardly seems worth it.
A precondition for this rule is that the spell must affect more than one target. So first thing to note is that this does not apply to Deflections (I) or Bladeturn (I). And for this very reason I would assume that the intention when creating this rule was not to introduce a way that characters could cast the spell prior to combat and then hold it (that could work well with Deflections I or Bladeturn I too) but rather to allow caster to not waste the additional targets some spells offer. Therefore IMO the first target is meant to be selected in the round the spell is cast. Only afterwards this concentration rule would apply.
YMMV
-
I suspect the source behind the confusion with the spells is the fact that the text was a bit off in RM2, and then wasn't updated in the RM2-RMSS version change. . .so the logic RM2 RAW is that the spell will be cast in spell phase, previous to the missile phase in which the shot is fired (or the melee phase in which an attack was made). The RM2 version was already screwy, in that it couldn't really be instant, resolved in Spell results phase, since no missiles in flight (nor melee attacks being made) at that point anyway, so should have had a clearer duration like "1 round" or "In the following missile phases of the same round" or "in the following melee phase" or something. . .On top of that nobody updated for clarification in the RMSS upgrade either, which it really should have been, considering it was now possible for missiles, melee and spells to go off in the same phase. . .or even for missiles or melee to go before spells, raising the question of if you could cancel action to bladeturn/deflect/aim untrue or not.
But beyond all that, I think we all agree that the example above that started this conversation doesn't work, for more than one reason.
-
IIRC concentrating is a 50% action so you can cast another spell in that 50%. IIRC this was said in another thread by Rasyr as an official ruling. But I could be wrong.
MDC
-
Yes, you can cast spells while concentrating. For example, you can cast instantaneous spells (such as Haste). Once Hasted, you have 150% activity remaining; more than enough for spell-casting. And, the Elemental Champion even has some spells that require 20% concentration, which leaves enough for spell-casting (although not preparation, so be careful!).
On a side note, are there other spells that people think deserve 20% concentration to maintain?
-
P 6 of RMSS SL:
C- Concentration is required. Concentration takes 50% of the caster's normal activity. The caster cannot cast any other spells while concentrating.
It's not a % activity remaining issue, it's just stated you cannot cast while concentrating on a previous spell. Unless there's an errata on that?
-
Eldainen: Thanks for the laughs! Really inventive of your group, through catastrophic for your game balance.
Bladeturn etc stuff in our game:
- Can only be used against the known attacks, I use Sit.Aw.Battle in this. I guess General Perception would go with RM2 just fine.
- Since it's an instant spell, anytime before the actual attack resolution gives the full bonus. Defender can also parry and use shield if he has one.
- If the melee is continual, with no breaks in between, then Bladeturn can be delayed a few rounds and to be used anytime.
- Must Parry state actually requires that the spell is used, stun & unable to parry state cause the spell to go off with no effect unless it's declared against that attack of course.
I've never thought before how long that delaying can be, but I guess something like Spell Concentration rounds would go fine although that rule points to somewhere else.
Bladeturn is surely used in every combat we play, and with these rules it works fine.
-
Ahh the system ate my post. I will post late.
MDC
-
AFAIK there was a variant rule somewhere in RMSS Spell Law which stated Bladeturn/Aim Untrue spells should be assumed to remain active on the target UNTIL the next melee/missile attack swings at him. If i remember correctly, there was a time limit of duration of 1 round/level of the caster but no concentration was required to mantain. You just cast the spell, and until the duration is out, the first attack of the right type against the target will trigger the effect of the spell. Dunno if it's totally official but we manage it this way.
-
ToM, I don't think this is an official rule. But perhaps you can find a reference in this books.
-
Eldainen, Welcome to the Forums!
I use concentration as 50%Act and it is a blessing for GM's.
The Mage in our game tried to control an elemental like this; thought he could keep it up all day. I reminded him that it required 50%Act and 1 Exhaustion/6 rounds and he would pass out in... (looking at his sheet) 27 minutes.
You could bypass all of those stacked spells by stabbing/shooting them in the back. :)
If you guys do decide to continue with your current interpretation of the rules... the guy playing the caster is going to convert to your side pretty quick. He has to continually try to be aware of all melee/missile attacks for everyone he cast the spells on.
A full Observation takes 70%Act. That's not enough left for Concentration
You can take a lesser Observation (-20) for 50%, or even (-40) for a 30% Observation. But good luck noticing those arrows.
-
ToM, I don't think this is an official rule. But perhaps you can find a reference in this books.
Searching here and there but I won't be able to find it anymore.
Though I'm sure I read it into something official.
Either way, it works quite well for us and also adds some edge to the Aim Untrue/Bladeturn spells which are much more high level than their mentalism "Anticipations" counterpart, which we treat instead as to be cast the same round of the attack.
-
ToM, I also make the "Target" the person you are trying to protect.
Just couldn't wrap my head around the ability to perceive a missile in flight.
Didn't much like the aura excuses that explained the difference between the two spells either.
My House Rule is pretty similar to yours, but it costs PP for the "/lvl" increase on duration.
-
IIRC from an old thread Rasyr said that you cannot cast these type of spells unless they have a target. By that he meant an attack. If you use a different init system or combat system from RM you might have to change the way the spells work in orde to keep the original meaning.
IIRC Rasyr also gave a suggestion of 1/rnd per level for the "duration" of these type of spells for higher level spells.
There could be more that I am not mentioning because I have forgot but you should be able to find them if you do a search on the RM2/C/X and RMSS/FRP threads, both active and archived.
But as always if you find something works better you and your game, your way than the official way use your way.
MDC
Nice no lost post this time.
-
Lord Miller said:
C- Concentration is required. Concentration takes 50% of the caster's normal activity. The caster cannot cast any other spells while concentrating.
Mr. Miller (or is it simply, Lord?), you and I clearly have different versions of RMSS SL. On page 6, my SL defines the spell types and spells out common abbreviations (including C for concentration). However, after a fairly careful perusal of the book, nowhere does it state that concentration precludes spell casting.
(I have the third U.S. edition, January 1995)
-
I guess it is time for me to re-do spell law with spell scalability like HARP. Then I can go in and fix all of the little things that come up.
MDC
-
Peter Mork,
I must be using the same books Lord Miller.
For RMFRP, the 3 separate Ess (pg 4), Men, Chan books have that definition.
RMSS Spell Law #5522 pg 6 has the same definition.
Now, I HR it so that an instant and a normal spell (but not 2 instants and not 2 normal spells), may be cast in 1 rnd. For me, %Act and Init is everything.
Thanks for SOHK; great book! :)
-
Peter,
LM is usually the easiest..(I'm actually Marc with a C, but that would get complicated with MarkC standing right there.)
My SL is also 1995, also third US edition, but 2nd printing, September 1995
I call shenanigans on all book variability! Everyone get their brooms!
Let's see if we can find a consensus of sources. . .
My RMSS Core book is First edition, 2nd printing, 1995
P210 right column, bottom half of the page, duplicates the text on no casting while concentrating on a spell.
I've seen this come up before, like when we got into a dispute on a club attack table result and realized the AL attack tables were slightly different each version, edition, and printing. Certainly glad you mentioned it, because now we can blame the books.
-
ToM, I also make the "Target" the person you are trying to protect.
Just couldn't wrap my head around the ability to perceive a missile in flight.
Didn't much like the aura excuses that explained the difference between the two spells either.
This is what I meant before about strange stuff with target, range, and area of effect . . . .
Like for deflection, it would seem like the target is the person protected (or self if it's one that can't be cast on others), the range is the distance from the caster to the person being protected (if any), and the area of effect is a radius from the person being protected in which an incoming missile will be deflected as it approaches. . .but as much as that seems to make sense, it's not how the RAW reads, in any version I'm familiar with.
-
RMC SL #6503 page 161:
"Note: When casting the Bladeturn/Deflections/Aim-Untrue spells, the caster can concentrate in order to hold the spell until it can be applied to the allowed number of targets."
-Terry
-
For RMC this may be true.
-
This is one of those rule disputes where even if it were somehow possible, it still wouldn't make any sense. . .if you can cast one of these instant spells for 10% activity, why would you hold it into combat via concentration for 50% activity? The phrase "I will plan ahead to make this five times more difficult" comes to mind.
I'd say that we'd already established that the scenario as laid out by the OP is not workable for a lot of reasons, but since then we've hung up on this point a bit, but this point, I don't get what the benefit would be to the caster to even attempt it.
Seriously, it's like "I could walk there for 10% activity, but instead i run there, back, there, back and there so it takes 50% activity.". . .and that's before you toss in the issues that make long term concentration a problem.
I've been puzzling over this and trying to figure out why you'd even want to, and I can't really come up with one. Can anyone? If not, then really what exactly are we disagreeing about?
-
LM: Our RMSS core books are in agreement! (Regardless, I will continue to ignore that rule because I like giving mages flexibility (and the opportunity to burn through precious PP if they choose!).)
If you can cast one of these instant spells for 10% activity, why would you hold it into combat via concentration for 50% activity?
Because you cast Bladeturn II, and have only turned aside one blade. Rather than lose the extra effect, you can choose to concentrate to keep the remaining effect alive. At this point it becomes a strategic question: save PPs by concentrating or retain full activity (and spell-casting capability!) knowing that a future Bladeturn I may be needed.
-
I get that reasoning, of maintaining the spell after casting for one deflect/turn and holding it until it's used up all it's deflects/turns. . .that logic for holding on to these spells nobody seems to be disputing.
What I mean is the issue of if it's valid to just cast it before combat and walk around with it by holding it via concentration seemed to be the remaining point of contention. . .but I can't see any benefit of doing so. (assuming the GM is requiring concentration, with it's associated penalties and that you can't do it for extended periods of time due to limits on maintaining concentration long term.)
Pre casting the spell before combat would seem to be a hindrance, not a help, and hence not something anyone would want to do anyway.
-
Oh, in that case, I think we're all in agreement. If you require concentration to maintain the effects, then pre-casting is silly. (The original post suggested that concentration wasn't needed to maintain the effects, in which case pre-casting is a great idea!)
-
Fascinating that so many people can be arguing about stuff without checking sources.
Old ICE did review the issue after questions on the mailing list and gave the following clarifications.
# Bladeturn has to be cast on the same turn as the attack, not the same phase. [4/27/00]
# Bladeturn has to be cast before the attack it is affecting [X, 5/14/00]
# Bladeturn must be resolved in the turn it is cast. [4/27/00]
It can also be noted that they also issued an errata about you being allowed to cast another spell while maintaining concentration on a spell.
-
Actually, Ecth did reference that errata, and linked to it, in reply #2. . .
See the Rolemaster Rulings (http://www.icewebring.com/errata/rolemaster-rulings/) page for some official FAQs on this matter.
That we chose to keep discussing it should be no surprise.
-
Here is the advantage to pre-casting Bladeturn.
The party is outside the door of an enemy guardroom. They anticipate battle as soon as the door is open. The Blue Mage of Zeggis Alona casts a Bladeturn spell and concentrates as Stealthy Pete ensures that the door has no secret snares for incautious intruders and Mighty Mike, the Man-Mountain of Moonmoor throws open the door. The guards within were relaxed, but not slothful, and took up arms at once. A spear thrust towards Mighty Mike, but the warrior was protected by the Blue Mage's Bladeturn. Then in the same round, because he did not cast a spell (and had plenty of activity left since released the spell rather than concentrating to hold it - releasing the spell should take no more than the 10% to cast it in the first place) yet this round, goes ahead and casts another spell to help the party.
Of course, if you houserule to allow an instantaneous and a non-instantaneous spell in the same round, this becomes less of an advantage. Still, if the caster has some other useful instantaneous spells, it still might be worth it. Plus, you've already cast the spell before combat starts, so you won't get a spell failure when you apply the Bladeturn. No second chances when casting during the combat.
-
Well, at my table I'd rule that you can't be kinda pregnant, dead or concentrating. . .if you are not concentrating within the round, you're not holding the spell, and it doesn't work, if you are concentrating, then you pay your 50%.
To offer a strictly RAW example,
Round 1
the party is on a battlement, Stealthy Pete is picking the lock on the tower door while everyone else is behind cover, due to a crossbowman on the opposite tower. . .Blue Mage casts Deflections II on Sneaky Pete, the archer fires, and the shot is deflected. . .In deliberate Sneaky Pete pops the lock.
Round 2
Now, if the Blue Mage wants to keep up the spell, he needs to declare he's concentrating, which right off the bat should take up 50% action, even if on snap phase Pete pushes the door open, and the next crossbowman in the tower shoots Pete right then in snap, triggering a 2nd deflect and ending the spell. . .it's not like concentrating for a phase costs less than concentrating for 2, or the whole round, it's just 50%.
That said, since the spell is done in snap phase, Blue mage could then cast in the latter two phases of the round since he has not cast a spell this round. . .as long as it was another instant spell since he has only 50% left.
Still even assuming you house ruled to allow it, using your example above. . .if Blue Mage cast Bladeturn on round 1 Deliberate, rather than Round 2 Snap, by the same logic as the RAW Deflection II above, pre-casting he'd be spending 50% action concentration carrying it into round 2, rather than 10% action just casting it in round 2. . .the major difference being that the pre-cast-and-carry would technically allow the casting of another instant spell in round 2, while just snap casting would leave the blue mage 90% action to do something other than casting (which for a mage is usually some variation of moving and looking, perhaps a full parry.). It also guarantees the spell is on before the attack, no worrying about initiative.
So I guess there would be some upsides, though it's not pure upside, since you are spending 40% activity for the privilege of going first and being able to cast another spell in that round. . .
I honestly can't say that it's ever actually been attempted at any table I've played or run though, and the people I play with can be lawyerly cutthroat. . .reading over that errata list is often an amusing trip down memory lane of "Oh yeah, remember when we allowed that!?!"
In my experience, if presented with a round up front the mage will just let someone else stand in front who has the OB to parry with, and choose to go with the best defense being a strong offense. . .like tossing a fireball in the room, or having someone pull the door open so they can snap blast the guy inside over their shoulder outside melee range, or cast a sleep in there or some such. . .
Then again, I'm sure there are people who'd jump on that if a GM allowed it. . .and it's certainly not the killer ap the original poster was talking about. . .the pre casting, lasts until triggered, don't concentrate is definitely pure upside and would rapidly get out of hand if allowed.
-
I assume by releasing the spell he means casting ot on a target, in this case the moon mountain whateva.
Any duration rules adeed to bladeturns work very well if the target of tghe spell is a PC/NPC?item rather than the "attack."
-
That looks like a post I'd make while drinking. . . . ;)
And yes, IMO the target should be the person defended, and the effect a blocked attack (much like the target of a resist fire is the person protected, not the fire). It's unfortunate the spells don't read that way.
-
And yes, IMO the target should be the person defended, and the effect a blocked attack (much like the target of a resist fire is the person protected, not the fire). It's unfortunate the spells don't read that way.
Any duration rules added to bladeturns work very well if the target of the spell is a PC/NPC/item rather than the "attack."
Plus, you've already cast the spell before combat starts, so you won't get a spell failure when you apply the Bladeturn.
Other's made comments I agree with, these just stuck out.
For our no phase system, this is what we found that works best. There may be a scenario that our HR will fall apart. But it works great so far.
-
I still prefer targeting the ATTACK, not a person. However, in order to do so, we allow these instantaneous spells to actually be cast - well - instantaneously. That means if you are aware of an attack, you can always cancel your action and cast deflection/bladeturn etc. immediately, that is, just before the attack is resolved (unless you have already cast a spell that round or other factors deem you cannot cast the spell).
You see an enemy about to fire an arrow into your friends? Stop preparing that fire ball and cast deflection! A second orc just moved up to your fighter with his scimitar raised? Quit running away and cast blade turn!
-
That looks like a post I'd make while drinking. . . . ;)
And yes, IMO the target should be the person defended, and the effect a blocked attack (much like the target of a resist fire is the person protected, not the fire). It's unfortunate the spells don't read that way.
A six pack isn't drinking, just relaxing and enjoying the fine flavor of Bells Pale Ale. Drinking fyi involves liquor.
-
I thought in michigan, drinking liquor fell under the heading of "keeping warm"?
Still think in general a defense should target the person protected. . .and the effect is on the attack made.
-
But the spells clearly state you have to be aware of the attack. How can you know of the attack when you cast the spell on a person? What if that archer is firing on someone else? What if your spells target is attacked by an attack you were not aware of? Spells like "protection", "blur" and the likes does this sort of thing - and they have a target as "area of effect" and a suitable duration.
Also, the spells clearly state that the "Area of effect" is "one attack" or "one missile" - NOT one target.
I also like the picture beside "Shield mastery" - the mage there is CLEARLY deflecting the missile as it is fired, not pre-casting the spell on the thief.
But, like I said, this requires that you are allowed to actually cast these spells instantanously, as you can't know of an attack in deliberate phase when casting the spell in snap phase.
-
Shrug, to each his own, but I generally think of resist fire targeting the resisting person, and having an effect on the fire. . . .or flight targeting the person who flies and effecting gravity. . .
In the end, the mechanical effect is to grant a +100 DB to one person vs one attack. . .
Technically, if the spell actually targets the sword-in-hand chopping, or the arrow in bow about to fire. . .then the attacker should and would get an RR vs you doing anything to affect an object in their direct possession (like any other F vs object allowed to affect objects being held by a person). . .instead it's a defensive spell and doesn't offer an RR. . .which implies the target is the person being defended, and the area of effect is "1 attack" or "1 missile". . . .
-
Indeed - everyone should play it their way! No disagreement there! :)
Now, back to the book - specifically, "spell law" and the list "spell reigns". Unlike Deflections and Blade Turn ,which are utility spells (in my view affecting the missile in flight or a sword being swung), "Spell bending", "Reverse spell" etc. are actually force spells. In this list, however, the spell descriptions clearly state that the SPELL is the target: "The attack spell which is targeted with this spell...", "The target elemental attack spell..." etc.
Except for letting the target spells get an RR, as indicated, I will handle these spells the same way I handle deflection and blade turn. Thoughs? I guess I'd have trouble with "reversal true", though - that one really ought tho have a duration of "1 rnd", not "-".
-
yeah, all those apparent "interrupt" spells with a duration of "-" create these same issues of when you cast them etc. . .likely best to just treat them all the same.
Blade "in hand" is considered the same as the hand in terms of rr or no rr. . .and "Bladeturn" works vs a martial arts attack. . . .if you consider these spells from that aspect you really need to consider: is this a U spell affecting the defender granting a +100 to DB and no RR, or an F spell giving -100 to one attack to which the attacker SHOULD get an RR. . .
If you can't get an RR vs a spell affecting your fist, then when is that line crossed?
-
Treating them the same is probably a good idea. I think I'll do that - except for the RRs. To me, it's stated pretty clearly in the book when an RR is allowed: Versus F spells, NOT U spells. So when a spell is LISTED as U, I'll not give an RR, even if it's "affecting your fist".
You can also affect peoples mind (like telepathy) without RRs. I'll just use whatever category a spell is listed as when considering if RRs are allowed or not.
Thanks for your opinions. I'd also really appreciate if someone could also give me some examples of how these spells were actually used and handled during real gaming sessions - anyone?
-
Only problem is RAW that U cannot ever affect unwilling targets. . .which means if the U is affecting my fist (attack is target), rather than the person I'm aiming to punch (defender is target), by RAW it would fail every time the attacker decided they were unwilling (which, unless it were a play fight, would be every time)
I concur that an RR is not appropriate, nor indicated by the spell. . .which indicates to me that the flaw lies in targeting the attack, rather than targeting the person to be defended.
The rules on passive/informational spells won't allow you to affect someone's mind (like mind domination, forget, etc, without an RR) it will allow you to pick up information without changing or otherwise affecting anything.
Generally you cast them in a prior phase, or use the interrupted/changed action rules to stop some other action to cast one.
often:
Fighter declares 70/30 OB/DB and will move up on snap, attack the Mage on deliberate.
Mage could declare casting the bladeturn on snap, or some other actions. . .then cancel the other action to cast the bladeturn in snap or normal. . .though IMO if the latter, they need to beat the fighter's initiative to get the bladeturn in normal off before the attack in normal.
-
(Heh, I said "attack in deliberate" above, change the fighter's declaration to "attack in normal" and then all that will then make sense.)
-
Well, I nevertheless understood what you meant :-) It seems we'll just be doing this differently, but that's obviously not a problem.
I have a feeling that doing it "my" way, these spells become a bit more powerful than "your" way, since in my system, the spell doesn't have to be cast until just before the attack, and so you'll never "waste" a spell on an attack that neven happens. Also, I don't run the risk of protecting the wrong person against a missile attack, since I don't target the person to be protected, but the attack itself. On the other hand, with "your" system, you may be able to protect people against attacks you don't see coming too? Do you agree with this assessment?
-
No, the spell text/errata both state it must be an attack you are aware of, so you can't deflect the attack in the back you never saw coming.
Frankly, considering the spells effectively don't fit into the round logic properly as is, I suspect each of us plays them a little differently, so I'm not surprised at all.
-
Sorry if I missed all the discussion, but thanks to everyone for the answers. It's pretty clear that the rulings we are currently using as a group are utterly wrong. I hope this thread helps me convince my friends to change their opinion.
-
Even when I House Rule the spells to last a few rounds, I never let the spells stack. I wouldn't allow a Bladeturn, then another Bladeturn, then another...
18 bladeturns you say.. <shiver!>
-
I think the 18 bladeturns came from an 18th lvl mage casting "Mass bladeturn", providence.
-
ahh, reading too fast. :-[
Thanks MariusH.
This is still a problem I have with the spell RAW. That's some specific magic that lets you see 18 missiles in the air before the hit.
-
It IS a difficult spell, I agree. I see it as being able to cast "deflection" up to 18 times in a round (on 18 different missiles) - or, by concentrating, spread over a number of rounds.
-
The weirdness lies in the designating target issues. . . assume you're carrying the mass Deflection into combat via concentration. . .does each declared deflect count as one of your three actions? Can you deflect up to 18 missiles within one phase as one action? Does it count as no action?
The problems arise in the details there.
-
I think of it as no action. You only need to concentrate. But it IS difficult!
-
This is one of those spell descriptions that can't be handled by the Rule Logic as we have come to understand it.
It's like Controlling a Mount or Ritual Magic or the others that have their own rules. :)
And that's why I don't like it.
Yamma's idea of Realm stat bonus for a duration in rnds is a good one, IMHO.
Some spells have alternate effects depending on how they're used.
I'm allowing this to be used either way.
1) "Thief be careful scouting ahead. Here's a Blade turn but it'll only last a little while. Hurry back".
2) "Since I see that skeletons are behind the thief with weapons raised, I'll cast Bladeturn in case he is hit this rnd".
But honestly, I couldn't see a missile in flight. I could see a blur, an impact and quickly infer the point of origin.. but my eyes aren't what they used to be.
-
The %Act is the percent to cast the spell, recovery, deflect... whatever. IMHO.
This makes it even more crazy if you use real time seconds of the rnd rules.
-
the firearm would be the death knell of DEFLECTION spells if you have to see the attack lol.
-
Precisely!
But a spell that deflected the first shot, or just caused it to miss..
I think they had this in the Gunslinger novels. But since those guys never missed it caused a miss-fire. Dud bullet.
-
I suspect these spells could really use a top-to-bottom going over with a clean official errata that fits the rules and covers issues like when you cast it, when you declare it, how it fits into activity, etc etc. so at least the RAW is resolved once and for all. . .we can each then continue to use them however we see fit, as GMs, but having a clean, clear and workable RAW to start from would be nice.
The text is cribbed directly from the RM2 SL, and it didn't really make sense back then either in the RM2 round resolution, much less the RMSS round. . .and the more errata I read the more confusing it gets.
-
. .and the more errata I read the more confusing it gets.
errata hisss! don't say that word.. it hurts us!
Nothing official please. :)
But, yeah.
-
House Rule:
Here is how I am going to House Rule it for the future:
Spells that Defect Attacks:
1) The spell lasts for as many rounds as your lvl
2) The spell has the same view as your PC
3) The spell changes the substance in front of the attack to provide the modifier
4) The spell targets every attack until it is gone if possible
5) You can Spell Master the spell to allow you to decide if you want to have an attack targeted but you have to use 50% action every round for concentration. Note you have to do this every round you cannot switch off between concentrating and not concentrating during a round.
House Rule #2
Introduce new spell that allows Blade turn type spells to function even if the caster cannot see the attack.
That is off the top of my head this morning and I may tweek it a bit but I think it is good.
MDC
-
I'd only tweak that in the sense that I'd say:
it Targets the defended person, and effects the attack on them by -X.
(. .if only to get around the rule break where a bladeturn U spell can't target a Punching Fist of the attacker as U spells can only work with willing targets)
Any person who is willing, and inside the range of the spell, is a valid target.
I'd add
6) Casting the attack blocking spell must be done before the attack (either in a previous round, phase or initiative).
7) Casting the attack blocking spell requires a casting action by the caster, but the actual attack blocking actions are automatic, and do not count as an action by the caster or the target.
Just a question here, but I think the wording is that the CASTER must be aware of the attack, so the spell might block an attack on your back, if I cast it, and I can see behind you? (I believe that is correct).
-
Make bladeturn an elemental spell ( a burst of pure mana). If making rr's is no biggie, then make it a Force spell (perhaps restoring the +100 DB gained from it, or making it 5pts of DB per point rr is missed by). Most weapons would resist at level of target weilding it, some special weapons may add levels or bonuses to the rr.
-
It's intended as a defence. . .in the end I don't much care if an attack gets -100 for one attack, or a target gets +100 DB for one attack, they work out the same in the end.
I'd see an E version being more like "Target one attacker, they get -X for Y attacks"
-
IMHO it was designed to protect the caster only. I would have other spells of this type that allowed the caster to defend others. But to defend others I would have a range and since it targets the air in front of the attack (not the attack itself) it should have no problem in any case. ie the attack hits the spells effect.
IMHO the spell also has the same awareness as the caster has at the time of casting. So if the caster cast a deflection type spell and then dark vision the deflection spell does not gain the benifit of it.
MDC
-
Now that I think about it I think I will have the spell last 1 round per level or rank in list, above the rank of the spell. That way the caster does not get free rounds so to speak.
MDC
-
I think it's NOT designed to defend caster only. Compare the essence and mantalism versions, and you see that the mentalism lists (as usual) works against "an attack on caster", whereas the essence version works against "an attack within 100'". And I DO prefer that it targets an attack rather than the person being protected. I don't car if you're bare-handed - your attack is STILL affected, no RR.
Markc: That sounds like a decent set of house rules. I think mine would be SLIGHTLY different, but they seem easy to rule by, which I consider important. The "no switching on/off" should be obvious, by better to state it still - you never know! :-)
-
I think it's NOT designed to defend caster only. Compare the essence and mantalism versions, and you see that the mentalism lists (as usual) works against "an attack on caster", whereas the essence version works against "an attack within 100'". And I DO prefer that it targets an attack rather than the person being protected. I don't car if you're bare-handed - your attack is STILL affected, no RR.
Markc: That sounds like a decent set of house rules. I think mine would be SLIGHTLY different, but they seem easy to rule by, which I consider important. The "no switching on/off" should be obvious, by better to state it still - you never know! :-)
It was ruled a while ago that spells that have the same effect are the same. Even if the wording is different. I do not know if that is the way it is now.
But that is besides the point as it is your game and play it how you want to play it. It sounds like the way you play it provides more flavor to the various realms. Which is also what I strive for in my game.
MDC
-
There's cross variation in realms. . .and I think it was intended to not have spells of the same name vary. . .but that didn't clean up all the old variations.
MariusH. . .the problem lies in the fact that any spell that inflicts a penalty on a person is either physically avoidable, or offers an RR to start with. . .
Second, if the spell actually requires the caster to pick and choose attacks (while seeing whizzing sling bolts or blurring crossbow bolts) I'd definitely change my opinion above and say
"And each attack turn/deflect requires a declared action by the caster in the same phase as the attack. The caster can cancel another action in order to do so. These actions do count toward the 3 action limit for the round."
just based on the fact that if the spell is acting to pick out any attack directed at the target being defended, then it makes sense as a fire and forget spell. . . .but if the caster is picking and choosing and directing the spell to specific attacks it's an active, not passive defense that requires caster intervention.
"The declaration to deflect/turn an attack must just be made in the same phase, it will work even if the caster doesn't have initiative. The spell itself must have been cast in a previous round, phase or initiative."
Which comes down to the fact that if these spells always interrupt superior initiatives and phases, and take no action, then I have to ask "Why can melvin mentalist auto interrupt to deflect my arrow, when Jimmy the Thief gets shot in the head because I beat him on initiative and fired in snap, so he got shot before he could drop to the floor where he had 100% cover from that wall."
Casters in RM are not really sad souls who need any leg up they can get on arms. . .especially not a class of magic defenses that lets them lose initiative and still gain the benefits of winning initiative, and grant more than 3 declared player controlled/directed actions per round, which even Haste doesn't do. . .if I'm not mistaken, the whole "Casting before missiles, missiles before moving, moving before melee" logic of the RM2 round was one of the things RMSS was designed to get out of.
-
Casting before missiles, missiles before moving, moving before melee" logic of the RM2 round was one of the things RMSS was designed to get out of.
Can I get a HELL YEAH!
Thank you Public Enemy.
-
I think people are overcomplicating it. The target is the attack, but that's the definition because the defense is not pinned to a specific person (in the Essence version, at least), since a Bladeturn III can target three different attacks by three different persons on three different targets. It doesn't sit on a person to defend him, but the spell-caster doesn't need to follow a sling stone in flight, he just needs to know that it is there, so he can direct the spell to intercept it. The spell itself is "smart" enough to manage the interception on its own, but it needs the caster to select the attack to target. Awareness can come through seeing the attack, or through seeing a crossbowman raise his weapon and aim, or I would even allow hearing the "twang" of a bow to count (although in that case, if the missile didn't actually go through the area of effect, I'd consider that Deflection to be wasted). The caster needs to be paying some attention to the battle, but I don't think it needs Concentration, just enough that you could roll an Awareness skill (Situational Awareness: Combat may not be a waste for a spell-caster). If you needed to Concentrate (50% activity), I think that would be explicitly stated.
I don't think a RR is in order. Like a Shield spell, it interposes a magical barrier rather than enchanting the weapon. At least, that's how I interpret Bladeturn. Since the target of Deflection is the "missile", a case could be made for interpreting it differently, but I would not for the sake of consistency.
I expect these spells are "U" rather than "E" largely to avoid giving more "Elemental" spells to Mentalism. It seems an arbitrary designation, and the definition of the attack as the target means it cannot logically be to prevent the use of Bladeturn to protect suicidal types. Perhaps it was an attempt to avoid defining the operation of the spell's mechanics. I'm willing to call it an elemental force and change it to "E". Shield is also "U", but I think considering it "E" fits the description better.
-
I think perhaps this is just a RAW issue. . .as in, in RAW, you cannot target someone with a U spell against their will.
It's much like if a spell stated, "gives a bonus of +A". . .it fails to parse the rule logic, RAW, as is.
You cannot target an enemy's fist with a U spell, any more than you can teleport them 20 miles up, per RAW.
i.e. it's niggling semantics, but that's what rules are made of.
You cannot target a hostile target with a U spell period, unless you wish to state the target of a bladeturn can choose to ignore the spell, at will, per the RAW on U spells.
It's easy enough to say the target is "X targets being attacked" and the Area of effect is the incoming attack. . .you can effect the unwilling, but you cannot target them.
I know it's lawyerly, but do you get what I'm saying?
-
The target is not the person, nor the weapon in his hand, it is the attack -- that's an action, not an object. How it interferes is left quite vague. The fact that the spell type is "U" tells us that it cannot be a direct effect on the individual or an object in his aura (and as far as the limitations of "U" type spells, there is no difference between a fist and the sword held in it). The "attack" target strongly suggests some form of interference in the space between the weapon and the intended victim of that weapon. I would want to define that interference as "E"lemental, but then I would want to call the force of a Shield spell elemental as well, while that is also a "U"tility. The only difference I see between a Shield and a Bladeturn (and I would ignore the "missile" target to interpret a Deflection in the same way), is that in the case of Bladeturn the defensive force is stronger, short-lived, and directed by the caster regardless of the individual being attacked. The simplest interpretation of such force is to regard it as a stronger, more limited, manifestation of the elemental force of touch as seen in Illusions. Upon that interpretation, the designation should be changed to "E" - not because it matters for RR purposes, since no target capable of resistance is ever of concern (unless, e.g., a giant flings a halfling at someone so that it becomes a "missile" target of Deflection), but because upon defining the in-world mechanics of the spell, I find that I invoke an "elemental" force. A different interpretation would leave "U" the more logical choice.
-
I agree with rdanhenry here - except I will NOT allow hearing the "twang" of a missile being fire be enough to be "aware of the attack" and thus deflect it :-)
-
Rdan, I actually agree, mostly, but the problems come into play with the timing of this spell, which is the core of the problem. This and the fact this spell seems to be an example of a sloppy or confusing use of "Duration, Range and Area of Effect.". . .people see the duration of "-" which makes no sense, so either they toss the "X missiles" in and make that the duration (which results in adventurers running around with mass deflection x18 cast on them) or just shoe horn it as an interrupt, which allows the casters to retroactively cast a defense spell only vs attacks they want to block, rather than acting in order and sometimes wasting an action (or changing everyone elses action with their declaration, like when the guy in the hat starts waving hands and chanting at the start of the round, perhaps rather than a general melee, everyone turns and piles on the person casting a spell. . .). . allowing it as an interrupt means this is the sneakiest possible spell, the kind you don't have to cast until after someone else declares something, then you get to go back in time and retroactively change your declaration to casting a spell, but nobody else is granted that luxury.
Numbering purely to make it easier for you to tell me I'm crazy when you reply:
1) First "Duration"
Assuming you step completely outside the round, that initiative and rules of order of action are suspended for all of these spells and can just be ignored, that these spells go off at the instant the caster wants them to, in order to intervene vs any attack they could affect. . .at that point the Area of Effect of "X missiles" or "X attacks" makes perfect sense.
So, solution 1 to these spells would be to just hand wave off the fact there's no way to work them into the round timing the way any other spell needs to, state the caster can select a slice of time as a blow is falling or missile is flying, select that specific attack/missile out, decide if they want to block it or not, then step back into the round. i.e. allow them to be used as an interrupt.
Now, the spell text of these spells goes back to RM2, and the spell-missile-move-melee fixed order of actions with no change. . .if we take our RMSS hat off, dust off the old RM2 hat and put it on. . .what happens if a caster, on spell phase, says "I cast nothing" then spell results phase passes and later on missile or melee phase someone fires off a shot or makes an attack. In RM2 logic using exactly the same text as carried over into RMSS. . .the caster may not retroactively re-declare that back in spell phase they cast the blocking spell to interrupt those attacks. Which means that the spell text, as written, was not in any way intended to be used as an interupt, it was intended to be pre cast at the start of the round, during spell phase, before any attacks are declared or may be targeted.
Which means the duration is indeed "1 round" (or 1 round + c to hold for later rounds with the multiple deflect/turn errata which may or may not apply to a I type turn/deflect.) Since the spell is cast in spell phase, to resolve in missile or melee phase later in the round.
OK, now back to the RMSS hat. . .Since the text was unchanged since RM2. . .the duration is still 1 round (with the c errata ruling). The spell still must be cast before the attack, either in a previous phase or initiative. Going back to the RM2 example above, these spells can not be retroactively previously cast in order to interrupt, you either cast before the attack or didn't.
2) Next is "Range"
Can we agree that two things are going on here, casting the spell is one thing, selecting an attack to block is a second thing?. . .with the multiple deflect + concentration thing the deflect could happen many rounds after the spell is cast.
Range is the distance the spell can go before it resolves. . .these spells all have similar effects, they grant the caster the ability to selectively deflect missiles or turn melee attacks. . .i.e. the casting of the spell, grants an ability. When the spell itself resolves (i.e. to be declared, cost PP and be rolled) no attacks are taking place, as we are on the caster's action in that moment. . .so the spell goes nowhere. . the range is "Self". . you cast this spell on yourself to grant the blocking ability. (Which handily solves the U vs E thing, since you can cast U on you whenever you want).
3) Finally "area of effect".
This is the area covered or the distance the spell can go AFTER it resolves (i.e. once the casting roll is made successfully).
Using the example of Deflections III off of Essence Shield Mastery, you may deflect a missile that passes within 100' of the caster. . .So the ability granted by the spell, to deflect missiles, covers an area 100' out from the caster once the spell is cast, and now active and ready for use. . .so area of effect is "100' radius"
The rest is all just effects, as listed in the spell text. . .the caster must be able to see the attack, the attack gets a -100 (or auto misses). . . .
We users fumble around with these spells, but because the spells are whacky. . like Deflections III in essence should read:
Area of Effect: 100' radius
Duration: 1 round*
Range: Self
Caster can deflect any three missiles that pass within 100' of them, this causes 100 to be subtracted from the missile's attack (missile must pass within the caster's field of view). The caster may concentrate to carry this spell into following rounds until three missiles have been deflected and the spell fully used up.
That makes the spell fit the rules with the least possible changing of how it actually works.
-
The caster needs to be paying some attention to the battle, but I don't think it needs Concentration, just enough that you could roll an Awareness skill (Situational Awareness: Combat may not be a waste for a spell-caster). If you needed to Concentrate (50% activity), I think that would be explicitly stated.
My bad. Looking it up, the "holding" process description does use the word "concentrate", so 50% activity is entirely justified.
-
Rdan, I actually agree, mostly, but the problems come into play with the timing of this spell, which is the core of the problem. This and the fact this spell seems to be an example of a sloppy or confusing use of "Duration, Range and Area of Effect.". . .people see the duration of "-" which makes no sense,
I agree that "-" should be "varies" as the text description clearly indicates. I do not think there are problems with Range or Area of Effect.
1) First "Duration"
Cast the spell, apply it when the attack(s) come(s). Canceling actions does not allow casting a spell, even an instantaneous spell, so RAW does not allow Bladeturn to be cast unless it was declared. It might be reasonable to house rule that instantaneous spells can be cast with a Cancel Action, if a SCSM with a -10 is made. (Still requiring that 60% action remain in order to act after canceling an action.) I think this is all pretty clear, given that the "-" must be overruled as not matching the spell description and notes. I think it was probably from thinking that the duration of the effect of an individual bladeturning was instantaneous, and not taking into account the space between casting and the attack that is turned or the multiple turnings that a single spell can cause.
2) Next is "Range"
Can we agree that two things are going on here, casting the spell is one thing, selecting an attack to block is a second thing?. . .with the multiple deflect + concentration thing the deflect could happen many rounds after the spell is cast.
Two things, yes. Two actions, no. Or rather, the second action is "concentrating on the spell" rather than "selecting an attack". I see no reason no to allow selecting two attacks during the same Phase to be turned, which would be impossible if the selection were regarded as an action in itself.
Range is the distance the spell can go before it resolves. . .these spells all have similar effects, they grant the caster the ability to selectively deflect missiles or turn melee attacks. . .i.e. the casting of the spell, grants an ability.
This argument also suggests a range of "Self" for Fire Bolt: The spell that gives you the ability to shoot a bolt of fire from your hand.
3) Finally "area of effect".
This is the area covered or the distance the spell can go AFTER it resolves (i.e. once the casting roll is made successfully).
Using the example of Deflections III off of Essence Shield Mastery, you may deflect a missile that passes within 100' of the caster. . .So the ability granted by the spell, to deflect missiles, covers an area 100' out from the caster once the spell is cast, and now active and ready for use. . .so area of effect is "100' radius"
But it only affects a limited number of missiles within its range of 100'. It does not affect the area, but a very, very limited subsection of it. I cannot agree with this relabeling.
The issue seems to be people's reading thrown off by the selection of targets after casting is done, but this is no different than the way "React and Melee" works. You do a general indication of activity during declaration, but pick out the target(s) later. This does not change the entire area covered by the range into an area of effect any more than every potential target of a React and Melee is the target of the actual attack. At this point, however, we are no longer arguing interpretations of spell effects or mechanics, but quibbling over the somewhat nebulous terms "range" and "area of effect", which cannot mean exactly the same thing for each of the wide variety of spell effects offered in Spell Law.
-
I agree that the act of selecting a target is not an "Action" in terms of RMSS round declarations. . .but the casting is an action.
And the casting must resolve (be rolled successfully, PP expended) before the attack (be it missile or melee).
The act of casting, and the % of activity taken to cast, cover the spell in round 1, if you block 1 attack or 10 later in the round (in a later initiative or phase) the caster must choose them, but it does not take any further activity or an action. . .but that means the spell has a duration of 1 round* with the * being:
*This spell may be carried into following rounds by concentrating on it until all deflects/turns are used and the spell is used up. (The caster may drop the spell at any time, but may not resume it without re casting).
I'll agree it varies, but it's always at least 1 round, then + rounds with concentration. (may not apply to the I versions depending on how you read that carry rule).
If the caster carries it into a further round via the carry rule. . .then the blocks still cost no actions, but cost the 50% concentration activity per the carry.
The caster can sit there for as many rounds as they can concentrate, covering the radius of 100' with the potential to block until such a time as they expend the spell or drop it. . .but it is a radius, since it can affect any missile that passes through it the caster designates, even if the attacker and defender are 120' away and the missile just has to pass through the area the caster can cover en route from attacker to target.
-
Note I did have a big post lined up but I lost it so I am going to type the condensed version.
A) Instant Spells have to be declared as a possible action during your declaration phase. If you decide not to cast the instant then your normal spell goes off. remember the limit of 1 spell per round.
B) The spell targets the area in front of the attack so no RR is needed
C) The caster does not get to chose what attacks to affect it affects the first X attacks.
D) The spell has the same basic visual range as the caster but the spell does the visualizing not the caster.
D1) For Missile weapons the range of 100' or 100 yards outside IMHO should be the distance from the attacker to the caster as that would make them easy to see. (Note you may mod this range for races that can see well or not see well IMHO) Note the spell does not suffer from hidden enemies or invisible attackers as it is looking for attacks of this type.
D1 Example: If there are 2 archers outside #1 33 yards away and #2 150 yards away. The spell can only affect the attack from archer #1 as that is the distance the spell can notice missile attacks at.
E) As per previous Official Ruling this type of spell can be held for your level rounds at a 50% action or until X attacks have occurred (see C above). Note you do not get to pick and chose which attacks to block the spell blocks all attacks of its specified type until gone.
Break Time
MDC
-
The spell specifies "Can" deflect. . .and I suspect for good reason.
Like, you cast Bladeturn, and the next attack to resolve is your partner the fighter vs the Orc. . .it is the next valid attack within range, if the spell auto stops "all attacks of it's specified type until gone" it would go off on your friend's attack.
Same with friendly missile fire inside the area affected by the spell as defined by the RAW being a 100' distance from the caster which the caster can see.
If it automatically goes after any attacks of the right type then it would often trigger on friendlies, which seems like it creates more problems with this spell. (Like the fighter cutting your head off after the combat for trying to get him killed).
The fact the caster needs to see the attack implies some direction, if it was just an auto deflecting field then the caster would not need to be able to see the attack.
-
The spell specifies "Can" deflect. . .and I suspect for good reason.
Like, you cast Bladeturn, and the next attack to resolve is your partner the fighter vs the Orc. . .it is the next valid attack within range, if the spell auto stops "all attacks of it's specified type until gone" it would go off on your friend's attack.
Same with friendly missile fire inside the area affected by the spell as defined by the RAW being a 100' distance from the caster which the caster can see.
If it automatically goes after any attacks of the right type then it would often trigger on friendlies, which seems like it creates more problems with this spell. (Like the fighter cutting your head off after the combat for trying to get him killed).
The fact the caster needs to see the attack implies some direction, if it was just an auto deflecting field then the caster would not need to be able to see the attack.
The can statement is if it is in range of the deflection spell and it only affects attacks targeting you.
As it was stated before as an Official Errata somewhere "Spells of the Same Name work the same even if the text is slightly different."
This has some merit with me in my game but YMMV:
The person who taught me RM2 (him and his wife wrote an edited a good part of RoCo I in a hotel room over 1 day or 3 days (I do not remember the exact story now as it was over 10 years ago) always ruled it was attacks against you only, no parrying attacks against other people.
MDC
-
Which just IMO circles back to the core problem. . .that since the RAW makes no sense, we each have a house rule for it and play it a bit differently.
Like regardless of my issues with the "range" in this instance, I have to wonder why it would have a listed range of 100' for bladeturns if the spell was only intended for attacks vs the caster.
-
I did a little digging in RM2 Spell Law #1200 1989 2nd edition US. I do not know if this will help but it did for me a little.
On page 81 it has Essence Closed Shield Mastery Rank 5: Deflections I* (F*) D:- R:100'
On page 108 it has Mentalism Open Attack Avoidance Rank 5: Deflect I* (F*) D:- R: Self
The RMSS version basically says the same thing with the exception of changing the the type to U. Note: it also says on page 89 of Shield Mastery that "When casting a spell that can affect multiple targets, the caster can concentrate in order to hold the spell until it can be applied to the allowed number of targets."
I am going to say I was wrong and they are two different spells and need to be treated as such.
1a) The Mentalism version is the easiest as it can only affect attacks against the caster.
1b) The spell also states that the attack must be in the casters field of vision. It does not state that they need to notice the attack or see the attack.
2a) The Essence version Deflection is a bit more trickery as the caster must be able to see the missile. IMHO the see-ing is the problem and maybe the limitation as now the caster should be required to make a Combat Awareness roll or other roll to "see" the missile.
2b) Also the caster can concentrate to hold the spell to affect other targets but must allow for the "observation" roll in their % activity or they cannot use the spells effect. They may also use the extra % activity to cast another spell simply add up the activity for each round until you get to the % the caster needs to cast the spell.
Does that help anyone?
MDC
-
That does help out. . .but I think that duration of "-", if it were a creature, would be deserving of being staked in the heart, dragged out in the sun and purified away. . .as it has caused much woe.
-
That does help out. . .but I think that duration of "-", if it were a creature, would be deserving of being staked in the heart, dragged out in the sun and purified away. . .as it has caused much woe.
Yes they should have placed a note in the spell.
I just did a little looking and there are other spells with - on the Spell Reigns list.
I will have to think a little on why they put - in there or if it was just one persons notation that others did not follow or it was to be edited out after some question was answered.
MDC
-
Or if, as I suspect, there were varying undiscussed opinions of what "Range" and "Area of Effect" meant as opposed to fixed definitions. . .and if there were varying opinions on if instant spells were indeed "instant" in that they had a duration. . .or not. . .resulting in a mix and mash of different criteria being applied in different instances at different times. . . .
Undisclosed or unknown variations of opinion resulting in unexpected variations in output. . the committee effect in action.
-
Range is the distance the spell can go before it resolves. . .these spells all have similar effects, they grant the caster the ability to selectively deflect missiles or turn melee attacks. . .i.e. the casting of the spell, grants an ability.
This argument also suggests a range of "Self" for Fire Bolt: The spell that gives you the ability to shoot a bolt of fire from your hand.
I'd been thinking of this, and finally the answer hit me. . .
If I cast firebolt, the bolt appears in my hand, fires at you, and is done. . .on my action. Thus the spell is creating a bolt and firing it at you. . .the range is an "attack range" and the bolt does initiate in my hand, but it ends MY action in your chest.
If I cast a Deflections III it sets up a potential for an effect, then does nothing at all. . .then on your action, you shoot an arrow at me, and then I can choose to deflect it when I see it enter the radius of the Area of Effect. So the range is still "Self" because I am casting upon me, to grant me the ability to deflect future projectiles that might be fired into this potential deflection field the spell creates, with an area of effect of a 100' radius (limited to where I can see). . .on My action. . .when I cast the spell, there is no missile, nor do I need to declare what missile fired by whom. . I just cast the spell and create a zone of control in which any future missiles I can see may be deflected. . .
So the logic is different than with firebolt, because I am not actually effecting any missiles when I cast the spell, I am creating an area of effect in which I can now exert a granted ability.. . .hence make the range self, and the AOE 100' radius.
-
Marc R: I really liked your long post about this subject. That was a very clear way to think of it, and one that fits the rules well, changes the description only a little, and ALMOST makes the spell do what I want it to: Select which attack to effect, even several attacks in a single phase if I use a "deflect N" spell. The only other thing I'd like is for the spell to REALLY be instantaneous (I become aware of an attack, cast the spell, and affect the attack), but that would be a new CLASS of spells, I suppose - a "react" class spell. And that MAY make these spells too powerful, although that's really how I'd like them to work.
I also don't like the possibility of deflecting an attack that don't happen. Maybe giving the spell SOME duration, not just one round, would help this a bit? 1 rnd/lvl / C at most, I think. And only until the noted number of attacks are affacted, of course.
On a side note, allowing instantaneous spells after cancel action somehow feels right. Any ideas if this will make any of these spells too powerful? I mean, now instantaneous simply means "spells that can be cast in snap phase without SCSM" - not very instantaneous at all...
-
It was intended to only last the 1 round it was cast in. . .and personally I'd allow the C maintain for as many rounds as you can hold C to apply to the I versions. . .
But you can't have everything. . .
If Fighter A full attacks Orc 1, who is killed before Fighter A's attack comes up, he's poned to a cancel and re-declare penalty.
If Fighter B spends 50% activity doing Missile Parry and doesn't get shot at this round, he's poned to a loss of the 50% that could have been spent somewhere else.
If a caster casts any protection spell on themselves then doesn't use it, it's a waste of the PP and casting time. . .why should this one be different? It's not like you can cast to make yourself fire resistant just after you trip the firebomb trap but just before the fire engulfs you. . .You should be cautious, and when you get a surprise, it should suck.
-
I definitely see your point. But still. Do you have any comments on instant spells actually being instant? And if not (that may make them too powerful and mess up the phase system), how about casting them after a cancel action - in deliberate phase, like everything else after cancel action?
-
(Opened another thread to avoid tangent burying this one.)
-
Okay, instead of Fire Bolt, look at Fire Mastery. The range and area of effect are "varies", but if Spell Law was using the logic being applied here, it would have a range of "self" and area of effect of "caster", since the immediate spell effect is to grant the caster abilities which he may or may not then go on to use.
Deflections and Deflect have two different names, so there was never any reason to conflate them. If we want same name = same effect, then rename one of the Bladeturn spell sequences to Bladeturning. They're supposed to be different and renaming is the minimal change solution. Note that 7.1.2 indicates that when Spell Law was written it was recognized that effects for spells with the same name may differ (there was then no policy that they should not).
The Essence Bladeturn is very clearly intended to be used to support the front line fighters (there are lower level Essence spells that will get you out of melee altogether, which is nearly any Essence casters preferred method of melee defense) - nobody is going to be attacking the caster in melee such that he needs a 100' range on his defensive spell.
7.1.16 indicates that the ability to hold a spell until the allowed number of targets can be affected is not a special property of these defensive spells, but is universal among spells with an enumerated number of targets (and arguable an enumerated number of levels of target as, e.g., Sleep X). I do not think these should all be redefined as "self" spells on that account, especially as single target spells can become multi-target spells through several means, and then those become an issue as well.
-
I totally agree, though I'd go farther to say Sleep V or Sleep X can definitely, without doubt be held via C for the full number of targets per that rule. . .the only "Opinion" matter is if you can hold the I versions via C. . .since that spell note is for holding multi target spells until they have expended a full set of targets.
I agree the essence version is intended as a support spell . . .and will point out the essence version is "Closed" while the mentalism version is "Open" so the essence version should be more powerful.
(I also concur that the "bladeturn"s on the mentalism version is a variant, and should have a different name)
Rdan, you are the only person in the world who might possibly be more rules persnickity than I am, so nothing personal, I'm not mad, and I hope you don't take it that way either.
"Fire Mastery" and all the other like spells allow you to cast a variety of lower level spells. . "Varies" applies in all instances because the other spell's details take over when you cast it. . .so it's not a good choice of contra example.
For Essence Deflection/Bladeturn
Range: Self
Area of Effect: 100' radius (That the caster can "see")
Duration 1 Round*
solves all the "problems" with these spells, without actually making them work any differently. . .how is it actually a problem?
-
I do not agree that there is a "problem" with the range and area of effect to be "solved" currently. I do not see any reason for "1 Round*" over the standard "varies" to fix the "-" for duration.
The argument for Fire Mastery is exactly the same as that used for Bladeturn. Let me provide the original argument, edited to apply to Fire Mastery or other (Element) Mastery and similar spells:
Range is the distance the spell can go before it resolves. . .these spells all have similar effects, they grant the caster the ability to selectively [duplicate lower level spell effects]. . .i.e. the casting of the spell, grants an ability. When the spell itself resolves (i.e. to be declared, cost PP and be rolled) no [additional spell effects] are taking place, as we are on the caster's action in that moment. . .so the spell goes nowhere. . the range is "Self". . you cast this spell on yourself to grant the [spell duplicating] ability.
-
Duration
We seem to concur that "-" is wrong. . ."1 Round*" vs "varies", which then details below in the spell description. "One round, then the spell may be carried into the following rounds via concentration.". . .essentially we agree on that point, you'd just prefer to see "Varies" in the header, then the actual exact same details I said in the spell description instead?
Range
Hmm that's a good point, I was wrong, I will change my answer to:
That's a poor contrary example, in that you are correct, Fire Mastery should also have a range of Self. (I did earlier say that these deflect/turns were not the only examples of the same issue.) The varied ranges of the spells it then allows you to cast can be looked up and applied as each is "cast".
-
It isn't just the Mastery spells, either. If you want to revise ranges and areas of effect to match your definitions, you will need to do a thorough sweep of Spell Law, because there are a great many spells which do not fit to those definitions. It is not a case of Bladeturn and Deflection being anomalies. I also do not agree with an "area of effect" where you only actually affect a tiny portion of that area and choose between multiple valid targets. By that use of "area of effect", the range of a bow should be called its "area of effect".
-
Deflection III is more like turning on an Surface to Air Missile's radar system. . .the system is now up and ready to be fired. . .on any target inside it's effective engagement envelope. . .you are not firing a missile at a target, there don't even have to be targets around. . .in fact you may hold the spell for a while then drop it without actually deflecting anything. . .but you still cast the spell, you still rolled, and you still spent PP. . .now assuming you cast it, then held it for 10 rounds, then never used it. . .what did you spend those PP on? You didn't deflect anything, so you didn't spend the PP on a deflection, you spend the PP for the ability to declare a deflection if you so wanted to.
Getting back to your longbow example, a bow, drawn and readied, menaces an area out to it's range up until the point the archer fires, then the potential limits down to a single target and resolves. . .and the archer is out one arrow.
The difference being, the archer is only out the arrow if he shoots it, but the caster of a Deflection III is out the PP and must make the roll to resolve the spell if they deflect or not. Hence, the equivalent is not "An archer firing his bow".
The spell resolves, you spend the PP for the equivalent of "The archer draws his bow and makes ready to fire." . . .which is the point when the archer is merely potentially menacing a radius equal to the range of their bow. . .not 1 target.
-
I am not too sure about the deduction that a spell effect held by necessity imply concentration is required. I am too busy too look for references, but I have the feeling that the each spell list is pretty much the result of different gaming groups among the RM designers and that nobody as ever took the job to really make sure things like "hold the spell effect" is really used consistent.
-
I agree that the organic nature of the game is the likely culprit for a lot of the non standard things. . .
The spell itself need just be cast to work. . .the concentration to hold into later rounds is one of the spell notes in SL.