Topic: Bladeturn and Aim untrue...

[rdanhenry]

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.

[rdanhenry]

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.

[Marc R]

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.

[markc]

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

[Marc R]

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.

[markc]

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 

[Marc R]

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.

[markc]

 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

[Marc R]

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.

[markc]

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

[Marc R]

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.

[Marc R]

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.

[MariusH]

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...

[Marc R]

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.

[MariusH]

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?

[Marc R]

(Opened another thread to avoid tangent burying this one.)

[rdanhenry]

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.

[Marc R]

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?

[rdanhenry]

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.

[Marc R]

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".