Author Topic: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers  (Read 1182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EltonJ

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 377
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« on: April 23, 2022, 01:17:32 PM »
Would rings and amulets work as better pp multipliers or as spell adders?  I don't think a staff would work in that instance.

Offline Jengada

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 409
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2022, 11:39:34 AM »
Would rings and amulets work as better pp multipliers or as spell adders?  I don't think a staff would work in that instance.
The only applicable restriction on adders and multipliers inherent in the rules is they must be "held (or at least worn)" when used. So you could use a ring, amulet, staff, skillet, or corset as an adder/multiplier. But you have to be wearing the amulet, ring, or corset, or holding the staff or skillet. I have made a number of adders/multipliers that are more mundane than the standard sorts of things. It makes the players think twice about what they take or leave, and in some cases, it makes a great deal of sense. I had an alchemist with a (smithing) hammer adder, for example.
A GM might allow holding the amulet or ring, I guess. I wouldn't allow just holding the corset, though the imagery is pretty amusing. "Wait you were driven off by a wizard waving a corset at you?!" (Hmm, maybe I'm going to make a Corset of Fear now...)
We ask the hard questions here, because they keep us too busy to worry about the hard questions in the real world, and we can go with the answers we like the best.

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,101
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2022, 01:03:37 PM »
In RMU, it's easier to make multipliers and adders that are held than worn, but both are possible. I don't think previous editions distinguish, so they are of equal difficulty to make either way.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Online Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2022, 03:03:56 PM »
What happens if the Alchemist drops his hammer?
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,101
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2022, 04:30:30 PM »
He'd have to pick it up again to finish gaining the benefit. It's not specified exactly what the alchemist is doing for the entire enchantment period, just assume if they have the item they can use it. If the item is stolen or destroyed, the benefit would be lost, but putting down one tool to pick up another is not the sort of thing that is worth being concerned about.

For regular, non-alchemical spells, the adder would just need to be in hand at the moment the spell is cast. It would also have to be in your possession during your previous rest period and not someone else's possession.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline Vladimir

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 154
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2022, 04:36:29 PM »
What happens if the Alchemist drops his hammer?
  He picks it up...if he isn't using a lanyard.

  I was wondering about what kind of limits there may be. If a helmet could be enchanted as well as gauntlets and other armor components, what about enchanted elbow cops or tassets? I want an enchanted codpiece to wave at my foes... I want each ring in my chainmail suit to be individually magicked and named...all 50,000 of them.

  Is that asking too much?
When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
-Lao Tzu

Online Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2022, 12:42:44 PM »
He'd have to pick it up again to finish gaining the benefit. It's not specified exactly what the alchemist is doing for the entire enchantment period, just assume if they have the item they can use it. If the item is stolen or destroyed, the benefit would be lost, but putting down one tool to pick up another is not the sort of thing that is worth being concerned about.

For regular, non-alchemical spells, the adder would just need to be in hand at the moment the spell is cast. It would also have to be in your possession during your previous rest period and not someone else's possession.

I am going to ask some picky questions now because I want to understand a bit more clearly when specifically the benefit is lost.

Let's say the party Magician has 100 native and a 1.5x PP multiplier staff. If he walks around with the staff constantly in his hand, he has 150 PP. What if he leaves it sitting by the campfire as he rushes off to fight some Orcs down the hill? I am assuming that he only has 100pp until he gets back up the hill and gets the staff in his hands?

Next question: What happens if one of the Orcs sneaks into the camp and attunes the staff while the Magician is off fighting his comrades? Let's say the orc takes the staff, rests up with it, but the Magician later that day finds the Orc and takes the staff back. How many PP does the Magician have when he finally grabs the staff out of the dead Orc thief's hands?
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,101
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2022, 01:09:02 PM »
The magician doesn't gain any benefit from the multiplier at the times when he doesn't have it. So he'd be back at 100 PP.

Supposing the magician cast 30 PP of spells from his 100*1.5 = 150 PP, then put down the multiplier (for this purpose it's irrelevant whether it is a held or worn item) and walked away. I don't think the rules are very specific about this in RMSS and RM2, but I would say he is now at 80 PP. As if the cost of his spells had been divided by 1.5 while using the multiplier (it's just usually easier to multiply the size of your pool of PP).

Multipliers don't require attunement, so the orc attuning the multiplier has no effect. If the orc holds onto the staff while he rests (maybe 4 hr minimum), the orc now gets the benefit of the multiplier. I would say if the magician now captures it back, it will not provide any immediate benefit to the magician. The magician needs to have it in his possession when he rests.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Online Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2022, 02:57:57 PM »
Thanks for the answers.


Multipliers don't require attunement, so the orc attuning the multiplier has no effect. If the orc holds onto the staff while he rests (maybe 4 hr minimum), the orc now gets the benefit of the multiplier.

Ok, that seems fine. Could you say that the multiplier only applies to PP gained while resting with it in your possession?

Quote
I would say if the magician now captures it back, it will not provide any immediate benefit to the magician. The magician needs to have it in his possession when he rests.

He did have it in his possession during his last rest, and he has not gained any PP since. Let's say he still has the 80 pp he had when he walked away from the campsite.
       You seem to be drawing a distinction here between the Magician coming back to the campsite after just having been away for 5 minutes (when he would be able to regain the multiplier's effect by picking it back up), and him coming back a few hours later (when he would not). Is a distinction intended here? If so, what makes the difference: the amount of time, or something else?
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,101
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2022, 03:18:59 PM »
The distinction is that two people cannot both be gaining the potential benefit of the multiplier at once. Forget the orc scenario for a second, and suppose you have two friendly magicians but only one multiplier. The intention is that, in any given day, only one of them gains the benefit of the multiplier. To gain that benefit, they need to have the multiplier in their possession when they rest. If they rest at the same time, that is obvious. But it's not the intent that magician A rests holding onto the multiplier, then afterwards magician B rests holding onto the multiplier, and then over the course of the day they hand the multiplier back and forth so that it is being held by whoever needs to cast a spell. To prevent that, I assume that the multiplier only benefits the person who rested with it most recently.

Thus, if the orc steals the multiplier and rests with it, it now only benefits the orc, until the magician is able to not only recover it but also to rest with it.

System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline Vladimir

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 154
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2022, 06:18:56 PM »
  This has been a discussion in several games and I even brought it up in the "science" of magic.
  Magicked and enchanted items have several uses, from boosting abilities to acting as storage devices for spells.
  The "science of magic" explains not only how items are used but also how and under what specific conditions they work.
 
  Example 1: A magic ring -when worn it will conform to the possessor's finger and function as designed. The concept is simple enough, but what if the possessor slips the ring over a glove or gauntlet? What if he is wearing biological warfare gear? Does the ring function due to being worn and in proximity or must it be touching skin? Most rules concerning magic items don't delve so deeply but those interested in the science involved should also be able to explain the whys and hows of magic.
   Example 2: Magic brooch... Unless your character is into extreme body piercing, this item is normally worn pinned to clothing and often used to attach cloaks. Under normal use, there is no skin contact, so it is safe to assume it functions by proximity to the wearer. So, as with the ring example, just how close in proximity does the user have to be? If the user is wearing plate armor over a padded gambison, a wool winter tabard and has the brooch affixed to a wool cloak, that proximity may be six inches of metal and material, so... how close does that item have to be to work?

  I played in a campaign that required powerful magic items to have contact with the user's skin. That resulted in players having items surgically implanted or designed to be inserted into body orifices...such as the "under my kilt" ale tap.

  Some items act as batteries, amplifiers and capacitors that can be used immediately or need to attuned to a character's internal power flow. Some call this ki or chi, others personal Ley Lines, etc.
 
  Some players want to know how their stuff works other than the "handwavium" answer.       
When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
-Lao Tzu

Online Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2022, 02:05:59 PM »
The distinction is that two people cannot both be gaining the potential benefit of the multiplier at once. Forget the orc scenario for a second, and suppose you have two friendly magicians but only one multiplier. The intention is that, in any given day, only one of them gains the benefit of the multiplier. To gain that benefit, they need to have the multiplier in their possession when they rest. If they rest at the same time, that is obvious. But it's not the intent that magician A rests holding onto the multiplier, then afterwards magician B rests holding onto the multiplier, and then over the course of the day they hand the multiplier back and forth so that it is being held by whoever needs to cast a spell. To prevent that, I assume that the multiplier only benefits the person who rested with it most recently.

Thus, if the orc steals the multiplier and rests with it, it now only benefits the orc, until the magician is able to not only recover it but also to rest with it.


This seems fine, and I did want to reiterate that I'm not trying to be a pain; I just want to avoid the sort of 'Handwavium' that Vladimir spoke about.

The basic idea that an item can only benefit one user is a sound one, which is indeed why I brought up the example of the Orcish thief. I think it makes sense to tie the benefit to getting a full rest with the item. That also explains why the Alchemist can put down his hammer and take it back up again, assuming his young apprentice hasn't slept with it in the meanwhile (perhaps because of the etching of a buxom barmaid on it).
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Jengada

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 409
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rings and Amulets as spell adders and multipliers
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2022, 04:03:03 PM »
I think we're no longer answering EltonJ's question, though the discussion is on a topic I've thought about before.
As for the alchemist's hammer (my item, not part of EltonJ's question) it was a hammer. Once he cast the spell using it, it didn't matter whether subsequent smithing work used that hammer or some other tool. The "Work X" spells don't say they apply to one specific tool, the presumably empower the caster for a work shift, to be able to work whatever X is using the various tools they need. But I, too, digress.
We ask the hard questions here, because they keep us too busy to worry about the hard questions in the real world, and we can go with the answers we like the best.